Catch-22 question

Little known item about pacifists and patriots in the pre-WWII era...the war really started with the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s, with the Spanish Fascists being supplied by Hitler's aid. American pacifists were appalled at what they saw taking place in Spain, Italy, and Germany, with fascists rising in power, and they were the first here to raise the cry against the rise of the Nazis. But the truly surprising part is that the first Americans to volunteer (prior to U.S. entry into the war) and enter the fight against fascists were the pacifists. They backed up their beliefs that war was a last result but that the tide that was sweeping Europe had to be stopped.

Compare that to American super-patriots like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, who were both Nazi sympathizers and anti-Semites, and openly supported Hitlers aims, and railed against any U.S. involvement against Germany. Hell, Ford even sold military vehicles to the Nazis right up until the U.S. entered the war.

And the powers that be didn't just keep raising the number of missions, they kept raising them from the safety of their own desks.

Yona wrote: "When we studied the Holocaust in high school, most of my class was pissed at the pre-WWII U.S. government for not getting involved sooner. Words like "duty," "obligation," and "the right thing to do" were thrown around. .."

Not very heartening. Was this class pre 911 or post 911? As you know, this era's citizenry walks around with their heads crammed with the corniest, hokiest, phoniest sabre-rattling, chest-thumping, war-mongering nonsense America has seen in decades. A post 911 classroom discussion is not a valid testgroup for diversified opinions on war. Americans love to hate on foreigners, we always need a foreign enemy that politicians can get us stoked up over, and arab terrorists is the latest incarnation of our need for hobgoblins. But if your class discussion had taken place in say, 1975, you'd have heard a completely different set of values expressed.

Yona wrote: "Are there times when war is necessary and even right? .."
Depends on so many factors..not sure where to begin. Example: its right to protect the vulnerable, helpless, and exploited sure--but at the expense of your own life being thrown away? Maybe not. Its for every individual to decide. Is it right to go to war to protect your country from being bombed or invaded? In many cases yes, that is a strong enough reason, for many. But how right is it for the citizens of one town to obliterate the citizens of a foreign town, when neither town really wants to fight at all? Why can't wars be left purely to soldiers?

Is it right for a nation to go to war based on the principle of 'protecting the helpless from slaughter'? There have been many occasions in history where this was a valid thing to do. But in modern times, when war is a business and truth is media-manipulation--how often are such claims actually true? When your own country isn't in danger, when no lives are at stake-- should you allow yourself to be used as simply a 'political tool'?

Yona wrote: "Was WWII in particular right and necessary? .."
I think this is better kept off to one side, in a separate discussion.

Yona wrote: "and he argued, "Do you think Hitler would've stopped without a war? Do you think we could have just sat him down and convinced him to change his ways?".."
Complex issues here. Lots of factors to consider. For example, what if he hadn't gone as far as genocide camps? What if he simply wanted to re-assert Germany as a world power? The world would probably have been okay with that; except everything he did was wrapped in a psychotic dream of racial purity. So, its harder to say. Every war doesn't have a psycho like that at the wheel.

There were indeed plenty of chances to stop Hitler before he got started; if we hadn't fumbled the ball time after time. Once Hitler was in power, and it was too late..h'mm... was there a way to stop him without the war which eventually was the only route to stop him? No, it probably did need an all-out war, but still that's no excuse for the real failures, the diplomatic failures which took place much earlier on.

A better question is perhaps, ask how we handled the Pacific theater. Did we really need to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima? There was no other way?

Yona wrote: "...But if the war was necessary and right, is it immoral of him (Yossarian) to bail out? .."
A good answer has already been put forward, above. Yossarian is fighting in a rather pointless theater of the war, fighting the Italians, towards the end of the conflict. But you could re-phrase the argument and frame it: what if Heller wrote about a Yossarian-type figure at the beginning of WWII, say--Pearl Harbor--and what if it looked as if the war might actually bring about an invasion of the continental USA? Would Yossarian still be right in wanting to abstain? Totally different argument. I don't think we know what Yossarian would want to do in that case.

But I think there's plenty of leeway for such a figure, if a Joseph Heller had written such a Yossarian. There's certainly something which can be said for sticking by your ethics at all costs, even if apparently urgent political havoc and international turmoil breaks out and sweep everyone else up along in a temporary madness. You don't have to engage if you don't acknowledge that when 'your government tell you it needs you' that they're necessarily correct in their request. Monks abstain, missionaries abstain, pacifists & conscientious objectors stay out; cynics scoff..the Swiss, (a whole nation) refuses to participate. As does the Vatican. Its defensible to distinguish between the needs of your family, your town, your province, your nation..vs 'your government'. Abstaining doesn't make you any less patriotic or concerned for the life of your neighbors.

Yona wrote: "BUT then again, how much use was he really when he wanted SO BADLY not to be there?.."
This is the least meaty point to tussle over. I won't address it. Its an argument from mere 'utility'; and isn't the direction to approach Yossarian's morality.

Good thread, lots of cogent and interesting inputs from all respondents.

How much can you ask of anyone? The number of missions kept being increased; Yossarian had given more that was reasonable. I have a certain admiration for the old man who bent to whomever was in power at the time. We might like to think that our ancestors were all people who fought bravely against all obstacles, but we owe our existence to the survivors who adapted to changing circumstances.

The German-born sociologist and political philosopher Hannah Arendt distinguished between power (non-violent) and force (violence), and argued that in a contest between the two, force will always win. Non-violence worked in India because both the British public and elite were already unwilling to use large quantities of force. I think I'd agree with her argument that this would not have happened in Germany in the 1930s, let alone the 1940s.

As for Yossarian, I think he'd no more want someone to order him to march again and again into tear gas, beatings and guns, than to fly bombing missions again and again. Arguably there is a difference though: that the military forces Yossarian to fly. A non-violent movement may coerce people into participating, but it's a lot less likely to happen.

I think Catch-22 is one of the most powerful anti-war novels I have ever read. I don't know whether that was Heller's intention; if he ever spoke about it (re Christomar) I did not read it, and I have read all of his books. I'm sure there were interviews, maybe news columns? Anyway, yes, he probably said some things about it.

It is important to remember that countless Jews were refused admission to the USA, even when they could prove that it would cost them their lives to stay where they were. The US entered WWII as a business decision, not as a moral decision. The atrocities against Jews were publicized afterward when the "Bring the Boys Home" demonstrations in the USA got to be too large to ignore, but the war was joined on behalf of US corporations whose ships kept getting sunk w/o payment.

As for me, I never support an imperialist war for any reason. I would rather stand in solidarity w the working class, wherever I find it.

This is notably different from the Communist Party, which changed its position constantly in relation to whether Stalin was against Hitler or had made a pact with him. It made their credibility here in the States pretty thin.

To sum up...the book is awesome, whether as a commentary about life or about WWII, and Yossarian fulfills the responsibility to point out that every human life is precious, and sometimes 'military intelligence' is an oxymoron.

I think that the OP has forgotten that Yossarian actually flew seventy missions, and most of those first forty missions were actually bomb runs. The novel wasn't merely about the pointlessness of war, although it certainly was a statement regarding it; it was also a condemnation, at least, to my mind, of those who cook up war so blindly for ideals that are, actually, impossible for those more sane.

Cathcart is one of those people. Because he is safe from the war and because he is ambitious, he kills his own men because of his pride.

I don't think it's merely about war, is what I'm saying. Or whether it's justified or not.

Yona wrote: "Yossarian is one of several characters in this book who isn't terribly interested in getting himself killed for the cause of WWII--and who could blame him? Personally, I'm mostly anti-war, and it i..."

I am also very anti-war and I think it is not only unnecessary, but wasteful of life, property and resources which could be used for far better things. Would Hitler have been stopped without the war? Being the psychopathic person he was then not likely. But perhaps the real question is who were the people and what were the conditions which allowed Hitler (or others like him) to get into power in the first place, or why couldn't he be stopped before he could have started the war? nonetheless, I believe there is a time to defend your life, your family and way of living, even if to do so unfortunately means taking another person's life to prevent them from taking yours.

I think it is okay to...admit?...that war is bad even when it seems necessary. I have not yet heard an argument that would convince me that war, violence and force in general, doesn't end any possibility at a fair resolution to a conflict. Some might say that "Hitler wasn't interested in fairness" and at the point that war became his solution that may have been true, but it doesn't change the fact that war and violence are the absolute end of fairness and diplomacy, and that at some point between peace and war the opportunity for diplomacy was missed, and that is why we ended up in violent conflict; not because it is inevitable, but because we failed. We may think we won the war, but we failed humanity, and we are still failing it because we want to identify when war is right. It is never right.

Fascinating subject. Though the novel is supposed to be about WWII it is eerie how much it feels as though it could be a Vietnam book. While most people see a valid reason for being in WWII the reasoning for the war in Vietnam was never fully understood by the public, much less the military. War is about profits, which is why the suggestion of Catch-22 really being more about corporate America is a brilliant observation. Thinking of war as a corporation is a very cold concept but the heart of Heller's satire is this very point, in my opinion.

This is one of my all-time favourite novels and it actually made me laugh out loud more than once, which is rare for me. With so many memorable moments it is a tome I treasure and will re-visit for sure.

I think Catch 22 is a book about the absurdity of war rather than a moralistic one on whether war is justified or not. Men like Yossarian are drafted in and expected to do things which often push them to the limits. Remember that none of the returning American soldiers from Vietnam received a hero's welcome. Yossarian represents everyman, trying to get by in an insane world.

I agree with several of the posts that Catch 22 was less about war and more about one person's struggle against a mindless system. The fact that the title "catch 22" has become a definition for something that previously wasn't quite recognized is quite an achievement for the author. What phrase would you use now if not "catch 22?"
When does bureaucracy take on a life of its own and justify its own existence?

It would seem from the posts that 'Gandhism' is taken as some kind of 'solution' to war. There is an argument for pacifism but sometime it just isn't enough.
A revisionist view of war from the comfort of a classroom is no use to the people who were there.

Here's a small example of Nazism - in 1935 bicycles were taken from Jews so that they couldn't move around - even their children's bicycles were taken. In 1939 mentally disabled children were murdered because it didn't fit with National Socialism (the last one 3 weeks after the war was over)

Do the people who did that sound like they would be persuaded by a pacifist (who's policies BTW condemned India to a long cycle of poverty - back to farm v technological advance)?

There are times when intervention is necessary (eg Syria today)but it's usually way too late.

Gandhi also said, "I am as certain as I am dictating these words that the stoniest German heart will melt [if only the Jews] . . . adopt active non-violence. Human nature . . . unfailingly responds to the advances of love. I do not despair of his [Hitler's] responding to human suffering even though caused by him." Does this seem plausible to anyone?!

Catch-22 is not a book about whether war can ever be justified, it is about how they are conducted. Whose burden is it to fight and how much can we ask of each individual? Is serving in the military simply indentured servitude when control over your life is given over to others. And, I would add, no matter how warranted a war might be, is it possible to engage in violence without fostering corruption, ego, and delusional behavior.

Heller talked about this in interviews. He thought world war II was a necessary war and implied that Yossarian felt the same. Yossarian flew his missions and did his duty but the powers kept raising the number of missions. He eventually decided he had had enough.

Here's a link to an interesting letter from Gandhi to Hitler http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/09/.... As powerful as nonviolent noncooperation could be, it couldn't stip WWII.

It doesn't matter if war is right or necessary. Human nature is what it is. There will always be murder, rape sickness and war. Human have always fought over resources and will continue to do so.