More fodder for the debate still going on under the "Crunchy Conned" thread: this article from the Touchstone archives. It seems to me that what’s missing from the thinking of those who argue for practical pacifism in the face of a Hitler is some acknowledgment of a duty to protect the innocent. I’m bothered by a kind of glibness in the logic that says "Well, it would be immoral to resist, too bad, die." Real circumstances are likely to be rather more ambiguous than that, and I thought this article was excellent (I ran across it a few days ago while culling my back issues of the magazine, which I heartily recommend–it’s the subscription I would keep if I could only have one).
Let me reiterate, emphatically, that this is not a rejection of the principle that it’s wrong to target non-combatants.