Do you really believe your own Church would elevate someone to sainthood, almost 70 years after the fact, just to score political points? Even I have a higher opinion of your Church despite my belief that it is schismatic. I cannot imagine why would they would go through all the trouble of fabricating sainthood on someone, it would seriously risk injuring their reputation for only a little temporary gain.
The Church's position in matters of historical truth depends on the men it employs. When too many weak and compromised men join the Church, the Church suffers. This is exactly what Vatican II brought to it, which is another discussion entirely.
So yes its not a matter of belief when the facts speak to the truth that this man was not a heroic resistor but a coward who would rather put his family through endless trouble by his own retarded decisions during a time when his people fought for their very existence against aggressive super predatory powers.
But, turns out, the Catholics did their homework, because the man left behind a huge correspondence to his wife which she lovingly preserved.
A key motivation for many Austrians supporting the Anschluss was economic. Under NSDAP control Austria was integrated into the German economic system and many Austrians benefited supremely from the economic policies of the Third Reich, particularly the economic recovery that Germany experienced after the Great Depression. This financial relief was a major factor in the apparent popularity of the Anschluss, something a simple farmer like Jagerstatter may not understand the sufferings of all his kin, or refuses to understand. The only reason for someone to vote against this huge relief policy would be either for partisan purposes or literally being agents of the enemy. Strange that in all of Jagerstatter's writings he never demonizes the filth of the USSR. This is what gives it away as propaganda immediately. These are fictitious writings, with the intent of being anti-German propaganda from the get go.
Just because you have difficulty believing it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact is, Pope Pius XI had already expressed great concern over Hitter's never-ending ambitions and idolatrous racial ideology:
Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge of Pius XI, 14 March 1937
www.vatican.va
First it is important to clarify the two popes of this time period:
-Pius XI (1922-1939) was the Pope who led the Vatican when the Reichskonkordat was signed in 1933, and Mit Brennender Sorge was issued in 1937.
-Pius XII (1939-1958) was raised to the pontiff after Pius XI’s death and continued the Vatican’s relationship with Germany during World War II until it's eventual defeat.
Mit Brennender Sorge was not a rejection of the Germany government or Hitler himself, it was merely a critique on alleged racialism that if we look deeper, is not truly what it seems. The Vatican was aligned with Germany during the entirety of Hitler's rule. They never severed relations with the Reich nor threatened to.
The aforementioned Reichskonkordat signed on July 20, 1933 was a treaty between the Holy See and The Third Reich. It was the first treaty the Reich signed with a foreign power marking the beginning of formal relations between the Vatican and the new German government, proving absolutely that the two are compatible.
The Reichskonkordat guaranteed that the Catholic Church in Germany would have the freedom to operate without interference from the German government. This included maintaining Catholic schools and religious freedom for Catholics, while the Reich gained support from the Church in the form of political legitimacy. It was a mutual agreement that allowed both sides to protect their interests. The Vatican wanted to ensure that the Church’s rights were preserved in a rapidly changing Germany, while Hitler sought to maintain support for the German Catholic population given that half of the nation was Protestant.
Pius XII born Eugenio Pacelli was a career diplomat within the Vatican and was involved in negotiations with both the the Reich and the Allies before his appointment as Pope in 1939. Eugenio Pacelli as Vatican Secretary of State played a key role in the negotiations that led to the Reichskonkordat in 1933. They liked to chide him by calling him Hitler's Bishop, especially because he never condemned Germany during or after the war. This was why Vatican II was brought down on the Church that completely did a 180 on all of its stances towards Hitler and National Socialism. Also, Pacelli was suspiciously murdered just prior to Vatican II's initial talks.
So, turns out Jagerstatter was the only one brave enough to follow the Pope at the time. This is why the Catholics call him a Saint.
denvercatholic.org
That Jagerstatter’s opposition to the Anschluss is portrayed as an isolated and courageous stand is laughable. This narrative overlooks the whole context of Austrian society. Millions of Austrian Catholics including many church leaders supported the Anschluss. Jagerstatter’s dissent is not an exemplary moral stand but rather a contrived post-war narrative that conveniently aligns with the victimization trope pushed by certain elements within the Catholic Church after WWII. His story became the exceptional narrative of resistance amplified by post-war propaganda while the much larger Catholic participation in the Anschluss was downplayed or outright ignored.
So it makes no sense to call this man a saint when a majority of Church leaders and congregations were taking part in the Anschluss and actively benefitting from it. If anything it was men like him who put a strain on relations between Catholics and their government on purpose when they had a greater enemy in the USSR that waited to devour them all, whom the Church had already issued decrees vehemently against.
You continue in your falsehoods:
No, he was drafted. That is not "willingly served."
You continue being misled by sensationalism.
Jagerstatter was conscripted into the Wehrmacht in 1940. At this point he willingly accepted military service as was the practice for most men in Germany and Austria. This means he took the oath then. After serving in 1940 and 1941 he was released to return to his farm due to the needs of the war economy and his role as an agricultural worker.
No, he took an oath to his country, similarly to how we do in America. Pledging oneself to a country has always been acceptable for Christians, and Franz willingly did so when he was initially drafted in 1940. He also asked to be relegated to tending to the wounded and refused front-line service. He was then pulled out to help grow food since he was a farmer. He was a conscientious objector, of which there were tens of thousands in America as well. In America, such men were also tasked with labor or medical duties.
What you and this account do not mention is that during this time he did not refuse to take an oath or resist in any significant way. He served his time as a regular conscript and was even considered a member of the military at that point, as you noted. There is a clear distinction between willing service and later objections which is important to recognize in understanding why his actions in 1943 would eventually lead to charges of sedition.
Also Franz' lack of involvement in the realities of war especially in the East calls into question the legitimacy of his personal moral opposition as representative of the true realities on the front lines. He had no direct experience on the Eastern Front or in the "brutalities" that were allegedly taking place in Soviet-occupied territories. So his conscientious objection that allegedly stems from his experiences on the Eastern Front which never happened is a major red flag with his account. Someone in his position living in rural Austria would have had zero exposure to the actual conditions on the Eastern Front, and all his morally contrived opposition stems from literal Allied propaganda at the time.
The charge against Jagerstatter was not about refusing an oath to Hitler. The charge that led to his execution was “Wehrkraftzersetzung” (undermining military strength), which was considered a form of sedition or treason. This charge could be brought against anyone deemed to be hindering or disrupting the German war effort.
However, once Hitler decided on "Total War," he was drafted again and forced to take the oath under penalty of treason. He refused to take the Hitler oath, then he was executed. Whether or not it was beheading or from a firing squad really makes little difference. The simple fact of the matter was that he refused to take the oath to a man. He was willing to do so for his people or country, but not to a man.
First off it wasn't Hitler who decided on Total War. Total War was being waged upon them ceaselessly at this point by all the Allied Nations, especially England and the USA. It was the unfortunate reality that Germany had to mobilize every able-bodied man. You seem to think there was a way out of this for them. Germany was intended to be destroyed by the jews and their servants long before the kinetic phase of WW2 began, as I have provided evidence from all the jewish newspapers and boycotts and sterilization plans that you continually ignore.
Any man in Germany and Austria at that time, especially a Catholic who could look around and see their kinfolk being bombed into oblivion, and not stick up for their own people, was a spineless coward and deserved more than a quick execution than what Jagerstatter got. The Wehrmacht had thousands of Chaplains on all fronts, all who took oaths. The SS even had Chaplains and Priests in some divisions, who took those more serious oaths. So millions of Catholics not only took the oaths, but also served with conviction to the Axis cause. The globohomo Churches never honor their sacrifice so that we didn't have to experience infinity invaders and child trannies.
Had Jagerstatter been a conscientious objector from the outset things may have gone differently for him. In 1940 and 1941 he could have potentially applied for such status, which, if granted, would have meant that he would not have faced the harsh punishment he eventually did. Conscientious objectors were sent to labor camps (not necessarily front-line combat), where they would be required to perform work in support of the war effort, but they could be granted certain protections, including the possibility of limited release and visitation from their families.
However, by 1943 the war situation had become increasingly dire. His refusal to serve after having already participated combined with the failure to seek conscientious objector status earlier placed Jagerstatter in a different legal category. Since he did not witness the Eastern Front, his objections are entirely irrational and it is precisely why his account was chosen for post-war propaganda.
By refusing to serve he left his family vulnerable during a time when they needed support the most. His refusal was, in hindsight, detrimental to his own community. His actions served no greater moral purpose at a time when the war was already well underway, and the fate of Austria seemed all but decided under the pressure of the Allies especially with Soviet and American forces closing in. No matter his stance, Austria was destined for hardship regardless of whether he fought or not. His decision thus was irrational as it had no real impact on the larger war and it did little to protect his family from the suffering that would come after the war by guaranteeing his absence.
Jagerstatter’s refusal was also a direct challenge to the Catholic Church's position at the time. The Vatican under Pius XII had to navigate a delicate political situation where it sought to maintain peaceful relations with all Axis powers. The Church encouraged its followers to support the legal authorities and avoid actions that would cause unnecessary division within their communities. The Church did not foster nor support resistance movements. In light of this Jagerstatter's refusal to serve was reckless and seen as counterproductive by many within the Church, especially as his behavior undermined the Church’s goal of national reconciliation during a time of war. By refusing to serve he was not only rejecting the idea of serving in the military but also essentially rejecting a government that had brought stability and security to a country that was struggling economically.
Jagerstatter's case is extremely weak for your argument. You're harping on this guy's story as a linchpin to proving Allied propaganda just like EMJ harps on his communist "father lenz," only that case was much worse and falls flat when exposed. There isn't enough information about Jagerstatter other than his writings proving he was a defeatist and a coward who didn't realize the gravity of the situation. Also there are reasons he was not recognized by the Church at the time and for decades after the war.
The Catholic Church under the influence of Vatican II sought to create a narrative of resistance to "tyranny" and Jagerstatter’s experiences were idealized and propagated to concoct a moral opposition to Hitler. While he may have genuinely believed in his refusal based on religious grounds the postwar narrative of his martyrdom has been constructed by others who sought to align his story with globalist ideological purposes to distance Christians from researching how to free themselves from jewish debt-slavery.
I'll take the words of a true Catholic warrior who was persecuted for nearly 50 years after the war until his death in the mid 1990s, General Leon Degrelle, whose works survived unmolested and unbiased by victor propaganda, over this heavily propagandized account that took an unknown man's irrational decisions and unfortunate execution as a result of those decisions, and made him a "saint" for them. Detractors like you never read Degrelle's work because it causes too much cognitive dissonance for your Allied beliefs in "madman Hitler".
Leon Degrelle was a hero. Franz Jagerstatter was a coward. Two types of Catholics, but only one is "honored" by this limp-wristed post Vatican II globohomo juggernaut.
Even Stalin did not have this level of megalomania; here is the USSR's oath:
It is an absolute joke to compare Stalin to Hitler, which you do frequently. There is no comparison. Once again your delving is barely scratching the surface.
Stalin’s personality cult eclipsed that of any other Soviet leader in history and this wasn’t just confined to state media it was embedded into the fabric of Soviet life. Stalin's control over the USSR was complete and his propaganda machine worked relentlessly to deify him. Entire cities were renamed after him, Stalingrad being the most prominent example. Stalin's image was everywhere, and his name became synonymous with the Soviet state. This type of control over a nation's identity is nothing short of megalomania., which you say he was not.
Stalin’s authority was far more absolute than Hitler’s because under Stalin there was no alternative. Hitler’s authority was counterbalanced by the influence of the military and other key figures within the NSDAP but Stalin’s control over every aspect of Soviet life was unchallenged. This includes his near-total power in internal purges, where anyone real or imagined could be sent to labor camps or executed without trial.
You acknowledge he was evil, but you just leave it at that. The Great Purges and forced collectivization alone resulted in the deaths of millions. The Holodomor famine in Ukraine, which Stalin orchestrated, led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians through deliberate starvation, and this was done while no war was going on.
Stalin’s regime purged millions of people who were seen as disloyal or suspect. Military leaders were purged in 1937-1938, and the Great Purge resulted in millions of executions for individuals who were accused of “treason” or “disloyalty.” Stalin’s reign involved complete totalitarian control, where anyone could be executed based on unsubstantiated accusations of disloyalty. The terror and surveillance were relentless, and loyalty to Stalin was synonymous with survival.
They blamed the Germans for Katyn, Stalin's Torchmen burned their own villages in dead German uniforms to rile up resistance among the steppe peasants, every wartime action they did was completely maniacal. The captured Germans from Stalingrad were paraded through Moscow with chemical truck spraying the ground following them to "wipe away Fascist footprints".
Soviet forces committed widespread sexual violence and murder in their invasion of Germany. It's well-documented that Russian Asiatic soldiers took part in the mass rape of German women some estimates put the number of victims at over two million. Soviet officials like the jew Ilya Ehrenburg on Stalin's orders encouraged this behavior through propaganda, which depicted German civilians as subhuman. Then there was all the millions of deaths after the war had concluded.
So, sure, Lenin and Stalin were evil demons who murdered tens of millions of Orthodox - who, by the way, are almost universally considered martyrs by the Church - but they never required men to swear an oath of unconditional obedience as did Hitler.
While Stalin didn’t have a formal oath to his person, coerced loyalty to Stalin was enforced in many other ways. Stalin was not just a leader he was an ideological force. Loyalty to the Communist Party and its central figure was expected under threat of death or imprisonment (and then later death). There were no alternatives. Party members, soldiers, and workers were all forced to swear loyalty to the state and the party which in effect demanded unquestioning obedience to Stalin’s regime.
Soviet soldiers, workers, and even young children in the Komsomol (the Soviet youth organization) were indoctrinated to swear loyalty to the Communist Party. Conversely the Hitler Youth were not required to do so. There were numerous loyalty oaths in which people pledged their loyalty to Stalin's leadership and to the ideology of the Soviet state. These were not optional; they were enforced with severe punishments for anyone who dared to defy the regime.
Really, what saved Stalin in WW2 was that his opponent was retarded - had Hitler been a competent commander, the USSR would have been crushed. Hitler was more concerned with being worshipped. He was more concerned with pushing racial idolatry of which he would be crown emperor over, than he was with winning the war.
Your chiding statements reveal your own emotions. You keep bringing this up time and time again that Hitler was a bad commander and he worshiped race, and that somehow these two are both true and synonymously interrelated. This is blatantly inaccurate and historically dishonest.
Your "logic" here is also completely flawed. These two aspects of his leadership, biological views and military leadership, are mutually exclusive. The idea that the Axis military forces were homogenous and exclusively Germanic is completely false. Many non-German volunteers fought on the side of the Axis including non-Aryans (Arabs, Hindus, Persians, Siamese, Japanese). Many of these non-Aryans fought to the last because they knew what Hitler was fighting against and his cause was their cause. Even the French, often portrayed as the most cowardly men of Europe, were the last defending his bunker in May of 1945 even after he had died. There were also Persians and Arabs with them.
Davud Monshizadeh went on to found SUMKA in Iran post-war as a new National Socialism intended for Iranians, the way Hitler envisioned each race adopting their own version of Third Position to free themselves from the system.
http://www.mourningtheancient.com/index1.htm "Adolf Hitler and the Army of Mankind" Ctrl+F "Iran" on page two.
There is a ridiculous amount of evidence against this lie of "German race worship." These men were all volunteers, meaning no one forced them to sign anything, yet they fought and many died honorably for a true cause:
So your argument is invalid. German racialism was not the driving force behind his military decisions. This reductionism doesn't hold any water or relevance.
You completely ignore how Hitler was adept at diplomatic strategy, successfully regaining key territories lost after World War I. Through a combination of military pressure and political maneuvering he managed to reoccupy the Rhineland (1936), reclaim Austria (Anschluss, 1938), annex the Sudetenland and the rest of Czechoslovakia (1938-1939) without firing a shot. These strategic moves allowed Germany to regain territory, strengthen its military position, and isolate its potential enemies. A retard could not do this.
Hitler’s leadership combined with his generalship and diplomatic maneuvering enabled Germany to achieve remarkable victories in the early stages of the war. The Blitzkrieg strategy was groundbreaking and highly successful in the Poland, France, Belgium, Norway, the Balkans, and Greece. These campaigns were characterized by decisive victories with relatively low losses compared to the scale of the wars they fought.
When it comes to many of the so-called blunders I have already posted evidence for why those are not the fault of Hitler. You do not engage properly in a debate if you do not view the sources. View the sources or exit stage right.
You also never mention FDR and Lend-Lease to the USSR, which shows you know very little on this subject. It wasn't just through Murmansk, England had bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, and every other Axis supporter in the Middle East into submission of Allied demands and together with the USSR invaded and occupied Iran and used it as a transit for more Lend-Lease up the "Persian Corridor." They were literally resurrecting Soviet forces nonstop until the war ended to wear down the Germans through attrition. General Leon Degrelle confirms this in his works, which again the likes of you never read.
Stalin's "retarded opponent" kept much of Orthodoxy outside of Russia alive during WW2. Out of all the Christians and alleged-Christians who bash Hitler, they never mention how Orthodoxy fully supported Barbarossa and Orthodox Bishops in Prague blessed General Anton Vlasov's Russian Independence Army of USSR defectors working for the Axis to overthrow Stalin's regime.
And that's why Zionists loved the guy, they could see what a fool he was, and how much it would help them cement control over the world. That's why Zionists supported Hitler's initial campaign in the early stages of the Weimar Republic.
Wrong. They never "supported" any phase of his campaign ever. You don't even know Weimar history. You really are unprepared for a debate of this caliber Samseau.
During the early Weimar years Hitler and the NSDAP were insignificant players in the German political landscape. The country was in political turmoil following Germany's defeat in World War I and the subsequent signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The Weimar Republic faced widespread instability and numerous factions from both the left and right sought to remedy the situation.
Hitler’s NSDAP was only one of many right-wing parties at the time and it wasn't until the failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 that Hitler gained any significant attention. Even after his release from prison in 1924 Hitler’s political influence remained limited. The NSDAP only began gaining real traction after Hitler was able to speak publicly again, following the lifting of his speaking ban in 1927.
During this early period of struggle, the jewish community in Germany was relatively prosperous and integrated into German society. With many of their kin holding high positions of power, they had no reason to support Hitler. The jewish organizations and the zionist movement were focused on expediting the Balfour Declaration's demands. They were not sympathetic at all to National Socialist ideology.
There is ridiculous amounts of evidence of zionist collaboration with the British authorities in the inter-war period, but absolutely none with Hitler and the NSDAP. Here is his own opinion during Weimar, whilst he was imprisoned nonetheless:
They needed a guy who could both drive Talmudic Jews into Israel (Haavara agreement) and simultaneously destroy itself with delusions of grandeur. One of the Zionists best investments of all time, it continues to pay off dividends nearly 100 years later.
"Hitler was NOT a zionist" [some language]
The Haavara agreement was not an agreement between Germany and zionism, it was an agreement between Germany and the British Empire. It was not Germany moving jews to Palestine to setup israel, but the Germans trading jews with the British Empire to get them out of Europe. The Madagascar plan eventually split into Haavara agreement and a second plan established in 1942 in Wannsee that is always mislabeled as the "final solution via extermination" which was resettlement of the jews to the Pale of Settlement initially established by Catherine the Great. The jews were in work camps during the war because after the war was over they intended to expel them back to the Pale.
Here are Hitler's own words on Palestine, he wanted the jews nowhere near it:
"What Hitler said about Palestine"
He literally says
"it's freedom is being restricted and it's independence is being deprived and that it is enduring the most cruel mistreatment for the benefit of jewish invaders."
He also says
"And it is our responsibility my fellow countrymen, to ensure that right does not become wrong here. I am by no means willing to allow a second Palestine to emerge here in the heart of Germany through the efforts of other statesmen. The poor Arabs are defenseless and perhaps abandoned."
You have zero evidence for this horse manure jewish argument that Hitler benefitted zionism, was a zionist, was a Rothscild agent, or some combination of them.
"Hitler was not a controlled agent. He was not a Rothschild."
So by echoing this lie that Hitler was kosher you deny the following which this video above truthfully states:
Adolf Hitler issued interest free and debt free money when he was in power. This was against jews and judaism which is a reconstruction out of Pharisaism opposed by Jesus Christ.
The jews worldwide declared war on Germany on March 24, 1933 immediately after Adolf Hitler came to power. In the "Sermon of the Week", 8th May 1942, the jewish Chronicle wrote: "We have been at war with him (Hitler) from the first day he gained power."
When Adolf Hitler was in power, he arrested Baron Louis de Rothschild. Baron Louis de Rothschild was released by National Socialists on April 8th, 1938 and the Rothschild Bank was confiscated. On September 22nd, 1939, the fortune of Julius Rothschild, a member of the well known jewish banking house, was confiscated by the National Socialists.
In Billions for the Bankers, Debts for the People (1984), Sheldon Emry wrote: "Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 and on, accounting for its startling rise from the depression to a world power in 5 years. Germany financed its entire government and war operation from 1935 to 1945 without gold and without debt, and it took the whole Capitalist and Communist world to destroy the German power over Europe and bring Europe back under the heel of the Bankers. Such history of money does not even appear in the textbooks of public (government) schools today."
The jews and their accomplices always promote lies about their enemies. They promote lies about Andrew Jackson, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, etc It is not surprising considering the fact that the enemies of Jesus Christ promoted lies about Jesus Christ and His disciples (Matthew 28:5-15) and these lies were widely circulated when the Gospel of Matthew was written.
More and more historical researchers come to the conclusion that he was not part of any Rothschild scheme, the evidence against this claim is overhwelming:
http://entityart.co.uk/adolf-hitler...es-zionist-bank-funding-soldier-david-irving/
By lying about Hitler you do the jews work. You don't have to like the man, but you don't have to hate him either. You are engaging in the continuation of the jewish lies that perpetuate their power by demonizing him for no apparent reason. Just admit that you hate Hitler for personal arbitrary reasons and be done with this nonsense already.
Your gatekeeping will be the death of this forum as your trashcan performance as a leader has already shown by driving away many senior RVF members.
