Yes.  I think I can saftely say that they wouldn't of rounded people up and mass executed people.

As for helping Nazis...

"One cannot ignore the role of the Western Allies," the author also writes, "particularly the involvement of the U.S. intelligence services in assisting refugees with a Nazi past and in recycling SS agents at the beginning of the Cold War" in the effort to combat "communist expansion."

Cold War concerns "trumped postwar reckoning with Nazi crimes," Steinacher observes. While the high-profile war-crimes case of Canadian immigrant Michael Seifert isn't referenced in the book, Steinacher says the 1951 escape to Canada of the former Nazi prison guard — the "Butcher of Bolzano" as he was known for his murderous actions at an Italian prison camp in 1944 and 1945 — illustrates the challenges faced by the Red Cross and other agencies handling refugees and immigrants in postwar Europe.

Of course... you wouldn't know that... since you based your entire theory off of one article.  Which extended to "if they could of the Vatican would of used concentration camps."   Which is silly.  If that was true... why was Western Europe upset about the concentration camps.  It takes more then racism to cause all out genocide.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Seriously?  They were military targets that saved way more japanese civilian lives then cost... that's a fact.

The "less harsh" way of blockaiding would of involved 3/4ths of the country stariving to death as the only way to successfully maintain a blockaide would of been to bomb the railways... which were nessisairy for most of Japan to get their food because their food production was heavily concentrated in one area.

Two cities worth of civilians dieing... or... 3/4ths of the nations entire population... which of these is the right choice?  It's common senese.  One isn't worse then the other because one was by a big explosion that killed most of the people instantly.  Hell i'd say that's better then slowly starving to death myself.

Again it's an inability to look at things critically and instead be caught up in the flare and something sounding like something you'd like to believe.

What we're talking about here though is Nazi officers fleeing to countries that were not under the influence of the USA (though the USA made little effort to pursue them after they had fled). The ratline that some people in the Vatican formed mostly lead to South America, Argentina in particular. An example of a person that was helped to escape by a Catholic Bishop is Eichmann, the architect of the holocaust - not one of those good people you're talking about.

Have a read of these wiki articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Hudal

Edit: Oh and the Vatican itself would not have done something like the Holocaust. They were murky and ambivalent on the issue of anti-semitism, preferring politics of self-preservation to taking a moral stand. Much like they did recently with the paedophile priests controversy really...

Actually, the book is about both.  Which is my point.

Ala Amazon

"Steinacher not only reveals how Nazi war criminals escaped from justice at the end of the Second World War, fleeing through the Tyrolean Alps to Italian seaports, but he also highlights the key roles played by the Red Cross, the Vatican, and the Secret Services of the major powers."

Everyone is glossing over the last one, because the first one is the meat of the book... and the second one is explosive.

As for Hudal... Individual bishops cursades doesn't = the vatican intentionally helped people escape... it meant someone in the vatican intentionally helped nazis escape.

Which is exactly what the book is outlining.  That which you just wikipedied....

again from the summary

"Einacher underscores the importance of the South Tyrol as a "ratline" from Germany to Italy and also reveals that many figures in the Catholic Church--sometimes knowingly, other times unwittingly--were involved in large-scale Nazi smuggling, often driven by the fear of an imminent communist takeover of Italy."

Not the vatican itself... but individual bishops working on their own... that we already knew about.

Oh also as for SA

"Finally, the book documents how the Counter Intelligence Corps and later the CIA recruited former SS men to advise U.S. intelligence agencies and smuggled them out of Soviet-occupied areas of Austria and Eastern Europe into Italy and on to South America."

Amazon link for source.:

http://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Run-Hitlers-Henchmen-Justice/dp/0199576866

I also find it funny how I have to often defend the Catholich church from people when they go all halfcocked about stuff... considering i'm somone who legitamitly believes that John Paul 1 could of been assassnated by people in the vatican bank.

Not saying i believe it... but I could see it as possible.  Can't really find enough solid evidence.

Only one of two conspriacy theories i think are possible.  That and the Michael Jordan secret suspension.

I mean... Jordan would rip out everyones throats on the court today if he could.  Winning is what defines him (in a bad way)... and basketball was always his best outlet.

And for the record.  I don't support the smuggling of Nazis.

I'm just not as uncritical as to take a single quote in a single article as to mean that the Vatican itself planned some nazi escape route and only objection to the holocaust was that they themselves weren't the ones flipping the switch.

I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church... I think thanks to them, thousands of interesting christian documents were lost... as was in general the true spirit of Christianity due to it's condensing everything to just their branch... but i'm not someone who just mindlessly bashes something with the slightest unchecked pretext.

I don't think that the Vatican didn't object to the holocaust, or that as an entity it organized the escape of Nazis. I do think that quite a significant element within the church at the time was anti-semetic (not a huge surprise in Europe at the time) and organized escape routes and I think the church itself didn't make much of an effort to prevent that happening.

The church isn't an entity with a single mind though, other elements of the church undeniably helped to keep thousands of Jews from being murdered.

I'm absolutely sure the Vatican would've commit genocide in the 20th century, had it been running a religious dictatorship over a part of Europe.

The part you bolded is just proof of what happens when you see things in too many shades of gray. Then again the Western Allies was a conglomerate of right wing wackos like Churchill. I also knew about it (think this is the only article I read?). However the Vatican has no justification for contributing (are you gonna tell me they were afraid the US was gonna nuke them if they didn't help Nazis escape punishment?)

I think you're greatly exaggerating that number. 3/4ths of the population? Really? You Americans were more interested in preserving your own troops, were afraid that the Russians would make Japan surrender first, and just wanted to show off your new toy, and see what effects it woudl have on people. Heck, your Americans wouldn't even allow an exhibition that showed the brutal effects of your solution to end the war.

The true spirit of Christianity was probably lost long before the RCC consolidated itself. It was probgably around the time it became an organised religion that implicated itself in political matters.

Also, there are much better reasons to dislike the RCC.

It seems to be... since you pretend it was some huge vatican plot... when it clearly wasn't... and the book the article refrenced showed that it wasn't... and no... 3/4ths of the population was about the expected death toll from what i remember reading.

Even if you take it as exagerrated far less japanese died then would have under any other plan.

If the US didn't us Nuclear weapons... everyone would be upset that the US could of ended the war with far less japanese casualties with 2 bombs but didn't and instead insisted on dragging out the war to kill and demoralize the japanese as much as possible.

It was by far the best solution to end the war.  If you think there was a better solution.... name it.

Though at the end of the day... plain and simple, you were wrong.  You jumped to wrong conclusions based soley out of what you wished to be true.  Black and whte thinking is and jumping to conclusions what leads to things like proactive wars, and holocausts... not thinking critically about things and looking at why people make desicions.

Three quarters of the population would be more than any war in history, it's not a reasonable estimate. The Americans weren't going to commit systematic genocide and that's what would be required for that kind of death toll.

Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were undoubtably atrocities committed against a civilian population. The cities themselves were certainly not military targets. That doesn't mean you can't build up some argument for it being the right course in the circumstances and avoiding more casualties than it caused, but it's wrong to ignore what the attacks were and what they were aimed against.