Not at all, your one correct correction and then a couple more incorrect ones had very little impact on me.
They said the Pope should have done more than he did. There was only one thing he didn’t do, and that was ask Catholics to oppose the German Government. It’s pretty simple. It’s in the subtext.
Read the thread yourself.
Yes, he condemned Hitler and the Nazis, he sheltered Jews, he condemned governments that were expelling Jews. None of that was enough so yes, there was only one option left. It becomes clearer what this option is when people compare the Vatican’s actions as being insufficient next to the allied invasion.
That is your level of understanding about how persuasion works in influencing the NAZI government?
Different circumstance, irrelevant.
The Nazis were a bit of a different animal than other situations, I would think that was quite obvious. As was posted above the Pope DID tell people to resist Hitler. Threatening a besieged population with excommunication for a secular matter shows you paid absolutely zero attention in the last go-round.
I’m glad you are impressed with words I use regularly.
Look I know that this is personal for you and you like to twist words, that you’re not big on actually going into the issue, this is clearly personal based on the timing, you’re not actually arguing this issue, and that’s clear based on your glossing over of:
The Pope actually did ask Catholics to resist Hitler.
Him giving orders to give sanctuary to the Jews even in violation of the Cloister.
The comparisons to the allies when people say that he ‘Didn’t do enough’.
You just clearly haven’t paid attention to arguments people have put forth in this. If you do not take these things into account this will be the last response you will get from me. Your condescending nonsense about my vocabulary when you corrected me inappropriately a number of times after having a victory of doing it once correctly shows that this is a personal thing for you, and that you have no problem disrupting the actual conversation. It’s obvious you didn’t read through this whole thread and you came here just to annoy me.
I have already said this, but it deserves repeating. Outside of a relatively few faithful, and msotly the priesthood themselves, German Catholics were pretty well for the regime and had no problem with it. This is deplorable, and in fact they did precisely ignore the Pope’s (correct) condemnations of the Nazis. They were quite happy to ignore the massacres of fellow Catholics outside of Germany. When the Pope did condemn the Nazis and basically said outloud, in public, that they were nasty people and had no place in civil society, German Catholics ignored him. Having done that, what precisely ought he have done?
The sole asnwer thus far that he “ought” to have engaged in show-boating antics, which would have accomplished nothing and which no reasonable person could have remotely expected to accomplish anything. Meanwhile, those actions would have made him out to be a ridiculous fool and decreased his actual ability to affect the situation in a positive manner.
As a matter of fact, Pope Pius XII did do everything in his power to protect both Catholics and Jews. That his material power, in one place in a brief period of time, was limited, is no reason to claim he did not excercise it. He used the underground power of the Church to resist the Nazis and save many, both Christian and Jew, that were available for him to affect. He, as a leader, directed followers to use their best judgement in effecting that. He defied the enemy openly, and publically, though he knew they were not stupid (or courageous*) enough to attack him physically. And he took responsibility for a lot of lives, and felt obligated to not throw them away or make them targets simply so he could feel good about himself.
So if you have a real objection, founded in reality, and nor an absurd fantasy of magical thinking, I’d like to hear it. Thus far, every single argument to the contrary relies on abtruse symbolism at the cost of real lives and suffering, demanding that he should have done things he actually did do but which critics ignore, or farsical scenarios which bear no resemblance to actual historical reality.
*I do not joke. For all the damage the did, the Nazis were remarkably cowardly about doing bad stuff in public. They neither the courage nor the honor of most Empires.
Yeah they were so solid no one dared have any subversive propaganda campaign at all. None of them could possibly have been persuaded of anything at all. :rolleyes:
Who said anything about me having an impact on you? I congratulated you for making an effort to improve your debating skills, because it is evident you have made that effort.
Only one thing possible?
You can imaging I said I had an impact on you, but you can;t think of one single thing more the Pope could have done to undermine the German regime that doesn’t require arms?
Not one single thing?
That is your answer to a honest request to explain your charge of arguing in bad faith? to avoid the question.
I assure you I have read the thread, some of it multiple times.
I still would like an answer to the question. I honestly don’t see an explicit call to arms being asked for, nor do I, being a problem solver, see it as the only option.
Apparently you see both.
Why is it unfair for me to ask you to point it out? Maybe I am wrong, simply show me please.
So, just to make up a subversive example, he could have got word to all the regular priests to ask the parishioners to keep list of the dates of when the Jews and others disappeared from the neighborhood, that is not subversive and possible without “raising an army”?
That the resources of the entire Church, form top to bottom could not have engaged in other subversion that they thought up?
Just curious - on a personal note, how do you feel about subversive tactics? Possible? Not possible?
If we agree they were possible and available to the Pope, then we might discuss effectiveness, but so far you are saying they were not possible to even concieve if I understand you correctly,
I think that were you see others have said an army is necessary, I see suggestions at subversion and whatever diplomacy remained possible at the time. Might that be it?
Yeah, amazing how there was no “resistance” anywhere.
So pick another circumstance. Yeltsin stood against his own army, with the people between him and tanks. An anonymous Chinese man stood down a column of tanks in Tienanmen square.
You are suggesting that not one single person was conceivably susceptible to the Pope’s influence in Germany, Catholic or not, and might not have made such a stand? Not a one?
You would. But you also think people expressed a call to arms too. And you think of other people, and citizens living in Germany at the time, as animals, not human beings, so maybe that is part of why your sense of possible ways to combat them is limited.
No, it shows you didn’t read what I said.
To clarify, the Pope need not “threaten” excommunication, he could simply have said that certain behaviors would place one in a state of excommunication should one choose to commit those behaviors. He could have elaborated the doctrinal explanations to whatever level of detail he chose.
Which would have been a subversive act in itself, because it would have given people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, a reason to at least realize that they might consider the moral foundations of their actions, and to realize the cumulative effects of the small innocuous role most played as individuals.
Repeated, this could certainly have had some effect in slowing people down, in weakening support for the regime, in forcing the regime to expend limited resources to combat internal issues rather than focus fully on fighting external battles.
Every little bit helps in a case like that.
Not bad. Not always used 100% correctly, or in flowing, non-jarring manner that makes them seem like “10 dollar words”, but that will come with practice. Keep it up!
It is not personal at all.
What you call twisting words outright, I simply reflect back to you as a request to show where you didn’t do the same. I am willing to be shown wrong when I ask, I don;'t need to accuse you of anything, instead I simply ask you to clarify how you drew a conclusion.
Instead of doing that, you say my question is “personal”. When you say that my friend, it is an “ad hominem” attack.
No one is denying those things happened. I just gave you some examples of what he could have done more of.
Do you still take the position that there was no more he “could” have done, or is it that three is no more that he chose to do?
Because while I didn’t know the man, I do feel he and those he took advice from, were certainly capable of drawing up subversive ways to use their influence, and I believe they did dream up ways. Apparently, they also chose to not do them.
All of which is independent of what they did choose to actually do.
Yeah I came here to annoy you.
And don’t get a big head about saying that mentioning a Catholic Nun might be biased in support of the Church in her writings is an ad hominem attack. It is not, and I have been considering a separate thread what ad hominem means, because Tomanddebb asked for that hijack to stop, not that you were right.
But yeah, I have lived my whole life waiting for the chance to annoy you in a thread about the Pope and Nazis.
Too bad my HS history teacher didn’t live long enough to see my dream come true. :rolleyes:
For MSWAS the only answer proffered so far was a suggestion to raise an army.
I think what people read, where there have been few or only vague suggestions, tells more about their own outlook and problem solving approaches more than what the authors stated explicitly or even what they implied.
However, in case you missed it, I gave a concrete, non-grand-standing, non-army- requiring approach to subversion a post or two above that I hope reframes this part of the discussion.
Except for everythign he could have done but didn’t.
They only rely on that if that is your mindset going in. It is not my mindset, and I never saw a trace of it in any post in this thread.
Then again it is not the leader of my religion, not one of my revered heroes who is being called to task here, so maybe I am a little more willing to see rationality in the posts, as I have nothing to lose if a Pope comes down a peg or two.
Lets see if I can remove the personal commentary cruft. I’m debating exactly as I always have nothing has changed between last night and today.
I am saying he did everything else.
Nope not one more thing. He already called upon Catholics to resist Hitler in '39, so your bit about leaving nuts and bolts untightened is already covered. Bring up something he could have done. Otherwise, yes, the only thing I can think of that he could have done that he didn’t would be to raise arms against the Nazis.
And what would this have accomplished? It also seems nitpicky. Sure there are more things everyone could have done, the Jews could have fought back instead of going to the ghettos, the Americans could have joined the fight earlier, or accepted the refugees on the Ship of Fools. The Germans could have not accepted the Nazi government. Trying to come up with all sorts of tiny little minute tactics that could have been done. I am convinced that this issue is about irrational Catholic hate, because for some reason the things the Pope did do are not worthy of respect.
Again, I ask you to try and go read about the history of Nationalism in Europe and it’s relationship to the Church. It’s not like this all happened in a vacuum, the church tried to use such subversion since Henry VIII to maintain control over Europe as it split into its various Nationalisms. That’s what this war was about, a larger cultural sweep that had been occurring for hundreds of years. Germany as it is was where the Reformation started with a man named Martin Luther, so the Catholic church attempting to exert control in Germany was a very old process by the time Pius XII came around.
Possible, and I also think that this thread has pointed out specifically where Catholics did such things. This is one of those places where false dichotomies rule the day. People point to other Catholics as models that people should hold up as heroes of the holocaust and they eliminate Pope Pius XII relationship to them as being relevant in any of this, as though Pius was not quietly backing them as best he could.
I am saying that subversion as in, ‘not tightening the nuts and the bolts’, is something that very likely occurred. Making a blanket statement asking all Catholics to do specific things would have been imprudent. **He asked them to do it, and what you seem to be arguing is that he didn’t do enough because he didn’t micromanage the specifics. ** (This is bolded and highlighted because it’s the most important part of this post that you need to read.
I think he did engage in subversion and diplomacy. You’d have to make a more specific argument, use dates, events and people to describe places where the Pope failed. You’re just using these abstract ideas, things that he DID do.
Right because Italian ‘Partisans’ were what religion again?
I’m sure lots of people in were run over by German Tanks in World War II.
No, I didn’t say that at all. I am saying he DID influence them as has been cited in this thread ad nauseum.
Well you are saying that the Pope should have done what he DID do, but that it wasn’t enough, as though somehow the Pope was at fault for that holocaust because he didn’t call for all the Catholics in the world to rise up in Jihad against the Nazis.
You don’t really understand the nature of the Nazis do you? The Nazis were a return to a German Nationalistic Teutonic Paganism. They had already pretty much rejected the church. Also, even prior to that Germany was the seat of Protestantism for half a millenium.
I deleted most of your post because for someone who claims to be a professional communicator you repeat yourself a lot. I feel like everything I deleted has already been addressed in the above. It was just more, ‘He could have been subversive.’ cruft.
Of course. But mswas doesn’t seem to think so. Although to be fair I have not read her most recent post yet.
that seems like a fair topic for debate.
Don’t have one as I am not an expert in the period, beyond conjecturing that encouraging subversion, not just in Germany, but other European countries, would likely have paid dividends, be they small or large, at little direct cost to anyone.
I would read a reasoned discussion on that topic with eager and open eyes, that’s for sure!
You mean in terms of sheltering some Jews? if so, than I suspect it was partly out of prudence, as I mentioned before they provided a kind of human shield. Possibly that was a subversive act itself in many ways - had the Germans moved on the Pope, they risked exposing earlier what was happening to the Jews as it would have surely been major news.
Oh yea, I am sure there was at least a small part of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and other doctrinal reasons, some of which others have noted.
OTOH, and as I said, I am no expert here, (nor are any of us in this thread I gather, correct me if I am wrong), but it is my understanding that there was not exactly a long history of shared love and ecumenical understanding between the Vatican and Jews or homosexuals or gypsies or others the Nazis were after, so that could serve to limit the extent of the Pope’s graciousness.
That is a hypothesis, not an assertion, so feel free to discuss it with evidence one way or the other…
For those who think German Catholics would have sided with Hitler over the Pope (which I think to be likely), what effect would a German military crushing of the papacy have had on attitudes and loyalties of Catholic allies, such as Italy and Croatia, as well as neutrals such as Spain and Ireland?
Lets see if I can remove the personal commentary cruft. I’m debating exactly as I always have nothing has changed between last night and today.
So one speech was better than an ongoing campaign? Once geared towards Catholics and non-Catholics alike?
After making a speech in 1939, there was nothing more he could have done other than to join the war himself? I know there is a lot of money at the Vatican, but what do you think such a war would have looked like with no weapons on hand?
To me, it looks like a war of subversion that aids the Allies indirectly, not a hot war.
Unless you are suggesting that Pope might have suggested that the Catholics of Germany become suicide bombers on his behalf, and even then that seems a stretch that people either could or would do it. I suggest the likelihood of “raising an army” even if he wanted to, inside Germany or even other countries in Europe, was essentially zero.
But a work slowdown a gentle subversive campaign suggesting all was not as it seems, these things affect morale in a war and distract the enemy. They are done all the time, routinely.
This would be a moral high road to take at little cost. the sort of thing a Pope, any Pope might be inclined to do no matter the circumstances.
Well, for one thing, you said repeatedly, there was nothing else he could have done, even in this post up above.
I suggest that there was more, that there were conscious choices made to not do them, based on whatever exigent circumstances at the time were.
Now that you seem to agree with me on that, it is a fair topic for the thread to move on to revisiting those choices, both the options and the circumstances. if the thread so desires. Thank you for agreeing.
Right, for you you see this discussion as irrational, but it is in fact not so except for the extent that you (and possibly a few others, but mainly you) make it so.
Rational minds can easily see that many of the war techniques known since the time of Sun Tzu were available to the Pope, in some cases perhaps uniquely, and in some cases when allied with the Allies.
Why he did not do more than he did seems a fair question, it does not belittle or demean that which he did do to ask such a question. It is not impertinent.
No one is asserting that the Pope should have seen WWII or any other event as a way to overtake Europe in the name of the Church.
Perhaps they ARE suggesting it would have been both within his power and more Christ-like to have made choices other than the ones he did make.
As for strategies, individual circumstances matter, sure, but just as there are only a limited number of plots for stories, there are only a limited number of basic military strategies, and not all of them involve arms. I am suggesting, and I read here that others are implying, that the Pope had the means and opportunity to use some of them, and he did use some, and he had the means and opportunity to use them more, or to use other ones, and he declined for reasons I do not know.
I didn’t read it that way at all. But I am not Catholic, and I feel no need to exalt what he did, only to acknowledge it. And once you acknowledge beneficial actions, isn’t it natural to ask if more could have been done?
Yeah probably. I was hoping you would have a source or 5 ready, because I am sure there is plenty of discussion of this in the literature, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Can you find some to share?
Glad you bolded that and pointed out why, because it shows how you misunderstand.
I don’t know your background at all =- I gather you are Catholic, and from other threads, I gather you are a LMT. But I don’t know any of that.
But I do think that, for whatever reason, you are not aware of the value of an ongoing propaganda campaign, even though I bet you see and are cognizant of at least some advertising campaigns in your daily life.
Such campaigns are not “micro-managing” form the top, in fact quite the opposite - the top plants a seed and lets roots take hold at the grassroots level. More details in Sun Tzu/Art of War.
May I suggest, with all sincerity because I do believe, independent of this thread, that you are trying to improve your debating skills, that if in your mind, you are attributing only a single motive to a person’s words, or only a single interpretation of them that is not stated entirely in the words themselves but instead relies on a “between the lines” interpretation, that you take that as a signal to yourself to step back and question why you feel that way?
Few if anyone on SDMB debates from a personal perspective, although it may be common elsewhere. But not here.
So when a phrase like “It seems to be you are arguing…” comes to mind, please treat what follows as a request for clarification, even if there is no actual question mark.
That being said, I clarify: No, that is not what I am arguing at all. I envision an ongoing subversive campaign where Catholics and possibly others take indirect leadership and inspiration for what certainly would be difficult decisions and actions from the Pope himself.
Now, I knwo that the Pope did not have modern media available, which would have eased the task of communicating somewhat. But that is why I noted the extent to which so many towns do have churchs, and word of mouth command and control can follow form that.
In fact, now that I repeat that, I wonder if you got the bolded part from “command and control”. That is a military term that does not refer only to a hierarchical army structure, and that may not have been clear, although it is the right term for what I meant to convey. E.g. fuck all knows where Osama bin Laden is, but he still seems to be able to maintain command and control over that which he wishes to.
No, the point was not to say if he did or didn’t, it was to help you back off gracefully from your untenable position that three was not one single actin more he could have taken.
Once you have left that behind, and I think you have, then we can have the real discussion regarding what I agree were difficult choices.
Is Italy the only country in Europe that you are familiar with that had a Resistance?
OK, then what you were saying (but I believe are not saying anymore) was that the Pope could not have influenced anyone any more than he did, or more effectively than he did, that his influence, just like Goldilocks, was “jussssst right”.
But I think we are past that now…
Who is assigning fault? I am not a Catholic, I’d have to look up now if he even became the Pope during this period or predates it. Even if he died, the same issues would apply to the next Pope who would have inherited the situation, and certainly would not have caused it himself.
What I and others are suggesting, is that the Pope was in a unique position as the leader of a large Church to leverage that leadership into even more action to fight the Nazis.
To say does not assign blame for the underlying situation.
Even so, I am pretty sure there are some universal Principles of Christianity between Catholics and Protestentism that could have been appealed to.
And that not every Nazi was a dehumanized 14 syllable robot or animal as I gather you feel. Some, mentioned in this thread, and some who hostory shall never know of their actions or names, most certainly did act subversively, most likely because of their religious beliefs.
How many more the Pope could have encouraged can only be speculated I suppose, and same for what the outcome may have been.
But for you to say there was nothing the Pope could have done beyond what hi did do, I am glad you see that is not true now.
Sometimes it takes repeating. That is what I suggest the Pope should have done - a campaign, not a speech.
And in my case, it seems to have worked, at last, because you no longer are saying that there is not one additional thing the Pope could have done, which was the part of your discussion I had quarrel with.
So you can tell me I didn’t communicate until the cows come home, but the proof is in the pudding - you agreed he could have done more - and I am satisfied with that.
It would have been chaos on the same level of the Papal Schism. You would have had Pope Pius, having been taken into custody by the Germans “for his protection”, in Berlin or some other German city, “issuing” pro-German papal bulls and statements, and then you would have the other, non Axis cardinals fleeing to Lisbon and electing a new Pope (That was what Pius had told the Cardinals to do in the event of his capture by the Germans). So you’d have Germany and her allies claiming Pius as the real pope, and the western allies claiming the Lisbon Pope as the real pope, and it would have just been added chaos.
Not sure I agree Captain Amazing. I think you would certainly kiss goodbye to any further use of Spanish ports for U-boat supply, and Ireland would be definitely lost for that use (no evidence as far as I know it happened, but the Germans certainly wanted to). A Spain hostile to German could have been problematic, as, dependent on the timing, Germany would not have had the manpower to launch an invasion. It could even have had the potential to alter the European Second Front argument.
Well, it seems like the people in this thread are complaining because the Pope didn’t say that. They’re suggesting that the Pope should have explicitly condemned the Nazis.
MsWas thought they said ti was about raising an army, but no longer thinks that.
I OTOH think that diplomatic and subversive methods are more likely what folks meant, it is certainly what I meant.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, so why not poll everyone again, and ask which of the three interpretations they prefer (or write in votes accepted too). If it turns out there is less nuance than I thought, and you are right, than so be it, we can carry on about that here and I will have no reservations about it.
But I am not comfortable leaving the decision up to either you or me given the divergence in interpretation of the same source material.
Right, but the pope did use diplomatic and subversive methods against the Nazis. So my question is, what do you want him to have done that he didn’t do, and what do you think would have been the consequences of him doing those things?
Did not John Paul II condemn the Soviets outright?
If the Vatican can call excommunication for anyone who aids in getting someone an abortion – even in the recent case of an eight-year-old girl in danger of death – then they can do so for Jews in danger of genocide.