Originally posted by golddragnet
I don't fully understand why you say the dates don't add up, not being clear which dates you are refering to.
Sorry for being vague, I was referring to Cesare Borgia’s role in founding the Jesuits, I think he died in 1507 which would exclude him.
Originally posted by golddragnet
You also admit you can see they churches hand in it, but you seem to dismiss it as not so significant. If you were one of the victims you would
probably have a very different view of it, and if you felt the church had a hand in it you would want the world to know that the church was partly
responsible for their slaughter.
It is not my intention to downplay anyone’s murder. I am highly fortunate never to have lost someone I care for in this way or to ever really
suffered at all. I am sure my appraisal appears cold to you, I am emotionally detached from those that suffered, they are long dead and I can do
nothing for them. There is enough pain and suffering going on right now to shed tears for those that died 60 years ago or more.
In my opinion it is time that this period was opened up to intense scrutiny and the truth established. Too many people and organisations have failed
to accept their cupability in mass murder, and continue to promote ignorance to conceal their part.
It may be that the Cossacks felt that they were being handed over to be murdered because they were not Catholic, all I can do though is interprete the
available information and draw my opinion from it, I do not have a personal perspective as you do.
I believe that Stalin’s motivation for requesting their return was as I summarised, but the motivations of Roosevelt and Churchill are far more
questionable. It may be that they were directed to this decision by advisors in the RCC and I will keep an eye out for evidence to support this.
Roosevelt may be excused to an extent for his ignorance but Churchill certainly should have known better.
Whatever the reason, as you rightly point out, these people were sent to their slaughter. What is more they were dragged and beaten, kicking and
screaming, clearly demonstrating that they knew what they faced. No-one did anything to stop it. 70,000 Cossacks alone were ‘re-patriated’ in
this way. None of the parties involved has anything to be proud of.
Originally posted by golddragnet
… if you felt they had an involvement, you would want the world to know the churches involvement rather than simply having Hitler or "the Germans"
blamed for everything without a critical look at all others who were involved…
You are absolutely right, my only caution was that we should be specific about it and not all into the same trap.
Every side had so much to hide at the end of the war. Very few had unblemished records. Some of those secrets have come out and the very nature of
this information explains why we need to keep re-evaluating the period. Documents are being de-classified all the time but someone has to be looking
for that information, someone has to join the dots. If all people are ever looking for is confirmation that the Jewish Holocaust happened or didn’t
happen then nobody will ever see it. The denial acts as a smoke screen and everyone is complicit.
Until you pointed out to me the situation in the Balkans I was largely unaware of the Churches explicit role in the genocides in these regions, in
fact I was unaware of the Ustasha altogether. Much of this episode has been glossed over or even ignored.
It could be argued that the Cold War served as much to maintain these secrets as it did to stem the tide of Communism. In fact it is interesting to
note that a class suit has been filed against the CIA under the FOIA to release records concerning the confiscation of the ‘loot’ from the Ustasha
massacres by British and US forces. According to the suit, it was used to fund the expansion of the British and US intelligence agencies in order to
‘fight’ the Cold War.
In terms of the Balkans, the Nazis and the Catholic Croatians were bed-fellows. The Yugoslavian army fought the Nazis on the front and the Ustasha
from behind. They like the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary, welcomed the Nazis and were rewarded with their own ‘puppet’ government. All pretence
that they were merely fighting for the preservation of their way of life falls away with their over-eagerness to involve themselves directly in mass
murder. In Slovakia they paid the Nazis to take the Jews to the Death Camps, in Hungary and Croatia they pre-empted the Nazis in their actions
against the Serbs/slavs.
The history of Germany is fascinating and absolutely fraught with intrigue and dynastic rivalry. The counter-reformation, as you clearly state, was
most zealously fought in the Germanic regions and this mentality prevailed right up to the end of the World War 2. Whatever the motivations involved,
it is impossible to ignore the fact that the European Protestant nations were considerably reduced following the war. Nowhere is that clearer than in
Britain.
I personally believe it is the Austrian War of Succession (1740) that lays the ground works for the development of German Nationalism, especially
given the subsequent partition of Poland. By following this period through to Bismark I feel a clear pattern of behaviour develops, the rise of
Hitlerism becomes an inevitability. It is also with the First Partition of Poland that followed soon after that we can see a clear relationship
between the Prussians and the Jesuits.
I agree entirely with you that the role of Catherine the Great is highly significant. When her husband came to power he fell behind the Prussians (7
Years War) and changed the tide of Frederick's campaign. However with Catherine’s succession all Russian support was removed (despite
Catherine’s being the daughter of a Prussian general). Catherine and her husband were members of different factions within Russia, (it was an
acrimonious marriage by all accounts!!!) and this indicates that the Jesuits were highly influential in Catherine’s decision making. Historically
though they had their greatest success with female rulers and consorts, and often used this method to gain indirect influence over the men (which is
why I do see the parallel with Hitler).
All the best