John,

Setting aside this war for a moment, I would like to solicit your thoughts on the following:

If we had it to do over again, knowing what they knew then, would you advocate a preemptive strike against The Third Reich say during the interval between Autumn of 1937 and Autumn of 1938?

Derek:

Yes, I would advocate a preemptive strike against the Third Reich in 1937 -- not of violence through military force, but of Christian non-cooperation with the Regime. Active non-violent resistance. Unfortunately, liberal theological commitments had accomodated the German church so to Hitler that such a response was unimaginable. One of the most profound stories from that age in Europe is the story of La Chambon in France.

Once we Christians renounce violence, it demands all sorts of creative reactions to explicit, obvious evil of the world. I don't think we have to be passive at all.

Thanks!

John

Oops. Maybe I should have been more explicit. Let's say you were President of the United States (or even his advisor), would you have advocated a preemptive military strike against Hitler in 37-38? Why or why not?

Actually, I don't quite see how you could limit your reply to the only group that would have been capable of the response you advocate: the Christian people of Germany. The question was obviously one that held the 'we' to be those outside of Germany looking in, not Christians within Germany.

Derek,

Offensive wars are always immoral (para. 500 Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine). In a preventive war there must be clear proof that an attack is imminent (para. 501). There was clearly not the case in regards to Germany therefore such a war would have been immoral.

In regards to Germany attacking the U.S.

Yes. I see your point about the U.S.

What about Britain?

Well in a way, Britain did this. I'm no expert on the history of WWII, but from what I do remember they did go to war very early on after the invasion of Poland b/c they had a security agreement with them. They had to know this would result in attacks by Germany, which were coming at somepoint anyway. Could they have entered earlier, I don't think considering the politics in their own country. Plus no one knew what Hilter was doing with the Jews. This didn't fully come to light until the end of the war. Once again I'm no expert on the history of WWII so if anybody can shed some light it would be appreciated.

To me, just war theory always becomes incommensurable. It seems to me to always bog down in "quagmire ethics" and inevitably falls prey to the will to power.

For instance, if you begin to unpack the causes for the rise of Hitler, one of the greatest contributing factors was the humiliation of Germany at the end of WWI in the Treaty of Versailles. This humiliation helped fuel the rise of nationalism in Germany. To unpack even further, one of the key causes of WWI was the colonial and imperialistic aspirations of the European powers. The relative "peace" of the 1800s following Napoleon demise was largely built upon the European shift to colonizing the world.

Certainly there is no excuse for what transpired in Germany, but the tracing through of just war theory so often turns the church's eye to politics as statecraft and shifts the focus away from the many creative responses and actions that Christians might take to be engaged in peacemaking and the proclamation of the Gospel.

Peace,
Scott

Pastor Wright,

Have you read C. S. Lewis's essay, "Why I am not a Pacifist," in his collection The Weight of Glory? I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about it.

There were a lot of pacificists in Germany and other countries. Those are the ones in the concentration camps. Evil like Hitler, Stalin, Tojo, and Saddam only respond to someone who can and shows they will make them stop. Two countries live side by side, one with a large military, and one filled with Pacifists, which one will survive? Sorry, but this lesson is learned on the playground by age 5-6 when the bully is finally put down by someone and is forced to stop or go away.

David, You are correct. You do not know much about WWII. Englands leader Neville "peace in our time" Chambelin went to Hitler after the take over of Czechoslovakia and came back with an understanding that the bully Hitler would be a good boy. He was the pacifist going to the bully. Before his plane landed, Hitler seeing the English leadership as weak ordered his generals to draw up plans for Poland. He knew this meant war with England but did not care for they were weak. Churchill had been warning for years that England needed to go to war footing and that alone would stop Hitler.

For years, pacifist wanted to negotiate and dismantle US nuclear weapons trusting that the Soviet Union would do the same. They kept the Soviet Union afloat for years. Reagan instead built up our military and came up with "star wars" which drove the Soviet Union crazy and trying to keep up with everything he threw at them, they collapsed and millions were finally free of domination.

If we look down the road a few years and we have democracy throughout the middle east because we started it in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush will be viewed as one of the greatest presidents because he stood strong while the democrats and run away crowd got the jitters. We have tried Camp David agreements and many more incremental steps but we have to give freedom to those in the Islamic countires if we are ever to see peace in that region.

For all the talk against "pacifists," people seem to be forgetting that Pastor John began this post with "I am not a pacificist; I am a Christian." Pacifism is merely an abstraction, one that sounds too passive and ends up getting misrepresented, as usual, as evidenced by some of the comments above.

To begin a post with "I am not a pacificist; I am a Christian" would make the previous comment quite a bit of a strawman, let alone not fruitful to the discussion of Christian faithfulness-- a Christian faithfulness which is not synonymous (nor will it ever be) with the idols of freedom, democracy, and war.

Thus, true peace is found not in earthly systems of government by instead found in God through the revelation of God's Son Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Our only freedom is found in the mystery of the Triune God made most manifest to us in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

Peace,

Eric

Joe,
I hesitate to even respond to your little diatribe because I really don't see that it is connected to any part of this conversation serving only to hurl insults and put forward a poorly constructed argument. Interestingly one of your insults was hurled at a Major in the U.S. Army.

To correct your position, Neville Chamberlain was hardly a "pacifist." He was an accomodationist. He had no qualms about the use of the military; he just had reservations about beginning a World War over a place relatively unimportant to England's strategic interests. His error was in misreading Hitler, but this error was not caused by Christian discipleship but by a misunderstanding of realpolitik. You can call Neville Chamberlain stupid or naive, but you cannot call him a pacifist.

Second, you seem to equate pacifists with some sort of political power base that threatens to seize control of American foreign policy. This is an astoundingly strange read of American history. Only prior to WWI when most Americans were isolationists did pacifism muster any political power in the U.S., and even then it was very weak. Beginning with WWII, neither Democrats or Republicans sought to adopt a nonviolent appraoch to geopolitics. Indeed, throughout much of the Cold War era, the Republican mantra was, "Elect a Democrat and get a war." The Democratic Party was in power for WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the conclusion of Somalia, and Kosovo. Hardly a cabal of pacifists.

Third, your school bully theory does not hold much water since overwhelming force did not serve to deter any of the leaders you mentioned any more than accomodation did.

Fourth, your entire argument moves into the somewhat boring but always reproduced politics as statecraft argument that most of the readers of this blog reject as fundamentally not Christian. You do not seriously engage any of the comments made, most notably those made by Pastor John. If you read closely, you will see that there is nothing passive about his position. He simply states that Christians should be more creative in how to confront violence. At a minimum, shouldn't the way we confront evil be driven by the example of Jesus given in the Gospel, rather than some version of realpolitik?

Finally, it is too early to tell how Bush will be viewed historically. Interestingly though, by your logic, he would be closer to Chamberlain than Churchill. When Churchill went to war, he brought the entire British world to war, mobilizing every aspect of British society. Bush has yet to call upon Americans to sacrifice for the war. Any commanders outside the Pentagon will tell you that there is no where near the number of ground troops necessary to occupy a country the size of Iraq. He does so because he is trying to fight a war without having to put too much of a burden on American society.

Again, all of the geopolitical analysis given above in my comment is utterly meaningless in the light of the true Christian politics that emerge from faithful worship of God, wrestling with the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, regular participation in the Eucharist, and the embodiment of the Christian Gospel. It is our great tragedy that so many Christians place their faith in the daisy cutters and tanks over prayer, worship, and faithful living.

Peace,
Scott

In regards to Just War Theory I would refer to Dan Bell's article, In war and in peace