How Catholic was Hitler?

[CatholicDefender]

If you ask me Churchill was kind of a retard.

Did he really believe that Yugoslavia and Italy were the "soft underbelly" of Europe?

It is probably the most inhospitable areas of Europe to stage a landing operation.

Everyone likes to paint the Americans as stupid arrogant cowboys, but if we actually tried to land in Europe earlier (say operation hammer happened in 1943) we could have opened up a more meaningful front for the Russians and made rapid progress.

Italy was practically like watching paint dry and we technically didn't even liberate the whole country before the war ended. Ever wonder why there was no Saving Private Ryan about the Italy campaign? It was a massive drudge....thats why!

Churchill can't have been serious about Yugoslavia... it was like the Afghanistan of Europe in terms of wild militant groups.

[Anomalocaris]

If you ask me Churchill was kind of a retard.

Did he really believe that Yugoslavia and Italy were the "soft underbelly" of Europe?

It is probably the most inhospitable areas of Europe to stage a landing operation.

Everyone likes to paint the Americans as stupid arrogant cowboys, but if we actually tried to land in Europe earlier (say operation hammer happened in 1943) we could have opened up a more meaningful front for the Russians and made rapid progress.

Italy was practically like watching paint dry and we technically didn't even liberate the whole country before the war ended. Ever wonder why there was no Saving Private Ryan about the Italy campaign? It was a massive drudge....thats why!

Churchill can't have been serious about Yugoslavia... it was like the Afghanistan of Europe in terms of wild militant groups.

Churchill was not a retard for wanting to avoid a real invasion of Western Europe. Churchill may not admit it, but both churchill and Great Britain suffer a serious inferiority complex in assessing the fighting power of allied armies vs those of the German army. Churchill and Britain were mindful that up to that time, whenever the odds were even, the German army seldomly failed to pull off brilliant and overwhelming victories. The only time the British had won were with overwhelming numerical odds in British favor. In any amphibious invasion. The overwhelming numerical superiority were likely to be on the German side. The invasion looked like a spectacularly risky gamble.

Britain, like Germany, was suffering an acute shortage of manpower. A land war eats manpower like nothing else. Historically, Britain only managed to field an army on D-day by rethlessly stripping the Royal Navy. If the normandie invasion failed, the Americans can wait a year, rally another army, try again, and again, until it had ground the Germans down. But if the british lost the army sent into normandie, Britain could never rally another. Furthermore the Royal Navy is also a spent force. Yes, the ships are still there, but there are no manpower to,crew them. So Britain is effectively out of that, with very little weight it can throw into the fight and assure it has a chair at the table when great,powers decide the future of Europe after the war.

This is why Churchill was eager to avoid committing Britain to an stand-up fight against the main body of the German army in France. Instead, Churchill preferred to,commit Britain to a series of technical operations in a subsidiary theater, like the Mediterranean, where material, which Britain still had in abundance, counted for more, and manpower counted for less.

[CatholicDefender]

OK. You have defeated me.

I suppose it is true that a depressingly large percentage of the Catholic hierarchy either supported Hitler or quietly tolerated him. Practically zero condemned him outright, and when they did only for specific things, such as euthanasia or removing crucifixes from public schools. The latter bit makes me think the Nazis were somewhat like democrats.

I guess Hitler technically was a Catholic, albeit an extremely sinful and (I believe) cynical one.

I suppose I just asked the question because people seem to think that Catholicism and Catholics were intrinsically on his side. That was not the case.

There were plenty of devout people who were opposed to him as Im sure you'd know.

such as this

1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Gerlich

2.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV9H7aWgPv8

3. and of course the inspiration for James Ryan of S aving Private Ryan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niland_brothers

[Crossless2.0]

There were plenty of devout people who were opposed to him as Im sure you'd know.

Yes, I know. The question then becomes why they continued to support the "spiritual leaders" who betrayed them and shamed themselves.

Their ongoing handling of the many child-rape scandals that have come to light over the decades demands an answer, as well.

How low must your leaders stoop before you (plural) abandon them? Vicars of Christ, my ass!

[Brian37]

OK. You have defeated me.

I suppose it is true that a depressingly large percentage of the Catholic hierarchy either supported Hitler or quietly tolerated him. Practically zero condemned him outright, and when they did only for specific things, such as euthanasia or removing crucifixes from public schools. The latter bit makes me think the Nazis were somewhat like democrats.

I guess Hitler technically was a Catholic, albeit an extremely sinful and (I believe) cynical one.

I suppose I just asked the question because people seem to think that Catholicism and Catholics were intrinsically on his side. That was not the case.

There were plenty of devout people who were opposed to him as Im sure you'd know.

such as this

1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Gerlich

2.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV9H7aWgPv8

3. and of course the inspiration for  James Ryan of S aving Private Ryan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niland_brothers

You sick fuck, when you cant flat out get away with painting Hitler as an atheist, you resort to equating Nazis as democrats. NO YOU ASSHOLE, the Nazis were far right wing monochromatic fascists. Western pluralism is what democrats defend. Democrats hate Hitler just as much as we hate the monocromatic race based politics of North Korea.

I am sick of this shit from religious people that liberals are the problem. Hitler was not a liberal one fucking bit. He was an evil monster who promoted race based nationalism and used religion to create a one party fascist state. And again, no different than the Castro family creating it's one party state by convincing a MAJORITY CATHOLIC population to support him.

RELIGION and authoritarianism are compatible and WW2 Germany, and Castro's Cuba and Saudi Arabia are all examples of states that mix religion with authoritarianism. 

What open societies do, is protect everyone through common law, by not favoring one party or one religion over all others. 

Please knock it off with your horrible logic.

1. Liberals are not anti pluralism.
2. "Atheist" does not equal valuing dictators. 


Hitler had help from the religious both churches and the population in general. Nobody is claiming all, but a majority did even if not all. 

Just like the Castro family got support from it's majority Catholic population. 

Dictators don't silence religion, they silence dissent no matter where it comes from. Dictators will tolerate religion if those people tow the party line. It is about POWER, not religion. Religion is a great tool to prey upon people to gain support. In a open free society, we keep checks on all sectors of society, to prevent monopolies of power.

[CatholicDefender]

Hitler had much in common with liberal democrats.

1. He cared about and helped poor (aryan) people.

2. He loved the environment and animals, and dreamed of creating great national parks. He even tried to resurrect the long extinct aurochs! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_cattle

3. He was a bit like Michelle Obama, in that he wanted a national fitness program for the people of his country. Plus he hated smoking, and was a vegetarian!

4. He always rallied against the aristocracy and big business.

5. He was all about racial politics. The Nazi party was basically the Aryan lives matter movement.

He also ran on a program of hope and change

[Mister Agenda]

I had given you a kudo, CD, but I felt compelled to take it back upon reading your next post.

[Brian37]

Hitler had much in common with liberal democrats.

1. He cared about and helped poor (aryan) people.

2. He loved the environment and animals, and dreamed of creating great national parks. He even tried to resurrect the long extinct aurochs! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_cattle

3. He was a bit like Michelle Obama, in that he wanted a national fitness program for the people of his country. Plus he hated smoking, and was a vegetarian!

4. He always rallied against the aristocracy and big business.

5. He was all about racial politics. The Nazi party was basically the Aryan lives matter movement.

He also ran on a program of hope and change

Yea and an orange asshole sitting in the White House used the same White Nationalist politics.

45 sold the same shit.

Hope and change based on fear the other is not hope and change. That is scapegoating and it only works on the ignorant and gullible. 

Hitler, "I will make Germany Great Again."

45, "I will Make America Great Again."

Hitler, "You poor white Christians have been wronged."

45, "You white rust belt and rural Christians have been wronged."

Hitler, "I with fight the greedy capitalists."

45, "I will drain the swamp."

Again, Hitler was no liberal and neither is 45. 

Get this through your head.

"Liberal" is not anti private sector. "Liberal" also does not mean White Nationalism. 

Hitler was a monster an authoritarianism. And he did not get rid of the private sector, he simply consolidated the wealth to his inner circle. He was a racist opportunistic kleptocrat. 45 could also give one shit less about the white middle class or white working poor. 45 only cares about himself and power.

[Succubus]

Hitler had much in common with liberal democrats.

1. He cared about and helped poor (aryan) people.

2. He loved the environment and animals, and dreamed of creating great national parks. He even tried to resurrect the long extinct aurochs! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heck_cattle

3. He was a bit like Michelle Obama, in that he wanted a national fitness program for the people of his country. Plus he hated smoking, and was a vegetarian!

4. He always rallied against the aristocracy and big business.

5. He was all about racial politics. The Nazi party was basically the Aryan lives matter movement.

He also ran on a program of hope and change

TROLL!

[CatholicDefender]

Looks like Pius condemned the holocaust in sort of a vague way

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12CH42.HTM

1. "What is this world war, with all its attendant circumstances, whether they be remote or proximate causes, its progress and material, legal and moral effects? What is it but the crumbling process, not expected, perhaps, by the thoughtless but seen and depreciated by those whose gaze penetrated into the realities of a social order which hid its mortal weakness and its unbridled lust for gain and power?"

2. War has torn from their native land and scattered in the land of the stranger; who can make their own the lament of the Prophet: "Our inheritance is turned to aliens; our house to strangers." Mankind owes that vow to the hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or race, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline. Mankind owes that vow to the many thousands of non-combatants, women, children, sick and aged, from whom aerial war-fare—whose horrors we have from the beginning frequently denounced—has without discrimination or through inadequate precautions, taken life, goods, health, home, charitable refuge, or house of prayer. Mankind owes that vow to the flood of tears and bitterness, to the accumulation of sorrow and suffering, emanating from the murderous ruin of the dreadful conflict and crying to Heaven to send down the Holy Spirit to liberate the world from the inundation of violence and terror."

He never condemned it explicitly but a lot of people knew what he was getting at.

I wonder how he avoided being turned into a bar of soap by Hitler.

Did Hitler like him? I read that in spite of Pius' vacillation and silence Hitler viewed him with scorn and suspicion.