“Why Didn’t They Just Make Peace?” A Parody

Setting: A fictional roundtable discussion on World War II, with pundits using contemporary rhetoric.

Moderator: Welcome, everyone. Today, we’re revisiting World War II through the lens of modern geopolitical wisdom. Our topic: Should the Jews and other groups targeted by Hitler have simply “made peace” with the Nazis? Let’s hear from our first guest.

Pundit 1: Look, I’m just saying, at a certain point, you have to face reality. The Nazis were winning. They had the tanks, they had the planes. The Jews in Europe—let’s be honest—they should’ve made a deal. You can’t win against that kind of power.

Pundit 2: Absolutely. The Jewish ghettos? The resistance movements? All that underground stuff? It was a waste of time. Instead of fighting, they should’ve sat down and negotiated. I mean, sure, Hitler had some strong opinions, but if they had just surrendered, they could have avoided all that… unpleasantness.

Pundit 3: And think about the resources! So much money spent on smuggling people out, on hiding in attics. What a drain. If they had just accepted their fate, Europe would have been much more stable. No need for all that disruption. It was a bad investment.

Moderator: But what about the moral imperative to resist evil?

Pundit 1: Morality? Look, I’m not saying I agree with everything Hitler did, but you can’t argue with reality. They should’ve been pragmatic. You don’t negotiate from a position of weakness. They needed to realize they were losing and just cut a deal—maybe something like, “Okay, fine, we’ll go quietly.” It’s about being smart, not right.

Pundit 2: Exactly. And let’s not forget: all that resistance just provoked the Nazis more. It was antagonistic. They should’ve just stopped making trouble. Then maybe they’d have gotten some good terms—like, maybe only half the camps? A conditional ghettoization? You never know until you negotiate.

Pundit 3: Honestly, they should have been grateful. Hitler was offering them trains. Do you know how expensive train travel was back then? And instead of cooperating, they just kept resisting. That’s not how you get good deals.

Moderator: So your argument is that the oppressed should always make peace with their oppressors?

Pundit 1: Exactly. Resistance is overrated. Surrender is the real strength. At least you live—well, for a little while. And maybe, if they had played it right, they could’ve even gotten a nice little museum or something, instead of all this fighting.

Pundit 2: Peace at any price! That’s my motto. Sure, the price might be everything you hold dear, your dignity, and possibly your life, but at least there wouldn’t be any messy conflicts. That’s what really matters.

Moderator: Well, there you have it, folks. When faced with tyranny, the best strategy is to surrender early and hope for the best. After all, nothing says “freedom” like giving up.