Deaths of Catholic Priests at KL Dachau

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 10 Apr 2004 22:23

From the New York Times, 1 Apr 1946, but it's no joke:

fknorr · Post by **fknorr** » 13 Apr 2004 18:31

I know the NY Times is infallible but how did they come up w/this number?

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 13 Apr 2004 18:37

fknorr wrote:I know the NY Times is infallible but how did they come up w/this number?

It says above that the number came from Vatican radio.

/Marcus

fknorr · Post by **fknorr** » 13 Apr 2004 19:15

Marcus Wendel wrote:It says above that the number came from Vatican radio.

Ok...where are the names of the additional 966 priests?

Most of the way down under "Priests of the Holocaust", this one doesn't seem to be revisionist: http://www.catholictradition.org/dachau.htm

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 13 Apr 2004 19:16

fknorr wrote:
Marcus Wendel wrote:It says above that the number came from Vatican radio.
Ok...where are the names of the additional 966 priests?

Prehaps the staff of the Vatican radio can answer your question?

/Marcus

fknorr · Post by **fknorr** » 13 Apr 2004 19:30

Marcus Wendel wrote:Prehaps the staff of the Vatican radio can answer your question?/Marcus

Maybe 1946 Vatican Radio was in error?
Maybe the NY Times posted the wrong number?

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 13 Apr 2004 19:43

fknorr wrote:
Marcus Wendel wrote:Prehaps the staff of the Vatican radio can answer your question?
Maybe 1946 Vatican Radio was in error?
Maybe the NY Times posted the wrong number?

Possible, but a question to the staff of the Vatican radio might help put your mind at ease.
Just trying to help you in your research.

/Marcus

fknorr · Post by **fknorr** » 13 Apr 2004 19:46

Marcus Wendel wrote:Possible, but a question to the staff of the Vatican radio might help put your mind at ease. Just trying to help you in your research.

Shouldn't defending their data be on the backs of the posters?

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 13 Apr 2004 19:49

fknorr wrote:
Marcus Wendel wrote:Possible, but a question to the staff of the Vatican radio might help put your mind at ease. Just trying to help you in your research.
Shouldn't defending their data be on the backs of the posters?

I'm just trying to be helpful, but unfortunately it seems that is an alien concept to you.

/Marcus

fknorr · Post by **fknorr** » 13 Apr 2004 20:16

Marcus Wendel wrote:I'm just trying to be helpful, but unfortunately it seems that is an alien concept to you./Marcus

I am not the one to make sure all the data that is posted here is accurate....if that is my new position here, I want a raise!

I have no axe to grind with anyone, only questioning the numbers of the clipping that was posted. In two minutes I had various sources that claimed the number was 1/2 of what was posted.

Here is another link that almost mimics the earlier one I posted (difference from the total of approx 50)
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20030328.html

In regards to being "helped" as alien to me, I beg to differ. If indeed this was my post and my facts were (probably) in error, I would accept help (no matter how bitter of a pill to swallow) and modify my achives w/the correct data.

The only reason I am continuing this no-win argument is that I desire everyone here to be held to the same posting standards. If one of the so-called "revisionists" here posted data that was in all likelihood 100% more than the actual numbers, they would be crucified. If David or some other person thinks enough of this thread to do a search and find the absolutely accurate number of Catholic Priests killed during the Holocaust, my hat is off to them. I have found two links to current data that show similar numbers...both from Catholic/Pro Catholic sites. If anything I would have thought these sites would be (if not accurate), on the high side.

In addition (if anyone cares), 780 priests died at Mauthausen, 300 at Sachsenhausen and 5,000 in Buchenwald....from the link above

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 13 Apr 2004 20:59

You asked:

fknorr wrote:I know the NY Times is infallible but how did they come up w/this number?

I was just doing my best to help you getting an answer to that question, I don't understand why you insist on taking that attempt at helping you as something of an insult.

To me personally, it does not particullary matter it it was 2.000 or 1.034 priests that were killed, it is a very large number either way.

/Marcus

fknorr · Post by **fknorr** » 13 Apr 2004 21:08

Marcus Wendel wrote:To me personally, it does not particullary matter it it was 2.000 or 1.034 priests that were killed, it is a very large number either way.

Surprise Surprise, I do not agree w/this statement...if there is no difference in the numbers, lets go tell whomever issues your paycheck that there is no difference between $1,000 and $2,000. What would you rather have?

We are talking something as insignificant as Money, not lives. There is a difference in numbers...that would be 1,000 more parents that lost children, 1,000 more (or less) everything...there is a difference, and it is great, we are talking human beings.

If we are going to throw numbers around, lets say 2,000,000 Jews killed in the Holocaust...2,000,000 and 6,000,000 are both big numbers...what's the difference.

If you do not have accuracy, it is not History, it is fiction...we are here to study history, not critique Steven King novels.

Marcus · Post by **Marcus** » 13 Apr 2004 21:21

fknorr wrote:If you do not have accuracy, it is not History, it is fiction

I take it that you have never studied history? Absolute accuracy can never be achived in history.

fknorr wrote:If we are going to throw numbers around, lets say 2,000,000 Jews killed in the Holocaust...2,000,000 and 6,000,000 are both big numbers...what's the difference.

To me personally it would make no real difference, both are huge numbers and either one would be a crime almost beyond belief. If the number of murdered were 2 million rather than 6 million, would that make the persons responsible anyless of murderers and criminals to me? No.
[my less than perfect English makes the above sound somewhat harsher than intended]

/Marcus

Rob - wssob2 · Post by **Rob - wssob2** » 13 Apr 2004 21:42

Fknorr, if you're legitimately interested in researching the number of Catholic priests who died at Dachau, a couple of resources for you to check would be the International Tracing Service at Arolsen, an organization which has attempted to compile accurate lists of all registered arrivals and all deaths at the Dachau KZ during 1933-45. Another person you should research is Catholic Bishop Johannes Neuhäusler (1888-1973) a former Dachau KZ inmate and author of such books as What Was It Like at Concentration Camp Dachau and Cross and Swastika. The first book gives many details about the incarceration of clergymen at the KZ, who they were, and their attempts to practice their religion behind the backs of the SS camp administration. In the late 1950's Neuhäusler was instrumental in getting a Catholic chapel built at the former inmates compound of the KZ.

David Thompson · Post by **David Thompson** » 13 Apr 2004 21:47

fknorr -- In regard to this thread, you posted a source which provided a lesser figure for the deaths of Catholic priests at KL Dachau. You then suggested the New York Times article or the Vatican radio broadcast may have been incorrect. In reply, Marcus Wendel wrote:

Possible, but a question to the staff of the Vatican radio might help put your mind at ease. Just trying to help you in your research.

You answered:

Shouldn't defending their data be on the backs of the posters?

Okay. You posted the http://www.catholictradition.org/dachau.htm data. Defend it, explaining why that organization failed to find or chose to omit the names of "about" an additional 966 priests who died at KL Dachau.

If your back cannot bear the burden of defending those figures, you can take consolation from this: As a general proposition, it is sufficient to post a reputable source for the statistic. I do not know how your internet source stacks up in credibility against the Vatican Radio and the New York Times, but the Vatican is generally considered definitive in matters touching on or affecting Catholics generally, and priests in particular. Note that the last sentence in the Times article seems to group priests and monks, which may also have been done in the Vatican radio broadcast.