On War and Governments pt1: Waging war and legitimacy of state rule

[John Bunyan]

Can one wage war against it's own government (in nazy germany, for example)?

Can one wage war against an invading army? What if one's country has been under foreign rule for many years? Is the new government the legitimate one, or is it still an aggressor - if X is ruling B for 120 years, is X the legitimate government of B?

 

[rbcbob]

Romans 13 answers this series of questions. The answer to the first one is "no".

 

[Loopie]

John,

There is a lot that goes into the term 'waging war'. Ultimately our answers must come from scripture, and I think Romans 13 does an excellent job explaining this. There are also other biblical examples we can look at as well. For instance, in Daniel chapter 3 we see that Nebuchadnezzar ordered all people everywhere to worship the golden image that he set up. Of course, Shadrach, Meschac, and Abed-nego refused to bow down to the image. Nebuchadnezzar was so angry that he threw them into the blazing furnace for refusing to obey his orders. We see here an example where a person is justified to refuse the orders of another (orders that are unlawful). God indeed commands men to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Yet Caesar is not to be obeyed when he demands what is rightfully God's (our worship).

We also see though that the three men did not engage in civil war or rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar. They did not resist being thrown into the furnace, and it was God who preserved them from death.

For this reason I would say that when Caesar demands what is his, give it to him. When Caesar demands what is God's, do not give it to him. Yet when we refuse Caesar's unlawful orders, we do not engage in rebellion against him. We should seek instead to flee to safety (example of Israelites fleeing from Egypt). If there is no safe place to run to, we should simply trust in God to deliver us from Caesar's wrath. We appeal to those who are above us (such as senators, state governments, magistrates, governors, etc.). Yet in the end, I do not think we are justified in removing Caesar from power (I consider separation from Caesar, such as a declaration of independence, to be a different matter, since it is not a removal of Caesar from power).

Ultimately, to answer your question, I think that we are not authorized by God to wage war (in the sense that we seek to remove Caesar from power) against our own government.

I think when it comes to waging war against a foreign army, it could indeed fall under the realm of self-defense. The Israelites fought against many foreign rulers, even ones that dominated them for decades (before they were delivered by a judge). It also becomes difficult when you say 'legitimate government'. Because TRUE legitimacy is determined by God, not by man. We would have to go into a long discussion about what constitutes 'legitimacy'. Either way I do still think that situations exist where waging war against a foreign army is biblically justified. If we consider war to be a duel on a grand scale, and we also consider self-defense to be a legitimate use of violence, then certainly some type of self-defense on a grand scale is justified.

 

[John Bunyan]

Yet in the end, I do not think we are justified in removing Caesar from power (I consider separation from Caesar, such as a declaration of independence, to be a different matter, since it is not a removal of Caesar from power).

Ultimately, to answer your question, I think that we are not authorized by God to wage war (in the sense that we seek to remove Caesar from power) against our own government.

Isn't there any case in which such a measure would be permitted? Like, I don't know, if the president says "I will blow this entire country up in 30 minutes" (but, to tell the truth, I doubt the military would let him; but if everyone in the government turns insane, we will be in trouble)

I think when it comes to waging war against a foreign army, it could indeed fall under the realm of self-defense. The Israelites fought against many foreign rulers, even ones that dominated them for decades (before they were delivered by a judge). It also becomes difficult when you say 'legitimate government'. Because TRUE legitimacy is determined by God, not by man. We would have to go into a long discussion about what constitutes 'legitimacy'. Either way I do still think that situations exist where waging war against a foreign army is biblically justified. If we consider war to be a duel on a grand scale, and we also consider self-defense to be a legitimate use of violence, then certainly some type of self-defense on a grand scale is justified.

Can you propose a method to judge a government's legitimacy (or lack thereof)?

 

[Loopie]

John,

As to your first question (whether a situation could exist where we are biblically justified in overthrowing our own government), I honestly don't see such a case where this would be true. The best thing we can do is look at the situations we see in scripture. Are there any examples where God either commanded (or was pleased) to have one of his followers overthrow the current government.

The closest example you can probably find is when David fled from Saul. We know that the Lord had anointed David to be King, and that the Lord had left Saul. Saul, in his rage and anger sought out to kill David, whom he feared. Saul also put many of the Lord's priests to the death. For these actions against God, if ANYONE deserved to be removed from power, it was Saul, right? Well, David refused to raise his hand against Saul, even when he had a clear opportunity to kill him (and take power).

1 Samuel 24:1-15 (NASB)
1 Now when Saul returned from pursuing the Philistines, he was told, saying, "Behold, David is in the wilderness of Engedi."
2 Then Saul took three thousand chosen men from all Israel and went to seek David and his men in front of the Rocks of the Wild Goats.
3 He came to the sheepfolds on the way, where there was a cave; and Saul went in to relieve himself. Now David and his men were sitting in the inner recesses of the cave.
4 The men of David said to him, "Behold, this is the day of which the LORD said to you, 'Behold; I am about to give your enemy into your hand, and you shall do to him as it seems good to you.'" Then David arose and cut off the edge of Saul's robe secretly.
5 It came about afterward that David's conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul's robe.
6 So he said to his men, "Far be it from me because of the LORD that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the LORD'S anointed."
7 David persuaded his men with these words and did not allow them to rise up against Saul. And Saul arose, left the cave, and went on his way.
8 Now afterward David arose and went out of the cave and called after Saul, saying, "My lord the king!" And when Saul looked behind him, David bowed with his face to the ground and prostrated himself.
9 David said to Saul, "Why do you listen to the words of men, saying, 'Behold, David seeks to harm you'?
10 "Behold, this day your eyes have seen that the LORD had given you today into my hand in the cave, and some said to kill you, but my eye had pity on you; and I said, 'I will not stretch out my hand against my lord, for he is the LORD'S anointed.'
11 "Now, my father, see! Indeed, see the edge of your robe in my hand! For in that I cut off the edge of your robe and did not kill you, know and perceive that there is no evil or rebellion in my hands, and I have not sinned against you, though you are lying in wait for my life to take it.
12 "May the LORD judge between you and me, and may the LORD avenge me on you; but my hand shall not be against you.
13 "As the proverb of the ancients says, 'Out of the wicked comes forth wickedness'; but my hand shall not be against you.
14 "After whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom are you pursuing? A dead dog, a single flea?
15 "The LORD therefore be judge and decide between you and me; and may He see and plead my cause and deliver me from your hand."

So we see that David, even though he had fled from Saul and had several hundred men with him, did not wage war against Saul in the sense that he sought to remove Saul from power. David simply wanted to stay alive, and honor the Lord. Ultimately God did bring David to power, after Saul had killed himself.

Even in this example there is no hint of rebellion or guerilla warfare against the current government. David did not seek to remove Saul from power, even though God had made David the rightful King. I believe this is the best answer to your first question, and so I would say that there is never a case where a person is justified in trying to remove Caesar from power (do not confuse this with separating one's self from Caesar, or fleeing from Caesar, which I believe can be justified in some cases).

As for judging a government's legitimacy, that would take an entire book to cover. I myself am still trying to read more books on the subject, but I do think there are some simple conclusions we can draw from scripture.

We must understand that there is a difference between a government being legitimate and a government being moral. I do not think that anyone will argue that Pharaoh was the legitimate ruler of Egypt, even when the Israelites were slaves. This does not mean that Pharaoh did the right thing, or that he was a moral leader. His government was immoral and wicked, but was STILL the legitimate government of Egypt (the Israelites were not commanded to overthrow Pharaoh). This is how God had set things up to be.

For this reason, legitimacy does seem to be tied somewhat to the will of the people. This is no guarantee of morality, since we know that quite often the people are in rebellion against God. But even during the reign of the wicked kings of Judah, those kings were still of the Davidic line, and were still the legitimate rulers (in the sense that the people were not authorized by God to remove them from power). Both the wicked kings and the wicked people sinned against God, and there is a sense where God punishes a people by placing them under a wicked and oppressive king. In the same way, when people cry out to the Lord, he often delivers them from the wicked ruler and grants them peace 'on all sides'.

We could go much deeper into the question of legitimacy, but it honestly does not change how we as Christians are to live out our lives practically. We are to obey Caesar as far as Caesar does not demand what is God's. And even when Caesar makes unlawful demands, we are not to seek to remove him from power through unlawful means (such as force). We are to obey the law, appeal to those above us in a lawful way, or flee to safety. If all these things fail, and Caesar comes to take our lives, we must trust in God to deliver us from his hand.

 

[rbcbob]

Isn't there any case in which such a measure would be permitted?

No.
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

Can you propose a method to judge a government's legitimacy (or lack thereof)?

Yes. The fact that it is.
"... the authorities that exist are appointed by God" (Rom 13:1)

 

[John Bunyan]

John,

As to your first question (whether a situation could exist where we are biblically justified in overthrowing our own government), I honestly don't see such a case where this would be true. The best thing we can do is look at the situations we see in scripture. Are there any examples where God either commanded (or was pleased) to have one of his followers overthrow the current government.

The closest example you can probably find is when David fled from Saul. We know that the Lord had anointed David to be King, and that the Lord had left Saul. Saul, in his rage and anger sought out to kill David, whom he feared. Saul also put many of the Lord's priests to the death. For these actions against God, if ANYONE deserved to be removed from power, it was Saul, right? Well, David refused to raise his hand against Saul, even when he had a clear opportunity to kill him (and take power).

1 Samuel 24:1-15 (NASB)
1 Now when Saul returned from pursuing the Philistines, he was told, saying, "Behold, David is in the wilderness of Engedi."
2 Then Saul took three thousand chosen men from all Israel and went to seek David and his men in front of the Rocks of the Wild Goats.
3 He came to the sheepfolds on the way, where there was a cave; and Saul went in to relieve himself. Now David and his men were sitting in the inner recesses of the cave.
4 The men of David said to him, "Behold, this is the day of which the LORD said to you, 'Behold; I am about to give your enemy into your hand, and you shall do to him as it seems good to you.'" Then David arose and cut off the edge of Saul's robe secretly.
5 It came about afterward that David's conscience bothered him because he had cut off the edge of Saul's robe.
6 So he said to his men, "Far be it from me because of the LORD that I should do this thing to my lord, the LORD'S anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, since he is the LORD'S anointed."
7 David persuaded his men with these words and did not allow them to rise up against Saul. And Saul arose, left the cave, and went on his way.
8 Now afterward David arose and went out of the cave and called after Saul, saying, "My lord the king!" And when Saul looked behind him, David bowed with his face to the ground and prostrated himself.
9 David said to Saul, "Why do you listen to the words of men, saying, 'Behold, David seeks to harm you'?
10 "Behold, this day your eyes have seen that the LORD had given you today into my hand in the cave, and some said to kill you, but my eye had pity on you; and I said, 'I will not stretch out my hand against my lord, for he is the LORD'S anointed.'
11 "Now, my father, see! Indeed, see the edge of your robe in my hand! For in that I cut off the edge of your robe and did not kill you, know and perceive that there is no evil or rebellion in my hands, and I have not sinned against you, though you are lying in wait for my life to take it.
12 "May the LORD judge between you and me, and may the LORD avenge me on you; but my hand shall not be against you.
13 "As the proverb of the ancients says, 'Out of the wicked comes forth wickedness'; but my hand shall not be against you.
14 "After whom has the king of Israel come out? Whom are you pursuing? A dead dog, a single flea?
15 "The LORD therefore be judge and decide between you and me; and may He see and plead my cause and deliver me from your hand."

So we see that David, even though he had fled from Saul and had several hundred men with him, did not wage war against Saul in the sense that he sought to remove Saul from power. David simply wanted to stay alive, and honor the Lord. Ultimately God did bring David to power, after Saul had killed himself.

Even in this example there is no hint of rebellion or guerilla warfare against the current government. David did not seek to remove Saul from power, even though God had made David the rightful King. I believe this is the best answer to your first question, and so I would say that there is never a case where a person is justified in trying to remove Caesar from power (do not confuse this with separating one's self from Caesar, or fleeing from Caesar, which I believe can be justified in some cases).

As for judging a government's legitimacy, that would take an entire book to cover. I myself am still trying to read more books on the subject, but I do think there are some simple conclusions we can draw from scripture.

We must understand that there is a difference between a government being legitimate and a government being moral. I do not think that anyone will argue that Pharaoh was the legitimate ruler of Egypt, even when the Israelites were slaves. This does not mean that Pharaoh did the right thing, or that he was a moral leader. His government was immoral and wicked, but was STILL the legitimate government of Egypt (the Israelites were not commanded to overthrow Pharaoh). This is how God had set things up to be.

For this reason, legitimacy does seem to be tied somewhat to the will of the people. This is no guarantee of morality, since we know that quite often the people are in rebellion against God. But even during the reign of the wicked kings of Judah, those kings were still of the Davidic line, and were still the legitimate rulers (in the sense that the people were not authorized by God to remove them from power). Both the wicked kings and the wicked people sinned against God, and there is a sense where God punishes a people by placing them under a wicked and oppressive king. In the same way, when people cry out to the Lord, he often delivers them from the wicked ruler and grants them peace 'on all sides'.

We could go much deeper into the question of legitimacy, but it honestly does not change how we as Christians are to live out our lives practically. We are to obey Caesar as far as Caesar does not demand what is God's. And even when Caesar makes unlawful demands, we are not to seek to remove him from power through unlawful means (such as force). We are to obey the law, appeal to those above us in a lawful way, or flee to safety. If all these things fail, and Caesar comes to take our lives, we must trust in God to deliver us from his hand.

Thank you.

I'm concerned with legitimacy because of some situations that normally arise during wars, for example: if Castro attacks Haiti and takes control of the island, ruling over it as if it were Cuba, and the Haitian government exiles itself in Costa Rica to try to take control of Haiti again later, who should we honor as our governors? Our de jure or our de facto rulers?

 

[Loopie]

Well, Castro would certainly have to murder ALOT of people in order to successfully conquer Haiti. I highly doubt that the U.S. Government would let him do that (since it is an invasion of a sovereign country right at our front door). If I were living in Haiti, I would help defend my nation against invasion. If Castro were to win, I would either flee with the Haitian government, or stay in Haiti. If I stay, I have several choices: resist forcefully in guerilla warfare, resist peacefully by aiding any coalition that comes to remove Castro, or stay as neutral as possible and wait and pray for deliverance (there are more variations as well). I am not going to tell a person what exactly they should do in this situation. What I would say though is that Castro would not be the legitimate government (not authorized by God to conquer Haiti, and does not have the support of the Haitian people).

 

[M21195]

Good articles in last month's issue of New Horizons on OPC.org regarding government:

New Horizons

---------- Post added at 07:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:33 PM ----------

Well, Castro would certainly have to murder ALOT of people in order to successfully conquer Haiti. I highly doubt that the U.S. Government would let him do that (since it is an invasion of a sovereign country right at our front door). If I were living in Haiti, I would help defend my nation against invasion. If Castro were to win, I would either flee with the Haitian government, or stay in Haiti. If I stay, I have several choices: resist forcefully in guerilla warfare, resist peacefully by aiding any coalition that comes to remove Castro, or stay as neutral as possible and wait and pray for deliverance (there are more variations as well). I am not going to tell a person what exactly they should do in this situation. What I would say though is that Castro would not be the legitimate government (not authorized by God to conquer Haiti, and does not have the support of the Haitian people).

How do we know that God did not "authorize" Castro to invade Haiti in this scenario? Maybe it was his will to punish Haiti? What then?

 

[Loopie]

Well, how did the Israelites know that God called them to punish the Canaanites? They were led by religious leaders (Moses/Joshua), who were righteous men called by God (and led by the Spirit). So if God did call Castro, we would see evidence that he was a righteous man called by God and led by the Spirit.

By the way, I agree with you that God uses unrighteous nations to punish other nations. Assyria and Babylon were 'instruments' in the hands of God (God used them to punish Israel). Yet God also declares that Assyria and Babylon were wicked nations, because their purpose in conquering Israel was NOT the same as God's purpose. In this way we see that God ordains all things, yet this does not mean that Assyria and Babylon were 'justified' in doing what they did. They were violating God's law, not supporting it. So if Castro DID conquer Haiti, it very well might be that God wished to use Castro to punish Haiti. It does not mean that Castro was morally right in doing so, or that he should not in turn by punished by the international community for doing so.

 

[John Bunyan]

The criteria them, are the countrie's laws, popular approval and direct intervention from God? It does make sense. Thanks all.

Now about guerrilla: Can we join one? I thought we could only fight other's either in self-defense or joining the military.

(Going to read the articles)

EDIT: Just thought: Wouldn't resisting an invading army, acting like God's agent of punishment, be a sin?

 

[PhilA]

Eric
I would agree that as Christians we must not wage war against our own government. Would you agree that it follows, on the same basis, that we do not have authority to overthrow our neighbour’s government either?

I find the “duel” analogy interesting and am grateful for it. What causes concern is the concept of “self-defence”. Prima facie it is straightforward, the defence of one’s self. I wonder if this concept could be stretched too far and used in an attempt to justify a first strike pre-emptive aggressive action. Attack being the best form of defence etc..

John
As for guerrilla action we need to remember that to one man a guerrilla is a freedom fighter to another he is a terrorist. Your individual political perspective determines what he is. Not his individual actions or motives.

What if Brazil was invaded and occupied by Argentina? Would you become a guerrilla?
What if instead of Argentina the USA invaded and occupied Brazil? Would you become a guerrilla?

 

[Loopie]

Phil,

Well, I would say that there is a difference between your relationship with your government and your relationship with your neighbor's government. In the first case, we should not overthrow our own government. In the second case you might be justified in overthrowing your neighbor's government. One special case is that of the Israelites killing the kings and rulers of Canaan. Those governments ceased to exist for the most part when Israel took over the land.

In our day, we saw that nations such as Nazi Germany had their governments overthrown by foreign nations. This is the nature of warfare. If your opponent seeks to wipe you off of the face of the earth, and NOTHING short of removal/death will stop him, I would say that you are still justified in defending yourself. Hitler was not going to stop trying to conquer his enemies. Even if peace was temporarily gained, it would only be a matter of time before Hitler rebuilt Germany's forces, or developed/used nuclear weapons. Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, and the Czechoslovakia had been conquered and many of them 'absorbed' into Greater Germany. The Western powers knew that only the end of the Nazi regime would stop them from continuing to conquer more peoples.

The point that I am trying to make is that if we do believe that self-defense is a justifiable use of force, and that sometimes the death of your opponent might be the only option, then I would say that there could be a case where the removal of your neighbor's government is justifiable.

The 'duel' analogy is certainly not mine, and can be traced back to Clausewitz. Certainly we would have to get deeper into the concept of self-defense, but I do not think anyone would doubt that the concept exists in scripture. Certainly I believe that people can take it too far in order to justify pre-emptive strikes. Self-defense is based on the reality of the threat against you. If some teenage kid calls you, and makes a prank call saying that he is going to rob your house tonight, I wouldn't grab a baseball bat, find the kid's house, and take out his knee so that he can't rob me. That is why we must always maintain an attitude of prayer, and seek God's guidance for the best decision based on the information that we have.

If someone comes up to you with a knife or a crowbar and takes a swing at you, you would be justified in trying to prevent that person from hurting you. You could try to avoid the attack, or you could see the attack coming (like some martial arts experts) and 'preemptively' disarm the person before they hit you. Again I would say that the goal is to prevent them from accomplishing their wicked act using the least force possible. You wouldn't need to kill or maim someone who was trying to pick pocket you. But you might have to kill someone who seeks to end your life for their own personal gain.

 

[M21195]

Well, how did the Israelites know that God called them to punish the Canaanites? They were led by religious leaders (Moses/Joshua), who were righteous men called by God (and led by the Spirit). So if God did call Castro, we would see evidence that he was a righteous man called by God and led by the Spirit.

By the way, I agree with you that God uses unrighteous nations to punish other nations. Assyria and Babylon were 'instruments' in the hands of God (God used them to punish Israel). Yet God also declares that Assyria and Babylon were wicked nations, because their purpose in conquering Israel was NOT the same as God's purpose. In this way we see that God ordains all things, yet this does not mean that Assyria and Babylon were 'justified' in doing what they did. They were violating God's law, not supporting it. So if Castro DID conquer Haiti, it very well might be that God wished to use Castro to punish Haiti. It does not mean that Castro was morally right in doing so, or that he should not in turn by punished by the international community for doing so.

Say you are a Christian who is a citizen in a godless county (legalized abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc... ) that is being invaded by a county "led by religious leaders, who were righteous men called by God (and led by the Spirit)." What would your role be at that point? Do you support/fight for your county, do you support the invaders or just try to stay out of the fray? Can we think of any examples of this situation in history?

I'm not a big fan of "what if's" but this is something that I have thought about..

 

[PhilA]

Phil,

Well, I would say that there is a difference between your relationship with your government and your relationship with your neighbor's government. In the first case, we should not overthrow our own government. In the second case you might be justified in overthrowing your neighbor's government. One special case is that of the Israelites killing the kings and rulers of Canaan. Those governments ceased to exist for the most part when Israel took over the land.

In our day, we saw that nations such as Nazi Germany had their governments overthrown by foreign nations. This is the nature of warfare. If your opponent seeks to wipe you off of the face of the earth, and NOTHING short of removal/death will stop him, I would say that you are still justified in defending yourself. Hitler was not going to stop trying to conquer his enemies. Even if peace was temporarily gained, it would only be a matter of time before Hitler rebuilt Germany's forces, or developed/used nuclear weapons. Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, and the Czechoslovakia had been conquered and many of them 'absorbed' into Greater Germany. The Western powers knew that only the end of the Nazi regime would stop them from continuing to conquer more peoples.

The point that I am trying to make is that if we do believe that self-defense is a justifiable use of force, and that sometimes the death of your opponent might be the only option, then I would say that there could be a case where the removal of your neighbor's government is justifiable.

The 'duel' analogy is certainly not mine, and can be traced back to Clausewitz. Certainly we would have to get deeper into the concept of self-defense, but I do not think anyone would doubt that the concept exists in scripture. Certainly I believe that people can take it too far in order to justify pre-emptive strikes. Self-defense is based on the reality of the threat against you. If some teenage kid calls you, and makes a prank call saying that he is going to rob your house tonight, I wouldn't grab a baseball bat, find the kid's house, and take out his knee so that he can't rob me. That is why we must always maintain an attitude of prayer, and seek God's guidance for the best decision based on the information that we have.

If someone comes up to you with a knife or a crowbar and takes a swing at you, you would be justified in trying to prevent that person from hurting you. You could try to avoid the attack, or you could see the attack coming (like some martial arts experts) and 'preemptively' disarm the person before they hit you. Again I would say that the goal is to prevent them from accomplishing their wicked act using the least force possible. You wouldn't need to kill or maim someone who was trying to pick pocket you. But you might have to kill someone who seeks to end your life for their own personal gain.

Eric,

I should have been a little more specific in my question. I was looking at this issue from an individual standpoint mindful of the issue raised in the OP.
As for the situation with Nazi Germany I accept the position of self-defence in respect of the USA and USSR. Germany declared war on both. I am more uncomfortable with Great Britain who declared war on Germany due to treaty obligations.

I agree and have no problem with your description of self-defence on a personal basis with the use of reasonable proportionate force. I am struggling to see how self-defence translates to the national level other than the obvious attack on home soil (territorial waters etc.) or receiving a declaration of war.

 

[PhilA]

Say you are a Christian who is a citizen in a godless county (legalized abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc... ) that is being invaded by a county "led by religious leaders, who were righteous men called by God (and led by the Spirit)." What would your role be at that point? Do you support/fight for your county, do you support the invaders or just try to stay out of the fray? Can we think of any examples of this situation in history?

I'm not a big fan of "what if's" but this is something that I have thought about..

As a Christian I couldn't imagine fighting for a godless country. I would seek to stay out of the fray and pray.

 

[John Bunyan]

Eric
What if Brazil was invaded and occupied by Argentina? Would you become a guerrilla?
What if instead of Argentina the USA invaded and occupied Brazil? Would you become a guerrilla?

No, and no. Brazilians have never (or almost never) set up any righteous guerrilla faction, only criminal terroristic ones (and this is a fact, not a opinion; they kidnapped people, robbed banks and murdered innocents). We have a better experience with civil, peaceful action (that's how the Army's Dictatorship ended, not by guerrilla action). I would only act in a military organization if it were a governmental one, or one associated with the government and/or which didn't practice crimes - and I don't see that happening.

p.s.: On a side note, Argentina would never won that war, and we would lost in less than a month to the U.S., with or without guerrillas

EDIT: Also, again: isn't "Ordered by a proper government" a criteria to judge the righteousness of wars in JWT?

 

[PhilA]

No, and no. Brazilians have never (or almost never) set up any righteous guerrilla faction, only criminal terroristic ones (and this is a fact, not a opinion; they kidnapped people, robbed banks and murdered innocents). We have a better experience with civil, peaceful action (that's how the Army's Dictatorship ended, not by guerrilla action). I would only act in a military organization if it were a governmental one, or one associated with the government and/or which didn't practice crimes - and I don't see that happening.

p.s.: On a side note, Argentina would never won that war, and we would lost in less than a month to the U.S., with or without guerrillas

EDIT: Also, again: isn't "Ordered by a proper government" a criteria to judge the righteousness of wars in JWT?

John,

Do I understand you correctly? Are there no circumstances that you, as a Christian, would defend your country in self-defence?
Please do not think that I am being judgemental or that my question is a criticism.

 

[Loopie]

Say you are a Christian who is a citizen in a godless county (legalized abortion on demand, homosexual marriage, etc... ) that is being invaded by a county "led by religious leaders, who were righteous men called by God (and led by the Spirit)." What would your role be at that point? Do you support/fight for your county, do you support the invaders or just try to stay out of the fray? Can we think of any examples of this situation in history?

I'm not a big fan of "what if's" but this is something that I have thought about..

Lyle,

Are there any examples of non-Israelites aiding the Israelites when they took over Canaan? Here is the example of Rahab.

Joshua 2:1-14 (NASB)
1 Then Joshua the son of Nun sent two men as spies secretly from Shittim, saying, "Go, view the land, especially Jericho." So they went and came into the house of a harlot whose name was Rahab, and lodged there.
2 It was told the king of Jericho, saying, "Behold, men from the sons of Israel have come here tonight to search out the land."
3 And the king of Jericho sent word to Rahab, saying, "Bring out the men who have come to you, who have entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land."
4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them, and she said, "Yes, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from.
5 "It came about when it was time to shut the gate at dark, that the men went out; I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them."
6 But she had brought them up to the roof and hidden them in the stalks of flax which she had laid in order on the roof.
7 So the men pursued them on the road to the Jordan to the fords; and as soon as those who were pursuing them had gone out, they shut the gate.
8 Now before they lay down, she came up to them on the roof,
9 and said to the men, "I know that the LORD has given you the land, and that the terror of you has fallen on us, and that all the inhabitants of the land have melted away before you.
10 "For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red Sea before you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to the two kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan, to Sihon and Og, whom you utterly destroyed.
11 "When we heard it, our hearts melted and no courage remained in any man any longer because of you; for the LORD your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath.
12 "Now therefore, please swear to me by the LORD, since I have dealt kindly with you, that you also will deal kindly with my father's household, and give me a pledge of truth,
13 and spare my father and my mother and my brothers and my sisters, with all who belong to them, and deliver our lives from death."
14 So the men said to her, "Our life for yours if you do not tell this business of ours; and it shall come about when the LORD gives us the land that we will deal kindly and faithfully with you."

I would say then that if you honestly knew that the invading army was led by religious leaders who were righteous men called by God and led by the Spirit, then I would do very similar things that Rahab did. She did not engage in rebellion against the leaders of Jericho, but she aided the Israelites, and recognized the Lord as God. Keep in mind though that this is a very unique situation, and I honestly do not think that God would bring another 'people' into a 'promised land'. This was done in history for a very specific purpose, and I would seriously doubt the motives of any invading army today that thinks it is led by the Lord to conquer, kill, and destroy.

---------- Post added at 08:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------

Eric,

I should have been a little more specific in my question. I was looking at this issue from an individual standpoint mindful of the issue raised in the OP.
As for the situation with Nazi Germany I accept the position of self-defence in respect of the USA and USSR. Germany declared war on both. I am more uncomfortable with Great Britain who declared war on Germany due to treaty obligations.

I agree and have no problem with your description of self-defence on a personal basis with the use of reasonable proportionate force. I am struggling to see how self-defence translates to the national level other than the obvious attack on home soil (territorial waters etc.) or receiving a declaration of war.

Phil,

It is a very tough question. I myself do not agree with a nation 'pledging' itself unconditionally to the defense of another nation. Britain and France pledged themselves to Poland unconditionally, and this eventually came back to bite them. But then again, Hitler had promised that he would take no more territory after the Munich Agreement. Then he goes and annexes the Czech Republic after promising NOT to do that. He then threatens Poland (again a breaking of the promise that he would seek no more territory). France and Britain had already been embarassed because they failed to protect Austria, the Czechs, and now the Poles. They took a hard stance against Germany because they wanted to deter Hitler from doing anything radical (which he did anyways). So in part I can understand the British and French declaring war on Germany. They had given Hitler plenty of chances to redeem himself and take the path of peace, but he continually broke promises and lied to those he signed treaties with.

In all honesty, had Britain and France NOT declared war against Germany (after promising that they would protect Poland), their governments would have collapsed because the people would have demanded a resignation of their leadership. It was a tough situation for Britain and France. If they DO NOT guarantee Poland's safety, then Hitler has no fear of continually demanding territory (and taking it by force). If they DO guarantee Poland's safety, then they have two choices: either honor that agreement when Hitler attacks Poland, or do not honor that agreement and let Poland be conquered. If they honor their pledge to Poland, then they must declare war on Germany. If they do not honor their pledge to Poland, then their governments topple because the people will see them as incompetent leaders who make promises that they can't keep (just like Hitler). I would not have wanted to be in the shoes of British and French leadership when Hitler attacked Poland.

 

[PhilA]

Phil,

It is a very tough question. I myself do not agree with a nation 'pledging' itself unconditionally to the defense of another nation. Britain and France pledged themselves to Poland unconditionally, and this eventually came back to bite them. But then again, Hitler had promised that he would take no more territory after the Munich Agreement. Then he goes and annexes the Czech Republic after promising NOT to do that. He then threatens Poland (again a breaking of the promise that he would seek no more territory). France and Britain had already been embarassed because they failed to protect Austria, the Czechs, and now the Poles. They took a hard stance against Germany because they wanted to deter Hitler from doing anything radical (which he did anyways). So in part I can understand the British and French declaring war on Germany. They had given Hitler plenty of chances to redeem himself and take the path of peace, but he continually broke promises and lied to those he signed treaties with.

In all honesty, had Britain and France NOT declared war against Germany (after promising that they would protect Poland), their governments would have collapsed because the people would have demanded a resignation of their leadership. It was a tough situation for Britain and France. If they DO NOT guarantee Poland's safety, then Hitler has no fear of continually demanding territory (and taking it by force). If they DO guarantee Poland's safety, then they have two choices: either honor that agreement when Hitler attacks Poland, or do not honor that agreement and let Poland be conquered. If they honor their pledge to Poland, then they must declare war on Germany. If they do not honor their pledge to Poland, then their governments topple because the people will see them as incompetent leaders who make promises that they can't keep (just like Hitler). I would not have wanted to be in the shoes of British and French leadership when Hitler attacked Poland.

Eric,

I would not necessarily agree that the British government would have been under threat had they not kept their promise to Poland. Britain's leaders displayed incompetence on a number of occasions which only seemed to generate greater admiration in the public eye. The loss of Malaya and Singapore comes to mind – hardly our finest hour! The Norwegian debacle in early 1940 caused a subtle change to government, but that was through in-fighting and squabbling within the governing party rather than the pressure of public opinion. The pledge to protect Polish interests was a hollow promise with no real intent by Britain or France to aid Poland. A position agreed with France months before the German invasion. Poland was ultimately to be fully betrayed at the end of the war. British attitudes were heavily influences by the experiences of WW1. Both those accused of appeasement and those desperate for war (to have another go at the old foe). The uncomfortable truth was that there was a significant support for Hitler within the British establishment. Communism was seen as the great threat and Hitler was seen as the only champion willing to tackle that threat.

 

[Loopie]

Eric,

I would not necessarily agree that the British government would have been under threat had they not kept their promise to Poland. Britain's leaders displayed incompetence on a number of occasions which only seemed to generate greater admiration in the public eye. The loss of Malaya and Singapore comes to mind – hardly our finest hour! The Norwegian debacle in early 1940 caused a subtle change to government, but that was through in-fighting and squabbling within the governing party rather than the pressure of public opinion. The pledge to protect Polish interests was a hollow promise with no real intent by Britain or France to aid Poland. A position agreed with France months before the German invasion. Poland was ultimately to be fully betrayed at the end of the war. British attitudes were heavily influences by the experiences of WW1. Both those accused of appeasement and those desperate for war (to have another go at the old foe). The uncomfortable truth was that there was a significant support for Hitler within the British establishment. Communism was seen as the great threat and Hitler was seen as the only champion willing to tackle that threat.

Phil,

The situation was still difficult for the British. Both Austria and the Czechs cried out for help, and the western powers sold them into slavery. It truly was an appeasement to Hitler in order to avoid another war. I completely agree that some people in Britain supported Germany, and considered it a bulwark against Communism. But this does not change the fact that it is Hitler who is responsible for the western powers turning on him. Neville Chamberlain, after the Munich conference, declared that 'we have peace in our time'. Hitler had made a promise directly to Chamberlain that he would seek no more territory in Europe. He lied, blatantly. He annexed the rest of the Czech Republic, and threatened the Poles. He even faked an attack by the Poles on German troops (Gleiwitz Incident). He did this so that he would have an excuse to invade Poland.

From the perspective of the British it would seem that the situation was very difficult. IF you, as British leadership, let Hitler continue to do what he wants to do, at what point will Hitler attack Denmark and France? Both Denmark and France took territory from Germany after WW1, and it is very likely that Hitler would want it back (he did take the territory back when the war broke out). Also, NO ONE (not even Hitler's generals) expected Poland to fall in 3 weeks. That is exactly why Hitler wanted a pact with the Soviets, to secure his Eastern front. Had he known that Poland would fall so quickly, before the Western powers could respond, I doubt Hitler would have signed an agreement with the Soviets dividing up Poland (he would want all of Poland for himself).

So again, the British expected the Poles to last longer than they did. They also did not expect the Soviets to stab the Poles in the back. They thought that there would be enough time to gather forces in the West to attack Germany (they expected another repeat of WW1). I would disagree with you that their pledge to Poland was a hollow one (they really did declare war on Germany, after giving Hitler an ultimatum to cease his attack on Poland). Britain and France had every intention of aiding Poland, but they could not foresee the new type of mobilized warfare (as well as the Soviets attacking Poland from the back).

Also, please keep in mind that FDR (who was essentially the ring-leader of the Western Powers once America got involved) sold Poland to the Soviets. Roosevelt was very friendly towards Stalin, whereas Churchill at least was concerned and fearful of the Soviets (as he should have been, since Stalin was a growing threat). It was Roosevelt who pressed for unconditional surrender (even when both Churchill and Stalin did not always agree with it). I agree with you that it is very disturbing how Poland was not freed by the Western powers, but this was not the plan at the beginning of the war (Britain and France were actually trying to come to Poland's aid, but 3 weeks is a very short amount of time).

In the end it is a tough situation, especially since we still do not know all of the facts. Regardless of how we view the British government, things did get out of hand quickly, and Hitler was not deterred from attacking the Poles. Hitler did believe that once Poland was destroyed the Western powers would make peace with him because of the fact that they could not rescue a nation that did not exist. I suppose this is very similar to the police trying to stop a murderer from killing someone, and then the murderer asking the police to stop chasing him because the person they were trying to protect is already dead.

Anyways, let us try and get back on topic of legitimacy of waging war and state governments. What other thoughts do you guys have?

 

[Peairtach]

You shouldn't go to war unless you think there is a good possibility you can win. Otherwise it's not worth it.

Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.(Luke 14:31-32, ESV)

 

[PhilA]

Phil,

The situation was still difficult for the British. Both Austria and the Czechs cried out for help, and the western powers sold them into slavery. It truly was an appeasement to Hitler in order to avoid another war. I completely agree that some people in Britain supported Germany, and considered it a bulwark against Communism. But this does not change the fact that it is Hitler who is responsible for the western powers turning on him. Neville Chamberlain, after the Munich conference, declared that 'we have peace in our time'. Hitler had made a promise directly to Chamberlain that he would seek no more territory in Europe. He lied, blatantly. He annexed the rest of the Czech Republic, and threatened the Poles. He even faked an attack by the Poles on German troops (Gleiwitz Incident). He did this so that he would have an excuse to invade Poland.

From the perspective of the British it would seem that the situation was very difficult. IF you, as British leadership, let Hitler continue to do what he wants to do, at what point will Hitler attack Denmark and France? Both Denmark and France took territory from Germany after WW1, and it is very likely that Hitler would want it back (he did take the territory back when the war broke out). Also, NO ONE (not even Hitler's generals) expected Poland to fall in 3 weeks. That is exactly why Hitler wanted a pact with the Soviets, to secure his Eastern front. Had he known that Poland would fall so quickly, before the Western powers could respond, I doubt Hitler would have signed an agreement with the Soviets dividing up Poland (he would want all of Poland for himself).

So again, the British expected the Poles to last longer than they did. They also did not expect the Soviets to stab the Poles in the back. They thought that there would be enough time to gather forces in the West to attack Germany (they expected another repeat of WW1). I would disagree with you that their pledge to Poland was a hollow one (they really did declare war on Germany, after giving Hitler an ultimatum to cease his attack on Poland). Britain and France had every intention of aiding Poland, but they could not foresee the new type of mobilized warfare (as well as the Soviets attacking Poland from the back).

Also, please keep in mind that FDR (who was essentially the ring-leader of the Western Powers once America got involved) sold Poland to the Soviets. Roosevelt was very friendly towards Stalin, whereas Churchill at least was concerned and fearful of the Soviets (as he should have been, since Stalin was a growing threat). It was Roosevelt who pressed for unconditional surrender (even when both Churchill and Stalin did not always agree with it). I agree with you that it is very disturbing how Poland was not freed by the Western powers, but this was not the plan at the beginning of the war (Britain and France were actually trying to come to Poland's aid, but 3 weeks is a very short amount of time).

In the end it is a tough situation, especially since we still do not know all of the facts. Regardless of how we view the British government, things did get out of hand quickly, and Hitler was not deterred from attacking the Poles. Hitler did believe that once Poland was destroyed the Western powers would make peace with him because of the fact that they could not rescue a nation that did not exist. I suppose this is very similar to the police trying to stop a murderer from killing someone, and then the murderer asking the police to stop chasing him because the person they were trying to protect is already dead.

Anyways, let us try and get back on topic of legitimacy of waging war and state governments. What other thoughts do you guys have?

Eric,

I agree with much that you state. One has to accept that much of Germany’s initial actions in WW2 were to address the injustices (from a German perspective) of the Treaty of Versailles. I still maintain that Poland’s fate was sealed before WW2 commenced and that Britain and France had no real intentions to actually do anything to save Poland. The Anglo-Polish communique, mirrored by the French-Polish, issued 6 April 1939 although not formalised until 25 August 1939 did provide time for preparation against the inevitable war. Yet no “real” preparations were made. Britain promised to help Poland with all the means in her power; but this is open to interpretation as to what exactly is meant. In fact the British decided to do nothing as the sending of military aid or allowing the Poles to buy military supplies would slow down their own re-armament. The British General staff reported that Poland would inevitably fall to Germany if war broke out and the most that could be hoped for was a 6 month resistance so any aid sent would be lost. I agree with you that there is still detail yet to be released on these issues and the truth may never fully be known. For example the British papers on the strange death of Sikorski remain closed until 2041. I suggested that the Anglo-Polish agreement of mutual assistance was “hollow “as my retrospective judgment on the position as a whole. I have no doubts that the people who negotiated those arrangements along with those who signed and delivered them, believed them to be wholly true. I doubt that they would have been aware of the presiding policy that was to be enacted. To quote Churchill; “In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies”. My own experiences bear this out. Having worked for over thirty years for central government there were times when I put forward, argued and defended stated policy as truth (not matters of national security but minor domestic issues) to subsequently discover that, unknown to me (somewhere higher up the chain) the exact opposite had taken place.

We do know that the Anglo-Polish agreement tied the British to intervene should Poland “become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against” Poland. The British PM in his address to the German people on 3 September stated, “You may ask why Great Britain is concerned. We are concerned because we gave our word of honour to defend Poland against aggression. Why did we feel it necessary to pledge ourselves to defend this Eastern Power when our interests lie in the West, and when your Leader has said he has no interest to the West? The answer is-and I regret to have to say it-that nobody in this country any longer places any trust in your Leader's word.” What happened to these fine words when on 17 September the USSR invaded Poland? It should have invoked British (and French) action resulting in a declaration of war on USSR. It did not. Why did the Poles not declare war on the invading USSR? They did not. Why did the British not defend Poland against aggression at this time? The fact remains that Poland was “betrayed”. I suppose it is of little consequence to the Poles the exact date on which it happened.

As you infer, we can go on and on without even being near a conclusion. Determination of the legitimacy of war is difficult in historic cases as we have illustrated on one “simple issue” in one conflict over 70 years ago! How can you consider the legitimacy of a current or future war? I do not believe the politicians, they have their own agenda. I do not believe media sources, they have their own agenda.

I have enjoyed this exchange. It is driving me towards my attic and my books and papers on this topic. Another issue to add to the "to do" list when I have time! Thank you for your insight. I value it.

 

[Loopie]

Eric,

I agree with much that you state. One has to accept that much of Germany’s initial actions in WW2 were to address the injustices (from a German perspective) of the Treaty of Versailles. I still maintain that Poland’s fate was sealed before WW2 commenced and that Britain and France had no real intentions to actually do anything to save Poland. The Anglo-Polish communique, mirrored by the French-Polish, issued 6 April 1939 although not formalised until 25 August 1939 did provide time for preparation against the inevitable war. Yet no “real” preparations were made. Britain promised to help Poland with all the means in her power; but this is open to interpretation as to what exactly is meant. In fact the British decided to do nothing as the sending of military aid or allowing the Poles to buy military supplies would slow down their own re-armament. The British General staff reported that Poland would inevitably fall to Germany if war broke out and the most that could be hoped for was a 6 month resistance so any aid sent would be lost. I agree with you that there is still detail yet to be released on these issues and the truth may never fully be known. For example the British papers on the strange death of Sikorski remain closed until 2041. I suggested that the Anglo-Polish agreement of mutual assistance was “hollow “as my retrospective judgment on the position as a whole. I have no doubts that the people who negotiated those arrangements along with those who signed and delivered them, believed them to be wholly true. I doubt that they would have been aware of the presiding policy that was to be enacted. To quote Churchill; “In time of war, when truth is so precious, it must be attended by a bodyguard of lies”. My own experiences bear this out. Having worked for over thirty years for central government there were times when I put forward, argued and defended stated policy as truth (not matters of national security but minor domestic issues) to subsequently discover that, unknown to me (somewhere higher up the chain) the exact opposite had taken place.

We do know that the Anglo-Polish agreement tied the British to intervene should Poland “become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against” Poland. The British PM in his address to the German people on 3 September stated, “You may ask why Great Britain is concerned. We are concerned because we gave our word of honour to defend Poland against aggression. Why did we feel it necessary to pledge ourselves to defend this Eastern Power when our interests lie in the West, and when your Leader has said he has no interest to the West? The answer is-and I regret to have to say it-that nobody in this country any longer places any trust in your Leader's word.” What happened to these fine words when on 17 September the USSR invaded Poland? It should have invoked British (and French) action resulting in a declaration of war on USSR. It did not. Why did the Poles not declare war on the invading USSR? They did not. Why did the British not defend Poland against aggression at this time? The fact remains that Poland was “betrayed”. I suppose it is of little consequence to the Poles the exact date on which it happened.

As you infer, we can go on and on without even being near a conclusion. Determination of the legitimacy of war is difficult in historic cases as we have illustrated on one “simple issue” in one conflict over 70 years ago! How can you consider the legitimacy of a current or future war? I do not believe the politicians, they have their own agenda. I do not believe media sources, they have their own agenda.

I have enjoyed this exchange. It is driving me towards my attic and my books and papers on this topic. Another issue to add to the "to do" list when I have time! Thank you for your insight. I value it.

Phil,

This certainly has been a great discussion, even though we both see things from different perspectives. I completely agree that Germany was treated extremely harshly in the treaty of Versailles. The issues behind this go back even before WWI, to the Franco-Prussian war (where Germany took territory from France). France had always wanted this territory back, and they were very vengeful after being humiliated in the Franco-Prussian war. This, coupled with the fact that Germany was the aggressor (invaded neutral Belgium) in WWI did not help Germany's standing amongst the European powers. Of course, Hitler did not help the situation by the fact that he violated the neutrality of numerous nations (Norway is just one example).

I agree with you that the British did not try very hard to protect Poland. I also agree that the British General Staff did not think that Poland would last long (3 weeks was still beyond what anyone expected). But the very fact that the British DID declare war on Poland is a testimony to their desire to fight Germany. Furthermore, the fact that the British refused Hitler's offer of peace both before France fell and after France fell is ANOTHER reason to believe that the British weren't going to stop fighting until the Nazis were out of power (whether by external force or internal change in government).

I completely agree with you that the Soviet Union DESERVED to be declared war on by Britain and France. Of course, in this situation you have to pick your battles. Hitler was considered the greater threat, while the Soviets were viewed as having a second-rate military (consider its war against Finland). Russia was underestimated due to its recent revolution/purge, and its performance in WW1. Germany was considered the greater threat due to its proximity to France, its performance in WW1, and the fear of Hitler. If France and Britain declared war on both Germany and Russia, they would essentially guarantee that those two nations would remain friends, and there would be little chance of defeating either one of them, let alone both of them.

Remember, the Western powers were basing ALL of their strategy on the previous war. In WW1 Germany struck France via the Schlieffen Plan (this was expected again by the British and French in WW2). Germany was defeated through attrition, and because it had to fight a two-front war (this again was the strategy of the British and the French). Not only were the Western powers surprised when Hitler crushed Poland in 3 weeks, but they (and the entire world) was surprised at the complete collapse of France in 3 months. The whole game changed.

In the end I agree with much of what you said. The difficulty is that we often look back on history while forgetting the context that those leaders existed in. The West expected to fight WW2 just like WW1, with Germany attempting a pre-emptive strike into France. That is probably why the British did not act right away to rescue Poland. Remember, their strategy in WW1 was to win by attrition, strangling Germany by blockade, letting them be weakened in a two-front war, and building up enough forces in France to launch a slow and steady counterattack. It is very sad that ultimately Poland was sacrificed, but later in the war that was mostly due to Roosevelt making concessions to Stalin, and not Churchill (who probably would have loved to see the Soviets be defeated after Germany).

Anyways, when it comes to current wars, I try not to get too wrapped up in them. There is so much information that I simply do not know. And even though I don't always agree with my nation's leadership, I sometimes have to simply trust that they have more information than I do, and that therefore their decisions MIGHT be the right ones.

 

[PhilA]

Phil,

This certainly has been a great discussion, even though we both see things from different perspectives. I completely agree that Germany was treated extremely harshly in the treaty of Versailles. The issues behind this go back even before WWI, to the Franco-Prussian war (where Germany took territory from France). France had always wanted this territory back, and they were very vengeful after being humiliated in the Franco-Prussian war. This, coupled with the fact that Germany was the aggressor (invaded neutral Belgium) in WWI did not help Germany's standing amongst the European powers. Of course, Hitler did not help the situation by the fact that he violated the neutrality of numerous nations (Norway is just one example).

I agree with you that the British did not try very hard to protect Poland. I also agree that the British General Staff did not think that Poland would last long (3 weeks was still beyond what anyone expected). But the very fact that the British DID declare war on Poland is a testimony to their desire to fight Germany. Furthermore, the fact that the British refused Hitler's offer of peace both before France fell and after France fell is ANOTHER reason to believe that the British weren't going to stop fighting until the Nazis were out of power (whether by external force or internal change in government).

I completely agree with you that the Soviet Union DESERVED to be declared war on by Britain and France. Of course, in this situation you have to pick your battles. Hitler was considered the greater threat, while the Soviets were viewed as having a second-rate military (consider its war against Finland). Russia was underestimated due to its recent revolution/purge, and its performance in WW1. Germany was considered the greater threat due to its proximity to France, its performance in WW1, and the fear of Hitler. If France and Britain declared war on both Germany and Russia, they would essentially guarantee that those two nations would remain friends, and there would be little chance of defeating either one of them, let alone both of them.

Remember, the Western powers were basing ALL of their strategy on the previous war. In WW1 Germany struck France via the Schlieffen Plan (this was expected again by the British and French in WW2). Germany was defeated through attrition, and because it had to fight a two-front war (this again was the strategy of the British and the French). Not only were the Western powers surprised when Hitler crushed Poland in 3 weeks, but they (and the entire world) was surprised at the complete collapse of France in 3 months. The whole game changed.

In the end I agree with much of what you said. The difficulty is that we often look back on history while forgetting the context that those leaders existed in. The West expected to fight WW2 just like WW1, with Germany attempting a pre-emptive strike into France. That is probably why the British did not act right away to rescue Poland. Remember, their strategy in WW1 was to win by attrition, strangling Germany by blockade, letting them be weakened in a two-front war, and building up enough forces in France to launch a slow and steady counterattack. It is very sad that ultimately Poland was sacrificed, but later in the war that was mostly due to Roosevelt making concessions to Stalin, and not Churchill (who probably would have loved to see the Soviets be defeated after Germany).

Anyways, when it comes to current wars, I try not to get too wrapped up in them. There is so much information that I simply do not know. And even though I don't always agree with my nation's leadership, I sometimes have to simply trust that they have more information than I do, and that therefore their decisions MIGHT be the right ones.

Eric,

WW1 is my main interest area in military history. Don’t get me started on the causes of that one! A few years ago, on one of my annual visits to WW1 battlefield sites, we visited the forest of Compiègne – site of the 1918 Armistice. The French vitriol is so apparent with a large memorial to the martyrs of Alsace-Lorraine. My wife commented that it was little wonder that Hitler sought to similarly humiliate the French at that same site in accepting the surrender of the French in 1940. Even today throughout Alsace-Lorraine memorials to the martyrs exist in most towns of the area. The demand of French territory exacted in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war was considered punitive and excessive even within Germany at that time. Sounds familiar doesn’t it! I understand the French living in those transferred territories were faced with a stark choice. Become fully German or leave the territories with nothing forfeiting all properties and possessions. This “historic” hatred and resentment between nations is seen manifest in both subsequent World Wars.

Whilst Poland in one form or another has existed since the 10th century, the Poland to which we refer was created as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1918. It contained substantial parts of former German territory and contained a large German speaking and oriented population. Poland was not a historic natural ally of Great Britain and they did not have close links. The agreement with Poland was an end of the appeasement process. Poland itself was an irrelevance; a line drawn in the sand. The mark set before the German’s was the significant act. On the other hand Poland had established ties with France. It is argued that a swift simultaneous decisive push from France into Germany could have brought the hostilities to a swift conclusion. The French did make a half-hearted push but quickly retreated.

I agree with your assessment of the USSR position. I would add one further factor, the Polish-Soviet war 1920. Russia had historic claims on the land that created Poland in 1918. Again, my assertion of the “betrayal” of Poland is in the “secret” British interpretation of the 1939 mutual agreement that the aggressor could only be interpreted as Germany and therefore not USSR. Churchill speaking 19 May 1939 outlined the need for an Eastern Front to tackle Germany. “Without any effective Eastern front, there can be no satisfactory defence of our interests in the West, and without Russia there can be no effective Eastern front”. Churchill was on this occasion correct (I don’t always agree with Churchill!) but without the USSR and the eastern front, defeat of Germany was uncertain if not likely.

I don’t necessarily agree that The West expected that WW2 would be fought on WW1 lines. Both sides would have wanted to avoid a static war. In fairness both sides in WW1 wanted to avoid a static war. It was a position that evolved rather than one of design. It is true that the Germans simply went around the Maginot Line and that this action should have been expected. I can’t help wonder that the concept of constructing the Maginot line was more imbedded in 19th Century military concepts and reverence for the physical land (Alsace-Lorraine) than 20th Century military strategy. One of the causes of WW1 was the fact that Germany felt surrounded. Germany was the new boy on the block who was surrounded by great historic imperial powers; France, Russia and Great Britain. This isolation and the perceived need to have access to natural resources was key to their decision making process. Germany was defeated through attrition. The same could be said tor WW2. The conventional navy evaporated after Jutland and the British could enforce an effective blockade. This in turn necessitated the development of submarine warfare so effectively used in WW2. As an aside: My paternal Grandmother would vividly recall the German naval bombardment of her home town of Scarborough during what was known as The East Coast Raid in 1914. I still have a couple of “souvenirs” made from wood salvaged from HMS Iron Duke (Jellicoe’s flagship at Jutland) when she was scraped.

As for the French falling to Hitler so swiftly it must be remembered that France represents Britain’s oldest and dearest enemy. The effect of the French revolution shook the British establishment to its core. Following Waterloo and her “disappointing” performance in WW1, there were those who suggested disparagingly that the French did well to last so long (an unfortunate and untrue observation).
I see WW1 as a pivotal moment in military history. So much of significance happened in such a relatively short period of time. Unfortunately, much of the military thinking had still had its roots in 19th Century (and earlier) tactics because they had been so successful. Tanks made their appearance and evolved into The Tiger Tank within 25 years. Guerrilla warfare and the use of “Special Forces” used so effectively by T E Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia). As an aside, my maternal Grandfather served in The Royal Tank Regiment between the wars and in WW2. He was stationed at Bovington Camp, Dorset at the same time as Lawrence. Trains were used effectively for fast troop deployment (Tannenberg). Aircraft, of particular interest to you, were perhaps the single most important development. It is indeed incredible to think that aircraft had developed from the first powered flight in 1903 to being capable of dropping bombs on London in a time span of 13 years. In fact aircraft made incidental raids over the channel as early as December 1914. Substantial daytime bombing raids were being conducted by Gotha bombers by 1917. I find it amazing to imagine that in the early hours of 1st February 1916 a German airship, Zeppelin L13, flew over the very spot that I sit typing this (250 miles from Dover). In all 1,507 deaths and over 4,000 injured from air-raids. Incidentally the British Royal family was so concerned over the appearance of Gotha bombers that they changed their name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor to disguise their German heritage from the British public. You may also be interest to know that I live relatively close to the birth place of R J Mitchell, designer of the Supermarine Spitfire. We pass his house every time we go to church. The evocative note from the Merlin’s V12 announcing the occasional overflght of “Spits” on pilgrimage to RJ’s birthplace is a most welcome distraction to any day.

Getting back to the original issue, the legitimacy of war, in these exchanges one aspect has become clear to me. As a Christian I am uncomfortable with the attitude of “the end justifies the means”. It is easy to take that approach when dealing with Hitler, but it doesn’t necessarily make it right. We should make the “means” right as well as the “end”. The terms of the Treaty of Versailles were unnecessarily punitive and severe. Vindictiveness on historic differences or prejudice is as unacceptable on a national level as it is with individuals. Hitler’s rearmament speech in 1935 not only signalled his intent but clearly broke the treaty of Versailles. Similarly the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 broke the treaty. I consider it would have been justified to take action at that point. I understand why especially Britain and France did not; but that was the wrong decision.

I agree with your comments on current conflicts. I do not think it appropriate to discuss such issues with serving servicemen. Get back to me when you retire! I don’t know if you have ever been to the WW1 battle sites. If you ever get the chance you would thoroughly enjoy it and I would recommend it. Over the years I have visited sites from the Channel to the Italian Tyrol and I will be back in Flanders in 4 weeks.

 

[Loopie]

Phil,

It is truly a blessing to be able to discuss history with a fellow historian. I myself focused on Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War in my Masters in Military History. I also did my thesis on Roosevelt and the reasons why he demanded the unconditional surrender of Germany.

I agree with everything that you have said regarding the importance of WW1, and how that played into WW2. When I said that the Western Powers expected to fight WW2 just like WW1, what I meant was that they expected another Schlieffen Plan, possibly another stalemate, and another war of attrition. I would also say that Germany truly lost WW1 by attrition (her territory was not violated, her armies were not defeated, but her government was overthrown internally). WW2 was a bit different. Certainly attrition was involved (particularly the Eastern Front) but this time Germany's territory was violated, her armies defeated, and she was completely and utterly occupied. That is what I meant when I said that Germany lost WW1 through attrition and lost WW2 in a different manner.

Other than that I am in perfect agreement with your thoughts concerning the Maginot Line, Poland's relationship to France, and the rapid development of warfare.

I find it interesting how Poland gradually shifted further and further West. When you compare maps of Poland you can see this transition. By the way, the decision to move Poland's Western border to the Oder river was a negotiation between Roosevelt and Stalin (Roosevelt had no issue sacrificing Germany's territory to appease Poland). Stalin wanted to move Poland's territory further West so that he could have the territory in the East. It is very interesting to see how they negotiated territorial situations such as this.

I also would agree that Poland was a line in the sand when Britain and France offered to protect it from Hitler. At the same time I completely understand their decision to draw a line (because they were running out of sand). Perhaps they should have drawn the line at the Munich Conference, and threatened Hitler with war if he broke his promise not to take any more territory. In this case, had the Western powers declared war on him when he annexed the Czech Republic, Hitler would have been in a very bad position (both his fronts not secure, and his military not fully ready). Hitler even suggested to his subordinates that if the Western allies had pressed him in previous incidents (Occupation of Ruhr, annexation of Austria, and the Sudetenland) he would have had to back down. By the time of Poland though, Germany's military (in Hitler's eyes) was strong enough to engage in war against the West (most of his generals did not think so though).

In the end I completely agree with you that the Treaty of Versailles was overly harsh and punitive. I also agree that when the allies failed to enforce the Treaty the moment that Hitler broke it, Hitler was essentially given a free pass (he was emboldened by their inaction). It is understandable though, since many British recognized the harshness of the Treaty and felt sorry for Germany. Furthermore, the world was in an economic depression, and most nations were not interested in going to war again over a treaty that most considered to be too harsh. I think that both sides could have done things better (especially Hitler). There are more peaceful, political ways to re-negotiate a treaty, but Hitler did not even attempt this (he could have easily tugged at the heart strings of those in Britain who felt sorry for Germany). Of course, on their part the Western allies failed to uphold a treaty that was in place. If they had no intention of enforcing it, they should have tried to come up with a treaty that they COULD enforce (so that it wouldn't put them in an awkward and untenable position). The whole situation was certainly a mess, and I agree with your thoughts concerning this.

Anyways, I would be happy to discuss current wars with you when I am done serving in the military. It is difficult for me because I am such a small part of a large war. My knowledge of what is going on in Afghanistan and other nations is so limited that I could not say for certain whether or not my government is fighting a just war. The news is not helpful at all either, since it is generally inaccurate.

On a different note I would love to visit more WW1 and WW2 battlefields. I have been to Germany once before (visited Berlin, Munich, Heidelberg, Austria, and Switzerland). I have relatives that still live in Germany (the city of Ulm, near Munich). My family came over to America post-Civil War (I believe the 1880s). That is why I have always been very interested in Germany history (and what a sad one it is). I just finished reading a biography of Otto Von Bismarck. Very interesting man, and I highly recommend the book (Bismarck: The Man and the Statesman). It certainly sheds light on the creation of the German Empire, and the situation that eventually contributed to the outbreak of WW1.

 

[PhilA]

Eric,

In my searches I found this that you might find amusing in the context of our discussions. The questions were asked in the House of Commons 20 Dec 1929. Headlam was the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty answering questions for the government. Kenworthy and Bellairs were constituency MPs asking questions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in possession of any details regarding the proposed new 10,000 ton German armoured vessels; and can he give their proposed armament, speed, and radius of action?
Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
No information beyond what has appeared in the Press is available in the Admiralty.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Is not the Admiralty entitled to certain information under the Treaty of Versailles about the details of these ships?
Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
There is nothing in the description that appears in the Press which is inconsistent with the Treaty of Versailles.
Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
Yes, but we do not rely on the Press, do we? Do the Admiralty rely on Press statements only, or have we any other means of ascertaining if the Treaty is being observed?
Commander BELLAIRS
Is not the hon. and gallant Member right in thinking that every detail of armament has got to be communicated?
Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM
I cannot answer that question offhand, but I am pretty certain that we are correct in supposing that the Treaty has not been in any way infringed.

A snapshot of one moment in time. For me it sums up the whole problem.

If the book on Bismarck was by A J P Tayor, I think I have read it. I rate highly the work of Taylor. Many years ago I travelled through Ulm. If I remember correctly its cathedral has the highest spire in Europe. I drove down through Munich last year on the way to Italy. I haven’t spent as much time in that city as I would like.

For Britain, France and Germany WW1 was unique in the way that it effected the entire populations. We have the term “Thankful Village”. Only 50 or so parishes in the whole country have been identified where all the soldiers returned from The Great War. That number reduces to around a dozen “Doubly Thanked”, when combining the stats for WW2. Return simply means alive. Those soldiers could have returned in all sorts of terrible conditions. Most families can trace someone who was directly involved in the conflict. It is real people with real stories that attracted me to the subject. Following individuals from their home, to war and to a grave. My children used to moan at the thought of another trip to a site and a hunt around a graveyard or war cemetery. Now that they are all grown up, those that still visit with me are disappointed if I don’t have a story for them.
Today many visitors tour these areas and coach loads of British children on school history trips can be seen all year round. I would state without hesitation that there are more visits from British school children to the large German cemeteries in Flanders than any other group or nationality.

I have thoroughly enjoyed these exchanges. Thank you. Please feel free to PM if at any time you would like to argue history on any subject. I have a list of unfinished projects that seems to get longer rather than shorter. I have been following the current GOP contest and will follow this through to your 2012 Presidential election. At some point I will get to grips with the American civil war expect to develop one or two questions over the loss of the American colonies at some point.

 

[Loopie]

Phil,

I too have really enjoyed this conversation. I also very much enjoyed what you posted concerning the questions posed in the House of Commons. How fun it would have been to have been a fly on the wall in these conversations (knowing what we know now). I certainly will PM you for any future historical discussions. I would love to chat with you about either the American Revolution or the American Civil War (whatever you are in the mood for). It would be great to get your perspective on that. God Bless!