It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: New Pope Was Drafted Into Hitler Youth and German Infantry in WWII

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
It is interesting though, isn't it? That one would choose such a man as their direct conduit to their God?

I mean, do you really want someone who wasn't willing to die for their beliefs and convictions in such a role?


I think you're totally on the mark there.
Especially for the Cardinal said to be a champion against moral relativism.


Not to mention, how about reaching out to Jews with your choice in a religious leader, huh? Nice message. Of course, so far he's only promised to "Unite Christians" under his papacy.

I seem to recall another german on a balcony promising adoring throngs much the same thing. (stolen from Dennis Miller)




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Gazrock
Hardly the one I'd choose to be such a conduit....

While such a history shouldn't preclude one from many many roles in life, I'd think that "Pope" should have a bit more stringent requirements, and I'm not even Catholic or Christian.

Too bad 'they' didn't check in with you?

From Moses to Soloman many religious leaders chosen by God had been warriors. Obviously the Cardinals didn't share the misgivings of some posters.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Just "Following Orders..."


Originally posted by Nerdling
Joining the Hitler Youth was mandatory after 1939.

It was not mandatory before that.


Originally posted by Gazrok
It is interesting though, isn't it? That one would choose such a man as their direct conduit to their God?

I mean, do you really want someone who wasn't willing to die for their beliefs and convictions in such a role?

Seems to me he's made a history of taking the path of least resistance. First joining youth program, then allowing himself to be a soldier, and then furthermore deserting when defeat was eminent.

According to the timeline, he became a priest only when it was obvious the Nazis were losing.

Hardly the one I'd choose to be such a conduit....

While such a history shouldn't preclude one from many many roles in life, I'd think that "Pope" should have a bit more stringent requirements, and I'm not even Catholic or Christian.

Just a thought.


Just to clear things up, so nobody gets the wrong idea from these posts.

The Hitler Youth became mandatory in 1938. Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941 and "joined", along with a total of about 8 million other German children.

He was a 14 year old kid, not one you'd want to become a martyr. He dances around with a swastika on his shoulder because the guy with the funny moustache who controls the military told him to.

When he was 16, he was drafted (with many of his classmates) to serve AA batteries at varying place around the Reich. In at least one instance, he was a telephone operator. I do doubt that the later in the war it got, they would have put him into a non-combat role, so in all likelihood he served some sort of mundane function the entire time. If any has more info on this, it'd be appreciated.

In 1944, he was drafted again, to dig anti-tank embankments in defense of the inevitable Red Army offensive. This is different from the conquered people forced to do the same work...how? He was around 17 at this time.

A month or two later, he was drafted again into the infantry. He never saw combat and deserted (like much of the Army was doing).

Now, according to his family, he wanted nothing other than to be a priest. Obviously, he wouldn't enter the seminary at age 14, and he was a bit preoccupied at that time with being drafted and all. But when the war was ove,r he entered the deminary with his brother.

You can dislike Ratzinger for any number of reasons. His hardline conservative beliefs, for one. I don't liek them either. But please, don't make it sound like he's some sort of Nazi sympathizer when he went through exactly what millions of other Germans went through during the war. You're supposed to be denying ignorance here, not helping to spread vitriol. Now, if you have something substantial, then by all means bring it up. But so far I've just heard rhetoric about "Following Orders" and "only changing when the Nazis were losing", and some sort of claim that a teenager should martyr himself for his beliefs (I know everyone here would take a bullet rather than answer the phone). This all without taking into account anything other than knowing it will annoy a few Catholics and up your posts. None of us lived back then, none of us were drafted, none of us know what it's like to be just old enough to drive and then shoved into a uniform and sent off to die. I'm not going to judge him because, frankly, I probably would have done exactly what he did.

I've read nothing here that I haven't read or heard a dozen times over the past week. And it all sounds the same- trying to make an issue out of nothing. Make an issue out of something important, you'll come out sounding alot better.


[edit on 4-21-2005 by Esoterica]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   
There is absolutely no reason to disparage the pope at this stage of the game. Those who would prefer a pope who would sell out the principles of the church should remain remain in whatever spiritual state they are currently in or simply find a faith that better suits them.

[edit on 05/4/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
by reading many posts in this thread many would exclude some american from the job as pope because they were drafted to fight in viet nam. or anyone who would be drafted possibly to fight in iraq. hello drated, being drafted is NOT joining up volintarily. same thing with the hittler youth, it was also manditory. he would have been a CRIMINAL had he not followed the LAW of the time.

i am totaly amazed that many have not picked up the point that he DESERTED as a point to critisize with. after all how many here would condem an american (or country 's citizen where you reside), as a TRAITOR? certainly this was actualy a CRIME. just goes to show that we tend to be biased in our opinions at times.
natzi germany was bad therefore desertion is a good thing. if he was an american who deserted for example everyone woud be screaming that he was not fit for the job because of it. after all america was on the "good" side.

also we must remember that acording to what i believe is catholic docturn, that if he repents of his sins they are to be forgiven. that means gone, non existant, finished, over with, FORGIVEN and not held against him. this could also have been aplied if he was hittler himself. as long as he repents and asks forgiveness, god will forgive those sins. i again am not sure, but i suspect that this is one reason a pope chooses a new name to be known by. so that past sins willnot be equated with the man in his position of pope.

we shall have to see what he does in his new possition before we pass judgement. (even though we realy should leave that up to god:@@
. i think he may be a good thing for the catholic church. he is considered to be a "hard liner", this means that he may try to stop the church from wattering down their beliefs to better suit public opinion. this is a good thing. ANY religion should not change their beliefs just to suit the way society is going. any change should be from within, not without. i must say that i do not feel that the catholics are right in many respects, but by the same token i have to admire them for trying to keep their teachings pure. i would loose a lot of my respect if they were to put in changes just to suit society's views.

leave his past in the past, it is only the presant and future that mater. the only time his past should be brought up is if he starts to do things like the natzi's did. other that that his past has helped to shape him and his beliefs. it should not be held against him in the least, even moreso that he seems to have not done anything realy wrong. who cares if he has killed? do we condem every soldier that has killed in service to their government? if he did kill alied soldures it would not matter. he WAS only doing his duty to his government. just as the soldures in iraq right now are. should we condem all of them for killing?



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join