| News and Views | April 1945 |
War Changes Things
WAR changes things, but seldom in the manner expected. This fact is vividly and truthfully set forth by Harry Emerson Fosdick in his book, “A Great Time To Be Alive,” just recently off the press. In it Dr. Fosdick says:
“We are not saying that the outcome of this war will necessarily be a constructive peace with a new and better era following. Upon the contrary, war is the most uncertain, the least precise instrument man handles. He picks it up to do something with it, and lo, when he is through he finds he has done something else altogether!
“We fought the last war with two clear objectives in mind; First, to end the military threat of Germany. That end, however, we certainly did not achieve. We created Soviet Russia; we broke up the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires, trebled the size of Serbia, doubled the size of Rumania, created Iraq, Estonia, Lithuania, and Czechoslovakia. Such things, that we never intended to do, we did, but what we started out to do, we did not do at all. Second, we fought the last war to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, we opened the door to one dictatorship after another—Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, Mussolini in Italy, Pilsudski in Poland, Salazar in Portugal, Franco in Spain, Hitler in Germany, but the one thing we started out to do, to make the world safe for democracy, we never did at all.
“Always, world-changing conditions that we have not the slightest intention of producing come from war, while the aims and objectives we say we are fighting for are the very things it is least likely to achieve. Such is the essential nature of war. War is a blunder-buss with which one shoots at a bird and commonly hits everything in the vicinity except the bird.”
In line with Dr. Fosdick’s appraisal of what came out of the first World War is the following observation by Anne O’Hare M’Cormick published in the New York Times:
“We see now that the decisive result of the last war was not the defeat of Germany, but the Russian revolution and it has been generally expected that the latent or open contest between Left and Right, which the Soviet experiment intensified would come to a head in many countries when the great war ended.”
Commenting further on the basic changes made by war, the same writer says:
“The real cleavage today is not between those who want change and those who resist change. All classes know that change is inevitable. The war wreckage alone is on so measureless a scale, and it has buried homes, institutions, habits, traditions and heirlooms so deep, that life will be lived on different levels, and in a different environment for a long time to come. The face of Europe will never be the same again. The social structure will be altered. This war will complete the destruction of the old middle class which the last war carried so far, and while a new middle class, like the one already appearing in France, may replace it, its roots will be shallow and brittle.”
It is important for students of prophecy to remember that these world changes wrought by the First World War and now being continued by the second global struggle, began at the chronological ending of the prophetic time measurements designated in the Scriptures the “times of the Gentiles.” (Luke 21:24) They have occurred on the national, political and religious fronts of the world. They have been gradual, yet steady, although it has not been possible to determine their exact nature until they have developed nearly to a completion. The opening months of 1945 have witnessed the culmination or near-culmination of some of the world-changing events which have been in the making for many years.
Take Communist Russia, for example: Who would have been bold enough in 1917, when the Romanoff ruling house of that vast country was overthrown in the Communist revolution, to predict that the revolutionary forces which at that time struggled to exist would be in a position, at the close of another global war twenty-eight years later, to play a foremost role in the forming of a new world order? But this is the accomplished fact which has been emphasized during recent weeks.
For many years following 1917 Communist Russia was struggling to bring her internal problems under control, and at the same time, she was fighting for recognition in the outside world. The Government of the United States was one of the last to recognize the Soviet regime. In this country there was a consistent and bitter press campaign against the “Communist plague” which made it exceedingly unpopular even to speak kindly of the Russians. They were represented by cartoonists as long-whiskered, savage sort of creatures, too low down on the human scale of existence to be the associates of good Americans.
Even photographs of Stalin were retouched in a manner to make him look cruel and hideous when his pictures were published in American periodicals. But how different is his facial expression when shown as an associate of President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill at the Crimean Conference! These pictures show Comrade Stalin to be a real human being who knows how to smile and look intelligent.
The military victories of the Communist army have contributed largely to this changed viewpoint because they have been achieved at a time when the United Nations were sadly in need of victories. But military victories alone have not wrought this change. The spirit of revolution which first made itself felt in sufficient strength to overthrow a major old-world monarchy, has since been gradually permeating the minds of men and influencing their thinking; and Russian successes on the battlefield have but helped to augment the infiltration of this spirit into the governmental circles of other nations.
True, the United States has not become Communist. Neither has Great Britain. The point we are making is that a Communist state, once despised and shunned by the rest of mankind, is now recognized as a co-partner with two other powerful nations in attempting to shape the destiny of the world for generations to come. Russia is now praised by many of those who once condemned her, and being a Communist today is no longer considered as evidence that he should be ostracized from human society. We are not lamenting this change. It is inevitable, and a necessary experiment to further demonstrate the failure of human wisdom and the necessity for Christ’s Kingdom.
Think also of the change represented in the announcement of the “Big Three” that people of every nation are to be given the right to choose for themselves what kind of government they desire. There would seem to be little likelihood that many of the people in European countries will vote to have pre-1914 royalty restored. But regardless of how they vote, the fact that the three great powers which are now in a position virtually to dictate the policies to be pursued in Europe after the war have come out unequivocally for the principles of self-determination of nations is proof that the “divine right of kings” ideology is no longer a dominant factor in European politics. This pronouncement of the “Big Three” is a categorical denial that any man or family has divine right to rule, and an affirmation of the view that the people themselves have the right to say who shall rule over them.
This means that even if in some countries the people vote to continue their former rulers in power they will not reign henceforth by virtue of the claim of divine right but by the people’s right. What a change this means throughout much of Europe from conditions existing there prior to 1914! And it is well to remember in this connection that the old Roman world is, primarily, the territorial setting of Biblical prophecies. It was the subdivisions of the Roman Empire which were represented by the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar’s image. The people of these countries are still there, but what was once claimed to be the God-given right of certain families to rule over them has been overthrown by the great shaking processes of two global wars.
How Much Liberty?
The people of the liberated European countries have been assured the opportunity to hold “free elections,” but many may be inclined to wonder just how “free” they will turn out to be. Marshal Stalin seems quite willing for such elections to be held in countries where Russia is most vitally concerned. However, this may not necessarily indicate an entirely neutral position on his part.
Take for example, the Polish situation. The former Polish government in exile represented to a considerable extent the interests of the wealthy landowners in Poland, including the Catholic Church—one of the largest landowners in the country. As soon as the Russian armies began the liberation of Poland, the Polish Committee of Liberation, with the authority of Moscow, began dividing the land among Polish peasants. Doubtless Stalin now feels that he can well give these peasants full freedom to vote, knowing that not many of them will vote to dispossess themselves of the land which they have acquired.
And there is another angle also to the assurance of free elections, one which may affect Poland particularly, and the other European countries in proportion as their populations are Catholic. It is the possible meaning which Russians and others may attach to the expression “anti-Nazi parties,” as used in the outline of agreements reached by Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill at the Yalta Conference.
In this agreement it is stated that “all democratic and anti-Nazi parties” shall have the right to take part in proposed Polish elections which will decide what kind of permanent government is to be established in that country. Polish elements in Washington call attention to the Russian campaign to brand the Catholic Church as being Pro-Fascist, and hint that Russia may use this claim to disfranchise all Catholic Poles.
What a change two wars shall have wrought if, in addition to the setting aside of the divine right-of-kings ideology in Europe, replacing it in theory, at least, with a freedom of choice by the people, that freedom will not be extended to those who may be suspected of wanting a return of the old order. At this time, of course, it is impossible to say how much of the reports reaching America are authentic and what proportion is based upon prejudice and fear. There is one thing of which we can be certain, however, which is that the world is changing, and as the talk and hope of peace crescendos above the din of a war which seems to be nearing an end, these changes are becoming more and more apparent.
The Religious Controversy
The religious issue is certain to loom large in the adjustment of governmental affairs on a continent which was ruled for centuries by a combination of church and state. But here also the two wars have changed things. It has not only changed the viewpoint of many, but has also given courage to others to speak out against what some have long recognized as a blight upon humanity. Noteworthy in this connection is a declaration signed by sixteen hundred Protestant clergymen in America and sent by cablegram to President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Marshal Stalin. It was sent in care of the Kremlin in Moscow with the request that it be forwarded to the Big Three who were then in conference at Yalta.
The gist of this declaration was to oppose:
“any attempt under whatever formula to involve the free democratic states in any deal in which the Vatican State or its representatives or the representatives of any Protestant or Jewish establishment of religion, has part or place, either as principal or mediator.”
We quote further from the declaration as follows:
“With the approach of Allied victory and its imminent political problems there are indications that establishments of religion are being projected or are projecting themselves into your deliberations. A worldwide, skillfully maneuvered propaganda is being used to create the impression that these establishments of religion enjoy the mass support of the peoples of the United Nations. We reiterate our request that you consider this declaration signed by over 1,600 ordained Christian clergymen as a repudiation on the part of a large sector of the American clergy of this interference of the Church in the affairs of the State as an organized attempt to nullify the victory and jeopardize the great principles of religious freedom and the separation of Church and State.”
Two more paragraphs of the declaration seem especially worthy of notice. We quote:
“For a hundred years or more it has been assumed in all democratic countries that freedom of conscience had become a permanent achievement in human society and would spread with the spread of democracy throughout the entire world. Further it was assumed that this freedom rested securely on the basic principle of the separation of Church and State.
“During the Papacy’s abstention from overt political activity, in the half century between 1870 and 1929, it was blessed on its ecclesiastical side by an extension of its powers and influence on a scale unparalleled in any previous age. Its growth was particularly marked in non-Roman Catholic countries where it enjoyed the most harmonious relations with existing free cultures. It is tragically significant that when in 1929 the Papacy re-entered the political field it did so in alliance with enemies of those very cultures in which its Church had thrived. As a political power it gained its first fatal success in treaties of friendship with Fascist powers. Supporting Mussolini in Italy, Dolfuss and Schuschnigg in Austria, Hitler in Germany, Franco in Spain, and Petain in France, the papacy has thrown its weight into the scales of the present human struggle on the side of the enemies of democracy.”
This is strong language, and in addition to being addressed to the “Big Three” conferees at Yalta, it was published widely in the American press. Nor were the 1,600 who signed it obscure and unimportant clergymen. Among them were Dr. John A. Mackay, President of Princeton Theological Seminary; Bishop Francis J: McConnell, of the Methodist Episcopal Church; Dr. Harry A. Ward, a professor in Union Theological Seminary; Dr. Charles Detweiler, of the American Baptist Home Mission; and a host of other outstandingly prominent clergymen.
It was not to be expected that unfavorable publicity like this should go unchallenged by the Catholic Church, and it didn’t. The Most Reverend Francis J. Spellman, Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, retorted to the 1,600 Christian ministers, denouncing them as “self styled super-patriots who do disservice to their country and isolate the Golden Rule.” The Archbishop further said:
“It is impossible for me to believe that there are 1,600 ordained ministers and religious leaders in our country who would put their names to a document offering insult to twenty-five million fellow Americans who are at least doing their share to win the war and serve and save our country; and whose religion teaches them to love their neighbor—every neighbor—even those who make it their business to sow cockle.
“It is impossible for me to believe that 1,600 Americans ‘manifesting their allegiance to the spirit of the Nazarene’ should act in contradiction to His teachings unless there has been imposition on their good faith.”
Ecclesiastical sparks are flying also between the Greek Catholic Church of Russia and the Vatican. Early in February the Soviet press published a document signed by leading patriarchs of the Greek Church, and adopted by a church congress, in which the Vatican is accused of seeking to protect Axis officials guilty of war crimes. The document reads in part as follows:
“In view of the present national situation, representatives of the Orthodox Church present at the Sover (Congress) raise their voices against those—the Vatican especially—who try to protect Hitlerite Germany from responsibility for the crimes committed by her, and ask forgiveness for the Fascists who spilled the blood of innocent victims all over Europe.”
Osservatore Romano, Vatican newspaper, was quick to deny these charges made by the Greek Orthodox patriarchs, and also said:
“On the contrary the abused technic of inventing with fantastic arguments, of vilifying and wounding, is always alive. Surely, not on this basis will it be possible to construct an efficient, lasting order when there are those who stubbornly sacrifice truth to sectarian passions.”
Religion in Russia
An editorial in the New York Times, under date of February 6, comments on the state of religion in Russia, noting the fact that Soviet officials attended the crowning of the patriarch of the Church, Alexei by name. The writer observes that:
“Their presence could not have meant that they had been converted to a belief in the Christian religion. It must have meant that Alexei had made promises of what the Communists would regard as good conduct, and particularly that he had given assurances that there would be no teachings in the churches against the Communist regime. But it must have meant also that after more than a quarter of a century of atheistic education, in the midst of a war which has cost millions of Russian lives, a great many Russians crave the comforts of religion. These years must have brought a realization that religion cannot be killed out of the human heart, and that attempts at suppression will merely make the religious more religious.
“The old Russian Church was the State Church of Russia. The new can hardly be that. It is a tolerated, not an established institution. But if one form of religion can be tolerated in Russia, perhaps others will be. In time the Communist government may discover that the things of the spirit and the things of this world, freedom of the individual conscience, and the stability of economic and political in-situations, can exist side by side without harm to either.”
Yes, war has now changed the religious aspects of Russia for the second time. The first World War led to the overthrow of the Orthodox State Church of that vast country, the church that was allied with the civil government of the Romanoffs. Then followed years of near-total banishment of all religion from Russia. Now there is evidently a swing back toward some sort of recognition that religion has a right to exist if it doesn’t interfere with the State.
Another explanation being offered by some as to why the Soviet government has reversed its position and is now in some measure playing up to the Orthodox Church, is that the government finds the church a convenient tool with which to launch attacks against the Vatican. This, in fact, is the view of the Vatican. For the Soviet government to attack the Vatican directly might well give the enemies of Communism an opportunity to say that Russians were anti-religious. But when the Orthodox Church attacks the Vatican, it can be said only that it is a religious controversy between two sectarian branches of churchianity. At the same time it might well accomplish, in part at least, what Moscow would like to have accomplished; namely, the identifying of the Vatican as in league with Fascist dictatorship which is scheduled for destruction.
And so the war goes on. It is a war of words as well as a strife of arms, and both are destroying one by one the elements of this present evil world. Finally, even as the prophet declares, “all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of My [God’s] jealousy.” (Zeph. 3:8) The people of the world are still hopeful that a new order will arise out of the wreckage of what was once called Christendom. They will not be disappointed in this hope, although as yet they do not realize that man’s efforts in this direction will be futile.
During the month of April, and beyond, we are due to hear a great deal about a new order of things, as the delegates of the United Nations assemble in San Francisco to draw up plans for an arrangement which they hope will insure permanent peace. As the conferees discuss the many problems which will confront them, the world will realize more than ever what far-reaching changes have been wrought among the nations since the outbreak of the first World War in 1914.
Students of prophecy will doubtless again be impressed with the dramatic way in which the forecast that everything shakable will be “shaken,” is being fulfilled. The shaking process affecting world changes is far from finished. Not until all the selfish elements of the present evil world have been removed, and the Kingdom of Christ established as the sovereign authority throughout all the earth, will there be lasting peace. Not until then will the desire of all nations have come.—Haggai 2:7