1936: Bad Timing for an Anti-War Message

Actually, the timing of Things to Come may in a narrow sense have been good -- since most people in 1936 were desperate to avoid another war. Its grim depiction of the near future must have scared everyone who saw it. So in a commercial sense it was probably well-timed. Bu obviously, in the real-world sense of impending Nazi aggression, it was a misplaced theme to present.

Anyway, I doubt this film had any effect on politicians' or other people's pacifist thinking; at most it may have hardened them in their views. With the pointless carnage of the First World War still fresh in everyone's memories, it's understandable (not defensible, but understandable) why in the 1920s and 30s most people throughout Europe and America wanted to avoid another war at all costs. This attitude led to many bad assumptions and decisions, perhaps best summed up by Winston Churchill, one of the few clear-headed thinkers on the subject, after the sellout at Munich: "The government had a choice between dishonor and war. They chose dishonor. They will get war." Truer words were never spoken, but most people persisted in their peace-at-any-price fantasies until they found themselves fighting for their lives.

Pacifism as such is never an answer because it's hopelessly naïve and leaves you unprepared for aggression. That said, war is never "the answer" either -- in fact, that's exactly the phrase used by the Nazis regarding their opponents: "War will be our answer!"

But war isn't an answer -- at best it's a necessity, as World War II was. But war never solves anything. It may resolve one problem but leaves in its wake others, quite apart from the destruction and loss it causes. There's no rule about these things. We're dealing with human beings, and because of that there's probably no way to painlessly resolve this age-old dilemma about war.