Violent fight to keep faith legal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Snip)

Ghandi succeeded against the British occupation by non-violent resistance. He would not have so succeeded against the Nazi’s who would simply have mowed down the non-violent resisters.

I am a little worried at a trend which would seem to make Catholicism into a pacifist religion. It is not. When the Faith is prohibited and the Faithful are subject to killing, will anyone fight back?
Jim - You are absolutely right in that Ghandi would not have succeeded against the Nazis. No argument there at all.
But also - consider this - just for a moment. The Nazis set out to exterminate the Jews. Even discounting the war, would they have been able to? Yes they could have killed all of the Jews in lands they controlled but would that have exterminated the Jews?
Surely - short of the Nazis controlling the entire world it would be impossible for them to completely exterminate the Jews. And NO governmental ideology has ever controlled the entire world.

You mention Cuba and you have mentioned Mexico. We can add Vietnam, the former USSR, Red China, Japan in the 16th -18th centuries and many others to the list of places where the church was either “outlawed” or persecuted - or still is.
Do you believe that any of these efforts has a chance of killing the Church - of stamping our Catholicism-Christianity?

The sufferings and deaths of individuals in one area only serves to strengthen the faith of others - either in that area or in other areas. The Church cannot be stamped out unless Christ lied to us…Do you believe He lied? I know you don’t.

Truly I am not trying to oppose you in this discussion. I understand what you are trying to say and I basically agree that there are times when there is simply no other option.
It is very sad to say - but true.

As I said earlier - this thread should inspire any who read it to work diligently NOW to maintain and promote the freedom of religion where ever they are by peaceful means so that we will never have to talk of war in earnest.
May all such conversations be like this one - academic.

Peace
James
 
What about in England? Why wasn’t it fought for violently there? Seems like it would be because most people were still Catholic at heart
 
Jim - You are absolutely right in that Ghandi would not have succeeded against the Nazis. No argument there at all.
But also - consider this - just for a moment. The Nazis set out to exterminate the Jews. Even discounting the war, would they have been able to? Yes they could have killed all of the Jews in lands they controlled but would that have exterminated the Jews?
Surely - short of the Nazis controlling the entire world it would be impossible for them to completely exterminate the Jews. And NO governmental ideology has ever controlled the entire world.

You mention Cuba and you have mentioned Mexico. We can add Vietnam, the former USSR, Red China, Japan in the 16th -18th centuries and many others to the list of places where the church was either “outlawed” or persecuted - or still is.
Do you believe that any of these efforts has a chance of killing the Church - of stamping our Catholicism-Christianity?

The sufferings and deaths of individuals in one area only serves to strengthen the faith of others - either in that area or in other areas. The Church cannot be stamped out unless Christ lied to us…Do you believe He lied? I know you don’t.

Truly I am not trying to oppose you in this discussion. I understand what you are trying to say and I basically agree that there are times when there is simply no other option.
It is very sad to say - but true.

As I said earlier - this thread should inspire any who read it to work diligently NOW to maintain and promote the freedom of religion where ever they are by peaceful means so that we will never have to talk of war in earnest.
May all such conversations be like this one - academic.

Peace
James
It’s true that the Nazi’s could never have destroyed all the Jews. But it is a good thing that the U.S. did not take the position that the Nazis would inevitably fail and could therefore be ignored even as they deported Jews to death camps and invaded European nations. The regime could have lasted much longer, and done much more evil, had it not been actively fought against.

The suffering and persecutions and deaths caused by Communist regimes in the 20th century have outdone the atrocities of previous centuries. I sometimes wonder whether a more forceful resistance at their beginnings, for example in 1917 Russia, would have prevented some of the carnage.
 
It’s true that the Nazi’s could never have destroyed all the Jews. But it is a good thing that the U.S. did not take the position that the Nazis would inevitably fail and could therefore be ignored even as they deported Jews to death camps and invaded European nations. The regime could have lasted much longer, and done much more evil, had it not been actively fought against.
Yes it is indeed a blessing that the Nazi regime in Germany did not last any longer than it did. That said, it is important to note that, Had Germany been satisfied with the borders established prior to 9/1/39, that is prior to the outbreak of war…Only those Jews within said territory would have been at risk. And the question would need to be asked - Would any of the Allied Powers who participated in WW II have gone to war because the Germans were oppressing and killing the Jews in Germany?
I think that if you examine the history of these things in other countries you will find that the answer is almost always. No.

We have to be careful in these kinds of discussions to make sure that we do not compare Apples and Oranges. The U.S. is a secular power, not bound by the rules of Canon Law. As such it’s reasons to participate or not in any given war, or the methods it Chooses to use in prosecuting a war are entirely it’s own.
As to the US and the Jews in Europe…it should be noted that the U.S. was one of several nations who refused to accept a shipload of Jews leaving Germany and as a consequence they were forced to return there. Further, the U.S. was quite extensively divided over entering the war even though Roosevelt was working in every way he legally could to keep us aligned with England and France. However, in the end it required an overt Act by Japan to bring us into the war - AND it should be noted that the U.S. declared war on Japan ONLY - that is until Germany declared war on the US on Dec 11 and the U.S. reciprocated.

As a final comment on the Nazis and the war, just as it was. It should be noted that the military defeat of Germany and it’s Nazi regime has not destroyed either Nazism as an ideology or Antisemitism. This is part of what I mean about not being able to defeat evil with the tools of evil…the regime is gone but the evil persists.
The suffering and persecutions and deaths caused by Communist regimes in the 20th century have outdone the atrocities of previous centuries. I sometimes wonder whether a more forceful resistance at their beginnings, for example in 1917 Russia, would have prevented some of the carnage.
Indeed - the “What if’s” of history are fascinating.

The bottom line and the point I was making is that when we speak of destroying “The Church” we cannot simply speak in terms of the death of individuals. No matter how oppressed and persecuted the Church might be in one region, it will continue to flourish both in the region of oppression (underground) AND in those ares where they are not oppressed. The Jews and WW II are but the most obvious example of this principle.

History teaches that evil, oppressive regimes do not survive the long haul. They collapse under their own destructive weight.
Many had, do and will suffer under such evil, but as someone once said, the Blood of Martyrs are the seeds of the Church…(or something like that).

Peace
James

P.S. I apologize to anyone reading this if my comments above strike them as cold or unfeeling. I do not intend them as such.
 
Yes, the U.S. has always had a rather strong tendency toward isolationism. George Washington, after all, warned of entanglement in foreign wars.

And many Americas did not wish to enter WW-II. German submarine attacks on commercial shipping helped turn the tide toward intervention and support of Britain with U.S. arms. Churchill labored mightily to get the U.S. into the war, but it took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to seal the deal. I hate to think of how long it might have taken Europe to recover and how much evil might have been done, had England fallen to Hitler.

P.S. It is said that Our Lady intervened to help win the Battle of Lepanto, due to the rosary being prayed. So I assume she is not entirely pacifist!
 
Yes, the U.S. has always had a rather strong tendency toward isolationism. George Washington, after all, warned of entanglement in foreign wars.

And many Americas did not wish to enter WW-II. German submarine attacks on commercial shipping helped turn the tide toward intervention and support of Britain with U.S. arms. Churchill labored mightily to get the U.S. into the war, but it took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to seal the deal. I hate to think of how long it might have taken Europe to recover and how much evil might have been done, had England fallen to Hitler.
Indeed
P.S. It is said that Our Lady intervened to help win the Battle of Lepanto, due to the rosary being prayed. So I assume she is not entirely pacifist!
Maybe she just wanted it over…🤷

Truthfully - I have always had trouble with the whole “God is on our side” thing…but let’s not go there…😃

Peace
James
 
Yes, the U.S. has always had a rather strong tendency toward isolationism. George Washington, after all, warned of entanglement in foreign wars.

And many Americas did not wish to enter WW-II. German submarine attacks on commercial shipping helped turn the tide toward intervention and support of Britain with U.S. arms. Churchill labored mightily to get the U.S. into the war, but it took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to seal the deal. I hate to think of how long it might have taken Europe to recover and how much evil might have been done, had England fallen to Hitler.

P.S. It is said that Our Lady intervened to help win the Battle of Lepanto, due to the rosary being prayed. So I assume she is not entirely pacifist!
Look at it this way…imagine what would have happened, not if we hadn’t gotten involved in WWII, but if we hadn’t gotten involved in WWI.

It is a fairly safe bet that Hitler would have retired a corporal in the Austrian Army and would have gone back to his painting (only the chaos after WWI allowed him to get any kind of a base of support).

Granted, it’s likely that the German/Austrian axis would have won. But they were hardly the despots that the Nazis were.

It is a fairly safe bet that the USSR would have remained a largely agrarian state (they really only got significant military power as a result of WWII). Likely Eastern Europe would never have been on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.

It is very possible that the current Middle East crisis would not have happened: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire seriously destabilized that area; the drawing of lines in the sand by France and England after WWI provided the means by which the despots that ruled most of that area came to power. While Iran wasn’t directly affected, the US would have had no reason to prop up the Pahlavi regime (which provided the impetus for the 1979 revolution as a reaction).

Granted, Japan would have likely had its imperialistic tendencies anyway. But that would have been against a totally different backdrop.

Something to consider.
 
Maybe she just wanted it over…
Truthfully - I have always had trouble with the whole “God is on our side” thing…but let’s not go there…
The power of any of the Saints solely comes from God, by their own they are all powerless.
Granted, Japan would have likely had its imperialistic tendencies anyway. But that would have been against a totally different backdrop.
Something to consider.
So if Japan decided to declare war on China what then? Most likely we would not intervene and I doubt we would care all that much when scenarios like the Rape of Nanking began occurring. Evil has to be utterly destroyed, if you give evil your coat they will only use it to strangle you to death.
 
Look at it this way…imagine what would have happened, not if we hadn’t gotten involved in WWII, but if we hadn’t gotten involved in WWI.

It is a fairly safe bet that Hitler would have retired a corporal in the Austrian Army and would have gone back to his painting (only the chaos after WWI allowed him to get any kind of a base of support).
Hitler DID retire a corporal but it was from the German Army Not the Austrian. Yes he was born Austrian but at the outbreak of war He joined the German Army. Just sayin…
Granted, it’s likely that the German/Austrian axis would have won. But they were hardly the despots that the Nazis were.
This is true and it is difficult to see who would have wound up the ultimate victor All of the countries were bled pretty much dry but Germany was being strangled by the Blockade. The U.S. Entry was more of a “Last Straw” for Germany than a “Deciding Factor”.

Anyway - the big problem was not who won the war but who dictated - and I do mean dictated, not negotiated, the peace. The Treaty of Versailles was a travesty and was a touchstone and rally point for political chaos in postwar Germany.

My favorite “what if” pretty much revolves around this. What if the Treaty of Versailles had been more fairly written and implemented. The most hideous aspect of it (of the many) was the clause forcing Germany to accept total blame for the War…A war that started in the Balkans…between Serbia and Austria-Hungary…go figure…🤷
It is a fairly safe bet that the USSR would have remained a largely agrarian state (they really only got significant military power as a result of WWII). Likely Eastern Europe would never have been on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.
Certainly there is room for speculation on this but I suspect that with the “expansionist” ideas of Bolshevism the USSR would have sought a larger industrial base.
It is very possible that the current Middle East crisis would not have happened: the collapse of the Ottoman Empire seriously destabilized that area; the drawing of lines in the sand by France and England after WWI provided the means by which the despots that ruled most of that area came to power. While Iran wasn’t directly affected, the US would have had no reason to prop up the Pahlavi regime (which provided the impetus for the 1979 revolution as a reaction).
Yes - of course some of this might depend on just when the war was settled. If, as it would seem it was in 1918 or 1919, the middle east was pretty much wrecked by then. But what would have happened at the peace table might have looked very different.
Granted, Japan would have likely had its imperialistic tendencies anyway. But that would have been against a totally different backdrop.
There can be little doubt of this. Of course things might have unfolded quite differently in the Far East. Japan began her expansion in 1931 into Manchuria and later China- well before events in Europe unfolded. If the pursued this course per historical, and the allies - mired in economic depression did little - also per history - then it is unlike anything changes before 1940. Without the war in Europe though there is likely no move by Japan into French Indochina, which was the event that caused the US to freeze Japanese assets and cut off the oil. Plus, without the European War the ability of the British and Dutch and French to build up far east defenses is far greater.
Without the oil cut off, and with “unoccupied” colonial powers Japan would be far less likely to strike south.
Something to consider.
Yes the what if’s are always interesting…

Peace
James
 
Look at it this way…imagine what would have happened, not if we hadn’t gotten involved in WWII, but if we hadn’t gotten involved in WWI.

Granted, it’s likely that the German/Austrian axis would have won. But they were hardly the despots that the Nazis were.

It is a fairly safe bet that the USSR would have remained a largely agrarian state (they really only got significant military power as a result of WWII). Likely Eastern Europe would never have been on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain.

It is very possible that the current Middle East crisis would not have happened
I cannot completely join with this view of alternative history.

Imperial Germany, alone of the great powers, embraced militarism as a means to achieve national goals and maintain her status.

That is why she ended up fighting almost all of the other great powers.

If the US had not entered, the war would have ended in stalemate. Militarism would have emerged as a viable method for determining international questions. Russia would have embarked on militarism more quickly, as would all the second rate powers. The Soviet Union would never have permitted German occupation of Bylorussia and Ukraine permanently. World War 2 would have happened for slightly different reasons, but it would have happened anyway.

Though Imperial Germany were not as psychopathic as the Nazis, the foreign policy between the two regimes is not that different. All Hitler did was co-opt the militarism of the Empire with that of “national socialism,” and take it for another spin.

Germany attacked a neutral country (Belgium) with no provocation whatsoever, solely to advance a foreign policy aim of defeating France again. This was illegal under the laws of war at the time (and today), and Germany’s treatment of Belgian civillians was brutal by the standards of the time. It was totally correct for the US to assist France and Britain’s resistance to a policy of naked military aggression.

I agree with your assessment of the likely outcome in the middle east, but only if the Ottomans had been able to hang on for another year, which was questionable. The Ottomans were hard pressed in the middle east by mid 1917. This was before the Americans arrived in France in force. The ability of the British Empire to attack the Ottomans by sea, from India, and from Egypt would have sealed the Ottomans fate, most likely. The open question is how far Germany would have pressed France and Britain to relinquish their victories in the East as part of a truce. Germany had only one link by rail to Turkey, and no naval ability by 1917.

Japan probably would have been inspired to make a run at China under any circumstances, but might not have waited out the 1920s.
 
Shalom

aball1035. The rosary is the weapon that we use in a battle for justice. We DO NOT use arms. If it requires verbal discussions, you have to be brave to do that. That is what I am doing right now. I have not used any harmful or violent means but pray hard for guidance to use whatever means to confront injustice, chaos and evil. Prayer is the best, dialogue, discussions, good cultural methods which is acceptable by all and not harmful.
It is not a hard task to do, but requires patience which you can only get when you pray hard for guidance.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top