World War II

Along with plenty of other people that he thought were horrible - the aged, the sick, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, and many others.

Very true about Hitler. He did not kill nearly as many people as did Stalin. Putting things in a global context, though, Hitler and Stalin do make the top 3 mass murderers in history (the only person who oversaw the deaths of more people was Mao Zedong of China). That men murdered millions was actually new to the people of the modern world (which had supposedly "fixed" all the problems with violence), and it was and still is horrifying. I agree with you that it is rather strange that everyone seems to commit the crime of reductio ad Hitler ("I am not as bad as Hitler, so I must be good"), but I think the reason we do it is twofold: First, the allies sided with Stalin, which was tactically the right thing to do. Because we temporarily allied with them against Germany, we tend to wrongfully place Stalin in a good light. Second, though, Hitler systematically murdered specific people groups. He targeted Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and other slavs to the virtual exclusion of other groups. His racial and religious bigotry to the extent of mass murder is sickening to an even greater extent than Stalin's paranoid killings (Stalin killed those who disagreed with him, which all tyrants in history do). Hitler was, to the free world of the time, the most terrifying threat to ever emerge. I think this second is the chief reason Hitler is made out worse than Stalin.

These are just my thoughts, though. Feel free to disregard. :)

Thanks for your thoughts, Jimmy. :) Regarding your phrase - "That men murdered millions was actually new, and it was and still is horrifying). In the Old World, murdering millions was not new, it doesn't appear according to statistics. The Norwegian Academy of Sciences and University of Oslo have calculated that since 3600 BC there have been over 14,000 wars. And the vast majority of those wars were fought in the Old World (when I say that, I basically mean the world without the USA), and have estimated to have killed 3.6 billion people. It has been normal to murder people by the millions, as I have a list of numbers of tyrants in history who have murdered millions upon millions.

And yes, you're completely right, Hitler seemed to have hatred toward specific people groups - and I in no way ever said that was right, and it might make sense that people hated Hitler for that. And one of my large concerns about the topic of WW2 when it is brought up is that Hitler is put in a horrible light, while Stalin, who killed twice as many as Hitler, still killed people. He did it though because he wanted to own the world and have them under his empire, and not have their own concepts about how the world should work. But, just because many tyrants in history have murdered people because of disagreement in worldview, does that mean it's more okay, because he wasn't targeting specifically, any specific groups?

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on your sentence - "The allies sided with Stalin, which was tactically the right thing to do."

I think no man was right in the situation. And just because Hitler targeted specific groups, that often means that Stalin is completely put in the "good guys" group with Britain and America even though he still murdered millions more.

Great Britain declared war on Germany because Germany invaded Poland. But let's not forget that Russia, under Stalin, also invaded Poland at the same time, in coordination with Germany. It's interesting to think about what would have happened if Britain had declared war on both offenders, instead of one. That might have been more than Britain could handle, so simply fighting Germany, and then eventually siding with Stalin against Germany was probably the wisest thing possible.
(If you don't mind my butting in…)

Or… you could have let Stalin and Hitler have it out themselves, without ever joining the war. Because I believe that the beginning of the end of the war was September 12, 1941. Remember, that was BEFORE Pearl Harbor and before America ever entered.

Fact is… Churchill wanted in the war, and wanted FDR to be in it with him. Thus the reason for all the weird things that America did on the Pacific Front and did not allow messages to go into Admiral Kimmel, one of the leading commanders of Pearl Harbor right before the attack.

So yeah, we can think about lots of interesting ways it could have happened, but they both wanted in the war, so they did it the way they wanted… basically.

I'm not sure I was clear, so let me try that again: Germany and Hitler basically agreed to divide up Poland. They did it together - Germany would get the western half, Russia the eastern. Only later did Germany turn on Russia with an invasion. That, obviously, was what put Russia into the war against Germany. It was only natural, at that point, for Britain (already in the war) and Russia to work together against a common enemy, whether or not they were themselves friends.

Yeah, I don't think I follow your comment. Sorry. Especially when you mention that Britain was already in the war. Because, if we're talking about the Non-Aggression Act that the USSR and Germany made in Poland… in 1939… when are you thinking the war began?

You do have a point. Billions of people have died in war, and there have been many bloodthirsty tyrants who have slain innumerable people. While I do have some reservations regarding the research integrity of R. J. Rummel and others when talking about the death tolls of different governments (I think many of their numbers are exaggerated), I will concede that there were tyrants who most likely killed millions. My chief point is that, even then, there had never been killings quite on this scale before, especially in the modern world, that originated from individual men.

Oh, and don't take me the wrong way regarding Hitler an Stalin; they were both evil men and killers. I was just trying to explain why most people think the way they do. To some extent, I see their point with regards to Hitler. His singling out groups for execution is terrible. That does not make Stalin any better, though.

Regarding my question about tactics, I would agree with InSoloCristo. If we (Britain, primarily) were going to win the war against Germany (at this time, Germany was the bigger threat as it was located next to Britain and France), then we needed to spread Germany's forces thin. The best way to do that would be to open a new front. Italy was out of the question (due to Mussolini), so when Hitler backstabbed Stalin (in the diplomatic sense) in June of 1941, Britain took her opportunity to ally. It wasn't the safest of alliances, to be sure. But in the end, it was necessary to coordinate with the Russians if the war was ever going to end with Britain still intact. When Germany declared war on the U.S. (remember, they declared it first), we decided to join the British plan and use Stalin to both fight the Germans and the Japanese via Kamchatka and Siberia. The British and the Americans were never friends of Stalin, per se, but our alliance was a necessary one that we needed in order to finish the war. If we had not, the war would have continued much, much longer, or we might have lost.

The war began when Germany invaded Poland at the beginning of September 1939, though that was only a small beginning. It got big when, shortly after, France and Great Britain declared war on Germany. (Britain and Poland had signed a mutual assistance pact.)
After all these declarations of war, Russia also invaded Poland. Britain and France were already against Germany - should they have declared war on Russia as well? Perhaps according to the mutual assistance pact, Britain should have; I'm not sure.
Germany's betrayal of Russia is still in the future, at that time. When that happens, it makes sense for Britain, who is already fighting Germany, to side with Russia, who is also. As per Jimmy's previous comment. :)

It is good to have reserves about numbers like that. And the numbers that I put, were on the conservative side - I could have put higher, and yet since exact numbers are hard to go by, that's why I put smaller ones…

Regarding your second paragraph and regarding your last - I would say that I don't quite agree that Stalin just killed those who disagreed. The USSR had a long standing belief that whites were superior… which led to the death of millions of those who were not white and lived in Russia. And I think that fact is often overlooked. Stalin didn't just kill because people didn't agree on his worldview… he also killed people of other people groups because he thought they were below him.

Regarding your last paragraph… I would probably have to disagree to some extent… I don't think I follow your last sentence of your comment though - if we didn't join, we would have lost? In saying "we" are you speaking of Britain, or something? Also, Germany was strong, and yet I by no means think of it as the world super power at the time of the wars. But that's another whole topic…

Good point about Stalin. I have officially been fact-checked. :) I suppose, then, that as Hitler was more vocal and more high-profile about his views, that that is also a reason for people's more negative perception of him.

I apologize I was not really clear about that last paragraph. For the most part, when I said "we," I meant Great Britain. I am a big England fan, so I sometimes get confused, haha. Still, had it been only England and France dealing in an uncoordinated manner with the USSR to eliminate Germany, Italy, and Japan, I would have said that defeat was soon-coming. Coordination between powers, in a war of this size, is critical. It can be the difference between victory and defeat. Britain coordinating with Stalin was definitely helpful in bringing the war to a close. Even with America's economy thrown into the war, an uncoordinated effort to take down Germany would, at the very least, have greatly extended the war and added to the death count. I cannot see how it would have been better, once in the war, to not coordinate (especially if the goal is saving lives by ending the conflict as soon as possible).

So when would Britain and the U.S. had to have entered the war? They would have had to enter sometime- Hitler had an objective to take over the world. And if they had waited longer, it would have meant that they would have been weaker, and he would have been stronger, and the war would have cost many more lives, and perhaps would have ended in him taking over a good portion of the world.

And if that had happened, many of us would be dead. All of my family would be killed.

Not that Stalin wasn't doing the same thing.

Exactly. And a book I have read that shows this about Stalin and Hitler, say that Hitler was made out more of the bad guy because why would we show the bad things about the guy we're going to side with did? And basically, this is part of the huge question in my mind of why we think it's right that America went to the war. Besides the fact that we do have FDR's words himself that stated we would NOT join the war… that other fact alone should have scared us from wanting to join.

Yeah, so I think that's probably where we have a fundamental disagreement on the ending of the wars. I don't believe it was necessary for America to enter the war at all. And I don't believe that Germany was strong enough to win the war against Stalin, even without the help of America. I strongly believe that London, Paris and Moscow were 3 cities that had the hugest impact in the world, and Germany was not the super power of the world at the time of WW2.

And hey, we really trample down Hitler in what he did, and yet I think we forget that we really pushed to make Germany sign the Treaty of Versailles, which… basically, was pretty mean. And I don't think Hitler was right in his revenge, but man has a sinful nature, and the things we pushed on Germany after WW1 was not considerate in the least.

Stalin wasn't killing as many people groups, either- mostly Jews and his political opponents.

First off, Britain entered. That kinda had to happen with all the agreements the European countries had together. I believe that the USA didn't have to enter. I mean - why? FDR said that he would not send American troops to battle. And yet he did. So, Britain did need to enter for reasons already stated. I never said it didn't. I just don't think America should have.

Next, we have yet to find proof that Hitler was fighting to control the world. It was Stalin who had the complete purpose to overtake the world. Not Hitler. Hitler was acting out of revenge from the Treaty of Versailles. And because of his hatred of specific people groups, not because he wanted to own the world.

And as I stated before, I believe that the beginning of the end of the war was September 12, 1941, when Germany invaded Russia. It did have the resistance and strength it needed to go into something like that.

And lastly, if America was so concerned about saving lives, why did we drop the atomic bomb? And make the conditions of unconditional surrender with Japan? That didn't help "save" lives.

Saving more lives from being taken. Enough force and they walk out of the war, and they won't attack your people anymore.

Yeah, we had to drop the atomic bomb. It was completely necessary. Ridiculous to think otherwise.

*note extreme sarcasm.

We told the Japanese that if they stopped fighting, we'd kill them, along with all political commanders. So, like any soldier probably would, they kept fighting. And then we look over at Japan and see that they won't stop fighting (I wonder why?) and so we have to drop the atomic bomb so that they would stop fighting - when it was our fault in the beginning that they never would stop.

That is basically the story of the atomic bomb. And I think… though I wouldn't have liked to have died from an atomic bomb - I would have kept fighting too. Wouldn't you?

Make sense? I really, really, REALLY, don't think we should have dropped the atomic bomb. And if we wanted Japan to stop fighting, we didn't have make that term about killing their leaders.

And basically, this is part of the huge question in my mind of why we think it's right that America went to the war.

*Well, to be frank, we technically went to war with Japan, and Germany declared war on _us._ Our prime objective upon entering was not Hitler or his evil (much of his murders, and the concentration camps, only became public knowledge near the end of the war), it was Japan and protection of our allies.*

Besides the fact that we do have FDR's words himself that stated we would NOT join the war... that other fact alone should have scared us from wanting to join.

*Well, Harry Truman said the same thing about World War I. In fact, he ran his second Presidential campaign off the promise that he would not go to war. Events around the world and at home, however, served to change his mind. When a politician, even the president, promises peace, that unfortunately does not mean it is a binding promise, nor does it mean that we should be suspicious of a conspiracy if the President backs out on that promise (_cough_ President Obama and the Iraq/Afghanistan War _cough_). FDR never could have known about Pearl Harbor Day (at least, that is my historical input from my research), and as a result I conclude that his promise was made before the pertinent facts were on the table; when they became on the table, that opinion changed, whether we deserved or provoked the Hawaii attack or no.*

Yeah, so I think that's probably where we have a fundamental disagreement on the ending of the wars. I don't believe it was necessary for America to enter the war at all. And I don't believe that Germany was strong enough to win the war against Stalin, even without the help of America. I strongly believe that London, Paris and Moscow were 3 cities that had the hugest impact in the world, and Germany was not the super power of the world at the time of WW2.

*Perhaps we didn't _need_ to enter the Europe theater, but as I said before, Germany declared war on us and began sinking our ships. At the least, I think it would have been a very tight squeeze whether our closest ally, Britain, would have survived. There would have been no D-Day, no recapture of Paris. Germany could have dedicated countless resources to the Eastern front. I would actually hold that Hitler and Stalin would have signed a peace treaty if the fighting had continued for a couple more years (this is, of course, speculation, though we did have a tough time as it is keeping Stalin from talking to Hitler historically). If that happened, Germany would have turned to Britain and, in my estimation, defeated her.* *And I suppose we will have to disagree about Germany's power. It was second to the U.S. in military production potential, and it could have done much, much harm had the American bombers not destroyed the hundreds of factories. I would also argue that Paris was not all that influential at this time. France was rather weak at this time of its history, as was seen by how quickly it was invaded, and Paris was more a symbolic city than an actual center of power.*

And hey, we really trample down Hitler in what he did, and yet I think we forget that we really pushed to make Germany sign the Treaty of Versailles, which... basically, was pretty mean. And I don't think Hitler was right in his revenge, but man has a sinful nature, and the things we pushed on Germany after WW1 was not considerate in the least.

*Agreed, the Treaty of Versailles was pretty bad. That is why Europe let Germany take certain territories back in the mid-1930s. They agreed the terms were too harsh, and they let it slide. Hitler, however, soon stopped complaining about the Versailles Treaty and changed his language to speak of Liebensraum (or living room) for the German people. He wanted to expand Germany for the sake of the Germanic peoples. This turned into sole war for conquest (though his language was never to "take over the world"). By the time Britain and the U.S. got involved, the language of the Versailles Treaty was no longer used by Germany.* *A lot of this kind of information can be found in investigating political speeches and different documents by the government. It is interesting to note the shift in language the closer you get to 1939.*

I completely agree with Sam. So many people these days miss the point of the atomic bombs. Invading the Japanese home islands would not only have killed thousands of American troops, it would have killed even more Japanese, probably both civilians and soldiers. The bombs helped end the war early, and ultimately saved lives.
[2020 edit: This idea that the US could only either drop nukes or invade is wrong. A false dichotomy. I'm not wrong about everything in this post, but I definitely am about that! Whether the nukes saved lives is a much more complicated issue.]
Also, having dropped the bombs, we could now point in Stalin's face and say, "Watch out, we have the bomb and you don't." Surely you approve of that, right Bethany? Riiiight???

Having seen your most recent comment, let me point out that it wasn't just the threat of being killed that motivated the Japanese soldiers. Do you think they really feared death? What about all the kamikaze pilots? They considered it an honor to fight for the emperor, to never surrender. It was a part of their culture and religion. You can't blame it all on us. :P

Wow, this thread got popular really fast. ;)

Yeah, except most of us probably don't have the time or patience to read through it all. :P

Having seen your most recent comment, let me point out that it wasn't just the threat of being killed that motivated the Japanese soldiers. Do you think they _really_ feared death? What about all the kamikaze pilots? They considered it an honor to fight for the emperor, to never surrender. It was a part of their culture and religion. You can't blame it all on us. :P

For more evidence of this cultural aspect of Japan, take a look at some of the stuff from the Russo-Japanese War from a few decades before. It is pretty interesting.

Too true. :P

Pacifists vs. Warmongers is always a hot topic… (Just kidding. No flames, no atomic bombs, please, from anyone.)

EDIT: Where'd you all go, to your personal bomb shelters??

Here are two quotes from the Potsdam Declaration, that which called for a Japanese unconditional surrender.

"The Japanese military forces, after being completely disarmed, shall be permitted to return to their homes with the opportunity to lead peaceful and productive lives."
"We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation, but stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have visited cruelties upon our prisoners. …"

How exactly does that tell the Japanese that if they stopped fighting, we'd kill them? To the contrary, we said that if they didn't stop fighting, we'd kill them. However, we would sternly deal with war criminals. Here is point 13:

"We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Prompt and utter destruction is the alternative. We promptly and utterly destroyed first one Japanese city, then another. Finally, they surrendered. We never had to begin Operation Downfall, which obviously would have killed many soldiers from both sides. Our first consideration should be for our own lives - and it was. Our decision, however, also saved many Japanese soldiers.
My main question to Bethany, then, is when did we tell the Japanese that if they stopped fighting we'd kill them? Or did you forget to put the word "not" in your post? (In which case it would make little to no sense…)

(Here's the full Declaration: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration )

Do you think it was or was not right for America to use the atomic bomb on Japan? I think y'all have discussed this a bit, but not very much. I typed up a semi-long paragraph of what I thought, and then it wouldn't post :(. But basically, my thoughts on it were, "I don't think so, since it killed about 140,000 people (if I remember correctly), but I'm not completely sure, since it may have saved some lives and helped to end the war faster. But probably no (as to whether or not it was right)."

Personally, I think it's an extreme case of pragmatism – the end justifies the means – which for a long time has been far too common in American politics and foreign affairs.

Well, I don't think it was morally right to drop it, but I think it was necessary. Japan was a huge threat to the United States and didn't respond to the Potsdam Declaration. The only alternative was a land invasion, but that would have drawn the war out and most studies show that if it had taken place, it would have killed more people, Americans and Japanese, than the bomb. Studies of a land invasion by Truman and MacArthur's staff show between 500,000 to 1,200,000 American casualties, and another study done for the Secretary of War predicted 5-10 million Japanese casualties. Based on this, I think it was the right decision to drop the bomb and end the war.

"Japan was a huge threat to the US and didn't respond to the Potsdam Declaration."

GUYS. Just read "WW2: The rest of the story and how it affects you today". Then I wouldn't have debate the whole book in front of you guys. But I would disagree here that Japan did not have the military power to defeat America. America was the super power of the world at the time, and emerging even more so during the wars. I can give lots of facts to prove that point, which I'd be happy to do so, if you'd like me to.

OK. So when you say in the third sentence "Americans and Japanese" you mean, Americans and Japanese added together, right? Because even if the atomic bomb caused less American deaths, I still think it would be wrong to use the bomb, if it was going to kill a lot more people total.

I shall reply to all comments directed at me, at some point, I just can't keep up right now. ;)

And @Caleb - I agree. A big reason that we dropped the bomb was to show Stalin our power since our "friendship" with him was growing less "friendshipy" as the time went on.

And, I'll get back with you about the atomic bomb views, Caleb. Don't worry. ;)

I'd be interested in reading more on WW2 since I have more trouble with that time period of American history than any other (plus this debate would be a good excuse to read a history book!). I'll have to see if the Union University Library has it. So is it basically about why the Allies (and the Axis powers, too) were wrong?

Personally, I think it's an extreme case of pragmatism -- the end justifies the means -- which for a long time has been far too common in American politics and foreign affairs.

All war is like that, though. Killing people is never good, and should only be done, even in war, for just reasons. Saving lives by killing others can, of course, be bad. But we were already at war. Should we send many thousands to their deaths, or should fewer thousands to their deaths. It was deaths either way. Do you think Operation Downfall would have been any better? Either way, it's killing in order bring about surrender. Just because one follows conventional methods doesn't make it better than another.
[2020 edit: As mentioned above, nuclear bombing vs. Downfall is a false dichotomy.]

But maybe you're right. We should have invaded Japan with Operation Downfall, and trusted God that we were doing the right thing. Who knows? Maybe he would have sent down fire from above upon the Japanese, so that they would surrender. Hmm…

@Bethany: Okay, thanks. :)

Well, basically, it asks the fundamental question - was the war "good guys against bad guys" or "bad guys against bad guys". So… lots of information about that question. ;)

I see what you mean. It seems like most wars would boil down to whether or not the end justifies the means (I don't mean that the end would ever justify the means for when a dictator/king/emperor is trying to rule the world, though).

OK. So when you say in the third sentence "Americans and Japanese" you mean, Americans and Japanese added together, right? Because even if the atomic bomb caused less _American_ deaths, I still think it would be wrong to use the bomb, if it was going to kill a lot more people _total_.

A slight objection: a nation, a government is tasked with protecting the lives of its own people. As far as we are concerned, the amount of American deaths is the total, or should be. We'd like to save other people's lives (and in the end, we did), but we should think first of our own people.

Sounds interesting.

OK. So when you say in the third sentence "Americans and Japanese" you mean, Americans and Japanese added together, right? Because even if the atomic bomb caused less _American_ deaths, I still think it would be wrong to use the bomb, if it was going to kill a lot more people _total_.

I was comparing the results of the bomb to the results of a land invasion. The point is that the bomb saved more lives total, Americans and Japanese, and more lives on each side also.

I shall fully get back with you on this comment… probably in a couple weeks. I just ordered a book I've been meaning to read Unconditional Surrender regarding this whole topic. Once I have read it, and looked at your document you linked to, I shall reply. But I believe there was probably more than just put down your arms and go home. Lots was done behind the scenes in the US Government that wasn't released to the public until the late 1900's.

True (to some extent, even if I am going to disagree with you some), but at the same time, a nation should not kill more people than necessary to protect it's citizens. It should use what it has been blessed with to protect the lives of the innocent (I don't mean blameless right here, BTW).

Maybe I should have told y'all before I got into this discussion that I am somewhat unpatriotic. It's not that I don't like America, it's just that I think patriotism is been emphasized way too much in America; almost to the extent that we worship George Washington and the American flag (but please don't get me wrong, I think we should respect out leaders, just not worship them). I am not a permanent citizen of America. "But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."

Maybe I should have told y'all before I got into this discussion that I am somewhat unpatriotic. It's not that I don't _like_ America, it's just that I think patriotism is been emphasized way too much in America; almost to the extent that we worship George Washington and the American flag (but please don't get me wrong, I think we should respect out leaders, just not worship them). I am not a permanent citizen of America. "But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."

I am in full agreement with your non-patriotism. ;)

OK.

OK.

"Japan was a huge threat to the US and didn't respond to the Potsdam Declaration." GUYS. Just read "WW2: The rest of the story and how it affects you today". Then I wouldn't have debate the whole book in front of you guys. But I would disagree here that Japan did not have the military power to defeat _America_. America was the super power of the world at the time, and emerging even more so during the wars. I can give lots of facts to prove that point, which I'd be happy to do so, if you'd like me to.

Sorry, I was referring to a different phase of the war… But I agree that Japan was not capable of defeating America.

I shall fully get back with you on this comment... probably in a couple weeks. I just ordered a book I've been meaning to read _Unconditional Surrender_ regarding this whole topic. Once I have read it, and looked at your document you linked to, I shall reply. But I believe there was probably more than just put down your arms and go home. Lots was done behind the scenes in the US Government that wasn't released to the public until the late 1900's.

Fair enough. My point was not that the United States did everything right. My point was simply that you can't blame the Japanese' stubbornness on us.

(And since we're on the topic - I'm not terribly patriotic either, given our current situation. :P)

True (to some extent, even if I am going to disagree with you some), but at the same time, a nation should not kill more people than necessary to protect it's citizens. It should use what it has been blessed with to protect the lives of the innocent (I don't mean blameless right here, BTW).

Yeah, that was one of the reasons the bomb was dropped…

(And since we're on the topic - I'm not terribly patriotic either, given our current situation. :P)

Yeah, I'm even one of those people who finds legitimacy in the arguments of people who question whether the American Revolution was right…. But that's an argument for another time. =P

Good. I was a little afraid that somebody might misunderstand what I meant; or that even if they did understand it, think I should be more patriotic.

Maybe I should have told y'all before I got into this discussion that I am somewhat unpatriotic. It's not that I don't _like_ America, it's just that I think patriotism is been emphasized way too much in America; almost to the extent that we worship George Washington and the American flag (but please don't get me wrong, I think we should respect out leaders, just not worship them). I am not a permanent citizen of America. "But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."

Same here :) I don't like the decisions being made (especially in CA), but I have to remember that our leaders are appointed by God.