Live by the sword?

[FollowingHim]

I remembered reading this years ago and thought it relevant to this discussion, as war is usually political in its origins.

That is a brilliant article, thankyou. And it's even more interesting when you put it in context - written in 1894, well before WW1, but he talks about the likelihood of a very war like WW1. Predicts it very accurately. Yet at the same time his words seem even more relevant to today than they were to then.

Possibly the most helpful contribution to the original question that anybody has made on this thread yet.

 

[MeganC]

I read the two books Dreadnought and Castles of Steel and as you read about the building of mechanized navies you also read about the political pressures that made nations want mechanized navies.

In some other reading I've done I've concluded that World War One and World War Two were caused by Napoleon.

Napoleon invaded the myriad German kingdoms and defeated them one by one. After Napoleon was defeated the seeds of German unification had been planted.

When the German kingdoms moved to unify with Prussia the French declared war to maintain French dominance in Europe. The French lost.

World War One was inevitable because France wanted retribution for their losses in the Franco-Prussian War and the British were afraid of the German navy challenging British dominance of the oceans.

After WW1 the French and Belgians invaded and occupied part of Germany (1921?) for reparations and a pathetic reaction on the part of the Weimar government set the stage for Hitler to rise to power promising to retake the seized territories and to secure Germany from any future invasions. WW2 was then inevitable.

Now I see the rise of an authoritarian European Union as Germany and France uniting to conquer Europe together. War will again be inevitable because the EU cannot stand to have wealthy sovereign nations like Norway and the UK right next door to what is starting to look like a Soviet style socialist superstate. People in the EU have already openly spoken about using military force to bring the UK back into the EU so the mindset for another war is definitely present.

My only question is will a free USA side with the UK or will a socialist USA side with a socialist EU?

The next war in Europe seems inevitable to me because they are going down the exact same path they've gone down too many times before.

 

[rockfox]

Yes that's exactly it. Because I don't want a theocracy means I would rather be under satanist that's definitely the logical conclusion from what I said.

What then is your ideal government? Because by rejecting theocratic government you inherently embrace so called secular government. But it is secular in name only, as we see today in our government. This is similar to what Paul said in Romans: you're either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness. And we've seen the fruit of this 'secular' government in our time: 60 million dead babies. How is theocracy worse than that?

I remembered reading this years ago and thought it relevant to this discussion, as war is usually political in its origins.

That is an excellent article. But it contains a bit of a contradiction in it's base premises. On the second page paragraph 4 (it's a secured PDF, my reader won't let me copy it), he opines, "the subordination of people to governments will exist as long as patriotism exists, because all governmental authority is founded upon patriotism."

This is not just anti-Biblical, which NT sees the authority of the magistrate as from God, but it is an inherently liberal (in historic polysci terms) perspective: rejection of authority. Yet he then goes on to use as examples of this both French Kings, Napoleon, and the French Revolution. Which is non-sense as his own perspective is one of rejecting authority that lines up with that Revolution. This makes me doubt the rest of the piece, thought there are good insights, it's all founded on shaky philosophical sand. Mmm, the longer I read the worse the logic gets; it definitely started strong but I liked less as it went along and ouch, just got to the author name, how disappointing for one of such repute.

Though I must confess, I have not investigated Christian anarchy so I may be misunderstanding it's foundations and principles. That is a rhetorical piece against patriotism and can't be read as a logical philosophical treatise.

Ironically the fruit in his nation is the fruit of liberalism everywhere taken to it's ends. It does not end in freeing people from authority but in freeing them from nominally God honoring authority it enslaves them to genocidal anti-God authority.

Does anyone know, did Solzhenitsyn, having the perspective of more history and how this played out, speak to this subject? I'm not familiar with his philosophy of government.

set the stage for Hitler to rise to power promising to retake the seized territories and to secure Germany from any future invasions. WW2 was then inevitable.

It's worth adding some context here. Many of the seized territories were populated by Germans and were not happy with their new non-German masters and welcoming of Hitler's legions. And the allied powers did more than just take territories from Germany but imposed an interwar regime to punish the people with deprivations and privations. We see much the same instinct at work today on the left with respect to Corona and also how to deal with Trump's supporters.

Now I see the rise of an authoritarian European Union as Germany and France uniting to conquer Europe together. War will again be inevitable because the EU cannot stand to have wealthy sovereign nations like Norway and the UK right next door to what is starting to look like a Soviet style socialist superstate. People in the EU have already openly spoken about using military force to bring the UK back into the EU so the mindset for another war is definitely present.

My only question is will a free USA side with the UK or will a socialist USA side with a socialist EU?

The next war in Europe seems inevitable to me because they are going down the exact same path they've gone down too many times before.

Good observations. Do you know, have we started seeing a rearmament of those nations yet? They don't really have much in the way of military power post Cold War.

 

[FollowingHim]

all governmental authority is founded upon patriotism.

I don't see how that statement can be faulted. If people see the government as worth their loyalty (ie are patriotic), and obey it, the government will be able to exert authority over them. If people do not obey the government, and ignore their edicts (ie are unpatriotic), the government will be unable to exert authority over them. All governmental authority is therefore, in practical terms, dependent upon the population accepting that authority - or rather, at least a sufficient number of the people in the population accepting it to create a police force and military to force the remainder to obey the authority.

I don't see that as anti-biblical, in that God's authority, as exercised in the world, is also the same. He reigns in a country where people choose to follow Him, and does not reign where people reject Him. Of course, eventually He'll bring everything under his authority, but until then even his practical authority over people is founded upon patriotism to His Kingdom.

So the question is simply, are we patriotic to human authorities, or to our King?

And are the more limited human authorities that may necessarily exist for various purposes a law unto themselves, or subject to the King also?

 

[rockfox]

There have been many people who had government imposed upon them quite apart from patriotism. I can see how in his context, in looking at governments long established using patriotism to get support for power and war. But when he say's 'founded' I take that as 'has it source in', i.e. where their authority and power comes from, hence "the subordination of people to governments will exist as long as patriotism exists". And with that I disagree; instead I see authority as from God and not from peoples willingness to obey, ...

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. 2Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will [a]bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

and

Therefore I [a]exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and [c]reverence. 3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior

and

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, 2to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

I don't see how you can square these with the anarchist position. But he has to take that position if he wants to paint government authority as illegitimate, it must flow from some other source than God.

It is notable that he sees peace as the objective and patriotism and subordination to government as standing in it's way. Classic Utopian thinking.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I disagree. Some war is evil yes but not all. It depends on the reason for the war and the methods used while fighting the war. Yah himself commanded Israel into war. Was he commanding that they do something evil?



Again the premise of the question is wrong but I think the answer is to seek discernment from the father and engage in righteous wars but avoid the evil wars...

This post should end the debate, God ordered wars. Hence wars can undeniably be righteous. Case closed.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So you'd rather live under the evil morality of Satanists than the imperfect morality of Christians? Cause that's what we have today.

Keep in mind that we're all talking about 'theocracy' but there are a huge range of forms of government that would fall under that. It's likely we're all arguing for/against our mental conception there of and those conceptions are not the same.




This ignores that it was the west that financed the building of the German war machine. Like in so many wars before and since, the bankers funded and armed both sides. History isn't as morally cut and dry as the propaganda insists.




In light of the Old Testament I don't think we can say this. However in light of our own personal history I think we can say much of it is. And our own assumptions about what war's are just have more to do with propaganda than justice.

For example...



Read the article Zek. I'm inclined to give more credit to eminent historians of the time than the cartoonish propaganda that came later.

Just stop and think about it. How likely is it that the German people enthusiastically aided and abetted a cartoon villain? This isn't like Stalin, where the Soviet government was imposed by force. Hitler was an extremely popular elected leader. These are people in many cases only 1 generation removed from a huge segment of the US populous at the time.

This is what war propaganda does, it has to amp up the evilness of a people and their leader in order to work you up into a murderous frenzy. Did Hitler come over here or did we go over there? Think about that.



When I was a kid they taught us in school that Hitler killed 6 million people, amoung them many Jews. But the numbers keep changing. Then they were claiming 6 million Jews, but others were killed too so then that suddenly expanded to 12 million total. It's hard to believe this stuff when you've watched the propaganda shift and change over time. I have no doubt Hitler murdered people, maybe even millions; he wouldn't be the first or last leader to do so.

And yet the Allies murdered millions of Germans after the war. And Stalin murdered millions of people BEFORE the war. Around 7 million Ukrainians and who knows how many Russians by that point. He'd eventually go on to murder some 70 million people. And THAT was our ally.

Our hands are not clean of innocent blood. Even if we grant that Hitler killed 12 million, in the grand scheme of things our side killed many times that. We backed the greater evil. How can we be the 'LIBERATORS' of Germany if the first thing we did was murder a few million of them?

Just in simple terms of death tolls we were the greater evil. There is no way I can look at WW2 and say our side was just.

Yet that is 'the good war' according to many people today.

It wasn't. But if there is a good war, what makes it good? How would we know? What Biblical principles would justify it?

I’m sorry @rockfox but you’re “facts” are just crazy. America sent 12 million people overseas period in WWII, that’s both theaters, all four years. Of those 13 million only something like 1 in a 100 was a combat troop. The idea that we killed more than 12 million people in that conflict is lacking the normal clarity we’ve come to expect in your posts.

The only way you can even begin to approach those kinds of numbers is if you ascribe to the Allies all the deaths in the USSR before the war. That would be a less that intellectually rigorous argument.

I appreciate that there are cynical people out there as well as just small minded malcontents who will pick apart anything, especially America, but trying to come up with some kind of moral equivalency between America and the UK compared to the Nazis is just dumb. That’s dumb. Don’t do it. There are better topics to get to the bottom of.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I read the two books Dreadnought and Castles of Steel and as you read about the building of mechanized navies you also read about the political pressures that made nations want mechanized navies.

In some other reading I've done I've concluded that World War One and World War Two were caused by Napoleon.

Napoleon invaded the myriad German kingdoms and defeated them one by one. After Napoleon was defeated the seeds of German unification had been planted.

When the German kingdoms moved to unify with Prussia the French declared war to maintain French dominance in Europe. The French lost.

World War One was inevitable because France wanted retribution for their losses in the Franco-Prussian War and the British were afraid of the German navy challenging British dominance of the oceans.

After WW1 the French and Belgians invaded and occupied part of Germany (1921?) for reparations and a pathetic reaction on the part of the Weimar government set the stage for Hitler to rise to power promising to retake the seized territories and to secure Germany from any future invasions. WW2 was then inevitable.

Now I see the rise of an authoritarian European Union as Germany and France uniting to conquer Europe together. War will again be inevitable because the EU cannot stand to have wealthy sovereign nations like Norway and the UK right next door to what is starting to look like a Soviet style socialist superstate. People in the EU have already openly spoken about using military force to bring the UK back into the EU so the mindset for another war is definitely present.

My only question is will a free USA side with the UK or will a socialist USA side with a socialist EU?

The next war in Europe seems inevitable to me because they are going down the exact same path they've gone down too many times before.

Every thing in this statement is gold except the prediction that Europe will go to war with itself. It won’t because it can’t. The armies of Europe are gutted with the exception of the UK and Poland. Europe’s next war will be with Turkey and it most likely won’t go well.

 

[FollowingHim]

There have been many people who had government imposed upon them

Government can only be imposed by people. If you are invaded by a foreign power that imposes government on you, they were only able to do so because they had a large army of people who were patriotic enough to obey the order to impose government upon you.

instead I see authority as from God and not from peoples willingness to obey

Even if God establishes an authority, they will only be able to enforce their laws if people willingly obey them. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

 

[FollowingHim]

I’m sorry @rockfox but you’re “facts” are just crazy. America sent 12 million people overseas period in WWII, that’s both theaters, all four years. Of those 13 million only something like 1 in a 100 was a combat troop. The idea that we killed more than 12 million people in that conflict is lacking the normal clarity we’ve come to expect in your posts.

@rockfox stated that the Allies, all together, killed more than HItler. Obviously he is referring to the USSR primarily. He never claimed the USA killed more than 12 million people. However, the deaths caused by the Allies after the war in the Axis countries are not widely appreciated and were more numerous than you may realise.

I appreciate that there are cynical people out there as well as just small minded malcontents who will pick apart anything, especially America, but trying to come up with some kind of moral equivalency between America and the UK compared to the Nazis is just dumb. That’s dumb. Don’t do it. There are better topics to get to the bottom of.

@The Revolting Man, have you actually looked at the article @rockfox shared? The point is not to "try to come up with some kind of moral equivalency" with the Nazis. The point is simply to understand the facts of history, whatever they may be, and see how they inform the fundamental question of whether violence or pacifism is a better position for Christians to take.

I think you're approaching this whole topic from far too emotive a position, and as a result jumping to extreme assumptions and then getting upset about them, and this is getting in the way of a calm discussion.

 

[The Revolting Man]

@rockfox stated that the Allies, all together, killed more than HItler. Obviously he is referring to the USSR primarily. He never claimed the USA killed more than 12 million people. However, the deaths caused by the Allies after the war in the Axis countries are not widely appreciated and were more numerous than you may realise.

@The Revolting Man, have you actually looked at the article @rockfox shared? The point is not to "try to come up with some kind of moral equivalency" with the Nazis. The point is simply to understand the facts of history, whatever they may be, and see how they inform the fundamental question of whether violence or pacifism is a better position for Christians to take.

I think you're approaching this whole topic from far too emotive a position, and as a result jumping to extreme assumptions and then getting upset about them, and this is getting in the way of a calm discussion.

Accept the Allies weren’t the Allies until Russia joined the war in the middle. That means most of the communist’s impressive body count doesn’t have anything to do with the Allies. And also remember that the 12 million people the Nazis killed is only in the camps, it doesn’t include combat deaths or civilian deaths in things like the Blitz.

 

[rockfox]

Even if God establishes an authority, they will only be able to enforce their laws if people willingly obey them. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Government enforces laws with the point of the sword. It kind of stretches the 'willingly' part. It's only when obedience becomes worse than death that people stop being willing.

I’m sorry @rockfox but you’re “facts” are just crazy. America sent 12 million people overseas period in WWII, that’s both theaters, all four years. Of those 13 million only something like 1 in a 100 was a combat troop. The idea that we killed more than 12 million people in that conflict is lacking the normal clarity we’ve come to expect in your posts.

The only way you can even begin to approach those kinds of numbers is if you ascribe to the Allies all the deaths in the USSR before the war. That would be a less that intellectually rigorous argument.

I appreciate that there are cynical people out there as well as just small minded malcontents who will pick apart anything, especially America, but trying to come up with some kind of moral equivalency between America and the UK compared to the Nazis is just dumb. That’s dumb. Don’t do it. There are better topics to get to the bottom of.

It's only dumb because you've been propagandized to hate Nazi's and glorify the Allies. Read these quotes from eye witnesses and historians Zec. Don't hide from the other side of the story.

You must not be familiar with how mass deaths go down. The victims ALWAYS outnumber the victimizes. There is no doubt that we did this. The German government itself says 2-2.5 million people were killed in the post war Trail of Tears. And another 1.5 million German soldiers were killed in camps. The US was in on it, you can't pin the blame on just the Russians.

But you doubt such big numbers because you don't WANT to believe it, you don't WANT to believe we were equally if not more guilty. And yet, that was exactly what happened...

From a journalist who was there...

Her book also gives substantial coverage to the organized expulsions of ethnic Germans from Silesia, the Sudatenland, East Prussia, and various other parts of Central and Eastern Europe where they had peacefully lived for many centuries, with the total number of such expellees generally estimated at 13 to 15 million. Families were sometimes given as little as ten minutes to leave the homes in which they had resided for a century or more, then forced to march off on foot, sometimes for hundreds of miles, towards a distant land they had never seen, with their only possessions being what they could carry in their own hands. In some cases, any surviving menfolk were separated out and shipped off to slave-labor camps, thereby producing an exodus consisting solely of women, children, and the very elderly. All estimates were that at least a couple million perished along the way, from hunger, illness, or exposure.

And what was the result of that?

As described above, first-hand observers of post-war Germany in 1947 and 1948 such as Gollanz and Utley, had directly reported on the horrific conditions they discovered, and stated that for years official food rations for the entire population had been comparable to that of the inmates of Nazi concentration camps and sometimes far lower, leading to the widespread malnutrition and illness they witnessed all around them. They also noted the destruction of most of Germany’s pre-war housing stock and the severe overcrowding produced by the influx of so many millions of pitiful ethnic German refugees expelled from other parts of Central and Eastern Europe. But these visitors lacked any access to solid population statistics, and could only speculate upon the enormous human death toll that hunger and illness had already inflicted, and which would surely continue if policies were not quickly changed.

Years of archival research by Bacque attempt to answer this question, and the conclusion he provides is certainly not a pleasant one. Both the Allied military government and the later German civilian authorities seem to have made a concerted effort to hide or obscure the true scale of the calamity visited upon German civilians during the years 1945-1950, and the official mortality statistics found in government reports are simply too fantastical to possibly be correct, although they became the basis for the subsequent histories of that period. Bacque notes that these figures suggest that the death rate during the terrible conditions of 1947, long remembered as the “Hunger Year” (Hungerjahr) and vividly described in Gollancz’s account, was actually lower than that of the prosperous Germany of the late 1960s. Furthermore, private reports by American officials, mortality rates from individual localities, and other strong evidence demonstrate that these long-accepted aggregate numbers were essentially fictional.

So how many really were killed by this murder by famine (as many mass deaths are)?

Instead, Bacque attempts to provide more realistic estimates based upon an examination of the population totals of the various German censuses together with the recorded influx of the huge number of German refugees. Based upon this simple analysis, he makes a reasonably strong case that the excess German deaths during that period amounted to at least around 10 million, and possibly many millions more.

Furthermore, he provides substantial evidence that the starvation was either deliberate or at least enormously worsened by American government resistance to overseas food relief efforts.

Perhaps these numbers should not be so totally surprising given that the official Morgenthau Plan had envisioned the elimination of around 20 million Germans, and as Bacque demonstrates, top American leaders quietly agreed to continue that policy in practice even while they renounced it in theory.

What was the Morgenthau Plan?

The Morgenthau Plan was a proposal to eliminate Germany's ability to wage war following World War II by eliminating its arms industry and removing or destroying other key industries basic to military strength.

first proposed by United States Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr. in a 1944 memorandum entitled Suggested Post-Surrender Program for Germany.

An investigation by Herbert Hoover concluded the plan would result in up to 25 million Germans starving to death.

Now supposedly that plan was disowned and not implemented. And yet many millions of Germans did die. Intentionally. But even more importantly, this was a desired result by significant factions within the US government. You can't claim our innocence when what happened is what we wanted to happen. And it did happen. You can't pretend we're innocent when we allied with Stalin who killed 7 million Ukrainians BEFORE the war, BEFORE Hitler killed anybody. That can't be disputed. Russia killed farm more than Hitler ever did. We picked the greater evil. Period. Unless of course you value Jewish lives more than Russian, German, and Ukrainian lives.

And it's no surprise the media covered all of this up, they liked the plan too...

But as early as 1940, an American Jew named Theodore Kaufman became so enraged at what he regarded as Hitler’s mistreatment of German Jewry that he published a short book evocatively entitled Germany Must Perish!, in which he explicitly proposed the total extermination of the German people. And that book apparently received favorable if perhaps not entirely serious discussion in many of our most prestigious media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Time Magazine.

Look at the power of modern propaganda! It has covered up the murder of millions of Germans while poisoning the well against any ability to even accept that it happened.

Can it be any coincidence that this communist menace we allied with in the murder of millions now threatens to take us down too?

you shall have no power to stand before your enemies.

38You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up.

39And those of you who are left shall [j]waste away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands;

also in their fathers’ iniquities, which are with them, they shall waste away.

40‘But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers, with their unfaithfulness in which they were unfaithful to Me, and that they also have walked contrary to Me,

41and that I also have walked contrary to them and have brought them into the land of their enemies;

if their uncircumcised hearts are humbled, and they accept their guilt—

42then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember;

I will remember the land.

43The land also shall be left empty by them, and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them;

they will accept their guilt, because they despised My judgments and because their soul abhorred My statutes.

44Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them;

for I am the Lord their God.

 

[FollowingHim]

Government enforces laws with the point of the sword.

Only can because some people willingly hold those swords.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Government enforces laws with the point of the sword. It kind of stretches the 'willingly' part. It's only when obedience becomes worse than death that people stop being willing.



It's only dumb because you've been propagandized to hate Nazi's and glorify the Allies. Read these quotes from eye witnesses and historians Zec. Don't hide from the other side of the story.

You must not be familiar with how mass deaths go down. The victims ALWAYS outnumber the victimizes. There is no doubt that we did this. The German government itself says 2-2.5 million people were killed in the post war Trail of Tears. And another 1.5 million German soldiers were killed in camps. The US was in on it, you can't pin the blame on just the Russians.

But you doubt such big numbers because you don't WANT to believe it, you don't WANT to believe we were equally if not more guilty. And yet, that was exactly what happened...

From a journalist who was there...



And what was the result of that?



So how many really were killed by this murder by famine (as many mass deaths are)?



What was the Morgenthau Plan?



Now supposedly that plan was disowned and not implemented. And yet many millions of Germans did die. Intentionally. But even more importantly, this was a desired result by significant factions within the US government. You can't claim our innocence when what happened is what we wanted to happen. And it did happen. You can't pretend we're innocent when we allied with Stalin who killed 7 million Ukrainians BEFORE the war, BEFORE Hitler killed anybody. That can't be disputed. Russia killed farm more than Hitler ever did. We picked the greater evil. Period. Unless of course you value Jewish lives more than Russian, German, and Ukrainian lives.

And it's no surprise the media covered all of this up, they liked the plan too...



View attachment 2019

Look at the power of modern propaganda! It has covered up the murder of millions of Germans while poisoning the well against any ability to even accept that it happened.

Can it be any coincidence that this communist menace we allied with in the murder of millions now threatens to take us down too?

Even if I take your numbers at face value you can’t come up with the English speaking world killing 12 million people. Terrible things happen in war especially to the losing side. The answer is to not invade Poland, France and Russia all at once.

The enemy of my enemy is my unfortunately, late in the war the Soviets became the enemy of our enemy. As soon as the war was over we became their enemies again. We bear no responsibility for what Lenin and Stalin did before or after the war.

 

[FollowingHim]

Even if I take your numbers at face value you can’t come up with the English speaking world killing 12 million people. Terrible things happen in war especially to the losing side. The answer is to not invade Poland, France and Russia all at once.

I think @rockfox is jumping too far in his arguments by trying to paint the allies as worse than the Nazis. Even if true, that is irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant question is whether one side was good (and worth fighting for), or whether both sides were evil. Which was more evil is irrelevant, if both were evil. The question we are facing is simply whether Christians should be taking up arms and fighting for either side in such situations.

The enemy of my enemy is my unfortunately, late in the war the Soviets became the enemy of our enemy. As soon as the war was over we became their enemies again. We bear no responsibility for what Lenin and Stalin did before or after the war.

Stalin was the ally of the West right from the beginning of the war. When Poland was invaded by both Germany and the USSR, Britain and France declared war on Germany but not on the USSR - showing right from day 1 that their intent was not to defend Poland against invaders, but rather to fight Germany specifically and not the USSR. The active fighting between Germany and the USSR didn't begin until later, because Germany attempted to finish the war in the West (ideally through peace treaties) before fighting the USSR to avoid a two-front war. However it was inevitable, and it was clear from the beginning which dictator the Allies had chosen to align with.

 

[Mojo]

Stalin was the ally of the West right from the beginning of the war

But why?


I find it ironic that the US sided with allies that either already had a worldwide, global empire or were seeking one (that wasn't always so nice to its conquered masses) to fight a country that seemed to only want to be a regional powerhouse.

Was it the degree of evil? Was it a common culture and heritage?

It doesn't seem to make sense.

*note: I'm not equating the atrocities the Nazis committed to what the US committed.

 

[FollowingHim]

Maybe the Allies were quite happy with the idea of global empire, and not happy with the idea of independent regional powerhouses?

However I think it's more likely that this was simply to do with the people behind the scenes (both the hidden "deep state" as it gets called at present, and people in more informally influential positions such as media and business). Most likely, the group of people who were influential in the USSR and the Allied countries were closely tied to each other (or the same people), but not closely tied to those who were influential in Germany. So we ended up with an alliance that may seem improbable from the perspective of the average citizen, but probably made perfect sense to whoever was pulling the strings behind the scenes.

 

[MeganC]

Every thing in this statement is gold except the prediction that Europe will go to war with itself. It won’t because it can’t. The armies of Europe are gutted with the exception of the UK and Poland. Europe’s next war will be with Turkey and it most likely won’t go well.

The European Union is rapidly moving towards it's own military which will bring the militaries of the member nations under a single EU command.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/05/europe-is-ready-for-its-own-army/

 

[The Revolting Man]

The European Union is rapidly moving towards it's own military which will bring the militaries of the member nations under a single EU command.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/05/europe-is-ready-for-its-own-army/

It won’t work. This is France’s project that Germany is too bashful to admit it wants but It won’t work.

 

[rockfox]

It won’t work.

Why not? I think Europe has well proven her ability to raise armies and fight wars.

The enemy of my enemy is my unfortunately,

And why must Hitler be an enemy? Why must America spill her blood there to hand Europe over to the communists?

I find it ironic that the US sided with allies that either already had a worldwide, global empire or were seeking one (that wasn't always so nice to its conquered masses) to fight a country that seemed to only want to be a regional powerhouse.

Was it the degree of evil? Was it a common culture and heritage?

It doesn't seem to make sense.

Indeed. It can't be about morality plays. Degree of evil? That's my argument, Stalin was way more evil. And we've since gone to war with many different dictators whom we once raised/supported/armed. None of it is about morality; at least not the good kind.

Clearly they didn't want a free and independent Germany. Why? That is much less clear.