Was World War II a Good War?
One of the difficulties with maintaining a commitment to the Peace Testimony is the elevation of W.W. II to the status of a ‘Good War’. The idea is that W.W. II is an exception; other wars may be awful, unnecessary, or even evil, but W.W. II is considered to be an example of a necessary and even a virtuous war. The impact of this view is that the same kind of logic is carried over to contemporary conflicts so that the U.S. attack on Iraq under Bush II was done for righteous and ‘moral’ reasons. Similarly, Obama’s attack on Libya was done for ‘moral’ reasons. The line of argument is that we are always just about to enter into another situation similar to W.W. II, and we cannot sit on the sidelines. We must ‘do something’.
Unfortunately, many Quakers have accepted this kind of analysis. This has been going on for a long time: there are even examples, significant ones, of Quakers who supported the U.S. entering W.W. I. In hindsight this can only be seen as excruciatingly embarrassing. Just as embarrassing are those Quakers who have supported Obama’s military aggressions.
What if W.W. II was not a ‘Good War’? What if W.W. II is not an example of a ‘necessary war’? Recently I have seen two online posts raising this kind of question. The first was posted at ‘Thinking Pacifism’ and announces a new book by Ted Grimsrud, a Mennonite author and scholar. The book focuses on W.W. II, both its conduct and its legacy. You can find his announcement here:
The second post is a recent thought piece published in The Guardian which you can find here:
Both of these posts raise questions and make observations that, I feel, are significant, particularly for those of us who regard the Peace Testimony as central to Quaker Faith and Practice. Perhaps you will also find them insightful.
Best wishes,
Jim
- Comment by Forrest Curo on 12th mo. 17, 2014 at 10:45am
- Philip K Dick wrote a rather strange novel [with the help of the I Ching] in which the Japanese and the Nazis had won WW II. Toward the end of it, one of the American characters concludes, "We really won the war."You can make a very good case for saying "The Nazis won" in our own world. We took up their means (including the systematic use of propaganda as a weapon, bombing civilian populations, and now torture) to defeat these two embodiments of fascism... Do I need to finish that sentence?
- Comment by Laura Scattergood on 12th mo. 17, 2014 at 1:31pm
- Oh Man. I don't know what to do. Except try to live in the virtue that takes away the need for war. At this moment. At this moment when all seems hopeless.
- Comment by John Potter on 12th mo. 18, 2014 at 10:54pm
- First, there is no such thing as a "good" war. I say that as a Christian, a pastor, a soldier, and a veteran. Wars are meant to break things and kill people. Not much good there. Good things can happen during war like life saving surgeries, feeding the hungry, clothing orphans, or freeing hostages, but the reasons for war are normally political necessity not altruism. We entered WWII because of a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, not to liberate concentration camp prisoners.Second, there is a better way to ask the question. Can war be just? Is there such a thing as a just war? Just war theology has been around since the days of St. Augustine and his approach is widely accepted. Perhaps his just war factors need more attention today.I believe that Christians must not love violence. They must promote peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of war. It is a horrible, destructive, and deadly alternative that should only be used when no other means are available. But Christians cannot advocate sitting on the sidelines of life when conflict is called for. There are times and situations when evil can no longer remain unchecked.
- Comment by Keith Saylor on 12th mo. 19, 2014 at 11:32am
- For Quakers particularly ... can and will (literally "can" and "will") a people or person, in a conscious fully illuminated by and a conscience guided and informed by the immanent presence of Christ, bring about the expiration (by his or her own hands) of another with outward weapons while in the living Name? In the inward living Presence of Christ is the destruction of another who shares the living Presence, even though not awakened, a justified and righteous act in the Name. Can or will a person or people, speak the inward living Name (in inward identity with Presence) without denying the very Life the act of killing another?
- Comment by Jim Wilson on 12th mo. 19, 2014 at 1:26pm
- Good Morning:John: thanks for taking the time to comment. I appreciate the nuanced, and thoughtful, offering of your perspective. From my experience, I believe that it is the view that most Quakers (at least in the U.S.) hold today.I have a different perspective. My view is that the Quaker understanding of war, the Quaker critique of war, was not based on the just war theory. The just war theory leads to a weighing of pros and cons; but I do not find that kind of weighing of factors in the statements early Quakers (and some Quakers down to the present day) made about war. Nor do I find that kind of reasoning in the Disciplines of an earlier Quaker time that I have read.In "Traditional Quaker Christianity", released this year, several chapters are devoted to the Peace Witness. On Page 173 it reads, "Christ Jesus has commanded us not to fight and kill. Of all the reasons for supporting the Peace Testimony, that is its single firm foundation." And that is my feeling about the Quaker Peace Witness; that it is a consequence of the Quaker understanding of what Christ commands us to do.I realize that other thoughtful Quakers, and other Christians, do not share this understanding. They have a different interpretation, often one that is similar to the one you posted. I get that. On the other hand, I believe that the Quaker presence in the world has as part of its purpose the function of holding the Peace Testimony, of Witnessing to that Testimony, in a world where such a view is considered utterly impractical.I think it would be good to have a discussion about the differences between Quaker Peace Testimony and the Just War Theory; but I'm not sure the internet is a good location. Perhaps there are other venues for such an exchange.Keith: Eloquently spoken. Thanks.Laura: I empathize with the sense of hopelessness you expressed. We want to see results in the world, but the world seems to enjoy war, encourage war, valorize war, and celebrate war. Nevertheless, I do not consider a commitment to Peace Witness to be hopelss; as long as it is rooted in love it is rooted in the Divine. As John said, 'God is love'. And I take comfort in that.Best wishes,Jim
- Comment by Laura Scattergood on 12th mo. 19, 2014 at 5:01pm
- Hey, Jim thanks, usually I maintain an optimistic view that humanity will eventually wake up, but that optimism falters now and then. And honestly, as sugary and silly as this sounds, the work right in our own neighborhoods is a mighty work. Our little group of houses are situated on a dead-end private road and the things that come up, such as whose dog is knocking over the garbage cans, this is a chance to be Quakerly and bring balance. To be supportive and work for a solution. Sort of silly, but then again, neighborhood fights have been known in some places to eventually result in violence. And then, once I was on a train where a fellow associated with Nation of Islam managed to rile a few people up, as the night wore on and the debates in the social car heated up. and again, it was a chance to be Quakerly, and I managed to say a few words to calm things down. So, that's what I do as I go about my life. Mainly, manage my own temper and then try to be an example and find a peaceful solution. So, huge philosophical questions overwhelm me, "is war ever the only choice decent people have to protect the innocent, etc.. . . But in daily life, I can think of a solution to solve dogs-knocking-over-garbage-cans and neighborhood tempers aflame. . I wish I could intelligently answer the bigger questions.
- Comment by Michael Snow on 12th mo. 22, 2014 at 11:31am
- "...we cannot sit on the sidelines. We must ‘do something’."....comments: "Christians cannot advocate sitting on the sidelines ..."Since when is waging spiritual warfare in prayer and service, "sitting on the sidelines"? But this is a persistent excuse for picking up the sword. I address it in chapter four of my book, Christian PacifismAs Charles Spurgeon said, " if a nation is driven to fight in its own defence, Christianity stands by to weep and to intervene as soon as possible..."One big problem with talking about WWII as a necessary war, it that it did not begin THERE. It began with The War to End All Wars which prepared the seedbed in which a Hitler could thrive. A line was crossed and we reap what we sow. I make notes on this in my book on the Christmas truce of 1914. http://snowfar4.wix.com/1914-christmas-truce
- Comment by Laura Scattergood on 12th mo. 23, 2014 at 5:27pm
- This may not be an exactly relevant article, but it might have some connection. Apparently there are some Anabaptists who feel they ought to have done something different than what they did do during these terrible times, and they are now speaking about it. As Friends, we know, we, (not me, I wasn't even born) but let us say people of the Quaker tradition, did try a number of different things. . Anyway, take what you will from this article.
- Comment by Laura Scattergood on 12th mo. 24, 2014 at 10:59am
- Someone who didn't "just sit on the sidelines" in the face of evil is Chelsea Manning, then Bradley Manning. Regarding whether as a Quaker I turn to Augustine and the likes for my counsel? Not so much. Here's what she went to prison for telling us about: (and I say no better time to think about this then the season the world calls "Christmas.")
- Comment by James C Schultz on 12th mo. 24, 2014 at 11:09am
- I think war has to be looked at in the same way as anything that misses the mark (sin). Sin is sin but true love trumps sin in my book. What is true love in a particular situation is another question. If you have exhausted everything you can do to act rightly, I don't think you have any choice but to lay down your life for your brethren. Jesus died for us while we were sinners, how can we do less for each other? Each individual has to answer this question for themselves. Living as part of a country puts us in the role of the Salt or even Watchman but sacrifices still have to be made. When I was a young Catholic Husband my then wife wanted to use birth control pills. As a good Catholic this was against my beliefs. However, we were apparently a very fertile couple and we had two children and a miscarriage within two years and I wasn't the one weighed down with the physical part of this enterprise so I relented. Years later on an extended retreat while being prayed for I felt a heavy covering leave me starting at my feet and continuing upwards until I actually felt lighter. Simultaneously I knew that what had left was guilt that I had been living with for that earlier decision and that love trumped law.
11 Comments:
I don't think so. Conservative Friends are pretty similar to liberal Friends--unprogrammed, generally liberal politics, etc. We are just a bit more theologically conservative (more Christian and little less individualistic). Evangelical Friends are more politically conservative and many of them just drop the peace testimony entirely or almost. The people in my meeting who are just war theorists are originally from liberal Northern meetings.
Could you do me a favor? Would you ask around for me and see how many of the liberal Friends think that fighting in WWII to defeat Hitler seems like the right thing to do? Don't worry if they don't use the term "just war" or not. What matters is if they think that participation is some wars is OK. If that is what they think then they accept some variant of just war theory.
I have heard just war doctrine many times in response to my own absolute pacifism. I have never once heard it from a Friend.
Living the peace testimony is far more than being opposed to war. We are more FOR something -- treating other human beings with compassion and respect -- than we are AGAINST anything. We need to strive to build institutions and solutions that promote peace, not continue to ask the same either/or questions that lead, inevitably, to the decision to go to war.
People do sometimes make choices between the lesser of two evils. While that might be the best choice they could imagine in that situation, I think those choices indicate a lack of creativity, perhaps an error in defining the problem.
It's more that we're afraid of the simplicity of a full anti-war stance. To just say "war is wrong, period" is to look naive and foolish. I think that's fine. I'm sure everyone thought Jesus was a fool and he certainly spent a lot of time talking about the meek and the children.
But a lot of Friends today have a burning desire to be relevant. We put out these learned minutes on peace and strategy, as if the Pentagon is really going to take notes on what some ragtag Quakers think. I don't think this armchair general-ship does us much service. It hides the power of our message, that war is wrong and that it's noble to be the lamb when we live in the age of the Lamb's War.
I suspect that many of the strategizing Friends, the ones who talk Just War, are really more consistent pacifists than they let on.
I do know that I see profound differences both in ways of thinking and in ways of life between what I will call the Quaker subculture and more mainstream cultures, including non-Quaker academia. And I've had several intensive immersion experiences in Quaker subcultures in different geographical locations over many years. In those experiences, I got used to a way of talking and thinking about peace issues, but then found that those ways of talking did not work at all in non-Quaker academia!
But I continued to find understanding, solace, and encouragement back in my Meeting. Maybe it is an error for me to conclude that this is because most, if not all, members of my meeting hold to the peace testimony. But it is what I have thought. I will check on this.
Meanwhile, what you say about argument is interesting as well. I do agree that the peace testimony is a commitment and a way of life, but I also believe that "conversion" is possible, and that argument and persuasion can play a role. But experiential learning has a more powerful effect. When people learn through practice how to tap into sources of personal power other than those based on fear or threats, and come to experience how powerfully effective this can be for solving problems and disputes, then they are inspired to keep trying that approach, and in so doing, increasingly live true to the peace testimony.
Having members who were COs during WWII is a clear indication that the peace testimony is held in your meeting. WWII is the litmus test. Maintaining the peace testimony in the face of Hitler is about as hard as it gets. And youre right we have to continue to educate people that pacifism doesn't mean "passivism." We are saying yes to peace--actively and creatively and in ways that involve risk and suffering.
Martin,
I agree that too many Quakers seem to confuse being well-informed and well-educated with being spiritually well grounded. The Lamb's War isn't won by being smarter than other people.
CS,
Yes, please do ask around your liberal Northern meeting. You probably will have to ask some probing questions to get at the truth. It's popular in Quaker circles to complain about wars so we naturally tend to hear that most of the time. However, as I noted, when someone complains about Iraq that doesn't tell you whether they are opposed to all wars or only to most wars. And the difference between all and most is important. Asking specifically about Hitler may be the best way to get at the truth.
I don't think conversion to the peace testimony makes sense as I understand the peace testimony at this point in my life. The original statement of the peace testimony goes something like this (in my own paraphrase): We know by personal experience that Christ teaches us. One thing he teaches us is not to go to war. Since God does not change we are confident that God will not change his mind and someday decide to tell us to go to war. Notice that this does not say: we used human reason and came to the conclusion that we should not go to war. It says we have been taught this by God and believe that God won't change his mind about it. So it's fundamentally an argument from religious experience which then is confirmed as you continue to live by the Light of this teaching. It starts with experience and continues with experience. This is why it is a testimony and not an argument. There's no way to talk people into the testimony. They need to experience its truth for themselves.
In my own very Liberal, very large urban meeting, a good many Friends claim the peace testimony as part of their Quakerism... but as you point out, I fear they miss the Root:
There is little spoken ministry, in or away from worship, about being changed inwardly in such a way that they are spiritually convinced that the way to the Kin(g)dom is through loving our neighbor.
Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up
You said, "I don't think conversion to the peace testimony makes sense...," and so I wonder what you mean by conversion? It sounds like you are arguing that people cannot be logically persuaded. I do not see logical persuasion as the same as conversion.
By "conversion" I only meant that people who once did not accept the peace testimony may later accept it.
Logical persuasion may be one means to conversion -- you do not think that that can do it, in this case, whereas I do actually hold open the possibility that this might work in some cases.
But what both you and I go on to discuss are other means to conversion: experiential and God-given.
So, am I correct that you do believe that those who don't accept the peace testimony sometimes do become converted (i.e., change their hearts and mind on this), but your point is just that it is not through logical persuasion that they do?
Yes, I find that the majority of Quakers today shy away from claiming that they have been changed by the power of God working in their lives. I suspect that a lot do experience that power and feel the change but hesitate to claim it for fear of sounding arrogant. It's just not very fashionable to say things like "I once was lost by now I'm found was blind but now I see." I remember very well how I used to cringe at those lyrics from Amazing Grace. I can appreciate them much more now.
CS,
Yes, by "conversion" I meant a change of mind not a change of heart. I do think that a change of heart is the essence of accepting the peace testimony. Someone who accepted it in their head wouldn't really "get it" in my opinion.
I think it's difficult to answer because what we now call the Peace Testimony is properly understood a testimony against participation in war, at least in its original historical manifestation. It didn't refer to holding an opinion about military or foreign policy -- it was an existential behavioral command. And it certainly wasn't understood to be a mere restatement of the Golden Rule and being kind and fair to everyone (though Quakers certainly believed in this).
But what does this actually mean during a time of volunteer armies? Does non-participation in war have any meaning to a non-soldier?
Early Friends certainly saw the connection between certain forms of taxation and participation in war, and many of them (as directed by their yearly meetings) refused to pay war taxes that were clearly denominated as such and suffered the consequences. (There's a lovely passage from the Old Discipline that warned Friends that the testimony against paying war taxes applied even to taxes designated as being for drums and flags since that was an obvious ruse.) Similarly, Friends during the American Civil War were directed that paying $300 to a substitute as the draft law permitted was tantamont to personally participating in the war and was condemned. (Many Quakers disregarded this advice, of course, finding defense of the Union and liberation of slaves to be a just cause that trumped the testimony -- so perhaps the "still" in your question poses a dubious premise.)
It is more difficult, of course, when war taxes are "in the mix" with everything else and can't be as clearly segregated. (E.g., are funds spent for educational benefits provided to military veterans via the GI Bill of Rights "war taxes"? How about medical rehabilitation of wounded vets? Reasonable people can answer these questions both ways, I believe.)
So while I believe that nearly all Friends would agree that our Christian duty is to not participate in war of any kind, what constitutes "participation" (not to mention what constitutes "war") is an unsettled question. Short of enlistment in the military, it is not at all clear to me that Friends have a common position as to what is permitted, other than respect for a wide range of individual responses; there is little corporate guidance that I know of. (I do know that New York YM, has recently toughened its testimony against payment of war taxes in recent years to be a stronger encouragement of non-payment, and not merely a respect for those who come to that position as individuals. But even that direction leaves a lot of room for individual discretion.)
My own take on it is that, to make sense of the Peace Testimony in modern times, we have to rediscover its roots in an even more ancient testimony against idolatry. That is, to make war, the state requires total allegiance of its citizenry, and to Quakers (and all Christians) who proclaim that Jesus is Lord, this pledge of allegiance is not possible.
In early Christian days, the Romans didn't require Christians to serve in the army, but they did require them to recognize Ceasar as Lord by dropping incense on the altar in front of Caeser's image; Christians who refused to do this symbolic act (and most of them did refuse) were severely punished. Similarly, it was the Friends' indifference to the kingdoms of this world -- so much indifference that they wouldn't raise a hand either in rebellion against or in support of the king -- that got them in hot water in England with regard to participation on the military.
So, to me, the question is, "What are we asked or required by law to do that reinforces the authority of the state in areas that ought to be the domain of individual conscience, the family, or the church? Do we refuse to do those things?
This is an extraordinarily difficult question in the modern totalitarian state where practically every aspect of life is claimed by the state as being under its ultimate authority, and where economic and political life is inextribly bound up. (Is my purchase of a shirt sewn in China from cotton grown in Egypt and transported her in a ship fueled with oil guaranteed by U.S. military power supporting the immoral policies in those countries? Is there anyway to clothe [or feed, or house, or transport . . . ] myself without implicating myself in the totalitarian global state?)
I have been wondering for a long time whether modern-day Friends' gradual acquiesence to the supremacy and authority of the state in so many areas of life -- we expect the state to provide education, health care, economic security, and even such things as enforcing acceptable child-rearing techniques and proper nutrition -- hasn't eroded our ability to testify against the same state when it extends its imperial rule overseas.
I wonder, then, whether our friends in the Anabaptist tradition -- especially the Amish -- whose biblically-sound theology of nonresistance and aloofness from government aren't the more faithful stewards of the Peace Testimony as our Quaker ancestors understood it. (I say this knowing full well that the many early Quakers -- including Fox, Margaret Fell & Wm Penn, among many others -- were politically engaged, but that that engagement had more to do with defending their right to practice their faith freely than in influencing general governmental military or economic policy.)
(I should also acknowledge that I know I'm speaking from a North American perspective; I don't know whether there's a military draft in Kenya, Rwanda, El Salvador, Cuba, and other places were there are a lot of Quakers. If there is, then how those Friends respond to the draft provides a more traditional way to answer your question.)
I'm sorry if I've drifted away from your original question . . . .
You drifted from the topic a bit but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I do like to keep my posts focused but the discussion that follows sometimes takes on a life of its own.
First, when there is a volunteer army Quakers can easily choose not to serve in the military and nearly all Quaker do in fact choose not to serve. However, many of their children do volunteer. When this happens it brings the just war vs strict peace testimony question home to these Friends and they often, in my experience, choose the just war option at that point. Many, perhaps most, North American Friends today are convinced Friends. They come to Quakerism from other churches and are attracted by Quakerism but rarely buy into all of it all at once. Since most of them come from churches that hold some version of just war doctrine these newly convinced Friends often hang on to the just war theory. Sometimes they hang on to it for decades. When this happens, as I note, it is often tough to spot because they will combine just war theory with the actual rejection of current actual wars. So there will be no live issue to bring the difference to the fore. Also the peace testimony exists in a fairly attenuated form among pastoral Friends in North America. There are probably a very large number of just war theorists among pastoral Friends.
The question that interests me is: How many modern North American Friends in unprogrammed meetings are opposed to all current actual wars but open to participation in future wars provided that they were "just wars."? Recall Scott Simon claiming to be a Quaker on the pages of the Wall Street Journal while he praised the war in Afghanistan and ridiculed the peace testimony as naive. Scott Simon evidently never adopted the peace testimony but fit in with a liberal meeting because his just war theory was combined with a generalized suspicion of actual wars up to that point.
I'm less interested in the war tax resistence issue. Taxes these days go into a general fund to pay for a wide variety of services some of which I can approve and others which I do not. I don't think paying taxes under these conditions violates the peace testimony.