26 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere isn't much of a "comeback".
Still waiting for the comeback...
Incidentally, FS's references are based off the following page:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Since I haven't read the books myself, I can't really comment too much about it.
I can say this about Guenter Lewy though - his work on Pius XII was largely discredited by fellow Jewish historians (e.g. Kempner, Levai) as being both heavily biased and shoddy historical research. e.g. Lewy used several sources known to be forgeries to further his arguments.
26 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerthat diversion doesn't trash that quote.
There isn't much of a "comeback".
Incidentally, FS's references are based off the following page:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
Since I haven't read the books myself, I can't really comment too much about it.
I can say this about Guenter Lewy though - his work on Pius XII was largely discredited by fellow Jewish historia ...[text shortened]... torical research. e.g. Lewy used several sources known to be forgeries to further his arguments.
How do you get the idea that Kemper and Levai were right and Lewy was wrong? Excepting the idea had fit you're own view of Pius.
27 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by frogstompWell, for one thing, it is the nature of the criticism against Lewy. What he is criticised for:
that diversion doesn't trash that quote.
How do you get the idea that Kemper and Levai were right and Lewy was wrong? Excepting the idea had fit you're own view of Pius.
- Using forged and/or biased documents in a manner that assumes their content is true
- Using quotes and actions taken out of the larger context
And both of these lend me to question those quotes. For one thing, I cannot find any online source that mentions the quote in question but did not cite it from Lewy. And, since Lewy is accused of precisely the two things that would discredit the use of those quotes, I cannot see how it stands scrutiny.
27 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, for two things, the nature of criticism against Lewy.
Well, for one thing, it is the nature of the criticism against Lewy. What he is criticised for:
- Using forged and/or biased documents in a manner that assumes their content is true
- Using quotes and actions taken out of the larger context
And both of these lend me to question those quotes. For one thing, I cannot find any online source that m ...[text shortened]... he two things that would discredit the use of those quotes, I cannot see how it stands scrutiny.
The quote I used wasn't forged , although it was taken as true.
Unless your saying he made it up, which is possible , I guess, but I doubt it considering what the reality was. Considering that Pius didn't tell the RCC to stand with God against the Nazi's it seems a very likely type of question any decent reporter would have asked. So I ask you :
Why didn't Pius?
btw the first one wasn't from Lewy .
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompNo - the first one was from Giovannetti and I can't find anything about him or his book either. Strangely, it's not even mentioned in other anti-Pius articles except for that Hitler-Leftist one (which is reproduced on multiple sites).
Well, for two things, the nature of criticism against Lewy.
The quote I used wasn't forged , although it was taken as true.
Unless your saying he made it up, which is possible , I guess, but I doubt it considering what the reality was. Considering that Pius didn't tell the RCC to stand with God against the Nazi' ...[text shortened]... sked. So I ask you :
Why didn't Pius?
btw the first one wasn't from Lewy .
The answer to your question on Pius - same reason the ICRC and WCC didn't take extremely strong positions against Hitler - to save lives. The Dutch Bishops did - and the only result was that more Jews got killed faster.
Sometimes the right thing to do is to be prudent instead of morally righteous.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd so you agree that Pius didn't do squat.
No - the first one was from Giovannetti and I can't find anything about him or his book either. Strangely, it's not even mentioned in other anti-Pius articles except for that Hitler-Leftist one (which is reproduced on multiple sites).
The answer to your question on Pius - same reason the ICRC and WCC didn't take extremely strong positions agains ...[text shortened]... killed faster.
Sometimes the right thing to do is to be prudent instead of morally righteous.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAnd I'm saying he did squat, and squat wasn't good enough.
No, I am saying exactly the opposite - he saved hundreds of thousands of Jews. He just didn't use a megaphone†.
---
† and probably saved many more by not doing so.
It's not my fault the fascists lost , though that too was a good thing.
It's a pity that the pope didn't "use his megaphone" as that might have saved quite a few souls that joined the German Army or the present pope from the Hitler Youth, of course you won't see that but again it's just some of the little things that Pius didn't protect.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by frogstompTalk is easy, froggy. Thousands, potentially millions of lives don't depend on your words and actions. They did with Pius. I don't think his condemnation would've prevented people from joining (or being forced to join) the German army.
And I'm saying he did squat, and squat wasn't good enough.
It's not my fault the fascists lost , though that too was a good thing.
It's a pity that the pope didn't "use his megaphone" as that might have saved quite a few souls that joined the German Army or the present pope from the Hitler Youth, of course you won't see that but again it's just some of the little things that Pius didn't protect.
But now I'm just repeating myself. If you have nothing new to say, I'm going to stop posting on the subject.