Morality of resisting an occupation

[PeZook]

Here's a little dilemma I thought of:

Assume you are living in a country which fell prey to a brutal occupier. The occupier is opressive and has stated, several times, his intent to completely annihilate the population of the conquered nation. The actual process, however, won't start until five years into the occupation.

The only ones who will be spared are those who collaborate fully and without question with the occupier, to the point of ratting out resistance fighters, joining the occupier's armed forces, etc.

Everyone else will die. Any resistance will invite vengeance in the form of mass executions for every dead occupier.

There is also little to no hope of an outside force coming in to liberate your country from occupation. On the other hand ,you personally have access to resources that will allow you to organize a resistance cell (say, a dozen people) capable of fighting the occupier for some time.

Given the above situation, what is the more moral course of action: do you collaborate and have your family survive the upcoming holocaust, but sentencing them to a life of slavery? Or do you fight, inviting retribution on your countrymen?

Remember that fighting the occupier will mean almost certain death for you, and the deaths of thousands of hostages.

Now, I'm asking this because I am confused. My gut-instinct says to fight, because a life of slavery is no life at all. Of course, gut instinct is a lousy moral compass, however, utilitarian principles would say to collaborate: you will spare the lives of hostages, your family will survive, in exchange you may need to condemn a resistance fighter to torture and death from time to time, so the overall balance of suffering seems to come out ahead.

Or perhaps I am mistaken, and I'm drawing wrong conclusions from a utilitarian viewpoint? Perhaps it is best to remain neutral and accept the death of yourself and your family along with everyone else who refuses to collaborate.

If you want to drill this further, consider the following:

1. The situation is as above, except now there is a high chance of a foreign nation coming to liberate you. Everything else will remain the same, including excessive retribution for resisting. It will take a minimum of five years for this to happen, though.

2. The situation is as above, but collaboration does not guarantee survival: assume the odds are 50/50 that you will get killed by the resistance instead.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the correct response is to build a smart resistance movement, one that doesn't start shooting the occupiers until it senses a moment of weakness that gives it a plausible opportunity to do so. Random acts of rebellion against the occupiers aren't going to amount to much more than crime, but waiting to rebel until the next succession crisis in the Evil Empire can pay off big time.

[Solauren]

Agree. Smart Rebellion.

Get everyone to co-operate with the occupier (including asking lots of 'benefits' questions), and just lay low. Be co-operative, and build up in secret as much as possible without attracting attention.

i.e hide weapons among tools and parts drawers, stockpile canned food, and reinforce homes.

Then, when the right time happens, strike. And hope in the meantime something happens to brutal-occupier.

Preferably after the 5 year time limit has lapsed. There is a good chance if you get most of the population in on it, you won't lose alot of people to the extermination orders.

At the same time, you could use criminals and so forth to be the 'stupid' rebels that get turned in for good will. Hard to do that without it backfiring, but something to consider.

[Lagmonster]

May I suggest that the best course of action lies not in an underground rebellion, but an underground railroad? As in, how fast can I get the hell out of this country with as many personal valuables and family members as possible? Staying and fighting may be noble and heroic, and sometimes it may even be the only way, but I'm more likely to flee to Switzerland with the Von Trapp family than I am to play at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

[PeZook]

I really think you're missing the point of what was supposed to be an ethical dilemma

It might've not come across properly, but the idea was that there is no chance to actually overthrow the opressors before they kill everyone who's not fully collaborating. Hence making it an actual dilemma, not an excercise of "What would I do if I lived in WWII Poland?"

And don't harbor any illusions: you are not going to save everyone by convincing the entire population to play double agent for your massive insurgency. Not without having a few people grab the hope of survival and destroying the entire network.

[Simon_Jester]

That last paragraph is most certainly true.

My view on the subject is that I have no actual guarantee of security if I do collaborate, only the occupier's assurance... which is worth roughly nothing. They're under no obligation that they feel bound by to tell me the truth, and they have no incentive not to lie to me. Realistically I'd probably keep my head down, but I think under the circumstances the best choice would be to resist. If they're going to demolish my country as an independent entity anyway, they should at least have to accept moderate inconvenience as the price of doing so.

Knowing they might very well kill you anyway even if you perjure your immortal soul* to them simplifies the decision tree enormously.

*Figure of speech; don't shoot!

[Stark]

Jesus. You can't avoid the situation with a 'smart rebellion'. Anything you do that's meaningful or effective will be punished. The idea of 'cooperating with occupier' when they're raping your women, burning your old people, indoctrinating your children is not a solution. I think that in any situation where you can't actually eject the conqueror, you need to work with other belligerent states to get anywhere, like the Poles in WW2 (although hopefully without the Soviets). You need intelligence to know what to do to help any frontline (ie blowing up trains is great, but you need to blow up ones that are worth the losses and brutality you're going to cause) and you need supplies and coordination from outside.

I love statements like 'omg no 100% security', especially from fat nerds. I bet you'll all stand up to be counted in the brutal and suicidal war against the unstoppable conqueror because hey, it's not really that much more dangerous than just playing along, right? That's exactly how people react in these situations! Hey, they might shoot you if you play along, so WHY NOT MASSIVELY INCREASE THE ODDS OF THIS HAPPENING and INCUR MASSIVE PENALTIES FOR YOUR FAMILY at the same time?

The issue of 'collaboration' is of course a touchy one, but seriously, people hate 'collaborators' when their resistance eventually worked. What was the point of fighting and being wiped out by secret police if you all lose? It very much depends on the situation; when it's a global conflict you and possibly count on external assistance, but if someone rolls their tanks over your tiny country and isn't stretched to need to move by other factors, you're probably fucked and fighting will just make the occupation worse. It'd be nearly impossible to see this from the inside, however.

[loomer]

I'd go underground and fight, probably, but then I'm a very stupid man with too much pride. Of course, if my family are alive and well at that point, then collaboration is the way to go, I'm afraid.

Fuck the many, save the lives of my few.

[Winston Blake]

My interpretation: The usual situation in history is that insurgents will fight an occupier, because they are oppressive. However this scenario makes the cost of fighting so great, and makes the occupier so overwhelming, that the option of fighting is much harder to take. By creating this lose-lose situation, you have an ethical dilemma to ponder.

My response: I'm a utilitarian. I would collaborate, because the point of this scenario is that even though you naturally want to fight, you can't really beat them. I would take the long-term view that in 20 years, choosing to fight will have resulted in a feeble, hopeless insurgency and a severely oppressed population. On the other hand, collaboration opens the possibility of changing the occupying government from the inside.

I know this sounds naive. However given the scenario, I would try to align the people's needs with the occupier's needs (e.g. people will stop attacking police if you crack down on police brutality, people will work harder with good food and clean water). I would ultimately try to drive a wedge between the occupying government and their parent country (the capital looks down on you, they hog all the funds, they don't give you what you need). The end result, after 20 years or so, would hopefully be a non-oppressive reformed government, instead of deep-seated hatred on both sides causing endless misery and social problems.

Basically, my position is that you can't win, and governments change more easily than hatred, so collaborate to reform the government.

For the two modified scenarios:

1. I would devote all my thought and effort to fighting, with the main goal of aiding the foreign nation's efforts when they finally arrive. I see a solid chance of winning.

2. I would collaborate as before, and I would try to reach as important an office as possible, to ensure the security of me and my family. Given the five-year amnesty period, all the resistance fighters left will be the hardcore ones, so there's no point in trying to extract the softcore ones with amnesty offers. Although I find it a little bizarre, the best course of action seems to be to crush the resistance as rapidly as possible, and with as little harm as possible to non-resistance members of the population.

The key point here is that the occupier is still overwhelming in this scenario, and resistance will still probably be ultimately futile, so my original goal of a reformed government still stands. The resistance would only be making things worse, so I would try to destroy them, as absurdly evil as it sounds. Averting a future society of horrid suffering, by cold reason, is more important to me than satisfying my hot emotions in the present (outrage at being invaded, and lust for vengeance).

[Samuel]

The occupier is opressive and has stated, several times, his intent to completely annihilate the population of the conquered nation. The actual process, however, won't start until five years into the occupation.

The only ones who will be spared are those who collaborate fully and without question with the occupier, to the point of ratting out resistance fighters, joining the occupier's armed forces, etc.

What happens if everyone collaborates?

[Simon_Jester]

Jesus. You can't avoid the situation with a 'smart rebellion'. Anything you do that's meaningful or effective will be punished. The idea of 'cooperating with occupier' when they're raping your women, burning your old people, indoctrinating your children is not a solution. I think that in any situation where you can't actually eject the conqueror, you need to work with other belligerent states to get anywhere, like the Poles in WW2 (although hopefully without the Soviets). You need intelligence to know what to do to help any frontline (ie blowing up trains is great, but you need to blow up ones that are worth the losses and brutality you're going to cause) and you need supplies and coordination from outside.

Yes, which is why it doesn't make any sense to do anything except stockpile weapons and make plans (you know, shit you can hide, and thus do without triggering their "we will shoot hostages" policy). Which was more or less my opening definition of a smart resistance.

And yeah, it makes no difference in the end, but in this situation nothing makes any real difference anyway and it's mostly just a question equivalent to "how would you like you and your country to die?"

I love statements like 'omg no 100% security', especially from fat nerds. I bet you'll all stand up to be counted in the brutal and suicidal war against the unstoppable conqueror because hey, it's not really that much more dangerous than just playing along, right? That's exactly how people react in these situations! Hey, they might shoot you if you play along, so WHY NOT MASSIVELY INCREASE THE ODDS OF THIS HAPPENING and INCUR MASSIVE PENALTIES FOR YOUR FAMILY at the same time?

My view on the subject is that I have no actual guarantee of security if I do collaborate, only the occupier's assurance... which is worth roughly nothing. They're under no obligation that they feel bound by to tell me the truth, and they have no incentive not to lie to me. Realistically I'd probably keep my head down, but I think under the circumstances the best choice would be to resist. If they're going to demolish my country as an independent entity anyway, they should at least have to accept moderate inconvenience as the price of doing so.

There's a difference between what I, personally, would actually do and what I think is objectively the smart thing to do. For example, why the fuck am I even on this website at 1:30 in the morning? It would make about a hundred times more sense to be sleeping, but I'm not. Don't tell me that kind of thing never happens to you.

And that's a trivial example, with stakes of practically zero size. When the stakes are REALLY high, even truly smart people get stupid.

[Darth Fanboy]

Pfft this is a stupid scenario. Everyone knows that once Jesus kicks starts the Rapture there won't be anyone left for the UN to occupy except those who would collaborate to begin with.

[Alyrium Denryle]

There is only one reason to fight. In order to achieve certain objectives. If these objectives cannot be met (for example, reducing public support for the occupation in the home country of the occupiers, draining resources that they would use in a war against powers willing to help you, etc) the fighting back is a juvenile, futile, and ultimately unethical response. This is really only a moral dilemma for some sort of deontologist. The best option is to collaborate, and in fact convince everyone you can to collaborate. Even if this means having to kill your own people, because in the end there is only one way to save even a fraction of them...

[K. A. Pital]

So, I am in WWII Poland but there is no Great Patriotic War in Russia or worse yet, Russia has been decisively annihilated, the British Empire is likewise impotent, and the US doesn't give a damn unlike Stuart's nukefic TBO. Well, well, well...

To be fair, I'd say dying in battle is not the worst outcome. The occupier will, sooner or later (and with the industrial capacities implied, quite possibly far sooner than collaborators expect) turn his plans into reality. This means certain death for the absolute or even a relative majority of the population. The chances of survival would be 50% or less, depending on what share of population will be decimated.

In such conditions, it is extremely unlikely that dying in battle would eventually lead to a different outcome, than the annihilation policies of the occupier. Therefore, the question is moot from a utilitarian point of view. The suffering is not increased by your actions because in the larger picture the occupier still kills and destroys the population of the nation. It's suffering is already absolute and unavoidable or close to that.

Other situations (1 and 2) have even more incentive to fight, especially 1.

[B5B7]

The occupier is opressive and has stated, several times, his intent to completely annihilate the population of the conquered nation. The actual process, however, won't start until five years into the occupation.

The only ones who will be spared are those who collaborate fully and without question with the occupier, to the point of ratting out resistance fighters, joining the occupier's armed forces, etc.

What happens if everyone collaborates?

That's the first thing that struck me about this scenario. The whole population collaborates, huge numbers of them join the occupation army, and next thing you know you've taken over the enemy army (and can go occupy them if you wish).
So obviously the scenario needs some rewording to make it more like actual historical occupations such as that of France by Nazi Germany.

Actually it's pretty retarded for the occupiers to admit upfront that they intend to genocide most of the population, because that will cause a strong reaction from the population. With most real life occupations there is limited resistance because many people expect life to be much the same under occupation as under regular government. Even with brutal occupations individuals have hope that they will be able to live. Also of course often you will have collaboration be at government level, such as with Vichy France.

The only way an occupier can make such a statement, and still expect to have an effective occupation, is if their strength compared to the occupied nation is overwhelming. Even then, as a policy it doesn't make much sense, unless really what one is trying to achieve is a say halving of population of occupied territory, and are using these provocative statements to help achieve that draconian objective, justifying super harsh responsive measures due to massively violent resistance.

[Setzer]

I remember reading one of War Nerd's articles on guerilla war that said if you want some idea of what the cost is, take a picture of your entire family and cross off 25% of the people. If I can survive by collaborating, I will. If I think I can eventually help repel the invaders, I might offer some passive assistance, but me grabbing a gun and joining the fight is only going to happen if the occupiers try total extermination al a the Nazis in Warsaw.

[Plekhanov]

Even if I possessed the personal bravery to resist, which I'd like to think I do but almost certainly don't, I think that the fact that I'd married and have a large extended family would stop me resisting unless I could somehow guarantee that the occupiers could never connect me to my loved ones when I was inevitably caught.

[Akkleptos]

The occupier is opressive and has stated, several times, his intent to completely annihilate the population of the conquered nation. The actual process, however, won't start until five years into the occupation.

It's not an "If you can't beat them, join them" scenario at all. According to this hypothetical scenario, your family, along with everyone else in your contry, is meant to be ANIHILIATED, as per the expressed objectives of the invading country. Imagine a hypothetical all-Jewish state, neighbouring Nazi Germany in 1941. See the picture?

Your only option is fighting, even if it is with pitchforks and wooden logs (for derailing trains). No matter the outcome, you're toast, as a freedom fighter, and quite probably so is most of your family. But failure to do anything and cooperating will NOT save anyone's life.

That is, unless you just want to go quietly into the night.

[Thanas]

In general, it depends on the occupier, really. If it is a very tolerant state like the romans but absolutely genocidal when you conduct an insurrection, then collaborating is not that bad of an idea. If the occupier is a total nutcase and has stated he wants to genocide you nevertheless, you might just as well fight. If the occupier is a tolerant state and has sucky security, the issue gets more complicated, etc....

As per the OP, the logical choice would be to fight. However, I honestly can't say whether a large portion of the populace (me included) would have the guts to do so. Yeah, I know...everyone loves to be the internet tough guy like "HURHURR I R STRONG AND BRAVE" but call me back when you have had a tank smash through your house.

[Shroom Man 777]

I'd collaborate with the regime by cleaning the occupier's septic tanks. That way, they won't kill me. But if the resistance wins, would they exact retribution killings and execute me for helping the regime by cleaning up its toilets? Because I'm kind of counting on "helping the regime in a way that's not really immoral, that doesn't harm other people including the resistance dudes, and that the resistance dudes won't hold against me for doing" thing.

Fuck no, there's no fucking way I'm gonna go joining the scrappy band of rebels if my family is going to end up cremated in the oven as the result of my actions. Fuck no. You guys can go charge the Nazzies in your ponies or live in the ghetto or something while the Nazzies liquidate your families and use their body hair to knit sweaters.

[Winston Blake]

Your only option is fighting, even if it is with pitchforks and wooden logs (for derailing trains). No matter the outcome, you're toast, as a freedom fighter, and quite probably so is most of your family. But failure to do anything and cooperating will NOT save anyone's life.

The part directly after that says "The only ones who will be spared are those who collaborate". If it was about guaranteed annihilation, then there wouldn't be any dilemma to discuss.

I'd collaborate with the regime by cleaning the occupier's septic tanks.

genius

[Simon_Jester]

As I said, realistically I'd collaborate; given my actual credentials I'm likely to be shot out of hand despite that because nobody likes foreign intelligentsia hanging around and I have really thick glasses. On one side, anyway.*

Even ignoring that, though... I'm not sure that's the smart move. Consider the only historical precedents for an occupier that slaughtered everyone who opposed them and everyone related to them. Not even the Romans were that harsh; I can't think of anyone except for the Nazis off the top of my head who were.

The kind of people who will do that are about one minor policy shift from committing outright genocide against even the people willing to help them out. They wouldn't be killing that indiscriminately unless they had an ulterior motive, some reason to see as many of your people dead as possible. And there is no guarantee that their occupation policies will get less brutal, rather than more, over time as they successfully weed out the trigger-happy part of the occupied population.
_____

*I can't figure out whether having horrible nearsightedness on one side is more or less annoying than having it on both. Probably less, though if it was both, at least I wouldn't feel so damn lopsided half the time.

[Akkleptos]

The part directly after that says "The only ones who will be spared are those who collaborate". If it was about guaranteed annihilation, then there wouldn't be any dilemma to discuss.

Yeah, but seriously, what kind of assurance can you have that the invaders will hold up to their end of the bargain, so to speak? Especially when they have manifested that they want to outright exterminate your people, save maybe -and that's a pretty debatable maybe, given the circumstances- those who collaborate (okay, so they explicitly said they would spend collaborators, but, given the morality shown by their evident agenda, what kind of credence are you willing to lend them?). Nah, I say take as many of them down as I can, since anyway my life and those of my family's are pretty much already forfeit.

[Bounty]

Looking at the dilemma as an outsider, I don't see the moral justification for collaborating. By enabling this hypothetical occupier to go through with his plan for genocide you become an accomplice, and being responsible for the deliberate killing of thousands to save your own hide cannot even begin to compare with being responsible for the death of dozens by taking a morally justifiable action. The insurrection being futile is completely irrelevant in this case; collaborating is immoral.

The view from the inside is, of course, going to be completely different. Still, looking at practical examples even in my won family... you'd be surprised how far people go to resist. During WWII people hid crashed Allied pilots and Jewish families at tremendous personal risk. When Soviet prisoners of war were sent to the mines in Limburg for labour and escaped, the locals were horrified by them because they were godless Bolsheviks - and then built shelters for them to hide in. It's a basic human decent thing to do, and it takes more than a threat of violence to stifle it.

I can't say what I would do in this situation. I know what I should do, and I hope that whatever choice I make I can look back on what I did and live with it, but without actually being in this situation it's hard to make predictions.

[PeZook]

Looking at the dilemma as an outsider, I don't see the moral justification for collaborating. By enabling this hypothetical occupier to go through with his plan for genocide you become an accomplice, and being responsible for the deliberate killing of thousands to save your own hide cannot even begin to compare with being responsible for the death of dozens by taking a morally justifiable action. The insurrection being futile is completely irrelevant in this case; collaborating is immoral.

The thing is, if we try to analyze the situation in a rational way, collaborating doesn't enable anything: the occupier is still going to kill everyone who doesn't collaborate, which means that in the overall equation, collaboration adds the lives of you and your family to the final toll of those who survive, and doesn't reduce the number of people who will die. So the balance is positive.

On the other hand, if you resist, not only do you kill occupiers, for every person you kill, they murder a hundred civilians: they would've died anyway, yes, but at a later point. Thus, you reduce utility with your actions.

It seems that utilitarianism says that in this situation, you should collaborate in order to minimize suffering. The situation is obviously different when there is an actual chance of victory, as others have noted.