Showing posts with label Holocaust Studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Holocaust Studies. Show all posts

Thursday, August 23, 2012

U.S. Holocaust Museum Panel Discussion- RCC & the Holocaust

PANEL DISCUSSION
The Roman Catholic Church and the Holocaust: New Studies, New Sources, New Questions
FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, 2–4 P.M.
Helena Rubinstein Auditorium


This workshop will identify new and emerging areas of research in some of the most important topics related to Church history and the Holocaust. Drawing on the Museum’s unique archival holdings from the Vatican, participants will examine the relationship between the Holy See and Zionism, European clerico-fascism and its importation to North America, Vatican diplomacy, and the concept of Brotherhood as transformational in post-Holocaust Christian-Jewish relations.

Presenters

Adrian Ciani, PhD Candidate, Department of History, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada

Mara Dissegna, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Modena Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy (Workshop Coordinator)

Piero Doria, Archivist, Secret Vatican Archives, Vatican City

Charles Gallagher, S. J., Assistant Professor, Department of History, Boston College, Boston, MA (Workshop Coordinator)
Jonathan Lewy, Visiting Fellow, Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Claire Maligot, PhD Candidate, University of Paris, Paris, France

Robert Maryks, Associate Professor, Department of History, Bronx Community College, City University of New York, New York, NY

Mark Ruff, Associate Professor, Department of History, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO

James Mace Ward, Assistant Professor, Department of History, DePauw University, Greencastle, IN

Paolo Zanini, PhD Candidate, State University of Milan, Milan, Italy

Reservations are requested. RSVP online at ushmm.org/events/vaticanworkshop.

This program is supported by the Hoffberger Foundation

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Call for Papers US Holocaust Museum Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies


International Conference
WORLD WAR II, NAZI CRIMES, AND THE HOLOCAUST IN THE USSR
DECEMBER 7–9, 2012
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Moscow, Russia


Co-organizers:
  • Blavatnik Family Foundation
  • Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
  • Centre d’études des mondes russe, caucasien, et centre-européen at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales
  • Centre for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, Munk School of Global Affairs, and Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Toronto
  • Centre franco-russe de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales de Moscou
  • Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies and the Georgetown Institute for Global History, Georgetown University
  • German Historical Institute Moscow
  • Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History
  • National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow

In the past decade, three related fields, each interdisciplinary in its own right, have developed exponentially but sometimes in isolation: the study of wartime Stalinism, the study of the Nazi occupation of Soviet territories, and the study of the Holocaust in the East. This conference will bring together the latest research conducted in all humanities and social science disciplines in order to foster new analytical perspectives and cross-fertilization in these and other key areas.

The conference seeks to highlight new research on such topics and issues as:

  • Evacuation, refugees, and displaced persons
  • Atrocities, mass killing, and mass graves
  • Forced and slave labor
  • The dynamics of complicity, collaboration, and various forms of resistance
  • Everyday life on the front and under occupation
  • Understudied victims
  • Occupier perspectives on the war and the Holocaust, including such acts as the starvation of Soviet POWs, and their contributions to the history of National Socialism
  • New perspectives on the Soviet wartime experience and the impact of war on the Soviet system
  • The study of the Soviet home front
  • Soviet-German interactions and entanglements, both in specific locales and in systemic terms
  • The cultural politics of representation and commemoration in the aftermath
  • Gender
  • Communities and identities forged around the unprecedented experiences of war on the Eastern Front in World War II
The conference is intended to be interdisciplinary. Proposals for new, original, and previously unpublished papers are welcome from scholars in all relevant academic disciplines, including from doctoral students who have advanced to candidacy. Applicants interested in presenting a paper should be currently researching or completing projects exploring the topics and issues listed above, broadly understood. Successful applicants will be required to submit a copy of their presentation in advance of the conference for circulation among commentators, other panelists, and conference participants.

The conference will be conducted in English and Russian. Simultaneous translation will be provided.

The deadline for receipt of proposals is May 15, 2012. Participants will be selected and notified no later than June 1, 2012.

For more information and for the full call for papers, please visit www.ushmm.org/research/center/presentations/discussions/details/russia-conference/.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Ledochowski Holocaust Morality & Complicity

Limited to those with college-university teaching positions,
not independent researchers

Committee on Churches and the Holocaust
2010 Seminar for Seminary Faculty and Professors of Religious Studies
Rescuers and Bystanders during the Holocaust:
The Historical Significance of Morality and Complicity
June 21-25, 2010

The Committee on Church Relations and the Holocaust (CRC) of the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum announces a seminar for professors of theology,
ethics, and religion at theological schools and other institutions of advanced
education. Applications from interested professors from other disciplines will
be considered.

The seminar is scheduled for June 21-25, 2010.

The seminar will offer an overview of the history of Catholic and
Protestant responses to Nazism and the Holocaust, with a particular focus on the
role of rescuers and bystanders. How historically significant was such behavior?
What factors shaped the behavior of these groups? What moral and ethical
insights can be drawn from this aspect of Holocaust history? Participants will
also have the opportunity to learn more about Museum resources for their
teaching and to consult and interact with Museum staff and visiting scholars.
More information about the Museum’s programs on religion can be found at www.ushmm.org/research/center/church/.

The seminar will be co-taught by Victoria Barnett, Staff Director, CRC, and
Dr. David Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at
Mercer University. Ms. Barnett has helped create academic and public programs,
panels, and symposia on Christianity and the Holocaust with institutions around
the country. Her publications include Bystanders: Conscience and Complicity
during the Holocaust (1999) and For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest
against Hitler (1992). She is also a prominent Bonhoeffer scholar and one of the
general editors of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works English Edition, the complete
English translation of Bonhoeffer’s works. Dr. Gushee has written extensively
about the intersection between Christian faith, ethics, and public policy, and
has provided leadership in the American evangelical world on human rights
issues. He is the author of numerous books, including Righteous Gentiles of the
Holocaust and Only Human: Christian Reflections on the Journey toward Wholeness.

Candidates must be faculty members at accredited, degree-awarding
institutions in North America. Applications must include: (1) a curriculum
vitae; (2) a statement of the candidate’s specific interest and purpose for
attending the seminar; and (3) a supporting letter from a departmental chair or
dean addressing the candidate’s qualifications and the institution’s potential
interest in having Holocaust-related courses taught.

Admission will be decided without regard to age, gender, race, creed, or
national origin. A maximum of twenty applicants will be accepted. For non-local
participants, the Center will (1) reimburse the cost of direct travel to and
from the participant’s home institution and Washington, DC, up to but not
exceeding the amount of $500.; and (2) defray the cost of lodging for the
duration of the course. Incidental, meal, and book expenses must be defrayed by
the candidates or their respective institutions.

All participants must attend the entire seminar.

Applications must be postmarked, emailed, or faxed no later than Monday,
March 15, 2010 and sent to: Victoria Barnett, University Programs, Center for
Advanced Holocaust Studies, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 100 Raoul
Wallenberg Place, SW, Washington, DC 20024-2150 (Email: vbarnett@ushmm.org; Fax: 202-479-9726).

For questions, contact Victoria Barnett at 202-488-0469 or vbarnett@ushmm.org.

All applicants will be notified of the results of the selection process by Monday, April 5, 2010.

This seminar is made possible by the Hoffberger Family Fund and by Joseph A. and
Janeal Cannon and Family.

Learn more about the Center for Advanced Holocaust
Studies »

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Wlodimir (Vladimir) Ledochowski- Holocaust: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies- Continued

Wlodimir Ledochowski S.J.

From Holocaust: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies

In any event, after some fifteen years the two researchers finally did beat a path to Breslin's door, and obtained the original NCR material, some sixty two documents in all. While some pieces of the puzzle are still missing, probably still locked away in Vatican archives, Passelecq and Suchecky now felt they were in a position to complete their analysis and present the "hidden" encyclical. Its full text, or at least the French language version of the document, published as an appendix to their book, conveys a somewhat different message that may have expected.

To begin, the draft encyclical is long-- nearly a hundred pages, in the French text -- written in the highly opaque language and triumphlist tone that characterized such pronouncements, faithfully reproducing Pius XI's characteristically tedious, repetitive, and even clumsy written expression. 39

Plunging into highly obtrusive discussion of doctrine and religious authority, the draft encyclical came to the Jews only after devoting more than half of its text to other matters, most importantly, the impact of modernity of humanity in general and on the Catholic understanding of race in particular. Missing from the document -- as indeed from all encyclicals of the era -- was reference to anything concrete: states, movements, policies, or leaders.

Intended to speak to the ages, to be received by princes of the church and accepted by generations of the faifful, the document deliberately exchewed the specifics of the here and now.

The starting pont of the draft was a lamentation about the state of the modern world, an important theme of twentieth-century Catholic discourse, memorably articulated in Pius XI's encyclical Quadragesimo Anno if 1931. The contemporary world was in a state of confusion and disorder, and the Church had an obligation to try to set things right. Human society was atomized and divided. Spirituality was in decay. Secularism was on the advance.

Industrialization tore masses of people loose from traditional environments. Materialism, private property, and private ambition had created a modern Tower of Babel. People looked too much to the state and bureaucracies to solve their problems. The result was a drift to totalitarianism, whether revolutionary or reactionary. Over all hung the threat of a war that would bring new catastrophe. "Our modern society is ill," said the draft, and modern panaceas only made matters worse. 40

Against the upheavals of modernity, the draft encyclical asserted fundamental principles. At the bottom lay the notion of the unity of humanity, based upon a human nature common to everyone-- a truth proclaimed with the full religious authority of the Church. All men were brothers, joined together for the redemption of he world. Racism negated these truths and thus assailed the universal values of morality and religion. Claiming that humanity was divided into superior and inferior races, racism contradicted truths about the fundamental unity of the human personality and destroyed the basis for human society. To be sure, there were differences among races, but such differences arose from environmental conditions (conditions du milieu), and were not innate, as racists claimed. 41

Rather then setting race over another, as sometimes was the case in colonialism, nations had an obligation to work for racial harmony: "men of good will should make every effort to eliminate public distinctions which are dishonorable and exclusive, in order that relations among social groups be governed exclusively by interracial justice and charity." 42 To be sure, there were limitations on interracial contacts "defined be sentiments of fraternity and prudence," particularly having to do with marriage. But on one issues, a sore point in relations with Nazi Germany because of the Nuremberg Laws, and soon to be a battleground in Fascist Italy, there could be no compromise: unwritten marriage preferences were one thing, but marriage was a sacrament instituted by Christ and was solely in the care of the Church."

State-imposed limitations on marriage between members of difference races were unjust, were insulting to races that were so singled out, and were an affront to human dignity. 43

The draft encyclical then turned to the subject of the Jews, noting how those who put race on a pedestal sometimes looked to divisions within races, and sought to purify their own race. In doing so, they launched a cruel campaign against the Jews, reminiscent of historic persecutions which had been repeatedly denounced by the Holy See, especially when such outrages had been conducted under the mantle of Christianity. In a remarkable passage, the draft spoke of the impact of antisemitic campaigns. "Once this persecution is launched, millions of people in their own native lands are stripped of the most elementary rights and privileges of citizenship, are refused legal protection against violence and robbery, are subjected to insult and shame

...People who fought so valiantly for their countries are treated as traitors; children of those who fell on the field of battle become outlaws, by the sole fact of their parentage ... This flagrant denial of elementary justice to the Jews leads to the expulsion of thousands into the hazards of exile, without any resources. Wandering from country to country, they are a burden to themselves and to humanity." 44

To be sure, the draft insisted, there was a Jewish question, but this was a religious and not a racial, national, or territorial question. Explaining, the text then repeated the traditional Catholic view of the Jews: having been chosen by God to prepare the way for the coming of Christ, the Jews rejected Jesus, violently repudiated him, and in collusion with others, had him put to death. Even after, "this unfortunate people ... condemned, it seems, to wander the face of the earth forever, had nevertheless been preserved from total ruin by the mysterious hand of providence, and has maintained itself over the cebturies up to our own time." 45 Having obstinately rejected Christ, the Jews have shown a constant enmity toward Christianity and as a result there has been a continuing tension between Jews and Christians.

Ardently hoping for their conversion, the draft maintained, the Church had nonetheless been attentive to the dangers to which contact with the Jews could expose the souls of its followers -- a concern that was certainly as urgent now as in the past. "As long as the unbelief of the Jews and their hostility toward Christianity persist, the Church must guard against the dangers that this unbelief and hostility pose to the faithful. The dangers are especially acute when they involve the promotion of revolutionary movements that seek to overthrow the social order and undermine respect for and love of God. To protect the faithful, therefore, the Church has "warned against relations with the Jewish community that were overly casual and that could introduce into Christianity customs and ways of perception that were incompatible with its ideals." The Church supported "energetic measures to protect the faith and protect society itself against the pernicious influences of error." 46

Antisemitism, however, was not the right way to achieve this objective. Its methods of persecution were incompatible with he authentic spirit of the Catholic Church. Moreover, antsemitism did not work. While some effort "to eliminate or reduce [the Jews'] antisocial or injurious character" was indicated, persecution made matters worse. Rather than eliminating the characteristics of the oppressed group, such measures only accentuated them.

Those who were unjustly persecuted often became persecutors themselves and their hatred of Christianity intensified. The victims of persecution turned to those who sought to stir up political, social or economic hatreds. What could be done thereof? There as no single way to deal with the Jews, because their circumstances differed throughout the world. For practical reasons, action was best left to the "interested parties". Defensive moves, for that was what they were, should eschew solutions that had to do with violence, force, or brutal means of coercion, and prefer "measures dictated by a healthy spiritualism." There was one guideline, however: "no solution is a true solution if it contradicts the strict requirements of justice and charity." 47

Concluding, the draft underscored the role of the Church in pointing out the road for society to follow. There was no denunciation of Nazi policies, no condemnation of specific anti-Jewish programs, and no indication that Fascist Italy was poised to adopt racial laws of its own. After nearly a hundred pages, the draft ended not with a flourish, but rather with a reiteration of Catholic teachings on "unity and peace: fruits of redemption."

Antisemitic polices were indeed condemned, but to our ears at least there is a distressing willingness to grant a wide berth to secular authorities acting against Jews, and to contemplate "energetic measures to protect the faith and morals of the faithful - language that was sometimes used to justify anti-Jewish campaigns in prewar Poland and Hungary, for example. In 1941, faced with wartime persecutions such as mounted by the Vichy regime in France, the Vatican was willing to countenance an entire anti-Jewish program as more or less acceptable- providing, of course, as a Vatican source indicated to the French ambassador to the Holy See sing the familiar refrain, that such laws were enforced with due regard to "justice and charity." Apparently, the Vatican thought that they were. 48

Read in context, the draft encyclical seems much more like a repetition of conventional wisdom of the Church on antisemitism than a call to arms against antisemitic forces in Germany and Italy. Indeed, antisemitism seems to have had a much less prominent place in the encyclical than the subsequent interest in this theme- for obvious reasons -- might suggest. Race was of central importance to John LaFarge and it was clearly of vital interest to him to have the Vatican comment authoritatively on this question. The American priest seems to have had little or no interest in Jewish matters, however. So far as one can tell from his biography and his published writings, he wrote nothing of substance about them- neither before nor even during the Second World War. The passages on the Jews were probably drafted by Gundlach. In 1930, as Passelecq and Suchnecky note, the German Jesuit had contributed an article "Antisemitismus" to a basic reference work, the Lexicon fur Theologie und Kirche, that essentially reflected Catholic thinking of the day, and these are the themes, that there was nothing new in Humani Generis Unitas about the Jews.

Under these circumstances, it is hard to imagine that the issuing of the World War would have made a great deal of difference encyclical on the eve of the Second World War would have made a great deal of difference- let alone that it might have "averted the Holocaust." Both in its condemnation of antsemitism and in its recitation of the traditional anti-Judaism of the Catholic Church - to be reversed only by the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s -- the draft articulated Catholic views that were well known. Using much more forthright language at times, and with words not heavily freighted by anti-Judaism, Pius XI repeatedly denounced the Italian Fascist government's embrace of racism and antisemitism in the weeks following the completion of the draft encyclical-- all to no effect, of course, just as Mit brennender Sorge, issued in 1937, had failed to arrest the Nazi tide. 50

The story of the draft encyclical "ends on a sour note" in the words of one reviewer, Frederick Brown. 51 Not only did the efforts of LaFarge and his colleagues miscarry, their challenge to fascist antisemitism also included Catholic teachings of contempt for Jews- the doctrine finally condemned by the Church only in 1965, with Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council's declaration on the Jews. The "lost encyclical" turns out not to have been a tragically spurned instrument that might have restrained Nazism, but part of a wider cultural distaste for Jews, despite its rejection of Fascist antisemitism. Our own quest for a "lost encyclical" thereby leaves us with an air of futility. This might have been turns out not to have been so different from what actually was. Psychologically, of course, the search for might have beens is understandable- and despite the lack of evidence that the Nazis could readily have been deflected from their murderous objectives towards the Jews. We will probably keep searching for other options considered and not taken, so long as we remain so unsettled by the catastrophe that really did happen, and not fully convinced by the explanation for it that we have.

Monday, June 2, 2008

Wlodimir (Vladimir) Ledochowski- Holocaust: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies

Wlodimir Ledochowski S.J.

John LaFarge S.J.

Since John Hagee had reportedly blamed the Roman Catholic Church for the WW2 holocaust of the Jewish peoples, I went to his site for a search there upon John LaFarge, the Jesuit who was involved with encyclical opposing racially based persecution that was reportedly suppressed by Wlodimir Ledochowski, and found nothing.

For the benefit of Hagee and anyone else, I did an internet search upon this and came across the book "Holocaust: Critical Concepts in Historical Studies", from which I quote below:

(excerpt)

The election of Pacelli made it all but certain that the draft encyclical prepared y LaFarge and his colleagues would never be issued by the Holy See. From the Vatican, Ledochowski's assistant wrote to LaFarge on March 16 saying that the draft had not yet had time to take the matter in hand. A few weeks later he advised LaFarge that the project was finished, and that the French and English versions would be returned. La Farge was to keep the whole process secret, Ledochowski insisted, although he could publish parts of the draft over his own signature-subject of course, to the regular censorship of the Jesuit Order. 29

Why did the encyclical fail to see the light of day as LaFarge and Gundlach so feverantly had hoped? As we have seen, the German Jesuit strongly suspected that the obstacle was Ledochowski, and that his motives were anti-communism. Of Polish aristocratic background, Ledochowski seemed to subsequent commentators a militant right-wing cleric who probably was disinclined to challenge the fascist dictators, particularly on questions of race and antisemetism. However, elements of his background and is reputation might suggest otherwise. 30 Known as a Polish patriot, Ledochowski was actually born in 1866 in the Lower Austrian village of Loosdorf, just west of Vienna, and his native language was German. Once a page at the court of the Empress Elizabeth of Austria, he was the son of Count Anthony Ledochowski, an exiled Russian Pole and cavalry officer in the Austro-Hungarian army, and Josephine Salis-Zizers, who was of aristocratic Swiss background. His distinguished family included Cardinal Miecyslaw Ledochowski, prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, a sister [Julia Ursula] who was superior of the Polish Ursulines, and another sister [Maria Teresa] who directed missionary work in Africa. Educated in both German and Polish instructions, Ledochowski was elected Superior General of the Jesuit Order in 1915, and served in his post for twenty seven years until his death in 1942. He lived almost continuously in Rome for this entire period.

Appreciated as a strict disciplinarian and keen administrator, committed to the strengthening [of] the Jesuit Order and opposing the excesses of modernism, Ledochowski was a dynamic and determined leader, with greater seniority in the high office at the Vatican even than the Pope himself. He seems to have no particular interest in Jewish matters, but was understood to be rather liberal on matters of race and religious diversity. "A great believer in the cooperation of Catholics with non-Catholics" observed The New York Times in its 1942 obituary; he worked untiringly to promote understandings between religious groups." 31 As Superior General, Ledochowski sought the appointment of native clergymen in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East and, again according to The New York Times, was "keenly interested in the rights and progress of the Negro in the United States."

There is no indication that he might have been driven by anticommunism to spare criticism of Germany under Hitler. To be sure, as Passelecq and Suchecky point out, Ledochowski had believed like so many others that Nazism was a passing phenomenon, and in a sense the Soviets were seen to pose a far more fundamental threat than the Hitlerian regime to the interests of the Church. 32 But on the other hand as the Fuhrer hold on power solidified[,] the dangers of Nazism became more apparent- a viewpoint confirmed by Obborne's Italian counterpart in August 1939. Indeed, Ledochowski was said to fear the pope's peace initiative of 1939 precisely because it suggested the Holy See was coming too much under German and Italian pressure. 33

Another hypothesis has it that Pacelli himself might have blocked the encyclical- based on the latter's disinclination to confront the fascist dictators on matters of racism and antisemitism and his concern to maintain the neutrality of the Holy See. The French Cardinal Eugene Tisserant's words in 1940 are often quoted, saying that history might reproach the Vatican with having followed a policy of "Selfish convenience" under Pius XII, in marked contrast to the policies of his predecessor, Achille Ratti. 34 Whatever the general assessment of Pacelli, however, no evidence has come to light that he sought to subvert the objectives of his predecessor whom he had faithfully served as secretary of state, or that he disagreed with the content of the draft encyclical. What seems much more important is the shifting context of the spring of 1939. A few weeks after the death of Pius XI[,] the British government announced a military guarantee of Poland, sharply reversing their hands-off approach to eastern Europe. To an even greater degree than before, the European powers seemed about to go to war. At the Vatican, might the newly elected pope have been determined to make a fresh effort to preserve the peace, putting aside Ratti's confrontationist approach, which after all had borne little fruit? Pacelli seems to have been determined to assist the European powers "not to destroy each other," as Owne Chadwick observes. This was not a rejection of Pius XI's cause, but the adaptation of a new priority. In Chadwick's words, "Vatican policy changed overnight." 35

Much of factual evidence cited above has been known, at least among a small circle of interested readers, since the end of 1972, when a story on he "hidden encyclical" appeared in the Kansas City-based, lay-edited National Catholic Reporter (NCR) by Thomas Breslin, then a twenty-eight-year old academic and former Jesuit seminarian who had come across the material in LaFarge's private papers. Unfortunately, discussion at the time drew only selectively from the draft encyclical itself and made some very doubtful claims about its import. "Pope Pius XI commissioned ... an encyclical attacking racism and anti-Semitism in June of 1938," the NCR article began; had it been published, the encyclical "would have broken the much criticized Vatican silence on the persecution f the Jews before and during the Second World War." Had the encyclical appeared, the associate editor of NCR further claimed, hundreds of thousands, even millions of lives might have been saved. Commenting more soberly for the NCR, Gordon Zahn, historian and author of German Catholics and Hitler's Wars, noted that "the heart of [the draft] encyclical, its whole reason for being written in the first place, was the explicit condemnation of racism and anti-Semitism." While not so bold in his claims as Connor Cruise O'Brien fifteen years later, Zahn was nevertheless certain that publication would have made an important difference. "Nazi anti-Semitic practices would not have stopped, but they [might] not have escalated to the stage of planned extermination; more important, Catholics in countries soon to be occupied might have been less ready to cooperate when the time came." 37

At the time, the NCR story whetted the appetite of Georges Passelecq, who eventually joined with Bernard Suchecky to write a full-dress account of the affair. In a not entirely convincing first chapter, the authors suggest that their hunt for the missing encyclical- a most elusive document, "like the Loch Ness monster," as one source described it to them -- was constantly obstructed by Church authorities. 38 It is not clear why they did not immediately seek out Breslin, who was named in the 1972 NCR story. ....

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Wlodimir (Vladimir) Ledochowski's Religious Demographic Cleansing- Prussia (including Dantsic, Pomerania and Silesia)

Post-War Poland: Convert to Roman Catholicism or be Expelled-

according to Helga Jonat Hecht


http://www.crystalbay.net/germany/elbing.htm

Strangely or not, in a complex scheme of events, the Polish Catholic church under Polish Primate Cardinal August Hlond aided the Soviet Russian communists at the time of takeover of German land and expulsion of German citizens from Prussia east of the Oder-Neisse River line replacing them with forced out people from Ukraine and Belarus, etc. When the city was given to Poland after '45 any remaining German protestants had to convert to Catholicism, change their names to Polish names and take on Polish identities or be expelled.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Common Effective Holocaust Denial via The New York Times Book Review: July 4, 2007
"In 1648 the peace of Westphalia brought the Thirty Years War to an end. Although the Europeans didn't know it, of course, this devastating conflict would prove to be the last of the Wars of Religion that had been tearing the continent apart since the start of the Reformation in 1517."
The common, effective holocaust denial, triumphed by the opening line of NY Times writer John Steele Gordon's July 4, 2007 review of Tim Blanning's book "The Pursuit of Glory": Europe 1648-1815".

The "last" of such Wars of Religion ending in 1648?!

What, for a start, was the 20th century Holocaust of Europe's Jewish peoples?

What was what criminal apostate Utashe Croatia did to the Serbs?

What was World War 2?


And what about Wlodimir Ledochowski?

Who will write the first book about "Hitler's Black Pope"?

Wlodimir Ledochowski
26th Superior General of the Jesuit Order
February 11, 1915 - December 13, 1942

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Wlodimir (Vladimir) Ledochowski World War 2 Master Mind

You have been taught to plant insidiously the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces, states that were at peace, and to incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and the sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace; to take sides with the combatants and to act secretly with your brother Jesuit, who might be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that which you might be connected, only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the condition fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means.
From Eric Jon Phelps Vatican Assassins; pages 505-510

http://www.focusnz.com/tractsforfree/VaticanAssassins.pdf

The one who doubts that World War II was “managed” by an unseen hand, must deal with the following facts that have baffled historians for years. The blunders or failures by those in power, always benefiting the purpose of the Vatican's Jesuits, are not by accident. A friend and graduate from Princeton has written the following for you, dear truth-seeker.

In books on Europe during World War II you can find many maps. But the one that would tell you the most about what happened, and in my judgment why it happened, exists in no book I have seen. That is a religious map of Europe before and after World Wars I & II. Now in viewing such a map, for all you hear about the holocaust of millions of Jews, you would immediately see a greater religious consequence of the wars: The complete suppression of the Orthodox peoples under the Inquisition of the Atheistic ideology of Communism along with that bulwark of Lutheran Protestantism — Prussia and East Germany.

Many decisions against peace and victory were made on both sides. The religious results indicated in such a map were predetermined, evidenced by the course of the war.

Therefore, it is worth briefly listing chronologically a few of the major ‘blunders’, so that one may, out of them, better evaluate the likelihood of a guiding hand directing the results of the war.

1919

The Treaty of Versailles imposed such an unfair burden of war repercussions on Germany, that when Clemenceau of France was asked by the press what they had given the world through the treaty, he said, ‘We have guaranteed another war in twenty years.’

1919

The United States, whose presence in the League of Nations could alone have prevented the Second World War, stayed out of the League.

1934

After the Reich’s Concordat with the Vatican, Hitler’s military planners made a mistake. This blunder occurred on the Russian front where two-thirds of the fighting took place and it proved to be fatal. Unlike the Brits, Hitler’s military planners ‘failed’ to build a long range, thousand-mile bomber to knock out Russian factories in the Urals.

1939

During the lull after the German invasion of Poland, and before the invasion of France known as “the phony war,” the negotiations conducted by Admiral Canaris of German Intelligence’s ‘Abwehr’ with England, through the Vatican as intermediary using the Pope’s diabolical Jesuit confessor and future Zionist, Robert Leiber, were disclosed through a Swiss newspaper, contributing to their ‘failure’.

1939 - 40

Knowing Norway was the geographical key to maintaining Swedish neutrality, whose steel was critical to the continuing of the German War Machine, and although in possession of intelligence, Churchill, as Lord of the Admiralty, ‘failed’ to attempt to defend Norway for over six weeks, doing too little, too late, and so Germany gained control of the Swedish steel needed for a long, protracted war.

1940

When The British Expeditionary Force, key to the defense of the British Isles, was cornered at Dunkirk on the French coast for three days it could have been wiped out, making Britain an easy prey for invasion. But Hitler ‘failed’ to do so, as he personally countermanded the requests of his Generals to attack and allowed three hundred and fifty thousand British to escape by boat changing the whole course of the war. [As “Stonewall” Jackson was forbidden by Jefferson Davis to capture Washington after the First Manassas, so the German Generals were forbidden by Hitler to destroy the British at Dunkirk indicating that both wars were to be Crusades – Papal wars of annihilation – against historically and predominantly White Protestant peoples.]

1940

In North Africa the Brits were defeating the Italians and looked to rout them entirely, but ‘failed’ in that they paused long enough to let the Germans reinforce the Italian positions, insuring a long North African Campaign and thereby preventing the invasion of Italy for years.

1941

Russia — We can hardly even try to do justice in a few lines to the colossal ‘stage set’ where most of World War II was fought, in the ‘former Soviet Union’; we will only try to state three points. First, one military analyst has written that despite the six-week delay in the invasion of Russia caused by the uprising of the Serbian people, the Germans had in August-September of 1941 a ninety-seven percent chance of conquering the Soviet Union and would have done so had it not been for ‘decisions’ or ‘blunders’ made by Hitler from Berlin over the objections of his Generals. Secondly, the German invaders were at first welcomed as liberators in much of the Soviet Union, notably the Ukraine. And, if they had intelligently enlisted the support of the peoples, rather than brutalize them via the Jesuits’ SS, they would have defeated Stalin in spite of Hitler’s wrong military decisions. Thirdly, Stalin had several intelligence sources telling him Hitler was about to invade and refused to act to prepare the defense, allowing a quick, deep penetration by the Nazis and the death of millions of Orthodox Russians and Jews. With Hitler’s subsequent ‘failure’ to follow up on this military position or bring the peoples enslaved to communism to his side, the combination of ‘blunders’ led to the maximum death and

destruction to the mostly Lutheran German Army and many millions of Orthodox peoples. The ‘blunders’ were made in obedience to and in accordance with the Jesuits’ Council of Trent and Extreme Oath.

December 7, 1941

Much has been written about FDR’s foreknowledge of the attack plans of the Japanese and his ‘failure’ to warn the Admirals at Pearl Harbor to insure that the United States could get into ‘the war’ on the side of England against Hitler. The significance of a very basic point is always neglected in these discussions. The United States declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, not on Germany! If Hitler, whose forces had just been bogged down and iced-in by the Russian winter, had not proceeded to commit one of the rashest acts in the history of world diplomacy, by unilaterally declaring war on the United States, Roosevelt would have been hard put to drag America into the war in Europe, which was not seen as necessarily closely connected to the War in Asia. Hitler got nothing for Germany out of his ‘foolish’ declaration. He ‘failed’ to even attempt to get Japan to declare war on Russia in the East, though that, by opening up a second front, would have made much more likely a German victory in the West over Russia. It was a staggering mistake, strongly indicative that Hitler danced to someone else’s tune — the tune of the Jesuits’ ‘infallible’ Pope with whom he had a Concordat.

1943

Churchill talked about “the soft underbelly” of Europe but instead directed the Allies up what amounts to “a porcupine ridge” in Italy. A rapid invasion could have been made through Montenegro and Serbia, which, being the only active guerilla war in Europe, was already holding down fifteen to twenty German Divisions, and was without the general uprising, which would have occurred immediately upon an Allied assault. This, however, would have brought the war to a close in early 1944, and would have put Eastern Europe in the hands of the West, neither of which was intended. Instead, Italy was invaded in about the hardest and most ignorant way. If victory had been the object, the Generals would have gone for the capital, Rome, landing amphibiously on any number of close shore points and driving straight to the city, taking the enemies’ natural base and mopping him up from there. Circling Sicily to take its capital, then letting the German army escape by boat unimpeded to the main peninsula [as Meade allowed Lee to escape from Gettysburg unimpeded] was only the beginning of the follies – ‘the blunders’ – tragic to so many allied soldiers and their families (including Shriner Freemason Bob Dole). For much of the next year, the Allies fought against stiff resistance up the spine of the mountains, an excuse being made that they lacked boats to make the strategically obvious landing near Rome. But that such was just an excuse is made plain by the way in which the one major amphibious landing in Italy at Anzio was conducted. They landed, and waited on the beach for forty-eight hours for the Germans, caught by surprise, to arrive. Reconnaissance jeeps went out, reaching the outskirts of Rome and the invasion force could have followed; but instead, the force stayed put so they could have several months of World War I style trench warfare which resulted in the deliberate sacrifice of all but six of Darby’s seven hundred U.S. Rangers, betrayed by their High Command.

The policies of Roosevelt and Churchill [Churchill, like Hitler, also advocated the 19th Century Jesuit doctrine of an “International Jewish Conspiracy”] – who throughout the war maintained an active personal correspondence with Mussolini (the man who restored the Temporal Power to the Jesuits’ “infallible” Pope) – were carried out to perfection, and the taking of Rome with its Vatican, the second capital of the Axis, was delayed until June 5, 1944, one day before ‘D-Day’. So rather than the Roman Catholic hierarchy being embarrassed for its support of the Axis, its shame was quickly driven off the front pages by the Normandy Invasion, the Allies having ‘failed’ to timely capture Rome.

July 1944 to April 1945

The Division of Europe, placing Lutheran Protestant Prussia and East Germany under the Inquisition of Atheistic Communism.

At least three major ‘blunders’ had to take place to keep the American-English Allies from taking Berlin and Eastern Germany. First, there was the failure to destroy the critical core of the German army in the West by the basic maneuver of an encircling action, the closing of ‘the Falaise Pocket’ in France allowing two hundred thousand Germans to escape while ensuring the blood-bath called ‘The Battle of the Bulge’. Secondly, there was the complete intelligence ‘breakdown’ on the side of the Allies that ‘failed’ to recognize that the beefed up and returned German Army was about to attempt the breakthrough known as ‘the Battle of the Bulge’. Thirdly, there was the prevention of General Patton’s Army from blitzkrieging into Berlin and East Germany (where the German people were ready to welcome Americans and surrender to them, as this was the hope of the German Army in the East, fighting fiercely against Stalin’s Red Army.) This deliberate forbidding of Patton to take Berlin (which would have resulted in surrender) combined with the all-out suicide assault by the Soviet Armies to take the Nazi capital (raping, pillaging and plundering all along the way), resulted in the slaughter of 600,000 more Russian soldiers than a sensibly conducted campaign would have killed, according to recent estimates by Russian intelligence sources.” {} 61[Emphasis added]

All these “failures” and “blunders,” causing all this heartbreak and unnecessary death, were deliberately committed in fulfilling the Jesuits’ Council of Trent – the heart of the Counter-Reformation – in mass-murdering the “heretics” of East Germany, Prussia and Russia — the Lutheran and Orthodox peoples. The remainder were subjugated or exiled to the concentration camps of Siberia, overseen by Jesuits like the American Walter Ciszek, being under the iron heel of the Jesuits’ Roman Catholic, Communist Grand Inquisitor – the savage Joseph Stalin.

Indeed, from 1914 to 1945, the Jesuits, pursuant to their Oath, killed nearly eighty million people through war, starvation and disease. Using their Masonic dictators, they waged relentless war on the Jews of Europe, Spanish Protestants, Catholic liberals, German Lutherans, Serbian and Russian Orthodox, Baltic Lutherans – in short – on all Protestant, Jewish and Orthodox “heretics and liberals” regardless of how many liberal Roman Catholic priests and people perished.


Wlodimir Ledochowski: Mission, Motivation, Geopolitical Chessboard

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Wlodimir (Vladimir) Ledochowski's Holocaust[s]

of the Jewish peoples:
to kill the Davidian blood line to stop Jesus Christ's Return




of the "liberal" educated Roman Catholics in Poland:
to kill those deemed insufficiently loyal to Rome



of the Serbs (non-Roman Catholic South Slavs):
to kill, convert to Roman Catholicism, or expel



of the Christian Orthodox:
via a war designed to maximize death




of the Protestants from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia of all ethnicities,


of the predominantly Lutheran Eastern Germans
in East Prussia, Danzig Free State, Pomerania, East Brandenburg and Silesia:
"'KU'lterkampf Revenge"


"Loyola's mandate was that the end justified the means, and any means of restoring Vatican domination was acceptable. The mission of the Jesuits was the extermination of all heresy and all heretics. Protestants and all other non-Catholics must be converted or eliminated - either sooner or later. The saying among the Jesuits was that "It is no sin to kill a heretic". This murderous justification apparently became their creed."

http://www.voxfux.com/features/jesuits1.html

Wlodimir Ledochowski: the Planned Hidden Holocaust