Independence, Orwell maintained,requires the ability to resist external aggression by means of war,

buveryさんがリツイート

運動としての平和主義は、人が外国からの侵略と征服のおそれを感じない社会にしか、ほとんど存在しないというのは事実です。そのために、平和主義運動は常に海洋国に見られるのです（日本においてさえ、相当の規模の平和運動があると私は思います）。
[ヨーワース・ジョーンズ師宛 1941年3月21日]

— ジョージ・オーウェルBot (@EricBlairBot) June 23, 2020

平和主義者。彼らが暴力を「放棄」できるのは、他の人間が彼らに代わって暴力を行使してくれるからだ。
[ナショナリズムについて]

— ジョージ・オーウェルBot (@EricBlairBot) September 13, 2019

George Orwell on politics and war |

Politics, war, and pacifism
According to the poet Herbert Read, Orwell’s profound humanitarianism left him conflicted on the question of war. ‘Consistently he would have been a pacifist, but he could not resist the quixotic impulse to spring to arms in defence of the weak or oppressed.

A willingness and ability to use force are also necessary if aggression is to be resisted. Indeed a ‘government which refused to use violence in its own defence would cease almost immediately to exist, because it could be overthrown by any body of men, or even any individual, that was less scrupulous.’ 6 The same point also pertains to relationships between states. Independence, Orwell maintained, requires the ability to resist external aggression by means of war, which in turn demands the capacity to manufacture large numbers of the latest weapons. 7 Otherwise a state cannot be free from the threat of subjugation. Ultimately, therefore, every polity rests on coercion, even if this is not apparent on a daily basis.

For one thing pacifists who looked down their noses at the unpleasant business of war, all the while accepting the protection of the state they lived in, were behaving hypocritically. By refusing to dirty their hands, they were passing responsibility for their security onto others whilst denigrating their efforts in the process. They were, as Rudyard Kipling had put it, ‘making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep’.

And although it was easy to criticise British democracy for its many real hypocrisies, efforts to equate it with Nazism rested on the spurious argument ‘that a difference of degree is not a difference’. 15 If secret police did actually operate in Britain then nobody was afraid of them, and a journalist such as Orwell could say what he wished and ‘safely ignore their presence’. 16 Indeed the fact that a British pacifist was free to criticise his own country, whereas a German pacifist was not, demonstrated that the degree of political freedom each state permitted differed sufficiently to make relative judgements possible, and to make choosing sides politically meaningful.

"Pacifism Is Objectively Pro-Fascist"
THE DAILY DISH
FEBRUARY 26, 2010

We are told that it is only people's objective actions that matter, and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists, by obstructing the war effort, are "objectively" aiding the Nazis; and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to Fascism is irrelevant.

　暴力がいけないのは無論であるが、弱者救済と自主独立を守るためには武器を伴う強制力は必要で、平和主義者はいっさいの武器の使用に反対するが、そうしているうちに弱者は見殺しにされている。平和主義者の存在は、弱者を弾圧拷問虐殺している独裁者の手助けになってしまっている場合が多い。

　平和主義者は、自分たちは、武器に守ってもらいながら、それでいて、武器をあざ笑っているのある、と。

　たしかに、どんな政府でも弱者を弾圧することはあるが、表現の自由など自由がある程度守られている国と、それがない国を同視して、後者の弾圧、侵略を黙認してはならない・・・・みたいな。

ーー日本にはIndependenceがないな。

アメリカもひどい国家であるが、中国と同視してはまずい。米中冷戦で選択肢は一つしかない。

もっとも、親米派がアメリカを美化するのは・・・ちょっとあきれるが・・・