Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, in a 2007 essay in National review:
... [W]hen I was at the center of Moscow’s foreign-intelligence wars, I myself was caught up in a deliberate Kremlin effort to smear the Vatican, by portraying Pope Pius XII as a coldhearted Nazi sympathizer...
In February 1960, Nikita Khrushchev approved a super-secret plan for destroying the Vatican’s moral authority in Western Europe. The idea was the brainchild of KGB chairman Aleksandr Shelepin and Aleksey Kirichenko, the Soviet Politburo member responsible for international policies. Up until that time, the KGB had fought its “mortal enemy” in Eastern Europe, where the Holy See had been crudely attacked as a cesspool of espionage in the pay of American imperialism, and its representatives had been summarily jailed as spies. Now Moscow wanted the Vatican discredited by its own priests, on its home territory, as a bastion of Nazism.
Eugenio Pacelli, by then Pope Pius XII, was selected as the KGB’s main target, its incarnation of evil, because he had departed this world in 1958. “Dead men cannot defend themselves” was the KGB’s latest slogan.
Because Pius XII had served as the papal nuncio in Munich and Berlin when the Nazis were beginning their bid for power, the KGB wanted to depict him as an anti-Semite who had encouraged Hitler’s Holocaust... “Seat-12” was the code name given to this operation against Pius XII, and I became its Romanian point man...
[S]oon three young [Romanian intelligence] undercover officers posing as Romanian priests were digging around in the papal archives... [They] succeeded in pilfering hundreds of documents connected in any way with Pope Pius XII out of the Vatican Archives and the Apostolic Library. Everything was immediately sent to the KGB via special courier. In actual fact, no incriminating material against the pontiff ever turned up in all those secretly photographed documents. Mostly they were copies of personal letters and transcripts of meetings and speeches, all couched in the routine kind of diplomatic language one would expect to find. Nevertheless, the KGB kept asking for more documents. And we sent more...
In 1963, General Ivan Agayants, the famous chief of the KGB’s disinformation department, landed in Bucharest to thank us for our help. He told us that “Seat-12” had materialized into a powerful play attacking Pope Pius XII, entitled The Deputy, an oblique reference to the pope as Christ’s representative on earth. Agayants took credit for the outline of the play, and he told us that it had voluminous appendices of background documents put together by his experts with help from the documents we had purloined from the Vatican. Agayants also told us that The Deputy’s producer,Erwin Piscator, was a devoted Communist who had a longstanding relationship with Moscow. In 1929 he had founded the Proletarian Theater in Berlin, then sought political asylum in the Soviet Union when Hitler came to power, and a few years later had “emigrated” to the United States. In 1962 Piscator had returned to West Berlin to produce The Deputy...
The Deputy saw the light in 1963 as the work of an unknown West German named Rolf Hochhuth, under the title Der Stellvertreter. Ein christliches Trauerspiel (The Deputy, a Christian Tragedy). Its central thesis was that Pius XII had supported Hitler and encouraged him to go ahead with the Jewish Holocaust. It immediately ignited a huge controversy around Pius XII, who was depicted as a cold, heartless man more concerned about Vatican properties than about the fate of Hitler’s victims. The original text presents an eight-hour play, backed by some 40 to 80 pages (depending on the edition) of what Hochhuth called “historical documentation.” In a newspaper article published in Germany in 1963, Hochhuth defends his portrayal of Pius XII, saying: “The facts are there — forty crowded pages of documentation in the appendix to my play.” In a radio interview given in New York in 1964, when The Deputy opened there, Hochhuth said, “I considered it necessary to add to the play a historical appendix, fifty to eighty pages (depending on the size of the print).” In the original edition, the appendix is entitled “Historische Streiflichter” (historical sidelights). The Deputy has been translated into some 20 languages, drastically cut and with the appendix usually omitted...
Today, many people who have never heard of The Deputy are sincerely convinced that Pius XII was a cold and evil man who hated the Jews and helped Hitler do away with them. As KGB chairman Yury Andropov, the unparalleled master of Soviet deception, used to tell me, people are more ready to believe smut than holiness.
Toward the mid 1970s, The Deputy started running out of steam. In 1974 [KGB chairman] Andropov conceded to us that, had we known then what we know today, we would never have gone after Pope Pius XII. What now made the difference was newly released information showing that Hitler, far from being friendly with Pius XII, had in fact been plotting against him.
Just a few days before Andropov’s admission, the former supreme commander of the German SS (Schutzstaffel) squadron in Italy during World War II, General Friedrich Otto Wolff, had been released from jail and confessed that in 1943 Hitler had ordered him to abduct Pope Pius XII from the Vatican. That order had been so hush-hush that it never turned up after the war in any Nazi archive. Nor had it come out at any of the many debriefings of Gestapo and SS officers conducted by the victorious Allies. In his confession Wolff claimed that he had replied to Hitler that his order would take six weeks to carry out. Hitler, who blamed the pope for the overthrow of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, wanted it done immediately. Eventually Wolff persuaded Hitler that there would be a great negative response if the plan were implemented, and the Führer dropped it.
A few years later, Pope John Paul II started the process of sanctifying Pius XII, and witnesses from all over the world have compellingly proved that Pius XII was an enemy, not a friend, of Hitler. Israel Zoller, the chief rabbi of Rome between 1943-44, when Hitler took over that city, devoted an entire chapter of his memoirs to praising the leadership of Pius XII. “The Holy Father sent by hand a letter to the bishops instructing them to lift the enclosure from convents and monasteries, so that they could become refuges for the Jews. I know of one convent where the Sisters slept in the basement, giving up their beds to Jewish refugees.” On July 25, 1944, Zoller was received by Pope Pius XII. Notes taken by Vatican secretary of state Giovanni Battista Montini (who would become Pope Paul VI) show that Rabbi Zoller thanked the Holy Father for all he had done to save the Jewish community of Rome — and his thanks were transmitted over the radio. On February 13, 1945, Rabbi Zoller was baptized by Rome’s auxiliary bishop Luigi Traglia in the Church of Santa Maria degli Angeli. In gratitude to Pius XII, Zoller took the Christian name of Eugenio (the pope’s name). A year later Zoller’s wife and daughter were also baptized.
David G. Dalin, in The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews From the Nazis, published a few months ago, has compiled further overwhelming proof of Eugenio Pacelli’s friendship for the Jews beginning long before he became pope. At the start of World War II, Pope Pius XII’s first encyclical was so anti-Hitler that the Royal Air Force and the French air force dropped 88,000 copies of it over Germany
The discrediting of the Church's moral authority is a recurring tactic in the war against Christianity. The smear against Pius XII and the denial of the well-documented widespread and extraordinarily heroic efforts of Catholics and many other Christians to oppose Hitler and save Jews is being carried on by political atheism's modern water-carriers.
Please read the whole essay. It's fascinating, and it puts the modern slanders against the Church's courageous opposition to Hitler-- and the morally corrupt tactics of the Church's atheist despisers-- in context.
Perhaps? Perhaps not. He defected in 1978, when he was 50, and then waits till 2007, when he was 79, to reveal the plot.
Why did he wait 27 years?
Looking at the Wikipedia article on him, he supported the second Iraqi invasion in 2003. He insisted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and the the mass rallies against the impending war in Western countries were orchestrated by the Russians, at a time they were no longer godless atheist communists.
How would he know?
I suspect that he made up the plot to boost his esteem in the West, amongst certain gullible segments of the population (ie conservatives).
The Vatican could easily put this to rest by opening their archives further. So far, access is limited to pre-1939. I wonder how the Romanian secret service managed to get access to, let alone steal, Vatican documents from post-1939.
Either my arithmetic or my keyboard skills this late at night are a little suspect ...
I suppose that you mean that Russia and Romania 'could easily put this to rest by opening their archives further'...
"I wonder how the Romanian secret service managed to get access to, let alone steal, Vatican documents from post-1939"...
do you know that this is the purpose of the spies or do you tink that spies consult the archives opened to all?
"He insisted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs"Delete
Iraq did have WMD capability (medium range warheads, chems, bio projects etc).
She used them on Iran, Kuwait and on the Kurds. They were nearly depleted at the time of invasion, if that's what you mean.
Or do you mean Nuclear capability?
WMD's were a propaganda means to gain the support of a passive (literally) and selfish population who's only real fear was for themselves. Lame, I agree. But then, so was ethos and understanding of the general populace. The biggest under-estimation (of many) these post secular spin doctors made was that of the competition, who was willing to HAMSTRING an active war effort in order to gain office.
"the the mass rallies against the impending war in Western countries were orchestrated by the Russians"
And the 'conservatives' are gullible? Do you discount the possibility of foreign backers to the 'peace' (appeasement) movement. Do you really see the Russians as THAT impotent? They would be fools to ignore our divisions and not exploit them. Ditto the Chinese, ditto the other regional players.
"..at a time they were no longer godless atheist communists."
Sure. The moment they lost the cold war, the KGB and it's INTACT branches gave up decades of indoctrination and just -'poof'- became moralists and theists. Vladimir Putin the most of all!
Just like the Nazis after the war, none of them are left either - they have all been de-conditioned...
'How would he know?' Which 'he'? The Russian Premier, Himmler, Pope Pius, the Romanian spy or the Author?
"I suspect that he made up the plot to boost his esteem in the West, amongst certain gullible segments of the population (ie conservatives)."
The spy? Sure. Okay. The Vast Right Wing conspiracy at work again.
"The Vatican could easily put this to rest by opening their archives further."
Sure. They could do that, but there is no need.
"So far, access is limited to pre-1939."
And post 1945? Maybe their archives are just sealed for 75 years(as is custom). That means you may just be able to read them in ad 2014-2020.
"I wonder how the Romanian secret service managed to get access to, let alone steal, Vatican documents from post-1939."
It is a wonder isn't it? I also wonder how the details of the West's nuclear program fell into enemy hands.
The simple answer would be treason.
let's read The Deputy in light of this:
But, bachfiend, you do not understand the basic principle of Egnorance.ReplyDelete
If any claim casts doubt on the moral probity of Christianity - especially the Catholic church - it is all a bogus atheist & communist plot to destroy religion, no matter how well-supported it is.
If any claim supports the moral probity of Christianity - especially the Catholic church - then it must be accepted without question, no matter how poorly-supported it is.
Once you understand these two basic principles, you will be ready to be Egnorant.
we are talking about a story revealed by the
'former head of the Romanian equivalent of the CIA and FBI... Because of his high position, President Carter himself had to approve his request for asylum...
Upon hearing the news of Mr. Pacepa’s defection, Ceaucescu went ballistic. A third of the ruling Council of Ministers was demoted, 22 ambassadors replaced, a dozen ranking security officers arrested, and a few dozen more never to be seen again — made to “disappear” on Ceaucescu’s orders.
At least two assassination teams were dispatched to the U.S. to gun down Mr. Pacepa. Romania’s agents in the U.S. are still looking for him — and this despite Romania’s two-year mandate on the U.N. Security Council, which began Jan. 6, its new (Nov. 21, 2003) NATO membership, and the decision of its own Supreme Court."
Do not you think that this man knows a lot of things?
"Do not you think that this man knows a lot of things?"Delete
He's also a professional liar who has been found to have lied about several claims in the past. He may know some things, but his reliability as a witness is pretty dubious.
Let's read the passionate Hochhuth's defense by David Irving, a denial of the Holocaust:ReplyDelete
"WHAT an extraordinary story about Hochhuth, and what utter rubbish; he was my best friend in those years and still is a good friend; I have two chapters about him in my memoirs. There was never a hint of Soviet influence -- which is not to say he may not have been fed a corrupt dossier in some clever way. He could be very naive."
It is very strange that Hochhuth was a friend of a Holocaust denier...or not?
“The church” may not have been directly complicit in the holocaust, but 1900 years of institutionalized Christian anti-Semitism certainly did a good job of laying the groundwork.ReplyDelete
That's a separate argument, and in fact is the first thoughtful one you've made on this topic.Delete
The question is: how much of the Holocaust and all of the horror in Europe in the 20th century is the result of Christianity, and how much is the result of the abandonment of Christianity?
Good topic for a post.
You didn't miss my point. You're just pretending to do so.
Iraq didn't have WMDs in 2003. Pacepa was wrong in 2003 when he asserted that they did. He was also wrong in asserting that Russia was orchestrating the anti-war rallies in Western countries.
The rallies were more to do with the lack of a justification for war, which turned out to be correct. Bush would have done better and reconsidered and come up with a better plan.
Pacepa came up with a self-serving story in 2003 which was to increase his sense of self-importance. That's enough to make me skeptical of his story from 2007. The Vatican has extensive archives, and they're going to allow any Romanian 'priests' to excavate through them? That's implausible in itself.
And anyway. Why wait till 2007. This would have been explosive in the '80s with Solidarity in Poland.
Pacepa's claims don't deserve to be accepted without a lot of supporting evidence. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
A WMD is a 'weapon of mass destruction'. Missiles and chemical warheads ARE WMD's. You fire them at a soft target and cause massive levels of destruction.
Are you trying to say there was no chemical warheads or even powerful missiles in Iraq...EVER? Are you suggesting that Saddam's regime did NOT use/fire them on Iran, the Kurds or Israel?
Or are you simply suggesting they were not in great evidence after the invasion? This is/was no surprise to me. In fact, that could very well be the 'window' the original Coalition was waiting for.
Or are you referring to nuclear weapons, which the regime obviously did not posses? I do recall ridiculous levels of rhetoric around that subject.
In order to understand where you're coming from, we need to be using the same terms. WMD media-speak?
Or WMD in military parlance?
That is the missing cipher to your Voynich-like comment.
"Pacepa came up with a self-serving story in 2003 which was to increase his sense of self-importance."
Now THAT IS an extraordinary claim, and I would like to see the evidence/proof of that.
"The Vatican has extensive archives, and they're going to allow any Romanian 'priests' to excavate through them? That's implausible in itself."
Difficult and dangerous, I would imagine. Impossible? Implausible? No. A touch of treason and some gold in the right palm would do it, I am pretty sure.
The real question with regards to the archive, in my mind, is why they expected to find damning evidence in it. They either bought into their own BS, or had (bad) intelligence that lead them to feel they could use those archives against the West.
"Why wait till 2007."
Why serve in the Romanian Secret Service? I cannot answer either. I suspect it had to do with waiting for someone to die, if there was a reason worth note.
"This would have been explosive in the '80s with Solidarity in Poland."
I agree. Would have made excellent propaganda. If you were going to 'make up' a story like this, that would have been the ideal juncture to do so.
"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence."
Really? I thought they just needed peer review.
By WMDs I mean nuclear, biological or chemical. Iraq didn't have WMDs in 2003. They'd been effectively disarmed after the first Gulf war. Foolishly, Saddam Hussein had thought that if he could give the impression that he might have WMDs, then he was safe. He wasn't, particularly after the anthrax mail scare in America in 2001.
Pacepa came up with the extraordinary claim in 2003, that Iraq had WMDs in 2003 and that Russia was orchestrating the anti-war rallies in Western countries. Now that's an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary evidence. My suspicion that he made the claim to increase his own sense of self-importance is extremely plausible in comparison.
The Vatican archives are under the care of Catholic priests. Are you suggesting that they're willing to accept gold to go against their responsibilities or that they're willing to commit treason, in your words?
I don't believe that Rumanian 'priests' would be allowed to fossick in the archives in the '60s. The present pope had Pope John Paul II allow access to the archives by accredited historians in the '90s, but only up to 1939.
Extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence won't survive peer review. That's what peer review is there for. Published papers might be incorrect, but they certainly won't have failed this critical test.
"By WMDs I mean nuclear, biological or chemical."
Ah. Okay. Media-speak. No problem.
Nuclear,no. Biological, he had the programs and facilities. There was a suspect lack of stockpiles. Let's just hope we find them inert, if they exist or were transported to any nearby Ba'athist ally.
Chemical weapons were found, in bad condition. Non deployable.
There is also the Syrian dimension to consider. Convoys of Materiel and men made it across the Syrian border prior to the invasion. What was in them? Who knows. My suspicion is money, valuables, artefacts, and important weapons.
All that said, I do think it was a lame explanation especially considering the public/civilian understanding of these weapons.
"The Vatican archives are under the care of Catholic priests. Are you suggesting that they're willing to accept gold to go against their responsibilities or that they're willing to commit treason, in your words?"
Yes. Treason is a funny word when speaking about the Vatican, but it is, after all, a Sovereign State. Some staff or clergy would surely prove corruptible, threatened (family?), or easily blackmailed.
But you may want to consider the opposite. Intelligence works both ways.
Most of what we 'find' is actually MEANT for us to find. In many cases the initial leads are PLANTS by the opposing force. This is true even of field intelligence.
These Romanian 'Priests' (frauds or not) may have been FED the info, after being led to believe it was inflammatory or damning.
Think of all the terror attacks foiled by making these maniacs believe they have the means to carry them out.
"Extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence won't survive peer review."
"That's what peer review is there for. "
Too bad it doesn't work then, eh?
"Published papers might be incorrect, but they certainly won't have failed this critical test."
The test of the rubber stamp. Sure.
About as fool proof as a military budget committee.
You're crazy. This is 2012. We've had plenty of time to find Saddam Hussein's WMDs from 2003, if he had them. We haven't found them, so he didn't have them. Do you actually think that he would have allowed Iraq to have been conquered so easily and quickly if he'd had some means of striking back, and was willing to hide in a hole in the ground for over a year?
Hello? Are you really that silly?
You also have a silly idea of peer review. Peer review is there to weed out obvious errors. The reviewers can't be expected to repeat the authors' work to confirm the correctness of the paper. That's something for the paper's readers to do, to perform further research to confirm or disprove the claims of the paper.
If there are gaps in the paper, insufficient evidence, incomplete description of methods, etc, then the reviewers can either recommend rejection or rewriting of the paper.
Personally, I think Seat-12 never happened. It was a bogus claim. I'd want to see better evidence than this that it happened. There should be evidence in the Soviet archives, and a lot of the dirt from that era has already been published, and I won't accept it until I see it.
The Russians admitted to the Katyn massacre. Why wouldn't they admit to this too, a much more minor affair, also involving long dead Communists?
The alternative is believing the word of a single person, who has previously made unsupported disproven claims, 29 years after he defected and around 50 years after the supposed operation.
Thanks. Try to remember your the one condoning attacking a dictator with a full arsenal of WMD's (in your own definition that is Nuclear or Bio etc) weapons, and condemning any sort of attack on dictator who's supplies are diminished or removed.
"This is 2012"
WOW! Really? I had been dating all my correspondence ad 1492. Maybe that is why the TV shows are all wrong in 'Ye Guide of Programs'
"We haven't found them, so he didn't have them."
Funny how past and present seem a blur to you. You cannot find what has been deployed, you cannot find what has been moved OUT of Iraq. You cannot find a missile today what has been USED yesterday.
Ask the Israelis if Saddam had (40ish fired at them) wmds (real def) and the will to procure and use them.
"Do you actually think that he would have allowed Iraq to have been conquered so easily and quickly if he'd had some means of striking back, and was willing to hide in a hole in the ground for over a year?"
His means to 'strike back' were not sufficient to disable or divert a full fledged invasion, which is WHY we would consider an invasion. PS Nobody 'allows' an invasion. Get it yet, Bach?
"Hello? Are you really that silly?"
Hi there! If by silly you mean practical, yes. If by silly you mean a soft headed 'liberal' pronoid with utopian delusions, no.
"You also have a silly idea of peer review."
Sure, again by your standards it no doubt seems 'silly', but that does not mean I am wrong.
The system is tragically flawed and results in much garbage being passed off as something of worth, provided it fits with elitist orthodoxy.
"and I won't accept it until I see it."
No problem. I will continue to be suspect of enemies of this civilization, regardless of your personal opinions.
"The Russians admitted to the Katyn massacre."
Oh yes... they rushed out and broke the story. The Nazis and Allies had NOTHING to do with it. Good old Uncle Joe was as honest as the day is long. Not.
"The alternative is believing the word of a single person, who has previously made unsupported disproven claims, 29 years after he defected and around 50 years after the supposed operation."
The silence on the Russian front is deafening, I agree. I just read that silence very differently from you.
We'll see when these archives open, in Russia, Romania and in the Vatican if there is any sort of trail to confirm.
Until then I would say this is realistic scenario.
If it is bullshit, it is good quality stuff. If it is not, it sure explains a lot of the bullshit that IS out there.
You are crazy. The justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein had WMDs in 2003 and was prepared to either use them or to hand them over to terrorists for them to use them.
The fact that he had them and used them in the 1980s and early '90s, and wanted more of them later is irrelevant. In 2003, he did not have WMDs. He foolishly thought that if he gave the impression that he had them, then he'd be safe. He wasn't, a lesson that was not missed by Iran and North Korea, who then accelerated their programs.
I don't have any utopian delusions. When I'm dead and gone, then that's it with me. You're the one with utopian delusions.
Silence doesn't prove anything. Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence, but you're not justified in concluding that absence of evidence means that it's present. Or perhaps, you're one of those conspiracy nuts who thinks that absence of evidence is evidence of a very successful coverup?
Just list one scientific paper that has made an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence, and has survived the peer review process. Admitted; not all papers are of Nobel Prize standard. A lot get published to fill the journals and then get forgotten very quickly.
"The Russians admitted to the Katyn massacre. Why wouldn't they admit to this too, a much more minor affair, also involving long dead Communists?"Delete
simply because for the massacre there is a grave witht the bodies that permitted to make inquiries, investigations and trials... and at the last was impossible for Russian to deny.
Seat-12 was an intelligence operation of 'dezinformatsiya' not a crime against the humanity.
Well, no ... The investigation was done by the Germans during the war. Definitely deniable. There were no trials. The Russians admitted to the crime, because they'd been done by long dead communists, of a different political system. If Seat-12 had been done by the Soviets, there was no reason for the Russians to conceal it.
The Russians culturally and psychologically were able to admit to previous wrong doing.
The only cases I can think of of countries denying past misdeeds are Turkey denying the Armenian genocide and Japan denying its World War II war crimes. Both different cultures.
"In March 2005 the Prosecutors General's Office of the Russian Federation concluded a decade-long investigation of the massacre....116 out of 183 volumes of files gathered during the Russian investigation, were declared to contain state secrets and were classified...On 8 May 2010, Russia handed over to Poland 67 volumes of the "criminal case No.159," launched in the 1990s to investigate the Soviet-era mass killings of Polish officers...Delete
Members of the Duma from the Communist Party denied that the Soviet Union had been to blame for the Katyn massacre and voted against the declaration".
"If Seat-12 had been done by the Soviets, there was no reason for the Russians to conceal it"...
Explain why the KGB archives are classified even today.
"You are crazy."
In this you and the Mooj are in full concurrence. I like it that way.
"The justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was that Saddam Hussein had WMDs in 2003 and was prepared to either use them or to hand them over to terrorists for them to use them."
Really? Is that what they reported in Australia? That is certainly not how we were briefed. Here it was sold as war to protect a resource rich region (of which many of our allies depend on) from a regime that has, among many things, used WMDs and was under negotiations to procure more, and that had territorial ambitions that affected those resources and hence the global economic system.
Seeing as we are an oil rich nation, it was seen as 'too expensive' in terms of costs and deployment.
"The fact that he had them and used them in the 1980s and early '90s, and wanted more of them later is irrelevant."
You would have made a profoundly shitty tactician. THAT is when you attack - BEFORE they get more.
" In 2003, he did not have WMDs. "
The Iraqi program (not Saddam personally) was developing very powerful short range missiles in 2003. There were also 200 longer range mobile scuds near the Syrian an Jordanian border that vanished.
Where did they go? Nobody knows. Does that mean they did not have missiles or a missile program? No. It means we did not find much.
"He foolishly thought that if he gave the impression that he had them, then he'd be safe."
You think we called his bluff. Okay.
And if we won the 'hand' in doing so, you think that is wrong? Rather we should have waited till the Iraqis had a stockpile, then send in our lads to get Saddam?
"He wasn't, a lesson that was not missed by Iran and North Korea, who then accelerated their programs."
And that is working so wonderfully for both of them. Hardly anyone is talking about bombing Iran's infrastructure, and North Korea is now a respected world player. Get real, Bach. The momentum of NK and Iranian programs has been of an exponential order since my youth. You bemoan allied excuses for an invasion of Iraq out of one side of your mouth, and apologize for the stockpiling of our collective enemies with the other.
"I don't have any utopian delusions."
Social engineering anyone? Maybe your seek a Dystopia?
"When I'm dead and gone, then that's it with me."
That could well be true. It's what you want more than anything, after all.
"You're the one with utopian delusions."
Utopia? No I am a soldier. I am one of the 'rough men', remember? I don't think technology or politics can make the Earth a paradise. Quite the opposite. I don't even see the next stage of existence as a 'cakewalk'. For me it will no doubt ALWAYS be about duty. (Hopefully not latrine - that is a joke)
"Silence doesn't prove anything."
'Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence, but you're not justified in concluding that absence of evidence means that it's present."
Your mixing then empirical values of a lab with the metaphysical values of war. Category error.
"Or perhaps, you're one of those conspiracy nuts who thinks that absence of evidence is evidence of a very successful coverup?"
No. I am just capable of weighing motive and potential. I am also part of a 'conspiracy' who regularly covers things up from hostile and 'neutral' forces.
"Just list one scientific paper that has made an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence, and has survived the peer review process."
Why bother? Pick any discipline and read a few. Abstractions based on abstractions based on theory and conjecture.
"A lot get published to fill the journals and then get forgotten very quickly."
Great plan, if your in the publishing industry.
Peer Review needs reviewing.
I won't bother answering most of your increasingly illogical rant, but in Australia, the Iraq invasion in 2003 was 'sold' to us as being necessary because Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was prepared to use them or was willing to give them to terrorists, who would use them.
This was the line propounded by Bush. Powell gave a speech in the UNO justifying war on the grounds that Iraq had WMDs. The American news magazine 'Newsweek' also was giving this as the reason, although they doubted the justification.
The anti-war protests were concerned that the main objective was the oil, which seems to agree with your justification. Why don't you go back and look at newspaper articles from the time to see whether your impression now, 9 years later, is reflected in the reality reported then?
Well, the Russians HAVE admitted that the Soviets were responsible for the Katyn massacre. That's official enough. Just because the Russian Communist Party still denies it means nothing.
The Russians have handed over a large number of the files from their investigation to the Polish government as a measure of faith, but that was hardly necessary after admitting to it and apologizing.
KGB archives, more often than not, will remain classified for a long time. Undoubtedly, there will be details of spies and agents of influence in Western countries from the Soviet era ( who are possibly still active) and the Russians would be unwilling to betray them.
As a comparison, the Vatican's archives have been open to historians since the '90s, but only pre-1939. The Vatican generates a lot of documentation, and the number of historians accredited to examine the archives is in the order of a hundred. And we are supposed to believe that a few bogus Romanian 'priests' could have found anything?
Even on this point alone, Seat-12 is extremely implausible.
1) "Just because the Russian Communist Party still denies it means nothing."...Delete
but when in a next future the Communist Party will go to the government? do you know that the Communist Party opposes Putin and in recent times is presented by some media as the 'democrats' who oppose the dictator? are you hoping that Putin an his party remains long in power?
2) Explain this: why Russia did not contradict Pacepa?
3) Reread Pacepa's history; the spy priests had free access to the archives and they were not subject to ordinary rules of scholars; they found and sent to Romania a lot of material but not necessary for their purposes.
Perhaps the Russians didn't contradict Pacepa because it either was a ludicrous claim or they don't read the National Review.
I still don't believe that bogus Romanian 'priests' would be allowed to wander into the Vatican archives and steal documents. That is just too incredible to credit.
"That is just too incredible to credit."...Delete
Incredible as to bug a statue of the Virgin Mary and to put bugs in the Vatican offices or recruit in Poland an estimated 10 to 14 percent of the priests to spy on the church...
"I won't bother answering most of your increasingly illogical rant"
You never do. You never have.
You do not have the answers, or refuse to see them.
My hope is not that you will answer or concede, I gave that up long ago.
I ask these questions so that the readers will see a contrast to your simplistic and childish views on an extremely complex situation.
In most cases the questions are merely rhetorical. I know the answers already. So do the readers.
You were sold a war on what you see as lies and spin.
That upsets you because it makes YOU look naive.
You are, and judging by your comments will continue to be.
BTW Bach, what petrochemicals are your wonderful ebooks made from? The servers that sell and distribute them? The electricity with which you power it all? Forget the rest of the technological 'wonders' of 'progress'.
My renewable (pulp) and permanent books rely only on wood, presses, and ink; which are renewable and reusable and can be produced by hand power if necessary. I can read them with a candle or in the daylight. Also their production creates thousands of jobs from forestry to publication to distribution.
My point: It's simple enough for even you to understand.
If you don't want wars over oil, stop USING it so damn much for triviality and gadgetry and/or produce more of you own.
If not, expect Iraq-style wars till it runs out. Expect the spin and propaganda that keeps the sheep in support. Expect retaliation. And finally, expect people like myself (who do the fighting for you) to scold you for being a child about it all.
I wasn't sold on the Iraq war in 2003. I thought the reason was wrong at the time and regarded it with dismay. Unfortunately, I turned out to be right.
Petroleum products are extremely valuable. Too valuable just to be burnt for energy. Lots of luck getting printed books when there's no oil to fuel the transport of books from one town to another.
eBooks use less energy when you consider all the inputs, including the considerable costs in transport and handling. And I've made the decision to cut down my use of oil. I have a very small fuel efficient car (1 liter motor) which I drive around 1,000 km per year. My electricity consumption is around 3 kilowatt.hr/day (the energy company thought it too low and estimated it as 22 kilowatt.hr/day, until I had them reread it to give the correct reading).
I personally think we need to cut down on our use of oil, if only to make the Middle East dictatorships irrelevant, so we can ignore them.
Interesting. So the Communists copied the tactics of the anti-Communists (mostly Christian) who fabricated the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".ReplyDelete
Rather like Hitler copying the tactics of Pope Innocent III in putting yellow labels on Jews.
And Kim Il-Sung using Christian imagery to forge his regime.
Those darned copycat totalitarians.
regarding Vatican Archives I suggest to read this interview with Sergio Pagano, then prefect of the Vatican Secret Archives:ReplyDelete
on the numbers of scholars
Q: How many scholars frequent the archive?
A: "From the 27 scholars admitted in 1882, immediately after the opening Leo XIII had wanted, the number grew to 400-500 scholars yearly in the period 1958-1967; in the last three decades of the 1900's this reached an average of 1300 scholars per year, with 40-50 daily visits and peaks of 60-80 during some months. The highest point came in 1999, when the number of researchers reached 1444."
Q: Have there been partial openings for the pontificate of Pius XII?
A: "For several months, the records of the 'Vatican Information Office for prisoners of war,’ which included documents from 1939 to 1947, has been open. So it goes well beyond the limit of 1922. This is in fact a bank of records that is homogeneous and in a certain way disconnected from the others. Seven persons worked for three years to put in order the more than 2,500 boxes that contain the records, and to transfer the card catalogue (about 3 million entries) onto DVD. So these records have been open since May 2004, but up until today only ten researchers in all of Europe have taken advantage of it. Sometimes there is an impression that certain scholars, whose voices are perhaps amplified too much by the press, clamor for the opening of the Vatican archives almost as though to enter into a secret fortress by overcoming imaginary resistance; but when the door is open and the documents are available, those who seemed to be at the gates don't show up, or make almost a touristic visit. Also, for more than a year the archives of the nunciatures of Monaco and Berlin have been opened up to 1939; after some initial traffic from a modest number of researchers, just a few of the most serious and methodical have remained. Most of the curiosity seekers have dispersed. This is strange. It is as if, unable to provide confirmation for preformulated but undocumentable theories, the archives could be forgotten. John Cornwell, for example, who has judged Pius XII very harshly, has never set foot in the Vatican Secret Archives (if for nothing else than to study the period of nuncio Pacelli); I could say the same about Italian historians as well."