No. A good historian reports what people said and did. Revisionists publish something else entirely.
Posted on 04/19/2005 11:56:55 AM PDT by MadIvan
Cardinal Ratzinger on the Banishment of God From Public Life
Receives St. Benedict Award for Promotion of Life and Family
SUBIACO, Italy, APRIL 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger says that believers are faced with the tendency to banish God from public life and confine him to the "subjective realm of past residual cultures."
On April 1, when receiving the St. Benedict Award for the Promotion of Life and the Family in Europe, conferred by the Subiaco Foundation for Life and the Family, the dean of the College of Cardinals delivered an address on the present crisis of culture and identity, especially in the Old World.
After stating that "moral force has not grown apace with the development of science but, on the contrary, has diminished," Cardinal Ratzinger explained that "the most serious danger at this time is precisely the imbalance between technical possibilities and moral energy."
He gave two examples: the threat of terrorism and the possibility to manipulate the origin of human life.
The then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—almost all heads of Vatican dicasteries lost their posts when John Paul II died— pointed out that "Europe has developed a culture that, in a way previously unknown to humanity, excludes God from the public consciousness, either by denying him altogether or by judging that his existence cannot be demonstrated, is uncertain and, therefore, somewhat irrelevant to public life."
An attempt is being made "to build the human community absolutely without God," the cardinal stressed.
"The rejection of reference to God is not an expression of tolerance which wishes to protect non-theist religions and the dignity of atheists and agnostics, but rather an expression of the desire to see God banished definitively from humanity's public life, and driven into the subjective realm of residual cultures of the past," he warned.
For the cardinal, the starting point of this view is "relativism," which has become "a dogmatism that believes it is in possession of the definitive knowledge of reason, and with the right to regard all the rest as a stage of humanity, which has basically been surpassed, and which can be suitably relativized."
At this rate, Cardinal Ratzinger added, we will no longer "be able to affirm that homosexuality, as the Catholic Church teaches, is an objective disorder of the structure of human existence."
"The fact that the Church is convinced of not having the right to confer priestly ordination on women, is now considered by some as irreconcilable with the European Constitution," he added.
In the final part of his address, Cardinal Ratzinger explained that "we need roots to survive and we must not lose them from sight if we do not want human dignity to disappear."
"Only creative reason, which has been manifested in the crucified God as love, can really show us the way," he said. "We need men who will keep their sight on God, learning there" what "true humanity" is, as "only through men touched by God, can God again be close to men." ZE05041102
1. It's a fact,
2. It makes logical sense, and [...]
We get facts from books. I quoted mine. You did not, -- you reflect the common belief that the Axis were wrong in everything. I explained the logic of events amply.
3. The most authoritative source WHO WAS THERE [Kaiser Wilhelm] said that, specificly.
I explained that about four times. The Kaiser said that diplomacy succeeded in preventing the war, then, after his generals explained their war doctrine, changed his mind, as he should have. When your military tells you that they cannot defend the country unless the country mobilizes right away, you listen. All that you quote shows is that the Kaiser was trying to find a peaceful resolution till the very end.
Keegan is a historical revisionist, as are you.
A job of a historian is to examine evidence afresh and make his own conclusions. A good historian is a revisionist. Now, the term is sometimes used to identify someone with a preconceived, usually ethnic, bias, who makes the facts fit the bias. None of that here: Keegan is English. I am just quoting him, but I have no attachment of any kind to Austria; ethnically, I am Russian.
No. A good historian reports what people said and did. Revisionists publish something else entirely.
You've explained nothing save for your own misunderstanding.
To wit: Mobilization for the Balkan War of 1912 did *not* lead to a Great Power conflict. Two years later, mobilization did not have to mean world war, either.
That you claim otherwise shows how far off-track you've gotten.
You got your "facts" from a revisionist book writer who wasn't even there at the time.
In contrast, I quoted the ACTUAL PEOPLE INVOLVED.
That is what Keegan did. You don't like it, -- prove the facts were different.
Mobilization for the Balkan War of 1912 did *not* lead to a Great Power conflict
Russia did not mobilize in 1912. The conflict was contained to the Balkans, of which no one ever cared.
I quoted the ACTUAL PEOPLE INVOLVED
Need a fifth time? The Kaiser was convinced to change his mind. And by the way, what was the context and the time when the pronouncement you quote was made?
Austria delivered an ultimatum to Serbia on 23rd July. Its harsh terms were intended to be unacceptable, for, in effect, they demanded that Austria be given control over Serbian internal affairs.
Next day, Germany caused consternation in Russia, Great Britain, and France when it delivered notes to each, stating that the Austrian demands were fair and which also warned these Countries not to interfere in Austro-Serbian affairs.
Unexpectedly, Serbia acceded to most of the Austrian demands, and, on hearing this, the Kaiser, thinking that threats had been enough, was satisfied.
Too late! Momentum now controlled reason and the destinies of young men moved inexorably from the light into the shadow of death. A range of threats, proposals, understandings, notes, and reports all jumbled together and produced no solution.
The Explosion
At 11 a.m. on 28th July Austria pre-empted further negotiation and declared war on Serbia.
The generals of all the rival Continental nations had their war plans, and military necessity and the mobilisation of armies now took precedence over the last hopes of politicians. On 31st both the Emperors of Russia and Austria ordered a mobilisation of all their respective armies. Germany started mobilising on 1st August.
http://users.tibus.com/the-great-war/road_to.htm
Unexpectedly, Serbia acceded to most of the Austrian demands, and, on hearing this, the Kaiser, thinking that threats had been enough, was satisfied.He glosses over the part about rejection of the central demand, and attaching conditions to others, thus perpetuating the myth of Serbian compliance with the ultimatum. He also does not mention the fact that Serbia mobilized and Russia formally entered the state of preparation for war, before Serbian response was delivered.
Russia didn't mobilize until July 31st. You haven't really grasped the timeline, have you?!
As for Serbia mobilizing, that was Austria's intention when it placed the 48 hour time limit on its ultimatum. Of course Serbia mobilized after recieving such harsh demands, as they could only be viewed as an Austrian excuse for war due to their undiplomatic nature. Well, Austria got what it wanted. Serbia did indeed mobilize.
But Austria got two things for which it *didn't* want or expect, as well. The first was that Serbia caved to 3 of Austria's 4 main demands, and suggested that the 4th Austrian demand be submitted to the Hague for arbitration. This acceptance of Austria's harsh terms (no term was outright rejected per Austria's plan) was unexpected.
Austria's second surprise was that after it invaded tiny Serbia, that the Serb Army roundly beat the Austrian invasion force. It took another full year, and the combined might of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria to finally conquer Serbia.
I did not say anything about Russia's mobilization. I said, "Russia formally entered the state of preparation for war", which it did.
On the morning of 25 July [...] [t]he Tsar, though not yet ready to proclaim mobilisation, had announced the preliminary "Period Preparatory to War" at eleven o'clock.(post 249)
Sure you have. You've just been caught being disingenious about it.
You claimed, for instance, that it was the mobilization that led to war.
Then you'll point to Russia's announcement of preparations, clearly implying that Russia was mobilizing.
But Russia didn't mobilize (not yet); that's an inconvenient fact in both yours and Keegan's absurd historical revisionism...a fact that is easy to expose when viewed next to the timeline for war.
If anyone along with you is having trouble reading what I post, he can complain to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.