NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/talk/abortion/36290

Text File | 1992-09-13 | 8.9 KB | 160 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!slkg9733
From: [e-mail] (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Kellmeyer liar even in issues peripheral to Pro-LIE
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 01:51:30 GMT
Lines: 147

[e-mail] (Stephen J. Mezias) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes some interesting things about the Nazis.
>Too bad his credibility is so low that I can't believe anything he has
>to say.  Also, even in this post, which is relatively neutral with
>respect to abortion, he states some points as fact that seem
>questionable.  Deletia to get to these points:

>>>the southern Bavaria region, are the same folk who were the primary
>>>section of that favorite group the SS. I don't know about you, but anything
>>>that curtailed their influence, I would be in favor of.
>>
>>This is extraordinarily misleading.

>I have read several histories of the Nazi regime that posit the thesis
>that Hitler drew his early supporters and much of the elite of the SS
>from Bavaria.  This is not necessarily inconsistent with Kellmeyer's
>point that there was much resistance to the Nazis there.  However,
>Kellmeyer seem to deny that there is any truth in in the statement
>about Bavarian SS elite.  Am I misunderstanding this?

I did not deny that elements in Bavaria supported the SS.  I pointed out
that this support was, in general, limited to certain sub-sections of
the population, both in population density and in time.  Small Roman
Catholic villages tended to vociferously oppose both the Communists and
the Nazis - check out a history book and read up on the Crucifix controversy
for instance.  In terms of support, the SS got the highest level from
medium-sized towns during the early thirties, when fears of Communist
supremacy were at their height.  As that threat waned, support dropped.
It did not disappear.  But the original statement glossed over so many
details that the conclusion was gratuitously wrong.

>>  The Catholic
>>Church was not as severely hurt by Nazi rule largely because it's
>>"capitol" was not in Germany.  Protestant ministers and their flocks
>>were more likely to support Nazi rule, and be spared retribution, than
>>were Catholic priests and their congregations.  Notable exceptions to
>>both general rules of thumb can be found, of course, but the statistics
>>on this are quite clear, as Childers and dozens before him have
>>demonstrated.  The Italians tended to be much more lenient to all forms
>>of organized religion, including Jews, than were the Germans.  Since
>>Italy is a predominantly Catholic country (as opposed to the Protestantism
>>of the Germans) one can easily argue that it was the civilizing influence
>>of Catholicism in Italy which prevented excesses similar to those of the
>>Germans.  Your blanket statements overlook a wealth of caveats.

>What about all the recent evidence that Pope Pius knew about the
>Holocaust and stayed silent to protect the Church?  Is Kellmeyer's
>claim that Mother Church was just spared by coincidence?

The evidence of who knew what about and when about the Holocaust is
heavily debated.  I do not deny that the Pope knew about the Holocaust.
I do not know that he did either.  The church did sign a concordat with
the German government, in 1935 I believe.  This is well before anything
resembling a Holocaust began.  The setting up of death camps did not begin
until AFTER the invasion of Poland.  While their were pogroms against the
Jews, their treatment in Germany in 1935 was not notably different than
their treatment in Czarist Russia in the late 1800's nor that of their
treatment in Stalinist Russia at the same point in time.

Even if we are to say that the Pope knew every intimate detail concerning
the Holocaust, we must ask what it was you desired him to do.  He occupied
a state that is located within and surrounded by the city of Rome, a city
controlled by a Fascist.  While that Fascist had very good reasons to leave
the Pope alone (southern Italy would have been outraged at an assault on the
Pope), Mussolini would also have had an extremely difficult time NOT
destroying him if that same Pope had given Hitler a reason to become upset.
As the invasion of both Ethiopia and France showed, Italian troops were
simply not of the same caliber as German troops, and Mussolini had political
considerations to think of as well.  The extent to which the Allies knew of
the Holocaust, and failed to do anything about it, is well-documented.

We may fault the Pope for failing to express moral outrage.  Alright, do so
if you wish.  It is also clear that the Vatican did take steps to help Jews
they knew to be in trouble, and whom they thought could be saved. YOu may
say that this is insufficient.  Fine.  But don't try laying the sins of
the Holocaust at the doors of Roman Catholocism.  It belongs there no more
than it does on the steps of Protestantism.  If it belongs anywhere, you
may place it on the doorstep of amoral science, a science the Nazis did not
invent.  Europe was rife with scientifically esteemed eugenics journals.
The Nuremburg laws were modelled on the laws against miscegany in 1923
Virginia.  Heredity was still an inexact science, and to many people, the
Nazi ideas about biological purity were not nearly as outlandish as they
seem today.  Read the journals of the period, read the popular press, and
you'll find that Nazi racial purity ideas were not just some German
aberration.  Japan left the League of Nations because the League refused
to remove a clause which stated that some races were biologically inferior
to others.  Orientals were clearly the targets of that clause.  Read John
Dwyer's "War Without Mercy" and you'll discover some fascinating things
about the Pacific war that extended that concept.

>>Today, France is at least as xenophobic as Germany (witness the popularity
>>of Le Pen and his ilk) and Poland and the CIS are having similar
>problems.

>Did the French skinheads start riots aimed at foreigners when I wasn't
>looking?

Yes.  The French riots weren't termed "riots" by the press since
a) they involved a small number of Frenchmen (like the German riots, in fact)
b) they were in France
French xenophobes absolutely despise Moslems.  There have been mosques burned
and Moslems at daily prayer in the street have been attacked.  Easy Algerian
immigration (due to the former status of Algeria as part of France) along
with an influx of Africans generally have led to an extraordinary amount of
hostility against foreigeners in general.

>>The demonstrations taking place in Germany can be matched one for one with
>>similar demonstrations in France - the simple fact is, this sort of demo
>>sells better on TV when it comes from a country with Germany's history than
>>it does when it comes from the land of the French revolution (which was the
>>most bloody revolution of the 18th century, and arguably the most intolerant
>>until the rise of Hitler).

>So the media is conspiring to keep the French riots secret because
>riots by former Nazi countries make better press?

>Give me a break.

Please.  Conspiracy is entirely too simplistic.  It's simply a question of
finding what you are looking for.  The American press just doesn't think
of France as the land of xenophobes, so it doesn't bother to report
what are seen as "provincial incidents" on international news.  American
press reporters have done the same thing with black on black violence in
Africa - many countries (Zimbabwe for example) have political repression
records as bad as or worse than South Africa's, but we only hear about SA
because that particular brand of racist fits our American preconception
better.  Even now, we feel a different chill when we look at German
xenophobic rioters, than when we see Bosnian xenophobic soldiers.  WHY?
Because it fits our preconceptions.  The Bosnians don't have anything as
reprehensible in their pasts as the Germans do.  SO even though these
aren't the same Germans anymore, we are still frightened by Germans more
than we are by Yugoslavians.

No conspiracy theory is necessary.  We do the work of filling in the wrong
gaps ourselves.  Thus the original problem with RC-Nazi links.  I'm sure
the original poster hates organized religions, especially the RC.  Thus,
he'll draw whatever conclusion makes the RC look bad, not because he's
part of a conspiracy, but because such a conclusion fits his preconceptions
about what the conclusion SHOULD be.  He deludes himself with grand,
incredibly inaccurate generalizations because he doesn't know what was
going on at the time, and his generalization fits what he wants to believe.

>SJ

Steve Kellmeyer