Historian Jim Powell has written an informative book on the First World War and how the peace treaty at the end of the war paved the way for Hitler’s rise, and also the rise of Stalin and Lenin. He also discusses the dangerous policy of nation building. Powell explains in Wilson’s War that the Versailles Treaty of 1919 discredited the German republic and triggered dangerous national reaction.

Encouraged by French premier Georges Clemenceau, the Versailles Treaty allowed the Allies to hold Germany one hundred percent responsible for the war. It also allowed them to demand that Germany pay huge reparations and surrender long list of assets; trucks; guns, ships; and private property as well as property of the German government. As Powell explains, the reparations bill created powerful incentives for the Germans to inflate their currency and try paying their debts with worthless marks. The treaty also continued indefinitely the British naval blockade even after German soldiers had stopped fighting. This was done while German children were starving to death. Jim Powell correctly states that despite Wilson’s professed ideals about self-determination, he didn’t stop the Allies from dividing German colonies among themselves. Neither the British nor the French were about to dismantle their own colonial empires.

In the years following the war, Germany lapsed into huge financial troubles because of the harsh demands of the allies. This forced many Germans to believe that the only practical way to retaliate was by armed force. The people of Germany were so burdened by the outcome of the treaty that they eagerly, and blindly, accepted Adolf Hitler’s promise of Germany’s Arise to a world empire. Hitler used the Versailles Treaty as a propaganda tool to boost himself to power during the 1920s and 30s. He used the term “November criminals” to refer to those Germans who had signed the treaty. Powell states that without the dangerous policies of the 1919 treaty Hitler may have never risen to power. Millions of lives could have been saved if Hitler had been written off as a lone zealot. Another thing that Powell focuses on is America’s dangerous policy of nation building. On the issue of nation building, Powell concludes with this helpful advice. The focus should be on protecting the national security interests of the United States, not on defending other countries from a wide range of threats. Nor should the United States try to counter political instability elsewhere. There has always been political instability in the world, and most of it doesn’t effect the national security of the United States. We should avoid having American forces permanently stationed in other countries. American blood and treasure should be reserved for safeguarding Americans. We should repeal proliferating restrictions on civil liberties that, enacted in the name of fighting terrorism, do little if anything to protect national security. (Page 297) In summation, Powell concludes that American militarism is not the road to peace. Also militarism often results in another war, as did the end of the First World War.

Over all I agree with what Jim Powell says in his book and would suggest it to anyone who is concerned about America’s rise to an empire instead of a sovereign nation. This is a lesson that George W. Bush would do well to learn.

Did you ever think that a respected citizen of Philadelphia back in the 1860s could be arrested just for being outspoken in his objection to war? Did you ever think that the same citizen could languish in prison for several months without really knowing what his crime was or why he was being accused? The average American patriot would say indignantly “Not in the good old freedom-loving USA!” This sounds more like a scene from the Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities.

W. H. Winder reveals an America completely different than what the majority of Americans hear about every July Fourth. Winder published his account titled Secrets of the American Bastille in 1863. W. H. Winder’s story would be almost unbelievable to many American who have grown up convinced that Abraham Lincoln was the tender-hearted emancipator of the slaves and the one who wanted “malice towards none and charity for all.” On September 10th, 1861, Winder wrote a letter in good faith to a top official in Lincoln’s administration—Secretary of State William H. Seward. In this letter Winder eloquently laid out his objection to Lincoln’s war policies. He pleaded with Seward to use the influence of his high office to save the nation from the horrors of war. In this letter Winder also states the following: “I feel that I have been bold in speech, but not half as much so as I am in heart and purpose, to do all I can for the restoration of the fraternal Union, which I deem vital to the interests of both sections (North and South). I do not mean to assert the South has been exempted from blame; but being the weaker, all her errors can and will be remedied by the restoration of the Union.” (Page 10) Winder goes on to condemn the Abolitionists for forcing the South to a point where they had no other choice but to secede from the Union. He explains that instead of making it clear that the North had nothing against the Southern states the Abolitionists caused enmity and resentment to multiply. He points out the secession of the Southern states could have been prevented before it happened if the Federal government had been willing to lower or abolish its high tariffs which the South objected to. Winder stated to an extent that the treatment of the Southern states as the scourge of freedom in America only infuriated the South to a point where they could not take it anymore. Winder also published his opinion of the war in Philadelphia newspapers. For expressing his views so freely regarding the war, Winder was arrested by a federal marshal by the order of the State Department. Winder was held in Fort Lafayette located in New York Harbor for the month of September. In October he was sent to Fort Warren located in Boston Harbor. Mr. Winder was held at Fort Warren from October of 1861 until his release in November of 1862. Winder was charged with writing in newspapers and in personal correspondence against the government. He noted that this charge only came after he had been arrested, his office had been searched, and his personal and public papers had been confiscated by a federal marshal.

All of this shows the extent that the Lincoln administration was willing to go to silence opposition to their policy. Lincoln believed that the end justified the means. If some liberty was lost while winning the war then it could not be helped.

In conclusion I will say that Winder offers an invaluable resource for our generation. With the knowledge of the past, we can see looming danger that is yet to come. With this knowledge we can better defend our freedom of speech and be aware that it can be in peril—even in the United States of America.

When In The Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams is a clever and well written work that argues the case for secession of the Southern states. In much the same way as Thomas DiLorenzo in his book The Real Lincoln, Mr. Adams illustrates the tyrannical tactics of the Lincoln White House. Shortly following the bombardment of Fort Sumpter, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. With habeas corpus suspended, the administration could now put its opponents behind bars.

Adams tells the story of Justice Roger B. Taney. By the orders of General George Cadwallder, a man by the name of John Merryman was imprisoned at Fort McHenry after being arrested one night in his home. Merryman petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Taney granted the writ and set a date for the hearing, but neither General Cadwallder nor Merryman showed up. Instead, the general sent a letter to the Chief Justice explaining his actions and citing the decree by President Lincoln suspending the writ. This meant Merryman could languish in prison if the general so decided with no right to trial or an inquiry into whatever charges the general decided to make. After a couple of unsuccessful attempts to get justice for Merryman, Taney wrote a blistering opinion and sent it to Lincoln himself. In this opinion he stated: “the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty, and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found.”(pg.46-48) President Lincoln ignored this rebuke. Not only did Lincoln ignore Taney’s opinion, he also wrote a standing order for the arrest of Taney who was in his eighties! Fortunately for the Chief Justice, his arrest never took place for one reason or another. However, there were plenty of men like him who stood up and spoke the truth about what Lincoln was doing who were arrested.

Mr. Adams also relates the story of Clement Vallandigham. Democratic Congressman Clement Vallandigham had been a thorn in the Presidents’ side for almost two years. He attacked Lincoln’s war policies while a member of the House of Representatives. Vallandigham even introduced a bill to imprison the President if he continued to make illegal arrests through military tribunals. Vallandigham later stated: “I have the most supreme contempt for King Lincoln.”(pg. 173) He should not have been surprised when soldiers battered down the door of his home in Dayton, Ohio, and took him to Cincinnati for trial where a military tribunal could quickly convict him and put an end to his critical speeches. Vallandigham was forced to go into exile for his bold speeches against the Lincoln government. Neither Vallandigham nor Justice Taney were ever arrested for what they said; however, John Merryman was arrested—more accounts of Lincoln’s arbitrary arrests have become available to me since writing this book review.

I enjoyed Mr. Adams’s book. I would not agree with everything he says, but I believe he offers a comprehensive view of what took place during the war. Charles Adams gives his support to the Southern cause; however, he is honest about its short comings. Overall I would highly recommend this book to those who are concerned about the defining years of 1861-1864.

Much of what was said regarding Abraham Lincoln in Dr. Thomas Wood’s The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History is repeated on a much larger scale in Thomas DiLorenzo’s book The Real Lincoln. In chapter six entitled “Was Lincoln A Dictator” DiLorenzo points out that Abraham Lincoln violated a few of the “train of abuses” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson stated in the Declaration that “He(the king) has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected.” According to Dr. DiLorenzo, President Lincoln was guilty of this very abuse because he imposed military rule on those parts of the South that became conquered territory during the war, and for twelve years after the war the Southern states were run by military dictatorships appointed by the Republican Party. I understand this to be a true statement because Tennessee was conquered territory early in the war; it was governed by a military governor.

In chapter three entitled “Why Not Peaceful Emancipation”, DiLorenzo illustrates that between the years 1813 and 1854 eleven countries or regions had peacefully freed slaves. Some would argue that the South would not have tolerated a peaceful emancipation; however, Lincoln’s lack of interest in freeing the slaves gives credit the argument that he hardly even tried to resolve the matter peacefully. In DiLorenzo’s own words “Lincoln could have put into motion a process to end slavery much more expeditiously—and peacefully—as more than twenty  other slave owning societies had done in the previous sixty years. But he chose instead to wage a long and devastating war in which the victims were not just slave owners but every southern citizen.”

According to DiLorenzo, the idea that there was no real opposition in the North to Lincoln’s invasion of the Southern states is a myth. DiLorenzo offers evidence to back this theory. He lists several editorials in Northern newspapers that showed their support of a peaceful secession of the Southern states. This is what the Albany Atlas and Argus stated on November 1st 1860: “We sympathize with and justify the South because their rights have been invaded to the extreme. If they secede, we would wish them God-Speed.” Lincoln had to silence the outcry of the North by suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Many of the Northern editors who dared voice concern or disapproval of Lincoln’s war policy could find himself in jail.

Lincoln effectively crushed the idea of state’s rights, which was the only check on federal government. The Declaration of Independence states that if any form of government becomes abusive of its power it is the duty of the people to abolish it. The founding fathers understood this; therefore, they believed that the right to secede was imperative. William Rawle, a constitutional scholar of the 1820s, advocated the right of secession in his book A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Published in 1825, this book was used in many military academies up until the War Between the States.

Because Lincoln was a martyr, many political leaders have excused their own outrageous breaches of the Constitution because they say: “Lincoln did it. Who would object?” In other words, Lincoln’s true legacy has lived on. From FDR to George W. Bush, politicians have carried on Lincoln’s philosophy of governmental expansion. According to DiLorenzo, Lincoln’s poetic words “charity for all” mean very little under such breaches of civil liberties. Certainly there was no “charity” to those whose liberties were trampled on, and this applies to both the North and the South

The 1930 movie All Quiet on the Western Front staring Lew Ayres as Paul Baumer gives an accurate picture of the tragic loss of World War I. Eric Maria Remarque’s classic anti-war novel and the motion-picture that followed relates the story of young men who were manipulated by the rhetoric of their teacher into enlisting in the German army. They are told that to die for the “fatherland” was the most beautiful and precious way to die. They are also told to set aside their own personal ambitions and help Germany win its glorious victory. The first scene of the movie is particularly effective. It shows a group of young men sitting in a classroom listening dutifully as their teacher tells them that to fight for the fatherland was the greatest privilege they had. You see the young men’s eager eyes flash with enthusiasm and excitement at what their teacher is telling them. The scene ends with the whole class marching off to enlist in the army—stirred by the passion and patriotism of the moment.

Although Paul Baumer and his classmates are at first enthusiastic about their new life as soldiers they soon realize the true horrors of the war. On the western front they suffer from the hands of the enemy as well as the horrible conditions of trench life. Many of Paul’s companions are killed in combat.

Later in the movie Paul Baumer goes back home on leave. One afternoon he happens to walk by the little school house where he and his comrades were first indoctrinated into enlisting. Paul hears the same teacher giving the same patriotic rhetoric to another group of young men. Upon entering the classroom, his former teacher asks Paul to tell the boys in the class what it means to be a soldier and to relate some heroic deed that he has done. Paul Baumer is bluntly honest with the young men in the class and he tells them about the senseless death and destruction that he has witnessed. He then reminds his teacher that war has not at all brought the glorious victory that they had been promised.

All Quiet on the Western Front should be seen by all who find war-time propaganda—used even to this day—despicable. It’s the story of young men —though once caught up in the patriotism of the times—quickly learning to face the horrors of war

Franz Hasel’s family life was suddenly turned upside down when he was drafted into Hitler’s army. On the very day that Franz leaves in order to report for duty he bluntly informs his young son Kurt that Hitler was an evil man. “Hitler is an evil man,” Franz tells him, “Never trust what he says. You must stay true to God and God only!”

Franz then gathers his children and his wife Helene in the family living room and reads Psalm 91 to them: “Thou shalt not be afraid of the terror by night; nor of the arrow that flieth by day; …a thousand may fall at thy side, and ten thousand at your right hand; but is shall not come nigh thee.” The family then sings the hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.” These few short moments sets the stage for the theme of the entire book. Indeed a God acted as a “Mighty Fortress” to the Hasel family. And indeed thousands died around them as Hitler’s war wore on. Yet at the end God brought the Hasel family back together again.

Hasel relates the story of her own birth during the war. She tells how hours after her birth an air raid forced her mother and three siblings to flee from their house to a bomb shelter. Her mother—having just given birth to child—was forced out of the home on a dark night. The family was forced to flee to a nearby air-raid shelter where they spent the rest of the night.

Franz Hasel was often the brunt of jokes in the Nazi engineer regiment that he was in. They often mocked him for his Christian beliefs and absolute refusal to break his Sabbath. Being a Seventh-day Adventist Franz acknowledge the Lord’s Day on Saturday—the same day as the Jewish day of rest. This of course created another problem in Hitler’s Germany where any suspicion of being a Jew resulted in distrust and often worse. Franz was belittled by the mean Lieutenant Peter Gutschalk who tried many tactics to humiliate Franz.

This book is ranked in my mind next to Corri Ten Boom’s The Hiding Place in its distinctly Christian message. It is also interesting to read a real-life story about a family living in this tumultuous time in Germany. Our society often looks on the German army as the “bad guys”,or at least Hollywood does. A Thousand Shall Fall gives its readers a glimpse at Hitler’s Germany that is not often seen. It is the story of a fine Christen family and how God preserved them through the struggle of World War II. This book was indeed an adventure story well worth reading!