Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt continued their secret meetings (begun the previous day) on board a British battleship, anchored off the coast of Canada. Churchill had taken quite a chance in simply getting there, across the U-Boat-infested Atlantic waters.

Aug. 10th was a Sunday, and the military talks were (of course) interrupted for church services. An Anglican minister preached and read from the Bible, and everyone on board -- the heads of state and their advisors, the (approximately four thousand) British and American sailors, select members of the press and family-relatives who were allowed to attend -- sang hymns chosen by Churchill for the occasion: "Onward, Christian Soldiers," "O God, Our Help in Ages Past," and "Eternal Father, Strong to Save." I forget which one, but one of them had been personally requested by FDR the previous day.

When I think about that event, the two main things that stand out are just that it happened at all (can anyone imagine David Cameron and Barack Obama joining together to sing all three of those hymns for any occasion?), and secondly the fact that it was not controversial in the slightest. That generation of British and American people expected such behavior from their leaders, and from their warriors.

And finally, it bears mentioning that in August 1941, no one knew how the war was going to end. The forces of evil, putting it bluntly, appeared to have the upper hand. Whether England would survive -- or go the way of Poland, France, and so many others -- was very much in doubt. It is instructive that in a moment of such peril and darkness, the men whose task it was to fight, to kill, and to die, and to order other men to fight and to kill and to die -- acknowledged their reliance on God and expressed that reliance in such an openly and explicitly Christian, evangelistic manner. It is also intructive to compare that attitude with the watered-down "Spiritual But Not Religious" horse-manure of our own time. The change helps to explain a lot about the current state of the world.

(08-10-2011 08:43 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  ...acknowledged their reliance on God and expressed that reliance in such an openly and explicitly Christian, evangelistic manner. It is also intructive to compare that attitude with the watered-down "Spiritual But Not Religious" horse-manure of our own time. The change helps to explain a lot about the current state of the world.

Yeah, I guess that thousands of years of wars were just a misunderstanding between upstanding Spiritual but not Religious heathens.

(08-10-2011 09:16 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Yeah, I guess that thousands of years of wars were just a misunderstanding between upstanding Spiritual but not Religious heathens.

I'm not entirely sure what that comment is supposed to mean, but just for the record I'll say that most wars, IMHO, are not the result of "misunderstandings" but of genuine conflicts between people or groups of people with opposing interests.

(08-10-2011 09:38 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:16 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Yeah, I guess that thousands of years of wars were just a misunderstanding between upstanding Spiritual but not Religious heathens.

I'm not entirely sure what that comment is supposed to mean, but just for the record I'll say that most wars, IMHO, are not the result of "misunderstandings" but of genuine conflicts between people or groups of people with opposing interests.

Like, for instance, differences in religion?

Your post seemingly says that a return to true spirituality would help ease the burden of world war, or perhaps help us fight harder. For instance, I quote

Quote:It is instructive that in a moment of such peril and darkness, the men whose task it was to fight, to kill, and to die, and to order other men to fight and to kill and to die -- acknowledged their reliance on God and expressed that reliance in such an openly and explicitly Christian, evangelistic manner.

The violence in southern Thailand is religous in nature.
The violence in the Sudan is religious in nature.
The violence in the Balkans is religious in nature.

My point was to say that the vast majority of history's conflicts, today included, are religious in nature and not just fought over misunderstandings. I do not pine for some return to a real faith in a god within our military or our government. If a General wants to go to Church every Sunday and pray for his troops, outstanding. If he want to lead a hymn of "Onward, Christian Soldiers' on the parade ground before an assault, I don't think that works in the interest of this country.

(08-10-2011 09:52 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Like, for instance, differences in religion?

If people didn't fight over religion they would fight over something else.

Very few conflicts are truly about religion. They're nearly universally about power. Period. People like to claim the Crusades were religious but they really weren't. Religion was the excuse, not the motivation. The motivation was greed and a desire for more power. Power for a corrupt Catholic church, power and wealth for the European monarchs who followed the its lead.

In any case I read Brothers, Rivals, Victors recently. It's about the relationship between Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley. Amazing book about contrasting styles and how they formed a partnership that truly did go a long way towards winning the war in Europe.

(08-10-2011 11:04 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:52 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Like, for instance, differences in religion?

If people didn't fight over religion they would fight over something else.

Very few conflicts are truly about religion. They're nearly universally about power. Period. People like to claim the Crusades were religious but they really weren't. Religion was the excuse, not the motivation. The motivation was greed and a desire for more power. Power for a corrupt Catholic church, power and wealth for the European monarchs who followed the its lead.

In any case I read Brothers, Rivals, Victors recently. It's about the relationship between Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley. Amazing book about contrasting styles and how they formed a partnership that truly did go a long way towards winning the war in Europe.

If you want to believe that fine, it doesn't change what Native said. This reliance on god that he pines for our leaders to have led to another 4 years of far more death than we've seen in this apparently godless war in Afghanistan or Iraq. Bad economy or not, the state of the world is far better now than it was in 1941.

It's telling that Churchill said after Perl Harbor was attacked, that, while he knew no one in America would sleep tonight, it was the first time he'd gotten a good night sleep in over a year.

The implication being that now that the US was in the war, he knew the Allies would win; something he wasn't so sure of on December 6th, 1941.

(08-10-2011 01:32 PM)Smaug Wrote:  It's telling that Churchill said after Pearl Harbor was attacked, that, while he knew no one in America would sleep tonight, it was the first time he'd gotten a good night sleep in over a year.

The implication being that now that the US was in the war, he knew the Allies would win; something he wasn't so sure of on December 6th, 1941.

All true.

Unfortunately, Churchill's reaction helped, indirectly, to give rise to some paranoid & false rumors that he (or other pro-British individuals) had some foreknowledge (or worse) of the attack on Pearl Harbor. The most gob-smackingly insane of these rumors contended that the attack itself was carried out by British planes disguised as Japanese planes!! I am sure that the # of people who believe That cannot be more than a handful, but even so, that rumor lie did actually find its way into a published book at some point in the past.

Churchill, obviously, was a British subject, and we should not begrudge him for putting British interests ahead of the interests of other peoples and nations, and therefore privately rejoicing when he realized that the US was formally entering the war on the pro-British side. That was a rational pro-British reaction, not a sinister anti-American reaction, even though America would eventually lose over 400,000 lives in the ordeal.

But neither should we begrudge Lindbergh and the America First Committee for taking the same biased point of view in favor of their own country -- the United States. Yet so many people within the academic/media class Do begrudge him (and the Committee in general) of that, and in fact, falsely smear the Committee and Lindbergh, in particular, in all sorts of hateful ways, just as some fevered minds smear Churchill and FDR in re. Pearl Harbor.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I thought Churchill had any foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor. I think his reaction was perfectly natural for a man in his position. "Europe is lost and we're getting hammered, and a pissed off juggernaut will be entering the fray on our side." I'd have slept a little better, too.

Smaug, I wasn't trying to say that you believed any of the Pearl-Harbor consiracy theories. Just that those conspiracies do exist in the world, and for people who choose to believe them, Churchill's natural reaction (relief, gratitude) to America's entry into the war is one of the facts they point to in support of their misguided beliefs.

(08-10-2011 11:04 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(08-10-2011 09:52 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Like, for instance, differences in religion?

If people didn't fight over religion they would fight over something else.

Very few conflicts are truly about religion. They're nearly universally about power. Period. People like to claim the Crusades were religious but they really weren't. Religion was the excuse, not the motivation. The motivation was greed and a desire for more power. Power for a corrupt Catholic church, power and wealth for the European monarchs who followed the its lead.

In any case I read Brothers, Rivals, Victors recently. It's about the relationship between Eisenhower, Patton and Bradley. Amazing book about contrasting styles and how they formed a partnership that truly did go a long way towards winning the war in Europe.

In many cases they wanted power so they could tell other people what religion they should be.