Is it true Hitler sued for peace several times but Churchill rejected them all?
Absolutely. But, first some background. Before the outbreak of war in 1939 Hitler offered to Poland an adjustment of borders to peacefully terminate the Polish Corridor dividing the heartland of Germany from East Prussia. Keep in mind that Poland had taken a slice of Czechoslovakia as part of the Munich agreement in 1938, so the Poles were in a poor position, politically or morally, to reject his proposal.Once Britain and France declared war on Germany Hitler chose not to attack British cities by air, although under the rules of war he would have been justified in doing so. The invasions of Norway and Denmark came only after Hitler was forewarned that Britain and France were planning to lay mines in Norwegian harbors to impede Swedish iron ore supplies to Germany. Once the Battle of France got underway in May 1940 Churchill predicted that next would come “The Battle of Britain”, but he was wrong. Hitler never wanted war with Britain. Contrary to popular belief, he allowed the British to evacuate their soldiers from Dunkirk; it was not due to his switching of Panzer divisions south nor placing confidence in the Luftwaffe to destroy them. Hitler believed a peaceful exit from France would induce the British to negotiate a quid pro quo: recognize German dominance over the continent in return for Germany leaving Britain and her colonies alone. Lord Halifax and other key UK officials supported this offer while Churchill, now Prime Minister, stood almost alone in opposition. Hitler explicitly forbade the bombing of British cities in the summer of 1940 in a bid to reconciliate the two warring nations. Many historians believe that the Hess flight to Scotland to make peace in 1941 was secretly sanctioned by Hitler. In this case the inducement came in the form of an Anglo-German agreement to destroy the Soviet Union, or at least keep Britain neutral during Operation Barbarossa. Only Churchill’s pledge to aid Stalin in June of 1941 prevented this outcomeIn sum, Britain could have made peace in 1941 and still kept her empire, including India, which Hitler rightly assumed was as vital to the British as their home island.
Who is "the Word" in John 1:1?
The Word in John 1:1 etc is God’s power to create. In Greek “word” is “logos”. This was also a philosophical term for the ordered shape of the cosmos. But I like to derive it from the beautiful poem of the Creation in Genesis 1.1-31. (If you don’t take that text as a poem, but as reality, that’s okay with me, at least for now.)Notice that each time God creates a new part of the world, the poem of the Creation says: “And God said, let...” God creates by speaking words. He says it, and what he says, happens and comes into existence.We can of course speculate about what kind of mysterious words this is, and how there can be words if God is alone before the world exists or is ordered. That is one of the reasons I take this text to be a poem – or we could delve deep into the philosophy of language and meaning. I’ll not try to do this here (nor anywhere else, probably, I’m not all that learned), I’ll just point out how the Bible expresses God’s power to create as being by words.In the first verses of the Gospel according to John this idea of God creating by words is taken up again. I suppose there is a long development of ideas between these two texts, both in the Greek-speaking and the Hebrew-speaking parts of the ancient world, but still the basic idea is the same in both cases: God creates by his word.Then notice the words “in the beginning” in both texts.Genesis says “In the beginning God created heaven and earth” and goes on to say that this creation was by uttering words. First come God’s words, then comes light, heaven, earth and so on.The Gospel of John 1:1 etc says the same: “In the beginning was the Word” and “all things were made by him”. In Greek “him” does not necessarily indicate a person, it can also on occasion be a thing – this has to do with grammar, so we leave it there. It is anyway a peculiar word as it is also said to be light.It is also a peculiar word as it is said in John 1:14: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us”. This refers to Jesus and makes the claim that he was God’s power to create transformed to a human being.There is a lot to ponder here, and to get to the bottom of it we would have to make that deep delve into philosophy that I don’t want to make, and into Jewish thought, and into theology. Again I’ll not try to do all that, but just point out that in John 1.1 etc we stand at the starting point – or one of the starting points – of the theological work that later led to the doctrine of the Trinity.