In my opinion, this is not really true. Being such, it makes a very poor argument from a famous bhikkhu who is regarded as a scholar. Obviously, both BB & yourself need to study history more accurately. The only Nazi expansion that occurred prior to the declaration of war upon Germany by Britain & France was the retaking of prior German lands where German people lived (and the voluntary union with Germanic Austria). This is why every genuine scholar attributes the Treaty of Versailles after WW1 as a cause of WW2. Historians study cause & effect rather than believe in random non-causal Maras.
The Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany when Nazi Germany took military action against Poland when Poland wouldn’t concede to German demands to re-link German lands in Poland, such as Danzig. It was the Nazis & Soviets that cooperated. But obviously this later broke down & the USA supported the brutal Soviet Communists. The result of that US support was East Europe became Communist. While I am not taking sides here, I am just pointing out how unfactual & uncompelling your & BBs arguement is. I am not aware of any Nazi objections to European culture therefore you have given the impression you believe Communism was a good thing.
My point is sloppy propaganda such as “Nazi occupation & expansion” makes BBs carelessness even worse. The Nazis did not seek to occupy Europe. France declared war on Germany & the British sought occupy Norway therefore the Germans had no choice but to occupy, France, Holland, Norway, Denmark, etc. Such is war. It was the British Empire and today the American Empire engaged in actual occupation & expansion. Therefore, BBs viewpoint here was purely subjective & completely flawed because it took sides & ignored the world political reality of the era. It was certainly biased & prejudiced. It condemned a perceived Nazi expansion but condoned a Soviet expansion to occupy all of East Europe. Fail. Yet used to justify a just war; as though the Nazis were the only imperialists that ever existed in the entirety of world & recent history.
The complete superficiality of BBs argument shows why a wise bhikkhu would avoid the topic of ‘just war’.
Thanks. But I am not. I am referring to his narrative, where he inferred the Holocaust was the only example of a crime that would justify a Just War. The article refers to Jewish fugatives, etc. It is obviously Holocaust focused. There have been so many atrocities over the last 300 years, many far worse than the Holocaust.
In short, it is all a matter of IMPRESSIONS and being cognisant of the IMPRESSION being made.
Just as my posts here make an impression which other people interpret, so does BB. His timing & example in his case for just war could not have been worse.
For example, if I as a Buddhist concluded the British support for a Muslim ethnic cleansing against Christians that resulted in the Lebanese Diaspora of the 1850s was the worst crime ever; surely any reasonable person would gain the impression I am being biased from my Maronite Lebaneseness.
BB has done enough actions where Buddhists accuse him of ignoring Vinaya. Yet if his US supporters take no objection; it shows it is changing Buddhism. As a non-American Buddhist, I have always had the impression these typical BB political views accord with his US supporter base.
For example, when one of BBs first reactions to the Trump election victory was “womens reproductive rights”, he was immediately questioned on his blog by a number of people about the impression he supported abortion. Then he replied with some convoluted reasoning. about how he does not support abortion. Now, how one can support womens reproductive rights but not abortion is beyond me? (Note: I am not an anti-abortion crusader).
This is another example of essentially playing games with religious law & again will be accused by Buddhists as being Talmudic since this is exactly the speciality of the legalism of Talmudism. Yet you accuse me of making cheap shots. Thanissaro mentioned it. I mentioned it. It is not Buddhist. Unfortunately, Buddhist Theravada monks are unable to give blanket political legislative support for womens reproductive rights but can make discrete comments on ‘intention’, ‘context’, etc.
I cannot be any more diplomatic by stating the reality that US Buddhism has strongly been nurtured by Jewish people, including the phenomena of the self-proclaimed ‘Bu-Ju’, and this non-Buddhist culture must obviously be influencing the US version of Buddhism.
I have observed monks toy with the Vinaya, about eating ‘medicine’ (ghee = cheese); digging the earth, etc. However, toying with the Pārājika about encouraging killing via war, abortion, etc, simply goes too far; just as in the current Burmese situation with monks encouraging the ethic cleansing of Muslim Rohingya; where the face of the specific monk was placed on the cover of Time Magazine as the Face of Buddhist Terrorism.
Regards