Summations Only

What is Phayer's evudence?

The link I posted here goes to a truncated Wikipedia page instead of the one I intended to link, but that page is still available if you put "Ratlines" in Google and then scroll to the first Wikipedia entry that has the same address as the one linked here. That's the complete page I linked and there are two footnotes to Phayer. The second goes to a page in a book, and if you scroll down a few paragraphs you'll find a reference to a document in the Argentine archives reporting that the Pope was behind the Ratlines. But it's secondhand information so you can ignore it, which I'm sure you have every desire to do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

"Superiority" doesn't necessarily enter into it. Racism is the idea that people should be treated differently because of their "race". Immigration isn't by country; it's by individuals. And it isn't possible to predetermine who's going to make the greatest contribution, or whose children are going to make the greatest contribution. Are you suggesting that we should emulate Iran? Well, it pretty much is. You said yourself that there is really no such thing as "race" any more. You seem to be trying to narrow the definition of racism to exclude almost everybody. As I said to Faith, it's worse to actually be a racist than to be called a racist. You guys should stop worrying about what people call you and start checking yourself for traces of racism. Maybe you should take a look at US history around the turn of the twentieth century and a little place called Ellis Island. Again, take a look at US history. They did have a civil war and it was about racism. You're talking about the fascist Trump pandering to racists. You're shooting yourself in the foot.

Post the link to the page in the book. I do not see any footnotes that link to a page in the book. The book does not seem to be available online.

Here's the link to the book:Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust - Google Books

The pages referenced in the footnotes are not available in this preview. You made this statement. You should be able to just post the link. You claim to have linked to this info from the book. Why can you not provide it?

The link I just posted in Message 185 goes straight to the page in the book.

It's footnote #4

This is not the Phayer book. This is someone debunking him. Not much of a smoking gun. I have no idea why you would think this would support your contention. The writer makes it clear that the evidence "supposedly" exists and it "supposedly" was written in the name of Pius XII. Until that letter can be verified there is no evidence directly linking the Pope to the ratlines.

quote:

---

The second goes to a page in a book, and if you scroll down a few paragraphs you'll find a reference to a document in the Argentine archives reporting that the Pope was behind the Ratlines.

---

No, it doesn’t claim that. The letter - if it exists, and if it is genuine and if it was correctly described was written by “Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini“. If I have identified the man correctly the conversation must have taken place somewhere in the years 1959-63 when Giovanni Battista Montini was a Cardinal. He was not at the time the letter was supposedly written, although he was a senior aide to the Pope.The letter, is described as being in the Pope’s name and supposedly asks the Argentine government to take in people suspected of aiding the Nazi cause. We do not have the text of the letter but this would be an odd way to describe high-ranking Nazis.As the author admits “...in itself this document alone would not confirm the ratline thesis”

So what you’re saying is that a senior aide to the Pope may/not have written a letter to the Argentine government to take up Nazis.What does the Vatican have to say? The Argentine Government? US Intellegence (do you really think we wouldn’t know)? Maybe not to a diplomatic Vatican.

I did not say the book was by Phayer, it's simply a book that references him, but the mention of a letter in the name of the Pope to the Argentine government asking them to take in Nazis -- which I told you was secondhand information since the original letter wasn't available to the author of the book -- is a very interesting claim it seems to me, suggesting there probably is a real letter behind it. But I knew you wouldn't accept it, as I said when I first brought it up.

Some years ago I started a blog to collect information on the Roman Church. I didn't keep it up for long unfortunately but I did make a list of books on the subject that I hoped to read although I only read a few of them. I just looked at that list wondering if any of them cover the Nazi events and I really can't tell. Avro Manhattan's book The Vatican Holocaustis about Croatia, although chapter 14 seems to mention the ratlines, and it strongly implicates the US by the way:The blog
Roman Catholicism & Other Antichrists & Apostasies
Avro Manhattan book:
WELCOME TO THE REFORMATION ONLINETHE MOST
Chapter 14 of that book:
WELCOME TO THE REFORMATION ONLINETHE MOST Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I am saying that a paper within the book says that if the letter was confirmed to say what was claimed then it should be considered sufficient evidence of Vatican involvement to require further investigation.Given that there is no more information on the letter - by my estimation more than 50 years since it was mentioned - I don’t think we can be certain that it even existed.We don’t know who it was meant to cover either. People suspected of collaboration with the Nazis would fit the description well - and may indeed have been in real fear for their lives.

Well, shucks.Tying the Vatican to the Nazis, especially as the Nazis had lost and were looking for escape, fits my moral indignation needs.Gods church on earth playing wink-wink with the Nazis is an outrage of the most basic human values and gives me a great deal of reason to flip off at the Vatican, which is something I rather enjoy doing.But now you tell me it is not so. Damn.Well, ok. Back to Irish babies and alter boys.