Replies

I am not a follower of Hermann speak, and don't really "know" him well enough to be sure what turns him on or off. I don't think Hermann is a Jew hater qua Jew hater though. It appears rather that is doesn't give a damn about anybody but Christians, whomever they might be, Jews, Hindus or whatever, or their well being, particularly if it inconveniences Christians. Hermann seems to have little empathy for the "other," or system of moral values which includes them as blessed with inalienable human rights, whose alienation cannot and must not be ignored.

What is particularly shocking however is that he opposes the US entering WW II apparently, because 1) Hitler was not really focusing on killing Christians, and 2) many Christians were killed as a result of the war being waged.

I really don't want anything to do with someone with those moral values, in any way shape or form. I am sure Hermann returns the favor, and that is just fine with me.

It appears rather that is doesn't give a damn about anybody but Christians, whomever they might be, Jews, Hindus or whatever, or their well being, particularly if it inconveniences Christians. Hermann seems to have little empathy for the "other," or system of moral values which includes them as blessed with inalienable human rights, whose alienation cannot and must not be ignored.

There is an order of charity. (1) God (2) Self (3) Father (4) Mother (5) Spouse (6) Children (7) Other Family (8) Friends (9) Benefactors (10) Countrymen (11) Co-religionists (12) Co-ethnics (13) Other Good Men (14) Our Body (14) Evil Men (15) Enemies.

Hatred is reserved for the Devil and his Angels alone.

"If any man have not care of his own and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1 Timothy 5.8)

I apologize that you are offended by the advocating of taking care of our own first, then looking out for others. I'd imagine though that you act this way in your own life, even as you pseudo-piously condemn others for doing the same.

That's not accurate. I said we would have been better off letting Hitler and Stalin fight to the death on the Russian Steppes. Probably, but not certainly, Hitler would have won, but probably at a Pyrrhic cost.

It is not at all clear from history that Hitler would have embarked on his great pogrom had the west not entered into war over Poland. An examination of history shows that a very large percentage of Jews were allowed to leave (that's a bit soft, but kicked out perhaps is too strong) Austria and Bohemia subsequent to the Nazi takeover. There is little reason to believe things would have been different in Poland and Russia (other than it was inevtiable that in Russia, a large number of Jews would have been killed under the Kommissar order, since they were many of the Kommissars, and the war there was primarily a war between two irreconcilable political systems). Until 1941, Hitler's aim was the peaceable resettlement of Jews outside of Europe.

I did say that the conduct of the war made it unworthwhile and unjust if it was supposedly fought to save Jewish lives (which I deny that it was). First, relatively few Jews within Hitler's grasp were saved, so the supposed goal being proposed was not accomplished. Second, disproportionately enormous numbers of innocent Europeans on all sides were slaughtered to little purpose (instead of Hitler enslaving Europe, Stalin ended up doing so).

In any case, the point that can be discussed is should Britain and France have gone to war in 1939 over Poland? The stated aim of a free Poland was "bargained" (hardly the right term for the betrayal of Tehran and Yalta) away in 1943. With respect to the US, the situation is different - Hitler declared war upon us (not without provocation by Roosevelt) in 1941. We had no choice then.