Posted on 06/21/2015 9:56:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Francis laments that world powers did nothing to save Jewish, Christian, gays from Nazi death camps.
ROME — Pope Francis on Sunday denounced what he called the “great powers” of the world for failing to act when there was intelligence indicating Jews, Christians, homosexuals and others were being transported to death camps in Europe during World War II.
He also decried the deaths of Christians in concentration camps in Russia under the Stalin dictatorship, which followed the war....
(Excerpt) Read more at timesofisrael.com ...
A few weeks ago, there was a thread here that said the Pope was being heretical by even acknowledging that Middle Eastern Christians are being persecuted for their faith, since they're heretics against the true church and therefore can't be considered Christian. There's a quote in there from Pope Pius XII from 1957: "To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth”
Introductory post: The “Bergoglio-Denzinger” on Francis’ ecumenism of blood
Coincidentally, I watched a NatGeo program on this very subject this weekend. (”Anne Frank's Holocaust”)
Because of the reasons you stated about (not) bombing railways and camps, the allies decided the quickest way to end the genocide would be to end the occupations as quickly as they could.
The point is moot because the decision-makers chose to win the war first.
In which case, saving the Jews wasn't a valid choice. Especially, since doing anything positive in this regard simply wasn't practical.
The decision-makers may -- or may not -- have been anti-semitic. But anti-semitism played no part in their decision.
The bottom line, however, is probably much colder than that. The camps weren't military targets, i.e. their destruction would not help the Allies prosecute the war, which at the time was still very much in doubt. It wasn't a matter of who was in the camps: Jews, Romani, political prisoners, prisoners of war, homosexuals. It was a matter of winning the thing, which was their only hope of deliverance in the end anyway. As that end approached, the Nazis made a great effort to kill off the witnesses and cover the evidence. Using assets intended to end the war to bomb the camps instead would not have stopped the killing of anyone, it would have prolonged it.
You might want to re-read WWII history on the Allied bombiing campaign....namely the Transportation Plan.
For what purpose?
Because we bombed the heck out of Germany’s rail and road system.
so he wanted us to bomb but now comes out and says people who make weapons are not Christians.
Question: If the Vatican arms its Swiss guards with weapons, is it engaged in the arms trade? Or not? Francis, I’m so confused.
He is squandering all the respect that John Paul labored so hard to earn. Very very sad.
And the German transport system functioned amazingly well right up until the end.
5. The Allies did not want to risk their own lives, to lay down their lives, to save Jewish victims and refugees.
Your point is a straw man -- a false choice. There was never a choice between a.) attacking strategic targets and winning the war or b.) attacking rail lines and saving Jews.
False; the allies picked their targets and objectives; they were not cast in stone. The Jews, and other Gentile civilian victims, were simply not a priority to the Allies.
False
I bet your point of view was on the minds of all the men that hit the beaches that day. "Let's get the Germans unless that will save Jews."
False
Either there are two standards on the RM Forum, or everyone can use the word "defame" and make up quotes to defame someone else.
The following were supposed to be the rules where there was one standard for all.
Because these targets weren't going to help win the war. Ergo, they weren't valid choices.
The Allies did not want to risk their own lives, to lay down their lives, to save Jewish victims and refugees.
So saying men who risked their lives to liberate Europe from the Nazis, wouldn't want to do so to save Jews isn't defamation of the character and courage of those men? How many live to counter your words? Does your statement impact their reputation in a negative way?
def·a·ma·tion
noun
the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.
Defamation of character is the legal term for harming someone's reputation by making false statements. To prove defamation, a plaintiff must show: The statement reflected negatively on the plaintiff's reputation.
As for the Forum Rules: you didn't defame me with your wild talk. The Religious Forum has different rules that if they bother you you should take up with someone in charge.
As for defaming the character and reputation of the men who battled to free Europe from Nazi oppression, the shoe fits you.
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.