http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/hitler-quotes.htm

We are the joyous Hitler youth,
We do not need any Christian virtue
Our leader is our savior
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We want to be pagans once again."

- Song sung by Hitler youth

"The heaviest blow which ever struck humanity was Christianity; Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.  Both are inventions of the Jew."

- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 7

"The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest.  Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature.  Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 51

".. Do you now appreciate the depth of our National Socialist Movement?  Can there be anything greater and more all comprehending?  Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it.  It is more even than religion; it is the will to create mankind anew."

- Rauschning, Hitler Speaks

"The earth continues to go round, whether it's the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man.  The stronger asserts his will, it's the law of nature.  The world doesn't change; its laws are eternal."

- Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, trans., (Oxford, 1953), Hitler's Table-Talk, p. 38-39

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler's secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that "National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable" and Hitler didn't squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools. You really want confusion? Randy Alley, one of my best WWII history sources, noted that the SS were supposedly forbidden to believe in God--yet the military's belt buckles said "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us")! See photo, below.

Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch."

As Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements. For example, he was quoted in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Allan Bullock, as saying: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

freediver wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 2:14pm:

Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch." As Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements. For example, he was quoted in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Allan Bullock, as saying: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."

Never mind the Concordat (the Reichskonkordat) signed by Hitler and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) on behalf of the Vatican which granted the Catholic Church (among other things) protection of its property and the right to practise Catholicism within the Reich in return for the Vatican staying out of German politics.

So because Hitler made a strategic pact with them it means he liked them? With everything Hitler did, do you think it beyond him to lie to them? Do you think he was a committed Christian? He managed to get the German people to elect him. That wasn't because the majority of Germans actually wanted to kill millions of Jews. He played them, just like he did the Vatican. He openly admitted to thinking the German people were fools for electing him. He would not have tolerated any power base other than his own, if he was able to exterminate it. But he would not have been able to exterminate the Jews with a powerful group like the Vatican trying to undermine him from within his own country.

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 9:22am:

So because Hitler made a strategic pact with them it means he liked them? With everything Hitler did, do you think it beyond him to lie to them? Do you think he was a committed Christian? He managed to get the German people to elect him. That wasn't because the majority of Germans actually wanted to kill millions of Jews. He played them, just like he did the Vatican. He openly admitted to thinking the German people were fools for electing him. He would not have tolerated any power base other than his own, if he was able to exterminate it. But he would not have been able to exterminate the Jews with a powerful group like the Vatican trying to undermine him from within his own country.

I’ve never read that Hitler thought the Germans fools for electing him. Would that be from 1933 or at the end? Do you have a source for that?

Despite over 70 complaints of concordat violations between 1933 and 39, Hitler largely kept to the bargain as, unfortunately, did the Vatican including silence regarding the Holocaust.

This is one of his famous quotes:

"What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think."

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 9:58am:

This is one of his famous quotes: "What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think."

A quote I believe from Mein Kampf which when written he was not referring to himself in power. It's not likely he considered them fools for electing him, he was too convinced of his own messianic destiny. The notion that fools elected him would have threatened his need for an exaggerated sense of self.

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 9:58am:

This is one of his famous quotes: "What good fortune for those in power that the people do not think."

He would have fit right into Australian politics then. I remember many many years ago, an Australian politician (can't remember who) saying what an insult it is to call a politician Machiavellian. I thought, you must be joking. The only insult is that their acting ability was not up a standard where they could avoid being called what they are.

he was too convinced of his own messianic destiny

What kind of messiah do you think he really saw himself as?

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/hitler-quotes.htm

"They refer to me as an uneducated barbarian.  Yes, we are barbarians.  We want to be barbarians, it is an honored title to us.  We shall rejuvenate the world.  This world is near its end."

"Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity.  I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortification of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and independence which only a very few can bear."

"The Ten Commandments have lost their validity.  Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision."

"The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest.  Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature.  Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

".. Do you now appreciate the depth of our National Socialist Movement?  Can there be anything greater and more all comprehending?  Those who see in National Socialism nothing more than a political movement know scarcely anything of it.  It is more even than religion; it is the will to create mankind anew."

"The earth continues to go round, whether it's the man who kills the tiger or the tiger who eats the man.  The stronger asserts his will, it's the law of nature.  The world doesn't change; its laws are eternal."

We are the joyous Hitler youth,
We do not need any Christian virtue
Our leader is our savior
The Pope and Rabbi shall be gone
We want to be pagans once again."

- Song sung by Hitler youth


http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1699/was-hitler-a-christian

In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools. You really want confusion? Randy Alley, one of my best WWII history sources, noted that the SS were supposedly forbidden to believe in God--yet the military's belt buckles said "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us")!

According to a press release from Catholic League President, William A. Donohue (2/4/99): "Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist whose conscience was not informed by Christianity, but by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church. In 1933, Hitler said, 'It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.'"  The Catholic League also quoted Hitler, in a 4/23/99 Op-Ed ad in the New York Times, as saying, "Antiquity was better than modern times, because it didn't know Christianity and syphilis." Ouch!

That said, we can move on to some other relevant info. Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis in his article, "The Trauma of the Holocaust: Some Historical Perspectives," by saying: ""They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies." In other words, definitely non-Christian.

It seems Hitler, like many modern-day politicians, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. And when he didn't, his lackeys did. It may have been political pandering, just like many of our current politicians who invoke God's name to gain support.

Also, it seems probable that Hitler, being the great manipulator, knew that he couldn't fight the Christian churches and their members right off the bat. So he made statements to put the church at ease and may have patronized religion as a way to prevent having to fight the Christian-based church.

In fact, Anton Gil notes in his book, An Honourable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945: "For his part, Hitler naturally wanted to bring the church into line with everything else in his scheme of things. He knew he dare not simply eradicate it: that would not have been possible with such an international organisation, and he would have lost many Christian supporters had he tried to. His principal aim was to unify the German Evangelical Church under a pro-Nazi banner, and to come to an accommodation with the Catholics."

In other words, while he was certainly evil, he also usually knew which wars he could win (at least until 1941) and only fought those. He knew he could beat the Polish, French, and British armies and he allegedly counseled the Japanese against attacking the U.S.; he also requested that they open up a front against Russia. He couldn't beat the church in open warfare--so he took control and then attacked them piecemeal while making statements to put them at ease. Think about it--how many other times did Hitler break his word or ignore a treaty? He said whatever would make things easiest, and then ignored it later.

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 10:42am:

he was too convinced of his own messianic destiny What kind of messiah do you think he really saw himself as?

A messiah who believed he could save the German people from the humiliating terms of the Armistice and restore German honour (or so he thought) for a start and of course from the "enemy within" - the Jew.

I suspect that had he been able to, he would have evenutally appointed himself as a divine leader, in the same manner as earlier European monarchs before the separation of church and state was fully realised. He may have made himself a Christian leader or reformer if that was easier than destroying the church and making himself some kind of atheist/naturalist/pagan prophet. This would not mean he supported the church, but that he saw it more as a tool to cement his grip on power rather than a threat to his power. His quotes indicate to me that he still hadn't made up his mind. I strongly doubt he saw himself as a true Christian or saw any inherent value in Christianity.

freediver wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 12:10pm:

I suspect that had he been able to, he would have evenutally appointed himself as a divine leader, in the same manner as earlier European monarchs before the separation of church and state was fully realised. He may have made himself a Christian leader or reformer if that was easier than destroying the church and making himself some kind of atheist/naturalist/pagan prophet. This would not mean he supported the church, but that he saw it more as a tool to cement his grip on power rather than a threat to his power. His quotes indicate to me that he still hadn't made up his mind. I strongly doubt he saw himself as a true Christian or saw any inherent value in Christianity.

He was a reader and admirer of Nietzsche and his many statements have a Nietzschean quality to them where they are not virtually direct quotes, so it is almost certain that he did not consider himself a Christian and would have agreed with Nietzsche that Christian belief weakened the individual.

I disagree with the assertion in the article quoted above that Hitler knew he could beat Britain. He did not intend to go to war with Britain or France when he invaded Poland and was mindful of the British Empire which at the time had not been exposed for the paper tiger that it proved later to be. Also war with Britain came with the significant risk that the Americans would be drawn into the war, so it is unlikely that in 1939, Hitler had much confidence at all in defeating the UK... which is perhaps partly the reason why Germany lost the Battle of Britain.

Quote:

I disagree with the assertion in the article quoted above that Hitler knew he could beat Britain. He did not intend to go to war with Britain or France when he invaded Poland and was mindful of the British Empire which at the time had not been exposed for the paper tiger that it proved later to be. Also war with Britain came with the significant risk that the Americans would be drawn into the war, so it is unlikely that in 1939, Hitler had much confidence at all in defeating the UK... which is perhaps partly the reason why Germany lost the Battle of Britain.

There is not one sentence there of any substance.  Helian, exactly what are you saying about why Germany lost the Battle of Britain, which was the description given to Hitler's loss of air power over Britain.  

Precisely what is it that you say is "perhaps partly the reason........"

Talk about waffle!

....and what do you mean by this....


Quote:

and was mindful of the British Empire which at the time had not been exposed for the paper tiger that it proved later to be.

When was it exposed as a paper tiger?

Aussie wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 5:08pm:

Quote: I disagree with the assertion in the article quoted above that Hitler knew he could beat Britain. He did not intend to go to war with Britain or France when he invaded Poland and was mindful of the British Empire which at the time had not been exposed for the paper tiger that it proved later to be. Also war with Britain came with the significant risk that the Americans would be drawn into the war, so it is unlikely that in 1939, Hitler had much confidence at all in defeating the UK... which is perhaps partly the reason why Germany lost the Battle of Britain. There is not one sentence there of any substance.  Helian, exactly what are you saying about why Germany lost the Battle of Britain, which was the description given to Hitler's loss of air power over Britain.   Precisely what is it that you say is "perhaps partly the reason........" Talk about waffle! ....and what do you mean by this.... [quote]and was mindful of the British Empire which at the time had not been exposed for the paper tiger that it proved later to be.

[/quote]
What I am suggesting is that Hitler wasn't ready to invade France or Britain in 1939. He had a deal with Stalin on Poland and did not expect to have to deal with France and Britain so soon. However, whether Germany could have in fact continued the battle immediately after Dunkirk or not, Hitler, despite the urgings of his high command to continue, ordered a halt to hostilities for 3 days, thereby allowing British forces to escape. This inexplicable delay was arguably one of the reasons the Germans ultimately lost the Battle of Britain (not just the air war by that name, but the battle for the island). He was also overawed by the British Empire (like the Kaiser before him) which he imagined was invincible. He expressed this admiration for the Empire in Mein Kampf.  He believed that by attacking Britain he would have to deal with an immense multi-national force that could overwhelm German forces. There was also the high probability of the US entering the war in Britain's favour.  His plan to avoid a potential catastrophic defeat was to make peace with Britain.

The fall of Singapore in February of 1942 (which Winston Churchill described as the "worst disaster" and "largest capitulation" in British history") finally exposed the British Empire as weak and unsustainable and effectively marked its end. Roosevelt (and later Truman) agreed to allow Britain to reclaim its Empire after the conclusion of the war, provided Britain oversee its immediate and orderly dismantling.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 6:02pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 25th, 2008 at 5:08pm: Quote: I disagree with the assertion in the article quoted above that Hitler knew he could beat Britain. He did not intend to go to war with Britain or France when he invaded Poland and was mindful of the British Empire which at the time had not been exposed for the paper tiger that it proved later to be. Also war with Britain came with the significant risk that the Americans would be drawn into the war, so it is unlikely that in 1939, Hitler had much confidence at all in defeating the UK... which is perhaps partly the reason why Germany lost the Battle of Britain. There is not one sentence there of any substance.  Helian, exactly what are you saying about why Germany lost the Battle of Britain, which was the description given to Hitler's loss of air power over Britain.   Precisely what is it that you say is "perhaps partly the reason........" Talk about waffle! ....and what do you mean by this.... [quote]and was mindful of the British Empire which at the time had not been exposed for the paper tiger that it proved later to be.

What I am suggesting is that Hitler wasn't ready to invade France or Britain in 1939. He had a deal with Stalin on Poland and did not expect to have to deal with France and Britain so soon. However, whether Germany could have in fact continued the battle immediately after Dunkirk or not, Hitler, despite the urgings of his high command to continue, ordered a halt to hostilities for 3 days, thereby allowing British forces to escape. This inexplicable delay was arguably one of the reasons the Germans ultimately lost the Battle of Britain (not just the air war by that name, but the battle for the island). He was also overawed by the British Empire (like the Kaiser before him) which he imagined was invincible. He expressed this admiration for the Empire in Mein Kampf.  He believed that by attacking Britain he would have to deal with an immense multi-national force that could overwhelm German forces. There was also the high probability of the US entering the war in Britain's favour.  His plan to avoid a potential catastrophic defeat was to make peace with Britain.

The fall of Singapore in February of 1942 (which Winston Churchill described as the "worst disaster" and "largest capitulation" in British history") finally exposed the British Empire as weak and unsustainable and effectively marked its end. Roosevelt (and later Truman) agreed to allow Britain to reclaim its Empire after the conclusion of the war, provided Britain oversee its immediate and orderly dismantling.
[/quote]

I'm not gonna bother with the first paragraph.....it is just generalised rubbish.

The second paragraph is insane.

The fall of Singapore had ferk all to do with Britain*, and the War in Europe.  

Helian, it was not the Germans who took Singapore.

*Yeah, the fact that Aussies were taken there, is a direct result of decisions made in London to the detriment of our Diggers.

The British Commonwealth (formerly 'Empire') survives your rants, Helian, and that runs me.

I am a Republican.

Aussie wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 6:28pm:

I'm not gonna bother with the first paragraph.....it is just generalised rubbish. The second paragraph is insane. The fall of Singapore had ferk all to do with Britain*, and the War in Europe.   Helian, it was not the Germans who took Singapore. *Yeah, the fact that Aussies were taken there, is a direct result of decisions made in London to the detriment of our Diggers. The British Commonwealth (formerly 'Empire') survives your rants, Helian, and that runs me. I am a Republican.

Hitler himself recognised the delay after Dunkirk as a major contributing factor to his loss against Britain.

Yes, the fall of Singapore was not part of the war in Europe. It did demonstrate to the world, however that the perceived invincibility of the Empire was a myth.

Yes, the British Empire morphed into the Commonwealth. However in accordance with US requirements, Britain offered independence to any former colony which demanded it and was in a position to self-govern starting immediately after the war, with India declaring its independence in 1947. And as there was nothing undemocratic about independent states choosing to remain associated by joining a commonwealth of nations of former British colonies, American administrations had no argument with it.

No, I am Republican.  ;D

Quote:

However in accordance with US requirements, Britain offered independence to any former colony which demanded it and was in a position to self-govern starting immediately after the war, with India declaring its independence in 1947. And as there was nothing undemocratic about independent states choosing to remain associated by joining a commonwealth of nations of former British colonies, American administrations had no argument with it.

Give me some source on this crap.  

Ghandi is demanding his incarnation right now.  

I have never, ever known of any connection between Ghandi's movement to Independance and post WW2 US requirements.

You are posting rubbish.

Aussie wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 7:03pm:

Quote: However in accordance with US requirements, Britain offered independence to any former colony which demanded it and was in a position to self-govern starting immediately after the war, with India declaring its independence in 1947. And as there was nothing undemocratic about independent states choosing to remain associated by joining a commonwealth of nations of former British colonies, American administrations had no argument with it. Give me some source on this crap.   Ghandi is demanding his incarnation right now.   I have never, ever known of any connection between Ghandi's movement to Independance and post WW2 US requirements. You are posting rubbish.

Well, there's this :


Quote:

The historical evidence shows that Roosevelt entered into the military alliance with Britain with only one purpose in mind: the defeat of an enemy. The historical evidence also shows that Franklin Roosevelt was committed to dismantling the British Empire--and all other empires--and to replacing them with sovereign nation-states, modelled on the American constitutional republic, in which each citizen would be given, through access to modern scientific education and Western culture, the opportunity to create a better life for himself and his posterity. http://american_almanac.tripod.com/FDRlw95.htm

and this :


Quote:

Clarke traces the intimate and conflicted nature of the “special relationship,” showing how Roosevelt and his successors were determined that Britain must be sustained both during the war and after, but that the British Empire must not; and reveals how the tension between Allied war aims, suppressed while the fighting was going on, became rapidly apparent when it ended. http://www.amazon.com/Last-Thousand-Days-British-Empire/dp/1596915315

and this :


Quote:

"Mr. President - Churchill told Roosevelt - I believe you intend to put an end to the British Empire. All your ideas on the post war world demonstrate it. But, in spite of it all, we know that you are our only hope. And you know that we know it. You know that without the United States, the Her Majesty's Empire cannot last." Churchill, however, made a famous comment in answer to these considerations. It spread throughout the English colonial system regarding the Atlantic Charter article which guaranteed self-determination and the self-government of British colonies after the war: I was not designated Her Majesty's Prime Minister to preside over the liquidation of the empire." http://laresearchinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/03/roosevelt-and-churchill-by-manuel-e.html

Here's an interesting recollection by Elliott Roosevelt of a conversation between the President and Churchill  

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fdrwc.htm


There are hundreds more, but that's enough.

Did you read this, which is part of your argument....


Quote:

All Roosevelt's plans to dismantle the British colonial empire as well as those of France, Holland and Belgium and his view of a new era of development that would arise with the end of colonialism instantly disappeared with his death. And as history has shown, post-war United States became the new exploiting imperial power, promoting wars and destruction around the world to comply with the American corporate greed, the Gambian paper concludes.

You idiot.

Aussie wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 7:32pm:

Did you read this, which is part of your argument.... Quote: All Roosevelt's plans to dismantle the British colonial empire as well as those of France, Holland and Belgium and his view of a new era of development that would arise with the end of colonialism instantly disappeared with his death. And as history has shown, post-war United States became the new exploiting imperial power, promoting wars and destruction around the world to comply with the American corporate greed, the Gambian paper concludes. You idiot.

It slowed with the death of Roosevelt and was reinvigorated by Eisenhower when he demanded that the British withdraw from the Seuz.

Which British Colony owned the Suez?

Nah.

Don't reply Helian.

Enough is enough.

I am finished here.

Aussie wrote on Sep 25^th, 2008 at 8:31pm:

Which British Colony owned the Suez? Nah. Don't reply Helian. Enough is enough. I am finished here.

You're probably old enough to remember the Suez Crisis. When Britain, still in denial about the end of its empire, ignored Eisenhower's direction not to seize the Suez from Nassar. When Eisenhower ordered the British out, he indicated to the world that Britain no longer had superpower status and the days of empire were over. No nation willingly dismantles its empire.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 9:55am:

What makes you think Hitler was a Christian?

I can see where the argument is going with that question. It's heading down the same track as "There are no homosexual Muslims" because their lifestyle is incompatible with Islam. Try to see things beyond the blinkers of your faith.

"Adolph Hitler grew up as an ardent Christian.  He was baptized in the Roman Catholic Church in infancy, attended a monastery school, was an altar boy and was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ”.  His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest and often wrote of his love for the church and clergy.  “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals.  As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.”  -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf).  This would prove to have a deep impact on him in later life, in fact, while he walked to school every day, he passed a stone arch that bore the monastery’s coat-of-arms, which included a swastika.  Hitler, also an artist, painted religious portraits at the time, including one of Mary and Jesus, that we still have today."

The fact is that Hitler was a lifelong Catholic and was never excommunicated by the Church.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 10:04am:

I prefer to leave it at "I know that atheism is religion".

I think we should agree to disagree. We've all chewed it over enough. Mental mastication just makes you feel good for a while, but it doesn't actually achieve anything.

Now what definition of 'know' are you using? Is that like "I know that my redeemer liveth" ?

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 10:10am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 10:04am: I prefer to leave it at "I know that atheism is religion". I think we should agree to disagree. We've all chewed it over enough. Mental masticiation just makes you feel good for a while, but it doesn't actually achieve anything. Now what definition of 'know' are you using? Is that like "I know that my redeemer liveth" ?

So you don't want leave it at that and prefer temporary "feel good" from "mental masticiation"? 8-)

Ok. I know because of empirical data from my observation of atheists religious ferver. Also I can make the prediction based on my theory and it will come true, you know like in math "take 1 then add 2 and result will be 3".

I can see where the argument is going with that question. It's heading down the same track as "There are no homosexual Muslims" because their lifestyle is incompatible with Islam.

No, that is not where it is headed at all. If someone like Hitler claimed to be 'with you' to your face, when negotiating for your support, then later turned around and boasted to his mates that he was going to destroy you, common sense would indicate that he wasn't really with you at all, he was just playing you.

I didn't say that he was a good Catholic. The real reason he exterminated so many Jews was because somewhere within his insane mind, he had Christian belefs. Why otherwise would he focus on the Jews?

(That's an unpalatable statement to Christians, but it's probably true)

So someone who plans to destroy the church and replace it with a naturalistic paganism is still a Catholic, but just not a very good one?

You need to spilt the thread, FD. I'll reply later  when I can.

tallowood wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 10:19am:

Ok. I know because of empirical data from my observation of atheists religious ferver. Also I can make the prediction based on my theory and it will come true, you know like in math "take 1 then add 2 and result will be 3".

Observe this:  I'm not interested in religion. Believe what you want.

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 10:31am:

I didn't say that he was a good Catholic. The real reason he exterminated so many Jews was because somewhere within his insane mind, he had Christian belefs. Why otherwise would he focus on the Jews? (That's an unpalatable statement to Christians, but it's probably true)

I think there was more prosaic reason for Hitler's focus on the Jews or may be three reasons.

1 as a leader of the looser nation (WW1) he needed scapegoat to explain why.
2 nazi party needed quick free money and industrial control
3 personal psychological reason (his mother had a jewish lover when he was a boy?)

muso wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 10:39am:

tallowood wrote on Oct 24th, 2008 at 10:19am: Ok. I know because of empirical data from my observation of atheists religious ferver. Also I can make the prediction based on my theory and it will come true, you know like in math "take 1 then add 2 and result will be 3". Observe this:  I'm not interested in religion. Believe what you want.

As I said before "I know", you said yourself that you are not an atheist.

The real reason he exterminated so many Jews was because somewhere within his insane mind, he had Christian belefs. Why otherwise would he focus on the Jews?

Could it be because he was powerful to destroy the jews, but not yet powerful enough to take on the church?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2008 at 5:05pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 23rd, 2008 at 2:14pm: Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch." As Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements. For example, he was quoted in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Allan Bullock, as saying: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews." Never mind the Concordat (the Reichskonkordat) signed by Hitler and Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) on behalf of the Vatican which granted the Catholic Church (among other things) protection of its property and the right to practise Catholicism within the Reich in return for the Vatican staying out of German politics.

that statement is one riddled with ignorance.

the pope only signed it so that their workings could fly under the radar. thousands of jews were hidden and evacuated out of europe trhough the workings of the vatican, which was able to do so due to its autonomy.

The pope was clever, what could have a 5 minute stand against hitler achieved? by signing the pope saved many people.

hitler ofcourse liked the idea because he felt ligitimised.

freediver wrote on Oct 24^th, 2008 at 11:08am:

The real reason he exterminated so many Jews was because somewhere within his insane mind, he had Christian belefs. Why otherwise would he focus on the Jews? Could it be because he was powerful to destroy the jews, but not yet powerful enough to take on the church?

also most insane rulers tend to enjoy killing jews

Well I think Hitler had a negative reaction towards the jews, because of the depression, do not think of it as comparable to anything you have experienced, it was a nightmare, where people were dying from starvation, because of the world's economic crisis.
Hitler blamed the Jews, for manufacturing the crisis to exploit the situation, and profit from it.
He was not alone in holding such beliefs, but he was wrong in oversimplifying a world crisis into a single ethnic issue, and then obsessing over it.

Hitler, almost certainly lost his mind, over the course of the war, many think around the end of 41, start of 42 period, that he really went loopy, so to try and determine if his actions after that point, was defined by his catholic upbringing, or his mental illness, is really unanswerable.

I just know one thing, if he was Christian, he was a very bad one, and I don't accept that his religious beliefs were necessarily causal to his genocidal aspirations.

Are you obsessed with the Nazis or what, FD?

I think Adolf Hitler was a Pagan and he had all sorts of beliefs.

Hitler was an occultist/mystic. All real Nazis are.

Go find a REAL Nazi, not some skinhead goose stepping fool, and have a chat about spirituality with them. They are in to rituals and the like.

However, REAL Nazi's are not going to admit to hardly anyone they are Nazi's or interested in occult practices.

easel wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 3:58pm:

Hitler was an occultist/mystic. All real Nazis are. Go find a REAL Nazi, not some skinhead goose stepping fool, and have a chat about spirituality with them. They are in to rituals and the like. However, REAL Nazi's are not going to admit to hardly anyone they are Nazi's or interested in occult practices.

'Real' Nazis? What's a 'real' Nazi? Do they have a special classification now, Easel?

What's an occult/mystic religion?

Real Nazi's are generally old men who are highly educated who do not publicise their beliefs, work in important jobs and have a political ideology which they are trying to introduce, slowly but surely, perhaps not in their own lifetimes even.

Occult/mystic religions trace their roots back to places like ancient Egypt. They do things like spells and magic, which generally consist of such things as chanting, hypnosis and drugs, which they convince themselves are magic and spirits when they ruin someones mind rather than just arseholes playing mindgames with weak, suggestible individuals.

Classic Liberal wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 11:23am:

that statement is one riddled with ignorance. the pope only signed it so that their workings could fly under the radar. thousands of jews were hidden and evacuated out of europe trhough the workings of the vatican, which was able to do so due to its autonomy. The pope was clever, what could have a 5 minute stand against hitler achieved? by signing the pope saved many people. hitler ofcourse liked the idea because he felt ligitimised.

The pope absolutely did not sign the concordat to ‘fly under the radar’, he began negotiations with Hitler on the concordat (as Cardinal Pacelli) for Pope Pius XI from 1933. He signed the concordat to ensure the survival of the Catholic Church in Germany and the freedom for all German Catholics to practise the faith.

However Pacelli was not a Nazi sympathiser.

As Dr. Paul O'Shea said in an interview to promote his book, 'A Cross Too Heavy - Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943', “[Pius XII] is not the rabid anti-Semite that [John Cornwell (Hitler’s Pope)] paints him to be, he's not the lamb without stain that his hagiographers would have us believe, he is, as most of us are, somewhere in the middle. He was human, he made mistakes, I think that his mistakes were pretty grave, and he needs to be held accountable for that. But we can't make a demon out of him because he wasn't.”

O’Shea argues that Pacelli was not a racial anti-Semite, although, like most Catholics of the time, he was anti-Jewish in that he believed the religion had been superseded. He was no friend of Hitler nor was he a supporter or sympathiser of National Socialism. The fact is Hitler and Pacelli despised each other.

But Pius XII was so abstruse in his condemnation of Jewish persecution (in an effort to protect the Vatican’s neutrality or a backlash against Catholics in Germany and Nazi occupied Europe) that only the most attentive to his addresses could intuit any form of condemnation at all. As O’Shea says of Pius XII’s Christmas address of 1942 where “in the course of several tens of thousands of words, he speaks seven words on what could be interpreted as a condemnation of the Holocaust”.

While O’Shea believes that Pius XII is probably the most defamed world leader of the 20th century, his book tries to answer the question “how did it reach the point that the man who was venerated by millions as the visible head of Christ's church on earth, a saintly man [as many would have us believe], end up being vilified to the point that he was called 'Hitler's Pope'?”.

Hitler was never excommunicated. As far as his crazy ideas were concerned, Hitler was psychotic. If you have to look inside the mind of Hitler to find out of he was a Christian or not, you'd probably have to examine every single Christian to determine the same.

Many politicians are psychotic by nature. Boris Yeltsin was a classic. Kevin Rudd is probably psychotic too. G W Bush probably isn't. John Howard probably wasn't either. Psychotics will basically say, do and believe whatever is necessary in order to achieve their personal aims. If you say that Hitler was not a Christian, you'd have to include all psychotic politicians in that statement. They are Christians only so far as it benefits their personal cause.

Hitler's personal aim was to create an empire. Kevin Rudd's personal aim is to become Secretary General of the UN. He'll basically lie, swindle, attend church and do everything else in his power to achieve that personal aim, probably without being found out.  15 years from now - just watch this space. You heard it here first.

muso wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 7:38pm:

Hitler was never excommunicated. As far as his crazy ideas were concerned, Hitler was psychotic. If you have to look inside the mind of Hitler to find out of he was a Christian or not, you'd probably have to examine every single Christian to determine the same. Many politicians are psychotic by nature. Boris Yeltsin was a classic. Kevin Rudd is probably psychotic too. G W Bush probably isn't. John Howard probably wasn't either. Psychotics will basically say, do and believe whatever is necessary in order to achieve their personal aims. If you say that Hitler was not a Christian, you'd have to include all psychotic politicians in that statement. They are Christians only so far as it benefits their personal cause. Hitler's personal aim was to create an empire. Kevin Rudd's personal aim is to become Secretary General of the UN. He'll basically lie, swindle, attend church and do everything else in his power to achieve that personal aim, probably without being found out.  15 years from now - just watch this space. You heard it here first.

Do you even know what you are talking about? Psychosis is not the same as being weird or eccentric, they are completely different kettles of fish. Megalomania is not psychosis.

George Bush said that God spoke to him and told him to invade Iraq. If I went to a psychiatrist and said God told me attack a Mosque because Islamic extremists are a very real threat, I would have the cops called on me, taken to hospital and scheduled under the mental health act and be put straight on anti psychotic medication.

Yet, you say Georgie is not psychotic. He might not be, he might just be a sly manipulator.

Liars and narcissists are not necessarily psychotic.

You have no idea what psychosis is. Psychosis is extremely obvious, and someone who was clearly psychotic would not be given authority to rule because they would not be able to present in public. Psychosis is such things as extreme manic episodes of bipolar, schizophrenia and excess drug consumption. Psychosis is generally characterised by excess dopamine in the brain. If these people you claim to be psychotic are, they would be hearing voices, unable to sleep, extremely energetic, rapid speech, flight of ideas etc etc. They would not be able to show any signs of calm or collectiveness.

Don't throw words around when you don't know what they mean.

Weird is not psychosis. Odd is not psychosis. Eccentric is not psychosis. Ambition is not psychosis. Ideology is not psychosis. Lying is not psychosis. Psychosis is psychosis.

easel wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 7:53pm:

muso wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 7:38pm: Hitler was never excommunicated. As far as his crazy ideas were concerned, Hitler was psychotic. If you have to look inside the mind of Hitler to find out of he was a Christian or not, you'd probably have to examine every single Christian to determine the same. Many politicians are psychotic by nature. Boris Yeltsin was a classic. Kevin Rudd is probably psychotic too. G W Bush probably isn't. John Howard probably wasn't either. Psychotics will basically say, do and believe whatever is necessary in order to achieve their personal aims. If you say that Hitler was not a Christian, you'd have to include all psychotic politicians in that statement. They are Christians only so far as it benefits their personal cause. Hitler's personal aim was to create an empire. Kevin Rudd's personal aim is to become Secretary General of the UN. He'll basically lie, swindle, attend church and do everything else in his power to achieve that personal aim, probably without being found out.  15 years from now - just watch this space. You heard it here first. Do you even know what you are talking about? Psychosis is not the same as being weird or eccentric, they are completely different kettles of fish. Megalomania is not psychosis. George Bush said that God spoke to him and told him to invade Iraq. If I went to a psychiatrist and said God told me attack a Mosque because Islamic extremists are a very real threat, I would have the cops called on me, taken to hospital and scheduled under the mental health act and be put straight on anti psychotic medication. Yet, you say Georgie is not psychotic. He might not be, he might just be a sly manipulator. Liars and narcissists are not necessarily psychotic. You have no idea what psychosis is. Psychosis is extremely obvious, and someone who was clearly psychotic would not be given authority to rule because they would not be able to present in public. Psychosis is such things as extreme manic episodes of bipolar, schizophrenia and excess drug consumption. Psychosis is generally characterised by excess dopamine in the brain. If these people you claim to be psychotic are, they would be hearing voices, unable to sleep, extremely energetic, rapid speech, flight of ideas etc etc. They would not be able to show any signs of calm or collectiveness. Don't throw words around when you don't know what they mean. Weird is not psychosis. Odd is not psychosis. Eccentric is not psychosis. Ambition is not psychosis. Ideology is not psychosis. Lying is not psychosis. Psychosis is psychosis.

Hello easel, are you setting yourself now as a psychotic expert?

OR did Hitler parachuted from a UFO?

OR was he a victim of drugs, hypnosis and mind play by Bavarian Illuminaty?

tallowood wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 8:06pm:

Hello easel, are you setting yourself now as a psychotic expert? OR did Hitler parachuted from a UFO? OR was he a victim of drugs, hypnosis and mind play by Bavarian Illuminaty?

Hello arsebandit,

I, in the past, received a diagnosis of bipolar type 1. I have experienced psychosis. I have also spent many hours researching mental illness.

I feel I am more than qualified to comment on psychosis.

easel wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 8:12pm:

tallowood wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:06pm: Hello easel, are you setting yourself now as a psychotic expert? OR did Hitler parachuted from a UFO? OR was he a victim of drugs, hypnosis and mind play by Bavarian Illuminaty? Hello arsebandit, I, in the past, received a diagnosis of bipolar type 1. I have experienced psychosis. I have also spent many hours researching mental illness. I feel I am more than qualified to comment on psychosis.

Hahaha, you blew it in your own face mr psychotic expert  ;D ;D ;D

I'm not ashamed of admitting that via internet. I even go to mental health forums to discuss it.

What are you getting at tallow?

Psychotic episodes are characterized by high anxiety or aggressiveness, a deterioration of moral values or interpersonal relations, and excitement or depression. It can however be channelled.

There was an excellent series on the ABC a few years ago some of these people. It described the symptoms of psychosis and how many leaders suffered from it. It was called something like Altered Statesmen or something like that. It included profiles on Harold Macmillan and his amphetamine addiction, Winston Churchill and his alcoholism and Yeltsin with his Psychosis, among others.  

The summary doesn't go into many details:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200501/highlights/246938.htm

There was also a book published, which I lent to a friend and never got back.

Easel - sorry to hear about your past illness. It's brave of you to talk about it. People generally have difficulty talking about these things, although there is no reason why they shouldn't.

I only had one experience with psychosis - an ex employee many years ago. It was an upsetting experience for all concerned.

Churchill was rumoured to be bipolar.

Severe depression can cause psychosis.

So can extreme elevation.

From my experience I can say psychosis is very very enjoyable except for the people around you. The medication is supposed to reduce available serotonin and available dopamine. Extacy does the serotonin, speed does the dopamine, if you were discussing illegal drugs. It lasted a month for me.

:D

Mental illness is a strange thing. Everyone has some symptoms of some mental illness at all times.

It is not an exact science.

easel wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 4:18pm:

Real Nazi's are generally old men who are highly educated who do not publicise their beliefs, work in important jobs and have a political ideology which they are trying to introduce, slowly but surely, perhaps not in their own lifetimes even. Occult/mystic religions trace their roots back to places like ancient Egypt. They do things like spells and magic, which generally consist of such things as chanting, hypnosis and drugs, which they convince themselves are magic and spirits when they ruin someones mind rather than just arseholes playing mindgames with weak, suggestible individuals.

"They knew all about the Illuminated Lodge,
founded in Munich in 1923, and that it controlled Wall Street and Hitler and Stalin, through witchcraft. "

easel wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 8:33pm:

Mental illness is a strange thing. Everyone has some symptoms of some mental illness at all times. It is not an exact science.

I realise that. I had a long chat with a psychiatrist once when I was in a  a training course with him (Cert IV in Training). He told me that the diagnosis will depend on the country. In the US, it's either one disorder or another, whereas in Australia, you tend to get mixed diagnoses.

It seems to be a very inexact science.

muso wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 8:42pm:

easel wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 8:33pm: Mental illness is a strange thing. Everyone has some symptoms of some mental illness at all times. It is not an exact science. I realise that. I had a long chat with a psychiatrist once when I was in a  a training course with him (Cert IV in Training). He told me that the diagnosis will depend on the country. In the US, it's either one disorder or another, whereas in Australia, you tend to get mixed diagnoses. It seems to be a very inexact science.

Not only inexact but sometime political as well.
They used to put dissidents in mental asylum in USSR.

It is very dodgy. Psychiatry is essentially the lowest paid specialisation of medicine, not to mention it is guess work. I have a mate studying medicine and he hasn't got anything nice to say about it.

Psychiatric practices are essentially barbaric and untested. ECT was originally adapted from animal slaughter practices, and it causes brain damage. Yet you can be forced to receive it against your will. The medications are essentially experimental, they know what they do but not how they work, nor the side effects. They get released in to the market without widespread testing.

Psychiatrists have far too much power. They can hold you against your will for annoying them.

I heard a story where a blokes mother was in the ED. The woman next to her was having a fuss. The on duty psychiatrist told her if she didn't calm down she would be scheduled. He had to explain to her what scheduling was and the mental health act.

I feel as though I have cured myself. I don't take any psychiatric medication and have not for some time. I stay occupied, active and make sure I get adequate intake of trace minerals, vitamins and my omega 3's, in large quantities without exceeding the RDI by more than 10%. I also don't mind the nootropics.

Psychiatry, brought to you by the lovely people who introduced lobotomies, for the good of humanity!

Did you see that movie "Mr Jones"? About a manic-depressive (bipolar) sufferer. Reminded me of a relative of mine.

Hitler was never excommunicated. As far as his crazy ideas were concerned, Hitler was psychotic.

Isn't that a bit of a moot point? What church was going to stand up and excommunicate a tyrant like Hitler? That's like saying Saddam Hussein always obeyed traffic laws because he never got a ticket. You need a very tight knit congregation before excommunication takes on any meaning.

freediver wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 9:26pm:

Hitler was never excommunicated. As far as his crazy ideas were concerned, Hitler was psychotic. Isn't that a bit of a moot point? What church was going to stand up and excommunicate a tyrant like Hitler? That's like saying Saddam Hussein always obeyed traffic laws because he never got a ticket. You need a very tight knit congregation before excommunication takes on any meaning.

Saddam Hussein is another good example. The most accurate thing you can say is that he wasn't a very good Muslim, but he most certainly was a Muslim. I'm not sure what our resident Muslims would say about him.

In the end, who cares what some of these sickos professed to be anyway? Why is it relevant?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 5:06pm:

Classic Liberal wrote on Oct 25th, 2008 at 11:23am: that statement is one riddled with ignorance. the pope only signed it so that their workings could fly under the radar. thousands of jews were hidden and evacuated out of europe trhough the workings of the vatican, which was able to do so due to its autonomy. The pope was clever, what could have a 5 minute stand against hitler achieved? by signing the pope saved many people. hitler ofcourse liked the idea because he felt ligitimised. The pope absolutely did not sign the concordat to ‘fly under the radar’, he began negotiations with Hitler on the concordat (as Cardinal Pacelli) for Pope Pius XI from 1933. He signed the concordat to ensure the survival of the Catholic Church in Germany and the freedom for all German Catholics to practise the faith. However Pacelli was not a Nazi sympathiser. As Dr. Paul O'Shea said in an interview to promote his book, 'A Cross Too Heavy - Eugenio Pacelli, Politics and the Jews of Europe 1917-1943', “[Pius XII] is not the rabid anti-Semite that [John Cornwell (Hitler’s Pope)] paints him to be, he's not the lamb without stain that his hagiographers would have us believe, he is, as most of us are, somewhere in the middle. He was human, he made mistakes, I think that his mistakes were pretty grave, and he needs to be held accountable for that. But we can't make a demon out of him because he wasn't.” O’Shea argues that Pacelli was not a racial anti-Semite, although, like most Catholics of the time, he was anti-Jewish in that he believed the religion had been superseded. He was no friend of Hitler nor was he a supporter or sympathiser of National Socialism. The fact is Hitler and Pacelli despised each other. But Pius XII was so abstruse in his condemnation of Jewish persecution (in an effort to protect the Vatican’s neutrality or a backlash against Catholics in Germany and Nazi occupied Europe) that only the most attentive to his addresses could intuit any form of condemnation at all. As O’Shea says of Pius XII’s Christmas address of 1942 where “in the course of several tens of thousands of words, he speaks seven words on what could be interpreted as a condemnation of the Holocaust”. While O’Shea believes that Pius XII is probably the most defamed world leader of the 20th century, his book tries to answer the question “how did it reach the point that the man who was venerated by millions as the visible head of Christ's church on earth, a saintly man [as many would have us believe], end up being vilified to the point that he was called 'Hitler's Pope'?”.

"The Pope sent out the order that religious buildings were to give refuge to Jews, even at the price of great personal sacrifice on the part of their occupants; he released monasteries and convents from the cloister rule forbidding entry into these religious houses to all but a few specified outsiders, so that they could be used as hiding places. Thousands of Jews—the figures run from 4,000 to 7,000—were hidden, fed, clothed, and bedded in the 180 known places of refuge in Vatican City, churches and basilicas, Church administrative buildings, and parish houses. Unknown numbers of Jews were sheltered in Castel Gandolfo, the site of the Pope’s summer residence, private homes, hospitals, and nursing institutions; and the Pope took personal responsibility for the care of the children of Jews deported from Italy.

Rabbi Lapide records that "in Rome we saw a list of 155 convents and monasteries—Italian, French, Spanish, English, American, and also German—mostly extraterritorial property of the Vatican . . . which sheltered throughout the German occupation some 5,000 Jews in Rome. No less than 3,000 Jews found refuge at one time at the Pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo; sixty lived for nine months at the Jesuit Gregorian University, and half a dozen slept in the cellar of the Pontifical Bible Institute."[15]

Notice in particular that the Pope was not merely allowing Jews to be hidden in different church buildings around Rome. He was hiding them in the Vatican itself and in his own summer home, Castel Gandolfo. His success in protecting Italian Jews against the Nazis was remarkable. Lichten records that after the War was over it was determined that only 8,000 Jews were taken from Italy by the Nazis[16] —far less than in other European countries. In June,1944, Pius XII sent a telegram to Admiral Miklos Horthy, the ruler of Hungary, and was able to halt the planned deportation of 800,000 Jews from that country.

Up until November 1938, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano and the Jesuit newspaper Civilita Catolica continually published anti-Jewish material. Cardinal Pacelli as the Vatican Secretary of State had the responsibility of setting editorial policy for both papers during his tenure and therefore must bear some responsibility for their anti-Jewish articles.

But given that Pacelli (Pius XII) left almost no personal writings, no diaries or personal letters it is almost impossible to understand the mind of the man behind his role as Pope.

On opposing Fascism and Communism. Being a lifelong diplomat, Pacelli expected that all national leaders would always negotiate with the Vatican state. What he could not understand then (and what ameliorated his view towards Hitler and Franco) was the absolute refusal of communist leaders (firstly Lenin then Stalin) to negotiate at all with the Vatican. This was a shock to him and he formed the view from the early 20’s that communism was an utterly diabolical force that should be resisted at all costs. However, he was not naïve towards Fascism at all, but he and his predecessor, Pius XI both accepted that in order to offer Catholics in Germany (and later Spain) some protection, a deal with a devil was required. In Pacelli’s mind though, the devil was always communism. This was his fatal flaw. He did not initially recognise National Socialism as the enormous evil that it was.

Another problem in dealing with National Socialism was that the German Bishops had advised Pius XI (and Pacelli as Secretary of State) that German Catholics were not prepared to martyr themselves for their faith. Many had voted for Hitler, there were large numbers of Catholics who had joined the Nazi Party and most Germans considered themselves Germans first, Catholics second. Any vocal condemnation from the Vatican would risk, in the opinion of the German Bishops, a mass exodus of German Catholics from the Church. They simply could not be counted on to defy the state.

On saving Italian Jews. Given Pius XII never once wrote down an order to save Jews, there is no evidence that indicates he ordered the opening of religious buildings for their rescue nor is there any evidence (other than anecdotal) that he encouraged anyone to save Jews.
It is most likely that the Italian religious saved Jews because that is what they considered the Holy Father would want them to do as opposed to him expressly ordering them to do it, which, given Pacelli's cautious nature, is highly unlikely. But that’s not to say that he didn’t.

Of course they publish anti Jewish material. They think the Jews are wrong. That's not the same as mass murder, or plotting mass murder.

freediver wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 10:37am:

Of course they publish anti Jewish material. They think the Jews are wrong. That's not the same as mass murder, or plotting mass murder.

They did publish anti-Jewish material (past tense). All anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish articles released by the Vatican ceased after Krystallnacht (November 1938). The Vatican was not amoral enough to pretend that there wasn't a link between encouraging anti-Semitic sentiments and its physical expression by some and its tacit approval by others. On his accession Pope John XXIII began the reconciliation of the Catholic Church and Jews which included the expunging from the Good Friday liturgy the prayer for the 'perfidious Jews'. Pope John Paul II furthered the reconciliation when he apologised for the errors and acts of omission and commission (which also included crimes committed by the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades) with statements such as 'We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.'

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 1:01pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 27th, 2008 at 10:37am: Of course they publish anti Jewish material. They think the Jews are wrong. That's not the same as mass murder, or plotting mass murder. They did publish anti-Jewish material (past tense). All anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish articles released by the Vatican ceased after Krystallnacht (November 1938). The Vatican was not amoral enough to pretend that there wasn't a link between encouraging anti-Semitic sentiments and its physical expression by some and its tacit approval by others. On his accession Pope John XXIII began the reconciliation of the Catholic Church and Jews which included the expunging from the Good Friday liturgy the prayer for the 'perfidious Jews'. Pope John Paul II furthered the reconciliation when he apologised for the errors and acts of omission and commission (which also included crimes committed by the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades) with statements such as 'We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.'

]
the catholic church like humanity itself makes many mistakes.