Skip to comments.BIG LOAN BY RFC FOR RUSSIA PLANNED (9/17/41)
Posted on 09/17/2011 4:49:50 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
Russia Separate 2-3
The International Situation 2
Nazis Claim Rout of 3 Red Armies Below Leningrad 3
Pope Said to Bar Roosevelt Plea to Call War Just 4
Irans Shah Out; Allies Advancing 4-5
Iran is Regarded as Allied Bastion 5
Germans Shoot 10 Paris Hostages, but Two More Nazis are Fired On 5-6
The Day in Washington 6
Red River War Hangs in Balance (by Hanson W. Baldwin) 7
The Texts of the Days Communiques on the War 8-9
Lewis Bars Plea to Reopen Mines 9
15,000 to March in Victory Parade 9
US Navy expands escort duties
Wednesday, September 17, 1941 www.onwar.com
From Washington... The US Navy increases its role in escorting Atlantic convoys. It assumes responsibility for some of the Halifax to Britain convoys and the security of traffic to Iceland. It will augment the Canadian Naval escorts which travel to 22 degrees west until British ships take over.
In Iran... Allied forces occupy the capital Tehran to ensure that Axis influence is halted.
On the Eastern Front... Heavy fighting in the outlying areas of the city of Kiev between Soviet and German forces.
"A general deportation of German Jews begins."
"German police and possibly members of an Einsatzkommando murder Jews who stand helpless in a trench.
Because of the sandy soil, this image may be of an Aktion carried out by Einsatzgruppe A along the coast of the Baltic Sea in Lithuania, Latvia, or Estonia.
Although many German soldiers claimed after the war that they had no choice but to shoot when ordered to do so, the fact is that incidents of punishment of men who refused to participate in execution murders were rare.
Men who perpetrated such atrocities did so because they wanted to."
So, how far are we from the day when our own national socialist party, the democrats, start doing the same to conservatives in this country?
And yet... that headline buries a number of stories which are still debated to this day.
Oh, dear... where shall we even start?
Reply is Reported to Stress Vatican Cannot Take Sides With Any Belligerent
By Herbert L. Matthews
"The Pope today gave Myron C. Taylor, President Roosevelt's personal envoy to the Vatican, his prply to the President message, and it appears on good Vatican authority to have been a polite 'no.'
"The refusal is understood to have covered a request to the Pope to declare that the war against nazism is a just war.
However, the Pope's reply was evidently so worded as in no sense to indicate favor toward the Nazis or opposition to the American attitude.
"The problem appears to have been primarily an inability on the Pope's part to take sides and an unwillingness on doctrinal grounds to consider this or any war as just...."
Today's criticisms of the Pope, and outrage that he might be named a "saint", include his inability to morally distinguish between Nazi attrocities and those trying to defend themselves against the Nazis.
If making such distinctions was just too hard for him to do, the Pope should have resigned, and turned his job over to someone more worthy.
So, what do you think, Homer?
Enough to stir up the hornet's nest?
For decades conservatives have tried to convince Jews that their real political home belongs with us, not with those national and international socialists: liberal, progressive, "no labels", etc., Democrats.
And all this time, most Jews have said "thanks, but no thanks", and stuck with their traditional allies, Democrats from the old FDR mold.
Until... maybe, possibly, can it be?
In Wiener's district, not only the Orthodox, but but also the majority of conservative and other Jews voted for, let's call him what he is: an early supporter / mentor of Rush Limbaugh!
Of course, your comment here is so appropriate, because politically at the least, we conservatives will be standing down in that trench with Jews (or they with us, depending on how you look at it), when the shooting starts.
But maybe this time, we'll be shooting back? ;-)
we were always taught the Pope could talk with God. why didnt he just ask?
So, what do you think, Homer?
Enough to stir up the hornet's nest?
That could do it.
I remind readers that this article was written by Herbert L. Matthews, who is unlikely to sympathize with any "crusade against bolshevism," as he calls it in the article. Also please note that much of what he wrote is conjecture based on second-hand reports. As in "It was understood in Vatican circles that the crux of the President's letter . . ." "There appear to be three main points in the Pope's answer." "In Vatican circles, according to what the writer has learned, it is being said . . ."
And by the way, why is Roosevelt asking the Pope to rule on a war in which the United States isn't even (officially) a belligerent?
Beyond that, I am not knowledgable enough on Pius XII, just war doctrine or the Vatican's international relations to mount an authoritative defense of Pius' position in this matter, other than to say he is unquestionably correct in whatever he actually did say.
I'm certain that he did. In September 1941 this is substantially a war between Nazi Germany and communist Soviet Union. Perhaps the Holy Spirit preferred not to take sides at this point.
From the article:
“..........The Pope’s reply has been studied for five days and during that time there has been much talk about it in high Vatican circles.”
That is quite some letter to study for 5 days.
“Roosevelt’s promise that he would try to sway the Moscow governments policy toward religious freedom.”
This is why he contacted the Pope but who did he make the promise to?
“First the British must proceed with the business of clearing Germans out of Iran, as well as rounding up others they have marked as undesirable persons, the most notable being the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. ...............................
Homer: "I'm certain that he did."
It is said that the Pope showed signs of depression or "nervous breakdown", and that is also said of President Roosevelt in 1941.
Indeed, this request from FDR clearly shows him working to establish a "moral high ground" justifying war.
That the Pope apparently refused to give FDR the moral justification he wanted, while at the same time acknowledging the President's concerns, can be seen as the Pope reminding FDR of something that no politician wants to hear: Roosevelt alone must take moral responsibility for his actions, and no Pope, no matter how clear-cut the circumstances, can remove that burden from him.
moral high ground.
an intersting concept. i have read roosevelts communique brutally critical of the japanese war in china, citing bombing civilians,etc., establishing the “moral” basis for opposing Japan.
by 1945, all that was out the window for USA, and winning, crushing Japan was all that mattered.
i dont disagree with that, but anyone planning on fighting a war “morally” could have problems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.