Mennonites and War

[Bootstrap]

Well it’s hard to know. Russia hasn’t been very transparent with their demands. I think after several years Putin finally came out and said Ukraine would need to surrender the whole Donbas region Russia lays claim to. Also Ukraine could never join NATO among a few other things. However, Putin never said that meeting those demands would end the war.
Being the ruthless dictator he is and the hatred he seems to harbor for the Ukrainians, it’s hard to know if life would be better for the Ukrainians if they would surrender the entire country…

hatred? pre war documented hatred? according to what I've read the Russians mistakenly believed they would be called hero's.

The soldiers may very well have thought to be hero’s. Putin is the one that seems to harbor hatred. Why else would hi rise civilian apartment buildings, schools, and other non military infrastructure be targeted? Certainly isn’t out of love for his next door neighbors.

Before Russia invaded, the people of the two countries generally liked each other. Sadly, that’s gone now.

If Russian leaders really thought they’d be welcomed as heroes, that illusion died the moment missiles hit apartment buildings and schools. You can’t bomb people into friendship — we learned that ourselves in Iraq.

[Soloist]

Well it’s hard to know. Russia hasn’t been very transparent with their demands. I think after several years Putin finally came out and said Ukraine would need to surrender the whole Donbas region Russia lays claim to. Also Ukraine could never join NATO among a few other things. However, Putin never said that meeting those demands would end the war.
Being the ruthless dictator he is and the hatred he seems to harbor for the Ukrainians, it’s hard to know if life would be better for the Ukrainians if they would surrender the entire country…

hatred? pre war documented hatred? according to what I've read the Russians mistakenly believed they would be called hero's.

The soldiers may very well have thought to be hero’s. Putin is the one that seems to harbor hatred. Why else would hi rise civilian apartment buildings, schools, and other non military infrastructure be targeted? Certainly isn’t out of love for his next door neighbors.

Generally speaking there are three reasons that happens.

1: poor accuracy (which may be valid for Russia...)
2: intentional targeting for terror
3: targeting military assets hiding in civilian structures.

While number 2 certainly has happened, so has number 3. Putin though generally is not going to be ordering specific targets, the military commanders do so.

[Soloist]

I’m not a fortune teller — I can’t say with certainty what would have happened in an alternative history.

What I can say is this: there would be no war if Russia had not invaded, and there would be no war if Russia simply withdrew. That’s the straightforward path to peace.

I’m honestly surprised that the emphasis so often falls on Ukraine surrendering instead. Even if that did end this war (which I doubt), Putin has said he wants to restore the former glory of Russia — and that’s more than just Ukraine. Surrender there might simply shift the war to the next target.

But again, I’m no fortune teller.

I'm in no position to tell Ukraine what to do but the Christian thing is to not resist.

[ohio jones]

Was it wrong for a large army to invade and march into his region burning houses, barns and mills...

According to Romans 12/13, what should have been done with those burning coals?

Are we called to determine who is right and who is wrong? Perhaps we can determine who the enemy is; how does that affect our actions?

Between a rapist and a victim, can we determine who is right and who is wrong?

Yes, but this thread is about war, which is usually a bit more complicated.

If the US dropped a nuclear bomb on Canada, would we be able to say that is wrong?

All human life is sacred. The US did drop nuclear bombs on Japan; are "we" able to say that is wrong? Some of "us" seem to equivocate on that.

I like the last paragraph of your response below, which echoes the point I was trying to make.

Did Truman make the choice that led to the least loss of both Japanese and American life and quickest end to the war? That is the question and it isn't an easy one to answer.

Was this an unspeakable tragedy for huge numbers of people? That question is easy to answer. After the war, this kind of thing was declared a war crime. I don't know if war crimes are an effective strategy or not, but surely there are some strategies too terrible to justify.

Maybe we should focus on the easier questions, the ones we know enough to answer. And focus on the place of Christians in such tragedies.

[Bootstrap]

Between a rapist and a victim, can we determine who is right and who is wrong?

Yes, but this thread is about war, which is usually a bit more complicated.

But sometimes we overcomplicate it.

Hamas was wrong on October 7th. Yes, Israel has done a LOT of wrong to Palestinians, but that does not excuse October 7th. Israel has done horribly wrong things in Gaza. Yes, October 7th was a major atrocity, but that doesn't mean you can starve civilians or bomb residential apartment buildings with impunity. Hitler was wrong to invade the Sudetenland. Putin was wrong to try to eliminate Ukraine as an independent country by invading it and committing atrocities against civilians.

Do you think any of those are morally hard calls?

If the US dropped a nuclear bomb on Canada, would we be able to say that is wrong?

All human life is sacred. The US did drop nuclear bombs on Japan; are "we" able to say that is wrong? Some of "us" seem to equivocate on that.

I like the last paragraph of your response below, which echoes the point I was trying to make.

Did Truman make the choice that led to the least loss of both Japanese and American life and quickest end to the war? That is the question and it isn't an easy one to answer.

Was this an unspeakable tragedy for huge numbers of people? That question is easy to answer. After the war, this kind of thing was declared a war crime. I don't know if war crimes are an effective strategy or not, but surely there are some strategies too terrible to justify.

Maybe we should focus on the easier questions, the ones we know enough to answer. And focus on the place of Christians in such tragedies.

I think we sometimes get so caught up in strategy that we forget we are talking about human lives. I still think that was a war crime. So was Dresden. Of course, back then we didn't have the legal framework we have now.

[Bootstrap]

I’m not a fortune teller — I can’t say with certainty what would have happened in an alternative history.

What I can say is this: there would be no war if Russia had not invaded, and there would be no war if Russia simply withdrew. That’s the straightforward path to peace.

I’m honestly surprised that the emphasis so often falls on Ukraine surrendering instead. Even if that did end this war (which I doubt), Putin has said he wants to restore the former glory of Russia — and that’s more than just Ukraine. Surrender there might simply shift the war to the next target.

But again, I’m no fortune teller.

I'm in no position to tell Ukraine what to do but the Christian thing is to not resist.

And perhaps also not to invade?

Maybe we need to start calling ourselves "non-invading and non-resistant Christians" so we can remember that invading other countries is also a problem ... maybe that's the reason some people keep focusing on the wrongs of the defender, not the aggressor?

[Soloist]

I’m not a fortune teller — I can’t say with certainty what would have happened in an alternative history.

What I can say is this: there would be no war if Russia had not invaded, and there would be no war if Russia simply withdrew. That’s the straightforward path to peace.

I’m honestly surprised that the emphasis so often falls on Ukraine surrendering instead. Even if that did end this war (which I doubt), Putin has said he wants to restore the former glory of Russia — and that’s more than just Ukraine. Surrender there might simply shift the war to the next target.

But again, I’m no fortune teller.

I'm in no position to tell Ukraine what to do but the Christian thing is to not resist.

And perhaps also not to invade?

Maybe we need to start calling ourselves "non-invading and non-resistant Christians" so we can remember that invading other countries is also a problem ...

Neither country is non-resistant Christian. There is no nation of non-resistant Christians. Trying to apply Christian morals to nations is like trying to drain the ocean with a leaky bucket.

Naturally we can say that it isn't Christian to rape, pillage, invade so on. The logical response is to stop yes? But if you accept the Christian morals applying to the invader, then likewise, the defender has the same moral obligation. This of course is pointless. Your main point is to push back against random people with no influence or power to change anything who see war as wrong and have not applied moralism like Augustine to the two opposing armies.

[ohio jones]

Between a rapist and a victim, can we determine who is right and who is wrong?

Yes, but this thread is about war, which is usually a bit more complicated.

But sometimes we overcomplicate it.

Hamas was wrong on October 7th. Yes, Israel has done a LOT of wrong to Palestinians, but that does not excuse October 7th. Israel has done horribly wrong things in Gaza. Yes, October 7th was a major atrocity, but that doesn't mean you can starve civilians or bomb residential apartment buildings with impunity. Hitler was wrong to invade the Sudetenland. Putin was wrong to try to eliminate Ukraine as an independent country by invading it and committing atrocities against civilians.

Do you think any of those are morally hard calls?

All human life is sacred. But sometimes we overcomplicate it.

[barnhart]

So when I call for the church to name the wrong of aggression and to care for victims, that’s not the same as giving the defender a free pass. It’s simply refusing to flatten the moral landscape into “both sides are equally to blame,” which is not what I see in Scripture or in reality.

I don't like the equal blame approach either. So would you call for my great, great grandfather to organize an official church response naming the aggressor?

No, and I assume you are talking about the Civil War, where it's far less clear who the aggressor was.

But when your great, great grandfather posted on Internet forums, I think it would be right for him to point out atrocities committed by either side.

I don't think all sin is equal but when we set ourselves to categorize it, I suspect we are on the wrong track somehow.

It was the civil war but to those living in the Shenandoah valley there was no ambiguity about the union invasion. There were only civilian targets.

[Neto]

Any time I see discussion that includes talk about surrendering to an invader, the current war in Ukraine, etc., I am reminded of the confusion that reigned in the Mennonite colonies after the collapse of not only the Russian Empire, but the Red war against the government that was formed as the Czar stepped down. Then in the chaos that ensued, the marauding bands of criminals that had been freed by the revolting Bolsheviks, and also bands of men like that led by Nesto Makhno. As you all probably know, some Mennonites joined defense bands, but it is my understanding that they did not fight against either the White or the Red armies, only the forces which, to them, did not represent a 'government'. That in itself required some stretch of thought, because neither really had a functioning government, with a stable area of rule. It went back and forth between the Whites and the Reds as to who held the 'governmental control' over the areas where the colonies were located. Then when the control changed hands again, they were accused of complicity with the other force.

I do not have the answer to the questions being presented here, but I think that various historical events ought to be 'studied', to be able to anticipate possible out-comes, and possible future evens of the same type.

I also think that in the Russia-Ukraine case, history informed the Ukrainians of what might likely happen if they surrendered. At the same time, barring another attempt by Russia to exterminate the Ukrainians, I would tend to agree that the lives of the common people, especially the poor, would not have been significantly changed for the worse in a physical way. Ethnic pride and self-respect? Yes, I think that there would have been significant impact. The Ukrainian political leaders may not have known the full extent of Russia's (or Putin's) intentions, but from what Russian President Putin has said recently it appears they knew more than an outsider could have imagined.