Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse? [2]

Colm O'Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland

This is a follow up to my original article
Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse? [1]
(The first two paragraphs below are adapted from the original article. )

Colm O'Gorman and the Insignificance of False Allegations.

Colm O'Gorman is dismissive of the idea that false allegations of rape or child sex abuse, constitute a significant problem.  He wrote in the Irish Times on 29 March 2006 that:
“In the past few months a number of commentators have suggested that grave injustice is being done to priests falsely accused of child sexual abuse. Such suggestions rightly concern fair minded people, but remarkably, no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused.”

At the time, Colm O'Gorman was head of the child abuse victims' organisation "One In Four" which he had founded. Two years later, in February 2008 he became Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland a post he still holds. Evidently Amnesty is in agreement with his views on the non-importance of false allegations!

In response to O'Gorman's March 2006 article,  I wrote a letter to the Irish Times. It wasn't published (I didn't expect it to be) but here it is anyway.

Editor
Irish Times

9 April 2006

Madam,
Writing in the Irish Times on 29 March last, the director of "One in Four" Colm O'Gorman made some remarkable statements in an article headed "There is no evidence to show that the rights of those accused have been abused".

Mr O'Gorman stated: "In the past few months a number of commentators have suggested that grave injustice is being done to priests falsely accused of child sexual abuse. Such suggestions rightly concern fair minded people, but remarkably, no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused."

Did Mr. O'Gorman never hear of the case of Nora Wall, formerly Sister Dominic of the Sisters of Mercy?  In 1999 she became the first woman in the history of the State to be convicted of raping a child AND the first person to get a life sentence for rape. She was also the first person to be convicted on the basis of "Recovered Memory Syndrome". (This kind of evidence is very rare in Ireland but has a long and infamous history in the USA).

Nora Wall was convicted on the word of two women Regina Walsh and her "witness" Patricia Phelan, BOTH of whom had made a string of allegations against other people (mainly relatives and boyfriends). The case started to collapse when they sold their story to The Star newspaper and one of the men who had been accused by Patricia Phelan read it and contacted Nora Wall's family. In December 2005 in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Patricia Phelan finally confessed publicly that she had lied.

In the same newspaper article Regina Walsh stated that she had also been raped by a "black man in Leicester Square". Again it was the first the Defence had heard of this allegation.

At the trial Regina Walsh claimed that one of the rapes occurred on her 12th birthday. She said that Nora Wall held her down while Pablo McCabe raped her. Pablo McCabe was in Mountjoy Prison on that date!! When this was pointed out to the jury they acquitted the two accused on that charge but convicted them on the other allegations. I believe that the only reason for this incredible decision is that Nora Wall had been a nun.  Does Colm O'Gorman have an alternative explanation?

Mr. O'Gorman might like to look at the Judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the Nora Wall case. It is dated 16 December 2005 and is readily available on the Internet.

But perhaps the Nora Wall case is just an aberration? Consider the following.

There are  wild claims that the Christian Brothers and other religious have murdered up to 'hundreds' of the boys in their care. (For example an interview with Mannix Flynn about Letterfrack Industrial School in the Sunday Independent on 22 December 2002). Gardai at Clifden, Co Galway, investigated claims that there were bodies of boys who had died as a result of foul play buried in the grounds of Letterfrack. Early in 2003, the Gardai reported that they had found no evidence to back this up. Superintendent Tony O'Dowd said: "There was no evidence available that would suggest that foul play led to the deaths of anybody buried inside or outside of the cemetery at the old Industrial School in Letterfrack." He added: "There was no evidence of a mass grave."

Then there was the case of former Letterfrack resident, Willie Delaney. His body was exhumed in April 2001 because of claims that he had died as a result of head wounds inflicted by a Christian Brother. The subsequent autopsy revealed that he had died from natural causes and that there was no evidence of a blow to the head.

The list goes on. Patrick Flaherty, who spent some years in the Holy Family School in Renmore, Co Galway said he made two allegations against members of the Brothers of Charity because of 'false memory syndrome'. He later withdrew the allegations. He has also said that while attending a public meeting of the Laffoy Commission in 2003 he overheard other former residents discussing among themselves whether or not to accuse a particular Brother. Some in the group said the Brother had never abused anyone. Others said he should be accused anyway.

The evidence of Patrick Flaherty was not widely reported in the media (I saw it in the Irish Independent on 1st November 2003 and nowhere else). However as head of "One in Four", surely Colm O'Gorman should be aware of it?

 There is no way that Mr. O'Gorman can have missed the allegations about the "killing" of Willie Delaney. The media screamed obscenities at the Christian Brothers. About 20 April 2001,  Evening Herald posters were all over the streets of Dublin proclaiming "Now it's Murder Enquiry". Then the autopsy report was published and the entire media dropped the story like a shot. Yet this was a Blood Libel against the Christian Brothers which was no different from Nazi Blood Libels about the Jews.

Did Colm O'Gorman have anything to say at the time? Will he say something now? How can he possibly maintain that "no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused."

Yours etc.

Rory Connor

NOTES:
(1)  I was so sure that the Irish Times would not publish this letter that I sent it to Mr. O'Gorman on the same day saying that I did not expect publication and requesting his comments. Maybe he would care to give them now?

(2) I forgot to include the case of Waterford priest Fr Michael Kennedy. In January 2006 i.e. only two months before O'Gorman's statement, two brothers were convicted of trying to extort money from the priest by threatening to make false allegations of child abuse against him.

Colm O'Gorman and the Catholic Church

There was a discussion on the Politics.ie website in May 2009 at the time Colm O'Gorman published his biography 'Beyond Belief'. Naturally I contributed!

In reply to a comment that "It's hard to be very critical of someone who has suffered like that, even when you disagree on the most basic point, as you always have some sympathy", I wrote

I am not so sure about that. The following is part of an interview Colm O'Gorman did with Emily Hourihane in the Sunday Independent today [10 May 2009] - entitled 'The Man Who Faced His Demons'

In 'Beyond Belief', O'Gorman writes, bleakly, "there were two men living in our village who hurt children ... they raped and abused ... I was one of the children they hurt." When I ask him now how this could have happened, why he was not better protected, he responds, "because I was five at a time when this wasn't possible. It was 1971, child sexual abuse didn't exist. I didn't have anything like the level of understanding to know what was happening to me. And at that age, one of the things I knew was that grown-ups hurt you when you'd been bad. So my experience of adults who hurt me, was that they hurt me if it was my fault." ................

When he was seven or eight, an older boy from the area began abusing Colm, abuse which he was by then tragically inured to "accept as normal". 

And after that there was Father Sean Fortune who was the FOURTH person to abuse him - at the age of 14. Most people's character and personality are well formed by the time they are 14 years old. I do intend to read the book but it seems strange that Sean Fortune and the Catholic Church should be the sole focus of O'Gorman's human right's campaign.

Perhaps it's because of the power of the Church? In an interview with John Spain in the Irish Independent yesterday [9 May 2009] - entitled 'About a Boy' Colm O'Gorman explains:

"You have to remember the social and political power the priests had at the time." In the book he brilliantly describes the flagrant way Fortune would arrive in the house and be feted with food as he waited for Colm. In every house he visited in the area, O'Gorman remembers, people deferred to him and lavished attention on him. His own parents were no different."

But does that explain how two other men - and a youth - were able to abuse him, long before Father Fortune appeared on the scene? Why has O'Gorman's entire career been based on the behaviour of the fourth male to have abused him?

Colm O'Gorman and Fr Sean Fortune

Comment by 'asset test'
Yes it is strange that the other abuse happened also. The fact that O'G doesn't refer to this much is again, because those people did not have a worldwide protectorate around them like the clergy did. Maybe he now sees that as a one off travesty. However the ability of priests in any parish to do the same with impunity was rampant (not all did of course, but could have).
Institutional cover up is probably the reason for his focus on Fortune.

My Reply to 'asset test'
I wish I could be more charitable. The following is from a Profile of Colm O'Gorman that appeared in The Sunday Times on 30 April 2006 - entitled Profile: Champion for the abused valiantly joins political fray - Times Online

It was July 1984 and Colm O’Gorman wanted to tell his sister that he had been sexually abused by Fr Sean Fortune. But the words wouldn’t come. Instead, he told her he was gay and that he had been having an affair with the priest, a monstrous character who eventually committed suicide in 1999 while facing 66 charges of molesting young people.  ......When his sister Barbara tracked him down [in Dublin] in 1984, he had found a job in a restaurant and a place to stay. Even though he couldn’t tell her the truth, just telling someone he was gay helped. He became part of the gay scene in Dublin. Previously, when confused about his sexuality, he had thought of himself as “something sick and wrong and evil”, but now this changed. “I will never forget the first time I walked into a meeting and realised, ‘My God, all these people are like me’,” he has said ........

[In London] Things improved in 1994, after he trained as a physical therapist and, for the first time, began to think deeply about his teenage experience.

Word reached him that Fortune was going to celebrate a family wedding, so he didn’t attend. But the priest, according to his sister, was surrounded at the event by a crowd of teenagers. The news triggered O’Gorman into action. He went home, told his father what had happened, and then walked into Wexford garda station and made a statement in March 1995. That action triggered an investigation into Fortune’s activities and led to the uncovering of the widespread sexual abuse in the diocese of Ferns and elsewhere.

Colm O'Gorman was 18 in 1984. According to this article, he was too ashamed to tell his sister that he had been raped by Father Sean Fortune so instead told her he was gay and had an affair with the priest. Am I the only one to see something strange about that scenario? My suggestion: Colm O'Gorman was gay and had been having an affair with Father Fortune!

When O'Gorman denounced Fr Fortune in 1995, the latter was in no position to tell the Gardai that he had been having a sexual affair with O'Gorman prior to 1984. After all, that would have been statutory rape!

This may also explain why Colm O'Gorman finds it so difficult to acknowledge the fact that false allegations of child abuse are a significant problem in Ireland today.

Colm O'Gorman and the Power of the Catholic Church in 1980s Ireland

I wasn't the only one in the Politics.ie discussion to find something strange about Colm O'Gorman's narrative. The following is a comment by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

Did anyone else hear the interview with Colm O'Gorman on this morning's Tubridy Show? [12 May 2009]link to audio

I caught the second half in the car, but I've just listened to the whole interview (almost 40 minutes).

I have to say that there is something about his story and/or his way of telling it that leaves me uneasy, because I find it very difficult to believe him. He went into detail about being repeatedly abused by a local old fellow when he was five. In spite of this happening repeatedly and, according to himself, having a devastating effect on him, absolutely nobody seems to have noticed that something was wrong. He explains away his parents' failure to notice anything, but he had five siblings, pals, teachers, etc. Apparently, nobody noticed a change in his personality, signs of depression, terror, confusion, etc.

Then, just three years later, as an 8 year old, he was sexually abused by another local - a teenager this time - and, again, nobody noticed.

Then, when he was 14, he had his first encounter with S. Fortune, who enticed him into bed and abused him, only for C.O'G. (after making a cup of tea for himself) to return to bed and, thereafter, allow Fortune to bully him into continuing the abusive relationship.

Later still, aged 17 and studying hotel management at Cathal Brugha Street, he supplemented his finances by working as a male prostitute (still unaware that he was gay - and this in 1984, not 1948!!).

Repeatedly, Colm depicts himself as lurching between exceptional self-possession (e.g., at 14, he decided to 'take charge' of the relation with Fortune, and even started addressing him as 'John' from the night of their first encounter) and exceptional innocence (in Dublin, several years after the Fortune episode, a man in a public toilet invites him back to his place, and Colm is innocent enough to think that there is nothing sinister about this).

Listening to him, I want to believe his account, but I find it impossible to do so. Even when he describes himself in the present as "a very happy man", I can't believe him. It just doesn't ring true. To me, listening to this interview, he comes across as a troubled individual.

At the end of the interview, I was curious to hear him speaking about himself and his partner having adopted children. Not having read the book, I don't understand the legal status of this adoption, but I would imagine it is unusual in Ireland.

Anyhow, I wish him well.

There followed an exchange of views between 'wexfordman' and 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

Comment by wexfordman

Yes, because in the 70's everyone was an expert in spotting children who were victims of abuse, sure you cold spot them a mile away, thats why we were so quick to react to protect the victims and punish the perpetrators

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

wexfordman, I think there is an elaborate mythology about how benighted and innocent Ireland was back in the 70s. I am older than Mr. O'Gorman, and I can assure you that, from an early age, my schoolmates and myself were well able to spot a dodgy teacher, priest, neighbourhood pest (or even older schoolmate!). Any suspicious behaviour did not pass without comment. By the 1970s, Ireland had been well exposed to the 50s/60s 'youth culture' of sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, etc. Whatever about 'the older generation', a more or less normal teenager would have to have been suffering from sensory deprivation not to be aware of the birds and the bees, and most variations of bird/bee behaviour. It was on TV, in cinemas, in song lyrics, books, magazines, etc., etc.

Comment by wexfordman

Of course he allowed him, sure did;nt all 14 year olds know how to tackle yer basic pervert priest in the 80's, it was part of the school curriculum.

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I have seen several photos of Fortune, and I can assure you that if a weird looking creep like that had looked sideways at me when I was 14, I would have been fully aware of the appropriate reaction!

Comment by wexfordman

Ah, I heard differently, perhaps we both need to listen again, cos one of us got it wrong...

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'
I am listening again, just to be clear. He agrees with Tubridy's depiction of himself as 'a farm boy' (= 'innocent'?) in Dublin. He spent a few weeks with a student friend, freeloading, and then lived on the streets on and off for six months, "either on the streets ... or I'd get picked up". One night he was sleeping in an underground toilet cubicle in O'Connell Street, and a man asked him if he wanted "to do business", and he agreed (to do business) in order to have a place to sleep. He said he never made much money because "I was a bad prostitute", because he had no business sense. Well, my own recollection of coping with student penury is that there was no shortage of ways to earn a little extra income from part time jobs in bars or restaurants, etc. The best source of information on part time work was fellow students. Had Colm O'Gorman's no friends whatsoever at Cathal Brugha Street? Perhaps his book explains why not?

Comment by wexfordman

WITH REGARDS 1984 V 1948, things were not as different as you think, ffs, condoms were still prohibited, never mind homosexuality.

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I beg to differ. I think things were VERY different indeed. For goodness sake, this was 20 years (!) after The Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Dylan, Late Late Show, etc., etc. By the 1980s, even Ireland had been well exposed to the best and the worst of what the post-60s world had to offer. Even the stuff that was still officially banned was available via late night British TV channels. How anyone could have remained 'sheltered' from all of that is beyond me.

Comment by wexfordman

He has a partner, a family, kids, a home of his own ...

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I just wondered about the legal status of his children. I am not an expert on adoption procedures or criteria in Ireland, but I haven't heard of other legal adoptions by either single men or gay couples.

Comment by wexfordman

... why should he be happy, having come from where he once was....

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I may be mistaken, and I going strictly on the content and tone of that one interview, but his profession of happiness does not ring true for me. My impression (it is no more than that, since I know very little about the man) is of a troubled individual.

Exchange of Views between Myself and 'Wexfordman' during Politics.ie Debate

I had several exchanges with 'wexfordman' and supporters of his during the discussion on Politics.ie - these included a threat of violence by one of the supporters. I reproduce part of the discussion below - but excluding the physical threat. [I also corrected some spelling errors]

Comment by 'wexfordman' on 12 May 2009
No kilbarry, you have said that o'gorman was having an affair with fortune and as such made false allegations against fortune, you further qualified your statement by inferring that that is the reason he has difficulty acknowledging false allegations, by virtue of the fact that he made one himself.

Now apart from the vileness of the suggestion that a 14 yr old is capable of having an affair with an adult in his late 20's or thereabouts, apart from the fact that you claim fortune is guilty of nothing more then than statutory rape, I would suggest you retract it i the interet of the dgds rule!!

My Reply to 'wexfordman'
A 14 year old male is certainly capable of having an affair with an adult - as distinct from being violently raped by an adult - but the actions of the adult are still illegal. The same applies to a 14 year old girl who has consensual sex with a man of 30.  That is why there is an offence of "Statutory Rape" distinct from Rape. A 14 year old is not a helpless infant.

Colm O'Gorman has certainly made a false allegation by stating that "no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused" and it is NOT a minor issue.

That does not fill me with confidence in relation to other allegations that he has made.

Reply to Me by 'wexfordman' on 12 May 2009
Really, you were in the room, and can verify that he made a false allegation that what heppened to him was against his will ? I think if you beleive he made a false allegation, you should report it to the authorites immediately, you are after all it seems concerned very much with those who do make them, and you have stated as fact that he has done so himself. I suggest you report this to the gardai immediately

Comment by 'wexfordman' on 14 May 2009
Have you reported the false claims you allege cog made re fr fortune to the authorities yet kilbarry?

My Reply to 'wexfordman'
Many people have been found NOT guilty of child abuse by the courts over the past decade and more, but few accusers have been convicted of making false allegations. It is a very difficult thing to prove - unless the accuser actually confesses and maybe not even then. One of the two women who slandered Nora Wall  admitted years later that she had lied and was duly forgiven by the former nun. The Gardai and the DPP took no action against her. (Having prosecuted and jailed Nora, they would have looked a bit foolish going after their own witness.)

Strangely enough (or not so strangely) O'Gorman's organisation "One in Four" was involved in one of the few cases where a false accuser was convicted. This was Paul Anderson convicted in June 2007 of falsely accusing a priest of buggering him while giving him First Communion prayer tuition more than 20 years previously. Anderson had been sponsored by "One in Four".

Comment by 'wexfordman' on 16 May 2009
Kilbarry, why dont you come out from behind the anonymous veil you have and make your allegations against a public figure publicly ?

My Reply to 'wexfordman'
I have discussed this kind of issue in public on other websites and in public fora. However where other parties use aliases, so do I. My letter to the Irish Times (see contribution no 15) was of course sent under my own name. Also I was so convinced that the Times would not publish that I sent it to Colm O'Gorman on the same day (9 April 2006). So he knows my name.

Child Abuse, the Nazis and the Catholic Church

Pope Pius XII and Adolf Hitler 

The following are extracts from a discussion on the Politics.ie website on the topic of Child Abuse, the Nazis and the Catholic Church. The name of the topic may appear to be strange but in fact Nazi Germany in the 1930s made allegations of child abuse a major theme of their propaganda against the Catholic Church in Germany.

Quotations are from Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power", Michael Burleigh, "Sacred Causes 
: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda" AND from the man himself "Hitler's Table Talk" as noted mainly by Martin Bormann.

John Gray

Saturday 28 October 2006 23.45 BST

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Google+

Shares

2

 Save for later

Among other things, I was debating with a contributor,  "LongLiberal" who described the Catholic Church as "this Nazi, pedophile infested, backward, evil and ridiculous organisation". I pointed out that apart from the word "Nazi", his description could have come straight out of Julius Streicher's  anti-Semitic rants in Der Sturmer. Streicher also accused the Jews of murdering children - allegations that were identical to those made by Irish journalists (and at least one politician) against Catholic priests, nuns and brothers. Anyway my discussion with this particular "liberal" concluded as follows:

Regarding your quotations from "Mein Kamph" and Hitler's public speeches, do you understand that the book "Hitler's Table Talk" consists of officially recorded notes of his private conversations with his confidantes at the dinner table during the years 1941 - 44. (Martin Bormann was one of the note-takers.) These represent proof of Hitler's REAL views. Regarding his PUBLIC statements - he made an awful lot about his desire for peace; do you believe those?

Rory Connor

2 August 2016

Politics.ie History Forum: "Nazis, The Catholic Church and Sexual Abuse"

5th January 2012, 11:22 AM

Seanie Lemass 

Nazis, the Catholic Church and sexual abuse.

Was reading Richard Evans The Third Reich in Power which has interesting material on how the Nazis treated the Catholic Church.

First of all it is clear that the Catholics (and the Catholic Centre Party) were regarded after the Communists and Socialists as the main opposition and the main targets of bringing the whole of German society under totalitarian control. One third of Catholic priests were imprisoned by the regime. 

What is also interesting is that the main propaganda instrument used against the Catholic Church was allegations of child abuse. As we know such things did take place in other jurisdictions and no doubt in Germany as well, but the allegations were grossly exaggerated in order to justify the repression.

Are there parallels in this country? Are the instances of child sexual abuse by Catholic clerics which appear to be no higher than among any other cohort of the population being used as the basis for removing its influence from education and other spheres of life? 

For comparative purposes, the Nazis themselves already had highly abusive institutions within their own apparatus. There were several rapes and murders of members of the Hitler Youth on camps during their campaign against the CC.

It was also shown that half of girls fostered in Sweden in the 1950s and 60s were abused and there are over half a million cases of children believed to be at risk reported in Britain every year. 

So is the concentration on the Catholic Church ideologically driven? And if so for what purpose?

6th January 2012, 07:19 PM

Kilbarry1 

Child Abuse, the Nazis and the Catholic Church

The following is from a previous post of mine on the History Forum
Nazis vs Catholic paedophiles

CHILD ABUSE, THE NAZIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The following is an extract from Michael Burleigh's book 'Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda'. Burleigh is a leading historian who has taught at Oxford, the London School of Economics etc. His book explores the attitude of the churches to totalitarian dictatorships and the attitude of such dictators as Hitler and Stalin to the Catholic Church in particular.

"[In Nazi Germany in the 1930s] the state used various forms of chicanery to close Catholic homes and institutions. These ranged from adversely changing their charitable tax status to using the Gestapo to suborn children to make accusations of sexual abuse against those in charge of them.

"Between September 1933 and March 1937 [the Vatican] secretary of State Pacelli signed over 70 notes and memoranda protesting against Nazi violations of the Concordat [1]. The Nazis almost immediately began chipping away at the autonomy of Catholic lay organisations which had apparently been secured by the Concordat..........

"In the mid-1930s these various measures were given a more vicious accent by Government sponsored campaigns involving those old standbys of money and sex. ......Well publicised investigations into these currency violations in turn triggered denunciation of the Catholic clergy for mostly homosexual but also paedophile offences. Between May 1936 and July 1937 there were 270 prosecutions of such men, of whom 170 monks and 64 priests were convicted. A major trial was held in Koblenz in May 1936 which resulted in the conviction of past and present members of a lay nursing order, most of the evidence coming from a former member of the order who had joined the SD [SS Security Service]. The intervening Olympic Games led Hitler to drop further trials, which were resumed with a vengeance after Pius XI's encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge' was released in early 1937. 

Hitler immediately the Ministry of Justice to give priority to these 'morality trials'. The Ministry of Propaganda urged the press to treat these trials as evidence of pervasive perversity within the Catholic Church. The press, and caricaturists in particular, had a field day with illicit intimacies in the confessionals or tubby monks whose capacious cassocks concealed several pairs of dainty feet. That summer Nazi publications also attacked secretary of state Pacelli, accusing him of using a visit to Liseux in France to organise the 'moral encirclement' of Germany with the aid of 'friends' in the French Communist Party who were shown holding his cloak. [2] ......

"Tendentious reporting [3] of a small number of sex crimes (involving mainly lay staff) in Catholic boarding schools or religious houses enabled members of the Government to claim that the Catholic Church was awash with sex fiends. There were few holds barred in gathering the evidence, which involved the SD and Gestapo interviewing disgruntled religious drop-outs, ex-pupils and orphans, with offers of sweets alternating with a head bashed into a wall or the threat of concentration camp to secure the appropriate testimony. On this basis minister for the Churches Kerrl could claim that 7,000 clergy had been convicted of sex crimes between 1933 and 1937, whereas the true figure seems to have been 170, of whom many had left the religious life prior to their convictions. The deliberate inflation of statistics was a favoured Nazi device for ramping up hysteria [3], as they would do in 1939 when they turned 5,000 ethnic German victims of the Poles whose country the Nazis had invaded into '50,000'. There was no reporting of similar sexual transgressions involving members of Nazi formations."

The above extract is from Chapter 3, sub-section 111 of Burleigh's book, the part entitled 'The Catholic Church and German National Socialism'.

Notes:
[1] This is Eugenio Pacelli, who became Pope Pius XII in 1939. According to John Cornwell (and other 'liberal' commentators) he was 'Hitler's Pope'. (Cornwell's book of that name was published in 2000).

[2] So the Nazis accused the future Pope Pius XII of being a friend of Communists whereas 'liberals' accuse him of being soft on Nazis! I recall that George Orwell once said that Nazis and Communists have more in common with each other than either has with a democrat!

[3] Regarding "tendentious reporting" and "ramping up hysteria" the following quotation from Hermann Kelly's book 'Kathy's Real Story' is relevant. The author is talking about the use of the term 'paedophile priest' by the media in Ireland.

"According to Michael J. Breen (Studies Autumn 2000) this phrase was used 332 times in The Irish Times between August 1993 and August 2000. The 'paedophile priest' term comes up 265 times in The Irish Times archive between January 1996 - August 2007, yet the terms 'paedophile farmer', 'paedophile lawyer', 'paedophile teacher' or 'paedophile journalist' never occurs." (page 148/149).

As per George Orwell, The Irish Times has more in common with Nazi propagandists than it has with the Catholic Church ......

  

6th January 2012, 07:52 PM

Kilbarry1 

Goebbels and the Pedophile Priests Operation

I'm heading out now but my comment above on the old thread was a response to the following comment by "Brenny"

QUOTE:
I thought this might be of interest to anyone curious about the history of child abuse in Catholic Europe. Many have wondered if and when did anyone ever try to tackle the problem in the past. Was any government ever virtuous enough to face down the power of the Catholic Church over this issue?

Well it seems there was, the good old National Socialists of 1930s Germany. [My emphasis]The author of the following article attacks the old master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, but the whole article itself is tinged with propaganda and spin and seeks to subtly equate opponents of the church with nazism. At the same time many members of the German clergy were strong opponents of the nazis and that is pointed out here and should be acknowledged, but many will feel that Pope Pius was not as opposed to Nazism as he could and should have been.
Goebbels and the pedophile priests operation, by Massimo Introvigne

In 1937 the Nazi propaganda minister organized a campaign to discredit the Catholic Church in response to the encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge.’ The head of the German military’s counter-espionage unit, Wilhelm Canaris, passed the documents to Pius XII.

“There are cases of sexual abuse that come to light every day against a large number of members of the Catholic clergy. Unfortunately it’s not a matter of individual cases, but a collective moral crisis that perhaps the cultural history of humanity has never before known with such a frightening and disconcerting dimension. Numerous priests and religious have confessed. There’s no doubt that the thousands of cases which have come to the attention of the justice system represent only a small fraction of the true total, given that many molesters have been covered and hidden by the hierarchy.”

An editorial from a great secular newspaper in 2010? No: It’s a speech of May 28, 1937, by Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich. This speech, which had a large international echo, was the apex of a campaign launched by the Nazi regime to discredit the Catholic Church by involving it in a scandal of pedophile priests.

Two hundred and seventy-six religious and forty-nine diocesan priests were arrested in 1937. The arrests took place in all the German dioceses, in order to keep the scandals on the front pages of the newspapers.
ENDOFQUOTE

6th January 2012, 08:39 PMbetween the bridges 

 Originally Posted by Seanie Lemass 

Was reading Richard Evans The Third Reich in Power which has interesting material on how the Nazis treated the Catholic Church.
First of all it is clear that the Catholics (and the Catholic Centre Party) were regarded after the Communists and Socialists as the main opposition and the main targets of bringing the whole of German society under totalitarian control. One third of Catholic priests were imprisoned by the regime. 

What is also interesting is that the main propaganda instrument used against the Catholic Church was allegations of child abuse. As we know such things did take place in other jurisdictions and no doubt in Germany as well, but the allegations were grossly exaggerated in order to justify the repression.

Are there parallels in this country? Are the instances of child sexual abuse by Catholic clerics which appear to be no higher than among any other cohort of the population being used as the basis for removing its influence from education and other spheres of life? 

For comparative purposes, the Nazis themselves already had highly abusive institutions within their own apparatus. There were several rapes and murders of members of the Hitler Youth on camps during their campaign against the CC.

It was also shown that half of girls fostered in Sweden in the 1950s and 60s were abused and there are over half a million cases of children believed to be at risk reported in Britain every year. 

So is the concentration on the Catholic Church ideologically driven? And if so for what purpose?

Godwin’s in the first post? Well to continue the theme been a member of the hilter youth didn’t effect a certain Roman Catholics cleric’s career…

o                                              

Nec Aspera Terrent..Is Tuaisceart-Éireannach mé. Má tá meas agat ar mo chultúr, beidh meas agam ar do chultúr.

6th January 2012, 09:10 PM

harshreality 

 Originally Posted by Seanie Lemass 

You are missing the point. It is in the history forum as there is a valid comparison in my opinion to be made between the manner in which the Nazis exagerrated the extent of Catholic clercial abuse and the manner in which a similar exagerration of recent abuse has been used as a stick with which to beat it. Both ideologically motivated.

That is not to excuse the abuse of children by Catholic clerics which like all such abuse by whoever is inexcusable. 

Liberator_Rev, I take it that is your own anti-Papist website you refer to! Himmler as a Catholic??? Eh. I don't think so. Perhaps you ought to read the biography someone references above. I also note that your section on the Inquisition relieson 19th century anti catholic historians rather than primary research based studies which undermine the myths about that episode in history.

Yes they treated the Catholic church so badly that the same Catholic church saw fit to assist wanted SS members to escape via a well established and and well used escape route.

o                                              

Liberator_Rev likes this.

6th January 2012, 09:20 PM

LongLiberal 

 Originally Posted by Seanie Lemass 

Was reading Richard Evans The Third Reich in Power which has interesting material on how the Nazis treated the Catholic Church.
First of all it is clear that the Catholics (and the Catholic Centre Party) were regarded after the Communists and Socialists as the main opposition and the main targets of bringing the whole of German society under totalitarian control. One third of Catholic priests were imprisoned by the regime. 

What is also interesting is that the main propaganda instrument used against the Catholic Church was allegations of child abuse. As we know such things did take place in other jurisdictions and no doubt in Germany as well, but the allegations were grossly exaggerated in order to justify the repression.

Are there parallels in this country? Are the instances of child sexual abuse by Catholic clerics which appear to be no higher than among any other cohort of the population being used as the basis for removing its influence from education and other spheres of life? 

For comparative purposes, the Nazis themselves already had highly abusive institutions within their own apparatus. There were several rapes and murders of members of the Hitler Youth on camps during their campaign against the CC.

It was also shown that half of girls fostered in Sweden in the 1950s and 60s were abused and there are over half a million cases of children believed to be at risk reported in Britain every year. 

So is the concentration on the Catholic Church ideologically driven? And if so for what purpose?

Are there parallels in this country?

Simply, no. 

There are no parallels in this country. One aspect is talking about 1930's Germany and the other is 21st century Ireland. You seem to be trying to push some sort of idea that the Catholic Church were in opposition to Hitlers Nazi regime, which is simply laughable. 

Firstly, the Vatican kept very very quiet during the Holocaust, why is that? 

Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic and often throughout Mein Kampf spoke about "doing god's work". He was baptised and never renounced his baptism. All soldiers in the SS would place three fingers in their belt to signify the Holy Trinity.

 
Also, and most significantly the Cardinal Arch-Bishop of Munich, Adolf Bertram, held a special mass in 1939, when Hitler escaped assassination, to celebrate "the fortunate release of the Fuhrer".

What is also interesting is that the main propaganda instrument used against the Catholic Church was allegations of child abuse. As we know such things did take place in other jurisdictions and no doubt in Germany as well, but the allegations were grossly exaggerated in order to justify the repression

It is this kind of sickening comment that do the Catholic Church no favors at all. In modern day Ireland for example all the religous hacks in the media do the Church more damage than good when they spout this nonsensical drivel. David Quinn, John Waters, Breda O'Brien and clearly yourself, just dont seem to get it.

You come with comments that the scale of abuse in the Church was no more widespread in than other aspect of Society, as if that some how minimizes the despair inflicted on its victims.

The reason why abuse in the Church is so controversial is because of its standing in Irish Society for so long and the trust that people placed in that organisation to protect their children and contribute to their upbringing.

The real controversy is not in the abuse itself but more of the covering up of that abuse all the way up to the Pope himself. Their total disregard for innocent children, the interest on the protection of their own majesty and outright refusal to this day to issue a straight apology from the top down.

Bishop Driarmuid Martin, gets it. He gets that what the Church is guilty of is simply inexcusable and has also completely rejected the claim made by yourself that there is anti-catholic, so-called propaganda in the media. You should take a leaf out of his book and accept the abuse in the Church for what it is, abhorrent. But if course you want to still play the victim and blame everybody else. Blame society, blame the media, blame satan, hell blame the victims but just dont blame yourself.

So is the concentration on the Catholic Church ideologically driven? And if so for what purpose?

That is a pathetic question to put to any rational thinking person. For reasons, see above.

Last edited by LongLiberal; 6th January 2012 at 09:28 PM.

6th January 2012, 09:39 PMLongLiberal 

 Originally Posted by Cato 

It wasn't David Quinn who claimed that. It came from a survey that the Iona Institute had carried out by Amarach Research. It found that the average estimate of the number of priests involved in child abuse was 28%, while the real figure, going from an American study, is around 4%. 

Is the figure of 4% greater or lesser than the rate for the general population?

David Quinn and the Iona Institute's assertion are more or less the same thing. 

I remember listening to Quinn and Patsy Mc Garry on the Pat Kenny show and, Quinn conceded that the survey was very deliberate in its timing i.e straight after the Cloyne Report and also that the survey itself asked "completely open ended questions".

I hope Quinn needs plenty of toilet paper, because thats about all that survey is good for his wiping ass.

o                                              

Liberator_Rev likes this.

2.                           Advertise Here

6th January 2012, 11:50 PM

Liberator_Rev 

5

Catholic politiicians who had disagreements with the hierarchy - imagine that!

Seanie Lemass says:

"Liberator_Rev, I take it that is your own anti-Papist website you refer to! Himmler as a Catholic??? Eh. I don't think so. Perhaps you ought to read the biography someone references above."

I know that for unquestioning Catholics like yourself, Seanie, calling my site "anti-Papist" is enough to dismiss all the historical evidence I have assembled there to support my conclusions. The same goes for your "I don't think so" response. That IN YOUR MIND proves that anything said that you don't agree with is ipso facto WRONG. 

The way I found out that most of the leaders of the Nazi regime were Roman Catholics was by researching their individual histories on the web. I understand why their church can run far enough from these Roman Catholics NOW. But the time their church should have told the world that the Church repudiated everything these "Catholics" stood for was WHEN THEY WERE IN POWER, not AFTER THEY WERE LONG GONE!

As for Himmler, my site doesn't claim that he and the many other Nazi leaders were MODEL Catholics. All I claim is that they lived and died for the most part as Catholic politiicians who had disagreements with the hierarchy - imagine that! - The Catholic Church has had a tool for telling its members and the world about unfit members who should be shunned. It had reasons for not using excommunication on the Nazis, not EXCUSES, but shameful "reasons".

This blog won't allow me to post links, but here's an example of what you WON'T FIND on Catholic web sites about H H : 
"The Himmler family had always been devout and faithful Catholics, especially the young Heinrich whose participation in the mass was very much it seems a spiritual experience for him.

When he was nineteen years old he would confide in his diary: "Come what may. I shall always love God, shall pray to him and shall remain faithful to the Catholic Church and shall defend it even if I should be expelled from it." (He was never excommunicated.)

Later as a practicing national socialist he would order the murder of priests, nuns, monks and others and later advocate the public execution of the pope. He also instructed a senior SS officer to furnish plans to kidnap the pope (neither happened of course.)

Himmler certainly may have eventually displaced his religious devotion from Catholicism to National Socialism but he would certainly be influenced by the ritualism of that church."

o                                              

  

7th January 2012, 08:01 PM#68

Chiara 

Hallo everybody!

I've read all the posts in this thread and would like to express my opinion.
In 2009 the "Pave the Way Foundation" found out that German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party since 1930.

The first was the bishop Magonza following those of Munich, Colon and others.

No catholic was allowed to subscribe nazist party and no nazist was allowed to take part to Catholic funerals or get the communion.

Then Goering was sent to Rome to protest but the secretary of the Vatican, the future Pope Pacelli refused to meet him, so Goering was received by Pizzardo, but his requests were rejected.
When in 1932 Hitler got the power, German bishops protested, but in vain.

o                                              

Reply   Reply With Quote     Report  

7th January 2012, 08:21 PM

parentheses 

 Originally Posted by Liberator_Rev 

As for Himmler, my site doesn't claim that he and the many other Nazi leaders were MODEL Catholics. All I claim is that they lived and died for the most part as Catholic politiicians who had disagreements with the hierarchy - imagine that! - The Catholic Church has had a tool for telling its members and the world about unfit members who should be shunned. It had reasons for not using excommunication on the Nazis, not EXCUSES, but shameful "reasons".
This blog won't allow me to post links, but here's an example of what you WON'T FIND on Catholic web sites about H H : 
"The Himmler family had always been devout and faithful Catholics, especially the young Heinrich whose participation in the mass was very much it seems a spiritual experience for him.

When he was nineteen years old he would confide in his diary: "Come what may. I shall always love God, shall pray to him and shall remain faithful to the Catholic Church and shall defend it even if I should be expelled from it." (He was never excommunicated.)

Later as a practicing national socialist he would order the murder of priests, nuns, monks and others and later advocate the public execution of the pope. He also instructed a senior SS officer to furnish plans to kidnap the pope (neither happened of course.)

Himmler certainly may have eventually displaced his religious devotion from Catholicism to National Socialism but he would certainly be influenced by the ritualism of that church."

You seem to be contradicting yourself wholesale.

You say Himmler advocated the public exection of the Pope and ordered the deaths of priests monks and nuns and yet you try to claim he was some kind of faithful Catholic.

Of course he may have been influenced by Catholicism as a young man but it seems clear he was an apostate in later life

7th January 2012, 10:26 PM#

Liberator_Rev 

Parentheses, you are a riot!
You accuse ME of 

 Originally Posted by parentheses 

You seem to be contradicting yourself wholesale. (i.e.) 
You say Himmler advocated the public exection of the Pope and ordered the deaths of priests monks and nuns (in his later life) and yet you try to claim he was some kind of faithful Catholic (in his early life).

First of all, I didn't say that the link was to MY OWN SITE, and those were not my own words. But even if they were, why do you charge the author of "contradicting yourself wholesale" and you then proceed to make the very same point made by that author? i.e. 

 Originally Posted by parentheses 

Of course he may have been influenced by Catholicism as a young man but it seems clear he was an apostate in later life.

Why is it a contradiction if OTHERS make that point, but not if YOU do it?

Last edited by Liberator_Rev; 7th January 2012 at 10:56 PM.

7th January 2012, 10:38 PM#71

Cruimh 

 Originally Posted by Chiara 

Hallo everybody!

I've read all the posts in this thread and would like to express my opinion.

In 2009 the "Pave the Way Foundation" found out that German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party since 1930.
The first was the bishop Magonza following those of Munich, Colon and others.

No catholic was allowed to subscribe nazist party and no nazist was allowed to take part to Catholic funerals or get the communion.
Then Goering was sent to Rome to protest but the secretary of the Vatican, the future Pope Pacelli refused to meet him, so Goering was received by Pizzardo, but his requests were rejected.

When in 1932 Hitler got the power, German bishops protested, but in vain.

Most odd then that the Vatican signed the Reichskonkordat in 1933

7th January 2012, 10:57 PM#72

Chiara 

Yes, maybe odd, it depends on the point of views. After the concordat, Pope Pacelli said to a British embassador that he had to chose between an agreement or the complete elimination of the German Catholic Church. The following are his own words: "I had to chose between being just hanged (concordat) or being hanged, disembowelled, quartered (no concordat).

7th January 2012, 11:03 PM#73

Cruimh 

 Originally Posted by Chiara 

Yes, maybe odd, it depends on the point of views. After the concordat, Pope Pacelli said to a British embassador that he had to chose between an agreement or the complete elimination of the German Catholic Church. The following are his own words: "I had to chose between being just hanged (concordat) or being hanged, disembowelled, quartered (no concordat).

On the other hand :

Link

It was a marriage of convenience between Hitler and the Vatican, one which disenfranchised the Catholic laymen. As Hitler cynically put it:

"We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years' reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognize a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is master. They will know which way the wind blows." [Quoted in Guenter Lewy,The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (2000), pp. 25-26]

7th January 2012, 11:12 PM#74

Liberator_Rev 

 Originally Posted by Chiara 

In 2009 the "Pave the Way Foundation" found out that German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party since 1930.

This "foundation" is nothing but one Jewish businessman and his wife posing as experts in the history of the Roman Cathoilic Church's role in the Jewish Holocaust, and the quote above is a great illustration of how incompetent they are.

Every scholar in this area knows that "the German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party" but they also know that it wasn't "since 1930". It was from 1930 only to 1933, when the Nazi ceased being a potentialthreat and became an actual threat. 

When the Nazis actually came to power in early 1933, the R.C. church's leaders made peace "with the Devil". They stopped forbiding the faithful from joining the Nazi Party, they gave in to Hitler's demands that they disband their "Centre Party" - one of the last obstacles in Hitler's path to absolute dictatorial power -, and they signed the Condordat of 1933, whose crown jewel for Hitler (in my estimation) was Article 16, which read:

Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of fealty either to the Reich Representative of the State concerned, or to the President of the Reich, according to the following formula: "Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State of . . . I swear and promise to honor the legally constituted Government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it. In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interests of the German Reich, I will endeavor to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it."

From that point on, how could any R.C. bishop or priest in Nazi Germany resist the Nazi government, when they had vowed to God not to do so? 

P.S. Both Catholic clergy and the Nazi government also invoked "the Word of God" to require obedience to the government, in the form of "St. Paul" who directed "people of faith" as follows in his Epistle to the Romans 13:1-7:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.

For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. "

7th January 2012, 11:15 PM#75

Chiara 

Yes, in my opinion, Hitler wasn't completely wrong. Unfortuantely a lot of priests cared and still care more to keep self advantages. The question is if the greedy ones were (and are) more than the good ones, I hope not.
Regarding the Pope, nowadays, at last, public opinion recognizes that he was a much better person than he was thought to be.

P.S. Hope I made myself understood in the last sentence. Got some problems wuth my English. 

7th January 2012, 11:23 PM#76

Chiara 

 Originally Posted by Liberator_Rev 

This "foudnation" is nothing but one Jewish businessman and his wife posing as experts in the history of the Roman Cathoilic Church's role in the Jewish Holocaust, and the quote above is a great illustration of how incompetent they are. 
Every scholar in this area knows that "the German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party" but they also know that it wasn't "since 1930". It was from 1930 only to 1933 when the Nazi ceased being a potential threat and became an actual threat. When the Nazis actually came to power, the R.C. church's leaders made peace "with the Devil". They stopped forbiding the faithful from joining the Nazi Party, they gave in to Hitler's demands that they disband their "Centre Party" - one of the last obstacles in Hitler's path to absolute dictatorial power -, and they signed the Condordat of 1933, whose crown jewel for Hitler (in my estimation) was Article 16, which read:

From that point on, how could any R.C. bishop or priest in Nazi Germany resist the Nazi government, when they had vowed to God not to do so? 

P.S. Both Catholic clergy and the Nazi government also invoked "the Word of God" to require obedience to the government, in the form of "St. Paul" who directed "people of faith" as follows in Ch. 13 of his Epistle to the Romans 13:1-7:

Yes, you're right. But I meant that this organization found the written documents about excommunication..at least it's my information.

Regarding the other points, I've already expressed my opinion in the above post.
Catholic church was involved with nazism of course, but for the majority of them it was the lesser evil.

8th January 2012, 03:18 PM#77

Kilbarry1 

 Originally Posted by LongLiberal 

Simply, no. 

There are no parallels in this country. One aspect is talking about 1930's Germany and the other is 21st century Ireland. You seem to be trying to push some sort of idea that the Catholic Church were in opposition to Hitlers Nazi regime, which is simply laughable. 
Firstly, the Vatican kept very very quiet during the Holocaust, why is that? 

Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic and often throughout Mein Kampf spoke about "doing god's work". He was baptised and never renounced his baptism. All soldiers in the SS would place three fingers in their belt to signify the Holy Trinity. 

Also, and most significantly the Cardinal Arch-Bishop of Munich, Adolf Bertram, held a special mass in 1939, when Hitler escaped assassination, to celebrate "the fortunate release of the Fuhrer". ......

Do you even read previous posts. I quote from no 61

"Tendentious reporting [3] of a small number of sex crimes (involving mainly lay staff) in Catholic boarding schools or religious houses enabled members of the Government to claim that the Catholic Church was awash with sex fiends. There were few holds barred in gathering the evidence, which involved the SD and Gestapo interviewing disgruntled religious drop-outs, ex-pupils and orphans, with offers of sweets alternating with a head bashed into a wall or the threat of concentration camp to secure the appropriate testimony. On this basis minister for the Churches Kerrl could claim that 7,000 clergy had been convicted of sex crimes between 1933 and 1937, whereas the true figure seems to have been 170, of whom many had left the religious life prior to their convictions. The deliberate inflation of statistics was a favoured Nazi device for ramping up hysteria [3], as they would do in 1939 when they turned 5,000 ethnic German victims of the Poles whose country the Nazis had invaded into '50,000'. There was no reporting of similar sexual transgressions involving members of Nazi formations."

The above extract is from Chapter 3, sub-section 111 of Burleigh's book, the part entitled 'The Catholic Church and German National Socialism'.

Notes:
.......

[2] So the Nazis accused the future Pope Pius XII of being a friend of Communists whereas 'liberals' accuse him of being soft on Nazis! I recall that George Orwell once said that Nazis and Communists have more in common with each other than either has with a democrat!

[3] Regarding "tendentious reporting" and "ramping up hysteria" the following quotation from Hermann Kelly's book 'Kathy's Real Story' is relevant. The author is talking about the use of the term 'paedophile priest' by the media in Ireland.

"According to Michael J. Breen (Studies Autumn 2000) this phrase was used 332 times in The Irish Times between August 1993 and August 2000. The 'paedophile priest' term comes up 265 times in The Irish Times archive between January 1996 - August 2007, yet the terms 'paedophile farmer', 'paedophile lawyer', 'paedophile teacher' or 'paedophile journalist' never occurs." (page 148/149).

As per George Orwell, The Irish Times has more in common with Nazi propagandists than it has with the Catholic Church ......

You do understand that in Nazi Germany and in modern Ireland, people who hated the Catholic Church invented and/or grossly exaggerated allegations of child abuse in order to discredit the Church? If you care to investigate a bit further you will also find that these false allegations included allegations of child murder. For example try Googling the phrases "Murder of the Undead" or "Victimless Murders" for allegations that the Christian Brothers murdered boys in their care. (The Nazi pornographer Julius Streicher made comparable claims about the Jews murdering Christian children.)

8th January 2012, 03:47 PM#78

Kilbarry1 

Vatican Concordats

While I'm at it, the following quotation from Burleigh's book concerns the attempts of two future popes - Pius XI (Achille Ratti) and Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli) to negotiate a Concordat with the Soviet Union in the 1920s. It throws an interesting light on the frequent denunciations of the Vatican concordat with Nazi Germany in 1933.

Vatican concordats with governments do not imply approval of the governments. Of course there is a danger that a vicious dictatorship will use the agreement in order to boost its international standing - and that is precisely what the Soviet government was trying to do in the early 1920s. Indeed negotiations with the Vatican broke down because several governments - including both Britain and fascist Italy(!) - recognised the Soviet Union in 1924 and the Soviets no longer needed an agreement with the Vatican. However the future Pope Pius XII continued to negotiate even "when the execution in Leningrad of a Polish Catholic priest complicated matters" !!

.... Both nuncios, Ratti in Warsaw and the younger Pacelli in Munich (until 1925, when he moved to Berlin as nuncio to the German Reich), were closely involved in Rome's diplomatic initiatives with the Soviets. The Vatican initially welcomed the fall of the Romanovs, believing that this would herald a new era of freedom and opportunity for the Roman Catholic Church in the debris of the Tsarist Empire. Benedict XV employed Ratti to contact Lenin on behalf of persecuted Catholic and Orthodox clergy.

In late 1921, the Vatican offered the Soviet Union humanitarian assistance hurriedly incorporating a broader secret agreement which, capitalising on the disarray of the Orthodox Church would - they imagined - have enhanced Roman Catholic activities in Russia. The aid was provided but the wider agreement remained a dead letter. Assisted by the German Government which saw relations with Russia as a means of terminating Germany's pariah status, the archbishop of Genoa held talks with the Soviet foreign affairs commisar Chicherin on board an Italian cruiser with a view to negotiating a concordat. A further series of meetings took place at Rapallo, based on Vatican calls for freedom of conscience and Soviet demands for diplomatic recognition. Effortlessly overcoming the extreme distaste for German (Jewish) Bolsheviks that he is alleged to have expressed in 1919, Pacelli met Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet Union's (Jewish) foreign minister, at the Berlin villa of the brother of the German ambassador to Moscow. 

When Mussolini recognised the Soviet Union on 8 February 1924, and was quickly followed by, among others, Britain, Norway, Austria, Greece and Sweden, the Soviets ceased to regard negotiations with the Vatican as important except for the question of aid. Pacelli continued to negotiate with the Soviets in Berlin until mid-August 1925 when the execution in Leningrad of a Polish Catholic priest complicated matters. However he met Chicherin twice in 1925 and 1927, discovering that his Soviet interlocutors were prepared to concede less and less, and such talks abruptly stalled under Stalin, to whom the Vatican was an irrelevance.

From Sacred Causes by Michael Burleigh - Chapter 3 "The Churches in the Age of Dictators", section II - "The Vatican, Communism and Fascism" page 164

8th January 2012, 04:03 PM#79

Seanie Lemass 

 Originally Posted by between the bridges 

Godwin’s in the first post? Well to continue the theme been a member of the hilter youth didn’t effect a certain Roman Catholics cleric’s career…

There were 18.9 million people of the eligable age to join the HJ when the Pope did. 18.7 million of them did. Now, think about that. You reckon they were all enthusiasts? Do you understand anything about totalitarianism?

8th January 2012, 04:06 PM#80

Seanie Lemass 

 Originally Posted by Chiara 

Yes, in my opinion, Hitler wasn't completely wrong. Unfortuantely a lot of priests cared and still care more to keep self advantages. The question is if the greedy ones were (and are) more than the good ones, I hope not.
Regarding the Pope, nowadays, at last, public opinion recognizes that he was a much better person than he was thought to be.

P.S. Hope I made myself understood in the last sentence. Got some problems wuth my English. 

And they built the autobanhen!

·                            Thread Tools

8th January 2012, 04:31 PM

between the bridges 

 Originally Posted by Seanie Lemass 

There were 18.9 million people of the eligable age to join the HJ when the Pope did. 18.7 million of them did. Now, think about that. You reckon they were all enthusiasts? Do you understand anything about totalitarianism?

so i shouldn't judge a whole orginasition on the basis of some/one bad apple/s? 

as for 'totalitarianism' i am unionist don't you know we wrote the book..

8th January 2012, 05:28 PM

LongLiberal 

Sign in or Register Now to reply

8th January 2012, 06:24 PM

Kilbarry1 

 Originally Posted by LongLiberal 

Simply, no. 
There are no parallels in this country. One aspect is talking about 1930's Germany and the other is 21st century Ireland. You seem to be trying to push some sort of idea that the Catholic Church were in opposition to Hitlers Nazi regime, which is simply laughable. 
Firstly, the Vatican kept very very quiet during the Holocaust, why is that? 

Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic and often throughout Mein Kampf spoke about "doing god's work". He was baptised and never renounced his baptism. All soldiers in the SS would place three fingers in their belt to signify the Holy Trinity. 
Also, and most significantly the Cardinal Arch-Bishop of Munich, Adolf Bertram, held a special mass in 1939, when Hitler escaped assassination, to celebrate "the fortunate release of the Fuhrer". ........

.

I'm not sure why it is necessary to keep on refuting this nonsense. It has been done before - by myself and others - on the Politics.ie website and the book "Hitler's Table Talk" was first published in 1953. However here it is again.

Extracts from "Hitler's Secret Conversations" (aka "Hitler's Table Talk") regarding Christianity

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
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. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler was in fact, a Social Darwinist who believed in an impersonal Providence which gives victory to the strong by using a process of natural selection to ensure the survival of the fittest. (He objected to Christianity because he saw it as "a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature ..... the systematic cultivation of the human failure".)

8th January 2012, 06:49 PM

Kilbarry1 

Child Killing Allegations by Anti-Clerics: Nazis and "Lliberals"

HOWEVER the subject of this thread is "Nazis, the Catholic Church and Sexual Abuse"

It is a fact that the Nazis launched a campaign against the Catholic Church that involved invented or grossly exaggerated allegations of child sexual abuse. it is also a fact that the Nazis did the same in relation to the Jews - and in their case included allegations that Christian children were murdered by Jews.

In his book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", William Shirer has this to say about Hitler's favourite anti-Semite Julius Streicher:
"A famous fornicator he made his fame and fortune as a blindly fanatical anti-Semite. His notorious weekly Der Stuermer thrived on lurid tales of Jewish sexual crimes and Jewish "ritual murders"; its obscenity was nauseating even to many Nazis".

You will note that not all Nazis were enthusiastic about Herr Streicher and his allegations.

The following is an extract from my own website:

This website is about false allegations of child abuse - mainly those directed at the Catholic Church in Ireland. I do not dispute that there are real cases of abuse of children by clerics but my contention is that these have been used as an excuse to launch a witch-hunt. This witch-hunt has now spread to every part of our society so that every teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker etc has to take specific precautions to guard against becoming the target of a false accusation. ........

"Letter to Sunday Tribune re Child-Killing Allegations"
Christian Brothers, Child Killing Allegations, Letter to Sunday Tribune
is a summary of several allegations that the Christian Brothers were responsible for killing children in their care. (We are not talking about negligence here.) The allegations were made in a 4 to 5 year period beginning in 1999 (i.e. just after the broadcast of Mary Raftery's "States of Fear" series by the national broadcast company RTE in April/May of that year). Prior to the broadcast of "States of Fear", there was just one allegation of that type and it was directed at the Sisters of Mercy. I have discussed this in the essay "Sister Xavieria and "Child Killing" in Goldenbridge". 
Sister Xavieria, Sisters of Mercy, 'Child Killing' in Goldenbridge
(This allegation followed RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February 1996 which made serious allegations against the Sisters of Mercy in Goldenbridge residential school.)

The above is more relevant to the subject of this thread than general claims that "Hitler was a Catholic" etc Also the people who made these false claims seem to have got away with it, whereas even some Nazis were nauseated by Julius Streicher.

8th January 2012, 07:29 PM

Kilbarry1 

Child Killing Allegations by Anti-Clerics: Nazis and "Lliberals"

 Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

.........

The following is an extract from my own website:

This website is about false allegations of child abuse - mainly those directed at the Catholic Church in Ireland. I do not dispute that there are real cases of abuse of children by clerics but my contention is that these have been used as an excuse to launch a witch-hunt. This witch-hunt has now spread to every part of our society so that every teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker etc has to take specific precautions to guard against becoming the target of a false accusation. ........

"Letter to Sunday Tribune re Child-Killing Allegations"
Christian Brothers, Child Killing Allegations, Letter to Sunday Tribune
is a summary of several allegations that the Christian Brothers were responsible for killing children in their care. (We are not talking about negligence here.) The allegations were made in a 4 to 5 year period beginning in 1999 (i.e. just after the broadcast of Mary Raftery's "States of Fear" series by the national broadcast company RTE in April/May of that year). Prior to the broadcast of "States of Fear", there was just one allegation of that type and it was directed at the Sisters of Mercy. I have discussed this in the essay "Sister Xavieria and "Child Killing" in Goldenbridge". 
Sister Xavieria, Sisters of Mercy, 'Child Killing' in Goldenbridge
(This allegation followed RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February 1996 which made serious allegations against the Sisters of Mercy in Goldenbridge residential school.) ........

I'm heading off now BUT
Louis Lentin is Jewish. A better example of "biting off your nose to spite your face" would be almost impossible to find!
Louis Lentin, Christine Buckley, Gerry Kelly, False Allegations against Sisters of Mercy and Christian Brothers

8th January 2012, 08:16 PM

TommyO'Brien 

 Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

I'm heading off now

Don't rush back.

8th January 2012, 08:33 PM

LongLiberal 

 Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

I'm not sure why it is necessary to keep on refuting this nonsense. It has been done before - by myself and others - on the Politics.ie website and the book "Hitler's Table Talk" was first published in 1953. However here it is again.

Extracts from "Hitler's Secret Conversations" (aka "Hitler's Table Talk") regarding Christianity

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
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. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

Hitler was in fact, a Social Darwinist who believed in an impersonal Providence which gives victory to the strong by using a process of natural selection to ensure the survival of the fittest. (He objected to Christianity because he saw it as "a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature ..... the systematic cultivation of the human failure".)

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1



Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1


Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5


What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8



Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1



In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11




In a public address in Munich - 

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."



Stuttgart address February 15th 1933 - 

"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity"

8th January 2012, 08:41 PM

LongLiberal 

 Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

HOWEVER the subject of this thread is "Nazis, the Catholic Church and Sexual Abuse"

It is a fact that the Nazis launched a campaign against the Catholic Church that involved invented or grossly exaggerated allegations of child sexual abuse. it is also a fact that the Nazis did the same in relation to the Jews - and in their case included allegations that Christian children were murdered by Jews.

In his book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", William Shirer has this to say about Hitler's favourite anti-Semite Julius Streicher:
"A famous fornicator he made his fame and fortune as a blindly fanatical anti-Semite. His notorious weekly Der Stuermer thrived on lurid tales of Jewish sexual crimes and Jewish "ritual murders"; its obscenity was nauseating even to many Nazis".

You will note that not all Nazis were enthusiastic about Herr Streicher and his allegations.

The following is an extract from my own website:

This website is about false allegations of child abuse - mainly those directed at the Catholic Church in Ireland. I do not dispute that there are real cases of abuse of children by clerics but my contention is that these have been used as an excuse to launch a witch-hunt. This witch-hunt has now spread to every part of our society so that every teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker etc has to take specific precautions to guard against becoming the target of a false accusation. ........

"Letter to Sunday Tribune re Child-Killing Allegations"
Christian Brothers, Child Killing Allegations, Letter to Sunday Tribune
is a summary of several allegations that the Christian Brothers were responsible for killing children in their care. (We are not talking about negligence here.) The allegations were made in a 4 to 5 year period beginning in 1999 (i.e. just after the broadcast of Mary Raftery's "States of Fear" series by the national broadcast company RTE in April/May of that year). Prior to the broadcast of "States of Fear", there was just one allegation of that type and it was directed at the Sisters of Mercy. I have discussed this in the essay "Sister Xavieria and "Child Killing" in Goldenbridge". 
Sister Xavieria, Sisters of Mercy, 'Child Killing' in Goldenbridge
(This allegation followed RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February 1996 which made serious allegations against the Sisters of Mercy in Goldenbridge residential school.)

The above is more relevant to the subject of this thread than general claims that "Hitler was a Catholic" etc Also the people who made these false claims seem to have got away with it, whereas even some Nazis were nauseated by Julius Streicher.

HOWEVER the subject of this thread is "Nazis, the Catholic Church and Sexual Abuse"

waffle waffle waffle

You claimed "it is a fact that ..." - the opinion of an American Journalist is far from from fact. Quite the opposite.


Also I see your website there and its great that lunatics like are go to the lengths you do as it only contributes the impending annihilation of this Nazi, pedophile infested, backward, evil and ridiculous organisation.

8th January 2012, 10:19 PM#89

Kilbarry1 

Anti-Clericalism and Anti-Semitism

 Originally Posted by LongLiberal 

You claimed "it is a fact that ..." - the opinion of an American Journalist is far from from fact. Quite the opposite.


Also I see your website there and its great that lunatics like are go to the lengths you do as it only contributes the impending annihilation of this Nazi, pedophile infested, backward, evil and ridiculous organisation.

By "the opinion of an American journalist" I presume you mean William Shirer's depiction of Julius Streicher as a vicious pornographer who made false sexual allegations against Jews - up to and including the ritual murder of children? There is nothing at all controversial about Shirer's "opinion". The following is from the Wikipedia article on Julius Streicher and his newspaper Der Sturmer.
Julius Streicher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...... Streicher’s opponents complained to authorities that Der Stürmer violated a statute against religious offense with his constant promulgation of the “blood libel” — the medieval accusation that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzoh. Streicher argued that his accusations were based on race, not religion, and that his communications were political speech, and therefore protected by the German constitution.[5]

Streicher orchestrated his early campaigns against Jews to make the most extreme possible claims, short of violating a law that might get the paper shut down. ........ He claimed that Jews were white-slavers and were responsible for over 90 percent of the prostitutes in the country. Real unsolved killings in Germany, especially of children or women, were often confidently explained in the pages of Der Stürmer as cases of “Jewish ritual murder.”

One of Streicher’s constant themes was the sexual violation of ethnically German women by Jews, a subject which served as an excuse to publish semi-pornographic tracts and images detailing degrading sexual acts. These “essays” proved an especially appealing feature of the paper for young men. With the help of his notorious cartoonist, Phillip "Fips" Rupprecht, Streicher published image after image of gruesome Jewish stereotypes and sexually-charged encounters. His portrayal of Jews as subhuman and evil is widely considered to have played a critical role in the dehumanization and marginalization of the Jewish minority in the eyes of common Germans .....

Streicher also combed the pages of the Talmud and the Old Testament in search of passages which could paint their ancient Jewish authors as harsh or cruel, a practice which continues to this day among anti-Semites. In 1929, this close study of Jewish scripture helped convict Streicher in a case known as “The Great Nuremberg Ritual Murder Trial.” His familiarity with Jewish text was proof to the court that his attacks were religious in nature; Streicher was found guilty and imprisoned for two months. .........

The allegations of child murder against the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy have now been discredited, and even those who made them, no longer try to repeat them. But perhaps LongLiberal believes them still?? It might explain his description of the Catholic Church as "this Nazi, pedophile infested, backward, evil and ridiculous organisation". Apart from the word "Nazi", this string of obscenities could be taken from the pages of Der Sturmer, as Streicher's depiction of the Jews!

8th January 2012, 10:39 PM

Kilbarry1 

LongLiberal

Regarding your quotations from "Mein Kamph" and Hitler's public speeches, do you understand that the book "Hitler's Table Talk" consists of officially recorded notes of his private conversations with his confidantes at the dinner table during the years 1941 - 44. (Martin Bormann was one of the note-takers.) These represent proof of Hitler's REAL views. Regarding his PUBLIC statements - he made an awful lot about his desire for peace; do you believe those?