Bronk, I thought you were supposed to be bringing new proof to the table, as I have, not rehashing old material we have already gone through. Repeating the same claim over and over again is unproductive...You did not convince me the first time you brought it up, so what makes you think you are going to convince me by repeating a 5th time without adding any new or supplemental evidence. Ummm...No it is not...The book provides no direct link that the money raised by Spellman for the NCWC went to help Nazi ratlines. It makes the assumption that a portion of this money eventually was used to fund Nazi ratlines. Your hatred trips you up my friend, as nowhere did I say this. Please quote me where I said this. The papal relief commission helped millions of refugees and children after the war. To do so, is going to take a great deal of coin. Where is this mostly going to come from? - The only prosperous nation left untouched by the war. Hence, the book is stating the obvious. What is left unfounded is the direct link. The author makes the leap of faith that the money raised by the NCWC and passed along to the PCA eventually helped fund Nazi ratlines. Now for this to be true, the Vatican must be completely broke. It wasn't and had it's own sizeable funds to draw upon. However, the author fails to complete the money trail by following the money through to it's final destination. And...What is your point? Where is it written that I must 100% agree with everything in a book before I can recommend it? What is the accepted percentage of agreement for recommendation - 99%, 95%, 90%, 85%? Again, the money trail is not followed through to it's eventual end. It stops in the middle - leaving room for reasonable doubt. The $$$$ raised by Spellman could have easily went to the millions of refugees and children, with nothing going to the ratlines. The last remaining connections in the money trail are never made, only assumed. By the logic used, all of them were...As well as all their parishioners. The book never completes the money trail from Spellman to the ratlines, thus it does not support you conclusion. Your first link was a pay wall. Considering your 2nd link (Wiki carbon copy) mentions neither Nazis or ratlines...What is there to support? The 3rd link was unsubstantiated material - "some historians" (of course no names are given) and "it has been written" (of course, no mention where it has been written or what was written about it). I much prefer...Historian So-and-So said this quoted paragraph or three. As opposed to simply leaving it to my imagination. Considering your 2nd to last link WAS the book...The book supporting the book...Wow! Who woulda thunk that.