NP Rank:
Vatican: Britain and US Knew about the Holocaust, and Did Nothing
The Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said that the British and American governments knew about Nazi's extermination plan but did nothing to stop them. In contrast, L'Osservatore claimed, the wartime Pope Pius XII tried to save as many Jews as he could in secrecy.
This editorial is the latest attempt to restore the reputation of Pope Pius, who earned the title of "Hitler's Pope" for his reluctance to denounce the Nazis. L'Osservatore said the accusations were "radically false".
The editorial quoted the diary of Henry Morgenthau Jr., the wartime US secretary of the treasury. It quoted that as early as August 1942, the US knew that "the Nazis were planning to exterminate all the Jews of Europe".
It cited a British Foreign Office cable that warned of "the difficulties of disposing of any considerable number of Jews should they be rescued from enemy occupied territory" and advised against allocating money for the project.
While the British and Americans prevaricated, Pius was engaged in "the only plausible and practical form of defence of the Jews and other persecuted people" by arranging for them to be hidden in monasteries, convents and other Catholic Church institutions, the newspaper claimed.
L'Osservatore said that although the Nazis rounded up and deported from Rome more than 2,000 Jews, another 10,000 were saved.
Marking the 50th anniversary of Pius' death last year, Pope Benedict XVI described him as a great pontiff who worked "secretly and silently" during the war to "save the greatest number of Jews possible".
Recommendations (63)
-
Blue Crush
Toronto, Canada -
generaldecay
Yorkshire, United Kingdom 
Anonymous user
-
Rhonda J Mangus
North Tonawanda, New York, United States -
albertacowpoke
Canada -
sara star
Halifax, NS, Canada -
Karen Hatter
All Locations, Everywhere, United States -
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan



Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (30)
at 09:41 on August 17th, 2009
This is very interesting, thank you. I am invariably cynical about the Vatican's motivations for these sorts of revelations and one question immediately springs to mind: why, after all of the years of allegations against Pius, is this coming out now? It seems rather dubious to me. Or is the argument that they have JUST uncovered the evidence?
at 09:45 on August 17th, 2009
FDR knew about the Holocaust and decided that it was best to defeat Germany rather then bomb the rail lines to the camps.
Personally, I would have bombed the rail lines.
at 10:01 on August 17th, 2009
It's common knowledge that the US government knew what was going on in Nazi-occupied Europe, but did nothing: isolationism was the order of the day, and had been since WWI.
Indeed, Hitler's war machine was big business for many non-German firms, such as IBM and Ford Motor Company. After the US entered the war in Europe, American troops found themselves fired upon by tanks running on American engines. The same as it ever was, and the same as it is today: arms trafficking is a massive money-spinner, the fallout of which is only truly considered when it's a political inevitability.
As is always the case, economic forces drove the US to war, and the moralizing came later. It sucks, but it's true.
at 11:15 on August 17th, 2009
So true, Jordan.
One of the most memorable incidents, leading up to U.S. entry into the war, was the May 1939 incident when, after being turned away in Cuba, 937 passengers on an ocean liner, the St. Louis, nearly all of them being Jewish, headed toward Miami and were turned away upon orders of the President himself, which made national news at the time.
That the U.S. knew what was going on is distressing.
at 11:29 on August 17th, 2009
That is a good point but it has nothing to do with economics. There was no "economic" reason for this.
This was pure anti-Semitism, old-school. Why didn't Canada take them in?
FDR also interned Japanese alien residents and Japanese-Americans and did the same with German alien residents and German-Americans, and Italian alien residents and Italian-Americans.
The man committed a lot of sins. None of them were in the "interests of capitalism" as such.
at 17:30 on August 17th, 2009
My comment was not offered in relation to economics, Roy.
Nothing in my comment suggests any relationship to economics.
I think you may have misunderstood the comment you have read.
at 14:25 on August 18th, 2009
Please this is nothing but crap to save face sixty years later. The Pope has insane influence. He should have publicaly denounced Hitler, period. Why do you think the US has had one Roman Catholic President? It is due to long standing fear that allegience will lay with the Vatican not the people of America.
And though they most likely knew of deportation, no Allied government was fully aware of the horrors of the Holocaust until it was too late. In fact America held some of the same practices with their internment camps. It was basically the same principals and arguments just without the drastic crimes against humanity.
at 23:55 on August 17th, 2009
Very good point, and unsurprising.
at 11:26 on August 17th, 2009
Excuse me, but Britain took the same stance about the concentration camps. The thinking was that bombs dropped on camps would be more effective dropped on (for example) ball-bearing factories by destroying what was at the center of the Nazis' capacity to conduct war.
In fact, without Speer's genius, the destruction of the ball-bearing plants would have caused them to surrender way earlier. Speer saved the German war machine from destruction and let the Nazis continue the war.
We were in the war. The charge of "isolationism" is irrational.
Further, the American companies, such as Ford and IBM, had no control over their German branches at that point. And, they reaped no profits as well.
What "economic" forces drove us to war?
And what economic forces drove Canada with the US?
The "economic" forces that drove us to war against the Japanese were not "economic" on our part. We stopped selling them oil and scrap metal so as not to be complicit in feeding their war machine as the Japanese "raped" Nanking.
That cut-off sparked the bombing of Pearl Harbor. So, in fact, it was not our economic interests that sparked the war, but our moral interests and the Japanese own "economic" interest in their war machines.
As far as war with the Germans, WWII, went, we did not want to get into another European war. It was the Brits and French who set up WWII by screwing over the Germans unconscionably, destroying the German economy with demands for gold.
Our American president Wilson was against all that.
Do you study anything up north there that is not solidly based in anti-American sentiments by leftist teachers? :)
at 13:52 on August 17th, 2009
As far as war with the Germans, WWII, went, we did not want to get into another European war. It was the Brits and French who set up WWII by screwing over the Germans unconscionably, destroying the German economy with demands for gold
Nothing at all to do with Germany invading Poland or the expansion across Europe by military means then?
All down to the reparations due to Germany starting the first world war?
Sometimes, Roy, I despair at what you write.
at 14:11 on August 17th, 2009
There you go..Mr. Cynic ...many despair at what you write too but , who really cares for Code of Conduct has not been cited as you always are personal to my brother. Why can't you let the readers decide as they read who should be " despaired about?"
at 17:36 on August 17th, 2009
Roy is your brother! Oh my goodness that explains so much! Such unusual, distinct, non-linear and unique world pictures. The ego dominance. It was just too random to be chance
at 21:13 on August 17th, 2009
A revelation, indeed, yet - Roy and I have locked swords on a few points, why that would contravene the CoC, I have no idea - Roy is a robust debater, and I, for one, commend him on that.
The other side to this is that I, too, am a robust debater - and if your brother - at any time, feels I have attacked him all he would have to do is contact me directly via a PM. He hasn't, I can assure you of that.
As to your question about the readers deciding - well, to do that you must have something to decide about, do you not?
If I have hurt your sensibilities about discussing talking points with Roy, then I apologise, if Roy should decide that he would rather me not say anything in response to his writings then all he has to do is say so and I shall not.
I hope that clears it all up for you. But if NP wants to go forward in the world of news reporting in the world of the citizen journalist, which, again is a tremendous idea and I welcome it with open mind and arms, you will have a cross of opinion as you do in the 'real world'. I have always tried to be civil to all no matter what their opinion or how much I disagree with them.
The powers that be have not said I have overstepped the mark - so I will defer to them.
But thank you for this opportunity to reply to you.
PS - I have even recommended one of Roy's pieces, if that should give you any reflection.
at 07:02 on August 18th, 2009
Roy has never in the past nor will he in the future need me to "protect" him in any way. You missed the point. You and rng both cannot begin to "explain " any revelations. Funny do you think Roy wanted me to post that?
You actually take a lot of time to reply in a very gentlemenly way I must say which I did not expect.
I intend to go back into my area of expertise and not read anymore of this .
at 19:06 on August 18th, 2009
Oh I have a whole instruction manual of explanation. However, I will admit it is conjecture. Unlike your brother, I do not profess that I can diagnose remotely based only on the written word and without subject response. That is the difference..small but so vitally important.
I suspect Roy was mortified you wrote that - he will however contradict me, he knows no other route...I conjecture
at 21:23 on August 18th, 2009
That diagnostic technique seems to be a 'familial' trait, Rng.
at 10:25 on August 18th, 2009
FWIW you said "I despair at what you write" (you know that) which is a criticism of his contributions to the discussions, not his person itself.
It's like if I said "the world is flat, not round" you could say "that statement is idiotic, why do you think that"? and that's fine but you'd be stepping over the line if you said "If you think that, you're an idiot".
(I know you are aware of this it's really for the other poster
signed, the Stoic.
Gotta smile once in awhile.
at 19:21 on August 18th, 2009
If someone says something stupid once, it may be an aberration
If someone says something stupid consistently, then they are probably stupid
If you question a consistently stupid statement maker and you get a consistently stupid defense in response, then they are definitely stupid.
But I know you are aware of this.
As they say in tennis, the ball doesn't lie.
BTW I think your reasoning is absolutely sound. I just don't think you had all the history by which to gauge the comment contextually
at 17:10 on August 17th, 2009
The Iraq reparations to Kuwait are also causing such tensions. It could well be a deja vu
at 21:08 on August 17th, 2009
I can't see it developing into WWIII - but there will be tensions there, yet if the oil revenues go up in Iraq I can see those paid off in a few days.
at 14:33 on August 18th, 2009
Use your brain. Usually I agree with what you have to write. However, Germany did not start the First World War. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia after the heir to the throne was murdered by a Serbian terrorist. Russia was then bound to declare war on Austria-Hungary. This then lead Britain and France also being bound by treaty to declare war on Austria-Hungary. Germany had a treaty with the Austro-Hungarian Empire and therefore was bound by oath and honor to enter the war. Italy chickened out until later and broke its treaty by fighting against Austria-Hungary.
Germany most certainly did not start the war. The french demanded such reparations due to them getting their buts handed to them in the Prussian Wars. Britain and Italy were broke and needed to get money from someone who lost. Woodrow Wilson did nothing but talk.
at 11:16 on August 17th, 2009
The best work is often done quietly.
at 13:47 on August 17th, 2009
While it is probably true that Britain knew about the death camps you also have to look at the far bigger picture.
Britain virtually stood alone up and until the US came into the war, before that the US had taken a decidedly "we are neutral" stance. This on he back that the US didn't want to get into another European war.
Amazingly people seem to forget that the was a little thing called the Battle of Britain raging after the British Expeditionary force was pushed back and almost annihilated at Dunkirk.
With the other members of the Empire Britain tried to hold of what some thought as inevitable invasion.
Nazi Germany was ready for a war - Britain was not, and, to be totally honest, history proves that Britain and the British Empire did not want war!
The Vatican coming out now and in this bizarre PR exercise attacks both Britain and the US, and by default all those who were involved in WWII I find somewhat disingenuous.
I have a personal stake in the liberation of Rome - my father was there!
This adds to one of a plethora of reasons I detest the Church of Rome.
This Pope was a Nazi sympathiser as far as I have read - and nothing, so far, has changed my mind.
at 14:37 on August 18th, 2009
He probably was a sympathizer. If not he did not have the audacity to stand up for the very virtues his church is supposed to represent. Therefore he might as well been a sympathizer. Apathy is death. And at times religion the opiate of masses. I concure the PR makes no sense and had no base either in fact or logic.
at 18:34 on August 17th, 2009
Its very interesting that Germany was mostly a catholic strong hold, that Hitler was a christian or at least went to Christian church services.
Its also interesting that the catholic church after doing these so called marvelous things in reference to Jews then helped NAZI's escape war crimes. I think the truth is that the Jews were helped by members of the catholic church without authority from the Vatican that the Vatican did help NAZI's escape their war crimes. But now the Vatican is pushing out bullshit and saying the pope at the time was behind the save the Jews plan. Its of course a bid to hide the reality and the shame of the real channel took concerning Jews. White wash!
Yes I expect both UK and US did know about the genocide plans and knew Jew's where going to the gas ovens. Bombing the railway lines would of course been a good idea but did UK have the ability to reach the targets in the first stages of the war, I will think you will find they did not until much later and in fact some of those lines where targeted and disrupted. Britain was ill prepared for that war and US made a great profit from that factor during and after.
Roy please do not try to white wash USA corporate interest in Germany before World War II as it had great interest in fact upto the point of Perl Harbor. In fact the British infuriated America on more than one occasion by bombing factories US said they should not in Germany. US played a two bladed game prior and a milder one during the war.
Most of the loans to Hitler's Germany came from US sources and US corporates made big profits out of that war, the martial plan was funded mostly out of profits made out of the war and Britain swapped sovereign states and Britain paid back the money borrowed and the interest was a very nice little earner for USA for many years after the war.
The War actually swayed power from the British empire world power into USA hands and this was all part of the USA global chess game plan. With interest I now watch a modern day chess plan that see's, EU and a strong Germany waiting in the wings whilst China pulling down USA by its greed.
I sometimes wonder who really won the last world war, my mind wanders to the international corperate companies and feel that they are the ones that will chose the next world super power and new empire. At a bet its a German led Europe the 6th Reich.
The Vatican has been evil and will always be evil but amongst its priest around the world there will always be kind considerate and caring hero within the fold. Similar to those ones that did help the Jews. I salute the Hero's and not the Vatican.
at 03:53 on August 18th, 2009
Babel, Germany never had more then one third Catholics, at least not since 1576 and the 30 year war that is. Nor does it have more then one third Protestant. You may confuse Germany with Italy here or Austria.
The Money came from the US for the larger part yes.
at 20:04 on August 18th, 2009
Considering Protestantism started in Germany and many many wars were fought to oust Catholocism I must disagree with you when you say it was a Catholic stronghold. And Hitler was not a christian. His mom was Jewish wasn't she? He was a social bigot of a nationalist. His religion was the state and his holy book his own insightful but quite disturbing autobiography.
I do agree that this new PR is absolute bullshit. That pope will forevr be famous for doing nothing at a time the world needed him to weild his excessive power and authority the most.
at 23:34 on August 17th, 2009
When I see footage of Pius storming the beach at Normandy in his funny hat and fancy Italian shoes, I will take this criticism seriously.
If the church really gave a damn about humanity they'd allow contraceptives, but they are engaged in this silly "we're number one, yay!" race against Islam and Judaism, the main strategy of which seems to be proliferation of its members' offspring. (Islam makes no bones about this and even has a website with the count!)
While I do think the unrestrained population growth is irresponsible, in light of repeated events like this:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/08/200981162630289451.html
A child and four women are among at least eight Christians killed after 40 houses and a church were set ablaze amid riots with Muslims in eastern Pakistan, officials have said.
Dozens of people were also injured in the violence in Pakistan's Gojra village, which erupted after allegations surfaced that a Quran had been defiled, the officials said on Saturday........
......
"Some people blamed the Christians for the desecration of the holy Quran," he said adding that the accusations were "baseless".
Mohammad Saleem, a correspondent for The Dawn newspaper in Pakistan, told Al Jazeera: "The clashes erupted when a boy of a Christian community allegedly desecrated a few pages of the holy Quran.
............
"All the dead are Christians. I was told that they were burned alive."
...........
I gotta root for the C team. Religion of peace strikes again!
(you think maybe that boy was grounded for awhile?)
at 20:07 on August 18th, 2009
Very good point. Would be quite a sight. And true again christianity especially the Roman Catholic church has caused most of the beef throughout history. It is quite ironic considering Christ preached love and tolerance. And yet they wonder why the youth of today vastly cannot identify with them?
at 23:28 on August 18th, 2009
I wouldn't blame christianity so much for the violent past, it was christians and they may claim the name of christianity for their deeds, but their faith had little to do with it.
To explain why that isn't hypocrisy against my posting the events perpetrated by followers of the "religion of peace" well the cause of that was their fanatical protection of the vanity of Mohammed and the Quran. It is done for their faith, whereas 9/11 actually (IMO) has no rational reason to be blamed on OBL's devout Islamic faith, but his desire for personal glorification as a leader of muslims, and the more selfless intent of avenging wrongs to muslims (in his view) by the west.
It is interesting BTW that so many people say "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" which may be true enough, yet the fact remains that 9/11 had everything to do with Iraq.
2 of the 3 grievances cited by Bin Laden in his original call for Jihad were directly related to Iraq, (american troops in KSA and enforcing the no fly zone and the hardships on Iraqi Muslims caused by sanctions) and even the third by 2002 was directly influenced by Saddam (the violence in the Gaza striop and west bank, fueled by Saddam's terrorist bounties) So after 9/11 we look at the Iraq policy and say "maybe continuing this indefinately is a bad idea..."
Don't know why I'm rambling along about that, but I'm done.