John Green provides a stimulating - but misleading - article on giving peace a chance (M Star January 17).
Very early on, John conflates "senseless mass slaughter" with opposition to "a tyrannical fascist world," and says "we can't know" what might have happened using "well-organised non-violent opposition alone."
This is sheer bourgeois idealism. The Soviet Union made strenuous efforts, and well-reasoned arguments, for collective security years before WWII began.
The Bolshevik revolution - born out of opposition to war - was peaceful until reactionaries tried to restore capitalism.
All progressive revolutions have eventually had to defend themselves with force of arms - they have had no choice.
To cite the Cuban experience is disingenuous. Che and Fidel saw in Guatemala in 1954 the overthrow of a democratically elected government by force of US arms.
They drew conclusions that safeguarded the Cuban people's progress.
No appeals to "fairness" could have defended Cuba from the US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion.
In the following year, another likely invasion by the US was stymied by the installation of the only thing imperialism understood: some extremely potent artillery.
The history of all progressive revolutions, from Mossadegh's Iran to Allende's Chile and republican Spain has regrettably taught us that all progressive, people-orientated developments must be defended.
The choice between violence and non-violence is not ours to make, however just may be our demands.