Garet Garrett and the Good War

One book that many consider ground-breaking in uncovering the myths of World War II is Patrick J. Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Not to belittle Mr. Buchanan’s scholarly work, but I believe the very best volumes dispelling the myth of World War II were written years ago by people who lived at the time. Many of these people argued up until the very last that meddling in the affairs of Europe did not reflect the interest of the American people. Such an action, they argued, would in fact degrade our moral standing as peacemakers in the world. They were skeptic of Roosevelt’s lend lease project where America lent tanks, guns, and ships to Great Britain in order to help fight Hitler. These men and women were derided then, and still are if you spend any time listening to a PBS special, as isolationists or even the American arm of Hitler’s National Socialist Party.
One such “isolationist” who wrote extensively on the subject and argued for genuine neutrality in World War II was Saturday Evening Post’s editor Garet Garrett. Garrett was a tireless advocate for complete neutrality in the Europe’s war. Defend America First is a collection of Saturday Evening Post editorials written by Garrett on the subject of World War II. On July 13th, 1940, Garrett wrote that America’s meddling in the affairs of Europe would have a predictable outcome. “We do not believe the people had ever thought of going again to the battlefields of Europe. They had been misled to think this country somehow could put forth its economic strength and not itself become involved. That is what they were thinking when they were polled on whether we should be giving more aid to the Allies. The idea that we could help to destroy an aggressor in Europe and not get hurt was a propagated fantasy and produced on many minds the hypnotic effect that may or may not have been intended.”[1] What Garrett is saying is that many people were duped into believing they could take sides in Europe’s conflict and not end up getting into the conflict. As Garrett had predicted, favoring one side over the other would backfire and end up embroiling the country in a war that was not in America’s interest.
As I have commented before, sometimes the predictions of these war opponents are astonishingly accurate. On September 7th, 1940, Garrett wrote the following: “If it should come awake one morning to read in the newspaper headlines, or hear by the radio, that it had walked backward into war, it would take it no doubt as having somehow inevitable from the first, and yet nobody would be able to say quite how or why it happened.”[2] In other words, Garrett is saying that people were at first duped into believing the propaganda, and then duped into believing that America’s involvement was inevitable. They seemed to forget the fact that America could have separated itself from all belligerent nations in Europe and stayed true to its neutrality.
Garet Garrett was one of many who refused to put on rose-colored glasses and go along with the notion of defending America by aiding the Allies. It’s one thing for historians like Patrick J. Buchanan to question conflicts of the past. It’s quite another to question conflicts as they happen, when it’s considered unpatriotic. Garet Garrett was much like the Ron Pauls of today’s current War on Terror in that he dared to speak his mind. He offers a perspective on the Second World War that is in many ways lost today.
Notes
[1] Garrett, Garet, Ramsey, Bruce, Defend America First, Caxton Press 2003, pg. 56
[2] Ibid: 61

The Spirit of Revenge

Patrick J. Buchanan has done a masterful job dispelling the myths regarding the World Wars in his latest book Churchill, Hitler, And The Unnecessary War. As one how has heard plenty of times the textbook version of World War I and World War II from documentaries and also from college courses, I appreciate Mr. Buchanan’s attempt to set the record straight on Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler. Buchanan applies an even hand to both Britain and Germany.
Regarding World War I, Buchanan spends time on the disastrous peace treaty of 1919. Buchanan certainly shares the position that the 1919 Versailles Treaty paved the way for Adolf Hitler’s later rise to power in Germany.
In a chapter aptly titled “A Poisonous Spirit of Revenge” Buchanan goes into a good bit of detail on the starvation blockade Britain imposed on Germany. According to Buchanan, in 1915 88,235 people in Germany died as a result of the British blockade, in 1916 121,114 people died. Also in 1916 food riots broke out across Germany. In 1917 the death toll as a result of the starvation blockade was 259,627. By 1918 the number had risen to 293,760 civilians.[1]
Buchanan forces his readers to consider how they would react to something seen as so unjust as the starvation of women and children. The answer is that instead of peace and goodwill this kind of action logically nourishes hatred and revenge, revenge that would later play into the hands of Adolf Hitler.
Pat Buchanan’s book is an excellent study of the alternative view of the World Wars. With his masterful skill at writing Buchanan gives his readers some food for thought and helps them to understand the complex issues that were at stake during both World War I and World War II.
Notes
[1] Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, And The Unnecessary War, Crown 2008; pg. 78

A Foreign Policy of Freedom

A Foreign Policy of Freedom by Congressman Ron Paul is a marvelous collection of speeches given by one of the few men who has consistently and boldly stood for a humble foreign policy and a change from the course our nation has taken since the 1950s in North Korea. Paul’s political and historical astuteness has stuck a cord with many people who are concerned today about the so called “War on Terror”. One can easily see in reading Paul’s book a man who has spent years battling every war hawk in that has set foot in the halls of Congress. From 1974 until present Dr. Paul has remained true to his principles of a humble foreign policy.
One remarkable thing about Congressman Paul is how during the ensuing weeks after the 9/11 attacks he was one of the few who did not let the tense emotions at the time deter him or sway him from his principles. On the fourteenth of September 2001 Dr. Paul addressed the House regarding the dramatic events. “It, so far, has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was a target and not some other Western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies, it’s crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked.”[1] Needless to say, his advice was not taken and the bumper sticker slogan “They attacked us because we’re free” was born. One can truly see the depth of Dr. Paul’s knowledge of foreign policy when he states in a speech given on April 12th, 1999 during the Kosovo crisis; “As ugly as the Yugoslavian civil war may be in Kosovo, and as heart wrenching as the pictures of mass refugees fleeing their homeland is, one evil can never justify another. If one is disinclined to be persuaded by law and morality and responds only to emotions, propaganda, and half-truths, then one must consider the practical failure of compulsive intervention in the affairs of other nations.”[2]
These are the questions that one can try to answer as they read through Dr. Paul’s many speeches over the years. A Foreign Policy of Freedom is a great book for those who desire to learn more about the route our foreign policy has taken over the years.
Notes
[1] Paul, Ron, A Foreign Policy Of Freedom, Free 2007; pg. 145
[2] Ibid 113

A Christian's Response To The Warfare State

In Laurence M. Vance’s book Christianity And War he spends some time on Charles H. Spurgeon, the famous minister in Victorian England. Spurgeon, according to Vance, had the true Christian response to war. Vance quotes from Spurgeon’s sermons extensively to prove his point. Spurgeon writes in his Sword and Trowel magazine in April of 1878 that “it (war) is the sum of all villainies, and ought to be stripped of its flaunting colors and have its bloody horrors revealed; its music should be hushed that men may hear the moans and groans, the cries and shrieks of dying men and ravished women. War brings out the devil in man, wakes up the hellish legion within his fallen nature, and binds his better faculties hand and foot. Its natural tendency is to hurl nations back into barbarism, and retard the growth of everything good and holy.”[1] These are strong words indeed. In Vance’s view Spurgeon’s response to the building of the British Empire should be a model for how modern day Christians should respond to war and conquest. Vance concludes that modern day evangelical Christians have much to learn from a man whom they might claim to be one of their own. Not only was Spurgeon an uncompromising Christian minister, it appears that he also was consistently opposed to Christian war fever.
Notes
[1] Vance, Laurence M., Christianity And War, Vance publications 2007; pg. 25