Have there been any rigorous scientific studies as to the effectiveness of a pacifist response to what is perceived as aggressive behaviour?
I think it is accepted as "fact" that an aggressive response to Hitler's aggression would have been more productive than an "aggression averse" response.
Has "pacifism" any remaining credibility (just a faddish cult) or can it be the right horse to back provided the circumstances are propitious?
Is the right policy to attempt a pacifist response for as long as possible (talk softly but carry a big stick : iron fist in a velvet glove....) but with a physical defense as a back up?