Found this link on KABA, entitled Without Firing A Single Shot: Voluntaryist Resistance and Societal Defense by Carl Watner.
Here is an excerpt:
There are many advantages of nonviolent civilian-based defense. For one thing, a nonviolent army is not limited to the physically fit. Children, seniors, people of every age and condition, even the infirm, are capable of refusing to do what they are told to do. For another thing, even though suffering and death are an inevitable part of any social struggle, nonviolent resistance minimizes both the numbers of casualties and the amount of destruction. Another advantage of nonviolent resistance is that there is no such thing as final defeat, so long as a few people exist whose minds and spirit are not bent to the will of the ruler. For example "[a]fter more than forty years the Tibetans continue to resist the Chinese military occupation. ... [I]f the will to resist is maintained ... the defense cannot be defeated."
300,000 dead Chinese demonstrate the efficacy of non-violent resistance during the rape of Nanking, 1937.
This is the reply I left on KABA:
Comment by: Mike Vanderboegh (6/22/2009) This is just so much historical horseshit it cannot be overstated. Collectivists are not deterred by moral suasion -- THEY HAVE NO FRIGGING MORALS and they will kill anybody, ANYBODY, who gets in their way. See George Orwell's comments on pacifism. If the Germans or the Japanese had made it to India, Gandhi would have been food for worms in 24 hours. Collectivism's appetite for those who resist it is insatiable and can only be discouraged by what they fear most-- their own deaths. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.
Japanese are so over-awed by Chinese passive resistance they stage a beheading contest in appreciation. Nanking, 1937.
And here is what I meant by Orwell's comments on pacifism, from The Partisan Review magazine, London, August-September 1942 issue, entitled: ‘Pacifism and the War’
"Children, seniors, people of every age and condition, even the infirm, are capable of refusing to do what they are told to do." Yup, worked out great for these Chinese children. Nanking, 1937.
Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that ‘according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be “objectively pro-British”.’ But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious ‘freedom’ station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism.
Comfort Women. Chinese victims of Japanese mass rape. Nonviolent resistance worked out real well for them, too. Nanking, 1937.
I am not interested in pacifism as a ‘moral phenomenon’. If Mr Savage and others imagine that one can somehow ‘overcome’ the German army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen. As an ex-Indian civil servant, it always makes me shout with laughter to hear, for instance, Gandhi named as an example of the success of non-violence. As long as twenty years ago it was cynically admitted in Anglo-Indian circles that Gandhi was very useful to the British government. So he will be to the Japanese if they get there. Despotic governments can stand ‘moral force’ till the cows come home; what they fear is physical force.
"A nonviolent army is not limited to the physically fit." You can even do it without your head! Nanking, 1937.
Gandhi even wrote a pamphlet in 1942 about how the Indians should greet the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere called HOW TO MEET A JAPANESE INVASION by Mirabehn (his female English secretary) and MK Gandhi, 1942. It laid out the ways Indians could "in good conscience" collaborate with the Imperial Japanese Army.
Had the Japanese got as far as India. Gandhi's theories of "passive resistance" would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass.