Several generations must pass before a war can be assessed
objectively. My parents thought that the First World War was a noble
cause. They had to believe this, because their fathers had fought in
Europe. Now we are able to assess this war more objectively. When I
studied the causes of World War 1 at high school, it quickly became
obvious that the First World War was a costly and pointless war. The
whole thing was a great mess. The leaders of Europe blundered into war,
with no understanding of what it would cost and what they hoped to
achieve. The First World War is now widely viewed as a terrible mistake.
The accepted wisdom is that World War 2 was a good war. Hitler was
going to take over the entire world. If we had not won this war, the
entire world would be speaking German and greeting each other with “Heil
Hitler”. This caricature is even sharper in the United States.
Americans rescued the foolish Europeans by defeating Hitler and making
the world safe for democracy. Walter Lind sums up the common view.
At present, most Americans know only a comic-book version of history,
one in which Germany deliberately started both World Wars as part of a
drive to conquer the world, a drive stopped when valiant American armies
defeated the German army. And, oh yes, some Brit named Churchill beat
the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. Thanks to the victories of the
freedom-loving allies, we now live in the best of all possible worlds,
where everyone can be a "democracy".
Not only is this view widely accepted among Christians, it is used as
a justification for the just war theory. World War 2 is the good war
that proves that Christian militarists are right.
We are now beginning to get a clearer view of the Second World War.
Sufficient time has passed for a more objective evaluation of the war to
emerge. Two recent books that will upset some people, contribute to
better understanding of the causes and conduct of this war. When the
dust settles, I believe that we will be less certain that this war was a
good and just war.
I recently heard an interview with Nicholson Baker, an American
novelist and author of Human Smoke: the Beginnings of World War II, the
End of Civilisation. He has studied newspaper commentary on the war and
has some interesting thoughts about it. He challenges some widely held
beliefs about the war.
The Western response made everything worse
The Western leaders decided on a military response to Hitler. The
result was the second worst five years of human history.
The bombing gave power to the most rabid Nazis and justified their
attack on the Jews. War distorts everything.
The people who saw most clearly the threat to Jews from Hitler
were pacifist voices. They said that a military response would make
things worse for the Jews. . Declaring war and closing the borders with
Germany, trapped Jews who were in the process of escaping. It would have
been better to have kept the borders open and allowed more Jews to
escape. They were opposed by militarists in the Britain and the United
States. The sad reality was that it was easier for Roosevelt and
Churchill to fight a war than to let more Jews into the United States or
the United Kingdom.
The bombing of Germany did not make sense. Churchill believed that
a slow war of attrition would cause Germans to overthrow Hitler. It
actually propped up the most extreme elements in Germany by uniting the
people behind them.
The air raids against Germany strengthened the violence against
Jews. The Nazis could slaughter the Jews with nothing to lose.
The attempt to starve Germany into a revolt against Hitler was a
crazy idea. The idea of making Germany surrender through bombing raids
was completely flawed and had the opposite effect. Both ideas came from
Winston Churchill.
The advocates of war always exaggerate the benefits of war and
minismise the costs. They often cover up their real objectives. If the
war is won, the advocates of war write the history, but these initial
histories of war are generally unreliable, because they are written to
justify the actions taken.. Often, the generation who believed their
claims and fought the war have to pass on, before the truth about the
war can emerge.
Churchill was a great writer. He wrote the history of both world
wars. Unfortnately, he was also a key participant in both events, so he
was not an unbiased commentator.
Patrick Buchanan takes a similar view in Churchill, Hitler and The
Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost its Empire and the West Lost the
World.
The problem started at the end of the World War 1, when large
regions with a majority of German speaking people into Poland and
Czechoslovakia. This gave Hitler a justification for attacking these
nations.
British leaders made a serious blunder when they capitulated to US
demands in 1921 and threw over a faithful Japanese ally of 20 years.
Tokyo took its revenge, 20 years later, by inflicting the greatest
defeat in British history, the surrender of Singapore and an army of
80,0000 to a Japanese army half that size.
The fatal blunder was the decision in March 1939 to hand a war
guarantee to a neo-fascist regime of Polish colonels who had joined
Hitler in the rape of Czechoslovakia. Britain gave Warsaw a blank check
to go to war over a town, Danzig, the British themselves thought should
be restored to Germany. The result was the Hitler-Stalin Pact and a
six-year war that left scores of millions dead, Europe in ruins, the
British Empire bankrupt and breaking, 10 European nations under the
barbaric rule of Joseph Stalin and half a century of Cold War. Had there
been no war guarantee to Poland, there might have been no war, no Nazi
invasion of Western Europe and no Holocaust.
Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland. She did not save
Poland, but she did lose the empire. And Josef Stalin, whose victims
outnumbered those of Hitler 1,000 to one as of September 1939, and who
joined Hitler in the rape of Poland, wound up with all of Poland, and
all the Christian nations from the Urals to the Elbe.
On March 31, 1939, Britain gave a blank check to Poland in its
dispute with Germany over Danzig, a town of 350,000 Germans. Should war
come, Britain would fight on Poland's side. Poland refused to negotiate,
Adolf Hitler attacked, and Britain declared war. After six years, the
British Empire collapsed. Germany was burnt to ashes. Poland entered the
slave quarters of Joseph Stalin's empire.
Hitler did not want to fight the British. He wanted to be accepted
by them. He wanted to fight Stalin, partly because he thought he was
superior and partly because he saw him as a threat. Hitler understood
the threat of the Soviet Union more clearly than either Roosevelt or
Churchill.
My Observations
Most people believe that it was necessary to get rid of Hitler. There are several problems with this idea.
Hitler came into power as a result of the settlement imposed at the end of World War 1. Hitler was the product of a foolish war.
The war destroyed Hitler, but left Stalin in control of most of Europe. He killed more people than Hitler, so I am not sure that this
was a victory. Ditto with Communists in China.
I wonder why God allowed Hitler to arise to power in Europe. Was this a judgment on a continent
that was turning away from God. By destroying Hitler, the western powers may have opposed God’s purposes for Europe.
The fact that Europe is now the most godless place on earth suggests that this is true.
America did not singlehandly win World War 2 war. On a per capita
basis, New Zealand had twice as many casualties as the United States.
However, the real price for the war was paid by the Soviet Union with 20
million deaths. It was the eastern front that broke Hitler, not D Day.
The Russians had effectively defeated Hitler, before D Day had even
begun.
The real winner of the Second World War was Stalin’s Russia. He
gained control of most of Europe. The winner in the East was Communist
China. Claiming a victory, but leaving warlords and dictators in control
seems to be the American way.
In the parts of the world where America gained most control, West
Germany and Japan, the kingdom of God has gone backwards. The problem is
that that pushing the American way is not the same as preaching the
gospel. When I visited South Korea recently, I saw far more evidence of
the American spirit, than I saw of the gospel. In contrast, the numbers
of believers have increased in the Soviet Union and China.
America financed the war and supplied most of the military equipment,
but itt prospered through doing so. The war created the military
industrial complex that is so powerful in America today.
The common claim that we would be speaking German, if the US had not
come to our rescue is a canard. Even if we had been conquered, the
gospel might be more effective than if it is now.
God does not use nations to establish the Kingdom of God. He does not
use military power to build his Kingdom. He will advance his Kingdom
through the Holy Spirit working in his church.
I do not assess a war by whether it advanced democracy or
freedom. My single criterion for assessing an historical event is
whether it creates conditions that advance the kingdom of God. Looking
at modern Europe, it is clear that the Second World War did not advance
the Kingdom of God.