Joseph wrote: > Here are some links - > > http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/nazi02.htm > > http://www.corax.org/revisionism/admissions/010904popepius.html > > http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html > > http://ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p26_Martinez.html
Dear Joseph, I have read the 4 links above. The 1st one is from Newsweek magazine, hardly a reliable source to write history (see why below). The 2nd one is from a revisionist organization, as you know, those same people also claim the holocaust never happened. The 3rd one mentions Einstein's quote you reprinted. If you read it, he makes no mention of the Pope himself. There is no question that SOME christians helped jews during the war (otherwise I wouldn't be here). As the article mentions, many christians ended up in camps. For example in Dachau alone, U.S troops found 326 german priests inmates, and those were only the survivors. HOWEVER, these acts were performed by local clergy and individuals WITHOUT the official encouragement from the Vatican, in fact in disobedience of the Pope. The article also mentions Pius XI, who was anti-german, not Pius XII. The 4th link is from a Vatican press representative. She also mentions that Paul VI released the Vatican archives. However, as I wrote yesterday, those were selected archives and historians have said all along that they cannot reach a conclusion without the entire archives. She also refers to a famous historian, Saul Friedlander, as being one of the 2 sources for this negative approach. Well it just so happens I read Friedlander's book last night (until 4 a.m, then I dreamed I was at Woodstock, weird uh?). The book is entitled Pius XII and the Third Reich and was printed in 1964. Before I delve into it, I would like to say there is a huge difference between journalists and historians. Historians such as Friedlander cross-analyze documents from various sources on the same events (in this case diplomatic sources and all the Third Reich foreign ministry archives except 1 missing volume which coincides to the day with the deportation of Roman jews!). He analyzes the personality and background of the writers of the documents, to see whether those sources are credible or not. He uses entire quotes almost exclusively, so as not to take them out of context. He replaces the quotes in the original context of the events. He only retains documents which can be correlated with ones from other sources. He uses extreme intellectual rigor and expresses reservations whenever there is a possible alternate explanation. It's precisely because Friedlander cannot compare the various sources to the Vatican archives that he reaches no definitive conclusion. I see no such rigor in the writings of journalists. Reading this book makes me feel like the analysis of historical events by journalists is like having brain surgery performed by a nurse. (no offense to Sarah, she's more informed than most journalists I know). Book summary: Pius XII, before becoming Pope in 1939, was the Vatican representative in Germany from 1917 to 1929. He is also a close personal friend of 30 years with the German ambassador to the Vatican from 1920-43 (Bergen, who is the author of many documents correlated by Friedlander). Pius XII has a special affection for the German people. As a Cardinal, he often defends Germany to Pius XI. He goes out of his way to have personal relations with the Third Reich, often writin in Latin and in German, and clearly sees Hitler's regime as politically acceptable as any other. So there is indeed a special relationship between the Pope and Germany, which was not altered by the nature of the Nazi regime until 1944. Moreover, Pius XII feared the bolcheviks more than anything, and he hoped that Hitler's Germany would block USSR's advance to the west. Friedlander concludes that he cannot reach a definitive conclusion about the SILENCE of the Vatican regarding the Holocaust since he only has incomplete documents. According to the documents available, there are 4 explanations given by the Pope or his secretary of state regarding this silence: * According to Cardinal Maglione, the Pope could not condemn specific atrocities. Pius XII observed that he could not condemn german atrocities without condemning Bolchevik ones. * In his letter to Cardinal Preysing, Pius XII wrote that he wouldn't give up his reserve in order to avoid even more evils. * In his speech to the Holy College of june 43, Pius XII reiterates the same argument, and also infers that all previous steps towards the Nazis have remained useless. * German archives contain no steps from the Vatican regarding the jews, except 3 interventions from Cardinal Orsenigo. Friedlander adds that the possibility exits that some other interventions may have taken place and the archives missing. Friedlander concludes by saying that upon reading the german documents, 2 questions remain which cannot be answered without access to Vatican archives: * How can one conceive that up to the end of 1943, the Pope and the high dignitaries of the Church wished for a German victory on the east front, and thus implicitly seemed to accept the status quo of the whole Nazi extermination machinery? * How can one explain the special affection marks that Pius XII went on giving to the Germans, even in 43, when he knew the nature of the Nazi regime? So, as you can see Friedlander is a moderate (as a true historian should be). Unfortunately, I never heard of the events you related. As I said, any hiding and saving of jews have been made by LOCAL clergy, often disobeying the Vatican's orders and often sent to the camps because of their disobeying Nazis. Pius XII himself excelled by his silence on the fate of jews. Laurent
