New Pope is a former Hitler Youth...?

[12th Doctor]

Did you acctually bother to read any of that.  JPII did not apologize for "the Church's" actions.  He apologized for the actions of individual clergy throughout history.  That means something different intirly.   And Pius XI and XII loudly condemed the Nazis before the war and Pius XII did everything he could to oppose Nazism during.

If JPII was apologizing for Pius XII, why in the Hell did he want to make him a saint?

I assumed they apoligized from this:

The church didn't oppose the Nazis.

And there have been apologizes for that.

Well, I have no qualms saying that Phil is wrong and he has falling victim to a commonly held misconception.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

It was clear that Hitler was a madman, and the Socialist and Communist parties strongly opposed it. The whole Reichstag incident was probably engineered by the Nazis.

Yes, I am aware of this.  I am not a moron.  It is claer to us now that the Nazis started the fire.  We know that for a fact.  It was not known back then, however.  I don't understand where the miscommunication is here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, I do not disagree, but that is not the argument.  The argument is whether or not the Catholics acctually supported Hitler.  the answer is "no".

However, do you agree that the Communists and Socialists were the best choices in 1930s Germany? And as I stated above, many Catholics did support Hitler. All? no. But that's still quite a lengthy list.

[AuH2O]

Actually they were just stupid and didn't see what was coming. No one really did.

Hindsight of course is 20/20. Though it takes a bizarro like jfern to rely on (baseless) attacks on a national sales tax that doesn't exist to mask his complete lack of knowledge on this subject. Mostly he makes things up with the aim of attacking any institution not dedicated to the destruction of civilization.

The Communists and Socialists opposed this. I'm sick up hearing these sort of apoligetic arguments. The same people were in favor of the war on Iraq, despite 20 million people protesting world-wide, and guess what, no WMD. It's time to stop mindlessly following your leaders, and time to carefully listen (you don't have to follow their advice), but listen to what the opposition is saying.

This is just the same follow the leader ignore the crazy leftists mentality that got the Enabling Act passed.

Bush got the same number of votes from me as he did from you.

Now it's Iraq that jfern is rambling about. How about this: you said the church was basically OK with Nazism, and that was a lie. That makes you a liar. Talk about other topics where they belong.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Did you acctually bother to read any of that.  JPII did not apologize for "the Church's" actions.  He apologized for the actions of individual clergy throughout history.  That means something different intirly.   And Pius XI and XII loudly condemed the Nazis before the war and Pius XII did everything he could to oppose Nazism during.

If JPII was apologizing for Pius XII, why in the Hell did he want to make him a saint?

I assumed they apoligized from this:

The church didn't oppose the Nazis.

And there have been apologizes for that.

Well, I have no qualms saying that Phil is wrong and he has falling victim to a commonly held misconception.

If the church hasn't apoligized, then their choice of pope was a horrible decision.

[AuH2O]

So when you make decisions you have hindsight?

For his hypothetical question, you do.

That's infinitely regressive. It's like saying would you kill so-and-so to prevent X 200 years ago... it's not a valuable counterfactual.

And, actually, a communist victory in the elections would have resulted in millions of deaths also, so it's pretty ridiculous to praise the communists.

The socialists come out looking great but ultimately they didn't have a lot of options. Credit doesn't come in hindsight.

[12th Doctor]

Did you acctually bother to read any of that.  JPII did not apologize for "the Church's" actions.  He apologized for the actions of individual clergy throughout history.  That means something different intirly.   And Pius XI and XII loudly condemed the Nazis before the war and Pius XII did everything he could to oppose Nazism during.

If JPII was apologizing for Pius XII, why in the Hell did he want to make him a saint?

I assumed they apoligized from this:

The church didn't oppose the Nazis.

And there have been apologizes for that.

Well, I have no qualms saying that Phil is wrong and he has falling victim to a commonly held misconception.

If the church hasn't apoligized, then their choice of pope was a horrible decision.

What?  Apologize for what.  The fact that Pius XII saved thousands of Jews,  Spoke out against the Nazis, excommunicated "Catholic" Nazis and help organized the assasination plot on Hitler?

WHAT IN THE HELL DO WE HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR?

[AuH2O]

not all committing suicide so jfern can rule the world

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush got the same number of votes from me as he did from you.

Now it's Iraq that jfern is rambling about. How about this: you said the church was basically OK with Nazism, and that was a lie. That makes you a liar. Talk about other topics where they belong.

Pope Pius XII never condemned the Holocaust. Do I really need to say more?

[12th Doctor]

I knew this would happen.  I present all of these facts that prove that what is said about Pius XII and the Church is a lie and no one bothers to read it.  They would just rather go on believing the lie, because it is conveinent.

[Beet]

Did you acctually bother to read any of that.  JPII did not apologize for "the Church's" actions.  He apologized for the actions of individual clergy throughout history.  That means something different intirly.   And Pius XI and XII loudly condemed the Nazis before the war and Pius XII did everything he could to oppose Nazism during.

If JPII was apologizing for Pius XII, why in the Hell did he want to make him a saint?

I assumed they apoligized from this:

The church didn't oppose the Nazis.

And there have been apologizes for that.

Well, I have no qualms saying that Phil is wrong and he has falling victim to a commonly held misconception.

If the church hasn't apoligized, then their choice of pope was a horrible decision.

What?  Apologize for what.  The fact that Pius XII saved thousands of Jews,  Spoke out against the Nazis, excommunicated "Catholic" Nazis and help organized the assasination plot on Hitler?

WHAT IN THE HELL DO WE HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR?

You have nothing to apologize for. Individual lay Catholics have nothing to apologize for. The debate is whether the church as an institution needs to apologize for the institution's actions. As for the historical circumstances I'm not familiar enough to make a judgment here.

[12th Doctor]

Bush got the same number of votes from me as he did from you.

Now it's Iraq that jfern is rambling about. How about this: you said the church was basically OK with Nazism, and that was a lie. That makes you a liar. Talk about other topics where they belong.

Pope Pius XII never condemned the Holocaust. Do I really need to say more?

He condemed the Nazis out of hand, you moron.  He saved Jews from the Nazis.  He did all this stuff.  Does it not follow that he was obviously against the Holocaust?  Are you really so thick -headed that someone needs to draw that connection for you?

[12th Doctor]

Did you acctually bother to read any of that.  JPII did not apologize for "the Church's" actions.  He apologized for the actions of individual clergy throughout history.  That means something different intirly.   And Pius XI and XII loudly condemed the Nazis before the war and Pius XII did everything he could to oppose Nazism during.

If JPII was apologizing for Pius XII, why in the Hell did he want to make him a saint?

I assumed they apoligized from this:

The church didn't oppose the Nazis.

And there have been apologizes for that.

Well, I have no qualms saying that Phil is wrong and he has falling victim to a commonly held misconception.

If the church hasn't apoligized, then their choice of pope was a horrible decision.

What?  Apologize for what.  The fact that Pius XII saved thousands of Jews,  Spoke out against the Nazis, excommunicated "Catholic" Nazis and help organized the assasination plot on Hitler?

WHAT IN THE HELL DO WE HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR?

You have nothing to apologize for. Individual lay Catholics have nothing to apologize for. The debate is whether the church as an institution needs to apologize for the institution's actions. As for the historical circumstances I'm not familiar enough to make a judgment here.

The Pope is the Church and Pope Pius did everything he could short of standing in front of a Nazi cannon and saying "blast me" to save Jewish lives and stop the Nazis.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's infinitely regressive. It's like saying would you kill so-and-so to prevent X 200 years ago... it's not a valuable counterfactual.

And, actually, a communist victory in the elections would have resulted in millions of deaths also, so it's pretty ridiculous to praise the communists.

The socialists come out looking great but ultimately they didn't have a lot of options. Credit doesn't come in hindsight.

That's why it's a hypothetical question. As for your comments on a communist victory

1. What makes you think that they'd get a majority by themselves? What the anti-Hitler forces could hope for is a majority between the Communists and the Socialists, and none of them randomly being arrested before the vote.

2. What makes you say that the communists would have killed millions? Just because Stalin killed millions doesn't mean they would have. And even if they did, that would still be far better than Hitler.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He condemed the Nazis out of hand, you moron.  He saved Jews from the Nazis.  He did all this stuff.  Does it not follow that he was obviously against the Holocaust?  Are you really so thick -headed that someone needs to draw that connection for you?

Secretly saving a few jews doesn't make up for letting millions die without condemning that.

[12th Doctor]

He condemed the Nazis out of hand, you moron.  He saved Jews from the Nazis.  He did all this stuff.  Does it not follow that he was obviously against the Holocaust?  Are you really so thick -headed that someone needs to draw that connection for you?

Secretly saving a few jews doesn't make up for letting millions die without condemning that.

Oh my God... I've ing had it.  I have ing had it.

First off, he was directly and indirectly behind efforts that save hundreds-of-thousands of Jewist lives.  Second, the only way he could have done that was by being secretive about it.  Third, tried to kill the momentum behind Nazism from the begining, thus preventing this.  Fourth, He tried to help eliminate the root cause, Hitler.  Fifth, please acctually read the links I have provided.

[Sam Spade]

Just on the Enabling Act (entitled the Law for the Relief of the Distress of Nation and State).

Super is quite right as to how it appears in the Weimar Constitution.  In fact the whole Weimar Constitution was absolute garbage due to the power the Chancellor could institute through the use of Article 48.

The reason why the Centrists aligned with the Conservatives and the NSDAP was a political reason.

The ultra-monarchist Franz von Papen managed to get Hitler as chancellor originally in 1933, by getting Hitler to concede to form a Cabinet with Papen and other monarchist-type conservatives who would be acceptable to Hindenberg.

He and Hindenberg thought that by surrounding Hitler with so many non-Nazis, they would stop Hitler's totalitarian lust.  They were of course, wrong, but that was an foolish underestimation of Hitler's goals, not any malice on their part.

The Enabling Act was passed mainly through the effective use by the Nazis of the burning of the Reichstag building to scare the Centrists and Conservatives into fear of the Communists and the Socialists and it clearly worked.  Those who voted for it can be claimed to be stupid or unwise in the long run (as they were at the Nuremberg trials), but they weren't guilty of malice.

And the idea that this can be used as a defense of Communists and Socialists in general is ludicrous on the face of it.

[12th Doctor]

Just on the Enabling Act (entitled the Law for the Relief of the Distress of Nation and State).

Super is quite right as to how it appears in the Weimar Constitution.  In fact the whole Weimar Constitution was absolute garbage due to the power the Chancellor could institute through the use of Article 48.

The reason why the Centrists aligned with the Conservatives and the NSDAP was a political reason.

The ultra-monarchist Franz von Papen managed to get Hitler as chancellor originally in 1933, by getting Hitler to concede to form a Cabinet with Papen and other monarchist-type conservatives who would be acceptable to Hindenberg.

He and Hindenberg thought that by surrounding Hitler with so many non-Nazis, they would stop Hitler's totalitarian lust.  They were of course, wrong, but that was an foolish underestimation of Hitler's goals, not any malice on their part.

The Enabling Act was passed mainly through the effective use by the Nazis of the burning of the Reichstag building to scare the Centrists and Conservatives into fear of the Communists and the Socialists and it clearly worked.  Those who voted for it can be claimed to be stupid or unwise in the long run (as they were at the Nuremberg trials), but they weren't guilty of malice.

And the idea that this can be used as a defense of Communists and Socialists in general is ludicrous on the face of it.

Heh, opps Hindenberg.  I kept calling him Bismark.

[J. J.]

So basically everyone admits the Communists and Socialists had the most foresight, and were the smartest and best people in 1930s Germany.

Okay, fact check again.

First, in the Reichstag Election of 1932, there were 584 seats.

The Communists (KPD) and Social Democrats (SPD) had 221 seats in the body, 100/121 respectively (a net loss of 1 seat).  The Nazis lost 34 seats for a total of 196.  The smaller right wing parties gained, for a total of 75 seats.  The center parties (not all Catholic), the Democrats (D, 2) Center (Z, 70), Bavarian People's (BVP, 20).  Now, on paper, these center left could have formed a coalition.

After two months with attempts to form a more centrist government, under von Papen and Scheicher, they gave up.  Why?  For one reason the KPD would never into a coalition, even with the SPD.  In the vote for President in 1925, the KPD ran its own candidate Thalmann,  against SPD (and Centrist) candidate, Marx; Nationalist (but not Nazi) Hindenburg won.  Had the Left been united, the Right never would have entered into power.  

Further the SPD/KPD/Nazis brought down the Burning (Z) government; the SPD pulled out of the coalition, losing at the polls, and triggering the political situation.  Had they remained loyal, there would have no Nazi rise, but that's 20/20 hindsight.

Second, the cabinet sworn in 1933 was not a Nazi cabinet.  It had Hitler as chancellor, Goring as minister without portfolio, and Frick as Interior Minister (he would hold the post until the Soviets captured his office).  The remaining eight members were Rightists, but not Nazis.

The Center parties had every reason to believe that they were not turning the government over to the Nazis.  They were, with 20/20 hindsight wrong.

Third, Pius XI did specifically condemn Nazism in "Mit Brennender Sorge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_Brennender_Sorge

This was in 1937; it didn't exactly keep Hitler out of Bohemia or Poland.

There were obviously Catholics (and Protestants) that supported Hitler, but there were also those that opposed them.  When the Holocaust started, in 1942, there was very little that Pius XII could do, both practically and politically.  Perhaps he should have done more, but I could say the same about FDR.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So basically everyone admits the Communists and Socialists had the most foresight, and were the smartest and best people in 1930s Germany.

Okay, fact check again.

First, in the Reichstag Election of 1932, there were 584 seats.

The Communists (KPD) and Social Democrats (SPD) had 221 seats in the body, 100/121 respectively (a net loss of 1 seat).  The Nazis lost 34 seats for a total of 196.  The smaller right wing parties gained, for a total of 75 seats.  The center parties (not all Catholic), the Democrats (D, 2) Center (Z, 70), Bavarian People's (BVP, 20).  Now, on paper, these center left could have formed a coalition.

After two months with attempts to form a more centrist government, under von Papen and Scheicher, they gave up.  Why?  For one reason the KPD would never into a coalition, even with the SPD.  In the vote for President in 1925, the KPD ran its own candidate Thalmann,  against SPD (and Centrist) candidate, Marx; Nationalist (but not Nazi) Hindenburg won.  Had the Left been united, the Right never would have entered into power. 

Further the SPD/KPD/Nazis brought down the Burning (Z) government; the SPD pulled out of the coalition, losing at the polls, and triggering the political situation.  Had they remained loyal, there would have no Nazi rise, but that's 20/20 hindsight.

Second, the cabinet sworn in 1933 was not a Nazi cabinet.  It had Hitler as chancellor, Goring as minister without portfolio, and Frick as Interior Minister (he would hold the post until the Soviets captured his office).  The remaining eight members were Rightists, but not Nazis.

The Center parties had every reason to believe that they were not turning the government over to the Nazis.  They were, with 20/20 hindsight wrong.

Third, Pius XI did specifically condemn Nazism in "Mit Brennender Sorge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_Brennender_Sorge

This was in 1937; it didn't exactly keep Hitler out of Bohemia or Poland.

There were obviously Catholics (and Protestants) that supported Hitler, but there were also those that opposed them.  When the Holocaust started, in 1942, there was very little that Pius XII could do, both practically and politically.  Perhaps he should have done more, but I could say the same about FDR.

Yes, the left was badly divided hurting them,  but that is not a valid defense of the Enabling Act, which had every Socialist member vote for and every non-Socialist member vote against (the Communists were all arrested already).

Hitler was the one with the power, particularly after Hindeburg, who was in his late '80s died.

The point I'm making is that anyone who supported arresting both the Communists and the Socialists and voting for the Enabling Act when it was strongly opposed by both, is an authoritarian who enabled Hitler.

As for the pope, I commend Pius XI's strong statement against the Nazis. Too bad his successor Pius XII, who is the pope we were actually talking about, wasn't so vocal.

[J. J.]

Yes, the left was badly divided hurting them,  but that is not a valid defense of the Enabling Act, which had every Socialist member vote for and every non-Socialist member vote against (the Communists were all arrested already).

Hitler was the one with the power, particularly after Hindeburg, who was in his late '80s died.

The point I'm making is that anyone who supported arresting both the Communists and the Socialists and voting for the Enabling Act when it was strongly opposed by both, is an authoritarian who enabled Hitler.

As for the pope, I commend Pius XI's strong statement against the Nazis. Too bad his successor Pius XII, who is the pope we were actually talking about, wasn't so vocal.

Hindenburg was still granting emergency decrees in 1932 and still active politically.  He'd still be on the scene for another two years, though increasing receding.

The SPD could have stopped even the Rightist from taking power, much less the Nazis.  They, through their stubborness, failed to even reach out to the center.  The KPD wanted a Communist Germany and would stop at nothing to get it.  Had they supported the centrist parties, there would have been no Chancellor Hitler.  The "ideological purity" lead to the demise of the Wiemar Republic.

The statement was made, and it was in force during Pius XII's papacy.  These things didn't change because the Pope dies.  Pius XII didn't have to say, "This is still bad."

[minionofmidas]

The Wikipedia entry on Ratzinger/Benedict seems to confirm my assumption:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Contradiction in terms.
Well, in rural Bavaria perhaps not, actually. Certainly if that Wikipedia article is correct, there is NOTHING to criticize about Ratzinger's war record.

Okay...will read remainder of thread now...

[minionofmidas]

Okay, this thread is so full of sh**t that I refuse to read past page four. Anyways we had this argument so many times.

[You are responsible]

Honestly, I don´t have a clue what´s the point of this discussion anyway.

There were Catholics (and Catholic officials) who opposed the Nazis... and some were killed for it. On the other hand, there were Catholics (and Catholic officials) who were staunchly anti-Semitic and supported the Nazis.

There were also protestants who opposed the Nazis and were killed for it. And there were were protestants who were anti-Semitic and supported the Nazis.

Hell, there were probably even Catholics and protestants who weren´t anti-Semitic at all, but still supported the NSDAP for some odd reason.

The world isn´t just black or white. This applies especially for the role Catholic Church during the time of the Third Reich, which was very much... grey.

All I can say is that Ratzinger is clearly not a Nazi... nor was he ever one. Personally, I would have wished that Ratzinger wasn´t elected Pope, but that has nothing to do with the fact that he was in the Hitler Youth. Every German male over the age of 74 was in the Hitler Youth (German males who reached the age of 14 in 1945 are now 74 years old).

About the role of the Zentrum party... well, let´s say it was a very stupid und spineless thing to vote for the Enabling act, but they weren´t particularly pro-Hitler. They probably supported him because they saw him as the lesser evil. Like I said... stupid and spineless. But they weren´t Nazis sympathizers. And they didn´t support him because they were Catholic. Many protestant politicians also voted for the Enabling Act. But protestants simply were not organized in a single political party. I could write the whole day about this topic and still I would fail to completely explain this complex matter.

[opebo]

So basically everyone admits the Communists and Socialists had the most foresight, and were the smartest and best people in 1930s Germany.

Yes, BRTD, you are as usual correct.  In fact the Nazis were basically a creation of the religious traditionalists and even more so of the Owning Class, as a means to defend their privaledged position and control of society and the State against the encroachment of the Left.  Basically they were the GOP of 1930's Germany, but focused more on scapegoating Jews rather than gays, and Poland rather than Iraq.

[12th Doctor]

So basically everyone admits the Communists and Socialists had the most foresight, and were the smartest and best people in 1930s Germany.

Yes, BRTD, you are as usual correct.  In fact the Nazis were basically a creation of the religious traditionalists and even more so of the Owning Class, as a means to defend their privaledged position and control of society and the State against the encroachment of the Left.

My God, you are so wrong it is pathetic.  The Nazis relied heaviliy on Norse pagan beliefs.  It was all through their ceremonies and language.  Hitler was an occultist.  He worshipped Wotan (or Wodin or Odin).  Not to mention that the Nazi party gained momentum by opposing the wealthy and the elites.  Just because a couple of them jumped on board to support Hitler does not mean that he favored the wealthy or that they favored him.  I don't understand how people got so truely clueless about the period leading up to the war.  It is like they just learned some super dumbed down version of events, because no one wanted to explain the complexities of the situation.