Conquer Club

Yes, this is the same New York Times that reported over and over that there were WMD in Iraq.

That article is contested by many who knew the pope in real life, in particular the family whose son was executed for being a conscious objector.

mpjh wrote:Yes, this is the same New York Times that reported over and over that there were WMD in Iraq.

They were right about that as there were WMDs found in Iraq as well as hundreds of tons of uranium.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsart ... x?id=15918
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/

Carry on.

luns101 wrote: that Bush invades countries because God told him to,

Well he did.

PLAYER57832 wrote:What did he do in the intervening years? That is what really matters. People learn and grow a lot from the time they are teenagers.

Apparently little, 'cause he is now rehabilitating fellow Nazi supporters.

Yeah, Pope Benedict clearly can't shake that ruthless Nazi past. It drives his will in everything he does.

Yeah, but Benedict always looks evil.

UPDATE: It seems now (according to NPR, "All Things considered" and "Morning Edition") that the Pope asked him to recant his views. He only partially apologized and the Vatican has stated that this is "not good enough".

So... it looks like you were off base in this case, mpj.

PLAYER57832 wrote:UPDATE: It seems now (according to NPR, "All Things considered" and "Morning Edition") that the Pope asked him to recant his views. He only partially apologized and the Vatican has stated that this is "not good enough".

So... it looks like you were off base in this case, mpj.

Yeah, I read his "apology", he was mostly apologizing for having caused trouble for the catholic church.

MeDeFe wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:UPDATE: It seems now (according to NPR, "All Things considered" and "Morning Edition") that the Pope asked him to recant his views. He only partially apologized and the Vatican has stated that this is "not good enough".

So... it looks like you were off base in this case, mpj.

Yeah, I read his "apology", he was mostly apologizing for having caused trouble for the catholic church.

Yeah, if I am so off base, why is the pope even having to deal with it?

mpjh wrote:Sorry, Hitler could not do what he did without the support of a whole lot of Germans, including the pope as a young man. Remember they elected him. Once he got the war going, they lost everything, but they put him there. Much like W and his war. The difference between WWII Germany and here is that the Republicans lost the election.

Uh no...Hitler was not elected to public office. You are purposely misrepresenting the past in order to make illogical comparisons to the modern day. Hitler was appointed chancellor in a power-sharing deal.

But before that, he won an election. His party was the largest in the government -- broadly supported by the German people.

Q: Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1933?

A: Yes. Of course he was.

However, because the office of Chancellor was not filled by popular election, it might be more accurate to say that Hitler was constitutionally chosen to be the Chancellor of Germany, a democratic nation. The point is, there was nothing about Hitler's appointment as Chancellor (30 Jan. 1933) which violated the Constitution of Germany. President Hindenburg legally selected the leader of the largest party in Parliament to head up a coalition government. It has happened hundreds of times throughout history without being considered undemocratic.

Only in light of later events does it become obvious that this was the beginning of the end of democratic rule in Germany. If Hitler had suddenly died in office before the Reichtag Fire (27 Feb. 1933) gave him the excuse to crush the opposition, history would record the uninterrupted flow of democracy in Germany in 1933. Granted, the window of opportunity for Hitler to leave a legacy as a proper democrat was only open for a single month, but that could have been enough.

The myth that Hitler slipped into power by way of an illegal backroom deal which bypassed the constitution is more comforting than considering that maybe laws and democratic constitutions are not foolproof safeguards against the emergence of tyrants. If a constitutionally valid plurality want tyranny, they'll get it.

Hitler is indeed a perfect example of how the baying mob cannot be trusted to rule itself. Why should it? What possible metaphysical justification is attached to having 51%, or the biggest minority, of a given sample of homo sapiens support you?

But isn't mpjh the firmest supporter of rejecting the axioms of government that prevent absolute democratic rule?

Where did you copy and paste that from?...Yahoo answers or some other discussion board?!! Read a respected work from a real author who quotes primary sources.

One of the most respected works on Adolf Hitler & Co. - The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich by William L. Shirer, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1960:

"In the four years since the 1928 elections, the Nazis had won some thirteen million new votes. Yet the majority which would sweep the party into power still eluded Hitler. He had won only 37 percent of the total vote. The majority of Germans were still against him." - pg. 166

Hitler asks to be apppointed by Schleicher

"On August 5, at the Fuerstenberg barracks near Berlin, Hitler outlined his terms to General von Schleicher: the chancellorship for himself; and for his party, the premiership of Prussia, the Reich and Prussian Ministries of Interior, the Reich ministries of Justice, Economy, and Aviation, and a new ministry for Goebbels, that of Popular Enlightenment" - pg. 167

Schleicher's response

"Schleicher was now insisting that if Hitler got the chancellorship he must rule with the consent of the Reichstag" - pg. 167

Hey mpjh, if Hitler was elected by the German people then why did he ask Schleicher to appoint him? Anyway, later on...

Hindenberg discusses power-sharing deal with Hitler on August 13th

Hindenberg replied that because of the tense situation he could not in good conscience risk transferring the power of government to a new party such as the National Socialists, which did not command a majority and which was intolerant, noisy and undisciplined.

Hindenberg stated that he was ready to accept Hitler and the representatives of his movement in a coalition government, the precise combination to be a matter of negotiation, but that he could not take the responsibility of giving exclusive power to Hitler alone.

- Otto Von Meissner, Nuremberg Trials testimony, Suppl. A, pg. 508 (N.D. 3309 - PS), quoted on pg. 168

November 19th & 21st meeting with Hindenberg

"Hindenberg presented Hitler with two choices: the chancellorship if he could secure a workable majority in the Reichstag for a definite program, or the vice-chancellorship under Papen in another presidential cabinet that would rule by emergency decrees. Hitler saw the President again on the twenty-first and he also exchanged several letters with Meissner. But there was no agreement. Hitler could not get a workable majority in Parliament. Though the Center Party agreed to support him on condition that he would not aspire to dictatorship, Hugenberg withheld the cooperation of the Nationalists. Hitler therefore resumed his demand for the chancellorship of a presidential government, but this the President would not give him." - pg. 172

Kurt von Schroder's admission of a deal at the Nuremberg Trials

"Hitler said if he were made Chancellor it would be necessary for him to be the head of the government but that supporters of Papen could go into his government as ministers when they were willing to go along with him in his policy of changing many things." - testimony of Baron Kurt von Schroeder at Nuremberg Trials, NCA II, pg. 922, quoted on pg. 168 of Rise And Fall

But go ahead and continue wearing your blinders to justify this little world you've created where Hitler "got elected" to office, Bush is a Nazi, and Catholics are to be more feared than Lorena Bobbit at a Brit Milah ceremony.

It's always easier to judge history than the present.

The hard part is not distinguising evil afterward, it is in recognizing beforehand, soon enough to do something about it.

PLAYER57832 wrote:It's always easier to judge history than the present.

The hard part is not distinguising evil afterward, it is in recognizing beforehand, soon enough to do something about it.

You mean to say that a reasonable person could not tell that Hitler was a racist that would take, at the very least, the liberty and livelihood of jews, unionist, homosexuals, communists, political human rights activists, and gypsies to name a few before he started WWII?

If so, how do you explain the Lincoln Brigade in Spain, the anti jewish laws, and the resistance in Ethiopia for starters..

luns, whoever wrote that should have checked how Hindenburg spelled his name.


I must admit that I don't know exactly how many political parties there were in parliament at the time, but considering that there were communists, socialists, a center party, and various right wing parties, 6 parties in parliament is probably a low estimate. Saying that someone got "only 37%" of the vote against that many rivals is a bit silly.

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

every german youth at that time was. it was the frickin boyscouts, nothing more.

daydream wrote:

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

every german youth at that time was. it was the frickin boyscouts, nothing more.

I think you could refuse to join and take part, but you pretty much had to live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere and be needed to help out. Economy trumps indoctrination.

MeDeFe wrote:luns, whoever wrote that should have checked how Hindenburg spelled his name.

You know what?...you're right! Throughout the entire book sometimes they spelled his name with "erg" at the end and then "urg" other times. Weird

Like I said before, the author's name is William L. Shirer

MeDeFe wrote:Saying that someone got "only 37%" of the vote against that many rivals is a bit silly.

I see your point, but the reality is that 63% of those who voted did not support the Nazi program. It's true that they were not unified over what that vision would be, but what it does show is that Hitler was not broadly supported by the German people, which is what mpjh was claiming.

mpjh wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:It's always easier to judge history than the present.

The hard part is not distinguising evil afterward, it is in recognizing beforehand, soon enough to do something about it.

You mean to say that a reasonable person could not tell that Hitler was a racist that would take, at the very least, the liberty and livelihood of jews, unionist, homosexuals, communists, political human rights activists, and gypsies to name a few before he started WWII?

If so, how do you explain the Lincoln Brigade in Spain, the anti jewish laws, and the resistance in Ethiopia for starters..

How do you explain that you enlisted in the military ... and then protested against their actions?

Things are always more complex at the time than laters.

Yes, that is precisely what I mean. It is easy to see those terms now ...

We don't like to admit it or talk about it, but the fact is that if you met Hitler, he seemed to be a NICE GUY. He was popular for a reason .... and that reason is, despite what you wish to believe, NOT that the German people were unusually horrible or unthinking people. The REASON is that HItler seemed to be nice. Kids were drawn to him, he made people smile. I am told by some that there was "something about his eyes" ... but I take such comments with a grain of salt afterward.

Everyone always "saw things" AFTER the serial killer is caught.. the problem is seeing them now and in the present.

daydream wrote:

mpjh wrote:Yes, Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer. He was a member of the Hitler Youth organization. He now rehabilitates Nazi apologist priests. Yes he cannot deny his true colors.

every german youth at that time was. it was the frickin boyscouts, nothing more.

Please stop calling the Hitler Youth "boy scouts". They were not the German army, but they certainly were not just "boy scouts" either!
Such a reference is EXTRMELY offensive to anyone who is a scout ... particularly those who suffered under the Nazis!