Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Wanted your comments about the recent elected pope:
- He fought the final months of WW2 (on the german side, of course). Will he be accused of being "a nazi pope"? His conservatism won't "help".
- Will he be used as a vehicle to smear the catholic Church once more? (remember Pius XII, who "didn't save the poor jews")
I just want to have some feedback from the Rev Forum.
I would think that if there was anyone who would have known about what was exactly was happening in Poland and Catholic Europe generally then it would have been the Pope, since I believe the Vatican had diplomatic immunity to enable the free flow of information from the Polish Catholic hierarchy, so that it is significant that Pius refused to endorse the notion of an extermination program in regard to the Jews. I would speculate that the basic reason the late Polish Pope did not allow unrestricted access to the Vatican archives is because it probably would have indicated the intense anti-Semitism of the Polish Catholic Church, but not necessarily any reports of death camps.
Since the new Pope is a German one would hope that he would be concerned to dispel any notion of a German blood libel, if that is at all possible. I am not sure of what is the background of the new Pope in relation to Nazi Germany, as I think that he was too young to play any self-conscious role either for or against the regime, but, perhaps in relation to any smears concerning an alleged Nazi past, this might make him more determined to allow access to the archives, which, if the revisionists are correct, would mitigate the German role in history, or else, if the exterminationists are correct, should demonstrate that he has no sympathy with a Nazi past.
I reccomend Kaplans "Balkan Ghosts" on this.
"In agreement with the judgment of all truly Christian people in Germany, I must state that we Christians feel this policy of destroying the Jews to be a grave wrong, and one which will have fearful consequences for the German people. To kill without necessity of war, and without legal judgment, contravens God's commands even when it has been ordered by authority, and like every conscious violation of God's law, will be avenged, sooner or later." -Bishop Wurm to the Head of Hitler's Chancellery, December 20, 1943
Here's my source:
It is Part 1, Chapter one, entitled "Just so they could go to heaven" that details cooperation between Croatian Nazis and the Church over the mass slaughter of the local Jewish community.
Hannover wrote:Soda, oberststuhlherr:
Got evidence? I challenge you to post it.
I posted what I was aware of. I would be rather surprised that a Bishop would know about some kind of atrocity, and the Pope not be aware. I really don't have a position as to what the Pope may, or may not, have known. I believe there were innocent people in dire straits for years during the war. These people were forced into conditions which warrented a moral outcry from someone like the Pope.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but from what one person who seems knowlegible reported to me, there was a very high deathrate in the KZs. I believe there is sufficient evidence that Himmler's official position was 'compassion and mercy are weaknesses to be overcome'. Part of that assessment comes from what Graf wrote.
So, in other words, you have no evidence that The Vatican knew about the 'holocau$t' as it is alleged and said nothing. Which makes sense, no one else does either.
People in labor camps on both sides of the war died. Start a thread on your ideas about death rates & we'll talk. Remember, you'll be asked for evidence.
Your citing a book is useless without direct quotes and their sources. Quotes which will be challenged for evidence to support them. Remember there are tons of books about withcraft, it means nothing unless there is supporting evidence. You obviously believe everything you read. Too bad.
You know the drill, start a thread with your comments.
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 2468
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
- Location: Northern California
That quote is from December 1943. Keep in mind that for an entire year before that, Jewish organizations were trying to start rumors of Jews being killed. I posted a Reader's Digest article from Feb. 1943 that was dropped in millions of mailboxes throughout the heartland of America that said just that. And in fact clairvoyantly mentioned the 6 million number!. Do a search for the article here, and you'll see it mentions Nazis hanging Jews out their kitchen windows in Freiburg, something no historian believes today. The point is that Jewish agencies had that myth floating around so it's not surprising that "Bishop Wurm" might write a note like that. I'm sure lots of people did.
The second point is, if something as big as the holocaust happened. There wouldn't be some little note that is the "smoking gun." or key piece of evidence. There would be a mountain of evidence. A literal mountain when you hear about the 500,000 people graves, and the holes those must have took. To find a tape of Himmler speaking, or to find out that Eichmann said this or that in Argentina is absurd if it's put forward as a "clincher" piece of evidence. I don't know where you live but imagine 6 million dead in the area surrounding you. Would that be your whole state? Thus you can see the absurdity of looking for a telltale piece of paper.
The third thing is that I knew the writer of that book, Joachim Remak and I also read it. He died 5 or so years ago. As a lecturer, he'd go on and on about the Nazis and Hitler, never mentioning his own ethnicity (everyone assuming it was German.) It was, guess what? Jewish. He taught that Chamberlain appeased Hitler on the Sudetenland--never once mentioning how acquiring the Sudetenland fit perfectly with Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, which advocated the self-determination of ethnic groups. The other expert on that time-period at that university had actually changed his name from a, maybe rare, Jewish name to one that sounded Dutch or German or something (his wife's maiden name), and similarly never mentioned his ethnicity to his students, while parrotting the same "Jews are good, Nazis are evil" viewpoints as Remak. So there were all these enthusiastic, beautiful, nice, California kids getting a big dose of lies from these two. I'm sure it's practically the same deal at most universities. Likely from the second professor's influence, Remak was replaced by a professor who specializes in, guess what? the holocaust. His name is Harold Marcuse and he'll be filling California kids' heads with lies for the following 40 years.
Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Hi Obersterlherr,
That quote is from December 1943. Keep in mind that for an entire year before that, Jewish organizations were trying to start rumors of Jews being killed. ...
Yes, I let that go, followed by immediate esprit d'escalier. You are quite correct that he could have been taken in by dishonest propaganda. It does seem to be a fairly isolated statement(though I could be wrong). I believe it speaks well for Bishop Wurm that he had the courage to speak against what he believed was happening.
Also, the pope may have been aware of Bishop Wurm's beliefs, but dismissed them as the effects of dishonest propaganda.
Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:The second point is, if something as big as the holocaust happened. There wouldn't be some little note that is the "smoking gun." or key piece of evidence.
I really don't know what else may have been in the correspondence. I provided that statement in the entirety that it was provided by Remak.
Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:There would be a mountain of evidence. A literal mountain when you hear about the 500,000 people graves, and the holes those must have took. To find a tape of Himmler speaking, or to find out that Eichmann said this or that in Argentina is absurd if it's put forward as a "clincher" piece of evidence. I don't know where you live but imagine 6 million dead in the area surrounding you. Would that be your whole state? Thus you can see the absurdity of looking for a telltale piece of paper.
I was merely presenting the evidence I had, in the spirit of science. I was not trying to prove any other point than that the document exists and says what it does. It may help fill out the picture of what people in Germany were thinking and doing at the time, and how they perceived these events.
Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:The third thing is that I knew the writer of that book, Joachim Remak and I also read it. He died 5 or so years ago. As a lecturer, he'd go on and on about the Nazis and Hitler, never mentioning his own ethnicity (everyone assuming it was German.) It was, guess what? Jewish.
Oh, I wasn't arguing the book is overly persuasive. When I read it decades ago, I was a True Believer(TM) I was simpley providing the quote because it is a piece of evidence that shows that someone of repute in Germany did believe there was something drastically amiss in the East.
I truly believe there was much amiss. Jürgen Graf says as much in TGWFOC. I'm going to maintain the conviction that there were things taking place in Nazi occupied Europe that were worth of moral indignation. Likewise for Operation Gomorrah, and the Nuking of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These actions on the part of the Allies may actually prove more shocking to the impartial observer than what happened to the Jews in Eastern Europe.
I believe it likely Chaim Weizmann and his ilk had their hands covered in innocent Jewish blood as much as any of the Nazis.
That does not change the fact that horrible things, worthy of moral condemnation, happened to innocent people, many of whom were Jewish, and in many cases because they were Jewish.
I don't believe in The Holocaust, that's not part of my religion.
To address the issue of countering the effects of falsehoods being promulgated throughout our culture, I sincerely believe it would be very useful for someone who knows revisionism well to carefully critique this series of programs:
I believe it represents the most aggressive, and comprehensive presentation of "The Holocaust" story to date. It is a very, very, sophisticated, well produced piece of infotainment. No one could watch it and not be taken in by it, if they were not armed with solid counter arguments for all the most damaging points.
That does not change the fact that horrible things, worthy of moral condemnation, happened to innocent people, many of whom were Jewish, and in many cases because they were Jewish
Sounds like a mindless mantra.
What horrible things? Examples and evidence please.
You're in the wrong place if you think you can keep waffling.
Go ahead, take the points from the BBS series and tell us why you found them believable. We've actually covered all the points on this froum, but go ahead anyway. Remember, separate threads per point.
No more excuses.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: karl_fallout4 and 8 guests