Yep. I know what you meant to do here, and I still agree.

You do not get to choose whether someone else is violent or not. If you aren't prepared for violence, you can only be a victim of it.

I guess you appreciate any opportunity to restate your beliefs.

I was just suggesting that offering war as a solution to the problem of already being at war is pretty circular.

I appreciate an opportunity to provide clarity when it seems like a point was missed.

Whether it's circular or not isn't a meaningful property when bombs are dropping.

In that spirit of providing clarity: what is your answer to the un-translated question I asked?

> What exactly is your solution to the sort of naked aggression by Hitler in WW2? Is war not a solution to that problem?

> What exactly is your solution to the sort of naked aggression by Hitler in WW2? Is war not a solution to that problem?

With a 70–85 million death toll, I find it hard to describe it as a success. Saying there was no other choice seems fair but calling it a solution seems a bit far-fetched.

War stopped Hitler's germany. That's a solution.

No, those things are not synonymous.