The Qur’an vs. The Bible: Comparing Historical Claims

Photo by Alexander I. Velasquez (author’s copy)

---

Book Details

Category: Non-fiction, religion, history, theology
Page Count: 446
Year of Publication: 2008 (Reprinted with corrections in 2016)
10-Word Summary: Angel Gabriel’s revelation of God’s words to the prophet Muhammad.

---

Introduction

I’m currently on my third read through of the Bible—that is, reading the Bible from start to finish in one year or less. So, I'm already very familiar with what is in the holy books of both the Jews and the Christians. But I realized that I was still ignorant to what is in the most holy book of the Muslims: the Qur’an.

John Stuart Mill, the great defender of free speech in his book On Liberty, warned his readers of dead dogma: believing a claim to be true without thinking about it. Hence the importance of engaging those who disagree with us, hearing their side of the issue, understanding why they hold the views they do, and comparing them to our own.

So, I decided to use my winter vacation to follow Mill’s principle and read the Qur’an to engage with the prophet Muhammad’s manuscript for myself and to write a comparison of the Qur’an to the Bible. For reference, I read the Oxford World’s Classics edition of the Qur’an translated by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem pictured above. In this first part, I will compare the historical claims of both texts. In the second part, I will compare the ethics of both Jesus and Muhammad.

Historical Claims

There is a story written in the Bible about Gideon: one of the judges, or military leaders, of Israel before the monarchy was formed under King Saul. In the story, Gideon assembled an army to fight against the Midianites—enemies of Israel. But the army was too big, and God knew that if Gideon won the battle with a large army, then Gideon would think that his army had won the battle instead of God winning the battle for them. So, God gave instructions to Gideon to trim down his army's size. Here is the story as it is written in the Bible in Judges 7:5-7 from the King James Version:

So he brought down the people unto the water: and the Lord said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink. And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water. And the Lord said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.

So, Gideon’s army is cut to three hundred men. Keep in mind that the Bible is the primary source for this story and for the history of ancient Israel, this story in particular written around 550 BC.

“Gideon and His Three Hundred” Bible card (source via Wikimedia Commons)

---

However, in the Qur’an 2:249-251, the prophet Muhammad gives a different version of the story that goes as follows:

When Talut set out with his forces, he said to them, 'God will test you with a river. Anyone who drinks from it will not belong with me, but anyone who refrains from tasting it will belong with me; if he scoops up just one handful [he will be excused].' But they all drank [deep] from it except for a few. When he crossed it [the river] with those who had kept faith, they said, 'We have no strength today against Goliath and his warriors.' But those who knew that they were going to meet their Lord said, 'How often a small force has defeated a large army with God's permission! God is with those who are steadfast.' And when they met Goliath and his warriors, they said, 'Our Lord, pour patience on us, make us stand firm, and help us against the disbelievers, and so with God's permission they defeated them. David killed Goliath, and God gave him sovereignty and wisdom and taught him what he pleased.

When I read this story for the first time in the Qur’an, I thought Talut was the Arabic name for Gideon given that God was testing his forces with a river. But Haleem clarifies in the footnotes that Talut is the Arabic name for Saul. Those familiar with the Bible know that the story of Saul's forces attacking Goliath and the Philistines doesn't happen until 1 Samuel 17. Gideon's story happens in Judges 7, and there is at least a two-hundred-year gap between both events.

“Saul” (1878) by Ernst Josephson (source via Wikimedia Commons)

---

So, what the prophet Muhammad did was combine the narratives of Gideon, where Gideon leads his army and cuts it down in size, with the narrative of King Saul, where Saul’s army marches against Goliath and the Philistines. He then gets rid of Gideon all together and replaces him with King Saul—or Talut as he is named in the Qur’an.

Hence, it’s clear that the Qur’an’s historical account of the story contradicts that of the historical account found in the Bible. The Qur’an claims that King Saul’s army was cut down in size to fight Goliath and his warriors, while the Bible claims that Gideon’s army was cut down in size to fight the Midianites. The question then becomes: Which account is correct?

Well, if the Bible is both the earliest and main sources for the history of ancient Israel, composed over one thousand years before the Qur’an, why would I, or anyone for that matter, accept the Qur'an’s historical account over that of the Bible’s? Given that the Qur'an’s historical accounts of ancient Israel weren’t written until the 600s AD, more than 1100 years after the events described in the Bible, shouldn’t the historical accounts of ancient Israel in the Qur’an match the accounts found in the Bible?

For example, right now we are in the year 2024. If I was to write about events that happened in the 800s, say I was writing the Carolingian Empire in Europe, wouldn’t you find it strange if I said that Henry II founded the Carolingian Empire? If you know your medieval European history, you know Henry II was a Holy Roman Emperor and not the founder of the Carolingian Empire—Charles Martel and Pepin the Short founded the Carolingian Empire. Wouldn’t it be much easier to say that I simply made a mistake and confused Henry II with Charles Martel or Pepin the Short, especially given the fact that I’m writing over 1100 years after the events I’m describing? I’m extending this same logic to the Qur’an and its account of Gideon and King Saul.

Nevertheless, a Muslim might respond with the following objection: "The Qur'an is the divinely revealed word of God, so it is the truest account of Israel’s history." The problem with this objection is that it falls prey to the fallacy of circular reasoning: If you're trying to prove to me, or any non-Muslim, that the Qur'an is the divinely revealed word of God, you can't use the conclusion of the argument, that the Qur'an is the divinely revealed word of God, to prove your point. For example, suppose I say to someone, "Joe Biden is a good president." Suppose the other person responds and asks, "Well, how do you know that?" and I respond with: "Because Joe Biden is a good president." That’s committing the fallacy of circular reasoning; I cannot use the conclusion of my argument as a premise (i.e. to prove my point).

A Muslim, therefore, would have to prove the Qur'an to be the more reliable account of the history of ancient Israel, even though it is written over one thousand years later than the events it describes and contradicts the original sources for these events. This, in my opinion, is too problematic.

Another objection a Muslim could raise is that King Saul simply did the same thing as Gideon and was tested in the same way, hence they are two separate historical events; the Qur’an, therefore, would not contradict the Bible because King Saul is performing a separate miracle altogether, though the same type as Gideon performed in the book of Judges. The problem with this objection is that it doesn’t make sense, and here’s why:

The reason Gideon’s army is cut down in size is because God wanted Gideon and his troops to acknowledge that God was the one who would bring them the victory against a larger army. However, in the story of David and Goliath, David fights a one-on-one battle with Goliath. Here is the biblical account as told in 1 Samuel 17:1-11 in the King James Version:

Now the Philistines gathered their forces for war…. Saul and the Israelites assembled and camped in the Valley of Elah and drew up their battle line to meet the Philistines…. The Philistines occupied one hill and the Israelites another, with the valley between them…. A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp…. Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, “Why do you come out and line up for battle? …. Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us.” Then the Philistine said, “This day I defy the armies of Israel! Give me a man and let us fight each other.” On hearing the Philistine’s words, Saul and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified.

Given that Goliath was looking for a one-on-one fight, and all the Israelites were dismayed and terrified, the miracle they were looking for rested on finding someone who would stand up to, and defeat, the champion of the Philistines. Thus, there would be no point in the Qur’an for King Saul to cut his army down to size because the miracle he needed at the time was in finding someone to stand up to, fight, and defeat Goliath—not in that of defeating an army of a greater size as in the story of Gideon. And this leads into another historical criticism I am leveling at the Qur’an.

“David and Goliath” by Osmar Schindler (source via Wikimedia Commons)

---

The three verses cited above in the Qur’an that refer to Talut going to fight against Goliath and his warriors are the only verses in the Qur’an that describe the battle against Goliath. As a matter of fact, the Qur’an doesn’t even acknowledge the fact that David killed Goliath in a one-on-one duel, or that David had no armor on, or that David was a shepherd with no military experience, or that no one believed David would win the battle.

But in the Bible, there is an entire chapter that describes this event. These fifty-eight verses detail who Goliath is, how the armies were aligned, the armor and weaponry that Goliath wore, what Goliath shouted to the Israelites, David’s courage and his desire to stand up to Goliath, David's decision to fight Goliath without King Saul's armor, David winning the battle with the help of the Lord, and so on.

In other words, the Bible is a lot more detailed, great for the historian, and great for the reader. One of the problems I had getting through the Qur'an was how little detail there was in the narratives, thus making the text a duller read in comparison to the history of ancient Israel found in the Bible.

But the history of ancient Israel was not the only portion of the Qur’an that made me skeptical of its historical claims. In the Qur’an 5:110, the prophet Muhammad relates the following story about Jesus:

God will say, 'Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favor to you and to your mother: how I strengthened you with the holy spirit, so that you spoke to people in your infancy and as a grown man; how I taught you the Scripture and wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel; how, by my leave, you fashioned the shape of a bird out of clay, breathed into it, and it became, by My leave, a bird.

Jesus animates clay birds (Infancy Gospel of Thomas) (source via Wikimedia Commons)

---

When I read this for the first time, I was drawn aback; those who have read the Gospels of the New Testament know that there is no story where Jesus makes a bird out of clay that then becomes a living bird. But after doing some research, I realized that story is found in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas: an account of the infancy and childhood of Jesus.

The problem with the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is that it was written in the late 100s, over one hundred years after the life of Jesus. There is also no multiple attestation for the event; that is, it's the only historical source that attests to the event. None of the Gospels or any of the eyewitnesses closer to the time of Jesus, such as his disciples or their disciples, attest to Jesus making a bird out of clay and bringing it to life. So, from a historical perspective, I can’t see how this would be a reliable source of information on the childhood of Jesus.

The prophet Muhammad most likely inserted this story because he was being informed on the Christian faith by heretical (i.e. non-Orthodox) Christians who lived outside of the Christian Byzantine Empire. Since these Christians read other gospel narratives and accepted them as authoritative, Muhammad most likely assumed that all Christians believed these stories were authoritative to all Christians as well.

And all this makes sense of the following passage in the Qur’an 5:73-76, where the prophet Muhammad makes the following claim:

Those people who say that God is the third of three are defying [the truth]: there is only One God. If they do not stop what they are saying, a painful punishment will afflict those of them who persist. Why do they not turn to God and ask His forgiveness, when God was most forgiving, most merciful? The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; other messengers had come and gone before him; his mother was a virtuous woman; both ate food [like other mortals]. See how clear We make these signs for them; see how deluded they are. Say, 'How can you worship something other than God, that has no power to do you harm or good? God alone is the All Hearing and All Knowing.

Here, Muhammad is referring to Orthodox Christians, Christians who believed that God consists of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who lived predominantly in the Byzantine Empire and in western Europe. He claims that these trinitarians believe that Jesus is “the third of three.” Hence why Muhammad responds by saying that the Messiah “was only a messenger” and “ate food [like other mortals],” emphasizing the idea that Jesus was not divine but simply another messenger of God.

As a matter of fact, Muhammad believed that the Trinity consisted of God, Jesus, and Mary. Here is the prophet in his own words referencing what God will say to Jesus on Judgment Day:

When God says, ‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people, “Take me and my mother as two gods alongside God”?’ he will say, ‘May you be exalted! I would never say what I had no right to say—if I had said any such thing You would have known it: You know all that is within me, though I do not know what is within You, You alone have full knowledge of things unseen—

From these passages, Muhammad emphasizes that there is no triune God that consists of God, Jesus, and Mary. But as a trinitarian myself, I was left scratching my head.

First, Jesus is not “the third of three.” He is the second person of the Trinity through which all things were created. As the apostle Paul writes in the epistle to the church of Colossians 1:12-17:

Giving thanks unto the Father… Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Second, I agree with the prophet Muhammad that the Trinity is not God, Jesus, and Mary. The Trinity is God the Father, the Lord Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I believe that Muhammad was misinformed by the non-Orthodox Christians that Mary was part of the Trinity because Orthodox Christians requested Mary’s intercession in prayer the same way Catholics do. For example, even today you hear many Protestants mistakenly claiming that Catholics pray to Mary because they consider her to be divine. Hence, Muhammad makes the same exact error and claimed that the Trinity included Mary and why he emphasizes in the Qur’an 5:75 that Mary was but “a virtuous woman” who “ate food [like other mortals],” emphasizing the idea that Mary was not divine.

Shield of the Trinity diagram (source via Wikimedia Commons)

---

Keep in mind that every word in the Qur'an is taken by Muslims to be the literal word of God as the angel Gabriel revealed it to the prophet Muhammad. So, if any part of the Qur’an is falsified, then the whole text is, therefore, falsified. And for all the reasons stated above, I find the Qur’an to be lacking in historical rigor and unacceptable as divine revelation.

---

What is Realpolitik?

Public domain cartoon of Bismarck and Pope Pius IX during the Kulturkampf

---

I always looked up to Bismarck as the greatest statesman ever—a foreign policy genius who knew exactly what political moves to make, how to calculate each move, and how each move would play out. A part of me read the books in hopes that I would understand the “secret sauce” that made him such a foreign policy genius, and I found it.

The reason why Bismarck was such a foreign policy genius was because he was a man who lacked political principles. As a matter of fact, Bismarck began his political career as a Prussian conservative. A conservative in the 1800s was one who believed in most of the following principles: first, in the obedience to the political authority of a monarch, second, in the opposition to individual rights or elected representatives for governments, third, that revolutions were a political evil, and fourth, that organized religion was crucial to order in society.

Public domain illustration of the execution of King Louis XVI during the French Revolution

---

Bismarck believed in the first principle, in the political authority of King Frederick Wilhelm I. But later in his career, he did not care for the other three. It was he who introduced universal suffrage in Germany, it was he who separated church from state and replaced clerical supervision in all public and private schools with state supervision, and it he who went so far as to defend political revolution. Here is Bismarck in his own words:

How many existences are there in today’s political world that have no roots in revolutionary soil? Take Spain, Portugal, Brazil, all the American Republics, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Greece, Sweden and England which bases itself on the consciousness of the Glorious Revolution of 1688…. (Bismarck: A Life, pg. 132)

This lack of principles eventually caused many of his fellow conservatives to distance themselves from him toward the latter half of his career. And it’s this lack of principles that makes Realpolitik possible. Here is a perfect illustration of this:

When Bismarck served as Prussia's envoy to the German Confederation in Frankfurt, he wrote to his conservative friend Leopold von Gerlach that it should be in Prussia’s interest to ally with the revolutionary France of Napoleon III. For a conservative of the 1800s, an alliance with a revolutionary republic—with an “illegitimate” emperor such as Napoleon III—was nothing short of scandalous. Gerlach, representing the Prussian conservatism of the day, wrote the following to Bismarck:

My political principle is, and remains, the struggle against the Revolution. You will not convince Napoleon that he is not on the side of the Revolution. He has no desire either to be anywhere else…. You say yourself that people cannot rely upon us, and yet one cannot fail to recognize that he only is to be relied on who acts according to definite principles and not according to shifting notions of interests, and so forth. (Bismarck: A Life, pgs. 131-132)

Bismarck, being no true conservative as Gerlach hinted at above, did not make decisions by any conservative principles. As a matter of fact, allying with revolutionary France was nothing but a rational calculation, one possible chess move among many for Prussia’s rise to dominance over Austria. And in a game of chess, it’s important for the player to have as many moves open to him as possible. As Bismarck observed years later:

My entire life was spent gambling for high stakes with other people’s money. I could never foresee exactly whether my plan would succeed…. Politics is a thankless job because everything depends on chance and conjecture. One has to reckon with a series of probabilities and improbabilities and base one’s plans upon this reckoning. (Bismarck: A Life, pg. 130)

This kind of cold, rational calculation lies at the heart of Bismarck’s Realpolitik, which has “nothing to do with good and evil, virtue and vice; it had to do with power and self-interest.” (Bismarck: A Life, pg. 130) The power of Prussia and the self-interest of Prussia is, in a nutshell, is how Bismarck conducted his foreign policy. And France was just one chess move among many to increase the power of Prussia and to destroy the power of Austria. As Bismarck wrote to Gerlach:

You begin with the assumption that I sacrifice my principles to an individual who impresses me. I reject both the first and the second phrase in that sentence. The man does not impress me at all…. France only interests me as it affects the situation of my Fatherland, and we can only make our policy with the France that exists…. Sympathies and antipathies with regard to foreign powers and persons I cannot reconcile with my concept of duty in the foreign service of my country, neither in myself nor in others…. As long as each of us believes that a part of the chess board is closed to us by our own choice or that we have an arm tied where others can use both arms to our disadvantage, they will make use of our kindness without fear and without thanks. (Bismarck: A Life, pg. 131)

This is Realpolitik. Whereas a conservative guided by conservative principles would not ally with France, thereby closing a space in a game of chess that would otherwise be open to him, a man who lacks principles has this space open as a possibility, thereby making him a more versatile and dangerous player in the international system.

---

Review of Iron Kingdom by Christopher Clark

Photo by Alexander I. Velasquez (author’s copy)

---

Book Details

Category: Non-fiction, history, European history
Page Count: 688
Year of Publication: 2006 (Paperback Edition)
Rating: 5/5
10-Word Summary: The rise and downfall of the Prussian state from 1600-1947.

---

About Iron Kingdom

Christopher Clark’s Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947 is a historical work of the highest tier. Clark writes an excellent summary of the entire history of Prussia from its humble beginnings as Brandenburg—an Electorate within the Holy Roman Empire—to its abolition by the Allies after Germany’s defeat in Second World War. The story of Prussia is a remarkable one, but what makes Iron Kingdom wonderful to read is Christopher Clark’s writing style, in which he details the unfolding of Prussian history without inserting any of his own views or prejudices.

One thing to note is that those who are looking for a detailed account of Germany will be disappointed, as Clark’s focus throughout the book is on the Prussian state, and not necessarily the German state; this means that other German states, such as Hanover or Bavaria, are not discussed unless they are in relation to Prussia. This doesn’t diminish Clark’s work, as the title makes it clear that Clark’s focus throughout the entire book is on Prussia. But if the reader is looking for a detailed work on the German state, then it may be best to look elsewhere, as only the final two chapters (out of seventeen) discuss the German state post-1871 unification.

One final disclaimer is that any reader who would like a detailed account of Germany during the First and Second World Wars will also be disappointed, as Clark’s focus in the last two chapters are on Prussian culture and politics post-1871 unification. Again, this does not diminish Clark’s work, but it is worth pointing out nevertheless.

Religion, the Military, and the Fredericks

At the risk of oversimplifying Clark’s work, I will state that there are three great themes that cover his book from start to finish: religion, the military, and the Fredericks.

To start, religion is a major theme of the first half of the book, and this makes sense given the time period in Europe. Though Clark doesn’t discuss the Protestant Reformation itself, he does an excellent job explaining the significance of the Reformation for the early Prussian state. The Holy Roman Empire was a Catholic state centered around the Catholic Habsburg Dynasty. The Protestant Reformation broke the religious unity of the empire, and though Habsburg Emperor Charles V (1519-1556) fought anti-Lutheran wars to keep a religiously united empire, he settled for the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 which “acknowledged the existence of Lutheran territories within the Empire and conceded the right of Lutheran sovereigns to impose confessional conformity upon their own subjects.” (Page 7)

It was Brandenburg Elector Joachim II (1535-1571) who would convert to the new Lutheran faith. Slowly but surely, Brandenburg would become a Lutheran state. But once Calvinism took hold of Western and Southern Germany, it would be Elector John Sigismund (1608-1619) who would convert to Calvinism, making Brandenburg-Prussia a bi-confessional state. This placed the Electorate in cultural opposition to the Catholic German south, and this opposition would continue even until the days of Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898), the famous statesman who would unify Prussia with thirty-nine other German states into the unified Germany of 1871. It was Bismarck who launched a Kulturkampf, a “struggle of cultures,” against the Catholics because of his belief that political Catholicism was the enemy of Prussia. Hence, the tension between Lutherans and Calvinists, Protestants and Catholics, plays a major role in understanding not just the history of Prussia but the greater history of Germany.

The military is another major theme. The Thirty Years’ War left the German lands devastated, and it was Frederick William the Great Elector (1640-1688) who oversaw the recovery and expansion of Brandenburg, ascending the throne during Swedish foreign occupation. It was he who rebuilt the military from three thousand men in the early 1640s to between twenty to thirty thousand men in the 1680s. Given that Prussia was a small, open territory with no natural frontiers for defense, an expansionist Swedish King Charles X to its north and an expansionist French King Louis XIV to its west, it’s safe to say that Prussia’s existence was dependent upon the strength of its military. Hence, from the beginning of the narrative Clark spares no pages in expounding on the importance and culture of the Prussian military.

And the final great theme of the book is the Fredericks. This is the first book on Prussian history that I have read, and I must say that it doesn’t help that every Prussian ruler beginning with Frederick William the Great Elector has Frederick as his first name. But Clark does a great job in explaining what each Frederick does, as well as the style of their rule. Nevertheless, a few Fredericks do stand out from the pack:

Frederick William the Great Elector (1640-1688) helped establish Brandenburg-Prussia as a European power after its devastation wrought during the Thirty Years’ War. Then there was Frederick the Great (1740-1786) who, among other great achievements, fought and defeated Austria during the Seven Years’ War, thereby annexing Silesia in the process and providing Prussia with money, produce, and subjects while weakening the Habsburgs in the Austrian Empire—who never quite got over the loss of Silesia. There was the Frederick William III (1797-1840) who was perceived as a weak ruler in the face of Napoleon’s conquest of Europe and was always indecisive as to whether to ally with Napoleon, commit to neutrality, or ally with Russia and the anti-Napoleon alliance of the other great European powers. And, finally, there was Frederick William IV (1840-1861) who lived through a politically tumultuous time of revolution where Prussian liberals demanded a constitution. William gave the liberals what they wanted and granted Prussia both a constitution and a parliament in the late 1840s, forever changing the political landscape of Prussia until its unification with the rest of the German states in 1871.

Should You Read Iron Kingdom?

Anyone looking for a detailed account of Prussian history written in a straightforward, matter-of-fact style will find this to be the perfect read. However, those seeking a book on strictly German history or on German history in relation to the First and Second World Wars would be better off looking elsewhere.

---

Review of Appeasement by Tim Bouverie

Cover of “Appeasement” by Tim Bouverie, photographed by Alexander I. Velasquez

---

Book Details

Category: Non-fiction, history, international diplomacy
Page Count: 419 (Paperback Edition)
Year of Publication: 2019
Rating: 5/5
10-Word Summary: The diplomatic history of Neville Chamberlain’s failed policy of appeasement.

---

About Appeasement

Tim Bouverie wrote the authoritative book when it comes to Neville Chamberlain’s failed policy of appeasement in the 1930s. After getting through this masterpiece of a book, I had to stop and ask myself: “How did the British refrain from placing Chamberlain’s head on a spike?”

Appeasement begins with Adolf Hitler’s ascension as Chancellor of Germany in 1933. The British press didn’t know what to make of Hitler; The Times claimed he “was held to be the least dangerous solution of a problem bristling with dangers,” while The Economist, the Spectator, and the New Statesmen foolishly stated: “We shall not expect to see the Jews’ extermination, or the power of big finance overthrown.” (Pages 8-9) The French press was equally clueless, and reading all this gave me the realization that newspapers, in general, are terrible sources for geopolitical information, as journalists usually guess as to what a world leader is really up to, and their guesses do not constitute knowledge any more than the average person on the street who guesses correctly which side a six-sided die will fall on.

As for the policy of appeasement itself, Bouverie gives a wonderful explanation as to why it was the foreign policy of choice for Britain throughout the 1930s: The Allies believed that they were to blame for the rise of the Nazi Party; as a matter of fact, Nazism was “the natural, if violent, reaction to legitimate grievances stemming from Versailles.” (Page 48) At this point, the Treaty of Versailles had come to be viewed a treaty that was too harsh, hence the idea was that “the Treaty should be altered and Germany allowed to regain that place and status to which her size and history entitled her.” (Page 48) The only problem with this policy is that it assumed Hitler could be appeased, and few people saw Hitler for who he really was.

Mein Kampf

Anyone who reads Mein Kampf will be baffled at how open Hitler was in stating his foreign policy ambitions: He announces his desire to unite Germany with Austria, he announces his desire to expand Germany’s territory at the expense of Russia, who he refers to as a “culturally inferior” nation, and he announces that the French were the mortal enemy of the Germans. Hitler said the following about France:

Never suffer the rise of two continental powers in Europe. Regard any attempt to organize a second military power on German frontiers, even if only in the form of creating a state capable of military strength, as an attack on Germany, and in it see not only the right, but also the duty, to employ all means up to armed force to prevent the rise of such a state, or, if one has already risen, to smash it again. (Mein Kampf, Page 664; First Mariner Books Edition)

All of this begs the question: With Hitler’s foreign policy of territorial conquest out in the open, why did the British choose the policy of appeasement? If anything, one would think that the British leaders would favor to formulate some sort of Bismarck-style alliance system with France, the Soviet Union, Poland, and Czechoslovakia in an attempt to keep Hitler from conquest.

But Bouverie makes it clear that the British chose appeasement for the same reason we in the 2020s would chose appeasement if Adolf Hitler were around today: No one read Hitler’s book. And those that did read his book were of split opinion: Since Hitler was proclaiming that he was “a man of peace” early in his chancellorship, those that believed him dismissed his early writings as the “the moribund rantings of a young firebrand.” (Page 18) Even Neville Chamberlain, who had read excerpts of Mein Kampf, chose to ignore Hitler’s early writings, stating: “If I accepted the author’s conclusions I should despair.” (Page 418) This brings me to my final point and the main character of Bouverie’s book: Neville Chamberlain.

Neville Chamberlain

To be fair, I don’t want to put all the blame on Chamberlain, as Bouverie makes it clear that appeasement had already been the policy of choice for both the government and, more importantly, for the British people. Stanley Baldwin, who preceded Neville Chamberlain as Prime Minister, admitted that even if he were to go back in time and try to convince the British populace that Germany was a threat and that Britain should focus on rearmament in the midst of an economy attempting to get out of the Great Depression, the effect would have been disastrous and have meant the loss of a General Election. (Pages 25-26) Indeed, it was Winston Churchill’s pursuit of rearmament that made him so unpopular in the 1930s until his eventual ascension to Prime Minister in 1940.

By the time Neville Chamberlain became Prime Minister in 1935, his main goal was to balance the budget and cut expenses to get Britain out of the Great Depression; but he just so happened to take the job at the same time Hitler’s rearmament program was in full swing. Eerily, it was Chamberlain’s half-brother Austen Chamberlain who had reminded Neville after a dinner in 1936: “Neville, you must remember you don’t know anything about foreign affairs.” (Page 129) That statement turned out to be prophetic, as the rest of the book details how poorly Chamberlain handled the international situation. To make things worse, Chamberlain was hard-headed, always convinced that he was right. For example, his desire to appease Benito Mussolini’s aggression in Ethiopia would eventually lead to the resignation of his Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, all of which Bouverie brilliantly details in chapter ten. Chamberlain even went so far as to have secret channels of communication with Mussolini so as to not have to go through his secretary—an obvious sign that Chamberlain felt he could handle the international situation himself without the need to seek advice from any members of his cabinet. And when you couple Chamberlain’s stubbornness with the fact that he surrounded himself with “yes men” who were convinced that appeasing Hitler’s desires for German greatness was the right policy to pursue, what you get is a recipe for disaster.

Should You Read Appeasement?

The answer is a definite yes. Tim Bouverie’s first book is both a classic and a must-have for those who are interested in history—in particular the diplomatic history leading up to the Second World War—and the best source for explaining why Britain’s policy of appeasement failed to stop Adolf Hitler in his pursuit of empire. Bouverie does a wonderful job weaving the policy of appeasement in the 1930s into one dramatic narrative, and, if you can, read the book along with the audiobook narrated by John Sessions. Sessions did an amazing job narrating and deserves an equal amount of praise for his performance.

---

Review of Munich, 1938 by David Faber

Photo by Alexander I. Velasquez (author’s copy)

---

Book Title

Category: Non-fiction, diplomatic history, politics
Page Count: 504 (Paperback)
Year of Publication: 2010 (Simon & Schuster Reprint Edition)
Rating: 1/5
10-Word Summary: A detailed diplomatic history between Britain and Germany from 1937-1938.

---

About Munich, 1938

I don’t like this book; I’m just going to state it from the beginning. I will never write a review for a book having read only half of it—in this case 230 pages. For me, I have to read the entirety of a book to write a good and comprehensive review. But I’m willing to make an exception in this case for one major reason: The title is completely misleading.

The title is Munich, 1938: Appeasement and World War II. Yet, Munich 1938 gets one or two chapters at the end of the book. And I get it: Faber is writing the buildup to Munich 1938 and all the diplomacy that preceded it. But Faber starts his account from November 1937. Why on earth would anyone start at November 1937? The logical place would be to start at 1933 because that is when Hitler comes to power and assumes the chancellorship in Germany.

Also, to understand Munich 1938, one would have to understand Hitler’s foreign policy ambitions and, hence, understand what lies in the pages of Mein Kampf. Yet, Faber never mentions Hitler’s famed book or even references his ultimate foreign policy objective of fighting the Soviet Union and destroying France. And because Faber starts his account so late in 1937, it’s impossible to understand why Hitler is even invading Austria and Czechoslovakia in the first place.

What about appeasement? Appeasement is never fully explained. Faber makes it clear that Chamberlain wanted to appease Hitler but not why he wanted to appease Hitler.

What about World War II? Everything in the book happens before World War II. I have no idea why World War II is even part of the title of this book.

The real title of this book should be: A detailed diplomatic history between Britain and Germany from November 1937 to October 1938; that’s all this book is. And I’m upset because I bought this book to understand appeasement, to understand why Chamberlain trusted Hitler’s promise at Munich, and to understand those who opposed appeasement. After all, appeasement is in the title of the book. You would think things like this would be explained. But no. I got none of that.

There are also so many people in this book—too many as a matter of fact. Because Faber condenses a dramatic eleven month history of diplomacy, his account is overly detailed and has so many people involved that it is easy to forget who most of them are outside of the major players in the account such as Hitler, Chamberlain, Eden, and so on. It makes for a very frustrating read having to constantly ask the question, “Wait, who is this again?”

Just about the only positive thing I have to say about this book is that Faber does know his stuff, and he gives a very detailed account of all of the diplomacy, both secret and public, that went on in both Hitler’s and Chamberlain’s cabinet from 1937-1938. Otherwise, this book was completely useless for me.

Should You Read Munich, 1938?

If you are looking for a book that will explain appeasement—what it was and why it became Britain’s foreign policy, the conflict between Chamberlain and Churchill, and the road to World War II, read Appeasement: Chamberlain, Hitler, Churchill, and the Road to War by Tim Bouverie (a review for this is coming soon). However, if and only if you are looking for an extremely detailed diplomatic history between Britain and Germany from November 1937 to October 1938, then this is definitely your book.

---

Review of Mein Kampf, Volume Two by Adolf Hitler

Photo by Alexander I. Velasquez (author’s copy)

---

Book Details

Category: Non-fiction, biography, memoir, politics, history, political philosophy
Translator: Ralph Manheim
Page Count: 317 (First Mariner Books Edition)
Year of Publication: 1999
Rating: 1/5
10-Word Summary: Adolf Hitler’s political philosophy and foreign policy for Germany’s future.

---

About Mein Kampf, Volume Two

Whereas Volume One of Mein Kampf follows Hitler from his youth as a boy in his native Austria to his early career as a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, Volume Two is about the political philosophy and guiding principles of the party. It begins with a general philosophy of the state and its citizens and ends with recommendations for German foreign policy.

I found it much more difficult to get through Volume Two than Volume One, and this is coming from someone who majored in philosophy as an undergraduate. I suppose the main reason for why it was difficult to get through it was because Hitler continues the same pattern of writing as in Volume One—ranting on the same political point for pages on end. Hitler could have summarized the philosophy of his political party—the NSDAP—in about thirty pages, fifty maximum. The fact that he took 317 pages to tell the reader the same things over and over again makes the reading experience dreadful.

Political Philosophy

One thing that does upset me is that most people, because they have never bothered to read Mein Kampf, are misled. Most people believe the Nazis were right-wing. The Wikipedia page for the entry “Nazi Party” claims that the party was far-right. Well whoever did the entry for the Wikipedia page didn’t take the time to read Mein Kampf, otherwise they wouldn’t have said that, as the Nazi Party was neither right nor left but somewhere in the center. Let’s break down the name of the party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, in two parts:

National

There is no doubt that Hitler was a nationalist. The whole purpose of the party is to rally the Germans to first eliminate the threat at home—the Jews—and then to set its sight on the enemy abroad: the Soviet Union. Overturning the Treaty of Versailles, building a great military, and destroying France were but means to these ends but not ends in themselves: The strength of a nation lies primarily, not in its weapons, but in its will, and that, before foreign enemies are conquered, the enemy within must be annihilated. (Page 682)

Socialist German Workers’ Party

In Chapter VII, “The Struggle with the Red Front,” Hitler discusses the NSDAP rallies and the struggles to win the German workers over from the Marxist/Communist camp to his Socialist party, highlighting the strategic use of the color red during the rallies:

The red color of our posters drew them [Hitler’s political opponents] to our meeting halls. The run-of-the-mill bourgeoise were horrified that we had seized upon the red of the Bolsheviks, and they regarded this as all very ambiguous. The German national souls kept privately whispering to each other the suspicion that basically we were nothing but a species of Marxism, perhaps Marxists, or rather, socialists in disguise. For to this very day these scatterbrains have not understood the difference between socialism and Marxism. (Page 483)

Hitler makes it clear in the passage above that there is a difference between socialism and Marxism, and that he was not a Marxist but a socialist. This is why, in Chapter XII, “The Trade-Union Question,” he is still in favor of trade unions, wants employers to make sure that workers are treated fairly, and envisions a classless German society united under a strong German nationalism—similar to his experience in the German army:

As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation’s economic life…. The National Socialist State knows no ‘classes,’ but politically speaking only citizens with absolutely equal rights….The National Socialist employer must know that the happiness and contentment of his workers is the premise for the existence and development of his own economic greatness. (Pages 598-601)

Foreign Policy

Hitler’s foreign policy makes sense. That is to say, he understands that alliances form when there is a common interest between nations. Hence, he believes the best alliance for Germany is England, as it would be in England’s interest to keep France, their historic rival, from dominating the European mainland, and Germany can be their ally to check France’s power:

Anyone who undertakes an examination of the present alliance possibilities for Germany from the above standpoint must arrive at the conclusion that the last practicable tie remains with England…. A necessary interest on the part of England in the annihilation of Germany no longer exists today; that, on the contrary, England’s policy from year to year must be directed more and more to an obstruction of France’s unlimited drive for hegemony. (Page 618)

Though, for Hitler, an alliance with England could serve a greater purpose: It would defend Germany’s rear while Germany focused on destroying its greatest enemy—the Soviet Union, home of the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy for world domination:

In Russian Bolshevism, we must see the attempt undertaken by the Jews in the twentieth century to achieve world domination. (Page 661)

Points of Agreement

In Chapter Two, “The State,” I agree with much of what Hitler said about education. For example, he said that the youth should not be given too much head knowledge, but rather that education should consist primarily in teaching students character, will, and determination through physical activity (pages 408-412) with the final stage of education for all German males being mandatory military service (page 428). He also believed that education should be useful, and that schools were doing a bad job of teaching students useless information that they end up forgetting as adults (not much has changed). And he desired an education consisting of the classics: the Roman and Greek civilizations:

Especially in historical instruction, we must not be deterred from the study of antiquity. Roman history correctly conceived in extremely broad outlines is and remains the best mentor, not only for today, but probably for all time. The Hellenic ideal of culture should also remain preserved for us in its exemplary beauty. (Page 423)

Probably the point that resonated most strongly with me was Hitler’s rejection of hedonism and material pleasure as the most important principle of life:

It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god. Many things today may owe their existence solely to the longing for money and wealth, but there is very little among them whose non-existence would leave humanity any the poorer…. This, too, is a task of our movement…. Uphold the principle that man does not live exclusively for the sake of material pleasures. (Page 436)

Final Thoughts

At the end of the day, Mein Kampf’s thesis is one rooted in deep conspiracy theories that have long been proven false. To say that the Jews are trying to take over the world is already a wacky theory, but to say that they are planning on the takeover via a communist plot rooted in the Soviet Union is beyond ridiculous. On top of that, the book is heavily Darwinist and Malthusian in its economic outlook, ideas that have since been discredited. (If you are a atheist, however, then I’m sure you might agree with many of Hitler’s Darwinist conclusions.)

Should You Read Mein Kampf?

No. Unless you are a scholar of Nazi Germany or have a deep fascination with Weimar Germany, the 1920s, the origins of the Second World War, Hitler’s political philosophy, and so on, there is nothing of actual substance in this book.

---