WW2: The Church condoned Murder & Forced Conversions?

[GKC]

An interesting story not supported by the facts. For a short time, the Russians helped the Germans with secretly rebuilding their Air Force before World War II. A little later, the German people were shocked by a pact made between the Russians and the Nazi government, but they were relieved that their eastern border was secure, for now. If you look at the number of men and the amount of equipment the Russians had mobilized and produced, just waiting to advance just prior to Hitler turning the tables and attacking first, Russian intentions were clear. On the Eastern Front, one third of the soldiers in the German Army were not German, but they were fighting with the Germans to save their countries from Godless Bolshevism. Ukrainians and others had joined the Waffen-SS.

1. Pope John Paul II made no mistake in beatifying this man, and even the Jews praised him.
2. The Americans decided to stop trusting their Russian ally long before the end of World War II.
3. American intelligence did more damage than anyone. It is still not explained why German Army belt buckles were stamped with Gott mit Uns - God with Us.
4. The Vatican knew how much money these disguised Nazi refugees had? There were various relief organizations that were getting displaced persons (D.P.s) out of Europe. They were afraid to stay. Look up UNRA.
5. There were Germans in South America who could sponsor German/disguised Nazi refugees. That’s all one needed - a sponsor or group. Not money. Just a country willing to take you in.

After the war, the OSS, now the CIA, rebuilt the German intelligence service. With who? Hitler’s chief of intelligence for the Eastern Front, Reinhard Gehlen, and Hitler’s chief of operations, Adolf Heusinger. By 1955, the former enemy became West Germany and a member of NATO under the sponsorship of Chancellor Conrad Adenauer.

OSS documents available at NARA show that money and personnel were both leaving Germany and being sent to South America in 1944, but after the world’s first jet fighter appeared in combat (July 1944), along with the world’s first cruise missile, launched exactly one week after the Allied landings at Normandy, there was great concern as to what else the Germans had. The V-2 supersonic rocket appeared in September 1944, and unlike the V-1, could not be shot down. It fell first on London, and then on Antwerp, reducing the Allied use of the port to 25% of capacity. Other rockets would fall on Liege.

It is quite clear the Church did not condone murder and that “conversions” did not occur by force or were allowed as a temporary, non-binding measure to help others.

1. The true story of US involvement with Nazis during and after the war is here:

amazon.com/U-S-Intelligence-Nazis-Richard-Breitman/dp/0521617944

The Church was right about the Nazis and the Godless Russians. In Mein Kampf, Hitler made it clear that the East was the problem. And it remained the problem for the free world until its collapse in the early 1990s.

Peace,
Ed

What is unclear about the origin of the use of the Prussian motto on the German Army belt buckles, post 1910?

GKC

 

[SilverCamellia]

Thanks for the mixed bag of replies

I should probably have done more research before posting this, to verify the claims made in the original article, but I was shocked at what I read. As some point out, it does seem to be true. Such events do no good for Catholicism, especially for those against the Church, such as sceptics. Perhaps the source material is doubtful. But reading a pro-Catholic history written by Catholics is not helpful either.

You may note that I am going to be Confirmed this Easter which I am very happy about. In a way I find such reading to be useful, because it helps me shape an idea of why people can be anti-Catholic. For instance, I know an atheist online who blames Catholics for all kind of ills. I don’t say anything to defend the Church because I don’t know enough of the facts. But being aware of such events, which perhaps the Church would rather its believers didn’t know, is one way of combatting atheistic criticism. I am not saying I am a good debater, at all (I don’t like arguments), but if an atheist does use such a thing to criticise the Church, I believe it is good to have the knowledge to either agree that it is true and did happen; and have some explanations as to the context of why it happened.

Perhaps some people will read this post and see I am being Confirmed and wonder why it is that I am (occasionally) reading anti-Catholic material, and think to themselves that I should not criticise the Church as I am going to fully join her. My answer would be that I believe the Truths that the Church teaches, but I want also to be aware of her failures too.

I am still interested in any further replies. I am glad that this topic has been answered sensibly as I was a bit concerned that people would think I was a troll

 

[liturgyluver]

Thanks for the mixed bag of replies

I should probably have done more research before posting this, to verify the claims made in the original article, but I was shocked at what I read. As some point out, it does seem to be true. Such events do no good for Catholicism, especially for those against the Church, such as sceptics. Perhaps the source material is doubtful. But reading a pro-Catholic history written by Catholics is not helpful either.

You may note that I am going to be Confirmed this Easter which I am very happy about. In a way I find such reading to be useful, because it helps me shape an idea of why people can be anti-Catholic. For instance, I know an atheist online who blames Catholics for all kind of ills. I don’t say anything to defend the Church because I don’t know enough of the facts. But being aware of such events, which perhaps the Church would rather its believers didn’t know, is one way of combatting atheistic criticism. I am not saying I am a good debater, at all (I don’t like arguments), but if an atheist does use such a thing to criticise the Church, I believe it is good to have the knowledge to either agree that it is true and did happen; and have some explanations as to the context of why it happened.

Perhaps some people will read this post and see I am being Confirmed and wonder why it is that I am (occasionally) reading anti-Catholic material, and think to themselves that I should not criticise the Church as I am going to fully join her. My answer would be that I believe the Truths that the Church teaches, but I want also to be aware of her failures too.

I am still interested in any further replies. I am glad that this topic has been answered sensibly as I was a bit concerned that people would think I was a troll

Good luck with your confirmation and welcome to the Church. I agree with what you say in your penultimate paragraph. It is important the Church acknowledges past mistakes and historical context. I am sure you will agree that there is no room in the Church for the type of fanatical systems that were described earlier in this thread, nor for violence or hatred of any kind. 99% of true Catholics would be revulsed by such behaviour and live in the light of Christ. Welcome again.

 

[GKC]

I tend to agree.

GKC

 

[edwest2]

To SilverCamellia -

I don’t understand the following: “But reading a pro-Catholic history written by Catholics is not helpful either.”

Catholics write pro-Catholic history books all the time. Can you explain why this would be a bad thing?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

What is unclear about the origin of the use of the Prussian motto on the German Army belt buckles, post 1910?

GKC

In my extensive study of Nazi Germany, many claims have been made that turned out to be false. First, my father fought the Nazis, so I am no apologist. My point is, Hitler is painted as anti-Christian. This Prussian motto should not have been allowed. Just as he eliminated or sent to concentration camps, any political opponents, this motto would have to go to. Instead, I have seen original German photos from the period showing crosses on field graves. I have also seen a photo of a poster showing the crucified Christ with words that basically read: “They [the Bolsheviks] don’t believe this.” Since I knew a number of World War II vets, they were ready to die for God and Country, not some vague idea or motto.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tjones80]

I have just been reading this that I came across:

libcom.org/library/role-catholic-church-yugoslavias-holocaust-se-n-mac-math-na-1941-1945

It discusses the violence in Yugoslavia during the second world war, and says that the Church was very much involved in it, from priests to pope.

Here is a quote from further down in the article:

Now why would a pope want to aid war criminals in such a way?

All kinds of atrocities and wrongs are committed in war. Remember the US government incinerated hundreds of thousands in Germany and Japan by firebombing and nuclear bomb attacks. If man could learn to live without war these atrocities would not happen. The most important thing is for man to learn from these tragedies, so they don’t happen again.

 

[edwest2]

Google Ustaše and Ante Pavelić.

GKC

I will add this to my research list. I will also add this to my list of things to check regarding OSS reports available from the National Archives.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[GKC]

In my extensive study of Nazi Germany, many claims have been made that turned out to be false. First, my father fought the Nazis, so I am no apologist. My point is, Hitler is painted as anti-Christian. This Prussian motto should not have been allowed. Just as he eliminated or sent to concentration camps, any political opponents, this motto would have to go to. Instead, I have seen original German photos from the period showing crosses on field graves. I have also seen a photo of a poster showing the crucified Christ with words that basically read: “They [the Bolsheviks] don’t believe this.” Since I knew a number of World War II vets, they were ready to die for God and Country, not some vague idea or motto.

Peace,
Ed

I don’t think you are aware of how that motto came to be on the Army belt buckles.

Start here:

worldwar1.com/sfgeruni.htm

The Reich used whatever worked, including appeals to Christianity.

WWII has long (55 years) been a hobby of mine. I often note, in your posts, that you have some odd ideas on the subject.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I will add this to my research list. I will also add this to my list of things to check regarding OSS reports available from the National Archives.

Thanks,
Ed

Let me know what you find. I’d like a through, relatively objective history of it, for my library, myself.

GKC

 

[edwest2]

My other area of study is Nazi iconography and symbology. It is very clear that the Nazis wanted all Germanic peoples united. Those in Bavaria, Austria and Czechoslovakia. Just like other European countries at the time, there were regions that spoke a dialect, like Swabian. What Hitler wanted was Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer. The Third Reich was not to be like the previous regimes.

Hitler approved Bronze Age ceremonies to remind the German people that their heritage had roots going back a long time. He wanted to remind the German people that they were Waldvolk. The superiority of the Aryan race was extolled to the detriment of the untermensch. If you wanted to belong to the Waffen SS, you had to produce a long genealogy to show you were of pure blood. Hitler, along with Speer, created their own visible and purely Nazi symbols, and there were things like the Blutfahne (Blood flag) which Hitler used to ‘sanctify’ other Party banners at the yearly ceremony in Nuremburg. Not to mention the cuff titles worn by both branches of the SS.

Other countries had their symbols and icons during the war but not to the extent of the Nazis.

Peace,
Ed

 

[GKC]

My other area of study is Nazi iconography and symbology. It is very clear that the Nazis wanted all Germanic peoples united. Those in Bavaria, Austria and Czechoslovakia. Just like other European countries at the time, there were regions that spoke a dialect, like Swabian. What Hitler wanted was Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer. The Third Reich was not to be like the previous regimes.

Hitler approved Bronze Age ceremonies to remind the German people that their heritage had roots going back a long time. He wanted to remind the German people that they were Waldvolk. The superiority of the Aryan race was extolled to the detriment of the untermensch. If you wanted to belong to the Waffen SS, you had to produce a long genealogy to show you were of pure blood. Hitler, along with Speer, created their own visible and purely Nazi symbols, and there were things like the Blutfahne (Blood flag) which Hitler used to ‘sanctify’ other Party banners at the yearly ceremony in Nuremburg. Not to mention the cuff titles worn by both branches of the SS.

Other countries had their symbols and icons during the war but not to the extent of the Nazis.

Peace,
Ed

I agree.

GKC

 

[edwest2]

I am familiar with the Ustase, but from a different viewpoint. I will look into this further a little later since a new stack of books have arrived, both German and English, that I need to go through first.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kelner]

It is important the Church acknowledges past mistakes and historical context.

Sadly, in case of Croatia, it doesn’t.

If you read the article I linked upthread, you’ll see that Croatian hierarchy still cannot get over the matter, and some bishops either (a) downplay what happened, (b) invoke Serbian atrocities against Croats (as if they would justify anything) and even (c) outright deny that genocide happened.

99% of true Catholics would be revulsed by such behaviour and live in the light of Christ.

No true Scotsman…

The basic, undeniable, fact of the matter is that Catholics conducted a mass murder of their Orthodox brothers.

In contrast with other Nazi countries, where you can argue that the Church was persecuted by Nazis, in NDH the Catholic Church was the official state church. This is why Bishop Stepinac’s reaction to genocide (which basically amounted to writing letters to Pavelic) is seens as unjustifiably inadequate (to put it mildly). You cannot shift the blame for what happened in NDH on the Nazis; that blame is solely on the Catholics.

Stepinac’s beatification in 1998 was essentially adding insult to injury.

And what you probably also don’t know is that in 1992-1995, Croats commited another mass murder and expulsion of Serbs in Krajina. A friend of mine was driving through the Balkans in late 1990s and decided to take a shortcut driving through Krajina. He regrets it to this day. For several hours, he was driving through the deserted land. No people, just burnt down houses and minefields.

And another thing you don’t know is that vatican was instrumental in the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990s which led to subsequent bloodshed.

That’s not just a dark card in the history of the Church, it is a largely unknown and unacknowledged dark card.

 

[liturgyluver]

Sadly, in case of Croatia, it doesn’t.

If you read the article I linked upthread, you’ll see that Croatian hierarchy still cannot get over the matter, and some bishops either (a) downplay what happened, (b) invoke Serbian atrocities against Croats (as if they would justify anything) and even (c) outright deny that genocide happened.

No true Scotsman…

The basic, undeniable, fact of the matter is that Catholics conducted a mass murder of their Orthodox brothers.

In contrast with other Nazi countries, where you can argue that the Church was persecuted by Nazis, in NDH the Catholic Church was the official state church. This is why Bishop Stepinac’s reaction to genocide (which basically amounted to writing letters to Pavelic) is seens as unjustifiably inadequate (to put it mildly). You cannot shift the blame for what happened in NDH on the Nazis; that blame is solely on the Catholics.

Stepinac’s beatification in 1998 was essentially adding insult to injury.

And what you probably also don’t know is that in 1992-1995, Croats commited another mass murder and expulsion of Serbs in Krajina. A friend of mine was driving through the Balkans in late 1990s and decided to take a shortcut driving through Krajina. He regrets it to this day. For several hours, he was driving through the deserted land. No people, just burnt down houses and minefields.

And another thing you don’t know is that vatican was instrumental in the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990s which led to subsequent bloodshed.

That’s not just a dark card in the history of the Church, it is a largely unknown and unacknowledged dark card.

I am amazed that you are able to tell me what I know and what I don’t know. I have actually been to Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia twice so have seen and heard first-hand about the horrors of war. That is why when others were suggesting that the horrors of Pavelic were untrue, I stepped in to contradict this.