God’s Wrath Against Fools

Romans 1:18-23


Audio Version

How would you like it if someone committed a terrible crime against you, kidnapped one of your children, but was caught; he was put in jail, had his day in court, was found guilty by the jury, but then the judge said, “It would be inhuman of me to pass any sentence on this man. Judge not, lest you be judged, as Jesus said. Therefore, I will let this man go scot-free.” Would you respect such a judge? Let’s try a different analogy. Let’s say a young man and a young woman just got married. They are about to move into their house, when they find out that it is infested with mice, termites, roaches, and other vermin. The young man promises to get all these vermin exterminated, but never seems to get around to it. He thinks it is just fine for his new wife to live in such a house. Do any of us think that his love fore his wife may be somewhat less than he thinks it is? Let’s try a third analogy. Imagine that you are a British subject in the late 1930’s, and you have just heard that Hitler has invaded all of Czechoslovakia, and all of Austria, after promising that he would not. Your Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, keeps on saying that we must avoid war at all costs. But you know better. You know that Hitler is bent on world domination. What do you think of PM Chamberlain? Wouldn’t your respect for him go downhill fast? In all three of these examples, we have some kind of evil that needs to be answered, and in all three cases, the person who can do something about refuses to do so. This is wrong, is it not? We know in our heart of hearts that there needs to be justice done on the kidnapper, that there needs to be a vermin-free house if the wife is going to be happy, and that Adolf Hitler needs to be stopped. There is such a thing as righteous wrath. And yet, when it comes to God, all of a sudden we get cold feet in talking about His wrath. A great deal of modern Christianity would prefer never to talk about God’s wrath. “God is love,” we shout at the top of our lungs. That God would send anyone to Hell seems unthinkable to us. What Paul is telling us here, however, is just that: God’s wrath is always evident against unbelief, and He will continue to oppose sin forever. Our message then is about the wrath of God. What I hope to show is that rather than hate God for exercising His wrath, we should actually come to love God for showing His wrath.

The context here is very important for showing what Paul is saying. Particularly verse 17 is important, since there is a parallel there that we need to see. In verse 17, we see three elements: “in the gospel,” “righteousness of God,” and “revealed.” In verse 18, we see three parallel elements: “from heaven,” “the wrath of God,” and “revealed.” So in the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed. We saw last week that this righteousness is the gift of Christ’s righteousness that we obtain by faith alone. In the gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed. But now, from heaven, the wrath of God is being revealed. What this tells us is that God’s love always has wrath as the flip side of it. Think about this for a moment, and it will make sense. How can God love us without hating our enemies? How can God love holiness and righteousness without hating wickedness? How can God love what is good without hating what is bad? The wrath of God should therefore make perfect sense to us, if we know God’s true character.

When it comes to wrath, however, we need to be careful to define it properly so that we do not get any wrong ideas about it. When we hear the word “wrath,” for instance, we tend to think of rage. We tend to think of a rage that is out of control and out of proportion. Neither is true of God. The wrath of God is His righteous opposition to all wickedness. And it is in perfect proportion, which is to say that God’s wrath is infinite, because any and all sin is infinitely heinous in the sight of God. So, there is no sin whatsoever in God’s holy wrath against sin.

Against whom is God’s wrath directed? Verse 18 tells us quite clearly. God’s wrath is directed against all godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness. Notice the terms here. Godlessness refers to people’s failure to worship God as they ought. Wickedness refers to their failure to love their neighbors as themselves. So God is angry against both vertical sin committed against God, and horizontal sin, committed against other humans. What is more, all their wickedness, both vertical and horizontal, is being used to suppress the truth about God. We need to mull this over for a moment. Sin suppresses truth. If people do not acknowledge God, or give Him thanks for their lives, it is because they are in the grip of sin. We must never think that natural man, in his fallen state, has the ability to think clearly about God. Natural man cannot do so. This is part of what we mean by total depravity. Sin corrupts every part of us, including our minds. Sin warps our thinking so that we get wrong ideas about God. We can see this even in our own lives as Christians. We are still quite capable of distorting God’s truth by our own sin. How many times do we rationalize sin? We do that because we do not want to stop sinning in that manner. So we justify our sin, even though we know that such sin is wrong. We try desperately to quiet that annoying conscience that keeps on pricking us, but we cannot quiet the conscience. The truth about good and evil is built into us. So, seeking to suppress it is a little like trying to press down on a powerful spring. The more you try to press it down, the more it pushes back against you.

What is this truth that Paul is talking about? It is the truth that God has revealed Himself as the all-powerful God in creation. Theologians call this general revelation. Now, general revelation does not tell us everything there is to know about God. We might get that idea from the passage, but we would be misinterpreting the passage if we did. Paul says “what may be known about God is plain to them.” Paul does not mean “everything that may be known about God.” Instead he means “what we can know about God from the creation.” This is clear from verse 20, where Paul says that the creation of the world demonstrates God’s invisible qualities, namely, His eternal power and divine nature. That is what has been revealed. Notice how oddly Paul phrases himself here. He says that God’s invisible attributes have been clearly seen. How can you see something that is invisible? The last part of verse 20 tells us: through what has been made. It is a bit like Jesus’ description of the Holy Spirit in John 3. The illustration He uses is the wind. You cannot see the wind. It is invisible, since it is only air that is moving. But you can see what it does. So also, God’s nature is evident in nature. Examples are innumerable, but I will only mention one. The earth is exactly the right distance from the sun and from the moon. Any closer, and we would burn up, although we seem to have come close to that this week! Any further, and we would freeze to death, although again, we often seem to come close to that as well! The earth is spinning just the right speed for life to work. The moon influences the tides of the ocean just correctly. Everything on earth is exactly perfect for life, and there is no room for error. The idea that all these things came about by chance is simply ludicrous.

The fact is that there are no real atheists. Everyone knows that there is a God, and they know He is all-powerful and that He hates sin. They know that there is a judgment coming, which is why they are frantically seeking anything and everything to quiet that noisy conscience. They are without excuse. Many people want to know about the poor, innocent African tribesman who has never heard about Jesus. Is it fair for God to throw such a person into Hell? Well, no it wouldn’t be fair for God to condemn someone who is innocent. If the man is innocent. But are there any innocent African tribesmen? Paul would say no. All are completely without excuse. But we might object at this point and say, “But they haven’t heard the gospel? How can they be judged for rejecting Jesus when they have never heard of Him.” The answer to this is that they will not be judged for rejecting Jesus. They will be judged for rejecting God. They know about God from creation and from their own conscience. Just because they haven’t heard the Gospel does not mean that they have an excuse. It is humanity’s fault, not God’s fault, that the level of information needed to render us without excuse (general revelation) is not as much information as what we need for salvation (special revelation). The fact that any people at all hear about Jesus is pure grace from God. God does not owe everyone or even anyone a hearing of the Gospel message. Before Adam and Eve fell into sin, the revelation of God in nature was all that they needed. That was enough information. They had what they needed to obey God completely. After the Fall, however, they needed special revelation from God. They needed the message of salvation if they were to be saved. God graciously provided that in the Bible that gradually unfolded until it came to a climax in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

But what was people’s reaction to this information in creation? They rejected it by their sin. Look at verses 21-23. They all know God, but they refuse to glorify God, and they refuse to give God thanks. This is why the poor African tribesman is without excuse. On the information that he has, he needs to glorify God as God and he needs to thank God for everything that he has. He cannot do that in his fallen state. Instead, their thinking becomes futile, their hearts are darkened. They became fools, even in the very process of claiming to be wise. And they make a very terrible exchange: they exchange the glory of God for anything to put in God’s place. What a reaction! They get rid of their greatest good in order to worship what is clearly not God. They make idols, in other words. We may not think that these temptations are ours today, but they most certainly are. We may not worship birds and animals and reptiles, but we certainly worship humans! We love to worship ourselves. And those who worship nature are also on the rise. The whole “Mother Nature” movement is an idolatry of creation. Which is more glorious: the creation or the one who creates it? Surely it is the Creator who deserves all praise and thanks!

Here, then, is the flow of Paul’s thought through the passage: the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all sin. The sin of humanity tries to the suppress the truth about God. But this truth is clearly revealed in creation in such a way that all are without excuse. But sin in the hearts of human beings will do everything to avoid that terrible truth of God’s wrath and judgment. Therefore they will worship anything and everyone before they will worship God. But their denial of the truth does not make the truth any less true, does it? The wrath of God is coming whether or not we acknowledge it or not. I remember a coyote-roadrunner cartoon where coyote was in a stationary railroad car, and a train was coming to smash the railroad car. He didn’t have time to do anything or get out of the railroad car. So he simply drew down the curtain so that he couldn’t see the train coming. Of course that didn’t stop the train from hitting the railroad car at full force. It was a feeble attempt to deny the truth. And that is what all attempts to deny God’s judgment are: feeble! God is coming to judge the living and the dead, and His wrath will be poured out against all evildoers!

So why should we love God for His wrath? What sense does that make? It makes sense to love God for His wrath because God has poured out His wrath on Jesus Christ in our place! Jesus Christ was called a fool. He became “foolish” in our place, as it were. It is very foolish to want to take on oneself the divine wrath. But Jesus wanted to do just that because of His love for us. You see, the good news of salvation doesn’t mean anything without the bad news that God’s wrath is directed towards us. In the good news, Jesus diverts God’s wrath from falling on us, so that it falls on Him instead. Going back to the coyote-roadrunner cartoon for a minute, it is as if we are coyote, waiting for the train to come and hit us, but before it can hit us, Jesus Christ comes and quickly builds a fork in the tracks (after all, anything is possible in the cartoon world, isn’t it?). He builds this fork and the train goes on the fork instead of hitting us. But Jesus does not get out of the way of the train, which then hits Him will all the force in the world. Can’t we see then, that the wrath of God is also in a sense God’s love? God cannot love us without hating our sin. And God wants to show us just how much He loves us by diverting His wrath from us so that it lands on Jesus Christ. And then, at last, we can come back to the one who is preparing a house for us. We wouldn’t want the new heavens and the new earth to have any blemish or sin or evil of any kind, would we? The wrath of God is so complete and total, that there will be no evil left. If God’s wrath were even slightly less powerful than it is, we might justly fear that there would be evil in the world that God is preparing. But be thankful that God’s wrath is so complete that all evil will be eradicated, and we will have no fear of evil ever again. So be thankful for the wrath of God. It is God’s holy anger against sin. And it is the flip-side of God’s love for us.

This has several implications for us beyond what we have already said. First of all, it has great importance for our evangelism. We may think that we should not start with the wrath of God in evangelism. However, if people don’t know that there is a problem, they will never flee to the solution, will they? How can people be saved if they don’t think that they need to be saved? Saved from what, after all? Paul starts his entire gospel of salvation by speaking about the wrath of God. We may not downplay or ignore what Paul has done here. And it is a good model for us to follow.

Secondly, whenever we sin, we are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. This is just as possible for Christians to do, as for non-Christians. What are we suppressing? We are suppressing that voice of conscience that tells us that what we are doing is wrong. We need to listen to that voice of conscience.

Thirdly, we need to glorify God and give Him thanks. If we do not glorify God by worshiping Him, and if we do not thank Him, then we are worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator. We are worshiping ourselves. We will become darkened in our thinking. We must not think that these things could not happen to us because we are Christians. Sin has all sorts of effects in our lives, far beyond what we even imagine. And it is very foolish indeed to underestimate sin’s power in the life of even a believer.

And fourthly, we need to see God in what He has made. Every little flower that opens, and every bird that sings. God has made them, every one, and He made their tiny wings. He is as evident in the petals of a flower as He is in the most powerful hurricane. God’s work is everywhere, and He is everywhere working! We need to see Him at work. God’s amazing love for us is demonstrated in that He rules every particle of this universe all for our benefit, so that we could have a beautiful world in which to live. Small thanks to God if we never worship Him, or are lax in our worship, or our thanks! Worship Him and give Him thanks, yes, even for His wrath!



  1. Truth Unites... and Divides said,

    September 3, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    “The idea that all these things came about by chance is simply ludicrous.”

    Sadly, there are a lot of folks who firmly hold onto this ludicrous idea.

  2. Tim Vaughan said,

    September 4, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    Why mix in the FOX NEWS CHANNEL with Biblical studies? In 1938 Germany, Poland, the USSR and Hungary AT THE SAME TIME dismembered an artificial state where their respective nationals had been kidnapped by cynical Brits and French. The British needed to repent of their manstealing and learn to keep their noses out of other people’s business.

    No one who knows the first thing about WW2 thinks Germany wanted British territory, or American etc…

  3. greenbaggins said,

    September 5, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Tim, or French territory? He was happy enough to bomb the stuffing out of the British. Do you really think that Hitler was not bent on world domination? Of course no one would think that Britain was sinless in this affair. They were a whole lot less sinful than Hitler.

  4. Tim Vaughan said,

    September 6, 2010 at 8:34 am

    The French and British declared war on Hitler, not the other way around. Dunkirk was a peace offering, not a miracle. It’s also interesting that the Anglo-Polish peace treaty that got Britain into the war was signed just a year after Poland had invaded CZ at EXACTLY the same time as Hitler. So one can’t say any moral outrage over CZ had much to do with things…..You’d perhaps be surprised at which of those two countries started started bombing raids as well.

    CZ was a cynical wedge driven into Germany. Put together precicely to make Czechs just over 50 percent of the population. Removing the Sudatenland which had been German for centuries not only robbed Germany of 30 Divisions but a wedge taken from a circle can increase a countries borders by 50 percent even when it only takes 10 percent of the territory. It was an act of pure evil. Also interesting is that when the four powers broke up CZ Slovakia joined the Axis. They hated being run by Chechs just like they did up until a few years ago when they did the same thing and removed themselves from that forced union.

  5. Ron Henzel said,

    September 7, 2010 at 7:04 pm


    The French and British declared war on Germany—as you are doubtless aware—because Germany invaded Poland after Hitler repeatedly declared to the world that he would be plenty satisfied with the Sudetanland (after having already annexed Austria in the Anschluss). Of course, the first indication that he was lying through his dorky little toothbrush mustache came when his troops kept marching through the Sudetenland and went on to grab all of Czechoslovakia (either by direct occupation or through his proxy, the pudding-headed Slovak fascist Jozef Tiso)—including the dinky little town of Český Těšín, which, per your Aryanesque whining, Poland had managed to briefly pry away from Czechoslovakia during the chaos of 1938 (without any real fighting, I might add). Hungary also had its eyes on some Czechoslovakian lands, and in the meantime Romania was threatening to allow the Soviet Army passage through a corridor of its country to prevent such thefts. So yes, few countries in Europe were being run by the disciples of Francis of Assisi in those days, but compared to Hitler, Poland’s President Ignacy Mościcki (1926-1939) looked like Mother Theresa.

    To characterize Czechoslovakia as “a cynical wedge driven into Germany” betrays not only an undue familiarity with the slimy rhetorical regurgitations of Herr Dr. Joseph Goebbels (whose Ph.D. was, appropriately, in 18th century romantic drama), but a culpable ignorance of European history. Check any map of central Europe going back to Roman times (A.D. 1, in fact) and you will find Bohemia (known today as the Czech Republic) exactly where it was when Hitler was being potty-trained in Braunau am Inn. All of the land known today as the Czech Republic is nothing more or less than the historic territory of the Czech people, and to insinuate otherwise is contemptible. Germans did not begin settling on the southeastern side of the Sudeten mountains until the 13th century, and they didn’t become poisonously nationalized until the Nazis began their fruity goosestepping through the pages of history.

    Your characterization of Slovakia as chafing under the domination of the Czech is almost too ludicrous for words. Except for its fascist interim during the Slovak Republic days under the Nazi boot heel (1939-1945), Slovakia has enjoyed historically friendly relations with the Czechs, in no small part due to the varying degrees (depending on changing political contingencies) of relative autonomy allowed to Slovakia. Slovak leaders of Czechoslovakia leaders include the Prague Spring’s Alexander Dubček (1968-1969) and Gustáv Husák (1975-1989). Their post-Cold War division following their Velvet Revolution had the precise opposite character of the events that unfolded, with an open border between the two new nations from the beginning of their separation. Today there are ethnic Czechs living in Slovakia and ethnic Slovaks living in the Czech Republic with full rights—including the right for any legal proceedings to be conducted in the first language of the defendant, and for all official documents to be recognized in either language.

    Nothing personal, but as a proud and patriotic Polish-Irish-American, as well as a history teacher, I scoff at your historical revisionism. Please don’t take it the wrong way; it’s kind of a reflex with me. (Hey! Don’t complain: I originally wrote that I “spit on” it. Good thing I changed the wording, if not the sentiment.)

  6. Ron Henzel said,

    September 7, 2010 at 7:07 pm


    When I wrote:

    Their post-Cold War division following their Velvet Revolution had the precise opposite character of the events that unfolded, …

    I meant to write:

    Their post-Cold War division following their Velvet Revolution had the precise opposite character of the events that unfolded during World War 2, …

  7. Tim Vaughan said,

    September 9, 2010 at 5:45 am

    “but compared to Hitler, Poland’s President Ignacy Mościcki (1926-1939) looked like Mother Theresa”

    Someone’s spent too much time on Wikipedia. When I think of bombastic threats I think of Lipski as much as Ribbentrop, but then since I’m not particularly proud of my ethnic background (Scots and Welsh don’t have a have the sort of second class modern military status that tends towards self justification and myth making) I don’t have as big a dog in the fight.

    But to sift out some rhetoric, I said Hungary invaded CZ at the same time as Germany. You said Hungary had it’s eye on CZ. My I ask you point blank if your definition of “had it’s eye” is the same as “invaded”? Perhaps an answer not longer than one sentence? :-)

    There’s not much else in your post that’s pin downable.

  8. Ron Henzel said,

    September 10, 2010 at 1:28 pm


    If you want to be an apologist for Hitler’s Nazi regime, who am I to argue with you?

  9. Tim Vaughan said,

    September 10, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    That was exactly the answer I expected from you, when I asked you point blank if Hungary invaded CZ at the same time as the Germans. I’d get the same if I asked you whether Poland invaded as well.

  10. Ron Henzel said,

    September 11, 2010 at 6:36 am


    We often expect what we know we deserve. And fulminating about the answers you supposedly “expected” from me just subtracts more points from your already negative credibility rating.

    I have already addressed the brief Polish occupation of Český Těšín (now in the Czech Republic) which was prior to the German invasion (not at exactly the same time, contrary to your petulant all-caps outburst), and it is disingenuous of you to imply that I haven’t.

    Hungary joined the Axis when it signed the First Treaty of Vienna, which came a bit more than a month after the cowardly Munich Agreement (September 1938), and which awarded Hungary a long slice of southern Slovakia. When Hungary tried to leave the Axis in 1943-44, Germany invaded and set up a puppet government.

    So big whoop-dee-doo. I’ve already conceded that the nations of Central and Eastern Europe were not run by angels between the two World Wars. Democracy wasn’t working too well in a part of the world that had never actually tried it until after the Versailles Treaty. So what?

    And how does any of this prove (a) that Hitler’s Germany was not the aggressor in World War 2, (b) that Hitler was not bent on world domination, (c) that the Germans were trying play nice at Dunkirk (ROFLOL!), (d) that the creation of Czechoslovakia’s borders was “an act of pure evil” (which you support with logic straight out of Mein Kampf!), (e) that you know how to spell “Czechs” (which you obviously don’t), (f) that Hitler didn’t wet his bed well into his 20s, or (g) that you don’t reflexively give the Nazi salute when you hear Wagner playing and then try to cover it up by pretending to be pointing at an airplane?

    OK, I was just kidding about (f) and (g).

  11. Ron Henzel said,

    September 11, 2010 at 6:49 am


    When I wrote:

    I have already addressed the brief Polish occupation of Český Těšín (now in the Czech Republic) which was prior to the German invasion…

    I meant prior to the invasion of those parts of Czechoslovakia beyond the Sudetenland. To be clear: German troops entered the Sudetenland October 1, 1938. Polish troops entered Český Těšín the next day. Germany then invaded the rest of Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939.

  12. Tim Vaughan said,

    September 11, 2010 at 11:12 am

    Yes, yes, Poland invaded one day after Germany, therefore Tim has no credibility when he said Poland and Germany invaded at the same time. Boy, Ron, you got me on that one.

    “And how does any of this prove (a) that Hitler’s Germany was not the aggressor in World War 2,”

    The current neocon blathering over “appeasement” is just rabble rousing. Germany should never been carved up after WW2. The Sudatenland, Danzig etc…were areas Germany had an obligation to annex. There was nothing sinful about it. Poles have always thought they were more significant militarily than they are, and paid a horrible price. “All your Ukrainians and Germans are belong to us” summarizes the Polish attitude at the time.

    “(b) that Hitler was not bent on world domination,”

    Do you teach history at a public high school? Dude, Hitler was evil, but he had a brain. He wanted land in the east, and I know of no professional WW2 scholar who claims he wanted the UK, Americans, Asia etc….That’s just a bad joke.

    “(c) that the Germans were trying play nice at Dunkirk (ROFLOL!),”

    Well, some emotional guy is rolling on the ground with laughter, but my views are shared by Liddell Hart (who you’ve never heard of but will doubtless look up on wikipedia).

    “(d) that the creation of Czechoslovakia’s borders was “an act of pure evil” (which you support with logic straight out of Mein Kampf!),”

    No it was an act of kindness to throw 3 million Germans, three quarters of a million Hungarians etc…together with 7 million Czechs. You seen, they loved being a part of CZ and it was only after brainwashing that they wanted to join with their own people. And the physical location of the new nation was pure coincidence.

  13. Ron Henzel said,

    September 11, 2010 at 1:38 pm


    I see you’re catching on—about the no credibility thing, that is. No self-respecting historian would call a negotiated occupation and annexation an “invasion.” As long as Hitler had stopped with occupying the Sudetenland in October 1938 there would have been no “invasion,” at least not from an international perspective. (Now, the Czechs themselves, of course, may have a different view on this point.) It was when Hitler sent troops into Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 that it became an invasion.

    As for the territorial losses that Germany suffered after World War 2: these are irrelevant to the current discussion. It was the redrawn map of Europe after World War 1 that provided the bones of contention that led to World War 2. The boundaries established since World War 2 have not led to any noteworthy instability, except perhaps in your thinking. Europe has moved on; why don’t you do the same?

    As for world domination, FYI: it’s not synonymous with “world occupation.” Hitler believed that eventually his victories would inspire whatever “Aryan” populations existed in France and Britain to take over and ally themselves with him. As for his Lebensraum campaign in the East: Hitler hated Slavs almost as much as he hated Jews, and between mass executions on the battlefields and in the death camps he exterminated both groups in virtually equal numbers (6 million non-Jews died in addition to 6 million Jews, most of them Slavs). Once the war was over Hitler planned “forced relocations” of Slavs out of all territories he’d conquered in the East, but in actual practice there likely would have been more mass exterminations. Out of one side of his mouth der Führer talked about the “ethnic principle” for establishing territorial boundaries; out of the other side he spoke as though any part of the world Germany wanted it had the right to annex since non-Aryans were, after all, inferior races (with Jews and Slavs occupying the lowest rungs of the parasite-to-Übermensch ladder).

    To put a finer point on it: absolutely none—not one cubic centimeter—of the land Germany seized in Czechoslovakia between 1938 and ’39 had ever belonged to Germany, and none of the land outside the Sudetenland had ever hosted a significant ethnically-German population. Occasionally over the centuries Germans were invited to immigrate to various Slavic countries for purposes of mutual economic benefit (Bohemia and Russia being two that come quickly to mind), but if the rulers who’d invited them ever thought for a moment that such invitations would one day lead to German territorial claims within the host countries’ borders (which, in the centuries prior to a Germany with a strong centralized government, seemed absurdly remote), the would never have issued them.

    As for Dunkirk: Hart’s view has been discredited among reputable historians for quite some time now.

    As for your continued Naziesque whining about the plight of those poor Germans forced to live with those mongrel hordes in Czechoslovakia (which again, I’ll point out, sounds amazingly like the slime that oozes from the pages of Mein Kampf): (1) perhaps you are not aware, but there was no nation state known as Germany until 1871, and thus (2) the Sudetendeutsch (all of whom knew they were moving to a foreign country when they relocated) had lived as a minority under non-German governments in Bohemia and Moravia (now the Czech Republic) for more than 500 years, because (3) Austria-Hungary (which combined the Hapsburg dominions with Hungary in the mid-19th century) had held title to Bohemia and Moravia since the early 16th century without any agitation from the Sudetendeutsch, and thus (3) German nationalism in the Sudetenland did not become a political phenomenon until after World War 1, primarily due to political agitation both in Germany and among various politically-motivated Sudetendeutsch. So, if it was some kind of cruel, evil act to “throw 3 million Germans” together with Czechs and Hungarians, the Germans of the Sudetenland (who deliberately and continuously migrated from ethnically-German lands for the specific purpose of living in what they knew to be a non-German land) had been guilty of perpetrating this cruelty on themselves for several centuries!

    So, Tim—have you read all of Mein Kampf, or just the parts where Hitler whines about growing up with mongrel races in Austria-Hungary? Do you attend neo-Nazi rallies every once in a while? Are you also into that Aryan-Nation-Anglo-Israelism stuff? Are you a tax protester on the side? Just trying to establish a profile here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: