FILTER BY:

* Anthony Langerak continues his investigation of the problem of Adolph Eichmann. In the April 1961 issue of BEACON LIGHTS he established that every German citizen shares Eichmann’s guilt. Now he proceeds to propound that Eichmann could be tried on one of two bases, the one he calls Platonic, the other, Christian. In this article, Mr. Langerak discusses the Platonic basis which proposes that the end (the ideal state) justifies the means to attain that end. Perhaps, the word utilitarian could be substituted for Platonic. – ed

There are it seems just two motives which could serve as the inspiring principles upon which could be based a disposition of this man’s case.

First let me designate by the term Platonic.

Plato in order to establish and insure the continued wellbeing of his ideal city state would inaugurate a system of laws conducive to attain that end.

The system was the means, the city state was the republic in which the system was to operate and the pursuit of happiness the end goal.

And all laws and ethics as well as the needed vocation of its citizenry, which included the army man as well as the man who knew a trade, the teacher and the pupil, all were so integrated as to attain that end.

Now if my idea of Plato is correct, then may I be so bold as to identify our American nation with it.

We Americans have declared this to be our inalienable right.

Our method of endeavoring to attain this end might be open to question, I speak as an American, however we will let that be as it may. Then there is a second alternative which could serve as the inspiring principle upon which to base a proper disposition of Eichmann’s case.

This second let me designate as Christian:

Let us in a future article try to establish a Christian government and see its possible consequences in dealing with Adolph Eichmann.

Looking at Eichmann quite apart from the fact that he was the instrument of the German nation to the extent that it delegated powers to be placed at his disposition, he was its instrument to accomplish that atrocious deed of the extermination of the Jewish race and faith. For wherever her conquering armies secured control there Eichmann proceeded with his assignment. And this assignment would have probably been very nearly accomplished had Germany had more time.

Regarding him aside from that assignment which became his responsibility to execute and for which he is now as an individual being held accountable, beholding him apart from these delegated powers to accomplish this assignment, would mean several things.

In the first place it would mean that he originated the idea.

In the second place it would mean that the authority which he needed he must have somehow usurped to accomplish this idea. And he needed a lot of it.

This usurpation would apply to the armed forces placed under the direction of his command. Also and in close connection with this, the transportation facilities which were placed at his disposal seems a rather high priority. The concentration camps as well as the gas chambers and all the mechanics which went into this vast enterprise, all this he was to use with the greatest discretion and efficiency without the delegated power to do so. To see him in this light, it seems, is hardly being realistic. There is simply too much involved in so vast an undertaking. As we just indicated, the resources of the nation in man power, equipment, science and suitable ground sites were needed and were all granted him. All this with a high priority would indicate that the accomplishment of this project was considered sufficiently important for the well-being of the nation. A nationalistic people with a political platform strictly applicable to their own circumstances and needs had embarked upon a course of action.

Their ruthless conduct should not surprise us too much. Nations seem to be irrevocably committed to a most abominable conduct when their own safety is threatened or when their own improved position lies in that direction.

In this connection rather interesting it is to behold a nation, even a traditionally Christian nation such as Britain for instance, completely reverse itself on a particular issue in a few centuries. Whether this is the result of a greater enlightenment which would have to coincide with a national life which today is much less vigorous than it then was is quite doubtful. Or could this change of sentiment be the result of a higher spiritual and moral caliber? Also this is doubtful, in fact, if anything it has taken a considerable turn for the worse.

However, in the recent past England has been subject to the spectacle of solidarity marches on her streets because it would have the South African Dutchman give greater privileges to the black man. How they can harmonize this position toward a white minority would indeed prove interesting, considering especially in this connection that their historical document, the Magna Charta, was a milestone in human relationships and government. For a few short centuries ago Britain was party to the capturing, transporting, and selling into the Americas of the African black man. It is doubtful if the stench of the slavery ships or the cruelty these slaves endured, was exceeded by the notorious German concentration camp.

Now we see the negro who was formerly the coveted object for gain and exploitation treated differently, of course at the Dutchmen’s expense. Both occupy some of Britain’s attention, but how differently. The former with a historical past of lazy stupidity and superstition are vindicated and the object of sympathy. The latter with a Calvinistic tradition even as their own are condemned.

The South African negro is encouraged to assert himself politically within the area of the domestic and political life of the South African Boer, while the negro opportunities for self advancement are better than they have ever been, due to the firm and intelligent policy of the Dutch. Compare this with the fact that the Dutch are threatened with being boycotted if they do not allow themselves to be submerged in a black sea.

Let us look at another chapter of this history. The Boers after 200 years of thriving development were compelled for the sake of freedom from British rule to move north where they had the misfortune to find gold. This wealth was not of particular interest to the Boers but it was to the British.

Another war began, one of attrition.

The Boers would not give up this country and be controlled by the British. The British at that time had enormous supplies of men and material at their disposal. However, when nothing could beat these fiercely independent South African Calvinistic Boers and bring them effectively to their knees a way was invented which greatly expedited victory – the concentration camp for women and children which meant degradation, suffering and in many cases death. Perhaps self preservation or vindication dictates so complete a change in national sentiment as is evident today.

However, what is the connection between what is best for the national interest, and the consciousness of how to implement a policy which in its expression gives that national interest its primary consideration.

Organic life as applied to a nation, it seems, is the answer.

Leaders come forward who have vision for the future as well as a sense of history of the past. They raise questions concerning history as it dealt with their nation in the past and give interpretation to past events and thus set the stage of how to deal with current problems.

In our last article we tried to draw a picture of how a nation as such, is constituted organically of all its citizenry.

They would include the rich and poor, the educated and ignorant, the skilled workman and the unskilled, the influential and he who is but of little account, the philosopher as one who conceives ideas and demonstrates their necessity for the nation’s well being, and he who is receptive to these ideas and eventually makes them his own.
All this makes up the nation and determines its policies both domestic and foreign.

And because these leaders are part of the organism whether they be politicians, philosophers or scientist, their analysis of the situation as well as the solution are expected and men begin to head in a definite direction.

Thus this nation, so organically constituted with its soul life through which it expresses itself and gives it direction, experiences a sense of well being. This also holds true when a nation becomes decadent and therefore directionless, a nation without a purpose and definite message.

All this is in the hand of God.

In Job 12 we read – “With Him is strength and wisdom, the deceived and the deceiver are His. He leadeth counselors away spoiled and maketh the judges fools. He increaseth the nations and destroyed them. He enlargeth the nations and straightened them again. He taketh away the heart of the chief of the people of the earth, and causeth them to wander in a wilderness where there is no way. They grope in the darkness without light and he maketh them to stagger as a drunken man.” And in Prov. 21 vs. 1 we read – “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord as the rivers of water, he turneth it whithersoever He will.”

When therefore a nation thus made up of all the various levels of its citizenry with all the mechanics of its many organizations comes to expression as one organic whole it stands conceivably to gain all its objectives or to lose all. And this can happen rather quickly when it embarks on a course of war and world conquest.

When then it loses a war and surrenders, both sides cease hostilities if the loser will meet certain conditions.

However if these conditions are not met and fulfilled by the loser then, theoretically at least, the winning nation would resume the war and proceed to compel the reneging nation to meet its obligations.

However when a nation is conquered and the terms laid down are unconditional surrender then that conquered nation with all its organic life and its organizational makeup belongs to the conquerors. This means that all its productive resources, its mines, farms and factories and whatever belongs to its national wealth are no longer owned by the vanquished.

Also this applies to her capacity to produce scientific development and political thought. Her scientific men and all other tangible wealth can be transported to the conquering country.

Into this concept would also be comprehended the policy of dealing with conquered nations’ leaders and those who carried out the orders of the leaders. Considering then that these leaders are nothing more than the individuals who make up the instruments by which national policy both domestic and foreign is carried out, their guilt is no greater than that of the nation which gave them birth or appointed them its leaders.

Therefore not a consideration of the principle of justice will determine how to deal with these leaders but rather what is to the best interest of the conquering nations.

This motivating principle should guide us in all our policy. “I speak as an American.”

And when thus our national interest dictates that Germany’s leaders should die let’s proceed to execute them.

And on the basis of the same principle let’s determine how far down from the top of the ladder of its dictatorial set-up we should proceed with our decree.

Whatever portion of the enemy we save that too will be determined by the same principle. And when we give away countries such as East Germany, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, etc., that too is not justice but a part of the same principle, although one wonders about the wisdom of it. Sometimes we do foolishly because of fear or because we are indolent and wish to return as soon as possible to former comfortable existence. That may have influenced us more than we are ready to admit.

Be that as it may, when we are dealing with men who have given direction and been instruments to carry out our enemy’s policies, whatever these policies were, let’s execute them if that serves our national interest. Let’s not make hypocrites of ourselves and bring them to trial in order that so-called justice may be applied. For when we bring them to trial we are really bringing ourselves to that tribunal. Had we been Germans, the products of the first world war with an intellectual tradition colored by Friedrich Wilhelmn Nietzsche, Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx we too would have spawned a Hitler, Goering, Himler, Goebels and perhaps even an Adolph Eichmann.

As our immediate past history shows, we did not hesitate to murder 1,800,000 Kutaks relations with Russia and become an ally with her in the recent struggle. We even called Stalin “good-old Joe,” a man who did not hesitate to murder 1,800,000 Kutaks by starvation when he considered them a threat to his collectivization program. Many of them may have been Christians, but they had no way to advertise their plight. Or did we simply ignore them? We do not know to what horrors this dictator subjected this small minority of his nation in order that the organism itself might function better.

Better in the sense of their new ideology.

In this process, knowing human nature to be what it is, those that were and are still to be eliminated did and are suffering quite as much as the Jews did under Eichmann’s program. It’s too much to believe any differently of human nature whether it be German, Russian, Chinese or even American.

I speak then as an American and then say let’s do what is for our greatest national interest when dealing with the vanquished. Whether it be by public trial in our courts, Germany’s, Israel’s or international, let’s confess it to be foreign policy based on self-preservation and not moral considerations. Even returning them to their places of authority, which would include Adolph Eichmann, would be determined by this principle of national interest. You say this is no better than the Germany we conquered, or that of Russia or China or today or Britain of the past.

I reply, you are correct, again, I speak as an American, one who is giving his own self interest the highest priority. If our form of government is to my best interest and happiness, as my conception of happiness may be, I will compel the vanquished to help preserve it. And lest he suffer complete annihilation he will conform. From the vanquished I will utilize what I can in order to further my ends even if it be Adolph Otto Eichmann.

Even Eichmann will become an instrument who will train the future guardians of the vanquished. He will train them in our interest. Thus the safety and well-being of our Platonic Republic will be insured. The same indefatigable energy and resourcefulness which he displayed in his late assignment will have to be applied to the new. His cooperation will determine his well-being. And if his mind and personality are considered to be warped beyond the point of our usefulness then too his doom is sealed. His very position of authority in the past shall serve us or he shall be executed. Not a display of law, courts and justice, but rather, his ability to become integrated in our scheme of self-preservation will determine.

In November of 1945 at Nuremberg, Germany, the Allies were represented by various deputies who spoke our minds concerning what constituted justice in relation to the leaders of the German people, who were put on trial. These men were held for the most terrible crimes in the history of the World – among which was the extermination of the Jews on Europe’s mainland.

Adolph Eichmann, the German, generally considered to be the one most responsible for the carrying out of this crime was not present at these trials, he had disappeared.

Justice Jackson was the American representative as a judge at this court in Nuremberg, Germany. In relation to the overall picture of the war, with all its misery, violence, and crime; he considered the Jewish extermination to be simply another atrocity – a part of the great crime of international aggression, and the consequences of it.

He held that, due to the voluntary agreement between the nations made in 1928, which was called the “Pact of Paris” or the “Briand-Kellogg Pact, in which some 53 countries declared that they condemned war as a way of settling quarrels. They also agreed to solve all their disagreements in the future by peaceful means. It was, therefore, murder, said Jackson, for Goering to give troops illegal orders to kill Dutch troops. Under international law he had no right to give that order. We know, said he, that under American, German, and Dutch law it is illegal to murder.

Moreover, Mr. Jackson took the position that, since murder is a crime under every code of law, it is a crime under international law, or the law of all nations, and Goering was now to be tried under world law. Mr. Jackson contended that before the “Pact of Paris” no ruler was accountable except to his own government. If his country was defeated, he could not be punished by international law – but his country could. Mr. Jackson called this anarchy or the absence of law, be it then on an international scale. He wanted it to be a clearly established law of the world – that any citizen thereof, be he private citizen or emperor, king, or president, commissar or general, who wages a war of aggression, commits a crime for which he can be arrested and tried, the fact that he was an official in a sovereign power proves no defense.

Adolph Eichmann, who became a power in Nazi Germany, used this delegated power to accomplish his assignment, namely, the greatest mass murder in all history. He will go on trial in Israel, by Israeli intelligence, this coming April having been captured in Buenos Aires in May of 1959; fifteen years after his disappearance.

Eichmann is being held personally accountable for carrying out the orders which resulted in the killing of some 6,000,000 Jews. Undoubtedly Israel will seek to legally establish this, and will borrow considerably from Mr. Jackson’s position, even perhaps, making it their own.

 

What About All This?

Does that accountability which is peculiar to the way of God’s dealing with the children of men, as they are made up of nations, and as nations are responsible for their doings, come to its own under this type of jurisdiction? Can the German nation as it is made up of men, women, and children, the Nazi and the Anti-Nazi, the living and the unborn thus escape their mutual accountability? – I don’t think so. It just seems to me that this is more like the application of the thinking of the governmental theory of the atonement, expounded by Grotius; only now in relation to the German Nation and its leaders.

Let us then reflect and try to establish the time stetting of things. The German people, in spite of many who were certainly not in favor of the trend of things, when in 1933 the Reichstag lost all of its law-making powers to Hitler and his cabinet, nor that anti-sematic platform laid down by the National Socialist Party, were not mechanical stooges but German citizens. All of them were an organic part of the German nation which expressed itself thru the organizational set-up with Hitler as its head.

This holds true, even and although the Nazis did not gain control by a majority of their own in 1933, but had to combine with the National Party to gain control of the Reichstag. This Reichstag consisted of 472 members deputized by the people to act in their behalf. On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act which turned the German Government in to a dictatorship. After this, opposition was either killed off, or it left the country.

At the time of Hitler’s rise there was great economic chaos all over the world, the great depression was on, and Germany had over 6,000,000 unemployed. No one seemed to know what to do about the certain economic and perhaps social ruin which lay ahead, except Hitler; and to most Germans he personified the solution. Hitler appears to have been a good organizer. Men of vision and capacity were placed in positions of authority; and soon Germany’s industrial and military might was on the way to recovery.

Germany felt herself to have become, under such dynamic leadership and with a superman complex, the destined ruler of the world, destined to inevitably change the course of history for a thousand years.

However, to achieve a permanent stability, the Jews, an international people with an identity peculiar to themselves, were considered to be a major obstacle. The Jews are a people with brains and ability and show it in every field of endeavor. They are generally reputed to work together for their best interest collectively in spite of a show which they may exhibit to the contrary. They usually succeed in maintaining themselves, without assimilation, with the people of whichever country they make their abode. As their rights as German citizens were gradually denied them, many left the country; but it appears that most of them considered this to be another phase in their long history of persecution which they have had to endure as God’s Messianic people and would again pass away.

 

“But It Didn’t Pass Away”

Germany took to war because of her so-called “lebensramn” problem. In this adventure of world conquest, an international people such as the Jews, with ability and brains plus influence in the World’s great powers, were it appears, considered a major threat.

Now we know that the propaganda which came from Goebel, the German minister of that particular branch of government operation, played an important role in directing their thinking. However, he too was an integral part of the German organizational setup calculated to attain the desired end.

And because every German citizen participated to the extent of his ability in whatsoever sphere of life God placed him. From the individual who contributed in a very limited way, because his abilities were small, to the most gifted organizer, from the lowly floor sweeper to the exalted scientist, all stand accountable for this mighty monster which they created. This guilt is equal. Thus also is their accountability because so did they all respond with their several abilities.

Therefore, to take some of their leaders and punish them is not the application of justice where it belongs, but it delivers Germany from an undesirable leadership, inimical to our interest, which the Germans would just as soon repudiate anyway, considering what a colossal failure they were, after so much blood, toil, and suffering.

Thus I differ from Justice Jackson who would hold individual leaders accountable, depending how close they were to the organizational set-up. He judges them as citizens of a world order with a Briand-Kellogg or Paris Pact as a mutually agreed upon basis. Whereas I hold that this Pact or the U.N., is made up of nations organically constituted, these nations, as nations, with all their organizational mechanics, make up the individuals held accountable by God and really by man too.

Until such a time when all the nations merge into one constituted whole with one government, and perhaps one leader, to merely execute judgment upon leaders of aggressive nations on the basis of Justice Jackson, is justice wrongly applied.

These are my thoughts on the matter, what are yours?

The book of Proverbs was written by King Solomon to his young adult son. Solomon’s purpose in writing Proverbs was “that the generation to come might know them [God’s wonderful works]…that they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments” (Ps. 78:6–7). Throughout the book, Solomon […]

Continue reading

The Christian is placed in many different circumstances while on this earth. Some are characterized by hardships and trials, and others are full of joy and peace. How should the Christian respond? Throughout the Bible there are numerous times where God’s people sang in response to their various circumstances. Singing in response to God’s ordering […]

Continue reading

The group of churches that John writes to in this trio of epistles had recently experienced a split because of doctrinal controversy. We do not know the exact content of the error that these false teachers were spreading, but it is apparent from John’s writing that their teaching somehow denied the truth of the incarnation—that […]

Continue reading

Jael: An Example of Christian Warfare

This article was originally presented as a speech at a Protestant Reformed mini convention held at Quaker Haven Camp in August 2021. Jael lived during the era of the judges. Deborah the prophetess was the judge who served Israel at the time of Jael. During this time, the Canaanites under the rule of king Jabin […]

Continue reading

Indiana Mini Convention Review 2021

One of this year’s “mini conventions” was hosted by Grace and Grandville Protestant Reformed Churches at Quaker Haven Camp. Located just over two hours away in northern Indiana, the camp was a perfect fit for the 120 kids and 15 chaperones who attended. A total of twelve different churches were represented: Byron Center, Faith, First […]

Continue reading

Editorial, November 2021: Catechism Season

At the point that this edition of Beacon Lights arrives in the homes of our subscribers, most young people in the Protestant Reformed Churches will have been sitting under the catechism instruction of their pastor or elders for more than a month. If our readers are honest, that observation probably comes with a (quiet) sigh […]

Continue reading