Is That Legal?

Uh, far be it from me to stick up for the New York Times, but they are quoting someone else, the biographer, for that information. And given the fact that his biographer is in a much better postition to know, I'll stick with that date until it can be clarified.

We already know that he tried to aviod conscription into the HY for years. It is highly probable that it became mandatory FOR HIM in 1941.

And to all those ready to persecute Benedict for his compulsory ties to the Hitler Youth, I hope you will do the same, if not more, for the voluntary, and enthusiastic, membership of Robert Byrd in the KKK when he was in his 20s.

Well, a few minutes on google confirmed my suspicions. Benedict turned 14 in 1941 and, according to Wikipidea:

"The Hitler Youth was organized into an adult leadership corps, and the general membership comprised of boys ages fourteen to eighteen."

So, it became mandatory for him in 1941, case closed.

Apparently not.

If they did any fact-checking, they might have to admit the Pope was not a Nazi in any sense of the word. By skipping the fact-checking, they get to repeat the slur a few dozen more times.

Contrast this to the amount of "scrutiny" Senator Byrd's KKK past gets.

Great job.

Facts have very little to do with how the NYTIMES reports; they reprot basd on their FAITH: Leftism. Anyhting which comports with their faith - their POV (moral relativism, post-modernism, socialism) - gets no examination.

That is very funny, and answers the age-old question - who will scrutinize the scrutinizers?

However, the former Cardinal himself may have contributed to the confusion, if I can rely on this book excerpt:

Ratzinger has several times gone on record on his supposedly "problematic" past. In the 1997 book Salt of the Earth, Ratzinger is asked whether he was ever in the Hitler Youth.

"At first we weren't," he says, speaking of himself and his older brother, "but when the compulsory Hitler Youth was introduced in 1941, my brother was obliged to join. I was still too young, but later as a seminarian, I was registered in the Hitler Youth. As soon as I was out of the seminary, I never went back. And that was difficult because the tuition reduction, which I really needed, was tied to proof of attendance at the Hitler Youth.

Another source I clicked on briefly (and exited, because the stirring Nazi-era music was annoying) told me that enforcement of the Hitler Youth laws was stepped up in 1941.

All of which the Times reporter could have cleared up.

Think of it as the first of a thousand cuts the new pope will endure at the hands of the left.

I'm all for fact-checking, but wikipedia? Come on! You gotta be kiddin'.

Besides, the true dates aside, it's pretty obvious the NYT wasn't going to let the chance to use the phrase "Hitler Youth" pass by.

Good luck, Pope Benedict. You'll need it in this day and age.

Let's see, you're upset because the Church didn't selecting someone who fought the Nazi's? Pope Benedict was, what, 14 years old in 1941? Exactly what was he supposed to fight? How much maturity are you demanding of a 14 year old? Your comments remind me of the all-time great quote "the nattering nabobs of negativism", or my quote, the chitter-chatter section of the blogosphere.

Pat,
You'd be surprised what was possible.

The original point you were making was that the NYT had been too FAVORABLE to the Pope, right? Sweeping inconsistencies in his characterizations of his past under the rug?

Don't get me wrong, I have my concerns about the MSM. But this isn't an attack by the left, and the story didn't originate in the New York Times - and ignoring the fact that the new Pope was in Hitler Youth would be ludicrously irresponsible journalism.

If you're expecting Ratzinger to have fought the entire Nazi movement, remember he was still a child. Even adults couldn't really do anything against the Nazi party. Being a German citizen, I can tell you that the generation that lived through the Nazi time period would rather live and conform (even if they personally disagreed, which most Germans did) as oppose to die in rebellion.

Eric,

Once again, you assume that this fourteen year-old boy knew the law of the land beyond its immediate application to him. If he was inducted into actual service in the Hitler Youth in 1941 then from his perspective it no doubt seemed the case that compulsory service had just been instituted. Your argument to me this morning was essentially, "well, surely he must have gone back in later years and looked up the actual laws, so he must now know that service really became compulsory in 1936 -- or 1939 -- even if he was not required to serve until 1941." That sort of supposition is not a very persuasive basis for calling the man a liar, even taking his biographer's quote as completely accurate.

Further, you haven't addressed any of my other criticisms of your readings of the 1936 and 1939 laws to which you link. For example, if the 1936 law really had the practical effect that you seem to believe it did, why was the 1939 order necessary? Obviously, some (many? most?) German youth did not become members of the Hitler Youth after the 1936 law was enacted. (And see the reference in Article 13 of the 1939 order to "juveniles of the age classes 1921 to 1929, who have not belonged to the Hitler Youth up to now . . . " The proof that your assumption is unwarranted is right there in the order!)

And as I previously explained, the 1939 order specifically directs the "youth leader for the German Reich" to "fix the time of their registration and induction into the Hitler Youth" (referring to children of Ratzinger's age). Presumably he did exactly that. But you haven't linked us to any documents that show what times he fixed. Which leaves open the very distinct possibility that chidren Ratzinger's age -- who were toward the low end of the age range covered by Article 13 -- may not have been registered and/or inducted until 1941.

Without more evidence, you're way off in left field on this one.

"Welcome back, Instapundit readers. I know that many of you won't take the time to scroll down, so I'll repeat a couple of important points here"

What's your point? I have never been to your website before nor know who you are, but this is sounds pretty arrogant.

Eric, if you're going to try to persuade us that 10 and 14 year old boys are responsible for their lack of heroism in the face of Nazi terror, it would be more persuasive if you linked to accounts of 10 and 14 year olds being heroic. But you didn't--instead you linked to futile attempts at heroism by men a decade or more older.

The attempt to link Ratzinger, who was a child at the time of the Nazi terror, to the generation that preceded his--that had moral responsibility, and ducked it--seems a bit much. 10 and 14 year olds aren't adults, and don't have the same responsibilities, much less the same awareness of the societal happenings around them. I mean, if a ten year old tells us that he's not really aware of what's happening around him--he can't tell us about government or major happenings in the news--would we be surprised? To say that a 10 year old muddled through is not a criticism, but it is a criticism of an adult. But you seem to suggest it is a criticism, which suggests rather outsized views of moral agency at young ages.

(Query whether this is consistent with your concern for your 3rd grader, who, by your account, should be able to fend for herself within a couple of years. Surely she can handle whatever books she reads; I mean, in only two years she's fully an adult! Apparently the rules on 3rd graders should look a lot like the rules for high schoolers.)

Why does it really even matter if he was in Hilter Youth back before WWII? 20-20 hindsight is so wonderful - we can look back and see how evil the Nazis were, and then think everyone everywhere should have known how evil they were going to be even before the historical events happened. At that time, no one knew how evil the Nazis would ultimately be, and joining the Hitler Youth was probably just considered an inconvenience, a "politically correct" thing to do if you wanted to live a "normal" life.

I have no problem with someone checking out into inconsistencies, but isn't it fairly likely that the Pope's dates are off by a few years because he is trying to remember things that happened when he was between 10 and 15?

"UPDATE: Welcome back, Instapundit readers. I know that many of you won't take the time to scroll down, so I'll repeat a couple of important points here:"

I'm not sure what your point is with that comment. It sounds sort of rude. Do you think if you insult they will read your site? Or is that just the image you want? Either way, it's immature.

I understand your point that there are individuals in Germany who fought against the Nazis, but keep in mind that Ratzinger was a child during most of the Nazi era. My older son is 13, and I would honestly not expect him to have the moral clarity or the courage of his convictions necessary to resist the Nazis if an older brother and other family members were just going along and muddling through.

When Ratzinger was drafted into service in his late teens after he had gone to seminary, he served briefly, then chose to desert, on penalty of death if caught, rather than serve a regime he recognized as evil. His actions may not be heroic, but I think they reflect the growth of a young man who gradually came to recognize the evil of which man is capable and the need to submit to God's authority.

Jean

Come on Eric. Your link shows young people, to be sure, but they are full grown adults well over age 21 by 1941 when Benedict XVI was 14.

You have no credible argument here. He's done quite a bit more than the average German (as you say) to confront and atone for his country's sins.

He's also 78 now. Given he was so young then, your argument amounts to one of complete disqualification of ANY German alive in the 1930s-40s.

"Pat,
You'd be surprised what was possible."

You are comparing a group of University students and a Professor to a minor there. Pretty unbiased.

Welcome back, Instapundit readers. I know that many of you won't take the time to scroll down..

Oh, for heaven's sake, take a moment to think about how perma-links work! Everyone who "scrolls down" after getting here from the Instapundit will be taken through all the comments to this post, but *not* to your earlier posts on this subject - to do that requires us to go back, click on "Main", and look around.

Look, do a bit of shameless self-promotion - I followed all three links in your original post, and none of them were back to your earlier, quite interesting and helpful posts on this subject.

Since you covered the ground earlier, link to it. If you pick just one, make it these two.

And remember the Golden Rule of retailing - the customer is always a knucklehead (but you have to deal with it).

I recall another prominent church leader that an unsavory past, including participating at one level or another in persecutions against the faithful.

It is a great story about redemption and faith, and it can be found in the Acts of the Apostles. Paul is that leader.

This is quite a stretch. The heroes of White Rose were

(a) legal adults (as others have pointed out)

(b) not just AN example of "youth" dissent but THE example. As in, virtually the only one.

Rather than being surprised what was possible - I think we'd all be surprised how *little* was possible. None of us can comprehend what life in Nazi Germany was like, let alone actually growing up under the reign of the gospel of satan (as the man unfairly labeled "Hitler's Pope" ended up calling it).

- Not a Catholic, btw

Gosh, you'd have to be a thin skinned dope to be offended by "welcome back instapundit readers." What's the matter with you people?

Interesting facts, but it doesn't change the gist of the story and to the credit of the Times they did say according to biographer John Allen. So I guess the biographer has it wrong too. But you're general point is correct they should have fact checked.

Hitler Youth membership information from The Jewish Virtual Library:

1939: compulsory membership for Germans age 17 and older
1941: compulsory membership for Germans age 10 and older

In 1941, the future pope was 14. Therefore, membership for him became mandatory in 1941 as he said.

As to the screws tightening in 1939, check out the exceptions in section 3 of Article 1 in the document you link to. In 1939, Benedict would have been 12. There is an exception for those Germans who had already turned 10 by 1939 that they were excused until they finished elementary school.

Scott, that's not what he said. He said the Nazis "introduced" compulsory membership in 1941.

Where is all the outrage for all the teen-age boys who didn't resist Lenin, Stalin, Krushchev, Brezhnev, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Deng, Ceausescu, Tito, etc., etc., etc.?

Yours is a hateful, myopic double standard of the worst kind.

Shame on you.

Eric, you seem to be hanging your hat on "introduced", now that all your other points have been refuted. But you have to consider he is being quoted there by his biographer, AND that the quoted is a translation. It's been a while since I had German, but I believe "introduced" could be translated in a couple ways.

You lefties are a riot. Holding up Benedict XVI for microscopic scrutiny for his actions at age 14, while ignoring the actions of Grand Kleagle Byrd as an adult, Teddy Foghorn Kennedy and his aquatic exploits at Chappaquiddick, Lt. Kerry and his meetings with our enemies, the North Vietnamese, at Paris. You cannot stand anyone with actual principles getting ahead--imagine the horror, the Catholics actually elected a believer as their Pope!!

Gunter,

Ah selective reading of the post.

Just a thought... try reading the next sentence after the one you quote.

Imagine that, for some reason, scouting were suspect, and a prominent figure was asked, "Did you engage in scouting?" and his answer were "yes, I was a boy scout for two years." Then it were discovered that he had been a cub scout for four years before that, and had never mentioned it. Wouldn't this seem like an equivocating answer?

Eric, I'm not an expert on German youth movements in the Nazi era (and I don't plan on becoming one), but I think your analogy is suspect. If I understand the situation, a better parallel would be "Then it were discovered that the law required all 10 year olds to join the Cub Scouts in 1937." Then, further, you have to ask, if you don't have a uniform and you never went to a meeting, were you actually a Cub Scout? For that matter, if you had a Cub Scout T-shirt and went to one meeting, were you a Cub Scout?

It seems to me that we're straying into McCarthy territory, here. Is there much difference between living next to a Commie and belonging to a youth group that the law required you to belong to?

This is all silly. So long as the man didn't kill anyone, I don't see how we can get all worked up about it.

What all of you idiots keep forgetting is that HE WAS A KID AT THE TIME. Sheesh. I mean what do you want him to have done? Gone Rambo on the Nazis? Again, HE WAS A KID!

Really, all of this is simply unfair.

My God, man, he was giving an account of his personal experience as he remembered it, not an authoritative oral history of Nazi Germany!

Matt,
Is your point that there is nothing interesting to be learned about a person from the ways in which he gives an account of his personal experience as he remembers it? Quick, I better tell the oral historians and the psychologists and psychiatrists of the world to move on.

So I did all that scrolling to learn that you, and not the New York Times, is the one that needed to be corrected! Change your URL to isthatvalid.org

Eric,

No. My point is that your entire argument that the Pope has been untruthful (let's be honest: you're claiming he lied) rests on the words, "when the compulsory Hitler Youth was introduced in 1941."

In your view, this phrase apparently can only be explained as the man's effort to whitewash his past. It cannot possibly be sloppy language; it cannot possibly reflect a misunderstanding about the state of German law in 1941 (and 1939, and 1936) by a man who was no older than 14 at the time; it cannot possibly be true that Ratziner and his brother were not actually inducted into the Hitler Youth until 1941.

If oral historians and psychologists/psychiatrists base entire theses on the kind of scant evidence you're relying on here, without even addressing any of these other possibilities, then yes, by all means, give them a call.

It's been a while since I came across this in my research, so I can't cite the sources, but there is an answer to these difficulties. Here's what I recall.

The Concordat that the Vatican signed with Germany in 1933 gave them certain rights, among them the independence of their youth groups. To avoid violating that Concordat, the Nazis did not carry out the very last step in passing a 1936 law requiring participation in the Hitler Youth. Few Germans knew about that technicality, so most Protestant youth groups ended at that time. But that technicality did let German youths in the more Catholic and anti-Nazi regions of Germany, particularly Bavaria, avoid the Hitler Youth until 1941 when it really did become mandatory, no doubt as a "war measure" like the euthanasia program.

So the new Pope's youthful experiences do mesh with the law as it was actually applied. And don't forget that Nazism was extremely unpopular in Catholic rural areas. As noted in Who Voted for Hitler? in many such areas, the ONLY vote for the Nazi party came from the Volkschule (public) school teacher, a member of a group that was rabidly Nazi.

And don't forget that the Catholic church's resistance to Nazism was primarily passive. Bishop Galen compared it to the difference between the hammer and the anvil. At that time, he said, the Nazis were a hammer pounding on us, but in the end the anvil would always outlasted the hammer. You may criticize Catholicism for not resisting more actively, but they did resist, unlike German universities, the press and the legal system. Two days after Hitler took power, he controlled German broadcasting. Ten years later Hitler was still ranting about how he would take revenge on the Catholic and Protestant clergy after the war.

Also, never forget that that the idea that a secular state intensely nationalistic and reducing religion to secondary status began with the National Liberals in the Kulturkampf of the 1870s. There are remarks by a Pope Pius from the late 19th century that were written to criticize attacks by liberals on Catholicism, but many modern day readers would take them as an attack on Nazi ideology.

Those who really want to know what happened might want to locate a copy of a 1940 book, The Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich, a book written in Germany and smuggled out as the war began--an act of high treason punishable by death. It has quite a bit of original source material, much of it on the Hitler Youth.

You can also see the loathing devout Catholics had for Nazism in letters J. R. R. Tolkien wrote during that era, a topic I discuss in Untangling Tolkien

--Mike Perry, Inkling Books, Seattle

Editor: Dachau Liberated & Eugenics and Other Evils

Author: Untangling Tolkien

I am surprised that few (actually, none that I have read) have pointed out how ludicrous it is for the new pope--and for any religious leader, for that matter--to continue endorsing an agenda so critical of the bogeyman "relativism" and of competing forms of religious expression, and so determined, to put it bluntly, not to change.

The fact is that the Church has thrived so long because it has been dynamic, open to calculated change in doctrine and in organization, when faced with both inside and outside threats. It has survived the corrupt papacies of the Renaissance, schisms within Christendom, the epistemological force of the Enlightenment, and the unification of Italy, and yet it has to dig in its heels on--gasp--ordaining female clergy?

I think it's shameful to have a pope who can be so hateful. He does not want people for the same sex to be seen as human, it reminds me of the Nazi's and how they saw other racis as non-humans. Didn't God teach to love thy neighbor and not to judge. And isn't this what he is doing? It's hard for to believe that this man is seen as the "holiest" when he seems to be unholy. He needs to take the time and rereda the bible and learn God's way.