tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18369530.post116984648367962012..comments2023-06-29T13:25:30.567+02:00Comments on The Editrix' Roncesvalles: Who but a few Catholics and truth-loving people cares?The_Editrixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07529769143608862966noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18369530.post-31157346583774150132010-06-21T19:03:12.207+02:002010-06-21T19:03:12.207+02:00I can't disagree with anything you say. Pacepa...I can't disagree with anything you say. Pacepa is certainly a shady source, but Germany is such a monolithic bloc in its politically correct mainstream that his revelation was like a breath of fresh air to me. From then on, everything fell into place like the pieces of a puzzle. There are others who came forward with similar views since then as well. How one can be, after all that, actually amazed about Hochhuth's shoulder-rubbing with David Irving is beyond me.<br /><br />Hochhuth's reputation hasn't suffered much here, though. People don't see what they don't want to see. Much more attention ought to be paid, too, to Hochhuth's sponsor and former employer <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertelsmann" rel="nofollow">Bertelsmann</a>.The_Editrixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07529769143608862966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18369530.post-58414717669050562842010-06-20T21:52:15.064+02:002010-06-20T21:52:15.064+02:00Pacepa is regarded as a dubious source, and at any...Pacepa is regarded as a dubious source, and at any rate nearly everything that is to do with the secret wars is still controversial, and if historians will ever come to understand what actually went on, it will be far in the future. But there is one point about that damned play that is certain. Hochhuth produced another, which was meant to smear, not the Pope, but Winston Churchill - whom he charged with murdering Sikorski, the Polish leader in exile. This time the target was ill-chosen, and the play flopped among avalanches of contempt; the English, who had just buried their national heroes, were not disposed to swallow propaganda lies about him just yet. From then on Hochhuth, though he remained a professional writer, fell back into obscurity; interestingly, he did not even become one of those fly-by-night celebrities who are frequently seen on TV screens taking part in opinion panels and such. He was genuinely dropped, it seems to me.<br /><br />My point is this. If there were two people who came out of WWII with a glowing reputation - and who had got it by opposing Nazism - they were the Pope and Churchill. The fact that Hochhuth smeared both in succession made me feel pretty certain, before I read Pacepa's article, that he was a post-Nazi revanchist trying to bring the enemies of Nazism down to the level of infamy of the Nazis themselves. Moral equivalency, as you know all too well, has always been the weapon of choice of tyrannies. But that does not even have to contradict Pacepa's account, which seems to me plausible though unproven; after all, the interests and feelings of defeated Nazis and victorious Communists would be the same - especially in the sixties, when the equivalency of suffering of the immediate post-war period had been replaced by the evident economic success of the West and the increasingly evident backwardness and decline of the Communist world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com