The Pacelli Archive

Timeline of Events and Documents With Links to Translations and Original Documents This is a collaborative project to document, in broad historical context, the development and impact of the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. To facilitate navigation, the following threads, or historical topics, are identified by a distinctive icon: Click on the right side of the icon to advance to the next entry in the thread; click on the left side to go backwards in the thread. To get started, click on either side of any icon below. Thread 1: Hitler, Goebbels and the Nazi propaganda theme of Jewish-Communist worldwide conspiracy The central role of the Jewish-Communist myth as Nazi rationale for war and Holocaust is well known; less known is the similar role the myth played in the Nazi rationale for overthrowing the Weimar Republic in 1922-1923, for stripping Jewish Germans of citizenship in 1935, and for helping Franco overthrow the elected government of Spain beginning in 1936. Thread 2: Development of the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory in Germany, 1914-1919 By governmental, military and journalistic elites in northern Germany, including Count Reventlow, the Deutsche Tagezeitung, the Alldeutscher Verband, and the Deutschvölkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund; and by fringe figures in Bavaria such as Paul Bang of the DNVP and proto-Nazis Dietrich Eckart and Alfred Rosenberg. Thread 3: Development of the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory in Munich-based Catholic publications, 1917-1920 Contrary to some historians who present the acceptance of the Judeo-Bolshevik myth among Bavarian Catholics as natural and all but inevitable, influential voices in Catholic Bavaria, including the leading Munich-based Catholic journals, publicly explained Communism and the 1917 Russian Bolshevik Revolution in terms other than Jewish influence or control, until a turning point in spring 1920. Thread 4: Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory in Hungary, 1919-1938 The widely publicized mass murders and persecutions of Jews in Hungary and Poland in 1919-1920 made the power and impact of the Jewish-Communist myth manifest internationally at the formational time of the Nazi Party in Munich. Thread 5: Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory in Poland, 1919-1930s Names in this thread include Achille Ratti, Vatican Nuncio to Poland who later becomes Pope Pius XI, and the Polish Bishops Conference, in 1919-1920; and Cardinal-Archbishop Hlond and L’Osservatore Romano in the mid-1930s. Thread 6: The Vatican’s stance on the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory, 1918-1945 As manifested publicly by the Vatican in its daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano and by the Vatican-supervised journal La Civiltà Cattolica, and as stated privately in reports by high-ranking Vatican officials. The stance is best summarized in the title of a Munich Archdiocesan newspaper article on May 2, 1920: „Nicht Judenhass, sondern Christenschutz“ [Not Jew-hatred, but Christian-defense]. The standard historical reference on “The Vatican’s Stance on National Socialism as Reflected in L’Osservatore Romano” by Sandmann overlooks most of the articles in this thread. Thread 7: Jewish-Masonic world conspiracy, predecessor to the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory A study in similar modus operandi of conspiracy theorists: (1) Highlight a handful of Jews who are high-ranking Masons (or Communists). (2) Construct an elaborate theory of Jewry controlling Masonry (or Communism) worldwide. (3) Arouse fear and hatred toward the Jewish-Masonic (or Jewish-Communist) threat to the homeland, Western Civilization, Christianity, and/or the Catholic Church. Thread 8: 19th century writings reflected in the first editions of the Protocols in early 20th century Russia Parts of the Protocols draw upon works of Maurice Joly and Hermann Goedsche, which are well known to historians of the Protocols; the pervasive Protocols theme of worldwide Jewish control of the Masonic movement in order to destroy and dominate Christian peoples draws more upon the lesser known work of Gabriel Jogand-Pagès (a/k/a Leo Taxil) under the pseudonym Docteur Bataille. Thread 9: Promoting the Protocols in the United States, 1918-1920 Czarist Russian intelligence officer Boris Brasol, operating in Washington DC and New York, creates the first known English language excerpts from the Protocols, when he places quotations from the Protocols at the beginning and end of his four-page concoction entitled “Bolshevism and Judaism,” which he sends to the head of US Army Intelligence, Brig. Gen. Marlborough Churchill, in November 1918; Brasol’s efforts to disseminate the Protocols in the US come to public fruition in spring 1920 via Henry Ford and his Dearborn Independent newspaper. Thread 10: Early promotions of Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory and the Protocols in the United Kingdom Brasol's false assertions against Jewish financiers along with his quotations from the Protocols reach England in fall 1919, but are blocked from publication by the head of MI5/MI6 under advice from the US Government; in early 1920 Jewish-Communism assertions receive public support from Winston Churchill (Feb. 8, 1920), and later that year the Protocols are published in English by the King's own publishers, Eyre & Spottiswoode. Thread 11: Transnational network promoting the Protocols and the Jewish-Communist myth, 1918-1921 Dissemination of the Protocols in the aftermath of World War I is promoted by White Russian exiles in the US (Boris Brasol) and Bavaria (Alfred Rosenberg, Max von Scheubner-Richter, Fedor Vinberg, Piotr Shabelskii-Bork, Ivan Poltavets-Ostranitsa and others), as well as by ex-Vatican official Umberto Benigni and his international network. Thread 12: Fr. Coughlin promoting the Jewish-Communist myth and Protocols in the US, 1938-1942 After emphasizing populist themes during the 1920s and most of the 1930s, including many attacks on financiers both Jewish and non-Jewish, Fr. Coughlin begins in 1938 to publish the Protocols serially; then, in November 1938, ten days after the nationwide pogrom of Kristallnacht in Germany, Coughlin begins to focus extensive attacks on the supposed Jewish-capitalist-Communist world conspiracy, taking material directly from Brasol's multi-page falsification as published in La Documentation Catholique in March 1920. Thread 13: Promoting the Protocols in Germany, 1919-1929 [forthcoming] Thread 14: Promoting the Protocols in France, 1919-1929 Thread 15: Promoting the Protocols in Italy, 1919-1929 Thread 16: Jewish-Communist myth and Protocols in Argentina, 1933-1945 Thread 17: Promoting the Protocols today Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to this URL. All translations, unless otherwise indicated, are by Stephen Galebach, who is also responsible for copyright law analysis with respect to the documents. Bibliography 1800s Circa 1800 Napoleon’s armies set Jews free throughout Europe from ghettoes and legal discrimination, including in the Papal States. Earliest known allegations of Jewish-Masonic conspiracy behind the French Revolution are made by Abbé Augustin Barruel, a French Jesuit priest. 1815 Following the defeat of Napoleon, the Congress of Vienna re-establishes European monarchies; in the restored Papal States, Pope Pius VII re-institutes the ghettoes of Rome, Bologna and several other cities. 1819 The Hep-Hep riots in Germany, a series of pogroms in Würzburg and then cities in the Rhineland and the north, kill or injure many Jews and loot their property. June 16, 1846 Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti is elected Pope and takes the name Pius IX; his 31-year Pontificate, the longest on record, witnesses the fall of the Papal States and the forming of the nation of Italy. 1848-1849 A popular movement establishes a democratic republican form of government in Rome and Pope Pius IX flees to Gaeta Castle near Naples. 1850 French troops overpower Roman Republic forces and institute military rule on behalf of the Pope; the following year Pius XI returns to Rome. 1858 Edgardo Mortara, a six year old Jewish boy, is seized from his family home in Bologna by Papal States police and taken to Rome, based on the statement by a domestic servant that she secretly baptized the boy several years earlier when he was sick and, she feared, in danger of death. Pope Pius IX refuses to return Edgardo to his family; the resulting worldwide outrage undermines Austrian and French commitments to uphold Pius IX’s temporal rule. 1859 Austrian troops leave Bologna and the Romagna region of the Papal States, and democratic forces immediately rise up and form new governing bodies there. 1869 The Vatican-supervised journal La Civiltà Cattolica [Catholic Civilization] equates Judaism and the Masonic movement, describing a “vast conspiracy” by the “Jewish-Masonic sect” to attack the Catholic Church, destroy its religious orders, and steal their property. English translation of article Historian Lebovitch Dahl has traced Civiltà Cattolica’s Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theorizing back to the journal’s first volume of 1850 and its four-part series entitled “The Hebrew of Verona.” (see Bibliography) Also, in 1869, Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theory appears as a central theme in a book by French writer Roger Gougenot des Mousseaux, who makes dozens of references to prominent Jewish French lawyer Adolphe Crémieux, the head of the Alliance Israélite Universelle and the French Masonic order, in order to insinuate that Jewry controls Masonry worldwide. Later, in 1918-1920 United States, Bavaria, France and elsewhere, the same tactic is used to insinuate that Jewry controls Communism worldwide, by identifying Jewish Communist leaders by name and generalizing to a universal identification of Judaism and Communism. Excerpts in French original and English translation from Gougenot’s Le Juif: le judaïsme et la judaïsation des peuples chrétiens (Paris: Plons, 1869) In 1870, Gougenot’s book receives an enthusiastic review from Civiltà Cattolica. Sept. 20, 1870 Italian troops breach the walls of Rome, and Papal Zouaves surrender the city to the forces of Italian unification. This marks the end of the Papal States as an entity under the sovereign rule of the Pope. The “Roman Question,” the competing claims of the Pope and the nation of Italy to sovereignty over Rome, persists for many decades until resolved in 1929 by Pope Pius XI and Mussolini. Jan. 1, 1871 Germany is united under Kaiser Wilhelm I, King of Prussia, and Jews receive rights of citizenship throughout the new German Reich [Empire]. 1871 Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theory is advanced in Germany by the Jesuit priest August Rohling in his book Der Talmudjude [the Talmud-Jew], which quickly sells multiple editions and is translated into French, Polish, Dutch, Hungarian and other languages. English translation and German original of excerpt, including generalizing from the example of Adolphe Crémieux to a theory of universal control of Masonry by Jewry. 1878 Kaiser Wilhelm I’s Lutheran chaplain Adolf Stoecker founds the Christlichsoziale Arbeiterpartei [Christian-Social Workers Party], one of several German antisemitic parties that experience limited electoral success in the late 1800s and then decline by the time of World War I. The name and concept of Christlichsoziale, combining antisemitic propaganda with social programs for workers, are later adopted by Karl Lueger’s political movement in Austria. Feb. 20, 1878 Vincenzo Pecci, Bishop of Perugia, Italy, is elected Pope Leo XIII and enters upon a 25-year pontificate. 1880s 1880 E.N. Chabouty, a French Catholic priest, publishes a book devoted to Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theory: Franc-maçons et Juifs: Sixième âge de l’église d'après l’apocalypse [Freemasons and Jews: Sixth Age of the Church According to the Book of Revelation] (Paris: Société générale de librairie catholique, 1880). Dec. 1880 La Civiltà Cattolica commences a series of polemical articles against the Jewish people. These antisemitic articles extend over a period of more than three years, appearing in approximately half the issues of this journal during that time. Civiltà Cattolica was (and still is) a twice-monthly journal published by a select community of Jesuit priests in Rome, with each issue reviewed by the Vatican Secretary of State prior to publication. Jan. 1, 1881 Civiltà Cattolica’s first in a series of lengthy antisemitic articles demands special laws to exclude Jews from citizenship and profitable occupations, and to counteract alleged Jewish financial and economic influence. The article’s main points are that Jews remain foreigners in whatever country they live; that Judaism controls much of Freemasonry; that Jews universally inspire people to hate them; that Jewry should be understood as a race more than a religion; and that antisemitism should be pursued in a “just” and rational manner, rather than a passionate and vengeful manner, for “social defense” of Christian civilization. English translation of the article The main points of the article were, or became, a commonplace in antisemitic propaganda; they appear, for instance, in Hitler’s first known antisemitic writing, his letter to Gemlich in September 1919. 1881 Pogroms, violent attacks and riots against Jews, break out in Russia, the home of approximately half the world’s Jewish population, following the assassination of Czar Alexander II. 1882 The First Aliya begins. Thousands of Jews emigrate from Russia and Romania to Palestine, with the foundation of settlements such as Rishon LeZion (“First in Zion”) southeast of Jaffa and Rosh Pina (“Cornerstone”) northwest of the Sea of Galilee. Also, more than one million Jews emigrate from Russia to the United States by the end of the 19th century. Tens of thousands emigrate during this time to Argentina, which sends immigration agents to Warsaw and Odessa to recruit Jewish immigrants to the largely unpopulated country. Baron Maurice de Hirsch (from a Jewish Bavarian family living in France, having been ennobled by the King of Bavaria) finances Jewish immigration to Argentina. Apr. 20, 1884 Pope Leo XIII issues an encyclical entitled Humanum Genus, dedicated to condemning the Freemasons and exhorting Catholics to oppose them as forces of the “kingdom of Satan” arrayed against “the kingdom of God on earth,” the Catholic Church. This encyclical does not posit any connection between Freemasons and Jews; nor did any of Leo XIII’s encyclicals or other public statements contain any explicit denigration of Jews. English version of encyclical at Vatican website 1890s May 15, 1891 Pope Leo XIII issues his most famous encyclical, Rerum Novarum, on capital and labor, which continues to be central to Catholic social teaching through the 20th century. English version at Vatican website 1894 Gabriel Jogand-Pagès, French anti-Masonic writer, under the pseudonym “Dr. Bataille,” popularizes the notion that secret assemblies of Jews control the Masonic movement. English translation of French original Civiltà Cattolica later praises the works of Dr. Bataille and other anti-Masonic works by Jogand-Pagès under his various pseudonyms. When Jogand-Pagès discloses in 1897 that his writings have been a gigantic hoax, Civiltà Cattolica condemns him but states that much of what he wrote is nonetheless true. Dec. 22, 1894 Jewish French General Staff officer Alfred Dreyfus is falsely convicted by court-martial of espionage and treason, in the midst of an antisemitic propaganda campaign against him. 1896 Theodor Herzl publishes the book that launches the Zionist movement, Der Judenstaat [The Jewish State]. Herzl, having seen the impact of the Dreyfus Affair as a journalist posted to France, argues that despite best efforts and intentions, Jews are unable to gain acceptance and toleration in any country. Herzl’s book proposes a solution: that Jews establish or re-establish their own homeland. He also proposes that the Holy Places of Christianity and Islam, including the city of Jerusalem, be internationalized and not be part of the Jewish State. Excerpts in English translation at Jewish Virtual Library Additional versions of Der Judenstaat available online at Gutenberg Also in 1896, antisemitic agitation surges in France in reaction against the pro-Dreyfusard movement, and in Austria with the electoral victory of Karl Lueger’s Christian Social Party, also known as the Antisemitic Party. Aug. 15, 1896 Civiltà Cattolica rejoices in the “victory of the antisemites in the capital” of Austria, stating “the triumph of Dr. Lueger was such as to give the coup de grace to the old mafia of Jewish capitalism, allied in Vienna with Masonic liberalism.” English translation Sep. 19, 1896 Civiltà Cattolica praises the works of Jogand-Pagès, Leo Taxil, Dr. Bataille, Diana Vaughan and advertises the upcoming Anti-Masonic Congress. English translation Sep. 26-30, 1896 The First International Anti-Masonic Congress is held in the city of Trent, the site of the Council of Trent during the Counter-Reformation in the 16th century. Jogand-Pagès (Leo Taxil) is invited as a keynote speaker. Translation of Civiltà Cattolica’s Sept. 19, 1896 advertisement for the Congress Apr. 19, 1897 Jogand-Pagès discloses that his popular anti-Masonic works have been a hoax, at a widely-attended press conference at the Geographical Society in Paris on the Boulevard St. Germain; his hoax includes all the works under the pseudonyms of Leo Taxil, Dr. Bataille, and Diana Vaughan. May 1, 1897 Civiltà Cattolica reports at length on the Jogand-Pagès-Leo-Taxil hoax. English summary May 1, 1897 Civiltà Cattolica takes a stance against Zionism, arguing that a rebuilt Jerusalem at the center of a reconstituted nation of Israel would be unacceptable because it would contradict New Testament prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem. English translation May 15, 1897 Civiltà Cattolica, in a four-page article about the hoax conducted by Jogand-Pagès, states in conclusion that much of what he wrote is nonetheless true. English excerpt Aug. 29-31, 1897 The First Zionist Congress is held in Basel, Switzerland, with Theodor Herzl presiding. Jan. 13, 1898 Emile Zola publishes "J’Accuse" in L’Aurore in France, leading eventually to the unraveling of the fraudulent treason case against Major Alfred Dreyfus. Sept. 16, 1899 Civiltà Cattolica writes this about the Third Zionist Congress, noting the Zionists are not claiming Jerusalem: “What sort of Zionism is this, that from the start renounces Jerusalem and the ancient kingdom of Palestine? Does this not prove that they are betraying themselves and confessing that their intentions were utopian? Why not then completely give up the name Zionism? A race of murderers of God, even if supported by all the anti-Christian sects, feels itself beaten before the fight even begins, beaten by Jesus.” Source: Minerbi, p.97, quoting in English translation from the Italian original. Fuller translation Early 1900s July 20, 1903 Pope Leo XIII dies. Aug. 4, 1903 Giuseppe Sarto, Patriarch of Venice, becomes Pope Pius X (1903-1914). 1903 First edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is published in Russia by Sergei Nilus. Jan. 25, 1904 Theodor Herzl has an audience in Rome with Pope Pius X, who says the Catholic Church cannot support the movement of Jews to Jerusalem. The audience occurs on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (Saul of Tarsus). February 1908 Hitler moves at age 18 from his family home in Linz, Austria to Vienna, where he lives until moving to Munich in 1913. Contrary to Hitler’s later assertions in Mein Kampf, he shows no evidence of being an antisemite during his time in Vienna. Source: Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (1998), pp. 60-64; Brigitte Hamann, Hitler’s Vienna (1999), pp. 347-359. 1912 Jan. 12, 1912 In the last German election before World War One for delegates to the Reichstag, antisemites fare poorly. Antisemitic parties, declining from their peak two decades earlier, elected only 10 delegates to the 400-seat Reichstag. Antisemitic parties elected no delegates from Bavaria. The largest number of seats overall were won by the Social Democrats, with the Catholic Center Party second. Most parts of Bavaria voted Center Party, but in Munich the Social Democrats out-polled the Center. 1913 May 1913 Hitler receives an inheritance from his long-deceased father after reaching the age of 24, and moves from Vienna to Munich. Kershaw (1998), p.68. Aug. 9, 1913 Rome newspaper Corriere d'Italia features Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theory, claiming that Freemasonry is a Jewish organization seeking to destroy Italy. Source: Issue 8/219 (Aug. 9, 1913), p.6, cited by Arpaia (2015), p.244. Such propaganda could easily appear in Corriere d'Italia, despite its mainstream reputation, as a result of its association with two figures in the early 1910s who were later central to the dissemination of Jewish-Freemason-Communist conspiracy theory internationally and in Bavaria: Msgr. Umberto Benigni, former Vatican official heading the international spy network known as La Sapinière and Sodalitium Pianum. Cf. Nina Valbousquet, Les réseaux transnationaux de l’antisémitisme catholique [International Networks of Catholic Antisemitism]: France, Italie, 1914-1934, Doctoral Thesis, Paris Sciences Po 2016, pp. 175, 414, 674. Fr. Bernhard (a/k/a Don Bernardo) Stempfle, who began antisemitic propagandizing in Munich shortly after returning to his home city in 1917, following years of journalistic activity in Rome. Cf. Nachlass Stempfle, Folders 1-9, Bavarian Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich. Dec. 4, 1913 German military forces’ abuse of Alsatians during 1913 leads to the first-ever no confidence vote in the German Reichstag; Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg remains in office despite losing the vote. 1914 June 28, 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and his wife Sophie are assassinated in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina. July 28, 1914 World War One begins with Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia. Additional declarations of war follow, resulting in First World War between the “Central Powers,” Germany and Austria-Hungary, and the “Triple Entente,” France, Great Britain and Russia. August 1914 Hitler volunteers for the Bavarian army. Kershaw (1998), p.90. Aug. 17, 1914 The “Deutsche Komittee zur Befreiung der russischen Juden” [German Committee for the Liberation of the Russian Jews] is announced as part of a broader German plan to incite Jews in Russia to support revolutionary uprisings against the Czar. Source: Friedländer (1971), p. 31. The later conspicuous support of a small proportion of Russian Jews such as Trotsky and Radek for revolution in Russia will be cited in Germany and elsewhere to claim that Bolshevism was a Jewish plot. Aug. 20, 1914 Pope Pius X dies. Sep. 3, 1914 Giacomo della Chiesa, Archbishop of Bologna, becomes Pope Benedict XV (1914-1922). 1915 Apr. 16, 1915 Italy enters World War One on the side of the Triple Entente of France, Britain and Russia, against the Central Powers, who now include the Ottoman Empire as well as Germany and Austria-Hungary. As a condition for entering the war, Italy secures the commitment of the Allies that the Vatican will be excluded from any peace conference. Oct. 24, 1915 Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner for Egypt, writes Hussein bin Ali, the Sherif of Mecca, that England will support the independence of the Arabs against the Turkish Ottoman Empire. This leads to the Arab Revolt of 1916, famous for its association with British officer T.E. Lawrence. 1916 Feb. 9, 1916 Vatican responds to a request from leaders of the American Jewish Committee asking the Pope to mediate for their confrères in Europe who are suffering travails in regions ravaged by World War One, especially the regions of the Eastern Front. The Pope declines to address the specifics of their request but affirms, via the Vatican Secretary of State, general principles of brotherly love and natural law “toward the children of Israel as toward all men.” Translation of response published three months later in Civiltà Cattolica Italian original with side-by-side English translation: page 358 and page 359 May 16, 1916 Sykes-Picot secret agreement is reached between Britain, France and Russia, to allocate spheres of influence in the event the Allies defeat and divide up the Turkish Ottoman Empire. France is to have Lebanon, Syria and Northern Iraq; Russia is to have the Istanbul region; and Britain is to have Palestine, southern Iraq and Jordan, with the parties to consider placing the Holy Land under the jurisdiction of an international commission. Nov. 1916 Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, Vatican Secretary of State, gives detailed instructions to the new Vatican Nuncio to Bavaria, including instructions to develop a strong Catholic press in Bavaria: “... make every effort to support and propagate the good press.” Source: Hubert Wolf, Pope and Devil (2010), pp. 20-21, quoting in translation from “Instructions for Mons. Giuseppe Aversa, Apostolic Nuncio to Bavaria,” Nov. 1916, Vatican Secret Archives, Munich Nunciature, vol. 257, fasc. 10, fol. 1-108. 1917 Mar. 4, 1917 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper runs a two-page article with characteristic criticisms of Social Democrat Party and its policies, without attacks on Jews. Mar. 8-12, 1917 (Gregorian Calendar) February Revolution (per Julian Calendar used in Russia) takes place in Russia. Czar Nicholas II abdicates, resulting in a republic with Alexander Kerensky as the key figure. Apr. 6, 1917 United States declares war on Germany and enters World War One. Apr. 9, 1917 German Government transports Lenin, Karl Radek and fellow Bolsheviks from their exile in Zurich across Germany in a sealed train car, then assists them to cross the Baltic Sea to Sweden, and further assists their mostly successful passage through Finland to St. Petersburg. A central figure in arranging German Foreign Office approvals is Center Party politician Matthias Erzberger. During spring and summer 1917 Germany enables approximately 400 Communist revolutionaries to get to Russia. Sources: Epstein (1959); Hahlweg (1957). In subsequent years antisemites in Germany attack Bolshevism as a Jewish plot and do not discuss the ways in which it was a German plot. Apr. 12, 1917 Cardinal Francis von Bettinger, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, dies. Front page tribute to him in the Munich Archdiocesan newspaper Several days later the Vatican Nuncio to Bavaria, Archbishop Joseph Aversa, dies. Apr. 27, 1917 Telegram from leading Russian Jews to Jacob Schiff, Justice Louis Brandeis, Prof Gottheil, Oscar Straus, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Louis Marshall and Henry Morgenthau, sent via U.S. State Department, from U.S. Ambassador Francis in St. Petersburg to U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, requesting assistance to obtain financing for the new democratic Kerensky government of Russia. Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), State Dept. Records Relating to Internal Affairs of Russia and the Soviet Union (microfilm), Roll 117, M 316, State Dept. Decimal File 861.51. The Jewish American leaders coordinate with Lansing and follow his instructions not to provide the requested funding. Boris Brasol, a White Russian propagandist and former Czarist intelligence officer in the US, later twists the facts to accuse Schiff, Brandeis, Marshall, Straus and Wise, as well as the Warburg brothers and Rabbi Judah Magnes, of supporting Russian Bolshevism and financing Trotsky. Secretary of State Lansing learns of Brasol’s false accusations against leading Jewish Americans in October-November 1919; he advises the British Government privately through diplomatic channels against allowing the Morning Post to publish Brasol’s “Bolshevism and Judaism” falsification, but US authorities do not publicly expose or denounce Brasol’s fraud when it is later published in France and Bavaria as “an official American report.” Apr. 29, 1917 General Secretary of the World Zionist Congress, Nahum Sokolow, meets at the Vatican with Eugenio Pacelli, who was Secretary of the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, reporting to Vatican Secretary of State Gasparri. Sokolow reports that Pacelli shows him extraordinary courtesy and tells him it is essential that the Zionists define what is meant by the Holy Places, “for on this there are differences of view: some hold that they mean all the country, others - that they are only a few isolated sites. We must know in advance what you demand, in order to avoid conflicts and competition between us...” Source: Minerbi, p.108, quoting in translation from Sokolow’s report to Chaim Weizmann, Apr. 29, 1917. Pacelli then arranges an audience for Sokolow with Pope Benedict XV. Source: Rychlak, Hitler, p.26. Apr. 29, 1917 Count Ernst von Reventlow, a major contributor on military and foreign affairs to the influential national Deutsche Zeitung, writes in that paper that “the influence of the Russian Jews in the revolutionary events of Russia now seems very great and growing.” May 1, 1917 Sokolow meets with Cardinal Gasparri, who says the area the Vatican claims as Holy Places includes Jerusalem and “branching out from there to Bethlehem and Jericho, and we have demands regarding Tiberias, Nazareth, and possibly also Tabor-Nazareth.” Minerbi, p.109, quoting in translation from Sokolow to Weizmann, May 1. May 3, 1917 Chaim Weizmann receives a letter describing a recent meeting in Switzerland of influential Catholics, including Matthias Erzberger, to orchestrate Catholic pressure from major countries to oppose British control of Palestine and make it an internationalized territory under protection of the Pope. Source: Minerbi, p.114. May 4, 1917 Nahum Sokolow meets with Pope Benedict XV, who begins by recalling Rome’s destruction of Judea, which the Zionists now propose to rebuild, and concludes by repeating several times, “Yes, I think we shall be good neighbors.” Minerbi, pp. 111-112, quoting in translation from memos of the meeting made by Sokolow. May 10, 1917 Letter from Louis Marshall in New York to US Secretary of State Robert Lansing thanking him for meeting with Marshall, Morgenthau and Straus; reporting that the American Jewish leaders in question wish to follow advice from Lansing and defer to US policy in the matter of loans for Russia; and asking Lansing to communicate that decision by telegram to Boris Kamenka at the Don Asov Bank in St. Petersburg. English original May 11, 1917 Letter from Alvey A. Adee, Second Assistant Secretary of State, to Louis Marshall, enclosing copy of telegram sent by U.S. Secretary of State to Boris Kamenka in Russia. English original May 12, 1917 Telegram is sent from Lansing to Kamenka via U.S. Embassy in St. Petersburg, transmitting message from Schiff, Marshall, Straus, Morgenthau, Wise and Gottheil that they will encourage subscriptions to U.S. Liberty Loans to enable U.S. Government to make low interest loans to the Russian Government, rather than comply with Kamenka’s request. English original May 13, 1917 Eugenio Pacelli is consecrated Archbishop by Pope Benedict XV in preparation for his new assignment as Papal Nuncio to Bavaria, Germany. Two-page article in Munich Archdiocesan newspaper about the consecration ceremonies in Rome, in German: page one; page two Also on May 13th, three shepherd children report seeing an appearance of Mary the Mother of Jesus near Fatima, Portugal. May 26, 1917 Michael von Faulhaber, Bishop of Speyer, Germany, is announced as the new Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Bavaria, Germany. May 27, 1917 Pacelli in Munich sends Cardinal Gasparri in Rome three detailed reports by German Catholic political figure Matthias Erzberger, in Italian, about German war goals, US intervention in the war, and the German press. Over the next two years, Erzberger serves as a confidential informant and aide to Pacelli within the German Government, until a breach between the two in late July, 1919. Hundreds of documents by or about Erzberger appear in the German “Pacelli Edition” word-searchable database of Pacelli's Nunciature documents, maintained by the University of Münster, in cooperation with the German Historical Institute in Rome and the Vatican Secret Archive. May 29, 1917 Archbishop Pacelli is received as Vatican Nuncio to Bavaria by Bavarian King Ludwig III in Munich. Pacelli also reports this day to Rome that Erzberger has donated a “most beautiful” Benz automobile, “powerful and elegant,” to the Munich Nunciature. Pope Benedict XV responds two weeks later with a letter of thanks to Erzberger. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document Nos. 9390, 9517. June 6, 1917 Pacelli cables Gasparri that Erzberger says Kaiser Wilhelm II will welcome a visit by Pacelli and a peace initiative by the Pope. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 4491. June 10, 1917 Erzberger reports to Pacelli that the Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary wants a peace initiative by Catholic authorities without delay, while Erzberger believes the best time for such action will be in September or October. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 362. June 21, 1917 Erzberger reports to Pacelli that he has initiated an international Catholic appeal for peace, communicated by a Catholic association in Switzerland to the Catholic Bishops of many countries. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 364. June 26-30, 1917 Archbishop Pacelli meets with German Reich Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg in Berlin, and with Kaiser Wilhelm at Kreuznach, to discuss a planned peace proposal from Pope Benedict XV. English translation of report from Pacelli to Gasparri, Italian original and German summary online at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 366 July 8, 1917 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper runs a detailed article on Freemasonry, on the 200th anniversary of its founding; no mention of Jews. German original July 19, 1917 Matthias Erzberger of the Catholic Center Party succeeds in securing a majority vote in the German Reichstag for a Peace Resolution calling for peace terms without changes in boundaries or economic impositions. Gasparri cables Pacelli: “In the event that the conditions of the peace note present difficulties, Your Excellency should work in any event to obtain conditions that would truly be acceptable to the other side; otherwise everything is useless... Make the Chancellor reflect ...” Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 802 July 22, 1917 Pacelli cables Gasparri that newspapers are attributing Erzberger's Peace Resolution to Vatican influence; he leaves it to Gasparri whether to publish a denial; and he assures Gasparri that the Munich Nunciature played no role in the matter. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 6052 July 27, 1917 Pacelli reports to Gasparri on his discussions with the new German Chancellor, Michaelis, about terms of the planned Papal peace proposal and the timing for announcing it. English translation - Italian original and German summary at online Pacelli-Edition Aug. 26, 1917 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper article expresses hopes for unification with Russian Orthodox Church in wake of the overthrow of the Czar. German original A follow-up article two weeks later expresses the additional hope that the long oppressed Catholic Church in Russia will now experience freedom. Sept. 4, 1917 Nuncio Pacelli reports to Gasparri about a request from a Munich Rabbi for Vatican help to gain Italian authorization for a shipment of palm fronds in time for the Feast of Tabernacles. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Two weeks later, Gasparri responds to Pacelli that “the Holy See obviously cannot support the request.” Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Ten days after that, Pacelli reports that the Munich Rabbi was “perfectly convinced” by the explanations he gave. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Sept. 16, 1917 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper features a pastoral letter from Archbishop Faulhaber thanking Bavarian King Ludwig III for appointing him, and Pope Benedict XV for investing him, as Munich’s Archbishop. German original of page one Second and third pages Oct. 13, 1917 At Fatima, tens of thousands of Portuguese who have trudged through rain to the site of reported appearances of Mary the Mother of Jesus witness the “dance of the sun.” Source: Lisbon newspaper O Seculo. Oct. 17, 1917 Pacelli reports to Gasparri about his visit to a prisoner-of-war camp in Germany. English translation Oct. 22, 1917 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that former Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and current Chancellor Hertling have complained to him about Matthias Erzberger, who has been unique among Center Party figures in serving the Nunciature and the Holy See. English translation Nov. 2, 1917 The Balfour Declaration is issued by the British Government: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish Communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other Country.” Nov. 7, 1917 Lenin, previously inserted into Russia by the German Government with the encouragement of Matthias Erzberger, successfully conducts the Bolshevik Revolution and takes over the Russian Government. Source: Klaus Epstein, Matthias Erzberger and the Dilemma of German Democracy (Princeton, 1959), pp. 168-169 (Erzberger successfully lobbied the German Foreign Office and Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg to insert Lenin into Russia). Nov. 15, 1917 Cardinal Gasparri asks Nuncio Pacelli to influence the German Government to intercede with the Turkish Ottoman authorities, allies of Germany, to protect the Holy Places and Jewish population of Jerusalem. Source: Rychlak, Hitler, p.27, citing Hesemann (2008) and Lapide (1967). Cf. Gasparri to Pacelli, encrypted telegram, at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2389 - English translation Nov. 23, 1917 The Times of London says the Bolsheviks “are adventurers of German-Jewish blood and in German pay.” Quoted in Kadish (1992), p.10. Nov. 30, 1917 Gasparri cables Pacelli to have the German Government intervene with the Ottoman Empire concerning new regulations affecting marriage for Catholics. English translation Dec. 6, 1917 Munich Nunciature forwards to Rome a petition from the Jewish Women’s Association of Berlin for Papal intervention against pogroms in Galicia and Poland. English translation Dec. 8, 1917 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that Baron Frankenstein and others claim that Erzberger is not representative of the entire Center Party; yet Pacelli and the Vatican remain dependent on Erzberger as their main source of information in Germany. English translation Dec. 9, 1917 Allied forces under British General Allenby capture Jerusalem. Also on Dec. 9, the Munich Archdiocesan newspaper publishes a joint pastoral letter of the Bishops of Germany. German original, front page and second page Continuation on front page of Dec. 16th edition and second page and third page Dec. 14, 1917 Pacelli cables Gasparri that he has received assurances from the German Foreign Ministry that Turkish Authorities will protect the Jewish population and the Holy Places in Jerusalem and Palestine. English translation Dec. 16, 1917 Munich-based Catholic journal Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland (HPB) focuses on the central question about the new Russian Revolution under Lenin, whether it will lead to peace or to continuation of the Russian war effort. “The War and Peace Question in Russia (Apropos of the Second Russian Revolution),” HPB 160:12 (1917), p. 756. German original: p. 756; p. 757; p. 758; p. 759; p. 760; p. 761; p. 762; p. 763; p. 764; p. 765; p. 766; p. 767; p. 768 Dec. 18, 1917 Bavarian Ambassador to the Vatican, Baron Ritter zu Groenesteyn, confidentially informs Nuncio Pacelli that the King of Bavaria urgently desires that Archbishop Faulhaber be elevated to Cardinal as soon as possible. English translation One month later, Pacelli receives explanations from the Vatican that Faulhaber will not be made Cardinal in the near future, because other German-speaking Churchmen are in line for Cardinal, and Munich is not a Cardinal-Archdiocese. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 9610 Dec. 27, 1917 Matthias Erzberger writes to Archbishop Faulhaber in Munich, proposing a plan to reinvigorate German Catholicism and expand its influence in Germany. English translation 1918 Jan. 5, 1918 Munich-based Catholic journal Allgemeine Rundschau explains that the Revolution of Nov. 1917 in Russia was the “Schicksalswende,” the decisive turn of fate brought about by German military success. Article entitled “Milestone 1918”: first page and second page Jan. 9, 1918 Munich Nunciature files of this date discuss Bolshevik Russia’s disclosure of the 1915 Entente Powers’ agreement to exclude the Vatican from peace negotiations. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Jan. 12, 1918 The Allgemeine Rundschau welcomes the Russian Revolution and regime of “Lenin and his Bolsheviks,” in article entitled “Russia Breaks its Chains of Slavery.” German original Jan. 20, 1918 The Munich Archdiocesan newspaper describes in detail the organization of Freemason lodges in Germany. The article notes that Jews are disadvantaged within German Freemasonry because it is led by the Prussian lodges (which historically did not admit Jews). The article thus diverges from the antisemitic conspiracy myth that “the Jews” control Freemasonry. Jan. 22, 1918 An article in Germania, the Berlin-based organ of the Catholic Center Party, points out the Jewish surnames of Russian Bolsheviks Trotsky and Radek, and falsely claims that Lenin’s true name is Davidovich Zederblom. Jan. 23, 1918 Count Reventlow in the Deutsche Zeitung presents his conspiracy theory that the “Pan-Jews” (Alljuden) are everywhere the leaders of revolutionary movements, in their quest for Jewish world domination. Jan. 28, 1918 German military attaché in St. Petersburg, Russia sends a report to the German Admiralty command about the Russian Bolshevik regime, stating: “The entire current government except Lenin are Jews.” This report then reaches Kaiser Wilhelm II, who underlines the sentence quoted here. Source: Report of military attaché Baron von Keyserlingk to Chief of Staff, German Navy, Jan. 28, 1918, reprinted in Baumgart (1967), pp. 96-97. Original German of quoted sentence: “Die ganze jetzige Regierung außer Lenin sind Juden.” Feb. 3, 1918 The Munich Archdiocesan newspaper warns about the influence of Freemasonry in Germany, in a way that again diverges from Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theory. The article states that Jews are not admitted as members in the old-Prussian Great Lodges. Feb. 4, 1918 Cardinal Secretary of State Gasparri tells Belgian envoy to Vatican that he favors an international commission administering a state extending from Galilee and Nazareth south to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, including all the Holy Places. Source: Sergio Minerbi, The Vatican and Zionism (1990), p.23, citing Belgian Foreign Office Archives. Feb. 13, 1918 Kaiser Wilhelm II, at a conference in Bad Hamburg with Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg and top military commanders Hindenburg and Ludendorff, says: “The Russian people have been handed over to the revenge of the Jews in association with all the Jews of the world. With that Freemasons.” Source: Protokoll der Sitzung des Kronrats in Bad Hamburg, Feb. 13, 1918, reprinted in Institut für Deutsche Militärgeschichte (ed.), Militarismus gegen Sowjetmacht 1917-1919 (East Berlin, 1967), p. 219. German original: “Russisches Volk der Rache der Juden ausgeliefert sind in Verbindung mit allen Juden der Welt. Damit Freimaurer.” Feb. 24, 1918 Article in Germania comments that Jews are being favored by the Russian Bolshevik regime while Catholics are being persecuted, and says that a German delegation in St. Petersburg encountered Russian negotiators who were uniformly of Jewish background. Also on Feb. 24, the Munich Archdiocesan newspaper features a pastoral letter of Archbishop Faulhaber, one of three similar occurrences during 1918. German original Feb. 1918 Munich-based Catholic journal Hochland publishes an article by Austrian priest Ignaz Seipel, the later Chancellor of Austria (1922-24, 1926-29), analyzing whether the Bolshevik government of Russia, and other revolutionary coups, are legitimate, and whether it is proper to negotiate with them. The article makes no mention of Jews or Judaism. German text of article Mar. 3, 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ends hostilities between Russia and Germany. Mar. 27, 1918 Matthias Erzberger writes Nuncio Pacelli in positive terms of the role of the Jewish and Polish minorities in Lithuania, saying that legal guarantees for the full development of their economic and intellectual potential will be of “great usefulness” to that new nation. Italian memorandum at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Mar. 30, 1918 Munich-based Catholic journal Allgemeine Rundschau publishes an article, “The Russian Peace,” advocating close economic and political ties with Russia and east European states. The author, J. Kuckhoff, a Member of the German Reichstag, expresses fears of Panslavism and mentions nothing of Judaism or Jews. German original Apr. 4, 1918 German military attaché in German-occupied Ukraine reports to the Chief of the General Staff of the German Army: “Abhorence is universal toward the Jews, who are branded with gusto as the instigators of the Bolshevik horrors...” Source: “Bericht des Hauptmann Fischer zum Chef des Generalstabs des Feldheeres,” Apr. 4, 1918, reprinted in Grelka (2006), p. 180. German original: “Allgemein ist die Abneigung gegen die Juden, die mit Vorliebe als Anstifter der bolschewistischen Greuel bezeichnet werden ...” Apr. 6, 1918 Earliest known embrace of Jewish-Bolshevik myth by influential Catholics in Munich: the Munich Nunciature reports to Cardinal Gasparri that all ministries in the Bolshevik Russian government are headed by Jews and dominated by Jews, and that the goal of the Jewish-dominated Russian Revolution is a worldwide Jewish government. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Apr. 21, 1918 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper publishes a statement by Baron Theodor von Cramer-Klett to the Bavarian Reichsratkammer (Advisory Chamber) on Church-State relations. Cramer-Klett later develops a close relationship with Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli, who in summer 1919 procures for him a Papal title of nobility. Cramer-Klett in the early 1920s serves as President and major funder of the highly antisemitic Bavarian extremist group Aufbau, which actively promotes Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory and includes among its members such early Nazis as Alfred Rosenberg, Max von Scheubner-Richter and Max Amann. Source: Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism (2005), pp. 1-17, 109-135. German original of Cramer-Klett statement May 11, 1918 Munich-based Catholic journal Allgemeine Rundschau publishes article on “Germany’s Eastern Policy - The Russian Problem,” criticizing the Bolshevik government and the Red Army under Trotsky, and analyzing future prospects for Germany with Russia and eastern Europe, while making no mention of Judaism. German original May 1918 Munich-based Catholic journal Hochland publishes “Der russische Mensch,” analyzing what aspects of the Russian people led to Communist revolution, with no reference to Judaism or Jews. Excerpt from German text of article June 1, 1918 Gasparri sends Pacelli an explanation of a controversy in Britain over Gasparri’s alleged comments about the government to be set up for Palestine and Jerusalem, including concerns about talk of “reconstitution of the Jewish kingdom.” English translation June 4, 1918 Pacelli conveys a German official’s report that England plans to establish itself in Palestine with the help of Zionism and Jews of the Entente countries. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation June 24, 1918 Pacelli forwards a recommendation to Gasparri for non-intervention in favor of Jews and other categories of prisoners of war. English translation June 28, 1918 The date of the imprimatur conferred by the Bavarian Diocese of Augsburg for Catholic author Franz Schrönghamer-Heimdal’s first of his 1918-1919 series of antisemitic writings, namely the book Vom Ende der Zeiten. Das Wissen vom Weltende nach Edda, Wissenschaft und Offenbarung [On the End of Days: Knowledge of the End of the World According to the Edda, Science and Revelation] (Augsburg: Haas & Grabherr, 1918). The book contains voluminous superstition from sources such as the Edda, Nostradamus und Paracelsus, along with a multi-page racial antisemitic screed that claims all Jews, including baptized ones, and including Lenin, who the author claims is a Jew, are like-minded and are striving to attain Jewish domination of the world; pp. 71-74. German originals: Cover page and Imprimatur Schrönghamer-Heimdal followed up this book with two further antisemitic books in 1918. Vom Antichrist. Ein Büchlein von Gott und Geld, vom deutschen Wesen und vom ewigen Juden [On the Antichrist: A Booklet about God and Money, about the German Character and the Eternal Jew (Augsburg: Haas & Grabherr, 1918) posits an eternal struggle between the German and “the Jew,” with the Jew as the Antichrist. Das kommende Reich. Entwurf einer Weltordnung aus dem deutschen Wesen [The Coming Reich: Outline of a World Order Based on German Character] (Augsburg: Haas & Grabherr, 1918), pp. 106-129, accuses the Jews of controlling finance, Freemasonry, revolution and Russian Communism in order to achieve world domination. Schrönghamer-Heimdal later becomes the first author to publish a detailed version of the Jewish-capitalism-Communism world conspiracy theory in a major Munich-based Catholic journal, in the Aug. 30, 1919 issue of the Allgemeine Rundschau. July 2, 1918 Gasparri sends Pacelli a further explanation of his remarks about the future governing of Palestine. English translation July 16, 1918 Czar Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra and their children are murdered by the Bolsheviks. July 19, 1918 Gasparri complains to Pacelli about Germany setting up a “solid public situation” for Jews and Protestants in the new state of Poland. English translation Aug. 10, 1918 Munich-based Catholic journal Allgemeine Rundschau’s lead article focuses on the past and current state of “The Russian Church,” describing the Bolshevik government’s anti-church measures without mentioning Jews or Judaism. German original, page one and page two Oct. 5, 1918 The Allgemeine Rundschau reports favorably and at length about Matthias Erzberger’s newly published book proposing specifics for a League of Nations as “The Path to Peace.” German original: first page and second page Oct. 8, 1918 The Morning Post in England editorializes that Jews control Bolshevism and anarchism in a destructive “class war against civilization.” Quoted by Kadish (1992), pp. 32-33. Also on Oct. 8th, Matthias Erzberger asks Pacelli to inform the Pope of his recent appointment as Reich State Secretary and to convey his assurances of continuing devotion to the interests of the Catholic Church. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 9530 Oct. 16, 1918 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland (HPB), in an article decrying secularization and undermining of monarchs, mentions Jewry in the same breath with the Masonic Lodge - not Bolshevism - as helping to amass money that creates power superior to monarchs. German original Nov. 1, 1918 HPB reviews a book that says liberalism and socialism, while opposite poles, are actually united in opposition to the Church and “find their unity in Judaism.” German original: first page and second page Nov. 7, 1918 Revolution in Munich. A mass gathering on the Theresienwiese park in Munich (site of the current-day Octoberfest) leads to the abdication and flight from Munich of Ludwig III, King of Bavaria, and the proclamation of a republic the next day, led by Kurt Eisner with an all-socialist cabinet. Nov. 9, 1918 Revolution in Berlin. A republic is proclaimed in Berlin following announcements of the abdication of the Kaiser and the monarchs of the various German States. Friedrich Ebert of the Social Democratic Party assumes the office of Chancellor. Matthias Erzberger continues to represent Germany as Armistice negotiator. Hitler, as a German soldier, reportedly comments at the time, “Thank God that the kings’ crowns have fallen from the tree. Now we proletarians also have something to say.” Source: M. Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005), p.219, citing handwritten statement in 1939 by Hitler’s commanding officer in 1918, Hans Mend, in the Bavarian Main State Archive. Nov. 10, 1918 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper reports on Nuncio Pacelli’s visit to Italian and French prisoners in a German prisoner of war camp. German original Nov. 11, 1918 Armistice ending World War One is signed on behalf of Germany at Compiègne in France by Matthias Erzberger at the instruction of German army commanders Hindenburg and Ludendorff. Pacelli cables Gasparri requesting instructions, because Archbishop Faulhaber has told him that his life is in danger and he should go to Switzerland; Faulhaber also requests the Pope to intervene with President Wilson to stop the Allied blockade of Germany. English translation - Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 6092 Faulhaber later writes that he recommended Pacelli go to either Rorschach or Menzingen in Switzerland. German original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de Nov. 13, 1918 Gasparri cables Pacelli, authorizing him to go elsewhere as advised by Archbishop Faulhaber, namely to Rorschach in Switzerland, in light of the uncertain situation in Munich. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2449 Nov. 15, 1918 Nuncio Pacelli sends reports to Gasparri on (a) the collapse of the German Empire and (b) the revolution in Bavaria. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation of Pacelli’s report re German Empire Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation of Pacelli’s report re Bavaria Nov. 20, 1918 Shortly before leaving Munich for Switzerland, Pacelli reports to Gasparri how he has declined the Socialist Bavarian Government’s attempt to establish friendly relations with him. English translation Nov. 22-24, 1918 Polish troops, after capturing the city of Lvov (a/k/a Lemberg in German, or Lviv in Ukrainian) from Ukrainian forces, carry out a pogrom, killing and injuring hundreds and perhaps thousands of Jews, burning synagogues and homes, and looting Jewish-operated shops. Achille Ratti (later Pope Pius XI, 1922-1939), the Vatican’s emissary in Poland, transmits to Rome a report he received, which proposes that the Lviv pogrom be attributed to popular anger against the Jews’ association with Bolshevism: “We must call attention to the Jews’ role in the Bolshevik movement. We do not want to claim that every Jew is, ipso facto, a Bolshevik. Far from it. Yet we cannot deny the preponderant role that the Jews play in this movement, both among the Polish communists and among the Russians where - with the exception of Lenin - all the Bolshevik leaders are either Polish Jews or Lithuanian Jews.” Source: Kertzer (2001), p.252, quoting anonymous undated memorandum entitled “Notices sur les rapports pologne-juifs” [Information about the relations between Poles and Jews], and citing documents in the Vatican Secret Archives. The pogroms were reported in the New York Times on Nov. 30 under the headlines “1,100 Jews Murdered in Lemberg Pogroms: Hundreds Burned to Death in a Synagogue or Shot in Flight - 600 Houses Burned - Confirmatory Cables Reach Here”. Nov. 28, 1918 Msgr. Schioppa, in charge of Munich Nunciature during Pacelli’s 10-week absence, reports on recent disclosures implicating Germany in causing World War One. English translation Also on Nov. 28, Schioppa sends Gasparri an urgent request from Munich Archbishop Faulhaber for a Papal decision about how to fill certain parish vacancies that were previously filled by the King under the Bavaria-Vatican Concordat of 1817. English translation Nov. 30, 1918 US military intelligence director, Brig. Gen. Marlborough Churchill, receives a four-page report entitled “Bolshevism and Judaism,” asserting that prominent American Jews financed the Russian Revolution and that the 30 leading Bolshevik figures in Russia, except for Lenin, are all Jews masquerading under non-Jewish names. This report is authored by Boris Brasol, a Czarist Russian intelligence officer in the US, who during late 1918 and early 1919 continues to send reports to Gen. Churchill under the code name of Secret Agent B-1. Cover letter from Agent B-1 to Churchill The “Bolshevism and Judaism” report later comes into the hands of Prince Yusopov, the exiled murderer of Rasputin, as well as England’s Morning Post, the joint head of MI5 and MI6, namely Sir Basil Thomson, and the U.S. State Department, which advises the British Government against allowing its publication in the Morning Post. The report and Brasol as a source are severely criticized as unsupported, biased, fanatical, and unworthy of serious consideration, in reports by two Captains in the US military counterintelligence division, but Gen. Churchill continues to receive Brasol’s reports and has all of them sent to him at the Paris Peace Conference. The same report later appears, translated into French, in the Catholic publication La Documentation Catholique on March 6, 1920. November 1918 Munich-based Catholic journal Hochland publishes an article on “The Revolutionary Spirit in Russia: A Study of the Emergence of the Russian Revolution,” by Eduard Stadtler, founder of the rightwing German Anti-Bolshevik League. The article makes no reference to Judaism or Jews. German text of article Dec. 1, 1918 Enthusiastic book review in Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland illuminates a path to peace and reconciliation advocated by Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster. The review praises Weltpolitik und Weltgewissen [World Politics and World Conscience] by Foerster as “The most significant and psychologically profound book about the World War’s peace problem that has appeared in the German language.” Foerster, a prominent professor at the University of Munich, had written prolifically for two decades on issues of education, ethics and character formation, becoming a major influence on Catholic educators in the German-speaking world, including many priests, and then became a formational influence for the inter-war Catholic peace movement that grew to 30,000 members before its demise in the 1930s. Cf. Zahn (1962). German original of book review: p.728; p.729; p.730; p.731 Foerster was attacked vigorously starting in 1918 by a Bavarian priest who was favored by Archbishop Faulhaber, namely Franz X. Kiefl, leading to Foerster ultimately leaving Munich and losing his influence among Catholic priests and educators. The affinity of Faulhaber and Kiefl on policy issues is described by Hausberger (2003), pp. 167-171; for example, Faulhaber appointed Kiefl to a commission on March 10, 1920 based on his knack for propaganda. Foerster remained nonetheless vocal against German nationalist antisemitism in spring 1920 at the same time as Munich Catholic opinion-makers took a decisive turn toward Nazi-style antisemitism. Dec. 6, 1918 The Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums reports with concern the appearance of a brochure entitled Ende des Militarismus - Anfang der Judenherrschaft [End of Militarism - Beginning of Rule by Jews], which was published in Berlin. Source: Hecht (2003), p.79. Dec. 7, 1918 Munich Nunciature report from Msgr. Schioppa to Gasparri refers to “many Hebrews” in the Bavarian Socialist revolution. English translation Dec. 8, 1918 The Munich Archdiocesan newspaper places a positive interpretation on the Russian Revolution, exhorting the faithful to gratitude for the fall of Russian Czarism, which was marked by hostility to Catholicism, and the demise of the Russian Orthodox Church, nine centuries after the Schism of 1054: “The enormous guilt of the year 1054 meets its punishment ...” Fuller English translation and German original: first page and second page This article was consistent with the initial view in the Vatican of the Russian revolutions of 1917, as an opportunity to pursue unity with, and restored Papal authority over, the Russian Orthodox Church once it lost its mainstay, the Czar. Chenaux (2009), pp. 62ff. Dec. 14, 1918 Msgr. Schioppa reports to Gasparri that Jews and liberals as well as Catholics are joining the Bavarian People’s Party with hopes of restoring public order. English translation Dec. 19, 1918 Capt. Carlton Hayes of US Military Intelligence Division, counterintelligence unit, submits a report to his superiors sharply criticizing Secret Agent B-1, Boris Brasol, the author of antisemitic reports, including “Bolshevism and Judaism,” for repeatedly “lugging in the Jewish question” in a way that manifests “the raving tendency of a fanatical if not of a disordered brain.” Hayes report page 1 and page 2 Citation for Hayes report and Grosvenor report (below): US NARA, RG 165, MID 10110-920 Dec. 20, 1918 Capt. Edwin Grosvenor of US Military Intelligence Division, counterintelligence unit, submits a report to his superiors debunking Secret Agent B-1’s “Bolshevism and Judaism” report as a “jumble of opinions formed by an ill informed, suspicious and biased individual.” Capt. Grosvenor concludes that B-1’s assertions are totally unsupported by any evidence, “arrant nonsense” and “unworthy of serious consideration.” Grosvenor report page 1 and page 2 Despite Hayes’ and Grosvenor’s denunciations of B-1, the acting head of US Army Intelligence in Washington, Col. Dunn, refuses the request of their superiors in the counter-intelligence division to bring in Secret Agent B-1 for interrogation, and continues to send a total of 31 consistently antisemitic Brasol reports to US Army Intelligence head Brig. Gen. Churchill at the Paris Peace Conference. Dec. 20, 1918 The Munich Nunciature sends Gasparri a protest letter by Baron Theodor von Cramer-Klett against the Catholic political party of Bavaria because it is seeking to appeal to non-Catholics as well as Catholics. English translation of Cramer-Klett’s letter Dec. 31, 1918 Gasparri cables Schioppa that the Vatican will only negotiate about the new Bavarian Government’s right to appoint parish pastors after a different government in Bavaria is “durably constituted,” and until then the Bishops can act on their own, “possibly by setting up temporary parish administrators.” English translation December 1918 Cardinal Gasparri expresses his opposition to Zionism to the Belgian Ambassador to the Vatican: “There is talk of a Jewish State. I do not believe that the big Jewish bankers of England and of the United States will be so unaware of the opinions of many of their faith as to support this plan. Do we not see the Jews at the head of the revolutionary movements in Russia and in Poland?” Source: Minerbi, p.122, quoting Van den Heuvel, Dec. 26, 1918, Belgian Foreign Office Archive. December 1918 Munich-based Catholic journal Hochland publishes an article by its editor-in-chief, Karl Muth, about the “catastrophe” of Germany’s defeat and recent political and social revolution, making no reference to Judaism or Jews. German text of article “Zur Zeitenwende” 1919 January 1919 In early January Fr. Bernhard Stempfle publishes the first issue of his personal antisemitic, nationalistic Kampfblatt in Munich, entitled Leuchtkugeln: Randbemerkungen zur Geschichte der Gegenwart von Redivivus [Illumination-flares: Marginal Comments on Current History by Redivivus]. Stempfle had been active as a journalist in Italy until moving back home to Munich some time after Italy entered the First World War in 1915 on the side of the Allies. In summer 1919 Stempfle, under the same name of “Redivivus,” began contributing many antisemitic articles to the völkisch Münchener Beobachter (renamed Völkischer Beobachter at the start of 1920 and controlled solely by the Nazi Party from late 1920 onward). Source: Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Nachlass Stempfle 1-14, Munich. Jan. 2, 1919 Boris Brasol report #16 to US military intelligence makes accusations against leading Jewish Americans Jacob Schiff, Louis Marshall and Oscar Strauss. Report #16 of Agent B-1 in US NARA, RG 165, MID 11010-920. Jan. 3, 1919 Leaders of Zionist and Arab nationalist movements sign Feisal-Weizmann Agreement. This Agreement, negotiated at the Paris Peace Conference, provides for implementation of the Balfour Declaration and large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine, conditioned on the Arabs gaining independence for Arab areas outside Palestine. France later defeats this condition by driving Feisal out of Damascus in 1920, and the Agreement fails as a result. Jan. 4, 1919 Vatican Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli, during a stay in Rorschach, Switzerland that began in November 1918, considers returning to the Vatican Nunciature in Munich. Excerpts of letter from Pacelli on this date to Bavarian Ambassador to the Vatican, Baron Otto von Ritter zu Groenesteyn Jan. 5, 1919 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper says all revolutions are caused by Freemasonry. Beginning with this issue, the paper is renamed the Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, with a subtitle reflecting its previous name, and ongoing description, as the weekly paper for the parish communities of the Munich area. German originals: page 4, page 5, page 6, and page 7 Jan. 9, 1919 Achille Ratti, Vatican emissary in Poland, reports to Rome: “One of the most evil and strongest influences that is felt here, perhaps the strongest and the most evil, is that of the Jews.” Source: Kertzer (2001), p.251, quoting Ratti to Gasparri, Jan. 9, 1919. This report was made in the midst of Polish pogroms that were killing dozens or hundreds of Jews and injuring hundreds or thousands. Cardinal Gasparri had asked Ratti to look into the reported killings of Jews and “take an interest in their welfare.” Kertzer (2001), p.250, quoting Vatican Secret Archives, ANV, b.1991, prot. 439 A 172, encrypted telegram, Gasparri to Ratti, Dec. 22, 1918, pp. 512-513. Achille Ratti became Pope Pius XI (1922-1939). Jan. 12, 1919 Bavaria holds election for seats in the Landtag, the Bavarian State parliament. Election results: 35% for Bavarian People’s Party, 33% for Social Democrats, 14% for German Democratic Party, 9% for Bavarian Farmers League, 3% for Kurt Eisner’s Independent Social Democrats. Jan. 15, 1919 Communist “Spartacist Uprising” in Berlin is suppressed and its leaders, Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, are killed. Jan. 16, 1919 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland article “On the History of Anarchism” describes the causes of the Russian Revolution as “unbridled absolutism, corruption from top to bottom, and suppression of civic and ecclesial liberty,” together with a cadre of determined extremists around Trotsky and Lenin, who came from exile in Switzerland, and then the extremists received support from soldiers councils (Soviets) in Russia. “Lenin is the red Czar, but more cruel than his predecessors, his policy is systematic anarchy” while “Trotsky-Bronstein, as a persecuted Jew in Russia, had to feel a particular hatred”; Lenin and Trotsky’s destructive power, turning Russia into a Bolshevik hell, is based on the Soviets. The article quotes a Swiss eyewitness and a Russian socialist woman, as well as Maxim Gorky, on the horrors of Bolshevik rule in Russia, without attributing causation or blame to Jews other than Trotsky. German original: pages 119; 120; 121; 122; 123; 124-25; 126-27; 128 Jan. 19, 1919 Cardinal Francis Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, visits Palestine. Excerpt of Jan. 25, 1919 communiqué from this highest-ranking British prelate to Prime Minister Lloyd George, opposing Zionism in Palestine Jan. 21, 1919 Boris Brasol report #25 to US military intelligence warns of imminent Russian Bolshevik-led coup attempt against the American government. Report #25 of Agent B-1 Memorandum from Capt. Carlton Hayes to his superior in US military intelligence criticizes several recent Agent B-1 reports and ridicules report #25 as “a form of Don Quixote humor.” US head of military intelligence Marlborough Churchill sends a cable on Jan. 22 from the Paris Peace Conference to his second-in-command in DC about the under-appreciated threat of the Bolshevik movement in the US, saying “I consider this question the most important now under consideration.” Also on Jan. 21, the Irish war of independence begins, as Irish republican leaders declare independence from Britain and begin guerrilla warfare. Jan. 26, 1919 Msgr. Schioppa reports to Gasparri about criticism of the Bavarian People’s Party for being open to Jews. English translation Feb. 1, 1919 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland (HPB) publishes 16 pages of reports on the devastation wrought by Bolshevism upon the economy, society, religion, freedom and public order in Russia, including extensive excerpts from a speech by Hamburg businessman Rudolf Petersen, reprinted from a Berlin banking and stock market journal. In one of the passages from Petersen, he says: “How little Bolshevism can be considered the product of the disposition of the Russian people as a whole, is apparent from the fact that 90% of the members of the government are Jews, several percent more are Latvians, and only the remainder are actual Russians.” Citation: “Zur Geschichte des Anarchismus,” HPB 163:3 (1. Feb. 1919), pp. 159-174, here 166. German original: pages 159; 160; 161; 162; 163; 164; 165; 166-67; 168-69; 170-71; 172-73; 174 In the same issue, the HPB says Kurt Eisner put the Bavarian crown on his own unanointed head; “in place of a kingship of God’s grace, what came to light was, not the Israelite kingship of the Old Testament, but a revolutionary despotism of the worst sort.” HPB 163:3 (1919), p. 187. The article, entitled ”Our Misery,” bewails the German revolutions of November 1918 and argues that the resulting governments of the Reich and Bavaria are illegitimate, but it does not posit a Jewish conspiracy. German original: pages 186-87; 188-89; 190-91; 192 Also in this issue of the HPB, an article on “The Crisis of Socialism” analyzes socialism at length without mention of Jews (pp. 138-49), and an article on “Lenin and Trotsky” mentions several other Bolsheviks and radical socialists (pp. 150-59) - including some Jews - but with no mention of Judaism in reference to them or anything else. Feb. 2, 1919 Fritz Gerlich becomes chairman of the Munich League for Combatting Bolshevism [Münchener Liga zur Bekämpfung des Bolschewismus]. Morsey (2016), p. 69 Feb. 8, 1919 Pacelli transmits to Gasparri a request by Jews in Frankfurt for Papal intervention against reported pogroms in Poland and Galicia. English translation Feb. 11, 1919 Friedrich Ebert becomes the first President of Germany. Feb. 13, 1919 Philipp Scheidemann, of the Social Democratic Party, becomes Chancellor of the German Reich. Feb. 15, 1919 Ukrainian troops of Simon Petliura’s nationalist forces begin a series of pogroms in the Kiev area. During 1919 and 1920 in Ukraine, tens of thousands of Jews are killed, and hundreds of thousands are wounded or made homeless, by the separate military forces of Ukrainian nationalists under Petliura, White Russians under Denikin, and actions by Polish forces. Also on Feb. 15, La Documentation Catholique, a new French Catholic weekly newspaper, appears, under the auspices of the Good Press [La Bonne Presse] publishing house in Paris. The contents of the inaugural edition include: Article about “The Israelites Claim Palestine” (English translation) Publisher’s statement on Origin and Program (French original) Cover of first issue Cover of first bound volume of issues in 1919 Feb. 16, 1919 HPB article, “Bloody Review of Ideas and Events,” attributes the war and the post-war revolutions and overthrows of monarchs to international Freemasonry. Citation: HPB 163:4 (1919), pp. 193-207. This feature recurs in the HPB for the next year until the death of the author, Fr. Wilhelm Maier, in February 1920. In the same issue, a further installment of “On the History of Anarchism” explains the origins of Bolshevik power in Finland: workers, soldiers and sailors, large numbers of whom became supporters of revolution. German original: pages 225; 226-27; 228-29 Mid-February 1919 Hitler begins acting as a Vertrauensmann [trusted agent] of the Bavarian socialist government, in a military unit based in Traunstein, Bavaria. Source: Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (1998), pp. 118-120; Kellogg (2005), p.220. Feb. 21, 1919 Kurt Eisner, President of the State of Bavaria, is assassinated in Munich by Count Anton von Arco auf Valley. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation of Nuncio Pacelli’s report to Rome on Feb. 23 with details of the event and the ensuing political chaos in Bavaria Also on Feb. 21, Alfred Rosenberg writes an article in Dietrich Eckart’s Auf Gut Deutsch [In Plain German] claiming that Russian Bolsheviks have installed an “almost purely Jewish ‘Russian’ government” and that Lenin is merely the “Russian advertisement of the Jewish undertaking.” Source: M. Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism (2005), pp. 227-228, citing Rosenberg, “The Russian-Jewish Revolution,” Auf Gut Deutsch, Feb. 21, 1919. German original from Auf gut Deutsch: title page - article first page - second page Feb. 25, 1919 Gasparri replies to Pacelli about the reported pogroms in Poland, conveying a report from Vatican diplomat Achille Ratti (later Pope Pius XI, 1922-39) minimizing the pogroms and stating how “incredibly numerous” Jews are in Warsaw. English translation Feb. 1919 Nationwide “Deutschvölkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund” [German Völkisch Defense- and Defiance League] is formed by members of the rightwing Alldeutscher Verband [All-German League] for the express purpose of antisemitic propaganda and action. The organization’s activities in Munich are supported by antisemitic rightwing publisher J.F. Lehmann and the proto-Nazi Münchener Beobachter, which in late 1920 comes under Nazi Party ownership and full control, having changed its name in early 1920 to Völkischer Beobachter. Mar. 1, 1919 Two HPB articles deal with Bolshevism: “On the History of Anarchism, Pt. IV” focuses at length on how “Russian Bolshevism has spun its web into other countries,” in particular Switzerland, where Lenin had published extensively in exile and where a Bolshevik-led strike on the first anniversary of the Russian Revolution nearly overthrew the government; and Germany, where socialist leaders conspired with Russian ambassador Joffe to prepare for armed uprising and revolution. The article makes accusations of treason but not of Jewish conspiracy. German original: pages 282-83; 284-85; 286-87; 288-89; 290-91; 292-93 “On the German Revolutionary Parliament,” by Fritz Zinnecke, a Center Party member who describes his experience at the December 1918 “Soviets Congress” in Berlin as a soldiers council representative, including the strong influence of Bolshevik ideas and methods, and the roles of Spartacist and other left-wing leaders, with no assertion of Jewish conspiracy. German original: pages 294-95; 296-97; 298-99; 300-01; 302-03; 304-05 Mar. 2, 1919 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper, Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, embraces the Jewish-Masonic myth in a laudatory review of a new book promoting that same myth. Translation of the review Excerpts of the book Two weeks later Munich’s extremist völkisch paper, the Beobachter, devoted its lead article to the book. Excerpts of additional March 2, 1919 Munich Catholic Kirchenzeitung article accusing Freemasons and anti-Catholics of trying to separate Church and State and end Church control of government-funded schools Mar. 10, 1919 Pope Benedict XV speaks out against the prospect of the Paris Peace Conference granting Jews control over Palestine. Statement in English translation objecting to Protestant influence in Palestine as well as these words against Jewish control: “For surely it would be a terrible grief for Us and for all the Christian faithful if infidels were placed in a privileged and prominent position; much more if those most holy sanctuaries of the Christian religion were given into the charge of non-Christians.” Mar. 16, 1919 Cardinal Gasparri says privately: “The danger we most fear is the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.” Source: Belgium’s Envoy to Vatican reporting Gasparri’s explanation to him of the Pope’s remarks of March 10th, quoted in Sergio Minerbi, The Vatican and Zionism (1990), p.131, citing Belgian Foreign Office Archive no. 57/26. Also on Mar. 16, the Munich Archdiocesan newspaper publishes a detailed article analyzing Bolshevism with no reference to Judaism, describing Lenin as absolute dictator of Russia, and giving his name as Vladimir Ulyanov. English translation The text of the article is the same as material in the book Bolschewismus published by Father Erhard Schlund, O.F.M. after the fall of the Räterepublik in May 1919. Also on Mar. 16, the HPB publishes a further installment “On the History of Anarchism,” detailing Bolshevik propaganda and actions in Munich and other German cities from November 1918 onward, and mentioning Sparticist leader Rosa Luxemburg as a Russian Jewess without drawing any generalizations indicative of Jewish conspiracy. German original: pages 334-35; 336-37; 338-39; 340-41; 342-43 A further HPB article on Mar. 16,“Troubles in Bavaria,” reviews actions and speeches during Kurt Eisner’s rule, expressing concern about the danger of further and more radical revolution in Bavaria, and about “Dr. Levien” possibly leading such a revolution, still with no attempt to associate revolution with Judaism. German original: pages 375; 376-77; 378-79; 380-81; 382-83; 384 Mar. 17, 1919 Osservatore Romano defends the Pope against criticisms that his March 10th words were political, saying they were a non-political “heartful cry that the Holy Places may fall into the hands of non-Christians.” Civiltà Cattolica also addresses the issue in March 1919, criticizing British General Allenby, the military governor of Palestine, for supporting Jews and Anglo-Saxon Protestants to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Source: Minerbi, p.133. Minerbi observes, “The authorized Catholic responses all note the seeming danger of handing the Holy Places to the Jews, but the real fear was of the foundation of a Jewish republic in Palestine, and the Holy Places argument was employed primarily to engage religious sensibilities and to mobilize the Catholics.” Mar. 21-22, 1919 In the Republic of Hungary, the government resigns in the face of Entente Powers’ demands to cede Hungarian territories to neighboring countries, and a coalition of Communists and left-wing Socialists seizes power and proclaims a Soviet republic. Source: Hanebrink (2006), pp. 71-83. The leader of the Hungarian Bolsheviks, Bela Kun, had a father with ethnic Jewish origins, and a Protestant mother; antisemitic propagandists branded his government “Jewish.” Tyrannical actions of the Hungarian Soviet republic, including a “Red Terror” that killed hundreds, combined with the presence of many Jews in high government positions, stoked Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy propaganda. Mar. 23, 1919 Munich Kirchenzeitung says: “It would be extremely painful for the Holy See if a predominant position in Palestine were conceded to unbelievers.” English translation of “Ecclesiastical Review” section Mar. 28, 1919 Pacelli reports on the tumultuous political situation in Bavaria, as the head of the majority Social Democratics is unable to form a governing coalition, and Communist elements are vying for power. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Also on March 28th, Dietrich Eckart writes an article stating: “All in all it is about Jewish world rule. It began in Russia, now it is our turn.” Source: Kellogg (2005), p.241, quoting in translation from Eckart, “Das Karnickel,” Auf Gut Deutsch, Mar. 28, 1919. Mar. 30, 1919 Munich Kirchenzeitung explains the “Roman Question”: why the Holy See cannot submit to Italian civil authority without “committing suicide.” English translation of “Ecclesiastical Review” section Apr. 1, 1919 HPB publishes further installments of: “Bloody Review of Ideas and Events” comments on the Paris Peace Conference and Weimar National Assembly, states that the recent revolutions in Russia and Germany are a declaration of war on human society, and blames “English-French liberal world humanism” for the “modern pagan spirit” that lies at the root of Germany’s misfortunes; in the midst of bitter complaints about atheism and materialism, the article contains this passage: “Such a people, after it has allied itself to the spirit of Jewish unbelief, has truly no right to complain if upstarts of the God-rejected Jewish people, in the service and pay of princes of this world, mount those thrones that once were bestowed by God’s grace. And if finally all order is dissolved and anarchy with murder and plundering threatens to devastate the whole land, then that people must ascribe to themselves the guilt and shame of such humiliation, as Negroes and Senegalese have to come in order to re-establish order.” German original: pages 385; 386-87; 388-89; 390-91; 392-93; 394-95; 396-97; 398-99; 400-01; 402-03 “Troubles in Bavaria Pt. II” discusses danger that parts of Bavaria might secede or be severed off, and bewails the domestic and foreign policy situation of Bavaria, referring at one point to the Frankfurter Zeitung as the “Frankfurter Judenblatt.” (p. 437) German original: pages 432-33; 434-35; 436-37; 438-39; 440-41; 442-43; 444-45 The same issue of HPB contains an article “The Unchangeable and the Changeable: Against Old and New Illusions” that says: “The work of Bismarck lies in ruins before us; today we of German ethnicity have largely lost our national consciousness, as we calmly endure Semites and foreigners as leaders and rulers.” (pp. 404-20, here 418) German original: pages 404-05; 406-07; 408-09; 410-11; 412-13; 414-15; 416-17; 418-19; 420-21 Apr. 2, 1919 Count Reventlow publishes a major Jewish-Bolshevism-capitalism conspiracy article in the Deutsche Tagezeitung, alleging collaboration by English, American and French banks with the Russian Bolsheviks. Apr. 3, 1919 Bavarian army document refers to Hitler as a Vertrauensmann [trusted agent or representative], a position that involved political education of troops on behalf of Bavaria’s socialist government. Kershaw (1998), pp. 117-118. Also on April 3rd, Pacelli reports to Gasparri about the parish pastor appointments issue, stating that the new Bavarian Government under Minister President Johannes Hoffmann is undoubtedly legitimate, unlike Eisner’s, but that Hoffmann “harbors a profound aversion to religion” and is not someone the Church can expect to negotiate successfully with. English translation Apr. 5-6, 1919 British and Belgian diplomats at the Vatican report Cardinal Gasparri’s statement that he prefers the “internationalization of the Holy Places to seeing Jerusalem in Jewish hands.” Minerbi, p.135, citing foreign office archives Apr. 6-13, 1919 Soviets-Councils Republic of Bavaria is formed in Munich, and Social Democratic State Government flees from Munich to Bamberg in northern Bavaria. A week later, Pacelli reports about outrages of the new Bavarian government and comments negatively about its Jewish participants, including Max Levien, who was not in fact a Jew. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Apr. 14, 1919 Hitler is elected a battalion representative in the Soviets-Councils system of the new Socialist-Communist government. Kershaw (1998), p.118. Apr. 18, 1919 Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums 83:14 reports that reactionary elements in Bavaria are openly calling for pogroms against Jews. Source: Hecht (2003), p. 107. Apr. 19, 1919 The Archdiocese of Bamberg sends an appeal to all parish priests in Bavaria to recruit men into the paramilitary Freikorps to combat the Soviets-Councils Republic. English translation Apr. 20, 1919 Polish troops, after capturing the city of Vilnius (capital of modern Lithuania), carry out a pogrom, killing dozens of Jews, wounding hundreds, and sacking synagogues and Jewish-operated shops. On the same day, the “Ecclesiastical Review” section of the Munich Kirchenzeitung reports Czechoslovakia and Hungary forcing priests out of the schools. English translation Apr. 24, 1919 HPB article “Politics Without God” traces the intellectual development of secularization, liberalism, positivism and state absolutism through Machiavelli, Hegel, Rousseau, Treitschke, Bismarck, arguing that liberalism got its main support from the urban bourgeois and the state bureaucracy, with Freemasonry working behind the scenes to incite recent war and revolution. German original: pages 470-71; 472-73; 474-75; 476-77; 478-79; 480-81; 482-83 HPB article “The Center Party and the Present Social-Economic Struggle” says the Party is striving to implement Catholic social-economic teaching, as it voted with the Social Democrats to create a majority in Weimar for two recent laws aimed at enhancing the participation, dignity and consultative role of workers via councils in the coal mining industry and major state-related enterprises; but this threatens to lead to socialism. German original: pages 484-85; 486-87; 488-89; 490-91; 492-93; 494-95; 496-97; 498 Apr. 30, 1919 Nuncio Pacelli reports aggressions and threats by Councils Republic forces against him and the Nunciature, also equating Jewish with Russian and revolutionary in reporting the collapse of the “Russian-Jewish-revolutionary tyranny” in Munich. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation of report to Gasparri Also on April 30th, Communists kill a dozen hostages in Munich, including a prince, a countess, and members of the Völkisch Thule Society, as anti-Communist paramilitary forces advance into Munich. May 1, 1919 HPB features an article “Lenin” that cites Fritz Gerlich as an authority on Communism, and analyzes Lenin’s ideas and actions without reference to Judaism. Excerpts in English translation and German original: pages 559; 560-61; 562-63; 564 The same HPB issue features “Bolshevism in Hungary,” saying it is reported that 24 of 30 members of the new Socialist-Communist government in Budapest are Jews, yet focusing the blame for developments in Hungary on the Entente powers rather than alleging an international Jewish conspiracy. Excerpts in English translation and German original: pages 565; 566-67; 568-69; 570-71; 572 May 1-3, 1919 Paramilitary forces enter Munich and overthrow the Soviets-Councils Republic, killing Communists and many civilians unaffiliated with them. May 3, 1919 The Bavarian Volkspartei’s newspaper in Munich, Bayerischer Kurier, proclaims the Party’s support for the lawfully elected Bavarian Government (headed by Social Democrat Johannes Hoffmann) and calls for a coalition effort across the political spectrum to rebuild Bavaria. English translation of article On the same day, the Volkspartei joins in a three-party program with the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party to provide for restoration of order and democratic government. Translation of their joint program demands The three-party joint program is published two days later in the Kurier with regret that the Social Democrats have not yet joined in the joint multi-party program and with hope that they will agree. German original May 5, 1919 Pacelli reports an attack on his Munich Nunciature by anti-Communist paramilitary forces. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation The Vatican Nunciature on Briennerstrasse in Munich, approx. 40m east of the Königsplatz: Munich Nunciature Munich Nunciature May 8, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier proclaims “Death Sentence for Germany” as Versailles Peace Treaty terms first become known; also publishes Munich martial law decree and a lengthy piece on political developments and the Bavarian Volkspartei. English translation May 8-10, 1919 Gasparri cables Pacelli instructing him to secure the Nunciature archive and go to Switzerland. Source: Besier and Piombo, The Holy See and Hitler’s Germany (2007), p.21, citing Vatican Archive of Munich Nunciature, pos. 397, fasc. 3, fo. 11r. Cf. encrypted telegrams of May 8th and 10th from Gasparri, at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document Nos. 1578 and 2496 - English translations Pacelli stays in Rorschach, Switzerland until August. May 10, 1919 Munich’s völkisch Beobachter resumes publication, with a lead article denouncing “the reign of Jewish Bolsheviks.” German original May 11, 1919 Munich Kirchenzeitung exhorts Munichers to be thankful for the overthrow of a regime that persecuted clergy and Church institutions. English translation An article on the same page reports that Freemasonry is trying to combat religion “like alcoholism, tuberculosis or the bubonic plague.” English translation May 12, 1919 The Bavarian Volkspartei (BVP) appeal to voters in the local elections emphasizes issues of food, housing, medical care, law and order, and schooling along traditional confessional lines, with free tuition and books for those of modest means. English translation The same issue of the BVP’s Munich daily paper contains an exhortation by Fr. Rupert Mayer to reconciliation and bridging the division in the Bavarian people, as well as a report on disarming civilians. English translation May 1919 Leading Munich-based Catholic journals strongly criticize the fallen Räterepublik without branding it as “Jewish”: Munich Kirchenzeitung on May 11 and May 18 and May 25 Historisch-Politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, May 16 on “Natural Science, Social Democracy and Revolution” - German original: pages 615; 616-17; 618-19; 620-21; 622-23; 624-25; 626-27; 628 Historisch-Politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, May 16 on “The Development of the Social Revolution” - German original: pages 628-29; 630-31; 632-33; 634-35; 636-37; 638-39 Allgemeine Rundschau, May 17 on “Jewry in Public Life”: Excerpts in English translation Allgemeine Rundschau, May 17 on “Bolshevism and its Psychological Preconditions”: Excerpts in English translation Stimmen der Zeit, May issue, “Bolshevism,” by Bernhard Duhr, S.J. - German original: pages 133; 134; 135; 136; 137; 138; 139; 140; 141; 142; 143; 144; 145; 146; 147; 148 Portions of first page in English translation: “Bolshevism is not a world issue, it is the world issue... “For Germany the danger has already become burningly vital. Thus a precise orientation appears to be the order of the day, especially since the Bolsheviks are not only declaring everything said unfavorably about Bolshevism to be a fable, but are lauding their insane doctrine as the cure for all evils and glorifying it as the sure entryway to heaven and earth...” Duhr’s article uses the same language as the HPB of Jan. 16, 1919, saying Lenin is the red Czar, but more cruel than his predecessors, and his policy is systematic anarchy, while Trotsky-Bronstein seeks revenge for Czarist persecutions of Jews (p. 143). Like the HPB of Feb. 1, 1919, Duhr cites extensively from Hamburg businessman Petersen but omits what the HPB reported on Petersen’s statements that the Russian Bolshevik government is 90% Jewish and Bolshevism is unrelated to the historic character of the Russian people. In his generalizations about the danger of Bolshevism to Germany and Europe, Duhr focuses on Asiatic despotism, not Judaism, and raises the specter of Asiatic invasion like that of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. May 1919 The BVP’s Munich daily Bayerischer Kurier promotes throughout the month a multi-party effort among the non-communist parties to restore order, striking a mostly moderate tone and refraining from antisemitic comments in articles denouncing Bolshevism and the Räterepublik: German original of front page, May 3, 1919, first day after fall of the Räterepublik Front pages of subsequent issues discussing Räterepublik, Marxism and Bolshevism: May 5 - “Particularismus und Bolschewismus” May 9 - “Am Trümmerhaufen der Kommunistenwirtschaft” May 12 - “Bolschewismus und Marxismus” May 17 - “Vom November zum Mai” May 22 - “Herr Schneppenhorst und die Räterepublik” May 14, 1919 Pope Benedict XV issues an encyclical on St. Boniface, the 8th century Apostle to the Germans, saying he is present among the German people today as “the representative of the Roman Catholic Church for Germany.” (para. 22) Summary and excerpts of encyclical In Hac Tanta Also on May 14, the Bayerischer Kurier publishes a notice from Erzberger along with rumors of crisis in the Reich Government in relation to the Versailles terms. English translation May 15, 1919 Faulhaber writes to the Bavarian Bishops about asking the Pope to intervene with the Entente to soften the Versailles peace terms. The letter reprints a telegraph from Erzberger asking the Bishops to tell the people the peace terms are unbearable and unfulfillable. English translation May 16, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier publishes an appeal by the Bavarian Volkspartei for solidarity in the face of the intolerable dictates of the Versailles Peace Treaty, and unity of Bavaria with the Reich in this time of national crisis. English translation May 17, 1919 Civiltà Cattolica reports on the April 25, 1919 Papal audience with Emir Feisal, the Arab representative to the Paris Peace Conference, who visited Rome during his return trip from Paris. English translation Also on May 17, Bayerischer Kurier publishes a sharp critique of Bavarian Socialist leaders for naive past statements of trust in the response of Pres. Wilson and the Allies to Bavaria and Germany adopting democracy. English translation The same issue of Bayerischer Kurier features a lengthy denial that the Vatican incited Austria-Hungary to proceed strongly against Serbia in 1914. English translation May 18, 1919 Munich Kirchenzeitung writes about the hostages murdered by the Communist Soviets-Councils Republic and does not focus on the Jewish ethnicity of any of the Communists. English translation May 21, 1919 Nuncio Pacelli writes Ambassador Ritter zu Groenesteyn from Rorschach, thanking God for protecting him and hoping he can return soon to Munich. Excerpt of letter May 22, 1919 Page-one article in Bayerischer Kurier highlights the problem of relying on mercenary forces and calls for a charismatic, respected military leader. English translation May 24, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier runs an article denouncing plans to transform Catholic primary schools in Munich into inter-denominational schools and an article reporting on the progress of negotiations for a coalition government in Bavaria. May 25, 1919 The "Ecclesiastical Review" section of the Munich Kirchenzeitung publishes a telegram from a German Bishop to Nuncio Pacelli asking him to secure the Pope’s intervention to ameliorate the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty. English translation The same issue contains an article on “Munich’s Devastation” by the Räterepublik, attributing problems to Bohemianism and foreigners, not Judaism by name. May 26, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier reports the Social Democratic Party has approved the formation of a coalition government and proclaims that Bavaria “shall once again have a democratic government,” warning that: “Any step away from the ground of the democratic constitutional state leads inevitably into the abyss.” English translation May 27, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier reports on a series of motions by the BVP in the Landtag, showing the main concerns of the Catholic party in Bavaria are addressing crises of food and shelter, public order, public finances, and care for war wounded, English translation; also with an article detailing progress toward a coalition government. May 30, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier runs an article by Fr. F.X. Kiefl denouncing the inter-denominational school and an article by Georg Heim praising Hoffmann for agreeing to a coalition government and insisting the government must be based on democratic, parliamentary principles. May 31, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier devotes its front page to the announcement of the make-up of the new Bavarian Coalition Government and the details of the joint program agree by the BVP, SPD and Democratic Party. English translation May 1919 Father Erhard Schlund, O.F.M., a prominent Catholic theologian in Munich, publishes a book on Bolshevism, denouncing it as the product of the “Russian spirit,” not blaming Judaism for Bolshevism or equating the two. Excerpts in translation May-June 1919 Hitler is recruited by Captain Karl Mayr to become a propagandist in the refashioned Bavarian army. Source: Kershaw (1998), pp. 121-125. During late summer 1919, Hitler begins his antisemitic propagandizing. He attacks Jews for controlling finance and capitalism in the ensuing months. Hitler receives 20 gold Marks per week for speaking, as well as his regular army pay, until his discharge from the military on March 31, 1920. Kershaw (1998), p.127. Spring 1919 J.F. Lehmann publishing house in Munich sets up the “Deutscher Volksverlag” for the express purpose of publishing antisemitic books, and proceeds to publish during 1919 Judas Schuldbuch: Eine Deutsche Abrechnung [The Jews’ Guilt-Book: A German Settling of Accounts] by Wilhelm Meister, pseud. for Paul Bang, with a foreword by the author dated March 1919. Judas Schuldbuch presents major elements of the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory, asserting that Bolshevism is in essence Jewish, that the Soviet Russian Government is exclusively Jewish, that Bolshevism is supported by western Jewish financiers, and that Russian anarchism and nihilism are Jewish in their origin. Excerpts in German Paul Bang was a member of the Deutsch National Volkspartei (DNVP), the most rightwing major party in Germany, which had a large following in northern Germany but little appeal among Bavarian Catholics, gaining virtually no mandates from Bavaria in the January 1919 National Assembly and Landtag elections. Bang’s theory that Russian Bolshevism, anarchism and nihilism were purely Jewish contrasts with prominent Catholic writings in Munich such as Father Erhard Schlund’s book and the May 17 article on Bolshevism in the Allgemeine Rundschau, which attributed Bolshevism to the “Russian spirit” without mention of Jews or Judaism. Judas Schuldbuch, shortly after it appeared, got a lengthy favorable review in Munich’s völkisch Beobachter on June 21, page 5: German original June 1919 Fr. Bernhard Stempfle, in issue no. 5 of his four-page newspaper Leuchtkugeln: Randbemerkungen zur Geschichte der Gegenwart von Redivivus, publishes elements of Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory and threatens the Jews with a German pogrom. Page one article “Die Schutztruppe des Großkapitals” [The Imperial Troops of Big Capital] says that the “Red” and “Golden” Internationals, at the end of the day, serve only one great purpose: “the big plans of the chosen people,” and that “nearly all the leaders of the Russian Revolution are Jews.” Page 2 article “Ewiger Jude! Wandre!” threatens “Eternal Jew, take a hike, before the German Volk arises, after a 2000-year twilight of the gods, to do a German deed.” Citation: Leuchtkugeln: Randbemerkungen zur Geschichte der Gegenwart von Redivivus [Illumination-flares: Marginal Comments on Current History by Redivivus], no. 5 (June 1919), pp. 1-2. June 1, 1919 HPB article “Bloody Review of Ideas and Events” blames Freemasonry, Plutocracy, and Social Democracy for recent revolutionary developments. Excerpts in English translation and German original: pages 641; 642-43; 644-45; 646-47; 648-49; 650-51; 652-53; 654 The same issue contains the article “The Development of the Social Revolution in Bavaria,” explaining revolutionary developments in terms apart from Judaism. Excerpts in English translaction and German original: pages 693; 694-95; 696-97; 698-99; 700-01; 702-03; 704-05; 706-07 June 1, 1919 Munich Archdiocesan paper, the Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, publishes article “Kommunismus?” calling out Jewish Communists of recent Munich revolutionary governments. English translation In the same issue, an article on “Catholics in Bohemia” attacks “liberal democratization of the political activity of Catholics.” English translation June 7, 1919 Munich’s völkisch Beobachter begins appealing to Catholics with the front-page article “Can a Catholic Be an Antisemite?” German original: page one and page two English translation Note: This viciously antisemitic newspaper was named the Münchener Beobachter in 1919, then, beginning 1920, was renamed the Völkischer Beobachter. The Nazi Party gained full ownership and control of the Völkischer Beobachter in late 1920. June 8, 1919 The “Ecclesiastical Review” section of the Munich Kirchenzeitung tells of an outrage against Catholics in Prague. English translation June 10, 1919 Nuncio Pacelli writes Archbishop Faulhaber from Switzerland, asking why the Bavarian People’s Party recently agreed to the cultural policy of the Bavarian Government under Minister President Hoffmann. English translation German original reprinted in L. Volk, Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol. 1, pp. 74-75. June 13, 1919 Faulhaber replies to Pacelli’s letter of June 10th and states his position against compromises agreed by the Bavarian People’s Party as to school issues in the Government’s cultural policy. English translation Also on June 13, Father F.X. Eggersdorfer writes Faulhaber, explaining the reasonableness of BVP compromises with Hoffmann, while indicating that he is already undertaking efforts to break the BVP from its coalition with the SPD and Hoffmann. English translation June 14, 1919 Allgemeine Rundschau publishes an article analyzing the Russian Revolution in detail without reference to Jews. German original: first page - second and third pages - last page June 16, 1919 HPB article “The Causes of the Revolutionary Victory of the Proletariat” attributes that victory to increasing atheism, erosion of conscience, growth of proletariat, plutocrats replacing small tradesman and entrepreneurs; no word about Jews or Judaism. Excerpts in English translation and German original: pages 743; 744-45; 746-47; 748-49; 750-51; 752-53; 754-55; 756 June 17, 1919 Faulhaber writes Eggersdorfer that it will be hard for Catholics to understand why 16-year-olds cannot make their own decision whether to attend religious instruction, but he stresses the importance of following the Nunciature in Concordat- and Church-State-related questions. English translation On the same day, Eggersdorfer writes Faulhaber that he has gotten Bamberg Archbishop’s approval for a Bishops’ commission to handle issues related to the formulation of the Bavarian Constitution. English translation June 18, 1919 Pacelli writes to Faulhaber approving his position as to the schools issue and commending his zeal in defending the interests of the Church. English translation June 19, 1919 Archbishop Faulhaber writes his fellow Bavarian Bishops about steps to exercise better control and influence in matters of Church-State relations and Bavarian Government cultural policy. English translation Also on June 19th, Pacelli sends a report to Gasparri about political dangers to the Church arising from the Socialist government in Bavaria. English translation June 20, 1919 German Chancellor Scheidemann resigns, in the face of an ultimatum from the Allies to sign the Versailles Treaty by June 28th or suffer immediate invasion by Allied forces already advancing under General Pershing. Catholic Center Party and Social Democratic Party leaders hastily form a new government to sign the Versailles Treaty and avert invasion, with Gustav Bauer as Chancellor and Matthias Erzberger as Vice Chancellor and Finance Minister. June 21, 1919 US President Woodrow Wilson appoints a commission to investigate reported pogroms by Polish forces that have been covered in the US and international press. June 23, 1919 White Russian troops begin a series of pogroms in Ukraine. During 1919 and 1920 in Ukraine, tens of thousands of Jews are murdered, and hundreds of thousands are wounded or left homeless, by the separate forces of White Russians under General Denikin, Ukrainian nationalists under Petliura, and smaller actions by Polish forces. June 28, 1919 German Government signs the Treaty of Versailles. Under threat of continued blockade, starvation, and military invasion, Germany gives up extensive territory, agrees to pay massive monetary reparations to the Allies, agrees to strict limitations on the size and power of its armed forces, and acknowledges guilt for its role in starting World War One. New democracies such as Czechslovakia and Poland are set up in Central Europe. The Treaty incorporates the Balfour Declaration, under which Britain will establish a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. June 28, 1919 Allgemeine Rundschau, an independent Catholic journal in Munich, publishes an article discussing the nature of Communism. Summaries and excerpts of article saying Communism is “carried out with the Russian spirit and with Russian methods ...” June 29, 1919 Munich Kirchenzeitung runs an article about care for blind and crippled children with photograph of Baron Theodor von Cramer-Klett. German originals: front page and second page July 1, 1919 HPB’s “Bloody Review of Ideas and Events” laments the Räterepublik as a Jewish and foreign domination of Munich, made possible by Munich’s historic cosmopolitan and inviting nature. Excerpts in English translation German original: pages one; 2; 3; 4-5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12 The same issue of the HPB has a sequel to “The Causes of the Revolutionary Victory of the Proletariat,” identifying major causes of revolution as the press, the modern school, Freemasonry and the “Los von Rom” movement. Excerpts in English translation German original: pages 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25 A third article in this HPB issue, “Modern Bavaria,” discusses causative factors for revolution and a Räterepublik “led by Jews and foreigners,” yet focuses on historical factors that do not include international Jewish conspiracy, e.g.: “The spirit of Treitschke and national liberalism, which wanted the German unitary state, is living a full life today.” German original: pages 47; 48-49; 50-51; 52-53; 54-55; 56-57; 58-59 July 3, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri about Catholic political leaders in Bavaria advocating more strongly for Church interests. English translation Also on July 3rd, Achille Ratti (Pope Pius XI, 1922-1939), Vatican delegate to the new nation of Poland since 1918, is named Apostolic Nuncio to Poland and appointed titular Archbishop. July 4, 1919 Pacelli sends Gasparri a letter he received from the head abbot of the Benedictine Order, Baron Fidelis von Stotzingen, reporting a conversation with a trusted informant in Berlin, Viktor Naumann, who says the German Government is very close to chaos and in grave danger of ending in Bolshevism. Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 8531 July 9, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri a grave danger that underground Bolshevik forces in Bavaria will emerge strongly to overthrow the Government. English translation July 12, 1919 Bavarian Ambassador to Vatican writes a strong letter to Nuncio Pacelli urging upon him the importance of returning from Rorschach to Munich. English translation July 15, 1919 Hungarian paramilitary forces, formed in Szeged under ex-Admiral Miklos Horthy, begin a “White Terror” campaign of violence against Jews and others suspected of Communism. Franciscan priest Istvan Zadravecz consecrates a flag of a paramilitary unit headed by Pal Pronay. Source: Herczl (1993), p.32, citing Pamlenyi (1963), pp. 93-95. Also on July 15, Pope Benedict XV sends a letter to the German Bishops encouraging them in domestic rebuilding and international reconciliation now that the Versailles Peace treaty has ended the war. This letter is later published in January 1920 by Documentation Catholique in France. Also on July 15th, Pacelli sends Gasparri a report from Erzberger about the Center Party’s role in the last-minute formation of a new German Government to sign the Versailles Treaty and avert Allied invasion and national calamity. English translation July 16, 1919 HPB’s “Bloody Review of Ideas and Events” complains that “Jewish throne-overthrowers feel safer in the hideout of a Lower Bavarian farmhouse than the King in his Residence,” yet proceeds to analyze Bavaria revolution by reference to influences of Luther, Lessing, Voltaire, Freemasonry, and not Jewry. German original: pages 100-01; 102-03; 104-05; 106-07; 108 July 18, 1919 Gasparri sends a letter to the German-American Association exhorting them in the name of the Pope to come to the aid of their suffering brethren in Germany. This letter is also published in January 1920 by Documentation Catholique in France. July 25, 1919 German Vice Chancellor Matthias Erzberger speaks in the Reichstag, accusing German militarists and right-wing politicians of bringing defeat and harsh peace terms upon Germany by refusing to negotiate in good faith in 1917 after the Pope’s peace initiative. Source: Epstein (1959), pp. 328-331. Erzberger’s speech discloses, without Nuncio Pacelli’s permission, certain aspects of Pacelli’s role in the Papal peace initiative of 1917. Pacelli had sent Erzberger’s request for permission to Gasparri by telegraph on July 23, but he used Vatican envoy Luigi Maglione’s telegraph facilities in Bern, 200km from Rorschach, and the resulting delays prevented his timely receipt of Rome’s response. Maglione sent Pacelli’s July 23 request to Rome by telegraph on July 24 and reported that fact to Pacelli. Also on July 25th, from Rorschach, Switzerland, Pacelli sends Baron Theodor von Cramer-Klett’s best wishes by telegram to Pope Benedict XV on the Pope's name-saint feastday. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de Cramer-Klett’s relationship with Pacelli, Gasparri, Pope Benedict and Faulhaber becomes increasingly evident in the Munich Nunciature documents of the early 1920s, as seen in the Timeline entries of July 25, 1919, Aug. 18, 1919, Sept. 15, 1919, Feb. 14, 1920, Oct. 23, 1920, Nov. 21, 1920, Nov. 13, 1921, Dec. 21, 1921 and Apr. 26, 1923. Also on July 25th, the Hungarian Soviet government forbids Zionist activity, denouncing Zionism as reactionary. Source: American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22 (1920), p.122. Also on July 25th, Pacelli reports to Gasparri about a compromise on German school policy reached by the Center Party and the Socialists in the drafting of the Weimar Constitution. English translation July 26, 1919 Maglione in Bern, Switzerland cables Gasparri again on behalf of Pacelli about Erzberger’s request to disclose information, which he had already in fact disclosed the previous day. English translation On the same day, Pacelli sends a report to Gasparri about the new Reich Constitution removing Bavaria’s authority to conduct foreign relations, and Hoffmann’s assurance that he wants to preserve the Munich Nunciature. English translation July 27, 1919 Munich Kirchenzeitung begins a regular series of “Vatican Review” sections, presenting Church-State issues and Church developments from the Vatican’s standpoint. English translation of excerpts Like the “Ecclesiastical Review” section of previous months, the “Vatican Review” gives inside information from the Vatican and presents various issues from Rome’s perspective; unlike the earlier section, the “Vatican Review” bears a byline, namely Friedrich Ritter von Lama. July 28, 1919 Maglione in Bern transmits a telegram to Gasparri on behalf of Pacelli, reporting that Erzberger has made the disclosures despite Pacelli twice instructing him not to do so without Vatican approval. English translation July 29, 1919 Pacelli in Rorschach drafts a telegram to Gasparri saying that he has issued a press statement declaring that Erzberger did not learn any content of Pacelli’s Aug. 30, 1917 letter from Pacelli. English translation On the same day, Gasparri sends an instruction to Pacelli to return to Munich forthwith, unless there is serious proximate danger. English translation July 30, 1919 Maglione in Bern writes to Pacelli, conveying a telegram from Gasparri saying, “it is opportune that You consent to Minister Erzberger publishing the entirety of the indicated documents.” Fuller English translation On the same day, Maglione in Bern transmits another telegraph on behalf of Pacelli to Gasparri about the disclosure controversy in Germany. English translation Also on July 30, the Münchener Beobachter continues its pattern of echoing antisemitic statements from Catholic publications, by reprinting assertions from Germania, the Catholic Center Party’s organ in Berlin, about the prevalence of Jews in Communist movements. German original July 31, 1919 Pacelli sends another message to Maglione in Bern for Gasparri in Rome, responding to an accusation in Germany about insecurity and indiscretion in Papal diplomacy, and repeating that Erzberger did not gain inside knowledge from Pacelli. English translation Aug. 1, 1919 Hungary’s Soviet government collapses under an Entente-backed Romanian invasion; Bela Kun and fellow Communist rulers flee. White Terror attacks ensue, continuing into 1920, killing thousands suspected of Communism, and interning tens of thousands more. White Terror paramilitary units mass murder Jews in multiple towns and villages based on equating Judaism with Communism. Source: Hanebrink (2006), pp. 83-87. Aug. 1919 Judas Schuldbuch, by Paul Bang of Munich under the pseudonym Wilhelm Meister, with its fairly complete Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory, continues strong sales as J.F. Lehmann’s Deutscher Volksverlag issues a third edition; still, Munich-based Catholic journals have not picked up and repeated Bang’s version of the conspiracy theory. Aug. 1, 1919 Pacelli reports Erzberger’s disclosures of information without Vatican permission as a “deplorable indiscretion.” Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Aug. 2, 1919 Documentation Catholique publishes lengthy article “The Jewish Power - Jews and Bolsheviks.” Original French cover and précis of contents English translation of article Also on August 2, Maglione in Bern sends two telegrams for Pacelli to Gasparri, responding to accusations of missteps by Papal diplomacy, and repeating that Pacelli deplores the indiscretion by Erzberger, which has nonetheless redounded to the credit of the Holy See. English translation Aug. 3, 1919 Munich Kirchenzeitung denounces revolutionary activists as “loud ranters” from the East and says that because of matters like the struggle against the Christian school and religious instruction, “the Bavarian people have hardly ever been so unfree and enslaved as in recent times." English translation Aug. 6, 1919 The völkisch Munich Beobachter prints a front-page item entitled “Erzbergers „Enthüllungen“,” stating: The reporter for the “Times” reports from Rome: Erzberger’s disclosures about the English step for peace via intermediation of the Vatican have evoked great astonishment in Rome. Both the Vatican and political circles are taken totally unawares. The Cardinal Secretary of State received the “Times” reporter this morning and declared to him that Erzberger’s disclosures were not correct. The Holy See, in view of the misunderstanding that has arisen, will publish the relevant documents. German original Aug. 7, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that the new Reich Constitution will apply to Bavaria as well as to the nation, and that Pacelli is returning to Munich on August 8th. English translation Also on Aug. 7, a Bavarian priest complains to Pacelli that the German Bishops are giving in to subordination of Church to State while claiming to the world “that the ‘Center Party’ has really once again come to the rescue.” English translation of letter from Fr. Hollweck Aug. 11, 1919 Weimar Republic Constitution is adopted, providing for parliamentary democratic government, with an elected President and a cabinet headed by a Chancellor (prime minister). Aug. 14, 1919 Pacelli cables Gasparri conveying Faulhaber’s urgent request to fill vacant parish pastor positions (appointments that still required approval by the Bavarian government headed by the “anti-clerical Minister Hoffmann”). English translation Aug. 16, 1919 Gasparri cables Pacelli instructing that the Bavarian Bishops are to appoint temporary administrators for the vacant parishes and not attempt to resolve the presentation issue before there are comprehensive negotiations about the Concordat. English translation Also on Aug. 16, Munich-based Catholic journal Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland (HPB) publishes article “On the Ukrainian Problem,” explaining that the Jewish population of the Ukraine, better educated on the whole than their fellow Ukrainians, has an important role to play in building the new Ukrainian nation. HPB 162:4 (1918), pp. 239, 246. Aug. 18, 1919 Pacelli sends Gasparri the Church-State provisions of the new Weimar Constitution, also commenting on an anti-Church statement by Hoffmann; quoting Msgr. Hollweck’s critique of the Center Party; and making extenuating explanations about the Center Party’s conduct. English translation of Pacelli’s report Also on Aug. 18th, Pacelli submits to Gasparri a request to give Baron Cramer-Klett the Papal title of Privy Chamberlain to the Pope. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 5204. Gasparri asks Pacelli on Sept. 15, 1919 to inform Cramer-Klett that the Pope has conferred the requested title of nobility upon him. Aug. 20, 1919 Prof. Franz Xaver Eggersberger informs Archbishop Faulhaber of developments in Church-State relations involving Minister President Hoffmann. English translation Aug. 22, 1919 Budapest Chief Rabbi seeks help from British mission because all Jews are blamed for Hungarian Soviet government even though most Jews were harshly persecuted by it. Source: American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22 (1920), p.122. Also on Aug. 22, the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums reports on the flood of antisemitism in Germany, saying it is no exaggeration that Jews are threatened with the destruction of their existence. Source: Hecht (2003), p. 107. Aug. 23, 1919 Franz Schrönghamer-Heimdal publishes an antisemitic article declaring a spiritual war between the “eternal Jew” and the “eternal German,” in the Munich-based Catholic journal Allgemeine Rundschau. German original and English translation of article “World-Upheaval” Aug. 24, 1919 “Vatican Review” section of Munich Kirchenzeitung reports on conflict in the Church in Czechoslovakia instigated by the “Freemasonic” government of that country. English translation Aug. 25, 1919 Hitler gives a talk “über den Kapitalismus, der dabei die Judenfrage streifte” [about capitalism, which thereby touched upon the Jewish question], in the Bavarian Army political indoctrination course organized by Capt. Karl Mayr. Jäckel & Kuhn (1980), p. 88. Aug. 29, 1919 Jews in Hungarian towns of Tolna-Ozera, Enying and Simontornya are driven out; some are tortured and some are killed. Source: American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22 (1920), p.123. Aug. 30, 1919 A detailed version of the Jewish-Communist-capitalist conspiracy theory appears in the Catholic journal Allgemeine Rundschau under the byline of Franz Schrönghamer-Heimdal. English translation and German original: first page, second page Schrönghamer-Heimdal had previously published a trilogy of antisemitic books in Bavaria during 1918, the first of which, Vom Ende der Zeiten, bore an imprimatur from the Diocese of Augsburg. Schrönghamer’s articles of Aug. 23 and 30 in the AR remained an outlier, in the universe of the five leading Munich-based Catholic journals, until the same conspiracy theory was promoted by the Kirchenzeitung in April 1920. Sept. 3-4, 1919 Bavarian Bishops, meeting in their annual conference, adopt instructions for the Bavarian People’s Party on issues of schools, Church-State relations, and Bavarian Constitution. English translation of Minutes of Bishops Conference Sept. 6, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri, based on a discussion with a German Reich official about the Democratic Party joining the governing parliamentary coalition, that Erzberger is considered the singular will-power and force of the current Cabinet, but his “imprudence” is “most extremely deplorable.” Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Sep. 7, 1919 “Vatican Review” section of Munich Kirchenzeitung reports that relations are still strained between the Bavarian Government and Nuncio Pacelli after his return from his long absence. English translation of article accusing Munich of “childish disregard of the Pope’s representative” Sep. 12, 1919 Hitler for the first time attends a meeting of the German Workers Party in Munich, in his capacity as a political informant, propagandist, and agent of the Bavarian forces of the German army. Kershaw (1998), p.126. This “Party” is a small antisemitic group, numbering only several dozen, who meet in Munich beer halls. It is relaunched on Feb. 24, 1920 as the National Socialist German Workers Party and draws a thousand or more to its inaugural meeting at Munich’s Hofbräuhaus Beer Hall. Sep. 14, 1919 “Vatican Review” section in Munich Kirchenzeitung contains a wide range of typical insider-information on issues of importance to the Vatican, including danger of Church schism in Czechoslovakia, details of a recent Papal audience, further details about the exclusion of the Vatican from the Paris Peace Conference, and the following brief notice about Msgr. Schioppa’s near escape when Prussian military forces fired at the Nunciature during their overthrow of the Räterepublik several months earlier: Prelate Schioppa, the Auditor of our Nunciature, who during the overthrow of the Councils dictatorship nearly became victim to some stray bullets, has returned to his post after being received in special audience by the Pope. German original Nuncio Pacelli had reported on May 5, 1919 that Prussian troops directed machinegun and rifle fire at the Nunciature, with multiple shots striking Schioppa’s bedroom and bathroom there right after he turned on a light around 10pm on May 3. On Sept. 14-16, the Vienna Morgenzeitung reports many recent attacks on Hungarian Jews, saying 3,000 have been killed. Sept. 15, 1919 Gasparri informs Pacelli that Pope Benedict XV has agreed to give Baron Cramer-Klett the title of Papal Privy Chamberlain. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1305. Sep. 16, 1919 HPB article “What Bolshevik Government Has Produced in Russia” describes in detail the ruin of the Russian economy by Communism and gives an ethnic breakdown of Party members at the recent 8th Congress of the Russian Communist Party, stating 49 Jews among 301 delegates. German original: pages 348; 349; 350; 351; 352; 353; 354; 355; 356; 357; 358 Sep. 16, 1919 Hitler writes a detailed antisemitic letter to a Herr Gemlich. The letter is noteworthy because it is Hitler’s earliest known antisemitic writing, it is written in a style different from Hitler’s earlier writings, and it focuses repeatedly on moral and spiritual issues, unlike Hitler’s earlier writings. English translation of Hitler’s letter to Gemlich. Major themes of the letter - Jews remain foreigners in whatever country they live; they universally inspire people to hate them; Judaism should be understood as a race more than a religion; and antisemitism should be pursued in a “just” and rational rather than emotional manner - are seen in earlier antisemitic literature, e.g. Civiltà Cattolica of Jan. 1, 1881. English translations of a representative sample of Hitler’s previous writings English translations of Hitler’s speeches and writings from October 1919 to mid-April 1920 Sept. 18, 1919 American military mission in Vienna reports on mass murders and persecutions of Hungarian Jews and others “on the pretext that they are Communists.” Source: Katzburg (1981), pp. 39-40. Sept. 20, 1919 Bishop Henle writes Faulhaber and says Hoffmann may go down in Bavarian history as “the author of the revolution.” English translation Sept. 21, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung’s “Vatican Review” section comments on the number of Cardinals visiting Palestine in recent months. English translation Sept. 23, 1919 Bishop Lingg writes Faulhaber asking that the upcoming Bishops’ pastoral letter not raise the complaint about the funeral oration for Eisner comparing him to Jesus and John Hus. English translation Sept. 28, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung’s “Vatican Review” section describes “culture war” against the Church in Czechoslovakia. English translation Oct. 1919 Hochland article “Prophetic or Marxist Socialism?” by Max Scheler discusses types of socialism ranging from Lenin-Trotsky Russian communism to Spartacists, Independents and Majority Socialists in Germany, and distinguishes his own idea of “Solidarity” or Christian socialism, without associating any type of socialism with Judaism or Jews. Hochland 17:1:1 (1919), pp. 71ff. Oct. 1, 1919 HPB article “The Disturbances in Hungary” discusses the origin, course and aftermath of the Räterepublik under Bela Kun in Hungary without attributing it to an international Jewish conspiracy. German original: pages 436; 437; 438; 439; 440; 441; 442; 443; 444 Oct. 4, 1919 Hitler reports to his commanding officer about a meeting of the German Workers Party with 24 persons in attendance at the Sternecker Beer Hall in Munich, and Hitler requests permission to join this party. Oct. 6, 1919 Pacelli sends Gasparri the Church-State provisions of the new Bavarian State Constitution, also reporting, in the midst of a Bavarian Government crisis, that he has arranged for Catholic Landtag deputies to pressure Hoffmann without Pacelli or the Vatican becoming known as the source of the initiative. English translation of report Oct. 7, 1919 Faulhaber meets with Neuffer, an organizer of Bavarian Einwohnerwehr paramilitary forces planning a putsch against Minister-President Hoffmann; Neuffer says they have weapons and ammo of which the government knows nothing, and they want to put Ernst Pöhner and Eugen Knilling into key positions. The meeting is recorded in Faulhaber’s diary. Faulhaber later meets with the head of the paramilitary group, Georg Escherich, on Jan. 29, 1920 and authorizes priests to conduct flag-blessings for the paramilitary units. The putsch occurs during the night of March 13-14, 1920. Escherich’s first meeting after the putsch succeeds is with Faulhaber on March 14th. Also on Oct. 7th, Pacelli reports to Gasparri that the Democratic Party has joined the governing Reich coalition, on the condition that Erzberger resign the Vice Chancellorship. English translation Oct. 14, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that Catholic politicians in Bavaria have refused the Socialists’ invitation to enter a coalition government, thus ensuring that the Socialists bear public blame for unavoidable continuing governmental and economic crisis. Further, because the Bavarian army is largely Socialist, it is thought that the army “would not offer to defend a Government not presided over by a Socialist against new Communist and Spartacist agitations.” English translation Oct. 16, 1919 US Ambassador John W. Davis in London cables US Secretary of State Robert Lansing, requesting immediate investigation into Jewish-Communist conspiracy allegations, reported by an unnamed Russian officer, claiming that the Russian Bolsheviks received financial aid from prominent American Jews, among them Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mondell Schiff, Jerome Hanauer, Max Breitung and one of the Guggenheims, information which the British Morning Post is about to use for antisemitic propaganda. Text of cable Washington replies the next day that it has no evidence supporting the allegations but will investigate, and that British authorities should be encouraged to prevent publication of the allegations until further notice from the US. Telegram from Alvin Adee at US State Department to Embassy in London, Oct. 17, 1919 Oct. 17, 1919 US Embassy in London sends Washington the five-page French language report allegedly by a Russian officer, claiming that Jews control Russian Bolshevism; the report begins and ends with quotations from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Cover letter from London Embassy to US State Department in Washington, explaining that Sir Basil Thomson (head of MI5 and MI6) is preventing publication of the report by the Morning Post pending response from Washington. Attached French original document "Bolchevisme & Judaisme," page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, and page 5. Note: This five-page French document, with slight modifications, was later published in Documentation Catholique on March 6, 1920. Oct. 21, 1919 Communiqué from US Embassy in London to Washington acknowledging the antisemitic and unfounded nature of the “Bolshevism and Judaism” article, and stating “we have the whole thing in cold storage.” Original communiqué Oct. 25, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri about negotiations for the Vatican and the German Reich to exchange ambassadors for the first time. Bavarian Minister-President Hoffmann has proposed that even with a new Vatican Embassy in Berlin, the Nuncio could remain in Munich. Pacelli credits the Center Party for negotiating favorable provisions for the Church in the new German Constitution, and comments on the religious and political power of the Church in Germany. English translation Oct. 26, 1919 Archbishop Faulhaber gives a major speech on Church-State relations to thousands gathered at the Munich Catholic Congress. The speech appears on the front page of the Munich Kirchenzeitung - English translation of speech Pacelli sends Gasparri a laudatory report about the speech: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 328. Gasparri replies a month later with extensive words of praise from Pope Benedict XV for the “zelante” (zealous) Archbishop and his conduct at the Congress: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 5503. Faulhaber's speech appears in French translation in Documentation Catholique on Jan. 3, 1920. Oct. 26, 1919 Pacelli cables Gasparri recommending, at the request of the Bavarian government, that Archbishop Faulhaber be made a Cardinal. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 8022. Oct. 28, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri about the Munich Catholic Congress, praising Faulhaber’s Oct. 26th speech. English translation of report Oct. 30, 1919 Pacelli sends Gasparri a lengthy report about his detailed discussion with Minister President Hoffmann on the possible terms for a new Bavarian Concordat. Pacelli seeks to maintain the government subsidies and privileges of the Church under the 1817 Bavaria-Vatican Concordat, while removing the State's “patronato” right to make appointments to Church offices. English translation On the same day, Pacelli cables Gasparri about the pressing issue of resolving the appointment process to fill vacant parish pastor positions, in reference to his discussion with Hoffmann. English translation Nov. 1919 Hochland article “Einzelnes der Judenfrage” by antisemitic author Joseph Grassl goes on for 20 pages about racial characteristics of Jews without hinting Jewish control or influence in Communism or Bolshevism. Nov. 1, 1919 HPB article “Views of Reason and Faith upon the Puzzles and Troubles of the Day” analyzes Communism and its catchword sozialization at length without reference to Judaism or Jews. Excerpts in English translation German original: pages 551; 552; 553; 554; 555; 556; 557; 558; 559; 560; 561; 562; 563; 564; 565; 566 Nov. 6, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that Hoffmann, responding publicly to Faulhaber, claims to be against clericalism not religion. The report refers to Hoffmann’s “pertinaciously anti-religious position and activity.” English translation of report Nov. 9, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri the formation of a monarchist political party in Bavaria, advising that this development is not opportune. English translation Nov. 9, 1919 “Vatican Review” section of Munich Kirchenzeitung tells readers of the Allies’ exclusion of the Pope from the Paris Peace Conference, and the serious problems for the Church in Czechoslovakia and Hungary. English translation Nov. 10, 1919 Pacelli reports to Gasparri the agreement reached with Minister President Hoffmann about presentation rights for new parish pastor appointments, despite the “sustained difficulties of the persistent regalistic tendencies of this Minister.” English translation of report Report of same agreement by Faulhaber to his fellow Bavarian Bishops, in English translation Nov. 12, 1919 Hungarian Catholic Bishop Ottokár Prohászka publishes an article saying the Hungarian Bolshevik regime had been a “Russian-Jewish invasion” and “racial imperialism.” Source: Paul Hanebrink, A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism (Cambridge: Belknap Harvard Univ. Press, 2018), p. 44, citing O. Prohászkar, “Mi, magyarság és kereszténység,” Nemzeti Ujság, Nov. 12, 1919, reprinted in Osszegyujtött munkái, vol. 22: Iránytu, ed., Antal Schutz (Budapest, 1927), pp. 213-215. Nov. 12, 1919 Gasparri approves Pacelli’s Oct. 30th proposals for content of a new Bavarian-Vatican Concordat. English translation Nov. 14, 1919 Pogroms in Hungarian towns of Dissel and Topolya kill and injury many Jews. Source: American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22 (1920), p.224. Nov. 13, 1919 Hitler attacks as Jews: Karl Liebknecht, Matthias Erzberger, Max Lewien (none of whom were Jewish), as well as Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Radek, Kurt Eisner, and three Jewish leaders of the Räterepublik, without branding Bolshevism or the Soviet Russian government as Jewish. Jäckel & Kuhn (1980), p. 92. Nov. 16, 1919 HPB article “Bavarian-Political Troubles” exhorts the BVP to resistance against the “ruinous regime of the revolutionary era,” namely against the Social Democrat-led Bavarian government and its school policy; all attacks are focused on Minister-President Johannes Hoffmann and his fellow Social Democrats, not on Jews. German original: pages 624-25; 626-27; 628-29; 630-31; 632-33; 634-35; 636-37; 638-39; 640 Nov. 16, 1919 Pacelli transmits to Gasparri the German Bishops’ Aug. 24, 1919 memorandum critiquing some of the church-state provisions of the Weimar Constitution. Pacelli’s cover letter in translation German Bishops’ memorandum in translation Nov. 17, 1919 US State Department official transmits results of investigation into the “Bolshevism and Judaism” article. Cover Memorandum from A.J.C. in the State Department to Mr. Poole of the Russian Division The investigation determined that the “Bolshevism and Judaism” article was prepared by an investigator named Brazall (apparently Boris Brasol) working for the War Trade Board. An attached three-page memo discusses efforts to make the Protocols known in the US, saying it is “tremendously unfortunate that this sort of attempt should be made to combat Bolshevism with fraud.” Page 1, page 2, page 3 Page 3 of the memo refers to British authorities who are alleging “a scheme for world dominion” by “various groups of international Jews.” Original English language article “Bolshevism and Judaism” prepared by Boris Brasol, attached to State Department report: Page 1, page 2, page 3 (page 4 is missing or not copied in National Archives files), page 5 Nov. 19, 1919 Gasparri asks Pacelli to review and report back on Baron Cramer-Klett’s proposal of special Vatican honors for several Bavarian Catholics. English translation Nov. 25, 1919 Russian Division of US State Department is instructed by Winslow that it should handle the “Bolshevism and Judaism” matter however they deem fit, in their complete discretion. Memorandum from Office of the Under Secretary of State Nov. 28, 1919 US Secretary of State Lansing cables US Embassy London that the “Bolshevism and Judaism” article “has no special validity” and that “it would seem most unwise to give it the distinction of publicity.” Text of cable Original document Note: Lansing was aware of the innocent conduct of Jacob Schiff with respect to Russia, as seen in a series of events in April and May 1917. Lansing’s nephew, John Foster Dulles, was an officer at the War Trade Board during World War I, where the author of the Bolshevism and Judaism report, Boris Brasol, was said to be employed, whether accurately or as a cover for Brasol who had submitted reports to US military intelligence anonymously as Secret Agent B-1. Nov. 28, 1919 Gasparri informs Pacelli that Pope Benedict XV was very pleased to learn of Munich Catholic Congress and the speech by the zealous Archbishop. English translation Also on Nov. 28, Pacelli sends Faulhaber the 10 point-list of demands for new Concordat terms that he has already shared with Hoffmann. English translation Dec. 1, 1919 Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory is denounced as absurd and dangerous by Munich-based author Fritz Gerlich, in a book favorably reviewed in an influential Munich-based Catholic journal, which calls Gerlich “one of the best experts on Communism and Bolshevism.” Gerlich’s denunciation and ridicule of the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory is the best thus-far known explanation for Hitler’s failure to feature this conspiracy theory in his public speeches until after the theory was popularized by Bavarian Catholic authority in April and May 1920. Gerlich was a speaker and key influencer in the Army’s political indoctrination classes that Hitler attended in 1919. Weber (2017), pp. 90-91. For its political indoctrination course in Munich, the Army purchased 500 copies of Gerlich’s book that attacked the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory. Morsey (2016), pp. 72, 79. Excerpt from Gerlich’s book denouncing the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory, with English translation German original of review of Gerlich’s book in Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland: first page and second page Dec. 1, 1919 HPB article “The ‘Achievements of the Revolution’” says what has governed revolutionary Germany is not soldiers-workers councils or parliaments, but rather individuals exercising power: Ebert, Scheidemann, Hoffmann, Heine, Noske, Erzberger, etc. Excerpts in English translation German original: pages 697; 698-99; 700-01; 702-03; 704-05; 706-07; 708 Dec. 2, 1919 Bishop Lingg of Augsburg replies to Faulhaber about Pacelli’s 10 points that the Bishops and their commission cannot change them without being blamed for failing to follow Vatican instructions. English translation Dec. 3, 1919 Bavarian priest F.X. Kiefl writes a letter to Faulhaber urging the importance of upholding the validity of the 1817 Bavaria-Vatican Concordat to provide a favorable basis for negotiations about the new Church-State relationship. English translation Dec. 4, 1919 Faulhaber replies to Kiefl, agreeing with him, inviting him into the Bishops commission on Church-State issues, and explaining that in order to stand by the 1817 Concordat, the Church has not invoked its right under the Weimar Constitution to appoint freely to its own offices without governmental involvement. English translation Dec. 6, 1919 Eugenio Pacelli writes his brother Francesco in Rome to request behind-the-scenes support for his efforts to preserve the Einwohnerwehr, an anti-Communist Bavarian citizen army that exists in violation of the Versailles Treaty and that is later disbanded, in 1921, under threat of invasion by the Entente Powers. English translation and Italian original Dec. 7, 1919 The Catholic Bishops of Bavaria jointly decree that all Catholics be instructed not to read or allow into their homes the “bad press.” Translation of Bishops’ Pastoral Letter published in Munich Archdiocese weekly newspaper. Article following the Pastoral Letter, exhorting Catholics to read only the “good press.” Also on Dec. 7th, Pacelli reports back to Gasparri about Vatican honors recommended for certain Bavarian Catholics by Baron Cramer-Klett and Archbishop Faulhaber. English translation Dec. 12, 1919 Hungarian newspaper reports Catholic priests promoting Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory and calling for defensive measures against Jews. Source: Nemzeti Ujsag, Dec. 12, 1919, p.2, cited in Herczl (1993), pp. 31-32 & nn. 103-104. These statements were made at a Budapest convention of the Awakening Hungarians, a movement that incited and supported the White Terror in Hungary. Dec. 16, 1919 HPB sequel “The ‘Achievements of the Revolution’” associates Jewry with Socialism, but not with revolution, which it blames on atheism, individualism, democracy, pleasure-seeking, decline in morals, offenses against the Ten Commandments, and alienation of the masses from the Church. German original: pages 745; 746-47; 748-49; 750-51; 752-53; 754-55; 756-57; 758-59; 760 Dec. 20, 1919 Pacelli sends Gasparri a recommendation that Fr. Bernhard Stempfle be named the ecclesiastical affairs consultant and press agent for the newly planned German Embassy to the Vatican. English translation of report, Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 985. Stempfle was not named to this position, and became instead publicist and organizer for the Einwohnerwehr, the Bavarian paramilitary force that played a central role in the Kahr putch of March 1920. Dec. 1919 German translation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is sent by its Berlin-area publisher to Munich’s Völkisch Beobachter newspaper staff. Source: Michael Kellogg, The Russian Roots of Nazism (2008), p.68. German edition with Foreword dated July 1919: Protocols Protocols first German edition Timeline of the Protocols at the website of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Dec. 27, 1919 Pacelli sends a diplomatic note to Bavarian Minister President Hoffmann proposing the opening of negotiations for a new Vatican-Bavaria Concordat. English translation Dec. 30, 1919 Archbishop Faulhaber meets in Rome with Pope Benedict XV and Cardinal Gasparri; they discuss the political situation in Bavaria among other topics. Faulhaber’s notes of his audience with Pope Benedict, in English translation Faulhaber’s notes of his audience with Cardinal Gasparri, in English translation Late 1919 to early 1920 More than a hundred Germans prominent in government, academia, church leadership and other spheres of German life submit statements about antisemitism to be published by the Volkskraftbund (“People Power League”). The statements are published in a book entitled Deutscher Geist und Judenhass [The German Spirit and Jew-Hatred], which appears in 1920. Statement condemning antisemitism and supporting the Zionist movement from Matthias Erzberger, who is the German Finance Minister and a prominent figure in the Catholic Center Party Antisemitic statements from two Bavarian Bishops, the only two Catholic Bishops who respond to the People Power League Foreword by the People Power League Foreword by German President Friedrich Ebert 1920 Jan. 1, 1920 HPB publishes article “The Center Party at the Crossroads,” by Baron Hermann von Lüninck, arguing that the Party has strayed from its roots and alienated three groups of its strongest and most faithful Catholic supporters: the nobility, farmers and academics. HPB 165 (Jan. 1, 1920), p.53. Jan. 2, 1920 Gasparri sends two cables to Pacelli: Instructing Pacelli to inform Catholics that the Vatican wants the Bavarian Embassy to continue in existence after a German Reich Embassy to the Vatican is established, despite rumors that the German Government wants to eliminate the Bavarian Embassy. www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 5580. English translation Saying that Archbishop Faulhaber, visiting the Vatican, asks Pacelli to have Faulhaber’s Vicar General immediately start publicizing the reasons for maintaining the Bavarian Legation to the Vatican. www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 5581. English translation Jan. 3, 1920 La Documentation Catholique in France publishes Archbishop Faulhaber’s speech of Oct. 26, 1919. English translation of speech and French original comprising front page and pages 16; 17; 18; 19 Faulhaber was in Rome for nine days beginning Dec. 28, 1919, according to his diary. Jan. 4, 1920 Pacelli reports to Gasparri about his trip to Berlin and negotiations about opening a Vatican Nunciature there; he also mentions the threatened dissolution of the Einwohnerwehr, which “has succeeded up to now in holding the Communists at bay.” English translation of report On the same day, Pacelli sends Gasparri two cables about preservation of the Bavarian Legation to the Vatican and Pacelli's note to Hoffmann of Dec. 27th about Concordat negotiations Jan. 5, 1920 Pope Benedict XV makes Faulhaber a Papal Throne Assistant, a title just lower than Cardinal. English translation of Gasparri’s notice to Pacelli about this honor Jan. 8, 1920 Pacelli cables Gasparri asking whether the Bavarian Nunciature will continue to exist once the German Reich and the Vatican establish diplomatic relations. English translation Jan. 9, 1920 Hungarian White Terror forces abduct and kill dozens of Jews in Kecskemét, Hungary, on charges of Communism. Source: American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22 (1920), p.224. Also on Jan. 9, Pacelli cables Gasparri for instructions concerning the preservation of the Bavarian Legation, prior to a trip by Minister President Hoffmann to Berlin. English translation Jan. 10, 1920 Allgemeine Rundschau publishes an article critical of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism that does not mention Jews or Judaism. Citation: O. Färber, “Eine christlichsoziale Studienkommission nach Sowjetrußland,” Allgemeine Rundschau 2 (Jan. 10, 1920), pp. 23-24. The same issue of AR contains an antisemitic article, “Jewish and Christian Labor Leaders,” about Marx, Engels and Lassalle, with brief mention of Eisner and a Räterepublik leader, which does not discuss Russia or any current threat of Bolshevism. Citation: E. Hartl, “Jüdische und christliche Arbeiterführer,” Allgemeine Rundschau 2 (Jan. 10, 1920), pp. 24-25. Jan. 11, 1920 Nuncio Pacelli reports to Rome on the nature of the Bavarian People’s Party and its secession from the Catholic Center Party of Germany. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Also on Jan. 11, the Munich Archdiocesan newspaper, the Kirchenzeitung, publishes an article on “Bolshevik Hatred of Christ and Christians,” about torture and murder of Catholic priests by the Bolsheviks, with no mention of Judaism. English translation Jan. 16, 1920 Hungarian government begins deporting Galician Jews en masse. Source: American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22 (1920), pp. 224-225. Jan. 16, 1920 HPB article “New Year 1920” points to two godless powers, Social Democracy and plutocracy as exemplified by the Entente, which hold power in Germany and internationally; it brands the first as Jewish-Socialism and the second as the Jewish-liberalism of Freemasonry. German original: first page; 84-85; 86-87; 88-89; 90-91; 92-93 Jan. 17, 1920 Documentation Catholique publishes two Vatican documents from mid-1919 focused on German Catholics and German-American Catholics: Pope Benedict’s letter of July 15, 1919 to the Bishops of Germany Cardinal Gasparri’s letter of July 18, 1919 in the name of the Pope to the Congress of the German-American Association French original of cover and contents with Pope Benedict XV’s letter to the German Bishops and Cardinal Gasparri’s letter to German-American Catholics, as well as materials from the French Bishops Jan. 20, 1920 Bavarian Minister President Hoffmann writes Pacelli that the Bavarian Government is prepared to negotiate a new Concordat with the Vatican. English translation Also on Jan. 20, Bishop Lingg of Augsburg writes Faulhaber advising against the Bishops issuing a protest as to Church-State issues because the Government would take it as merely about losing State subsidies. English translation Jan. 23, 1920 In Hungary, newly formed National Central Party denounces the “widespread idea that the Jews are to be held collectively responsible for recent events.” Source: American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22 (1920), p.225. Jan. 24, 1920 Pacelli sends Gasparri a copy of Faulhaber’s pastoral letter for Lent 1920 denouncing democracy, telling Bavarian Catholics that the German revolution is at root not a political issue but a religious and moral issue of Kulturkampf against the Church, conducted by enemies who are forging ever new weapons, and that Catholics must be on guard and not let their weapons get rusty. English translation of key excerpts Jan. 27, 1920 Gasparri sends Pacelli the Vatican’s position and fallback position for negotiating with the German Government as to an exchange of ambassadors, Berlin and Rome, and the maintenance of the Nunciature in Munich. English translation of Gasparri’s instruction to Pacelli Jan. 28, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano begins a series of front page articles on “The Bolshevik Menace,” saying the Russian Bolshevik Army is preparing to invade Poland in March or April. Headlines and summaries of such articles appearing on nine days from Jan. 28 through Feb. 26 Jan. 28, 1920 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, first German edition, is advertised in the Nazi-oriented Munich newspaper Völkischer Beobachter [Völkisch Observer], with a small ad in the paid advertising section of the paper. Jan. 29, 1920 Faulhaber meets with Georg Escherich, head of the Einwohnerwehr, and agrees that priests can discreetly conduct flag-blessing ceremonies for Einwohnerwehr paramilitary units. Source: Escherich Diary, 13-14 March 1920, BayHStA V, NL Escherich, 6, Tagebuch, cited in Zuber (2015), pp. 153-154. Fr. Bernhard Stempfle begins to play a leading role in the Einwohnerwehr as publicist, recruiter, organizer, and high level negotiator. Source: Einwohnerwehr leader Rudolf Kanzler’s book Bayerns Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus: Geschichte der bayerischen Einwohnerwehren (Munich: Parcus, 1931) described specifics of Fr. Stempfle’s work with the Einwohnerwehr in February, March, April, and May 1920 in Austria and Bavaria. Jan. 31, 1920 Documentation Catholique publishes an article recalling Rome’s conquering of Jerusalem and dispersal of the Jewish people. The article calls for Christians and Muslims to unite against Zionism and the “invasion” of Palestine by “Jewish floods from Romania and Russia,” while Christians mobilize public opinion worldwide. French original of cover and contents including this précis: “Zionism. - Grave problems instigated in Palestine by Jewish immigration ... The Jewish invasion in Jerusalem... Purchases of land... Precautions to take today and tomorrow: create a public opinion against Zionism, in union among Christians and between Christians and Muslims, etc.” English translation of article Feb. 1920 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion appears in English for the first time, published by Eyre & Spottiswoode, publishers for the British Crown. Sharman Kadish (1992), p.31, says the significance of this translation “can only be grasped against the background of British intervention on the side of the White Russians in the Civil War,” as it was White Russian officers who brought the Protocols to the west, and the translator and publishers were in highly respectable English circles. Historians note that the English version of the Protocols initially received no attention in the British press. Kadish, ibid.; Poliakov (2003), vol. IV, p.210. Feb. 1920 The Munich-based Jesuit monthly Stimmen der Zeit publishes an article calling for a strong national leader and emphasizing the importance of training persons for such a role. English translation Feb. 1920 Czarist Russian emigré in America, Boris Brasol, publishes book Socialism vs. Civilization. Unlike Brasol’s “Bolshevism and Judaism” concoction, which circulated anonymously shielded by his code name Agent B1, this book, published under his name, does not make extreme claims that Judaism is responsible for revolutionary movements or that Jews are in control of Russian and international Communism, even though the book includes lengthy discussions of Socialism, Marxism and Communism, and their alleged current-day threat to the US and western civilization. Title page of book and next page showing publication dates Table of Contents Feb. 1, 1920 Fr. Bernhard Stempfle serves from this date until June 20, 1921 as “Pressereferent” [press officer] of the Orka paramilitary group associated with the Einwohnerwehr. Source: Certificate of appreciation from leadership of Einwohnerwehr, in Nachlass Stempfle, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich Feb. 4, 1920 Nuncio Pacelli, on behalf of the Vatican, transmits to the Bavarian Government a 19-point proposal for a new Bavaria-Vatican Concordat. Source: Lydia Schmidt, Kultusminister Franz Matt (1920-1926) [Education Minister Franz Matt] (2000), pp. 197-198. German original at online Pacelli-Edition, Document No. 6617 English translation of the 19 points Feb. 7, 1920 Documentation Catholique publishes an address of Pope Benedict XV to the Nobility of Rome (pp. 178-180). Topic headings include the homage of the nobles to the Pope and “The Indefeasible Obligation: Love of Neighbor, Even Your Enemy of Yesterday.” This issue contains a lengthy post-election review of French press and political discussion about Bolshevism, Socialism, collectivism and radicalism, all of it critical, yet none of it accusing Jews or Judaism of responsibility for these movements. (pp. 195-213) One article is quoted mentioning Jews, not in connection with left-wing movements, but rather “Bolsheviks of the right: war-profiteers, Jews, ... plutocrats ... whose power is money.” (p.199) Feb. 8, 1920 Winston Churchill publishes an article claiming that other than Lenin, the leaders of Russian Bolshevism are Jewish, and expressing the desire that Zionism and/or assimilation and nationalism prevail among Jews worldwide, rather than Bolshevism. W. Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, Feb. 8, 1920 Churchill’s distant American relative Marlborough Churchill, head of U.S. Army Intelligence, similarly accepted allegations from Czarist propagandist Boris Brasol that all Russian Bolshevik leaders other than Lenin were Jews; Marlborough took Brasol’s allegations to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which was also attended by Winston. Feb. 9, 1920 Gasparri cables the Munich Nunciature saying that Pacelli’s mother is gravely ill and the Pope allows him to travel to Rome. Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 9891 Feb. 10, 1920 Msgr. Lorenzo Schioppa, Auditor of the Munich Nunciature, sends Faulhaber the 19 points that were submitted to Hoffmann on Feb. 4 and observes: “Frankly, whether the recommended points will be attainable is another question and hardly can be hoped; but nevertheless one must ask for what is fair and right.” English translation Feb. 11, 1920 Nuncio Pacelli travels to Rome, arriving shortly after his mother dies, and does not return to Munich until the night of April 11-12. The online Pacelli-Edition contains Gasparri's telegram of Feb. 9 authorizing Pacelli to travel to Rome, and the Nunciature's telegram explaining the next available train leaves on Feb. 11. Feb. 14, 1920 Cardinal Gasparri instructs Pacelli to make clear to the Bavarian People’s Party leadership and Bavarian clergy that the Vatican does not favor the secession of Bavaria from the German Reich, stating that “it is the constant principle of the Holy See to stay remote from all purely political questions.” Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation On the same date, Schioppa sends Gasparri Baron Cramer-Klett’s report of his discussions with government figures in Berlin about establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de. and English translation Also on Feb. 14, La Documentation Catholique in France, quoting from L’Osservatore Romano of Nov. 8, 1919, tells Catholics it is “treason” to vote for Freemasons or Bolsheviks in parliamentary elections. English translation and French original of cover and précis Feb. 15, 1920 The Minister-President of Bavaria, Johannes Hoffmann, responds to Pacelli in a discouraging fashion, stating that the Vatican’s Concordat proposals will need to be “thoroughly reviewed and evaluated,” and that this will take considerable time. Hoffmann and the Vatican disagree over Catholic control of government-funded schools, among other issues. See L. Schmidt, above. Feb. 15, 1920 Munich Kirchenzeitung issue no. 7 contains: An article entitled “The Old and New Jerusalem” describing God’s fearful judgment on the Jews and their city of Jerusalem, formerly loved by God. An article saying Freemasonry strives worldwide to take political power, overthrow monarchs, and destroy the Catholic Church, and it is permeated with Jewry and “terrorizes everyone and binds them in chains.” A set of mandatory instructions entitled “Archbishop’s Decrees” binding on Catholics in the Munich Archdiocese A report that the “Moslem and Christian Arabs living in Palestine have protested in a memorandum to the Pope against England’s Jew-friendly policy in the Holy Land.” Polemics about Czechoslovakia. Feb. 16, 1920 Faulhaber writes the Bavarian Ambassador to the Vatican about his “fight to the finish” to preserve Bavaria's Vatican Embassy as well as the Vatican's Nunciature in Munich. English translation Feb. 18, 1920 Faulhaber writes Schioppa that Hoffmann will try to establish more onerous conditions for Bavarian dissolution of the State Church via the Reich Government than he could achieve in Bavaria, creating an “exceedingly serious” situation. English translation Feb. 21, 1920 Einwohnerwehr leaders Escherich and Kanzler, along with Fr. Bernhard Stempfle and Bavarian Volkspartei Landtag delegate F.X. Zahnbrecher, meet with Gustav von Kahr. Source: Kanzler (1931). Also on Feb. 21, Documentation Catholique gives increased coverage to sources in Germany, including a Bavarian Catholic association, with propaganda about “the fanatical and ferocious offensive directed against them [Christians] by militant Judaism, that eternal enemy of our faith and the doctrines of Christ our Savior and our God!” French original Feb. 24, 1920 Public launch of the National Socialist (Nazi) German Workers Party by Hitler and others in the Festival Hall of the Hofbräuhaus in Munich. Nazi Party’s 25-point program announced by Hitler at the event Feb. 25, 1920 Nazi-oriented Völkischer Beobachter prints brief coverage of Nazi launch event and two longer articles about Bolshevism and Jewry. Article “A Jewish Secret Document” with similar approach, but different content, to the Protocols. Known as the “Zunder forgery,” this document was published in English in the Sunday Times of London on April 4, 1920. Article “Bolshevism and Jewry” Kellogg (2005), p.232 describes an article by Dietrich Eckart in February 1920, in his journal In Plain German, quoting this spurious “Jewish Secret Document” to show identity of Judaism and Bolshevism. Feb. 26, 1920 Faulhaber writes two missives about key Church-State issues centered on the imminent “dissolution” of state established churches in Germany, and the restructuring of schooling: To Cardinal Bertram, head of the Fulda German Bishops Conference: English translation To the Bavarian Bishops: English translation Feb. 28, 1920 Gasparri instructs the Munich Nunciature that Baron Cramer-Klett’s recommendation of Feb. 14th, to accept the German Government’s proposal for diplomatic relations with the Vatican, is acceptable. English translation Feb. 29, 1920 Faulhaber’s letter to Prince Wilhelm von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen expresses his “Bavarian lamentations” about current affairs, including the “senile ungraciousness” of the Government, the “terrorism of the parties,” an expected Bolshevik uprising next-door in Austria, and the need for an “external grace” to rescue Germany from free-fall. English translation Also on Feb. 29, the Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung begins a new section entitled “Aus Welt und Kirche” [From World and Church]. This issue contains a short article on “The Terrors of Bolshevism in Russia.” The same issue describes the consolidation of various Catholic newspapers, including Munich’s Katholische Kirchenzeitung, under the Catholic Press Association of Bavaria as their common publisher and manager. March 1920 Franz Schrönghamer-Heimdal, the most prominent Catholic author promoting the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory in Bavaria in 1919, is forced to resign from Bavaria’s Katholikenzeitung [Catholic Times] after a public denunciation of his propaganda by a Catholic Bavarian count and lawyer. In his denunciation, Anton Graf von Pestalozza sarcastically argues that in view of Schrönghamer’s propaganda, the Katholikenzeitung “should merge itself with the Völkischer Beobachter.” Schrönghamer-Heimdal, who joined the staff of the Katholikenzeitung in early 1920, goes from there to a similarly short stay as editor of a new monarchist paper, the Bayerische Königsbote [Bavarian Royal Messenger]. Source: Hastings (2010), pp. 80-82. Schrönghamer also writes in early 1920 a series of articles for the Völkischer Beobachter arguing that Jesus was not a Jew. By summer 1920 Schrönghamer gives up his 1918-20 career as an antisemitic propagandist and goes back to his earlier career writing Bavarian folk literature. Schrönghamer later makes a return appearance in the Völkischer Beobachter to “settle accounts” with Graf von Pestalozza, republishing the Count’s denunciation along with Schrönghamer’s rejoinder. Citation: Völkischer Beobachter, Oct. 31, 1920, p.4. March 1920 Hochland article “Russian Anarchism” suggests that despite Europeans being informed of the details about the Russian Revolution, they do not know its deeper cause and nature: the soul of the Russian people, as described by Russian authors, who reveal the manifold ways that the Russian people are disposed toward anarchy and revolution; contains no reference to Judaism or Jews. Mar. 1, 1920 Bishop Lingg of Augsburg writes Faulhaber that if the Bavarian Government tries to give the Church her walking papers, the Government will receive its own walking papers. English translation Mar. 5, 1920 Msgr. Schioppa, in charge of Munich Nunciature in absence of Pacelli, writes Cardinal Gasparri about refuting reports that the Vatican favors the secession of Bavaria from Germany. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 331. - English translation Mar. 5, 1920 Alfred Rosenberg, White Russian émigré and Nazi ideologist, publishes article in Dietrich Eckart’s Auf Gut Deutsch [In Plain German] referring to “Jewish terror” in Russia. Kellogg (2005) translates an excerpt of this article: the “most unscrupulous Jewish terror” in Russia “ruins the economy and industry; when all is said and done, it works for stock market speculators and big capitalists.” (p.223.) Mar. 6, 1920 Documentation Catholique in France becomes the first journal to publish the Bolshevism and Judaism falsification previously peddled unsuccessfully in Britain to the Morning Post in fall 1919, and previously received by the head of US Army Intelligence in November 1918 from its author, Czarist Russian intelligence officer and propagandist Boris Brasol. English translation of article “The Jews are the Principal Factors of Worldwide Bolshevism” Cover of Documentation Catholique with summary of article: Documentation Catholique La Documentation Catholique Also on this date, the Munich Nunciature reports to Cardinal Gasparri that Baron Cramer-Klett has been informed of the Vatican’s intentions concerning diplomatic relations with Germany. English translation Mar. 7, 1920 Munich Kirchenzeitung says the Pope has “implicitly condemned” the Versailles Treaty. English translation of “Vatican Review” section The same section mentions French protectorate over the Holy Land as a competitor to Britain’s promotion of a Jewish state in Palestine. The “Vatican Review” section also describes a “ruthless culture war” waged against the Church by the “Czech powers that be.” Mar. 9, 1920 Nuncio Pacelli replies “sharply” to Bavarian President Hoffmann about Bavaria-Vatican Concordat. From Rome, Pacelli states that if Bavaria seeks to violate the Church’s rights in the school question, he will not be able to defend Bavaria against French efforts to include a former portion of Bavaria (now in the Saar district under League of Nations governance) in French diocesan control under a French Catholic Bishop. See L. Schmidt, p.198. Mar. 10, 1920 Faulhaber writes Ambassador Ritter zu Groenesteyn praising Pacelli, hoping he is not moved [presumably to Berlin], and criticizing the Bavarian Government. English translation Also on March 10, Faulhaber writes Bertram naming the Bavarian members for a joint commission, priests Kiefl, Harth and Stahler, also accusing Hoffmann of a “sneaky maneuver” to change Bavaria’s schools into non-denominational schools. English translation Mar. 12, 1920 Matthias Erzberger resigns as Reich Finance Minister after accusations against him of perjury and tax evasion are endorsed by a judge at the conclusion of Erzberger’s lawsuit against Karl Helfferich for libel. Governmental investigations later exonerate Erzberger in June and August 1921. Mar. 13-17, 1920 Nationalists and monarchists attempt unsuccessfully to overthrow the Weimar Republic, in the “Kapp Putsch.” L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage in English translation Detailed account by the Auditor of the Munich Nunciature dated March 25, in Pacelli’s absence Mar. 14, 1920 Allies of the Kapp Putsch stage a successful coup in Bavaria and install Gustav von Kahr, a monarchist, as head of the Bavarian government; Franz Matt becomes Bavarian Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs, and Ernst Pöhner becomes head of police. Georg Escherich, head of the Bavarian Einwohnerwehr and a central figure in the Kahr Putsch, has his first meeting on March 14th after the Putsch succeeds, with Archbishop Faulhaber. Source: Escherich Diary, 13-14 March 1920, BayHStA V, NL Escherich, 6, Tagebuch, cited in Zuber (2015), pp. 153-154. In the aftermath of the Kahr Putsch, extremist rightwing elements, including General Erich Ludendorff, various White Russian emigrés, and Kapp’s military commanders, including Capt. Hermann Ehrhardt, find refuge in Munich. Ehrhardt’s brigade in northern Germany was the most disciplined and effective Freikorps fighting force; its members displayed swastikas on their helmets. Maser (1965), p. 213. A violent counter-revolutionary group called Organisation Consul - under Ehrhardt as Consul - subsequently forms with its headquarters in Munich; the organization is also known as Feme, named for a medieval Teutonic secret quasi-judicial institution. Mar. 13-15, 1920 Lorenzo Schioppa, the Auditor of the Munich Nunciature, sends Gasparri a series of five brief cables about the Kapp Putsch and the situation in Munich. English translations of the cables: first - second - third - fourth - fifth Mar. 15, 1920 Auditor Schioppa sends Gasparri a lengthy report about the Kapp Putsch. English translation Mar. 16, 1920 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland article “Views of Reason and Faith upon the Puzzles and Troubles of the Day” says that defenseless Central Europe is being plundered by innumerable English and American adventurers, Christian and Jewish merchant-agents, and that Jews and their allies are exploiting currency fluctuations to plunder entire countries. A footnote on the first page identifies the author of this article and of the 18-part series “Bloody Review of Ideas and Events” as a Bavarian priest, Fr. Wilhelm Maier, who had recently passed away. In this article, as in his previous writings in the HPB, his antisemitic statements focus primarily on “Jewish capitalism” and do not attempt to explain Russian Communism as Jewish. German original: pages 389; 390-91; 392-93; 394-95; 396-97; 398-99; 400-01 Mar. 16-17, 1920 Schioppa sends Gasparri a series of three cables about developments in Munich. First cable - second - third Mar. 18, 1920 Schioppa sends Gasparri a detailed report about the Kapp Putsch and its failure. English translation Mar. 19, 1920 Schioppa sends a further report to Gasparri about the Kapp Putsch and the change of government in Bavaria. English translation Mar. 25, 1920 Schioppa reports to Gasparri on the Kapp Putsch and its aftermath. English translation On the same day Schioppa reports that the Bavarian People’s Party, by a 68-60 vote in the Landtag, has succeeded in overturning Hoffmann’s school policy. English translation Mar. 26, 1920 Schioppa cables Gasparri that the Reich Government requests the Vatican’s agreement to the appointment of Diego von Bergen as the first Ambassador from Germany to the Holy See. English translation Mar. 27, 1920 Hermann Müller of the Social Democratic Party becomes Chancellor of the German Reich. Also on March 27th, Documentation Catholique publishes a report by English Cardinal Bourne about his fact-finding mission to Palestine and the Middle East. Apr. 2, 1920 In Toka, Hungary, White Terror forces attack and kill 300 Jews. Source: American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22, p.226. Apr. 3, 1920 The leading Catholic nobleman of Germany, Prince Alois zu Löwenstein, reports in the Allgemeine Rundschau about a meeting of leading Catholic nobles of Germany, which adopted resolutions favoring monarchy and disfavoring aspects of the Weimar Republic, including a resolution to remove “the influence of racially foreign elements,” and states that the Catholic Center Party stands against all antisemitism. Löwenstein, “Der katholische Adel Deutschlands und die Politik” [The Catholic Nobility of Germany and Politics], Allgemeine Rundschau, No. 14 (Apr. 3, 1920), pp. 184-185. Also on April 3rd, Documentation Catholique publishes a letter of Cardinal Gasparri, Vatican Secretary of State, along with a reprinted article from L’Osservatore Romano. Apr. 4, 1920 The “From World and Church” section of the Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung attacks Austrian Jewry as “a great danger to the Austrian Catholic Church” and names various Jews allegedly holding key positions in the Austrian military. English translation Also on April 4th, the Sunday Times of London publishes an English translation of the Jewish-Bolshevik “secret document” that appeared in the Völkischer Beobachter on Feb. 25, 1920. Apr. 4-7, 1920 Violent attacks by Arabs against Jews in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem result in several deaths and hundreds of injuries. Apr. 10, 1920 Documentation Catholique publishes a joint pastoral letter of the 101 Archbishops and Bishops of the United States. Apr. 10, 1920 Allen Dulles, as a young US State Department special envoy in Germany, writes a situation report from Munich describing the political-religious situation of Bavaria. Summary and excerpts Apr. 11, 1920 The Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung promotes the Jewish-Communist myth, endorses the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and arouses fear and hatred in an article entitled “Jewish Imperialism.” English translation and German original The article cites and summarizes the Jewish-Bolshevism article that appeared in Documentation Catholique on March 6th. The same page features articles on Communism in Hungary and in the United States and Mexico. During the night of April 11th, Eugenio Pacelli arrives back in Munich after a two-month stay in Rome following the death of his mother. His telegram to Gasparri reporting his safe arrival is in the online Pacelli-Edition, Document No. 6779. L’Osservatore Romano gives special attention to Germany on this day, with 17 headlines and short news items about Germany on the front page. Italian original top part of page, two right-side columns Italian original bottom part of page, three right-side columns Apr. 14, 1920 Pacelli cables Gasparri saying that Faulhaber implores Vatican intervention with the Entente to prevent forced dissolution of the Einwohnerwehr, “our only defense against the Bolshevik menace.” English translation Apr. 15, 1920 Poland invades Ukraine and advances rapidly toward Kyiv and Vinnytsia (the seat of a Ukrainian government under Simon Petliura allied with the Polish military). Apr. 16, 1920 Dietrich Eckart writes an article in his journal Auf gut Deutsch about sadistic “Jewish Bolshevik” rule in Russia. Kellogg (2005), p.232. Apr. 18, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a front-page story praising the Catholic press of Bavaria, and holding it up as an example for other countries. Translation of article “The Catholic Press in Bavaria,” which includes mention of the Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung The article emphasizes the importance of the Catholic press in Bavaria for the “Christian education of the people.” Apr. 18-30, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a series of articles about the San Remo Conference. At this conference, the Allies decide to give Britain a mandate to govern Palestine for the purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland there, and to give France a mandate to govern Syria and Lebanon. The Vatican newspaper describes lobbying by Zionists to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, including a message from the Belgian Zionist Federation to British Prime Minister Lloyd George expressing the conviction that it is a matter of urgency to settle definitively the political future of Palestine and to affirm the mandate of Great Britain under the control of the League of Nations, so that the restoration of Palestine as a national Jewish entity can be implemented without further delays, in conformity with the commitments assumed toward the Jewish people by Great Britain, by Italy and by the other Allied powers supported by the United States of America in conformity, in sum, with the ardent and irresistible will of the entire Jewish people. The articles contain no criticism of the Allies or the Zionists. Translated headlines and details of articles from L’Osservatore Romano Apr. 22, 1920 Nazi-oriented Völkischer Beobachter in Munich devotes its entire front page to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. English translation of banner headline, intro paragraph, and section headings German original of page one Apr. 25, 1920 Sir Herbert Samuel accepts the post of British High Commissioner for Palestine, appointed by Prime Minister David Lloyd George. Apr. 26, 1920 Völkischer Beobachter publishes the “Jewish Imperialism” article with same text that appeared in Munich Kirchenzeitung on Apr. 11, 1920. German original The “Jewish Imperialism” article appears alongside an advertisement “urgently recommending” the Protocols and identifying a bookstore in Munich where they can be purchased. Immediately below is an advertisement for an antisemitic book by Schrönghamer-Heimdal with an endorsement from Dietrich Eckhart. Apr. 27, 1920 Hitler incorporates the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory about Russia for the first time into one of his speeches, saying that “only the Jew” is responsible for what has happened in Russia. English translation English translations of excerpts of Hitler speeches on Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy in subsequent months Apr. 29, 1920 Völkischer Beobachter publishes a call for revenge against Munich’s Jewish community. English translation of article accusing Jews of collective guilt for the murder of hostages by Jewish Communists in Munich one year earlier Apr. 30, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano again praises Munich Catholicism in a lead page one story. Headline and beginning of article about implementation of encyclical Rerum Novarum by organization based in Munich Apr. 30, 1920 Bavarian government imposes a 10-day publication ban on Völkisch Beobachter for incitement to violence. Translated text of ban as reprinted later in the Völkisch Beobachter May 2, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung accuses Jews of conspiracy against the “Christian State” and proclaims “eternal war ... between Christian culture and Jewish imperialism” in article “Not Jew-Hatred but Christian-Defense!” English translation and German original: first page and second page The same issue contains an article in praise of St. Boniface, the “Apostle to Germany” in the 8th century, for his loyalty to Rome. See the papal encyclical on St. Boniface, May 14, 1919, above. May 6, 1920 Lead article in L’Osservatore Romano features the Munich Archdiocese, with praise of Munich Archbishop Faulhaber and Nuncio Pacelli. English translation The Vatican newspaper similarly lavished front-page praise upon the Munich Archdiocese, its press, and its leaders, on April 18 and May 7, 1920, in the midst of the Archdiocesan newspaper’s promotion of the Jewish-Communist myth and other extreme antisemitic propaganda; in doing this, L’Osservatore Romano did not mention Judaism or Communism. May 7, 1920 Lead article in L’Osservatore Romano focuses on Munich, with extended praise for the Bavarian Catholic Press Association, the publisher of the Munich Kirchenzeitung. English translation On May 7th, the Polish Army captures Kyiv. L’Osservatore Romano reports on May 12: “The Polish advance has strongly brought out the national Russian spirit and has certainly weakened the authority of the Soviet Government. From these two new factors in Russian politics, there could arise, in the not distant future, a situation of great political interest for Eastern Europe.” English translation Also on May 7th, Jews are attacked en masse in Hungarian towns of Izsak, Orgovany, Kiskunmazsa, Fulopszallas and Keckskemet. Source: American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22, p.227. May 8, 1920 Times of London publishes article about the Protocols and editorializes about “The Jewish Peril, a Disturbing Pamphlet: Call for Inquiry.” May 9, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung publishes a front page article repeating the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory and calling for “lawful measures” against Jewry. English translation and German original: front page and second page The measures advocated, “Germany for the Germans” - not Jews - Christian people may not be governed by Jews - stopping Jewish economic “exploitation” and “profiteering” - and combatting the "Jewish spirit” of “materialism” - correspond in large part with demands in the Nazi Party program of February 1920. The “Vatican Review” section of this issue says the San Remo conference that gave Britain the Mandate over Palestine “interfered directly with the rights of the Pope” and further says: “It is really the Pope who will yet have the last word in this matter.” Spring 1920 First American edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is published in Boston. May 15, 1920 Civiltà Cattolica dismisses reports of “White Terror” in Hungary, calling the previous government a “Jewish-Communist tyranny” and defending the current one as “men of order.” English translation The White Terror involved the widespread internment, deportation and killing of Jews in Hungary based on the assertion that the short-lived Hungarian Communist government of 1919 was “Jewish” and that Jews were Communists. Hanebrink (2006), pp. 83-89. May 17, 1920 The Münchener Post reports that the Vatican Secretary of State has sent a diplomatic note to the German Government for the purpose of erecting an Apostolic Nunciature in Berlin and establishing diplomatic relations between the Vatican and the German Reich. May 20, 1920 Eugenio Pacelli asks the Vatican for a dispensation from the requirement, reported in the press, that he move to Berlin. Italian original of encrypted telegram at online Pacelli-Edition - English translation May 22, 1920 The Catholic Bavarian People’s Party publishes a full-page election appeal in the Allgemeine Rundschau, openly rejecting the Weimar Constitution and the Versailles Treaty. English translation May 23, 1920 On Pentecost Sunday, Pope Benedict XV issues his encyclical Pacem Dei Munus, an appeal for universal love and peace, which also expresses his “many bitter anxieties” in the wake of the signing of peace treaties, because “the germs of former enmities remain.” May 23, 1920 The Münchener Post, the Social Democrat newspaper of Munich, speaks out against antisemitic propagandizing as a contradiction of true Christianity and the spirit of Pentecost. English translation German original May 25, 1920 Gasparri informs Pacelli that the Pope cannot rescind his decision to transfer Pacelli to Berlin, but allows him to stay in Munich temporarily. Italian original of encrypted telegram at online Pacelli-Edition - English translation May 27-28-29, 1920 The Münchener Post runs more articles on Catholicism, on antisemitic propagandizing in Bavaria, and on Police Chief Pöhner’s publication ban on the Völkischer Beobachter for calling for a pogrom. English translations German originals: May 27 - May 28 - May 29 entitled „Folgen der antisemitischen Pogromhetze“ In its multiple articles on these subjects in May 1920, the Münchener Post does not criticize the Munich Katholische Kirchenzeitung. May 29, 1920 The leadership of the Catholic Center Party publishes a two-page election appeal in the Allgemeine Rundschau, contrasting sharply with the previous week’s appeal by the Catholic Bavarian People’s Party. English translation May 1920 Henry Ford’s newspaper in Michigan, the Dearborn Independent, begins to publish the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in serial form. May 1920 Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster’s new book My Struggle Against the Militaristic and Nationalistic Germany: Perspectives on German Identity and on the Reconstruction of a New Germany contains this prophetic statement: “Germany will meet its final downfall if the German nationalists succeed in stirring up wider circles in Germany to brutalize Jewish elements.” Citation: Foerster, Mein Kampf gegen das militaristische und nationalistische Deutschland: Gesichtspunkte zur deutschen Selbsterkenntnis und zum Aufbau eines neuen Deutschland (Zurich, 1920), pp. 252-53 By this time Foerster had lost much of his previous influence and standing among Bavarian Catholic priests and educators, due to public attacks upon him over the preceding two years by Franz X. Kiefl, a priest close to Faulhaber. Cf. the HPB’s review of Foerster’s December 1918 book World Politics and World Conscience and related discussion with citation to Hausberger (2003), pp. 167-171. A summary of Kiefl’s attacks and Foerster’s response, with reference to the effect upon Catholic educators and others previously influenced by Foerster’s pedagogic and other writings, is found in the Allgemeine Rundschau of Jan. 31, 1920: German original of article by University of Munich Prof. Joseph Göttler, entitled “F.W. Förster’s Christianity.” Spring 1920 The book Deutscher Geist und Judenhass [The German Spirit and Jew-Hatred] appears with condemnations of antisemitism by hundreds of prominent Germans, but with antisemitic statements by two Catholic Bishops from Bavaria, one of whom, the Bishop of Passau, associates Jewry with Bolshevism. Bishops’ statements in translation The same book contains a strong statement condemning antisemitism by former German Vice Chancellor and Finance Minister Matthias Erzberger, who emphasizes that German chauvinists are using antisemitic incitement to distract from their own guilt - which included intransigence leading to abject defeat; their complicity also included inciting Russian Jews to revolt against the Czar from August 1914 on, and transporting Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks from Swiss exile into Russia in April 1917. These statements were made in response to a request for statements against antisemitism, sent in 1919 to German political, academic, and cultural figures, with the support of the President of Germany. Further contents in translation June 2 and 6, 1920 Hitler develops the Jewish-Bolshevik theme in speeches at the Bürgerbräu Beer Hall in Munich. Excerpts in translation June 3, 1920 Pacelli reports great controversy in Germany about the establishment of a Nunciature in Berlin, and recommends the Vatican proceed in this regard with “maximum circumspection and prudence.” Italian original at online Pacelli-Edition - English translation June 5, 1920 The Allgemeine Rundschau publishes a poem calling for a strong national Führer to strike down domestic enemies and raise the German people up from humiliation and bondage. English translation June 6, 1920 German Reichstag nationwide election results in the following party representation in the national legislature: Social Democrats 22%, Independent Socialists 18%, German National People’s Party 15%, German People’s Party 14%, Center Party 14%, German Democratic Party 8%, Bavarian People’s Party 4%, Communist Party 2%, others 3% English translation of Nuncio Pacelli’s report to Cardinal Gasparri of June 10 about the elections - Italian original and German summary at www.Pacelli-Edition.de June 7, 1920 Gasparri cables Pacelli with instructions to have Erzberger’s Bishop order him “forcefully and with a loud voice” to desist from political activity. English translation of telegram - Italian original at online Pacelli-Edition Erzberger’s exclusion from the German Government is the pre-condition for the Catholic Bavarian People’s Party to cooperate with the Catholic Center Party in the German Reichstag, according to a report from Pacelli to Gasparri on June 12th. English translation - Italian original at online Pacelli-Edition On June 16th, Pacelli reports to Gasparri that Erzberger’s Bishop has strongly exhorted him, and that Erzberger agrees he will “remain apart from everything” and will not accept a government position. English translation - Italian original at online Pacelli-Edition June 9, 1920 The Völkischer Beobachter publishes a piece on “Catholics and the Jewish Question,” which accuses the head of the Bavarian Catholic Press Association of betraying the fight against the Jews by renouncing antisemitism at a meeting of the Israelite Community of Munich. English translation June 9 to July 14, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano runs a series of eight front-page articles attacking Zionism with respect to Palestine. English translations Translation of June 16 lead article on “Palestine and Zionism” with headings “Systematic Invasion” and “A Dangerous Policy” Second article on June 16 front page, accusing Jewish leaders of “centuries-long hostility” against Catholics and raising the specter of Jewish “hegemony” over the Holy Land July 14 article quoting the “eminent Morning Post” and its attack on the British appointment of a Jew to govern Palestine June 13, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung describes the Polish invasion of Russia as driving a nail into Bolshevism. German original of article “Ueber den Bolschewismus” in the section “From World and Church” The same page features a racially oriented article about religious trends among African Americans. June 16, 1920 The Catholic journal Historisch-Politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, based in Munich, publishes a detailed article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Whether or not the Protocols are authentic, the article concludes, in either event they “exude throughout the Jewish spirit” and “completely reveal” the Jews’ “striving for world domination.” The article says Jewry controls Communism, Socialism and capitalism for the purpose of creating a Jewish worldwide dictatorship and reign of terror. Openly embracing racial antisemitism, the article asserts that the threatening imperialistic impulses of Jews are “common characteristics of the race, alive in the blood, working instinctively.” Full English translation German original: page 741 - 742 - 743 - 744 - 745 - 746 - 747 - 748 - 749 - 750 - 751 - 752 - 753 - 754 The Historisch-Politische Blätter was the “most influential journal of German Catholicism,” according to the Bavarian Historical Lexicon. June 18, 1920 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that the German Government understands that after he presents his credentials as Vatican Nuncio to Berlin, he will return to Munich until the conclusion of the Bavarian Concordat negotiations. Italian original at online Pacelli-Edition - English translation June 21, 1920 Constantin Fehrenbach of the Catholic Center Party becomes Chancellor of the German Reich. June 25, 1920 Sir Herbert Samuel, on his way to Palestine, goes to Rome and has an audience with Pope Benedict XV. The Pope tells Samuel he was initially concerned by his appointment but is now reassured by Samuel’s public commitments to religious toleration and liberty, and by his recognition of the interests of the Catholic Church in the Holy Land. Sergio Minerbi, The Vatican and Zionism, p.32. Also on June 25th, Pacelli sends Gasparri words from Archbishop Schulte of Cologne expressing gratitude that Pacelli will not be transferred to Berlin until the Bavarian Concordat negotiations are concluded. Italian original - English translation June 27, 1920 Cardinal Gasparri tells a French diplomat at the Vatican that Samuel is going to Palestine for the sole purpose of supporting Zionism. Minerbi, p.138, citing French Foreign Ministry Archives. Also on June 27th, the Völkischer Beobachter publishes a further article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, arguing that regardless of the disputed authenticity of these meeting minutes, they are a true reflection of “the Jewish spirit of power-greed, money-greed, and destruction.” German original - English translation June 28, 1920 The Bavarian Government provides a special salon car for Nuncio Pacelli’s trip to Berlin as new Nuncio to Germany. L’Osservatore Romano’s reports of July 14 and 15 on Nuncio Pacelli’s new appointment, his train, and his speech June 30, 1920 Sir Herbert Samuel arrives in Jaffa as British High Commissioner for Palestine and proceeds to the administrative capital, Jerusalem. Sir Herbert Samuel’s memoirs describing the poverty, dereliction, and lawlessness that he found in Palestine upon his arrival July 1, 1920 Fritz Gerlich becomes Editor-in-Chief, under new ownership, of the largest Munich newspaper, the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten: Süddeutsche Zeitung, as seen in the masthead on page one that day stating “Hauptschriftleitung: Dr. Fritz Gerlich.” July 4, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung article says “Jews are now calling Palestine ‘the land of Israel.’” The article goes on to say: “May the Lord God thwart these two crown-pretenders [Jews and Muslims] and bestow the Holy Land upon the Christians!” Another article in the same issue describes developments in Czechoslovakia as a grave threat to the Catholic Church. July 14, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano reports that passions in Palestine “have been extraordinarily inflamed by bold-spirited Zionists and the animosity they have brought from Central Europe.” Fuller translation July 20, 1920 The Latin (Roman Catholic) Patriarch of Jerusalem issues a pastoral letter expressing “most serious anxiety” over the changes contemplated for Palestine. Patriarch Luigi Barlassina, claiming to speak as pastor for the entire non-Jewish population of Palestine, says their “unanimous voice” is: “Let Palestine be internationalized rather than someday be the servant of Zionism.” Minerbi, p.141. July 21, 1920 Hitler declares that the Jews rule Soviet Russia. Excerpts of speech in translation July 23, 1920 New Editor-in-Chief Fritz Gerlich explains on page one of the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten that he is publishing a response by a leading Bavarian Jewish businessman to an antisemitic statement published in the MNN in June. The response describes the “hatred and division” directed against fellow Jewish citizens in Bavaria during the recent election campaign, but does not mention the role of the Archdiocesan newspaper. Second page of response Also on July 23, High Commissioner Samuel, at the invitation of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, visits the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which Jews had previously not been allowed to enter. July 25, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung article on the Holy Land reports that the Christians and Muslims there have formed a union to “represent their common interests.” The article says it is “deplorable” that Catholics worldwide have not mobilized to oppose Zionism. This inactivity by Catholics is the reason that “the Holy See could only raise and succeed with modest demands at San Remo.” July 25 to mid-August, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano reports almost daily on the Russian-Polish War. Translations of headlines and excerpts on the “War of Terror” in Poland with “Bolshevism at the Gates of Central Europe” Poland’s invasion of Ukraine in April 1920 had enabled the Bolshevik Russian Government to rally the nation, including some Czarist elements, to fight in unison for Mother Russia. By early August a Russian counterattack was approaching Warsaw and threatening to continue into a nearly defenseless Germany. In mid-August the Polish Army, under General Pilsudski, routed the Red Army near Warsaw, ending the Bolshevik threat to Poland and Central Europe. July 1920 The Catholic Bishops of Poland send a letter to their fellow Bishops worldwide imploring help against Soviet Russia. The letter contains a paragraph asserting that Bolshevism is directed by a race that controls gold and the banks, that is “driven by the age-old imperialistic impulse that courses through their veins,” and that is “now directly undertaking the final subjugation of nations under the yoke of their tyranny”; Bolshevism is “the living embodiment and manifestation of the Antichrist on earth.” Hanebrink (2018), p.26. Civiltà Cattolica publishes, three months later, a fuller version of the Polish Bishops’ letter, with a different version of this paragraph, referring in more veiled terms to the psychology of those who control Bolshevism, rather than to a race with imperialistic impulses. Comparison of this paragraph in the two different versions Aug. 1, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano reports in detail on the entry of the new British High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, into Jerusalem. The paper expresses concern that, contrary to the “noble ideals” of President Woodrow Wilson for self-determination of peoples, Palestine is now being ruled by an English Jew. Translation of article saying Zionists reported that Samuel received loud “vivas” and acclamations from the local Christian and Muslim population, giving him what some London papers called a “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem. On the same day, the Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung reports on Czechoslovakia making July 6th a national holiday in honor of John Hus, who was burned at the stake by Catholic powers in 1415. English translation Aug. 4, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano reports on a July 30 speech by Cardinal Bourne, the Archbishop of Westminster (London), challenging British policy in Palestine and the prospect of "a Zionist dominion" being installed there. English translation Aug. 6, 1920 Hitler gives a speech claiming that 430 of the 478 People’s Deputies who have governing power in the Soviet Union are Jews. Excerpt in translation Aug. 10, 1920 Treaty of Sèvres is signed, containing the peace terms between Ottoman Turkey and the Allies. The treaty includes the British Mandate for Palestine agreed at San Remo in April 1920, but it never goes into effect, because of Kemal Ataturk’s overthrow of the Ottoman Government and repudiation of the treaty. Aug. 13, 1920 Hitler claims that 90% of the Soviet Russian leadership is Jewish. Excerpt in translation Aug. 15, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung article highlights “The Danger to Christianity in Palestine” posed by Zionism. English translation Aug. 16, 1920 Polish army defeats Soviet Communist invading army outside Warsaw. In the days leading up to this decisive battle, the only foreign diplomats who remained in Warsaw, according the L’Osservatore Romano on August 16-17, page one, were Vatican Nuncio Achille Ratti (later Pope Pius XI, 1922-1939), the Italian Ambassador to Poland, and the American Chargé d’Affaires. Translated excerpt In the days leading up to the Polish counter-offensive, the Polish war ministry orders that all Jewish officers and soldiers in the Polish army be arrested and sent to a concentration camp in Jablonna, near Warsaw. Korzec (1980), p.111. Following the decisive Polish victory, Jews are subjected to massacres, rapes and pillaging by advancing Ukrainian and Polish forces. Ibid., pp. 111-112. Aug. 16-17, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano runs a lengthier and more inflammatory report of Cardinal Bourne’s July 30 speech as its lead story on page one. The story includes a bold heading, “The Zionist Peril,” with accusations that “numerous groups of Jews” are unassimilated in Europe and “can constitute domains of dissidents and agitators.” The Vatican newspaper does not yet explicitly equate Jews with Bolsheviks. English translation Aug. 18, 1920 Nuncio Pacelli reports to Rome on the political situation in Germany and Bolshevism. English translation - Italian original and German summary at www.Pacelli-Edition.de Ventresca (2013), p.57, quotes Pacelli in this report referring to the terms of the Treaty of Versailles as an “international absurdity.” Aug. 19, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano introduces antisemitic propaganda about Jewish Bolsheviks in recently recaptured Kiev. The article reports that Jewish judges, with avid participation of Jewish women, tortured and killed priests, both Catholic and Orthodox. In the Vatican newspaper’s dozens of articles about the Bolshevik menace in 1920, this appears to be the first article that focuses on Jews. Aug. 22, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung cover story describes a Cardinal exhorting English Catholics to lobby the British Government against the “Zionist danger” in Palestine, calling this a model for Catholicism worldwide. English translation Aug. 28, 1920 The “World Review” section of the Allgemeine Rundschau explains how essential Orgesch, the Einwohnerwehr under Georg Escherich, is to the defense against Bolshevism. English translation Aug. 31, 1920 Hitler gives a speech about Jewish-Bolshevism with denunciations of several concepts and organizations that were bêtes noires from a traditional ultramontane Roman Catholic perspective: Translation of excerpts featuring: (a) the “proposed Zionist State of Jerusalem” (b) underminers of “the social concept” and “the common good” (c) the “Free from Rome Movement” (d) the Alliance Israélite of France (e) the Freemasons Sept. 5, 1920 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper, the Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, runs article on “Jewish Immigrant Shirkers” in Palestine. English translation Sept. 11, 1920 Documentation Catholique publishes article “The Jewish Peril Expands.” English translation French cover and précis Sept. 20, 1920 Hitler denounces “liberty equality fraternity” and says Soviet Russia is “heaven” for Jews. Excerpt in translation Sept. 22, 1920 Hungarian National Assembly passes an antisemitic quota law, limiting Jews to 6% of annual university classes. Source: Hanebrink (2006), p.83 (describing this as “the first anti-Jewish law in postwar Europe”). Catholic Bishop Ottokár Prohászka says the law is not antisemitism but “racial self-defense.” Ibid., quoting in translation from speech of Sept. 16, 1920 in National Assembly. Sept. 23, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano publishes the first of several articles about the Polish-Russian War and Bolshevism, with no mention of Jews. Translated headlines and summary Oct. 2, 1920 Civiltà Cattolica publishes a lengthy article about the Polish-Russian war, highlighting the horrors of Bolshevism and the threat to all of Europe that was turned back at the gates of Warsaw by the Polish victory. The article reprints at length a pastoral letter of the Bishops of Poland calling Bolshevism the “manifestation on earth of the spirit of the Antichrist,” but omits a passage from the pastoral letter saying the Jewish race controls Bolshevism to gain world rule. The article identifies Poland as a continuing bulwark against Soviet Communism. Oct. 3, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung writes of Bolshevik Russia and “its current Jewish powers that be,” who are “well known to belong, without exception, to Freemasonry.” English translation The same page states that the “Czech culture war” against the Church is becoming systematic. Oct. 9, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano runs a lengthy “in Palestine” article. Translation of article including the following features: (a) The British Government has “entrusted the custody of the Holy Land” to a Jew, who is being called “The Prince of Israel” by the Jews of the Holy Land. (b) That Jew, British High Commissioner Sir Herbert Samuel, has recently been “solemnly received” in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. (c) These developments are contrasted to an agreement in 1916 between France and Britain to internationalize the Holy Land. (d) The article quotes the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem for the proposition that Jewish immigrants from Russia, Poland and Romania are all openly Bolshevik, and “this immigration constitutes the gravest danger for the future well-being of Palestine.” This is the earliest known instance of the Vatican newspaper presenting its readers with an equating of Jewry and Bolshevism. Oct. 11, 1920 Press survey by the Italian Foreign Office concludes that the Vatican is conducting a press campaign against Zionism. Source: Minerbi, p.143, citing Italian Foreign Office Archives. Oct. 15, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano features side-by-side lead stories, “Zionism and Palestine: Serious Criticisms and Protests” and “A Peril.” The type of peril is specified in a bold heading: “Jewish Peril.” The text of the article identifies Judaism with Bolshevism in Russia, and claims a worldwide Jewish peril, illustrated by excerpts from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The adjacent article on Zionism in Palestine equates Jewish immigrants with Bolsheviks, claims they seek to “destroy all the sacred vestiges of the Holy Places,” and charges High Commissioner Samuel with giving Zionist agents “free reign” even while they “are growing daily in their audacity and insolence.” Oct. 17, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung reports the a new Vatican Nuncio to Bavaria, Archbishop Marchetti, is en route to Munich via the United States and Rome. In fact Francesco Marchetti-Salvaggiani was Nuncio to Venezuela at this time, and was named Nuncio to Austria in December 1920. Archbishop Pacelli, even though he was named Nuncio to all of Germany in June 1920, remained based in Munich for the next five years, moving to Berlin in August 1925. It does not appear that Marchetti-Salvaggiani or anyone else took over from Pacelli the post of Nuncio to Bavaria during those five years. German original (see second paragraph of left column) Oct. 23, 1920 Baron Cramer-Klett alerts Pacelli that the French plan to compel the dissolution of the Einwohnerwehr, a large armed paramilitary force in Bavaria that constituted a violation of the Versaille Treaty's limits on German military strength. English translation Pacelli forwards to Rome Cramer-Klett's request that the Pope intervene to prevent the dissolution of the Einwohnerwehr. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document Nos. 341 and 3434 Oct.-Nov. 1920 Secretive extremist organization named Aufbau [Reconstruction] is formed with headquarters in Munich, for the purpose of overthrowing the Weimar Republic and Russian Communism. Aufbau’s first secretary was Max von Scheubner-Richter, a Czarist Russian exile whom Hitler described after his death in the November 1923 Beerhall Putsch as the most indispensable Nazi. Aufbau’s members included many prominent White Russian exiles, and several early Nazis close to Hitler in addition to Scheubner-Richter, such as Alfred Rosenberg and Max Amann. Aufbau promoted Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory and the Protocols and maintained close contacts with Boris Brasol, the author of the “Bolshevism and Judaism” falsification that came to print on March 6, 1920 in La Documentation Catholique and April 11, 1920 in the Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung. Aufbau’s president and major funder in the early 1920s was Baron Theodor von Cramer-Klett, whose relationship with Nuncio Pacelli, Cardinal Gasparri, Pope Benedict XV and Cardinal Faulhaber is seen in Timeline entries on July 25, 1919, Aug. 18, 1919, Sept. 15, 1919, Feb. 14, 1920, Oct. 23, 1920, Nov. 21, 1920, Nov. 13, 1921, Dec. 21, 1921 and Apr. 26, 1923. Aufbau became more public in May-June 1921 with a five-day conference at Bad Reichenhall in Bavaria. Some leading figures of Aufbau have been implicated in the assassination of German Foreign Minister Walther Rathenau on June 24, 1922. Source: Kellogg (2005), pp. 1-16, 109-149, 218. Nov. 7, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano article “Zionism and Palestine” says again that “the Jews of the Holy Land” are calling Sir Herbert Samuel “The Prince of Israel.” The article says that Muslims and Christians are becoming increasingly fervent anti-Zionists because "it is a matter of life and death, since the tranquil possession of their goods and exercise of their civil rights are being threatened by an ever more powerful and intolerant Zionist organization under the protection of the Governor." Nov. 20, 1920 Civiltà Cattolica begins a three-part series of putative news reports about Jewish-Bolshevik terrorism against civilians in the town of Vinnytsia, Ukraine. English translations During 1919-1920 there had actually been a terrorism campaign against Jews in Ukraine, as White Russian and Ukrainian nationalist forces murdered tens of thousands of Jews in a precursor to the Holocaust. Hitler chose Vinnytsia, a city 250 km southwest of Kiev, as his Eastern Front headquarters during 1942 and spent several months there beginning July 16, 1942. Nov. 19, 1920 Hitler speech says in Russia, Bolsheviks govern under Jewish rule. Excerpt in translation Nov. 20, 1920 Documentation Catholique runs articles about Bolshevism and anti-clericalism in Czechoslovakia. Précis and article on "Marxism of Masaryk" (founder of the country) and Bolshevism Article on Slovakia, including Catholic Bishops’ threat of secession by Slovakia from Czechoslovakia Nov. 21, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung publishes article “A Pointed Warning to the Jews,” associating Jews with Bolshevism and containing a veiled threat of pogroms. The article says if pogroms occur, it will have been the Jews who brought them upon themselves. The same issue claims that the Zionist movement is bringing Bolshevik immigrants to Palestine. Also on Nov. 21st, Gasparri informs Pacelli that the Pope, upon the proposal of Baron Cramer-Klett, is sending a train car filled with 10,000 kilograms of pasta to the Catholic student house at the University of Munich. Italian original at online Pacelli-Edition - English translation Dec. 8, 1920 Hitler says the Jews in Russia, comprising 466 of the 674 state commissars, have taken control and are seeking to do the same in other countries to achieve “the promised world domination of Jewry.” Excerpt in translation Dec. 12, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung publishes article entitled “French Freemasonry,” containing attacks on “Jewish Freemasonry” and presenting the claim that the Jews and Freemasons brought about World War One. English translation Article from same issue about brutality of Czech military against priests Dec. 17, 1920 Nazi Party purchases sole control of the Nazi-oriented antisemitic twice-weekly Munich newspaper Völkischer Beobachter. Dec. 19, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung runs articles on the dire threat of Bolshevism and Socialism to Germany, appealing for support for the Church to regain “influence in the public life of the people.” English translations Dec. 29 and 31, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano runs a two-part series on page one praising Archbishop Faulhaber of Munich. The articles bear banner headlines and subheads: “The Social Action of a Bavarian Bishop: Capitalism in the Light of the Gospel – Work in the System of a Christian Political Economy – Capitalist and Bolshevik Economics” (Dec. 29) and “The Social Action of a Bavarian Bishop” (Dec. 31). 1921 Feb. 12, 1921 Hitler speaks to students at a packed Hofbräuhaus Nazi event. Source: Völkischer Beobachter, Feb. 20, 1921, quoted in Hastings (2010), pp. 93-94. Hastings describes the effectiveness of antisemitic, pro-Nazi propagandizing among Catholic student organizations in Munich beginning in late 1920, observing by contrast that non-Catholic students and workers in Munich “were often decidedly resistant to the initial Nazi mobilization.” (p.94) Feb. 25, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano article “Zionism and Palestine” reports that the French Government is inclined to assert French protectorship in the Holy Land. English translation Mar. 5, 1921 Nuncio Pacelli confides in a letter to Bavaria’s Ambassador to the Vatican, Baron von Ritter zu Groenesteyn, that he is encountering obstacles to success in his negotiations for a Bavaria-Vatican Concordat, but that he has hope that Bavarian Minister Franz Matt will move things forward. Mar. 7, 1921 Michael von Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, is elevated to Cardinal by Pope Benedict XV. Mar. 21, 1921 Franz Matt, Education Minister of Bavaria, informs Bavarian Government head Gustav von Kahr of various issues that have impeded progress on a Bavaria-Vatican Concordat. L. Schmidt, Kultusminister Franz Matt, pp. 201-202. Mar. 31, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano’s left side lead headline is “The Triumphal Return of Cardinal Faulhaber to Munich in Bavaria, by our special correspondent in Munich.” Apr. 7, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano reports on Winston Churchill’s visit to Palestine. The article reports his words, as British Minister for the Colonies, to Arab, Christian and Muslim leaders: “The Jews have an obvious right to have a national center and a national land in which they can gather. And where else would a place be found on earth for this, if not in Palestine where Jews have lived for three thousand years?” The article rebukes Churchill, saying a Jewish national center in Palestine “is an ethnical, juridical, and political absurdity.” English translation of article Apr. 11-12, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano’s right side lead headline is “Munich of Bavaria Honors Cardinal von Faulhaber.” Apr. 23, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano posits a three-way identity among Freemasonry, Jewry and Bolshevism. The article includes this passage: “The Jew remains always a Jew, even when he no longer believes in the religion of his fathers, and always, especially in the Masonic Lodges, thinks of nothing but his own interests intimately linked with those of Judaism. The label of his businesses may vary: here they will be called Zionism, elsewhere Bolshevism; but the goal is always the same, the triumph of the Jews over the Christians, the predominance of the Jewish race in the whole world, to be attained by whatever agreement, by whatever means.” English translation of article May 1, 1921 Arabs attack the May Day parade of Jewish workers in Jaffa, resulting in dozens of deaths on both sides, and hundreds wounded. May 1, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano runs a “Zionism and Palestine” article explaining why the Zionist movement is not taking root among the Jews in the way its fanatical promoters would like. English translation of article May 8, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano’s lead headline is “Zionism and Palestine: The Genesis of Serious Disorders.” English translation of article saying Russian Communism is identified with Judaism, and blaming anti-Jewish violence on the “Zionist invasion” and “Communist Jews” May 10, 1921 Joseph Wirth of the Catholic Center Party becomes German Reich Chancellor. May 15, 1921 In Italy, ex-Socialist Benito Mussolini is elected to the Italian parliament along with other Fascists, who are a loose network of nationalist thugs pitted against Socialists and other left-wing forces. Source: David Kertzer, The Pope and Mussolini (2014), pp. 26-27. May 28, 1921 France and the Vatican re-establish diplomatic relations after a 17-year hiatus. May 28, 1921 Bavarian Education Minister Matt takes the position that the Vatican’s Concordat proposal as to Church control of education is irreconcilable with the Weimar Constitution and politically unsustainable. L. Schmidt, p.203. May 30-31, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, on its front page, says that claims of a “Jewish peril” are “not lacking for documentation.” English translation The article says the danger is “precise” and “vast” and England is following a “Jewish policy” under pressure from “extremely influential Jewish elements.” The article cites the Protocols and says whether they are a fraud or are true “has remained among the unsolved questions of literary history.” May 29-June 5, 1921 A convention of White Russians and Nazi-oriented Germans meets at Bad Reichenhall in Bavaria. The convention is organized by the Aufbau organization and financed largely by its president, Baron Theodor von Cramer-Klett and associates. Nazis Amann and Scheubner-Richter play a central organizational role. Kellogg (2005), pp. 145-149. June 8, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano gives front page coverage to a banquet held by the Minister President of Bavaria, Gustav von Kahr, for Cardinal Faulhaber. English translation The article illustrates the relationship between Kahr on the one hand and Cardinal Faulhaber and Nuncio Pacelli on the other. June 13, 1921 Pope Benedict XV speaks about Palestine at a Consistory of Cardinals. The Pope expresses his fear that “the Jews might attain a position of preponderance and privilege in Palestine.” He expresses concern not just for the Holy Places, but for the entire land of Palestine, because it was “consecrated by the Divine Redeemer Himself.” The Pope goes on to say: “It is well known, in fact, that the situation of the Christians in Palestine has not only not improved but has even become worse through the new civil ordinances put in force there which tend – if not in the intentions of those responsible for them, certainly, however, in fact – to turn Christianity out of the positions it has occupied up to now and to put Jews in its place.” English text from The Tablet The Pope appeals for governments to exert pressure upon the League of Nations, which had not yet finalized and approved the British mandate to govern Palestine: However, inasmuch as the situation in Palestine is not yet definitely regulated, We now raise Our voice that, when the time comes to establish there a permanent condition of things, to the Catholic Church and to all Christians shall be assured the inalienable rights they hold. Certainly We have no desire that any damage shall be done to the rights of the Jewish element; what We mean is that they must in no way be put above the just rights of the Christians. And to this end We warmly urge all the Governments of Christian nations, even if not Catholic, to bring vigilant pressure to bear on the League of Nations which, it is commonly said, is to consider and adjudicate on the English Mandate in Palestine. June 16, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano explains the Pope’s speech. The explanation focuses on the moral and religious rights of Christianity over the Holy Places, and the ethnic and political rights of Christians and Muslims whose families have long lived in Palestine, and who have a right of self-determination under the principles of the Treaty of Versailles. The recent bloody conflicts in Palestine, the paper says, are “the fatal consequence of unheard protests and unrestrained arrogance.” English translation June 16, 1921 Nuncio Pacelli visits new German Chancellor Joseph Wirth, of the Catholic Center Party, in Berlin. On the same day, the leadership of the Center Party meets to discuss the possibility of Matthias Erzberger returning to political life. Morsey & Ruppert (1981), pp. 219-222. June 18, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano begins a series of five “Zionism and Palestine” articles over a three-week period. The articles emphasize the danger of a developing Jewish State in Palestine, describe recent disorders in Palestine, and attribute those disorders to Jewish-Bolshevik immigration and the native population’s natural response to it. English translations Also on June 18th, Pacelli reports to Gasparri on the new government of Chancellor Joseph Wirth, noting that two cabinet ministers are Jews, and a third is married to a Jew. Pacelli’s report expresses concern about Jews not as Communists, but as liberals and potential opponents to Vatican-favored Concordat terms. English translation Pacelli notes that Wirth is a friend of Erzberger. Erzberger tells Center Party leaders in June 1921 that he will return to political life in the upcoming Fall. Epstein (1959), pp. 382-383; Dowe (2011), p. 148. His return to the Reichstag and leadership influence in the Center Party would violate the instructions Erzberger received from the Vatican, via his Bishop, in June 1920. June 29, 1921 Erzberger is cleared of charges of perjury, by a governmental investigation that followed his waiver of parliamentary immunity earlier in the year; but his return to a central role in the Reichstag cannot occur until after he is cleared also of charges of tax evasion in August 1921. July 10, 1921 Pacelli explains to the Vatican his reasons for leaving Munich for 10 weeks in late 1918 and early 1919, enclosing a supporting declaration by Cardinal Faulhaber. English translation July 20, 1921 Hitler, in the midst of a power struggle for control of the Nazi Party, attracts a crowd of 7,000 to hear him speak in the Krone Circus in Munich. Kershaw (1998), p.164. The Nazi Party had approximately 3,000 members at this time. July 29, 1921 Hitler gains sole dictatorial power over the Nazi Party, confirmed by a vote of Nazi Party members meeting at the Hofbräuhaus in Munich. Kershaw (1998), p.165. Aug. 4, 1921 Dietrich Eckart, editor of the Völkischer Beobachter, attacks the Center Party for cooperating with Marxist Jews and atheists “in perfect harmony.” Hastings (2010) describes Eckart’s efforts in the Völkischer Beobachter to claim the mantle of true Catholicism for Nazism, while accusing Center Party leaders Matthias Erzberger and Joseph Wirth, the German Chancellor, of being untrue to Catholicism. (pp. 100-102) Aug. 17, 1921 German governmental investigation clears Matthias Erzberger of charges of tax evasion; he immediately embarks on a plan to return to active political life as a key figure in the Weimar Coalition of the Center Party with the Social Democrats, and as an aspiring candidate for Chancellor of Germany. Epstein (1959); Dowe (2011); Haus (2011), p. 75. Aug. 21, 1921 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung reports that in a recent Consistory of Cardinals in Rome, Pope Benedict XV “raised a demand that the League of Nations should further revise the assignment of the Palestine ‘Mandate’ and so far as possible remove it from the English, as it had been foreseeable that the English-Hebrew Governor Samuel would not be received exactly with satisfaction in Jerusalem.” The same page of the Munich Katholische Kirchenzeitung features a racially charged piece about the "Black Shame" of French-African troops in Germany. English translation of “Black Shame” article Aug. 25, 1921 Ronald Storrs, the British Governor of Jerusalem, has an audience with Pope Benedict XV and addresses the Pope’s concerns about the British administration of Palestine. In response to the Vatican’s concerns about prostitutes in Jerusalem, Storrs says there were at least 500 in a special quarter of Jerusalem when the British took over, and he abolished the quarter in 1919. Minerbi, p.52. Aug. 26, 1921 Matthias Erzberger, while planning his return to active political life with Center Party colleague Karl Dietz, is assassinated by members of Organisation Consul, who escape from Germany with assistance from Bavarian police authorities. L’Osservatore Romano deplores the murder while criticizing Erzberger: “His activities as a parliamentary politician, as a polemicist, and especially as a writer provided reason for criticism and strong attacks because, even though he pursued noble ends, at times he presented facts and events as realities that were actually the fruit of his own personal judgments.” Translation of article and Vatican newspaper commentary on Erzberger The Munich newspaper of the Social Democrat Party, long-time adversaries of Matthias Erzberger, gives him a favorable tribute. The Nazi editor of the Völkischer Beobachter ridicules the idea of calling Erzberger a martyr and claims to be a true representative of Catholicism, in contrast to Erzberger and German Chancellor Joseph Wirth of the Catholic Center Party. Aug. 29-30, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano reports mass demonstrations in Germany against the political assassination of Erzberger. Translation of article, which cites only Socialist and Communist newspapers in Germany against the assassination. Sept. 6, 1921 Nuncio Pacelli writes to Bavaria’s Ambassador to the Vatican that Franz Matt has moved the negotiations quickly forward toward a satisfactory Bavaria-Vatican Concordat. Sept. 9, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano prints the text of a postcard that purports to be from Erzberger’s assassins while crossing the Brenner Pass from Austria into Italy, indicating that German authorities have been arresting innocent persons. English translation Sept. 12-13, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano quotes an Arab leader’s plea against the Balfour Declaration: Article including this quote: “We have suffered a bitter illusion. We rebelled against Turkey but fell into the hands of Jewish immigrants from Russia, from Poland, and from other countries imbued with the spirit of Bolshevism. They have occupied the most important offices and imposed laws and levies on the people.” The same issue juxtaposes two items: First, the British Government transmitted its best wishes to the President of the Zionist Congress. Second, a report that representatives of the free Irish parliament are meeting with British representatives. Note: These negotiations, which led to the Anglo-Irish treaty for Irish independence in December, took place during a fragile truce in the 1919-1921 Irish War of Independence against Great Britain. Sep. 21, 1921 Bavarian elections are held and the non-elected Commissar Gustav von Kahr is replaced by Count Hugo von und zu Lerchenfeld as Minister President. Oct. 1, 1921 The Bayerischer Kurier of Munich quotes a statement by Nuncio Pacelli against extremes of left and right in Bavaria. “The Bavarian people are peace-loving. But, just as they were seduced during the revolution by alien elements - above all, Russians - into the extremes of Bolshevism, so now other non-Bavarian elements of entirely opposite persuasion have likewise thought to make Bavaria their base of operation.” Source: Rychlak (2010), p.37, quoting Bayerischer Kurier of Oct. 1, 1921, and saying, “This was Pacelli’s first published warning to people about Nazism, but it was not his last.” The other statements by Pacelli about Nazism cited by Rychlak post-date Hitler’s failed November 1923 Putsch. Oct. 15, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a strident attack on the Balfour Declaration by Cardinal Bourne, the highest ranking Catholic Bishop in Britain. Article, including this passage: “I do not believe that the British people are disposed to throw away their own money to establish in Palestine a Jewish State... It would be a serious outrage to the conscience of all of Christianity if the Holy Land, torn out of the hands of the faithful today by the work of British soldiers, were to be placed under the dominion of those who have renounced the name of Christ.” Oct. 28, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a sarcastic article about the recently founded Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Translation of article, contrasting Zionist claims of fairness and cultural even-handedness with plans to have a Jewish studies department and to have courses taught in Hebrew. Nov. 13, 1921 Vatican Nuncio Cerretti, in Paris, reports negatively about a proposal for Bavarian independence supported by Baron Cramer-Klett, whose letter of support denounces “the destructive and fatal influence of Judaism of Masonic-Bolshevik Berlin.” English translation Cramer-Klett, a wealthy Bavarian nobleman, was close to Faulhaber as a major Catholic benefactor as of 1918, and developed close ties to Nuncio Pacelli and the Vatican beginning in mid-1919, as seen in the entries for July 25, 1919; Aug. 18, 1919; Sept. 15, 1919; Feb. 14, 1920; Feb. 28, 1920; Oct. 23, 1920; Nov. 21, 1920; Dec. 21, 1921; and Apr. 26, 1923. Cramer-Klett served in the early 1920s as president and major funder of the Bavarian-based Aufbau organization. Nov. 14, 1921 Bavarian Minister-President Lerchenfeld instructs Matt to proceed with negotiations toward a new Bavaria-Vatican Concordat. Schmidt, p.204. Nov. 15, 1921 Nuncio Pacelli writes to Ambassador Ritter zu Groenesteyn that the Reich Chancellor, in a personal meeting, has agreed to commence negotiations for a Reich Concordat. Nov. 16, 1921 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that in the midst of acute crisis in the German Government, and the formation of a new Cabinet under Chancellor Wirth, Wirth has asked to open negotiations for a Reich-Vatican Concordat. English translation Nov. 23, 1921 Völkischer Beobachter enthusiastically reviews an antisemitic, pro-Nazi book by a Munich priest. Father Alois Hecker’s book Weltregierung [World Government] argues that antisemitism is “simply following the spirit of Jesus” (pp. 32-33) and promotes the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory in these terms: “In Russia the battle against Bolshevism means the extermination of the Jews,” p.163, quoted in translation by Hastings (2010), p.97. Father Hecker’s book attacked Matthias Erzberger as a tool of international Jewry, pp. 125-130, and reprinted with high praise the entire 25-point Nazi Party program of Feb. 24, 1920, on pp. 177-181. Hastings (2010), pp. 98, 224. Hastings observes that Hecker “distanced himself” from Nazism after Hitler’s failed Putsch of November 1923. (p.223) Dec. 4, 1921 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung republishes the Bavarian Bishops’ pastoral letter of December 1919 on the “bad press,” which is read annually at all the masses in Bavaria on the Second Sunday of Advent. Dec. 6, 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty provides for an end to British rule over Ireland, except for six northern counties. Dec. 9, 1921 Pacelli explains to Gasparri why a separate Bavarian Concordat will not encourage a Bavarian separatist movement. English translation Dec. 11, 1921 Pacelli writes Ambassador Ritter zu Groenesteyn that “a very clumsy step” by others has aroused “acute concern” in the German Government about a separate treaty between the State of Bavaria and the Vatican. Dec. 15, 1921 Pacelli reports to Gasparri about a “truly deplorable” leak by the Reich Government to the “Jewish-Democratic” newspaper Frankfurter Zeitung about negotiations for a Reich-Vatican Concordat. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1168 and English translation English translation of article “Concordat Plans” in Frankfurter Zeitung Also on Dec. 15th, Cardinal Faulhaber visits Bavarian Government authorities to press for a new Bavarian-Vatican Concordat. Schmidt, p.204. Dec. 17, 1921 The Wiener Morgenzeitung [Vienna Morning Times] publishes an interview between a Zionist leader and Italian priest Ernesto Buonaiuti, a professor at the Pontifical University in Rome, who says that Jesus’ words about the Temple in Jerusalem, that “not one stone will be left on another” (cf. Luke 21:5-6), mean that Jerusalem must not be restored to political significance. Minerbi, p.162. Dec. 21, 1921 Gasparri writes Pacelli that, according to Baron Cramer-Klett, there is a Jewish-Masonic society based in Bern, Switzerland that “has its long arm in the Berlin Cabinet Ministry.” Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation 1922 Jan. 20, 1922 Germany lobbies the Vatican to take a favorable stance toward Zionism. The Foreign Office instructs Germany’s Ambassador to the Vatican, Diego von Bergen, to ascertain whether the Vatican can take a favorable stance toward Zionism, on grounds that “such improvement would contribute to the German interest because of the Jews’ relationship to German culture.” Sergio Minerbi, The Vatican and Zionism, p.164 (observing that Germany’s foreign policy interest in this objective “did not diminish throughout 1922”). Jan. 22, 1922 Pope Benedict XV dies. Feb. 6, 1922 Achille Ratti is elected Pope on the 14th ballot. He retains Cardinal Gasparri as Vatican Secretary of State. Feb. 11, 1922 Achille Ratti is crowned as Pope Pius XI. Feb. 27, 1922 In a report to Gasparri, Pacelli refers to the new German Foreign Minister, Walther Rathenau, as intelligent and able “though a Hebrew.” English translation Mar. 30, 1922 Impasse continues between Bavarian Government and Vatican over terms for a new Concordat. Bavarian Government continues to insist that new Bishops be selected by the Cathedral Chapters, with the Pope having the right to confirm the choice, rather than have freedom of selection as provided by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Original documents at www.Pacelli-Edition.de: Kultusminister Franz Matt to Nuncio Pacelli, Mar. 30, 1922, Dokt. 10320 and Pacelli to Gasparri, Apr. 15, 1922, Dokt. 4148 (English translation) Apr. 5, 1922 Concordat negotiations between the Vatican and Bavaria continue to bog down. Memo from a Bavarian Bishop to Cardinal Faulhaber expressing frustration over delays in Concordat negotiations and Berlin Government’s opposition to the effort. Apr. 8, 1922 Völkischer Beobachter reports and mocks a speech by the Bavarian Minister-President, Count Lerchenfeld, in which he says his convictions “as a man and as a Christian” compel him to oppose antisemitism. Source: Hastings (2010), p.102. Hastings goes on to describe Hitler’s direct reaction to Lerchenfeld the next week, in a widely publicized speech on April 12th. Apr. 12, 1922 Hitler responds to Lerchenfeld by saying as a Christian he is called to fight the Jews. Source: Hastings (2010), who describes how Hitler’s words about following his “Lord and Savior” against the Jews became the first mass reprinted and distributed Nazi propaganda pamphlet of its kind. (p.103) Apr. 15, 1922 Pacelli writes Ritter zu Groenesteyn about the severity of the problems he is encountering in negotiating the Concordat with the Bavarian State Government. English translation Also on April 15th, Pacelli reports to Gasparri about the Bavarian Government’s request that the Vatican accommodate the historic characteristics of the Catholic Church in Bavaria. English translation Apr. 21, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano begins another series of “Zionism and Palestine” articles, with seven prominent articles bearing that headline over the next two months. English translations Spring 1922 Vatican seeks delay in vote by League of Nations to ratify the Mandate for Britain to govern Palestine for the purpose of establishing a Jewish homeland. British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon writes the British Ambassador to the Vatican on May 8, 1922 that he is “at a loss to understand in what manner the Vatican could regard itself as being entitled to intervene in the matter” of the British Mandate in the League of Nations. Minerbi, p.168. May 13, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano covers a talk by the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, during a visit to Rome, saying Zionism intends to seize all of Palestine, erect a Zionist kingdom, expel the present inhabitants, and use terrorism to accomplish its goals. English translation May 15, 1922 Cardinal Gasparri sends a diplomatic note to the Council of the League of Nations objecting to the draft Mandate for Palestine. The note argues that the Mandate would give the Jews “an absolute preponderance” over other peoples as to immigration, economic development and governmental administration in Palestine. The result is a two-month postponement of the League of Nations vote on the Palestine Mandate, from May to July. Minerbi, p.178. May 20, 1922 Civiltà Cattolica publishes article “Zionism According to the Opinions of the Jews.” English translation May 24, 1922 Leaders of the Irish Republican Army and Irish republican leader Eamonn De Valera instruct their followers to stop fighting against the British Commonwealth-affiliated Irish Free State government, thus ending the year-long Irish Civil War. June 3, 1922 Pacelli writes Ambassador Ritter zu Groenesteyn that Church authorities in Rome are wrong to assume Bavaria will readily agree to the Vatican’s terms for the new Concordat. English translation June 4, 1922 Assassination attempt is made against Philipp Scheidemann, former German Reich Chancellor, by members of Bavarian-based terrorist group Organisation Consul. June 22, 1922 Hitler speech proclaims the mission of the “Germanic Reich of the German Nation” against “our mortal enemy: the Jews” with the swastika flag leading the “triumphal procession.” Source: Völkischer Beobachter, June 24, 1922. June 24, 1922 German Foreign Minister Walther Rathenau is assassinated by members of Organisation Consul. Historian Michael Kellogg says “evidence suggests that at least three Aufbau members, General Biskupskii, General Erich von Ludendorff, and his advisor Colonel Karl Bauer colluded in Organisation C’s shocking assassination of Walther Rathenau ...” (p.166) Aufbau was founded in Fall 1920 in Bavaria. Biskupskii was vice president of Aufbau; Baron Theodor von Cramer-Klett was president; and close Hitler associate Max von Scheubner-Richter was Aufbau’s organizational directing force. Earlier in 1922, Aufbau members murdered Vladimir Nabokov, the father of the like-named novelist. Kellogg, p.168. June 28, 1922 Start of Irish civil war between those favoring British Commonwealth status with the British monarch as Irish head of state, and those favoring full independence as a republic. July 1922 Vatican presses Catholic countries to oppose the Mandate for Palestine in the League of Nations. Source: Minerbi, pp. 178-188 and accompanying notes, citing reports by diplomats of multiple countries. July 10, 1922 Impasse continues in Vatican-Bavarian negotiations for a new Concordat. Translation of memo from Cardinal Faulhaber to the Bavarian Bishops describing Bavarian government’s resistance and the unrealistic expectations of Cardinals in Rome for a model Concordat from Bavaria because it is a “pure Catholic province.” July 15, 1922 Civiltà Cattolica publishes lengthy article “Zionism According to the Opinions of the Non-Jews,” accusing Jewish immigrants to Palestine of bringing with them “the insanity of the most extreme Bolshevik Communism.” This is the article’s introductory summary: “I. Zionism prejudices the rights of the Arab population that has possessed Palestine for so many centuries. - II. England is violating the treaty in which it gave Palestine to the Sheriff of Mecca. - III. The Allies promised the Arabs independence and the option of having their own government. - IV. Zionist abuses and overbearingness against the population in order to found the State of Israel. - V. Arab resentment: appeal to England with adverse results. - VI. Turmoils: protests: threats and dangers for the future. - VII. Union of all the inhabitants of Palestine against Jewish predominance in Palestine. - VIII. A vote in the House of Lords.” English translation of article July 19, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano runs a front page article on “The Jews of Poland,” accusing them as a group of “repellent filthiness” and Bolshevism, also alleging that Polish Zionists want to transform Poland into a “colony” of the Jewish State in Palestine. English translation July 22, 1922 The new “Republic Defense Law” goes into effect in Germany, in response to the assassination of Walther Rathenau. The law outlaws political violence, verbal and written attacks on the constitutional form of government, efforts to bring back the monarchy, and associational ties with persons or entities engaged in Hochverrat – high treason. The State Government of Bavaria refuses to cooperate in enforcing the new law, and it enacts a Bavarian Emergency Decree as a counter-measure. July 23, 1922 German Chancellor Wirth tells Nuncio Pacelli it is impossible to get a Bavaria-Vatican Concordat approved by the Reichstag. Nuncio Pacelli reports to Cardinal Secretary of State Gasparri that Chancellor Wirth has told him it is impossible to propose to the Reichstag a Concordat that the Vatican would like. G. Besier, p.56, citing Pacelli to Gasparri, July 23, 1922, Vatican Archives, AA.EE.SS, Germania, Pos. 507 P.O. fasc. 16, fo. 84r-v, and Secretariat of State, Affari Ecclesiastici Straordinari, Germania, Pos. 511, P.O. fasc. 21 fos 33r-34r. July 24, 1922 The League of Nations ratifies the Mandate for Great Britain to administer Palestine for the purpose of establishing a national home for the Jewish people. English version adopted by the Council of the League of Nations, online at Jewish Virtual Library July 29, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano runs articles about Zionism and Palestine. English translations July 29, 1922 Documentation Catholique runs 30 pages of critical coverage of the British Mandate over Palestine, calling it “illegal.” Original French cover and précis of articles July 31, 1922 The Bayerischer Kurier publishes an article accusing the German Government and its late Foreign Minister, Walther Rathenau, of conspiring with Soviet agents in Germany to disarm German counter-revolutionary forces. Aug. 12, 1922 The German and Bavarian governments reach a tentative agreement whereby Bavaria will accept the Reich Defense Law and Berlin will respect the rights of the states. Source: Münchner Neueste Nachrichten [Munich Latest News], Aug. 12-13, page one, “Das Protokoll Berlin-München: Die Vereinbarung.” Aug. 16, 1922 Hitler addresses a crowd of 50,000-70,000 on the Königsplatz [King’s Plaza] in Munich. Hitler denounces the Weimar Republic as “Jewish-Bolshevism that is advancing under the protection of the Republic” and says: “In Berlin they live to look after Eastern Jewish Bolshevism ... the yoke of another has been placed on our neck.” Source: Völkischer Beobachter, Aug. 19, 1922, page one, “For Germany - Against Berlin." Aug. 17, 1922 Hitler addresses a crowd of 7,000 in Munich’s largest indoor venue, the Krone Circus. Hitler denounces the mainstream press of Germany as “the Jewish press” and declares: “The incitement against Bavaria in the Berlin Jewish press must stop.” Source: Bayerischer Kurier and Munich Zeitung [Munich Times], reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, pp. 682-685. Aug. 21, 1922 Chancellor Wirth writes to Cardinal Faulhaber complaining about the false and incendiary article in the July 31 Bayerischer Kurier. Wirth expresses his regret that Faulhaber does not want him to attend the upcoming nationwide Catholic Congress in Munich, and asks Faulhaber to take a stand against the dangerous mood that is prevalent in the Catholic population of Bavaria. English translation Aug. 24, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano reports on the visit to Munich by German First World War hero Paul von Hindenburg, English translation of article reflecting tension at the time between Bavaria and the Weimar Republic. Aug. 27, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber speaks to 100,000 German Catholics at the Pontifical Mass celebrated by Vatican Nuncio Archbishop Eugenio Pacelli on Munich’s Königsplatz. Faulhaber attacks the “Jewish press of Berlin,” denounces the November 1918 German revolution as “perjury and high treason,” and says the resulting government is “marked with the sign of Cain.” Translated excerpt Translated address of Nuncio Pacelli to the Catholic Congress on the same day Coverage of the event in the Munich Neueste Nachrichten Faulhaber and Pacelli at the Mass on the Königsplatz: Munich Nunciature Pontifical Mass at the Königsplatz Aug. 30, 1922 Konrad Adenauer, Mayor of Cologne and President of the Catholic Congress, tries tactfully to counter Cardinal Faulhaber’s remarks. Translated excerpt from Munich Neueste Nachrichten, with commentary that Adenauer’s remarks met with “consternation” while the Cardinal’s remarks got “a jubilant reception.” On the same day, the Völkischer Beobachter publishes Cardinal Faulhaber’s remarks about “perjury and high treason” and the “Jewish press in Berlin.” The Nazi paper presents Faulhaber’s words as a rejection of the established state order and denounces the Weimar Republic as Jewish-Marxist. An accompanying opinion piece by Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg notes Faulhaber’s “remarkable” use of the phrase “Catholics of pure-racial type.” Faulhaber’s use of this phrase, “Der Name Katholik ist ... Ausdruck reinrassiger Art,” occurred in the first sentences of his address to the crowd at mass on the Königsplatz, as seen here in English translation Aug. 30, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano gives front page coverage to the Catholic Congress and Cardinal Faulhaber’s speech, with no mention of his words about “perjury and high treason” or the “Jewish press.” English translation Aug. 31, 1922 The Ingolstadt Free Press in Bavaria calls for prosecution of Cardinal Faulhaber under the Republic Defense Law for defamation of the Weimar Constitution and the founders of the Republic. English translation Sept. 2, 1922 Völkischer Beobachter gives further coverage to Cardinal Faulhaber’s remarks of August 27th. Front page article applauding Faulhaber for attacking Jews in a racial sense and adopting the Völkisch critique of the Weimar Republic Hastings (2010) observes that Cardinal Faulhaber did nothing publicly to counter the impression he had endorsed Nazi-style antisemitism until November 1923, by which time the Nazis “had already succeeded in mobilizing thousands and thousands of Catholics in and around Munich.” (p.104) Sept. 3, 1922 Article in Catholic journal Hochland observes that Bavarian Catholics cast their monarchical reverence upon Cardinal Faulhaber as they had previously upon the King. “It was as if the Bavarian people had transferred their previous reverence for the person of the King to the Prince of the Church.” Stehkämper (1977), quoting F. Fuchs, Hochland, vol. 20 (1922), p.105. Sept. 5, 1922 Bavarian Bishops hear again of further delays in Bavaria-Vatican Concordat negotiations. English translation of minutes of Cardinal Faulhaber’s report to the Bavarian Bishops Conference Sept. 14, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber responds to Chancellor Wirth’s letter of Aug. 21st. English translation Sept. 18, 1922 Hitler echoes Cardinal Faulhaber’s August 27th rhetoric in a speech to a crowd of 7,000 in Munich. Excerpts of speech concerning “Criminals of 1918,” “Traitors to the Fatherland,” and attack on Jews Sept. 19, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber writes to Archbishop Pizzardo at the Vatican, expressing his gratitude that Pope Pius XI has privately said he is pleased with Faulhaber’s words of Aug. 27th. English translation Translation of Faulhaber letter of same date to Ambassador Ritter zu Groenesteyn, representing privately (but not publicly) that he did not intend to condemn the Weimar Republic Early Fall 1922 Nazi Party membership numbers approximately 3,000. Source: Hastings (2010), p.104, citing Tyrell (1975), p.32. Nazi membership increased during the upcoming 12 months to more than 50,000. Sept. 23, 1922 Hitler repeatedly denounces the “Jewish press” in a front-page appeal in the Völkischer Beobachter. English translation Sept. 23, 1922 Völkischer Beobachter leverages Cardinal Faulhaber’s Aug. 27th words for another attack against “the Jewish press” as well as against Zionism. English translation of article “Rome and Jewry” The banner headline on page one of this edition proclaims that Jews are taking over the Bavarian beer industry. Oct. 1, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano defends Cardinal Faulhaber against criticisms, saying he spoke at the Munich Catholic Congress “with the heart and mind of a priest.” English translation Oct. 2, 1922 Cardinal Gasparri sends a letter to Bishops of Italy on the proper conduct of priests in relation to political parties. In response to criticism later that month, Gasparri instructs an Italian Diocesan censor that “public criticism of the Secretariat of State is criticism of the Holy Father; this must be borne in mind by anyone who wants to be truly Catholic.” Source: Nina Valbousquet, “Gasparri, Benigni et les catholiques intégraux,” p.12 (publication forthcoming), citing letter of Oct. 29, 1922 from Gasparri to Biagioli, Vatican Secret Archives, AES, Italia, 608 PO, fasc. 44. Oct. 5, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber writes to his fellow Bavarian Bishops informing them that Pope Pius XI agrees completely with Faulhaber’s speech to the Munich Catholic Congress. English translation Faulhaber cites the October 1st article in L’Osservatore Romano as indicative of the support he has in official Church circles. Oct. 19, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber writes Nuncio Pacelli stating (again only privately) that he intended only to condemn the Revolution of 1918, not the Weimar Republic. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Oct. 21, 1922 Civiltà Cattolica publishes a detailed promotion of the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory. English translation of “World Revolution and the Jews” This article claims that 447 of the highest 545 Soviet Russian officials are Jews. The claim of 447 is identical to the “Who Governs Russia?” article in Der Stürmer 13 years later, with the 545 figure rounded to 550 in the latter instance. The claim of 447 of 545 also appears in a 1922 book (pp. 5, 20, 26) by a White Russian emigré in Munich who worked closely with Hitler and the Nazis, Fedor Vinberg. His book Der Kreuzeweg Russlands: Teil I: Die Ursachen des Uebels [Russia’s Way of the Cross: Part I: The Origins of the Evil] (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1922), was translated from Russian into German by K. von Jarmersted. Kellogg (2005), p.141. Oct. 21, 1922 The same issue of Civiltà Cattolica reverses its prior criticism of Fascism, under instructions from the Vatican, and begins a continuing effort to legitimize Mussolini and his Fascists in the eyes of Catholics. Source: Kertzer (2014), pp. 48, 420, citing G. Sale, Fascismo e Vaticano prima della Conciliazione [Fascism and the Vatican before the Conciliation of 1929] (2007), p.27, and Civiltà Cattolica, Oct. 21, 1922, vol. 4, p.204. Oct. 22, 1922 Nazi Party planning document proposes the expansion of the Völkischer Beobachter into a daily newspaper and powerful propaganda weapon, along with the equipping of a Nazi paramilitary force, modeled on the Italian Fascists. The rationale for militarization is to prevent Jewish-Marxist terror from annihilating Christian-Western culture, as seen in the English translation. Oct. 23, 1922 First mention of the Nazi Party in any of the twice-monthly political situation reports sent from Munich to Washington by US Vice Consul Robert Murphy during 1921-1923. Excerpt of report Oct. 25, 1922 Britain’s Vatican envoy reports to London: “Everything in the Vatican is dominated by the Pope’s fear of Russian Communism.” Source: Anthony Rhodes, The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators, 1922-1945 (1974), p.18, cited by Kertzer (2014), p.420. Oct. 26, 1922 Counter-revolutionary leaders in Bavaria, including Ludendorff, agree that Hitler will lead a paramilitary mobilization aiming at rising to power in Germany. Kellogg (2005), p.194. Oct. 22-29, 1922 Mussolini marches on Rome with his “blackshirt” Fascist forces and is appointed head of the Italian Government by the King of Italy. Oct. 27, 1922 Pacelli reports to Gasparri on the Bavarian government’s negative response to the Vatican’s latest Concordat proposal. English translation Nov. 8, 1922 Eugen von Knilling replaces Lerchenfeld as Prime Minister of Bavaria. Report on Lerchenfeld’s resignation by American Vice Consul Murphy on Nov. 4th Nov. 9, 1922 On the third anniversary of the German Revolution that Cardinal Faulhaber had condemned three months before, a coalition of counter-revolutionary groups under Hitler’s leadership is announced in Bavaria. Source: Kellogg (2005), p.195. Kellogg says Ludendorff promoted the Nazis in this coalition effort to create “an audacious national revolutionary offensive.” Nov. 10, 1922 First mention of Hitler by name in Vice Consul Murphy’s situation reports from Munich. Excerpt of report stating that Hitler’s followers regard him as the “Bavarian Mussolini” and are aiming to imitate Mussolini’s recent success Nov. 10, 1922 First mention of Hitler and Nazis in Nuncio Pacelli’s reports to Rome, referring to National Socialists as “a sort of Fascists led by Hitler.” Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Nov. 14, 1922 Joseph Wirth of the Catholic Center Party resigns as German Reich Chancellor after the Bavarian People’s Party withdraws its support. Nov. 16, 1922 Lengthy Bavarian Government internal memorandum reflects continuing disagreement with Vatican as to terms for a Concordat. Source: L. Schmidt, Kultusminister Franz Matt, pp. 206-207 & notes 104-107. Nov. 22, 1922 Wilhelm Cuno, a Catholic not affiliated with a political party, becomes German Reich Chancellor in a new coalition government. Nov. 25, 1922 American Consul Robert Murphy in Munich reports in detail on the emergence of Hitler and the Nazis as a force in Bavaria. Text of the report Nov. 29, 1922 Bishop Baron von Ow-Felldorf rejoices in the resignation of Catholic ex-Chancellor Wirth. English translation of letter from Bishop Ow-Felldorf to Cardinal Faulhaber, wishing to see the “ship of state” in “hands that are equal to the increasingly urgent and assertive demands of a portentous juncture!” Dec. 1922 A Bavarian Catholic priest publishes series of articles arguing the Nazis are anti-Catholic and anti-Christian. Source: Hastings (2010), pp. 105-106, stating that these articles in the Augsburg Postzeitung newspaper were reprinted and distributed in 1923 by the Bavarian People’s Party, in an effort to stem the pro-Nazi tide among Bavarian Catholics. Dec. 11, 1922 Pope Pius XI speaks to a Consistory of Cardinals about Palestine, affirming the policy his predecessor announced to the Consistory of June 13, 1921. Excerpt of English translation from The Tablet Dec. 20, 1922 Völkischer Beobachter publishes two short pieces about Catholic authorities and the Nazi movement, including Cardinal Faulhaber’s criticism of the Völkischer Beobachter for mocking the Christian cross. English translations Dec. 23, 1922 Pope Pius XI issues his first encyclical, Ubi Arcano, “on the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ,” which discusses the causes of the First World War, observes that peace treaties have not put an end to human enmity and risks of war, dismisses the League of Nations as a solution, and puts forward the Catholic Church as the “institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations” and thus ensure peace. English version at Vatican website Dec. 28, 1922 Bavarian Government sends Nuncio Pacelli a Concordat counter-proposal that is somewhat closer than before to Vatican demands. During the months of detailed negotiations that follow, there is strong opposition to the Concordat from some members of “Cathedral Chapters,” the committees of clerics who have the traditional right to choose successor Bishops, a right that would ultimately be ceded to the Pope under the new Concordat. L. Schmidt, pp. 208-209. Note: The online www.Pacelli-Edition.de contains a side-by-side comparison in German of the Vatican proposal and the Bavarian counter-proposal; Article 14 shows their diametrically opposite positions as to appointment of Bishops. 1923 Jan. 3, 1923 Banner headline in Nazi Party’s Völkischer Beobachter proclaims “Our Mission for 1923”: to hasten the day when a new nationalist government will “run out the criminals,” i.e., the Weimar Republic government. English translation Jan. 1923 French military forces begin the occupation of the Ruhr Valley industrial region after Germany defaults on reparation payments to the Allies. Jan. 13, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter banner headline: “Down with the November Criminals!” English translation Jan. 14, 1923 US Vice Consul Robert Murphy reports Hitler’s recent dramatic rise from insignificance to now addressing “ten over-flow meetings in a single evening,” seeking to imitate Mussolini and his recent Italian coup d’etat. Text of Murphy’s report to the US State Dept, identifying Hitler’s main message as antisemitism, combined with anti-Communism. Jan. 15, 1923 Munich Police estimate Nazi SA stormtroop numbers in Munich at 1000-1500. Source: Kellogg (2005), p.200, citing report in Munich Police Headquarters files at the Bavarian State Archive in Munich. Jan. 19, 1923 Mussolini and Cardinal Gasparri hold a secret meeting in Rome and agree on a go-between to maintain regular communication between the Vatican and Mussolini. Source: Kertzer (2014), pp. 51-53, 89. Father Pietro Tacchi Venturi played a continuing role as messenger between Pius XI and Gasparri on the one hand, and Mussolini on the other, through 1920s and 1930s. Jan. 22, 1923 Pacelli cables Gasparri that Baron Cramer-Klett has learned the Reich Government will resist the Allies’ occupation of the Ruhr Valley. Italian original at Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Jan. 24, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter announces upcoming Nazi Party Congress with mass gatherings in all the great halls of Munich and a “consecration of flags” on Sunday morning. English translation of advertisement Jan. 24, 1923 A Catholic priest publicly answers the Bavarian People’s Party’s accusations that the Nazis are anti-Catholic. Source: Hastings (2010), p.112, quoting Fr. Magnus Gött, “Nationalsozialismus und Religion,” Völkischer Beobachter, Jan. 24, 1923. Hastings describes the highly visible back-and-forth publicity campaigns between the Nazis and the Bavarian People’s Party from late 1922 into 1923, over who was truly Catholic. (pp. 105-115) Feb. 2, 1923 Murphy reports that Hitler held a successful Nazi Party national convention in Munich on Jan. 27-29, filling 12 large halls to overflowing. The Bavarian Government’s prohibition of the convention was reversed under pressure from Gustav von Kahr and another royalist official. Text of Murphy’s report Feb. 3, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter announces it is becoming a daily newspaper, expanding from twice weekly publication. English translation of announcement Feb. 22, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter runs an article by Catholic Nazi author Schrönghamer-Heimdal arguing Nazism is compatible with Catholicism and the Center Party is not, because of its cooperation with Jews and socialists. Source: Hastings (2010), p.112, citing “Der Feldzug der Verleumdung” [The Campaign of Defamation], Völkischer Beobachter, Feb. 22, 1923. Hastings describes the Nazis, from late 1922 into 1923, emphasizing “warrior Christianity” in contrast to “the alleged complacency, hypocrisy, and weakness” of non-Nazi Catholic politicians. (p.112) Mar. 3, 1923 Murphy reports the wide extent and extreme intensity of Hitler’s agitation in Bavaria. He says Hitler is appealing to “the illusion of Bolshevism” and attacking “above all the Jews,” with a party platform based throughout on opposition to the Jews. Nazi stormtroop paramilitary ranks have increased to 4,000. Text of report Mar. 18, 1923 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that a critic put Cramer-Klett's name into the press, “but by good fortune, to no effect.” Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1086 Mar. 23, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter attacks the “Jewish press” of Germany and of Prague, Czechoslovakia. Mar. 29, 1923 In a report to Gasparri, Pacelli counters accusations that the Vatican has participated in separatist movements in Bavaria. English translation Pacelli's report includes a third party's short list of Germans with close ties to the Vatican, including Baron Cramer-Klett along with German Cardinals, the King of Saxony, and two Abbots. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1087 Apr. 6, 1923 Hitler gives a speech claiming Nazism is true “warrior Christianity” and the Center Party “most seriously threatens Christianity through its connection with Marxist atheism.” Source: Hastings (2010), p.113, quoting in translation from Völkischer Beobachter, Apr. 8-9, 1923. Apr. 11, 1923 Nazi SA stormtroops are the largest component in the counter-revolutionary military mobilization of 1923 in Bavaria; other forces participating with the SA included Reichsflagge and Bund Oberland. According to Kellogg, Munich police reports of April 28th and June 21st indicate increasing public mobilization of these forces during spring 1923. Ibid. Apr. 11, 1923 Nazi Völkischer Beobachter exhorts Germans to join the Nazi army to fight against treason flowing from Berlin, under the headline: “Bolshevism: Jewish Revenge,” in a programmatic lead article by Nazi ideologist Alfred Rosenberg. German original Also on April 11th, a Munich police report describes Nazi military mobilization in Munich involving 6,000 men. Kellogg (2005), p.200, citing report in Munich Police Headquarters files at the Bavarian State Archive in Munich. Apr. 17, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter advertises outdoor gathering at the Mars Field in Munich where Hitler will speak on “The Peace Treason of Versailles as the Eternal Curse of the November Republic.” English translation Apr. 20, 1923 Hitler addresses another crowd at the Mars Field on “Politics and Race: Why Are We Antisemites?” Apr. 26, 1923 Baron Cramer-Klett writes a strong letter rebuking Konrad Adenauer for criticizing Cardinal Faulhaber in relation to Faulhaber’s Aug. 27, 1922 words to the German Catholic Congress. English translation of the letter Apr. 28, 1923 Newspaper in Miesbach, Bavaria reports that Father Lorenz Pieper, the Secretary of the Volksverein für das Katholische Deutschland [People’s Association for Catholic Germany], has joined the Nazi Party. Source: Miesbacher Anzeiger, Apr. 28, 1923, p.1. Father Pieper proceeds to give pro-Nazi speeches in Bavaria during the next four months, a time of rapid Nazi recruiting and paramilitary mobilization. The editor of the Miesbach Anzeiger, Father Bernhard Stempfle, who earlier was recommended by Pacelli for a post in the German Embasssy to the Vatican, becomes an advisor to Hitler in 1923, helps Hitler in preparing Mein Kampf in 1924, and helps maintain the Nazi Party archives in the second half of the 1920s. Father Stempfle is later killed at Hitler’s direction in the Night of the Long Knives, June 30, 1934. Apr. 29, 1923 Nazi stormtroop mobilization event in Ingolstadt, Bavaria features a public mass and flag blessing ceremony conducted by a parish priest. English translation of announcement of the event, from the Völkischer Beobachter Report of April 29th event in Nazi paper on May 1st Apr. 30, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter begins weekly feature listing all the Sunday mass times for the Munich Catholic Churches. Hastings (2010) describes this and a series of other features by which the Nazi Party portrayed itself as strongly pro-Catholic during its recruiting campaign of spring-summer 1923. (pp. 114-138) Spring-Summer 1923 Nazi mobilization campaign expands Nazi Party membership from 20,000 as of February 1923 to 55,000 as of November 1923. Source: Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, p. 190. Kershaw says most new members joined out of “protest, anger, and bitterness” in the midst of economic and political crisis. He does not mention any contributory role of Catholic authority and Catholic clergy in 1923 or any other part of the 1920s. The works of German historians on the Nazi Party in the early 1920s likewise do not touch upon this aspect. See works by Auerbach, Deuerlein, Franz-Willing, Maser, Tyrell, and Winkler cited in the Bibliography. May 1, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter reports on the Ingolstadt stormtroop festivities of April 29th. English translation mentioning the “inspiring nationalist sermon” by the Catholic pastor who celebrated mass for the SA and blessed their swastika flags. English translation of article on same page boasting of the “enhanced recruiting activity” of the Nazi Party. Hastings (2010) describes this event and similar favor shown by Catholic priests in Munich and throughout Bavaria, in spring and summer 1923, for Nazi paramilitary mobilization events. (pp. 120-135) Hastings also describes an instance when a Catholic Church official in Regensburg denied permission for a special mass in a church for SA forces in uniform. (p.135) May 1, 1923 Nazi stormtroops, 2000 strong with combat gear and sidearms, demonstrate in Munich to intimidate a workers’ and Socialists’ May Day parade. May 2, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano gives coverage to Hitler mobilizing against Communists. Translation of article saying Hitler responded to Communists announcing their intent to parade through Munich with Soviet flags and symbols The article states: “the leader of the National Socialists, Hitler, responded with a statement that the Communist demonstrations would be met with force. It seems that all Hitler’s units had indeed been mobilized.” According to Kellogg (2005), the Bavarian government, police, and army reacted negatively to the Nazi mobilization of May 1st. (p.201) May 2, 1923 Counter-revolutionary groups in Bavaria form the Kampfgemeinschaft Nationaler Verbände [Combat Group of Nationalist Associations] under the joint leadership of Hitler and Ludendorff. Kellogg (2005), p.202, citing reports of May 3 and 23, 1923 in the files of the Reich Commissar for Oversight of Public Order, in the German Federal Archives in Berlin. Late April-May 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber makes a speaking and fund-raising tour in the United States. L’Osservatore Romano reports his fund-raising appeal in detail - English translation May 7-12, 1923 King George V of Great Britain becomes the first head of state to visit Italy under Mussolini; King George confers a Knighthood on Mussolini and meets with Pope Pius XI. In Italy, Il Messagero exults over the recognition thus given to Fascism: “Italy sees with legitimate pride that the Sovereigns of the powerful British Empire are the first to visit this nation after the success of the bloodless Fascist revolution ...” Source: Manchester Guardian, May 7, 1922, p.7, reprinting in translation. The Vatican newspaper reports extensively on the events, including the visit of King George V to the Pope. Articles in translation In England, the Morning Post reports that Pope Pius XI expressed his hope that the meeting with the King “would assist their mutual efforts for a satisfactory solution of the various problems of a religious character existing between them.” English original King George V makes Mussolini a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath, as reported in the Manchester Guardian. May 13, 1923 Vice Consul Murphy reports about the May Day demonstrations in Munich. He describes the intrusion of 2000 armed, uniformed Nazis in Munich on May Day. Murphy says the Socialist events were “an orderly celebration” that “proceeded quietly enough” before the Nazis arrived. He reports the Bavarian Premier saying it is now a question of who is sovereign, the State or the Nazi Party. Text of report May 14, 1923 Irish republican leaders meet and decide to end the Irish civil war. May 15, 1923 Nazi military mobilization is described in a German government report as systematically preparing for a putsch to overthrow the Weimar Republic. Source: Kellogg (2005), p.202, citing report in the files of the Reich Commissar for Oversight of Public Order, in the German Federal Archives in Berlin. Kellogg states that the military mobilization was well-funded by Thyssen financial interests and White Russians in Germany, and by money from Henry Ford transmitted via Boris Brasol. (pp. 203-204) May 21, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter listings of Sunday worship schedules are juxtaposed with a prayer for Hitler. German original with side-by-side English translation Citation: Völkischer Beobachter, Sun./Mon., May 20/21, 1923, p.4. May 27, 1923 Albert Schlageter is executed by French occupation forces in the Ruhr district of Germany for sabotage and terrorism. Schlageter, a Catholic, is immediately celebrated as a martyr and role model by the Nazis. May 28, 1923 Vice Consul Murphy reports the “usual Sunday parades and exercises of Hitler’s ‘shock troops’” are now being held 60km outside Munich rather than within the city. Excerpt of report June 7, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano gives laudatory front page coverage to Baron von Cramer-Klett for a lecture at the University of Munich. English translation June 12, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter devotes its front page to a Hitler speech, a Catholic mass, and paramilitary celebrations in memory of Schlageter. Translation of Hitler’s reported speech Abbot Schachleiter’s sermon at mass for Nazi and Völkisch paramilitaries Description of liturgical practice with Nazi and Völkisch flags at mass Further article in same issue about swastika flags at Schlageter’s funeral Mid-1923 In the wake of Catholic liturgies for Nazi mobilization events, large numbers of young Catholic men, as well as Bavarian World War One veterans, join the Nazi Party. Among them is a 23-year-old who regularly attended mass and went to confession, according to his diary entries, Heinrich Himmler, who became Nazi Party member no. 42,404 shortly after the Catholic Schlageter memorial ceremonies in Munich. Hastings (2010), pp. 154-155. Hastings describes how Himmler renounced Catholicism after the Putsch, during a time when Catholic Nazis either left the Nazi Party or rejected the Catholic faith. Hastings pp. 144ff. Hastings describes the majority of Catholic priests who supported the Nazi mobilization of 1923 distancing themselves from the Nazi Party after the Putsch, and in some cases becoming opponents of Nazism. June 17, 1923 Munich Kirchenzeitung publishes article by Father Erhard Schlund endorsing the Völkisch movement’s emphasis on “purity of the German race” and supporting “moderate” antisemitism. English translation of article “Deutsch-Völkisches: Antisemitismus, Faschismus, Nationalsozialismus” June 28, 1923 Pope Pius XI’s open letter to the French Government about their conduct toward Germany, including occupation of the Ruhr district, is published in L’Osservatore Romano. July 1, 1923 Munich Kirchenzeitung exhorts Catholics to look to the Church as the infallible guide in the midst of the “errors and confusions” of the present era. English translation of article “Mehr katholischen Mut!” On the same page, the Kirchenzeitung publishes a short piece critical of the swastika. English translation of article “Ave Crux!” July 5, 1923 Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Gasparri privately communicate their decision that Father Luigi Sturzo must resign as head of the Italian Popular Party. This decision removed a key political leader who opposed Mussolini’s efforts to increase his power, and signaled the Vatican’s withdrawal of support from the main Catholic political party of Italy. During the ensuing months, Fascist thugs attack priests and other supporters of the Popular Party, killing at least one priest. Pope Pius XI responds privately by claiming that Communism is a greater threat than Fascism. Source: Kertzer (2014), pp. 58-59. July 11, 1923 German Social Democratic newspaper Vorwärts [Forward] publishes a front page article under the headline “Bavarian Priests as Supporters of the Swastika: Rebellion Against the Pope?” Excerpt: “It is no secret that a large part of the Bavarian clergy completely devotes itself to supporting the swastika... In Bavaria there is today no nationalist event at which some Catholic priest does not give his ‘blessing.’” Source: Fr. Kevin Spicer, Hitler’s Priests (2008), p.33; Hastings (2010), pp. 108-109. Hastings (2010) says the article appealed to the Vatican and the German Bishops “to stem the growing flow of Catholic clergy and laity into the Nazi movement.” (p.109) July 24, 1923 Father Lorenz Pieper speaks at a Nazi gathering in Munich explaining that the swastika has close historical associations with Christianity, affirming the swastika as a “battle symbol” and “holy symbol” for the National Socialist movement. English translation Pieper, a diocesan priest from the Paderborn-Dortmund area of northern Germany, spends the spring and summer of 1923 in Bavaria giving talks that further the Nazi Party’s 1923 recruiting drive among Catholics. Aug. 2, 1923 Munich theologian Fr. Erhard Schlund writes that the Nazi Party in Bavaria is a “Catholic-oriented movement,” in contrast to anti-Catholic Völkisch movements in other parts of Germany. Source: Hastings (2010), p.110, citing Schlund, “Der Münchener Nationalsozialismus und die Religion” [Munich Nazism and Religion], Allgemeine Rundschau, Aug. 2, 1923, p.31. Aug. 12, 1923 Wilhelm Cuno resigns as German Reich Chancellor. Aug. 13, 1923 Gustav Stresemann of the German People’s Party, a Protestant, is appointed Chancellor of Germany. Aug. 15, 1923 Bavarian Education Minister Franz Matt concludes that the Vatican’s latest position on the draft Bavaria-Vatican Concordat is unacceptable to the Bavarian Government and unlikely to get the support of the Bavarian parliament. Schmidt, supra. Aug. 18, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter reports a field mass and consecration of flags by a priest from Augsburg for paramilitary forces. English translation Aug. 22, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter reports on a mass and SA stormtroop flag blessing for 2,000 Nazis in rural southwest Bavaria. Translation of article describing outrage at the “unprecedented” denial of permission for flag consecration inside the church Aug. 24, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter reports on a speech by Father Pieper to a Nazi gathering in Bavaria, at which Pieper affirms Nazi racism. English translation including: “God himself created the peoples differently according to blood, character and type, and thus wants the distinctions of blood, Volk and races. He also desires that what he created be kept and preserved pure. So we must turn away from everything that impairs racial purity. For this reason the racial viewpoint of National Socialism corresponds completely with Christianity.” Aug. 28, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter reports another speech of Father Pieper, saying that he demonstrated from pronouncements of “high princes of the Church” that racial purity is a duty and that antisemitism, rather than un-Christian, is a command of God. German original Aug. 1923 Regensburg diocese forbids a diocesan priest to conduct a swastika blessing. Source: Fr. Kevin Spicer, Hitler’s Priests, p.33. Note: It is unclear whether this was an absolute prohibition or rather a refusal to allow such a blessing to occur inside a church, as occurred in southwest Bavaria during the same month; see August 22, above Sept. 1, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter reports 50,000 attendees at a Völkisch paramilitary rally in Nuremberg. English translation of article This “German Congress” leads immediately to the formation of the "Patriotic Fighting League," co-led by Hitler and German WWI General Erich Ludendorff, and two months later to the unsuccessful “Beer Hall Putsch” of November 8-9, 1923 in Munich. Sept. 4-5, 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber reports to the Bavarian Bishops Conference on the parlous state of negotiations for a new Bavarian-Vatican Concordat. Translation of report, noting the Bavarian Government’s distrust toward the Pope and the resistance of some Cathedral Chapters The minutes also reflect the Bavarian Bishops’ continuing emphasis on controlling what Catholics are allowed to read: “The pastoral letter against the bad press is to be read annually on the Second Sunday of Advent, not on a later day, from all pulpits.” Note: Nuncio Pacelli later described, in a 1929 report to Rome, the "grievous" obstructing of the Concordat by Cathedral Chapters and Theological Faculties. Sept. 11, 1923 Pacelli writes Bavarian Education Minister Franz Matt that if the Bavarian Government does not yield and agree to the Pope having power to choose Bishops, the Government will be responsible for the failure of the Concordat negotiations. German original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Sept. 12 and 14, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter headlines proclaim the “criminal” and “treasonous” nature of the “November Republics” of Bavaria and Berlin. English translations of headlines and excerpts of articles Sept. 13, 1923 Successful coup in Spain by Miguel Primo de Rivera. Spanish King Alfonso XIII legitimizes the coup by appointing Primo de Rivera as prime minister, similar to Italian King Victor Emmanuel legitimizing Mussolini’s power-play in Rome in 1922. Sept. 15, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter devotes banner headline to Spanish coup, proclaiming “Fascist Contribution by Spanish Circles” English translation of Völkischer Beobachter headlines proclaiming successful Fascist coup in Spain Note: According to historians Gerhard Besier and Anthony Rhodes, Vatican Secretary of State Gasparri tells a British diplomat that the military government “might very well introduce a healthier atmosphere.” Besier 156, quoting A. Rhodes, Papst, 96 note 1, citing Gasparri to Dormer, British embassy (21 Sep 1923). Sept. 17, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter headlines proclaim “Bolshevik Germany – The Nature of Bolshevism – The Jewish Dictatorship in Russia – Jewish Decomposition of Germany” alongside a front page article celebrating the Sept. 13 Fascist coup in Spain. German original Fall 1923 Nazi Party membership exceeds 55,000. Source: Hastings (2010), p.138, citing Maser (1965), p.376. It took three years for the Nazi Party to attain a membership of 3,000 in early Fall 1922, and one year to grow from 3,000 to 55,000. Hastings observes: “The Catholic-oriented membership drive, while by no means the only relevant factor, was without question an essential component of the rapidly growing Nazi appeal in and around Munich throughout the summer of 1923.” (p.138) Sept. 24, 1923 Pacelli reports to Gasparri about his discussion in Berlin with the new Reich Chancellor, Stresemann, about dangers of Bolshevik revolution in Germany, and the National Socialists on the opposite extreme. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Sept. 24, 1923 Hitler appeals to combat veterans to enlist in the Nazi SA. English translation of Hitler’s appeal Sept. 26, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter headlines proclaim that Hitler has now been named the sole Führer of the Patriotic Fighting League. This development places Hitler over General Ludendorff, who commands the military forces of the Patriotic Fighting League. English translation of articles on page one Page one features an announcement that Hitler will speak sequentially at each of 14 mass gatherings the next evening in the large beer halls of Munich. Sept. 27, 1923 Pacelli reports to Gasparri about his meeting with new Bavarian Commissar Gustav von Kahr, who says he wants to work gradually with Hitler, viewing the Nazis as overly “ardent” but pursuing a “good cause.” Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Sept. 29, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter reports the appointment of Gustav von Kahr as Commissar of Bavaria with power to rule by decree. English translation of article about von Kahr, who is a monarchist supporter of the Wittelsbach family. The article presents the Nazi viewpoint that monarchism is irrelevant to the real struggle between “Jewish-internationalism” and the German Völkisch movement. Sept. 30, 1923 Hitler prepares for Nazi uprising in Bavaria by ordering all local Nazi Party organizations in Bavaria to join in the Patriotic Fighting League. English translation of announcement in Völkischer Beobachter Oct. 1, 1923 US Vice Consul Murphy in Munich reports to Washington the decree of the Bavarian State Government, signed by all cabinet ministers, appointing Gustav von Kahr as State Commissar with dictatorial powers. Text of report Oct. 3, 1923 Pacelli reports to Gasparri about Commissar von Kahr, Hitler and the Nazis, and Bavarian Concordat negotiations. Italian original and Germany summary at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Oct. 4, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter runs banner headline “The Imploding Reich Government” along with a notice that Commissar Kahr imposed a 10-day publication ban on the Völkischer Beobachter. Oct. 5, 1923 Gasparri instructs Pacelli that the Pope wants him to divide his time between Munich and Berlin, because the Reich Government and the Diplomatic Corps desire his presence in Berlin. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Oct. 6, 1923 Bavarian Catholic political leader Heinrich Held writes to Cardinal Faulhaber imploring him to speak out and stop the trend of Bavarian Catholics, including clergy, to support and follow the Nazi Party. Translation of letter, including statement that the current danger is “enormously great” Oct. 7, 1923 Pacelli writes Archbishop Pizzardo in the Vatican to explain that despite Gasparri's instruction he must stay in Munich to avoid further delays in the Bavarian Concordat negotiations. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Oct. 8, 1923 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that Bavarian separatist and monarchist movements will not move forward under Commissar von Kahr. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Oct. 13, 1923 Gustav Stresemann, Chancellor of Germany, writes a desperate letter to Cardinal Faulhaber asking him to speak up for the Weimar Republic. Letter in English translation Oct. 23, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter continues its rhetoric against Weimar Republic “treason” and the Nazis’ mission with the banner headline: “The Only Task: Rooting Out Marxist High Treason” German original On this date, Hitler tells a Patriotic Fighting League meeting that Bavarian Commissar von Kahr cannot be the one to lead a putsch against the Weimar Republic. Kellogg (2005), p.208. Nov. 4, 1923 In his All Souls’ Day sermon at the Munich Cathedral, Cardinal Faulhaber denounces those who would deny Jews food and shelter. Excerpt: “With blind hatred against Jews and Catholics, against farmers and Bavarians, no wounds will be healed.” Source: Bayerischer Kurier, Nov. 6, 1923. The Völkischer Beobachter responds by accusing Cardinal Faulhaber of inconsistency with his statements to the Munich Catholic Congress, and by accusing the churches of "protecting the Jews from time immemorial." Translation of article Nov. 5, 1923 Bavarian Commissar von Kahr summons the leaders of the Patriotic Fighting League to inform them that the Bavarian government, police and army will not participate in a putsch against the Weimar Republic. Kellogg (2005), pp. 208-209. Nov. 6, 1923 US Ambassador to Germany, Alanson Houghton, cables Washington to describe the precarious position of Chancellor Stresemann, whom Houghton expects to fall imminently because he has “lost the confidence of Bavaria.” Text of cable Nov. 6, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter steps up its campaign against the Weimar Republic, placing accusations about “treason” and “criminals” in many headlines. English translations of headlines on page one This issue also includes: A piece entitled “An Arab Hate-Prayer Against Zionism” A news item about the German Government’s effort to stabilize the hyperinflated Mark A series of articles on page 2 about “the November crime,” desperate efforts to save the Weimar Republic from overthrow, and “Fear of the National Socialist Movement” The article on “Cardinal Faulhaber as Jew-Protector” An appeal for German men, including students, to enlist in the Nazi paramilitary forces, and for all Germans to donate warm clothing, shoes, and old army uniforms. Nov. 6, 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber replies to Chancellor Stresemann’s letter of October 13, 1923, declining Stresemann’s requests on grounds of health and Church laws against political involvement. English translation Nov. 8, 1923 On the fifth anniversary of the “November crime” that gave rise to the Weimar Republic, Hitler launches his Putsch at the Bürgerbräu Beer Hall in Munich. The Putsch initially appears successful, as Commissar Kahr and two other key figures declare their support of Hitler to the large crowd in the Beer Hall. Also on November 8th, Cardinal Faulhaber writes Nuncio Pacelli that an acceptable draft of the Bavarian-Vatican Concordat is at hand. Schmidt (2000), p.211, citing Munich Archdiocesan Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, file no. 7480 (document not included in L. Volk’s edition of the Faulhaber Papers). Nov. 8-9 (nighttime) Vice Consul Robert Murphy sends cable stating putsch by Hitler and Ludendorff has succeeded, has the support of the key political and military figures of Bavaria, and will proceed to march on Berlin. Text of cable Nov. 9 (early morning, around 3 a.m.) Proclamations signed by Franz Matt, Bavarian Minister of Culture and Religion, are posted around Munich, declaring that the constitutional state government still stands, and those acting against it will be dealt with as traitors. Translation of poster Some historians assert that Matt was dining with Cardinal Faulhaber and Nuncio Pacelli on the evening of Nov. 8th. E.g., Charles Flood, Hitler (1989), p.508. Nov. 9, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter publishes article about the exchange of letters between German Chancellor Stresemann and Cardinal Faulhaber. English translation This Nov. 9th edition of the Beobachter, published hours before the Putsch is suppressed, brands the Weimar Republic as Jewish, the fruit of Jewish Revolution, and concludes that the Jewish International is waging war against the German Volk. English translation Nov. 9, 1923 (10 a.m.) Cable from US Ambassador in Berlin says German Government has decided to fight the Putsch in Bavaria, and Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria has ordered his friends to oppose the Putsch. Text of cable Nov. 9, 1923 (morning to early afternoon) Hitler and Ludendorff learn that Kahr and the Bavarian Government are opposing the coup. Nazi forces march to government buildings in Munich and are stopped as they approach the Odeonsplatz [Odeon Plaza] by Bavarian police and military forces, who fire on them, killing some and dispersing the Nazi forces, thus ending the Hitler-Ludendorff Putsch. Nov. 9, 1923 (midday or afternoon) Bavaria’s Ambassador to the Vatican sends a cable reporting his discussion about the Hitler Putsch with Cardinal Gasparri. Translated text of cable, noting that the Vatican press is not commenting on the Putsch, and explaining Vatican concerns over a dictatorship in Bavaria in reference to the Concordat: a Concordat entered into with a dictator might later be repudiated by representatives of the people. Nov. 10, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano publishes articles datelined Nov. 9 showing a widespread belief on the morning of Nov. 9, in Berlin, France, the United States, and elsewhere, that the Hitler-Ludendorff Putsch had succeeded. English translation Nov. 11, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano publishes the official German Government report about the suppression of the Putsch and the taking of Hitler and Ludendorff as prisoners. English translation of headlines Nov. 14, 1923 Pacelli reports to Gasparri on the anti-Catholic character of the Nazi uprising in Munich; this is the earliest documented criticism of Nazism by Pacelli. English translation Nov. 1923 - Spring 1924 Protests continue against Cardinal Faulhaber for allegedly betraying the Putsch by influencing von Kahr, Matt, etc. during the night of November 8-9 to turn against Hitler and the Putschists. The Cardinal denies involvement. Nov. 15, 1923 Germany introduces a new Mark pegged at 4.2 Marks to one US Dollar, ending the German hyperinflation of 1922-1923. Nov. 16, 1923 US Ambassador in Berlin reports that Chancellor Stresemann’s government is about to fall, that the head of the German Army, von Seeckt, now dominates the situation, and that Germany is now a republic in name only. Text of cable Nov. 23, 1923 Gustav Stresemann resigns as German Reich Chancellor. Nov. 30, 1923 Wilhelm Marx of the Catholic Center Party becomes Chancellor. Dec. 1923 Negotiations for a new Concordat between Bavaria and the Vatican, which had proceeded slowly over the preceding several years, now move rapidly to conclusion. Dec. 4, 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber writes to Kahr, saying it is “unbelievable what lies and slanders have been spread” about the events in November. Source: L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 320-321. Dec. 7, 1923 Pacelli reports to Gasparri that the terms of the Vatican-Bavaria Concordat have been “quasi-definitively” agreed, and that he has received assurances that the Reich Government will not object; but Chancellor Marx has said it is impossible to fulfill Pacelli's repeated requests for an immediate Concordat between the Vatican and the German Reich. Italian original at www.Pacelli-Edition.de and English translation Dec. 7, 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber meets with Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Gasparri, in Rome, about Hitler Putsch, money to respond to protests, the new Vatican-Bavaria Concordat, and other issues. English translation of Faulhaber’s notes of the meeting Dec. 8, 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber meets with Pope Pius XI about Hitler Putsch, monetary donations, slanders, Concordat, other issues. English translation of Faulhaber’s notes of the meeting Dec. 28, 1923 Archbishop Schulte of Cologne writes to Faulhaber expressing his sympathies for the attacks Faulhaber has endured recently, in which “parts of the student body showed themselves so lacking in character.” Source: Munich Archdiocesan Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, reprinted in L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, p.324. Dec. 30, 1923 Nuncio Pacelli writes Heinrich Held concerning the Bavarian Concordat, “I trust in your adroit and loyally solicitous collaboration for the interests of the Church all the more in the imminent concluding negotiations.” Kessler (1971), p.486. 1924 Jan. 9, 1924 A Bavarian Bishop writes Cardinal Faulhaber, expressing sympathy over the continuing slanders and calumnies against the Cardinal. Bishop Mergel of Eichstätt writes that it is a “bad sign” that the revolutionary Hitler and the anti-Rome Ludendorff have “such a large following even today.” Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, reprinted in L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 329-330. Jan. 26, 1924 Bavarian Education Ministry, under Franz Matt, forwards to Nuncio Pacelli the final version of the Bavarian-Vatican Concordat. Schmidt, p.211. Feb. 1924 Gustav von Kahr resigns as Commissar of Bavaria. Authority reverts to Eugen von Knilling, the State Minister President of Bavaria. Feb. 15, 1924 Cardinal Faulhaber praises Hitler in a speech to the Catholic Academic Committee of Munich Universities and refers to Hitler’s movement as an “originally pure spring” that became poisoned by anti-Catholic elements. Fuller translation Faulhaber later includes these words in a book he publishes in 1925. The “originally pure” ideas of the National Socialist party, to judge from its original Party Program proclaimed by Hitler on February 24, 1920, consisted of rejection of the Versailles Treaty followed by a series of antisemitic legislative and policy proposals. Faulhaber’s Archdiocesan newspaper approved similar measures in articles on the 2nd and 9th of May 1920, thus justifying any informed person to conclude these were aspects of the “originally pure spring.” The same paper promoted the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory, thus certifying it as “originally pure” to Bavarian Catholics, before Hitler incorporated it into his public propaganda. The Nazi Program of 1920 also included socialist-type policyproposals, but there is no contemporary evidence from spring 1920 that Cardinal Faulhaber or publications under his authority had any favorable inclination toward socialist policies during the first months of the National Socialist party. Feb. 26, 1924 Start of month-long trial of Hitler and other Putschists for treason, which leads to a conviction of Hitler and others, and an acquittal of Ludendorff. Mar. 11, 1924 Letter from Cardinal Faulhaber to Cardinal Bertram, Prince-Bishop of Breslau, complaining of continuing agitation among Catholic students against Faulhaber and the Catholic Church in relation to the Hitler Putsch. English translation Mar. 20, 1924 German Reich Chancellor Marx advises the Bavarian Government that he will not object to the Bavarian-Vatican Concordat. Mar. 27, 1924 Hitler’s speech at the conclusion of his trial for treason admits leading the Putsch but says it is the Weimar Republic officials who committed treason against Germany, and he was taking the patriotic initiative to undo their treason. Mar. 29, 1924 Bavaria-Vatican Concordat is signed by Nuncio Pacelli and representatives of the Bavarian state government. Apr. 1, 1924 Hitler is imprisoned in comfortable quarters in Landsberg Prison, where he dictates his book Mein Kampf, aided by Rudolf Hess and Father Bernhard Stempfle; Hitler’s sentence for treason is five years, with eligibility for parole after six months. Apr. 6, 1924 In elections of delegates to the Bavarian Landtag [state parliament], a Nazi-Völkisch coalition wins 35% of the votes in Munich, outpolling all other parties in that city and cutting deeply into the Catholic Bavarian Peoples Party’s vote total. In the days following the elections, large Catholic rallies are held in Munich, at which thousands of Catholics pledge fidelity to Cardinal Faulhaber and the Pope. Apr. 6, 1924 In Italian parliamentary elections, Fascists win majority of seats. In its April 5th issue, Civiltà Cattolica says the Fascists have done more for the Catholic Church than the Catholic Popular Party, including the doubling of government payments to Bishops. Fascist thugs attack Popular Party activists and their priest supporters in areas that voted strongly for that party. Source: Kertzer (2014), p.66. Apr. 24, 1924 Nuncio Pacelli reports to Rome that the Nazis are conducting a “vulgar and violent campaign” in the press against Catholics and Jews. Source: Rychlak (2010), p.45. Rychlak states: “From this time on, updates on National Socialism were always present in Pacelli’s reports to Rome due to the threat that it clearly posed to Christianity and the Catholic Church.” (p.45) Apr. 26, 1924 Nuncio Pacelli recommends that the Vatican quickly advance beatifications and canonizations of some Bavarian Catholics in order to counteract the continuing agitation in Bavaria against the Catholic hierarchy in the wake of the failed Nazi Putsch. Source: G. Besier, The Holy See and Hitler’s Germany (2007), p.35, citing Vatican Archives, ANM, pos. 396, fasc. 7, fo. 76v. May 1, 1924 Nuncio Pacelli identifies nationalism or National Socialism as the most dangerous “heresy” of the era, in a report to Vatican Secretary of State Gasparri. Sources: Compare G. Besier, The Holy See and Hitler’s Germany, p.35, citing ANM, pos. 396, fasc. 7, p. 79v (“nationalism is perhaps the most perilous heresy of our time”) with R. Rychlak, Hitler, the War, and the Pope (2010), p.44, citing ANM, 396, fasc. 7, pos. XIV, Bavaria, p.75 (“Nazism is probably the most dangerous heresy of our time”). Note: The online publication of Nuncio Pacelli’s reports more recently shows that this report refers to nationalism and attacks by the German Völkisch press upon the Pope, Cardinals including Faulhaber, and the Nuncio; none of the attacking press organs cited by Pacelli were identified in his report as Nazi. The original Italian says “il nazionalismo sia forse la più pericolosa eresia dei tempi nostri.” Citation: Pacelli to Gasparri, 1 May 1924, Dokument-Nr. 181, online at www.pacelli-edition.de/dokument.html?idno=181 (accessed Sept. 1, 2020) May 4, 1924 Nuncio Pacelli writes, “The heresy of Nazism puts state and race above everything, above true religion, above the truth and above the justice.” Source: Rychlak, p.44, citing ANM, 365, fasc. 7, pos. XIV, Bavaria, p.83. Note: The online publication of this report of Nuncio Pacelli shows that he was referring to nationalism, not Nazism, in a second report (compare report of May 1, 1924) about propaganda from German Völkisch sources, none of which were identified in the report as Nazi. Original Italian: “... la eresia del nazionalismo, la quale cioè pone l’idolo nazionale o di razza al di sopra di tutto, della veea religione, della verità e della giustizia.” Citation: Pacelli to Gasparri, 4 May 1924, Dokument-Nr. 182, online at www.pacelli-edition.de/dokument.html?idno=182 (accessed Sept. 1, 2020) May 30, 1924 Italian opposition leader Giacomo Matteotti speaks in parliament to demand the annulment of the April elections on grounds of voter intimidation. Source: Kertzer (2014), p.69. June 10, 1924 Mussolini’s henchmen murder Matteotti, sparking the months-long “Matteotti Crisis,” which threatens to bring down Mussolini as Prime Minister of Italy. Summer 1924 In Italy, leaders of the Catholic People’s Party and the Socialist Party work to form a coalition to force out Mussolini as Prime Minister. As Mussolini loses the support of conservative newspapers and other elements in Italy, he despairs over the impending demise of his regime. Pope Pius XI takes steps to keep Mussolini in power, including articles in L’Osservatore Romano and Civiltà Cattolica telling Catholics they have a religious obligation to respect and obey the Mussolini Government. Mussolini sets up a commission to review laws affecting Church-State relations; it includes three Church representatives secretly designated by the Vatican; the commission’s work leads by 1926 to the beginning of negotiations that produce the 1929 Lateran Treaty and Concordat. Source: Kertzer (2014), pp. 74-76, 99; see articles below, Aug. 16, Sept. 12, Sept. 14 and translations. July 19, 1924 Civiltà Cattolica denounces violence as a characteristic of Communist, Socialist, anarchist, liberal, Masonic, and Fascist movements. English translation July 23, 1924 Cardinal Faulhaber and all Bavarian Bishops refuse a request from the Reich Government to celebrate the anniversary of the Weimar Republic Constitution on August 11th by ringing church bells. Source: L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 337-338. Aug. 2, 1924 Civiltà Cattolica changes its previous messaging against Fascist violence and now tells Catholics they must support and obey the “legitimately constituted” government of Mussolini. English translation Aug. 16, 1924 Civiltà Cattolica publishes lengthy article warning Italian Catholics against forming a coalition with Socialists. English translation In late summer or early fall 1924, the Vatican forces into exile Father Luigi Sturzo, the most influential anti-Mussolini voice in the Catholic People’s Party of Italy. Sept. 10, 1924 Bavarian Bishops Conference prohibits blessings of political party flags such as swastika, and proposes three Bavarian candidates for beatification and canonization, thus furthering what Nuncio Pacelli proposed to Rome on Apr. 26, 1924. Translation of minutes of Bavarian Bishops Conference Sept. 12, 1924 L’Osservatore Romano reports that Jewish immigration to Palestine is diminishing, because worldwide Jewish hopes of a free and sovereign state have been disappointed by the reality of a British colony exploited for British economic interests. English translation Sept. 12, 1924 L’Osservatore Romano reports on a widely publicized address of Pope Pius XI, prohibiting the Catholic People’s Party from cooperating with Socialists. English translation Sept. 14, 1924 When the Catholic People’s Party calls for freedom for Italian Catholics to make decisions in politics based on conscience, L’Osservatore Romano responds that conscience means obeying the Pope’s directive. English translation of articles in three consecutive issues of the Vatican paper on this issue Oct. 3, 1924 Pacelli writes Abp. Giuseppe Pizzardo asking for Vatican guidance concerning Catholics in the right-wing German Nationalist People’s Party, reporting his meeting with their leaders and his pressing them to produce votes for ratification of the Bavarian-Vatican Concordat. English translation Dec. 1924 German national parliament (Reichstag) elections; Nazi Party receives 3% of votes. Dec. 19, 1924 Cardinal Faulhaber writes Pope Pius XI, proposing candidates from Germany to advance toward sainthood. The letter concludes by praising Nuncio Pacelli for “the work of the century” in bringing the Concordat to the point where it will be ratified early in the new year, 1925, which is a Holy Year for pilgrimages to Rome. L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 352-353. Dec. 20, 1924 Civiltà Cattolica publishes “An Episode of Zionism in Palestine” demonstrating the “rabid animosity brought by Zionism into the Holy City.” English translation Dec. 20, 1924 Hitler is released from prison. 1925 Jan. 3, 1925 Mussolini gives a defiant speech taking personal responsibility for Fascist violence in Italy and challenging his opponents to stop him. “The third of January marked the beginning of Mussolini’s dictatorship ...” Adrian Lyttelton, The Seizure of Power (2004), p.267. Jan. 4, 1925 Hitler meets with Bavarian Minister-President Heinrich Held. Hitler promises to oppose anti-Catholicism in the Völkisch movement, and Held grants Hitler permission to publish the Völkischer Beobachter and refound the Nazi Party after a more than year-long ban on both. The meeting was arranged by Theodor von Cramer-Klett. Hastings (2010), p.156; Kershaw (1998), p.262. Hastings observes (p.157) that after his time in prison, Hitler never professes Catholic faith, rather he expresses toleration of Catholics and Protestants equally within the Nazi Party, and admiration for the organizational strength of the Roman Catholic Church, as seen in Mein Kampf later in 1925. 1925 Cardinal Faulhaber’s book Deutsches Ehrgefühl und Katholisches Gewissen appears. The book praises Fascism and Hitler in particular, repeating Faulhaber’s words from February 15, 1924 about Nazism being “an originally pure spring.” Excerpts in English translation Cardinal Faulhaber’s book contains an Afterword by Faulhaber dated January 8, 1925. Jan. 15, 1925 Wilhelm Marx resigns as German Reich Chancellor and is succeeded by Hans Luther. Jan. 24, 1925 The Bavaria-Vatican Concordat is ratified in the Bavarian Landtag by a vote of 73 to 52. Feb. 3, 1925 Letter from Cardinal Faulhaber to all German Bishops outside Bavaria praises Nuncio Pacelli for his “towering spirit and unlimited patience” in bringing the five-year-long Concordat negotiations over “many critical times and deadlocks.” L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, p.359. Feb. 7, 1925 Civiltà Cattolica publishes an article-by-article summary of the Bavaria-Vatican Concordat. English translation Feb. 8, 1925 Friedrich Ebert dies, having served as President of Germany since his election by the Weimar constitutional assembly in February 1919. Cardinal Faulhaber refuses to allow churches to rings their bells in Ebert’s honor. Kershaw (1998), p.268. Mar. 29, 1925 In the first nationwide election for President of the German Reich, no candidate receives a majority, resulting in a three-way runoff election in April. Apr. 26, 1925 Runoff election for President is won by Paul von Hindenburg (48%) against Wilhelm Marx of the Center Party (45%) and Ernst Thälmann of the Communist Party (6%). June 30, 1925 Sir Herbert Samuel steps down as High Commissioner for Palestine and is replaced four months later by a British General who is not Jewish. July 1925 Hitler’s Mein Kampf appears. In it Hitler clearly states the meaning of the swastika as the symbol of the antisemitic "mission" of the Nazi Party. The word “mission” occurs more than two dozen times in the German text, along with several occurrences of the more Germanic synonym “Sendung.” Hastings (2010) writes that after the Putsch Hitler “demonstrated an increasing obsession with justifying his ‘mission’ in near-messianic terms.” (p.163) Aug. 20, 1925 Eugenio Pacelli moves from Munich to Berlin five years and two months after being named Vatican Nuncio to Berlin, and seven months after the ratification of the Bavaria-Vatican Concordat. Contemporaries and historians attest to the high regard in which Nuncio Pacelli was held by leading Germans, and to his detailed knowledge of German and European political matters. Hastings describes articles in the Völkischer Beobachter denigrating Nuncio Pacelli in the August 23-24 and August 25 issues. (pp. 158, 241) The Nazi paper also attacked Cardinal Faulhaber repeatedly. Hastings, p.159, with citations. Dec. 11, 1925 Pius XI issues his encyclical Quas Primas, saying that peace will be attained only through the Kingdom of Christ, calling for the “restoration of the Empire of Our Lord” over individuals and states, and proclaiming that the Catholic Church “is the Kingdom of Christ on earth.” English version at Vatican website (cf. paragraphs 1 and 12) 1925 L’Osservatore Romano and Civiltà Cattolica neither repeat nor revoke promotions of Jewish-Communist myth during the year 1925. 1926 1926 During this year, Jewish immigration to Palestine drops to less than 14,000, compared to 30,000 in 1925. May 17, 1926 Wilhelm Marx of the Catholic Center Party becomes German Reich Chancellor for the second time. May 28, 1926 In Portugal a military coup led by General Gomez da Costa ushers in five decades of dictatorship. July 6, 1926 Völkischer Beobachter features Hitler’s words about the "holiness" [Heiligtum" of the swastika flag stained with the blood of those who died in the Putsch. The article described Hitler’s personal "consecration" ceremony for this “Blood Flag,” which was then repeated annually. Hastings, p.165. Sept. 1926 Pope Pius XI’s private emissary to Mussolini, Father Pietro Tacchi Venturi, S.J. gives Mussolini a pamphlet Sionismo e Cattolicismo [Zionism and Catholicism] with arguments that Judaism is using Bolshevism and revolution “to destroy current society and dominate the world by themselves...” Source: Kertzer (2014), p.89, citing Italian Foreign Ministry archives. Autumn 1926 Vatican condemns French nationalist, antisemitic group Action Française. Source: Carlo Falconi, The Popes of the Twentieth Century (1967), p.181. Nov. 18, 1926 Pope Pius XI issues his encyclical Iniquis Afflictisque on persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico. The encyclical decries those Mexican Catholics who are conducting “a cruel persecution against their own brethren, Our most beloved children of Mexico.” English version at Vatican website 1926 L’Osservatore Romano and Civiltà Cattolica neither repeat nor revoke promotions of Jewish-Communist myth during the year 1926. 1927 1927 During this year, Jewish immigration to Palestine drops to around 3,000, compared to 30,000 in 1925 and 14,000 in 1926. Numbers remain in the low single digit thousands for the next several years. Mar. 2, 1927 Hitler writes a letter to a Catholic priest in Bavaria. Translation of letter expressing Hitler’s desire that the German Volk stand united, without Protestant-Catholic distinctions, “with the swastika on the left or sword-side as the banner of the struggle in this world, but the cross of the Lord on the right as the symbol of faith and the struggle for the eternal.” Sept. 1927 Louis Billot resigns as Cardinal, immediately following a meeting with Pope Pius XI. The meeting and resignation occurred after Billot questioned the Pope’s condemnation of Action Française and said the Pope should not control the activities of the French monarchist movement. Source: “Religion: Billot v. Pope,” Time, Oct. 3, 1927. Sept. 24, 1927 Cardinal Faulhaber writes the Bavarian Bishops that he cannot allow the ringing of church bells in Munich on the occasion of the 80th birthday of President Hindenburg. His explanation: “I cannot consider Herr President Hindenburg as the successor of the King of Bavaria without making it into a political demonstration.” L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, p.421. Dec. 17, 1927 Civiltà Cattolica’s lead article “After Ten Years of Bolshevism” contains nothing about Judaism. Headlines and summaries of articles on Palestine, England and Bolshevism in this journal during 1927 1927 L’Osservatore Romano and Civiltà Cattolica neither repeat nor revoke promotions of Jewish-Communist myth during the year 1927. Civiltà Cattolica’s lengthy articles during 1927 on Palestine, British religious circumstances, and Islam do not contain attacks on Zionism, criticisms of British administration in Palestine, or advocacy for the cause of Muslims and Arabs in Palestine. 1928 Jan.-Feb. 1928 Civiltà Cattolica features two lengthy articles on Bolshevism, with no mention of Jews or Judaism. Titles and citations of articles Mar. 14, 1928 Prince Löwenstein writes Cardinal Faulhaber expressing his understanding that Pope Pius XI wishes to consolidate all activities of the Catholic laity into “Catholic Action.” Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, reprinted in L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, p.423. Mar. 20, 1928 Cardinal Faulhaber writes Prince Löwenstein explaining why the consolidation into Catholic Action has not been accomplished yet in Germany, and says it will be in the future. English translation Mar. 25, 1928 Vatican suppresses the Friends of Israel and simultaneously issues official condemnation of antisemitism. English translation of Vatican decree May 19, 1928 Civiltà Cattolica publishes article “The Jewish Peril and the ‘Friends of Israel,’” explaining that the March 25 decree condemns hatred but not rational defense against Jews. Defense is acceptable against aggressions such as financial and commercial domination and Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik conspiratorial activity. The article debunks the Protocols as “fantastical” like the works of Leo Taxil. English translation of article May 20, 1928 German national parliament (Reichstag) elections; Nazi Party receives 2.6% of votes. June 28, 1928 Hermann Müller of the Social Democrat Party becomes German Reich Chancellor. Sept. 5-9, 1928 Archbishop Pacelli inaugurates Catholic Action in Germany at a nationwide Catholic Congress of representatives of Catholic organizations and prominent Catholic individuals, at Magdeburg, Germany. Sept. 1928 Father Ludwig Kaas becomes head of Germany’s Center Party, the first time a priest has held a leadership position in the Party during its more than 50-year history. 1929 Feb. 11, 1929 Italy and the Vatican sign the Lateran Treaty and Concordat, establishing the sovereign city state of the Vatican, formally known as the Holy See, comprising somewhat more than 40 hectares or 100 acres within the Vatican walls, surrounded by the City of Rome. Feb. 22, 1929 Völkischer Beobachter publishes speech by Hitler saying the Vatican has shown it trusts Fascism more than liberal democracy, and proposing that Fascists in Germany pursue the same course with the Church as Mussolini has done in Italy. English translation June 14, 1929 Vatican Concordat with German state of Prussia is signed by Nuncio Pacelli and representatives of the Prussian state government. Nov. 18, 1929 Nuncio Pacelli’s report to Vatican about Germany says it is a “delusion that one could be a Catholic and a socialist.” Source: Pacelli to Parosi, 18 Nov 1929, AA.EE.SS., Germania, Pos. 511, fasc. 24, fo. 16v, cited in Besier. In this report Pacelli is “massively critical” of the Center Party. Besier, p.72. Nov. 27, 1929 L’Osservatore Romano article says international Jewry is allied with Bolshevism. Source: Lill (1970), p. 364 & n. 28 Dec. 12, 1929 Archbishop Pacelli leaves Berlin for Rome. Dec. 16, 1929 Eugenio Pacelli is made a Cardinal. 1930 Feb. 7, 1930 Cardinal Pacelli becomes Vatican Secretary of State. Feb. 28, 1930 Cardinal Faulhaber sends a letter to the Bavarian head of the paramilitary Stahlhelm organization, employing colorful turns of phrase against Bolshevism while professing to approve only spiritual weapons against it, and rejecting the idea of an anti-Bolshevik “combat front.” English translation Mar. 29, 1930 Heinrich Brüning of the Catholic Center Party becomes German Reich Chancellor. Sept. 6, 1930 A military coup in Argentina ends six decades of a stable democratic republic whose economy had grown to fourth in the world in per capita income. The succeeding decade, known in Argentina as the decada infama, is marked by corrupt government, rigged elections and increasing antisemitism. Sept. 14, 1930 German national parliament election; Nazi Party skyrockets from a dozen seats in the Reichstag to more than 100, with over 18% of votes, making it second only to the Social Democratic Party. Sept. 1930 Vicar General of Mainz confirms in writing the diocesan policy that Catholics may not join the Nazi Party and will be denied the sacraments if they do. The Mainz Diocese explains that Hitler’s Party’s policy of “racial hatred” is un-Christian and un-Catholic. Sources: K. Scholder vol.1, 132-134; H. Müller, Katholische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus, Dokumente 1930-1935 (1963), 13-15; Cornwell, Hitler’s Pope (1999), p.109 (following Scholder). Sept. 1930 Cardinal Pacelli meets with Fr. Ludwig Kaas, head of German Catholic Center Party, in Innsbruck, Austria. The German ambassador to the Vatican reports that this meeting may be with a view toward “accepting relations with Hitler.” Besier, p.83 and note 49, citing Report of the German Embassy to the Holy See, Sept. 30, 1930, No. 229, A633, Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes; Botschaft beim Heiligen Stuhl, Best. 29, vol. 1/Lfd. No. 441, unfoliated. Oct. 11, 1930 L’Osservatore Romano takes a stance against Nazism as “incompatible with the Catholic conscience, just as in general it is completely incompatible with membership of socialist parties of all shades.” 1931 Jan. 1931 L’Osservatore Romano “modifies its grounds for opposition to Nazism” because of “elements in its program that are incompatible with Catholic teaching.” K. Scholder, op. cit., p.150, citing J. Nötges, Nationalsozialismus und Katholizismus, p.27. Feb. 10, 1931 Bavarian Bishops Conference issues a pastoral statement to clergy warning against Nazism “so long and so far as it proclaims culture-policy views that are not compatible with Catholic doctrine.” The statement strictly forbids priests from cooperating with the Nazi movement. It bans Nazi formations and flags at worship services. English translation of Bishops’ Pastoral Instruction Feb-Mar. 1931 Multiple Catholic Bishops conferences in Germany adopt policies against Catholics joining the Nazi Party. Mar. 17, 1931 Proclamation by the Bishops of the Paderborn Church Conference denounces National Socialism and its swastika symbol. English translation April 1931 According to the diary of a French Cardinal in the Vatican, Pope Pius XI rebukes Cardinal Pacelli for approving the blessing of a Fascist flag. Source: Ventresca (2013), pp. 67, 332, citing the diaries of Cardinal Baudrillart, Les Carnets du Alfred Baudrillart (Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1994-2003), 1931 vol., pp. 714, 818-819. April 1931 Joseph Wirth of Center Party in Rome has contentious audience with Pius XI. Scholder 151, citing R. Morsey, Zentrumspartei, 301 May 15, 1931 Pope Pius XI issues his encyclical on the reconstruction of the social order, Quadragesimo Anno. June 20, 1931 Civiltà Cattolica article “Bolshevism: Destroyer of All Christian Civilization” says the Pope is raising “a voice of warning to the peoples” about this enemy of God and mankind, with no mention of Jews or Judaism. English translation June 29, 1931 Papal encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno (“We Have No Need”) protests against Mussolini’s persecution of Catholic Action in Italy - defined by Pius XI as “the participation and the collaboration of the laity with the Apostolic Hierarchy.” English version at Vatican website Aug. 1931 German Chancellor Brüning meets with Mussolini in Rome and pays a visit to the Vatican, where Cardinal Pacelli insists he form a governing coalition with the Nazis for the sake of attaining a Concordat between the Vatican and the German Reich. English translation of excerpts of Brüning’s memoirs Brüning’s account was disputed by some historians, but a recent work by a German historian argues that Brüning’s account is consistent with other evidence that Pacelli sought for several years to achieve a coalition of the Catholic Center Party with the right (of which the National Socialists were the largest party) in preference to earlier Center Party coalitions with the Social Democratic Party. Cf. Christoph Hübner, Die Rechtskatholiken, die Zentrumspartei und die katholische Kirche in Deutschland bis zum Reichskonkordat von 1933 [The Rightwing Catholics, the Center Party and the Catholic Church in Germany up to the Reich Concordat of 1933] (Münster: Beiträge zur Theologie, Kirche und Gesellschaft, vol. 24, 2014) Immediately after Brüning’s meeting with Pacelli, Brüning has an audience with Pope Pius XI, who commends the German Bishops for their principled opposition to erroneous doctrines of Nazism. Sept. 1931 Mussolini agrees to stop persecution of Catholic Action; Vatican agrees that Catholic Action will stay out of politics and that all its activities will be subject to the Bishops. Sept. 3-8, 1931 Völkischer Beobachter runs daily articles about the death of the Nazi Gauleiter of Hesse, Peter Gemeinder, and the refusal by the Diocese of Mainz to allow a Catholic funeral for him. Sept. 10, 1931 The flagship newspaper of the Catholic Center Party says the deceased Gauleiter has suffered the consequences of joining a movement contrary to Catholicism and disobeying a clear order from Church authority. Translation of article "Konsequenzen" Sept. 12, 1931 Nazi PR chief sends letter to Hitler urging a risky, but ultimately successful, strategy for handling the nationwide controversy over the Bishop of Mainz’s stance against Nazism. Translation of letter Dec. 20, 1931 Ritter, Bavarian Ambassador to Vatican, reports that Pius XI is open to temporary, purpose-specific cooperation with the Nazis, to avoid a greater evil. Scholder, pp. 154-157; R. Morsey, Zentrumspartei, pp. 302, 310 n.23; Franz-Willing, Bayrische, p.231. 1932 Feb. 11, 1932 Mussolini and Pope Pius XI meet and confirm agreement between them about Catholic Action. Mussolini’s notes of the meeting say Pius asked him to suppress Protestantism in Italy – despite Mussolini’s response that Protestantism had few adherents in the country. Peter Kent, The Pope and the Duce (1981), 192. Feb. 1932 Hitler becomes a naturalized citizen of Germany, having been a citizen of Austria by birth. Feb. 1932 In Ireland, the ex-soldiers Army Comrades Association is formed, later leading into the Irish Blueshirts organization under Eoin O’Duffy. Nelis (2015), p. 108. Mar. 2, 1932 Cardinal Faulhaber writes a Bavarian politician that the concerted action of the German Bishops against the Nazis has met with unconditional support from Rome, and cites an article in L’Osservatore Romano as evidence. English translation of letter Mar. 13, 1932 In the first round of a nationwide popular election for President of the German Reich, no candidate gains a majority, leading to a runoff election the following month. Apr. 10, 1932 Runoff election for President is won by Hindenburg (53%) against Hitler (37%) and Thälmann of the Communist Party (10%). May 30, 1932 Heinrich Brüning resigns as Chancellor. June 1932 Father Ludwig Kaas spends summer in Tirol writing about Lateran Treaty as precedent for building a bridge between Rome and Berlin. Source: K. Scholder, op. cit., pp. 161, 167. June 1, 1932 Franz von Papen is named Chancellor of Germany by President Paul von Hindenburg. June 20-26, 1932 International Eucharistic Congress in Dublin; accompanying the Papal Legate were Msgr. Francis Spellman and Msgr. Tardini of the Vatican Secretariat of State, and Papal Major Domo Msgr. Caccia. Irish Independent, June 20 & 21, 1932, pp. 8-9. Aug. 2, 1932 Bavarian Ambassador Ritter zu Groenesteyn reports that Cardinal Pacelli is open to a German governing coalition with the right. Sources: Franz-Willing, pp. 231ff.; Ludwig Volk, Der Bayrische Episkopat unter das Nationalsozialismus (1966), p.46. Sept. 29, 1932 Pope Pius XI issues his encyclical Acerba Animi on persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico. Oct. 12, 1932 Vatican Concordat with German state of Baden is signed by Cardinal Pacelli and representatives of the Baden state government. Besier, p.103. Nov. 17, 1932 Papen resigns as German Chancellor. Nov. 1932 Father Ludwig Kaas finishes an article praising the Italian-Vatican Concordat as a model and expressing the desire that the Vatican’s encounter with the "totalitarian state" not be a fleeting episode, but a "viable ongoing action"; the article is published in early 1933 by a prestigious German law journal. German original of article entitled “Der Konkordatstyp des Fascistischen Italien” [The Concordat Model of Fascist Italy], from the Max Planck Institute journal of international law Dec. 3, 1932 General Kurt von Schleicher is named Chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg. 1933 Jan. 30, 1933 Hitler is named Chancellor of Germany by President Hindenburg. L’Osservatore Romano’s daily coverage of the seizure of power, from Jan. 29 to Feb. 5 Jan. 31, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a Cardinal’s statement that the upcoming Holy Year of 1933-1934 will effectively address “the crises of society,” that it will be a “year of action” as well as prayer, and that “the future belongs to the strong.” English translation Feb. 3, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano reports that the three Papal implementing documents for the Holy Year will bear the date January 30, 1933. English translation Previous Holy Years had almost always been held on years ending in 00, 25, 50, and 75; there is no record of a Holy Year in a year ending in 33, until 1933. Feb. 27, 1933 Reichstag (parliament building) in Berlin is heavily damaged by a fire, which Hitler and Nazis immediately blame on a Communist, using the occasion to get President Hindenburg to decree emergency suspension of civil rights. Feb. 28, 1933 Hindenburg issues decree suspending the Weimar Constitution’s equivalents of the US 1st and 4th amendments. John Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches (1968), p.17: “Under the plea of preventing Communist terrorist activities, the ordinance annulled the seven articles of the Weimar Constitition which safeguarded the freedom of the individual, the rights of free speech, the rights of meeting and assembly, and the security of the citizen from house searches or from interference with his postal, telegraph and telephone communications.” Mar. 5, 1933 New elections are held for delegates to the Reichstag, in which the Nazi Party uses state-funded propaganda and suppression of opposing publicity to increase its representation. Results: Nazi Party 44%, Social Democrats 18%, Catholic Center and Bavarian People’s parties 14%, Communist Party 12%, Nationalist Coalition 8%, five other parties combined 4%. Mar. 10, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber has a private audience with Pope Pius XI. English translation of Faulhaber’s notes of the meeting Mar. 10, 1933 At a consistory in Rome, Pope Pius XI tells the Cardinals that he is pleased with Hitler, because he is the first statesman who has spoken up against Bolshevism. Mar. 12, 1933 Chancellor Hitler and President Hindenburg co-sign and issue provisional flag decree about the German imperial tricolor and the swastika flag. The decree provides that until a final decision as to the national flag, the swastika flag shall be flown with the red-black-white German tricolor at civilian installations, but not at military installations, which shall display the German war flag (tricolor with iron cross). English translation of text of flag decree Mar. 18, 1933 Vice Chancellor Papen proposes to Cardinal Bertram, the head of the German Bishops Conference, that the Bishops remove their prohibitions on Catholics joining the Nazi Party. Cardinal Bertram replies that is impossible unless the Nazis fundamentally change their program and ideology. Mar. 23, 1933 German Parliament enacts the Enabling Act by the necessary two-thirds majority vote, thus empowering Hitler and his cabinet to rule by decree for the next four years. Before the vote, Hitler gives a speech on domestic and foreign policy, in which he calls for the building of a “real Volk community” (German: Volksgemeinschaft), connoting solidarity among Germans and exclusion of Jews. Hitler declares he will cultivate “friendliest relations with the Holy See” and a cooperative relationship between Church and State. Excerpts of Hitler’s speech in translation The four-year Enabling Act is later renewed, and Hitler usurped absolute dictatorial power upon Hindenburg’s death on August 2, 1934. Mar. 28, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano reports why the two Catholic parties of Germany voted for the Enabling Act, to promote “concord” and “the work of national salvation.” English translation On the same page, the Vatican newspaper publishes a further announcement of the Holy Year. Mar. 29, 1933 German Bishops unanimously remove their prohibitions on Catholics joining the Nazi Party, while keeping in place their warnings about Nazi ideology. The Bishops allow Nazis to come to mass in uniform, but they do not express approval of the swastika: “The bringing into the Church of flags of this and other political organizations is to be prevented by informal advance agreement to the extent feasible, because this would tend to give the impression of a political party demonstration, which is unbecoming to the sanctity of a house of worship.” Source: Bernhard Stasiewski, ed., Akten Deutscher Bischöfe über die Lage der Kirche,[German Bishops’ Papers about Church Matters] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1968-1985), vol. 1, p. 34. Mar. 30, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano reports the German Bishops’ joint statement removing prohibitions on Catholics joining the Nazi Party English translation Apr. 1, 1933 Nazis conduct first nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses. English translation of L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage Apr. 4, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano covers the opening of the Holy Year, together with reasons why the German Bishops now allow Catholics to join the Nazi Party. English translation Apr. 4, 1933 Cardinal Pacelli sends a communiqué to Archbishop Orsenigo, Vatican Nuncio to Germany, stating in reference to possible papal intervention against antisemitic excesses in Germany (nationwide boycott against Jewish businesses): “Given that it is part of the traditions of the Holy See to carry out its mission of universal peace and charity toward all men, regardless of the social or religious condition to which they belong, by offering, if necessary, its charitable offices, the Holy Father asks your Excellency to see if and how it is possible to be involved in the desired way.” Source: Rychlak, Righteous, p.14. Apr. 5, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber issues an Instruction to Clergy prohibiting blessings of political flags, limiting attendance at mass in uniform, and strictly controlling the ringing of church bells on governmental or political occasions. English translation Apr. 7, 1933 Hitler and cabinet issue a decree ousting Jewish Germans from public service positions; at the insistence of President Hindenburg, Jewish veterans of World War One are exempted. Apr. 12, 1933 Saint Edith Stein, a Jewish convert to Catholicism, forced out of her university post as a philosophy professor by the April 7 decree, writes a letter to Pope Pius XI saying that both Jews and Catholics “have been waiting and hoping for weeks for the Church of Christ to raise its voice to put a stop to this abuse of Christ’s name” by German antisemitic measures. Stein’s letter states that loyal Catholics “fear the worst for the reputation of the Church if this silence goes on much longer.” In response, Cardinal Pacelli requested the abbot of the Benedictine monastery where she was staying temporarily to inform her that her letter had reached the Pope. Source: Besier, pp. 125-126. Apr. 16, 1933 German Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen travels to Rome for Easter and meets with Cardinal Pacelli and then Pope Pius XI around Easter Sunday, which fell on April 16th. Papen’s Memoirs recall the Pope’s praise of Hitler. Excerpt translated from Papen’s Der Wahrheit eine Gasse [A Breakthrough for the Truth] (1952) Apr. 20, 1933 Father Ludwig Kaas, who had left Germany permanently at the beginning of the month to work with Cardinal Pacelli in the Vatican, sends birthday greetings to Hitler by telegram from Rome. Apr. 26, 1933 Bishop Berning of Osnabrück meets with Hitler, who says he intends to do a great service for the Church by combatting the danger posed by the Jews. English translation of Berning’s report of the meeting May 8, 1933 Nuncio Orsenigo sends a detailed report about the Berning-Hitler meeting to Cardinal Pacelli, including a full account of Hitler’s words about the “Jewish question.” June 3, 1933 German Bishops Conference issues a joint pastoral letter welcoming the “new state” and expressing gratitude for the Nazi regime’s struggle (Kampf) against Bolshevism. Stasiewski, vol. 1, pp. 239-248. June 18, 1933 Cardinal Pacelli, the Episcopal Protector of the Austrian-run German-language chapel and residential college in Rome, the “Anima,” consecrates the Rector of the Anima, Alois Hudal, as a Bishop. Hudal’s official position and duties remain unchanged. English translation of invitation to the event in Cardinal Faulhaber’s papers June 28, 1933 Nazis commence the arrest of 200 prominent Catholics in Bavaria, including 100 priests. Source: Conway, p.30. June 30, 1933 Cardinal Gasparri, retired Vatican Secretary of State, sends a memorandum to the Vatican urging accommodation with Hitler, dissolution of the Catholic Center Party in Germany, and avoidance of “political and religious struggle with Hitlerism.” English translation July 4, 1933 Catholic Bavarian People’s Party declares its dissolution, and Nazis release Catholics arrested on and after June 28th. July 5, 1933 Catholic Center Party of Germany declares its dissolution. July 8, 1933 Vatican-Germany Condordat is initialed in Rome by Cardinal Pacelli for the Vatican and Vice Chancellor Papen for Germany. July 9, 1933 Hitler issues a decree stating, “The conclusion of the Concordat seems to me to give sufficient guarantee that the Reich members of the Roman Catholic confession will from now on put themselves without reservation at the service of the new National Socialist state.” Besier. July 14, 1933 Hitler declares at a meeting with his cabinet ministers that the concluding the Germany-Vatican Concordat will be “particularly significant in the urgent struggle against international Jews.” Source: Ventresca (2013), p.82, citing Documents on German Foreign Policy, ser. C, vol. 1, pp. 651-653. July 20, 1933 Vatican-Germany Concordat is signed in Rome by Cardinal Pacelli and Vice Chancellor Papen. Online text of Concordat: in German and Italian. English summary of Concordat provisions July 21, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano publishes full text of Vatican-Germany Concordat on page one. July 24, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber sends a telegram to Hitler, praising him for accomplishing more in six months than the parliaments and political parties of Germany had accomplished in six decades. Source: Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, p.61, citing Hans Müller, Katholische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus, p.55. July 26, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano publishes an explanation of the Concordat. July 29, 1933 Cardinal Pacelli asks the Austrian Ambassador to expunge from Austrian archives any trace of criticisms the Austrian ruler has made against the Vatican-Germany Concordat. Source: Ventresca (2013), p.85, citing Vatican Secret Archives, AES, Stati Ecclesiastici, P.O. 430b, fasc. 360 (1933-1940), “Audience of July 29, 1933.” Aug. 19, 1933 British Diplomat Ivone Kirkpatrick reports to British Foreign Office that Cardinal Pacelli has told him how much he abhors Nazi antisemitism and totalitarianism and terror, and that he only signed the Concordat because he had a gun to his head, in the sense that failure to sign would have led to far worse Nazi outrages against the Church. Excerpts from Kirkpatrick’s report Aug. 29, 1933 German Bishops Conference considers whether to relax prohibitions on blessings of swastika flags and adopts a tactful way of saying No: “Concerning the ‘consecration of flags’ the customary practices of the individual dioceses remain unchanged.” Source: “Minutes of the Plenary Conference of the German Bishops,” Aug. 29-31, 1933, reprinted in Stasiewski, Akten deutscher Bischöfe über die Lage der Kirche, 1933-1945 (Mainz, 1968-1985), vol. 1, p. 337. Aug. 30, 1933 Bavarian Bishops Conference considers whether to relax prohibitions on blessings of swastika flags and adopts a formulation that neither authorizes nor strictly prohibits flag blessing ceremonies: “On the question whether the swastika flag, now explained to be a Reich flag, shall be consecrated: the Conference has until now rejected the consecration of political flags and today is still of this view, that with the admittance into the worship services in the nave of the Church a certain consecration is conferred, without the rite of consecration. The Conference does not want to insist on a strict veto, since the decree of the [Vatican] Congregation of Rites of December 15, 1922 and March 26, 1924 leaves open the possibility of such a consecration of flags, cf. AAS [Acta Apostolicae Sedis] 1924 No. 4, Apr. 1, p.171.” Note: In light of the resistance of Cardinal Faulhaber and other Bishops to displaying the swastika flag on churches on designated “patriotic days” or holidays in 1934, the effect of the Bavarian Bishops’ resolution of Aug. 30, 1933 appears to be that Bishops did not bless or consecrate swastika flags, but also did not threaten priests with strict discipline if they did so. Sept. 9, 1933 Cardinal Pacelli lodges a confidential protest with the German government against persecution of Catholics of Jewish descent. English translation Sept. 10, 1933 Vatican-Germany Concordat is ratified by the Vatican and the German Reich. Within days, the Nazi regime suppresses Catholic newspapers and associations in Germany. Oct. 15, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano publishes enthusiastic statements about the Nazi regime from three prominent Catholic prelates, followed by articles about an Arab protest against Jewish immigration in Palestine, and about protection of Jews in Germany. English translations The same page features articles entitled “Arab Agitation in Jerusalem” and “For the Protection of the Jews” Oct. 21, 1933 Hitler withdraws Germany from the League of Nations. Nov. 4, 1933 Civiltà Cattolica article on the Concordat calls it “a new event in the history of the Church” and says what is most important is Germany’s national re-organization, from a religious perspective especially, as well as the social restoration, which is most urgent since the worldwide upheaval of these past two decades and the fearsome advance of the Bolshevik and Communist tempest, which already broke upon Germany, threatening European Christian civilization itself with the peril of a new barbarism.” English translation Italian original: pages 217; 218; 219; 220; 221; 222; 223; 224; 225; 226; 227; 228; 229 Nov. 12, 1933 Referendum in Germany confirms Hitler’s decision to withdraw from the League of Nations, with 95% in favor. Nov. 18, 1933 Civiltà Cattolica article on the Concordat describes a “great moment” for Germany and all of Christian Europe, furthering a religious and civil “program of reconciliation and restoration” in Germany, and offering a model for other countries concerned to combat Communism and Bolshevism. English translation Italian original: pages 331; 332; 333; 334; 335; 336; 337; 338; 339; 340; 341; 342; 343; 344; 345; 346 Nov. 24, 1933 Letters written by German Bishops show that the Vatican is making the decisions concerning any issue that is a “causa major” including issues arising under the Vatican-Germany Concordat. English translations Nov. 24, 1933 Catholic paper in northern Germany quotes Bishop Berning of Osnabrück on Catholics’ duty of “true adherence to the Führer” and Catholics’ “cultural assets for the upbuilding of the Volksgemeinschaft.” English translation of Bishop Berning’s remarks Dec. 3-10-17-24-31, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber delivers a series of Advent and St. Sylvester homilies to overflow crowds in the largest church in Munich, St. Michael’s, denouncing aspects of Nazi ideology that reject the Old Testament and demonize Judaism of pre-Christian times. These sermons are soon thereafter published as a book, Judentum Christentum Germanentum (Munich: Huber, 1934), and published in English that same year as Judaism, Christianity and Germany (New York: Macmillan, 1934). 1934 Jan. 24, 1934 Hitler appoints Alfred Rosenberg as head of ideological and intellectual formation for the Nazi Party. Details about Rosenberg, his antisemitic and anti-Christian views, and Vatican reaction against him Jan. 30, 1934 Nazi regime institutes memorial day with display of tricolor and swastika flags nationwide, on anniversary of Hitler coming to power. Details of conflict with Catholic Bishops who resist displaying swastika flags on churches on memorial days Feb. 6, 1934 In Paris, demonstrations by far-right groups including the Croix de Feu against the Cartel des Gauches [left-wing coalition] parliamentary government are violently suppressed, and prime minister Edouard Deladier resigns the next day to be replaced by conservative Gaston Doumergue. Nelis (2015), p. 164. Feb. 7, 1934 Cardinal Karl Schulte, Archbishop of Cologne, meets with Hitler and complains about Rosenberg. Schulte’s report of his meeting with Hitler The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, denounces Rosenberg hours after Schulte-Hitler meeting, in article "A Book of Odious Falsity for German Youth" Feb. 19, 1934 Vatican Nuncio Orsenigo visits the German Foreign Office to complain about requirements to display swastika flags on churches. German official’s memo describing the meeting Mar. 2, 1934 Pope Pius XI tells Cardinal Pacelli the Vatican cannot side either with the Arabs or with the Zionists in Palestine. Source: Ventresca (2013), p.70, quoting in translation from Pacelli’s notes of audience of Feb. 19 and Mar. 2, 1934, Vatican Secret Archives, AES, Stati Ecclesiastici, IV Periodo, P.O. 430b, fasc. 360, and P.O. 430a, fasc. 349. Mar. 6, 1934 Nazi official writes to Rector of Munich Cathedral objecting to failure to display swastika flag on recent memorial day. Excerpt of letter in English translation Mar. 14, 1934 German Government officially protests reluctance of German Bishops to display swastika flags. Excerpt of diplomatic note from German Government to Vatican in English translation April 1934 Pope Pius XI extends the 1933-1934 Holy Year for an additional year. May 1, 1934 Austria-Vatican Concordat is ratified. Austrian ruler Engelbert Dollfuss is praised by Cardinal Pacelli for reconstructing the Austrian state “on the basis of traditional loyalty to Christ and his Church.” Besier and Piombo, The Holy See and Hitler’s Germany (2007), p.90. May 14, 1934 Vatican responds to German note of March 14 and defends German Bishops’ resistance to swastika. Cardinal Pacelli’s response states: “Beginning on the day when the swastika is no longer connected by its partisan champions with meanings and missions whose anti-Christian tendency offends the faithful, the resistance based on religious considerations will diminish of its own accord.” May and early June 1934 Cardinal Pacelli sends a total of ten diplomatic protest notes to the German Government. Summary of diplomatic notes May 4 through June 14 June 6, 1934 German Bishops Conference prepares a joint pastoral letter, but delays publication during negotiations over implementation of the Concordat. English translation June 17, 1934 German Vice Chancellor Franz von Papen gives a speech expressing loyalty to Hitler while criticizing some currents in the Nazi movement. Coverage of Papen’s Marburg speech in L’Osservatore Romano and in Civiltà Cattolica June 19, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano reports on a speech by Hitler stating his peaceful intentions. English translation Civiltà Cattolica’s coverage of same speech June 22, 1934 In the wake of Papen’s Marburg speech, L’Osservatore Romano reports on page one that Papen remains Vice Chancellor. “There are reports that von Papen on Monday placed his government position at the disposal of Hitler, who immediately refused to consider the possibility of his leaving the government in consequence of the events of last Sunday [June 17].” June 27, 1934 Hitler meets with three-Bishop negotiating committee and says he wants to reach agreement for implementation of the Concordat. Bishop Berning’s report of the meeting in English translation June 29, 1934 Nazi regime and German Bishops reach agreement on implementation of the Concordat. Catholic associations that are purely religious, charitable or cultural, and are under the umbrella of Catholic Action, supervised by the hierarchy, will be protected. Other Catholic associations will be dissolved and their assets folded into Catholic Action. June 29, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano’s front page lead story denounces Soviet Union for falsely proclaiming peaceful intentions. Italian original with translation superimposed June 30, 1934 Hitler’s henchmen kill the SA’s leadership and many others on Hitler’s kill list, including Erich Klausener of Catholic Action and a number of other prominent Catholics, in the “Night of the Long Knives.” Reaction of Vatican Nuncio and Bishops in Berlin Coverage in L’Osservatore Romano July 3-15, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano covers the Night of the Long Knives and its aftermath with no critical words toward Hitler. English translations July 4, 1934 Cardinal Pacelli sends two diplomatic notes to the German Government. One note protests a ban on German seminarians studying in Innsbruck, Austria; the second note says it is urgent that the Holy See receive a response to the earlier note of May 9th concerning pressures on Catholic students to engage in swordfighting and dueling. July 13, 1934 Hitler speaks to the Reichstag and defends his decision to kill dozens of persons to protect the Reich. Coverage in L’Osservatore Romano and in Civiltà Cattolica July 13-15, 1934 Newspapers throughout Argentina cover decision by Government of Buenos Aires Province prohibiting public display of the swastika flag. Press clippings from German Embassy file in English translation July 18, 1934 German Ambassador seeks approval of Argentine Foreign Minister for display of swastika flag jointly with German tricolor. Translated memorandum from Ambassador Thermann to Foreign Minister Carlos Saavedra Lamas The Argentine Foreign Minister responded that the Buenos Aires Province decision will have no effect. July 18, 1934 Cardinal Pacelli sends protest note concerning adverse changes in the regulation of Catholic denominational schools in Germany. English translation July 20, 1934 Hitler publicly thanks the SS (Schutzstaffel, under Heinrich Himmler) for the “great services” they rendered in the Night of the Long Knives and elevates the SS to equality with the SA, with both reporting directly to Hitler. July 25, 1934 Nazi coup attempt in Vienna fails, but kills Austrian ruler Engelbert Dollfuss. Front page coverage in L’Osservatore Romano; Italian original with translations of headlines and excerpts July 28, 1934 Hitler appoints Papen as special ambassador to Vienna in a move that helps quell international outrage over the Nazis’ assassination of Dollfuss. Front page coverage in L’Osservatore Romano July 31, 1934 German Ambassador to Vatican cables Berlin that the Pope has been “deeply affected” by news of the shooting of leading Catholics in Germany and Chancellor Dollfuss in Austria. English translation Aug. 1, 1934 Hitler’s Cabinet decrees that he will automatically assume the office of Reich President upon the death of President Hindenburg. Aug. 2, 1934 President Hindenburg dies. All military personnel are required to take an oath of loyalty to Hitler rather than, as before, to the German Constitution. Text of oath Aug. 4, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano focuses extensively on developments in Germany: Front page headlines about death of Hindenburg; Hitler as “New Head of the Reich”; Change of the Constitution; Plebiscite to Ratify that Change; and Army’s New Loyalty Oath to Hitler Front page article about implications of Hitler gaining absolute power: “No one could now prevent Hitler from completely carrying out the famous program of February 23, 1920. The original idea of National Socialism, proclaimed at the outset of the movement, will enter into a decisive phase of realization.” Italian original: page one. Compare Reuth (1996), p. 274 description of Hitler’s power after death of Hindenburg: “Jetzt, im Besitz der totalen Macht, verfügte er über die Voraussetzung, um seinen Kampf gegen das 'Weltjudentum’ aufzunehmen.” Compare “originally pure spring” of Nazism in 1924 and 1925 with statement of “original idea of National Socialism” published or reprinted by the Vatican in its newspaper in 1934. Page two of L’OR: publication in Italian of the German Bishops’ pastoral letter of June 7, 1934; English translation Aug. 4, 1934 Civiltà Cattolica reports that a “great impression” was made internationally by Hitler’s appointment of Papen. The article also recited Hitler’s professions of peaceful intent toward Austria, vol. 3, p.444. Aug. 10, 1934 Pro-Nazi priest Abbot Albanus Schachleiter, O.S.B. meets with Hitler. Excerpts from Cardinal Faulhaber’s report to Cardinal Pacelli about the meeting Aug. 17, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano reports two days before the plebiscite that “Hitler has boundless confidence” and will increase his authority “prodigiously.” English translation Aug. 19, 1934 German nationwide referendum confirms Hitler’s usurpation of the office of President. Almost 90% vote Yes. Aug. 19, 1934 Völkischer Beobachter publishes a statement by Bishop Berning of Osnabrück saying that all Germans have an obvious duty to vote Yes. English translation Aug. 21, 1934 Bishop Berning writes a letter to all German Catholic Bishops regretting the undue pressure that the publication of his statement placed upon the consciences of Catholics. English translation Aug. 30, 1934 Criterio, Catholic journal in Buenos Aires, publishes article about Nazi persecution of Catholic Church, along with German Bishops’ pastoral letter of June 1934. English translation Sept. 2, 1934 Pacelli sends note to German Government saying what the Reich is offering to the Church is less than what the Concordat requires. Excerpt in English translation Sept. 5-10, 1934 Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. L’Osservatore Romano’s daily coverage of Hitler and the Nazi Party Congress, Sept. 5-12, 1934 Note: The ringing of church bells for Hitler upon his arrival in Nuremberg, described by L’Osservatore Romano in the Sept. 5 and 6 editions, was an honor that had been refused by Bavarian Bishops for the 80th birthday of German President Hindenburg in 1927 and for the annual celebration of the Weimar Republic Constitution on August 11th during the 1920s. Sept. 6, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano praises Mussolini for publishing an article the previous month on the question: “Is the White Race Dying Out?” Headings in the article include: “One Must Congratulate Mr. Mussolini,” “The Divine Is Necessary,” and “Mussolini Understood That.” Sept. 7, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano runs a non-critical article entitled “Nazi Art: Hitler Reaffirms the New Esthetic of Blood and Race.” English translation Sept. 12, 1934 Vatican Nuncio Orsenigo heads diplomatic delegation calling on Hitler in Berlin. Coverage in L’Osservatore Romano Sept. 13, 1934 Hitler calls on Orsenigo at the Vatican Nunciature in Berlin. Coverage in the Völkischer Beobachter Sept. 18, 1934 Nazi Reich Bishop Müller gives a speech calling for a united German church "free from Rome": “The goal we are fighting for is one State, one Volk, one church!” Sept. 23, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano reports that Reich Bishop Müller has denied, or retracted, the words attributed to him the previous week about one German church. English translation Sept. 28, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano states the “mission” of Germany against Bolshevism, from the mouth of Bishop Hudal, in an article juxtaposed with a photograph of Cardinal Pacelli. English translation Historians have recognized the centrality to Hitler’s ideology of the “mission” to be a bulwark against Bolshevism. E.g., Waddington (2007), pp. 1-11 and historians cited therein. No historian yet identified has mentioned this Vatican article about Germany’s mission, or the similar statement of that mission in the 1937 Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge. Sept. 30, 1934 Archbishop Santiago Luis Copello blesses the swastika flag in Buenos Aires. English translation of article in La Prensa, Oct. 1, 1934 Spanish original The only known photograph of this swastika-blessing ceremony appeared 10 months later in Nazi Germany, as seen here. Oct. 1934 Bishop Hudal meets with Pius XI and discusses proposal for book on the Foundations of National Socialism. Excerpts of Hudal’s memoirs, translated Oct. 9-16, 1934 Cardinal Pacelli visits Buenos Aires for the 32nd International Eucharistic Congress. L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage of Cardinal Pacelli’s arrival Oct. 11, 1934 German Ambassador to Vatican, Diego von Bergen, has an audience with Pope Pius XI. Bergen’s report to Berlin about the meeting, including the Pope’s comment about the Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires and his concern that a schismatic German National Catholic Church is being formed. Oct. 14, 1934 Cardinal Pacelli celebrates Pontifical Mass with swastika flag in honored position near altar, and Pope Pius XI addresses the million-strong crowd via loudspeakers. SwastikaFlagAtPontificalMass Swastika Flag at Central Cross of Eucharistic Congress Documentation in the form of photographs, Buenos Aires newspaper coverage, and the Official Proceedings of the 32nd International Eucharistic Congress. Because this Pontifical Mass was celebrated during the extended Holy Year of 1933-1935, by the Pope’s Legate a Latere, attendees could receive indulgences same as a Holy Year pilgrimage to Rome. Photo of Pius XI speaking to crowd by radio-telephone connection Oct. 16, 1934 Cardinal Pacelli goes on an airplane ride with German Ambassador Edmund von Thermann and Archbishop Copello. Thermann’s account of his interactions with Pacelli, in post-War Allied interrogation report Photograph of Pacelli disembarking from German plane from La Prensa, Oct. 17, 1934, p.17 Oct. 17, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano’s front page is devoted to the Eucharistic Congress, including news that the Pope radio telephone speech to the Congress was broadcast by radio in Germany, and a news item about the relations between the Vatican and the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. English translation Oct. 20, 1934 Civiltà Cattolica publishes the first of a two-part series entitled “‘The Jewish Question’ and National Socialist Antisemitism,” endorsing some aspects of Nazi antisemitism and criticizing some others. English translation Oct. 31, 1934 Hitler reinstates two Lutheran Bishops who had been deposed by the Reich Bishop for refusing to accept his authority over a union of Protestant churches in Germany. Coverage by the Völkischer Beobachter, Nov. 1 Nov. 1, 1934 Bishop Hudal gives a sermon on All Saints Day in Rome on the topic, “The Führer Role of the Catholic Priesthood.” Excerpts of Bishop Hudal’s sermon from Cardinal Faulhaber’s files Nov. 2, 1934 Cardinal Pacelli arrives back in Italy as the Conte Grande docks in Genoa. Sr. Pascalina Lehnert’s postcard to a fellow nun, postmarked this day from Genoa, describes her trip as “himmlisch, aber für den Reisenden sehr anstrengend,” identifying her fellow travelers as Cardinal Pacelli, Ludwig Kaas, Pio Rossignani, the Cardinal’s nephew Giulio Pacelli, and the Cardinal’s niece Elena. Source: Postcard in the archives of the Barmherzigen Schwestern in Munich, quoted in Martha Schad, Gottes mächtige Dienerin (Munich: Herbig, 2007), pp. 67-68. Nov. 3, 1934 Civiltà Cattolica publishes the second part of “‘The Jewish Question’ and National Socialist Antisemitism,” claiming that Bolshevism “was in great part a creation of Judaism.” The article begins: “The worst and most inexcusable wrong of the antisemitic writers of the Handbook - of which we wrote in the article in our preceding issue - is their constant pertinacity in wanting to trample with the same accusations as Judaism, others who do not deserve it: the Popes, that is, and Catholics, as well as Catholicism as such.” The article goes on to quote approvingly: “the Jew as a danger to the human race.” Nov. 17, 1934 Civiltà Cattolica article reviews at length Bishop Hudal’s book Die Deutsche Kulturarbeit in Italien [German Cultural Activity in Italy] and describes Hudal as a German. English translation Dec. 26, 1934 Statement by German Bishops of the Cologne Catholic Church Province positing a duty of Catholics to "stand up for the greatness" of Germany in the upcoming referendum in the Saar, which will decide whether that former region of Germany will return to the German Reich. English translation Dec. 30, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano publishes an article praising a new book by Bishop Hudal. The article highlights Hudal’s statement that Rome and Catholicism are consistent with rather than incompatible with the “German race.” Excerpts from Hudal’s book Rom, Christentum and Deutsches Volk [Rome, Christianity and the German Volk], in English translation 1935 Jan. 8, 1935 Goebbels praises Catholic Bishops for telling Catholics to support the return of the Saar to Germany. Völkischer Beobachter’s coverage of Goebbels’ statement, in translation Jan. 13, 1935 Saar residents cast more than 90% of their votes for returning to Germany rather than for continued League of Nations rule or French rule. Jan. 15, 1935 Pope Pius XI writes a letter to Hitler. English translation Jan. 1935 Exiled German Catholic philosophy professor Dietrich von Hildebrand has an audience with Cardinal Pacelli in Rome. Excerpt of Hildebrand’s memoirs about Pacelli saying it is important that “the moderate elements” in Nazism gain the upper hand Feb. 2, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica reviews Bishop Hudal’s book Rome, Christianity and the German Volk. English translation Feb. 2, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica reports Nazi regime plans to ban marriage between “racial Aryans” and non-Aryans. English translation of article pre-figuring the Nuremberg Laws of September 1935 Mar. 1, 1935 Catholic Bishops of Trier and Speyer attend ceremony with Goebbels, celebrating return of the Saar to the German Reich. Mar. 12, 1935 Cardinal Pacelli writes a private letter to Cardinal Schulte, Archbishop of Cologne denouncing the Nazis. Excerpts of letter, in translation Mar. 16, 1935 Hitler institutes military draft in Germany, in violation of Versailles Treaty. Mar.-Apr. 1935 Cardinal Pacelli sends confidential diplomatic note to German Government protesting violation of secret addendum to Vatican-Germany Concordat. The secret addendum exempted Catholic clergy and seminarians from military service in the event of a German military draft, while requiring that they be available for chaplain or other non-combatant services. The provision is reprinted in L. Volk, Das Reichskonkordat vom 20. Juli 1933 (1972), pp. 244, 254. Apr. 28, 1935 Cardinal Pacelli speaks critically of Nazi ideology at Lourdes in France. Pacelli’s remarks condemn totalitarian systems, both those based on “superstition of race and blood” and those pursuing “social revolution.” Source: Halecki, p.79, O’Shea, p.126. Apr. 1935 Nazi regime announces intent to put an end to the Catholic youth movement in Germany, and the Catholic labor movement. Source: Conway, pp. 123, 125. May 21, 1935 Nazi regime officially decrees that Jews cannot serve in the German military. May 1935 Nazi regime begins criminal prosecutions against Catholic clergy and nuns for alleged violations of Germany’s restrictions on sending funds outside the country. July 1935 Nazi demonstrations are held against Catholic Bishops in Münster, Trier and Paderborn. Source: Conway, p.127. July 16, 1935 Nazi regime appoints Hanns Kerrl as the top Government official for church affairs. July 15-21, 1935 Der Stürmer publishes the only known photograph of Archbishop Copello’s swastika blessing ceremony of September 30, 1934: Swastika Blessing Photograph “An Archbishop Blesses the Swastika Banner” Caption: “At the Cathedral in Buenos Aires Archbishop Dr. Luis Copello blesses the Swastika Flag of the German Pilgrim Group that had gone to the Eucharistic Congress in Argentina. This ceremony was attended by the German Ambassador and the Argentine Foreign Minister” Source: Der Stürmer, 1935, no. 29, third week of July 1935. Full page with photograph and translations of headlines Full page plain Translations of articles in this issue of the Stürmer An article to the right of the photo on this page entitled “Who Governs Russia?” contains the same exaggerated statistics about Jewish predominance in Soviet governing positions, 447 out of 545 (or, rounded, 550) officials supposedly being Jews, as the extraordinary propaganda piece that appeared in Civiltà Cattolica on Oct. 21, 1922. It is not known whether the same statistics appeared in any other source in the interim. The citation given in the Stürmer article appears to be false. The same page of the Stürmer includes Jewish-Masonic-Communist conspiracy theory, referring to “the affair of Jews, Freemasons and Jews' lackeys [Communists].” See Full Page, “Der Hitlerjugendführer gibt die rechte Antwort.” As summarized on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website, Nazi propaganda repeatedly linked Jews and Masons, and the Stürmer regularly published cartoons and articles portraying a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy. Stürmer display case July 31, 1935 Nuncio Orsenigo visits the German Foreign Office to protest material appearing at the Stürmer display case in the neighborhood of the Nunciature. Translation of memorandum of visit prepared by an official in the German Foreign Office July 1935 Cardinal Pacelli sends a total of 14 diplomatic protest notes to the German Government during the 6-month period from Jan. 26 to July 26, 1935, and none thereafter until Nov. 1935. Aug. 3, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica enthusiastically reviews a new two-part antisemitic novel, with titles El Kahal and Oro, by the Argentine head of the Press and Public Relations Committee for the 1934 International Eucharistic Congress, which presents for Argentina a terrifying version of the Jewish-Communist myth and the Protocols. English translation of Civiltà Cattolica article Cover of novel El Kahal: El Kahal cover Table of Contents of El Kahal Cover of novel Oro El Kahal and Oro explicitly use the serpent as the symbol of the world Jewish plot exposed in the Protocols, arousing fear and hatred toward world Jewry that is targeting Argentina in its long-developing plot to destroy Christianity and take over the world. Aug. 4, 1935 Nazi propaganda chief Goebbels gives a speech in Essen, Germany on Church-State relations. Excerpts of speech in translation Aug. 4, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a front page article on “The Religious Situation in Germany.” Translated excerpts Aug. 17, 1935 Nazi regime orders all Masonic Lodges dissolved and their assets confiscated. Reinhard Heydrich, head of security police under Himmler, declares his intent to wipe out not only Jews and Masons, but also the “Jewish, liberal, and Masonic infectious residue that remains in the unconscious of many, above all in the academic and intellectual world.” Source: “Freemasonry under the Nazi Regime,” US Holocaust Memorial Museum, www.ushmm.org. Also on Aug. 17th, Civiltà Cattolica publishes article on “The Religious Persecution in Germany.” English translation Aug. 25, 1935 German Bishops’ joint pastoral letter is read from pulpits throughout Germany. The Nazi regime allows this, unlike 1934 when the regime banned the Bishops’ annual pastoral letter. The 1935 pastoral letter contains this passage: "The Catholic Church’s marriage laws, such as prohibition of marriage between close relatives and prohibition of barbaric divorce, have been an infinite blessing for the purity of blood and the hereditary health of the family. It would be morally fatal to consider marriage, contrary to Christian laws, only from the standpoint of maintaining the purity of the race. It would be a terrible affront to German honor, in front of the whole world, if the old watchword of Communism about the equal value of maternity within marriage and outside marriage were to be taken up again and promoted among the people ..." Aug. 1935 German Bishops jointly issue an assurance that the oath of obedience to Hitler for government functionaries is acceptable for Catholics without any special reservation or restriction. The oath states: "I will be faithful and obedient to the Führer of the German Reich and Volk, Adolf Hitler; I will observe the laws and conscientiously fulfill the duties with which I am charged." The Bishops’ statement explains that a solemn oath before God never contains, by its nature, anything in contradiction with one’s obligations to God. German press gives extensive coverage to a new Bishop, Preysing of Berlin, taking his oath of loyalty to the German Government. Source: La Documentation Catholique, Sept. 28, 1935, pp. 404-410. French original of cover and précis of articles, pages 403-404, pages 405-406, and pages 409-410 Aug. 1935 Bishop Hudal gives lectures in Salzburg, Austria that are published in book form as Der Vatikan und die Modernen Staaten Excerpts of book in translation Sept. 1935 Special Edition of Der Stürmer for the upcoming Nazi Party Congress devotes two dozen pages to the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory. Excerpts in English translation Sept. 7, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica covers Nazi regime persecution of Catholic youth groups and describes a growing pattern of violence against Jews in Germany. English translation Sept. 13, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano covers the opening of the Nazi Party’s annual Congress in Nuremberg, including extensive quotations from Hitler’s speeches and a description of the prominent role of Julius Streicher, editor of the Stürmer. English translation Sept. 14, 1935 Goebbels delivers a major speech equating Judaism with Communism, on the eve of Germany enacting the antisemitic Nuremberg Laws at the Nazi Party Congress. The Völkischer Beobachter publishes the entire hour-long speech. Excerpts in translation and German original: pages one; 2; 4 On the same day, Nuncio Orsenigo in Berlin sends a communiqué to Cardinal Pacelli in Rome about the upcoming Nuremberg Laws. Excerpt in translation Sept. 15, 1935 The Nuremberg Laws declare the swastika the national flag of Germany, strip all Jews of German citizenship, and prohibit marriage and sexual relations between Jews and Aryans. On the same day, L’Osservatore Romano summarizes Goebbels’ Sept. 14 speech about Jewish-Communism, commenting that “Germany and its Leader are carrying out a mission for which all the nations should be grateful” [la Germania e il suo Capo compiono una missione di cui devono esser grate tutte le nazioni], a mission against the gravity of the danger that Jewish-inspired communism represents for their culture and their existence [contro la gravità del pericolo che il comunismo, di ispirazione ebraica, rappresenta per la loro cultura e la loro esistenza]. English translation Italian original (as received by Harvard library in 1935) Italian original (as received by the Banca Piccolo Credito of Bergamo, Italy in 1935 and maintained today in the Bergamo library) Italian version from CD provided more recently to librarians and historians, with article about Goebbels’ speech moved to page 8 and text from page 8 moved into its place on page 1 Sept. 16, 1935 Völkischer Beobachter publishes the text of the three-part Nuremberg Laws. German original: pages one and two Sept. 17, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano publishes the text of the Nuremberg Laws and a detailed report of Hitler’s speech explaining their rationale in terms of defending against Jewish-Communist revolution. English translation L’Osservatore Romano criticizes Hitler for restricting preaching by priests on issues of morality and doctrine, which is “annihilating the Gospel.” Sept. 18. 1935 L’Osservatore Romano covers Hitler’s speech to German troops at Nuremberg. English translation of Hitler’s remarks about “indestructible faith,” sacrifice, “salvation” of Germany, and duty of obedience L’Osservatore Romano article about rollout of swastika flag in German merchant marine Sept. 18, 1935 Völkischer Beobachter runs page one headlines accusing Catholic associations in Germany of being under the control of Moscow. English translation of headlines Sept. 19, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano reports that the German law prohibiting marriages between Aryans and Jews will have effects in the Netherlands. English translation Sept. 20, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano reports on new implementing regulations for display of the swastika flag. English translation Sept. 21, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano reports that Jews are now considered foreign visitors in Germany without a homeland. English translation Sept. 24, 1935 Bishop Hudal’s book The Vatican and Modern States, containing a concise formulation of the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory, receives an imprimatur from Catholic authority in Austria. Excerpt in English translation Sept. 25, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano reports Hitler being “extolled” by Rudolf Hess for “the work realized with the new decrees.” English translation Oct. 5, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica covers the Nazi Party Congress. English translation Nov. 17, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano reports on new German implementing regulations for the Nuremberg Laws. English translation Dec. 7, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica reports the names of Catholic prelates who will be elevated to Cardinal at an upcoming Consistory in Rome, including Santiago Luis Copello [Italian: Giacomo Luigi Copello], Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Dec. 16, 1935 Archbishop Copello is elevated to Cardinal by Pope Pius XI in Rome. Dec. 25, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano reports that a Jewish leader in Germany approves the Nuremberg Laws. English translation Dec. 28, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, back page: A typical advertisement for subscriptions to L’Osservatore Romano, in which the newspaper describes itself as “Faithful Interpreter of Papal Directives” 1936 Feb. 4, 1936 Wilhelm Gustloff, founder of the Nazi Party’s foreign organization in Switzerland, is assassinated at his home by David Frankfurter, a Croatian Jew. Feb. 6, 1936 Winter Olympics open in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. Also on Feb. 6th, L’Osservatore Romano’s lead article denounces “propagandists of hatred” in Europe: Soviet Communist ones. English translation Feb. 23, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano headlines an “Antisemitic Speech by Goebbels,” saying that with “impressive words” he “spoke of the world enemy [nemico mondiale], the Jew,” and citing burnings of churches in Spain as evidence of the international reach of “Jewish intrigue.” The Vatican paper adds a critical comment at the end, about Goebbels’ claim that order prevails in Germany, objecting that he must be overlooking what is happening in the German judicial system. English translation Mar. 7, 1936 German Army enters the Rhineland, German territory west of the Rhine River, in violation of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 and the Locarno Pact of 1925, with no adverse consequences. Mar. 17, 1936 An Osservatore Romano commentary stresses the importance of fidelity to agreements in the midst of the international controversy over the Rhineland militarization. Historian Robert Ventresca interprets this article as a “clear message to the Germans about the immorality of their violation of a key provision of the Versailles Treaty.” Ventresca (2013), p.98. The Vatican commentary concludes with a paragraph about the great and growing peril of Communism. English translation Germany’s commitment to fighting this peril was repeatedly highlighted to readers of L’Osservatore Romano before and after this time. March 1936 Cardinal Hlond of Poland issues a Lenten Pastoral Letter referring to the “Jewish problem” and calling the Jews “the vanguard of godlessness, of the Bolshevik movement, and of subversive action.” Source: Saul Friedländer, Nazi Germany and the Jews, Vol. 1, The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939 (1997), pp. 216-217. May 1936 In Spain, a left-wing Popular Front coalition comes to power, comprising Communists, Socialists and Republicans, after winning national parliamentary elections earlier in 1936. Also in May, the Nazi regime begins “morality trials” against German Catholic clergy. Source: Besier and Piombo, p.143. Also in May, Archbishop Gröber and Cardinal Faulhaber recommend Bishop Hudal to Helene Froelicher, envoy of the American Christian Committee for German Refugees, as the person to head an office in Rome to help Catholics who were forced to leave Germany because of Jewish heritage or opposition to the Nazi regime. Besier and Piombo, p.136. June 4, 1936 Léon Blum, a Jew and a Socialist, becomes Prime Minister of France, at the head of the Popular Front coalition of left-wing parties, including the Socialists, Communists, Radical Socialists and Socialist Republicans. June 19, 1936 Franz von Papen meets with Hitler and Goebbels to present a prepublication copy of Bishop Hudal’s book The Foundations of National Socialism and to solicit Hitler’s support for the book’s proposals. Source: Goebbels Diary, vol.3, p.962 The book contains a passage stating that Catholics have no reason to defend Jews because they are responsible for Communism. English translation of passage July 11, 1936 Austria and Nazi Germany enter into the “July Agreement” declaring friendly relations and saying that Austria regards itself as a German State. Shortly after, L’Osservatore Romano publishes the full text of a joint German-Austrian statement about the agreement. Italian original Also on July 11th, L’Osservatore Romano runs a lead article mentioning Bishop Hudal as a co-founder of the organization Pax Romana [Roman Peace] and raising the issue of Austria’s role in promoting Catholic, Christian civilization. Italian original Summer 1936 Nazi regime commences and publicizes “morality trials” against Catholic clerics for alleged sexual abuse of minors. July 17, 1936 Spanish Civil War begins, when British pilots fly General Franco from Canary Islands to lead uprising from Spanish Morocco. Nazi Germany immediately supports Franco, providing a fleet of JU-52 aircraft to transport Franco’s army from Morocco to Spain. Hitler continues to provide war materiel and training from late July onward; later in the war, German units such as the Condor Legion engage in combat operations against Spanish government forces. Aug. 1, 1936 Olympic Games open in Berlin, and Nazi regime temporarily stops anti-Jewish propaganda. Friedländer (1997), pp. 180-181. Sept. 8, 1936 Anti-Comintern exhibit opens in Nuremberg. The opening address by Goebbels’ deputy proclaims that “all important posts in Moscow, as also all agent posts in the Red world network of the Communist International, are in the hands of Jews. Wherever the Jew appears, he shows that he is the grave-digger of nations. The events in Spain are the most recent proof of this.” German original of article, “World Enemy No. 1 - World Bolshevism,” Völkischer Beobachter, Sept. 9, 1936. Sept. 9-10, 1936 At the annual Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, Hitler and Goebbels present Germany’s war in Spain as a defensive action against international Jewish Communism. Hitler says Bolshevism seeks to “subject the Aryan peoples to foreign Jewish elements ... Just as in Russia 98% of the entire current leadership of the Soviet and commune republics is in the hands of Jews ... so we are experiencing in recent weeks, as Marxism in Spain begins to rage, the same process of striking down and rooting out the racially appropriate völkisch and governmental leadership in Spain, by means of Jewry, partly native there and partly coming from other countries...” Goebbels develops the theme of international Jewish Communism threatening Spain, by means of examples such as Bela Kun allegedly going to Spain, and insinuations such as, “How does it come about that the Popular Front government in Spain thanks a Soviet Jew for the support of French Communists?” Excerpts of Hitler’s speech and Goebbels’ speech, translated from Völkischer Beobachter, Sept. 11, 1936. Sept. 12, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano gives front page, uncritical coverage to Goebbels’ speech about the threat of Jewish Communism. The Vatican paper quotes Goebbels at length, including his statement that Bolshevism is a “crazed pathological and criminal invention of the Jews for the purpose of destroying the peoples of western civilization, to subject them to an international Jewish dominion.” Italian original Sept. 13, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano’s lead article carries headlines “The Anti-Communism of Nuremberg - The National Socialist Congress - The struggle against Communism as the motive of German foreign policy ...” The lead article reminds readers, without criticism, that Nazism considers Communism to be a “Jewish phenomenon.” Another article on the same front page quotes Hitler at length, as he emphasizes the “spiritual transformation” of Germany, concluding with his call for peace and his denunciation of “Jewish Bolshevism,” all under the headline, “The Great Agreement Among Nazi Political Leaders at Nuremberg.” Italian original of front page Sept. 13th Excerpts in English translation Sept. 14, 1936 Pope Pius XI gives an audience to 500 Spanish exiles at Castel Gandolfo and addresses the Spanish Civil War. Griech-Polelle (2015), p. 226 Sept. 16, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano devotes three columns to Hitler’s concluding remarks and ceremonies at Nuremberg. Emphasizing Hitler’s commitment to fighting Communism, the article includes this passage from his Sept. 9 speech: “Bolshevism can no longer deny that in Russia 98 percent of the governing positions are in the hands of the Jews ...” Italian original Excerpts in English translation Oct. 1, 1936 Cardinal Pacelli sets sail from Italy for the United States, the first time a Vatican Secretary of State has visited North America. Oct. 3, 1936 Civiltà Cattolica article on “The Jewish Question” explains at length that, though seeming contradictory at first, it is true that the Jews control both capitalism and Communism. English translation The article claims that “the most recent revolutionary leaders of modern socialism and bolshevism are all Jews.” Kertzer (2014), p.211. Kertzer comments on the absurdity of claiming Jewish control of Russia from the mid-1920s to 1930s, i.e., the Stalin era, pp. 211-212. Civiltà Cattolica also reports uncritically Hitler’s words about Jewish-Communist world conspiracy at the 1936 Nazi Party Congress. “The Hebrew revolutionary headquarters is preparing the world revolution with indefatigable tenacity”; ... “Bolshevism cannot deny that in Russia 98 percent of the governing positions are in the hands of Hebrews ...” Full translation Immediately following, Civiltà Cattolica reports “disguised emissaries of the Jews from Moscow” controlling the World Congress of Youth for Peace in Geneva. English translation Oct. 4, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano reports the arrest in Warsaw of 40 Jewish Communist agitators. English translation Oct. 8, 1936 Cardinal Pacelli lands in New York City. He spends the next month visiting the major cities of the US, meeting with prominent figures in the Church and American life, while inviting Italian government representatives to multiple high level meetings. Speculation abounds in the American press about what if anything Cardinal Pacelli will do about Father Charles Coughlin, the “radio priest” who regularly attacks President Roosevelt in broadcasts heard by tens of millions of Americans, and who earlier in 1936 co-founded the Union Party to run a populist and isolationist campaign for Congressman William Lemke against President Roosevelt and Republican Alf Landon in the 1936 US presidential campaign. Coughlin’s radio broadcasts up to 1936 featured attacks on financiers and Wall Street without prominent antisemitic emphasis and without allegations of Judeo-Communist conspiracy. Oct. 25, 1936 Germany and Italy enter into a treaty of friendship, which Mussolini refers to the next month as creating an “axis.” Oct. 28, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano reports another group of 18 Communist leaders arrested in Warsaw, who are “almost all Jews.” English translation Oct. 30, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano reports a protest in South Africa against Jewish immigrants entering the country. The article quotes a protest leaflet saying that Jews already in South Africa send large amounts of money to finance “the plans of the Jews in all the world.” English translation Nov. 3, 1936 President Franklin D. Roosevelt (61%) overwhelmingly wins popular vote over Republican Alf Landon (37%) and a third-party candidate (2%) promoted by radio priest Charles Coughlin. Nov. 4, 1936, 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Cardinal Faulhaber meets with Hitler at Hitler’s retreat in the Bavarian Alps, on the slopes of the Obersalzberg mountain overlooking the town of Berchtesgaden. English translation of Faulhaber’s report to Pacelli Papen meets again with Hitler this day about Hudal’s book, with Bormann and Goebbels in attendance. Source: Goebbels’ Diary. Nov. 5, 1936 Cardinal Pacelli has a two-hour luncheon meeting with the US President at Roosevelt’s Hyde Park, New York estate home. Pacelli repeatedly warns Roosevelt of the threat of a Communist takeover of the United States. Source: Gallagher, pp. 87-88; Kertzer (2014), p.250. Nov. 7, 1936 Father Coughlin announces in his weekly radio broadcast: “I am hereby withdrawing from all radio activity in the best interests of all the people.” Coughlin also announces that his National Union for Social Justice “hereby ceases to be active.” He denies that his Bishop or his superiors in Rome have anything to do with his decision. Coughlin and his Bishop, Michael James Gallagher of Detroit, had long resisted pressures from within the Catholic Church in the US to stop or moderate his intemperate radio attacks on President Roosevelt and other personalities. Also on Nov. 7th, L’Osservatore Romano reports that 40-50 Communists were just arrested in three cities in Romania, and the “majority of the arrestees are Jewish.” English translation Nov. 10, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano gives extensive coverage to the 13th anniversary of Hitler’s failed Beer Hall Putsch. Under the headline “For three and a half years German factories have worked day and night for the defense of the Country,” the Vatican paper covers Hitler’s speech at length, concluding with his statement that “Germany will be recognized by the rest of Europe as the strongest safeguard of human and European civilization.” English translation A second article on the same page describes Hitler, Goering, Hess and Streicher paying homage to the Nazis who fell in the 1923 Putsch. Above that article, the Vatican paper describes a “historic day” in the capital of Romania, where 100,000 people marched with an antisemitic leader against Bolshevism and “declared war on Communism, false democracy and Judaism.” Full English translation Nov. 13, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a notice disavowing sponsorship of Bishop Hudal’s book The Foundations of National Socialism. The same page contains a news report equating Jews and Communists in Hungary. English translation of both articles Italian original with superimposed English translations Nov. 25, 1936 Anti-Comintern pact is concluded between Germany and Japan. The two countries agree to cooperate against the Communist International (Comintern), and Germany agrees to recognize the Japanese puppet state “Manchukuo” in Japanese-occupied northeastern China. Shortly before the agreement, L’Osservatore Romano quotes Goebbels stating that Nazism, in contrast to Communism and Marxism, does not want to impose its ideology on other peoples but is preventing Communism from triumphing and menacing international peace. Italian original After the agreement, L’Osservatore Romano's lead article is headlined “Berlin-Tokyo against the Comintern,” with a summary of the agreement and supportive quotes from Goebbels. Italian original Dec. 1, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano quotes a speech by Soviet Commissar Molotov against antisemitism, in which he says that Marx was a Jew and that “Israelites in the U.S.S.R." have become “defenders of socialism.” Italian original Dec. 21, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano is quoted in the December 21, 1936 issue of Social Justice, praising Father Coughlin for being a priest “at the forefront of the campaign for reform” who “by his eloquence inspires and moves an immense number of followers, and keeps the politicians on their guard.” (p.11) Dec. 24, 1936 Christmas Eve joint pastoral letter of the German Bishops praises Hitler for his battle against Bolshevism and pledges the support of the Church. English translation Dec. 28, 1936 Father Charles Coughlin, while continuing to refrain from radio broadcasting, writes in his Social Justice weekly: “At the present moment it is our duty to lend every assistance possible to President Roosevelt and the administration.” (p.12) Dec. 30, 1936 Cardinal Faulhaber sends a copy of the German Bishops’ pastoral letter to Hitler, with a cover letter saying he had arranged the pastoral letter “consistent with our agreement” on November 4th. English translation 1937 Jan. 3, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano gives front page coverage to Hitler’s message to the Nazi Party and the German armed forces. In terms similar to the German Bishops’ pastoral letter, the article presents Hitler and Nazi Germany as “representing European civilization in the face of Bolshevik barbarism,” and Germany’s task for 1937 as “the continuation of the struggle against Bolshevism.” The article neither repeats nor retracts the notion that Bolshevism is closely related to Judaism. In addition to quoting these words from Hitler, the article presents Goebbels’ words about Germany’s achievements for peace and order. Italian original Jan. 5, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports that the German Bishops’ “joint pastoral letter against Bolshevism, signed by all the Catholic Bishops, was read yesterday in all the churches in the Reich.” Italian original Four days later, L’Osservatore Romano publishes excerpts of the pastoral letter, beginning with the passage praising Hitler for foreseeing the advance of Bolshevism and concentrating on the defense of “the German people and the entire West against this enormous peril.” Italian original Jan. 23, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports the formation of the “Blue Cross Movement” in Hungary, whose motto is “struggle against Bolshevism,” concluding that this organization will “fight against the Jews and Jewish influence in public life.” English translation Jan. 25, 1937 Goebbels notes in his diary that show trials in Soviet Russia continue to be directed against Jews such as Radek, that Hitler is wondering whether Stalin is antisemitic, and that the Soviet military is supposedly strongly antisemitic. Source: Friedländer (1997), pp. 185-186, quoting Goebbels, Tagebücher, pt. 1, vol. 3, p. 21. Jan. 31, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano’s front page reports on attacks on the Catholic Church in Germany and deep concerns of the German Bishops. English translation On the back page of the same issue, L’Osservatore Romano reports the enthusiastic reception given to Hitler in Berlin on the anniversary of his coming to power. English translation Feb. 2, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano cites the Nazi Party newspaper “pointing out the merit of Germany’s realistic policy that fully confronts the Bolshevik peril that menaces Europe.” English translation Feb. 7, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports a speech by Goebbels in which he says “it is essential to save western civilization from the peril represented by Asiatic-Jewish Bolshevism. No State should close its eyes in the face of this peril.” English translation Feb. 24, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports that the Arab press and the Jewish press in Palestine are denouncing, respectively, the “peril of Jewish Communism in Palestine” and “the perils of religious agnosticism and Bolshevism among Zionists in Palestine.” English translation Feb. 26, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports on the formation of a joint German-Austrian cultural committee, saying there is hope that a way will be found to “facilitate the Austro-German solidarity that the two peoples ardently desire.” Italian original Mar. 14, 1937 Papal Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge [With Burning Anxiety] subjects actions and policies of Nazi regime to strong criticism, while exhorting Nazi Germany to fulfill its God-given “mission,” and encouraging Germans to build a “true Volksgemeinschaft.” Excerpts in translation from the original German German original on Vatican website Vatican website’s English translation Also on March 14th, the official Nazi newspaper runs an article with the headline “Establishing a True Volksgemeinschaft.” German original of article in Völkischer Beobachter, Mar. 14, 1937, p.3. In Nazi ideology, Volksgemeinschaft meant community-solidarity of the German Volk, which by definition in the 1920 Party Program excluded Jews. Mar. 19, 1937 Divini Redemptoris, encyclical against Atheistic Communism, is issued. Excerpts in English translation Full English translation of encyclical on Vatican website Pope Pius XI does not explicitly follow the written advice of the Superior General of the Jesuits to allude in this encyclical to the dominant role of Jews in Communism. Pollard (2014), p.134, quoting Ledochowski, S.J., “Alcune Note Esplicative Sullo Schema dell’Enciclica sul Communismo,” Vatican Secret Archives, AES, IV Periodo, 548 571. But the Vatican newspaper makes a prominent point on April 14, 1937 that Jews control Soviet foreign policy, even while Stalin is purging some of the old Jewish Bolsheviks. This lead article also informs readers that, contrary to reports, Stalin is not antisemitic. The text of Divini Redemptoris includes veiled references to “enemies of the Church who from Moscow are directing the struggle against Christian civilization” and to the “yoke” imposed on the Russian people “by men who in very large part are strangers to the real interests of the country.” In light of material the Vatican published in its daily paper in the 1920s and 1930s, these references could reasonably be understood by knowledgeable readers as references to Jewish-Communism. The encyclical was in fact understood as a condemnation of Judaism along with Communism in Argentina, according to Ben-Dror (2008). Mar. 23, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano publishes Mit Brennender Sorge in German and Italian. The Italian translation uses the word missione in the exhortation to Germany to fulfill its God-given “mission.” Front page with German version of encyclical Page 3 with first part of Italian translation of encyclical Page 4 with final part of Italian translation of encyclical, including Germany’s “missione” at end of fourth to last paragraph. Apr. 14, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano’s lead article explains that while Stalin has removed Lenin’s largely Jewish old guard from power, Soviet foreign policy is still under Jewish control. English translation Stalin’s show trials in recent months against some Jewish Bolshevik figures such as Radek had raised the possibility, even in the minds of Hitler and Goebbels, that the Soviet Government was antisemitic rather than Jewish-controlled. Friedländer (1997), pp. 185-186 (quoting Goebbels’ diary and noting that nonetheless “the equation of Jewry and Bolshevism remained the fundamental guideline” in the Nazi Party and State). Apr. 15, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano prominently features Bishop Hudal declaring the “mission” of Austria: “safeguarding the union of Christianity in the name of Rome and of German-ness for the entire German people.” English translation of front page article Apr. 18, 1937 Bishop Hudal holds a position of honor as the opening speaker for a two-month series of conferences at the Catholic World Press Exhibition in Rome. L’Osservatore Romano gives Hudal daily front page coverage for an entire week. English translations Apr. 20, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano summarizes the Nazi Party newspaper’s denial of a Germany-Russia rapprochment, stating that Germany has timely recognized the threat of international Communism annihilating European culture. English translation May 1, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports on page one the trial, conviction, and sentencing to 11 years imprisonment of a German priest from the Peace League of German Catholics (Fr. Joseph Rossaint of the Friedensbund Deutscher Katholiken). Italian original May 4, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano publishes an article entitled “From Germany: Catholic Resistance,” focusing on a parish priest who is being attacked for his criticism of the Nazi regime. Italian original May 5, 1937 Front page articles in L’Osservatore Romano focus on Nazi persecution of the Church, and on priests who are World War One veterans and now “in the front line” defending the Church in Germany. Italian original May 12, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports on a new measure prohibiting German Jews from receiving university degrees. English translation May 26, 1937 Vatican appoints Edward Mooney, a veteran of the Vatican Secretariat of State, as Archbishop of Detroit, thus enhancing the ability to control Detroit’s radio priest Charles Coughlin. Mooney served 1926-1931 as the Vatican’s diplomatic representative (Apostolic Delegate) to India, and 1931-1933 in the same role to Japan. At the same time, the Vatican raises Detroit to an Archdiocese, and shortly afterward Mooney is visited by Giovanni Battista Montini, Pacelli’s deputy in the Secretariat of State (Sostituto for Ordinary Church Affairs), who later becomes Pope Paul VI. June 5, 1937 Civiltà Cattolica, in a lengthy piece on “The Jewish Question and Zionism,” explains in detail that Jewry controls both capitalism and Communism to achieve worldwide Jewish rule. English translation The article quotes a letter from Karl Marx to a “Baruch Lévy” as a greatly significant admission that Communism is a Jewish instrument to gain “supreme and absolute dominion of the Jewish race over the entire world.” The supposed Karl Marx letter was identifiably fraudulent at the time. The article called Marx a Jew without noting that he was baptized into the Lutheran Church as a child, or that he wrote negatively about Judaism. June 17, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a German Bishop’s statement about the morality trials conducted by Nazi Germany against some priests. English translation June 18, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports that most of the morality trials in Germany are against lay persons involved in teaching and health care. English translation June 22, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports a protest by the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne against arbitrary searches of his Archdiocesan offices by the Gestapo. English translation July 3, 1937 Civiltà Cattolica, in a lengthy article on the Jewish question, exhorts Christian countries to “stem the dual disruptive Jewish preponderances” over finance capitalism and revolutionary movements, while not resorting to antisemitism, which the Church condemns. Excerpts in translation Aug. 2, 1937 Archbishop Edward Mooney, a Vatican Secretariat of State veteran as former Apostolic Delegate to India and then to Japan, arrives in Detroit. Archbishop Mooney thus becomes the new superior of radio priest Charles Coughlin, who had ceased his radio broadcasts in November of the prior year. Aug. 10, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports the principled stand of a priest (Blessed Rupert Mayer, S.J.) in Munich who was put on trial for speaking out against Nazi regime policies. English translation Aug. 17, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports on the struggle against Christianity by the Nazi regime as preparations begin for the annual Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg. English translation Aug. 21, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports Cardinal Faulhaber’s words about the Nazi culture war against the Church in Germany, including his statement that “the time has come to speak.” English translation Sept. 8-15, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano covers the Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg with terse articles on the back page. English translations Unlike the previous year, the coverage omits Hitler’s and Goebbels’s equating of Soviet Communism with world Jewry even though, as Friedländer (1997) observes, the Nazi anti-Judeo-Bolshevik propagando crescendoed there. See pp. 183-185. In speeches at the 1937 Nazi Party Congress, Hitler claims that the leaders of Jewish-Bolshevism are seated in Moscow, that Jewish-Bolshevism threatens the “community of Europe’s civilized nations,” and that in Soviet Russia “more than eighty percent of the leading positions are held by Jews.” Friedländer (1997), p. 185, citing M. Domarus, ed., Hitler’s Speeches and Proclamations, vol. 2, pp. 939-941. Sept. 15, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, in the wake of the annual Nazi Party Congress, publishes an article about “the Nazis’ continued transgressions of their obligations and promises related to the church in Germany.” Source: Ventresca (2013), pp. 121-122, citing “After the Nuremberg Congress,” L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 15, 1937, p.1. English translation of article Ventresca describes the interactions of Cardinal Pacelli and Pius XI in reviewing and approving this article, citing Pacelli’s notes, Vatican Secret Archives, AES, IV Germania, P.O. 720, fasc. 323, fo. 14-18. Sept. 29-30, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano covers Mussolini’s state visit to Germany. English translations Oct. 6, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano reports a German school regulation for teaching a Nazi version of Christianity, including attacks on clericalism and Judaism. The Vatican newspaper’s commentary on the regulation protests the Nazis’ distortion of Christianity and their racist and anti-clerical presentation of Jesus. English translation Nov. 7, 1937 Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Japan sign the Anti-Comintern Pact in Rome on the 20th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. L’Osservatore Romano publishes the text of the Pact on page one, along with supportive articles. The Vatican paper continues with more favorable commentary two days later. On November 10th, the Vatican paper reports Hitler speaking on the anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch and acclaiming the tripartite unity of Germany, Italy and Japan. Italian original Dec. 25, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano publishes Pope Pius XI’s Christmas allocution to the Cardinals, concerning persecution against the Church in Germany. The Pope protests against the accusation in Germany that the Catholic Church is political: “We do Religion, we do not do politics: everyone knows it, everyone sees it who wants to see.” English translation 1938 Feb. 5, 1938 Civiltà Cattolica repeats its historical calls for defensive measures against the Jewish threat. Kertzer (2014), p.290, citing vol. 1, p.460. Mar. 11, 1938 Austrian Nazis stage a coup and take over the Austrian Government. Mar. 12, 1938 Germany annexes Austria in the “Anschluss.” Mar. 15, 1938 Hitler meets in Vienna with Cardinal-Archbishop Theodor Innitzer, who orders his priests to read a statement in the churches endorsing Hitler and Nazi Germany: “Those who are entrusted with souls and the faithful will unconditionally support the great German State and the Führer ...” Source: Kertzer (2014), p.276, citing secondary sources. Mar. 16, 1938 Cardinal Pacelli writes Mussolini, thanking him for intervening with Hitler on behalf of oppressed Catholics. Source: G. Sale, Hitler, p.525, citing Vatican Archives, AA.EE.SS., Germania, Pos. 735 P.O. Fasc. 353 fo. 4. Mar. 18, 1938 The Austrian Bishops issue a statement to be read from all pulpits urging Catholics to vote Yes in an upcoming plebiscite to ratify the Anschluss. Kertzer (2014), pp. 277-278. Apr. 2, 1938 Civiltà Cattolica article on Zionism says the Jews’ “corrupted messianism and fatal yearning for financial and temporal dominion in the world is the true and profound cause that renders Judaism an incitement of uprisings and a permanent danger for the world.” Excerpt in translation Apr. 5, 1938 Pope Pius XI, having summoned Cardinal Innitzer from Vienna to the Vatican, compels him to issue a partial retraction of the Austrian Bishops’ approval of the Nazi takeover of the country. Kertzer (2014), pp. 278-279. The retraction was published in L’Osservatore Romano on April 6th. Apr. 10, 1938 Austrian plebiscite produces 99.75% endorsement of the Anschluss, under conditions of Nazi voter intimidation, falsification of voting results, and exclusion of Jews from polls. Apr. 19, 1938 Joseph Kennedy transmits to President Roosevelt a private memorandum from Cardinal Pacelli about the Vatican’s position following Nazi Germany’s annexation of Austria. Pacelli’s memorandum states that the German Government has taken an attitude against all clauses in the Concordat since soon after it was signed, and that the possibility of an agreement between the Vatican and Germany “is out of the question for the time being.” The memorandum suggests the American Government should send a diplomatic representative to the Vatican to “make the world think over the ever increasing necessity in the present troubles of keeping in touch with the Supreme Moral Powers of the world...” Source: English original reprinted in Rychlak (2010), pp. 398-400. Spring 1938 The official publication of the Italian association of Catholic clergy publishes article entitled “The Jewish Invasion in Italy Too,” advocating “defensive antisemitism” against the “invasion.” Source: Kertzer (2014), p.291. Kertzer describes a campaign in the Catholic press in Italy to prepare the way for the Italian racial antisemitic laws that followed later in 1938. May 3-9, 1938 Hitler makes a state visit to Mussolini in Rome and Florence. The Vatican unsuccessfully tried to arrange for Hitler to call on Pope Pius XI at the Vatican. Besier, p.183. According to Besier, Bishop Hudal was photographed next to Hitler. Pius XI went to Castel Gandolfo before Hitler arrived in Rome and stayed there for the duration of the visit. Pius XI, in public remarks at Castel Gandolfo, lamented the presence in Rome of “another cross that is not the Cross of Christ.” Kertzer (2014), p.284; Besier, p.185. July 14, 1938 Mussolini has a manifesto published in Italy declaring that “Jews do not belong to the Italian race.” Kertzer (2014), p.292. July 16, 1938 Civiltà Cattolica article on Hungary and the Jewish question refers to the “Jewish-Bolshevik cataclysm” of 1919, says Jews are in solidarity with revolutionaries, and endorses antisemitic legislation as a defensive measure against Jewish “messianic craving for world domination.” English translation Also on July 16th, L’Osservatore Romano republishes statement that “Jews do not belong to the Italian race” without criticism. Source: Kertzer (2014), pp. 293, 478, citing “Fascism and the Racial Problem,” L’Osservatore Romano, July 16, 1938, p.2. July 18, 1938 In the United States, radio priest Charles Coughlin’s weekly newspaper Social Justice commences the serialized publication of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Social Justice continues to present excerpts from the Protocols to its readers weekly until November 1938, when Father Coughlin begins radio attacks on the “Jewish-Communist” world conspiracy. Aug. 8, 1938 Father Coughlin's Social Justice cites the Documentation Catholique Jewish-Bolshevism article of March 6, 1920, publishes inflammatory excerpts from it, and claims it is a report of “the American Secret Service.” Excerpts from Social Justice August 1938 Fascist Italy decrees antisemitic laws similar to Nazi Germany’s Sept. 1935 Nuremberg Laws. Aug. 14, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano uncritically describes the antisemitic laws of the Papal States, barring Jews from holding public office among other measures. Kertzer describes the influence of this article as it was picked up in other Italian newspapers and “offered a blueprint of the anti-Semitic laws that Mussolini would begin enacting less than three weeks later.” (p.309) Aug. 20, 1938 Civiltà Cattolica reports the Italian antisemitic laws and their “defensive” rationale, and reprints a Fascist governmental reference to “the historically accepted equation in these past twenty years of European life between Jewry, Bolshevism and Masonry.” English translation Aug. 1938 Pope Pius XI communicates privately to Mussolini that he does not oppose “defensive” antisemitic measures but only those that are “inhumane and unchristian.” Kertzer (2014), p.305, and sources cited therein. The Vatican reaches agreement with Mussolini, privately, that the Italian antisemitic laws will subject Jews to treatment similar to that previously imposed in the Papal States. Kertzer (2014), pp. 307-309. Sept. 1, 1938 Mussolini revokes Italian citizenship for all foreign-born Jews who became citizens after 1919. Also on Sept. 1st, Hitler demands that Czechoslovakia cede its ethnically German border areas, known as the Sudetenland, to Germany. Sept. 2, 1938 Jewish teachers are fired from all levels of Italian schools and universities, and Jews are prohibited from attending public schools in Italy. Civiltà Cattolica endorses antisemitic laws based not on racial theory but on “legitimate defense of the Christian people against a foreign nation among the nations in which it lives and sworn enemy of their well-being.” (vol. 3, pp. 559-561) Sept. 6, 1938 Pope Pius XI, in an audience with Belgians, says: “Anti-Semitism is inadmissible. Spiritually we are all Semites.” Kertzer (2014), p.320. At the same time, the Pope endorsed “defensive” antisemitic measures: “We recognize that everyone has the right to self-defense and can undertake those necessary actions to safeguard his legitimate interests.” Ibid. L’Osservatore Romano reports the Pope’s audience but not his words about antisemitism. Those words appear later in France in Documentation Catholique. English translation of L’Osservatore Romano’s report Sept. 11, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano features a lead story, filling half the page, about Manchukuo (Japanese puppet state in Japanese-occupied northern China) paying homage to Pope Pius XI. Italian original with photograph Sept. 30, 1938 Munich Accord is signed by Britain, France, Italy and Germany. The Sudetenland, the ethnic German border areas of Czechoslovakia, is given to Nazi Germany, without Czechoslovakia represented at the conference in Munich. British Prime Minister Chamberlain returns to London proclaiming “Peace in our time.” Oct. 1, 1938 Civiltà Cattolica publishes an article advocating antisemitic laws and refuting “the liberal argument” against them. English translation Oct. 16, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano runs article on back page entitled “A Proposal for the Solution of the Palestine Problem," dealing with the Mufti of Jerusalem. Nov. 7, 1938 Assassination of German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris by 17-year-old Jewish Polish teenager Herschel Grynszpan provides the rationale for organized nationwide German attacks on Jews on the 15th anniversary of Hitler’s failed putsch. Nov. 8, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano covers a Hitler speech to stormtroops in which he says that Germany’s development is “miraculous,” that the German people are peace-loving, and that Germany must remain united with Italy and its other friends in Europe. English translation of article Nov. 9, 1938 Völkischer Beobachter blames assassination of vom Rath on “international Jewish murder-inciters.” German original Nov. 9-10, 1938 Kristallnacht, the “Night of Shattered Glass,” is a nationwide pogrom against the Jewish people of Germany. Nazi stormtroops, thugs and police burn down synagogues throughout Germany, destroy shop windows and loot Jewish-owned enterprises, kill or injure thousands of Jews, and throw tens of thousands of Jews into concentration camps. Nov. 10, 1938 Father Bernhard Lichtenberg begins to offer public prayers in the Berlin Cathedral for the persecuted non-Aryans. For this he is later arrested and dies in transit while being transported to Dachau. He has been declared Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem and Blessed by the Catholic Church. He is the only instance commonly cited of Catholic clergy in Germany speaking against Kristallnacht. Also on Nov. 10th, L’Osservatore Romano gives detailed coverage to Hitler’s commemoration of the anniversary of the Nazis’ failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923. English translation of excerpts of article. Translations of adjacent articles about (a) resisting Communism in Switzerland and (b) Hitler consenting to the designation of “the famous Church of St. Nicholas in Magdeburg in memory of German combat veterans” Nov. 11, 1938 Völkischer Beobachter features Goebbels calling for lawful measures, rather than further violence, against Germany’s Jews as a response to the “Jewish murder” of vom Rath. Translation of article, “Weltecho des jüdischen Meuchelmordes” Also on Nov. 11th, L’Osservatore Romano covers the assassination of German diplomat von Rath and burning of synagogues in Germany. English translation of article about von Rath English translation of article on same page about Kristallnacht English translation of article on same page about Palestine and Zionism Italian original of front page analysis on Palestine, saying that Britain’s abandonment of partition plans will likely end Arab terrorism, which was directed against partition in an Arab and a Jewish State Nov. 12, 1938 Goebbels says the assassination of vom Rath is part of world Jewry’s “annihilation plan against Germany.” Translation of lead article on page one of Völkischer Beobachter Also on Nov. 12th, L’Osservatore Romano runs side-by-side articles about Kristallnacht and the upcoming Palestine conference in London. English translation of “After the Antisemitic Demonstrations in Germany” English translation of “The Imminent Meeting in London of the Conference for Palestine” Nov. 13, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano reports Goebbels’ explanation that “the Jewish problem will be resolved by means of law,” also reporting about Jews being injured, “especially in cases where they resisted.” The report quotes Nazi Bavarian commissar Wagner as saying that all Jews’ businesses will be taken over, and that “the fight against the Jews will proceed to their complete extermination.” English translation Nov. 15, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano’s lead article criticizes the new Italian racial laws only insofar as they infringe the Church’s role in deciding whom Catholics may marry. Italian original Civiltà Cattolica publishes in November the Italian antisemitic laws and their rationale, without criticism. (vol. 4, pp. 269-271) Nov. 16, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano publishes an article about Cardinal Hinsley and other English Catholics signing a protest to Hitler about persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. English translation Ventresca (2013), p.127, says Hinsley implored Pacelli to have the Pope make a statement condemning the brutal acts of Kristallnacht, and that Pacelli asked Hinsley to speak up generally on behalf of those suffering unfairly. The Nov. 16th issue of L’Osservatore Romano also has an article on “The Fate of the Jews in Germany” Nov. 17, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano runs articles on front page about aftermath of Kristallnacht and on page 6 about Palestine. English translation of article “After the German Antisemitic Demonstrations” Italian original of article “Britain Military Forces Control All of Palestine Today” Nov. 18, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano runs side-by-side lead articles about “The Antisemitic Question in Germany” and Arab demands on Britain concerning Palestine. Italian original The same issue features an article on demonstrations against the Archbishop of Munich. English translation English translation of articles in Osservatore Romano on the aftermath of Kristallnacht and Palestine issues, continuing through November Nov. 20, 1938 Father Charles Coughlin launches a series of radio broadcasts on the Jewish-Communist conspiracy. Coughlin makes factual assertions based on the Documentation Catholique article of March 6, 1920. He also claims that 56 of the 59 members of the central committee of the Russian Communist Party were Jews as of 1935, and that the others, including Stalin, are married to Jews. Excerpts of radio broadcast Coughlin continues his attacks on “Jewish-Communism” month after month, year after year, from 1938 through 1941, reaching tens of millions of listeners. Coughlin had previously used the Documentation Catholique propaganda piece in the August 8, 1938 issue of his weekly Social Justice newspaper. Efforts by prominent Catholic figures to have the Vatican stop or restrain Coughlin’s propaganda are unsuccessful; he is finally stopped in 1942 after threats of federal prosecution after the US enters World War II. Nov. 28, 1938 With the US and UK publicly considering the admission of persecuted Jews from Germany, Father Coughlin begins propaganda campaign against Jewish immigration. Excerpts from Social Justice Nov. 30, 1938 Cardinal Pacelli sends letter to Archbishops and Bishops internationally about helping Jewish refugees from Germany. Source: Actes et Documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, vol. 6, pp. 48 (re converted Jews). Cardinal Pacelli sent a later similar letter on January 10, 1939, not limited to Jews who had converted. Dec. 3, 1938 Civiltà Cattolica, reporting on Kristallnacht, criticizes German press for blaming “Judaism in general” for the recent assassination of vom Rath, and warns against “a system of making responsible for a crime all the members of a race or co-religionists of a criminal.” English translation Dec. 5, 1938 La Documentation Catholique publishes Pope Pius XI’s words of Sept. 6, 1938 to Belgian Catholic radio officials, saying that antisemitism is inadmissible, and that everyone has the right of self-defense against those who threaten their legitimate interests. English translation and French original Immediately following, Documentation Catholique publishes an article presenting statistics from a German journal, Wirtschaft und Statistik [Economics and Statistics], about the number of Jews on each continent, and in each major country and city of the world. English translation 1939 Jan. 30, 1939 Hitler, in a speech to the Reichstag, purports to give a prophecy: “If international finance Jewry within and beyond Europe should succeed in plunging the nations yet once again into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!” Excerpts in translation This speech also asserts that Nazi Germany is allowing free exercise of religion and subsidizing the churches liberally, while threatening to annihilate any priests who oppose the Nazi regime politically. Conway, Nazi Persecution, p.219. Feb. 10, 1939 Pope Pius XI dies. Mar. 1, 1939 Eugenio Pacelli is elected Pope and takes the papal name Pius XII. Mar. 3, 1939 An American diplomat writes from Germany about the newly elected Pope, summarizing views that Pacelli expressed to him privately in 1937 about Nazi Germany. Concerning Hitler and Nazism, Consul A. Klieforth wrote: “He said that he opposed unalterably every compromise with National Socialism. He regarded Hitler not only as an untrustworthy scoundrel but as a fundamentally wicked person...” Source: Rychlak, Hitler, 2010, pp. 401-402, reprinting communiqué of March 3, 1939 from Klieforth to Jay Pierrepont Moffat, Chief of the Division of European Affairs, US Department of State. Mar. 12, 1939 Eugenio Pacelli is crowned as Pope Pius XII. Cardinal Copello of Buenos Aires stands at the right hand of the papal throne during the coronation. Mar. 13, 1939 Monsignor Josef Tiso, leader of the provincial parliament of Slovakia, a province of Czechoslovakia, flies to Germany to meet with Hitler. Hitler tells Tiso that Slovakia faces a “historic hour” and must act immediately or be swallowed up. Source: Goebbels Diary, Mar. 14, 1939 Mar. 14, 1939 Monsignor Tiso, having returned to Bratislava, proclaims the secession of Slovakia from Czechoslovakia. Slovakia comes into existence as a puppet state of Nazi Germany, under Tiso as Premier, and remains unoccupied by German forces until the Slovak Uprising of 1944. Mar. 15, 1939 Nazi Germany invades what remains of Czechoslovakia at early dawn; Czech forces do not resist. Mar. 16, 1939 Appearing in Prague, Hitler proclaims the “German Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.” Mar. 23, 1939 Slovakia and Germany sign a treaty. Apr. 7, 1939 Fascist Italy invades Albania and takes over the country within a week. Aug. 23, 1939 Stalin-Hitler pact of mutual non-aggression is signed between German and Soviet foreign ministers Ribbentrop and Molotov. Sept. 1, 1939 Germany and Slovakia invade Poland. Sept. 3, 1939 Great Britain and France declare war on Germany. Sept. 17, 1939 Soviet Union invades Poland and occupies the eastern portion of the country. Oct. 20, 1939 Pope Pius XII issues his first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus [Supreme Pontificate]. English version at Vatican website This encyclical speaks generally against “the dread tempest of war” but contains no criticism of Germany, Slovakia or Russia for invading Poland, nor of Italy for invading Albania. Winter 1939-1940 “Phony War” in Europe has no major land engagements or further invasions by the warring powers. 1940 Winter 1939-1940 Munich lawyer Josef Müller shuttles between Germany and Rome in what Müller later said was Papal effort to see Hitler removed, the war ended, and Poland restored as a buffer state between Germany and the Soviet Union. Source: Ventresca (2013), pp. 162-164, citing multiple sources including Müller’s testimony in the canonization process of Pius XII. April 1940 Nazi SS official Reinhard Heydrich orders ongoing surveillance of Catholic Bishops and their staff, as to their private lives and ecclesiastical activities. John Conway, Nazi Persecution, pp. 243-244, reprints the major points of this detailed order. May 9-10, 1940 Germany invades France, Luxembourg, Belgium and Netherlands, leading to the rapid collapse of Allied land forces. June 10, 1940 Italy declares war on France and Great Britain. June 22, 1940 France surrenders, signing an armistice with Germany at Compiègne, the same place where Germany submitted to Allied armistice terms on November 11, 1918. Nazi Germany allows the “Vichy Government” under French Marshal Pétain to govern central and southern France, while Germany occupies northern and western France, and Italy occupies a portion of southeastern France. Oct. 3, 1940 Vichy France, under Pétain, enacts Statut des Juifs [Jewish Status Law] forcing Jews out of the military, the press, and the civil service. Also on Oct. 3rd, Pope Pius XII authorizes a donation of 3,000 Lire for “those who suffer for reasons of race.” Source: Rychlak, Hitler, 2010, p.403, reprinting in translation a letter from Vatican Secretary of State Maglione conveying the authorized sum. Nov. 29, 1940 Pope Pius XII grants 10,000 Lire to an Italian Bishop “for the support of Jews interned in your diocese.” Source: Rychlak, Hitler, 2010, pp. 403-404, reprinting in translation a letter of Archbishop Montini (later Pope Pius VI) transmitting the authorized sum. 1941 June 20, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano publishes the articles of a new treaty of friendship between Turkey and Nazi Germany, signed by German Ambassador von Papen. English translation June 21, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano reports on a series of agreements negotiated between Italy and Germany from the 3rd to the 19th of June. English translation of headlines June 22, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano publishes the articles of a new treaty between Croatia and the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy and Japan. English translation of headlines June 22, 1941 Nazi Germany invades the Soviet Union. Specialized SS-directed killing units are deployed to murder all Jews behind the advancing German front lines. Hitler issues a proclamation to the German people saying the invasion of Russia is not directed against the Russian people but against Jewish-Bolshevism. Translated excerpt of speech as published in the Völkischer Beobachter June 23-24, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano reports on page one Hitler’s proclamation to the German people about the invasion of Russia: “I have taken the stance that, as the leader responsible for the German Reich and as the conscientious representative of European civilization, I am obligated to take.” June 28, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a report from Berlin: “Knowledgeable sources repeat today that the Reich is not conducting the war against the people of the Soviet Union, but rather solely against Bolshevism and its responsible exponents.” June 29, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano publishes a report from Madrid that “innumerable Spaniards” are volunteering to fight in the front ranks against Soviet Russia, and that “the entire Country is conscious of the necessity of this anti-Bolshevik crusade.” July 18, 1941 SS Chief of Staff issues instructions for political-ideological education about the Soviet Union emphasizing the role of Jews in Russian Communism. Source: “Anweisung des Chefs des Kommandostabs Reichsführer SS,” reprinted in Matthäus (2003), p. 199 Sept. 1941 Slovakia decrees antisemitic laws similar to Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg Laws. Slovakia, under the rule of Catholic priest Josef Tiso, later pays Nazi Germany 500 Marks to take each of approximately 100,000 Jews to their death. Oct. 2, 1941 Hitler issues a proclamation to the German soldiers on the Eastern Front incorporating the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory to explain their struggle. Source: Exhibit, Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum, Jerusalem, Israel. Excerpt in translation Nov. 1941 German Catholic Bishops protest to the Nazi regime a proposal for compulsory dissolution of Jewish-Gentile marriages. The Bishops’ protest letter says the Bishops do not underestimate “the harmful Jewish influences upon German culture and national interests.” Conway, p.266, quoting Lewy, p.289. Nov. 16, 1941 Goebbels writes, “The Jews want their war, and now they have it”; further, repeating Hitler’s menacing words of Jan. 30, 1939 that war will mean the extermination of the Jews of Europe rather than the triumph of Jewry through the Bolshevizing of the earth. Source: Goebbels, “Die Juden sind schuld” [The Jews are guilty], in Das Reich, no. 46 (Nov. 16, 1941), p.1 Nov. 20, 1941 German General von Manstein issues an Order of the Day on the Eastern Front incorporating Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy theory. “Since June 22 the German nation is in the midst of a life and death struggle ... The Jewish-Bolshevik system must be eradicated once and for all.” Source: Exhibit, Yad Vashem Holocaust History Museum, Jerusalem, Israel. Dec. 7, 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brings the United States into World War II. 1942 Jan. 20, 1942 Wannsee Conference is held near Berlin among Nazi officials, including Eichmann, to plan the transporting of Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to extermination camps in Poland. May 1942 Father Coughlin ceases broadcasting, after the US Dept. of Justice threatens to prosecute him for sedition and Archbishop Mooney of Detroit orders him to stop. Many high ranking Catholic prelates and American politicians had tried to persuade the Vatican and Mooney to stop Coughlin after he returned to the air in 1938 with vicious antisemitic propaganda that included the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory, but without success. July 16, 1942 Hitler moves his headquarters to Vinnytsia, Ukraine, as his forces advance to Stalingrad and the eastern shores of the Black Sea. Hitler spent 100 days in total at this headquarters, which he named Werwolf, leaving it for the last time on March 13, 1943. Source: Blaine Taylor, Hitler’s Headquarters (2007), 159-168. The Führerhaus at Werwolf HQ, Vinnytsia: Führerhaus, HQ Werwolf, Vinnytsia Vinnytsia was centrally featured in a three-part narrative series about Jewish-Bolshevism in Civiltà Cattolica in late 1920. July 16-17, 1942 Mass arrest of the Jews of Paris by French police who impound them at a Velodrome and turn them over to Nazi Germany. Dec. 25, 1942 Pope Pius XII gives lengthy Christmas address over Vatican Radio and refers to “the hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or race, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline.” Source: Ventresca (2013), p.184, quoting New York Times, Dec. 25, 1942, p.10, and citing Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 35 (1943), pp. 9-24. Oft-disputed is whether or not this passage was an intervention in favor of persecuted Jews. A more explicit reference to Judaism was made privately by Pope Pius XII in his Christmas speech to Cardinals and Prelates of the Curia in 1942: “Jerusalem answered his invitation and grace with rigid blindness and stiff-necked ingratitude, which put it on the path to guilt for deicide.” Source: Lill (1970), p.369 n.34, quoting Discorsi e Radiomessagi di S.S. Pio XII, IV, Milan 1943, p.321; AAS, 1943, p.7. 1943 Feb. 18, 1943 Sophie and Hans Scholl, leaders of the White Rose group, are caught distributing anti-Nazi leaflets at the University of Munich. Feb. 22, 1943 The Scholl siblings are tried for high treason, along with fellow White Rose member Christoph Probst, and executed immediately after the trial. English language sources include the film Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005) and Michael Verhoeven’s 1983 book and film The White Rose. June 4, 1943 Military coup in Argentina. Cardinal-Archbishop Copello and the Catholic daily newspaper of Buenos Aires, El Pueblo, manifest support for the coup. Hugo Wast (Gustavo Martínez Zuviría) is named Argentine Minister of Justice and Education. Oct. 4, 1943 Himmler tells assembled SS leaders in Posen it is essential to kill all Jews for the defense of the German Volk, and that this will be “the most illustrious page of our history.” Source: Schröder (2010), quoting transcript of Nuremberg trials of German war criminals. October 1943 Around the time of the Nazis’ sending Rome’s Jews to their death, a Catholic Church instruction allows males and females alike to be sheltered in monasteries and convents. Source: Ventresca (2013), p.195, noting the assertion, and lack of confirming evidence, that Pope Pius XII gave this instruction. Oct. 16, 1943 Nazi SS send more than 1,200 Jews from Rome to death camps. 1944 March 1944 Hungary begins to send more than 800,000 Jews to Nazi death camps. June 25, 1944 Pope Pius XII writes the ruler of Hungary asking him “to do everything within your power so that so many unfortunate people,” who are suffering “due to their nationality or race,” would be “spared further grief and pain.” Source: Ventresca (2013), p.215, citing Pius XII to Horthy, Regent of Hungary, Actes et Documents du Saint Siège Relatifs à la Seconde Guerre Mondiale, vol. 10, p.328. 1945 May 8, 1945 Germany surrenders. During the Shoah, Pope Pius XII makes no explicit public reference to Jews, neither repeating nor retracting the association of Judaism and Communism made publicly by the Vatican newspaper and the Vatican-supervised Civiltà Cattolica from October 1920 to June 1941. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Translations and Notes, 1800-1918 1860s-1870s 1869 Civiltà Cattolica, ser. 7, vol. 7 (1869), p.756: The Jewish-Masonic sect, which today exerts in Austria such a powerful and effective influence in public affairs, has at length been savoring the sweetness of this triumph, which was arranged by some member of the Vienna Cabinet. But it has studied, at the same time, how to direct some even harsher blow to the heart of the Catholic Church, and has searched for how it could at the same time procure the destruction of the Religious Orders and the theft of their property. To this end a vast conspiracy would carry out its plot under the guise that, under cover of infamous calumnies against the Religious Orders, these would be shown to be in need of elimination as an insult to the civil world; and that the Masonic press in making these calumnies would carry the argument to stir the masses to bestial violence; and this would succeed in the purpose of legitimizing the Government’s intervention, with new violations of ecclesiastical rights and immunities. This atrocious plan began to go into effect a few days after the conviction of Bishop Rudigier, on July 21st, in Cracow ... Italian original 1869 Roger Gougenot des Mousseaux, Le Juif: le judaïsme et la judaïsation des peuples chrétiens, ch. XXIII: ... Il se verra donc, sur tous les points de ce globe où palpite un cœur de Juif, que ce Juif témoigne de ses sympathies les plus ardentes à la maçonnerie, sur laquelle l'Eglise du Christ a lancé les foudres de ses anathèmes. Car la maçonnerie, issue des mystérieuses doctrines de la cabale, que cultivait derrière l'épaisseur de ses murs le philosophe du dix-neuvième siècle, n'est que la forme moderne et principale de l'occultisme, dont le Juif est le prince, parce qu'il fut dans tous les siècles le prince et le grand maître de la cabale. Le Juif est donc naturellement, et nous ajoutons qu'il est nécessairement l'âme, le chef, le grand maître réel de la maçonnerie, dont les dignitaires connus ne sont, la plupart du temps, que les chefs trompeurs et trompés de l'ordre. Au sein de ces hauts et impénétrables conseils de l'occultisme, dont le but spécial est de déchristianiser le monde et de refondre dans un moule unique les institutions de toutes les sociétés humaines, le Juif devra donc siéger en majorité ? Oui sans doute, et l'empire, dans ces régions de ténèbres sociales, lui est assuré par le nombre des voix. Ainsi le veut la constitution de l'Ordre ; ainsi le veulent les statuts, et ces statuts sont le secret suprême du véritable adepte. Voilà ce que nous devons dire, et c'est là ce que le monde ignore, ce que les initiateurs lui cachent comme le plus important de leurs mystères ; raison pour laquelle donner au public les preuves matérielles de la suprématie maçonnique du Juif, ce serait tenter à peu près l'impossible. Et nous le reconnaissons avec un empressement d'autant plus vif que les preuves de cette domination judaïque se sont inscrites d'elles-mêmes dans les faits qui sont la richesse de nos pages. English translation: It will be seen then, at every place on the globe where a Jewish heart beats, that this Jew testifies to his most ardent sympathies for Masonry, upon which the Church of Christ has launched the scourges of its anathemas. For Masonry, issuing forth from the mysterious doctrines of the Kabbala, which were cultivated behind thick walls by the 19th century philosophe, is only the modern, principal form of occultism, of which the Jew is the prince, because he was throughout the centuries the prince and grand master of Kabbalism. The Jew is thus naturally, and, we add, necessarily, the soul, the head, the real grand master of Masonry, whose recognized dignitaries are only, most of the time, the deceiving and deceived heads of the order. At the heart of these high, impenetrable councils of occultism, whose special goal is to de-Christianize the world and refashion in a unique mold the institutions of all human societies, will not the Jew have to have a majority of seats? Yes, without doubt, and the empire, in these regions of social darkness, is assured to him by the number of votes. This is what the constitution of the Order provides; this is what the statutes provide, and these statutes are the supreme secret of the true initiate. 1870 Civiltà Cattolica, series 7, vol. 11 (1870), p.72: Book Reviews: Gougenot des Mousseaux – The Jew, Judaism and the Judaization of Christian Peoples, by the Chevalier Gougenot des Mousseaux. Paris, Plon 1869. One vol. in octave, 568 pages. Very well known is the name of the gentleman knight des Mousseaux, for his remarkable works about the metaphysical world, of which we took note in Series V, Vol. IV. The work that we now announce has a special importance, because it shows what is the principal instrument of the satanic spirit operating to de-Christianize the world. That instrument is Judaism. The author, with a great wealth of erudition, compiles the history of Jewish corruption and the atrocious, implacable war that the deicide nation has always waged against the religion of Jesus Christ. He examines and describes the immoral Talmudic doctrines and then describes them in practice, delineating with strong brush strokes the Jewish influence in today’s world. Gold, of which the Hebrews have despoiled the Christians in nearly all the countries of the West, is in their hands; journalism is for the most part their affair, or dependent on them; in the secret or Masonic fraternal orders that disturb all of social life, they have the most powerful hand: in sum, that which is called revolution and is distinguished from all the social ills of past times by its hatred of what it knows of Christianity, and driven above all by the Jews, who have become thereby the secret masters of a great portion of Europe. The facts and documents that the knight des Mousseaux reports and quotes in great number cast great light upon what he demonstrates: and it is impossible to scan his present book and not see clearly that the primary motive forces of the modern spirit, dwelling hidden at the foundation of Judaism, are always the same as itself in rancor against the name of Jesus Christ. We invite those who study social matters to read and meditate on this most intriguing work, which deserves to be more recognized and distributed in our language in the Italian Peninsula, which is already subjected to the Jews and dominated by them much more than it may seem. The Univers Israelite of Paris (issue of April 13, 1870) is furiously defamatory toward Mr. des Mousseaux’s book; but it knew no other way of refutation but insolence. The most beautiful fruit to be gained from this book is to sense that supporting revolution does nothing but drive ever more the Christian peoples to fall into the clutches of Judaism, which sucks their blood, corrupts them, demoralizes them and subjugates them secretly but in reality to their tyranny. Italian original 1871 August Rohling, S.J., Der Talmudjude, pp. 110-111: ... dass Cremieux Grossmeister der franz. Loge und zugleich Präsident der alliance israélite ist, weiß man längst. Woher diese Eintracht zwischen Juda und der Loge? Wir antworten mit der Gegenfrage: woher die Lorbeerkränze, die Juda in alter Zeit dem Arianismus und in unsern Tagen, wie z.B. in den Archives israélites pag. 463 1867 Voltaire, Volney, Garibaldi wand? Das wahre Christenthum und der christliche Staat sind beiden gleich verhasst. Gleichheit aller Menschen, gleiches Recht für Alle, heißt die schöne Parole; daher Theilung und dafür zunächst Beschlagnahme des Eigenthums, Sturz der hemmenden Gewalten in Staat und Kirche durch die Revolution: was folgt, ist Vertheilung der Beute unter die Räuber, wobei die Geplünderten das Zusehen haben. Dann wird Cremieux’s, des Präsidenten der alliance, neues Jerusalem an Stelle des Thrones der Kaiser und der Päpste stehen. Arme Loge, die herrschen will und ein Mittel geworden ist, die Herrschaft Juda’s aufzurichten! English translation: ... that Cremieux is Grand Master of the French Lodges and at the same time President of the Alliance Israélite, has been long known. Where does this concord between Judaism and the Lodge come from? We will answer with the counter-question: where did the victor’s crown come from that Judaism in ancient times placed on Arianism and in our days, for instance in the Israelite Archives p. 463 of 1867, placed on Voltaire, Volney and Garibaldi? True Christianity and the Christian state are both equally hated. Equality of all people, equality of rights for all, sound like nice words; but from them come redistribution, and for that purpose confiscation, of property, the overthrow of the restraining powers in the State and Church by means of revolution: what follows is distribution of the booty among the robbers, whereby the plundered are the spectators. Then will Cremieux’s new Jerusalem, the new Jerusalem of the President of the Alliance, stand in the place of the thrones of Kaisers and Popes. Poor Lodge, which wants to rule but has become the means for establishing the dictatorship of Judaism! 1880s 1880 E.N. Chabouty, Franc-maçons et Juifs: Sixième âge de l'église d'après l'Apocalypse (Paris: Société générale de librairie catholique, 1880). Jan. 1, 1881 Civiltà Cattolica, pages 105-113: Contemporary Chronicle, Florence, December 22, 1880, our correspondent, Rome: Concerning the current so-called German antisemitic or anti-Jewish agitation. How the Jew is always a foreigner in the country where he lives. How, therefore, the foreign Jewish race should be not naturalized but rather regulated by special, exceptional laws for its own protection no less than for ours. From the present condition of true and real disaffection, notwithstanding certain appearances to the contrary, the well-organized and disciplined influence of official and intentional Masonry is already becoming obvious everywhere, and not the least indication and argument for this, as we said in our preceding article, is the German anti-Jewish movement, so-called today antisemitic agitation, which in essence, in the final analysis, is an anti-Masonic agitation. Masons and Jews, in fact, are so essentially and intimately connected by the bond of hatred for Jesus Christ and for his Church and for all forms of civil society, that is, Christian society, that you cannot deal with the one without dealing with the other. Nor is it possible to say whether so-called Liberalism and so-called Great Principles, which are the external manifestation in the civil and public order of what is secretly hatching within the confines of the Lodges, are more Jewish or more Masonic in nature, especially considering the eloquent fact of the so-called liberal press which, as in Italy and especially in Germany, is known to be entirely in the hands of the Freemasons and the Jews; as to which is more, in truth, it is as much one as the other. It is also the case that as soon as the so-called liberal principles, i.e. Masonic ones, crop up or try to crop up in some part of the world, immediately there surfaces the naturalization, the protection, the freedom, and thus naturally the predominance of the Jews. Not to mention the fact of the Englishman John Toland, the extremely corrupt man who was the first, as far as we know in the modern era, to publish a book in London of the reasons for naturalizing the Jews, in 1715, that is precisely at the early dawn of nascent Masonry; and the Prussian, Dohm, who published another book in Berlin on the political reform of the Jews in 1781, that is exactly when Masonry was already rising and acquiring the power to turn the world upside down (their work was then copied by Mirabeau and the schismatic Bishop Grégoire, great leaders of the revolution); and who does not know that among us in Italy in 1848, even before the other Christians were emancipated, it was immediately thought to emancipate the poor Jews wherever the Liberals, Freemasons and Carbonari were able to make heard their first and most moving cries of pain? Nor is it thus surprising if the first preacher against the German agitation against the Jews was their confrere Bacci, promptly raising his voice in the last issue of the Masonic Review, November 15 of last year, grasping the generalized judgment against the Germans as a barbaric and even uneducated people. “We contemplate (he says) with a smile of supreme indifference (which means the matter is rather important) the retchingly nervous but powerless (we will have to see about that) exponents of Teutonism who are now reviving the medieval persecutions against the Jews: (whence we see that according to Master Bacci the Middle Ages lasted until this century in Europe). Like all the people who have abandoned the true path of civil progress, the ruling classes, the dynasties, the imperialists, the feudal and military classes of that country (this Germany that Bacci considers learned when it persecuted the Catholics but barbaric now when it does not want to be skinned alive by the ghetto) exude poisonous and deadly secretions, declaring the word of anathema against that ancient persecuted and industrious race and industrious personification in the wandering Jew (nice personification!) of the Legend, and have spanned the centuries contemplating in its humble yet powerful activity the collapse of much pride and humiliation and of much arrogance.” Nor, obviously, could one speak with greater enthusiasm of the Church of Jesus Christ, to which alone it is possible to attribute truthfully the best of this period: and not indeed to the Jewish race, which, since it has miraculously endured and will endure to its conversion to the Christian Faith at the end of the world, perforce contemplated and will have to contemplate, not as much as others, their own collapse and humiliation without having, we believe, as much time to lose in contemplating as those others. Which instead contemplates and will always contemplate the Church as the one which, among its other merits, can also be said to serve civilization only in a manner such that it is not influenced or influencing. And therefore Europe is even more today the most civilized part of the world. “We,” continues Bacci, “might even now predict the next fatal downfall not only of the newly born empire, but also of the old, great Teutonic nation. Persecutions of Jews have always preceded the collapse and destruction of the country that has allowed them.” That is how dangerous it is to touch a hair of a Jew! Fortunately, Bacci considers that “this reaction is inexcusable and such stupid attempts will only bring deserved shame on those who are otherwise not guilty.” And what is worse, “this inconceivable fact (how inconceivable if, as Bacci speaks as a witness, it has been heard so many times and so many countries have been made to collapse?) will not remain without an echo. Since for this it will be unmasked and (note this) held up to suspicion and indignation from all decent men (i.e. of all the Bacci brethren) those wretches who have tried to make German freedom into a machine against (note this) the freedom and independence of the civilized world.” So that now the civilized world and the decent world for brother Bacci is the Jewish world: just as if the Jewish world and the Masonic world were the same world, as in fact they now are. These and similar outbursts of Bacci that are just as Masonic, clearly provide a way to see the alliance and similarity that runs between the Jews and their daughter, Masonry, and their rabbinical cabal, or, at least to confirm it as their slave and now most humble servant, instead of their patron and admirer. What surprise then if, because pecuniae obediunt omnia [everyone obeys money], especially in the so-called civil world of today, between the secular liberal and Masonic press and those many associations that obey and serve Jewish gold, there has now also come about a press and institution more strictly or officially Masonic? So great, however, is the abomination that the Jewish race always and everywhere inspires toward itself, among every type of people, that the same Masonry, even today, continues in most places, the ancient and indeed common law excluding Jews from the lodges of the Freemasons. Not indeed, mind you, that the Jews have not always had their lodges from the beginning and have not greatly influenced the same foundations of that anti-Christian order (as appears from the Rituals and Catechisms which are all full of Rabbinic, Talmudic and Kabbalistic rubbish): but, in light of the repugnance that Christian civilization always felt and feels toward the Jewish race, it was necessary in its beginnings, that despite the renowned tolerance of the Masons, just like blacks and women, the Jews set up their own Lodges and their Grand Orient for them alone, as a dangerous, excluded and pestiferous people. And although now nearly everywhere, including England and especially among us in Italy (but we do not believe in the Spanish and Portuguese lands), Jews and Masons fraternize together in Lodges and Grand Orients; and indeed in Italy and also in France it can be said that the Jews control Masonry; yet in Germany they have not been able to achieve this within Masonry, which has indeed been called absurd, prejudiced and fanatical. Against which the first public attack was by the Mason Lessing in 1780: and before that he discussed the matter several times in the Lodges. Some German Lodges started to accept Jews especially in the time of Napoleon’s domination over Germany. But that could not last. So that even at present, as we write, the Germanic Lodges, whether in Germany or in Austria, do not accept Jews, who are condemned now, even in so tolerant Masonry and so learned Germany, to seeing themselves excluded from the civil society of the also wicked and malicious, albeit, at least in name and race, Christians. Whence all the more admirable is the malice, even if it is not ignorance, of brother Bacci, who knows this, or at least should know it, yet he marvels and emits loud cries because in Germany people are imitating in some manner what is mainly Germany’s own Masonry. But it is really crazy to expect to find in them such things as good faith and good logic. Now as to the matter of this German anti-Jewish agitation, which in essence amounts to an anti-Masonic agitation, it could also be more appropriately called a true and well-understood Kulturkampf, being a struggle in favor of Civilization, when the movement is guided by that truly Christian spirit which does not breathe in those countries that are inaptly called independently Christian because they are non-Catholic. But moved indeed not by the pure spirit of justice, of religion and of well-understood social defense, but primarily by the passion of envy and revenge, they are not to be expected to endure long, and they may well be driven by whatever other passions that the Jews themselves know well how to create and exploit. On the other hand, in places where the Catholic spirit prevailed in civil society and still reverbated even in those parts of society that remained Protestant, Jews lived in the midst of Christians for centuries and were not persecuted or persecutors, tolerating and tolerant, protected sufficiently to ensure their and our common quiet life, as everyone knows, including the life of the Ecclesiastical State in particular. To that extent the Jews lived peacefully and left others in peace, minding their own business and not that of others, thanks to the wise, Christian special laws adapted to the particular nature of this entirely singular and also portentous race. And in general it is notable that in Italy the Jews were always less oppressed than elsewhere, precisely because they were always restrained by the laws, first of Rome and then of Canon Law and Christian civil law of various Governments. In the same business in which the Jews were so prevalent, they always found formidable competitors, especially among the Italians in the Middle Ages. By preventing them from becoming too rich, they were prevented also from becoming too hated. Thus the Jews were not only tolerated but also protected and defended; but together with the provisions of the laws and customs, and especially with the precarious status of their residence, this was always granted as a temporary favor to a foreign people and never considered as a right of people who were citizens or naturalized citizens. If this foreign Jewish race is left too free in itself, it quickly becomes persecutor, oppressor, tyrant, thief and devastator of the countries where it is established. And for that it too was often persecuted, oppressed, tyrannized, robbed and devastated by exasperated peoples. Hence, to prevent this race from persecuting or being persecuted, wise restraints and special laws are necessary for its own no less than our defense and health. Without Jews, in fact, we cannot stand, since they are miraculously destined to endure in the world until at the end they shall be converted to the true Christian faith, as we are taught in the authentic prophecies. But neither can we stand with them being so intrusive, so arrogant, so smart, so hostile, whether by nature or by the form of their current religion which is not Mosaic but Talmudic and Rabbinic, against all of human society that does not belong to their race. And what is therefore necessary for the common well-being and defense, is special legislation which indeed does not persecute the Jews, but prevents them from persecuting Christians. Precisely, if well considered, as happens with children in families: for whom there is a special code of paternal and maternal authority which alone makes possible domestic peace and indeed civil society. What if a great reforming philosopher and Mason like Leopold and Joseph, considering that all men are men as well as boys, granted to them rights of men that could live more in this world? It is well known that to their expense in many countries where there were Jews, eternal childish insolent, obstinate, dirty, thieves, liars, ignorant, pests and plagues of near and far, were granted not only one but the entire freedom that others have. Immediately they abused this to prevent the same for the others, grabbing, one does not know how, the public fortune, occupying all, jamming all in their networks, and now almost controlling themselves not only money that was hoarded completely in their hands, but with the same legal authority they also come in hand with the rest in countries where they were allowed to exercise in full to any extent. It is therefore not surprising that, at the first cry to which any give voice against this invasion and vandalism of one enemy race that is hostile to Christianity and to society generally, many think immediately to strike back, as always happened in the past and is now happening in Germany. All these, however, are always will o’ the wisps, until it is a matter of returning to the former fruitful, wise legislation. Thus relying on the nature of things and considering the Jews as a race that are not citizens but foreigners, and applying to them laws that are appropriate to the nature of this foreign race, both they and we will be allowed a coexistence that is peaceful, quiet, and in a manner no less useful to them than to us. Oh how wrong and how deceived are those who believe that Judaism is only a religion like Catholicism, Paganism, Protestantism, and is not indeed precisely a race, a people and a nation! Just as it is completely certain that others can be, for example, Catholic and at the same time Italian, French or English, or else pagan and at the same time Chinese, African or American; or else Protestant and at the same time from whatever land or nation, without the religious ties of Catholics, pagans and Protestants extending with them also into their social, civil, patriotic and national associations; so it is a great mistake to suppose that the same is true among these. These others are such because of their religion, whether it is indeed Mosaic or today Talmudic and Rabbinic, they are also and especially such on account of their race. This is kept distinct and separate from all the others in whatever part of the world they may be precariously and temporarily established as tenants are in an inn or a charitable institution: if not indeed, rather, as in exile and in prison. The Jews, in fact, are not considered as citizens, patriots and nationals of countries other than their Palestine, for which they always yearn as their only true fatherland and national home, according to which there also arise the same projects that come out every day in their newspapers about this vain hope of re-establishing a Jewish kingdom in Jerusalem or its environs. This opinion, or rather the fact of its being believed and guiding a separate people without a real homeland anywhere, but with an ideal home in their heads that makes them not only aliens but hostile to those where they are living, whether by necessity or by choice, is not so much caused by the real fact of their descent from their ancestors, that is by their race, as it is by their current religion which is not Mosaic, as we have said, but Talmudic and Rabbinic. All the other races, in fact, the Italian, French, Spanish, German and so forth mingle to live with each other and finally blend until they cannot be distinguished from each other as they live together. Nor is the newly born of the former Spaniards, Swiss or English hindered from being, after a greater or lesser time, a true citizen and co-national of that country where his ancestors came to pitch their tent. This is something that is seen, as elsewhere, especially in Rome as the common fatherland: where nobody would dream of doubting the pure Roman-ness [romanità] of many families that have little obligation, after all, to search the memory of times gone by to find where their ancestors came from. And as the Romans are, so consequently are the Italians, although not long before, they were Swiss, Spaniards, Germans or others. It is therefore not race or lineage that prevents the Jews from mingling, like those of other races, with the peoples among whom they live; it is religion. Nor is circumcision, as some might believe at first glance, the point of distinctive indication of the race, as appears from the Mohammedans who are all circumcised and yet different as to race and nation, and citizens of various homelands and obedient in civil matters to different princes. What therefore makes the Jews foreigners to all other peoples is only religion. And not indeed the Mosaic religion that they abandoned even if it is not known by that name, but the Talmudic and Rabbinic indeed overarches them precisely as to that which always necessarily remains distinctive and indeed repugnant to other peoples and nations. In fact, even a Jew who is made sincerely and truly Catholic (and not indeed falsely as has occurred on many occasions and will continue to occur) and immediately, while strongly preserving the race and descendants, acquires real and true citizenship in the country where he resides without any notice to be other than Italian or French or, in short, a countryman of his countrymen. And those who, for example, never realized that it was not Italian and a sign that Tullio Dandolo, author of such noted historical and scholarly works, did not have much time and his sons also died in Rome for the Republic of Mazzini: and the father of Tullio was in fact the son of a Jew who converted in Venice in the last century, who took his name from the House of Dandoli which included his godfather at Holy Baptism? Thus Italy today is full of families that are totally Italian, whose origins are Jewish: as it can be guessed in not a few cases also from the name of the family removed from the town or professions. If, therefore, the Jew of religion is necessarily also a Jew of race and nation, without being able or willing to ever mingle with the other peoples among which they live, then it is easily seen how great is the deception and solemn equivocation on which the modern legislation is based. The false premise that the Jew living in Italy is Italian and the one living in France is French like the Protestant, for example, or even the pagan and the Muslim, conceded to the Jews citizenship and equality of rights that follows from it. With that the Jews were granted more than other foreigners, even Christian ones; which, as long as foreigners and citizens are kept in their respective homelands, are always everywhere, even now, governed by laws that are more or less special and exceptional. Nor will anyone imagine, for example, having Germans govern the schools, parliament, ministries and tribunals of France, or the French those of Germany, or non-naturalized Turks those of Italy. Instead, when Jews are naturalized, by a legal fiction, but not naturalized by necessity of religion more than of race, the door is now open to more jealousy: if it is now granted to the Jews, enemies of the Christian name and Christian society, to have mastery and quasi tyrannical despotism over the races that hate them to death. The Jews naturally deny this and swear to be Italians in Italy like citizens elsewhere. And the same, with more or less erudition and good faith, is argued by others perhaps more than by the Jews. But doesn’t common sense, and the senses of sight and hearing, suffice to convince that the Jew is always a Jew, when he is not a Christian? He does not have, in truth, a real fatherland, which even the Gypsies have. But he thinks he has the right to live anywhere he currently dwells. And while waiting to return to his lawful fatherland of right, he is kept united with all his fellow nationals wherever they live, not only with ties that are simply religious and charitable (such as unite all the Catholics of the world) but also with civil rites, with reciprocity of rights and duties, with mutual interests, not with the common persuasion of all Jews that they are unfairly exiled by the world. So that the Jew is everywhere a foreigner who aspires to a fatherland; nor resides, say, in Italy or France with the love of an Italian or Frenchman, but only for the profit that can be realized, and for the violence and necessities of matters that expose his condition and that leave him always in a state of latent hostility and retaliation and hatred against the country that harbors him and the citizens who surround him. So that a Jew by religion who is not also Jewish by fatherland and by race is an absurdity, a contradiction in terms, in a way that is obvious even without benefit of the increasingly persuasive evidence from rabbinical books now in use for regulating the Jews and their religion in theory and practice. Of these we discourse perhaps at another time, supported by ancient and modern learning, in great disdain and shame toward the Jews, who studied and published their books, their customs, and their maxims and principles of morality and government. We know that Judaism also has no shortage of free thinkers and the religiously indifferent, more atheist than Jew, as well as Jews who, as it is commonly said, are more Christian than many Christians. But without wanting to judge here whether all these are not more appearance and fiction than reality, and whether under the circumstances the atheist or gentleman Jew is not and should not be ready to show that he is a Jew, that is, let it suffice for the usual precaution of honorable exceptions always as to assumptions when it comes to this person or that particular individual. This generally we know, but in principle the Jew can and indeed should be Talmudic, and in appearance can observe any religion. And in particular it holds for a certainty that many Jews especially in Germany have themselves baptized only in order to acquire lands, nobility and offices, to be used to increasingly impoverish their neighbors and enrich the synagogue. It consists then in the guise of one who was born a Jew and became first Protestant, then Catholic, then a priest and even a religious, who said that his Jewish father taught him this maxim in his youth: A man must always live according to the religion of the country where he dwells: and this in order to avoid scrapes and be more free and less observed or even persecuted in his dealings. And the fact is that the child must have learned well to live by this maxim. For he lived as a Jew among the Jews, as a Protestant among the Protestants, as a Catholic among the Catholics, as a priest among the priests, as a religious in a religious order, and then finished by returning to live as a Protestant and married a Protestant, as shortly before he was living as a Muslim among the Muslims. And since perhaps he is still alive, it is not absolutely impossible that he ends up Jewish in his native ghetto. We recognize, however, that these are perhaps exceptions, although not honorable. But, in any case, even from far more than what was mentioned, everyone can guess how great is the wisdom of modern legislation which, following liberal and masonic principles, removed all restraints of exceptional laws on a race that is foreign to any country in which it resides; and however vain and fleeting may be any order that does not lead back to a special law for the Jews, by virtue of which they are not persecuted or harassed, but rather defended and restrained as against what always leads to persecutors and oppressors, which always proved harmful to people who could not be restrained and to the Jews themselves, against whom more popular hatred and revenge will sooner or later break out. But that is enough said for now. Source: Civiltà Cattolica, January 1, 1881, vol. 1. 1894 Doctor Bataille [Jogand-Pagès, a/k/a Leo Taxil], Le Diable au XIXe Siècle [The Devil in the 19th Century], volume 2: ... If the Masonic sisters [an invention by Jogand in an earlier work; there were no female Masons] have their great role in the combat of the international sect against the Church of Jesus Christ, how much more important yet is the role of the Jews. The Masonic sisters are, apart from a few rare exceptions, the instruments; the Jews, by contrast, are the instigators, they participate in the most violent enterprises, they bring anti-Christian hatred into the center of the lodges, and, in connivance with Palladism [a super-Masonic order also invented by Jogand in earlier works] where a good number among them are chiefs, they even have their own behind-the-scenes lodges, confederated without the knowledge of the common Masons and governed by the Sovereign Patriarchal Council of Hamburg. Here, I am obliged to separate myself completely from Mr. Leo Taxil. Mr. Leo Taxil is more occupied with exposing the rituals than with studying the history of the sect. In his excellent work The Mysteries of Freemasonry, he hardly traced a rough sketch of the history of the Order ... Mr. Leo Taxil does not believe that Jewry and Masonry are compatible ... He is my friend, and I know him to be of good faith. But he is mistaken; he is absolutely mistaken.” ... There is among Jews a racial solidarity, not a religious solidarity, so that in this regard the Israelites are united as implacable enemies of the Catholic religion... Moreover, the union of the Jews in Freemasonry, a union that is incontestable, is a fact of racial solidarity; for there, they have complete brotherhood, Kabbalistic Jews, skeptical Jews, atheist Jews... The question of the Jews in Freemasonry being of very great importance, I will treat it at length. Until now this question has been hardly touched upon by antisemitic authors. It has seemed to me necessary to make it all known; the invasion of Jews everywhere, the election of Adriano Lemmi as supreme head of the sect, these are the major reasons for omitting nothing of what is essential for the public to know. ... the Jewish Masons organized themselves in turn, with the authorization of the Supreme Dogmatic Directorate of the sect, in secret association, creating Israelite lodges side-by-side with ordinary lodges and functioning currently under the direction of the Sovereign Patriarchal Council of Hamburg... Once he becomes a Freemason, what is to stop the Jew from becoming all that he could wish in today’s society, of which the Freemasons are soon going to become the masters, by means of this revolution long prepared in their councils? ... I think this definitively demonstrates, taking for an example one small country (Switzerland), the role played by the secret Jewish lodges within worldwide Freemasonry and alongside its official lodges which do not suspect the existence of this formidable confederation ... If you reflect now on the implications of the pact signed in 1874 between Albert Pike, the sovereign pontiff of Palladism, and Armand Levy, the director general of all the B’nai-B’rith chapters of the New and Old World, and you look at the colossal Masonic power of the Jews, you will understand what can be attempted and accomplished, in the battle of the sects against the Church, by this mysterious Sovereign Patriarchal Council of Hamburg... As for the finances of the Sovereign Patriarchal Council of Hamburg, it has, per year, in round figures, 5,400,000 Francs, for the general propagation of Masonic Jewry. Their purpose is above all to conspire against the Christian religion and to work in concert with a view to increasing their influence ... there are several Israelite sisters affiliated with the federation, mainly in Hamburg ... The secret place where the Sovereign Patriarchal Council holds its meetings is situated on Valentinskamp Street ... distinct from the place of the Grand Lodge of Hamburg ... The throne of the Sovereign Patriarch is of an unheard-of richness ... In meetings of the Sovereign Patriarchal Council, the Jewish Masons wear a great white tunic, drawn to the waist by a wide red sash, with gold fringes at the ends that hang down over the left thigh. No Masonic ribbon; but a silver chain with triangular rings around the neck, hanging down on the chest; a golden plaque in a form representing the tablets of the law, 7 centimeters high, hangs from the chain... The Israelite sisters are in an ordinary robe de ville dress ... As for the Sovereign Patriarch, he is vested in ... Like the high priest of ancient times, he wears a hoschen breastplate, attached by a chain of gold; but instead of twelve gems representing the twelve tribes, there are diamonds in the form of a flamboyant star. His head is done up in an enormous turban, with a plaque of gold on the front, on which are engraved Kabbalistic signs... Then, silence having been established, the Sovereign Patriarch pronounces in a grave and solemn voice: Adonai-Begon-Galchol... The Jewish brothers form a steel arch ... The visitor advances under crossed swords ... and tramples the crucifix. He is now worthy of the assembled high Jewry ... Note: Jogand may have chosen Hamburg as the site of the Sovereign Patriarchal Council because the Masonic lodge of Hamburg was more open to Jewish members than were other circles of Freemasonry in Germany. Aug. 15, 1896 Civiltà Cattolica’s coverage of the electoral victory of Karl Lueger and his Christian Social Party in Austria, also known at the time as the Antisemitic Party; Civiltà Cattolica reported “the victory of the antisemites in the capital” with these words: ... the triumph of Dr. Lueger was such as to give the coup de grace to the old mafia of Jewish capitalism, allied in Vienna with Masonic liberalism. Here we take up again the development of antisemitism or anti-liberalism, which was interrupted previously when the Emperor refused his consent, under the influence of Badeni, to the appointment of Dr. Lueger as Mayor of Vienna. To that refusal the City Councilors of Vienna gave their response this past April 18th, re-electing Dr. Lueger for the fourth time, by 96 out of 138 total votes. The Jewish-liberal press of Vienna and Budapest did everything again to prevent the confirmation of the appointment ... (vol. 3, p.484) Sept. 19, 1896 Civiltà Cattolica, Sept. 19, 1896: There was a time when male Masonry denied having sisters and swore ignorance of female lodges. But those who are intelligent about Masonic matters never let themselves be fooled ... taking advantage of the naivete of good people, Masonry dared its brazen perfidy three or four years ago, which gave rise to the terrific explosion of Taxil, Are There Women in Freemasonry? ... The formidable revelations of Doctor Bataille and of Miss Diana Vaughan [another Jogand pseudonym] put the ultimate seal on the question, resolving it forever. ... Leo Taxil was the first to publish the true rituals of the Perfect Adoption [a supposed order of Freemasonry], which had been kept secret because they were so lewd... F. Ragon, the Sacred Author of French Masonry, had printed a compendium that misrepresented them. The rituals of satanic Mopse [the supposed female order of Masons] were guarded so jealously that Taxil had to pay their weight in gold just to get them into his hands long enough to transcribe them. His book Are There Women in Freemasonry?, published in 1891, was truly a revelation to the entire world and to many ordinary Masons themselves. Adolf Ricoux acquired only at great expense the dogmatic bull of Pontiff Pike, in which is openly stated the diabolical doctrine of Palladism, and the moral system of the male and female Palladists. Doctor Bataille, penetrating courageously into the satanic lodges and reporting what he had seen with his own eyes, in two large volumes of great value and faith, provided a means for studying and understanding Masonry. The books of De la Rive will remain the most weighty monuments for those who study Jewish Masonry and the Mopse order, built as they are on an unshakable foundation. John Kostka, a former Satanist of high rank, burns now in public what he had adored [French historical allusion to the Frankish king Clovis, who was converted by St. Rémy and was instructed to burn the idols he had previously worshipped]. Miss Diana Vaughan, called from the deepest darkness to the light of God [Jogand invented her as an escapee from the highest ranks of female Masonry who had converted to Catholicism], prepared by divine providence and armed with knowledge and personal experience, turns to the service of the Church with her inexhaustible and valuable publications, which have no equal in exactitude and utility. Masonry is in a state of consternation, and to ward off the blows of the fair virgin, it spreads the rumor that she does not exist and is only a myth. It is a tactic of children; but Masonry has nothing better. (p.684 and note 1) Sept. 19, 1896 Advertisement for the First Anti-Masonic Congress, inside back cover of Civiltà Cattolica, September 19, 1896: From the 26th to the 30th of September the First Anti-Masonic Congress will be celebrated at Trent in the Tyrol, attended by representatives of all the nations to coordinate more opportunely to deal with this ill-starred sect, which aims at the de-Christianization of the world. The Supreme Pontiff, Leo XIII, Mgr. Valussi the Prince-Bishop of Trent, and the Austrian governing authorities have given their consent and approbation ... ceremonies in the cathedral, famous from the Council of Trent. Above the advertisement for the Congress can be seen an offer of a book describing the “recent conversion of Miss Diana Vaughan” for 20 centisimi (0.20 Lire). Note: Civiltà Cattolica’s endorsement and advertisement of Jogand’s works, under his various pseudonyms, helped him to become widely read and believed among Catholics in France. Jogand’s credibility was so high among French Catholics by the mid-1890s that his works became a factor in the life of a Carmelite convent, a place where non-devotional reading material is normally excluded. St. Thérèse of Lisieux, a Carmelite sister at the time and perhaps the best-known Catholic saint of the 19th century today, wrote a letter of encouragement to Diana Vaughan, enclosing a photograph. The photograph depicted Thérèse dressed as Joan of Arc in a convent play. Jogand displayed that photograph on the wall, using a limelight projector, during his April 19, 1897 press conference at the Geographical Society in Paris. Civiltà Cattolica devoted four pages to Leo Taxil’s announcement on April 19 that his writings were a hoax, one page on May 1 and three more on May 15, 1897. May 1, 1897 Civiltà Cattolica tried to excuse its past promotions of the works of Diana Vaughan, saying it had once called Diana Vaughan “unfindable” and had said that others write that she is a “myth,” claiming these as fulfillment of its duty of truthfulness to its readership. (vol. 2, p.367) The journal mentioned that Pope Leo XIII summoned the Cardinal-Archbishop of Paris immediately to the Vatican after Jogand’s disclosure. May 15, 1897 Civiltà Cattolica wrote about Jogand’s works: “From the above-mentioned it does not follow that everything Taxil said about Masonry is false, much of it being verifiable as true from genuine sources ...” As to Jogand-Taxil himself, the journal wrote of his “moral suicide,” asking what could lead him to commit “a suicide leaving him no hope among Catholics and none among liberals.” (vol. 2, pp. 481-483) May 1, 1897 Civiltà Cattolica’s lengthy response (vol. 2, pp. 257-271) to the rise of the Zionist movement: “The Dispersion of Israel in the Modern World” For those who do not believe in the divine inspiration of Scripture and reject the prophecies of both the Old and New Testaments, it must come off as inexplicably strange that as a matter of fact, unique in the history of the human race, there has been a people dispersed and wandering for more than nineteen centuries, without a king, without a temple, without a priesthood, without a country; yet always subsisting, interspersed in the nations of the globe, with none of whom they have ever intermarried, always remaining looked down upon as enemies and outcasts by all these same nations. Such is, without any doubt, the fact about the Jewish people, whose very existence provokes today, more than ever, hatreds that are all the more dangerous the more closely associated they are with the question above all other questions, namely the social question. The phenomenon becomes singular indeed, if one may say, when one considers that the animosity appears sharper in those nations where the liberties of this people have been more expansive and where they have been admitted to full enjoyment of the rights of citizenship. And in fact, according to what a German Jew wrote a while ago, “the antisemitic current is making a world tour.” But he could have added that in the places where it does the most violence, as in France, Austria, Hungary, Germany, and Italy, semitism has been the most favored by the laws... Now 1,827 years have passed since the fulfillment to the letter of the prediction of Jesus of Nazareth that Jerusalem would be destroyed, so that not one stone would remain on another, that the Jews would be delivered into slavery among all the nations, and would continue to be dispersed there until the consummation of the times. (footnote: Matthew 24:1,15; Luke 13:35, 19:41, 20:16, 21:6,20) Of this prediction, up to the present day, not a syllable has gone unfulfilled. The imprecation of his (Jesus’) blood be upon us and upon our children, cried out indeed by the people in the presence of Pontius Pilate (footnote: Matthew 27:25), continues to be fulfilled in all of them, with the same constancy with which the sun rises and sets for all: and now, however much semitism and antisemitism are spoken and written about, it will not be superfluous to see the fulfillment in today’s world. II. What is the status of the Jewish people in the midst of the nations of our time? To a great extent it is new. But it is precisely the novelty of their state that has given rise to the question that goes by the equally new name of antisemitism. We want to reflect on that civic emancipation which, in almost every country, has made them equal with the people of the nation, exciting tremendous angers and rivalries. The first to make this beautiful gift of fraternity with the Christian peoples was revolutionary France in 1791, imitated then little by little, step by step, in the course of the next century, by other States. England carried out the task from 1849 to 1858; Denmark in 1849; Austria-Hungary from 1840 to 1867; Germany from 1869 to 1871; Italy from 1860 to 1870; Switzerland from 1869 to 1874; Bulgaria and Serbia from 1878 to 1879. Thus the only regions in which the Jews, today, are not united in civic fraternity and equal with the native inhabitants are Russia and Romania at one end, and Spain and Portugal at the Gallic opposite end of Europe. But it may be noted that in the latter two countries the Jews, who before the 15th century amounted there to about half a million, were expelled and those who remained were baptized, nor have they thus far returned in numbers that would make it worth the while to originate a law of equality on their behalf... III. The progeny of Jacob have always increased in number, to the point of numbering today seven or eight, but certainly not ten million witnesses. If they have increased to that extent, that is to say they are still scattered throughout the globe. The prophecy of their dispersal, ut pulverem ante facem venti, delebo, “that they may be dust borne on a breath of wind throughout the earth” (footnote: Psalm 17:40-42 [Psalm 18:40-42 in many Bibles]) ... IV. It is clear that a breath of wind of heavenly wrath has scattered the children of Israel thoughout the universe... V. Although so scattered everywhere, the Israelite race still always and everywhere has remained and does remain the same. By tradition and temperament, they are incapable of mingling and assimilating with others. The Goths, the Visigoths, the Vandals, and the Lombards, little by little, were intermingled with the peoples whose territories they had occupied, and formed nations with them there, which were of one blood and one tongue. But not so the Israelites. Just as no ancient people has been so able to remain a unique body in itself by keeping themselves under exceptional laws, so no modern people has come to identify with them, notwithstanding the full liberty they have been conceded. The Jew continues always and everywhere to be immutably a Jew. His nationality is not in the land of his birth, nor in the language he speaks; it is in the seed, in the lineage, and in that mixture of Bible, Talmud and Kabbala that he claims as his history and his religion. An innate and secret tie binds him to his brethren in Abraham. The equality of civic rights that he enjoys where he lives does not detract in any way from his real nationality. Everywhere he is a foreigner to everyone, except to those with whom he has a common origin and a shared malediction. Apart from his own interest, he has no political aims, wherever he dwells. It is by every cause, under every flag in the world, and from all the dynasties, that he facilitates his acquisition of gold. For him the most favored nation is the one that provides the best way to accumulate gold: the Jew simply laughs that in Italy, France and Germany, they get all sentimental with tenderness for their country. He aspires to secret domination, rather than overt, but not out of an ambition to cultivate pride, but rather as an instrument of greed. In sum, together with his own people, he makes his own nation out of whatever nation he is in, not organically subsisting in any place, but conditionally existing in all places... VI. But nowhere have the Jews been elevated to such a level of power as in the present Austro-Hungarian Empire, in about thirty years since they were emancipated there, and the Empire has become little but their fief. In Vienna, until recently when the vigorous resurgence of the Christian Socialists began, they were in all the public offices, in City Hall, in the cabinet ministries, and they dictated the law in the Imperial Court itself... VII. And, to tell the truth, Berlin and Paris are already on the way to full enjoyment of the delights whereby civic equality, extended to the Jews, has blessed the Christian cities of Vienna and Pest [today one city, Budapest, combined with Buda across the Danube River]. Not to mention that, of 87,000 persons inscribed in the rolls as merchants in the capital of the German Empire, fully 41,000, as of three years ago, were Jews; and of 100,000 others employed in domestic services, no more than 320 Israelites were counted. Which says that today Israel commands and does not serve... VIII. Among the remedies proposed to free Christianity from the Jewish plague, there is the proposal to turn them out from their confines, to reunite them anew in Palestine and have them re-establish their pristine land with gold finagled from the peoples of Europe, as a bodily reconstituted and refashioned nation, refabricating an opulent Jerusalem that would rise up again as the capital of their Kingdom. Their ardent apologist, Leroy-Beaulieu, has studied this bizarre proposal, and had to reject it as impossible to effectuate for this reason: “Palestine would not have the means to provide food for the entire family of Israel. All of Syria would not be capacious enough to welcome them, unless it was a very slight portion of the seven or eight million Jews who live scattered throughout the globe. Might the Christians and Muslims be evicted to make room for them? Could we give our Holy Sepulchre into the custody of the Synagogue? What Christian would tolerate that? Even if all the open territory of Syria were handed over to Israel, from the desert to the Euphrates, not more than a third or a quarter of the Jews of Europe could manage to live there. It would be a great deal if the ancient country of Canaan and its surrounding regions could be home to several hundreds of thousands. So, even such a zealous defender of the emancipation of the Jews still cannot resist adding: “And the new settlements there will get started only with people from the ghettoes of the East, since Paris could not really be compared with Berditchev, nor Vienna and Berlin with Jassy. The Jew who might think of setting his house on the soil of his ancestors would not be the inconvenient guest that our capital cities would willingly pass off; nor would he be the rotten middleman, nor the bold speculator, nor the cosmopolitan adventurer in search of ignoble markets, nor the publicity agent, shrewd hoarder of pens and venal votes. All of these types would remain there in the way. We could make Israel, as long as we liked, into to the land of the twelve tribes, but, in order to attract them to Jerusalem, there would have to be built on Mount Zion a stock exchange, banks, chambers and trade unions, and everything appropriate for the operations that they long to monopolize.” (footnote: Israel chez les Nations, pp. 410-11.) These are human arguments that add experiential value to higher and divine arguments, which are never less valuable. According to holy writ, the Jewish people must always exist as a scattered people, wanderers among the other peoples, so that, not only by the deposit of Scripture, which is venerated and preserved, but also, by being in that state, they give testimony to the faith of Christ. He, through the mouth of David, prayed the Father that the race would not be killed, as to him and as to his enemy, ne occidas eos [Latin: do not kill them], but he had dispersed and degraded them by his power, disperge illos in virtute tua et deppone eos [Latin: disperse them in your power and bring them down]. (footnote: Psalm 58:11 [Psalm 59:11 in most Jewish, Protestant, and current Catholic versions]). Which was to say: disperse them among all the nations of the world that they would always be a living and present example of your justice and a palpable demonstration of the truth of the Gospel. “They were dispersed,” observed Augustine, “the Jews, so that they would be made into testimonies of their iniquity and of our truth.” Now nineteen centuries have passed, and the prophetic word is fulfilled nowadays more obviously still than in earlier times. Pulverized Jewry clutters the civilized Christian world. As for reconstructing Jerusalem, then, to become the center of a revived Israelite Kingdom, it will be observed how contrary that is to the preaching of the same Christ who affirmed that Jerusalem calcabitur a gentibus, “would be trampled upon by the Gentiles,” will be pressed down by the Gentiles, that is by rulers of non-Jewish descent, donec impleantur tempora nationum [Latin: until the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled], until the conversion of the nations has been set out, and the end of the world arrives (footnote: Luke 21:38): at which time Israel will be taken by the hand of God’s mercy and brought into the fold by the Messiah they had renounced. Nevertheless it is not said that even then, when the Jews have turned back to see Him who the pierced, they will be returning to their former dominion and possession. That is where their invented remedy is not worth more than a chimera, a dream. IX. The more practical remedy, instead, one that is more readily at hand and more efficacious, is found in that shaking off of the Jewish yoke, of which the Christian Socialists of Vienna and Austria have given, and continue to give, spendid example to the city and to Catholic regions. We have already sketched a quick outline of the monstrosity of oppression in which the capital of the Empire was signally held by Judaism overflowing from Poland and tied by a double bond with Masonry and liberalism. Kannengieser, in his famous volume Juifs et Catholiques en Autriche-Hungrie [Jews and Catholics in Austria-Hungary], has presented us a picture that makes one shudder enough to take one’s breath away, in which he recounts the origin of the revival, thanks to the worthy Baron Vogelsang, to whom Vienna will one day be obliged to erect a statue. The clergy and the people were the two targets most attacked and mauled by this three-headed Hydra. The one, despised as much as they were understood in the anti-Christian hearts of the race of Judas Iscariot and High Priest Caiphas; the other, devoured to the marrow of the bone. They could hardly appear on the streets of Vienna in cassocks without provoking the vituperations and insults of the Judaizing rabble. Tradesmen, laborers and small shopkeepers were all caught between the teeth of the ruthless beast. What did the clergy finally do there, once they resolved to take the bull by the horns? Kannengieser recounts it well: Turning to the people, in defense of their rights, undeceiving them, devoting themselves to relieving their misery, they made them aware of who were their true benefactors, and who were their malefactors. Clergy and people united in comradeship, the highest nobles and citizens assisted them and favored them with all manner of help. The Christian Social Party was formed, it grew, and it became huge. With the elections to the Vienna City Council in 1895, Judaism’s strength in the Council slipped, and so did its servants in City Hall; and now, with the recent political elections under universal suffrage, it has already been cleaned up for the most part in Parliament as well. Arrogant Judaism is defeated there. Unity and industriousness in the faith have brought victory to the Catholics of Vienna and Austria. It was lawful action that they threw into the jaws of the Hydra, and by lawful action they sallied forth and retook that civic, religious and economic liberty which the evil invaders had usurped. That is the remedy, for now, the most infallible that Providence offers to redeem Christian countries from servitude to the emancipated Jews. It is not in violence, nor in reprisals, nor in riots, nor in ransacking; but in the faithful exercise, wherever it is provided by law, of that weapon of popular suffrage itself, which corrupting Judaism has used to subject to itself those countries that have welcomed it. When, finally, the Christian representatives in Parliament hold the majority, it will be possible to see, at that point, an end of the equality of rights that has been conceded to dispersed Israel, except for charity and justice, whether to maintain, or to remove, or to reform. The example has been given: fide, concordia et operibus [Latin: faith, concord and hard work]; Christianity will surely shake off all the ills produced by the Magna Carta of 1789. Sept. 16, 1899 Civiltà Cattolica, Sept. 16, 1899, p.749, on the Third Zionist Congress: The Zionist Jews held their third Congress at Basel under the presidency of Dr. Herzl, who is well known as the zealous “apostle” for the re-establishment of the ancient Kingdom of Judea. In its final session, the Congress elected a large Action Committee, which will have the task of fulfilling the resolutions passed thus far. Germany, Austria-Hungary, and America have two representatives on this Committee; Romania and Britain have three; Russia twelve; and France, Galicia, Italy, Transvaal, Belgium, Switzerland and Egypt have one. That means the Zionists have received support more or less proportional to the numbers of Israelites in nearly all the world. Indeed, some newspapers recounted that the richest and most powerful Jews have already resorted to the Sultan and the Ottoman Porte [government], cloaking themselves in strong protections and having the most seductive promises flashed about, in connection with certain concessions; but, not daring to arouse the opposition of Christian peoples by an insult to the Holy Places, they did not say a word about Jerusalem and nearby territories; rather limiting themselves to asking for the settlement of some Syrian districts and the island of Cyprus. As concerns the latter, however, the final result of these operations will depend more on the consent of Britain than of Turkey, and it appears that the Court of St. James, in order to protect itself from importunities, has put forward the jealousy of the Cypriots for their own Greek nationality and their fears that excessive numbers of Jews, allied with the Muslims, would be able one day to gain the upper hand over the Christians. In consideration of that, Great Britain may allow some Jewish settlements in Cyprus, but in limited numbers so as not to give umbrage to the current population and not to create a continuing source of disorders. Meager success, as anyone can see; but what sort of Zionism is this, which even at the initial steps renounces Jerusalem and the entire ancient Kingdom of Palestine? Is that not equivalent to a renunciation of itself and a proclamation that its own goals are utopian? Why not give up the very name of Zionism? The deicide race, despite all the favors lavished on it by the anti-Christian sects, feels defeated before fighting, overcome by the Nazarene. January 25, 1904 Theodor Herzl's diary on his audience with Pope Pius X this date; excerpts: We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people... Pope St. Pius X’s words to Herzl also touched upon the pivotal time when the Roman Empire, as reported by Josephus Flavius, superseded Israel by destroying Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70: He spoke of the Temple at Jerusalem. It had been destroyed forever. Did I suppose that one ought to reconstruct it and perform the sacrificial services there in the ancient way? He also talked about Josephus Flavius and quoted him; but I didn’t quite understand that. Source: Raphael Patai, ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, trans. H. Zohn (1960), vol. IV, pp. 1602-1603, 1606-1607. Easter 1907 Pope St. Pius X on bad press and good press: In face of unrestrained license of the anti-Catholic press, which impugns or denies eternal laws of truth and justice, which stirs up hatred against the Church, which insinuates into people’s hearts most pernicious doctrines, corrupting minds, fostering evil appetites, flattering the senses and perverting the will – all ought to recognize the great importance of union between good people for turning to advantage of the Church and society a weapon the enemy uses to injure both. Source: Croce of Naples, reprinted in English translation in “The French Ecclesiastical Revolution,” American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 32 (1907), p.665. February 9, 1916 Cardinal Gasparri’s letter to the President and Directors of the American Jewish Committee was published on May 6, 1916 in Civiltà Cattolica: Contemporary Chronicle Rome, April 8-28, 1916 I. Events in Rome ... 1. Just published since mid-April was the letter that the Holy Father had sent on February 9 by the Cardinal Secretary of State to President Marschall and all the members of the executive committee of the “American Jewish Committee” of New York, in response to the letter that Jews of the United States of America sent to Benedict XV, to implore pontifical mediation in favor of their brethren in Europe who have often suffered opposition and travails in regions ravaged by the war, especially those where the Russians are waging war. Here is the most noble papal document, which enhances the merits of Benedict XV as a pacifier in the current war: Sirs, The Supreme Pontiff has sincerely taken cognizance of the letter that you addressed on December 30, 1915. It is in the name of three million Israelite citizens of the United States of America that you turn to His Holiness to denounce in a general manner the treatment to which your co-religionists are forced to be exposed in various regions, and at the same time ask Him to intervene “with the weight of His supreme moral and spiritual power so that this suffering might finally be ended, with an act of that humanitarianism to which the Holy Father is so passionately devoted.” The Supreme Pontiff is not in position to pronounce on the particular facts referred to in the “memorandum” attached to your letter; but on principle, as head of the Catholic Church, which, faithful to its divine doctrine and to its most glorious traditions, considers all men as brothers and teaches them to love one another, [he] does not cease to inculcate among individuals, as among peoples, the observance of the principles of natural law, and to reprove all that violates them. This law must be observed and respected toward the children of Israel as toward all men, because it would not be consistent with justice and with religion itself to derogate from it solely on account of divergence of religious confessions... Italian original: page 358 and page 359 June 30, 1917 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, Having returned this morning to Munich, I am fulfilling without delay my duty to send Your Most Reverend Eminence a more detailed report of my trip to Berlin and Kreuznach, of which I already had the honor to send news to you telegraphically in my respectful coded cables of the 26th and 30th this month. Leaving here accompanied by Msgr. Schioppa, the Auditor of this Nunciature, on the evening of Monday the 25th, I arrived in Berlin the following morning at 7:20. At the station to receive me was Deputy Erzberger, who, with a splendid military automobile, which was placed at my complete disposition during all the time of my stay in Berlin by the Ministry of War, accompanied me to the Hotel Continental, one of the best in the Capital, where I was lodged in a very dignified apartment on the first floor, as the guest of the Imperial Government. I will say here that immediately upon my first encounter with Mr. Erzberger, I renewed the request, already made to him in writing, to arrange that the press would not speak about my trip, in order to avoid future hostile comments toward the Holy See on the part of the Entente's newspapers, which in all probability would have represented the selfsame Holy See as always more closely tied to the Central Powers and inclined to cooperate with them for the achievement of a so-called German peace. This request achieved full effect, as the newspapers were prevented by the Censor from giving any hint of the matter. I celebrated Holy Mass at the nearby Catholic Church of St. Hedwig, then met first, at 10:00, Dr. Jordan, First Legation Secretary, assigned to me personally by the Foreign Ministry, and then, at 10:15, Mr. Diego von Bergen, First Minister, already well known to me because for several years he was in Rome as the Secretary of the Prussian Legation to the Holy See, and he gave me some useful information for my audience with the Chancellor of the Reich. This took place at 11:30 and was truly marked by the most respectful deference and the most sincere cordiality. Making the customary compliments, Mr. von Bethmann-Hollweg (who is a man of imposing figure, of pronounced features, and rather rough appearance, but frank and loyal) inquired attentively into the precious health of the Holy Father, and I, after giving him the news he requested, gave him the copy of the Letter that His Holiness has addressed to His Majesty the Kaiser. He read it in its entirety with the fullest attention and he immediately spoke with admiration and praise of the attitude and humanitarian intentions of the August Pontiff. He said that Germany sincerely desires an end to this horrible war that it did not provoke, as it well demonstrated this past December with its offer to enter into peace negotiations with the enemy States... ... he charged me repeatedly to say to the Holy Father that he counts greatly on His activity, convinced that the August Pontiff is destined to play a major role when the time comes for the desired peace... My departure for General Headquarters took place Thursday evening in a sumptuous Imperial special train car, where I was seated with Msgr. Schioppa and the aforesaid Mr. Jordan, who was assigned to accompany me. Arriving at Kreuznach at 9:30 Friday morning, the Feast of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, - after having celebrated Holy Mass in the chapel of the large Lazzaretto Hospital (over which the Papal flag was flying), which was attended by the Generals-Plenipotentiary of Austria-Hungary and Bavaria - I was taken by Imperial automobile to the residence of His Majesty, where an elegant apartment had been prepared for me. The Imperial audience took place with solemnity at 12:45. After the customary introduction to civil and military dignitaries of the Imperial household, I was brought into the presence of the Kaiser, handing over to him the venerated Pontifical Original Letter, explaining to him, in accordance with the instructions I received, the anxious preoccupations of the Holy Father about the prolongation of the war, building up hatreds and accumulating material and moral destruction, which represents the suicide of civilized Europe and reverses centuries of progress of humanity... His Majesty listened to me with respectful and serious attention. I will say right away, however, that in the way he fixed his gaze, in gesture and voice, He (not so much by nature as in consequence of the preoccupations of three long years of war) appeared overexcited and not at all well-balanced... He recalled the peace offer of last December, lamenting that the Holy Father had not spoken out then, while Wilson had. Naturally I explained to His Majesty the reasons for this silence, which already had been highlighted, moreover, briefly but clearly, in the selfsame Pontifical Letter. Then the Emperor spoke to me at length about the perils that international socialism presents to action in favor of peace and insisted a great deal on the necessity that the Holy Father issue a solemn document addressed not indeed to Governments, but to clergy and to the faithful of the whole world, commanding prayer and work in concord in favor of peace. He had no doubt of the efficacy of such a pontifical prescription. There are, he said, two powerful organizations on the earth: the Catholic hierarchy and the Prussian army, which are threatened today by international socialism. Then he spoke to me about the current King of Italy, atheist, profound hater of priests and monks, and whom he called the “traitor king.” In March 1914, Victor Emmanuel III expressly promised him that, if the issue were presented, the armies of Italy would be deployed alongside Germany! He is finished forever, added the Kaiser, with the House of Savoy, who will have to pay for their betrayal (and here he made the same gesture with clenched fist that he did at the beginning). The Pope’s situation is intolerable; it is necessary in the interest of his sovereignty that he have an independent territory with access to the sea to assure freedom of communications... Source: Italian original and German summary at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 366. The original is reprinted from Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, Vatican Secret Archives, AA.EE.SS., Stati Ecclesiastici, 1914-1921, pos. 1317, fasc. 470, vol. III, fol. 111r-120v. July 27, 1917 Pacelli to Gasparri: Your Most Reverend Eminence, Following up on my respectful coded cable of the 25th, I am fulfilling my duty, upon returning to Munich, of giving Your Most Reverend Eminence a more particularized report of the discussions I had in Berlin about the peace proposals by the Holy See. Arriving in the Capital on the 24th, I immediately had a long conference both with Mr. Michaelis, the new Reich Chancellor, and with Mr. Zimmermann ... After the usual pleasantries, I told them that the Holy Father and Your Eminence were left very satisfied by the most courteous welcome and the openness shown me by the Imperial Government, on the occasion of my first visit to Berlin, concerning the views of Germany on the principal questions that relate to the current conflict and to the way of ending it, and indeed that the Holy See would consider presenting, either immediately or this coming autumn (when the offensive will have ended and its ineffectiveness will be evident), to all or at least to the principal belligerent States, a peace proposal on the fundamentals, of which I gave copies to both the aforesaid Men of State in Italian, as well as in an exact German translation that I had taken care to have prepared. I added that, although these fundamentals had not yet been communicated to the other Powers, nonetheless the selfsame Holy See, based on information that is possible for It to obtain thanks to its admirable worldwide organization, believed able to consider not indeed certain, but seriously probable, that the proposal itself would be welcome. However, the Holy See, before proceeding to an official step with the various States, desired, out of a special regard toward Germany, which has shown itself more inclined toward peace than all the others, to know confidentially the thoughts of the Reich Government concerning the often-mentioned foundations. I concluded that Germany, showing itself conciliatory in a way to expedite peace, would add to military glory the merit of having given back to humanity a new era of civilization and prosperity, and would regain the sympathy of the whole world, while the new Chancellor would thus begin his exalted office under the best auspices... Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, Vatican Secret Archives, AA.EE.SS., Stati Ecclesiastici, 1914-1921, pos. 1317, fasc. 470, vol. III, fol. 148r-151v, reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 378. Sept. 4, 1917 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Request for intervention by the Holy See in favor of the Israelite community Most Reverend Eminence, The Israelite communities of the German Empire, by way of the “Free Association for the Interests of Orthodox Jewry” of Frankfurt and Professor Dr. Werner, rabbi of Munich, have turned to this Nunciature for the following purpose: According to the words of the Bible, the aforesaid communities, for the Laubenhüttenfest or feast of tabernacles (which occurs on the first of October), have need of palms, which ordinarily come to them from Italy. Now, unexpectedly and against its own interest, the Italian Government has suddenly prohibited the export of palms that are available at Como, nor can they be fetched up to now, even though they cannot serve any purpose as food or any other advantage. Time is of the essence, since the exportation should take place within a few days, in order that the palms not arrive too late, especially since they were supposed to be distributed then throughout Germany. The Israelite communities thus confide in an intervention of the Holy See with the Italian Government and ask the Apostolic Nunciature to intercede for this purpose, adding that thousands of members, faithful to their religion, would prove their profound gratitude for a happy success. It seemed to me that this concerned not indeed an assistance provided to the Israelite communities for a purely civil purpose or for the protection of natural rights common to all men (in that there would not have been any problem), but rather a cooperation, material and remote, but positive and direct, in the exercise of Jewish worship. I therefore responded courteously to the aforementioned rabbi that, since it was not possible for me to use the telegraph for such a matter (which, because entirely extraordinary, would have required much explanation), I would have an urgent report sent immediately about this to the Holy See, but that I foresaw that because of the timespan for communications it would be difficult for it to arrive in time, and moreover I did not know what action the Holy Father would be able to take in this regard with the Italian Government... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 4018. Sept. 18, 1917 Gasparri to Pacelli: Most Illustrious and Reverend Signore, Your Most Illustrious Excellency’s Report no. 1258 of Sept. 4th reached me in due course, concerning the subject of “the request for intervention by the Holy See in favor of the Israelite communities.” I have taken cognizance of what you brought to my attention, and I entirely approve the way you handled this delicate matter, since the Holy See, obviously, cannot support the request of Prof. Dr. Werner. Therefore, in giving a response in that sense to the same gentleman – a response that I refer to your well-known dexterity – you will be able to insist on the fact that the Holy See does not maintain diplomatic relations with the Italian Government. I take advantage of this occasion to confirm further the receipt of Report no. 1210 of August 30th concerning the sending of a report by Deputy Erzberger, and with sentiments of distinct and sincere esteem … Source: www.Pacelli-Edition, Document No. 9612. Sept. 28, 1917 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Concerning the Israelite Communities of Germany Most Reverend Eminence, As soon as Your Most Reverend Eminence’s venerated Dispatch No. 41955 of September 18th arrived, concerning the notable request for intervention by the Holy See in favor of the Israelite Communities, I devoted my attention to communicating verbally with all delicacy to Professor Werner what Your Eminence so indulgently signified to me in the cited Dispatch, insisting in particular on the fact that the Holy See does not maintain diplomatic relations with the Italian Government. Professor Werner showed himself to be perfectly convinced by the reasons expounded to him and thanked me warmly for what I had done in this regard... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 4019. Oct. 17, 1917 Pacelli to Gasparri: In compliance with the venerated instructions imparted to me by Your Most Reverend Eminence via Your encrypted cable of August 26th, and after having accomplished the considerable operations necessary, whether it be with the Military Authorities here, or with Switzerland to expedite the packets, about which I had the honor to communicate to Your Eminence by my respectful Report No. 638, I was finally able today to visit the prisoner-of-war camp at Puchheim, where more than six hundred French and one thousand Russian prisoners are quartered, almost all of them simple soldiers or non-commissioned officers. Arriving at the aforesaid camp, accompanied by the Secretary of the Nunciature, by General Voetter and by His Highness Prince Oettingen-Wallerstein, a Lieutenant à la Suite in the Army, placed at my disposal by the War Ministry here, I found all the prisoners (with the exception of those who were sick and those who were occupied with work in the camps) gathered together, despite the rather cold temperature, in an open area; and having the French come closer to me (to whom alone it was possible for me to speak in their language), I directed the following words to them: “My dear friends. I feel a deep emotion and a true satisfaction in being among you at this moment, and in being able to express to you in person the sentiments of paternal tenderness and affectionate devotion with which He whom I represent, your father and mine, the Sovereign Pontiff, does not cease to surround you in all your trials. “You know all that Pope Benedict XV has already done and all that he would still like to do to ameliorate the lot of unfortunate prisoners of war. While I was working with Him at the Vatican, I was often moved in realizing, at the moment when He was giving me His orders, to what extent Our Holy Father was expressing His benevolent solicitude for the prisoners. One could say that He does not cease to think of them, to reflect on possible ways to soften the sorrows of their situation. “How deeply I would like to have you feel, my friends, this tenderness of the Pope! It is in His name and with His great heart that I say to you: Courage and trust! When at times your life at the moment may seem heavier, remember immediately that Someone carried for us, by love, by devotion, a Cross even more heavy and no less bloody, and seek in prayer a new strength to climb your Calvary! “Your Cross, it is made heavier by the thought of your families, by this so painful separation from all whom you love, by the same thought that your own captivity causes them to suffer. It is also prayer that will console you, because prayer will bring you close to those who are praying for you at the same instant perhaps that you yourself are praying for them. “Yes, it is at the foot of the Cross, it is upon the Heart of Our Lord, that you will most surely find a bit of consolation in your trials, more strength to endure with a valor worthy of Christians and Frenchmen. “The visible center of this consolation and of this strength, as you know, is in the very heart of the Pope. It is from this living source that I will draw the blessing, directly in His name and by His will, that I am going to invoke upon you, as the token of His inexhaustible love, His unceasing devotion for you who are His sons and are all the more dear to Him the more unfortunate you are.” After this I imparted the benediction and immediately had the packets distributed, which were pre-positioned at my side on two large tables. Each of them was bundled in paper bearing the imprint of the papal tiara and the message: “The Holy Father offers with blessing,” and contained 200g of chocolate, 1 packet of biscotti, 6 packets of American cigarettes, 125g of soap, 1 breakfast chocolate milk, 100g of tea, 200g of sugar. To the French priest Deschamps, himself a prisoner of war, with spiritual care for Catholics detained in that camp, I gave the task of distributing the medals, which I had brought with me, to those he believed most opportune, having regard to the religion and principles they professed. Then a long and pitiful line of prisoners began to pass before me (many of whose martyrdom has lasted for more than three years), the greater part of them in tattered clothes, pallid, dirty, some of them, especially among the Russians, half in a daze. All of them, French, Russian Catholics, Russian Schismatics (with the sole exception of the Russian Jews), respectfully kissed my ring, thanking me movingly, and more than one asked me to express to His Holiness sentiments of deepest gratitude for His charity and His condescension. I spoke some words of comfort to them and wanted to inform myself about their condition; but it was impossible for them to open up sincerely, since they were always surrounded by German officers who, especially whenever any prisoner showed an interest in talking with me, came ever closer with the obvious intention of listening to our conversation. So, under the watchful guard of their keepers, the greater part of them responded in a sad manner that they were fine; some, not having perhaps the strength, stared at me, without offering a word, with inexpressive, sad, anguished eyes. Only at the end of the visit did I succeed, by eluding for the moment the vigilance of the officers, in talking freely, albeit with utmost circumspection, with a Frenchman. He confided to me the moral suffering of the poor prisoners, told me the food is completely insufficient, and that packets sent by their own families are not delivered or have some of their contents removed. The distribution of packets being finished, I was accompanied by the aforesaid Genral Voetter and the local Commandant to visit the vast camp... Within days I will visit the important camp at Ingolstadt, where many officers, in addition to the simple men of the troops, are confined. Bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 4021. Oct. 22, 1917 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, As Your Eminence deigned to write me in Your venerated confidential letter of Oct. 13th, it is most true, and no one deplores more than I, the blindness and obstinacy of the men who currently govern Germany. A few days ago, Mr. Bethmann-Hollweg came to visit me privately here in Munich. I recalled to him how much he had done for me on the occasion of my first visit to Berlin, concerning the various questions related to peace, and he affirmed and confirmed everything. I believe that if Bethmann-Hollweg would have remained in power, Germany’s response to the Pontifical Appeal would have been more along the lines of the most just desires of Your Eminence and more in the interests of the Central Powers themselves. It is said he was overthrown first of all by the excellent Erzberger, to whom, however, as he added without bitterness, he has shown the greatest loyalty! I do not want, in this, to promote complaints against Erzberger, who was brought to this step, of which he did not reckon the importance, by his rather impulsive character; but unfortunately the consequences were rather harmful. Now we will see if, as a result of the crisis, someone will rise to power with a broader viewpoint than the Protestant-bigot Michaelis. To turn to Mr. Erzberger, he is at this moment the object of great hostility and very strong attacks, even by many distinguished Catholics and members of the Center Party. Count von Hertling himself has often spoken to me strongly against him, as an unbalanced, dangerous, and compromising man. He has added that Erzberger is the agent of Prince Bülow, whose future return as Chancellor Hertling considers (as the result of known former disagreements with the Center Party) as a catastrophe; however, this could perhaps be doubted for various reasons. I have known that also His Eminence Cardinal Hartmann (whose sentiments – I am told – are rather pan-Germanistic) is decidedly adverse to Erzberger, as are all conservative Catholics, who condemn the well-known Reichstag peace resolution successfully moved by Erzberger, and his tendencies in favor of the “parliamentarization” of Germany. Despite such oppositions, I do not believe I can abandon him, since he is intelligent, good, animated by the best intentions, phenomenally energetic, and has offered and rendered (unique perhaps among the political men of the Center Party), spontaneously, a great many services to the Nunciature and the Holy See; but I must naturally use the utmost circumspection, all the more so because among his undeniably eminent qualities, prudence, restraint and reserve are certainly not the most prominent. After this, wishing Your Eminence every grace and benediction from the Lord, with sentiments of unalterable devotion, liveliest gratitude and most profound obsequy, I bow to kiss the Sacred Purple and have the honor to profess myself Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most Humble, Most Devoted, Most Obliged Servant +Eugenio, Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 4043. Nov. 15, 1917 Gasparri to Pacelli, encrypted cable: Swiss Israelitic communities have supplicated the Holy Father to take an interest in the safety of Jewish places and population of Jerusalem. I therefore invite Your Illustrious Excellency to act solicitously with the German Government in the name of the Holy Father in the desired sense. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2389. Nov. 30, 1917 Gasparri to Pacelli, by encrypted cable: I am informed that the Ottoman Government has the intention to issue three dispositive laws concerning marriages of Muslims, Hebrews, Christians. It recognizes Christian marriage celebrated before a civil functionary, establishes impediments and divorce: it does not want to accept a regulation about Catholic marriage. The Apostolic Delegate has presented a regulation for Catholics. Your Illustrious Excellency shall intervene to strive effectively to have the Berlin Government act upon the Ottoman Government to accept this guideline. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 5999. Dec. 6, 1917 Schioppa to Gasparri: Re: Transmission of petition Most Reverend Eminence, Enclosed herewith I have the honor to send Your Most Reverend Eminence a petition, duly recommended by the Prince-Bishop’s Delegate in Berlin, in which the Administration of the Jewish Women's Association of Berlin asks this Nunciature to implore the exalted intervention of the Holy Father for a cessation of the current persecutions against Jews, especially in Galicia and Poland. Beseeching Your Eminence to please lay this supplication – if it is so deemed – before the August Throne of His Holiness, humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2119. Dec. 8, 1917 Pacelli to Gasparri: In my respectful Confidential Report of October 22nd, I had the honor to inform Your Most Reverend Eminence of the hostility and attacks that were targeting Deputy Erzberger, especially by distinguished Catholics and members of the Center Party. These oppositions have neither ceased nor diminished; and some Catholic political personages on the conservative side, among them Baron Frankenstein [usually spelled Franckenstein], notable member of the Reichstag, have come to visit me, asking me to make known to the Holy See that Mr. Erzberger, who has remained for a long time the principal source of information for the Nunciature and the Holy See itself, does not represent, from the viewpoint either of foreign policy or of domestic reforms, the entire Center Party delegation in the Reichstag, much less the entire Party. I have responded that undoubtedly Mr. Erzberger furnishes spontaneously and continually much important news, but he is neither the only nor the most important source of information, and that, moreover, I would be grateful also to members of the minority of the Reichstag, to which the aforementioned Gentlemen belong, if they too would like to favor me with reliable reports verbally or in writing about German’s various political events and express therein to me their point of view, since only with knowledge and discussion of various inclinations is it possible to make an exact and complete judgment of the situation. The discontent of the aforementioned Gentlemen against Mr. Erzberger was especially provoked by the famous peace resolution approved by the Reichstag this past July 19th. Voting against it was a minority composed of five members of the Center Party in addition to the Conservatives and the Nationalist Liberals: two other Center Party members abstained, since, notwithstanding their aversion toward it, they did not want to assume too harsh a posture with respect to peace. The majority of the Party was divided in two groups, of which one fully approved Erzberger’s thought, while the other had more or less serious concerns about it, and probably would have lined up against the proposal, had they not been taken by surprise and impressed by the speech of Erzberger himself in the Reichstag Committee. This division in the Center Party delegation corresponds to the difference of opinions that has long existed within it over the question of the so-called war goals or Kriegsziele. All are in agreement that the territorial integrity of Germany is inviolable and must be defended at all costs; all are also, or at least say they are, united in the desire for an expeditious peace; all avow equally that the future economic development of Germany must be guaranteed in any case, and the security of the Fatherland must be enhanced to the maximum. Plans of conquest, yearnings for annexations, humiliation and annihilation of enemies, as goals in themselves, find no open followers in the ranks of the Center Party. Nevertheless, within these limits, a profound divergence of views is manifest. Not a few, in fact, maintain that without enlargements of territory and relative indemnities of war, it is impossible to assure to Germany political security and the necessary economic development; and in particular in the question of Belgium they deem unacceptable the restoration of that country to full independence. For this reason, Scheidemann’s formula “without annexations, without reparations,” encounters even in Center Party circles the strongest disapproval; and in the Reichstag resolution of July 19th it was above all the renunciation of annexations (“erzwungene Gebietserweiterungen”) that aroused the greatest opposition, opposition that then became ever stronger after the recent successes of the Central Powers and will probably increase even more if, freed up from the eastern front, they are able to launch (as is already expected here) a big offensive in the west against England and France. Erzberger’s action had as a necessary consequence the formation in the Reichstag of a majority composed of the Center Party, the Progressives and the Socialists. The cooperative work among these three parties has become increasingly close; all important questions are discussed and resolved by their leaders (in many cases with the participation of the Nationalist Liberals) in joint meetings, in which the Center Party is represented by Erzberger with Trimborn or Fehrenbach. The result is that these parties are currently deciding and determining by joint accord the foreign and domestic policy of Germany. Now Baron Frankenstein and his friends profoundly deplore this intimate alliance, not for its manner of acting for a particular goal [not per modum actus], but for its very essence [per modum habitus] – the Center Party with the other two aforesaid parties of the left which want the parliamentarization and centralization of Germany, two tendencies which the Center Party has combatted up to now on fundamental principle. Nor is this all; the Center Party (these Gentlemen also observe) has united itself in cooperative work with those parties that want to eliminate the Christian idea from the State and direct their forces to separate schools and the State from the Church and go so far as to oppose the adoption of legislative enactments directed to the protection of youth from irreligious and immoral literature. This group of strictly conservative tendencies in domestic politics and pan-Germanic ones in foreign policy, and which therefore inclines toward the new Fatherland Party (Vaterlandspartei) headed by the famous Admiral von Tirpitz, is favored and supported by a notable part of the clergy whether secular or religious, and His Eminence Cardinal Hartmann, Archbishop of Cologne (as I have been assured and had occasion to report it to Your Eminence in my aforementioned Report). That is why all, as a natural consequence, could not succeed in accepting the work of this Nunciature directed to supporting with devoted zeal the Holy Father’s action in favor of peace in conformity with the proposed bases in the Pontifical Appeal and which thus coincided rather with the program of Erzberger and with the Reichstag resolution rather than with the postulates of the Fatherland Party. The aforesaid distinguished conservative and pan-Germanistic Catholics undoubtedly greeted the aforesaid Appeal with dutiful respect; nevertheless, in reality, they were discontented, since it appeared to be contrary to their aspirations and favorable to the Entente. For that reason they kept maintaining that the Pontifical Note did not constitute a question of conscience, nor a resolution in a matter of faith or morals, nor a measure of internal Church government; and even as some of its individual points expressed reservations especially concerning the question of Belgium. (Cf. also Fr. Ehrle, S.J., “Die päpstliche Friedensnote an die Häupter der Kriegsführenden Völker vom 1. August 1917,” [The Papal Peace Note to the Heads of the Warring Nations of August 1, 1917], in Stimmen der Zeit, Vol. 94, 1st Issue, October 1917). As to Alsace-Lorraine, according to them such question no longer existed for Germany. I come now to the particular question of the person of the aforesaid Cardinal Hartmann. Already before I arrived in Germany, the Most Eminent Archbishop of Cologne honored me, as Your Eminence undoubtedly recalls, with a frequent and large correspondence, and this continued uninterruptedly after my arrival here, remaining always courteous and indeed, if this word on my part is not too bold, cordial. His Eminence often asked me about questions of law (cf., for example, my Report no. 1762 dated this October 9th); and I, in my turn, just recently submitted to him my proposal of Instructions to the Bishops and Religious Superiors of Germany Concerning the Military Clergy, to which he solicitously replied, giving it ample praise and calling it a “vortreffliche,höchst begrüssenswerte Instruktion.” [outstanding, extremely welcome instruction] On the occasion of my first trip to Berlin and General Headquarters, I planned to go also to Cologne, as stated in my obsequious encrypted cable of this June 19th, and I had respectfully given advance notice to this Highest Eminence; but at the last moment, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria having come to Munich for a few hours, where he also received the Diplomatic Corps, I was obliged to put off that visit to a more opportune time (cf. Report no. 440 of June 30th). And in fact, on the first of September, anticipating perhaps a break of several days from the continuing work of this Nunciature, I hastened to communicate to Cardinal von Hartmann my proposal to effectuate the desired trip; but I received the response that his Highest Eminence, while having a strong interest in speaking to me, was however at that moment far from Cologne for a cure at the baths. From then on, because of the ever more pressing work that had to be attended to, I did not believe I could in conscience absent myself, even for a very brief time, except for the four and a half days I devoted to the visits to the prisoner of war camps of Puchheim and Ingolstadt. But also of this impossibility, I gave most obsequious timely notice by letter to the oft-lauded Archbishop, asking Him to excuse the involuntary delay and assuring Him of my continuing desire to express in person my sentiments of most profound veneration and hear from Him such important information and wise counsel as He might be pleased to impart to me. Despite all that, according to what has just been reported to me, the Most Eminent von Hartmann is complaining of not having any meeting with me up to now and has deplored that, while I am dealing continually with Erzberger, I have still not spoken with him, who could inform me, rather than hearing from said Deputy and his followers, about the true sentiments of the intelligent and sensible part of the Catholics of Germany. Even though, after all I have been permitted to express here about the political opinions of the Archbishop of Cologne, his statements, if also corresponding fully to the truth, do not seem to me surprising, nevertheless I believed it my duty to inform Your Eminence, and most of all to request, to the extent You may deem it useful, permission to absent myself for several days from Munich and go to Cologne, and secondly to implore from Your Eminence any instructions that are deemed in order. In conclusion, while I take this parting occasion to humbly give Your Eminence my best wishes for all the best in the now approaching recurrence of Most Holy Christmas, I bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 225. Dec. 14, 1917 Pacelli to Gasparri, encrypted telegram: I confirm receipt of Your Reverend Eminence’s encrypted telegram no. 14. The Foreign Ministry here now responds to my note of November 16th that, according to information received from the Berlin Foreign Ministry, there is no reason to fear Turkish Authorities, especially in Palestine, taking any measures against the Jewish population, and that Jerusalem and other cities, objects of Christian and Jewish veneration, will be spared and protected, to the extent that military necessities allow. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 4296. Dec. 18, 1917 Ambassador Otto Baron von Ritter zu Groenesteyn to Pacelli: Secret! Most Reverend and Dear Monsignor! Recalling your cordial invitation at Lindau Harbor to write you often and frankly if I should ever have any concern about any matter, I want to make known to you today one such concern in an entirely confidential and absolutely unofficial manner. As you know, I was charged some time ago to bring to the attention of His Holiness the Pope the urgent desire of His Majesty the King of Bavaria to see His Excellency Archbishop von Faulhaber named Cardinal as soon as possible, together with a request for the fulfillment of this desire. The expression of this desire was occasioned by the rumor of an impending Consistory. I expressed myself along these lines to His Eminence the Lord Cardinal Secretary of State with the request that His Holiness be correspondingly informed. Whereupon I have now received the answer of His Eminence, which reads as follows: I had the honor to receive the Confidential Note of October 30th, by which Your Excellency has graciously expressed to me the strong desire of His Majesty the King of Bavaria to see the holder of the Archepiscopal See of Munich elevated to the honors of the Sacred Purple in the event of an upcoming Consistory taking place. In this matter I have the honor of informing Your Excellency that the news of an upcoming Consistory, announced by some newspapers, is entirely lacking in foundation. Since His Eminence says absolutely nothing in this Note of the desire of His Majesty having been made known to the Holy Father, and since moreover the Note is so worded as if this desire had been expressed only for the putative Consistory in the month of December this year, I fear that the answer of His Eminence will arouse dismay on the Promenadeplatz... Source: Vatican Secret Archives, Archive of the Munich Nunciature, pos. 349, fasc. 4, fol. 12r-17v, reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 6385. Dec. 27, 1917 Matthias Erzberger’s letter to Michael von Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich: Your Excellency, Please allow me to convey the following thoughts with the request that they be subjected to a thoroughgoing examination. At the end of the terrible World War a great Catholic renaissance will and must be initiated. The nationalistic, egotistic, old-pagan power idea has collapsed; it plunged the countries into dire straits before the war and into a bloodbath during the war; the saying that war is the “last resort,” which the world believed for years, has been proven deceptive. Only godly, Christian justice can be the foundation for a more favorable development of peoples in the future. The power of war has raged for 3-1/2 years; its end, however, will be the triumph of justice. A real hunger for the concept of justice and precepts of justice will flow through mankind. Who should and can take this hunger into account? Only Catholicism, which unifies authority in an auspicious way, which paves the way for true democracy, gives “a highway for all the righteous” and yet forms the foundation of all authority. Social Democracy with its general concepts of freedom and denial of authority cannot work constructively; the implementation of the Social Democratic idea has failed in agriculture and industrial production, despite the military dictatorship. What today is called conservative party politics is not represented by the old saying: “Not majority, but authority,” rather it embraces the most open brutality that knows only oppression and ruthless power. Protestantism, as a force of the mind and the heart, has completely collapsed in the war, has accomplished nothing for the reconciliation of peoples; it has died in its 400th anniversary year. War, which represents lawlessness among countries, has had the natural result that lawlessness prevails also in the interior life. The terribly true phrase of the Englishman about “moratorium of the Sermon on the Mount” needs to be expanded: the war has made the 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Commandments null and void. Humanity must be brought up anew. As far as I can survey the situation, this moral moratorium has really worked most devastatingly among the so-called “educated circles,” in which Mammon and power have appeared most strongly in place of self-sacrifice and justice; this mania on high has manifestly spread and increased as it flows down. It has been more than 100 years since the time when world-spanning Catholicism necessarily encompassed all fields, namely the powers of the cultural and intellectual world. New forms must be sought in order to make the old Catholic spirit alive after the war and transmittable into a hungry society. The exhortation of our reverend Bishops has shown the way here. Please allow me to submit the further expression of the following thoughts: 1. As to what concerns the political organization of German Catholics, that will still be found after the war in the Center Party. It is completely obvious that the Center will be able to take in stride a sound and just democracy. The Peace Resolution was the pathbreaker for this. Today, when we are preparing the way for a provisional peace with Russia on its soil and for the proclamation of the Holy Father, the Peace Resolution stands undisputed as the champion of justice. Today millions of Catholics and Center Party voters will be grateful that the Party became the pathbreaker of inviolable justice through the Resolution of July 19th. What needs to be adjusted in the Center Party, if I may be allowed, is something that I will explain to Your Excellency verbally the next time I am in Munich. 2. For the academic endeavors of German Catholics there is the Görres Society, which I promise will have a great future after the war, especially since its Chairman has now become Reich Chancellor [Georg von Hertling]. Now, when so much money is at hand, there must be consideration of a direct increase in capital for the Görres Society. 3. The People’s Association for Catholic Germany will take public education in hand, after as before. It has proven itself during the War to be very adaptable. 4. The International Catholic Union, whose seat is in Switzerland, will render great service by the closer association of Catholics from various countries. Now that a Group for International Law has been established in Germany, the Union has already gained a broader field of action. It is precisely this group that has a highly promising future in representing the concept of justice. 5. The Committee for Defense of German and Catholic Interests Overseas will also find a great field of action after the war, in making clear to other peoples the distinctive German contributions to Catholicism. 6. What we are lacking, on account of which I turn to Your Excellency with a particular request, is: a creative center for the cultural-intellectual world, literature, theater, etc., a center that influences all the individual organizations, leading and directing them intellectually; the center of a great Catholic renaissance. The seat for this, in my opinion, can only be in Munich. There the royal court is Catholic, the representative of His Holiness the Pope is in Munich, the government ministers are overwhelmingly Catholic, the majority of the state population is Catholic. The acknowledged leader is Your Excellency. I have thought through the following for execution of the plan: If Your Excellency would take the trouble to allow an open discussion among respected leading Catholics in cultural and intellectual life to take place, for instance, every Thursday evening in the Archbishop’s palace, then a seed would be sown that would yield hundred- or thousand-fold fruit. A short lecture could sometimes start off the discussion and have the effect of clarifying and deepening the exchange. Quite soon there would come to these conferences not only Munichers and Bavarians, but men from the entire German Reich, at Your Excellency’s invitation. I am strongly convinced that similar conferences could soon be introduced in most of the episcopal sees. An exchange of ideas and speakers would occur spontaneously. Thus we would have focal points for intellectual, religious and cultural life. Foreigners and non-Catholics would ask to be allowed into these conferences. The blessing of such an institution cannot even be imagined today. It is the introduction of the great Catholic renaissance. Since I have only put these thoughts to paper briefly, may I be allowed to bring them before Your Excellency in more detail verbally the next time I am in Munich. With sincerest best wishes for the New Year and with the expression of my highest esteem, I have the honor to be, Your Excellency’s entirely devoted, /s/ M. Erzberger Member of the Reich Parliament Source: Erzberger to Faulhaber, Dec. 27, 1917, Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 7228, reprinted in L. Volk, ed., Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, 1917-1945 [Faulhaber Papers] (1975), vol.1, pp. 24-26. This volume contains no record of a response by Archbishop Faulhaber. 1918 Jan. 9, 1918 Memorandum in Munich Nunciature files dated Jan. 9, 1918: Title: Secret Documents Published by the Bolshevik Government ... Excerpts from the agreement concluded among Great Britain, France and Russia with Italy to give combined assurances to the latter. ... Art. 15. France, England and Russia undertake to support Italy to prevent the Holy See from undertaking any diplomatic step intended for the achievement of peace and the resolution of issues that are related to the current war. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 8005. Jan. 20, 1918 Munich Archdiocesan newspaper’s detailed report on the organization of Freemason lodges in Germany includes this passage: The Association statute was not well accepted among many of the lodges, because the more numerous, though less active, Prussian great lodges have secured to themselves the leadership, and have pushed aside the “Association of German Freemasons” that was formerly very active, thus disadvantaging the Jews in Masonry. German original Note: The German title of this weekly Archdiocesan newspaper changed from 1918 to 1919. In 1918, the title was Wochenblatt für die katholischen Pfarrgemeinden Münchens, or “Weekly Paper for the Catholic Parish Communities of Munich.” Beginning in 1919, the title became Münchener katholische Kirchenzeitung, or “Munich Catholic Church Newspaper,” with the subtitle of “Wochenblatt für die katholischen Pfarrgemeinden Münchens.” Feb. 3, 1918 The Munich Archdiocesan newspaper’s article warning about the influence of Freemasonry in Germany includes this passage: ... the three old-Prussian Great Lodges are “Christian” oriented (as opposed to “humanistic”), because Jews are not admitted to them as members). German original February 1918 Hochland article, “Das Problem der Revolution,” by Ignaz Seipel: Es ist ein merkwürdiges Schauspiel, die Vertreter der monarchischen Mittelmächte mit den Delegierten der russischen Revolution bei den Friedensverhandlungen zu sehen. Insbesondere Oesterreich fühlte sich in vergangenen Zeiten als der Hort der Legitimität. Für einen Metternich z. B. wäre es undenkbar gewesen, eine Revolutionsregierung in irgendeiner Weise anzuerkennen. Hat ihn doch mit die Furcht, gegen das Legitimitätsprinzip zu verstoßen, sogar veranlaßt, fast allein in ganz Europa sich dem griechischen Befreiungskampfe gegenüber ablehnend zu verhalten. Sein Nachfolger aber behandelt die Abgesandten der Petersburger Volkskommissare ganz als vollwertige Vertreter einer fremden Macht. Diesen Umschwung nur mit der Opportunität zu erklären oder damit zu begründen, daß eben seitdem das neue Prinzip der Nichteinmischung in die inneren Verhältnisse fremder Staaten zur Herrschaft gekommen sei, genügt tiefer angelegten Menschen nicht. Jenen, die an die Existenz unveränderlicher sittlicher Normen glauben und von deren Zuständigkeit auch für das öffentliche Leben überzeugt sind, drängt sich unwillkürlich die Frage auf, ob wir denn eine Revolution unter allen Umständen als einen Verstoß gegen die sittliche Weltordnung betrachten müssen oder ob wir sie in diesem oder jenem Falle doch als berechtigt anerkennen dürfen. Wir sind längst gewöhnt, uns in solchen Fragen zuerst an die Vergangenheit zu wenden, bevor wir selbst ein Urteil abzugeben wagen. Viel Material, das uns für diesen Zweck gute Dienste leisten kann, hat der Professor für Geschichte an der Frankfurter Universität Fritz Kern in seinem Buche ,Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im früheren Mittelalter’ verarbeitet, das, schon vor dem Kriege geschrieben, 1915 erschienen ist. Die Beschränkung auf das frühere Mittelalter schloß doch lehrreiche Ausblicke auf das Altertum und die neuere Zeit nicht aus, so daß man mit Hilfe dieses Buches die ganze Linie der Entwicklung bereits überschauen kann. Es muß bemerkt werden, daß Kern noch nichts ganz Abgeschlossenes bietet. Er selbst weist wiederholt darauf hin, daß an dieser oder jener Stelle noch tiefer gegraben werden muß, als es ihm bisher vergönnt war. Vielleicht ist diesem Umstände auch eine gewisse Ungleichmäßigkeit in der Beurteilung der auf den Ausgleich zwischen Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht gerichteten Bestrebungen zuzuschreiben. Diese Ungleichmäßigkeit macht sich einige Male gerade gegenüber der katholischen Kirche bemerkbar. Kern zeigt eine Neigung, über die Kirche rascher als über andere Faktoren ein Verdikt auszusprechen und ihren Vertretern unsachliche Motive unterzuschieben, wenn es ihr nicht immer gelang, in einer so schwierigen Materie jene Mittellinie einzuhalten, die, von unserem heutigen Standpunkt aus betrachtet, als die richtige erscheinen mag. Doch da es uns hier nicht um eine Buchbesprechung im gewöhnlichen Sinne des Wortes, die wir den Fachorganen überlassen müssen, zu tun ist, soll hierauf nicht näher eingegangen werden. Wir wollen viel mehr versuchen, unter gelegentlicher Ergänzung und Korrektur des von Kern bereitgestellten Materials in kurzen Zügen die Stellungnahme der Kirche zum Revolutionsproblem zu zeichnen, um dann einige feste Richtlinien für die moralische Beurteilung der Revolution zu gewinnen. Der Hauptgrundsatz, von dem sich die Kirche in ihrer Stellung zur Staatsgewalt leiten ließ, war jederzeit das paulinische Wort: ,Es gibt keine Gewalt außer von Gott; die aber, welche bestehen, sind von Gott gesetzt’ (Rom. 13, 1). In diesem Satze spricht sich zunächst die Überzeugung aus, daß die Menschen nach Gottes Willen unter Obrigkeiten leben müssen, und zwar ist, wie der Hinweis auf den Blutbann im folgenden Vers 4 und auf die Abgaben und Zölle in Vers 7 zur Genüge andeutet, von weltlichen Obrigkeiten die Rede. Es liegt in diesem Satze ferner ein tiefer Glaube an das Walten der göttlichen Vorsehung, die gerade diesen oder jenen Menschen in den Besitz der obrigkeitlichen Gewalt eingeführt hat. Für den Inhaber der Gewalt bedeutet diese ein Amt, nicht ein privat- rechtliches Eigentum, ein Unterschied, der übrigens nach der christlichen Auffassung nicht viel ausmacht, da ihr ja auch das Eigentum stets nur anvertraute, Gut ist, für dessen Verwaltung der Mensch vor Gott Rechenschaft legen muß. Der Untertan ist der Obrigkeit Unterwerfung schuldig, und zwar, wie im Vers 5 in aller Deutlichkeit hinzugefügt wird, nicht nur um der Strafe willen, sondern auch des Gewissens wegen. Auflehnung, Widersetzlichkeit verträgt sich mit dieser Anschauung von der obrigkeitlichen Gewalt nicht; denn wer sich gegen sie auflehnt, .widersetzt sich der Anordnung Gottes (Vers 2). Über die Regierungsform und über den Weg, wie jemand auf rechtmäßige Weise in den Besitz der obrigkeitlichen Gewalt kommt, hat der hl. Paulus nichts gesagt und nichts sagen wollen. Das ergibt sich schon daraus, daß er ganz allgemein von der Obrigkeit redet, nicht etwa nur vom obersten Träger der Staatsgewalt. Im Gegenteil, für seine Leser hatte die Frage, wie sie sich einem Prokurator oder Proprätor gegenüber stellen sollten, viel größere Bedeutung als die nach dem Kaiser, mit dem sie persönlich kaum je zu tun hatten. Nun kam damals wie jetzt ein Beamter auf ganz andere Weise zu seiner Gewalt als der Kaiser. Der hl. Paulus aber macht keinen Unterschied. Es wäre falsch, wenn man daraus den Schluß zöge, daß die Kirche sich auch in alle Zukunft nie um die Legitimität einer Obrigkeit kümmern sollte, oder daß sie das evangelische Ideal verlassen habe, wenn sie es einmal tat. Man muß nur bedenken, zu welcher Zeit und für welche Leser der hl. Paulus schrieb. Die Christen waren sämtlich Untertanen; der Herrscher und die höheren Beamten waren nicht unter ihnen. Es wäre ganz gegen den Geist einer vernünftigen Seelsorge gewesen, den Christen von jemals zu erklären, wie sie sich verhalten müßten, wenn der Kaiser Christ geworden wäre und der Staat nach christlichen Grundsätzen eingerichtet mdcn könnte. Wer derartiges in der Heiligen Schrift sucht oder, weil es nicht darin findet, der Kirche verwehren möchte, später zu neuen Verhältnissen eine neue Stellung einzunehmen, verkennt ganz und gar das Kern und die Eigenart der Heiligen Schrift. Diese war ja nicht dazu bestimmt, in einem Kasten verschlossen zu werden, damit man sie später inmal herausnehme, um daraus ein Orakel zu schöpfen, sondern sie harte mittelbar dem praktischen Gebrauche zu dienen. So schrieb auch der hl. Paulus seinen Römerbrief, damit er sofort von den Römern, d. h. römischen Christen seiner Zeit, gelesen würde. Er hatte nichts bälgen, daß die Römer den für sie bestimmten Brief auch an andere Christen itcrgaben und dafür, die Briefe eintauschten, die er an andere Gemeinden geschrieben hatte. Er erwartete eben, daß die Christen schon selbst so sein würden, die Anwendungen auf ihre Verhältnisse zu machen. In selben Weise ist uns Späteren die ganze Heilige Schrift anvertraut, sie gibt uns ewige Weisheitslehren im Gewände jener Zeit, in der sie rundgeschrieben wurden. Aus ihnen Winke zu entnehmen, die für uns sktisch sind, ist unsere Sache. Und dazu, daß wir bei diesem Streben, die Wiche Lehre und das christliche Gesetz für uns auszuschöpfen, nicht nen, haben wir die lebendige Autorität der Kirche, die uns, vom Heiligen leiste geleitet, unfehlbar den Sinn der christlichen Lehren und Gebote deuten kann. So erklärt es sich ganz ungezwungen, daß die Kirche in den ersten Jahrhunderten nach der Legitimität der Herrscher so gut wie gar echt fragte. Solange diese heidnisch waren, hatte die Kirche an ihnen keine Seelsorge zu üben. Für die Christen aber genügte es vollständig, denn sie wußten, daß sie der Obrigkeit gehorchen mußten. Der Gefahr, daß dieser Gehorsam zu einem unsinnigen und unsittlichen würde, war durch das Beispiel und die Lehre des anderen Apostelfürsten hinreichend Sebeugt, von dem die Christen den Spruch gelernt hatten: ,Man muß Gott mehr gehorchen als den Menschen' (Apg. 5, 29). Anders wurde die der Kirche, als der Kaiser selbst Christ und die christliche Religion allmählich Staatsreligion geworden war. Nun unterstand der Kaiser der schlichen Seelsorge wie jeder andere Christ und ,ratione peccati’, um den Terminus des alten und neuen Rechtes zu gebrauchen, auch ihrer Rechtsprechung. Für ihn war es aber die erste Gewissensfrage, ob er rechtmäßiger Herrscher sei oder nicht. Trotzdem konnte die Kirche mich °«nals Staatsumwälzungen verhältnismäßig ruhig nn'tansehen und zu Usurpatoren bald in «in freundliches Verhältnis treten. Dazu bot das heimische Staatsrecht die Handhabe. Im ganzen Altertum, auch in der Kaiserzeit, bestand, wenigstens als Fiktion, der Glaube an die Volks-[546] souveränität zu Recht. Die primitive Demokratie der Komitien, der versammelten Stadtgemeinde, hatte sich freilich überlebt. Aber sowohl das Volk in Waffen, das Heer, als seine ideale Repräsentanz, der Sendung konnten die oberste Gewalt im Staate ausüben und übertragen. Wer daher das römische Heer oder, da es keine einschränkenden Normen gab, ein römisches Heer seinen Feldherrn zum Imperator ausrief, oder wen der Senat einen Heerführer als Imperator grüßte, so war er Imperator, auch wenn es einen anderen Imperator schon gab, und er konnte daher gegen diesen zu den Waffen greifen. Freilich war das Heer, das in der spat Kaiserzeit die Imperatoren machte, nicht das römische Volk in Waffen, sondern ein Söldnerheer, meistens waren es die Prätorianer allein, also genau unterschied man nicht. In der allgemeinen Auffassung war Heer eben Heer und Imperator Imperator. Die Feinheit, dasselbe Wort einmal mit Feldherr, das andere Mal mit Kaiser zu übersetzen, ist eine Erfindung moderner Philologie. So waren die vielen Thronstürze im west- und oströmischen Reiche faktisch zwar Revolutionen, juristisch aber eigentlich nur Bürgerkriege zwischen gleichberechtigten Thronbewerbern. Der Erfolg entschied allein über die Rechtmäßigkeit. Die Kirche gewöhnte sich gerade in ihrem Glauben an die göttliche Vorsehung, früh, im Waffe, erfolg ein Gottesurteil zu sehen. War aber ein Herrscher im ruhigen Bestand der Gewalt, dann galt auch von ihm das Wort der Schrift: Es gibt keine Gewalt außer von Gott. Als die Germanen ins Römische Reich einrückten und nach und nach auch in die Kirche Eingang fanden, brachten sie ihre Verfassungen, wen man dieses Wort auf jene ursprünglichen Rechtsverhältnisse anwenden darf schon mit. Das Königtum der Germanen war etwas anderes als eim römischer Magistrat. Große Bedeutung hatte bei ihnen von Anfang das Geblütsrecht. Da aber vom Herrscher außer dem königlichen Geblüt auch persönliche Eignung für die Heerführung und das Richteramt gefordert wurde, so war, wie Kern überzeugend nachwies, doch auch immer eine Art Wahl, sei es durch die Landgemeinde der Freien, sei es durch die Fürsten, die später die Stelle des Volkes zu vertreten pflegten, notwendig um einem bestimmten Anwärter auf die Krone ein jus in re zu vermitteln wenn einmal oder mehrere Male das Geblütsrecht beiseite gesetzt worden oder gar wenn keine eingelebte Dynastie mehr vorhanden war, mußte das Wahlrecht immer mehr in den Vordergrund treten. Es ist ganz natürlich, daß die Fürsten, die so einen Machtzuwachs erhalten hatten, daraus bedacht waren, nicht wieder eine Dynastie mit regelrechter Erbfolge auf kommen zu lassen. Die gewaltsamen Staatsumwälzungen in den germanischen Staaten sind fast alle auf den Dualismus zwischen Geblütsrecht und persönlicher Eignung als Kriterien der Legitimität zurückzuführen. Ein förmliches Absetzungsrecht gab es nicht. Aber es war, und das scheint mir Kern nicht genügend erkannt zu haben, ähnlich wie beim römischen Imperium. Die Wähler, oder wie man sonst jene nennen mag, denen [547] es zustand, einen neuen König zu berufen, machten von diesen, ihrem Rechte mitunter auch Gebrauch, solange der alte König noch am Leben und im Amte war. Es gab kein Gesetz, das die Königswahl nur auf den Fall der Sedisvakanz beschränkte oder wenigstens keines, daß sie außer diesem Falle für null und nichtig erklärte. Dieser Umstand wurde lange Zeit hindurch gerade im Interesse der dynastischen Erbfolge aus genutzt, indem der König noch bei seinen Lebzeiten seinen Sohn wählen und krönen ließ. Geschah Ähnliches gegen den Willen des alten Königs, so gab es dann rechtlich zwei Könige, die genau so wie zwei römische Imperatoren das Waffenglück zwischen sich entscheiden ließen. Die Absicht der Kirche ging nun dahin, die Regierungsverhältnisse, die vielfach hochst ungeordnet waren - folgte doch in manchen Staaten eine blutige Palastrevolution der anderen - , zu konsolidieren. Sie erreichte dies durch drei Mittel: einmal entschied sie im Konfliktsfall mit Vorliebe für die persönlich Nichtigkeit gegenüber dem bloßen Geblütsrechte — das entsprach ganz und gar der christlichen Auffassung vom Königtum als einem Amt, nicht einem privaten Familienbesitz — ; dann gab sie dem einmal ordnungsgemäß bestellten Herrscher eine höhere Weihe durch die kirchliche Salbung und Krönung — in der ersten Zeit und in den Ländern, wo ein erhöhter Schutz der königlichen Person besonders notwendig erschien, auch durch förmliche Aufnahme in den geistlichen Stand — und drittens trachtete sie an Stelle der formlosen Verlassung des Herrschers und der stets zum blutigen Bürgerkrieg führenden Wahl eines Gegenkönigs das geordnete kanonische Rechtsverfahren zu setzen, wenn wirklich einmal die Beseitigung eines ungeeigneten Herrschers notwendig wurde, sie konnte dies um so leichter, als Fürsten oder Volk die Absetzung eines Herrschers ja fast stets nur wegen moralischer Vergehen forderten, gegen welche die Kirche mit ihren Zensuren einschreiten konnte. Wer aber den kirchlichen Zensuren verfallen war, konnte damals tatsächlich nicht länger regieren. Gewiß waren sich die kirchlichen Persönlichkeiten nicht immer dieser Richtung, die das Verfassungsleben nahm, bewußt; gewiß mochte im einzelnen Fall mit anderen, unzutreffenden Argumenten die Vorherrschaft der Kirche begründet werden, oder ein Bischof oder Papst auch direkt von Herrschsucht geleitet sein; aber den Vorwurf, daß die Kirche planmäßig die Monarchie geschwächt habe, darf man ihr nicht machen. Das Gegenteil ist richtig. Es scheint höchstens anders, wenn man Geblütsrecht, Volkswahl und religiöse Weihe isoliert betrachtet. Sicher hätte jedes einzelne dieser drei Momente für sich allein die Monarchie ein eitlicher und dauerhafter begründet. Sie waren aber nun einmal nur alle zusammen im Widerspiele wirksam, und da hat die Kirche alles getan, um das Ausspielen des einen gegen das andere ungefährlicher zu machen. Daß sie dabei nicht so weit ging, einen zäsarpapistischen Absolutismus zu fördern, war sie sich selbst und auch den Untertanen, die von ihr Schutz gegen Unterdrückung erwarteten, schuldig. Gerade hierin traf sich aber die Kirche wieder mit der germanischen Rechtsanschauung, der zufolge das Verhältnis der Untertanen zum Herrscher nicht eigentlich ein Gehorsams-, sondern ein Treuverhältnis ist. Zwischen Gehorsam und Treue ist ein großer Unterschied. Gehorsam kann und muß auch der Obrigkeit geleistet werden, die Unrecht tut, wenn auch vielleicht nicht gerade in dem, worin sie Unrecht tut, aber in allen anderen Beziehungen. Wo hingegen ein Treuverhältnis obwaltet, ist es anders. Wer selbst die Treue bricht, verwirkt damit das Recht, daß ihm der andere Treue halte. Den schärfsten Ausdruck hat diese Anschauung unter der Herrschaft des Lehenssystems gefunden. Lehensherr und Lehensmann konnten ja unter gewissen Umständen sich gegenseitig aufsagen, d. h. die Treue kündigen. War dies geschehen, dann konnte der Lehensmann sich einem anderen Herrn, vielleicht dem Gegenkönig, anschließen, ohne daß er dadurch Hochverräter wurde. Aus derselben Wurzel sind gewisse verfassungsmäßige Bestimmungen entsprossen, die den Untertanen das förmliche Recht gewährten, dem Herrscher im Falle seines Treubruches mit bewaffneter Hand entgegenzutreten oder, mittelalterlich ausgedrückt, ein bellum justum gegen ihn zu führen. Ein solches Recht hat schon Karl der Kahle 856 zugestanden. Die berühmtesten Beispiele find aber das Widerstandsrecht der englischen Barone, das ihnen die Magna Charta von 1215 einräumte, das Insurrektionsrecht der Ungarn, das im Artikel 31 der goldenen Bulle Andreas III. von 1222 ausdrücklich verbrieft und erst 1687 wieder beseitigt wurde, und das aragonesische Unionsrecht von Weihnachten 1287, das bis 1298 in Geltung blieb. Der Papst hat zwar gegen die Magna Charta protestiert, aber nur, weil sie sein kurz zuvor begründetes Oberlehensrecht über England verletzte. Zur Ausbildung einer eigentlichen christlichen Staatstheorie kam es erst, seitdem das Mittelalter mit der aristotelischen Politik bekannt geworden war. Von Aristoteles übernahmen die Theologen u. a. zwei wichtige Anschauungen: die Vorliebe für die Monarchie, aber mit starker Betonung der Tüchtigkeit des Herrschers, hinter die das Vorrecht des Geblütes weit zurücktreten muß, und die sogenannte Tyrannus-Lehre, d. h. die Lehre, daß der Herrscher, der schlecht regiert, aufhört, König zu sein und statt dessen Tyrann wird. In diesem Sinne allein gebraucht der hl. Thomas von Aquin im engsten Anschluß an Aristoteles den Ausdruck Tyrann. Die Späteren unterschieden den Usurpator, den sie tyrannus tituli nannten, vom an sich rechtmäßigen, aber durch den Mißbrauch seiner Gewalt zum Tyrannen gewordenen Herrscher, tyrannus regiminis. Gegen den Usurpator war nach der Ansicht aller offener Widerstand zulässig, solange er nicht im ruhigen Besitz der höchsten Macht war. Bezüglich des Tyrannen im engeren Sinne blieb die Meinung geteilt. Manche Theologen, in späterer Zeit auch viele Protestanten, hielten sogar den Tyrannenmord für erlaubt. Dagegen sprach sich mit [549] aller Entschiedenheit das Konzil von Konstanz 1415 aus.* Aber auch die anderen, die nicht so weit gingen, hielten doch meist an der Meinung fest, daß das Volk in äußerster Bedrückung dem Tyrannen den Krieg erklären dürfe. Es ist bezeichnend, daß diese Kontroversen gerade so lange im Schwange blieben, als die vielen großen und kleinen Tyrannen der Renaissance ihr Unwesen trieben. Nach und nach festigten sich jedoch die Herrschaftsverhältnisse. Usurpatoren war das Aufkommen erschwert. Der Ständestaat bot ziemlich ausreichende Sicherungen dagegen, daß eine rechtmäßige Regierung in Tyrannis ausarte. Der Absolutismus, der offen oder mehr versteckt ihn ablöste, war stark genug, um lange Zeit fast jeden Gedanken an offenen Widerstand niederzuhalten. Damals kehrte die Theologie der Schule, die auch stark unter dem Einfluß der herrschenden Zeitströmung stand, wieder mehr zur bloßen Betonung der Gehorsamspflicht zurück. Das Ventil der Notwehr gegen einen unerträglichen Druck blieb ja immer offen; aber man sprach nicht viel davon. Die Revolutionen der jüngsten Geschichtsperiode, die den Absolutismus beseitigten, wurden als unabänderliche Tatsachen entgegengenommen. Die blutigen Greuel und die religionsfeindlichen Strömungen, die mit ihnen verbunden zu sein pflegten, mußten die Abneigung, sie auf eine etwaige moralische Berechtigung hin zu untersuchen, nur verstärken. Der Syllabus Pius’ IX. vom Jahre 1864 verwirft den Satz: Den rechtmäßigen Fürsten den Gehorsam zu verweigern, ja sich gegen sie zu empören, ist erlaubt.** Der neue Codex Juris Canonici verbietet den Geistlichen die aktive Beteiligung an Staatsumwälungen (Can. 141 § 1). Suchen wir nun nach dieser historischen Betrachtung in positiver Form die Grundsätze für die moralische Beurteilung der Revolution zusammenzustellen: Ein Recht der Untertanen, nach Willkür die Regierungsform des Staates zu ändern, oder den Herrscher, der nicht nur als eine Art Magistrat für eine bestimmte Zeit bestellt wurde, zu wechseln, gibt es nicht, und zwar auch dann nicht, wenn die Verfassung des betreffenden Staates die Volkssouveränität festsetzt und das Volk selbst den Herrscher gewählt hat. Denn ein solcher willkürlicher Regierungswechsel wäre auf jeden Fall gegen das Gemeinwohl. Aber auch, wenn die Untertanen Grund haben, mit der Regierung ihres Herrschers unzufrieden zu sein, und wenn sich selbst schwerwiegende moralische Vergehen zuschulden kommen ließ, kann ihn das Volk nicht dafür zur Verantwortung ziehen, es sei denn, daß die Verfassung ein solches Recht ausdrücklich anerkennt und ein Verfahren für diesen Fall bestimmt.*** * Denzinger-Bannwarr, Enchiridion symbolorum 12 n. 690. ** Denzinger-Bannwart, 12 n. 1763. *** Das Konzil von Konstanz verwirft nur den Satz: Populares possunt ad 5»um suum arbitrium dominos delinquentes corrigere. Denzinger-Bannwart, 12, 596. Eine andere Frage ist es, ob ein Herrscher, der offenkundig schlecht regiert und vielleicht durch unmoralisches Verhalten seine persönliche Ehre befleckt hat, noch die geeignete Persönlichkeit ist, den Staat zu leiten, und ob es daher nicht etwa seine Pflicht wäre, im Interesse des Gemeinwohls abzudanken. Gegen das Gemeinwohl, aus Gründen des Privatinteresses die oberste Gewalt festzuhalten, wäre sicher unrecht. Freilich wird es im einzelnen Fall nicht leicht sein, festzustellen, was mehr im Interesse des Gemeinwohls liegt. Denn auch ein mehr oder weniger freiwilliger Rücktritt des Herrschers, der damit eine Schuld eingesteht, bat seine Nachteile, insofern er das Vertrauen der Untertanen auf die Autorität schwächt. Wäre die moralische Schuld des Herrschers und im Zusammenhange damit die Minderung seines Ansehens so bedeutend, daß daraus eine förmliche Regierungsunfähigkeit hervorginge, zeigten sich unzweifelhaft die üblen Nachwirkungen auf das Gemeinwesen in einer immer größeren Zerrüttung, dann könnten das Volk oder seine verfassungsmäßigen Repräsentanten wohl den Rücktritt des unfähigen Herrschers verlangen und selbst erzwingen; denn dann wäre der Staat in der Notwehr. Das Volk braucht gewiß nicht sich und sein Gemeinwesen dem Untergang entgegen treiben zu lassen, weil gerade ein unfähiger Herrscher an seiner Spitze steht. Was eben über die moralische Regierungsunfähigkeit gesagt wurde, gilt natürlich auch von der physischen infolge von Krankheit u. dgl., nur daß hier leichter durch Kuratel und Regentschaft vorgesagt werden kann. Ob diese oder ein Thronwechsel vorzuziehen ist, wird rein vom Standpunkt des Gemeinwohls zu entscheiden sein. An sich ist es sicher entsprechender, ,daß derjenige, der die Macht des Königs hat, auch den königlichen Namen führe, wie sich Papst Zacharias gelegentlich der pipinischen Revolution äußerte. Immerhin könnte aber die Thronentsetzung des physisch unfähigen Herrschers einmal als solche Erschütterung der Legitimität erscheinen, daß man lieber zu anderen Mitteln, die Staatsgewalt in fähigere Hände zu legen, greifen mag. In der Notwehr gegenüber dem legitimen Herrscher könnte auch der einzelne Untertan oder eine Gruppe von Untertanen sein. Denn auch gegen den Herrscher kann jedermann seine wesentlichen Lebensgüter mit allen zulässigen Mitteln verteidigen, und zu diesen Mitteln gehört die Abwehr der Gewalt mit Gewalt. Hier müssen aber nicht nur die allgemeinen Schranken der berechtigten Notwehr eingehalten werden, sondern es ergeben sich neue aus der notwendigen Rücksicht auf das Gemeinwohl. Schon der hl. Thomas hat darauf hingewiesen, daß selbst die ganze Kommunität auf ihr Notwehrrecht verzichten müßte, wenn zu befürchten wäre, daß aus dessen Ausübung schwere öffentliche Unruhe, also eine ernste Schädigung der Gesamtheit, hervorginge.* In den Fällen, in denen den einzelnen die Nottvehr gegen den Herrscher gestattet ist, können sich gewiß auch mehrere oder viele, die in der gleichen Lage sind, miteinander verbinden, um die Abwehr ungerechter Angriffe wirksamer zu gestalten. * Summa theol. 2. 2. q. 42 a. 2 ad 3. Wir haben bisher immer nur vom Widerstand gegen die Person des Herrschers gesprochen. Aber wäre es nicht auch möglich, daß das ganze System, die Regierungsform selbst, sich als völlig ungeeignet erwiese, den Bedürfnissen des Staates und der Untertanen zu genügen? Gewiß. Ist es so, dann muß zunächst auf verfassungsmäßigem Wege oder, wenn in solcher nicht vorgesehen ist, durch Verhandlungen mit dem Herrscher in Systemwechsel angestrebt werden. Führt dieser Weg nicht zum Ziele, dann ist das Volk wieder in der Notwehr und kann sich in der Not hindurch helfen, daß es selbst andere, zweckmäßige Staatseinrichtungen schafft. Fügen sich der Herrscher und die bisherige Regierungsform in diese nicht ein, dann kann das Volk die besseren neuen Einrichtungen gegen sie verteidigen, und zwar, wenn es anders nicht geht, auch mit Gewalt. In Rußland ist der politischen Revolution die soziale gefolgt, d. h. starke Gruppen im russischen Volke behaupten, der Staat könne nur gesunden, wenn mit dem Regierungswechsel gleichzeitig eine Neuordnung der ganzen Struktur der Bevölkerung und insbesondere der Eigentumsverhältnisse erfolge. Kann man zugunsten der politischen Revolution sagen, daß niemand, auch der Herrscher nicht, ein Privatrecht am Staate habe, so setzt sich die soziale Revolution doch ganz offenbar auch mit wohlerworbenen Privatrechten in Widerspruch. Zur vollständigen Ausübung alles Privateigentums dürfte daher bei einer sozialen Revolution niemals fortgeschritten werden. Wohl aber könnte eine bessere Grundlage der Volkswirtschaft durch Neuverteilung des bisherigen Gemeindeeigentums, der Staats- und Krondomänen und des auf Grund der bestehenden Gesetze rechtsgültig eingezogenen Privateigentums geschaffen werden. Reichen diese Maßregeln nicht aus, so daß es unbedingt notwendig erscheint, im Interesse des Gemeinwohls, nämlich um den Staat wieder zu einem normalen und ruhigen Leben zurückzuführen, auch das Privateigentum in stärkerem Maße als sonst heranzuziehen, dann ist dafür der Weg der gesetzlich aufzuerlegenden Abgaben gangbar. Wie Geldabgaben so können gewiß auch Abgaben in Naturalien oder in Grund und Boden verlangt werden. Das zulässige Maß ist rein durch die Notwendigkeit bestimmt. Unrecht wäre es, einer Doktrin zuliebe weiterzugehen, als es die strenge Notwendig keit erfordert. Über einzelne tatsächlich vorgekommene Revolutionen, sei es aus alter, sei es aus neuer Zeit, ein Urteil abzugeben, liegt außerhalb des Rahmens dieser kleinen Studie. Im allgemeinen wird man sagen müssen, daß es sicher Fälle gegeben hat, in denen eine Staatsumwälzung durchaus berechtigt war; wir denken dabei an die bereits einmal genannte pipinische Revolution. Ebenso sicher ist es, daß meistens nicht so bedacht vorgegangen wurde wie damals, daß viel unedle Leidenschaft und insbesondere auch viele verkehrte Doktrinen die Staatsnotwendigkeit oder die Notwehr zum bloßen Vorwande nahmen, um Staatsumwälzungen zu rechtfertigen. Dennoch werden wohl auch in diesem Falle viele im guten Glauben sich an revolutionären Unternehmungen beteiligt haben, so daß es nicht angeht, sie samt und sonders moralisch zu verurteilen. Die Schwierigkeit aber, über eine bestimmte Revolution ein sicheres Urteil abzugeben, rechtfertigt hinlänglich, wenn Fernerstehende, darunter auch die Regierungen und öffentliche Meinung in auswärtigen Staaten, sich hüten, jedesmal für alte Regierung gegen die neue Partei zu ergreifen. Sicher ist das eine, auch aus einer verwerflichen Revolution eine neue legitime Regierung hervorgehen kann, die ihre Legitimität daraus schöpft, daß der Staat nie ohne Regierung bleiben darf, daß aber eine andere Regierung, die die Staatsgewalt ausüben könnte, nicht mehr da ist als eben die revolutionäre. Wenn daher die Kirche und fremde Staaten eine Revolutionsregierung anerkennen, sobald sie tatsächlich im gefestigten Besitz der obersten Gewalt ist, so ist weder Prinzipienschwäche noch bloße Opportunitätspolitik. Citation: Ignaz Seipel, Das Problem der Revolution, Hochland 15:1:5 (Feb. 1918), S. 543 March 27, 1918 Memorandum from Matthias Erzberger: Title: The recognition of Lithuania as a free and independent state by the German Government ... The Lithuanians have been a minority for centuries and have suffered so much that they will certainly guarantee all minorities, including Polish and Israelite ones, the full development of their economic powers and their intellectual qualities, all the more as the development of these minorities with their multiform talent can only be of great usefulness to the still infant Lithuanian State... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition, Document No. 9014. April 6, 1918 Schioppa to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, I received from a reliable source, and carry out my duty to transmit to Your Most Reverend Eminence, the following information about the current domestic situation in Russia. The Bolsheviks are forming a new army of revolutionary elements, as they have not lost hope of bringing revolution into the Central Powers, and would not hesitate for a moment, despite the accepted peace treaty, to advance with these new forces against the same Central Powers. The Heads of all the Ministries are Jews. Only the less important posts are occupied by workers of intelligence and good will. For these workers, however, young Jewish lasses are placed alongside to dominate them and make them work in conformity with the Government. The girlfriend of a Minister told a secret agent that the Russian Revolution is primarily the work of the Jews and that it is founded on the idea of a worldwide Jewish government. The Russian Secretary of Foreign Affairs explained to this same Secret Agent that it is easier to attract the Russian people to the revolutionary idea: Germany and Austria present greater difficulties, but the matter is most difficult in France, since it is easier to overturn a monarchy than a Republic. The same Secretary added that the Alliance Israélite would succeed in this Jewish revolutionary goal, while the Zionists are said to be opposed, because they have other ideas. The Bolshevik Government is not in danger. It has assumed more moderate manners and, moreover, the bourgeois are without power, and the peasants do nothing against the Government. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Lorenzo Schioppa Chargé d’Affaires Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2152. May 1918 Hochland article, “Der russische Mensch,” by Karl Pfleger: [p.130]... die spezifische russische Religiosität ist Rettung und Heil... mystisch genährte Überzeugung Dostojewskijs ... In der strengsten und möglichst reinen Orthodoxie, verbunden mit hermetischem Abschluß vom ,durchfaulten Westen’, sieht er die einzige Rettung Rußlands und durch Rußlands Vermittlung die Rettung der Welt. Rußland hat eine messianische Weltmission. Hier wohnen wir der Geburt des Panslawismus aus der national überspannten Orthodoxie bei... [131] ... Citation: Karl Pfleger, “Der russische Mensch,” Hochland 15:2:2 (May 1918), S. 125 June 1, 1918 Gasparri to Pacelli: Most Illustrious Signore, To avoid journalistic polemics to which my letter to His Eminence Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, could give rise, I believe it opportune to clarify the meaning, which was abundantly evident in itself, of my words. Before anything else I must recall that the Times of London published a letter in which the following words were attributed to me: “While there would be reason to give thanks that the Holy City has been redeemed from infidels, it is to be lamented that the liberation has been accomplished by a Power that does not have the true faith.” Having never said anything like this, I sent a telegram of protest and denial to Eminence Bourne, followed up then by the well-known letter saying that England, in preference to the other Powers, would give assurance of impartiality, respect for established rights, and improvement of the Holy Places. My thought in the referenced words is the following: England gives greater confidence than all those Governments that newspapers, men of state, or agreements have indicated as possible candidates, whether alone or in combination with others, as the eventual successor to Turkey in Palestine. Who are those Governments? Among the secret documents published in Petersburg there is a signed agreement of March 6, 1917 which says that to assure the religious interests of the Allied countries, Palestine with the Holy Places will be placed under a special regime in conformity with an accord among Russia, France and England. In the same agreement is proposed the establishment of an independent Arab kingdom, and some have dropped the name of Jerusalem as the capital. It is also well known that important men of state have shown their favor for the reconstitution of the Jewish kingdom. Now neither Russia nor an Arab or Jewish kingdom gives any assurance of religious freedom, of respect for established rights, of improvement. It has likewise been affirmed that Palestine would be governed by an international commission composed of Representatives of England, France, Russia, Italy and perhaps also other nations; now apart from the most serious drawbacks that such a mixed regime would present, apart from the fears that the presence of Russia would engender, the Holy See would really not look favorably upon the presence of Italy, since its current distressing situation would prevent it from having the frequent interactions with the Italian government that would thereby be necessary. Finally France, in a threatening pro-memoria reaching the Holy See by indirect paths, says that with the end of the French protectorate in the Middle East, “The Government of the Republic having no longer any interest in defending the privileges in which it will no longer henceforth have any part, will be able eventually to be led to fix anew the objects of its policy in the Middle East and consequently allow the triumph of the demands formulated by the Greeks or the Armenians”; now, since the French protectorate in the Middle East, with the end of the Turkish domination, will automatically pass away as a matter of law, by the very nature of things, without any act by the Holy See, it follows that, having to take account of these threats, the Holy See would have to prefer the domination by England alone. This and nothing else is the meaning of my words. Your Excellency shall communicate this to His Excellency the Chancellor and arrange that all polemics about this be avoided in the press. With sentiments of sincere and distinct esteem ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2995. June 4, 1918 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Report about profanation of tombs and churches – News about Palestine Most Reverend Eminence, Mr. von Bergen of the Foreign Ministry in Berlin, with file No. 29529/78191 of this May 31st charges me to transmit to the Holy See the here-enclosed report about “Profanation of tombs and churches committed by the French and the English – with 31 original photographs.” He communicates to me at the same time that, according to reports reaching Berlin, England has conceived a plan to establish itself in Palestine with the help of Zionism; that in Cairo, an English Zionist Commission of Study has been meeting for some time, in which French Israelites also are said to be taking part, to examine the situation on the spot. It is said that another Commission, composed of American and Italian Israelites, will soon leave for Palestine... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 3049. June 24, 1918 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Concerning recommendations in favor of Italian prisoners of war Following up my respectful Report No. 7266 dated June 17th, I have the honor to transcribe for Your Most Reverend Eminence the here-enclosed excerpt, translated from the German, of the following letter that reached me today from the priest Aloys Beckmann, Military Chaplain at Cellelager [prisoner-of-war camp near Celle in northern Germany], to whom I have turned in several cases for news and recommendations about Italian prisoners of war interned there. “The Camp Commandant has received, especially in recent days, via Your Excellency, numerous recommendations in favor of Italian officers who are prisoners of war, in part also with the petition to inquire whether they could be considered for an exchange. The last of these came indeed from the Holy Father himself. However, I am constrained to communicate to Your Excellency that the recommended officers, in great part – not to say a majority – are not worthy of the special concern of His Holiness or Your Excellency. That goes also for the officers who have been recommended to me personally as the Camp Chaplain. Repeatedly I have had to attest that they were unbelievers and not only were not frequenting church services, but were trying moreover to exercise a bad influence on their companions. Among the prisoners recently recommended to the Command are a large number of Jews, atheists, men openly hostile to religion, and indeed a considerable portion of them have venereal diseases. These latter cannot be considered for an exchange. These recommendations in favor of such persons have given rise to strong disapproval and discontent among the good Catholic Italian officers...” I replied to the excellent and zealous Chaplain in similar terms to those I already used with the aforementioned Dr. Rolshoven (cf. encrypted cable Report No. 7266); moreover, I asked him to indicate to me the names of the good officers, to whom he alludes, so that I can recommend them also, adding indeed that, if any of them have need of monetary help (not being, however, in a position, under the present local circumstances, to send food or articles of clothing), I am ready to provide it to them. In the hope that I have not too poorly interpreted the August and charitable intentions of the Holy Father, and awaiting those instructions that Your Eminence may be pleased to impart to me in this regard, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2175. July 2, 1918 Gasparri to Pacelli: Dearest Monsignore, I have received your no. 7191, concerning my letter to Eminence Bourne. The reason or motive that occasioned my letter was essentially the following. In the Times and the Morning Post of London, it was published that I had deplored that Palestine had been occupied by a Power that did not have the true faith, that is England. I replied that this is absolutely false, that indeed I maintained that England, in preference to all other Powers, would give assurance of order, respect for established rights, and improvement of the Holy Places. In truth, I believed I had written: in preference to other Powers, but I am moving on. With the words: in preference, etc., I did not intend and could not intend to make a comparison between England and all the other Powers of the whole world, but between England and the other co-occupying Powers, that is France, Italy and (at least in rights under agreement) Russia; and the other Powers mentioned in speeches by highly important men of state and the most serious newspapers as probable successors to Turkey in Palestine, that is the Greeks, the Arabs and the Hebrews. The other Powers of the world, Germany, America, Austria, etc., not excluding Turkey, were not in question, thus my words could not refer to them. Now I certainly prefer England to all the other Powers named above, as better explained in my previous letter. This is the meaning of my words; I expect You to get that into the thick skulls of the Germans. Affectionate greetings, P.C.G. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2468. July 19, 1918 Gasparri to Pacelli: Most Illustrious and Reverend Signore, According to reports reaching the Holy See from a reliable source, currents adverse to Catholicism are sharply advancing in Poland, especially on the part of the Hebrews and the Protestants, for whom the Germans would create a solid public situation in the new State, nor, before having it assured to them, will they turn over to the Polish Government – as it seems – the “Religious” game that is in their hands. The anti-Catholic current is making itself felt in such a way that Deputy Bell of the Center Party, in the Reichstag session of June 8th, unambiguously denounced the systematic exclusion of Catholics from being employees and Officials in the occupied countries, particularly in the General Government of Warsaw. Also in Ukraine the Germans are said to be favoring the Orthodox over the Catholics, as seen also in the enclosed Proclamation of the Ukrainian Hetman to the populations of Chelm and Podlachia, which was examined and censored by the occupation Authorities, who have prohibited the Corpus Christi procession outside the Churches and instead permitted the infamous [Russian Orthodox Metropolitan] Evlogij to lord it over them. Not even the most urgent and necessary request for the liberty of the Catholic Church, that is, the abolition of the Russian laws against it, could be realized up to now. The Polish Bishops already presented this request to the State Council, but it is absolutely defenseless and powerless, while on the other hand, the occupation Authorities who alone were able to bring it about, do not appear disposed to do it before having seen about the Protestants and Hebrews, and before having “administered” ecclesiastical property. These reports have caused displeasure and concern to the Holy Father, Who, via myself, is involving Your Illustrious Excellency to take desired efforts to obtain at least the abolition of the laws issued by the Russian Government against the liberty of the Catholic Church. You may be able, for this purpose, to make appeal to the profound Catholic sentiments of the Reich Chancellor [Count Hertling], or to request prudently the intervention of some influential Center Party Deputy and other German Personages. His Holiness fully understands all the difficulties and all the delicacy of the matter, but since he also knows Your noble zeal and Your tested prudence, he is certain that You will succeed in obtaining some amelioration of the situation of the Catholic Church in the territories in the East occupied by the German armies... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 3470. Nov. 11, 1918 Nuncio Pacelli from Munich to Cardinal Gasparri in Rome, by encrypted telegram: His Excellency the Archbishop of Munich came to me and represented to me that if the Armistice clause about the continuation of the blockade of Germany should remain in effect, it appears that hundreds of thousands of city dwellers, in Belgium alone, could die of hunger, and this would work a horrific catastrophe. He therefore supplicates His Holiness to take opportune steps with the President of the United States and the Entente governments to forestall such a tremendous misfortune. The same Most Excellent Archbishop, considering that my person is exposed to near and grave danger, has confidentially suggested to me that I should betake myself to Swiss territory; Your Most Reverend Eminence may wish to deign to impart opportune instructions, both for me and for the personnel of the Nunciature. Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, Vatican Secret Archives, AA.EE.SS., Stati Ecclesiastici, 1914-1918, pos. 1317, fasc. 470, vol. XII, fol. 390r, reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 6092. Nov. 15, 1918 Nuncio Pacelli to Cardinal Gasparri, from Munich: Most Reverend Eminence, In your esteemed detailed letter of October 23rd, Your Most Reverend Eminence deigned to request explanations concerning the causes of Germany’s enormous catastrophe on the Western Front. Although the various Reports after this event that should have arrived in Rome could have amply clarified this question, I am nonetheless carrying out my duty to summarize concisely here the causes of the events: 1. The first cause of the German defeat was the active intervention of the United States, which, sending to France a huge army composed of young, fresh elements and armed with the most copious quantities of high quality war materiel, reversed the military situation in short order in favor of the Entente, forcing the German troops to begin their retreat. Especially effective were the actions of innumerable tanks, whose assaults were irresistible. Germany realized too late the formidable error it committed when it announced unrestricted submarine warfare, which provoked America’s entry into the war. The military authorities, following the usual prideful mentality that led them to underestimate the enemy, laughed off the idea of American intervention at the time, thinking it was an American bluff and that the United States, so far away and so little prepared for war, without military training, without officers, etc., would not be able to create terrible forces to overpower the invincible German organization... Then in July of last year, when Deputy Erzberger demonstrated to the principal Reichstag Commission the lack of success of the [submarine warfare] enterprise and provoked the vote on the well-known “Peace Resolution,” and shortly after he read to a Center Party meeting a secret report from [Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister] Czernin to the Emperor, which outlined the future in rather grim terms, the pan-Germanists and militarists, in their blindness and crazy pride, pounced on him, accusing him of defeatism and practically of treason against the fatherland, making him live it down and practically disavow the “Resolution” itself. 2. Simultaneously with the growth of the power of the armies of the Entente, by contrast, the strength of the armies of the Central Powers became weaker. The diminished fighting spirit of the German troops was already apparent during the offensive on the Western Front from March to July last year, as Germany tried to pre-empt, by an audacious strike, the imminent threat of the Americans’ intervention... The reasons for this deterioration were several-fold: (a) the inevitable weariness from four long years of fighting and suffering, (b) the lack of adequate food and clothing, the soldiers often being famished and injured, (c) the active Socialist and Bolshevik propaganda in the ranks of the army, (d) the detrimental influence exercised upon the military, often instigating them to rebellion, by their own family members, who were also worn out by such struggles and privations, whether this influence came by way of letters or above all while they were on leave. 3. The depression in the German army naturally increased when the retreat began around the middle of July. At the beginning of August the Supreme Command decided to pull back the troops upon the old Hindenburg Line, which was considered impregnable, and even though they had to recognize that there was no longer any way to win the war, yet they believed it certain that they would not be conquered and that they would be able to defend indefinitely. Instead, the ever-growing power of the Entente, under the united command of General Foch, continually pressing the offensive and not giving a single day of respite to the German troops, not only made their powerful line waver, but brought, as the even graver result, 4. the collapse of Germany’s allies, of which Austria-Hungary had to surrender not so much because of the military situation (it was still able to maintain its front), as by reason of complete internal dissolution. Nevertheless Germany, even when left alone against an entire world of enemies, could perhaps, with a new levy of manpower, have avoided a breakthrough on its front and a military catastrophe, if the increasingly troubled and restless domestic situation had not constrained it to beg for an armistice and peace at any price, opting for capitulation. With the armistice it got revolution, which overthrew all the thrones and proclaimed the socialist republic. There is no doubt that if Germany had heeded the suggestions of the Holy See, it would not have been brought to such a sad end. The Chancellor, Mr. von Bethmann Hollweg, had actually agreed to the point proposed by the Holy See, but precisely because of his relative moderation, he was overthrown, seemingly by an attack from Mr. Erzberger, but in reality by the overbearing will of Hindenburg and Ludendorff, who dictated to the Emperor, who, moreover, was a rather unbalanced man and was, along with them, a pan-Germanist and a militarist, and surrounded by pan-Germanists and militarists... As Your Eminence can well understand, I have not had a possibility of seeing either the Emperor or, up to now, the ex-Chancellor [Count von Hertling] who has retired to his estate at Ruhpolding [Bavaria]; but Your Eminence can be assured that I have shown all the other political and diplomatic men with whom I am in contact the error committed by the governing figures of Germany in persisting in the folly and pride of their warlike way, notwithstanding the suggestions from the Holy See, and I must add that many of them have recognized the truth of this observation... Source: Vatican Secret Archives, reprinted in Emma Fattorini, Germania e Santa Sede [Germany and the Holy See] (1992), pp. 307-310, and at the online www.Pacelli-Edition.de, with Italian original and German translation. The Pacelli Edition is an online searchable database of correspondence between Pacelli's Nunciature in Germany and the Vatican Secretariat of State; it is a project of the University of Münster, Germany, in cooperation with the German Historical Institute in Rome and the Vatican Secret Archive; it is financed by the German Research Foundation. Nov. 15, 1918 Nuncio Pacelli to Cardinal Gasparri, from Munich: Most Reverend Eminence, The revolution in Bavaria exploded suddenly like lightning. The revolutionary leaders themselves did not believe (for all one can suppose) that they had triumphed in that tragic night of November 7th to 8th. They attempted a sudden strike. They speculated on the psychological state of masses eager for peace, starved for bread, wearied by four years of unheard-of sacrifices. The soldiers could be the strong arm of the revolution. Under the weight of a discipline made even more steely by the exigencies of war, they also, tormented by long and painful privations, were easily lured by terrible passion. To these psychological conditions must be added the example of Russia and the Socialist propaganda in the army. These can be stated as the remote causes of the revolution. It would be a mistaken assessment to believe that the excesses into which the Russian Revolution degenerated would be a salutary example for revolutionaries in other countries. What for men of order were slaughters, muggings and massacres, were for men who dreamed and worked for the revolution, events that encouraged them and drove them on to the fulfillment of their cruel ideals. Then Socialist propaganda in the ranks of the army was so widespread and continuous that it could not fail to contribute its effects. However (much as the future was rather obscure), no one predicted and no one could predict that such a storm would occur in Bavaria for the first time and so suddenly explode. The Socialist Party and the Free Workers Associations had planned a big demonstration for peace at 3 o’clock on Thursday the 7th of this month, remembering on that day the anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Similarly inclined to celebrate on this occasion the union of the Socialists with the Independents (the left wing of the Socialists), orators from both parties spoke on this day. Naturally the Independents put forward a radical order of the day that went from social providence for the workers and soldiers to the abdication of the Kaiser and the renunciation of the Crown Prince. Already during the speeches and the demonstration that followed them, the soldiers agitated among the crowd (which was counted at several hundreds of thousands of persons), and this military agitation was headed up by the publicist Kurt Eisner and by Deputy Gandorfer. Spirits were fired up, calm went out the window, and riots were threatening. After shouting “down with the King” and the Kaiser beneath the Residence Palace until a late hour, the revolutionary leaders wanted to attempt a coup. Soldiers and the crowd went off toward the barracks. What happened there is indescribable. Everything was devastated, stolen by the unrestrained rebellion, without any limitations from the mob of soldiers. The officials were forced to flee, disarmed and beaten, forced to tear off the national cockade from their hats, which all the soldiers had already taken off and thrown away. No battalion, no company, no soldier from the garrison remained faithful to his King (as ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs von Dandl told me the day after). Thus it was that, developing tumultuously, in the rooms of a beer hall, a first council of soldiers and workers, the revolution took possession of the telegraph and telephone offices, the central train station, and all the public administrative buildings. And meanwhile throughout the night there was sporadic firing of rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, which the soldiers had seized in the barracks, sacking all the munition depots... Nonetheless the population, if unable to sleep tranquilly during that night, believed in general that conflicts between police and demonstrators had provoked the continuous shooting. Instead Munich, waking up on the morning of the 8th of this month, was surprised by the news in the newspapers that Bavaria had become a Social Democratic Republic. In fact in this historic night the revolutionaries took over the Landtag and constituted there a Provisional Council of workers, soldiers and farmers, proclaiming Bavaria a democratic and socialist republic and overthrowing the Wittelsbach Dynasty... When Kurt Eisner retained for himself the presidency of the Ministerial Cabinet, he said he did it because his persona was the symbol of the revolution. He was right. To sketch his person is to summarize what the revolution in Bavaria truly represents. Atheist, radical socialist, implacable propagandist, intimate friend of Russian nihilists, head of all the revolutionary movements of Munich, imprisoned any number of times for political crimes, and moreover a Galician Jew, Kurt Eisner is the flag, the program, the soul of the revolution, which rages in Bavaria and menaces its religious, political and social life. It is said that in the first secret session Eisner had exclaimed, “Now we need to be done with the priests.” The other Ministers found that the moment had not yet arrived. And in fact the tactic of the revolutionaries is explained for the time being as not offending the sentiments of the population. They are making it believed that they will give full freedom of worship, that there will not be another Kulturkampf, that conscience will be respected. And meanwhile the Minister of Education is a Protestant and a well-known anti-clerical. Thanks be to God, Bavarian Catholics have taken a stand. The newspaper of Catholics in Munich, the Bayerischer Kurier, in an explicit, energetic article, stated that Catholics will not provoke disorders, but, trusting in the promise of freedom by the revolutionary Government, are demanding this freedom for religion, for the schools, and for the exercise of worship, and will defend with drawn swords the rights and goods of the Church. The Catholic labor associations, in a solemn assembly, affirmed the same program. The Bishops are consulting with each other to establish a unified and energetic line of conduct. The Center Party is not asleep. The clergy and religious Orders are seeking to save themselves and save their rights and their property. The catastrophe is immense, however, and everyone is afraid that the saddest days may be approaching for the Catholic Church in Bavaria. The general opinion is that the men who stand in power will not be able to remain long. Everyone is hoping in the National Assembly elections, everyone is preparing for them. But who is unaware that the elections are held by the Government, which holds the power in its hands? The Monarchy appears gone forever, all the more since the King released the officials from their oath of loyalty, and since, with the Bavarian Monarchy have passed away one after another of the Reigning Houses in Germany, starting with that of the Hohenzollerns. The future appears uncertain and perilous. Bolshevism, anarchy, famine, the disorderly return of the troops from the front, the lack of the most necessary things for them, lodging, work, bread, clothing, are likewise problems of extreme gravity that obscure the present hour, so that the eye fears that it cannot see beyond the present. And as matters stand today, only the Mercy of God can save the Catholic Church in Bavaria. To complete this report written with a distressed and affected heart, I say that on the day after the proclamation of the Republic, the Diplomatic Corps (consisting only of Germans and the Austrian Minister) met with the Nuncio for a conference about the attitude to take toward the new Government. It was decided unanimously to refrain from any action that could appear to be a recognition of that Government. However, I was asked to demand on behalf of all, permission for free movement, which was granted. The day after, the telegraph offices having begun to refuse my coded telegrams, the Auditor of the Nunciature, Msgr. Schioppa, went to the Minister President. After an hour in the waiting room among domestics, while soldiers, workers and women, people of a hardly reassuring appearance, had free access to the aforementioned Minister, the Auditor was not received. Having to return the next day, and with difficulty, thanks to the intervention of the Head of Session (employed by the former Government), he could obtain for the Nunciature permission (or better said, recognition of its right) for telegrams in code and for correspondence under seal addressed to the Pontifical Representative in Bern, albeit without couriers and diplomatic guarantees. The behavior of Mr. Eisner was so unencouraging that it would be entirely contrary to the dignity of a Pontifical Nuncio to deal with him... Source: Vatican Secret Archives, reprinted in Fattorini, Germania e Santa Sede, pp. 310-314, and in the online www.Pacelli-Edition.de, with Italian original and German summaries. The Pacelli Edition is an online searchable database of correspondence between Pacelli's Nunciature in Germany and the Vatican Secretariat of State; it is a project of the University of Münster, Germany, in cooperation with the German Historical Institute in Rome and the Vatican Secret Archive; it is financed by the German Research Foundation. Nov. 20, 1918 Pacelli to Gasparri, from Munich: Re: On the relationship with the new provisional government Most Reverend Eminence, This morning the State Councilor, Mr. von Lössel, came to me; he has been for some time a high official in the Bavarian Foreign Ministry, where he is now remaining temporarily. He told me that he came to visit me in the name and at the instance of the current Minister, Kurt Eisner, and that, through Baron von Ritter, who still continues provisionally in the handling of the Affairs of the Bavarian Legation, the constitution of the new Government has been communicated to the Holy See. Mr. von Lössl insinuated to me at the end that, if I were to pay a reciprocal visit to the Ministry, the Minister himself would come to his office, where I could thus meet him. For my part, I limited myself to thanking the aforesaid State Councilor for his visit, adding that in the afternoon I would give him a response to his proposal. Then I disclosed to him that tomorrow I will depart for Switzerland, but I noted that it is a matter of ordinary temporary sick leave. In the afternoon hours, according to my promise, I verbally made it known by way of Monsignor Auditor to Mr. von Lössl that I did not find it opportune, at the current moment, to visit. Monsignor Schioppa stated in my name that I did not intend to create any conflict nor to give offense to the Government or to the person of the Minister; indeed I fervently hope that in the future, whatever may be the form of the legitimate Government, the relations of the Holy See with Bavaria shall become excellent. Nonetheless (added Mons. Auditor), given the uncertainty at the present moment and the concerns that the current Government is arousing among Catholics, obvious reasons of prudence, as well as necessary considerations about Catholic public opinion (since the press would certainly highlight such a meeting), impose upon the Nuncio an attitude of reserve, in the expectation, rather, that the selfsame Government would give serious guarantees of respect for the rights of the Catholic Church. The reasons for this response of mine were the following: 1st) The current Government, which moreover is only provisional, is composed of atheists, Jews, protestants, all Socialist revolutionaries, with whom it does not appear that an Apostolic Nuncio can have decent relations. Particularly debatable then is the person of Foreign Minister Kurt Eisner, Galician Hebrew, many times convicted and incarcerated for political crimes. 2nd) The proposed meeting would have produced, I believe, the worst impression among Catholics and indeed among all men of order. 3rd) The Government currently wishes to have the appearance of being in good relations with the Apostolic Nunciature, to calm Catholics and thus weaken their opposition in the upcoming elections, apart from that - but carrying out afterwards, naturally, when it feels completely secure, its anti-religious program. That is why, while in Saxony and Protestant Prussia the respective provisional Governments have already announced the separation of State and Church, the Bavarian Government has instead held back, for now, as it does not want to irritate the sensibilities of the Catholic population at the moment. In accepting this meeting, I would have played the game of the revolutionary and anti-religious Government. 4th) Monsignor Archbishop here (as he himself narrated to me a few days ago) not only refused to receive a committee of the Soldiers’ Council that was presented to him, but did not even want to go to the Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs, who indeed showed his surprise at that. 5th) None of the other members of the Diplomatic Corps resident in Munich have gone to the Foreign Ministry. It is really true, however, that the Sovereigns by whom they were accredited have all lost their thrones. 6th) Also the form in which this visit or meeting was proposed seemed to me abnormal and not very convenient. The Minister, who has been in power for thirteen days, has not yet notified the Diplomatic Corps of his entry into office, in any way, according to rule, indeed has somewhat pretended to ignore the Nunciature, whose right to send encoded telegrams was recognized only with difficulties (as I already had the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence). And now I would have had to present myself at an introductory meeting in the office of a subordinate official, with the sole purpose of then having it announced to the public that the Apostolic Nuncio went to visit Kurt Eisner, with whom he is in good relations. 7th) I wanted, nevertheless, in order to avoid needless frictions, to remove from my refusal any character of harshness, and I therefore had it communicated by Monsignor Auditor in the terms referenced above. I would have wanted to consult with Monsignor Archbishop here, before giving my response, but he is absent from Munich and will not return until tomorrow evening. Moreover, it was impossible to wait longer, since Mr. von Lössl expected a decision the same day. In the hope that my conduct cannot fail to merit the superior approbation of Your Eminence, bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 234. Nov. 28, 1918 Schioppa to Gasparri: Re: Immediate Guilt for the War Most Reverend Eminence, Following up report No. 3269 of December 30, 1917, I believe it my duty to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence concerning an event that for some days has occupied all the German press, which certainly will have a large echo abroad as well, and which has produced and undoubtedly will produce notable political consequences. The Bayerische Staatszeitung (No. 275 of Nov. 26th) reproduced the following official note: “Bavarian Minister President and Foreign Minister Eisner recently presented to the Central Government a proposal to publish the files about the origins of the war. This proposal is dictated by the conviction that only by means of the full truth can the people possess that trust which is the precondition for a peace according to the desire of the people themselves. The Bavarian Minister President, for his part, will undertake to publish from the Bavarian diplomatic documents those files that will clarify the prehistory of the world war. First of all will be published some details taken from reports by the Bavarian Ambassador in Berlin, Count Lerchenfeld. In a report of July 18, 1914, the Bavarian Ambassador in Berlin, Count Lerchenfeld, speaks of the relations of the Berlin Government and the most unfortunate Austrian Ultimatum to Serbia.” The text of said report follows, a text which I have the honor to enclose herewith (Attachment I). According to it, Germany appeared directly culpable for the outbreak of the war, since it was perfectly aware of the content of the Austrian Ultimatum to Serbia. This publication by the Bavarian Government was greeted by the majority of the press with the strongest reprobation, although it conformed to the necessity of the people being illuminated about the origins of the war. “But it is another thing,” wrote Germania, “if a single State or the representative of a single State should do it by its own policy, which, more or less directly, leans on that man of State among our enemies who undoubtedly wishes the worst upon us, and who will certainly want to frustrate any political and diplomatic action by the Central Government in the interest of the German people.” And here the newspaper makes an attack on Mr. Kurt Eisner, which is worth the pain of reproducing: “The question is posed (says Germania): who really is Mr. Kurt Eisner.” The public knows him only recently as Bavarian Minister President, as this representative of the people pridefully proclaims himself. We do not want to attack his person if we are tempted to verify that east-Galician Jewish origin hiding under the German-sounding name Eisner and those grand lordly manners this representative of the proletariat assumed in a salon-car.” (In fact Mr. Eisner, in his recent excursion from Munich to Berlin and back again, traveled in a special royal train.) “But we must give greater importance to the fact that he is in continuous relations with the Prime Minister of the French Republic, Clemenceau, as Eisner himself declared yesterday in the conference of the Federated States of Germany, saying that he knows the situation of the Entente not from the newspapers, but from personal relations.” In addition to the reprobation by the press, there are other facts to note concerning the aforesaid Bavarian publishing, including 1st) The Bavarian Legation to Berlin has communicated that the published report was not written by Ambassador Count Lerchenfeld, but by Dr. Hans von Schön. 2nd) The then Bavarian Ministers of Education, of Justice, of Finance, and of Communications have declared to the current Minister President of Bavaria that until now they had no knowledge, either officially or privately, of the mentioned report and the facts contained in it. 3rd) The Foreign Minister of Berlin has published in this regard the following: “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has protested against the publication made in Munich about the prehistory of the war...” Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 3042. Nov. 28, 1918 Schioppa to Gasparri: Re: Transmission of a petition from the Archbishop of Munich Report no. 11066 Most Reverend Eminence, The Archbishop of Munich has interested me in making his here-enclosed petition come to the August Throne of the Holy Father, concerning the right of appointment to Parish Churches that the current revolutionary Bavarian Government might presume for itself as successor to the rights of the former Monarchy. The petition was accompanied by a letter addressed to me in which Archbishop von Faulhaber says: “We Bishops are all convinced that it would be too broad a power to concede to the new Government the patronal rights of the Royal Government. Moreover, we are no less convinced that without tolerance and restraint, the separation of State and Church will be immediately required in Bavaria, and the clerics in these times of misery would be condemned to extreme poverty... It would be very important for the discussions to be held in the upcoming Conference of the Bavarian Bishops schedule for the 10th and 11th of December, to have the decision of the Holy Father, or at least a ‘provisoinal instruction.’” Beyond this letter, there is associated with the petition an opinion from the Bishop of Regensburg, which Archbishop von Faulhaber has requested that I hold in the Nunciature Archives, but which I believe it my duty to send, here-enclosed, to Your Most Reverend Eminence for a complete understanding of the issue. Concerning this opinion, Archbishop von Faulhaber has told me that it cannot be taken into consideration, because the Ministry has already been wary of the intention of the Bishops to play for time. In a conversation I then had with the aforesaid Archbishop of Munich, he said to me that, since the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs is pushing for the appointment to vacant parishes, he will make it known to him that the Bishops do not have the right to make a decision on their own in this regard, that the issue has already been carefully explained to the Holy See and that one needs to await the decision that the Holy Father will deign to make. Meanwhile Archbishop von Faulhaber urgently requests to care be taken to make the implored decision as soon as possible, even though he assured that there will not be any harm if the Parishes remain vacant for yet some time, but that this time could not be prolonged to more than three or four weeks. In asking Your Eminence to be pleased to place the aforesaid petition in the venerated Hands of the Holy Father, I have the honor to bow humbly to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt No 251 November 1918 Hochland article by Eduard Stadtler, “Der revolutionäre Geist in Rußland. Eine Studie zur Entstehung der russischen Revolution”: Der Einfluß der revolutionären Bewegung Westeuropas auf Rußland war stets ein eigenartiger. Die Revolution von 1789 hat Rußland seinerzeit direkt gar nicht berührt. Während in Westeuropa die Pariser Weltgeschehnisse tiefe Wirkung ausübten, blieb man im zaristischen Ostreiche wie außerhalb der Einflußsphäre dieses fern im Westen sich abspielenden Dramas. Dafür aber wirkte die Revolution indirekt um so stärker: die antirevolutionäre Reaktion, welche als Gegenwirkung gegen den stürmischen Radikalismus der französischen Revolution in Frankreich und in den zum Miterleben gezwungenen Nachbarstaaten sich auslebte, kam ausgerechnet in dem von der Revolution unberührt gebliebenen Rußland am schärfsten zum Ausdruck. Paul I. hat diese Reaktion nach innen ebenso maßlos durchgeführt, wie sie Alexander l. und Nikolaus l. nach außen in den Beziehungen zur europäischen Staatenwelt zur Verwendung brachten. Alexander l., die Seele der Heiligen Allianz, gestützt auf die rohe Kraft seines mehr außerhalb der westeuropäischen Kultursphäre gewordenen Staates, hat den reaktionären Druck gegen das revolutionäre Frankreich mit allen ihm zur Verfügung stehenden ideellen und materiellen Mitteln wirken lassen. Auch die Revolution von 1848 prallte an den undurchdringlichen autoritären Mauern des zaristischen Rußlands ab. Sie hatte desgleichen wieder die indirekte Wirkung, daß die gegen die revolutionären Ansrürme Westeuropas aufgerichteten reaktionären Schutzdämme verstärkt wurden. Auch dieses Mal tobte die russische Reaktion gegen die abendländische Revolution im Innern Rußlands, und es fällt nicht auf, daß in Rußland die Jahre 1848-1855 im Zeichen der höchsten Reaktion standen. Man kann diese Wirkung der Revolutionen von 1789 und 1848 mit den Wirkungen vergleichen, welche hysterische Gespensterfurcht auf unreife Geister ausübt. Auf den vorwärtsstrebenden Teil des russischen Volkes mußte diefe Gespensterfurcht im Sinne stärkeren Antriebes zur Erreichung der verbotenen Frucht wirken. Deshalb sind denn auch aus diesen durch die inneren Zustände Rußlands nicht gerechtfertigten Reaktionsbewegungen heraus, die sich an den revolutionären Bewegungen des Auslandes ihr Objekt suchten, in Rußland je und je kleinere oder größere politische Bewegungen und revolutionäre Putsche entstanden. Zunächst der Dekabristenaufstand von 1825, der als erste bemerkenswerte Nachahmung der Großen Französischen Revolution anzufehen ist. War die Reaktion von Paul l. und Alexander l. gewiffermaßen Importware vom Westen, so trug auch der Dekabristenaufstand als Gegenbewegung durchaus den Stempel des ,Westlertums’, denn er wurde inszeniert von jenem Teil des Offizierskorps, welcher von den westeuropäischen Schlachtfeldern die Sehnsucht nach der politischen Kultur Westeuropas, vor allem Frankreichs, mit in die Heimat brachte. Anschließend [172] sind zu nennen die weniger tumultuarischen Freiheitsbewegungen von 1840 bis 1848, besonders aber die große Freiheitsbewegung von 1855-1862, die dann auch einen mit dem Namen Alexander II. verbundenen gesetzlich konstitutionellen Ausdruck fand. Teils unter dem Einfluß des chaotischen revolutionären Gedankensystems Westeuropas, teils unter dem Druck der unsystematischen, gefühlmäßig extremen Art des russischen Volkscharakters, teils auch infolge der unorganischen Entwicklung des russischen Staates endeten diese Bewegungen stets in jäher Weife mit einem Ausbruch reaktionärer Gegenströmungen. Die politischen Bewegungen, ob fie konstruktiv oder zerstörend, ob sie von oben oder von unten kamen. entbehrten nie des radikalen Zuges und trugen deshalb keimartig die Gegenbewegung schon in sich. Zwischen den genannten freiheitlich-revolutionären Zeiten liegen denn auch stets wie Schluchten zwischen Berghöhen reaktionäre Perioden. Im Jahre 1905 brach dann mitten in den Erschütterungen eines verlorenen Krieges die erste ,Große’ russische Revolution aus. Sie hatte einen halb bürgerlich-demokratischen. einen halb proletarisch-sozialistischen Charakter und war recht und schlecht ein gemischtes Plagiat der Revolution von 1789 und der Revolution von 1848 mit starker Betonung der verfassungspolitischen Tendenzen dieser beiden Revolutionen. Nach außen hin trat als Errungenschaft dieser Revolution die Duma in Erscheinung, ein Wechselbalg. der niemanden zur Freude geriet. weil er gegenueber den immer schärfer in Rußland sich herausarbeitenden extremen Richtungen von rechts und links eine viel zu geringe innere, zeitgemäße, pofitive Kraft befaß. Als konstitutionelle Einfuhrware aus dem Westen war die Duma entweder ein Spielzeug in der Hand der Reaktion oder eine revolutionäre Waffe in der Hand der Revolution. Und es kann deswegen nicht wunder nehmen, daß auch die Duma die extremen Pendelbewegungen reaktionärer und revolutionärer Kräfte nicht zu mäßigen imstande war, daß sie vielmehr selbft von den Bewegungen mitgerissen wurde. Auf die Revolutionsbewegungen von 1905 bis 1907 folgte automatisch eine scharfe Reaktionsbewegung, die in direktem Verhältnis stand zu der radikalen Kraft der Erschütterung des Jahres 1905. So stellte das Rußland des 19. Jahrhunderts einlebendiges Revolutionsfeld dar; nur dem Nichtkenner konnte es aus weiter Ferne den Eindruck eines politischen Kirchhofes machen. In Wirklichkeit schossen die revolutionäre Saat des Westens und das reaktionäre Gegengift in wildem Wettbewerb üppig empor. Dringt man nun von der Oberfläche geschichtlichen Geschehens in die Tiefen der russischen Volksseele hinab, um die dem staatlichen Werdegang zugrundeliegenden geistigen und sozialen Kräfte der russischen Kultur zu ergründen, so staunt man über die ,revolutionäre’ Veranlagung und die radikale Tendenz dieses auf den ersten Blick so fromm-demütigen und apathischen Volkes. Dann wird der tiefe Zusammenhang der revolutionären Ereignisse Rußlands bloßgelegt. Man gewinnt dabei die Überzeugung, daß [173] der revolutionäre Geist in wenig Ländern so tiefe Wurzeln geschlagen hat wie gerade in Rußland. Revolutionärer Geist ist das Streben nach einer solchen Aenderung bestehender Zustände, daß durch die Vernichtung des Bestehenden und durch plötzliche radikale Umwälzung der Neuaufbau ,von Grund auf’ ermöglicht wird. Es steht dieser Geist im Gegensatz zum Evolutionsgeist, zum organischen Prinzip. Hier geht das Streben auf Formveränderung von innen heraus, nach den Gesetzen der biologischen Erneuerung, durch natürliche, allmähliche, konsequente Fortentwicklung. Es sind zwei Weltanschauungen und zwei Temperamente zugleich, die sich dabei entgegenstehen. Revolutionäres Denken und radikales Temperament wurzeln sehr tief in den gewaltigen Gegensätzen, welche Rußland kennzeichnen. Eine Überwindung dieser Gegensätze durch Synthese ist bislang noch nicht geglückt. Die schroffste Antithese, die krassesten Widersprüche sind und bleiben das Charakteristische dieses Landes. Da sind zunächst die klimatisch-geographischen Zuftände Rußlands. Das extreme kontinentale Klima mit seinem langen, grausam kalten Winter und seiner kurzen, heißen Sommerzeit ohne die zarten und versöhnenden Übergänge einer lieblichen Frühlingszeit, eines sonnigen Herbstes konnte nicht ohne Rückwirkungen auf den Charakter des Volkes sein. Jener schlaffe, fatalistische, ergebene Zug, der den Russen kennzeichnet, ist sicher ein physiologischer Reflex auf den Druck, den äußerste Kälte und äußerste Hitze auf den Menschen auszuüben vermögen. Gleichzeitig bedingt diese klimatische Sprunghaftigkeit von äußerster Kälte zu äußerster Hitze jenen plötzlichen, unvermittelten, unorganischen, jenen radikalen und revolutionären Zug, der nur scheinbar dem passiven Grundzug zuwiderläuft, ihn in Wirklichkeit aber in ganz natürlicher Weise ergänzt. In derselben Richtung wirken dann auch die Raumbedingungen des Landes. Die Unendlichkeit dieser Raumverhältniffe, die unermeßliche Weite und Breite der russischen Erde nehmen dem Volke den europäischen Sinn für den Wert der Zeit, besser gesagt, für den Wert der Minute und für den Wert der Intensitäts- und Qualitätsarbeit. Die ,breite’ russische Art liebt es, sich der Fülle der Raumquantität vertrauensvoll und träumerisch hinzugeben. Wenn der Mensch das Unendlichkeitsmotiv, angewandt auf Raum und Zeit, auf sich wirken läßt, verfällt er bekanntlich einer passiven, mystischen Gottergebenheit, die seinen Willen zur Tat gewissermaßen außerhalb des Raumes und der Zeit stellt. Dabei wird der Mensch der irdischen Tat unfähig. So geht’s dem Russen in Bezug auf das Verhältnis zur Raumunendlichkeit seines Landes. Seine Vorstellungen von Vaterland, Staat, Gesellschaft und Volkswirtschaft werden gewissermaßen dem Augenblick entrückt, in die Weite geworfen, von der Wirklichkeit abstrahiert. Traumhaftes und Emotionales macht sich überall da breit, wo der Zwang zur Tat und der Sinn für die Wirklichkeit den Willen [174] bestimmen sollten. Auch diese passive, traumhafte Stellungnahme zu Raum und Zeit bedingen dann jeweilig, wenn die Not am größten, plötzlich Ausbrüche des lang verhaltenen Tätigkeitstriebs, radikale Explosionen der Naturkraft des russischen Willens gegen die Widerstaende, welche Außenwelt und Innenwelt der russischen Natur entgegensetzen. So ist der radikale, revolutionäre Geist etwas Ur-russischen. Er ist der Passivität und Schlaffheit der russischen Volksseele wesensverwandt, im Sinne der notwendigen, temporären Ergänzung, des natürlichen Gegenpols. Die passive Art und die revolutionär-aktivistische Art des russifschen Wesens stehen zueinander wie weibliche Art und männliche Art in der Menschheit. Man sagt allgemein, der russische Volkscharakter sei durch und durch weiblich, die geistige Rezeptivität sei größer als die Produktivität, das Gemütsleben trete beherrschend in den Vordergrund, auffallend sei der Mangel an männlichen Willensmerkmalen, wie Stetigkeit, Konsequenz, Entschiedenheit, Machtstreben., der Russe sei irrational wie das Gemüt, das ihn beherrsche; aber das ist nur die eine Seite der russischen Natur, allerdings die augenfällige. Daneben ist der Russe auch zeitweilig von roher, ungebundener Männlichkeit. Das merkt man schon bei seinem unberechenbaren, sprunghaften Draufgängertum im Denken und bei seinem noch unberechenbareren, stoßhaften Tun und Wollen. Der Russe denkt und handelt plötzlich, fliegend, ruckweise, blitzartig, im Nu der Welt und der Wirklichkeit entrückt. Immer ,radikal’ und ,revolutionär’! Oft tragen ihn dabei kindlicher Instinkt oder sicherer Takt glücklich durch den philosophischen Urwald. Aber die Fähigkeit zum systematischen; planvollen, organischen Verstehen oder gar zu bedächtigem, allseits gesichertem Streben und Wirken geht ihm im allgemeinen ab. Gegeben ist den Russen, wie Puschkin sagt, die glückliche Regung, doch fehlt's am Vollenden. Puschkin hätte besser von blinder Regung gesprochen, die erst durch die Begleitumstände glücklich oder unglücklich wird. Russische Schriftsteller gehen sogar so weit, diesen Gegensatz unter einen ethischen Maßstab zu stellen. So stellt sich uns der radikale Geist, die revolutionäre Veranlagung des Russen als eine Eigenart dar, die auf den natürlichen Verhältnissen des Landes ruht und als eine psychologische Reaktion temporär-explosiver Art gegen die urgewaltig der russischen Seele aufgedrückte Passivität charakterisiert werden kann. Unausgeglichen stehen sie nebeneinander, die extrem weibliche, im allgemeinen vorwiegende Passivität und die extrem männliche, doch viel seltenere Aktivität. Was die Natur des Landes schon an Extremen aufweist, was in der Tiefe der russischen Volksfeele als unausgeglichener Gegensatz lebt, das äußert sich auch in der russischen Geschichte, in der russischen Literatur, vor allem in der russischen Politik. Überall begegnen wir im Leben des russischen Volkes und in den Erscheinungen der russischen Kultur dieser Polarität: langanhaltende feminine Hingabe an irgend eine mehr oder weniger roh und äußerlich waltende Kraft und dann plötzlich das vulkanartige Ausbrechen gegen den übermäßigen Druck dieser Kraft. Mit weib- [175] lichem Duldersinn paßt sich der Russe irgend einem Gegebenen an, ordnet sich sklavisch den Geboten der Umgebung unter, um hin und wieder in unberechenbarer Weise sich Emanzipationsgelüften hinzugeben. Ans Ziel gelangt er beide Male nicht. Denn in beiden Stadien überwiegen Gemüt und Gefühl, das Emotionale. Die Hingabe sowohl wie die Emanzipation arten in blinden Fanatismus aus. Angesichts des unausbleiblichen Mißerfolges schwankt dann die russische Seele in der Beurteilung ihres Könnens und Nichtkönnens zwischen mörderischer Selbstanklage bis zur Selbstvernichtung und leichtherziger Selbstüberschätzung bis zu gotteslästerlicher Überhebung. Erst durch das Verständnis des oben gekennzeichneten russischen Doppelwesens werden einem sonst ganz rätselhafte Erscheinungen der russischen Politik etwas verständlicher. So z. B. der Gegensatz zwischen ,Westlertum’ und ,Allrussentum’. Im ,Westlertum’ haben wir es mit einer übertriebenen, extremen, oft unsachlichen Verehrung der westlichen Kultur zu tun. In dieser Verehrung finden wir alle kennzeichnenden Eigenheiten des russischen ,Radikalismus’ wieder: überschwengliche Empfänglichkeit für die wirklichen und für die scheinbaren Werte der westeuropäischen Zivilisation, passive Hingabe an dieselben, Unfähigkeit; das Niveau der westlichen Kultur in systematischer Arbeit zu erreichen, plötzliche Ausbrüche radikalen Wollens, um sie sich auf einmal, ,revolutionär’ anzueignen, dann wieder Rückfall in den Fatalismus, in verzweifelnde Gleichgültigkeit. Durch alle Stadien des geistigen Sicheinlebens und des praktischen Kämpfens hindurch bleiben dabei die ,Westler’ gefühlsmäßig ihrem Ideal true, ja der Mißerfolg erhöht nur ihre echt-russische, orientalische Vergötterungssucht gegenüber dem unerreichbaren ,Westen’. Im ,Allrussentum’ finden wir dasselbe wieder; nur das Objekt ändert sich. Das slavische Ideal tritt an Stelle des ,Westlichen’. Auch hier Überschwang in der gefühlsmäßigen Hinneigung, Radikalismus der Begeisterung, hinreißende Ansätze zur Tat, köstlicher Elan, aber keine Fähigkeit zum Denken nach geordneten; nüchternen Reihen, zum Abwägen, zum zweckmäßigen Aufbauen der Handlungen. Und auch im Verhältnis zwischen ,Westlertum’ und ,Allrussentum’, gerade weil beide irrational gedacht, empfunden und angestrebt werden, wird der Gegensatz im harten Ringen des Alltags nicht abgeschliffen, sondern verschärft. Denn es fehlt an vermittelnden Größen, als da sind nüchterne Verstandesbegabung und Zwang zur Tat. So erklärt sich auch die ,radikale’ Art des ganzen russischen Parteilebens. Überall ,Maximalismus’, revolutionärer Geist, ,Bolschewismus’. Die Linksströmungen des westeuropäischen Parteilebens haben gerade in Rußland ihre extremste Ausdrucksform gefunden. Die Spannungen zwischen den Idealforderungen der Demokratie und den Zuftänden des gesellschaftlichen und politischen Lebens sind schon in Westeuropa so gewaltig, daß der auf gewaltsame Lösung hinstrebende Massengeist auch dort nur zu leicht dem Radikalismus verfällt. Zum Glück sind in Westeuropa die traditionellen Bindegewalten so stark, daß sie die Staaten im Gleichgewicht [176] erhalten und bei revolutionären Erschütterungen wieder in ein gewisses Gleichgewicht zu bringen imstande sind. Anders in Rußland, wo jene Spannung eine ungeheuer viel größere ist und zugleich die traditionellen Bindegewalten geringeren moralischen inneren Wert haben. In einem solchen Land muß deshalb rebus sic stantibus, der radikale Trieb in den ,fortschrittlichen’ Schichten besonders stark auswachsen. Der Nihilismus, der Anarchismus, der Bolschewismus sind denn auch typische russische Bewegungen, weniger wegen ihres geistigen Gehaltes als wegen ihrer ,radikalen’ Form. Dasselbe gilt aber auch von den Rechtsströmungen im russischen Parteileben. Der Zarismus ist ja im Grunde genommen auch nichts anderes als eine urrussische Erscheinung der Politik. Das Wesen des Zarismus ist doch der aus Unvermögen und Schwäche gegenüber den Forderungen einer von innen ausgehenden und nach innen gerichteten Staatsentwicklung geborene radikale Drang nach äußerer Bewältigung der schwierigen Aufgabe. Der Zarismus und die ihn stützenden parteipolitischen Rechtsströmungen fußen auf der Voraussetzung, daß die russischen Raum verhältniffe und die ungeheuren Widerstände der russischen Volkskultur weder im Tempo noch mit den Methoden Westeuropas staatlich gebunden und bezwungen werden können. In diesem echt russischen Ohnmachtsgefühl gegenüber dem Zwange zu organischer Gestaltung verlegt sich der Zarismus auf eine den Schwierigkeiten und Widerständen entsprechende extreme Gewaltpolitik. Mildernd wirkten dabei nach außen die Gefühlsmomente der russischen Staatsreligiosität und noch mehr die einer durchgreifenden Gewaltpolitik als unüberwindliches Hindernis entgegentretende ,Raumwirtachaft’. Das politische Machtmotiv in seiner radikalsten Form ist so charakteristisch für die russische Kultur, daß es über die Sphäre der Parteipolitik und der allgemeinen Staatspolitik auch auf das ganze Geiftesleben Rußlands über gegriffen hat. Man kann ruhig von politischer Radikalisierung oder mit einer anderen Nuance von einer radikalen Politisierung der russischen Geisteskultur reden. In anderen Ländern sind die Zusammenhänge zwischen Literatur und Politik nur lose. In Rußland greifen beide so stark ineinander, daß der Fremde staunt. Die russische Literatur ist durch und durch ,politisch’. Fast alle russischen Dichter und Romanschriftsteller sind zugleich radikale Politiker: sie unterminieren die den Prinzipien freien Geistesschaffens so feindseligen staatlichen Grundlagen des russischen Reiches, sie sabotieren den Zwangsstaat und das Machtmotiv (Nassilje) als Grundlage staatlicher Kultur, sie geben unstaatlich und antistaatlich wirkende Losungen aus, sie höhlen das Staatsgebäude aus, dem sie kulturelle Tragsäulen einzubauen berufen wären. Mit anderen Worten: die russischen Schriftsteller sind Berufsrevolutionäre. Umgekehrt sind fast alle russischen Politiker, besonders im Parteileben und in der Presse, Literaten, Künstler, Poeten. Das zeigt sich schon darin, daß derselbe Mann heute Theaterkritiker oder Theaterregisseur, morgen Parteisekretär, übermorgen Dumakandidat ist. Schauspieler ist ja der Russe von Geburt, und wo anders als auf der Bühne und [177] auf dem Überbrettel moderner Parlamentspolitik kann sich dieses Schauspielertalent ausleben? Auch genügt ein Blick in die russischen Zeitungen, um den Eindruck hervorzurufen, daß da statt politischen Denkens, statt politischen Tatendrangs literarischer Impressionismus herrscht. Wann überlegt sich ein russischer Journalist einen Artikel auf dialektische Sicherheit und auf taktische Wirkung? Ihm genügt der Künstlerstolz einer gelungenen literarischen Schöpfung. Er schreibt aus der Stimmung heraus mit den Schwingen künstlerischer Intuitions, und Phantasiebegabung, meist ohne klar erkanntes Ziel, ohne politisches Zweckwollen, besonders ohne System. Morgen schreibt er ganz anders, nicht aus einer anderen Situation, sondern aus einer anderen Stimmung heraus. Nicht viel anders ist der Parteipolitiker. Er legt seine Seele (Duscha), sein ganzes Gemüt in die Partei aufgaben, gleichsam wie ein Künstler, der sich in seinem Objekt verzehrt. Deshalb ist der russische Parteipolitiker ein Fanatiker par excellence., gefühlsmäßig beweglichen Geistes, stets zu impulsiver Tat bereit. Es braucht wohl nicht gesagt zu werden, daß diese Verquickung von Politik und von Literatur für das russische Volk als dem Objekt einer literarisch frisierten Revolutionspolitik und einer radikalpolitisch wirkenden Literatur verhängnisvoll werden mußte. Denn so wertvoll es ist, wenn die Politik nicht ohne künstlerische Note ist - da die Politik ja selbft eine Kunst ift -, und so bedeutungsvoll es andererseits bleibt, wenn die Literatur die mannigfaltigen und dank der Verschmelzung von Volkstum und Staat so volkstümlichen Stoffe der Politik nicht achtlos beiseite schiebt, so verderblich ist es, wenn zwischen Politik und Literatur Synthesen zustande kommen, die das Wesen der einen oder der anderen Gattung beeinträchtigen und Wirkungen heraufbeschwören, die dem staatlichen Leben wie der höheren Geisteskultur gleich gefährlich werden. So reicht die Revolution von 1917 mit ihren Wurzeln tief hinunter in den Urboden der russischen Natur. Ohne Kenntnis der geopolitischen und ideologischen Gründe des jetzigen Geschehens sieht man mit der rein staatspolitischen - und dazu zählt auch die schematisch-parteipolitifche - Erklärungsmethode vor der Monumentalität der russischen Ereignisse ganz hilflos da. Und wozu diese Hilflosigkeit führen kann, zeigt der unerhörte Wirrwarr in der öffentlichen Meinung Deutschlands gegenüber den russischen Fragen und vor allem die ängstlich abwartende, in der Begründung unklare, in der Taktik sprunghafte Politik des Deutschen Reiches gegenüber dem russischen Staatschaos. Da niemand anderer als Deutschland den Wiederaufbau im Osten organisatorisch leiten und durchführen kann, tut um so eingehenderes Studium der treibenden Kräfte der russischen Geschichte und der jetzigen Revolution dringend not. Wie sollen wir sonst Ersatz bieten können für den Verstand, welchen jetzt das russische Volk mit seinem Gefühlsradikalismus bei der revolutionären Vollendung des Tolstoischen Werkes entthront hat? Und was nützt deutsche Organisationskraft, wenn sie blind und kurzsichtig mit den schematischen Mitteln der Bureaukratie zur Bewältigung des russischen Chaos angesetzt wird? Citation: Eduard Stadtler, “Der revolutionäre Geist in Russland. Eine Studie zur Entstehung der russischen Revolution”, Hochland 16:1:2 (November 1918), S. 171 Dec. 6, 1918 Schioppa to Gasparri: Re: Transmission of petition Most Reverend Eminence, Enclosed herewith I have the honor to send Your Most Reverend Eminence a petition, duly recommended by the Prince-Bishop’s Delegate in Berlin, in which the Administration of the Jewish Women's Association of Berlin asks this Nunciature to implore the exalted intervention of the Holy Father for a cessation of the current persecutions against Jews, especially in Galicia and Poland. Beseeching Your Eminence to please lay this supplication – if it is so deemed – before the August Throne of His Holiness, humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2119. Dec. 7, 1918 Schioppa to Gasparri: Re: The elections for the new Bavarian Landtag Finally Minister-President Kurt Eisner had to give in. This morning a proclamation was published in which it was announced that: “The Government of the People’s State of Bavaria orders that the elections for the new Bavarian Landtag will take place on January 12, 1919.” As I had the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence in my respectful Report No. 11100 of Dec. 2, the main opposition to the convocation of the National Assembly came precisely from the Minister-President. In this he was followed by the Bolshevik Minister for Social Affairs and the Minister for Military Affairs, while all the other members of the Cabinet were for the National Assembly. The will of the Minister-President was then sustained by a ring of iron that was stretched around him and his Ministry through the Night of Revolution since in truth the Provisional Government could not be said to be free. The Councils of workers, soldiers and farmers, which were formed in the dramatic night of 7 to 8 November, elected the Ministers as they pleased, and this is why these Councils want to keep all force in their own hands, wanting to govern together with the Ministers and also have the executive power. The Council of workers, soldiers and farmers of Munich was formed from the dregs of the people, and in first place among them in the night of the Revolution were, in the majority, non-Bavarians, Sailors come for the purpose of Revolution, many Hebrews, and also rabid Bavarians who had already for a long time cried out against the nobility and the clergy... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 905. Dec. 8, 1918 Wochenblatt für die katholischen Pfarrgemeinden Münchens [Weekly Paper for the Catholic Parish Communities of Munich]: “Calm Yourselves! The Lord Means Well!” It is time to examine the bad aspects of the state of our Fatherland with the naked eye instead of through darkened glasses, and to observe the many good things the world war has hitherto brought. Yes indeed: the many good things! And what would they be? Russian Czarism, which was always completely hostile toward the Roman Catholic Church, has been overthrown. With their enormous growth in population, the land-grabbing Russians would have been able to march into Berlin without even striking a blow. They would have conquered simply by their numbers. The destruction of this Moloch is to the everlasting credit of Hindenburg and his soldiers, who were thereby the instruments of a higher power. Along with Czarism has disappeared the support for the Orthodox clergy and the entire Schism. The enormous guilt of the year 1054 meets with its punishment... Note: The name of the Archdiocesan weekly newspaper changed at the beginning of 1919 to Münchener katholische Kirchenzeitung [Munich Catholic Church Newspaper]. Dec. 14, 1918 Schioppa to Gasparri: ... Here in Munich, then, the head of the Spartacist Party is precisely a Hebrew Russian, a certain Dr. Levin... When the Bolshevik crisis is overcome, it can be trusted that the Bavarian People’s Party will have the majority. To this party are running every day not only new Catholic recruits but Hebrews, Liberals, Generals of the army, in sum all those who recognize in this party the good will to maintain public affairs still on a solid footing... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 903. Dec. 20, 1918 Text of letter from Baron Cramer-Klett to Count Lerchenfeld of the Catholic political party in Bavaria, the Bayerische Volkspartei [Bavarian People’s Party], transmitted this date by the Munich Nunciature to Cardinal Gasparri in Rome: Right Honorable Herr Count! In response to the Circular that has come into my possession, please allow me to inform you that I will pay into the designated Account in coming days the sum of __ Marks. [blank in original] According to the schema that was enclosed, approximately one-fourth of this sum would be a charge upon my account. I am ready, if possible, to make a further contribution to the People’s Party, and I am also preparing the way for this, however, as I consider making this allotment. I would not like to join the People’s Party straightaway, yet I pledge it my vote and that of my wife for the upcoming election. My reasons for not joining are the following: Even though the Bavarian People’s Party stands up for the denominational school in its platform, yet every other part of it is interdenominational and insipid. Thus situations can arise in which the People’s Party must sacrifice Catholic interests in consideration for the great number of non-Catholic voters. Such a party I cannot join, because God’s blessing cannot rest upon it in the future. In this I catch a whiff of Modernism, which is a greater danger than Socialism, because it rages within our fold like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I am convinced that the leading personalities of the People’s Party are themselves not conscious of how dangerous a path they are on... Source: Baron von Cramer-Klett to Count Hugo von Lerchenfeld auf Köfering und Schönberg, Dec. 13, 1918, reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 703. Dec. 31, 1918 Gasparri to Schioppa by encrypted cable: I am resending, unchanged, cable 169 of Dec. 27. I have report 11066. It would have been opportune to warn Abp. Faulhaber in time so that he not bring up something that would compromise the Holy See. Now, after the fact, concerning the current Ministry’s presumed appointment to Parish Churches, you shall communicate to the Bavarian Bishops that the Holy See is disposed to examine the needs of the new situation if a new Government in Bavaria is durably constituted and is willing to negotiate with it. In the meantime Bishops, in individual cases, can act on their own, in a way solely de facto, without prejudicing Canon Law principles and without compromising the Holy See, possibly by setting up temporary parish administrators. Source: Pacelli-Edition, Dokt No 3266 December 1918 Hochland editor Karl Muth’s article “Zur Zeitenwende”: Wie große Katastrophe unserer Niederlage und deren natürliche Frucht, die politische und soziale Revolution, die mit noch unübersehbaren Folgen über uns hereingebrochen ist, haben uns jenem schon lange vorauszusehenden Augenblick nähergebracht, wo sich die christlich-sozial denkende und die revolutionär-sozialistische Welt wie zwei große Heerlager gegenüberstehen. Es wird der letzte große Entscheidungskampf sein in dem ungeheuren Ringen, das sich seit der Lockerung und schließlichen Auflösung der christlichen Gesellschaftsordnung des Mittelalters zwischen den bewahrenden und ausgleichenden Mächten und dem sich naturnotwendig immer erneuernden Umsturz durch die letzten vier Jahrhunderte hinzieht. Es ist kein Gegensatz möglich, der schärfer wäre als dieser. Hier die Begründung aller Autorität und damit aller sozialen und politischen Ordnung auf Gott, als dem letzten und ewigen Grund jeglicher Gewalt, dort die Proklamierung der Souveränität des Volkswillens als des beweglichsten und unzuverlässigsten Elementes, das wir in der sittlichen Welt kennen. Daher denn auch, wie Papst Leo XIII. sagt, die Staatsgesetze nur zu oft nicht die ,geschriebene Vernunft’, sondern einzig und allein die numerische Macht und das Übergewicht einer politischen Partei darstellen. Die bisherige Entwicklung hat keinen Zweifel darüber gelassen, daß man, um mit den Worten der gleichen höchsten geistlichen Autorität zu sprechen, die großen Prinzipien der Religion nicht über Bord werfen kann, ohne die Grundlagen der bürgerlichen Wohlfahrt zu erschüttern.’ Es tut not, daß man es heute mit aller Rücksichtslosigkeit ausspreche: Die absolute [226] Gewalt der Fürsten und aller derer, die sich in ihrem Namen als die Verkünder und Vollstrecker der absoluten Staatsgewalt betätigte, haben mit innerer Notwendigkeit auch in unserem Volke das Widerspiel dieser Autokratie in dem politischen Dogma von der Souveränität des Volkes heraus gefordert und großgezogen, und es ist tief schmerzlich, daß es einer solch ungeheuren Lehre, wie diese Katastrophe sie darstellt, bedurfte, um großen politisch tätigen christlichen und katholischen Kreisen in Deutschland die Augen zu öffnen über die Gedankenlosigkeit, mit der die christlichen Parteien des Reiches und der Einzelstaaten sich abgefunden hatten mit den vollendeten Tatsachen. Wenn man zurückdenkt an jene großen katholischen Tage, da ein Görres im ,Athanasius’ dem Leviathan der Staatsallmacht den Kampf mit allen Aufgeboten ansagte, als dann ein Mallinckrodt und Schorlemer in den Frühtagen des ,Kulturkampfes’ das christliche Gewissen mobil machten gegen den heidnischen Übermut der Advokaten des Erfolgs und sich nicht scheuten, den Idealisten des Irrtums sowohl den regierungstreuen wie den revolutionären, das im Recht verkörperte göttliche Gebot entgegen zuhalten, so wird man heute besser als je verstehen können, wie sehr die spätere Politik, die sich gouvernemental gebärdete, der großen Impulse verlustig ging und sich nur mehr in opportunistischer Alltagsgeschäftigkeit und Parteitaktik ohne großen strategischen Ideenaufmarsch: das Leben fristete. Indem wir hiermit aussprechen was unzählige durch Jahrzehnte empfanden und im stillen klagten, sind wir weit entfernt, die Verdienste dieses regierungsfähig gewordenen Zentrums zu verkennen die wir vielmehr als groß und unvergeßlich trotz alledem ansehen. Aber nachdem die Tore einer neuen Zeit sich weit geöffnet haben und unermeßliche, nie dagewesene Aufgaben des katholischen Volkes und seiner politischen Vertretungen harren, und nachdem jetzt mehr als je die Lage die große Gefahr mit sich bringt daß unsere Einheit zersplittert, indem wir, dem Vergangenen nachtrauernd, uns nicht schnell genug aus der angelebten Mentalität zu befreien wissen, ist nichts notwendiger als auf jenes alte Prinzip der Einheit und Einigung zurückzugehen, das in der grundsätzlichen Gegnerschaft gegen alle Staatsomnipotenz und ihre heidnische Gefolgschaft beruht. Wir müssen uns darüber klar werden, daß hier und jetzt nur eine im Grunde verkehrte Staats-, Sozial- und Wirtschaftsordnung die andere abzulösen im Begriffe steht, und daß wir nicht minder im Irrtum lebten, da wir uns der vergangenen anglichen, als wenn wir es jetzt der neuen gegenüber täten. Ein anderes allerdings ist es, die einmal bestehende Gewalt insofern anzuerkennen als man sich allen ihren sittlich und religiös erlaubten Anordnungen fügt und ihr im Interesse der öffentlichen Wohlfahrt treue Mitarbeit leistet ein anderes, die Prinzipien bejahen oder auch nur stillschweigend gelten lassen, aus denen sie ihre Existenz herleitet und mit der sie sie als unerschütterlich begründet. So wenig wie in der Religion und Moral gibt es in der Politik eine indifferente Theorie, und es bleibt somit für alle Zukunft nichts übrig, als daß wir von neuem und nach- [227] drücklicher als je beginnen, den Ideen einer integralen christlichen Politik wie der zu ihrem Rechte zu verhelfen. Diese christliche Politik kann sich unter jeder Staatsform betätigen, und wenn sich ihre Außerachtlassung schon unter den Monarchien so furchtbar rächte, daß diese heute nahezu alle dem Untergange geweiht sind, wieviel notwendiger, weil allein lebenverbürgend, wird sie erst in den demokratischen und republikanischen Gemeinwesen sein. Denn es ist eine unveräußerliche Wahrheit, die einer der ersten Fürsprecher der Demokratie in Europa in dem Worte ausdrückt: ,Der Gegensatz der Religion und der Demokratie ist der Untergang der letzteren; die bedrohte Freiheit rettet nur die Religion, um das religiöse Leben auch in seiner organisierten Form der Kirche nicht nur in den Gemütern, sondern auch in seinen äußeren Institutionen aufrechtzuerhalten, wird aber künftig nichts so notwendig sein als die innere und äußere Geschlossenheit der Katholiken in ihrem öffentlichen Auftreten. Diese zu bewahren, müssen nun alle Kräfte aufgeboten werden. Wir dürfen in Deutschland unter den Katholiken nicht Zustände bekommen wie vor dem Kriege, noch folche, wie sie in den romanischen Ländern alle Hoffnungen auf einen endgültigen Erfolg der guten Sache in ferne Zeiten verschieben, wo nicht gar für immer zunichte machen, und diese Einigung muß gleich vom ersten Augenblick an in die Erscheinung treten. Jetzt, wo im Hinblick auf die durchaus mit dem Christentum unvereinbare falsche Theorie der Souveränität es offenbar macht, wie die Staatswesen von gestern und heute sich gleichen trotz des scheinbaren Gegensatzes zwischen dem äußerlich betonten Gottesgnadentum und dem nunmehr verwirklichten Volksgnadentum; denn angesichts der praktischen Manifestationen der alten Staaten während des Krieges besteht kein Zweifel mehr, daß auch, in ihnen das christliche nur äußerlich war, da es zu ihrem machtstaatlichen Grundprinzip in unauslöslichem Widerspruch stand. Die Religion wieder in ihre Rechte im öffentlichen Leben einzusetzen, ist somit eine unabsehbare folgenreiche und wichtige Angelegenheit. Aber es wäre wenig geleistet, diese Rechte bloß proklamiert und gleichsam institutionell anerkannt zu sehen, um ihre Wirksamkeit ihr Staate zu begründen, muß man unten, nicht oben anfangen. Das ist ja das Verhängnis aller modernen Verfassungen, daß sie, von Abstraktionen ausgehend, das Glück den Menschen im Großen bringen wollen, bevor die Menschen verstehen, es durch eine richtige Verfassung schon im kleinsten Gemeinwesen zu verwirklichen. Das Urbild aller Staatlichkeit ist und bleibt die Familie. In ihr empfangen wir die früheste Schulung für alles das, was wir im öffentlichen Leben, als Kraft des Zusammenlebens, der Friedensbewahrung, der Verständigung und Hilfsbereitschaft, des Herrschens und Dienens, der Freiheit und der selbstgewollten Ein- und Unterordnung brauchen und als unentbehrlich für die allgemeine Wohlfahrt ansehen. Ein Staatsmann, der es nicht vermöchte, in seinem eigenen Hause Ordnung und Eintracht durch Selbstbeherrschung, Liebe, Gerechtigkeit und die Kunst, der Menschen behandlung zu wahren, darf uns nie Vertrauen einflößen für eine Tätigkeit [228] im großen. So ist letzten Endes aller Streit um Verfassungen nur das ins Völkerleben projizierte Bild der Ordnung des Zwiespaltes menschlicher Rechte und Pflichten schon im menschlichen Herzen. Hier aber ist es, wo die Religion ihr Werk beginnen muß, soll sie zugleich im Gesellschaftsleben wieder zur wahren Schätzung gelangen. Diese so einfache und doch so große Wahrheit hat keiner eindringlicher verkündigt als Adam Müller, der Vorkämpfer einer politischen Restauration im Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, dem er sie als reifes Vermächtnis politischer Weisheit hinterließ. Er erklärt mit Recht alle politischen Diskussionen über die allgemeine Staatsform als ein leeres Spiel und als eitlen Luxus hoffärtiger Vernunft im Vergleich zu dem Ernst der höheren Verhandlung über die Formlosigkeit, in welche das häusliche Leben und selbst der einzelne verfallen sei, weil man das organisierende Prinzip der Religion ausgeschaltet hat. Und doch kann die Religion allein, wie Hermann Plah es ausdrückt, das ,anthropozentrische Chaos in den theozentrischen Kosmos' verwandeln. Erst wenn diese Erkenntnis allgemein zu werden beginnt, dürfen wir Hoffnung schöpfen, in mitten der Wirbel dieser Zeit auch wieder jene terra firma zu finden, auf der sich allein das Glück der Völker und Staaten begründen läßt. Dann wird wahr werden die Verkündigung, mit der Adam Müller seine Betrachtung über den wahren Staat abschließt und womit auch wir hier schließen wollen, denn, wer in auch vor nahezu hundert Jahren gesprochen, gelten die folgenden Worte für unsere Zeit um so viel mehr, als wir ihrer Verwirklichung nähergerückt sind und die Leiden und Erfahrungen dieses Weltkrieges und die bittere Frucht, die er uns getragen, uns für ihr Verständnis reifer gemacht haben: ,Wenn alle Wunden dieses Jahrhunderts verblutet und alle Leidenschaften, welche die Urteile verwirren, zur Ruhe gebracht sein werden, dann wird die spätere Nachwelt in den krampfhaften Bewegungen dieser Zeit nur das Erwachen der Religion wahrnehmen: sie wird das dumpfe Geschrei nach Verfassungen, welches alle ruhige politische Untersuchung übertäubt, verstehen; erkennen wird sie, daß es allerdings eine Konstitution, eine Verfassung gegolten hat, ein Hinaustreten zu jener ersten und einzigen politischen Verfassung, welche auf der Erde bestanden hat, der christlichen nämlich; ein dringendes, unwiderstehliches Verlangen nach jenem natürlichen, aber von einem gehorsamen Herzen für das unmittelbare Werk Gottes anerkannten Stande oder Staate der Menschheit, welchen die eitle Vernunft, eben weil sie überhaupt ihrer innersten Natur nach zu keiner Anerkennung irgend einer Verfassung gelangen kann, niemals erschwingen wird.’ Citation: Karl Muth, “Zur Zeitenwende,” Hochland 16:1:3 (Dez. 1918), S. 225 Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Translations and Notes, 1919-1920 Jan. 4, 1919 Pacelli to Ritter zu Groenesteyn, from Rorschach: Dear Signor Baron, ... Upon my return to Munich I expect the elections will be completed. May God grant that these bring back to Germany, and especially Bavaria, order and tranquility. Original Italian: Caro Signor Barone, ... Per il mio ritorno a Monaco attendo che siano compiute le elezioni. Dio faccia che esse riconducano in Germania, e specialmente in Baviera, l’ordine e la tranquillita. Source: Bavarian Main State Archives, Nachlass Ritter [Ritter Papers], folder no. 63. Jan. 25, 1919 Communiqué from Cardinal Bourne to Prime Minister David Lloyd George and Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour: ... The Zionists here claim that the Jews are to have the domination of the Holy Land under a British protectorate; in other words, they are going to force their rule on an unwilling people of whom they form only 10%. They are already asserting themselves in every way, claiming official posts for their nominees, and generally interfering. This has resulted already in a great lessening of the welcome, which, at the outset, was given wholeheartedly to the British... The Zionists too claimed that they had obtained the approval of the Holy City ... There is no foundation for this claim. The whole movement appears to be quite contrary to Christian sentiment and tradition. Let Jews live here by all means, if they like, and enjoy the same liberties as other people; but that they should ever again dominate and rule the country would be an outrage to Christianity and its Divine founder... Source: Br. F.O. 371/4179, quoted in Sergio Minerbi, The Vatican and Zionism (1990), p.123. Jan. 26, 1919 Schioppa to Gasparri: ... These fears of the “Frankfurter Zeitung” are not, in truth, unfounded. The “Peter-Pages” of Trier – well-known organ of the integralists – in its latest issue (no. 14 of 1918/1919) publishes an article entitled “Ein Wort über die Bayerische Volkspartei”: [A word about the Bavarian People’s Party], in which it attacks this party for not being bound, according to the article writer, to full loyalty to the Government by the grace of God, instead supporting popular sovereignty; and for having called non-Catholics and Hebrews to collaborate within its ranks. A similar attack is made also against the Bavarian Catholic press, which, says the writer – is no more Catholic, but Christian, bourgeois and Bavarian. Finally the Catholic Associations are also not spared, which – in what the article states – have been transformed into political associations... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1024. Feb. 8, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, The Bishop of Fulda charges me to transmit to the Holy See the here-enclosed Memorial sent to him by various Jewish persons and Societies of Frankfurt on Main, for the purpose of obtaining the good offices of the Holy Father, to bring an end to the cruelties that are said to have been committed up to now against the Hebrews in Poland and Galicia. In fulfilling this desire of the aforesaid Bishop, I have the honor to bow humbly to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2120. Feb. 15, 1919 La Documentation Catholique, page 20: “The Israelites Claim: 1st The ‘Restitution’ of Palestine, 2nd ‘Their Own National Existence’ Among All the Other Peoples” From the Peuple Juif [Jewish People], a “review edited by the Zionist Federation of France,” (Jan. 24, 1919): ... France is the classic country of Jewish emancipation. It was there that civil equality of Jews was proclaimed for the first time, and the honor has fallen to France of being the country where the work of our liberation, which she commenced, will be fully achieved... The Jewish people now expect from the Paris Peace Conference not only the rights that will be useful for this or that individual Jew, but also the rights that will be useful for the nation and will strengthen it. Each Jew, as a Jew, will only be entirely free when free as a people. The freedom of the Jewish people can only be obtained if one recognizes: that our nation is a nation with the same entitlement as other nations: that it has a right to a national home like all other peoples; that this home, this country, is Palestine, to which Jewish history, traditions and ideas are indissolubly bound. Whatever rights may be accorded Jews in different countries, if we are not given at the same time our own country, we will lack a solid base to continue our development, a base where we will be able to weave the golden threads of our culture, which has already given so much and can give yet so much more to the world... The United States of America will surely be on the side of England in these questions. We hope that France, this France that gave the first great example of this Jewish emancipation, far from opposing, will on the contrary help the other liberal and democratic powers to realize this act of justice toward an eternally martyred people. Any other supposition is inadmissible and would be too sad... We expect the Jews of Paris and of all France to rise up to the level of the Jewish masses of all the other countries; to demonstrate their will, like the others, to see Palestine given to the Jews, to put all their influence to work for that. I can assure that the great, overwhelming majority of the Jewish people are really nationalist and profoundly Zionist. May the French Jews fraternize in this regard with their brethren! We hope for this. It should be. Because their influence is so great, they are placed so close to the source of all our hopes – the Paris Peace Conference! Let us all unite, placing all our energies at the service of the great cause – the realization of a Jewish home in Palestine – in order to be able to carry out our own part in the common and ever-complex work of civilization. From now own may that part be no longer dispersed, anonymous, aprocryphal and unvalued, but Jewish, original, strong, appreciable. The time is serious. Our ideal has risen up, our hopes are great. May each of us do his duty. Morris Myer, Director of the London daily “The Jewish Times” The same issue of the Peuple Juif details its thought by this suggestive reflection: A good example. It may possibly be to the new State of Czecho-Slovakia that the honor will fall for being the first to recognize for the Jews of its country the right to constitute a national minority and to enjoy national autonomy as a result. At least, President Masaryk made this promise to the Jewish delegation of Prague, who had come to submit their claims. I do not propose to say here what exact form this autonomy might take. It will suffice for me to make the observation that this problem has been dealt with by our friends with all the attention it deserves, in Russia as well as in Poland and Galicia, and that the program as outlined can be immediately put into operation, leaving to the future the necessary revisions. Independent Lithuania, we hear from the mouth of its Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Rosenbaum, has recognized for the Jews of that country the right to their own national existence among the three other nationalities that live there, the Latvians, White Russians and Poles. In Ukraine, despite innumerable difficulties resulting from the troubled political condition in which the country finds itself, the Jews have been constituted an autonomous nationality, having their Council and their national representation. What better solution, just and rational at the same time, will the 800,000 Jews of Galicia find, shunted between the Ruthenians and the Poles, than to be constituted, themselves as well, as a Jewish national minority? What to say of the millions of our brothers who live in Poland? They must have guarantees against the recurrence of chauvinistic excesses by an excited population. Organized around their representatives and their institutions, they will be able to put their collective energy to the service of their national interests as well as the service of the new Polish State. And the 300,000 Jews of Bessarabia and Bukovina? And the 80,000 Jews of Salonika? The example will be followed and should be. That will resolve a great part of our problem. Comment by Documentation Catholique: Concerning the role of the Israelites in these recent events, and most especially of Bolshevism and of its collusions with Germany, the Univers (Feb. 2, 1919) recounts these lines by Edward Meyer, professor at the University of Berlin: “We must let the idea sink in that the current war will be followed by another series of wars, until the supreme decision: one must envision the situation that is imposed on us, without recoiling before the consequences it brings.” French original, page 20 and page 21 Feb. 23, 1919 Pacelli’s report to Gasparri about a failed counter-revolution attempt on Feb. 19, the assassination of Kurt Eisner on Feb. 21, and the ensuing political situation in Bavaria: Most Reverend Eminence, Following up my respectful enciphered report no. 301 of yesterday, I have the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence concerning the recent tragic events in Munich, to the extent it is possible for me in the current difficult circumstances to verify the innumerable reports that are flowing about and which, after all, I have no way to obtain from direct sources. Just last Wednesday, the 19th, there was an attempt at a second revolution, about which I have not yet been able to learn with exactitude, nor the precise purpose of it, nor who was really directly involved. Toward evening that day, several hundred armed sailors occupied the Central Train Station, the Post, the Telegraph and Telephone, and seized also the Landtag building, declaring that they were obliged to guarantee the security of parliamentary activities, which were supposed to begin on Friday. Later they went as far as to imprison the President of Police. But when they attempted to occupy the barracks of the General Command as well as that of the Pioneers, then they were prevented by soldiers who, with machineguns and rifles, re-occupied all the rooms that had fallen into the hands of the sailors and liberated the President of Police. In this way it was possible to organize a service of public security, while the leader of the aforementioned sailors was arrested. The Government published a proclamation stigmatizing what had happened and promising the fullest freedom and security for the activities of the upcoming Landtag. This attempt at revolution was said to be a maneuver by monarchists and Prince Joachim, son of the ex-German Kaiser, who was in Munich incognito, was searched and accompanied militarily to the frontier, although on the other hand no proof could be found of his complicity in the deplorable event. Relative calm returned, even though not everyone was tranquil about the possibility that the Landtag could conduct its proper activities without incident. On the 21st, the day the Parliament was to begin, the streets leading to it were militarily occupied from the earliest hours of the morning. It appeared that all possible measures would be taken to assure the most absolute protection to the Landtag. The Deputies and those invited to the galleries were put through rigorous security. Especially crowded was the gallery for the journalists, among whom were many correspondents for foreign newspapers. The Ministers and Deputies took their positions. The only one missing was Minister President Kurt Eisner. Then there appeared in the hall, white as a cadaver, Mr. Feschenbach, the young secretary of Kurt Eisner, and announced in an emotional voice that the Minister President had been assassinated. An unheard-of clamor then took over the Hall. Cries of terror were heard everywhere, and only with great effort could the President of the Assembly succeed in quelling the tumult somewhat. A Deputy, Dr. Sussheim, proposed that the session be adjourned, and all the party leaders agreed with him. In the adjacent rooms and corridors cries of indignation over the attack went back and forth, and there were remonstrances against Interior Minister Auer, the well-known political adversary of Eisner. The exits of the Parliament were hermetically sealed and militarily occupied, and a rigorous search was begun on everyone, to ascertain if there were any weapons. After about one hour the session was reopened. Auer immediately took the floor, deploring with emotion and strong expressions the assassination of the Minister President, all the more since Eisner had already decided to submit the resignation of his entire Cabinet to the hands of the Landtag. Minister Auer’s speech was generally approved and interrupted by gestures of satisfaction. But while Deputy Süssheim was presenting the motion for adjournment of the Landtag sine die, an individual dressed like a soldier but with a civilian hat rushed into the hall, leaped at Minister Auer, and emptied three revolver shots right into his chest. The Minister was seen to place his hands on his heart and topple onto a chair. Then shots were heard throughout the hall and a frightful confusion took over the crowd. A Center Party Deputy, Osel, one of the more respected members of the party, fell, shot by a bullet; other deputies and spectators were wounded. Someone approached Auer to see if he was still alive, and since he was still breathing, he was transported to the Clinic, where he is lying even now between life and death. As has been generally reported, this is how the assassination of Kurt Eisner occurred. He went alone on foot from the Foreign Ministry to the Landtag, which is nearby, when a young man who looked like a student emptied three revolver shots into his neck; Eisner raised his arms, staggered, fell backwards to the ground, and died immediately. The killer was a Count Arco-Valley, who was immediately attacked by a soldier and mortally wounded, though there is hope now of saving his life. Since he is a noble, an officer in the army, and a Catholic, the Socialists have found nothing better for exciting the people against the nobility, the officials, and the clergy. The agitation in the city is extraordinary. All offices and public buildings are closed. The Tramways are not running. Automobiles with soldiers and armed civilians are speeding down the streets. Ringing of church bells was compelled, to convoke the people for a rally held on the Theresienwiese [the Oktoberfest field]; large numbers of airplanes flew noisily over the city at low altitude, dropping from on high thousands of revolutionary manifestos. Red flags, already fluttering everywhere, are now seen at half mast. All the city newspaper offices have been occupied, and just yesterday a newspaper entitled Newspaper of the Central Council came out, which is replacing the other papers that are compelled by force of arms to cease their work. The Munich Council of soldiers, workers and farmers met immediately. A Central Council of the Bavarian Republic has been created, establishing a Committee of public safety and formed from elements that are most passionately for the revolution. Levin, the Leader of the Spartacists who takes part in the Central Council, is strongly advocating a Ministry Council patterned on Russia. None of the Ministers are present there, except for the Communication Minister and the Social Affairs Minister. The Minister for Military Affairs has been arrested. Timm, the Justice Minister, and Hoffmann, the Education Minister, are missing. As of now the new Government has not been formed, and the Province is under the command of the Central Council of soldiers. The Council has proclaimed a three-day general strike and has ordered that all the proletariat be armed. In fact work has been suspended everywhere for the past two days, and today manifestos are being posted with the rules, indicating that the workers can have weapons. Various hotels and private houses have been searched and are being guarded by armed military personnel. At night machinegun and rifle fire is heard all around, and armed soldiers make rounds of the city. Various victims have already been denounced. What could happen next is not predictable. Days of bloodshed and terror perhaps lie ahead for unfortunate Bavaria; may God spare it such a grave disaster! Meanwhile a war against the Clergy is also beginning. Access for priests to the Military Hospitals has been strictly forbidden, contrary to the decision of the Soldiers’ Council of the hospitals themselves. A priest may only provide his services in case of death and only if the patient so requested. Moreover, Mass is denied, and religious counsel is denied. The arrest of the leading personalities of the former Royal Court has also begun. Taken as hostages so far have been the Grand Master of Ceremonies, the Head of the King’s Civil Cabinet, several members of the Senate, many officials; their safety has been assured, if and so long as there are no further counter-revolutionary attempts. No one is safe any longer in his own house. Today the dissolution of the army is being announced, and the creation of a republican security guard force formed primarily from the proletariat. All of the accomplishments, sacrifices and deeds of the “Bavarian People’s Party” and of the parties of order, to create a Parliament that could give the Province tranquility and peace, have been miserably destroyed by the rash act of the assassination of Eisner. There is now just one tenuous hope, and it is that the Majority Socialists will not go along with the Independents and the Spartacists. In that case it would be impossible to create a republic directed by Councils of soldiers, workers and farmers, since they would not have the majority of the people behind them, who at least until now have been for the aforesaid Socialists. But the situation today is still so murky that it is impossible to make any predictions. Meanwhile the Communist movement is spreading to all of Bavaria; to Nuremberg, to Augsburg where revolutionary activities of exceptional seriousness have occurred (in the latter city some of the demonstrators broke into the Bishop’s palace), and a state of siege has been proclaimed there. (note: I learned today from a reliable source that the Bishop of Augsburg managed to flee, miraculously, and only the Canons were present there). Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple, with sentiments of profound veneration, I have the honor to remain, Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most Humble, Most Devoted, Most Obliged Servant, Eugenio, Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 317. Feb. 25, 1919 Gasparri to Pacelli: Most Illustrious and Reverend Signore, Your Most Illustrious Excellency’s Report No. 12015, of February 8th, reached me in due course, on the subject of the transmission of a Memorial directed by various Jewish persons and societies of Frankfurt on Main to the Bishop of Fulda, for the purpose of obtaining the good offices of the Holy Father; to bring an end to the cruelties that are said to have been committed up to now against the Hebrews in Poland and Galicia. Already in December last year the Holy See had involved in this matter Monsignor Ratti, Apostolic Visitor in Poland, who thus wrote me from Warsaw, dated this January 15th: Concerning the pogroms and excesses against the Jews, about which Your Most Reverend Eminence sent me his venerated encrypted cable, it has however occupied me and I am occupying myself and already have some documents in hand; but nothing up to now is very clear and definitive. In Warsaw, certainly, nothing has happened, I say nothing of any importance and seriousness, the Hebrews there are incredibly numerous (300 thousand!), they are abhorred there, but not molested, much less persecuted. In Kielce, on the 11th and 12th of November 1918, there were serious riots against the Hebrews, of whom four were mortally laid low, 250 injured or badly beaten up. I have before my eyes the minutes of a session of that city council on the first of December: the Hebrews gave blows to the Christians, the Christians to the Hebrews; I expect further information soon… Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 7401. March 2, 1919 Article in Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 9, pages 67-68, promoting Jewish-Masonic conspiracy theory and reviewing a new book on the same theme: “Freemasonry” The value of a polemic can best be recognized by its reception among its opponents. If one applies this standard to the new work of the well-known German radical parliamentarian, the author of “World Freemasonry, World Revolution, World Republic” (Dr. Wichtl’s proprietary publishing house, price 10 Crowns), one will come to the conviction that, from the standpoint of German-ness there is no book nearly so valuable as this one. The uproar among the Freemasons and their adherents over the author’s disclosures and inferences will be enormous! Never before could a work about Freemasons make them so uncomfortable as this. With amazing thoroughness, Dr. Wichtl reveals the works of Freemasonry, which in every country is led by Jews or utilized by them for their own purposes; he sets forth their pernicious purposes and shows the interrelationships between the Lodges and each major political event. Based on a far-reaching mastery of Freemasonic writings, he brings forth proof that nearly every political upheaval occurring in the past 200 years in Europe has had its origin and leadership in the Freemasonic associations, that not only were the revolution in Portugal and the assassination of the Austrian heir in Sarajevo, which was directly instigated by the newly founded (and promoted from Budapest and Paris) Serbian Lodge, the result of Masonic activity, but also the revolutions in Germany and in Austria. The purposes of Freemasonry are not, as often assumed, the fostering of religious and humanitarian concepts, but rather the destruction of authority and the building up of its own power. To have brought forward this evidence is one of the main services of the foregoing work. The chapter about Freemasonry in Austria is worthy of the most special attention. Here is identified not only the political activity of Freemasonry in the time of Maria Theresa, but also – what will arouse especial interest – the participation of Jewry in the Lodges and their leadership. In this connection the book’s enumeration of the masters of the Vienna Lodges is extraordinarily informative. We find there a Dr. Holländer, Dr. Engel, Dr. Frankl, Dr. Ornstein, a Dr. Heller, Dr. Schick, A. Kirsch, B. Schiller and the like, not to overlook the “Freemason Prince,” Dr. Krapalik. Also the statements about Freemasonry in Germany deserve to be specially noted. In this part Wichtl shows how well the head directors of the Masons understand to deceive the great masses of their lower-order brethren and leave them unclear about their true purposes, by the use of slogans and false principles, so that even those who think they are in influential positions are actually nothing but instruments of the “Princes” who stand above them. In this connection it should not go unmentioned that the highest “Prince” of Freemasonry in the period immediately before the outbreak of the War was none less than a Herr Kohn in Frankfurt am Main, a fact that was carefully hushed up in all the yearbooks of German Freemasonry, undoubtedly for weighty reasons, while all the other leading Freemasons are listed by name. No less interesting than the statements about the participation of Freemasons in great political matters is what is brought into the light about the role of Jewry in Freemasonry. Even without being an opponent of the Jews, one must come to the conviction on the basis of the foregoing material, just as a significant Christian Freemason once expressed in these words: “The Freemason is nothing but an artificial Jew.” If one considers, as Dr. Wichtl likewise points out, that all Masonic brothers are obligated to promote each other wherever they can and to stand by each other in all dangers, yes, and to alert them to any threatening dangers, then one can assess what incomparable support Jewry possesses in Freemasonry, in which it is so numerously represented. German originals: page 67 and page 68 March 1919 Publication of Weltfreimaurerei, Weltrevolution, Weltrepublik by Friedrich Wichtl; excerpts: ... (p. vi) I had not previously concerned myself seriously with Freemasonry; the Leo Taxil hoax was just a dim memory to me, the names of the infamous Miss Diana Vaughan, her sister Sophie Walder, the devils Bitru and many others came to life in front of me: reason enough to approach the matter with skepticism. But the evidence was so clear that I took it upon myself to track the matter to ground. Then it came to pass shortly thereafter, in November 1917, that a very well informed and reliable source shared with me that Dr. Karl Kramarsch was a Freemason and belonged to the “Grand Orient of France.” So I began to acquaint myself with the literature of Freemasonry, at first for no other reason than to gain clarity for myself on the important issue: a Light Seeker diligently striving to get at the truth. ... (p. vii) Even before the appearance of my book, a storm of disapproval went out from the realm of the Freemasonic press. The “Building Stone,” the monthly journal of the National Supreme Lodge of Hamburg in Berlin, was prepared to defame me even before a single line of my book had come into view! A “hatchet job” they called it, and again a “hatchet job” and yet again a “hatchet job.” That was printed in the “Building Stone,” issues 1-2, January-February 1919; my book appeared for the first time on the 8th of March that year. This senseless uproar caused my publisher to make a simple announcement; it was called especially “provocative” that there was a heading in the table of contents for the 8th chapter, entitled “The Role of the Jews in Freemasonry.” In issues 6-7 the “Building Stone” turned once again to my book. They called it a “slanderous writing,” a “pamphlet.” Most embarrassing to them was my disclosure that at the summit of German Freemasonry, at the time of the outbreak of the World War, stood Supreme Master Kohn... That the man who stood at the summit of the entire German Freemasonry was named Kohn, they could not dispute. But that this Herr Kohn should be a Jew, that made them nervous, and they considered it an insult to all of them. And so the effort had to be made to turn this alleged Jew Kohn into a zealous Christian... A terrible hailstorm broke out on me in Vienna. The hailstones were so big that I almost wanted to take shelter under the mysterious carpet of some Lodge or other, (p. ix) until the storm had passed over. But since I am a Christian and do not consider allowing my person to be separated from my convictions, I certainly did not let myself be found as a Light Seeker in any Vienna Lodge. For in the Vienna Lodges there are – according to the well-known testimony of the deceased State Court President Holzinger – a hundred two Jews among every hundred Freemasons. But that is not possible! That is surely an exaggeration?! Not at all; here is the evidence: The Supreme Master Dr. Richard Schlesinger is – a Jew; the deputy Supreme Master Dr. Karl Ornstein is – a Jew; the deputy Supreme Master Dr. Adolf Kapralik is – a Jew; the Supreme Speaker Dr. Emil Frankl is – a Jew; the Supreme Speaker Dr. Gustav Spieler is – a Jew; the Supreme Speaker Edward Zinner is – a Jew; the Supreme Registrar Heinrich Glücksmann is – a Jew. Is that enough, or is more “proof” desired? ... (p. xii) The forger Margiotta who worked in association with Leo Taxil (whose work I possess also in the French original, but which I refrained from using as an impure source, whereas Margiotta doubtless said the truth)... Jewish Italian Supreme Master Adriano Lemmi ... (p. 1) Introduction and Overview In the trial of the assassins of the royal couple who were next-in-line to the Austrian throne, it was convincingly shown that not only did the assassination plan have its origin in the French Supreme Freemason Lodge in Paris, but that some of the assassins were themselves Freemasons. ... Gives secret details of Masonic rites and practices, different types of Lodges, details of the various degrees of Masons ... (p.49) The Italian brothers appear to give much effort, in fact, to honor Satan as their supreme Lord and Master: Salute, o Satana, O ribellione! ... (p. 50) Freemasonry and Judaism An expert on Freemasonry speaks of it concisely and to the point: Its origin lies in England, the building of its higher degrees followed in France, its intellectual formation in Germany, the externals, however, stem from Judaism. That is correct, but concerning the last point, incomplete. Spiritual Masonry is known to be associated with Solomon’s building of the temple, and this wise king plays a large role in Freemasonry... (p. 52) The six-pointed star is supposed to be for Free Masons “an image of the activity of the Word of God, the free essence of divine power!” This flaming star is always found over the door on the east side of the Lodge hall. With this, however, we set forth just a few relationships between Free Masonry and Judaism; in fact there are an enormous number. Solomon’s throne, for example, appears in Anderson’s constitution book as the seat of the Supreme Master, Solomon’s seal plays an equally great role in the Lodges as Solomon’s signet ring... (p. 53) Even though Free Masonry has so little to do with Christianity, it is very much influenced by the Bible and belief in the Bible... There are Lodges in which the vows are no longer taken on the Bible; for the “Supreme State Lodges of Germany,” by contrast, the Bible is not only an image, but a sort of rulebook. (Remarkably ...) According to all this one could almost come to the conclusion that Freemasonry was founded by the Jews. This view, however, is not historically sustainable. The founders of this association were on the whole Christians who, in the English manner, had a special predilection for the Old Testament. One of them was the well known English preacher Dr. Jacob Anderson, who published the well known “constitution book of Free and Accepted Masons; ... (p. 54) but also the names of others have gone into the afterworld, and a Jew is not found among them. And nevertheless a bridge here leads over to Judaism: The English Jewish antiquary Elias Ashmole, who occupied himself much with secret arts, was taken into the Work of Masonry at the time in the year 1646 and gathered a lot of documents about Freemasonry, which then were used in the erection of the Supreme Lodge of England in the year 1717. Chapter VIII. The Role of the Jews in Freemasonry Hardly had Free Masonry been founded than the Jews tried to gain a strong foothold in it. That was, to be sure, not so easy; at first indeed the Jews had been denied entry to the Lodges. For the first time around the year 1780, in Frankfurt am Main, there arose two Jewish Lodges, unbeknownst to the other Lodges... In Hungary there ensued the refounding of Lodges at the end of the ‘60s in the 19th century; already by the middle of the 1870s the Jewish Freemasons held the leadership . . . No Lodges without Jews! This slogan of the Freemasonic journal “Acacia,” concerning the rule in the French Lodges, applied with triple strength in the Hungarian Lodges. . . . ... (p. 57) It is similar in Germany with the Berlin Lodges that come under the Hamburg Supreme Lodge; the Lodge “Victoria” in Berlin has, for example, Masters Schey ... Rosenberg ... Marcuse ... But not only in Germany, in Hungary, and in Austria, no, throughout the whole world the Jews are the most energetic and active Freemasons and know how to breathe their spirit into the Lodges and turn them to their own ends... Let us turn a quick glance toward Italy and perceive that its famous Freemason, Ernesto Nathan, has come into full view. Who is Ernesto Nathan? ... ... (p.60) In short: What is influential in Italy is Freemasons, among whom the Jews play a prominent role. “This race has numerous representatives in the Italian parliament” – says the French Freemason newspaper “Revue Maçonnique” [“Masonic Review”] (January 1908 no. 334 p. 1). “Far better than anywhere else, the Hebrew spirit has attained its goal in Italy.” (Ibid. page 3.) This observation about the “Hebrew spirit” in Italy may well be right, but in other places as well it is exactly the same. In France, for example, we encounter Jews repeatedly as founders and diligent representatives of Freemason orders. Among these, for example, is the Parisian Jew Etienne Morin; he was the major disseminator of the “Scottish (highest degree) System” that actually had virtually nothing to do with Scotland... How thoroughly this high degree system is dependent on Biblical history and saturated with the Jewish spirit, is seen upon a fleeting glance at the titles provided for the degrees: there we find the vindictive grade of Knight Kadosch (30th degree), then a Prince of Lebanon, a Prince of the Tabernacle, and even a High Prince of Jerusalem! And now? The native ranks of nobility are done away with, the princes cast aside, the Kaiser dethroned ... But it will not take long until their seats are occupied once again. The Kaisers are dead, long live the “Kaisers of the East and the West!” Pave the way for all who are qualified: for Haase, Eisner, Liebknecht, Adler, Kohn! Pave the way for Bela Kun! Friedländer! Bettelheim! Toller! Levien! Leviné! Pave the way for all these who “live it up” among us, enrich themselves and want to enslave us! ... The whole similar rite of Memphis owes its origin to a certain Samuel Honis from Cairo ... But – one could object – there are self-styled foundations of orders which have no right to be considered Freemasonry. The “German Supreme Lodge” has never recognized them, thus they have no right to recognition. Granted! Only the “Grand Orient of France” has recognized them and that (p. 62) suffices completely, even if from the German perspective these orders are seen as false foundations for the purpose of bleeding us via Light Seekers and gullible people. Moreover, this is not about the issue of whether they are recognized or not, but merely about the evidence that Jews play a role of calling the tune in Freemasonry everywhere, in France as well as Italy, in Hungary as much as in Austria, and especially so in Germany. Or do you want to deny that the Jew Cremieux, one of the heads of the Scottish Rite, played a key leading role in France? Was he not part of the February Revolution (1848) alongside other Freemasons of the provisional government? Or the one-eyed Jew Gambetta? Do you want to dispute that the high ranking Freemason Gambetta was the one who, in 1869, inveigled the separation of Church and State into the influential Platform of Belleville? After all, can you deny that one of the political goals of World Masonry is to accomplish the separation of Church and State everywhere? And that this, where it has already occurred, is chiefly a work of Freemasonry? And within Freemasonry, particularly a work of the Jews? Let us see yet again how it is in England. England, including Scotland, counts 225,000 Freemasons. Among them are 43,000 Jews, that is nearly a fifth part; yet there are Lodges that are almost exclusively composed of Jews, as for example the Shelley Lodge, which comprises three-fourths Jews, and even purely Jewish Lodges, like the “Hiram Lodge”; the latter indeed gave rise to so many scandals that the Supreme Master of the order, Prince Edward Albert, later Edward VII, had to decide to dissolve it. Especially significant are the following Lodge names: King Solomon, King David, King Saul, Baron Hirsch, Lord Rothschild, Henry Bernstein, Sir Albert Sassoon, and others... Especially since the Franco-Prussian War, the Jews have victoriously swarmed into the Lodges, while even here the Christian brothers have preferred to surrender the field to the Jews without a fight. . . . (p. 64) From these developments, which could be expanded upon with countless further examples, suffice it to say that the Jews are represented within Freemasonry in a strength far exceeding their numbers; hence it follows that the Jewish Freemasons are everywhere the most active and persistent workers and understand how to bring their influence to bear; and it also follows that they strive for the leadership within Freemasonry in all countries, indeed in many states (p.65) they have already seized it for themselves and in their way, that is, striving to use that leadership primarily for the advantage of their race; finally it follows that it is especially Jews who initiate the policy of the Lodges and influence the other brothers toward the same ways. If this is really the way matters are today, then the issue is clearly presented, why does almost no one in the entire German Reich see through their game, revolt against it, and stand up to tyrannical Judaism?... (p.163) ... Communists and Freemasons got along rather well. The communist Soviet regime, for example, took over the collection begun by the Freemasons for the purpose of erecting a memorial to the Freemason poet Br. Andreas Ady; the Freemason daily newspaper “Vilag” became the organ of the communist People’s Commissariat for Education, and so forth. That the house of the Hungarian Supreme Lodge was requisitioned and occupied by the guild of the – housekeepers (!) – was less congenial, to be sure, but nevertheless this deed was reported by the “Vienna Freemason Newspaper” without the slightest word of reproach; a sign that they had reconciled ... Chapter XXIV Via World Revolution to the Freemasonic World Republic In a full dozen countries the revolutionary activity of Freemasonry has by now been established. The spirit is, at its root, always the same, and the end goal is always a republic... (p. 195) But let us return to the characteristic concepts of this sect. To free people from the domination of the “Powers” was also the goal of the Illuminati Order, which played a great role in the second half of the 18th century and has many points in common with Freemasonry. Even then the concept of a World Brotherhood and World Republic exercised its charm, and powerful thinkers such as Immanuel Kant spoke up for it. In the broader ranks of the German people, however, the republican ideal of government first appeared in the 19th century. It was represented particularly by the revolutionary and Freemason, Mazzini, whose secret confidantes were hard at work throughout Europe. For Mazzini, the republic was “the only conceivable just form of government; the people are everything.” But the “people” are only “everything” if they agree with Mazzini’s point of view and take up the words of this lord and master; if they do not, then they are only an “ignorant and corrupt mob” ... Chapter XXV Freemasonry and World War This issue goes far beyond the title of this book and thus could be left aside; the reader who has followed line for line up to now must surely have come to the unavoidable conclusion: If Freemasonry is really striving toward a World Republic – and about that there is no doubt – if they instigate revolutions everywhere toward this end, and about that there is really no doubt, then they are certainly not guiltless of the horrible, enormous revolution that has occurred, namely the World War itself... (p. 237) Chapter XXVI The Freemasonic Peace Program of Wilson That the Freemasons bear a large share of the guilt for the outbreak of the World War ... It is nevertheless still said that the Freemasons apparently had nothing to do with the World War and its frightful armaments and destruction, but rather with a World Revolution, which their ideals brought about, especially the downfall of the European dynasties and the introduction of a World Republic. If this line of thought is correct, then it will be confirmed by the end result. And so must, also, the Wilson Peace Program, which represents the high point of the historical developments brought about by the War, correspond with the chief demands of the goals of Freemasonry, and all the more so, since Wilson himself is a Freemason. Conclusion (p. 257) ... This book had to be written, it was a moral necessity. And it had to come from a politician known to Germans, not from quarters that could be suspected as “clerical” or “ultramontane” or “Jesuitical.” The “clericals” have truly done enough in this field to enlighten the people; if they were not believed, that is for the most part our own fault. One more word now about the republic. From my writings, any impartial reader would be led to the conclusion that I am not much inclined to the republican form of government. My standpoint is really this: A good German-Austrian republic led by ethnic Germans, in which everyone is filled with good will for the common good, is a hundred times preferable to me over a bad monarchy. A good monarchy, on the other hand, with a capable, well-advised, smart, hardworking, virtuous, reliable German Kaiser at the head, is a thousand times preferable to me over an arbitrary lawyer-run republic under a “Mason Prince” of the likes of an Eisner, Lenin, Adler or Kohn. Citation: Friedrich Wichtl, Weltfreimaurerei, Weltrevolution, Weltrepublik (Vienna, 1919; 5th ed., Munich: J.F. Lehmann, 1920). March 2, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 9, page 66: “Comes the Separation?” Deny it if you will and can: The most fateful problem of our time is the question of the separation of Church and State. The old and ever new conflict between Christianity and materialism, between faith and unbelief, will be ever more concentrated in the future upon the platform plank: for or against “separation.” No Christian nation where State and Church have worked up to now hand in hand will avoid this frightful struggle. No one should give in to deception in this regard. Just as the subversive idea of the great French Revolution of 1789 flew right through every civilized country and brought the 18th century under the yoke of liberalism, from which the nations have been freeing themselves only slowly and through the most bitter struggles, so the idea of separation is hurrying through all states that have been bound to the Christian Church by faith and history, bringing them violent crises and fateful struggles. Not without reason is it maintained that the transition to a republican form of government in recent history is so self-evidently bound up with separation of Church and State that it is directly considered the formal obligation of every new republican state to immediately implement this separation... If we want to prevent separation according to the French, that is the Freemasonic, anti-Church model, then ... Citation: Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung [Munich Catholic Church Newspaper], 1919, no. 9, p.66. March 10, 1919 Pope Benedict XV’s statement about Palestine, spoken at a Consistory in Rome on March 10th and published in English translation by The Tablet: ...But there is one matter on which We are most specially anxious, and that is the fate of the Holy Places, on account of the special dignity and importance for which they are so venerated by every Christian. Who can ever tell the full story of all the efforts of Our predecessors to free them from the dominion of infidels, the heroic deeds and the blood shed by the Christians of the West through the centuries? And now that, amid the rejoicing of all good men, they have finally returned into the hands of the Christians, Our anxiety is most keen as to the decisions which the Peace Congress at Paris is soon to take concerning them. For surely it would be a terrible grief for Us and for all the Christian faithful if infidels were placed in a privileged and prominent position; much more if those most holy sanctuaries of the Christian religion were given into the charge of non-Christians. We learn, too, that non-Catholic foreigners, furnished with abundant means and profiting by the great misery and ruin that the war has brought on Palestine, are there spreading their errors. Truly harrowing indeed is the thought that souls should be losing their faith and hastening to damnation on that very spot where Jesus Christ Our Lord gained for them life eternal at the cost of His Blood. Helpless, deprived of all they have, those poor souls are stretching out to us suppliant arms imploring not only food and clothing but the rebuilding of their churches, the re-opening of their schools, the restoration of their missions. To this end We have for Our part already set aside a certain sum, and most willingly would We give more if the present poverty of the Holy See allowed. But it is our intention to excite the interests of the Bishops of the whole Catholic world that they may take to heart such a noble and holy cause, arousing among all the faithful that sense of active charity which their ancestors always showed towards their brethren of the Orient. Source: The Tablet, Mar. 22, 1919, pp. 353-354. March 16, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 11, page 83: “What Is Bolshevism?” At the end of November 1918, I was fleeing Russia and traveling from Frankfurt on the Oder to Berlin in a jam-packed rail car with soldiers and some Berlin laborers who had just come from the province of Posen and had hoarded potatoes, as they told me, at the rate of 75 Pfennigs a pound. Impressed by the terrors I had experienced at the hands of the Red Guards during the previous ten days, they were soon talking with me about Bolshevism. It was really peculiar that not one of the people in my compartment knew anything about the Bolsheviks, even though all of them had participated in the Berlin Revolution and were avid newspaper readers, from what they said. I had to be the one to tell them what the Bolsheviks really are and what they want. It still happens to me often, both close to home and in foreign places, that I am asked what the Bolsheviks really are, or I encounter totally false views about Bolshevism. For many people, the Bolsheviks are just a bugaboo to use to scare Progressives, or to scare people away from joining revolutionary parties, just as I once heard a lady in Poland say to her ill-mannered child: be good, or else the Bolsheviks will come and take you away. Bolshevism is not so dangerous, according to these people. Others, on the other hand, see in Bolshevism the embodiment of all evil, as when a Russian Count told me: I never used to believe that mankind descended from the apes. But since I saw how the Bolsheviks murdered my son, I believe that man is really a beast. Or when I was once invited to an estate for a luncheon, and in the course of the meal there arose talk about the Bolsheviks, and the lady next to me gave a shriek and fainted. The word Bolshevik worked on her like a knock-out drug. For the Bolsheviks had condemned her husband and her four children. Even the following has actually been encountered: In Berlin at the end of November a couple gentlemen of well-bred class, who said they were good Catholics who fulfill their religious duties, wanted to show me that Bolshevism not only has religious merit, but is actually the religion of the future, the fulfillment of the teaching of the divine Savior. What, in reality, is Bolshevism? The word Bolsheviki comes from the Russian word bolshoi, which means “more.” Thus it could be thought that the Bolshevik Party is what we call in Germany the “Majority Socialists.” But that is not correct; the opposite is the case. In Russia the Bolsheviks are the extreme, radical wing of the former Russian Socialist Party. The Bolsheviks did not first receive their name in the recent Revolution. That has existed, rather, since the year 1903. That was when the Russian Socialist Party split apart in two directions: the Bolsheviks or maximalists; those were the extremists; and the Mensheviks (the word comes from “mensché” or “less”) or the minimalists, the moderates. The maximalists or Bolsheviks are the most determined Socialists. They want to take the ideals and goals of Social Democracy, as set forth by Marx, the father of Social Democracy, in his Communist Manifesto of 1848, and implement them at all cost down to the smallest detail. They know nothing of holding back and nothing of being humane. What they want must be implemented by power and terror. They have no desire to negotiate with any parties. Because, they say, the people will be cheated in all negotiations and the capitalists will get off scot-free. The Bourgeoisie must be completely annihilated by any means. That is why they wanted, from the beginning, the arming of the Proletariat and the disarming of all property owners. In contrast to them, the Mensheviks represented the moderate standpoint. They also wanted the goals of Social Democracy from the outset, but not by power, rather by peaceful, calm development in cooperation with the other Socialist parties and with the Bourgeoisie. They desired that all elements of the population should work together for the upbuilding of civilization and the elevation of the poorest classes of the people. Thus the Bolsheviks or maximalists correspond to our Spartacus League with Rosa Luxemburg and Liebknecht, and perhaps still with our Independent Socialist Party with Haase and Ledebour and Eisner. Their opponents, the Mensheviks or minimalists, would then correspond to our Majority Social Democrats with Ebert and Scheidemann and Auer. There were, at the time in Russia, however, a full dozen Socialist parties, which almost all stood in contrast to the Bolsheviks. At the moment the Bolsheviks officially call themselves: the Russian Communist Party. The leader of the Russian Bolsheviks and the current lord of Russia is Lenin, Vladimir Ulyanov Lenin, a lawyer from Simbirsk on the Volga. As a result of his Bolshevik agitating, he had to flee at one time, and he returned from Switzerland to Russia after the fall of the Russian Czar. In Switzerland he had lived at the expense of the former German Government, and for his return journey to Russia, the German Embassy gave him a passport and a false name, and placed a rail car at his disposal, which traveled as a neutral entity right through Germany to Russia with Lenin and Trotsky. One cannot outline the character of Lenin better than what the well-known Russian Socialist writer Maxim Gorky did in his newspaper Novaya Zhizn, in the issue of November 10, 1917, which was three days after the Bolshevik Revolution: “Vladimir Lenin is ushering in the Socialist storm on the government in Russia according to Netschajew’s recipe: Full steam ahead!” Lenin himself is by nature a man of exceptional power; for twenty-five years he stood in the ranks of the fighters for the final triumph of Socialism. He is one of the most significant and most original phenomena within the international Social Democratic movement. He is a highly gifted man, with all the attributes necessary for a leader. At the same time he is signally lacking in morals, necessary for this role, and a self-disciplined, merciless relationship to the life of the popular masses. He works with the well-being and life of the people like a chemist in a laboratory. But while the chemist uses lifeless material and thereby attains results that have value for life, Lenin operates with living material and brings ruin to the people and the revolution. Note from the Editor: Many may consider it unusual to find a discussion of “Bolshevism” in a Church newspaper. The continuations that will appear in the following issues will show that this is well justified. German originals: first page and second page March 23, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 12, page 93: “Ecclesiastical Review” The Holy Father held a secret Consistory with 22 Cardinals taking part. In his Allocution, the Holy Father expressed what a lively interest the Roman Church takes in the Eastern Churches. The Pope recalled, among other things, the recently successful creation of a union for the Eastern Churches and the foundation of an Italian-Albanian seminary at Grottaferrata, and he pointed out that during the war he made crystal clear his special concern for Armenia, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon and gave a helping hand to the peoples there. In relation to the future form of the Ottoman Empire, the Pope expressed the desire that the Peace Conference might deliver the Holy Places into the hands of the Christians. It would be extremely painful for the Holy See if a predominant position in Palestine were conceded to unbelievers, or if the Holy Places were to come into the hands of non-Christians. The Holy Father received the Ambassador of the Hungarian Republic in an audience, Dr. Oskar Charmann, who also temporarily represented the Hungarian Republic in Vienna. The Hungarian Republic is working to establish contact directly with the Vatican concerning the resolution of various issues.- The “International League of Nations Conference” meeting in Bern, at which 24 nations are represented via peace associations and league of nations organizations, brought up a resolution whereby the involvement of the Holy Father in the league of nations would be provided for. In place of the German Benedictines, to whom the Church of the Dormition in Jerusalem had been given, four Belgian Benedictines have set off for Palestine. This generally reflects the accomplishment of a complete separation of the Belgian Benedictines from the German branch of the Benedictine Order (Beuron Congregation) with the approval of the Holy See. German original March 28, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Political Situation Most Reverend Eminence, The domestic political situation in Germany, and particularly in Bavaria, is becoming ever more grim and threatening. The Majority Socialists are losing more ground every day, while their former followers are swelling the ranks of the Independents and the Spartacists. For this reason it is thought that the Bavarian Minister-Presidency of the Socialist Hoffman will not be able to survive long. Above all, the Spartacists are conducting an extremely extensive and active propaganda campaign. In crowded assemblies right in the public streets, Communist orators are preaching the new word with fervid, captivating language and are winning over very large numbers of followers. Thus the thought is spread in the minds of all that new and terrible upheavals are being prepared, which will lead to the triumph of Bolshevism. On the other hand, if I am to believe a report that came to me quite recently from Minister Erzberger, it is thought in Berlin that the Russian Government may be considering an invasion of Germany through southern Latvia, simultaneously with a domestic uprising of the German Bolsheviks to cooperate thereby in the Soviet victory. The progress of the extreme parties is fed and favored by a sense of desperation into which the population has fallen because of the prospect of adamant peace conditions that will be imposed, it is said, by the Entente. A distinguished and habitually moderate German diplomat expressed openly to me yesterday that in the event that the imposed conditions are intolerable and reduce Germany to slavery, he himself would prefer Bolshevism. Then Germany, united to Russia, and with the support of Hungary, would become invincible. Russia has inexhausible natural resources, and Germany has the culture and technology to use them. France and Italy would be running a formidable risk, all the more since their armies, which indeed fought valiantly against the former autocratic states, would be difficult to deploy now against their proletarian brethren in Russia and Germany. May God inspire the men of State meeting now in the Paris Peace Conference with sentiments of moderation and thus spare Europe from a new scourge more horrible than the past war! Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 3064. March 30, 1919 “Ecclesiastical Review” section of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 13, page 101: “Ecclesiastical Review” On the occasion of the Congress of Italian Diocesan Associations, the Holy Father declared that he recognizes their intention to summon the powers of Catholics for the realization of religious and social programs... The Osservatore Romano writes: “The Roman Question exists and will always exist so long as the Holy See does not find itself in a normal relationship to that to which it has a divine right, and which it cannot renounce without committing suicide. The purpose of the Vatican is directed to the independence of the Vatican from the supreme Italian civil authorities! That is exactly what the Roman Question consists of. The Church founded by Christ is international, supranational and independent. The subordination of the Vatican under a civil authority would splinter the Catholic Church and dissolve it into so many national churches that it would cease to exist. The Osservatore Romano denies that the Pope wanted to participate in the Peace Conference; he had decided from the beginning not to participate if the peace of the victors was going to be imposed on the vanquished. - In a letter to the Bishops of the entire Catholic world, the Holy Father requests effective support for the sad condition of the Catholic population in Palestine, in light of the reports about them received from the Patriarch of Jerusalem; he thereby also points out the necessity of preserving the Catholic schools in Palestine and supporting the Catholics there, so that they are put in an enhanced position to oppose the efforts of the non-Catholics... By a Ministerial Decree of January 25th concerning religious instruction, the Protestant clergy and religion professors of Munich are given status. In their name, and with their agreement, Deacon Lembert writes in issue no. 3 of the “Evangelical Community Paper” of March 1919: On the question of religious instruction, the current Government has taken the position, in the official decree of January 25th, that no child may be forced into religious instruction or worship services against the will of the parents, and that teaching personnel are not obligated to take part in the supervision of students during worship services. At first this might appear not really so regrettable - it should be, as it appears, only the removal of a compulsion; but whoever knows the intentions of the State Government and also understands something of the technique of the school policy, will recognize clearly that this decree is the beginning of forcing religious instruction out of the schools... [ellipsis in original] One certainly wonders, moreover, why a provisional government dares to issue such a decisive regulation... German original Apr. 3, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Presentation rights for parishes and benefices in Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, By Report No. 11066 of November 28, 1918, Monsignor Auditor of this Nunciature, in my temporary absence, sent Your Most Reverend Eminence a petition addressed to the Holy Father by the Archbishop of Munich and Freising, also in the name of the other Bishops of Bavaria, concerning the presentation rights of the current Government for the parishes and the benefices (non-consistorial). In this petition the aforesaid Bishops, “to prevent ruin and greater evils,” asked “that the Apostolic See use indults (presentation rights) still valid also for the present government to tolerate its worthiness in such a way that we Bishops would designate three suitable names from which the present government would choose one, on the condition that payments to benefices and churches would be made in the future and this would be only for the time being.” Your Eminence, in Encrypted Cable No. 169 of December 27, deigned to instruct Monsignor Schioppa to communicate to the Bavarian Bishops that “the Holy See is disposed to examine the needs of the new situation if a new Government in Bavaria is durably constituted and is willing to negotiate with it. In the meantime Bishops, in individual cases, can act on their own, in a way solely de facto, without prejudicing Canon Law principles and without compromising the Holy See, possibly by setting up temporary parish administrators.” Monsignor Auditor conveyed the above-referenced response without delay to Archbishop Faulhaber and via him to the other Bavarian Prelates. The difficult abnormal political conditions in Bavaria being prolonged, however, the issue has inevitably suffered new complications both in terms of law and by way of events. In terms of law, the Bishops, while being unanimous in their intention not to cause any prejudice to canonical principles and to the rights of the Holy See, do not agree rather in the concrete issue, whether or not the presentation by the current Government can be allowed for the aforesaid parishes and benefices, and thus whether it is licit for the Bishops to propose the required list of three names to the competent Ministry. So, in fact, the Archbishop of Munich is inclined to maintain the necessity for an indult from the Holy See, while the Archbishop of Bamberg (as seen in his letter to Abp. Faulhaber dated March 20, 1919, which he shared with me) maintains that so long as the Concordat remains in effect, the Bishops can allow the presentation under discussion and he also proposes the formula to be adopted in the future for the three-name list. The excellent Archbishop von Hauck supports his opinion by a memorandum by Monsignor Hollweck, a copy of which I have the honor to send here-enclosed to Your Eminence. This learned canon lawyer begins by observing that Concordats are always concluded between the Holy See, as the supreme and universal representative of the ecclesiastical power, and the Government of the State, whatever may be the organ that has the power and represents it, whether it is that of a Monarch, or an oligarchy or a parliament that exercises its rights by means of a specified plenipotentiary, the Government of the State presents itself in every territory as a power subsisting in fact and immutable, derived from the existence of the State itself and in which the State itself exists in a concrete form; which, then, however at the moment this power is manifested and how it is exercised, is a matter irrelevant in itself. Therefore, continues Monsignor Hollweck, the Concordats remain undoubtedly in effect, since the State, with which they are concluded, exists at least substantially with its territory, however the State itself may have changed, and he cites the words of the Most Eminent Cardinal Cavagnis (Institu. Juris publ. eccles., I, 694): “… [extended Latin quotation]” Thus (adds Monsignor Hollweck) the Concordat concluded with Napoleon I continued in effect under the Bourbons, then under the Duke of Orléans, thus under the Republic, and then under Napoleon III, and finally again under the Republic until 1905. The Holy See upholds as a firm principle that changes in the form of the Government do not affect the validity and duration of the Concordat. Only the provision (according still to Monsignor Hollweck) concerning the appointment of Bishops, which in a totally exceptional way constitutes a personal privilege conceded to the King of Bavaria and only so long as he is Catholic, has ceased with the fall of the Monarchy, having lost the subject of the privilege itself. As a result of this, concludes the aforesaid canon lawyer, the Government’s right of presentation for the so-called royal parishes must be recognized without hesitation, even with regard to the current holders in fact of power in the State, and it is also up to them to decide how and by what official of the Government they want to exercise that right, it being a matter of total indifference whether it is done by the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs. It is also unimportant what religion the State official in question belongs to, since it comes into question here only insignificantly. It would certainly be convenient if it was only done by Catholics, but membership in the Jewish religion for such an official of the Bavarian Government, per se, would only be an incidental defect. As it appears to Monsignor Hollweck, therefore, the practice in effect up to now can be maintained. If however the Concordat were subsequently directly or indirectly repudiated by a separation of Church and State, then common law would automatically come into effect, with the royal patronato having disappeared, there would be the right of free appointment by the Bishops under the norms of Canon 1432 § 1. There is no doubt that the Bavarian Concordat (still according to the above-referenced teaching of the Most Eminent Cavagnis) in its entirety remains in effect even after the recent change in the form of the Government; but it appears that it would be licit to question whether the exception admitted expressly by Monsignor Hollweck for the right to appoint to vacant Bishop seats might be valid also for the presentation right to the parishes and non-consistorial benefices. In fact, privileges that run against Canon Law must be strictly construed, and therefore are to be considered rather as personal privileges than as privileges in re; this rule obviously applies above all to the right of appointment or presentation, which is odious, because it diminishes the liberty of the Church in conferring benefices (Canons 50, 68, 1471, De Luca, De Jurepatron, disc. II nn. 3-5, 12-13). Moreover the Republic arising upon the collapse of the Monarchy could not present to the Holy See those guarantees in view of which the indult of presentation was accorded to the King of Bavaria. And that is why the Most Eminent Cardinal Cavagnis teaches (I. c., II, nn. 129 et seq.): “…[extended Latin quotation].” Nor would it be, in itself, sufficient reason to lay claim to the Bavarian Government’s continuing up to now to pay to the parishes and to the other benefices the customary subsidy, since that is owed as a partial restitution of the goods usurped already from the Church. But it seems that, although the right of presentation should not pass automatically to the new Government, but should be requested as a new pontifical concession , this must not necessarily be explicit, however, it being sufficient for this purpose that it be an implicit or tacit recognition by the Holy See. Greater difficulties have arisen in the course of events. In the first place, the Bishops are not in agreement about their conduct. It does not seem clear to them, truly, if the above-referenced response of the Holy See would or would not mean a tolerari potest; many, including the Archbishop of Munich, are not eager to present a list of three candidates, for fear that this would mean prejudicing Canon Law principles and the rights of the Holy See itself, and they have sought up to now to make do by means of parish administrators; others, instead, have either made such presentations already, such as (according to what Abp. Faulhaber has reported) the Bishop of Speyer, or are inclined to do so, especially after Monsignor Hollweck’s memorandum, like the Archbishop of Bamberg. This diversity of conduct, already harmful in itself, especially under current circumstances, creates toward the Prelates of the first category serious discontent from the Government as well as the clergy. In fact, discontent toward the Bishops is growing especially among the clergy, since not a few priests, failing to take account of the circumstances, are attributing to the respective Bishops the delay in appointments of parish pastors; and this discontent, of which there has even been some echo in the Socialist press, is all the more grave, in that the Government subsidy for parish administrators is much less than that for parish pastors, and thus very often, because of the continuing price inflation, insufficient to live on. Finally, it cannot be denied that the simple parish administrators do not enjoy the same authority as parish pastors, either in the view of the public authorities or in the view of the faithful, and that authority is so essential in these turbulent times. For all the above-mentioned reasons, it is not surprising if many Bishops desire that the Holy See would benevolently tolerate the exercise of the right of presentation by the current Republican Government, or at least, in order to achieve uniformity in the conduct of the Bishops, would deign to declare in more explicit language its mind in this regard, naturally only for the knowledge and guidance of the Bishops themselves, and without them bringing into the discussion or compromising in any way the Holy See vis-à-vis the Government. In the often-mentioned response to Monsignor Auditor of this Nunciature, the Holy See says it is disposed to examine the needs of the new situation, once a Government, durably constituted, wants to negotiate with It. Therefore I consider it my duty to explain subordinately to Your Eminence my humble opinion about the adoption or not of these conditions at the current time. It is essential to recognize, first of all, that from a legal perspective the present situation is better than the past. In fact, the Government of Kurt Eisner was not only merely provisional and de facto, but also illegitimate even from a democratic point of view, in that, as clearly shown by the elections, it was not representative of the Bavarian people, but only of a small revolutionary minority. It was primarily for this reason that I did not believe I could enter into relations with it and thus courteously declined the proposal of a meeting, which, moreover, would have caused sadness and scandal among Catholics, as I had the honor to report to Your Eminence in my Respectful Report No. 10941 dated November 20, 1918. By contrast, the current Ministry presided over by Mr. Hoffmann had the approbation of the Landtag, being the legal representative of the Bavarian people, even though the non-Socialist parties, especially the Bavarian People’s Party (Center Party), were induced rather begrudgingly and under the pressure of events (cf. Reports Nos 12334 and 12335 of March 18 and 19, 1919). Keeping in mind, moreover, that any attempt to restore the monarchy would have been, at least for now, certainly doomed to failure and would have done nothing but provoke civil war, it seems obligatory to conclude that the current Government can be considered as legitimate and thus one with which it is licit to enter into official relations. On the other hand, however, it needs to be observed: 1st) that the current Government can be called durable only in the sense that it is per se some type of legitimately constituted Ministry for so long as it remains in fact in power. But since in the current state of political and social ferment, especially in Bavaria, no one can with absolute certainty predict what will happen tomorrow, and moreover there is a universal conviction that the Hoffmann Cabinet (like in general the Majority Socialists to which he has belonged up to now) may lose ground one day and that the country is on the eve of a third revolution that will tend to establish a Councils Republic according to the Russian system. 2nd) The Hoffmann Ministry, even if it is more moderate from a social policy perspective than the Independent Socialist Kurt Eisner, nonetheless, according to the unanimous information I am receiving, harbors a profound aversion to religion, so much that it can be said that its strongest struggle, in the issue of schooling, has been the supreme ideal of its life. For the moment it is abstaining, as it seems, from hostile acts, since it feels the ground shaking too much under its feet and because the Bavarian People’s Party (Center Party), in the negotiations that preceded the formation of the current Cabinet Ministry, made it a condition that the religious question be left untouched. From such a man it is difficult to expect that he will want to deal in a satisfactory way with the Holy See to resolve the ecclesiastical situation. I must add that I did not fail to make efforts prudently to enter into relations with him in an appropriate way, especially via the head of the Bavarian Center Party, Dr. Speck, an excellent Catholic; but up to now in vain. Also, according to what the Archbishop has reported to me, when an official of the Education Ministry suggested to Hoffmann that he open relations with the Nunciature or with the Holy See precisely to systematize the issue of the parish appointments, he responded that there was no need. 3rd) Finally, there are many indications predicting that there will probably be a separation of Church and State in Germany, to which the Commission discussing the new Reich Constitution in Weimar is favorable (but in a non-hostile form). Separation, then, will take place with certainty, everyone believes, if Bolshevism prevails and the Councils Republic is established. In that case the issue of the right of presentation as to benefices by the governing authorities would fall away by itself. That said, I leave it to Your Eminence’s superior judgment to decide whether it would be useful now to negotiate with the Bavarian Government to resolve the issue of the appointment of parish pastors, or whether it would be more expedient for now to await a solution of the current political and social crises, perhaps tolerating provisionally that the Bishops, to the extent they consider it necessary, would present the required three-candidate lists to the current Government, as was done in the past, without bringing the Holy See into the question or compromising it. Therefore, in expectation of the venerated instructions that Your Eminence may be pleased to communicate to me, possibly by telegraph, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt No 252 Apr. 18, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri, from Munich: Re: The Nunciature and the Soviets-Councils Republic of Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence: As I had the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence in my encrypted cable No. 319, at the beginning of this week two Foreign Legations in Munich were invaded by the red guard of the Councils Republic. Afterward, the automobile of the Prussian Legation came to be requisitioned, and the Consul General of Austria-Hungary was then arbitrarily arrested, and was not released until strong protests from the Austro-Hungarian Chargé d’Affaires. As a result of such deplorable events, it was deemed opportune to call a meeting of the Diplomatic Corps to deliberate about them. After a long discussion, it was decided to speak about the matter directly with Levien, head of the Munich Councils Republic, to make him state unequivocally whether and how the current Communist Government intends to recognize and protect the immunities of the Diplomatic Representations. The negotiations were entrusted to the Nunciature and the Prussian Legation. Since it would have been absolutely indecorous for me to present myself to the aforesaid gentleman, the task was given to Monsignor Auditor, who went to him this morning together with the Prussian Chargé d’Affaires, Count von Zech, as the Ambassador was away from Munich in view of the current circumstances. Levien was installed along with his General Staff, or if you please, with the Council of Representatives of the people, in the former royal palace of the Wittelsbachs. The spectacle that said palace now presents is indescribable. The most chaotic confusion, the most nauseating filth, the continual coming and going of soldiers and armed workers, the shouting, the obscene language, the blasphemies that resound there, are turning what was the favorite residence of the King of Bavaria into a real hell-hole. An army of office workers who come and go, who transmit orders and pass along news, among them a crowd of young women, of a hardly reassuring appearance, Jews like the first ones, who are in all the offices, with provocative airs and equivocal smiles. The leader of this group of women there is Levien’s lover: a young Russian woman, Jewish, divorced, who gives orders like the mistress of the house. And to her the Nunciature unfortunately had to bow down to have a ticket for entry! Levien is a young man, also Russian and a Jew, of about thirty or thirty-five years. Pallid, dirty, with dull eyes, with a gruff, vulgar voice: a truly repulsive type, yet with an intelligent and sly face. He barely deigned to receive Monsignor Auditor in a corridor, surrounded by an armed security detail, among them an armed hunchback who is his faithful bodyguard. With a hat on his head and smoking, he listened to what Monsignor Schioppa expressed to him, protesting repeatedly and rudely that he was in a hurry for more urgent matters. In a contemptuous tone, he said the Councils Republic recognizes the extraterritoriality of the Foreign Legations, if and so long as the representatives of the Powers, friendly or hostile (it doesn’t matter to him), take no actions against the Councils Republic. When the Auditor made him consider that the position of the Pontifical Representative deserves special regard for his Mission, Levien stressed with a certain ironic tone: “Right, it’s about protecting the Center Party!” To which Monsignor Schioppa added energetically that it is about protecting the religious interests of Catholics, not only of Bavaria but of all Germany! At the conclusion of the discussion he sent the Auditor to his comrade Dietrich, the People’s Representative for Foreign Affairs; there was another crowd of damsels, soldiers and workers; more disorderly conduct, more chaos. This improvisational Foreign Minister was a little less rude, but more sharp in his responses. Essentially he repeated what Levien had said, adding, in a way that admitted no discussion, that if the Nuncio did anything against the Councils Republic or the interests of the proletariat, he would be “thrown out” (weggeworfen), and he repeated the phrase, already spoken by Levien, that they had no need of the Nunciature, all the more since separation of State and Church would be coming. Monsignor Schioppa made them aware that, if the Republic were to hurt Catholic interests, the Nuncio would betray his Mission by remaining silent, but that naturally, otherwise, the Pontifical Representative would not get involved in political matters of the province. Dietrich insisted that extraterritoriality will be respected, so long as the security of the Councils Republic is not threatened. In any case documents are conceded to the Nunciature just as to the other Legations, in which the same extraterritoriality is recognized. It is clear that these documents only possess a rather relative value. Similar documents had already been issued to Diplomatic and Consular Representatives in Bavaria, and yet that did not prevent the invasion of the two Legations described above, nor the arrest of the Austrian Consul. The interpretation of these documents, given the complete anarchy that reigns, is left to the soldiers, who can go wherever they want with impunity and can do whatever best pleases them. There may be some soldiers who have the good sense and capacity to understand that extraterritoriality* is an important matter, but it is clear that the majority do not understand one iota, insisting on searching and arresting, and only after this is done is it possible to invoke the protection of the commissars of the people. This is the unprecedented situation created for the Apostolic Nuncio, who then for possible further negotiations is obliged to submit to the indecorous humiliation of going back again to these Authorities in such offices. In reporting the above to Your Eminence, as in duty bound, and in discharging my responsibilities, humbly bowing and kissing the Sacred Purple, and with sentiments of most profound veneration, I have the honor to remain, Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most Humble, Most Devoted, Most Obliged Servant, Eugenio, Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio *Note: Extraterritoriality of the Nunciature, under the circumstances, was confusing for international lawyers as well as Red Army soldiers: The Nunciature’s diplomatic immunity flowed from its status as an extraterritorial property of a sovereign nation. But the Pope’s temporal sovereignty over the Papal States had been lost during the period 1859-1870, and the Pope did not again rule a sovereign nation until Mussolini’s recognition of the Vatican City State in the Lateran Accords of 1929. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 257. Apr. 19, 1919 Senger to the Catholic Parishes of Bavaria: Our beloved Fatherland is in greatest danger. A bunch of foreigners have taken power in the capital city of Munich, conducting from there a reign of terror that threatens the provinces and the population of the entire State with incendiary plundering. The lawfully existing Government has issued an appeal for the formation of Freikorps volunteer forces. Upon its success turns the weal or woe of the Fatherland. We request the clergy, by home visits and also from the pulpit, to take a stand so that many fit community members will answer the call. It is urgently requested to stand together with one will, for danger is imminent. The capital must be successfully liberated in short order to make possible a really democratic government. Archbishop, and Vicar General Senger. Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 7482 Apr. 20, 1919 “Ecclesiastical Review” section of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 16-17, page 125: “Ecclesiastical Review” Cardinal Amette, Archbishop of Paris, during his stay at the Vatican also discussed with the Holy Father the replacement of the Bishops of Metz and Strasbourg. The incumbents of both Dioceses are known to have resigned their posts, but the Holy Father has not yet accepted their resignations. The Beatifications of the Maid of Orleans [Joan of Arc] and of Margaret Alacoque will take place at the same time, in June or July. From the new Papal Yearbook, the following may be of general interest: Among the representatives of foreign states at the Holy See, the title of Austria-Hungary will still be maintained, but the Ambassadorial position is not filled... In a committee of the Czech National Assembly, a motion was introduced by the Socialists and Freedom Party to bar priests from teaching non-religious subjects. In Hungary, priests are similarly being forced out of the schools, religious instruction is being abolished, etc... German original Apr. 30, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri, from Munich: Re: Aggressions against the Nunciature Most Reverend Eminence, Yesterday, Tuesday April 29th, a little after 3:00 p.m., the Commander of the Red Army of the South, Seyler, came to the Nunciature with his adjutant Brongratz and other soldiers armed with rifles, revolvers and hand grenades. After having intimidated, with the threat to explode the selfsame grenades, the servant of the Nunciature who had opened the door to them, they entered by force, stating that they wanted to seize the Nunciature’s automobile (a splendid car with the pontifical coat of arms), and demanded to speak immediately with the Nuncio. Monsignor Auditor being away from the house at that moment, I presented myself to these raving men and made known to the Commander that the violent penetration into the Nunciature and the requisitioning of the automobile by force of arms constituted two flagrant violations of international law binding on all civilized peoples, and I further showed him the certificate of extraterritoriality issued by the People’s Commission for Foreign Affairs, of which I had the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence in my respectful Report No. 12572. For his entire response the adjutant aimed the revolver at my chest, and the Commander – a horrible delinquent type – after having given his underlings the order to hold hand grenades at the ready, told me insolently that any talk was useless and that he had to have the automobile immediately to proceed to the front. I replied with vigor that I was protesting against the aggression, but that, in the face of brutal violence, I was permitting the aforesaid servant to open the garage. Seyler then proceeded there, and, thanks to the help of a chauffeur who came with him, tried to put the automobile in motion; an arduous task, since the Nunciature’s chauffeur, in anticipation of the event, had removed from the machine an essential piece for its functioning. While these delinquents, infuriated by encountering the obstacle, were intent on their work, I had a telephone call made to the competent Ministry of Military Affairs. The response, however, was hardly encouraging: If the automobile was not immediately handed over, the Nunciature would be bombarded and the whole band (sic, in original), that is the personnel of the selfsame Nunciature, would be arrested. This attempt having failed, and despite the difficulty deriving from the fact that an armed sentinel was watching over the telephone, I succeeded in having Monsignor Schioppa alerted, in order to try a step with the Commander of the City. He indeed, engaged immediately by Monsignor Schioppa, understood the situation; and towards five, that is two whole hours after the Nunciature had been invaded, three security agents arrived and ordered the Commander of the Red Guard to desist from his enterprise. Given, however, that he, as a member of the Supreme Command, maintained that he did not have to submit to orders from the Commander of the City, there arose between the two parties a loud argument, until, as it pleased God, at 6 o’clock, as a result of new instructions from other Authorities, Seyler undertook to go away, leaving the automobile. Thus quiet returned to the Nunciature, but only for a short time. This morning I was in Prof. Jochner’s Clinic, where, having recently had a strong attack of influenza and a sick stomach, I am undergoing a special treatment. Monsignor Schioppa was in the Nunciature. Toward 9:00, the same two individuals reappeared, that is the Commander of the Red Army of the South and his adjutant, accompanied by other armed soldiers and equipped with a document signed by Egelhofer, Supreme Commander of the Red Army, which authorized them to requisition the Nunciature’s automobile. Immediately the Executive Committee, as well as the Commander of the City, were alerted by telephone. Indeed there arrived at the Nunciature, with all speed in two automobiles, a member of the aforesaid Committee with armed soldiers, and in another automobile, about ten soldiers of the City Command’s police. An agitated discussion arose about the jurisdiction of the powers, and the matter threatened to go on for an eternity and perhaps end badly; when it was proposed that the two who came for the requisitioning go together with the member of the Executive Committee to Egelhofer. After more than a short wait, they returned in an automobile, this furnished with a machinegun and a not inconsiderable number of soldiers with rifles and hand grenades. The member of the Executive Committee then told Monsignor Auditor that this Committee could not do anything at all to avert the seizure of the automobile, as it concerned a matter of a military character. The soldiers from the City Command made the same statement, adding that they could well have undertaken a struggle by armed force against those of the Red Army, but that it was more humane to spare the shedding of blood. Monsignor Schioppa protested with the greatest vigor against the act of violence that they wanted to commit, making it known, among other things, that even in Russia and Hungary the prerogatives of the Diplomatic Corps were respected and that it is impossible to understand how members of the Executive Committee and soldiers of the Councils Republic would not respect the decisions and signatures of their Ministers, who had recognized the extraterritoriality of the Nunciature. At this point, the Commander of the Red Army of the South, with an imperious and arrogant tone, turned to Monsignor Auditor and said to him: “Not one word more; otherwise you will be arrested at this very moment!” At this threat he needed to yield, but not before Monsignor Schioppa had first made clearly known that the yielding was only in the face of violence and that the Executive Committee would be responsible for the consequences of this act of violation of international law. While they were proceeding to take away the automobile, however, the Italian Army Captain, Signor De Luca, detached to Munich by the Military Mission in Berlin, and an excellent Gentleman, having learned what was happening, went to the Supreme Command of the Red Army, and (of his own initiative, indeed unknown to the Nunciature) demanded the release of the automobile in the name of the Italian Government, protesting against what had occurred. The step had a happy result, as Egelhofer gave an order to the aforesaid Captain for the immediate release of the car, which has already been taken to the Benz Company garage for appropriate repairs. There Egelhofer’s order was shown, before which the two who came for the requisitioning had to yield, not without first bringing menacing words of rancor to their lips, among them that the whole band (the Nunciature) should be thrown into prison! Indeed the Italian attaché at the Swiss Consulate (who was in charge of the protection of Italians during the war), having become aware of the matter, went to the Executive Committee and had from them a letter of apology for what had happened to the Nunciature, and the assurance that the deplorable event would not be repeated, as well as confirmation of what the Commander in charge of the Red Army had already said to Captain De Luca. Thus the automobile could be returned to the Nunciature with rubber tires that had also been required: but there remains the act of violence against the Pontifical Representative, the violation of the right of extraterritoriality and the threats of abuse against the Nunciature, which, given the state of exceptional excitement that reigns here and the double game played by the Commander of the Red Army of the South and his worthy adjutant, there could be attempts, and therefore I as well as Monsignor Auditor have been advised to sleep away from the house for several nights, naturally leaving the palace of the Nunciature well watched after. An event developed into an echo of cannons, which reverberated yesterday almost uninterruptedly in Munich, in the fratricidal fighting between the Red Army of the Councils Republic and the White Army fighting for the liberation of the Capital of Bavaria from the harshest Russian-Jewish-revolutionary tyranny. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 258. May 1, 1919 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, vol. 163:9 (1919), p. 559: “Lenin” by Fritz Zinnecke A young Russian from Vladimir University in Kiev, Bolshevik to the core, once said to me: “Humanity today really has only three great men: Wilson, Lenin and Benedict XV.” If one considers the composition of our government and the peace delegation that is supposed to encompass the flower of our nation, or the Entente’s men of state gathered in Paris, who really want to found a new epoch, then those words take on special meaning. When a Bolshevik, despite the contrast with the worldview of Benedict XV, actually calls him a great man, then a Catholic may certainly consider the personality of Lenin, who is light-years away from himself in more than just religious things, and try to do him justice. More than once I have spoken, during my stay in the Ukraine, with Russians who knew Lenin personally, who had either worked under him politically or struggled against him. Therein, however, friend and foe were agreed: Lenin is an idealist. His ideal is the realization of Communism... Along the path of development, Lenin’s extreme goal of the realization of Communism is not attainable, it requires first the violent overthrow of the capitalistic order of society in all civilized countries. His next and most intensive effort goes on from there to the revolutionizing of the world... The German Revolution itself was given birth by the World War. Soviet Russia, however, came about unnaturally. Rakowski in Kiev, Joffe in Berlin and Radek in Moscow acted and wrote in agreement with and by assignment of Lenin... The propagating and organizing of world revolution is only one of the fields that Lenin works; a second, and not less extensive is the domestic Russian, on which he acts to give humanity an example of the nature of a Communist State... ... this sentence from Lenin himself: “Among one hundred Bolsheviks there is one idealist, ninety-nine criminals, and seventy dumbheads.” These unworldly ideologues and injudicious common blokes represent the leaders and the followers, “upon whom,” as Gerlich says so trenchantly in the Süddeutsche Monatshefte, “the Christian character of Marxism impresses its power of attraction, and whom it seizes with the convincing power of a religious mania.” The prophet of this new faith is Lenin... Inspired by his prophetic aspect, Lenin has pursued a systematic politics of destruction for the attainment of his utopian goals, leading to the ruin of Russia, the driving of Germany to the brink of the abyss, and the threatening of the existence of the democracies of the West... May 1, 1919 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, vol. 163:9 (1919), p. 565: “Bolshevism in Hungary” – Apr. 10 The Bolsheviks of Russia are schooling them. Since the 21st of March, Hungary has a Bolshevik government. It is as if Bolshevism wanted to advance from East to West… But how exactly did Hungary come to its present-day Bolshevism? Precisely by departing from its established political foundation. Just as Russia, which simply overthrew Czarism, instead of timely reforming it, lost all political restraint and then sought in vain for a firm bit of ground, so Hungary’s Prime Minister Wekerle, as he declared the royal association of Hungary dissolved, along with the other lands of the Hapsburg monarchy, lost the political foundation of Hungary without offering any other foundation in its place... [p.569] ... the Communist government in Budapest, among whose 30 members, it is maintained, no fewer than 24 are Jews. Is this now really the end of Hungary? ... The final result remains always this: Paris is today the head of the capitalist- and Moscow likewise the head of the anticapitalist- world order. Paris stands for the preservation of the existing economic order, having thus to some extent the power of Positivism behind it, Moscow on the other hand wants to destroy the existing order, without however having any clarity about the new order, thus in Moscow pure negation prevails... May 3, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “To the Residents of Munich!” Following the clarification of how the Räterepublik in Munich meant the rape of true democracy, the political parties are standing unshakably behind the Government that was lawfully elected by the Landtag. In a tireless joint effort they – supported by the broadest spectrum of the Bavarian people and by the help of our true brothers in arms from Württemburg and the Reich – have liberated Munich and won back the assaulted districts of southern Bavaria. Much has been achieved, but more still lies before us. The first concern will be to improve again the provision of food for the population of Munich and to create for all elements of the people, living conditions that are fit for human beings. The punishment of the guilt-laden demogogues and seducers of the people must be carried out relentlessly and unyieldingly with the full weight of the law. It is a ghastly crime to shake so severely the entire State at a time of the Fatherland’s deepest need and to delay and immeasurably impede the rebuilding of our economy... The bleeding wounds must be healed by wise, statesmanlike work. Every unjustly inflicted injury must be made good again. Every citizen, whether worker, farmer, entrepreneur or bureaucrat, whether involved in commerce, industry or white collar work, bears his role in the rebuilding... And now forward with God! Bamberg, May 2, 1919 The Bavarian Party Leadership of the Bavarian Volkspartei Source: German original, Bayerischer Kurier, May 3-4, 1919, p.1 May 5, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “Demands of the Non-Socialist Parties” On the afternoon of Saturday, May 3rd, the representatives of the Bavarian Volkspartei Munich, the German Democratic Party, the National Liberal Party and the City Council of Munich, together with the associated economic leagues, submitted the following demands to the military supreme command: 1. Immediate re-establishment of lawful conditions by the annulment of all of the Räteregierung’s decreed orders. 2. Expeditious resumption of a regular police force to provide security for public order, personal liberty and economic life. 3. Disarming of the Red Army and the Worker Defense Force, dissolution of the Munich Troop Detachment and a prohibition on bearing of arms by the civilian population. 4. The setting up of a trustworthy, well-disciplined popular army under the leadership of professional soldiers. 5. Thoroughgoing measures for the securing of the democratic constitution, the Landtag and the Government formed by it, in particular by the prevention of any further propaganda verbally and writing for the dictatorship of a class. 6. Arrest of the leaders responsible for the unlawful events and their referral to the regular courts, to the extent that an immediate strictest penalty has not already necessarily been carried out upon the murderers of the hostages and upon all plunderers. 7. Expulsion of all elements foreign to our State that are not politically irreproachable. In consideration of the catastrophic impact of recent events for the political, moral and economic life of Munich, it was the desire of the undersigned organizations to submit these demands jointly with the Social Democratic Party. It, however, could not join in our activity. We regret now having to make our demands without the Social Democratic Party; but we are nevertheless convinced that the demands of that party substantially correspond with ours. The named organizations expressly declare that our special action, required by the aforementioned events, shall not mean the formation of any sort of anti-Socialist or anti-proletarian bloc; each one of the undersigned organizations shall rather remain independent in the preservation of its own direction in accordance with its otherwise programmatic position. As we are informed, the demands were already submitted on Saturday, May 3rd to the powers that be, by representatives of the Action Committee. These representatives were informed that a portion of the demands have already been put into implementation, and that the rest of the demands would succeed in short order. Source: German original, Bayerischer Kurier, May 5, 1919, p.1 May 5, 1919 Nuncio Pacelli’s report to Cardinal Gasparri about machinegun fire upon the Nunciature and invasion of the Nunciature by anti-Communist forces: Most Reverend Eminence, After the aggressions by the Red Army that I reported to Your Most Reverend Eminence in my respectful report No. 12602, there was an attack here by Government troops against the palace of the Nunciature on the evening of May 3rd. I was at Prof. Jochner’s Clinic in Munich, where I also spent the night. Monsignor Schioppa had also slept away from the house the night before, at the place of a friend of his from the Austrian Legation, and that same evening I strongly recommended that he do the same. Having returned to the Nunciature at 7 p.m. for dinner, however, he did not believe he could go out again without danger, and thus deemed it safer to remain there. Unfortunately, however, toward 10 o’clock, after a loud shout was heard in the street where the Nunciature palace is situated, apparently a military order, a violent fusillade of rifle and machinegun fire struck against the palace itself, and precisely against the eastern side with the room occupied by Monsignor Auditor. He was in the bedroom and had just then turned on the electric light. With the tremendous shots that were discharged against the room, he thought perhaps the light could have provoked this devilry, though there was no order against it. He wanted to turn it off immediately but found that was impossible to do without grave danger, since the light switch was right in front of the window where bullets were coming in. Finally, crawling on all fours across the floor, he succeeded in turning off the light and taking refuge in another room. After a few more minutes, the fusillade ceased. At the same time, three officers and about twenty soldiers came to the door, Government troops (Prussian), armed with rifles, hand grenades and revolvers, and said that there had been repeated shots from the windows of the Nunciature directed at the troops, killing at least four soldiers, and therefore they wanted to make a thorough search of the house. Monsignor Schioppa, after expressing appropriate misgivings in consideration of the diplomatic immunity to which the house was entitled, accompanied the officers and soldiers into all the rooms and even onto the roof, to convince them that there were no Spartacists in the building and that there was necessarily no possibility that troops had been fired upon from there. It was not easy to convince these gentlemen, who asserted that at least two sentries had reported the fact of firing from the windows of the palace. By God’s will, half an hour after midnight, the soldiers left the house, with two sentries remaining there on watch to see if anyone might shoot from dwellings overlooking the garden of the Nunciature. In fact the Spartacists, after losing the major battle, began to fight as guerrillas from the roofs, as their worthy comrades had done in Berlin. The morning after, it was possible to confirm the severity of the attack that had been suffered. On the exterior walls of the house on the aforementioned side, there are at least fifty or sixty holes made by machinegun bullets. Several window panes are shattered. Two bullets penetrated the interior wall against which Msgr. Auditor’s bed is set. Four shots struck the interior of his bathroom, which is severely damaged, and it was a miracle that one of the bullets did not strike the gas line, which could have caused an immense calamity. On the same day, I did not fail to call these deplorable events to the attention of the Prussian Legation in Munich, which promised to take an interest so that such events do not recur. Meanwhile, last night another attack was renewed against a house near the Nunciature, and it was a real marvel if it was spared new damage. In reporting the above to Your Reverend Eminence ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 259. May 8, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “The Death Sentence for Germany” – [describing a summary of the Versailles Peace Treeaty terms from the Times of London] “Martial Law and Death” “The Bavarian Government has declared war conditions and martial law. Whoever goes up against Government troops with a weapon in hand will be punished by death. All armed resistance will be relentlessly broken by force of arms. Every member of the Red Army will be treated as an enemy of the Bavarian people and the German Government.” So reads the declaration that was announced by the Bavarian Government and the military supreme command upon the entry of Government troops. Everyone who longs for the return of law and order after the criminal offenses of the recent wielders of power has recognized the unconditional necessity of these measures... “Political Developments and the Bavarian Volkspartei” After lawful governmental conditions had been made clear by statements of the Government, the Landtag and the individual parties, necessary measures had to be taken under consideration and tried in action. The main problem to be solved initially was to build the foundation of a reliable armed force that can support the Government under all circumstances. The sad experiences of recent days had opened the eyes of all who did not want to believe it before, that even a Socialist Government, just like any other, whatever name it goes by, simply hangs in the air if it does not have the necessary material and military means of power at its disposal. Under the force of circumstances, the Government has finally stepped up to appeal for the formation of a reliable people’s defense force from all elements of the population without consideration of what party or organization they belong to. It is to the exceptional credit of the bourgeois parties, and first of all the Bavarian Volkspartei, to have shown the way for the Government in this direction. As the Government agreed on April 18th to the formation of Freikorps units, the final hindrance was removed that had stood in the way of the raising of a serviceable Government armed force. Hand in hand with the demand for setting up a people’s army was the request for the immediate extensive arming of the countryside for defense against Spartacist plundering bands from the cities. This demand, which our party placed the greatest weight on fulfilling, was carried out by a Government decree by which the police stations, upon demand, should receive weaponry and ammunition as much as needed for farmers who reported to bear arms. In the same category also belongs the establishment and reinforcement of the State military police... German original May 8-10, 1919 Gasparri to Pacelli via Teodoro Valfré di Bonzo in Vienna, encrypted cable, May 8th: Received telegram yesterday. Communicate to Archbishop Pacelli to manage the safe-keeping of the Nunciature Archive and after that go immediately with the Auditor to Switzerland, where he will receive instructions. Gasparri to Pacelli, encrypted cable, May 10th: Telegram No. 320 has arrived. Your Illustrious Excellency shall immediately leave Munich for Switzerland, first assuring that the Archive is with a trusted person, who can also be a member of the Archdiocesan Curia. Episcopal correspondence is not a concern for now. Declare to the Government, if indeed necessary, that your absence will be temporary. Coded telegrams No. 318 and No. 319 have not arrived. Source: Vatican Secret Archives, Archive of the Munich Nunciature, pos. 397, fasc. 3, fol. 11r and 13r, reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document Nos. 1578 and 2496. May 11, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, page 140: “Munichers Be Thankful!” We Munichers have lived through difficult days and weeks. They are over, thanks be to God. Yes, to Him, the Lord ... and to the brave soldiers and their outstanding leaders who freed us... We were standing at the abyss! Apparently not everyone today is yet fully conscious of that. And many, it seems to me, have let what happened today erase the memory of yesterday. I do not want to write about the atrocities committed by Bolshevik rage against innocent victims - but, Munichers, have you forgotten that even your priests were no longer secure against vilifications of the worst type on the streets and byways, that they were openly called “enemies of the people” and placed in the same category as war profiteers, that they tried three times to arrest your Archbishop, who was fortunately not then in his palace, that many other priests were also placed on the “blacklist,” that priests were actually arrested who were guilty of nothing, and they were only released when citizens valiantly demanded their release? Have you forgotten that monasteries and institutions, which fed so many poor and sick and children during the war, often at great sacrifice, were robbed and plundered, and in some cases like the Capuchins had everything taken down to the last potato ... Munichers, do not forget what was done to your priests and monasteries! And do not forget who brought these intolerable conditions to an end! Be thankful also to our North German brethren, who in league with the South German troops restored peace and calm to us. If we had been left to our own resources, we would be lost today... Stand up against all uncertain, untrue rumors, do not believe everything that is said, approach our saviors with love and friendship - they have truly served us! - Munichers, be thankful! Note by the Editor: Just as we were giving this article to the printer, we learned of the terrible death to which 21 members of the Catholic St. Joseph association were subjected. Such outrages should naturally not be excused in any way by the remarks printed above. German original The same issue contains this article also: “Separation of Church and State in France” Totally opposite to the American separation of Church and State, of which we spoke in our last issue, is the separation of church and state in France. Hostility to religion, hatred of the Church, and Freemasonry have brought the French Separation Law into existence. From that it is clear at the outset that this separation is no work of peace, but rather a frightful weapon intended to stab right at the heart of Catholicism in France. Thus the Pope has identified this law not as a “separation-, but rather an oppression-law against the Church,” whose goal is to “de-Catholicize France.” The Separation Law of December 9, 1905 encompasses an official falling away from God and the Church, an enslaving and suppression of the Church and a monstrous theft of Church property. For decades Freemason Lodges, freethinkers, and socialism have worked for this separation for the purpose of de-Catholicizing France. The French nation is supposed to foreswear all religion in their laws, in their political, social and civil life. “Religion must be combatted like alcoholism, tuberculosis or the bubonic plague,” explained a Freemasonic member of parliament in the debates ... The separation of Church and State in the French-Freemasonic manner is thus a public theft that cries out to heaven, a sacrilegious robbery carried out by law. All churches, with their property, rectories, bishops’ residences and seminaries are declared to be state property. Citation: Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, May 11, 1919, no. 19, p.139. May 12, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “Bolshevism and Marxism” Lenin put to the test, in his book “State and Revolution” written on the eve of the Russian Revolution, the evidence that the Bolshevik dictatorship of the proletariat, the violent breaking down of the mechanism of State, the immediate expropriation of the exploiters, is nothing but the practical implementation of the Marxist concept of the nature of the state and revolution; he support himself hereby especially by Marx’s early work (“Misery of Philosophy,” “Communist Manifest,” “Civil War in France”) and on Engels’s foundational book: “The Origin of the Family, of Private Property and of the State.”... Also on page one of Bayerischer Kurier, May 12, 1919: “Community Elections Appeal of the Bavarian Volkspartei” Public morals, law and economic life have suffered severe harm by war and revolution. The elections for representatives of the people in Community, District and Region are especially significant under these circumstances. What was torn down must be built up, what is no longer suitable must be rebuilt. We need men and women of good will and strong ability. Vote! For the first time women and young men will vote in the Community, District and Region elections. We turn with special emphasis to the voting duties of these new members of the electorate. They must help to create a representation that acts for the good of the productive classes in city and countryside, with Christian social concepts and intention, building a new world from the ground up, upon the rubble… Our active concern pertains to the professional and commercial middle class, to the farmers, workers and employees. Our standing up for health care, especially care for children and infants, and for orderly provision of food and appropriate nutrition, serves the common good. Regarding the provision of welfare, we want to pay special attention to preserving the character of local institutions, to comprehensive care for the poor, to relieving the shortage of housing, and to special consideration in public employment for those disabled in the war. We turn our constant concern to the formation and education of our youth on the time-tested confessional foundation, especially in soundly established schools with free tuition and free learning materials for those of modest means. For the implementation of this program, vote for the men and women on our candidate list, who share an active will for working and for self-sacrificially doing their part! The Bavarian Volkspartei defends culture, morals, law and order. Give it your vote too on voting day in your home community. The Local Groups of the Bavarian Volkspartei. German original May 12, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page 3, on the burial of the 21 young men who were shot and killed by counter-revolutionary forces at a Catholic men’s group meeting: “The Burial of the 21” Outdoors in the quiet Moosach cemetery far from the big city, the final act of the bloody drama was carried out on Saturday afternoon as the mortal remains of the 21 young men, once full of hope, were laid to rest in consecrated ground. Just as the widest circles had first participated in hearing the news of this heavy stroke of fate, so an enormous crowd of people had come to the cemetery to pay their last respects to the deceased… ... Fr. Rupert Mayer addressed the grieving assembly at the burial with the following words: “Dear Parents, Wives and Siblings! Dear Members!” I experienced much during my 2-1/2 years in the field … But nothing so shook and shattered me as the terrible news of what occurred here... What above all causes us grief and makes the entire matter so flagrant is the fact that innocent, harmless, beloved, good people so suddenly and violently lost their lives in such a horrible manner. We want it established in the broadest public light of day that these beloved deceased had not the least unlawful act to their charge. Anyone who speaks or writes to the contrary, speaks and writes what is not in accord with the facts. That is what makes the heart pound so. It is understandable is the heart rages at the first moment and thoughts of hatred want to well up in us against those who have committed such a terrible crime against us. But that was only for a moment and can only be for a moment: for we are believing Christians and want to be upright, believing followers of Jesus Christ. We rejoice that we may hold high the commandment to love. Therefore away with every thought of hatred and revenge... There is yet another thought that could bring this terrible matter into a somewhat brighter light: Couldn’t this sacrifice perhaps become a means toward reconciliation of these otherwise so irreconcilable oppositions that we saw come presently to pass? … If the blood that was shed here, if the sacrificial death of their sons and brothers would serve as a bridge over the powerful divide in our people, then that would be a great consolation for the survivors... German original Also on page 3 of the Bayerischer Kurier, May 12, 1919, a report the progress of disarming people in the Munich area: “The Situation in Munich” The rumor that portions of the Government troops, under pressure from the Bavarian Government, have moved out of the city, are entirely without foundation... The disarming has up to May 10th had the following results: 169 light artillery pieces, 11 heavy artillery pieces, 760 machineguns, 21,351 rifles, carbines and pistols, 70,000 cold steel weapons, 300,000 handgrenades, and 8,000,000 rounds of ammunition. German original May 14, 1919 Pope Benedict XV’s encyclical In Hac Tanta, on St. Boniface, the 8th century Apostle to the Germans: Paragraph 1 begins by acknowledging the “manifestations of disorder and of anarchy which have recently occurred among you and among neighboring countries.” Para. 9 describes Boniface’s conduct in the terms of a model Apostolic Nuncio: “Right from the beginning of his mission, he communicated with the Holy See via letters and messengers,” “he made known to the venerable Apostolic Father everything which the grace of God accomplished by his means” and he “sought advice from the Holy See in matters which concerned the daily needs of the Church of God and of the people’s welfare.” (quoting from Willibald’s Life of St. Boniface) Para. 12: Pope Gregory II invited German rulers and people to give Boniface “their approval and their co-operation to such a great servant of God, sent by the Catholic and Apostolic Church to enlighten the nations.” Paragraphs 10 through 22 repeatedly emphasize the values of fidelity to Rome and close ties of filial devotion and obedience to the Pope. Para. 18 recalls how Boniface enjoyed calling himself “the German representative of the Holy Roman Church.” Paragraph 22 applies that concept to the current day, saying that Boniface lives among the German people today as “the representative of the Roman Catholic Church for Germany.” Paragraph 25 indicates that the mission of Rome’s representative to Germany includes building relations with France as well: “The apostle of Germany thus charitably embraced the neighboring nation of the Franks.” Para. 26: “We long for the day when the rights of Almighty God and of the Church, their laws, their worship and their authority will be restored in this troubled world. We hope that then Christian charity will end wars and furious hatreds, dissensions, schisms, and the errors which crawl everywhere. May it link the peoples by a more stable treaty than the transient pacts of men. Its special means toward this goal are the unity of faith and the ancient union with the Holy See.” May 14, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page 3: “Bavaria and the German Reich: Crisis Rumors” The Tägliche Rundschau writes: Crisis rumors are swirling about. It is said that Count Brockdorff will resign in the event that the Entente were to insist on splitting territories off from Germany. It also says that the Democrats are inclined, or were at least momentarily inclined, to walk out of the Government if the Peace Treaty comes about on this foundation. The Socialist Korrespondenz furthermore indicates that the Independent Socialist are speculating that it could topple the current Government in the event it does not sign the Treaty. Indeed plans for distributing Cabinet offices are already far advanced in the discussions of the Independents, whereby the names Oskar Cohn, Haase and Breitscheid play and especially prominent role. Also on page 3 of the Bayerischer Kurier, May 14th: “The Reich President to the Workers” In Vorwärts the Reich President writes a lead article: “The Workers Can Rescue Germany.” ... “An evil-minded, senseless rumor” is being perceptibly spread in Munich by adversaries of the Bavarian Volkspartei, trying to lay the guilt upon leading men of the Bavarian Volkspartei that the liberation of Munich took so long to initiate... Also on page 3 of the Bayerischer Kurier, May 14th: “Erzberger for Scheidemann” Herr Erzberger gives notice that he fully approves of the speech Scheidemann delivered in the National Assembly and that he is not the author of a certain article in Germania. In this article it was stated that Scheidemann as a Socialist did not point out the Pope’s Peace Proposal. Also the statesmanlike appropriateness of the speech was called into question. German original May 15, 1919 Memorandum by Faulhaber: As the unbearably harsh peace terms became known on May 10th, I directed the following telegraphic question to the Bavarian Bishops: “Do Your Bishop-Graces give their agreement to implore His Holiness, in the name of the Bavarian Episcopacy, for an amelioration of the peace terms?” With the exception of Speyer, whose Bishop was apparently not handed the question by the French occupation troops, all Bishops answered affirmatively. My fullest agreement and thanks. Maximilian of Augsburg. Gladly give my agreement. Bishop Schloer of Würzburg. Agree, and wanted myself to suggest the entire Episcopate of Germany to implore the Pope. Archbishop Hauck of Bamberg. To the received request I give my fullest agreement. Bishop of Passau. Fullest agreement. I wish the best of success. Leo of Eichstätt. Consented. Bishop of Regensburg. The last of these answers arrived in Munich right after my confirmations trip, on Tuesday, May 13th. Right on the evening of May 13th I personally brought over to the Lord Nuncio Pacelli the request that the Holy Father might paternally intervene, with the high respect in which he is held by the hostile governments, that the harsh peace terms be ameliorated. The request was grounded first of all in that such a dictated peace would create not a foundation of peace but a foundation of eternal hatred, would deliver the life of nations over to unimaginable internal upheavals, and would consign the League of Nations, which the Holy Father already during the war indicated as a goal of development and guarantee of peace, to the realm of impossibility. The Lord Nuncio promised me with the greatest cordiality to convey this request, which had already reached him by telegram from three northern German Bishops, and to convey it anew by telegraph in the name of the Bavarian Bishops to the Holy Father. In the same matter, the following telegraph from Reich Minister Erzberger in Berlin arrived for the Archbishop of Munich: “I would like to submit the following suggestion to Your Archbishop-Grace: The enemies’ peace terms are unbearable and unfulfillable for the German people; it is the duty of the leaders of the people to bring this most urgently to the attention of each and every one of the people. Upon the most reverend Lord Bishops, as the spiritual shepherds and teachers of the Catholic people, thus falls the task in these difficult days of the Fatherland, to do your part, upheld by the respect of your holy office, so that every German Catholic becomes aware of the enormous implications that this type of peace, which our enemies want to force upon us, must have for the future of Germany and thereby for the future of the Catholic Church in Germany. All hearts must be brought to prayerful soul-searching and insight as to the gravity of our situation. In order to seek comfort and strength in looking trustingly to God, we need the encouraging word of our Bishops and our clergy. In this prayer, our clergy would have to point out with serious words the unbearable difficulty of these expected peace terms and unite themselves with the faithful in imploring God that he might preserve us from these bonds that are unworthy of a free people. I urgently appeal to the heart of Your Archbishop-Grace with these thoughts and for their expeditious implementation. The Catholic people are justified, in these sad days, to expect an appeal in the voice of their shepherds, and the Church is obligated to announce, in an appropriate and reasonable manner, its participation in the grief of the country, as it previously expressed in the order of a week of silence with the Reich Government. The same telegram has gone out to all the Lord Archbishops and Bishops of the Reich.” In answer to this telegram, I wired back: “The Bavarian Episcopate has already implored Pope Benedict to intervene for ameliorated peace terms.” On the evening of May 15th I spoke with Vicar General Huber: Since printing and distribution of an official notice is no longer possible, it shall be made known through the daily press that next Sunday, May 18th, is to be observed as a day of prayer for peace by exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and corresponding devotions. In the cloisters this intercessory prayer is to be expanded into a triduum, since already on May 21st the acceptance of the peace terms must be decided. Source: L. Volk, ed., Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol. 1, pp. 72-73. May 16, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page 2: “To the Bavarian People!” After an enormous struggle of more than 50 months, Germany with its allies is put down by a world of enemies. Heroic deeds of sacrifice and courage like the world has never seen have been carried out by our people. Our Bavarian troops have fought honorably, shoulder to shoulder with our fellow German brethren on all the battlefields of this dreadful war, and have won undying laurels upon their flags. ... Deprived of the support of our allies, exhausted by the results of a merciless starvation blockade and deprived of the means to continue the war that had been successfully conducted for years, Germany, trusting in the promises of President Wilson, acknowledged the well-known 14 Points as the foundation of a lasting peace and accepted the harsh and hardly implementable conditions of the Armistice that made us defenseless. The trust in the humanity and justice of our honorably regarded adversaries was most cruelly disappointed... The 7th of May 1919 has become, by the transmittal of these inhuman peace conditions, a day of misfortune not only for the German people, but for the entire world. For on this day the spirit of revenge and violence won a victory over justice and humanity, and violated the conscience of humanity in the bloodiest way. More than in fortunate days must now the entire people stand together as a single band of brothers. The ruining of our people must come to an end and domestic strife may no longer rip brother from brother. Our difficult lot, our unfathomable subjection to violence, must be borne by us together, as together we set up against the overpowering foe the dignity of a people that has no doubt in itself. In these days of national mourning, we Bavarians want to be entirely united, but united also with our brethren in the whole German Reich, with which Bavaria has grown up together not only in happy days but also in difficult ones. God keep helping us! Bamberg, May 13, 1919 The Landtag Delegation of the Bavarian Volkspartei: Speck German original May 17, 1919 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 2, page 364: Emir Feisal received by the Pope – On April 25th, His Holiness Benedict XV received in private audience His Highness Emir Feisal, son of the King of Hedjaz, who, accompanied by the Count of Salis, the British Minister to the Vatican, and the Procurator General of the Maronites, Father Abate Ubaid, who served as interpreter, was presented to the Holy Father dressed in Middle Eastern attire. He had arrived in Rome the day before from Paris, where he represented his country at the Peace Conference; Hedjaz had already taken part in the War on the side of the Entente, and thus it wanted to take part in the spoils of victory. Hedjaz, as is known, is that arm of Arabia that extends along the shore of the Red Sea, along a wide stretch from north to south, encompassing the two holy cities of the Muslims, Medina and Mecca, and the two ports of Yanbu and Jeddah, which are the respective gateways to the two cities. Before the war the region was part of the Turkish Empire and was governed in the name of the Sultan by the Sheriff of Mecca; but when Turkey entered the war in alliance with Germany and Austria, the Sheriff for his part declined, and then declared himself for the Entente, calling the country to arms and bringing such rapid and resounding success that he was acclaimed king, and thus the Kingdom of Hedjaz was born. Now Emir Feisal is the son of this king, the third-born son, but greater than the others by the valor he displayed especially in the victorious march from Aqaba (Sinai peninsula) to Syria; and for this reason he was also given preference over the others to come to the Paris Conference to advocate for the claims of the new kingdom. His stay in Rome was brief; he visited the main monuments there, then left for the Middle East. May 17, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “From November to May” In a memorable appeal from the night of November 8, 1918, Kurt Eisner, who by the testimony of Herr. Dr. Benno Merkle “since December 1917 ... was trying, by inciting the German proletariat into labor strikes, to bring the war to a conclusion,” declared the following: “If, however, a revolutionary government now arises in Bavaria, whose driving forces have fought in lonely, dangerous opposition against German war policy from the war’s commencement on, then we can trust that such a government will instill a different impression in the American President and release a milder attitude than would be the case with a government that has taken upon itself all the responsibility for the past... And in the government program of the revolutionary government, that is, in the program of the entire government including the Majority Socialists, it reads: “The leading men of the Entente speak differently after the revolution than before. Our appeal to the conscience of the world did not go unheard… The spirit of the patriot who leads the French Republic speaks today with humanitarian understanding and trust ... We have confidence today that thanks to our both revolutionary and prudent policy, our concept of restoration expressed in that Note to the Entente (sent by Eisner) will bear fruit with them so that the League of Nations will have to be built in cooperative work of the enemies for overcoming the destruction of the war.” In his speech to the Bavarian Soldiers Councils on November 30, 1918, Kurt Eisner further said: “Even in the Entente the people want peace, even there the soldiers want to go home, even there they want to arrive at new circumstances just as we do ... We have to negotiate with the Entente as if the war never was, as if we are men who long to work in peace at last.” There can be no talk, assured the then Minister President in his speech before the Munich Workers, Soldiers and Farmers Council on Nov. 28, 1918, based on “authentic” confirmations, “that the Entente is thinking of restarting a war with us … No, my men, I vouch for this: At the moment when Germany has a government capable of action, which enjoys trust so that the masses as well stand behind it as it now honorably and openly wants to conclude a peace, at that same moment we will have peace.” We now have the peace terms of the Entente, we now know what “trust” our adversaries have given to the “driving forces” of the revolution, we have learned what resonance the “appeal to the conscience of the world” has found; we have had the opportunity to assess the “spirit of the patriot who leads the French Republic” and his “humanitarian understanding.” We have seen where it leads when we negotiate with the Entente “as if no further war would be conducted.” We have come to know the treatment that the peace question has experienced through the “revolution.” We have received the irrefutable evidence of what we have to thank for the “both revolutionary and prudent policy” of the “driving forces of the revolution.” The Social Democratic party was, according to the January 1st election appeal of the leadership of the S.P. of Germany, “always revolutionary in the sense of striving for the complete transformation of the State into a democracy, and the economy into Socialism”; by a completed revolution it had “in foreign affairs, directed its entire effort toward setting in motion the moral powers of the world, the powers of Socialism, in order to achieve through its struggle a lasting peace that is bearable for the German people, despite the defeat for which the former government authorities are responsible.” Now we have come to know the effects of the revolution both in domestic and foreign affairs, like the effectiveness of the Socialistic powers that were set in motion for a bearable world peace. Source: German original Also on page one of the Bayerischer Kurier on May 17: “The ‘Echo de Paris’ and the Bavarian Embassy to the Vatican” Under the headline, “The Vatican Shakes Off a Bavarian Document,” the Stampa of Turin reports that a “prominent Church personality who occupies an official post in the Vatican” has authorized the Roman correspondent of the Echo de Paris, in the course of an interview, to deny categorically an assertion that the Bavarian Ambassador to the Holy See in a communiqué sent to his government, is supposed to have or had made. Fechenbach (the Stampa, to give new proof of its reliable reporting, calls him “Fehrenbach”), the Secretary of Herr Eisner, had published, that is to say, a report of Baron Ritter to his government in 1914, which affirmed that “the Vatican reckons with certainty upon Austria’s strong concerted action against Serbia, which has been shown all too guilty against Austria.” (Thus the Stampa!) It should be absolutely erroneous that the Holy See would have encouraged Austria-Hungary to invade Serbia to prevent the same crushing of Austria. “It is impossible to accept,” said the aforementioned Prelate, “that the Vatican had taken such a step and could have desired the disappearance of Serbia, if one is familiar with the political ideas of Pius X, who maintained excellent relations with the Serbian Government, for it was right during his Pontificate that the Concordat was concluded.” It has to be doubted that any competent personality in the Vatican would choose such a paper as the Echo de Paris for such a semi-official announcement, and we thoroughly doubt that the Vatican would be prepared to take any responsibility for an assertion by the Echo de Paris. Now as to what the assertion was about, which was contained in the aforementioned report by our Ambassador to the Vatican, it had in mind at all events the contemporary statement made by Pius X. The Pope grievously regretted not being able to prevent the war, for the only great power upon which he could count to obey him was Austria, and it was precisely Austria’s matter against Serbia that was only too just. These words were spoken by Pius X in the presence of witnesses, whom we do not have authority today to name. They are not being published by us today for the first time, rather they were made available to the public shortly before Italy’s entrance into the war. The position that Pope Pius X took was in every regard irreproachable. It is also that Baron Ritter had “the Vatican take no such step,” since a private statement of the Pope is still not a diplomatic step of encouragement, least of all for a supposedly desired destruction of Serbia. It is precisely those familiar with the political ideas of Pius X who know that he let himself be deceived least of all by Serbia’s willingness to conclude a Concordat with the Holy See. Serbia sought the Concordat and it was obvious that the Vatican entered into it in the interest of defending the rights of the Church in so-called New Serbia. It was precisely the events in Croatia, Dalmatia, Bosnia and so forth from the most recent rime, the persecution of Catholic priests, the attempt to bring about a schism by the Serbs, sufficiently evidences the Serbian-official disposition. Serbia needed, in its policy directed toward the establishment of a Greater Serbia Kingdom, an enticement for the Catholic southern Slavs of Slovenia and Croatia, who wanted nothing to do with an annexation to a schismatic neighboring country, in which up to a minute before the concluding of the Concordat the Church was worse off than in Russia. What great value the Serbian Government placed upon this treaty with the Pope, is shown by the fact, among other things, that Herr Pasitsch, in his flight from Nisch, took with him all other State treaties, but did not consider it worth the trouble to take along the original of the Concordat. It was taken there by the Austrians, given to the Vatican, and then by the Vatican later handed back to the Serbian Government in Corfu. Pius X knew no Pappenheimer. That might not be accepted conceptually by the Echo de Paris, but that changes nothing of the facts. So when Stampa and Echo de Paris go on with “the Serbian Embassy to the Holy See, which held fast to preserving the strictest neutrality from the first moment of diplomatic tension in July 1914, never thought of favoring one State to the disadvantage of the other,” this is senseless chatter, even apart from the fact that there is absolutely no Serbian Embassy to the Holy See. The French correspondent perceived in the publication by Fechenbach and Eisner an effort to entangle the Pope in the politics of the Central Powers. But everyone knows that Eisner was pursuing an entirely different goal, and we have here a new proof that Eisner, with his disclosures, was shooting wildly and was completely incapable of appreciating even vaguely the import of his conduct. German original May 18, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, page 147: “A Remembrance at the Grave of the Hostages Murdered by the Communists” On September 18, 1848, in a revolutionary uprising in Frankfurt am Main, two representatives of the German National Assembly, Prince Lichnowsky and General von Auerswald, were massacred by a mob and their bodies mangled with beastly fury. At the burial, Representative von Ketteler, later the famous Bishop of Mainz, gave the eulogy, closing with the following words: “Now, however, a thought arises out of these graves and into my soul, which I must express in conclusion to you, my Christian brothers. I see in the world, on the one hand, a powerful struggle and pressing and striving toward the highest ideals that the human soul is capable of, and on the other hand, I see the germination of such vile passions that have hardly ever been found in humanity; I hear the cry for universal peace – and whose soul doesn’t want to join in that with rejoicing – and I see people ever more divided, separated, riven, father from son, brother from sister, friend from friend; I hear the cry for equality among men, which the message of salvation has been speaking for millennia ...” Citation: Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, May 18, 1919, no. 20, p.147. May 21, 1919 Pacelli to Ritter zu Groenesteyn from Rorschach: ... Thank the Lord for having protected me in the midst of such dangers, and I want to hope that it will be given me to return very soon to my residence... Italian original: ... Ringrazio il Signore di aver mi protetti in mezzo a tanti pericoli, e voglio sperare che mi sia dato di tornare ben presto alla mia residenza. Source: Bavarian Main State Archives, Nachlass Ritter, folder no. 63. May 22, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: Lead article: “Ascension Day”... Alongside that article on the front page: “Führer?!” (A timely admonition by G.G.) “I paid my entire homage to my platoon commander” Thus goes the song of the old mercenaries, those rough fellows, who swore full allegiance to “their” leader and then to their platoon commander and to the banner he bore, or, as it says in another song, “give the lord everything, your big dead sword and your small living heart as well.” And these days? Certainly the romantic accompaniments of earlier recruiters have been replaced by much more prosaic manifestations, but here is an unmistakable fact that we must keep constantly in view: We now have an army of mercenaries, a recruited army of mercenaries, and with it the challenge of freeing ourselves from the mindset and nature of the previous “militarism” and of seeing the true nature of a troop of mercenaries, not through partisan lenses, nor under the influence of political voices of the moment. In this I am thinking not such much of the certainly considerable difficulties that stand in the way of being able to sweat it all out together as a unit and create “uniform” rather than just “uniformed” troops; furthermore I am also not thinking of the individual elements to be put in place or brought back into place; finally I am also not thinking of all the effort and attempts, experiments and methods that must be employed to take the conceived but not yet born “Reich Army” thing and bring it into the world, coddle it and tend it until the point in time when we can say: It runs and stands on strong legs! – whereby it must be taken into consideration that such a birth under the loving assistance of the Entente is certainly not going to occur without great labor pains. As stated, I do not underestimate the innumerable difficulties, and nonetheless I believe there is one point we must fundamentally and emphatically make clear, which does not appear at first glance to observers: that is the question of leaders! Not the question of who brings the group out of the gate, but rather the question: Can we, with these people, who have chosen their own leader, who have gone not to this or that unit, but rather to a particular “shouter in the squabble,” who have reported to a “man” like Märker, Lüttwitz, Lettow and whatever other name, I repeat, can we enlist these people with a stroke of the pen in whatever organization is set up by armchair planning and laying out details on a green table? The answer to that is a flat No. And that is simply by the nature of things. A larger, if not the largest part of the members of our strongest Freikorps units have, out of trust and respect, formed up around men from whom they hoped to find rescue and help for our tortured Fatherland, and have subordinated themselves often with great personal sacrifice. If one now separates for any reason – whether for unholy reason of State or “strategic” considerations – the soldiers and their leader, to whom they have pledged sword and heart, then the next time their enlistments run out there will be a frightful price to pay on a bill made without the proprietor. The days are gone when steady, well-formed regiments bound by centuries-old tradition could have a commanding officer assigned by royal order; we are now dealing with a bunch of individuals who have just one desire, one hope – which holds them together. It may be one of the hardest yet also most urgent tasks for the competent authorities to pay full attention to this question I have framed. How diverse the views are about this fundamental question was illuminated, as by a flash of lightning, by the “Reich Army Memorial Evening” on the Odeon Plaza. And now I come to the second and yet more important point: If we assume a case in which the students and reserve officers who are now available, go off somewhere else at the next end of enlistment period (and this case will large come to pass according to various previous indications), what then? One is not really going to object to me that for this case there all always new recruits from among the 7,000,000 German men who are trained soldiers, when we are only taking from them 100,000 men for the Reich Army. The objection is both correct and incorrect. Correct insofar as sufficient numbers will undoubtedly report, but incorrect in that a great proportion of those newly reporting will then mean fewer Reich Army troops. “We must set our second house upon reinforced concrete!” It does not serve the State and its responsible leaders at all if military service becomes the “refuge of scoundrels.” We need serious and complete men in these most difficult of all days. And so who comes actually into consideration for active service (after the departure of the above mentioned mercenaries!)? The farmer? Just go out into the countryside and listen with open ears! The worker? The hardworking, serious worker will only in the most extreme emergency exchange his lathe for a rifle! Thus we come to consider only the people who are without work, without occupation, as the main substitute. In no way do I want to maintain that this “substitute” is burdened with the same deficiencies as their war comrades. I am only getting a bearing on yet another new problem: There is, with reporting and recruiting, a close parallel to be made with supply and demand in commerce. I am now posing the possibility that in fact the supply of “soldiers” remains less than the demand for “Reich Army” (whereby it is to be considered that in my opinion only the best supplies are acceptable for the State), and I further posit the possible case that the competition for “worker services” absorbs the entire market and even pulls in the remaining numbers of “soldier”! Can’t such a “business boom” have really crisis-like consequences? Won’t this open the gates and doors to unlimited entry by those elements that have been trying every way up to now for force their way in, fortunately without appreciable success? What sort of powers are at work, what sort of unheard of efforts are being made against a strong State power, are best seen in the Appeal of the Communist Party (published in the Allgemeine Rundschau and in No. 145/146 of the Bayerischer Kurier). Thus the most urgent and well-grounded interests of State, together with consideration to be taken of every member of the Bavarian and German Freikorps, demand that the authorities who have influence in the selection of top leaders handle the matter of such appointments not just on the basis of old handed-down formalities, partisan politics and purely war-related evaluations. An officer can be well known as an outstanding strategist and yet be incapable as the head of a company! What we have and further indeed unconditionally need are leaders who are not only as officers, but also as men, are sincerely respected and loved by their subordinates! Editors’ Note: The question raised here has newly great significance indeed for Bavaria; that is to say, there currently exist differences of opinion between utilitarian and political circles about the question of appointments to leader positions, and the point of view raised by this contributor can have decisive significance for the resolving those differences. German original May 24, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “Inter-Denominationalizing the Munich Schools” In recent days in Munich’s primary schools, inquiries have been conducted with feverish haste, to produce well-documented foundations for the non-denominationalizing that the school administrative authorities been preparing for. We say: Are the parents simply to be confronted with a fait accompli? Just recently there has been such warm talk about the need to involve the body of parents in plans to rework the structure of schooling. Wasn’t it said to be an urgent commandment for any community that calls itself democratic, to include the views of the parents in such an important question? What do those parents have to say about this who, true to their conscientious convictions, desire a religious education for their children in a denominational Christian spirit? Does the Government believe that Munich Catholics and Munich Protestants will calmly accept such a violation of their freedom of conscience? They too will demand the denominational school, just like their co-religionists in Berlin, and for the same reasons: 1. Because the non-denominational school, as experience teaches us, merely means a step toward the religion-free school. 2. Because the sacred right of the parents over the soul of their child must remain protected in a State that values freedom. And does the Government, in these days of unemployment, destitution and misery, really have nothing better to do than to hand the people, instead of bread and food, new occasions of offense and dissatisfaction, and to pile up new reasons for well-justified embitterment? German original May 24, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page 2: “A Coalition Cabinet Ministry Yet in Bavaria?” The Bayerische Staatszeitung writes from Bamberg: On the issue of the formation of the Bavarian Cabinet Ministry, it may now be said that the establishment of a coalition government is no longer out of the question. This was the desire not only of the currently governing party, but rather also of the other delegations, whose pressure thereby from outside was taken in account. Currently negotiations are pending among the delegations, since there are still some not inconsiderable difficulties to overcome. Still nothing more may change in the agreements in principle about the basic issues of establishing a coalition government, all the less since Bavaria is apparently required to accommodate itself to the other German States and also to the Reich with regard to the composition of the government. For weighty reasons in that regard, the Presidency of the Ministerial Cabinet is supposed to remain with the Social Democratic Party. Current Minister President Hoffmann will conduct the Presidency also in the future Coalition Ministry. On the whole the parties have achieved a united position about appointments to the individual departments, yet there are still negotiations pending with regard to appointments to several Ministries. Essentially, the individual Ministries are to be held in a similar manner to what was established in November 1918 before the outbreak of the revolution. Indeed several personalities named then are coming into consideration as members of the future Coalition Ministry. Difficulties still exist currently on account of appointments to the Military Ministry and the Agriculture Ministry, among other things. Initially some military persons were discussed also in Landtag Delegate circles, yet the appointment of a civilian minister is the most likely. There is talk among others of previous Military Minister Rosshaupter as the future director of the Military Department. We would not yet like to speak in such a specific form of the matter of the reorganization of the Cabinet Ministry, even if the likelihood of it is very great. In reality the negotiations are by no means finalized, and definitive matters are not yet specified. But one can certainly reckon on a change of personnel in the Ministry for Military Matters, after Major Paulus, whom Schneppenhorst wanted to make State Councilor there, is already no longer in active consideration. The destructive role that Major Paulus actually played for Bavaria will someday have to be the matter of close consideration. The delay in the declaration about the new organization of the Cabinet that was expected at the opening of the Landtag is explained also by the fact that the Government, like the party leaders, does not consider that point in time, namely the time of the Versailles Peace Treaty conditions, to be appropriate for taking up greater domestic alterations. Even though a clarification of the domestic political situation in Bavaria has not been accomplished up to now, there exists both in Government and in Landtag circles no doubt that the entire situation is pressing toward a revised formation of the Cabinet Ministry. The postponement of the debate over the interpellation concerning the Councils Republic in connection with general political statements was only held this Sunday on account of the Social Democratic State Party Congress, which will certainly bring a clarification in the situation of the Social Democratic Party. Thus one may expect a clarification of the overall situation next week. German original May 25, 1919 “Ecclesiastical Review” section, Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 21, page 157: Bishop Dr. Schulte of Paderborn has sent the following telegram to the Apostolic Nuncio in Munich, Archbishop Pacelli: Via the goodly mediation of Your Excellency, I request in deepest reverence and greatest earnestness the Holy Father’s intervention with the Entente Powers for the purpose of ameliorating the unfulfillable peace treaty conditions, which must lead to the despair of the German people and the preparation for world revolution. By local assistance to prisoners of war, and searching for those missing in action, the German Bishops have sought untiringly to bring comfort and help to enemy prisoners and families in many hundreds of thousands of cases, and therefore one is entitled to raise an official appeal in this hour to the humanity of Germany’s enemies. The Prince Bishop of Breslau, who likewise asked the Holy Father to intervene, received via the Papal Nuncio in Munich the official notice that the Holy Father is already active in this direction. ... The English Sisters are leaving Bohemia. Also the Ursulines will leave Prague in the near future... German original May 25, 1919 “Munich’s Devastation,” Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 21, page 154: “Munich’s Devastation” In no. 331 of the Kölner Volkszeitung [Cologne People’s Newspaper], a Bavarian politician explored the reasons why Bavaria, the conservative agrarian region, had to experience more of Bolshevism than the other South German states. One cause that was brought up was the Simplizissimus-like iconoclasm, or Bohemianism, of Munich’s Schwabing district. Now Dr. Wolf-Kaiserslautern brings us an article entitled “Bavaria’s Political Devastation.” We are reprinting the particularly political portion. The more cultural portion, however, we do not wish really wish to withhold from our readers, even if we do not agree with each and every thing in it. Thus it is not right that the work of Dr. Triller of the Catholic Press Association arrived “too late.” It came late, very late, but nothing on this earth is ever too late if we are still alive, are working, and are able to make even great wrongs and omissions better. With the “too late,” it is only too common to excuse inactivity in Munich. It is always easier to criticize others complacently than to undertake positive action oneself. That is true in Munich of 50 years ago as well as today... It appears exceptional in itself that this “Simplizissimus” spirit found precisely in Munich the rotten ground and perverted atmosphere that was necessary for it to flourish. And yet it is not really surprising for those who look deeply into the situation in Munich. The “upright, golden” Munich unsuspectingly and carelessly lives out the beer-besotted and sausage-scarfing existence of the Isar [River] Kapua. Munichers were asleep and allowed foreigners to pull a fast one on them. Who conducted the main business in Munich during recent decades in every respect? Foreign firms! Munichers were content so long as they had their “fun” or “crowd festivities,” and whatever was foreign pleased them well enough just because it was foreign. Munichers observed with a certain Schadenfreude how the “artistic” people of Schwabing spilled their biting mockery upon everything, especially upon every authority, and nurtured by this poison the seeds of death for our entire public life... German original May 26, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “The New Formation of the Bavarian Cabinet Ministry” The Social Democratic State Party Congress in Nuremberg approved, by a vote of 217 to 41, the motion of the Hoffmann Cabinet Ministry for the formation of a Coalition Ministry for Bavaria. Bavaria shall once again have a democratic government. A government that is lawfully set up by the representatives of the self-determining Bavarian people. A government that is responsible in all its measures to these representatives and to the entire electorate. A government that is conscious of its responsibility, its tasks within the framework of a democratic constitutional state, and its duties toward the people; a government that has the power and the courage to do right by these tasks and duties. A government that has the will to turn out with relentless energy the filth and slime that has accumulated in so many government positions. Not a Cabinet Government that in fateful decisions allows itself to be controlled by irresponsible advisors and assemblies, by influences from the streets and barracks. No a “government” that has its existence thanks to a mixture of democracy and uprising, and sees its most essential task in reach an “understanding” with the powers of high treason. Not a government of political suicide that wants to “cooperate” with the strangling of its own principles. No a government that lets itself be driven willy-nilly to the surrender of the prerequisites of its own existence. No, a government that not only “governs,” but also “rules” as the lawful organ implementing the will of the people. We have in Bavaria since November 7th – we can disregard for the moment the previous arrangements – had no such government. The first Cabinet Ministry that the revolution provided us laid the groundwork, by its military, constitutional and cultural policy, for the entire further development that found its conclusion in the military dictatorship of an Egelhofer. The leading personality of this Ministry, who throughout gave the entire conduct of the Cabinet its determining stamp despite isolated acts of resistance, pursued a policy that was every bit as incompatible with the will of the overwhelming majority of the Bavarian people as it was with the principles of democracy and the requirements of national economic life. What was sought to be accomplished by deliberate tactics and systematic initiatives, namely the constant and complete Bolshevization of Bavaria, the complete hollowing out of democracy, that was the result – for the most part unintentional – of the compromise policy of the second government. Reluctantly, yet not without intentionality, this Cabinet wore the iron chains of dependency upon the powers of Bolshevik revolution. And even as this dependency was removed by the events of April, one heard the clang of the chains dragging long on behind, and heard as well of efforts to put the torn-apart links back together anew. We perceive in the coming renewal and in the expansion of the Cabinet Ministry, the decision finally to be free of any such re-attachment to the traditions of revisionist Bolshevism. Indeed there can be no compromise here: either “dictatorship of the proletariat,” that is the dictatorship of a small number of pig-headed ideologues and misguided hangers-on, or parliamentary democracy and everything that goes with it. Any step away from the ground of the democratic constitutional state leads inevitably into the abyss. This ground of democracy is the common possession of all those who take seriously the fate of the people. In common also is the conviction about the major guidelines of appropriate policy: Provision of bread and work, establishment of ordered arrangements, social welfare by means of an impartial, farsighted policy for workers and the economy, restoration of the economic production that was almost completely crippled by the recent events, order in the extremely shaken state finances, re-establishment of the foundational principles of a purely public-oriented management of business. And because that is so, and because there is no difference of opinion among the parties either about the lawful constitutional foundations or about the concrete major tasks for future policy, that is why the issue of the new formation of the Government is less a party- than a personnel-question. Everyone who has strength and capability to work under the banner of the democratic program of reconstruction and domestic healing has today a claim upon the trust of the people. As least for so long as no irrefutable proofs are brought forward that this trust has been abused. German original May 27, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “Motions of the Bavarian Volkspartei” In the Landtag, the delegation of the Bavarian Volkspartei has introduced the following motions: On War Economy. The Chamber resolves to demand of the Government: 1. To give the Landtag an accounting of what remains of the Bavarian war provisions (meat, food, fodder, landestaat, hay and straw) and about the past and intended future use of these. 2. To give it a summary of what remains of the Bavarian Community resources during their individual fiscal years and to make an accounting of the use of any surpluses. 3. To present a businesslike, accurate accounting of the sale of army horses and army property. 4. To take care that the still available property of the army is justly distributed with particular consideration of artisans and trades. 5. To present the Landtag an accurate accounting of the amount of thievery of public property during the demobilization and of previous plundering and profiteering. The Chamber resolves to demand that the Government to work with the Reich Government so that: 1. the existing and already dissolved war societies be thoroughly examined as to their business management and financial results; 2. Their surpluses be devoted to the general welfare; 3. prompt measures be taken to dissolve the still existing war societies or, to their extent their sudden dissolution is not possible for economic reasons, at least to scale them down. Care for the war wounded. To demand with full emphasis that the Government provide: 1. that pensions for the war wounded, as well as for survivors of the fallen, and their other income, be timely increased in accordance with the current level of inflation; 2. that care for the war wounded be generously and uniformly organized and a representative for them be instituted to ensure implementation; 3. that those war wounded who are still capable of productivity – in order to avoid their isolation in warrior homes – be given back a productive economic life and supported thereby in every way, especially indeed by extension of credit; 4. that ... On the issue of housing. With the urgent need that reigns in nearly all large cities and industrial cities to relieve the housing shortage and provide fitting and healthy dwellings free of defects, and especially to provide support to war participants and their families, and to be equitable for the dwelling needs of families with numerous children, the Government is requested ... Special consideration of single family house construction with land for a garden and opportunity to raise small animals... May 27, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page 2: “On the Issue of the Coalition Government” Bamberg, May 26. By informed sources it is reported to us: It is an idle game to try to name names today, when we know for certain that neither of the two non-Socialist parties has yet finally resolved the personnel issue. Some of the gentlemen that both parties have in mind have not yet declared their agreement. For various posts there has been no agreement reached as yet within the delegations, and it will probably be Wednesday or even early Thursday before all the decisions ar made in the area of personnel. In the meantime, the Minister President will have returned to Bamberg from an official trip to Berlin, so that the parliamentary implementation of the agreement can occur on Friday morning. It is a good assumption that the Minister President will place his office at the disposal of the Landtag. After the new election of the Minister President, with the assignment to form a Cabinet, the session will be adjourned for several hours. In the afternoon session, as soon as the Minister President is ready, he will introduce his new Ministers to the Landtag. The Bamberg Government organ Der Freistaat semi-officially summarizes its opinion about the issue of the Coalition Government as follows: “That the previous Socialist Government will now simply lower its sails, or that the Social Democratic Ministers will subordinate themselves to a bourgeois majority in the Cabinet Ministry, is something that no one believes. For then it would be much better to hand over to the bourgeois parties the entire work and the full responsibility. In that case, however, so much of the accomplishments of the revolution would be greatly endangered, and what form the constitution of the Free State of Bavaria could then take is not hard to guess. We take it that a way can be found for the appropriate influence upon matters of state can be assured to the Social Democratic Party and a liberal democratic policy in Bavaria can be absolutely guaranteed, without other parties being excluded from involvement and responsibility.” The organ of Munich Majority Socialism expresses the following: “In the extreme need of our people, the Ministry has therefore decided to negotiate with the bourgeois parties about the formation of a Coalition Ministry, in which Social Democracy receives half of the Cabinet portfolios and the majority of votes, since it also holds the Minister Presidency. The Democrats would have the Justice and Commerce ministries at their disposal, and the Center Party the Finance and Agriculture ministries. Heinr. Frauendorfer would remain in office as Transportation Minister. The other ministries (Foreign Affairs, Interior, Education and Cultural Affairs, Social, and Military Affairs) fall to the Social Democracy. As the prerequisite for the concluding of an agreement along these lines, Gen. Hoffmann has demanded the establishment of a satisfactory working program for the new government, a minimal program to which the parties participating in the agreement must obligate themselves.” the Münchener Neueste Nachrichten maintains that the following are at issue: for the Justice Ministry, Delegate Dr. Ernst Müller; for the Commerce Ministry, primarily Mayor Dr. Gessler, along with two well-known parliamentarians and State Councilor von Meinel. German original May 17, 1919, Allgemeine Rundschau, “Jewry in Public Life,” by Hans Rost, pp. 273-74. After stating that a “radicalism” of German Jews has been seen in the past months of revolution, this antisemitic article goes into lengthy accusations about Jewish domination of finance and industry, and Jewish influence in culture, politics and press, including passages such as: “The Jews have taken the capitalistic economic system to an extreme. The principle of the greatest possible profit was a genuine Jewish foundational concept; thus for them free enterprise was a dogma and solidaristic economic organization was an abomination. The greatest increase of economic production capacity without simultaneous spiritual and cultural enrichment of the people in their work and in meeting their needs was a main goal for the Jews, which they attained all the faster since they are certainly the rulers of the most lucrative sectors of the economy.” And so forth. May 17, 1919 Allgemeine Rundschau, “Bolshevism and its Psychological Preconditions,” by W. Zapadnik, pp. 268-69 (note: Zapadnik is likely a pseudonym, since it is a word in Russian meaning “westernizer”): This article explains Bolshevism as the outgrowth of Russian ethnic, cultural and religious psychology, and mentions the support given to Russian psychological factors by Jewish determination and toughmindedness. The central thesis of the article is: “What is Bolshevism? Bolshevism is the attempt, implemented with Russian spirit and Russian methods, to actualize socialism by way of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is, precisely according to the recipe of the Communist Manifesto.” Further topic sentences and key portions of paragraphs follow: The Russian people present themselves in the course of their historical development as an enormous unstructured mass of individuals, in which the concept of the state had been little developed and was only developed in association with the divinized person of the Czar. Upon the “fatherly” Czar hung the half worshipful, half childlike reverence of the Russian peasant ... Tolstoy had recognized with deep sorrow the foundational evil of his people, their aversion to work, and he set out for his life’s work to convince the peasants, through teaching and example, that physical labor is humanly sanctifying and enobling ... What Tolstoy encountered as a general viewpoint, however, was the abiding belief among the people in the mystical power of the simple Russian person and the slumbering energies within him; a viewpoint that already in the middle of the 19th century had found academic expression by the Slavophiles ... The task of the leader then appeared limited to merely pointing authentically to the attitude arising from the mystical depths of the masses and giving it political expression. If we turn our attention to the leaders, then we find that their conduct toward the people is something entirely different. They are not the interpreters, but rather the rulers of the popular will. How is this fact to be explained? Bolshevism is the flip side of Czarism. The Russian people have sighed under the frightful weight of Czarist despots; the Russian lord or baron could not exercise his office in any way other than despot. The Bolshevik leaders have remained faithful to this venerable tradition. They bring freedom in the form of oppression, indeed they still feel themselves to be “owners of souls,” entitled to unrestricted force upon their spirits. And the people of the far-reaching Russian plains attach themselves without grumbling to the long-accustomed oppression, indeed it would be astonishing and suspect to see, if it were not so. This use of force in the spreading of their doctrine, the preachers of Bolshevism turn not only upon the members of their own people, but they also claim the right to do it when they send their heralds over the border from their own political realm of force into Europe... For Bolshevism is not a mere opinion for its Russian adherents, it is a faith, just as the Russian is easily inclined to prefer religious ideas, in other words faith, to philosophical ideas... But when there is a threat of the original high-leaping flame of faith expiring, or the revolutionary energy for action yielding - a danger that very often arises from the audacious but easily exhausted nature of the Russians -, then the determination of Jewish thought and the toughness of Jewish will leaps in to fill the gap. And for that the instinct of the long-oppressed race knew with wonderful skill how to play the right strings for the temper of their Russian brothers, indeed of a race foreign to them, yet similarly minded in long bearing sufferings; and thus steel them for revolutionary struggle... And what position did the Jewish-Russian working relationship take toward the ruling classes and their culture? For that the answer is given us by the anarchist Tolstoy, whose fateful influence upon the intellectual classes of Russia we have already touched upon. With his teaching about the lesser value of culture in their circles, he easily found willing students, who are now going on to lay the axe to the root of Russian culture and smash it... If, already before the Revolution, there was in the intellectual sphere a lack of urgency and emphasis for creative work, so now there has been a removal of all restraint against phantasm, and thus flights of imagination have arisen, unhindered by any strict self-criticism, reaching heights far removed from reality, having lost touch with the firm ground of actual fact. Certainly many of the socialist leaders have spent long years in prison or exile, and in their isolation have spun themselves ever tighter into their system, without having the possibility of being able to orient themselves and their thoughtpaths in a living environment of practical reality. How powerfully the theories of Marxism must have worked on such minds, as those theories boldly and forcefully heaped demand upon demand, consequence upon consequence, leaving it to practitioners to seek out the path to implementation of socialism. That Russia must have produced no such practical minds, but only pure doctrinaires, lies open to see in light of the peculiarity of the country’s psychological structure. German original: first page and second page May 30, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “The Achilles Heel of the New Bavarian Constitution Outline” By Cathedral Deacon Dr. Kiefl, Regensburg However gratifying several ameliorations of the new outline appear compared to the original radicalism of the revolution, the most dangerous provision of the revolutionary program, the de-Christianization of the school, is still to be built into the new constitution, albeit in a more careful formulation. The fear that the Archbishop of Munich and Freising expressed in his New Year’s Eve sermon, that one is planning the separation of Church and State in Germany upon the French rather than the American model, would thus be fulfilled. We would be beginning in Bavaria with what the sad school legislation in France stopped with. If the constitution outline on the one hand completely assigns to the religious societies the imparting of religion instruction, when it still speaks on the other hand, however, of a religion instruction in governmental schools whose oversight by the Church would have to occur according to the orders of the State, then the intention of the outline is clear. The small and substantively completely meaningless provision that times in the school day and perhaps also venues are made available for religion instruction – which to an extent is also the case in France – is to be sold out to the weighty rights of the State to intervene in the Church’s oversight right. Now there is absolutely no indication that according to the previous constitution, the oversight right of the Church over religious and moral doctrine and over the religious-moral life in the teaching- and educational institutions was guaranteed. The pertinent point is rather the following: The Christian religion is removed from the organic curriculum of the school as expressed unreservedly, without regard to the developments of a thousand years, by the governmental school monopoly. That is exactly the French school program, which the French Church, in a life and death struggle, overturned. The governmental school monopoly would then become for us too, as insightful leaders of Catholicism in France rightly predicted, the surest instrument for the spiritual enslavement of peoples... German original Also on page one of the Bayerischer Kurier, May 30, 1919: “The New Formation of the Government” by Dr. Georg Heim The motion of the Hoffmann Ministry for the formation of a Coalition Ministry has been accepted by the Social Democratic State Party Congress. The present Government has itself the greatest interest in the coming into being of a Coalition Ministry. The fundamental principles of democracy know only one government, that which is supported by a majority of the people’s representatives. Our south German neighbor states Württemburg and Baden, which held fast to this democratic principle from the first day of the revolution, remained protected from all the evil and enormous harm that arose in Bavaria. For any Bavarian who visits Württemburg and Baden, the powerful difference between there and here must make an immediate impression on the eyes. It is enough just to compare the state of transportation... How much harm would have been avoided in Bavaria if the foundational principles of honorable democracy had been maintained here as there. The sooner the U-turn succeeds the better. For this reason the Hoffmann Ministry is to be thanked for finally now putting things on the line, by which alone can improvement arise. But if a Coalition Ministry is to be created, then this Coalition Ministry must be put together according to true democratic and parliamentary principles ... German original May 31, 1919 Bayerischer Kurier, page one: “The New Coalition Ministry and Its Program” Bamberg, May 31 (our own telegraphic report) The New Cabinet Ministry is seated as follows: President and Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs: Hoffmann Interior: Segitz Foreign Affairs: Provisionally Ackermann Military: Schneppenhorst Social: Endres Finance: Speck Agriculture: von Freyberg Justice: Müller Commerce: Legation Councilor Hamm in the Commerce Ministry In the State Councils … Agreements of the Bavarian Volkspartei, the Bavarian Democratic Party and the Social Democratic party for the formation of a new Government in Bavaria The overly harsh, cruel peace terms of the Entente threaten our German and Bavarian people in their very existence. Any hope of preventing complete economic and moral collapse and the social destitution of our people resides only in the strong solidarity and joint effort of the entire people. This desperate situation of our State and the extreme need of our people thus requires the undersigned parties to form a joint Government under the following prerequisites. A) Prerequisites: The new Government has the mission to bring order in the economic and political situation of the state and to restore regular parliamentary life. In particular, the ordering of the completely ruined State finances is to be regarded as the joint task of all the parties. For that reason the necessary deeps cuts in all programs that are necessary for the salvaging of our finances will apply expressly to the entire Government including the parties represented in the Government. All arrangements upon which the formation of the pre-existing government rested are rendered null and void by the current agreement. The Enabling Act of March 18, 1919 is invalidated, it programmatic content is superseded by the present agreements. The parties that are forming the new Government obligate themselves and their Landtag delegations to the implementation of the following Program: B) Political Agreements. I. Economic and Social Policy. 1. Socialized Economy a) the mining activities within the territory of the Bavarian State and the water works that serve the production of electric power are to be taken into the common economy. The further construction of water power is to be accomplished most rapidly. Appropriate measures for the systematic influence and control of food, dwellings and clothing are to be accomplished, and the interests of the common good are to be defended against efforts of exploitation. b) the general transfer of pharmacies into the common economy is to be prepared as soon as possible. 2. Social measures and care for the war wounded. ... II. Constitution and Cultural Policy. The following specifications are agreed as basic features for the future constitution: I. Constitutional Policy. a) Bavaria is a Free State and as such a member of the German Reich. b) the supreme authority of the Bavarian State resides in the people. c) Every resident of the Bavarian State who has completed the 20th year of life is a State Citizen, without distinction of birth, gender, religion or occupation. d) Through election by the State Citizens the Landtag is formed, which consists of one Chamber. The vote is universal, equal, direct, secret, and proportional in the representational results. e) The State assures the inviolability of the person and freedom of opinion verbally and written. Freedom of art and science is guaranteed; restrictions can be made only by law by reason of preservation of public order, security and morals. f) Property is inviolable; expropriation of property can only be done for the common good and by act of law. g) All privileges of birth, nobility as well as titles, which are not occupational designations, are abolished. Rights of entail may no longer be established. h) The Communities and Community Groupings have the right of self-government subjet to provision of law. Elections to Community representative bodies shall have results according to the same principles as the Landtag elections. i) The parties and their delegations expressly obligate themselves to prepare expeditiously the final version of the State Constitution. k) Amendments to the future Constitution can only be decided by two-thirds vote of the Landtag. II. Cultural Policy. a) Full freedom of religion and conscience, and their exercise, is guaranteed. b) No teacher may be compelled by the State in relation to imparting religion instruction or participation in Church activities. No student may be compelled to attend religion instruction or participate in Church activities and ceremonies against the convictions of parents and guardians. Excusal from religion instruction is accomplished by the parents and guardians verbally or in writing to the school board and the pastor. Freeing of a student from religion instruction is completely accomplished by the simple excusal request. A parent or guardian need give no one an explanation of the reasons for his decision. From the completion of the 16th year of life onward, the student has the right of self-determination about participation in religion instruction and Church activities. c) No one may be induced by governmental compulsion to entry into a religious society, to participation in worship, to remaining in a religious society, or to leaving one. No one may, without prejudice to church discipline, be subjected to any kind of punishment or other disadvantage on account of his religion. d) All religious societies are free in their religious activity, they enjoy the same rights and the same protection from the State. Property rights of religious societies and existing obligations of the State toward them can only be dissolved by means of law. e) The imparting of curricular religion instruction is incumbent upon the religious societies. In the event there should be separation of Church and State and nothing else is prescribed by the Reich Constitution, then the principles recognized in the April 2, 1919 session of the Weimar Constitution Committee by their acceptance of Article 30a of the Constitution will apply for Bavaria as well. g) [sic: no subsection (f) in the original] The regulation of the school oversight issue will be finalized forthwith by a decree from the Education Ministry along the lines of the previous provisional decree. h) The transformation of existing denominational schools into inter-denominational schools or the new establishment of inter-denominational schools may not occur against the express established majority will of the parents and guardians whose children at the time of the referendum are of school age. In cities with more than 20,000 residents and with a well- ordered school system is at hand, the referendum results will provide the basis for the proportional allocation of denominational and inter-denominational schools. C. Peace Issues. The concluding of a separate peace with the Entente is ruled out. Composition of the new Government. 1. Of the ten Cabinet Ministries, the Social Democrats occupy five along with the Presidency; the Bavarian Volkspartei two (Finance and Agriculture), the German Democratic Party two (Justice and Commerce), and the Transportation Ministry remains under its current leadership. The Bavarian Volkspartei receives four State Councilor positions (Transportation, Interior, Social Ministry, Commerce). The Bavarian Farmers League receives one State Councilor position each in the Agriculture Ministry and in the Forest Management Division of the Finance Ministry. 2. State Councilor positions that are coming into service by reason of the agreement of the parties are political offices with no claim for maintenance upon appeal and counter-appeal. If they are bureaucrats, then they will be granted leave of absence with protection of their positions and rights. E. Concluding Remarks. The foregoing agreements have binding effect for the participating parties so long as they participate on that basis in the Government that is now being formed. Parliamentary democracy knows of two main forms of Coalition Cabinet Ministry, one of them when the Coalition is prescribed by law, the other when it is grounded merely on practical fact. In a Coalition Ministry prescribed by law, as for instance was recommended by the authors of one of the outlines of the Baden Constitution (otherwise without effect) based on the Swiss model, the parties, by virtue of a provision of law, are represented according to their numerical strength; but here the policy for this Government rests necessarily and continually upon a compromise among the demands of the programs of the Coalition parties. The Coalition Ministry founded on this practical fact has for its presupposition that a single party has neither the material nor the moral power for generally taking on the affairs of Government and the responsibility that goes with them... In a political constellation that received its defining characteristics through a revolution and indeed through a revolution originating in the Socialist working class, it is obvious that the Majority Socialist Party is called to play a role out of proportion to the purely numerical portion of votes it received. This is doubly obvious when it concerns a Party whose program belongs equally to the two developmental phases, the phase of revolutionary uprising and the phase of democratic consolidation. This situation changes, however, as soon as there is a clarification of the revolutionary problems. Once it becomes the case that one such party is too weak, because of foreign or domestic reasons, to run the Government by itself, then it faces the choice of seeking support and alliance either on the left from the revolutionary side, or on the right from the democratic side. What results then is either the policy of Socialist popular front with a coalition of Majority Socialists – Independent Socialists – Communists, or the policy of the democratic coalition that has indeed materialized in the rest of the Reich. If the former comes to pass, then the democratic component of the Majority Socialist Party is completely abandoned without restriction; if the latter comes to pass, then it is necessary initially to put the fully Socialist goals on the back burner. A third course is not possible, because it is self-evident that the parties being drawn into the Coalition will make their cooperation and continuance in the Coalition dependent upon the Coalition’s clear commitment, whether to the revolutionary principle or the democratic principle of the Coalition. The claim of the Majority Socialist Party to receive a privileged position in the case of a democratic coalition by virtue of the right of revolution (and indeed by virtue of the right not of the past but rather of a future revolution), would be every bit as unjustifiable as the claim, in the case of a revolutionary coalition, to enjoy a privileged position by virtue of parliamentary right. In both cases it is a matter of applying measures that only have sense and meaning by reason of other presuppositions. If the non-Socialist parties are thus entering the Government at the present moment and thereby assuming responsibility for a political and economic development whose principles were essentially created by the revolution, if they are resolved to share in bearing the consequences of events that occurred without their will and against their will, if they are taking these obligations upon themselves especially in fields where the results of the revolution are most conspicuous, then this discharge of the previous powers that be – such at least is the conviction of the dominant portion of our people – must go along with the unconditional guaranteeing of the democratic program. Were it not so, then the resulting new disappointment would be very hard to overcome. Upon this unconditional duty to make clear the alternatives, no influence can be allowed for considerations of a partisan tactical nature, nor for difficulties that arise from this or that decision. If such considerations were to play any role significant enough to upset the principle upon which the Coalition rests, that would undo the prerequisites of the Coalition itself. A certain measure of consideration for the internal situation of one of the parties in the Coalition is therefore possible only insofar as the foundation of the Coalition itself is not shaken thereby... Since the second summoning of the Landtag on March 17th and the acceptance of the provisional constitution, the Bavarian people have had – or should have had – a parliamentary regime. If parliamentarism were now to incline toward deepening the division between the people, who “are only sovereign on election day,” and the parliament that is in full possession of power, that would greatly worsen the division previously created by the course of events including the revolutionary developments and the temporarily successful exclusion of the Landtag. Without reversing the undoubtedly existing division, the establishing of the Coalition Ministry cannot last. In what manner this reversing takes shape depends upon the particular form of the newly established Ministry. To close up this division, to re-establish what should be a natural harmony between the voters on the one hand and the views and measures of the Landtag and Government on the other hand, is the first task for all responsible authorities. German original Spring 1919 Judas Schuldbuch: Eine Deutsche Abrechnung, by Paul Bang under the pseudonym Wilhelm Meister, excerpts from ch. XXIV. Der Stern Judas: Wie der Judenkrieg im Dienste der Aufrichtung der Weltrepublik unter jüdischer Leitung gestanden hat, ist bereits dargetan... Es erübrigt nun nur noch, auf das widerlichste und niederträchtigste Mittel der jüdischen Machtpolitik einzugehen: die Revolution... Auch war trotz der verzweifelten Stimmung noch zu viel von dem vorhanden, was Juda am meisten hasst und fürchtet: vom deutschen Ehrgefühl... Dass die Revolution mit jüdischem Golde gemacht, von jüdischen Geistern geleitet und durchgeführt wurde, und die geheimen jüdischen Drahtzieher auch äusserlich - zu 80% nominal - in die Machtstellung brachte, legt heute vor aller Augen... Insbesondere ist der Bolschewismus in seiner Entstehung, seinen Machern, wie überhaupt in jeder Faser seines Seins rein jüdisch. Der gesamte russische Anarchismus und Nihilismus ist jüdisches Gewächs. Die Sowjetregierung, deren wesentlichen Mitglieder wir oben genannt haben, ist eine exklusive Judenregierung. Auch sämtliche Regierungsorgane sind zu 85% mit Juden besetzt. In seinem Buche über seine Reisen in Russland erzählt Robert Wilton, der Berichterstatter der „Times“, dass unter 384 Volkskommissaren, die die Regierung bilden, nur 13 Russen festzustellen waren. Der Rest bestehe aus 300 Juden, wovon 264 erst während der Revolution aus den Vereinigten Staaten nach Russland kamen ... Der von den Bolschewisten geprägte Begriff der Weltrevolution ist, das muss anerkannt werden, gigantisch und von der alle Entarteten mitreissenden Kraft, wie jede grosse Zerstöreridee. Er ist bis in seine innersten Bestandteile hinein jüdisch. Die Weltrevolution ist Judas letztes grosses und entsetzensvolles Mittel, um endgültig zu seinem letzen Ziele, der jüdischen Weltrepublik zu gelangen, in der für die Sklaven und nur für die Sklaven allerdings der “Kommunismus” herrschen wird... Als Abzeichen tragen die Bolschewisten auf der Brust das Schild der bolschewistischen Regierung, das gleichzeitig den jüdischen Stern darstellt!... Die deutsche Revolution ist vom Hauptquartier Judas aus mit einem Vorbedacht und einem Zielbewusstsein sondergleichen eingefädelt und betrieben worden... Citation: Wilhelm Meister (pseud. for Paul Bang), Judas Schuldbuch: Eine Deutsche Abrechnung (Munich: 3d ed., J.F. Lehmann, 1919), pp. 154ff. May 1919 Father Erhard Schlund, O.F.M., Bolshevism: Its Concept, Its History, Its Goals, Its Effects, Its Prospects (1919), excerpts: Chapter I – The Concept and History of Bolshevism ... Two men above all others were responsible for the ability of revolutionary ideas in Russia to spread so extensively, especially among the educated, and these two are also the real fathers of contemporary Bolshevism: Alexander Herzen and Michael Bakunin, both revolutionaries of the most extreme wing. Alexander Herzen (1820-1870) ... Michael Bakunin (1814-1876) ... a disciple of Proudhon ... Chapter II – Lenin and the Goals of Bolshevism ... The father of contemporary Bolshevism and undoubtedly the currently most important man in Russia, who far outranks Trotsky and Chicherin and the others, and who also knows what he wants with the Revolution, is Vladimir Ulyanov Lenin ... Chapter IV - Explanation of Bolshevism ... The concepts and phenomena of Bolshevism are uniquely explained by the character of the Russian people... Citation: Erhard Schlund, Der Bolschewismus: sein Begriff, seine Geschichte, seine Ziele, seine Wirkungen, seine Aussichten (Munich: Jos. Hubers Verlag, 1919). June 1, 1919 HPB 163:11 (1919), p. 641: “Bloody Review of Ideas and Events” If one sees how the dictators of the great powers today are diligently trying to manipulate a world peace by violence upon humanity in the question of guilt for the war, then one cannot avoid the impression that they feel very uncomfortable in the quiet recesses of their conscience. ... In their innermost essence, the head figures of the red and gold internationals are rather alike. – No trace of love or reconciliation, even less of truth and justice. With the claim to dominate the whole world by means of a universal League of Nations or by the path to world revolution, both of them swear upon the absolute autonomy of the human spirit, which is responsible to no God and no Lord for its acts and its permission… Revealed in the unheard of cruelty of the Entente’s peace terms is the innermost essence of Freemasonry; it is shown on the other side in the inclination toward Bolshevism, which from faithless Social Democracy irremediably lies in blood, the entire unnaturalness of anti-Christian Socialism... [p.645] And that is called Positivism or also, if one wants, Monism and Freemasonry. The latter recognizes, just like Monism and Positivism, its original essence in the sympathetic association with all that is measured by the spirit of this world and enhances the power of the prince of this world. The spirit of universal humanity of the world, which likewise inspires a universal patriotism toward , money, like the fatherland-less and homeless children of the freedom to travel, the proletariat, imperiously demands a world government without God and an earthly paradise without the after-taste of a supernatural life of immortality in the eternal beyond. The guiltless paradise of the forefathers is really, according to the common position of the proletarians and the plutocrats, just as much a fable of mythology as the heaven of the savior of the world ... [p.647] ... Whether anyone has opportunity, in the power realm of the Entente, to come to know the cruelty of the men of money, or whether one is so fortunate as to live in the terror zone of the dictatorship of the proletariat, makes no difference; here as there is the same merciless hard-heartedness and deception that cries out to heaven; the one like the other is pleased with the hypocritical phariseeism of their superhuman righteousness, while they ... [p.649] Social Democracy and Plutocracy are twins – in league with Freemasonry – which uses and abuses the working class ... June 1919 Leuchtkugeln: Randbemerkungen zur Geschichte der Gegenwart von Redivivus [Illumination-flares: Marginal Comments on Current History by Redivivus], no. 5 (June 1919); Verantwörtlich für die Schriftleitung [Responsible Editor]: B.R. Stempfle Page one: “Die Schutztruppe des Großkapitals” Die Mehrzahl der Führer, Agitatoren, Publizisten, die im sozialdemokratischen Lager ausschlaggebend sind, ist den Schöpfern und Herren des Kapitalismus, nach Blut, Rasse, Messiasglaube verwandt. Die “rote” and die “goldene” Internationale dienen zu guterletzt nur einem großen Zwecke: den großen Zielen “auserwählten Volkes”. Als Begründer, Abgeordnete, Schriftsteller stehen an der Spitze der Sozialdemokratie zum überwiegenden Teil Blutverwandte des kapitalistischen Wirtschaftssystems und mindestens drei Viertel davon sind Juden ...” Page 2: “...Fast sämtliche Führer der russischen Revolution sind Juden. Deutsches Volk, wann wirst du lernen die Judenfrage und den Zusammenhang mit Sozialismus und Großkapital und Internationalismus zu verstehen?” Page 2 article: “Ewiger Jude! Wandre!” Könige und Fürsten, Heerführer und Seelenhirten wurden dem Volk als Feinde hingestellt - und auf die verwaisten Throne schwang sich der Jude und bespie von da aus alles, was dem Volke bisher hoch und heilig war... Ewiger Jude, wandre, ehe das deutsche Volk aufsteht, nach zweitausendjähriger Götterdämmerung, zu deutscher Tat. Source: Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Nachlass Stempfle, folders 1-14, Munich. June 1, 1919 HPB, 163:11, p.693: “The Development of the Social Revolution in Bavaria” [this article explains recent events in terms of longer-term developments in German Socialism] The self-destruction of German Social Democracy (cf. pp. 628 ff., supra, essay on the Development of the Social Revolution) occurred not only with the merciless logic of natural law, it also shows, because the production of the results of the collage is the most characteristic work of Marxism, the power of a frightful justice. During the war, German Socialism played a double game of a simultaneously legal-democratic and revolutionary politics, with its accustomed craftiness. It was nationalist and capitalist-imperialist for the same reasons that it is currently anti-revolutionary; because it could not escape the insight that the attempt to implement its own revolutionary international program had to lead to economic collapse, that is, to consequences under which the proletariat would suffer no less frightfully than the “capitalists.” It was, however, likewise revolutionary and anti-militaristic, and undermined the foundations of national strength of resistance - on both the front lines and the home front, in association with revolutionary liberalism, and aided and abetted by severe mistakes and weaknesses of the politics it combatted and the system it attacked – to such an extent that the resistance-strength feebly collapsed under the pressure of the military turn of events and at the blow struck by the Communists and Independent Socialists. This simultaneously nationalist and revolutionary politics, which represents one of the most important causes of Germany’s military and economic collapse, was conducted by Socialism at the height of political power, but even then toward the abyss of its own destruction, because thenceforth was no longer possible to be simultaneously revolutionary-antinationalist and democratic-nationalist. Germany’s economic collapse and the political victory of German Social Democracy revealed not only to the outside world, but also to the domestically in-fighting-against-each-other powers of the Socialist movement, the governmental-, economic- and cultural-philosophical division that runs through Marxism … Marxism no longer resembles the two-armed lantern on which the revolutionary and the democratic flames burn in unison, but rather a candle that was burning at both ends; in the glow of the revolutionary flame burning from below is threatening to melt the wax that was long hardened by party discipline so that it flows rapidly down into Communism... June 1, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 22, pp. 162-63, articles on Communism and on Catholics in Bohemia (Czechoslovakia): “Communism?” Our entire national German wealth, thus the wealth of all the rich bankers and Jews, like Bleichröder, Rothschild, Mendelsohn and so forth, who alone possess 60,000 million Marks, the wealth of all the industries, trades and farmers, landowners and small rentiers, the property of the Reich, the States and the entities operating railroads, gas works, etc., thus our entire national wealth, was valued during peacetime by some at 350 billion, by others at 400 billion... ... Communism is only possible if each sacrifices for the others... whether a Rothschild, a Bleichröder, or a Mendelsohn will voluntarily share his entire wealth up to 700 Marks to each, without intending to get back all his money with full interest, I leave to the consideration of reasonable thinking people. Also Eisner, Wadler, Mühsam, Fechenbach, Toller, Jacobi, Landauer, Levien, Levine etc. have gotten nothing from their racial brethren Rothschild, Bleichröder etc., and there would not be anything to be gotten from them anyway. Therefore I shout: Away with castles in the air, and up with practical work, and especially with reasonable, practical cooperation among all members of the Volk! Let us not renounce all the culture we have acquired through the decades! “The Catholics in Bohemia” The Catholics in Bohemia have stood the test honorably and have fared well so far in the struggles at the National Assembly... In view of this thoroughly satisfactory balance of work in the hotly contested forum of the National Assembly, there may and should, however, be an acknowledgement on the other hand that the worm of discord and disunity is gnawing at the roots of the Catholic organizations, in whose political work some low-down pastors are participating. Certain impudent elements are proceeding to promote a liberal democratization of the political activity of Catholics. They have set forth an extremely radical program and think it is their mission to loosen the fetters of the clerical class in the sense of a modern socialization of it. These gentlemen mean well, to be sure, but they overlook the higher principles that absolutely stand in the way of such a “reform” that would overthrow the order and discipline of the Church. German originals: first page and second page June 7, 1919 Münchener Beobachter, pp. 1-2: “Can a Catholic Be an Antisemite?” by “Rhenus” A question that is unfortunately very much of the moment is being discussed by quite many in view of the current agitation of spirits. This same question had already become a burning issue in Bavaria about 30 years ago when the Pastor and Landtag representative Dr. Friedrich Frank, in a brochure published by G.J. Manz in Regensburg, entitled “The Church and the Jews,” thought the question must be answered with an emphatic “No!” Obviously this “No!” is only Herr Dr. Frank’s personal view, which cannot be supported by any pronouncement of the supreme Magisterium. I maintain that a good Catholic, a believing Christian, can be of a completely different view from that pastor concerning antisemitism. Many pious Catholics of previous and present times have made a name for themselves as they were, if not in name, at least in deed, antisemites. A whole series of Bishops and Popes can be called out by name, who were and are adversaries of the Jews. Granted, a Catholic can never be or become an antisemite if antisemitism stands in contradiction with Catholic doctrine or with Christian moral law. Demonstrating such a contradiction, however, is beyond the capacity of even the most learned theologians. Indeed the aforementioned Pastor Dr. Frank knew of no positive Church proclamation to present in relation to the above question, and therefore I consider it a wrongheaded game to scare the Christian people away from antisemitism on supposed religious-moral grounds. The solution of the Jewish question will only be obstructed by such hair-splitting, and the solution of the social question will only be delayed, for the “social question is essentially the Jewish question,” in the winged words of Otto Glagaus. Now what do the antisemites want? “Antisemites want to combat, by means of law, without touching upon the Jewish faith, the overly powerful harmful influence of Jews upon all spheres of public life.” In their eyes the Jews are a foreign nation, a state within a state, an exceptional community that lives at the expense of other peoples. Antisemites, in their writings, want to enlighten the German Volk about the dangerousness of Jewish influence, combat the corruption of the Jewish press, support the Christian German press, summon to life associations to defend rights against Jewish encroachments, and elect antisemitic-minded Volk-representatives. Every upright German adult, whatever confession or political party to which he may adhere, can become a member of this alliance. So the question is posed: can a Christian, a faithful Catholic, be an antisemite on the basis of this program? Jew-lackeys and Jew-descendants,* granted, are of the opinion that a Catholic may not be an antisemite. [Footnote *: The “German-Social” newspapers and “Das Bayerische Vaterland” reported that Dr. Frank was a baptized Jew.] Since the emancipation of the Jews, an idea for which we have the French Revolution to thank, and which was introduced after the Revolution of 1848 generally in all European countries, the Christian people in all countries that are blessed with Jews have gone into visible decline, while the wealth and influence of the Jews have continually grown in all spheres of public life. Many insightful men have warned against this pap of equal-rights-endowed citizens. Jews were the hereditary tenants of this new wisdom and exploited it to their advantage. All social bonds were dissolved, only the great Jewish league remained naturally in existence. The Jews were thus emancipated and received constitutionally the same political rights as the native population. The emancipation of the Jews brought to term some really tragic fruit for the Volk. The reason lay right in the ignorance or at least the limited knowledge of the essence of Talmudic Jewry. They intended to raise the Jews to their level, they hoped that they would be, if not indeed assimilated with the native population, at least conscious of being endowed with the same rights and duties as they. Against that, however, stood and stands the unalterable doctrine of the Talmud, by which Jewry stands and falls. The fundamental doctrine that the Jewish people are the chosen people, that the world belongs to the Jews by right, that Christians, as idolaters, are far below Jews and really not even to be considered as humans but rather as “the seed of beasts.” The actual comparative evaluation of Jews with Christians was, under the Talmud doctrine, unchangeable because based on the divine pronouncements of the Rabbis, that only Jews were the fellow man of Jews, whereby the entire Decalog, which is yet the foundation of every type of state, received a reinterpretation overwhelmingly favorable to the Jews. Thus the Christians were disadvantaged from the outset vis-à-vis the Jews, since they were obliged to consider the Jews as their fellow man as a matter of religious viewpoint, while the Jew, however, according to the doctrine of the Talmud, was relieved of all obligations of love for neighbor toward the Christians, and if he carried them out, it was only for the sake of peace, or in order to avoid coming into conflict with punitive laws. The trustful souls of the Christians thus really held out hope, in their enthusiasm, that with the nice idea of equality and brotherhood, which in their nature was really Christian, the Jews would become set free from their ethnic national religious worldview if the same political rights were shared with them, and would take up a Christian standpoint, and for their part, would consider the Christians as their equals! That actually meant expecting the Jews to give up the Talmud or give it a “Christian” reinterpretation; that was too much to expect. That is something the Talmud-Jews could not and cannot do, so long as they want to remain Jews. Therein lay the fateful error. The emancipation of the Jews was thus a great political mistake which severely harmed the Christian people and which can be made good again only with great difficulty if at all. If the emancipation of the Jews had benefited the native population in the spheres of economics or politics, or if it had not harmed them, then antisemitism would not have arisen and would not be justified. But practical experience since the emancipation of the Jews teaches that the Jews, apart from notable exceptions, do not want to live on the same footing as us, but to live off of us, off the work of the producing classes. Antisemites want – equally because they are convinced of the incompatibility of the Jewish and the Christian worldviews; because they perceive that the Jews, so long as they hold fast to their Talmud, despite naturalization, will still be and remain a foreign nation that will never assimilate with the native population; because they perceive that the Talmud, which is and remains an unalterable divine law book for the Jews, allows the peaceful coexistence of Talmud-Jews with Christians on the basis of equal civil rights only with the greatest harms to the Christian people – to restrict the civil rights of the Jews by means of law, without prejudice to universal natural law. Public offices should not be held open to Jews without discrimination; no Jew should act as judge over Christians, no Jewish teacher should instruct and form Christian children. Stricter usury laws should be enacted, the harmful influence of the Jewish press should be broken, the reign of interest-yielding big capital should be broken and its assets applied to public uses in extensive ways. This is not about rabble-rousing against Jews, but about defense of the native Christian Volk. This is necessary for the urgent struggle of the Christian German Volk for its future, for its economic and moral well-being. And that is supposed to be un-Christian? Then we would have to accuse our Christian forefathers of lack of Christian sense as they learned to know the Jews through long interaction and refused them equal political rights, and even the Catholic Church, which called such un-Christian conduct good and did not protect against it, would have to be denounced as un-Christian. Or is this unjust? To defend oneself and the Christian Volk by means of law from assault by Talmudic Jewry can certain not be an injustice, it is the right of self-defense. Every people has the right to be established in its own country according to its own needs. But is this not reactionary with respect to modern principles of liberty, equality and fraternity? If one is standing before an abyss, going forward is obviously nonsense and insanity; stepping back is the only solution. Or is it against the constitution? Perhaps. But the constitution is not immutable like the Talmud; it is not divine law. It can be amended in a lawful way and must be amended if the well-being of the Volk requires it. And for our Christian Volk and also for the Catholic Church, an amendment of the constitution in the indicated direction can bring no disadvantage, but only great advantage. It is becoming ever clearer to us that the Christian state capitulated to Jewry in the revolutionary era. It gave up its Christian character and declared itself non-confessional, merely to be able to satisfy the Jews. Since then everything, even the highest state offices, are constitutionally open to the Jews. I ask now: The believing Christian, the Catholic, should not be allowed to be an antisemite under these circumstances? What then? Perhaps a philo-semite? Or should Catholics look on passively at this justified struggle for the well-being of the Christian Volk, leaving it to the other Christian confessions and thereby playing the role of cheap critic as a neutral observer? No, in this essential struggle no Christian who is honorably minded toward his Volk and his religion can remain indifferent. Here it is a matter of deciding for or against the Christian Volk. Perhaps Christian love forbids the Catholic Christian to be an antisemite? Christianity forbids in all events personal hatred and excesses of all sorts. But Jew-hatred and violence against the Jews are absolutely no essential part of antisemitism. To hate error and wrongs, to expose error and do away with wrongs and crimes, neither Christianity nor reason forbid it, rather they imperatively demand it. But the attitude of Popes and Bishops of the Catholic Church, doesn’t that have to scare off Catholics from antisemitism? It is true, Popes and Bishops have, at times of rabble-rousing against Jews, sought to defend the Jews against excesses and violence; they have forbidden forced conversion. In that, I think, every antisemite, every friend of humanity, will find right. If moreover individual Popes did not want to believe in Jewish ritual murder, then that was their personal view; they certainly did not know the Talmud and the secret doctrine of the Jews, and thus held such cruel crimes to be impossible. That does honor to their humanitarianism. They also may have not wanted to provoke the nonetheless high-rising agitation of the Christian Volk by opposite statements, wanting instead to calm the unleashed wrath of the Volk; certainly a noble intention. Yet this too was only their personal view and not an official doctrinal decision; this followed from the previous fact that other Popes had approved or at least allowed the honoring of children murdered by the Jews, as martyrs. Further than that, however, the defense given by Popes and Bishops of the Catholic Church to the persecuted Jews did not extend. On the contrary, they showed themselves in many cases to be real antisemites. Thus Pope Gregory VII, the greatest man of his century, wrote an earnest admonition to King Alfonso of Castile that "he might not allow his Christian subjects to be oppressed by the Jews." And Archbishop Bernhard of Toledo asked the King that “he might yet give to the Jews none of the Christian-oppressing privileges.” Against princely patrons of the Jews, Bishops and Synods often stepped up. Pope Innocent indeed forbade forcing Jews to adopt Christianity, but he also ordered them to be kept within necessary bounds; they should not be public officials and may not take usurious interest. (Do antisemites want anything different from this Pope?) Pope Pius IX strictly implemented in Rome the old Church law that Christians may not be serving maids for Jews. Was that not antisemitic? Pope Leo III [sic: Leo XIII], when he was still Bishop of Perugia, sought to protect Christians from usurious exploitation on the part of the Jews, by re-establishing a lending bank. Thus he showed himself to be a “practical antisemite,” if one may call the matter by its right name. And isn’t his glorious encyclical on the social question not primarily directed, at its core, against the abuse and excessive power of big capital, which is overwhelmingly in Jewish hands? The theory is still coming into practice. So can a believing Christian be an antisemite? I answer that question with complete conviction, and I hope the esteemed reader will agree with me: “Yes.” A believing Christian may be an antisemite; nothing prevents him from it, not his Christian faith, not the love of neighbor that Christianity requires of him; on the contrary: The love of Christianity and of his Church, the love of his Volk that is oppressed by Jewry, imperiously demands of the Catholic that he associate himself with those who have taken up the struggle against overly powerful Jewry. Yes, the believing Christian may and should close ranks fully and completely with the Christian-Social antisemites; it is his duty in view of the danger that grows from day to day toward the Christian Volk. June 8, 1919 “Ecclesiastical Review” section of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 23, page 173: President Pessoa of Brazil, who is making a state visit at the Quirinal, was received by the Holy Father in solemn private audience on Thursday. This visit is of particular significance, since it is the first time that the head of government of a Catholic great power, as a guest of the King of Italy, has come into the Vatican to pay his official visit to the Holy Father and thus be received with all honors.- The Prince Bishop of Cracow, Mons. Sapieha, has traveled back to his residence, after informing the Pope about relations in Poland. The Vatican will re-establish diplomatic relations with this State as fast as possible and re-institute the previous Nunciature in Warsaw... On the eve of the Feast of St. John Nepomuk, a major speech was arranged in front of the Old City Hall in Prague. As the bells began to ring in the Church of the Virgin Mary of Teyn, some participants barged into the house of God in order to stop the ringing. The intruders stormed up to the high altar, where the mass actually was brought to a stop. The priest quickly grabbed the ciborium with the hosts and escaped with it. Another priest, who confronted the demonstrators, was boxed in the ear. German original June 10, 1919 Pacelli from Rorschach, Switzerland to Faulhaber in Munich: Most Reverend Excellency, In the Bavarian press reaching me today I have read the agreements concluded among the parties that have entered to participate in the new coalition Cabinet in Bavaria, and naturally my attention is drawn in a special way to the part concerning the so-called culture policy. Even taking account of the extraordinary difficulties of the present hour, I confess nonetheless to Your Most Reverend Excellency that I noticed not without surprise how the Catholics of the Bavarian People’s Party had yielded without ado on most important points that not only have already been the object of public demonstrations by the Bavarian Bishops (and particularly by Your Excellency) but also touch upon the Concordat. Before thus reporting to the Holy See, as is obligatory in view of the serious issue, I would be grateful to Your Excellency if you would in your exquisite goodness and exalted intelligence, which I have always appreciated, furnish me news in this regard, indicating to me especially how, why, and by what authority the Bavarian People’s Party thought it could enter into agreements which (if I have understood correctly) at least partially indeed contradict provisions of the Concordat, and what compensatory guarantees it has obtained, on the other hand, for the future of the Catholic Church. Your Excellency will excuse me for the disturbance I have caused you; but, since I am away from Bavaria, I did not know who other and better to turn to than to Your Excellency, in order to receive complete information and sure explanation about such a question. Thanking you in advance ... June 13, 1919 Faulhaber in Munich to Pacelli in Rorschach, Switzerland: Your Excellency! Most Reverend Lord Apostolic Nuncio! Just yesterday, as I was receiving the most treasured letter from Your Excellency, it became possible for me for the first time to ask a member of the Bavarian People’s Party, the priest and professor Dr. Eggersdorfer of Passau, about the agreements among the political parties participating in the new Ministerial Cabinet. Thus it came out that the publication of the new Government’s program in the press, for example the “Bavarian Staatszeitung” no. 138 of June 1st, did not completely and accurately convey the official text of the program, which naturally makes it more difficult for us to step up against this program, as the decisive sentences about the culture-political future in Bavaria are not characterized with any kind of stylistic and logical clarity, much less statesmanlike insight. The most frightful sentence, which stands at the head of the Government program in the Staatszeitung: “The parties obligate themselves and their delegations in the Landtag to the implementation of the following program,” is not taken by Dr. Eggersdorfer as though the case is now already closed as to these agreements and modifications in the official deliberations in the Landtag are cut off in advance. He repeatedly maintained in any event that on account of transportation difficulties, plenary meetings of the Bavarian People’s Party have been extraordinarily difficult and that Minister Hoffmann has negotiated much with individual members of the party. About the genesis of the agreements that have frightfully surprised and alarmed us Catholics in Bavaria, he says: About three weeks ago, Minister Hoffmann had the leaders of the Bavarian People’s Party and the German Democratic Party come to him and declared to them: either both these parties join in the Government or the Social Democrats will resign from the Government and leave Bavaria to Bolshevism. In order to protect the State from the return of the reign of terror of the Räterepublik, both the parties declared themselves ready to cooperate. In the negotiations, the representatives of the Bavarian People’s Party were apparently more mindful of the even more radical provisions of the previous constitution outline than of Catholic principles, and kept seeking only to moderate the much more radical provisions by way of compromise, for example they were apparently happy that section 15 of the State fundamental law (“religious societies order and administer their affairs independently in accordance with State laws”) is no longer carried over into the new program, but for other equally unecclesiastical stipulations they had less of a sharp eye. Also the 16th birthday as the age of majority for religious matters was a compromise between the 14th and the 18th year. Moreover the responsible officers of the Bavarian People’s Party only read what was in the Government program, without paying attention to what was not in it, for example the Church’s right of taxing its own members, the right of schools run by religious orders. It would not be difficult at the moment to stop trusting the Bavarian People’s Party, but it would be very difficult to set up a new political organization of Bavarian Catholics in its place. Of any sort of quiet effort to secure the rights of the Church, I could learn nothing from Dr. Eggersdorfer. I have now written, in the presence of my Diocesan Ordinariate, the following for Dr. Eggerdorfer to share about my standpoint to the People’s Party, in this way: 1. I do not underestimate the extraordinary difficulties of the present hour, especially not the danger of a new revolution, and I do not doubt the good intentions of the leaders of the People’s Party. There are, however, certain limits to compromises in religious-political questions, where inalienable principles and rights of the Church are at stake, and where the Government program of a Kulturkampf-inclined Minister cannot be accepted lock, stock and barrel at any price, even the price of Cabinet positions and other advantages. In particular, partisan political questions, such as how many Cabinet ministers and State councilors will be appointed from a party, may not be mixed with culture-political questions that substantially contradict the laws of the Church, the proclamations of the Bishops and the will of the Catholic people. It is one thing if the party is represented in an already existing coalition Cabinet and in realpolitik accommodates a lesser evil under protest, but it is something else if the party, before entering into a Government, obligates itself to the implementation of a program that is not compatible with Church law. 2. Hoffmann’s school decree of January 25th, which institutes a right of parents and guardians to take their children out of religious education, is, despite all protests of the Catholic people, not only continued in the new Government program, but even aggravated insofar as students 16 years and older can keep out of religious instruction by their own preference without any inquiry to the parents. Before the elections [of January 12, 1919], the People’s Party publicly demanded the confessional school and assurances of Catholic education, and now it has agreed to establish inter-denominational schools upon the request of a majority of parents [in a town or school district]. The trust of the Catholic people in the People’s Party must be heavily shaken by this, which will be shown in the next elections. The yieldingness of individual party members as to school policy is all the less understandable, as the Bishops previously sent every delegate the ecclesiastical guidelines for the school question in a memorandum that I approved for distribution. 3. Of all questions, the question of the confessional school is the most important, in order to bring in a general popular agreement in the so-called referendum. And if the confessional school is not established as the normal school, then we demand just as in Belgium in 1879, the free school, for which, however, only simple school taxes must be paid. Above all, the rights of parents in the school issue must be advocated as strongly as possible. 4. The next matter to be handled in the Landtag is the teacher law and the school finance law, where again in Article 76 Section 2 the school finance law of 1902 and with it the confessional school are disempowered. The People’s Party must above all put the question before the Bavarian people whether then the school policy of the day in Bavaria is going to be really the most urgent matter, or whether concerns for peace and the economy, for bread and work, might be more pressing than the implementation of the Government program of a Minister who coincidentally feels himself expert only in the field of education. It is certainly in connection with this conduct of the Government, that the Holy Father has reservations about conferring upon the Government the indult for the right of presentation of parishes to new pastors. Among the ranks of the clergy, frankly the long vacancies are more painfully felt the longer they continue. The great public Corpus Christi procession unfortunately cannot take place this year in Munich... Yesterday in the Benedictine church of St. Boniface was the election of the new abbot here, former Prior Fr. Bonifaz Wöhrmüller... With the wish that the Nunciature may be preserved for us in Bavaria, and the effectiveness of Your Excellency may be accompanied by the same rich blessing in the future as before, and with the expression of my deepest respect, I remain ... June 13, 1919 Eggersdorfer to Faulhaber: Your Excellency, Most Reverend Herr Archbishop! May I be allowed to make the following expansion upon the report and remarks you allowed me to make the day before yesterday: The suggestion that, as a corrective to the early age of religion-deciding maturity, the confirmation age might be pushed back and a more extensive instruction given for making such decision, in no way arose from the [BVP’s Landtag] delegation. There it was only agreed whether the negotiations should collapse over the issue of 16 years as the decisive age. My motion that they should was outvoted by 23 votes against versus 18 in favor. The suggestion of raising the confirmation age and providing more decisional instruction arose from a conference with the clergy of the city of Passau, which I held concerning these issues... In the matter of the inter-denominational school, may I state clearly that the text of the agreement says: “The transformation of existing confessional schools into inter-denominational schools or the new establishment of inter-denominational schools ... Thus the inter-denominational school is not expressly made the norm. Rather it is presupposed that when the parents register their children at the beginning of the year, they will at the same time register whether they want the confessional or the inter-denominational school. Such preferences shall be registered not annually, but rather upon demand from time to time. That still appears to me to be the best we can achieve under the circumstances of the current majority. The state of the law up to now is worse. According to it, the entirety of the Munich schools could have been turned into inter-denominational ones at the beginning of the new school year, because up to now only the decision of the school authorities and the approval of the Government was necessary. The transformation would have certainly occurred, if I am correctly informed. In the meantime a new act of the Hoffmannisch school battle appears to be at hand. Of the three monastic institutions for teacher training in Lower Bavaria, two have received a prohibition on taking in new students for 1919/20 (Seligenthal and Ursulinen-Straubing). The third, Freudenhaim-Passau, may only take 10 instead of 12. What is happening here with Upper Bavaria? I sent Speck a quick copy of this instruction together with an outline of my discussion with Your Excellency, in order perhaps to bring about an early occasion to further dissolve the connection to Hoffmann. Might I again present Your Excellency a copy of the resolutions of June 10th, with the devoted request that you examine closely whether they are basically on the right path. As soon as possible I will send Your Excellency an exemplar of the constitution outline. Then the recommended formulations shall be immediately sought. Your Archepiscopal Excellency’s most reverential and devoted, Dr. F.X. Eggersdorfer Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 7480 June 16, 1919 HPB 163:12 (1919), p. 743: “The Causes of the Victory of the Proletariat” Socialism and revolution are merely atheism turned upon society and state. The material order collapses because the moral order no longer maintains a hold on the conscience... [p.744] ... We also see the main reason of the European revolution in the turning away from Church and faith ... [p.745] The most powerful cause of the revolution that comes into view outwardly lies in the growth of the proletariat. [Causes: French Revolution, individualism, two-thirds of Germans by 1895 were proletariat as the old class order had been eclipsed by industrialization, political liberalism implemented the principles of the French Revolution.] [p.749] ... destruction of the medieval middle class of guilds prepared the ground for the growth of a class of plutocratic entrepreneurs who were mostly indifferent to the faith that had been passed down and in the end hostile to the Church, as well as a deracinated worker class. [p.755] ... Unbelief has become today the common property of the masses who have fallen into Social Democracy. For Social Democracy, both the moderate and the radical type, is not only heresy, it is anti-Church and anti-Christianity... June 17, 1919 Faulhaber to Eggersdorfer: Most Esteemed Herr Professor! For the informal report, best of thanks. I had in the meantime ascertained the text of the agreement about schooling, in which the inter-denominational school is not set down as the norm. Then, that the raising of the age for confirmation arose from pastoral circles and not from politician circles, as well other information you specified, I have shared with my Ordinariate this morning. An insuperable difficulty still remains in the fact that our people will not understand that even though there is a specified age as the threshold of religious maturity, yet parental discipline continues in regard to religious obligations. It will be very difficult to represent the position in a popular assembly that a 12- or 14-year-old can change his religious affiliation without asking his parents, while on the other hand he cannot absent himself from religious instruction without the consent of his parents. And as to this latter point, the preservation of parental disciplinary rights that continue past the 14th year, this can still not be given up. The most distressing thing is that these new agreements are in part contradictory to the provisions of the Concordat, and so those types of agreements had to coordinated in advance with the Nunciature. I suspect that the delay up to now of the Indult I am so longingly awaiting, which would enable negotiations with the new Government about appointments to parish pastor positions, is traceable back to the cultural program of Minister Hoffmann. It is in the Bavarian Volkspartei’s own interest to give the earliest possible explanations to Church authorities, since we are always only hearing the Kulturkampf-ish decrees of the Education Minister, but never anything of the counter-measures of our political representatives. In the resolutions of the Lower Bavarian Farmers Association, it especially pleased me that the rights of the parents are so strongly demanded, and the governmentally compelled school is rejected. For Upper Bavaria nothing has happened up to now, as far as I know, against the teacher training institutes. With best wishes for your political activity, which has brought you great personal trust from all quarters, I remain with respect, Your Reverence Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 7480 June 17, 1919 Eggersdorfer to Faulhaber: Your Excellency, Most Reverend Herr Archbishop allow me to transmit an outline of the constitution. At the same time, may I share that I have submitted to Excellency von Hauck the desire for a Bishops’ commission on the constitution. His Excellency desires that the commission, given the significance of the matter, might be delegated by the entire Episcopacy, even if it will consist of just a few members. At the moment new alarming reports are going through the press about the suppression of monastic teacher training institutes, etc. We were with Hoffmann yesterday and asked him about this and about the matter of co-education in the middle schools. The instructions about narrowing the quota for secular teachers did not go out from him, but rather as the result of earlier (pre-revolution) consultations of the competent authorities in Munich. It was apparently not really a matter of a Kulturkampf action, but rather one of a restriction on the number of new students in the secular teacher training institutes for 1919/20 that affected all including the secular institutes. In the co-education issue, our position shall come under consideration in one of the upcoming negotiations. Hoffmann appeals to the fact that he only took up measures that had been implemented by bourgeois governments in Baden, Württemburg and Hesse, and in part in Prussia. A calm examination of the constitution issues and joint efforts for the attainable may pacify the excitement in clerical circles. Allow me to express to your Archepiscopal Excellency my deepest respect, F.X. Eggersdorfer Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 4300 June 18, 1919 Pacelli to Faulhaber: Your Excellency! Most Reverend Lord Archbishop! I just received your treasured letter of the 13th of this month and sincerely thank you for such important news. From it I see all the more with what zeal Your Excellency is promoting and defending the interests of Holy Church in dear Bavaria. I read with particular joy the memorandum of the Archbishops and Bishops of Bavaria about the schools issue. I hope that the Bavarian Catholics, thanks to the indefatigable care of Your Excellency and the other Most Reverend Bishops of Bavaria, and according to their tradition in full adherence to our Holy Church, will faithfully defend its rights and never forget that indeed there is a Concordat between Bavaria and the Holy See. Concerning the presentation of parishes, I have as yet received no definitive decision, but I know that the question is currently being studied in Rome. I read with great regret that the annual, beautiful Corpus Christi procession, the imposing public proclamation of the faith of the Catholics of Munich, shall not take place this year. Hopefully this year’s falling away of the procession will not be used as a precedent for later years. From my heart I wish Your Excellency the special protection and grace of God in these so difficult and sad times, and I remain with continual upright gratitude in deepest respect Your Excellency’s most devoted +Eugen Pacelli, Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: L. Volk, ed., vol. 1, p. 83. June 19, 1919 Faulhaber to the Bavarian Bishops: Your Bishop-Graces! The Most Reverend Lord Archbishop of Bamberg is giving today the suggestion by express mail, for the parliamentary consultations about the constitution outline, that a theological commission be placed at the disposal of the Bavarian People’s Party as a quiet adviser, in order to review in advance the ecclesiastical harmlessness and acceptability of individual provisions to formulate public statements and modifications and additions. It is expressly remarked that the delegates of the Bavarian People’s Party themselves desire the establishment of such a commission, which can make decisions in the name of the Bishops. Given the enormous significance of such advice about the new constitution, which will decide about the State-Church life of Bavaria, nothing in this matter may be delayed. The Lord Archbishop declared himself ready if needed to summon to Bamberg the commission members specified by the individual Bishops, whereby the named members can also be empowered by the several Bishops. Since this commission must work on the one hand as expeditiously as possible, and on the other hand as inconspicuously as possible, it is recommended that a not overly large number of experts be engaged, and to the extent possible, those who otherwise are already in Bamberg. I am thinking that Auxiliary Bishop Dr. Senger, a professor at the Bamberg University, Dr. Wohlmuth, Dr. Eggersdorfer (to whom I assign the representation of my Diocese) would be sufficient, if it would be possible for His Excellency the Archbishop of Bamberg to take part personally in the most important consultations, or if His Grace the Bishop of Eichstätt were reachable in individual cases and not, like most of us presently, committed to trips for confirmations. For the formulation and presentation of an issue in the press, Cathedral Deacon Dr. Kiefl has a very special knack. Thereby I allow myself the following remarks: First of all, the parliamentary side of the Government must be brought around to putting themselves in contact with Church authorities as to Church-related issues, and not merely through delegates as intermediaries. In decisive essential points, where we bear heavy responsibility, we can indeed only ourselves make the decision and not hand it over to the members of a commission. Secondly, the commission must also not forget that insofar as points under negotiation touch upon the relationship between Church and State, and thus more or less the Concordat, neither the Episcopate nor the commission is competent, but rather only the Nunciature. Here the People’s Party must remind the Minister for Education and Religion, either in a private meeting or in a public session, that the Concordat is a bilateral treaty under international law and therefore cannot be handled unilaterally by the Bavarian Government like a mere piece of paper without diplomatic interaction with the ecclesiastical side. If the Bavarian Government were to deny diplomatic respect again and unlawfully violate even one point of a lawful treaty, then the political representation would have to, either directly or via the Bishops, inform the Apostolic Nunciature, so that the Holy Father can register a timely protest or otherwise say a clear word to Catholics in Bavaria about our situation. The Lord Nuncio has at the moment, upon the orders of His Holiness, taken up residence in Switzerland (Rorschach); but our correspondence is sent daily to him under seal. I can observe confidentially that the “agreement” between the Bavarian Government and the People’s Party about the Government program, which indeed outlined the new culture policy, namely in the unsettling sentence at the top: “The People’s Party obligates itself to the implementation of the following program,” was received with great distress by the competent Church authorities, as this text must have aroused the impression that all further negotiations and amendments of the outline were ruled out in advance. In any case, the religion policy of the Bavarian Government cannot be established constitutionally without a clear enunciation of its relationship to the Concordat. I am thinking that the advisory commission should prepare the question of school policy, which is ... that of church policy, and prepare them both in the same way. Also on this point I request that the answers of the Most Reverend Lords be sent directly to Bamberg, since from Sunday on I will be out for three weeks for confirmations. The April decree [about school policy] which frees male and female teacher candidates who were not in the war to send themselves into religion and music as examination subjects, has meanwhile occasioned my Diocesan Ordinariate to register a protest with the Ministry, with the agreement of the other Ordinariates... June 19, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Political-religious situation in Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, The situation in Bavaria, not only from a social point of view, but also from a political-religious perspective, continues to appear full of dangers, and the interests of the Church appear to be seriously threatened, so that there is increasing fear that the prediction of the Archbishop of Munich may be realized, from the sermon he delivered on December 31st last year, when he warned the faithful even then that if separation of Church and State is carried out in Bavaria, it will be done not according to the American system, but in the French manner. The object of new concerns has been the text of the proposed Constitution, presented by the Hoffmann Government at the end of this May (Enclosure I). In it is clearly revealed the influence of two different tendencies, both of them, however, hostile to the Church: on the one hand, that of the liberal-bureaucratic spirit reigning from the times of the famous von Lutz Ministry, and on the other hand, radical anticlericalism, begun by the first revolutionary Ministry. In this way Bavaria, as during the Bolshevik agitation, would seem to want to be first in Germany also in anti-religious evolution. Yet such a proposal could not produce surprise, since it emanated from a purely Socialist Ministry. Shortly after its publication, however, a Coalition Cabinet was constituted in Bavaria, as is certainly well known to Your Most Reverend Eminence. In it the Bavarian Volkspartei (former Center Party), although it was the most numerous party in the Landtag, obtained only two portfolios, those being the Ministry of Agriculture (Baron Freyberg) and that of Finance (Mr. Speck), just like the Democratic Party which, although it could count on half the Deputies, also has two Ministries (Justice – Dr. Müller; and Commerce – Mr. Hamm), while the Socialist Party, which is the strongest party only after the Center Party, counts in the new Government all of five members, among whom Hoffmann has the Minister Presidency and the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs. But what is even more serious, contemporaneously with the announcement of the formation of the said Cabinet, the agreements (Vereinbarungen) concluded on this occasion among the three said parties were also published, to the implementation of which the respective delegations in the Landtag had jointly obligated themselves. In truth, in the part of these agreements regarding Culture Policy, there are various points which cannot fail to cause grave concerns. Such as, for example, the Catholic religion no longer has any prerogatives vis-à-vis the State, since all religious societies without distinction enjoy equal rights and equal protection from the State; their property rights and the existing obligations of the State toward them are to be suppressed by means of a law (at least as to this aspect), etc. In what then concerns the most important school question, the doctrine of the Socialist Party prevails. The well known decree of Minister President Hoffmann of this past January, which bestowed the right of parents and guardians not to have their children attend religious instruction, is not only accepted in the aforementioned agreements, notwithstanding all the protests of the Catholic population, but even made worse, to the extent that the option is given to students, who have reached the age of sixteen, of not attending such instruction, even without the agreement of their parents. Also permitted is the inter-denominational school if desired by a majority of the parents and guardians, etc. Certainly it is impossible to fail to recognize the extraordinary difficulties of the present hour, especially the danger of new political-social upheavals, while I also do not believe that the good intentions of the leaders of the Bavarian Volkspartei can be called into doubt. But in religious questions there are limits that Catholics are not allowed to transgress, just as there are other points that they can endure but not endorse. In particular, then, it is deplorable that the aforesaid party has accepted those fundamentals without taking account that they, at least in part, are in opposition to the Concordat and thus violate the rights of the Holy See. And that is why, as soon as I became aware of the agreements in question, by means of the public press, I immediately wrote to the Archbishop of Munich expressing my surprise at the Catholics having straightaway given in on extremely serious matters that have not only previously been the subject of public demonstrations by the Bavarian Bishops, but also touch upon the Concordat. I therefore asked him courteously to furnish me news in this regard and above all to inform me how, why and in virtue of what authorities the Bavarian Volkspartei presumed to conclude agreements that also contradict Concordat provisions, and what guarantees this party had moreover obtained eventually in compensation, for the future of the Catholic Church. Archbishop von Faulhaber has now responded that he has been able to ask about the reasons from the priest and Professor Dr. Eggersdorfer, member of the Bavarian Volkspartei. He stated that the program of the new Government as published in the press does not correspond fully and literally with the official text. Moreover, the passage that is found at the head of the agreements in question: “The parties obligate themselves and their delegations in the Landtag to the implementation of the following program,” is not understood by Dr. Eggersdorfer in the sense that the points there contained are definitively fixed and the way closed to modifications during the public deliberation in the Landtag. Concerning the genesis of these agreements that have very much surprised and terrified the Catholics in Bavaria, the aforesaid Professor recounted that about three weeks earlier, Minister Hoffmann had the leaders of the Bavarian Volkspartei and the Democratic Party come to him, and he declared to them that either both those parties enter the Ministerial Cabinet or the Majority Socialists would have left the government and abandoned Bavaria to Bolshevism. In order to preserve the land from a return of the horrible Councils Republic, the aforementioned parties would be disposed to participate in the government. In the negotiations in this regard, the leaders of the Bavarian Volkspartei would have had before them moreover the even more radical provisions of the ... The Archbishop, who did not fail to remind this party by means of Dr. Eggersdorfer of the points that must be upheld in conformity to the doctrine of the Church, adds in his letter that it would not currently be difficult to take away from the Bavarian Volkspartei the loyalty of the Catholic Bavarians, but that it would be very difficult to succeed in substituting a new political organization for the one already existing. Archbishop von Faulhaber also notes that the concessions by the leaders of the party on the school question are all the less understandable in that the Bavarian Bishops had already explained the line to take in this regard, in a Memorandum sent to every Landtag deputy (Enclosure III). I thanked the said Archbishop for the information he communicated to me, exhorting him to continue his work in defense of religion and insisting anew upon the rights due the Holy See in virtue of the Concordat, rights that are not licit for Catholics to compromise. The famous Corpus Christi procession could not take place this year in Munich. Archbishop von Faulhaber indicated to me that he had done his part to have it celebrated, even though the military authorities maintained they could not give any guarantee of security; but the Military Command for the city declared categorically that in Munich a state of war is proclaimed, and not just a state of siege as in other cities of Bavaria, and thus all public gatherings were prohibited. It was feared, moreover, that if religious processions were permitted, it would not be possible to prohibit demonstrations and parades of the Independent Socialists. Thus, notwithstanding the regret of the Catholic population for this omission, it was necessary to yield to force majeure. This past Sunday, the 15th of the month, the elections in the regions, districts and local communities took place in Bavaria. These had a complex result, on the one hand, a considerable increase in votes for the Bavarian Volkspartei (formerly Center Party), on the other, within the ambit of the Socialist Party, a very notable shift of power in favor of the Independents. The collapse of the old Majority Socialist Party, which shows how much, in a very short time, the process of radicalization of the masses has progressed, is especially apparent in Munich, the city of the Bolshevik Councils Republic. In contrast with the elections to the Landtag this past January, the percentage of votes for the Majority Socialists fell there from 43 to 19%, and increased for the Independents from 5 to 32%, for the Democratic Party went from 19 to 14% and for the Bavarian Volkspartei increased from 26 to 28%. The 18,331 votes obtained by the Independents in the Bavarian capital this past January leaped on Sunday to 77,284, while those for the Majority Socialists diminished from 117,363 to 45,559. Closing, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 260 June 28, 1919 Allgemeine Rundschau [General Review] article attributing Bolshevism primarily to the “Russian spirit” and “Russian methods” for implementing the Communist Manifesto, while accusing the “Jewish intelligencia” of Russia of playing an influential role: “Bolshevism and its Psychological Preconceptions,” Dr. W. Zapadnik, no. 20, pp. 268-269 First paragraph speaks of “the immensely great and threatening spirit of Bolshevism.” The next paragraph says that all our [Catholic] people have an obligation in conscience to grapple with Bolshevism and understand it thoroughly. “What is Bolshevism? Bolshevism is the effort, carried out with the Russian spirit and with Russian methods, to implement socialism via the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., exactly according to the recipe of the Communist Manifesto.” Later, speaking of the international drive of Bolshevism, the author explains it as the product of “the characteristic messianic impulse of Russian spiritual life,” the “deeply interior conviction of the calling of the Russian people to save the world from evil and bring it salvation.” ... “For Bolshevism is not just a matter of teaching or opinion to its Russian adherents, but rather a faith, just as the Russian is easily inclined to give precedence to religious ideas, i.e. faith, over philosophical matters. So for them Marxism has become a collection of dogmas... “To this was added the deconstructive criticism, the ever-onward developing dialectic, and the obstacle-overcoming fanaticism of the Jewish intelligencia. “But how was this Jewish-Russian labor community of Bolshevik leaders placed with respect to the dominant classes and their culture? For that it was the anarchist Tolstoy who gave the answer ...” Citation: Dr. W. Zapadnik, “Bolshevism and its Psychological Preconceptions,” Allgemeine Rundschau – Wochenschrift für Politik und Kultur, June 28, 1919, no. 20, pp. 268-269. July 1, 1919 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, 164:1 (1919), p.1: “Bloody Review of Ideas and Events” Whoever has had the misfortune to be made entirely incapable of faith-based thoughts by an un-Christian and worldly liberal education, is sadly not in position to understand rightly the world events of today...[it is Munich’s cosmopolitan nature that invited Communism] [p.3] ... Munich, where, more than almost anywhere else, all the cultural gypsies of the world can happily gather and move about freely. How unlovely has the lovely city on the Isar been in recent weeks! Once such a joyful and inviting home for high and low from near and far, and now a true El Dorado of foreign domination for international Jewry and a terror for the children of the land! Those who are insightful and far-seeing enough to know that spirit which has been working determinedly and systematically here since the unfortunate days of an Ickstadt and Montgelas, have gradually with deep concern regretted the transformation of the capital of a relatively small land into a world city of modern great-man-striving, and have often asked themselves whether a metropolis of such great scale is really in its right place here and is not an exaggeration? Was it really a good idea to build such a great and agreeable city of hotels and theaters for all the flighty birds of foreign intercourse, a common meeting place for everything that is exorbitant and exotic? No one could feel more at home here than the Communists – where everything was really at the same time shared and in common – pagans and Jews, Christians and Buddhists had here a simultaneous common place to stay; what could be still lacking for a complete removal of every inequality, in order finally indeed to communize yet everything else, the money of the banking houses, the pulpits of the churches, the teaching positions in the schools, not to forget the ornate rooms of the palaces and the vice dens of free love... If any German city ever artificially puffed up the modern liberal business spirit, then Munich is the perfect example of how destructive it is for a people to be exploited by a pagan mammonistic superculture that overwhelms the morally decisive simplicity of Christian culture. Both the world war and the revolution that followed upon it produced the proof that it is nothing less than a boon for a people when a block of big industrialists, with massive speculation in construction and money, establishes a new world like a spider’s web from entirely other material than the husbandry upon which the country was based by nature and through its historical development. The consecrated quiet life of the great part of the people committed to husbandry of the land will not allow itself to be transformed with impunity into a permanent year-round marketplace. Only Jews and construction speculators can take any joy or interest in ... [p.5] ... If the governments and lead figures in the city in the past two generations had given more attention to spiritual interior culture, which only real and true Christianity could give them, than to exterior comfort and distracting luxury, then the world would have preserved an entirely different aspect even with electricity and steam power. [p.6] This did not come about all at once... Munich was once a thoroughly gemütlich home of joy and satisfaction, and Bavaria too was a beautiful and fortunate land. Now, unfortunately, no longer. Fuimus Troes. The cold north wind of the Protestant Enlightenment has fundamentally destroyed the peace of its inhabitants. [pp.7-8] By the unfortunate policy of Electors Karl Albrecht and Maximilian III, the northern light of free spirits and of Protestant state-church relations were promoted in Bavaria so powerfully that Nikolai, already in 1781 in his visit to Munich, expressed his astonishment with the remark that he had not thought he could encounter so much of the Enlightenment... [p.8] Anyone who knows clearly the burden of this deformation of Bavarian history, and keeps in mind how secularization was prepared and carried out in Bavaria, can perceive nothing other than a real nemesis in the frightful way that Bavaria and its capital city have now been stricken. The Spartacists of today are worthy successors of the Spartacists of secularization. It is not to be forgotten that secularization means reformation and revolution. The entire history of the past four centuries was fundamentally nothing other than a beginning by separation from Rome with a continually increasing secularization not only of things holy before God, but also of the Christians themselves, and Bavaria, which owes its creation to secularization, has equally taken more upon itself of the spirit of reformation and revolution than was good and desirable for its healthy development. Heresy, unbelief and worldliness are not separable from each other. The more that an era of religious and political upheavals turns the eye of faith away from God and heaven, the more will the eye turn to the externals and hope in things of earth and in the goods of this world... [continues with more about historical processes of secularization in Bavaria, which paved the way for the recent revolution] July 1, 1919 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, 164:1 (1919), p.12: “The Causes of the Revolutionary Victory of the Proletariat (Conclusion)” For the shaking and destroying of passed-down Christian faith, for the disappearance of dependence on Church and clergy, for the cooling of religious thought and sentiment, two factors are more weighty than all others: the modern school and the press. The school lost its centuries-long close relationship with the Church, instruction in all subjects lost its religious foundation and religious direction... p.13 Along with the school, the press exercised a profound influence upon the spirit of the people... p.14 The free press, whose development dates to the revolutionary year of 1848, is a fruit of a democracy founded upon popular sovereignty... the free political press wants to be not the voice of God, but rather the voice of the people, or at least the voice of circles that purport to speak in the name of the people. As the press became the sharpest instrument of democracy, so it also became that of Social Democracy. The press influenced the Socialist masses so that they were capable of discussing the most difficult problems of state and society. With the help of the press and leaflets, the proletariat or the fourth estate has today seized dominion to itself; its climbing to power would have been impossible without the newspaper and the journal ...Misery produces beggars; misery plus enlightenment produces Communists ... The instrument and pathbreaker for the coming revolution was not only the Socialist and Communist, but also the radical-liberal press. The preparatory work of liberal, democratic and Socialist organs, and the semi- or totally-atheistic popular literature was the constant undermining of the Christian, above all Catholic faith, and thereby also of Christian morality. This press formed the multifaceted anti-Church, the long present intellectual revolutionary power. It was and is the pioneer of revolution, the sendling to whom nothing is holy, and which storms tirelessly against the ecclesiastical and governmental order. With the daily press joined the journal-, brochure- and book-literature for the undermining of the religious foundations of society. What destruction has been caused just by the organs of the Lodge and the journals of the “Free from Rome” movement ... The dictatorship of the proletariat must, according to the law of cause and effect, according to the iron logic of events, be established sooner or later. The liberal destruction of the order of classes and the middle class, the capitalistic-technological development of the era, the centralizing of the population in the large cities, has furthered the growth of the proletarian class in sinister ways. Press and literature had awakened the consciousness of its power and freed it from ecclesiastical and religious instruction. With the annihilation of divine and Church authority, respect for governmental authority was also interred ... It is a very shortsighted concept to attribute the revolution of the proletariat solely to a lost four-year war... The revolutionary storm unleashed all the evil instincts that had been fed through the anti-Christian developments of the preceding era... July 3, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, In my respectful Report sent around the 20th of this June (I cannot indicate the precise date, because I transmitted the text, as customary, to Munich for the necessary registration in the Archive), dealing with the current political-religious situation in Bavaria, and particularly the recent Constitution proposal and the agreements (Vereinbarungen) concluded among the parties that entered into the new coalition Cabinet, I had the honor to report to Your Eminence how, in calling the attention of the Archbishop of Munich to various points contained in those agreements that do not conform to the principles of the Church, I had repeatedly and in a special way insisted upon the necessity that Catholics always have regard for the Concordat existing between the Holy See and Bavaria, the provisions of which cannot be licitly altered in any way without the prior consent of the Holy See itself. I caused a similar admonition to be made also, in another confidential and indirect way, to the leaders of the Bavarian Volkspartei (former Center Party). These measures were not without result. I read, in fact, in the Bavarian newspapers reaching me now (cf. Number 278 herein –Enclosure I – from the Augsburger Postzeitung), that on this June 25th the Commission charged with examining the aforesaid Constitution proposal initiated a general discussion in Bamberg. One of the first speakers was Deputy Held of the Bavarian Volkspartei, who, after raising other criticisms against this proposal, added, “Some provisions make possible some conflicts between the Cabinet Ministry and the Landtag, between the State and religious societies. Moreover, I do not see clearly what position Bavaria is taking vis-à-vis public treaties that it concluded up to now. Is there perhaps thought of a unilateral breaking of the Concordat? Does the Government have relations with the Holy See? The Bavarian Catholic population cannot be indifferent to this. Has the Government informed the Roman Curia of its existence? Still such an act would have been a necessary obligation of international courtesy. The President of the Reich, Ebert, certainly notified the Supreme Pontiff of the formation of his Government. When the Nuncio in Munich was threatened by Bolsheviks at the time of the dictatorship of the Councils, the then Soviet Minister, Dr. Lipp, apologized. [footnote by Pacelli: This detail is not historically exact, as is already known to Your Eminence.] Has Minister President Hoffmann taken steps to right the wrong committed then against the Nuncio? Has the Constitution proposal been submitted to the supreme ecclesiastical Authorities, to have their judgment about the provisions regarding the Church and the school? Why is it not possible to provide for parish appointments? “Mid- and lower-level officials allow the files to lie idle, since they do not receive further instructions as to what concerns the relations between the State and the Holy See. The rights of religious societies are not regulated in the proposal in a sufficient manner; in this regard the Constitutions of Württemberg and Baden are much more favorable and clear. In our proposal there is lacking any distinction between recognized and unrecognized religious societies, and it is not said if these have the rights of public corporations...” [ellipsis in the original] Minister President Hoffmann, being an anti-religious Socialist, could not dodge these insistent and categorical requests directed to him by the Catholic deputy. He responded: “The Government has opined that the current state of the issue does not yet make it necessary to present the proposal to the supreme ecclesiastical Authorities. The Concordat continues to be in effect. In sections 1 and 2 of paragraph 13 the relevant principles are enunciated. At the time when the drafting becomes definitive, there will be negotiations with the Roman Curia for an immediate reform, modification or abolition of the Concordat.” After having then said, moreover, that the agreements between the three parties of the coalition must form the basis of the new Bavarian Constitution, except naturally any contrary provisions of the Reich Constitution, Mr. Hoffmann expressed himself in this way about the future diplomatic relations between the Holy See and Bavaria: “The German Empire (Reich) will create a Legation at the Vatican. As is well known, the Bavarian Legations will probably stand abolished by the Reich Constitution. It is doubtful that along with a Legation of the Reich there could also remain in Rome a Legation of Bavaria. Minister Preger is presently negotiating at my charge in this way with the central Government.” The Catholic press echoed the words of Deputy Held. The Bayerischer Kurier of June 26 (Enclosure II) published a notable article – whose substance was also disseminated abroad by a telegram from the Wolff Agency – which, taking off on the issue of appointments to the parishes, where prolonged vacancies have caused grave harms to pastoral care and to the interests of the clergy, attacks the Bavarian Government for not having engaged with the Holy See for the purpose of resolving the pending political-ecclesiastical controversies. The newspaper deems that if this Government would engage with it, then the Holy See, in accordance with its custom, would not be averse to the introduction of a provisional modus vivendi, for example conceding in the issue of the parishes that the State would still continue to exercise the right of presentation, naturally on the condition that it would fulfill, in its turn, its correlative Concordat obligations. In reporting the above to Your Eminence, I humbly bow ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 261 July 9, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: The situation in Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, The news coming from Bavaria continues to be not very comforting. Despite the apparent tranquility, the much longed for state of secure calm has not yet arrived; indeed hidden forces are at work, now no less than before, in Bavaria just as in the rest of Germany, seeking to bring Bolshevik ideals into actual practice. Naturally the tactical methods for this purpose have needed be changed. After the fall of the Councils Republic, it was not possible under the government of the military authorities for the apostles of Bolshevism to whip up the masses in public gatherings. The tactics of Spartacism have known how to adapt themselves prudently to the changed circumstances. They have dispersed into the darkness; but leaflets promoting the Bolshevik cause and announcing its upcoming triumph show its persistent underground work. Words carelessly escaping the leaders and followers of Communist circles clearly reveal that at present indeed in Bavaria the forces of extreme radicalism are coming together to erupt violently one day throughout the land and overthrow the new current Government that was so painfully put together. In recent weeks agitators have taken especially targeted personnel of the communication services, seeking in every way to win them over to Bolshevism in the hope of attaining the “liberation of the proletariat” by paralyzing all of economic life via continuing strikes. Fortunately in Bavaria up to now these persons have not allowed themselves to be seduced into such chicanery; also some agents of these important services have communicated to the Authorities their various observations. Thus it is known that foreign agitators are continuing to pass through Bavaria for the purpose of having secret meetings and discussions, preferring to get off at secondary stations. Where the financial means are coming from, then, for such active propaganda, is a mystery only to those who do not know the organization of the Bolshevik movement. All the signs – including the trials underway in the military tribunals in Würzburg, Schweinfurt, etc. – show that the home ground of agitation for Bavaria is not exclusively Munich, although this city remains the rendezvous point for all the dangerous elements. The Independent Socialist Party, which from the electoral victory this past June has received new impetus, constitutes for the Socialists the corridor that leads to the camp of the Spartacists. Their press alerts of local uprisings, in Bavaria as elsewhere, let the workers know that the days of new battles and definitive victory are not far off, and exhort them to keep ready for the great decisive hour. It is to be hoped that the Governing Authorities, after the terrible experience of last April, are energetically and promptly taking appropriate measures to prevent the return of such tumults and to assure the Country of the tranquility and order that are indispensible for its restoration. In reporting the above to Your Most Reverend Eminence, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple … Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 262 July 12, 1919 Letter from Ambassador Otto Baron von Ritter zu Groenesteyn to Nuncio Pacelli: Strictly Confidential! Dear Archbishop! Today I received an inquiry concerning you personally from Herr Minister President Hoffmann in Bamberg. I believe I am acting properly by transmitting to you herewith the text of the inquiry, with the request that you tell me as soon as possible what answer I should give to this. The inquiry is presumably occasioned by the discussion in the Bavarian Constitution Committee, which is surely known to you. During a talk provoked by Delegate Held, the Minister President spoke of the Nunciature in Munich. Its preservation, in his opinion, is very much in question, but they are inclined to the view that it should continue to exist. On account of the Concordat, they will be negotiating in any event about concordats, if legislation makes it necessary. That will occur if there is intervention in the relationship of State and Church. Within the Government it appears to everyone that in order to awaken sympathy for this, it is your duty to enter the Nunciature, and that it was a mistake to disregard it in the manner that has unfortunately occurred. Many of the delays must be laid to the account of diplomatic inexperience as well as to the account of the Sturm und Drang [storm and stress] period in which the new men of the Government had their heads full of other things and, so to speak, were fighting for their own existence. Perhaps now they are feeling secure. The inquiry I mentioned can also perhaps be attributed to a desire to enter now into personal contact with you, without having to express that desire directly. For it may well occur to Herr Hoffman to move in this direction, as it has been outlined to me about him, though it may also be possible that he recognizes duties as Minister President that he must necessarily fulfill now that he has Center Party members in his Ministerial Cabinet. So that such personal contact could commence, however, Herr Minister President must first be in Munich. In any event, in my opinion, in the inquiry about your return, there is no criticism of any effort to avoid your adjourning your residence in Switzerland. The subject of the inquiry concerns only your return, not your departure. I believe that the desire also exists in Center Party circles to have the representative of the Holy See again in the country, in order to be able to negotiate with it about the important questions that now universally arise. If these negotiations are excluded or even just made more difficult, then the resulting difficulties in entering into direct relationship with Rome could bring a certain responsibility upon the Vatican, if contact with it is discontinued and harm arises thereby to the Church. All my efforts are going in that direction, and it would be valuable for me to know if you consider it important wherever possible to prevent a situation where the Government makes unilateral decrees in res mixtae [matters of mixed Church-State interest]. For when matters are decreed in that way, it becomes much more difficult to remedy them. If the Government is also perhaps not always inclined, at the outset of such-and-such arrangement or legislation to enter into advance contact with the Vatican or even with the Church authorities in Bavaria, then the presence of the Nuncio could well be a hindrance to such matters gaining momentum and this last would, under current circumstances, at least be attained earlier than before. All these considerations appear to me to make it advisable that you not remain away from Munich too long, provided naturally, that you are no longer threatened with such dangers as before. That must, in my opinion, be said to be the responsibility of the inquiry of the Minister President. The newspapers were muttering some time ago about turbulent movements in Munich. I do not know, however, to what extent these rumors had or have now any foundation. Original German: Heute habe ich eine Ihre Person betreffende Anfrage von dem Herrn Ministerpräsident Hoffmann aus Bamberg erhalten. Ich glaube richtig zu handeln, wenn ich Ihnen anbei den Wortlaut der Anfrage übersende mit der Bitte, mir so bald als möglich zu sagen, was ich darauf antworten soll. Die Anfrage ist vermutlich durch die Diskussion in bayerischen Verfassungsausschuss, die Ihnen sicherlich bekannt ist, veranlasst. Durch die Rede des Abgeordneten Held provoziert sprach der Ministerpräsident von der Nuntiatur in München. Die Erhaltung derselben, so meinte er sei zwar fraglich, aber man neige zu der Ansicht dass sie weiter bestehen könne. Wegen des Konkordates werde man jedenfalls mit den Konkordate verhandeln, wenn die Gesetzgebung es nötig mache. Das werde bei Eingriffen in das Verhältnis von Staat und Kirche geschehen. Bei der Regierung scheint nach allem dem doch das Verständnis dafür zu erwachen, dass es ihre Pflicht ist, der Nuntiatur näher zu treten, und dass es ein Fehler war, sie so zu vernachlässigen, wie es leider geschehen ist. Vieles von dem Versäumten muss man aber auf Konto diplomatischer Unerfahrenheit sowie auf Konto der Sturm und Drangperiode setzen, in der die neuen Regierungsmänner den Kopf voll von anderen Dingen hatten und so zu sagen um ihre Existenz kämpften. Vielleicht fühlen sie sich jetzt sicher. Der erwähnten Anfrage kann etwa auch der Wunsch zu Grunde liegen, nunmehr einmal in persönliche Fühlung mit Ihnen zu treten, ohne direkt den Wunsch aussprechen zu müssen. Denn persönlich wird es wohl, Herrn Hoffmann, wie man ihn mir geschildert hat kaum nahe liegen, nach dieser Richtung zu machen, aber es wäre doch möglich, dass er Pflichten des Ministerpräsidenten erkennt, die er gezwungenermassen erfüllen muss, nachdem er Zentrumsleute in seinem Ministerium hat. Damit es zu dieser Fühlungnahme kommt, muss aber der Herr Ministerpräsident erst einmal in München sein. Jedenfalls soll nach meinem Dafürhalten in der Anfrage nach Ihrer Rückkehr keine Kritik an derem entgehenden Verlegung ihres Wohnsitzes in die Schweiz liegen. Es ist in der Anfrage immer nur von der Rückkehr, nicht von der Abreise die Rede. Ich glaube, dass auch in Zentrumskreisen der Wunsch besteht, bald wieder den Vertreter des Hl. Stuhles im Lande zu haben, um eher in der Lage zu sein, sich der wichtige Fragen, die jetzt allenthalben auftachen, mit ihm in’s Benehmen treten zu können. Wenn Letzteres ausgeschlossen oder auch nur erschwert wird, dann könnte bei den derzeitigen Schwierigkeiten, direkt mit Rom in Verbindung zu treten, den Vatikan eine gewisse Schuld treffen, wenn eine Fühlungnahme mit ihm unterbliebe und daraus der Kirche Schaden erwüchse. Mein ganzes Bestreben geht dahin und es wäre mir wertvoll zu wissen, ob Sie das billigen, wo möglich zu verhindern, dass bei uns von den Regierungen in res mixtae einseitig dekretiert werde. Denn dann wenn einso dekretiert ist, wird es viel schwieriger Remedur zuschaffen. Wenn auch die Regierung vielleicht nicht immer dafür zu haben sein wird, bei der Entstehung einer solchen Verfügung oder eines solchen Gesetzes vorher in Fühlung mit dem Vatikan oder auch nur mit den kirchlichen Stellen im Lande zu treten, so könnte dies doch bei Anwesenheit des Nuntius noch eher verhindert werden, wenn dieser von der Sache Wind bekommt und Letzteres wäre wohl bei den jetzigen Zuständen noch ehe zu erreichen als früher. Alle diese Erwägungen scheinen es mir persönlich erwünscht erscheinen lassen, dass Sie nicht mehr zu lange von München wegbleiben, vorausgesetzt natürlich, dass Ihnen nicht mehr ähnliche Gefahren wie früher drohen. Das müsste meines Erachtens bei der Beantwortung der Anfrage des Ministerpräsident gesaget werden. Die Zeitungen munkelten vor einiger Zeit noch von unruhigen Bewegungen in München. Ich weiss aber nicht, in wie weit diese Gerüchte begründet waren oder noch sind. Source: Bavarian Main State Archive, Nachlass Ritter, folder no. 63. July 15, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri, transmitting [Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 3036] the following memorandum from Matthias Erzberger re the circumstances leading to the signing of the Versailles Treaty by the German Government: After the Allies and associated governments had rejected the German counter-proposals to the proposed peace treaty of the Allies, conceding only the guarantee of several secondary facilitations, and afterwards had fixed an extremely short deadline (June 23rd) for the decision of the German Government, the latter came face to face with the stark, pitiless question of accepting or rejecting the peace treaty, and, in the latter case, of taking on before its own people the enormous responsibility for a new war. Public opinion, at least as seen in the press, was divided into two camps: one part agitated for signing without reservations, the other for rejection pure and simple. Those for signing without reserve were above all the Independent Socialists, while the Right and the Democrats were making propaganda for refusing to sign. The Majority Socialists and the Center Party, for tactical reasons, had not committed as to the question of signing; but also in those parties, opinion was anything but unanimous. Also the Cabinet found itself divided into two camps on the question of sign or not to sign. Especially the Democrats energetically proposed rejecting... ... What would have been the situation if there had been a refusal to sign the peace treaty? The Allies would have continued to march into Germany. The state of war would have recommenced immediately ... On June 22nd ... Socialists and Center presented a motion inviting the National Assembly to authorize the Government to sign the peace treaty. The motion was accepted by 237 votes vs 138 and 5 abstentions. The motion carried with the votes of the Center Party, the Majority Socialists, the Independent Socialists, and some deputies of the Democratic Party. [meeting through the night of June 22-23, the new Socialist-Center Party Cabinet could not reach a decision] ... Of decisive importance both for the Center Party and for the troops’ opinion of the Government, was the telegram from the Quartermaster General of the Supreme Army Command direct to the President of the Republic, Ebert, stating that military resistance was hopeless and that the Ministry of War had to assume co-responsibility for concluding the peace... The Cabinet decision on the morning of June 23rd therefore was based on an agreement among the Center Party, the Socialist Party and the army, to sign the peace treaty. In the afternoon, at 3:00, a session of the National Assembly took place, in which a simple authorization was conferred on the Government to conclude the peace ... The Center Party and the Socialist Party now form the Government. In opposition are the Democrats, the right, and the extreme left. It will not be easy for the Center to take on the weight of the Government alone with the Socialist Party. If the Center Party stuck to it, it did it only to prevent the chaos that would have threated the culture and the unity of the Reich, the Church and the State, if a majority had not formed to sign the peace treaty... Germany would have had a Government formed by Independent Socialists or Communists. Placing the Center Party at the disposal of the Government did nothing other than bring the consequence of its responsibility before the German people to bring a guarantee against internal collapse. It is necessary to add that the Minister of Finance, Erzberger, as the personality directing the peace policy of the Cabinet, is exposed to the fiercest attacks by the rightwing parties and certain circles of officials. Some plans for attempts on his life have been uncovered. The campaign initiated against him by the parties of the right is continuing with the same intensity. He endures the dangers that threaten him with a clear conscience of having done his best for the good of the German people in the hope that the German people will soon recognize that it was better to yield to the brutal violence of the Allies than to go, by refusing to sign, to greater misery. Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 2808 July 23, 1919 Pacelli to Maglione in Bern for Gasparri in Rome: Most Excellent and Reverend Signore, Allow me to ask you to please do me the favor of telegraphing in code from me to my Most Eminent Superior as follows: Minister Erzberger asks urgently whether there would be any difficulty as to publishing the telegram of the British Government to the English Minister (in Rome) in response to the Papal Peace Note and my letter of August 30, 1917, by which I communicated to the Chancellor a request for a statement about Belgium, as instructed by Your Eminence. A copy of that letter was transmitted by me to the Holy See in September of that year. Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 17977 July 24, 1919 Maglione to Pacelli: Most Reverend Excellency, In response to Your Most Reverend Excellency’s esteemed letter of yesterday, I have the honor to assure You that I have already sent in code to your Most Eminent Superior the telegram therein contained, concerning the request directed to Him by Minister Erzberger. Kissing, then, reverently, the sacred ring, I have the pleasure of confirming my sentiments of profound veneration … Fr. Luigi Maglione Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 17729 July 25, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: The School Issue in Germany Most Reverend Eminence, The very serious school question in Germany has recently arrived at a solution, about which I am carrying out my duty to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence. After long and difficult negotiations, the two parties that currently participate in the coalition Reich Cabinet, the Center Party and the Majority Socialists, arrived on July 14th at a compromise, the text of which I have the honor to send here-enclosed (Enclosure I). It concerns three points: the denominational school, religious instruction, and the private school. Concerning the first point, it is established that in each Community, the desires of the parents or those responsible for a child’s education will decide whether and to what extent there will be a public simultaneous or inter-denominational school (which will admit students of various denominations) or a public denominational school (for children exclusively from one religious denomination), or a school that is non-religious or laicized. A Reich law will have to be enacted to resolve the details of this provision, and until then the current regulations will remain in effect. In this manner, alongside the inter-denominational school and the denominational school, a third type of school has now been introduced, namely the laicized school (long demanded by Socialism), which will not have in its curriculum any religious instruction, but instead a course of history of religion or of morals. It needs to be recognized, however, that under current political-social conditions, such a disaster is unfortunately inevitable, and then again, it was achieved that the rights and desires of the parents were made the foundation, in place of the omnipotence of the State. The preservation of the denominational school in individual communities, also as concerns minorities, will thus depend not on the decision of the governing authorities, but on the desires of the parents themselves. Religious instruction remains a subject of the school curriculum, with the exception (as already mentioned) of the non-denominational or laicized school. The frequenting of this course (like the participation in religious practices) depends on the will of the parents or guardians, in such a way, however, that once they decide, the students remain obligated to follow the instruction in question. Corresponding to this provision, also in the laicized school it is the province of the parents to state if they want their children to attend or not the course of study in religion or morals. The aforesaid norms will allow Catholics most of the time to arrange the establishment of a proper denominational school, even if they are in the minority. But, beyond that, in another point of this compromise, which is particularly important for small groups of Catholics in the Diaspora, the possibility of a private elementary school (Volksschule) is also assured in the event that (and only in such event) there is no public denominational school in the respective community. These private schools must be found to be on a par with the public ones as to their organization and academic formation of the teachers, and this academic and technical equality is required also for the pre-existing private schools. In regard to the latter, an improvement has been attained in the sense that the approval of them does not depend on the whim of the Authorities, but must be conceded whenever the conditions prescribed by law are verified. The Socialists feared that such private schools would easily become caste-based institutions for the richest classes; but this concern has been removed by requiring that there must be an appropriate gradation of school fees in a way that also allows the children of the less well-off classes to attend the school. Finally, the Theological Faculties existing in the State Universities are preserved. The aforesaid compromise was debated and approved by the National Assembly in Weimar on July 18th. Interior Minister David declared the Government’s acceptance of it. Speakers from the Socialists and the Center Party equally defended the proposal, which on the other hand was opposed by the Democrats, the parties of the right, and the Independent Socialists (Enclosure II). The above-referenced provisions, like moreover any type of compromise, are certainly far from satisfying all the legitimate aspirations of the Catholics, who saw themselves forced to make sad concessions and surrenders; nonetheless, considering the current circumstances, it is to be hoped they will be approved by the National Assembly also in the third reading of the Constitution, despite the very strong and growing opposition movement that is being attempted against them. Humbly bowing ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 1036 July 26, 1919 Maglione in Bern to Gasparri, encrypted telegram: Minister Erzberger would like to make public the telegram sent by the English Government to the British Minister to the Holy See in response to the Holy Father’s appeal for peace, as well as a letter from Mons. Pacelli dated August 30, 1917, in which he shared with the German Chancellor the aforesaid telegram, seizing upon the occasion to ask him, in conformity to the instructions given him by Your Reverend Eminence, a statement concerning Belgium. Via Mons. Pacelli, the Hon. Erzberger asks urgently if the Holy See would have anything against the publication of these documents. Mons. Pacelli avers that he sent Your Eminence a copy of his letter of August 30, 1917 in the month of September that year. Maglione Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 7934 July 26, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, From the Bavarian newspapers reaching me here today (cf. enclosed Nos. 287 of the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten and 205 of the Bayerischer Kurier), I learn that on July 22 a session took place in Bamberg of the Landtag Committee for Foreign Affairs, in which was discussed, among other things, the question of the Bavarian Diplomatic Corps. Truly, when Professor Foerster gave his resignation as Bavaria’s representative in Bern, the Cabinet of Ministers proposed to the aforesaid Commission not to proceed with the appointment of a new title holder, since, according to the new Reich Constitution, Bavaria will lose the right to have its own Foreign Legations. This proposal was approved by the Commission. As to what concerns diplomatic relations with the Holy See, nevertheless, Minister President Hoffmann stated that “for the Nunciature the question is different,” and indeed the Democratic deputy Dr. Piloty affirmed that “the Foreign Legations are useless for Bavaria with the exception of the Nunciature.” In this way it will remain the sole diplomatic representation in Munich, and it is believed (although there was no special mention of this) that the Bavarian Legation to the Holy See will also be able to be correspondingly preserved. As to the Legations to the other States of the Reich, it seems that only the one to Berlin will be maintained, except to establish commercial attachés elsewhere. In reporting the above to Your Most Reverend Eminence, I bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 9721 July 27, 1919 Excerpts from Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 30, “Vatican Review” section, pp. 228-229: “Vatican Review: June 1919” ...the Holy Father said ... in the second part of his talk ... “After we perceived that some decisions were made at the Versailles Peace Conference from which it appeared that they would not leave the rights of preaching the Gospel unimpaired and unrestricted, We turned confidentially to the members of that conference and asked them to turn their attention to these matters. We even sent a prominent Prelate of the Roman Curia there with the assignment to protect these rights so far as possible...” Archbishop Cerretti arrived back in Rome on June 27th, after Balfour delivered to him in the name of the four allied powers the text of the provisions of the peace treaty with Germany that had been modified at the instance of the Holy See, along with an explanation from the allied and associated governments... A particular success was to have the Pope recognized for the first time in a document of international law as the highest authority of Catholics ... Further assignments for the Vatican diplomat were reported by Italian sources: that he had negotiated concerning the Custodianship [over the Holy Places] of the Franciscans in Palestine, the Protectorate over Christians in the Middle East, union with the schismatic Armenian Church, and Hagia Sophia [in Istanbul]. Undoubtedly it was these reports that Osservatore Romano meant when it made fun of all the unfounded “Vatican reports” in its no. 170 of July 3rd concerning the recent mission of Archbishop Cerretti, in which “various Italian and foreign papers reaped a rich harvest of erroneous and unfounded reports.”... In its no. 159 Osservatore Romano published a letter from the Holy Father to the Bishops of the Church Province of Benevento ... On June 4th the Pope received the representatives of the Roman Diocesan Eucharistic Congress ... The Osservatore of June 5th carried the text of the extensive speech ... German originals: page 228 and page 229 July 28, 1919 Maglione in Bern to Gasparri, encrypted telegram: I am transmitting a telegram from Mons. Pacelli: “Notwithstanding that to the request of Minister Erzberger, which I reported to Your Eminence in my previous telegram, I had responded twice in the negative, including as to a partial publication of the documents in question, he, to defend against attacks made by his adversaries, mentioned this in the speech he delivered in the National Assembly this past Friday, and in a completely inaccurate manner, although, I believe, in good faith. Concerning the entire last part about me personally, it is truly only this: that I said to the Hon. Erzberger, as to many other persons, that after the German Government’s response to the pontifical appeal for peace, any probability of a near-term end of the war had vanished.” Maglione Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 5092 July 29, 1919 Pacelli in Rorschach to Gasparri, draft encrypted telegram: In his statement Michaelis insinuated that before my letter reached the Chancellor, Erzberger already knew about it. I immediately telegraphed the Wolff News Agency declaring in accordance with the truth that Erzberger did not learn from me in any way the content of the letter. Since the polemics are assuming large proportions, I would subordinately deem it opportune that Osservatore Romano immediately establish the correct facts, making it known that it was not a matter of separate negotiations nor English peace offer, but of negotiations pursuant to the Pontifical Peace Note. Pacelli Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 3751 July 29, 1919 Gasparri to Pacelli: Most Illustrious and Reverend Signore, Your Confidential Report of this July 17th has reached me in due course, which has the subject: “The Bavarian Government and the Munich Nunciature.” I am now considering telling It that, considering the current arrangements of that Government, I deem it opportune that Your Excellency return without ado to Munich, unless you were to judge that there be serious proximate dangers in the Nunciature. I would then like to have Your Excellency send from Munich, in a very secure manner, the here-enclosed enveloped to Cardinal von Hartmann that was just returned. You should first opportunely take a look at it, then have it carefully sealed. I also acknowledge receiving several Reports with their respective Enclosures: that of July 15 – Thanks expressed to the Holy Father in the National Assembly at Weimar; that also of the 15th – Erzberger’s report that was sent... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 1579 July 30, 1919 Maglione in Bern to Pacelli in Rorschach: Most Reverend Excellency, I have the honor to transmit to Your Most Reverend Excellency the following telegram sent to me yesterday by the Most Eminent Superior in response to Yours given to me by telephone on the 27th: “Considering what You shared with me, it is opportune that You consent to Minister Erzberger publishing the entirety of the indicated documents.” Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 1648 July 30, 1919 Maglione in Bern to Gasparri: I have been asked by Mons. Pacelli to transmit the following: “Michaelis in the statements he just made, insinuates that Erzberger was made aware by me of the well-known letter, already before it came into the hands of the Chancellor. As a result of this, I believed it opportune to send a telegram to the Wolff News Agency saying in accordance with the truth that in no way did Mr. Erzberger know from me the content of the letter. Your Reverend Eminence may wish to have a similar statement published also in L’Osservatore Romano. Also, in the expectation that polemics will take on major proportions, allow me to tell you that, as it seems to me subordinately, it is opportune to compile in the columns of the same newspaper an exact reconstruction of the facts, properly emphasizing the circumstance that in this case it was not a matter of an offer of peace being already made by England, but rather of negotiations pursuant to the Peace Appeal launched by the Holy Father to the belligerent nations. It also seems to me necessary and urgent that the Holy See, via the Prussian Legation, ask the Berlin Government that such publications of diplomatic documents not recur without prior consent.” Maglione Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 5093 July 31, 1919 Pacelli in Rorschach to Maglione in Bern: Most Illustrious and Reverend Signore, Allow me to ask You to please send to the Most Eminent Superior the following telegram: “Having read the entire text of the statement with ex-Chancellor Michaelis’s general insinuations against the security and discretion of pontifical diplomacy, I immediately gave the press a short message in reply to the unjust accusation, taking the occasion to repeat that Erzberger did not have knowledge from me either about my letter to the Chancellor nor about the response.” Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 17976 Aug. 1, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: After reports by the Havas news service, to prevent new polemics in Germany, if publication of the text of Your Reverend Eminence’s cover letter would be expected, it would be necessary to declare that it corresponds with my already-published letter to the Chancellor. Erzberger’s deplorable indiscretion has led, nevertheless, to good consequences there, indeed making better appreciated the Holy See’s work for peace. Source: Encrypted cable, Aug. 1, 1919, Pacelli from Rorschach to Gasparri in Rome, via Vatican Nuncio Maglione in Switzerland, Vatican Secret Archives, Archive of the Munich Nunciature, pos. 413, fasc. 3, fol. 89r, reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 5094. Aug. 2, 1919 La Documentation Catholique, pp. 196ff.: “The Jewish Power - Jews and Bolsheviks” The Jew! Bismarck, Beaconsfield, the French Republic, Gambetta, etc., all that, absolutely is only a mirage. It is the Jew alone and his Bank that is their master, for them and all Europe. All of a sudden, he says veto, and Bismarck falls like a withered plant. The Jew and his Bank are today the masters of everything, of Europe, of instruction, of civilization, of socialism, above all socialism, by which the Jew will snatch away Christianity and destroy civilization. And, when there is nothing left but anarchy, the Jew will place himself in charge of everything. Because, in propagating anarchy, the Jews will remain united among themselves; and when all the riches of Europe are dissipated, there will remain the Bank of the Jews. This prophecy, written by Dostoyevsky in 1880 and recounted in the Libre Parole of June 13, 1919 at the head of an article entitled “XXX” on the law of the Talmud, we are seeing implemented before our eyes. Let us look towards Eastern Europe. Poland re-arises; but, knowing what she once was, on the borders of the Orient, the great Catholic power, and that she will only have a future by taking up again this tradition, the Jewish International unceasingly engages its universal propaganda against the reborn nation. Analysis of the facts shows us the natural alliance that exists, on this point, between the interest of the Jews and the interest of the German Empire. “Jews and Bolshevism” The Matin posed the question, on June 2, 1919: “What mysterious order stopped the allied troops at the gates of Petersburg and of Budapest, at the moment when they were on the point of finishing off Bolshevism?” And it did not hesitate to report the opinion of a Russian arriving from Petersburg and accusing the high influence of financiers. This confirmation, unexpected in such a place, of the thesis maintained in the Senate by Mr. Gaudin de Villaine (session of May 13, 1919), incited Mr. Albert Monniot to sum up the situation in several sentences in the Libre Parole. A dark power dominates the visible powers who are discussing peace terms, and is dictating their resolutions, as it directed the events of 1914: that is the businessman of the Anglo-Saxons, that is the Financier International, that is, to call it by its real name, the Jewish High Bank. (Libre Parole, June 3, 1919). To be sure, rigorous proof of such a trenchant affirmation cannot yet be provided; but will anyone deny that everything is happening as if this affirmation was scientifically established? The Correspondant, which is certainly not suspected of antisemitism, recently gave, unfortunately unattributed, an article of very great historical interest on Russian Bolshevism considered from this point of view. La Croix reproduced the essential part: The Bolshevik chiefs. - A significant fact is the extraordinary number of Jews at the head of the Bolsheviks: 75 of the 100 “commissars” who have the general direction of the party are Jews, and influential Jewish personages in the Soviets are legion. It is remarkable that the Jews have judged it good to keep Russian pseudonyms that they had previously adopted, as a protective measure, so to speak, against the police. Trotsky’s name is Bronstein, he is an Israelite and a journalist. Zinoviev’s name is Apfelbaum, he likewise is a Jew and a journalist. Sverdlov is a Jewish pharmacist. Kamenev is really named Rosenfeldt; he is a Jew who has done university studies. Ouritski, the man who “made” the elections, is a Jew whose name is Moise Salomonovitch. Joffe, Rakivski, Radek, Menjinski, Larine, Bronski, Zalkind, Velodarski, Petrov, Litvinov, Smidovitch, Vorovski, Steklov, etc., are all Jews. (Croix, June 3, 1919) An article in the Politique, entitled “The Black Pope of Bolshevism,” adds this curious information, from London, which readers of D.C. will appreciate while smiling at the “anti-Jesuitism”: M.A. Sokoloff, a former Bolshevik, who ceased to be such after the rupture between Bolshevism and the socialist democrats, who collaborated afterwards in the Novaya Jizn, Gorki’s newspaper, traced in the Times a portrait of Dzerdjinsky, the “black pope” of Bolshevism. Just as, he says, the Catholic Church is governed by a black pope under the title General of the Jesuits, hidden behind the ostensible Pope, Bolshevism has two chiefs: Lenin, the infallible and impeccable, who holds spiritual power, and Dzerdjinsky the unshakeable, to whom is confided the sword of temporal power. Dzerdjinsky has no other title than “commissar of the extraordinary Commission for the suppression of commercial abuses and counter-revolutionary conspiracies,” a Commission that is the successor of the former police service. It passes for being completely uninvolved in politics; but a part of its existence has flowed into the prisons and Siberia, and it is there that it had to learn the means of extermination that it makes such remarkable use of today. (Politique, June 15, 1919) “The Israelites and Poland: Jewish Propaganda and the ‘Pogroms’” If Bolshevism and Judaism appear to have ties in part, how astonishing is it if the Poles, in a war with Bolshevism, do not feel predilection and love for the Jews? Perhaps they have had, in some encounters, the heavy hand, and they have not taken sufficient account of whom their blows fall upon. But from that, to clamor about pogroms, as our socialist newspapers like L’Humanité, the Journal du Peuple and the Populaire are doing along with far too many English and American papers, is going a bit far. We are always helping provide a new demonstration of the “invisible head of the orchestra” in favor of Israel. “In England” L’Humanité, in an unusual expression of sympathy with a religious act, informed us that, on June 26th, the entire Jewish population of London took off from work and spent the day in prayer to protest against the “massacres” of Jews in Poland. Here is the “fraternal message” that the Executive Committee of the Jewish Socialist Party of Great Britain sent on that occasion to the British Labor Party: A general strike and fast have been proclaimed for 24 hours to protest against the atrocious pogroms and the barbarisms committed with regard to Jews in more than 100 towns in Poland. Hundreds of persons, including women and children, have been killed, and Polish troops took part in these horrible crimes. All Jewish workers must participate in our national mourning, and we hope that the Conference of the Labor Party, representing organized labor in Great Britain, will show its solidarity toward the oppressed Jewish nation by voting a resolution condemning the pillage and murders that are being currently produced in Poland as in epochs of barbarism. The Jewish working class of the entire world wants a free and independent Poland, but these atrocities are a shame upon the Polish nation and upon humanity, and it is the duty of every man who is a friend of freedom to protest strongly against them. (Humanité, June 29, 1919) “In Paris” The Journal du Peuple reveals to us, for its part, that the same day (which it is not unimportant to confirm) the Permanent Administrative Commission of the French Socialist Party voted unanimously on the motion of the Israelite Rappoport, for the following order of the day: The Commission, informed by telegraph by the citizen Huysmans, of anti-Jewish pogroms organized by the Poles, raises, in the name of humanity and of socialism, its strongest protest and makes an appeal to the international proletariat to influence Governments and public opinion to put an end to the abominable massacres that are signifying a return to the barbarism of the Middle Ages. The Commission is of the opinion that the admission of the socialist-democratic party of Lithuania to the International should be distinguished. (Journal du Peuple, June 30, 1919) “In the United States” One month earlier, Senator Calder, of the State of New York, proposed in the United States Senate, which adopted it unanimously, a resolution conceived as follows: Wherefore it is reported that innocent men, women and children, particularly of the Jewish religion, are being persecuted and massacred in Poland, in Romania and in Galicia; Therefore: Be it resolved by the United States Senate that the State Department be and is, presently, invited to communicate this news to the President of the United States, and to ask him to confer with the representatives at the Peace Conference from the countries where it is reported that these massacres and persecutions took place, and to let them know that this Assembly and the American people in their entirety profoundly deplore the acts of cruelty committed against men, women and children on account of their race or their religion. (New York Sun, May 27, 1919) This vote was the point of departure for ardent polemics in the press of the United States. Certain major newspapers pronounced from on high: Since the Great Powers are demanding explanations from the Italian Government on the subject of troop landings in Asia Minor, why are they not also demanding of the Polish Government not only explanations, but the cessation and suppression of outrages victimizing the Jews of that country? The new Poland is a child born of the Conference... It would be a scandal if the Poles were to abuse the freedom they were just given by refusing it to a great number of their fellow citizens... (New York Times, May 23, 1919) In denying that the Poles were capable of pogroms, and in attributing the news about it to German propaganda, Mr. Paderewski, President of the Council of Poland, is badly informed. This news came to the United States from numerous sources that have no possible connection to Germany, and in many cases the Jews of the United States have the means to confirm the facts. They are also capable, in many cases, of proving the absurdity of the claim that the victims are Bolsheviks or supporters of Bolshevism. The facts are open and obvious, and the best thing the Polish Government could do is to stop denying them and to promise that the massacres will stop. (Springfield Republican, May 29, 1919) Fortunately, not all the American press is speaking in this tone to Poland, and these calm and reasonable words can fortunately be read in the Boston Transcript: The first move by informed and reflective people should be to consider with a surprise bordering on incredulity the accusation that the massacres of Jews that have been said to be committed have been done by the Poles, and that the Polish Government is responsible for them... Given that through the centuries Poland has given proof, in religious matters, of a proverbial tolerance and has given asylum to persecuted Jews from other countries, and that one of the first acts of its new Government was to give Jews the same civil rights as members of other religions, it would be truly extraordinary if this country were to renounce its secular policy and were to put into practice a violent antisemitism. For similar reasons, one will be naturally and strongly brought to the suspicion that Germany is not unrelated to these massacres. It is a well known historical fact tht Frederick II prepared his departure from Poland by having Germans, disguised as Poles and Jews, commit horrible atrocities against members of other religions in Poland... There is reason to suspect that Germany is currently playing a similar game. The massacres are probably either committed or encouraged by Germany, or again these are victims of criminal Bolsheviks introduced into Poland by Germany to create troubles. Such a policy would constitute, for Germany, a totally natural attempt to take revenge for the liberation of Polish provinces that were long kept under the German yoke. (Boston Transcript, May 26, 1919) “Pogroms and Lynchings” The World goes further. It declares itself in favor of Poland. It bluntly responds to Calder’s motion in a manner that our friendship for America would have prevented us from saying so crudely, namely that if the Poles have their pogroms, the Americans have their lynchings ... “The Organization of the Calumny” According to what President Paderewski has solemnly affirmed, the German propaganda services have organized throughout the world the dissemination of appalling calumnies. L’Ordre Public decries with precision the procedures employed: Since the Armistice, hardly a week goes by without dispatches that signal some pogrom against Jews in Poland. Now, all these reports, without exception, have been launched from Germany. The most frequent source is the Wolf Agency itself, which informed the universe of a new massacre of Jews by the Polish population... The Jews of Poland, during the war, were in general pure Germanophiles. Many enriched themselves in a scandalous way, and finally they furnished to Bolshevism its principal agents. (A.V., Ordre Public, June 30, 1919) (footnote: An interesting article in the Times (July 21, 1919) confirms the previously cited reasons for the unpopularity of the Jews: Germanophilism, Bolshevism, monopolizing and speculation. It adds this detail, frequently employed by the Germans or Austrians in making requisitions, that the Jews would requisition far more commodities than were necessary, thus giving them stocks of merchandise they would sell at exorbitant prices. (Note by D.C.) “The German Interest in This Propaganda” The Times, for its part, puts matters in focus with a particular authority, having published so many articles favorable to the Israelites; it shows, moreover, the German interest in making it believed that Poland is beset by antisemitic troubles: Dateline Warsaw, June 15th: The attitude of certain English and American gazettes that are accustomed to exaggerating at will the importance of local troubles that are produced in certain parts of Poland, to transform them into a pogrom, has caused here a painful impression. The tragic accounts that have been given of the pogrom of Czestochowa are greatly exaggerated; and, if it is accurate that a certain number of Israelites were mistreated by the crowd, it is still more certain that the authorities cracked down strongly against the makers of these disorders. Without wanting to excuse the guilty, who will certainly be severely punished, it is appropriate to reveal certain facts that will shed a new light on these incidents. It is beyond doubt that the crowed was stirred up by German provocateurs. The Polish authorities have in their hands a most curious document that proves Germany is trying to provoke anti-Jewish troubles in Poland. It is a memorandum addressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Berlin to his foreign diplomatic representatives, which concludes with these words: “The results attained to date are very interesting; they commit us to continue our campaign in the same spirit. The time has come to put our propaganda into action. If we manage to isolate Poland diplomatically, France’s situation on the continent will weaken.” (Temps, June 18, 1919) It is a pleasure to see, at almost the same time, equally just ideas expressed in an English organ as widely circulated as the Morning Post: What is the pernicious and sinister influence that is working in the Allied Councils against the cause of Poland? We believe it is the secret and despicable influence of international finance. We see, for example, that the Peace Conference placed the Jews of Poland under the special protection of the League of Nations. Nevertheless, the Conference of Polish Jews, which desires to be loyal subjects of the Polish State, protested that they are content with the protection of the Polish Government. Today, it is amply proven that there is an organized campaign of lies and exaggerations against Poland. For months, we have been receiving detailed accounts of pogroms that have never taken place…The truth is that there is now a quasi famine reigning in Poland, and that the shops, of which a great number are Jewish, have been looted by the crowd. Then, in the combats between the Poles and the Ukrainians and the Bolsheviks, some Jews were captured who were fighting in the ranks of the enemy, and these Jews were killed by firing squads. That is what this scaffolding of lies has been built upon. Why? Is it to discredit the Poles in England and in France just at the moment when the Germans are going to attack them? That is what it all looks like. (Morning Post of London, June 27, 1919) “The Privileges of Jews Assured by Article 93 of the Treaty of Versailles” All these maneuvers, even if openly visible, were yet not in vain. They succeeded in assuring to the Jews of Poland these extraordinary privileges specified in the Letter of the President of the Peace Conference to Mr. Paderewski and in the special treaty aimed at Poland. It is Article 93 of the Treaty of Versailles that gave the principal allied and associated powers the right to intervene in Polish affairs. Art. 93. – Poland accepts, in agreeing to the insertion into a treaty with the principal allied and associated powers, such provisions as the Powers judge necessary to protect in Poland the interests of inhabitants who differ from the majority of the population by race, language, or religion... “Poland Against These Privileges” All the Polish press rose up against this article, that is to say against the bestowing of particular international guarantees to national or confessional minorities. For example ... “Fusionist and Nationalist Jews” But it is even much more interesting to see a portion of the Polish Jews themselves take a position against the guarantees that the Conference wants to impose on them... “Important Protest of the Diet of Warsaw” To what extent such pretensions go against national Polish sentiment, is easy to confirm in reading the motion adopted by the Diet of Warsaw, unanimously and without discussion, in the session of June 6, 1919, on the proposition of the national popular Union and the populist Association: The Diet of the Polish Republic affirms that Poland is not a new State, but one of the most ancient States of Europe, possessing uninterrupted traditions of liberty and justice. The Polish Republic has never oppressed any nation, nor conducted any annexation, nor undertaken any religious persecution... The Diet expresses the conviction that the Allies will recognize the wrong influcted on Poland by this proposition and that this article will be modified… Despite this unanimous motion, the Paris Conference maintained Article 93, and we will see what consequences it produces. “The Conference Is Not Inspired by Justice, but by Certain Interests” Nothing, in theory, justifies them. Mr. Francois Bujak, Professor at the University of Krakow, summaries this issue of law in some luminous lines: Poland cannot refuse the possibility to constitute a modern State completely on a par with the other civilized States that currently exist. It cannot therefore give to the Jews more rights than are given to immigrant populations by States having an extremely liberal organization such as the United States, Great Britain, Switzerland or France, which welcome such great numbers of immigrants. The State of New York in the United States possessed in 1910, out of 10,647,000 inhabitants, 1,603,000 Jews who constituted at least 16 percent of the population, being thus a greater proportion than in Poland. It will be curious to see if the Jews put forward the same political claims there as in Poland, and how they will be received by the local population. Poland cannot permit itself to be treated as an experimental field for the application of conjectural and quite simply utopian theories; on the contrary, it should make all its concern to act in such a manner that the Jews are treated there exactly in the manner they are in the other States. (La Question Juive en Pologne, by Francois Bujak [Paris, Levé, 1919], p.41.) It is clear that only interests (but no principle, even Wilsonian) are taken into account in such matters. Mr. Georges Bienaimé does not hesitate to say in the Victoire: What have they done then, the “great States,” for the past six months, that gives them such superiority in reason and authority? How have they conducted themselves, for example, vis-à-vis Bolshevism? It is not their fault if Romania and Poland have not been Bolshevised. It is, on the contrary, to the energy of the “little States” that one owes the stopping of Bolshevism and its current reflux. The “great States” have only shown incoherence and egotism in this matter... not to speak of that there. They have obeyed considerations that are dictated to them by financiers more often than by men of the heart... In the world of finance, a persistent hostility appears against Romania and Poland... “An Example for Catholics: the Tactics of Jews” There is great interest in putting into evidence the tactics that the Jews follow to arrive at such a considerable result. Not content to agitate the world by incessant press campaigns or by American and Anglo-Saxon meetings, they had an official note sent to the Peace Conference, on February 20, 1919, by the Central Committee of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, in which they expressed their desiderata. This note was reproduced by D.C. (issue no. 10, April 12, 1919, p.315); we recommend to our readers an examination of the six articles of Jewish claims there. They cannot fail to be struck in seeing these articles pass into force of international law in the treaty signed on June 28, 1919 between the United States, England, France, Italy and Japan, on the one side, and Poland on the other. “The Articles of the Treaty Concerning ‘Ethnic Minorities’” After having posited, in article 2 of this treaty, the principle of freedom of “every faith, religion or belief, whose practice will not be incompatible with public order and good morals”; in article 7, the principle of equality of citizen of whatever “religion, belief or confession” they may be, and the free usage of their language, even before tribunals, “notwithstanding the establishment of an official language by the Polish Government”; after have assured, by article 8, to Polish residents belonging to ethnic minorities of religion or language, the right to “create, direct and control at their expense charitable, religious or social institutions, schools and other establishments of education, with the right to make free use of their own language there and to exercise freely their religion”; after having prescribed to the Polish Government, by article 9, to accord “in cities and districts where there reside a considerable proportion of Polish residents of a language other than the Polish language, appropriate facilities to assure that, in the primary schools, instruction will be given in their own language to children,” all in maintaining mandatory instruction in Polish in the aforesaid schools, the Great Powers make obligatory, by the same article 9, section 2, the redistribution among these minorities of an “equitable portion of the benefices and the allocation of public funds for the budget of the State, the budgets of municipalities or others, for a purpose of education, or religion, or of charity.” And one sees what part the Jews will have been able to take in these various articles, which, without naming them, are directed primarily at them. “The Articles of the Treaty Specially Concerning the Jews” But the Treaty of Versailles contains two articles in which the Jews, openly designated, see their privileges affirmed and find themselves established on the face of the world, despite denials and by the force of the texts, as a sort of little State within the Polish State by the will and under the control of the League of Nations: Art. 10. – School Committees, designated at the locality by the Jewish communities of Poland, will assure, under the general control of the State, the redistribution of the proportional part of public funds assigned to Jewish schools in conformity with article 9, according to the organization and direction of these schools. The provisions of article 9 concerning the use of languages in the schools will be applicable to the aforesaid schools. Art. 11. – The Jews will not be compelled to carry out any kind of actions that constitute a violation of their Sabbath, and shall not incur any incapacity if they refuse to appear before tribunals or to carry out legal actions on the Sabbath day. At the same time, this provision will not dispense Jews from obligations imposed upon all Polish residents in view of the necessities of military service, national defense or the maintenance of public order. Poland declares its intention to abstain from prescribing or authorizing elections, whether general or local, that would take place on a Saturday; no electoral or other inscription shall be obligatory to do on a Saturday. “International Guaranty of These Provisions Against Polish Independence” Article 12 assures the execution of all the preceding provisions. Paragraph 2 is especially remarkable; it places Poland in several ways at the mercy of a sole intervention by American or by England, and one knows what power the Jews have in these two countries... In reality, Mr. Clemenceau wrote well in his letter sent to Mr. Paderewski: “One believes that these provisions will not be an obstacle to the political unity of Poland. They do not constitute a recognition of the Jews as such as a separate political community in the Polish State,” it is permissible to ask oneself what more could have been obtained by the Alliance Israelite Universelle to have the foundations of a Jewish State within the Polish State established by the Treaty of June 28th. “The Joy of Israel and the Humiliation of the Poles” It will also not be a surprise to hear the triumphant song of Israel, such as the Peuple Juif, a weekly review edited by the “Zionist Federation of France,” hastened to intone. The Peuple Juif has the gall to write that “the Jews of Poland hoped for better.” This is the testimony of an insatiable race which knows that success requires never placing limits on their ambitions. But the tone of this enthusiastic prose shows well what price is being paid for the Jewish victory. The Jews are glad to welcome the act of June 28, 1919 that abolished the great Polish injustice… The Jewish people congratulate each other on this victory of justice, but they want the victory of justice to be complete. The treaty that was just signed with Poland contains a clause concerning the fate of Jewish populations: these populations will be Polish, but on the condition that religious and educational freedom is assured them, as these clauses promise them. These clauses also mark an effort toward justice. The Jews of Poland expected better: they had neatly drawn up their future statute within the Polish framework; the Polish State must now at least apply – without hindrance and without hypocrisy – the measures that assure these freedoms. The new State and the Jews will know, they hope, how to work together and, in mutual trust, will apply the details of this statute. There would be no shadow of Wilsonian principles if hatred, contempt, persecutions of all sorts, harder than the pogroms, would not cease with “the peace of justice.” (Peuple Juif, July 4, 1919) So when will Catholics know how to take the path to such success? One would say that they do not know what is a well conducted propaganda effort! In the present case, the Jews do not let an occasion slip: by the power of repeating the same accounts or the same ideas, they manage to create a sort of universal obsession. They worked so well that President Paderewski had to intervene with Wilson to protest at length against the calumnies and to request an American inquiry… “Mr. Pichon, the Parliament and the Jews” ... “The Jews’ Accusations Against Poland Have Been Unjustified” The Jewish campaign has had everything against it all along except the resolute will of its instigators. But it has not corresponded with reality; it has been a veritable extortion that has been carried out upon the public at large – and upon the Peace Conference, which seems to know nothing more than the public at large about certain essential questions. It is true that our Socialist newspapers have displayed such a zeal in defending the cause of Israel that Mr. Armand Liebermann, an Israelite deputy in the Polish Diet, could not refrain from writing to Mr. Georges Pioch, of the Journal du Peuple, a letter that not only sets things straight but gives a well-taken lesson: You see matters from a distance and from on high; do you see their real aspect? The distance and the perspective are favorable, no doubt, for the sentences of history. But we who are in the furnace, we perhaps have a different conception of events, and their consequences, and their causes. We sense above all the inopportuneness of foreign interferences, however disinterested they may be, and however just they may appear. Far be it from me to want to establish a distinction, fragile and fine moreover, between that which is called, by way of euphemism, an excess, and that which bears the terrible name, untranslatable into French, of “pogrom”; the murder of a single innocent victim suffices to move the conscience of the world to want to intervene. But, if I may ask you anew, is it useful to the cause itself, and are your sure that no exaggeration has come in to color the events imputed to Poland? ... “Judgments on the Polish-Jewish Question” “An Article by a French Protestant” A Protestant witness, Mr. André Lichtenberger, has sent a report from Warsaw to the Victoire, July 6th, verified on the spot concerning the situation in Poland. The Victoire of July 11th published this information. After having recalled that Poland was very tolerant of Jews up to the middle of the last century, Mr. Lichtenberger writes these lines, whose information will be confirmed by history: What changed the situation was primarily the reflux into Poland of Jewish elements chased from Russia by the Moscow government, and who, as foreigners in the land where they were condemned to live, naturally comported themselves and were received as foreigners. Under the Russian oppression, they did not dream of reclaiming the Polish nation, and after the Russian collapse, they affirmed more or less categorically the pretention of constituting in Polish territory a nation having special privileges. The major part among them has notorious Germanophile sentiments and tight affinity with international socialism. These facts have had their repercussions on the disposition of the masses. It is accurate to say that what is being manifested there are tendencies that are not properly speaking antisemitic, but rather nationalistic, against some individuals who, while in Poland, have nothing of a Polish mentality. (footnote: To show, moreover, how everything related to Jews in Eastern Europe should be suspected of being “rigged,” we borrow from L’Ordre Public a curious news item focused on Hungarian Jews: “A strange movement of conversion to Catholicism among the Jews of Hungary is being detected. Of a population of about a million inhabitants, the City of Budapest counts close to 200,000 Jews. “Now, for several weeks, it is by the hundreds that Jews are having themselves stricken from the rolls of the Israelite community and are converting to the Catholic religion, in which, after being instructed in religious truths, they are having themselves baptized. “These new Catholics are being recruited from all classes of society, but especially from the bourgeois class, among the lawyers, the merchants, and the public employees. “The grand rabbi of Budapest declared to the correspondent of the Corriere della Sera that the majority of Jews who declare the abandonment of their religion do it out of hatred of Bolshevism, of which their co-religionists are the cadre. “The head of the Hungarian Bolshevik government, Bela-Kun, and thirty out of thirty-five of his ministers, are known to be Jews. Now, the general conviction is that Bolshevism will not last long. A great many Jews fear that the population may avenge itself on them for the violence and crimes committed by the Bolsheviks.” (Ordre Public, June 17, 1919) end of footnote) “A Testimony of a Polish Jew” The review America, a Catholic organ of information and studies published in New York, has collected, for its part, the declarations of a Polish Jew, a historian and critic, whose testimony is a decisive document: “A historian of great reputation, Professor Askenazy, who is at the same time a Jew and a Pole, has just given a correspondent of the World, of New York, an interview in which he declares that the hostility between Jews and Poles has been greatly exaggerated. He condemns the efforts of his co-religionists, especially in New York, that aim to discredit Poland: Young Poland, which is struggling and which is besieged by its enemies, has enough troubles without the attacks from our people, who have always received better treatment from the Poles than from any other nation in Eastern Europe. Poland has been the historical refuge of the Jews. My own family came here 400 years ago; they lived here in peace and security ever since, in the time when, in Germany, in Austria and in Russia, the Jews were abandoned to violence and pogroms. Professor Askenazy places his co-religionists on guard against the “stories” that are so obstinately disseminated: Each time a Jew is injured in Poland, the Jews announce that ten of them have been killed and the Germans affirm that a thousand of them have been massacred. If a Jew is killed in combat, as happened for the Jews of Vilna who fought with the Bolsheviks, the German press immediately spreads a story about “Polish pogrom in Vilna.” “The troubles, adds the World’s informant, “are without importance and would disappear entirely were they not fomented by ‘international Jews’ operating (in Poland) from Russia and from America.” And he states that “there has never been in history an event that could qualify to be called a Polish pogrom.” (America, July 12, 1919) “Personal and Official Reports by Representatives of the Allies” This testimony adds its force to the confirmations and to the official reports that are grouped in the preceding volume of the same collection: “The official reports of the representatives of the Entente in Warsaw, summarized in the dispatch from London in the New York Times that we reproduce here below, demonstrate yet again the exaggeration of the “stories of pogroms.” This is the text of the dispatch: Official reports on the recent combats between Jews and Poles have just been received here. By the testimony of Great Britain’s minister in Warsaw, when the Poles entered Vilna the street fighting lasted three days, leading to the death of 34 Polish soldiers and 64 Jews. Of these latter, 10 were shot in the street battles and the others were executed for having fired down from windows against the Polish troops. The British minister adds that large quantities of rifles, carbines, ammunition and bombs were found in the homes of Jewish members of the Bolshevik administration who had taken part in the armed resistance against the Poles. (America, July 5, 1919) Germans, Bolsheviks and international Jews, therefore, have lied. “Conclusion for Catholics” Catholics, if they really take to heart bringing their demands to a successful conclusion, will not be obligated themselves to have recourse to lies; they will be carried along by the excellence of their cause and the truth of its principles. They are not lacking in civic courage and, even more perhaps, knowledge of their religion and their rights, from which they have a clear view of duty to fulfill. May they at least take, from the example we have shown them in detail, a lesson in propaganda and tactics. We can envision immediately a practical application. Original document in French: Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 Aug. 2, 1919 Maglione in Bern to Gasparri, encrypted telegram: Mons. Pacelli is having me send Your Eminence the following telegram: “After having read the general insinuations made in the statements (the full text of which I have examined) by ex-Chancellor Michaelis against the security and the discretion of the diplomacy of the Holy See ...” Maglione Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 9950 Aug. 2, 1919 Maglione in Bern to Gasparri, encrypted telegram: On behalf of Mons. Apostolic Nuncio of Munich I am communicating: “For the purpose of avoiding new polemics in Germany, where there would be a longing to see published the text of the cover letter of Your Reverend Eminence, I believe that after the communication of the Hamas News Agency, it would need to be stated that this letter corresponds to my note to the Chancellor that has already been published. I deplore the indiscretion committed by Minister Erzberger, albeit with the good intention of making better appreciated the work carried out by the Holy See.” Maglione Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 5094 Aug. 3, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, Aug. 3, 1919, page 235: “Voices of the Parents” The men of the Revolution have called Bavaria a Peoples’ State, but the people now have less say than ever. Everywhere it is loud ranters, mostly from the East, who talk big, while a swarm of excited, agitated people shriek applause, but everyone else has to keep quiet, acquiesce and foot the bill. Eisner and his companions also called Bavaria a Free State. But one can safely say: the Bavarian people have hardly ever been so unfree and enslaved as in recent times. A typical example of how the freedom and the will of the people are disrespected and violated is the struggle against the Christian school and in particular against religious instruction. Citation: Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, Aug. 3, 1919, no. 31, p. 235. Aug. 7, 1919 Pacelli in Rorschach to Gasparri in Rome, encrypted cable: Reich Constitution applies also for Bavaria, but has not yet entered into effect. I leave tomorrow for Munich, I will immediately inquire and report whether there is need for a provisional proposal to provide for the parishes. Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 5090 Aug. 7, 1919 Hollweck to Pacelli: Most Reverend and Gracious Herr! Your Excellency! Recent days have brought me so much work that I have not been in position to answer the questions that were posed. Upon my return on the evening of the 4th, from Munich, where I had to consult the doctor, I used my first free moments to review the wide-ranging questions that I am to answer and about which I have in the meantime reflected much and which I have weighed much back and forth. 1. What concerns future appointments to German Bishop positions ... 2. As to what concerns the other concepts that Your Excellency touched upon in the letters of the 5th and 17th of July and which concern the general status of the Church in the realm of the German States and in the German Reich overall, what I perceive is that efforts were also made by the German diplomatic representation at the Holy See to put to rest the objections that the recent negotiations in Weimar, Karlsruhe, Stuttgart etc. must have aroused. It was also pointed out to me that freedom of conscience and religion really are well recognized in these foundational laws. To be sure these declared the individual to be religiously free, but only in order to be able, unhindered, to turn one’s back on religion and indeed on all religions. The provisions do not have the meaning and intent to exercise no compulsion as to religion. The individual is invited, rather, to liberate himself from all religioin. That is how this concept was already understood by the Revolutionaries of 1848 and represented by them and accepted in “the Foundational Rights of the German People.” One eventually saw through that and, from the actual practice of liberalism, learned it even better. From it no benefit is going to bloom for the Church and for Catholics, and nothing is to be hoped from it. A “State Church” is something we have not had indeed for a long time. This is indeed no longer a danger and the further warding off of such danger is nothing worth fighting for or giving anything up for. On the other hand, the principle of subordination of the Church to State law, taken up even by Catholics and their leaders and representatives – in the ambit of common law – is so serious a mistake and so great a danger that all the so-called gains, tax receipts, support of universities and the theological faculties in them, recognition of the Church as a society of public right, freedom of appointing to benefices, and so forth completely disappear. All of that can and will in the future be changed on occasion and the German Bishops, the representatives of the German Catholics, have made themselves defenseless in the face of that. They have without protest agreed to the principles of this subordination of Church to State. Hopefully the Holy See will rescue the ecclesiastical principle even for Germany. The German Catholics have rescued the Protestant “church,” that is, so-called Christianity, itself and its positions a well-paid theology professors, but the Church is left in the lurch. It must save itself. One has allowed everything to happen to oneself and now is not protesting. Jurists and theologians are praised as “farsighted” and “peaceable.” But I am becoming bitter. The experiences of recent times have made me bitter, because even those are abdicating upon whom I had placed my hopes – the Bishops and the theologians. The all keep quiet and they are trying to make it out to the world that the “Center Party” has really once again come to the rescue. In deepest reverence and devotion signs Your Excellency’s most subordinate servant R.J. Hollweck, professor Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 2893 Aug. 14, 1919 Cable from Pacelli to Gasparri: In the judgment of the Archbishop of Munich, it would be of urgent necessity to arrive at a settlement as to the vacant parish appointments before the time when the new Reich Constitution comes into effect in Bavaria. The vacancies in numerous parishes, again as judged by the aforesaid Archbishop, are causing a mounting discontent, and grave harm to pastoral care and ecclesiastical discipline. It appears that the anti-clerical Minister Hoffmann, who is still located in Bamberg, may not intend to apply straightaway the provisions of that Constitution to Bavaria, taking as a reason the existence of a unique Concordat that governs the relations between that state and the Holy See. Pacelli Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 9709 Aug. 16, 1919 Gasparri to Pacelli, encrypted cable: I have your telegram no. 327. Provisionally, to provide assistance to the faithful, the Bishops shall appoint to the vacant parishes temporary vicar administrators under the norms of Canons 458 and 473. The presentation of parish pastors to the Government would prejudice the Concordat issue, which the Holy See would desire to avoid so long as the relations between State and Church in Bavaria are not clarified. Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 3267 August 18, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, The new Constitution of the German Empire entered into effect the 13th of this month by means of its promulgation in the Official State Bulletin (Reichsgesetzblatt). I therefore believe it my duty to give Your Most Reverend Eminence, here-enclosed with the German text, the Italian translation of the articles that concern relations between Church and State, adding some brief observations or clarifications. Article 124 German text ... Italian translation. All Germans have the right to form associations and societies for purposes that do not violate the criminal laws. This right cannot be limited by preventative measures. The same prescriptions apply to religious associations and societies. Every association is free to acquire lawful status in accordance with the provisions of the civil law. This status cannot be denied to an association on grounds that it pursues a political, social-political or religious purpose. This article is rather important for the Religious Congregations, since it extends to them without limitations the right, to which all Germans are entitled, to found associations. Also, the many restrictions about the acquiring of legal status on the part of the Congregations themselves, in force up to now in all the States of Germany, have been abrogated by the second section of this article; they acquire such status in conformity with all the general provisions of the civil law. Moreover, in article 138, the aforesaid Congregations are on an equal footing with religious societies as to what concerns the guarantee of their property. Third section. Religion and religious societies. Article 135 German text ... Italian translation. All residents of the German Reich enjoy full freedom of belief and conscience. The undisturbed exercise of religion is guaranteed by the Constitution and stands under the protection of the State. The general laws of the State remain thereby unaffected. Article 136 German text ... Italian translation: Civil and political rights and duties are neither conditioned nor restricted by the exercise of freedom of religion. The enjoyment of civil and political rights, as well as the eligibility for public offices is independent of religious confession. No one is obligated to disclose his religious convictions. The authorities have the right to inquire into the question of membership in a religious society only to the extent that rights or duties depend upon it or a lawfully ordered statistical census requires it. No one may be compelled to participate in any church activity or ceremony, or religious exercises, or the use of a religious form of oath. Articles 135 and 136 concern the personal sphere of law and sanction individual freedom of belief and conscience. Civil and political rights and duties are independent of religious confession; in a particular way, then, it is established that all, without distinction of religion, can be equally eligible for political offices. No one is obligated to disclose their own religious convictions; however, the Civil Authorities can inquire into membership in a religious society “when rights and duties depend upon it.” This clause finds its application in what concerns education of children (classes, schools), church taxes, etc. Such inquiry is also allowed, as is clear, when it concerns statistical surveys ordered by law. Finally, it is noteworthy that the right as to participation in religious activities does not exclude the exercise of authority, with respect to children, by those who responsible for their education, nor would it prevent church disciplinary procedures toward those who freely belong to a religious confession. As to the religious form of oath, no one can be compelled; nevertheless it is permitted under the norms of articles 42 and 177. Article 137 German text: ... Italian translation: There exists no State Church. Freedom of association in religious societies is guaranteed. Formation of religious societies within the territory of the Republic is not subject to any restrictions. Each religious society will order and administer its affairs independently within the ambit of generally applicable law. It confers its offices without cooperation of the State or civil authorities. Religious societies are entitled to gain legal capacity according to the general provisions of civil law. The religious societies remain entities under public law to the extent they were such previously. For other religious societies, they are to be granted the same rights upon application, if they ... Article 138 German text ... Italian translation: The subsidies from the State to religious societies provided by law, agreement or particular title of right shall be cleared by State legislation. The basis for this shall be established by the Reich. The property and other rights of religious societies and associations for their establishments, foundations, and other assets dedicated to worship, education and charity are guaranteed. Article 138 deals with the property of religious societies. The first section establishes that the subsidies from the State to these societies, due according to laws, agreements, or particular titles of right, must be cleared, being substituted with payments of a capital sum or an annual amount, on a basis that will be fixed by laws of the Reich. Among the above-named agreements must be counted above all that concluded with the Holy See. Not included, however, in the article under consideration are the free or discretionary subsidies from the State in favor of the Church, which, at least in Bavaria, were up to now rather sizeable. In the transitional provisions (art. 173) it is established, then, that until the above-mentioned Reich law is issued, the aforesaid obligatory subsidies must be maintained as they were in the past. By virtue of the second section, the property of religious societies remains assured, as also their other rights, for example the right to use buildings placed at their disposition by the State. The aforementioned Commission for the Examination of the Proposed Constitution of the Reich also discussed the question of patronato (private); but, in view of the many difficulties this matter presented, it was decided not to handle it in the Reich Constitution, leaving it instead to legislation of the individual States. Article 139 German text ... Italian translation: Sundays and other holidays recognized by the State remain under the governance of the law about days of repose and spiritual elevation. Article 140 German text ... Italian translation: For members of the Army, free time necessary for the fulfillment of their religious obligations is to be protected. Article 141 German text ... Italian translation: To the extent of the needs for worship and pastoral care in the army, in hospitals, prisons, or other public establishments, religious associations are allowed to conduct religious services, whereby any compulsion is to be excluded. Articles 140 and 141 concern the exercise of religious practices and of spiritual assistance in the army, in hospitals, in prisons and other public establishments. As to what concerns the army, the proposal was not accepted to sanction expressly in the Constitution pastoral care in the military, as it was previously; it is nevertheless to be hoped that it will not bring the result that this institution will be harmed. The Constitution assures all members of the military the freedom to fulfill their religious obligations; on the other hand, religious societies must be allowed, to the extent there is need, and with the exclusion of any form of coercion, to exercise acts of worship and pastoral care in the army as in other aforementioned public institutions. Transitional provisions. Article 173 German text ... Italian translation. Until a Reich law according to Article 138 is promulgated, the former State subsidies to religious societies according to law, agreements, or particular titles of right will continue. As a complement to this respectful Report, may I be permitted to add two judgments concerning the new Reich Constitution. In the session of the Commission for the examination of the new Bavarian Constitution held this July 23rd in Bamberg, Minister President Hoffmann said this: “Undoubtedly the great tendency of the revolution was to render the Church free from the State and the State free from the Church; but this was not entirely actuated in the Reich Constitution. It made the Church free from the State, but not so much vice versa, the State free from the Church. The full separation of State and Church awaits another time.” Monsignor Hollweck, in the last part of his letter of the 7th of this month, transmitted by me to Your Eminence with my obsequious Report No. 13699 dated the 13th of this month, writes as follows: “Also to me is made known that (in the new Constitutions of the Reich, of Baden, of Württemberg, etc.) is recognized the complete freedom of conscience and of belief. Certainly the individual in these is declared free in religious matters, but only because invidividuals can, without any impediment, turn their backs on religion, and also on all religions. “These provisions do not signify an intention to eliminate whatever forms of violence in fact of religion, but are rather an invitation to the individual to free oneself from any religion. The same thought was already supported by the revolutionaries of 1848, who introduced it in the fundamental rights of the German people, and its consequences can be seen in the practice of liberalism. The Church and Catholics cannot expect any salvation from it. “The State Church has not existed for a long time already. It therefore does not constitute any danger, and the elimination of this danger for the future therefore does not represent any advantage that is worth the cost of sacrificing anything. On the contrary, the principle of the subordination of the Church to the laws of the State – ‘within the ambit of common rights’ – accepted also by Catholics and by their leaders and representatives, is a grave error and such a great danger, compared to the disappearance of all the other so-called advantages, such as the right of collecting taxes, the maintenance of the theological faculties in the Universities, the recognition of the Church as a society of public right, the free appointment of benefices, etc. All this can be and will be made to change in the future, and the Bishops of Germany, the representatives of the German Catholics will find themselves disarmed in the face of such events. They have consented without protest to the maximum degree of submission of the Church to the State. Please God that the Holy See save ecclesiastical first things! German Catholics have saved the position of the Protestant ‘Church,’ it being the so-called Christendom, if it is these and their positions as well-paid professors of theology, but have left the Church in the lurch. It must save itself. Catholics have all put up with this and are now therefore lauded by the jurists and by Protestant theologians as ‘forward-looking’ and as ‘lovers of peace.’ But I am becoming bitter. The experiences of these recent times have made me that way, because of so little coming from those in whom I had placed my hope: the Bishops and the theologians. They were called first of all to support the cause of the Church with all their strength; but all kept quiet and sought for the world to believe that the ‘Center Party’ has again saved everything.” Thus Monsignor Hollweck. While recognizing the deficiencies and the weakness of the Center Party in Germany and while deploring the theoretical and practical defects of the new Constitution, especially in what concerns the school question, it nevertheless needs to be not denied that this party does not have a majority in the National Assembly, and thus could not obtain everything. It at least for now has prevented, by its energies, a new Kulturkampf from happening in Germany, and a hostile separation between the two Powers, such as there is in other Nations in Europe, and has warded off the threatening danger that extreme laws might emanate against the Church, for which there have also been guarantees of its properties and affirmation of freedom in the appointments to its offices. After which, humbly bowing ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 1033 Aug. 20, 1919 Eggersdorfer to Faulhaber: Your Excellency, Most Reverend Lord Archbishop! Excuse me, that I have not come recently from Bamberg to Munich. Now I would like to come for a discussion if you will kindly allow it with Your Excellency and if possible also with the Most Reverend Lord Nuncio together with Privy Councilor Held. For establishing a point in time that I could convey to the Privy Councilor, I would be grateful. The reason is this: Our delegation leader Held has earned the greatest credit for the Constitution coming into its current form. We have his tactical prowess to thank for all anti-Church provisions falling by the wayside without struggle or test of strength. Now Hoffmann wants, after a brief time of vacation, the counsel of Held on account of further Church-policy provisions and the interchange about the Concordat. It is therefore desirable that Held come into complete unity with Church authorities. Hoffmann intends to have a nice version of the Constitution printed and then go with it personally to the Nuncio, in order to take up negotiations. From what he has said, he had the Most Reverend Lord Nuncio officially received upon his return to Munich. It will not escape Your Excellency that the concluding of the teacher law [of Aug. 14, 1919] made extraordinarily big waves. The agreement over the financing of religious education seemed to us an important success and a whole new way of handling it. Otherwise we would have feared the greatest difficulties in the future, if a greater part of the teachers were put down to Biblical stories. Source: Munich Archdiocesan Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, Folder 7480, reprinted in L. Volk, ed., Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol. 1, pp. 87-88. Aug. 23, 1919 F. Schrönghamer-Heimdal, “Weltensturz”: Do you know what is happening today? It is the final battle between the two world-spirits: between Christ and Antichrist, between Jesus and Judas, between the Godly and Satanic in the world, between the moral powers of life and the powers of darkness, between the eternal German and the eternal Jew – as we may call it. The meaning is always the same. What we see from outside is only the superficial aspect of events of the day. It is the spirit that gives life. It is a spiritual battle, a struggle for the world between spiritual powers. It is not “world history” in the old historian or diplomat sense that is being made today, but rather spiritual history is being worked out as never before on earth. Footnote: Compare this to my foundational book “The Coming Reich” (320 pages, Haas and Grabherr publishers, Augsburg C 230, 7.00 Marks). There I trenchantly outlined the events of the time and drew out their inner causes fully one year before they came to pass, and showed the way to a better future. World in upheaval, really: a millennium is collapsing, but not to be eternally annihilated, rather to arise anew, like the Phoenix from the ashes. It is indeed only the decayed, rotten, outmoded, unsustainable. And since it is not tumbling down of its own, God is sending the “men of revolution.” What are they? None other than instruments, helpers of a higher will, none other than housemaids that are put off in the corner once they have done their work, which consists only in destruction. They cannot build up, as we are already seeing, that is what the others must and will do when their time is come. The purpose of this revolution is really re-construction. How shall the new and better arise, unless the decayed and rotten of the former era is fundamentally destroyed? Granted, much that is healthy will also be ripped into the abyss. But it will come back. What has eternal value is indestructible. And the old God still lives. Is it coincidental that throughout the world it is primarily Jews who have executed this work of destruction? To whom do these words not occur, from the Savior, concerning the end of the era: “Truly, this generation will not pass away until all this has happened”? Apparently God is making use again today of the “chosen people” as his instrument: just as Judas once betrayed Jesus and handed him over to the cross, so today Jews betray the peoples among whom they live as guests. But just as from the Golgotha of the Savior of the world, a resurrection and ascension came, so also will arise from the betrayal and devastation of today an Easter for humanity, because the victory belongs to God in all circumstances. It is a spiritual battle between the eternal German and the eternal Jew. The essence of the eternal German is rooted in Walddorf; in the value-creating farmer life; the eternal Jew’s only striving is for the department stores and the farmer’s assets. The eternal Jew knows nothing of creative energy. He lacks the moral elevation that is born from the fulfillment of the sunny command of active, value-creating work. He is only a middleman for the sake of his own profit. The eternal German serves himself by serving the community; he has conscience and responsibility. Of such concepts the eternal Jew knows nothing. His God is his money. Thus he also lacks the capability to build up, to work morally. Since he only knows himself and his physical well-being, he can only destroy. “Revolution is the star of the Jew.” Only the Aryan man, the eternal German, can build up. It is a remarkable particularity that the eternal German takes on the bad characteristics of the eternal Jew, while we have never once experienced the eternal Jew having taken on the good of the eternal German. Ahasuerus is still today the same as he has been for millennia. Quite naturally: He still knows just one goal, himself, and only one God, money, with which he wants to attain world rule. To transform the world into a unitary Jewish corporation and bring the rest of humanity completely under his rod, is his millennial-long aspiration. For this purpose he makes use of international Freemasonry along with the Socialist worker masses, both of which he leads and rules. World war and world revolution are the final steps in the building of the temple of the eternal Jew. The Antichrist supposes himself already at his goal. But already a voice is resounding: This far and no further! – Has the eternal Jew forgotten that the crucified one arose on the third day from the dead? So he will experience it once again, and soon: Humanity will be resurrected and his power will be shown to be impotence. It is a spiritual battle that we are experiencing today. It is the Golgotha of the German soul, which will shake off the eternal Jew for all time. Today we are reflecting upon the causes that have plunged us into this unspeakable misery. We recognize the eternal Jew among us as our arch- and sworn-enemy. We were mostly Christians in name only, in reality we long were the eager disciples of the eternal Jew. “Wherein one sins, therein he is punished.” But soon the sleeping giant stretches, the eternal German in us. The German “Michel” with pipe and nightcap wants to become Michael, who with the flaming sword, as God’s hero, will forever drive the fallen Adam, the forefather of the eternal Jew, out of God’s pure Eden. I am no Jew-persecutor. On the contrary. For is it not regrettable when people perceive their life’s goal only in the temporal? I have always been of the opinion that Jewry is most successfully combatted to the extent one tears everything Jewish out of one’s own soul. For that is indeed the un-Christian in mankind. It is always only the spirit that gives life. And in the end the eternal Jew is only a necessary instrument willed by God for the testing of spirits, the fulfillment of the ages. By the revealing of the impotence and interior rot of his crass Messiah-kingdom, the rule of the golden calf, he becomes the guide who leads humanity to the true Messiah, whose kingdom is not of the world of material, of appearance, of commerce, of acquisition and profit. Thus the eternal Jew is fundamentally a “Servant of God” in the truest sense and is like the “dumb devil” who – as seen in many churches – holds up the holy water basin. Why then persecute the Jews? The further they go, the better for all: then the eyes of every last “Michel” will open up, so that he becomes a “Michael” in the spiritual battle: Christian, behold the Antichrist! Was Jesus a Jew? We know: it is the spirit that gives life. The spirit of Jesus and the spirit of the Jew – is any greater contradiction imaginable? That is why the Jews indeed showed ill-will toward, persecuted, and drove to a disgraceful death the savior of the world, the “Galilean.” They never counted him among their own, because he was no Jew, neither spiritually nor physically. And today they attack and persecute him again: De-Christianization of the school, separation of Church and State, removal of every Christian concept from civic and public life. Does one notice that the Antichrist is at work, that this means the final battle? Where will you stand, my dear Christian, when the battle cry goes forth in the spiritual battle? Behold Christian – behold Antichrist? Michel, become Michael! Source: Allgemeine Rundschau, Nr. 34 (Aug. 23, 1919), pp. 496-497. Aug. 24, 1919 “Vatican Review” section of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 34, page 260: “Vatican Review” ... in Czechoslovakia the conditions of the Church leave much to be desired. While a portion of the Czech clergy, as a result of their eager participation in so-called reform efforts, which basically call for undermining of discipline and debilitation of morals, have no time to work against the de-Christianization that is being driven in a determined manner from the top, and the Bishops allow things to go on without saying or doing anything, meanwhile two American-Czech priests have appeared, with the blessing of the Holy Father, who are arousing the faithful people to resistance in huge numbers. The delegation of reformist-oriented priests who went to Rome at the instigation of the Freemasonic Czech Government has meanwhile returned and declared themselves “very satisfied” with the results of their steps in the Vatican; actually they were flatly rebuffed as to all their important issues and are now trying to create the appearance of saving face... The extraordinary mission of Britain at the Vatican was the occasion for new debates in the House of Commons, yet it appears from statements of the Government that a withdrawal of the mission (which was only provided for the duration of the war) is not intended as of now. The establishment of a Nunciature in London, which was reported by some papers to be intended ... is not planned by the Vatican, as an unambiguous statement in Osservatore Romano indicates. German original Aug. 30, 1919 Franz Schrönghamer-Heimdal, “Bolshevism, Capitalism, Imperialism,” Allgemeine Rundschau, no. 35, pages 507-508: “By their fruits will you know them.” Whoever believes that Bolshevism is the most ferocious mortal enemy of “capitalism” is indulging in serious self-deception. In truth it is only a means to hand over that one country that was supposedly ruled up to now by “imperialists” but was actually the freest on earth, to the far worse imperialism of international Freemasonry, ruled by the Jews, and to the “Golden International” whose goal has always been the overthrow of thrones and altars because they are the last bulwarks against the unrestrained deployment of its power. Men who have followed these developments over the decades have brought forward impressive evidence and matters of fact to show that the world war and the world upheaval were only the means to establish the unrestricted world domination of the Golden International, in which universal Jewry plays the leading role. Freemasonry in the Entente countries, and the “Red International,” are completely under Jewish influence. (footnote: see Entente-Freemasonry and the World War by Karl Heise, E. Fürth Publishing House, Basel, 1919, price 9 Francs; World Freemasonry, World Revolution, World Republic by National Councilor Dr. Wichtl, 1919, Lehmann Publishing House, Munich, price 5 Marks; Mazzini, Freemasonry, World Revolution by Herm. Gruber, S.J., Manz Publishing House, Regensburg, 1901, price 4 Marks.) Thus the phenomenon that Jews appear everywhere as the leaders, which seems especially strange among the Social Democrats, since it is especially among the Jews that the most “capitalists” are to be found. Whoever is familiar with the nature of Jewry as set forth especially in the Talmud knows that a Jew has only Jewish goals. Universal Jewry's main goal is world domination; according to the Talmud that is the true Messiah of the Jews. The means to this end are above all the Freemason lodges of the whole world and the Socialist parties. “Wherever you look you will find Jews.” It is precisely Bolshevism that is exclusively the offspring of the Jewish spirit; its fathers and leaders everywhere are Jews (footnote: see Judas Schuldbuch [The Jews' Guilt-Book], by Wilhelm Meister, German Volk Publishing House, Munich, 1919, price 5 Marks, Auf Gut Deutsch [In Plain German], weekly, Munich, Tengstrasse 28.), from Trotsky-Braunstein and Bela Kuhn-Kohn down to the bloody Samueli-Samuel and to the "Noble Anarchist" Erich Mühsam. Even Lenin, who is always being put forward by the Jews as a non-Jew, is a Semite; he actually is really named Zederblum. Bolshevism, which is supposed to be the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” is nothing more than the dictatorship of a handful of Jews over the Proletariat, with whose help they strive after their secret special goal, the most unrestrained arbitrary, violent dictatorship for their own selfish ends. The events in Russia and Hungary, and also in Munich, speak an all too distinct idiom. Certain people speak of Bolshevism as a “sickness” and thus concede to its representatives extenuating circumstances. In truth Bolshevism is only the open application of Talmudic principles, that is, really Jewish principles. According to the Talmud, which remains today the still binding book of laws of universal Jewry, world domination is the unique duty of the Jews... Only Aryan innocence, which the Jews concede is a form of “being true to God” and “true faith,” although they nailed the Truth himself to the cross and by their “faith” continually still crucify him, is able to believe that the Jew is really a man like a German or an Italian... The following facts and considerations show that Bolshevism, plotted by Jews and led by Jews, is actually only a means to the universal Jewish end, an instrument for the establishment of Jewish-capitalist world domination, in order to bow down all the previously free countries of earth under the interest-slavery of capital, which is in the hands of the Jews: 1. From where do the enormous sums originate, with which Bolshevism purchases adherents everywhere? From the Proletarian classes? No, the supposedly opposing “capitalism” provides them... 2. The fathers and leaders of Bolshevism everywhere are Jews. Jews in Russia, Jews in Hungary, Jews in Bavaria... 3. That Bolshevism is just a massive deception for the benefit of international capitalism is shown by the events in Russia and Hungary... 4. Bolshevik methods, the deliberate, willful destruction of the national economy, are just the means to the particular ends of Jewish capitalism... 5. That Jewish Bolshevism pursues anything but Völkisch goals, is shown by the facts of the “German” Revolution... Germany, a province of the Jewish world republic, which is pleased to go by the name “League of Nations,” the formerly freest country of the world, is now an interest-slave of Entente-capitalism - these are the glorious "achievements of the Revolution" and of “peace” on the basis of Wilson's 14 points, a peace that was actually prepared for us over the course of decades by the 3 point-brethren of the whole world and universal Jewry. Another “possibility for peace” did not exist at any time during the war. German original: page 507 and page 508 Sept. 3-4, 1919 Minutes of the Conference of the Bavarian Bishops: Present: Michael von Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Jacobus von Hauck, Archbishop of Bamberg, Antonius von Henle, Bishop of Regensburg, Maximilian von Lingg, Bishop of Augsburg, Leo von Mergel, O.S.B., Bishop of Eichstätt, Sigismund Felix Freiherr von Ow-Felldorf, Bishop of Passau, Ludwig Sebastian, Bishop of Speyer, Cathedral Chapter Member Thaddäus Stahler representing Bishop Ferdinand von Schloer of Würzburg. First session, Wednesday, September 3, 9:00-1:00. After a Holy Mass of the Holy Spirit in the house chapel, the Archbishop of Munich and Freising greeted, in the great hall of the priest seminary, his most reverend brethren, who had appeared in spite of the great difficulties of travel. Also Bishop Ludwig von Speyer this time had received travel permission from the French occupation for this conference. The horrible peace treaty of June 28, 1919, the publication of the new constitution of the German Reich of August 11, 1919, and the new constitution of August 12, 1919 for the Free State of Bavaria, the Teacher- and Schools-Law, the annulment of Bavaria’s federal state sovereignty and the impact of all these events on the life of the Church have made a joint council of the Bishops urgent... The agenda, significantly expanded since the first draft of June 21st, is accepted in its new form. Point I of the agenda: The future relationship between Church and State in Bavaria and the cancellation of the Concordat. Memoranda from Excellencies Jacobus of Bamberg and Antonius of Regensburg. Fundamental are Articles 135-141 of the new Constitution of the German Reich and Sections 17-19 of the new Constitution for the Free State of Bavaria. The conference is of the view, 1) that the Concordat and the Church Community Order in Bavaria still lawfully exist and have not been made invalid either by the Revolution nor by the Reich Constitution nor by individual decrees contrary to the Concordat by the Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs, 2) that the Concordat cannot continue in its old form, if only because the oath of loyalty in Art. XV falls away and Art. 137 of the Reich Constitution guarantees the freedom [for the Church] to appoint to Church offices for Bavaria as well, which was governed by Articles IX-XI of the Concordat, which would be a danger for the discipline of the clergy, a disaster for pastoral care and an intolerable shackle on the freedom of the Church. Excellency von Henle especially pointed out that the Church as instrument of salvation is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, but rather is dealt with only like one of the societies governed under the police power. 3) For the establishment of the future relationship between Church and State in Bavaria, about which negotiations are to begin soon with the Nunciature, Archbishop Jacobus made several observations at the request of the Apostolic Nunciature. Of the 9-1/2 million Mark annual subsidies that the Bavarian State previously made to the Catholic Church, about 7 million are so-called optional contributions, which must equally be included in the planned removal, because our people, impoverished by the lost war, cannot possibly support such a high level through taxation or voluntary contributions, and because State funds were only a return on secularized property of the Church. The conference looks with great concern upon future appointments to positions of religious instruction and professorships, especially those for philosophy and other ideologically significant subjects. Point II: Appointments to vacant parish positions. In Bavaria there are currently 105 parishes and benefices, including 30 to which the Church has right of appointment [liberae collationis], that are being administered by a vicar [i.e., the pastor position is vacant], because since the outbreak of revolution we could not concede to the Socialist Government the vested rights [of appointment etc.] in Article XI of the Concordat; in particular there are in the Augsburg Diocese 21 parishes (including 5 liberae collationis), in Bamberg 12 (7), in Eichstätt 5 (1), in Munich 17 (3), in Passau 8 (2), in Regensburg 17 (2), in Speyer 15 (6), in Würzburg 10 (4). The Archbishop of Munich has repeatedly negotiated with Apostolic Nuncio Pacelli, in view of the harm that such long vacancies increasingly cause for pastoral care, priestly discipline and the economic condition and economy of the parishes, and has prayed the Holy Father for a provisional way to handle this matter. The most recent order from Cardinal Secretary of State Gasparri was: Do not enter into any kind of negotiations with the Government, so as not to jump the gun on the overall Concordat negotiations! Thus for the while we will not negotiate with the Government even about the positions to be appointed by us, until a clear legal situation is created, despite the communication of August 6th, in which the State Government declared itself already prepared to approve the hierarchy’s appointments to benefices and commit to the temporalities thereof, “for tactical reasons,” as the Nuncio said. It is, however, the general desire that negotiations about the dead point get underway as soon as possible and that Art. 137 of the Reich Constitution go into effect as soon as possible in Bavaria as well. Point III. The Kulturkampf in the realm of the schools; the position of the private school and religious order school in the new school law. Speaker: Bishop Leo of Eichstätt. Of the three major demands that we set forth in our memorandum of May 25, 1919 about the Bavarian school issue, neither the confessional character of the school, nor religion as an obligatory subject, nor the joint oversight right of the Church is established in the new school law. Long discussions about Art. 142-150 of the Reich Constitution and Sections 20-21 of the Bavarian Constitution and about the conduct of the Center Party and the Bavarian People’s Party in these negotiations. With respect to the clause in Art. 149 of the Reich Constitution, that the administration of religious instruction will be governed “in the framework of legislation about schools,” we maintain that hereby all regulations about teaching organs, teaching plans, teaching materials and teaching methods are a matter for the Church. It must be expected of the Bavarian People’s Party that it will uphold the principles and rights of the Church in the upcoming school law, without consideration of gaining political advantages. In the proclamation [by the Bishops], in which some of the conference’s decisions will be shared with the people, there shall be an appeal to Catholic parents to use all lawful means, including participation in the parent associations and written declarations of their desires, to stand up for the confessional school. The unrequested equalizing of the wages of religious order teachers with the minimum wage for secular teachers is in our eyes a Danae-gift. Second Session: September 3rd, 3-7 p.m. Point IV: Church and the Teaching Profession. Speaker: His Bishop-Grace Sigismund Felix of Passau. 1) Our demands concerning the religious training and continuing education of candidates for teaching positions were briefly summarized by the speaker (Attachment I) and transmitted by the Archbishop of Munich and delegates Wohlmuth and Eggersdorfer… Point V: Threatening of the Apostolic Nuncio and other anti-Papal and anti-Church phenomena accompanying the Second Revolution and Third Revolution. Following the violations of international law against the Nunciature in the Räterepublik era on April 29 and 30, 1919, the Archbishop of Munich has already verbally expressed his indignation. The official proclamation to the people shall, at least in summary form, take a stance as to this and other events, the ringing of [Church] bells upon the death and cremation of Eisner and upon the Red Army’s nighttime alarms, the forced displaying of flags, the plan to murder Bishop Maximilian of Augsburg, the violation of domestic peace in the form of house arrest of the Archbishops of Bamberg and Munich, the blasphemy in the funeral speech for Eisner, the repeated disturbances of popular missions, the violation of the seal of secrecy for Nunciature mail, the public contempt for Papal couriers, the instigations against the Pope, which arose anew in connection with the Holy Father’s speech about Joan of Arc and the repeal of the Provida, which was disseminated among the people by leaflets. Point VI: Address to the Holy Father... Point VII.: Exegesis of some points of Canon Law... Third Session. September 4, 8:30-12:30. Point VIII: Association for the Clergy ... Point IX: Question arising from the Passau Diocesan Synod... Point X. The ecclesiastical administration of the Saar District... Point XI. Request of the Diocesan Presidents of the Catholic Male and Female Worker Associations... Point XII. Service agreement between Church authorities and sextons... Point XIII. Miscellaneous... Sept. 8, 1919: Bishops’ Guidelines for the Position and Sphere of Activity of Priests in the Local School Authorities (Addendum 2 to Minutes of the Bavarian Bishops Conference, Sept. 3 and 8, 1919), with Prefatory Comments by Faulhaber: Prefatory Comments As to Point IV, Section 2, “Position of the Clergy in the local school authorities,” needs a complete reworking in light of the September 6 publication of the Ministerial Decree of August 28th, which his Episcopal Grace of Passau had the grace to express in a worthy manner, and whose most pressing and unambiguous points are summarized in appendix 2... A final suggestion of the Most Reverend Herr reporter would well be more discreetly brought by our school deacon rather than by our pastoral letter to the parish leadership, namely: “The clergy might make its influence effective in this direction by seeking to win over community- and district-members to have them influence in a favorable way the election of community representatives, and influence especially representatives of the parents in the bodies attending to the schools and the district bodies attending to the schools, as well as district representatives in the latter bodies. It will also be possible for the clergy to influence in this sense the members of the district convention, so that also the election of a priest can occur as district representative in the district bodies attending to the schools... In section 33 a form of religious instruction is decreed that befits the bureaucratic mentality of a real free state: “Governmental school oversight extends to the imparting of religion instruction in the primary schools, insofar as it is an issue of overseeing the conduct of the external school order, school discipline and school visitation. Religion instruction in its content shall be imparted in concordance with the principles of the relevant religious society. The religious societies and their representatives have no official oversight authority with respect to primary school personnel who are involved in imparting religious instruction. They are still at liberty to appeal to the official oversight authorities whenever complaints are to be raised.” Should an unwarranted meddling in this direction by governmental oversight organs come to pass, going beyond school order and school policing, and in particular should there be an effort to leave it to any other than Church authority to judge whether the content of religious instruction comports with Catholic principles, it would have to be reported to immediately. In holding ourselves back from anything further, we exhort our reverend clergy to bring even this limited remaining influence to bear conscientiously, as members of the bodies attending to the schools, by making appropriate contributions, for example, providing Biblical images and other ways of presenting religious viewpoints, or making available school venues for in the event that, for lack of time or teaching resources, some instruction groups must be formed by combining several school sections … Above all, however, he will care for and build up parent association in such a way that it will create and preserve a reliable support structure for his efforts of pastoral care as well as the desires and requirements of the Church with respect to the parents who are represented in the bodies attending to the schools and the district bodies attending to the schools. Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 4052 Sept. 4, 1919 Bishops’ Guidelines for a Priests’ Professional Association (Addendum 5 to Minutes of the Bavarian Bishops Conference) 1) A new professional association for priests, which follows professional and ecclesiastical purposes in the way of a union, and which follows the lines of a lay professional organization, stands in its essence in contradiction with the old Christian as well as the newly established Church constitution as set down in Book II of the Code of Canon Law, in contradiction with the clear words of Pope Pius X in the Encyclica Pascendi and with the clear instruction of Pope Benedict XV to the Hungarian Bishops [of March 12, 1919]. Efforts in this direction are a disrespect of the immutable hierarchical character of the Church of Christ, which at no time tolerates a reforming in more or less parliamentary or democratic forms. The good intentions of its spokesmen should not be brought into question; many recommendations such a those for the introduction of a priestly property society arise from absolutely ideal priestly viewpoints. For the priestly class, however, the rights to associations and assemblies are under special laws, similar to those according to Canon 1386 section 1 in which the publishing activity of clergy is subjected to stricter measures than for lay persons; similar to those for Diocesan synods, whose decisions can only take effect by the Bishop’s approval, while a different order applies to lay assemblies. 2) Permissible and compatible with Canon Law are those professional associations of clerics that are established for academic, charitable, ascetic, or educational purposes, also those for economic purposes, like the Pax-Association with its rights-defense-authority and its security measures or the economy-pastors-league in Bavaria. 3) A professional association of Catholic priests extending over all Bavaria or indeed over all Germany, which to the delight of the Church’s enemies is advocated by some officious newspapers, is rejected by the Bishops Conference for the above-stated reasons and because it violates the organic constitution of the Dioceses. On the other hand, no general Church law stands in the way if, with the approval of the Bishop, a Diocesan association should be founded for the protection of economic interests of the clergy as a class, in order to make up in some ways for any falling off of the former State subsidies. 4) An accessible way to clarify these efforts is envisioned by the Conference in the working group with the school association of Catholic priests, whose previous field of activity (securing the Christian school) being expanded for this purpose, for the furtherance of the economic interests of the clergy and the future handling of this matter will be directed namely by including it in the Diaconate constitution. Source: L. Volk, ed., Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol. 1, pp. 88ff. Sept. 6, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: I had a visit from the well-known Mr. Victor Naumann, who is today Extraordinary Envoy and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Reich awaiting assignment. He gave me some interesting news, especially about the domestic political situation of Germany, which I believe it my duty to transmit herewith to Your Most Reverend Eminence. The current Government, Naumann told me, needs to enlarge its base. It is necessary that, in addition to the majority Socialists and the representatives of the Center Party, of which it is now comprised, there enter as well the Democrats, who have among their ranks persons of unshakeable valor... My interlocutor then engaged me in conversation about Mr. Erzberger, the current Minister of Finance. Naumann certainly affirmed that Minister Erzberger is the singular will-power and force of the current Cabinet, the only political man who knows what he wants; however, balanced against these most appreciable merits is his deplorable imprudence, of which he gave a typical example with the recent “revelations” that are well known to Your Eminence. He added, however, that these “revelations” have shown the German people all the more the correctness of the Holy See and the most noble action for peace carried out by the Holy Father... Source: Pacelli to Gasparri, Sept. 6, 1919, Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, Vatican Secret Archives, AA.EE.SS., Germania, 1919-1920, pos. 1699, fasc. 891, fol. 17r-18r, reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1042. Additional documents related to the breach between Pacelli and Erzberger appearing in www.Pacelli-Edition.de include Document Nos. 7934, 3750, 5092, 3751, 5093, 5094 and 9950. Sept. 7, 1919 “Vatican Review” section of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 36, page 276: “Vatican Review” The Freemasons’ War, which the world war should rightly be called, has been brought into a new light by the French priest Jouin. Cardinal Gasparri states in a letter praising the book “that Freemasonry is everywhere and always the same, as also the uninterrupted cohesion of its plan, whose goal throughout is the ruin of the Catholic Church.”... The fortunately finally accomplished return of Nuncio Pacelli to Munich is no thanks to the Bavarian Government; on the contrary. While Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Finland, Estonia, Yugoslavia, China and Japan are occupied with establishing relations with the Pope, they are content in Munich with a childish disregard of the Pope’s representative... While the former Apostolic Visitor in Warsaw, Mons. Ratti, handed the Polish Government his credentials as the new Nuncio, and received his episcopal consecration by Archbishop Kakowski, Rome saw Kowalski arrive as Poland’s Ambassador to the Pope, thereby restoring relations that had been discontinued since 1792 ... Summer is the time for travel. That is noticeable also in the ecclesiastical realm. Cardinal Gasparri has taken his summer vacation and gone to the region of Bisso... The publication of the Vatican White Book, which will contain the documents about the position of the Holy See in the world war, has encountered a further delay... In Hungary, following the fall of Bela Kun, the Church has been restored again to its property; but frankly much remains missing of its former riches, especially items of art... Byline: Friedrich Ritter von Lama. German original Sept. 16, 1919 Hitler’s first documented antisemitic statement, in a letter to a Herr Gemlich: Honorable Herr Gemlich, If the danger posed by Jewry today for our people finds its expression in an undeniable aversion among the great part of our people, then the cause of this aversion is not generally to be found in a clear recognition of the systematic – whether recognized or not – pernicious effect of the Jews as a whole upon our nation, but rather it arises generally from personal interactions which leave an almost universally unfavorable impression, made by each individual Jew. For this reason, antisemitism is too easily seen as a mere emotional phenomenon. And yet this is incorrect. Antisemitism as a political movement may not and cannot be defined in terms of impulses of emotion, but rather in terms of recognition of facts. And the facts are: First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a membership in a religion. And the Jews themselves never characterize each other as Jewish Germans, Jewish Poles, or Jewish Americans, but always as German, Polish, or American Jews. Never yet have the Jews adopted much more than the language of the foreign peoples among whom they live. Just as a German who necessarily makes use of the French language in France, Italian in Italy, and Chinese in China, does not thereby become a Frenchman, an Italian, or a Chinaman, in the same way one cannot say that a Jew who is living among us and necessarily making use of the German language, thereby becomes a German. And even the Mosaic faith, so important for the survival of this race, does not exclusively settle the issue of whether one is a Jew or a non-Jew. There is hardly a race whose members belong without exception to one single certain religion. Through thousands of years of inbreeding, universally practiced within the narrowest circles, the Jew has generally preserved his race and its peculiarities more distinctly than numerous peoples among whom he has lived. And thus arises the fact that a non-German foreign race lives among us, unwilling and unable to give up its racial peculiarities or to disown its sentiments, thoughts, and strivings, and yet it possesses all the same political rights as we ourselves. If the sentiments of the Jew bestir themselves only in the purely material realm, how much more so his thoughts and strivings. The dance around the golden calf becomes a merciless struggle for all those possessions which, according to our own inner sentiments, should not be the highest focus of our efforts here on this earth. The worth of the individual is no longer determined by his character or by the significance of his accomplishments for the common good, but rather exclusively by the size of his fortune, by his money. The loftiness of the nation is no longer measured by the sum of its moral and spiritual strengths, but rather by the wealth of its material possessions. From this sentiment arises that thinking and striving after money and power, which enables the Jew to remain unscrupulous in the choice of means, and pitiless in their employment toward this end. In an autocratically governed state he whines for the favor of “His Majesty” the prince, and misuses that favor as a leech on the prince’s people. In a democracy he strives for the favor of the masses, fawns before the “majesty of the people,” and yet knows only the majesty of money. He destroys the character of the prince by byzantine flattery and destroys national pride, the strength of a people, by ridicule and shameless training in depravity. His method of battle employs that form of public opinion which is never explicitly printed in the press but which is nonetheless always furthered and twisted by the press. His power is the power of money, which increases in his hands effortlessly and endlessly in the form of interest, and which forces upon peoples this most dangerous of yokes, whose initially attractive golden glitter makes it so difficult to recognize its later tragic consequences. Everything mankind strives for in the higher realm, be it religion, socialism, democracy, is to him only a means to the end of satisfying his lust for gold and power. His impact becomes, consequentially, a racial tuberculosis among peoples. And from that arises the following: An antisemitism based on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of pogroms. An antisemitism based on reason, however, must lead to systematic combat by lawful means and the setting aside of the privileges of the Jew, which he possesses in contrast to other foreigners living among us (legislation concerning aliens). The ultimate objective of such legislation absolutely must be, permanently, the complete removal of the Jews. What can serve these purposes is only a government of national strength and never a government of national weakness. The Republic in Germany owes its birth not to the general national will of our people but to the sly exploitation of a chain of circumstances which together resulted in a state of deep universal dissatisfaction. These circumstances, however, were independent of the form of government and are still working their effect today. Indeed, more today than before. That is why the great part of our people fully recognizes that our situation cannot be changed and improved simply by a change in the form of government, but only by a rebirth of the moral and spiritual strengths of the nation. And this rebirth will not be brought about by government leaders of irresponsible majorities under the influence of certain party dogmas, by an irresponsible press, by phrases and slogans of an internationalist stamp, but only by the ruthless installation of nationalist-minded leader personalities [nationalgesinnte Führerpersonlichkeiten] with an inner sense of responsibility. This fact is still robbing the Republic of the inner support of the spiritual strengths that are so utterly essential to the nation. And so today’s government leaders are forced to seek support among those who drew and are drawing the exclusive benefits from the new order of German governmental arrangements, and who for this reason were really the driving force of the Revolution: the Jews. Heedless of the well-established danger posed by Jewry, which is well known also to today’s leaders (as shown by various statements of leading figures of the day), they were forced to accept the support willingly proffered by the self-interested Jews, and then came through with the required quid pro quo. And this payoff consisted not only in every possible furthering of Jewry, but above all in obstructing the struggle of the defrauded people against their defrauders, by neutralizing the antisemitic movement. Respectfully, [signed] Adolf Hitler Source: Eberhard Jäckel and Axel Kuhn, eds., Hitler: Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen, 1905-1924 [Collected Writings] (1980), p.88. (referenced hereafter as Jäckel and Kuhn). There is also an excellent translation of Hitler’s letter to Gemlich by Richard S. Levy available online [last accessed Sept. 2014] Note: Hitler’s letter to Gemlich differs from his previous writings, with respect to its substantive political and social commentary, its concern for spiritual and moral values, and its complex German syntax. Hitler’s complete known writings, which are relatively few and simple, are available in the original German, comprehensively collected and reprinted by Jäckel and Kuhn. They have apparently never been published in English translation. The following is a representative sampling of Hitler’s writings before his letter to Gemlich, in translation. Hitler’s early writings: Postcard to Emanuel Lugert, March 25, 1905, from Steyr, Austria: Heartiest congratulations on your esteemed saint-name feastday, sent to you by your grateful undersigned, Adolf Hitler Postcard to August Kubizek, May 7, 1906, from Vienna: In sending this card, I must at the same time apologize that I have left so much time pass without being heard from. I have been really well received and am going about busily. Tomorrow I am going to the opera for Tristan, day after tomorrow for The Flying Dutchman, etc. Although I am finding everything very nice, I still long for Linz. Today in the State Theater. Greetings from your friend, Adolf Hitler. PS Greetings to your esteemed parents. Letter to a Magistrate in the City of Linz, Austria, Jan. 21, 1914, from Munich: Magistrate Linz Div. II On Sunday the 18th a 3:30 p.m. I received a summons to an interview via the criminal-sheriff Herle, assigned to Rottmann Street 14/Div. II, according to which I must report for an interview in Linz on the 20th, otherwise I would be dealt with under sections 64 and 66 of the Defense Act [i.e. prosecuted for evading the draft in Austria] ... Since on Sundays everything is closed, and on Monday as the weekday following any non-workday, generally throughout Germany businesses come open only at 9 a.m. and offices however (also such as government offices) only at 10 a.m., I however would have had to depart, at the latest, right after Noon, so I would have hardly had time for the most basic bodily ablutions, like taking a bath. The main reason, however, that made it impossible for me to comply with the summons was that I could not succeed within such a short period, amounting to hardly 6 hours, in coming up with even the bare amount of money necessary for the trip. I was identified in the summons as a painter-artist. If I rightly bear such a title, it is only really however in a qualified sense. My earnings as an independent painter-artist are just barely enough, since I am entirely without means (my father was a civil servant), to enable my further training... I offer as proof of this my tax return and request ... advice and at the suggestion of the Consular officer I sent the telegram with a request for a postponement. I only received notice of the negative reply for the first time today, the 21st, at 9 a.m. There is also in all this certainly some guilt on my part. I neglected to report in Fall 1909; however tried to make up for this in February 1910. At that time I reported in Vienna at the Conscription I(B) office at the City Hall and was then directed to the 20th District as my district of residence. I asked to be allowed to be stationed in Vienna, had to sign a record or application and pay one crown, and then heard nothing more at all about it. It could never however have been my intention to escape from this … I was always on the records in Vienna and am equally so here, and am moreover in contact with the District Court in Linz, my original authority. My address was thus already always in this way easy to learn... I send this writing separately from the one I likewise signed today at the Consulate as a record. I also ask that I be allowed further opportunity through the Consulate, and I ask in the assurance that I will not delay in the punctual compliance with it... Unspecified writing, unspecified date, after his enlistment in the Bavarian Army in Aug. 1914: Messenger on the enemy – If the messenger observes the enemy but does not make a note of it, he fails in his purpose. If the enemy is already close upon him, then the messenger reports by firing. Similar writings on map-reading, messenger without entrenching tool under attack, defense and messenger under an attack, taking cover, covered and open positions, foxholes, entrenching in front of the enemy, digging in, camouflage. Letter to Anna Popp [his landlady while living in Munich before the war], Oct. 20, 1914, from Graben/Lechfeld: Dear Frau Popp, Please excuse me for only now writing for the first time. But it is really only now that there is time. As I told you we left Munich on Saturday. From 6:30 in the morning until 5 in the evening we were on our feet, in a big maneuver, all in the pouring rain. In Alling we had makeshift quarters. I was billeted in a shed, soaked through and through. Of sleep there was naturally none to speak of. Sunday we continued from 5 in the morning until 6 in the evening, everyone tired to death, from one maneuver to another. Around 6pm it was “bivouac in the open.” The night was bitter cold, and again we didn’t sleep. Monday was more marching from 5 in the morning until 3 in the afternoon. We were dead tired and collapsing at the end of the march, not so much from the marching as much more from the unaccustomed backpacks. Around 1:00 in the afternoon we marched through the French [prisoner of war] camp at Lechfeld. We were greatly astonished. The chaps hardly imagined we had so many troops. Moreover there were mostly very strong figures to see. These were really French elite troops who were taken prisoner at the beginning of the campaign. Despite exhaustion we were rigidly marched right through. These were the first Frenchmen I ever saw in my life. The first 5 days in Lechfeld were the toughest of my life. Every day a long march, big maneuvers, and night marches as long as 42 kms, combined with big maneuvers with the brigade. The only good thing was the billeting. We had private quarters with rations in the on-site trenches. The rations were especially first-rate. They stuffed us all-out. We had two full days of rest. Today, the 20th, in the evening, we started on a four-day train trip to the front, apparently to Belgium. I am absolutely delighted. Sunday was still the consecration of flags. We received 6 new flags and our first company were flag-bearers for the whole brigade. After we arrive at our appointed destination I will immediately write and provide my address. I hope we come to England. How are you and your husband, Mrs. Popp? In the meantime all my greetings to you and your husband and your children Peppi and Liesel from your devoted Adolf Hitler. I will still sketch in detail for Herr Popp my first impressions once I am in enemy country, and again all my greetings. Letter to Joseph Popp [landlord], from the Western Front, Dec. 3, 1914: Dear Herr Popp, I ask you most sincerely to excuse me for letting so much time pass without being heard from. The reason for this I want to give later. Thank you very much for the dear words you wrote me. My statement that we would come to Antwerp was not fulfilled. After a very beautiful trip along the Rhine, we traveled then for 22 nights through Belgium. As we left Aachen we were again, as often during the whole trip, greeted enthusiastically by thousands, and at 9 o’clock we came to Lüttich. The train station was completely closed. The traffic was enormous. Naturally just military. Around midnight we came to Löwen. The city is just a pile of rubble. Through Brussels we then traveled to Tournai and arrived on the next day around 5 o’clock in Lille. There we were at general quarters for three days. In Tournai we had already heard continuous distant cannon fire, and in Lille the rollcall seemed to go on endlessly. Lille is a real French major city. Individual sectors of it had been fired upon by us and burned down. By and large, however, the city has suffered little. In Lille, as I mentioned, we had nothing but general quarters. On the night of the 27th at 1 a.m. an alarm sounded suddenly and we marched out at 2 in a general march, and on the morning of the 29th at 7 o’clock we came into the battle and really right in the foremost front for attack. This was the battle of Geluwe and Bezelaere. For 4 days we were in the heaviest fighting and with pride may I say that our Regiment fought heroically and already by evening of the first day we had lost nearly all our officers and our company had only ... staff sergeants remaining. By the fourth day our Regiment from a strength of 3600 men had only 611 men remaining. But we had slaughtered the English. I became Lance Corporal [Gefreiter] and remained unharmed as by a miracle, after three days of rest we went forward again and fought at Messines and then at Wytschaete. There we did two more attacks. But it went yet even harder. My Company has now only 42 men and the 11th Company has only 17. Now we have received three reinforcement transfers totaling 1200 men all together. I myself have already been recommended for the Iron Cross after the second battle. But the Company Commander was yet seriously wounded on the same day and the matter went dormant. So I came into a staff position as Combat Runner. Since then, might I say, I have really put my life on the line every day and looked death in the eye. Lieutenant Colonel Engelhardt himself then recommended me for the Iron Cross. But he too was seriously wounded the same day. That was already our second Regimental Commander, for the first had already fallen on the third day. Now I was once again recommended by Adjutant Eichelsdörfer and yesterday December 2nd I really received the Iron Cross. It was the happiest day of my life. Certainly my comrades who had deserved it also were almost all dead. I ask you, dear Mr. Popp, to hold onto the newspaper in which my commendation appears. I would like to keep it as a remembrance, if the Lord God allows me life. And now, dear Mr. Popp, how are you and your family? Hopefully all in good health. It is an absolute miracle that nothing at all is ailing me despite the enormous exertions and lack of sleep. What are Peppi and Liesel doing? I think very often of Munich and especially of you, dear Mr. Popp, and your wife. Sometimes I still have strong homesickness. I am signing off now, dear Mr. Popp, and ask once again to excuse my not writing for so long. The reason for it was the Iron Cross. My address is now just Lance Corporal Hitler, 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment, 6th Bavarian Reserve Division, 1st Company (Regimental Staff) Meanwhile my most sincere greetings to you, dear Mr. Popp, your wife and children, from Adolf Hitler Letter to August Kubinek, from Munich, Dec. 10, 1916: Dear Friend, Since I was wounded on October 5th at Oberschenkel and was in the field hospital in Beelitz, I could learn your current address through a comrade. How are you, hopefully you are not offended at me! I hear that you are a conductor! Please let me hear something from you. My address: Lance Corporal Hitler, 4th Company, 1st Ersatz Battalion, 16th Bavarian Infantry Regiment, Munich. Greetings from your old friend Adolf Hitler Postcard to Balthasar Brandmayer, from Munich, Dec. 1916: Dear Partner, How are you? I am sitting most of the time with my swollen cheeks between my four walls and thinking often of you. A couple days ago I was with Schmidt. A transport went out a couple days ago to the Regiment. Unfortunately I could not go along. Notes by Hitler, dated March 4, 1919, about his military service 16 Aug 1914 – enlisted 1 Nov 1914 – promotion to Lance Corporal 9 Nov 1914 – transfer to Regimental staff 2 Dec 1914 – decoration with Iron Cross 2nd class 7 Oct 1915 – transfer to 3rd Company of Reserve Infantry Regiment No. 16 5 Oct 1916 – wounded – two months in field hospital 3 Dec 1916 – transfer to 4th Co. of 1st Reserve Battalion of the 16th Regiment of Bavarian Infantry 17 Sept 1917 – decoration with the Military Service Cross 3rd class with swords 30 Sept – 17 Oct 1917 – home leave in Spital 9 May 1918 – commendation by Regimental certificate for outstanding courage at Fontaine 4 Aug 1918 – decoration with Iron Cross 1st class 23-30 Aug – service leave in Nuremberg 25 Aug 1918 – service commendation 3rd class 10-27 Sept 1918 – home leave in Spital 14 Oct 1918 – poison gas eye injury at La Montagne – initial treatment in field hospital in Oudenarde 21 Oct - 12 Nov – Prussian Reserve Hospital in Pasewalk 21 Nov 1918 – transfer to the 7th Co. of the 1st Reserve Battalion of the 2nd Bavarian Infantry Regiment Notes of “Social- and Economic-Political Catchphrases,” Aug. 25, 1919, written by a German soldier during a talk by Hitler, Reich Army Indoctrination Command, Camp Lechfeld, Bavaria On the occasion of a very nice, clear and emotional lecture by Lance Corporal Hitler about capitalism, which touched thereby upon the Jewish question, really had to touch on it, arose concerning the ways and means for the occasion of a speaking detachment, with various points of view about whether one should express his opinions in a clear and unvarnished manner or in a rather veiled form. It was arranged that the detachment would be assigned to Möhl’s Group Command and conduct its own mission. If the Jewish question were presented now in entirely clear form with special consideration of the German standpoint, this type of expression could easily give the Jews occasion to label the lectures as Jew-baiting. Therefore I saw myself authorized to arrange that the treatment of this question should be handled in the most careful way possible and that overly clear references to this race that is foreign to the German people are to be avoided as far as possible. German originals are reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, pp. 43-86. Hitler’s writings after his letter to Gemlich, through mid-April 1920: Oct. 4, 1919, report from Lance Corporal Adolf Hitler to Captain Mayr, Detachment Ib/P, Reich Army, group headquarters Place: Munich, “Leiber Room” at the Sternecker Beer Hall Persons: 24 present, primarily from the lower class of the population, and two soldiers Speaker: Herr Feder Disposition: Nationalist The lecture by Herr Feder was of a general political nature. At the conclusion of the lecture there was a discussion in which I took part. Herr Captain, I request permission to join this association or party, because these men speak the mind of the frontline soldiers. Oct. 16, 1919, contribution to a discussion at a German Workers Party meeting ... Herr Hitler of the German Workers Party discussed with fiery words the necessity of a united front against the common enemy of the Volk and supported especially the establishment of a German press by which the Volk can learn what the Jewish newspapers hush up... Source: Münchener Beobachter [Munich Observer], Oct. 22, 1919, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.91. Oct. 19, 1919, letter from Lance Corporal Adolf Hitler to the German Workers Party, Sternecker Beer Hall, Munich I request enrollment in the German Workers Party. I am 30 years old, have been a frontline soldier [Frontsoldat] in the field from 1914 to 1918, decorated ultimately with the Iron Cross, 1st class. My occupation is businessman [Kaufmann], but I would like to become a propagandist, as I am considered gifted for that. Since I visited your meeting on 3 Oct. 1919, I request to be admitted as a paying card-carrying member. Awaiting your response, Adolf Hitler Nov. 13, 1919, “Brest-Litovsk and Versailles,” notes for a speech given on Nov. 13, 1919 in the large hall of the Eberl Beer Hall in Munich: Length of speech, 15-20 min. Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk The Spartacist uprising in Berlin The Jews Liebknecht, Luxemburg and Radek Who signed the shameful ceasefire? The Jew Erzberger A good whipping for the Jew Erzberger Who were the leaders of the bloody Soviet regime in Bavaria? The Jew Mühsam, the Jew Landauer, the Jew Levien, the Jew Leviné, and Eisner was also a Jew. Hunger for the workers, but 60,000 pounds of wheat flour for the Munich Jewish community. Persons 129, Collection 14.25 German Marks, Adolf Hitler (notation added by hand) Source: Undated manuscript, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.91 Nov. 13, 1919, “Brest-Litovsk and Versailles,” speech to a German Workers Party meeting: These same rulers, the speaker amplified, who previously declared they were indifferent how the war would be ended, now declare the war is the reason for all the misery. Instead of agreement there is deception, instead of reconciliation everything is a matter of power. There are drastic differences between the two peace agreements. Brest-Litovsk is called a shameful peace, but a comparison makes it obvious how different they are. The ceasefire of Spa was made for 21 days and extensions were provided for; our ceasefire was made for 30 days and each extension had to be begged for. The first bill the Entente presented to us came to 3 billion. In the following days a couple hotels in Munich were commandeered for the oversight commission; we have to feed the snitches, and in Berlin there are already 1000 of them. We have to maintain a professional army (with 12-year enlistments); our current 100,000 men cost us as much as our 500,000 did previously, namely 1 billion 800 million (outcry: Read the “Kampf,” the Jews and the Independent Social Democrats are the greatest snitches in the whole country). But it’s not enough that our adversaries want our weapons, they demand also our spirits. In the whole history of the world, no people has ever been forced to declare itself ready to sign such a shameful treaty (Jew-powers). They call it a free state, meaning all are free, while everything is swindle, fraud, they are not even ashamed any more to allow further immigration of Jews. We want to be a free people and not a free state (rousing applause). We must fight for the idea that it cannot keep going on like this. German misery must be broken by German iron. This time must come... Source: Munich police observer’s report, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, pp.92-93. Münchener Beobachter newpaper’s report on the same speech: ... The speaker presented in a most skillful manner the contrast between the majority of the German (sic ?) press calling the Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk shameful and forced, and the same press, in a deceitful and bloody-minded manner, calling Versailles a negotiated peace. The images that Herr Hitler developed of the two peace treaties brought them into flagrant contrast for perceptive listeners, and roused many hearts into a passion. Outcries of approval signaled the agreement of the listeners with the expression of the exceptionally high-spirited remarks of the speaker. The lecturer encountered enthusiastic agreement when he identified the republic as a free state of the Entente whose freedom within its borders consists in the license of Volks-plunderers, usurers, exploiters and black-marketeers to oppress the Volk in the most vulgar manner with impunity. Uproarious applause, continuing on and on, returned thanks for the worthy remarks of Herr Hitler. Source: Münchener Beobachter, Nov. 19, 1919, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.94. Nov. 26, 1919, contribution to a discussion at a German Workers Party meeting: ... Much criticism. All the promises, not only those made before the war, but also those which were made in the manifesto of November 15th, have been completely unfulfilled. Civil war has actually arrived. Every day we are pressed harder (savings premiums – bonds). The farmers will provide us with food, in a few days everything will go according to plan (don’t laugh). That is how we were swindled 12 months ago. Amazing powers! Yes, in any event, they have no respect of governments. Ceasefire provisions will be adjusted. Yes, yes, a few days ago they received the proof. Dec. 10, 1919, “Germany in its Deepest Humiliation,” speech to a German Workers Party meeting: ... Who bears the guilt for the humiliation of Germany? What is right? Is right possible without might? ... With 2, then 7, then 9 men we have begun the work. The Party grows from day to day, and it will not give up the fight, it will never do that. We fight against money. Only work, not money, will help us. The bondage to interest must be broken. We fight against the races that are the representatives of money. Character has meaning in the face of this money. We call ourselves a German Party, because we want to be German and lead the struggle against the Polish-Jewish mob. The cabinet posts cannot be occupied by incompetents, we want experts. We want a German Volk. We are a reactionary party and we show this in that we fight against the Jews, lay a firm grip on them. Schiller said: What human hands build, human hands can also destroy. We want to be a free Volk in a free Germany! Source: Munich police observer’s report. Reich Army report of same speech: ... The Revolution shook our government institutions to their deepest innards. Robbery, murder and slaughter have become everyday occurrences. In the government sit incompetent people who only promise and cannot accomplish anything. Let us pray that in the upcoming elections everything will be remembered and nothing forgotten, that today it is only Jews who do business and do not shy away from stirring up civil war by incitement and agitation. I stand on this position: Germany for Germans! Source: Reports, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, pp. 96-100. Jan. 7, 1920, contribution to a discussion at a meeting of the German Völkisch Defense-Offense League: The worst scoundrel is not the Jew, but the one who places himself at the disposal of the Jews (applause). We fight against the Jew because he obstructs the battle against capitalism. We have brought our bitter distress upon ourselves. Now that the whole world is against us, we are still fighting each other domestically. So in whose interest is it that we fight each other? We already know. Now he [the speaker] turns against the German Federation. He appeals for a good turnout at the assembling this coming Friday of the German Federation at the Wagner Hotel. Source: Munich police observer’s report, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.101. January-March 1920 (date uncertain), attachment to a Munich police observer’s report of March 4, 1920, notes on “The Dictated Peace of Brest-Litovsk and the Peace of Reconciliation and Agreement of Versailles?” ... Jan. 16, 1920, contribution to a discussion about a German Workers Party meeting: Anton Drexler presided over the meeting of 400 persons ... Hitler must admit that no talk has pleased him like that of the proletariat. From them rings out the conviction that what we want to do, break the power of the Jews, is also right for them. They take no notice of a peace treaty. They say to the worker: You must increase your income, no one thinks about sufficiency. They don’t say to him that with an increase of income there will also be an increase in expenses. Taxes must go away, rents must go away, then the lowering of prices will follow of its own accord and every individual can live better. The implementation of improvement is only possible by political means. The breaking of interest slavery will take a major fight. In unity there is strength. Now the monstrosity of fulfillment of the peace terms is beginning. We demand struggle against the peace treaty. Or do you believe that France, even if a new government came to power, would waive their fulfillment? Every drop of sweat that flows from our brow flows not for us but for our adversaries. One people has a right to live, another people must starve. We demand the re-establishment of our financial condition. We will not stand for our fate being governed by people of a foreign race. We demand that the immigration of Jews be forbidden. We fight against the Jew because he is not a German, because he is the protector of big capital. Today his wheat is growing better than ever. The Communists do not recognize that they are serving big capital. They rattle off phrases and catchwords until they can spout them right back. The Jews are inundating our country with brochures. You can’t recognize yourself any more for all the clear principles etc. But the day will come when the workers open their eyes, and then the leaders will be chased to the devil. We want to have the workers behind us, that is why we are a Workers Party. Source: Munich police observer’s report, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.105. Jan. 23, 1920, “Against the Destroyers of the Reich, and the French,” speech to a German Workers Party meeting: ... The speaker, Herr Adolf Hitler ... The struggle against Prussia is a struggle against a worldview. His remarks about the immigration question brought tempestuous applause... Source: Völkischer Beobachter, Jan. 28, 1920. Feb. 24, 1920, speech at the inaugural meeting of the National Socialist German Workers Party at the Hofbräuhaus Beer Hall in Munich: Police reporting service – in the Festival Hall of the Hofbräuhaus: ... He thanks the opposition, who were present in large numbers, for their peaceful conduct and says that “we won’t stab them in the back.” Now he sets out clearly what the German Workers Party wants. Everywhere there is distress, misery, hunger, etc. How long can this go on, everyone asks themselves, and what is being done officially against it? Nothing! Because the government is too cowardly to tell the people the truth (lively applause and handclapping). We keep hearing only one thing: Work more! But there they forget to say that every bit of additional work goes to benefit not ourselves but our enemies. By this peace treaty, continually new, enormous sufferings are brought forth. Week by week billions in new paper money are printed, which continually lowers the value of the money. There was a time when our officials were famous for their reliability and incorruptibility. And today? How can we expect honor from this class when the highest ranking is named Herr “Erzberger”? (thunderous applause) The Democratic Party has declared that it will not go well if Herr Erzberger remains in office longer. They should have meant: We find it inconceivable that this Herr is not yet sitting in prison (lively applause). Through these bad examples corruption has multiplied... The workers are always being told they should emigrate to Russia. Wouldn’t it be more to the purpose if then the Eastern Jews stayed put, if there is really so much work there? (lively applause) You can well imagine what kind of work is there, if they move here (applause) (Down with the Jewish press! Out with them!) Among the criminal elements of racketeers and profiteers, monetary fines have no effect (Flog them! Hang them!) How are we going to protect our fellow men from this band of leeches? (Hang them!) No doubt we are good theoreticians, but we are not good practitioners. We must learn over and again that our existence is bound to the entirety of the Volk. Our Volk are always hoping for the solidarity of the entire world, but there is one thing not hoped for: Our own solidarity (applause). This should be said to the international workers: Whoever relies on others is lost! (thunderous applause) We amuse ourselves and dance in order to forget our misery. It is not a coincidence that ever more new pleasures are being found. They really will artificially enervate us (applause). On the one hand it is said: You should work, on the other hand: nothing but pleasure! Our political parties have the mission to better enlighten the Volk. It hasn’t happened! Today these parties are unfruitful. Every party only makes promises (he touches on the USPD). It prepares one for heaven. (Schwarrn!) Look at the DNVP (Great unrest in the room)! Then Herr Hitler read off the program of the German Workers Party, whose individual points often evoked loud applause (Lays it on). During the reading of the program there often came interruptions from the opposition, followed by cries of “Get out.” There often prevailed such a tumult that I often thought at any moment things would come to blows. If we do not step any more out in public, that is not cowardice, rather it is from lack of money. Our party is based on the cooperation of all working classes. Our word means only struggle. We will walk our path straight and unshakably to our goal (prolonged thunderous applause). Then the presider read aloud a resolution, in which the sharpest protest was raised against the directing of 4,000,000 pounds of wheat flour to the Jewish community, while thousands received no sick rations. Also reported in the Völkischer Beobachter, Feb. 28, 1920: ... Herr Hitler (German Workers Party) developed some striking political images, which met with tempestuous applause, but also occasioned contradictions from “prejudiced” adversaries who were present in large numbers; and he gave an overview of the Party Program, which comes close to the program of the German Socialist Party in its main features. Source: Police report and article, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, pp. 109-111. March 1, 1920, letter to Walter Riehl, from Munich: Honorable Herr Dr. Riehl, Although we must assume that the letter of 6 February 1920 that you had the kindness to send to us, actually arrived at the wrong address, we must nevertheless provide you an answer, at least to make clear to you, so far as generally is possible in the space of such a short letter, our position on the points that you touch upon in your present writing to us, and which appear to us especially urgent and important. The attached program of our Party will quickly show you that we, perhaps in contrast to the German-Socialist Party, place the greatest weight on the complete unity of all Germanic peoples, regardless of their former nation-state-affiliation. We cannot think of any other goal that could possibly be suited to satisfy us interiorly, if not the goal of giving the German Volk the position on this earth appropriate to the strength of its numbers and its culture. And this goal does not appear to us to be attainable unless the division of the Germanic peoples is brought to an end and our Volk is unified. For discussions in this field the first person who would come into consideration for our part is Herr Adolf Hitler, who is a co-signer of this letter and who himself is a native German-Austrian. Herr Hitler is the publicity director of our local Party group. As for the other points in your letter, we are under no delusion that any sort of lasting unification of our Volk is possible without providing for an unconditionally recognized focal point for the entire organization and government of the Reich. The errors and the dark side of Berlin appear to us to be not unrelated to that city and its character, and actually are just the inevitable result of a so-called culture that by its nature is not really determined by influences of a German racial sort, but rather Jewish ones. It is only natural that in the largest city of the Reich the curse of this sick culture necessarily becomes the most destructive, whether that city is called Berlin or something else. Therefore our struggle cannot apply only to that city, but to all the causes of our condition. They consider the so-called “struggle against Berlin” to be a mask for the goal of dragging Germany back into its powerlessness and division via the political setting aside of the Reich capital city, and via the creation of an even larger, set up against it as an ever stronger rival, to leave warring individual states bleeding in a state of perpetual civil war. We must absolutely reject the creation of a second East-Rome [as Constantinople was set up as a second capital city of the Roman Empire in the 3rd century A.D.] Moreover we insist to you here in conclusion yet again that our Fatherland is not named Prussia and is not named Bavaria, nor Austria, nor Saxony, but Germany. Anticipating your response, we sign respectfully, A. Hitler and A. Drexler Source: Letter, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.112. March 4, 1920, speech on “The Truth About the ‘Dictated Peace of Brest-Litovsk’ and the So-Called ‘Treaty of Reconciliation and Understanding’ of Versailles,” delivered to a Nazi Party meeting in the Festival Hall of the Hofbräuhaus, Munich: Hitler begins to speak: 4 opponents in the war made peace with us. We Germans, for the most part honorable and generous-minded, believed the promises of Wilson about a peace of reconciliation and were so bitterly disappointed. Instead of reconciliation – deception, instead of agreement – power. Compare: The armistice concluded by us at Brest-Litovsk (barely three out of a thousand Germans know about it) (great applause) with the one dictated to us at Spa and Versailles. . . . [here follows a point-by-point comparison, showing that Germany was less harsh on the Russians in the peace agreement of Brest-Litovsk, than the US, England, France and Italy were with the Germans in the treaty of Versailles] ... All the necessities of life have been taken from us, and now we are handed over yet further to our own leaders. Hitler explains: Not because the leaders are a Hindenburg, or a Ludendorff, or a Communist, etc., do I resist with all my strength, but because these are members of the German Volk (Great unrest. Several Communists who interrupted were ejected by the Reich Army, which had 50 men present) How can this mob dare to bring anyone before a court that has been put together by such jerks. (Outcry: It serves them right if they are thrown out!) (Disturbance) ... If we protect ourselves against this shameful peace, they say the reactionaries are marching. We protest against a government that degenerates its own Volk, against the dictatorship by that race which has brought all this misery upon us. Therefore we fight. We consider this fight to be honorable. Today we declare: the peace treaty of Versailles must disappear (enormous applause and uproar) Now we want are going to vote on three points of our program: 1. We demand renegotiation of the peace treaty. 2. We demand capital punishment for all usurers and racketeers of whatever class. 3. We demand a free German Reich. Unanimously approved. When the nays were called for, the numerous Communists in the hall didn’t make a move. No one raised his hand. (Great uproar, Outcries: Cowards etc.) Hitler closed to enormous applause. Then a discussion began, amidst great uproar. Hitler had the final word and enthusiastically urged joining the German Workers Party. Source: Memo, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.113. March 29, 1920, “Munich-Berlin Flight” report on trip of March 17, 1920 by Hitler and Dietrich Eckart, Munich. Pilot: Lt. Ritter von Greim: As I was speaking to and looking at the Press Chief of the Kapp government, I knew that this could not be a nationalist revolution and that it must remain unsuccessful, because the Press Chief was a Jew. Source: Report, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.117. March 29, 1920, speech to a Nazi Party discussion evening in Munich (notes from Riedl’s diary): [a lengthy speech over three evenings] Austrian Ritter Georg von Schönerer ... 5th point: Bolshevism Ruhr District negotiations ... Second Evening ... I. Bolshevism Ruhr District negotiations by the Bauer government Requirements of the Kapp Putsch Dissolving of the national assembly, new elections, cabinet ministers, President of the Volk chosen The military can never be the engine of revolution nor the leader of the movement. It can only support the will of the Volk. ... Vienna has 49,000 Jews ... Eckart on the Jewish question, revoke the citizenship of members of the Jewish faith Source: Diary, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.117. April 6, 1920, contribution to a discussion on a Nazi Party meeting, as reported by the Munich Police reporting service: The Jewish question is not easily answered or shrugged off, as for example the “Kampf” or the “Munich Post” would do (applause). The struggle against Jewry will go on as long as Jewry exists (applause). He [Hitler] rounded now sharply upon Jewry in a witty manner and thereby won strong applause. Then he came to the various proclamations of the revolutionary government and the outcries etc. in the Jewish etc. press, and read from some of them outloud, including from the time of the Councils government in Bavaria... The speaker then added this question to it: OK, where are and remain these nice promises? We are today much worse off than ever (applause). Our government has empowered, and still does, corruption, swindling and deception, instead of fighting against it (lively applause). Didn’t we used to have such outstanding administrators and such dutiful officials? (applause) And how is it today? Where in the world is the legendarily incorruptible, dutiful German civil service? Is it any wonder that officials are no longer what they were, when they see all around them the filthy immigrant East-Jews who line their pockets in the most shameless way, when their chiefs themselves are the greatest of racketeers? (lively applause) Of the many provisions that are brought into Berlin, for example, the worker sees and touches nothing, and neither does the small official. Then he came to speak about the Eastern Jews and turned with sharp words against them and demanded their immediate eviction (lively applause). So then Herr Hitler read aloud the public letter of the League of Jewish Combat Veterans [Frontsoldaten] to the Bavarian government (see Munich Latest News 6 Apr 1920) and was interrupted repeated by cries such as “shameless cheekiness” “herd of pigs” etc. I spoke about particular aspects and objected to the name Jewish Front Soldiers. He himself was a simple man for 4-1/2 years with the 16th Reserve Infantry Regiment at the foremost Front, but the Jews in his Regiment he could count on the fingers of one hand... We do not want to be emotional antisemites who want to produce pogroms, but we are motivated by the relentless determination to take this evil by the root and pull it out root and branch (lively applause). To accomplish our goal, every means is right for us, even if we have to ally ourselves with the devil (applause). ... So then he read aloud several points (primarily about the eviction of the Eastern Jews and a ban on further immigration), which were then approved unanimously by the meeting. Reich Army report: Herr Hitler spoke in eloquent words against the Jews and read several matters from a brochure... Source: Reports, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.119. April 9, 1920, concluding words at a Nazi Party meeting, by Hitler, in the Festival Hall of the Hofbräuhaus, Munich, as reported by the Munich Police reporting service: ... breaking the yoke of interest bondage ... our government is not directed by the German will, but by Jewish money (thunderous Bravos and handclapping)... We want to become once again a united German Volk, even if the whole Jewish mob opposes it (lively applause). We Bavarians want to save Germany from a difficult hour (applause). With faith in the greatness of Germany Herr Hitler concluded his remarks. Source: Report, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, pp. 121-122. April 17, 1920, “The World War and its Makers”: He first offered up the question why the struggles among peoples are not resolved in the realm of law and added a lengthy reflection on law in relation to the various countries. He asked whether it is “lawful” that particular small peoples rule entire parts of the earth. Examples like England and China (Opium War), England and Italy, England and the Boers shed light on the question of law. So then the speaker came to speak about our opponents. He divides these into two groups. The first group comprises those who recently in the course of time have become our enemies for one reason or another; the second, those who a long time ago were our enemies. He began with Russia and touched upon its Asian policy of conquest. He maintains that between us and Russia an agreement cannot take place because the international Jewish press has prevented it (applause). So then he spoke about Romania and Serbia, which turned against Austria-Hungary and thereby also against us. Italy strove to dominate the Mediterranean, etc. France has long pursued the destruction of Germany, no matter what the government of Germany might be at the time. It is filled with blind hatred and desire for revenge. France drives international policy. Bismarck, the greatest German statesman, recognized all of this and set his policy accordingly. The speaker dealt with England at somewhat greater length. England with its few million rules practically one-fifth of the entire earth. The English fleets! English colonial power, the greatest in the world! England controls world commerce. How then could England generally attain to such power? 1. Through British nationalist sentiment, which is so lacking among our Volk (absolutely right!); 2. Through racial purity in the colonies. The Englishman has always known to act only as lord and not brother. 3. Through his extraordinary ingenuity. He could always take commercial power into his own hands. The Englishman has a masterful understanding of how to turn his enemies, once he has conquered them, into allies, and then to go on with them to conquer new lands. The speaker gave some examples. English merchants and engineers etc. were at the forefront of the whole world. While England was exporting goods, we were exporting people. Our emigrants were only working slaves, they were artificial manure for the peoples (applause). Recently it has become entirely different. The Germans gave the English stiff competition. German engineers pressed hard upon England’s. We began also to export goods, while we still – after the glorious revolution – still produced human exports, but only for Germans (spirited/lively applause). The speaker then came to the Road to Baghdad, the German colonies etc., and sang a song of praise to German diligence and German honesty and solidity. It would have taken only a few more years and Germany would have become the leading commercial state of the world. England recognized that and directed its policy accordingly. First they tried economic measures like tariffs, labels on German goods saying Made in Germany, etc., to wrestle Germany to the ground. But they did not succeed. After that time hatred against us grew immeasurably, and England started to think of annihilating us by war. English encirclement policy! The speaker then spoke of America and alluded to the U-Boat campaign, which he did not consider the sole cause of bringing America into the war. He went on to make comparisons between the Germany of earlier times, renowned for honesty and solidity and the Germany of today, which resembles a pile of rubble (lively applause)... ... Who is it that directed German policy during the last years before the war? (Jews!) They were not all-German, they were all-Jewish! (thunderous applause) While we had to endure 4-1/2 long years of need and deprivation and fear of death, thousands who stayed home sought to enrich themselves in the most unscrupulous ways and to systematically undermine the German Volk internally (lively applause). ... We want to remain faithful to our German Volk (applause). First and foremost we are Germans and only then, God knows, can we be something in addition (lively applause). We must get rid of the poison within us and outside us if we want to get well (applause). Only through work can we rise up again. We have greater respect for the worker with the calloused hand than for the white collar worker with the furrowed brow! (lively applause) In this sense we are National Socialists. Then the speaker exhorted people to become members of the Workers Party and closed with the words: “There will yet come a day when the sun again breaks through” (prolonged thunderous applause). Report in “Der Kampf” of April 20, 1920: ... He complained that the world is so unfairly divided up, and urgently called for a more just division according to the proposals of Ludendorff and companions. The “enemies” are mobilizing again, in order to be protected from the “demolished” German armies and fleets – which were generally never a given! Against that, there is no law that can avail, rather one must possess strength and power in order to oppose these mobilizations forcefully in the manner of Ludendorff. The speaker started to discuss the result brought about by the international Jewish financial institutions as well as German foreign policy in the “great events of 1914.” ... The Jewish money-international nevertheless came away with its victory, because “money rules the world,” even in Germany. The German press, nine-tenths of them, became indirect instruments of the enemy. By them and by Jew-socialists bribed with Jewish money, the “deathly exhausted” Army, from lowest private to highest Field Marshal, was “stabbed in the back”! (The old lie!) The entire War policy was not all-German, but rather all-Jewish! (uproarious applause and foot-stomping) The speaker says that some of the Independent Social Democrats in attendance better hold onto their seats, and see that they don’t fall off, because the best is yet to come. (This clever invitation of Herr Hitler is never accepted!) And then Hitler directs “blow after blow” against the evil “Jew-socialists” in the same old way of “dressing the ranks.” The documents concerning protection of immigrants, which we have published, as well as the “MP,” appear to stick in his craw. He denies us the right to call ourselves independent, because we are “dependent on Jews.” We only pretend to fight against international capital in order to throw sand in the eyes of the masses (as Herr Hitler understands so well). The speaker says that we support capital, because we are dependent on it. The speaker, in closing, “gets on his high horse” so far as to say that we ourselves are Jewish capitalists. He wants to administer nationalist and racial sentiments to the people. For that it is not enough to shout Hurrah, but rather to stand by the people in their misfortune so that they might rise up again to the “godly heights” of former power and glory. This can only occur through work, work, and more work (but has Herr Hitler ever worked at all himself?) Respect for the calloused hand must take first place, because that is the only way the people can rise again. Away with the Jews! Germany for the (pure) Germans! Whoever wants this should sign up with the National “Socialist Workers Party”!! Uproarious applause and foot-stomping like a buffalo herd “thanked” the loudmouth for his “lecture.” The speaker then made it known that there were still unfinanced expenses for the support of Gottfried Feder and writer Köhler for “National Socialism.” For this undertaking as well as for placards and leaflets, money is needed, and he asked the meeting to support it through voluntary contributions. He could not go to the Jews like the other socialist parties! April 20, 1920 Contribution to a discussion on a meeting of Workers Committee of German-Völkisch Associations, in the Löwenbräu Beer Hall, Munich: Hitler, greeted with Bravos (by the German Workers Party), publicly rejected what was in the “Kampf,” a paper that criticized his last lecture in the German Workers Party. He demands a government free from foreign, Jewish influence. A worker who does not take up the fight against the greatest evil, against Jewry, is either a liar or a scoundrel. His obviously lively expressions were received with thunderous applause. German originals are reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, pp. 90-125. Sept. 20, 1919 Henle to Faulhaber: ... The long-winded teacher law [of Aug. 14, 1919] is a model example of how laws should not be made. More satisfactory – from a mere standpoint of form, as to substance it was really set up to our conscience – is the constitution-proclamation of the Free State of Bavaria, but it was produced outside the Landtag, the Landtag only pronounced its Ja and Amen. The little bit of improving modifications are only for the totally harmless points. The spirit of the constitution is not affected by them. Now that the child is well along in development, Hoffmann appears, “the sly one,” bringing up thoughts of resigning, and “our people” appear well-disposed enough to take the odium upon themselves for its further development, and so at the end of the day, he will figure as the author of the revolution and the republic in the later history of our beloved Bavaria. If only we Bishops had an independent and really Catholic press! It is pitiful. Wouldn’t Your Excellency still want to include in the pastoral letter a little passage that would also touch upon something of the issue of conscience with respect to the new republican constitution and that would be just a pointer to the recent word of the Apostolic See? [letter from Pope Benedict XV to the German Bishops, July 15, 1919] In the pastoral letter to the people I would have also frankly desired a warning from the supreme shepherd against the immeasurably increasing pleasure-seeking of the masses (dancing entertainment to all extremes!) But I see that I go too far and am becoming like Cato the Censor. Your Excellency, please excuse my presumption! Perhaps section 10 of the constitution-proclamation gives us a weapon ready at hand to arouse our ever more sleepy, apathetic and unfortunately also unprincipled people to an energetic defense and opposition toward all the monstrosity that the Revolution has brought us and will yet bring to us. ... Nachlass Faulhabers, No. 4360 Sept. 21, 1919 “Vatican Review” section of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 38 page 291: “Vatican Review” ... Cardinal Giustini has set out on an Italian warship for the Holy Land, where he will stay for two months and thereby visit all the missions there. Palestine has never before seen so many Cardinals in a decade as it has in the last few months. The Cardinal will attend the laying of the cornerstone for a church on Mt. Tabor and will consecrate a monument in Cairo for the Saint of Assisi... In Yugoslavia there continue to be rumbles and the non-Catholic press is rabble-rousing stridently aginst the Pope, which is only serving to intensify the opposition among (Catholic) Serbs and Croats against the idea of being part of a unified overall state... German original Sept. 23, 1919 Lingg to Faulhaber: ... I don’t know which I took greater pleasure in, the minutes [of the Freising Bishops Conference] or the pastoral letter [of Oct. 7, 1919] or the Bishops Conference’s letter to the priests [of Sept. 14, 1919]. How proud I am now of my Metropolitan and what would I be without him! I dare not say how thankful I am to Your Excellency for everything. I am indeed in agreement with all Your Excellency’s recommendations. Now in relation to the pastoral letter may I be allowed a few wishes. I consider it better not to touch upon Holy Father’s unfortunate address about Jeanne d’Arc and thus not make the people, who know nothing of it, aware for the first time. Even more would I wish the passage stricken that deals with Eisner, Christ and Hus. I consider this passage likely to whip up new sufferings without bringing anything of positive use. They wanted to murder me “because Eisner was murdered.” This sentiment could well be reawakened by the pastoral letter ... Source: Nachlass Faullhaber, No. 4320 Sept. 28, 1919 “Vatican Review” section of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 39, page 299: The Kulturkampf-ish power-policy of the Czech Government, with Freemason Masaryk at the helm, is beginning to make its impact felt; it has provoked such a strong resistance among the faithful people, who have been completely left in the lurch by their Bishops, that the re-introduction of compulsory religious instruction can no longer be held back, while the Slovaks have been converted into resolute anti-Czechs by the brutal anti-clericalism of commissars and officials sent from Prague, and the Slovaks are already beginning to look elsewhere for an Anschluss [annexation to another country]. The new Archbishop of Prague, Mons. Kordac, a student of the German College in Rome, is staying for the time in the Eternal City and was received by the Pope on September 14th. Since President Masaryk was not asked before this appointment whether the candidate was acceptable to him, the Government has given orders that Archbishop Kordac is to be arrested if he sets foot in Czechoslovakia. Thus they have still learned nothing in Prague... German original Oct. 6, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Relations between Church and State in Bavaria. – The new Bavarian Constitution Most Reverend Eminence, By date of this September 29th, Mr. Hoffmann, Minister President and Minister of Foreign Affairs and of Education and Cultural Affairs, sent me a letter, which I carry out my duty to report herewith, translated from the German: “I have the honor to communicate to Your Excellency that the new Constitution of the Bavarian Republic (Freistaat) has been published and has entered into effect. I hereby enclose for you a copy of the Official Gazette, containing the text of this Constitution. “With the revolution commenced for Germany and Bavaria a new period of their history. The Bavarian Republic, with the entrance into effect of the new Constitution, rests upon a solid legal foundation recognized by all the population. “I hope that the relations between the Holy See and the new Bavaria will be good, and I have already provided that the Minister of Bavaria, Baron Otto von Ritter zu Grünstein, returned to Rome immediately after the conclusion of the peace. “I take this occasion with pleasure etc.” The same day that I received this letter, that being this September 30th, I responded to Mr. Minister in the following terms: “I have the honor to acknowledge to Your Excellency the receipt of Your esteemed letter dated the 29th of this month and to thank You at the same time for the exemplar of the new Bavarian Constitution courteously sent to me, which I will examine with interest and attention. “I cultivate the most sincere and warm votives for Bavaria’s felicitous future and join myself from the heart to the hope expressed by Your Excellency that the relations between the Holy See and the Bavarian Government will be good, assuring You that for my part, I will see to contributing with all my strength to this intention. “With sentiments etc.” Meanwhile a crisis has arisen in the Bavarian Government that is still not resolved, about which I will have the honor to recount to Your Most Reverend Eminence in a special Report, and which has brought in consequence a further delay in the proposed negotiations on the Concordat. Despite this, and in expectation that the negotiations will begin, I have actively sought to influence Mr. Hoffmann by means of deputies of the Bavarian Volkspartei, or Bavarian Center Party, rousing them to exert pressure on him (as coming from them and without naming or compromising in any way either myself or the Holy See), to get him to recognize in Bavaria as well the full and absolute freedom in the appointment to ecclesiastical offices, established in the Constitution of the German Empire (cf. Report No. 13822 dated this August 18th) and to allow at the same time the continuation not only of the obligatory subsidies, but also of those that are so-called free or voluntary, which have up to now been remitted by the Bavarian State to the Church. In this regard I must also add that some of the aforesaid deputies have confidentially expressed to me their fear that Mr. Baron von Ritter, being an excellent personage and motivated by the best sentiments, attempted, once he reached Rome, to obtain from the Holy See a promise or hope of some sort of participation by the State in the appointment to ecclesiastical offices (for example, in a form subject to confidential agreement), all the more since, as it is said, in his Reports to the Bavarian Government he had supported the possibility and the convenience in principle of maintaining the aforementioned voluntary subsidies. If he should achieve this, these deputies think it would become naturally almost impossible to bend the obstinate and anti-clerical Mr. Hoffmann to the aforesaid recognition. At the same time, in sending the enclosed aforesaid exemplar of the Bavarian Constitution to Your Eminence, I deem it not unuseful (1) to transcribe here-enclosed, translated into Italian, the paragraphs of this Constitution concerning relations between Church and State, adding for each some observations and clarifications; (2) to indicate that in some points the Concordat of 1817 is violated, both by this Constitution and by the Constitution of the Empire or by other provisions of legislation. I. The new Bavarian Constitution deals with the religious question and relations between Church and State in Heading IV entitled “Freedom of conscience, religious societies, schools.” It comprises only five paragraphs (17-21) and contains rather few legislative provisions. The reason is because Bavaria is already bound in the governance of this important matter by the Reich Constitution, as was stated with words of evident regret by Minister President Hoffmann, who in his anti-clerical spirit lamented that this had made the Church free from the State, but not vice versa the State free from the Church (cf. Proceedings of the II. Constitutional Committee on the Outline of a Constitutional Decree for the Free State of Bavaria – Bavarian Landtag – Session 1919 – First Reading – Appendix 324 – page 270)... Section 17 I. To each is guaranteed full freedom of belief and conscience ... [summary continues for sections 17-21, plus implementing legislation, as well as excerpts from the Bavaria-Vatican Concordat of 1817] ... Footnote: This news may be confirmed by a recent letter from the Bishop of Eichstätt, in which he tells me of having learned from a good employee in the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs that “the Minister of Bavaria to the Holy See believes that Rome would be ready for or at least not against an eventual negotiation with the Bavarian Government to recognize an involvement of the State in ecclesiastical appointments in exchange for maintenance of all or at least the most important of the subsidies previously paid by the State. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 265 Oct. 7, 1919 Faulhaber Diary: October 7th with Neuffer of Upper Bavaria: How he has organized the Bauernwehr [Rural Army] with a forestry officer [Georg Escherich according to editorial note in Faulhaber-Edition], no longer giving up their weapons, they are enraged over this economy, terribly embittered over Hoffmann, the former chased-out schoolmaster who is so cowardly and Auer equally so. He went hatless to Starnberg on February 21st and begged Baron Stengel with outstretched hands to give him visas for Switzerland. His own wife ready, his children as Red Cross nurses, it must ... [ellipsis in original] be simulated, he is a dictator. They have weapons and ammunition of which the government knows absolutely nothing. Of course there would be no consideration of a monarchy, nor of a democracy either. But sad that the Volkspartei is now shaking off its own press. The farmers were once so dumb and gave up their weapons, they will not be so dumb a second time. Whoever does not want to work, should not eat. But then relentlessly and if they send their wives and children on ahead. We would have an outstanding Police President [Ernst Pöhner per editorial note] who really must become Interior Minister, and [Eugen] Knilling for Minister of Religion and Education. I should likewise go away if it breaks out – No. United CV and KV [Catholic student fraternity federations Cartellverband and Kartellverband], Dony and Grauvogl want a special mass at the Catholic Congress and for the opening of the semester, October 25th, 11:00 a.m., at St. Ludwig: Time and place are very inconvenient for me, but assented in general. Source: Kritische Online-Edition der Tagebücher Michael von Faulhabers (1911-1952); EAM, NL Faulhaber 10004 [Critical Online-Edition of the Diary of Michael von Faulhaber, Munich Archdiocesan Archive, Faulhaber Papers], accessible online (last accessed Oct. 29, 2020). Oct. 7, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Entry of the Democrats into the German Cabinet Ministry Most Reverend Eminence, As I had the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence in my respectful report No. 13953 of September 6, 1919, it was to be foreseen with certainty that the Democratic Party would enter into the cabinet of the German Reich. And in fact on the 5th of this month, the newspapers reported that, pursuant to the proposal of the Chancellor, the Reich President, in conformity with article 53 of the Constitution, has appointed State Minister Dr. Schiffer to be Minister of Justice and the Mayor of Cassel, Dr. Koch, to be Interior Minister. The former also takes the position of Vice Chancellor. Minister David, who up to now directed the Interior Ministry, remains in the Cabinet as Minister without portfolio. The difficulties that impeded the entry of the Democratic Party into the government were primarily two-fold; the issue of the law concerning industrial councils (Betriebsräte), and that which is now greatly agitating public opinion, sad to say, the presence and activity of Finance Minister Erzberger in the Government. Originally the Democrats had wanted to force Erzberger’s exit from the Cabinet, but then they contented themselves with his giving up the position of Vice Chancellor and hoped that his preponderant influence in the domestic and foreign policy of the Reich would be rendered very limited. In parliamentary circles and in the press, word was circulated that America in particular views Erzberger with distrust as Finance Minister, and that no financial concessions of any sort will be made to Germany so long as he memains at the aforesaid Ministry. It could be said that today the Reichstag and the press are divided into camps based on whether or not they are for Erzberger. The Center Party supports him, but only up to a certain point. The Socialists and the Independent Socialists tolerate him for his cooperation in social questions and because - as I have been assured by well-informed sources - it is primarily due to him that the peace treaty was signed by Germany. The Democrats and the Conservatives detest him in a particular way and attribute to him and his foreign and financial policies the catastrophe into which the nation has fallen. It is also said that the Socialists, in order not to alienate the Center Party by speaking openly against Erzberger, have desired the entry of the Democrats into the Cabinet, so that they can get rid of the Finance Minister without compromising the Socialist Party in the eyes of the Center Party. The press in general is welcoming the entry of the Democrats into the Cabinet as a reinforcement of the Bauer Ministry and of his authority, and also as an improvement of the domestic and foreign situation of the country, in the sense that now the three strongest political parties are represented in the Government and can work to give a new impulse to this Government’s policy. As far as appears, the general policy of the Reich will not undergo essential changes with the entry of the Democratic Party into the Government, nor will the influence of the Center Party be diminished. It is expected that another Democrat will be appointed to the new Ministry that will be created for economic reconstruction (das Ministerium des Wiederaufbaues). Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 1044 Oct. 14, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Threat of Bavarian Government crisis Most Reverend Eminence, At various times there has been talk of a possible crisis in the Bavarian Government. The discussions of the political parties, which since several days ago have been unfolding in the press of the Majority Socialists and of the Bavarian Volkspartei, especially about religion and school policy, have recently come to a climax. The decisive thrust toward the crisis was given by the meeting of the Bavarian Socialists held in Nuremberg this September 27 and 28. After a long discussion about the political situation in Bavaria, the following agenda was unanimously approved: “The conference of Bavarian Socialists, held in Nuremberg the 27th and 28th of September, has discussed the political difficulties of the Socialists and the situation of the party in the cabinet. The conference expresses its full trust in the representatives of the party in the Government. It observes that a particular difficulty of the Socialist Party in Bavaria is the fact that the so-called Government of Hoffmann is regarded as a Socialist Government, while it is clear that the composition of the Government and the Landtag precludes a purely Socialist policy. Therefore the Conference proposes a radical reform of the Cabinet Ministry. It authorizes comrades Hoffmann, Segitz and Endres to resign from the Ministry if the reform deemed necessary by the Conference cannot be effected.” As a result of this resolution, the entire press was in agreement in observing that the first duty of the Landtag, which was to convene on the 1st of October, would be to reform the Cabinet. And thus for the first time in Bavaria the parliamentary system would have to carry out its principal function, that of forming the Government; since, as Your Most Reverend Eminence well recalls, the current Hoffmann Government was born solely from a compromise in the Landtag, reduced to impotence as the result of the crisis produced by the assassination of Eisner and the Central Council of soldiers, workers and farmers, which had taken power into their hands. The reason that drove the Socialists to this resolution in Nuremberg is that in truth the current coalition cabinet bears the signature and responsibility of Socialists, but in fact the representatives of this party are in a minority there. It is to be observed, however, that this situation was put before the Socialist press right in the days of the trials of the assassins of the hostages perpetrated by the Communists in this last month of May, a period in which the responsibility of the Government appeared quite terrible, whether for the lack of energy it demonstrated in repressing the anarchist uprising of April, or because it was the one that had to speak the final word about the condemnation of the assassins, making least use of the right to pardon them. On the other hand, the press of the Bavarian Volkspartei had conducted an increasingly vehement campaign against Minister President Hoffmann for his openly anti-religious school policy. Thus, fundamentally, the crisis appeared as a logical and fatal necessity produced by the situation of struggle between the two principal Bavarian political parties, the Socialists and the Center Party (Bavarian Volkspartei). Interminable complicated discussions were protracted day after day among the various political delegations and committees of the Landtag, but nothing could come of them beyond a declaration, by which the Center Party made a halfway disavowal of the attacks appearing in the Catholic press, and especially in the Bayerischer Kurier, against Hoffmann, and then an announcement that for making a definitive decision about the crisis, there needed to be consultations by the various parties with their own organizations, and that this would be done within a short timeframe. Meanwhile the Bavarian Volkspartei found itself in this Impasse: on the one hand it would have to accept the responsibility of the Government, being the numerically strongest party; on the other hand, accepting this responsibility would have run the risk of a series of compromises, being obligated, once in the Government, to settle all the matters pending from the war, to confront all the arduous issues created by the new state of affairs, especially in the social and financial realms, and finally, not to speak of further matters, to resolve the threatening problems of food and material life that will appear in the next winter, and to that it suffices to add the absolute lack of men in that party who can truly impress with their name and their past record. In a speech delivered on October 6th, in Deggendorf, Mr. Held, Head of the Landtag delegation of the Bavarian Volkspartei, refuted the reasoning put forward by the Socialists for now sharing Government responsibility with the bourgeois parties, that is the polemics of the press against Minister President Hoffmann. These polemics have existed ever since November of last year, said Held, and they intensified in January and February of this year. Why did the Socialists not want a recomposition of the Government back then? Instead the Socialist Party took power into its hands during the revolution, formed a Government by itself (while in the elections it only received a third of the votes), and also demonstrated its firm intent during the Councils Republic to seek power solo and maintain it solo. Only now that they need to take on the inheritance of the Councils Republic, with all its financial consequences, the Socialists think of trying to share the responsibility of power, which they realize they cannot bear any longer by themselves. We want to remain in the coalition, added Held, and work with it, but we propose that the Minister President find a middle way in the Government, by which it would be possible not to violate the convictions of the majority of the Bavarian population, and to refrain from all that could offend them. If this does not work out, any form of cooperation is impossible. The Socialists must not think that a mere gesture from them will suffice for them to have to submit to the Minister President. That is not consistent with the Constitution or with the parliamentary political system. If it is not possible to work out a satisfactory solution to the governmental crisis, there remains no other possibility than to dissolve the Landtag. Dissolution of the Landtag was in fact much discussed by various newspapers in the days of the crisis. The current political situation in Bavaria is, however, so complicated that it cannot be clearly predicted what would be the results of new elections. Naturally each party has maintained that it would be the winner and not the loser. Held, for example, in the quoted speech, after having flashed the possibility of new elections, added: Then we will see what the people will say of the Hoffmann Government. The Socialists must not think that the Bavarian people would reject the idea of new elections. I am convinced that they have learned to distinguish where truly lies the good of the fatherland, whether with the Socialists or with the Bavarian Volkspartei. A Ministry of the Bavarian Volkspartei cannot assume the responsibility for the work of the Hoffmann Government, especially for what concerns school policy and fiscal policy. All the press, from the Democrats to the Independent Socialists, would have put it on the Bavarian Volkspartei, making it responsible for all the discomforts of the land, and above all the Minister President, to which the Bavarian Volkpartei would have to respond: I cannot do anything! But the Democrats strongly opposed new elections. They said that an appeal to the body of the electorate during the coming winter, when there are already fears of uprisings and agitations because of food conditions and the lack of coal and of work, could not be desired by any party other than by egoism. Thus the consequences of new elections, in a period so agitated, would fall not only on the shoulders of the Socialists, who would have provoked them by their resolution at Nuremberg, but also upon those of the Bavarian Volkspartei, which, through party egoism, would have seconded the desire of the Socialists. Naturally the Democrats made the fullest reservations about the rosy expectations of the Center Party for results favorable to it in the eventuality of elections. Moreover, concluded the Democrats, the elections could only take place in the coming months, while we now have sufficient security in the consolidation of our political situation and in the authority and force of the Government, and this can only occur with a coalition Ministry. The Socialists tried to turn back against the Bavarian Volkspartei the arguments espoused by Held. They said (as was read in No. 234 of the Munich Post) that a Minister President who has public opinion against him has to respond that he cannot do anything. But the Hoffmann Cabinet, according to the press of the Center Party, has public opinion against it. Therefore it cannot govern, and that is why it wants to hand over power to the Bavarian Volkspartei. As to new elections, it is not only we Socialists who want them, but it is the Bavarian Volkspartei that is proposing to bring them about by its refusal to take power: but Mr. Held knows that in an electoral battle we will not fail to call the voters’ attention to this situation. Finally a meeting of the various parties occurred. The evening of the 9th of this month, the Bavarian Volkspartei held an impressive assembly, in which the most influential men of the party took part. After a heated discussion, an agenda was voted that more or less repeated what Held had said in his above-quoted speech: If up to now a Ministry of their side has made the Socialists comfortable, the Bavarian Volkspartei now does not have any desire to assume power under such difficult conditions and such frightful responsibilities. Therefore the Coalition Ministry remains, with which the Bavarian Volkspartei will gladly cooperate if changes will result in the school and religion policy. If the schools do not follow such a program, the Bavarian Volkspartei does not fear elections, which will have to be held according to the new election law. - It must also be added that, according to what the leaders of the Bavarian Volkspartei have secretly confided in me, there is also another serious reason why this party could not accept the Minister Presidency at the current moment, and it is the fear that the army (Reichswehr), in which Socialists also abound, would not offer to defend a Government not presided over by a Socialist against new Communist and Spartacist agitations. Since the Democrats were also, at one of their meetings, demonstrably against having a Cabinet crisis, there remains only the word of the Socialists. And it was spoken at a meeting of the party, the 12th of this month, in Munich. An agenda was voted at that meeting that sounded more or less like this: The bourgeois parties wanted the Socialists to take responsibility for the Government during the events of February 21 (assassination of Eisner); the bourgeois parties in May came together with the Socialists to form a coalition with a program that was drawn up by common agreement, which has been implemented up to now; as a result the bourgeois parties have had responsibility for all the work of the Government up to today. That notwithstanding, these parties have obstructed the activity of the Government in every way; they have proclaimed it responsible for all the woes of the land; they have not wanted to accept full responsibility for the Government, which the Socialists are now offering them; and instead they have decided that the current Cabinet presided over by Hoffmann should remain in power. Thus the responsibility of all the parties is established for the entire activity that has developed up to now and that will develop in consequence of the current Government. The representatives of the Bavarian Volkspartei and of the Democrats have, by their own acts, recognized as unfounded the innumerable attacks against the Socialists who are in the Government. In sum, the cited agenda concludes that the Socialists under current circumstances cannot assume the responsibility of new elections, which would aggravate the frightful difficulties that are presented by the coming winter. Everything occurring in the crisis ends up with the observation that it is a matter of a tempest in a teapot and that things remain as they began. That is to say, the Coalition Ministry under Hoffmann remains, and there has only been this novelty, that the Minister of Finance, Dr. Speck of the Center Party, has been appointed Vice-President of the Cabinet. The fact that the Socialists have not wanted to face elections has been praised by their press as an act of glowing patriotism that must be shown to the country, which should recognize the sacrifice they have made in continuing the management of the Government in such difficult conditions; but it could also be explained by their uncertainty about the results of future elections. Indeed, on the one hand the school policy of Hoffmann, on the other hand the impossibility of contenting the country in fiscal and food policy (impossibilities that will get worse in the imminent winter) make for conjectures that many adherents of the Socialist party will turn their backs to it in possible elections; while the Center Party, not being directly charged with and responsible for the Government, will be able to win the sympathies of many. Indeed a rather widespread and serious opinion is that in the eventuality of elections, the Center Party and the Independents would come out ahead. To the latter would stream all the malcontents and those disillusioned with Socialism, who would not want to go over to the Center Party because of their political and religious convictions. Viewed from this perspective, the current situation and the threatened crisis that have consolidated it could bear good fruit for the future. Summing it all up, the Center Party (Bavarian Volkspartei) has had a victory. It did not want a Ministerial crisis and it did not take place; it wanted the direct responsibility for the Government to be on the Socialist Party and it has obtained that; since, although the Socialists say that this responsibility must be shared also with the bourgeois parties, yet the people will continue to attribute it to the Socialist Party that directs the Cabinet. It only remains to be seen if the Center Party will be able to obtain that Mr. Hoffmann change his school and religion policy. Humbly bowing ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 266 Oct. 16, 1919 Cable from U.S. Embassy London to U.S. State Department in Washington: From U.S. Ambassador John W. Davis To U.S. Secretary of State [Robert Lansing] Important. 3253, October 16, 1 p.m. For Winslow from Wright A document has come into the possession of the British police authorities from French sources and alleged to have been compiled by a Russian officer, asserting that Bolshevism and Bolshevik revolution in Russia has received financial aid from prominent American Jews, among them Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mondell Schiff, Jerome Hanauer, Max Breitung and one of the Guggenheims. This information is also in the possession of the MORNING POST which desires to use it for the purpose of anti-Semitic propaganda. If it is true that Bolshevik movement has been financed by these individuals, British police authorities are willing that it should be published at once. If on the other hand there is no evidence substantiating this allegation, it will be possible to prevent publication of the document in this journal. Can you inform me at earliest moment of any facts which bear on this matter and especially whether there is the slightest proof that Martens or any other known Bolshevik has ever received funds from Jacob Schiff. Copy of the document will be forwarded by pouch. Davis. Oct. 17, 1919 Cable from Alvin Adee, Assistant Secretary of State, to U.S. Embassy in London: Oct. 17, 1919, Noon Wright from Winslow Your 3253, October 16, 1 p.m. Aside from any question of accuracy the Department regards very seriously the effect which the publication of such allegations would have upon Anglo-American good feeling and also upon relations between the United States and Russia. We have no proof on hand but are investigating. Investigation will be facilitated by the document in question. Please urge upon the British authorities the desirability for the reasons indicated above of suspending publication at least until receipt of document by the Department. Adee, Acting Oct. 17, 1919 Cover letter from U.S. Embassy in London transmitting five-page French document alleging Jewish-Communist conspiracy: London, October 17, 1919 To L. Lanier Winslow, U.S. Department of State From J. Butler Wright Dear Lanier: With reference to my telegram to you No. 3253 of October 16, 1 p.m., I am sending along today copy of the document referred to. This document came into the hands of Sir Basil Thomson from French sources, and I am informed that it was compiled by a Russian officer, whose identity is not known here. For your own information I would state that Thomson obtained this during a protracted conversation with Prince Yousupoff who, perhaps you will remember, acquired a certain amount of notoriety some time ago by murdering Rasputin. You will note that it is stated on the first page that this information was in some way “établie par les services officiels américains (transmise par le Haut Commissaire de la République Française aux Etats-Unis).” The source of this document is therefore obscure, and it is well within the range of possibility that the statements made in it have no basis of proof. However, Thomson has received intelligence from several sources that the Bolsheviks are receiving money from wealthy American Jews, and he is anxious for our assistance to confirm or disprove these rumors. Consequently, I would be glad if you could send me any facts bearing upon the alleged connection between Jacob Schiff et al with the Bolsheviks, and in particular with Martens. The editors of the MORNING POST, at Thomson’s request, have consented to withhold this information from publication at least for the present. He has promised to do nothing further until he hears from us. Original document, page 1 and page 2 Attached French original document “Bolchevisme & Judaisme,” page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4, and page 5. Oct. 21, 1919 Communiqué from U.S. Embassy in London to U.S. State Department in Washington: J. Butler Wright to L. Lanier Winslow Dear Lanier: Referring to my letter No. 3. of the 17th instant and the telegram to which it referred - and, of course, to your reply - all regarding the anti-Semitic material recently secured by the MORNING POST, I have never had the slightest doubt but that you were fully aware that our reaction as to the inevitable effect of the publication of such material was the same as yours. I was, however, frankly glad to find that your telegram expressed identically my own views in the matter. My limited but somewhat hectic experience in connection with Russia and her affairs have always led me to believe that a criticism on Russia from French sources is, more often than not, colored by the intensity of the revengeful feeling that every Frenchman - official or otherwise - whom I have met entertains toward that country - a matter, in the last analysis, of the pocket! If there be added to that the anti-Semitic tinge and it be expressed in a document with so little contiguity of narration or so conspicuous a lack of foundation - the result would be nothing short of a prairie fire, especially as affecting the relations between England and the United States. I think we have the whole thing in cold storage, but I await an expression of your opinion regarding the whole matter which has, of course, also received the attention of the Ambassador. Yours sincerely, and very hastily, J. Butler Wright Original document, page 1 and page 2 Oct. 25, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: German Embassy at the Vatican Most Reverend Eminence, Following up my respectful report no. 14360 of October 12th, I am given to attentively report to Your Most Reverend Eminence how the question of the creation of an Embassy of the German Empire at the Holy See continues to be agitated both in the press of all colors and in the discussions of the various political parties, and also in the Reichstag Committee that has been occupied in recent days with the analysis of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is evident at this point that in Germany there is full appreciation of the rightly assessed immense political-religious power of the Catholic Church, and it is considered indispensable for the true good of the Nation to maintain good relations with the Holy See. A few days ago the Foreign Minister, the Socialist Dr. Müller, declared in the aforesaid Committee that Germany attaches the greatest interest to good relations with the Holy See and that with these dispositions the question of the creation of a Reich Embassy at the Vatican is being negotiated. Actually, if there are some difficulties facing this proposal, they arise from the fact that Prussia just like Bavaria does not want to give up its former right to have its own Representative at the Holy See. Certainly entering into this are political interests and the spirit of particularism shared by various German States, despite the forces that are making a union of them under the centralizing policy of the Berlin Government; but it cannot be denied that this struggle to keep their own Diplomatic Representation at the Holy See indicates the full importance that they give to good relations with the Holy See. In the aforementioned Committee, the Foreign Minister, upon questioning about this, stated that for now the question of the creation of the Embassy cannot be immediately resolved, precisely because Bavaria does not want to give up its Legation at the Holy See, and Prussia, if Bavaria does not yield, would certainly not want to lose the same privilege. Dr. Müller expressed, however, the hope that the negotiations will bring a happy solution. From a good source I then learned that the Minister President of Bavaria, Hoffmann, to ease the difficulty that could perhaps arise from the question of reciprocity and also not to give up the honor of at least keeping the Apostolic Nunciature in Bavaria, had proposed that there be a Nuncio accredited to the Reich, but that his residence would remain in Munich. I add, however, that up to now the Berlin Government has not responded to this proposal. Meanwhile one cannot fail to observe in this state of affairs that the greatly merited importance that is being given to the Catholic Church in a Germany that is majority Protestant is due to the zeal, the activity and the incomparable organization of the German Catholics. By now any Government that wants to have power in its hands must take account of Catholics and thereby of the Center Party. And it is most significant that even a revolutionary Socialist Government, like the current one, cannot manage without this immense force that the Catholics in Germany represent and that they know how to assert in the defense of the religious and political interests of their party. Obviously it has not been sympathy for the Catholic Church that has inspired a Constitution so broad-minded toward the Catholics as the one given by the Socialist Government of Ebert. It has been solely the work of the Center Party to impose upon the Socialist Party not only its own cooperation in the Cabinet, without which it would not have been able to govern, but likewise a Constitution that, if not good in theory, yet at least in practice today places German Catholics in conditions of greater freedom than under the past regime. Everything thus gives hope that indeed the question of establishing the embassy at the Holy See will be resolved according to the desires of the Center Party, which have just been presented by Deputy Pfeiffer in the oft-mentioned Committee. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 1131 Oct. 26, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, Nr. 44, Nov. 2, 1919, pp. 1-5, publishing Oct. 26, 1919 speech by Archbishop Faulhaber [note: some portions of this speech are enclosed in brackets, indicating those portions omitted in the version of the speech later published in French in Documentation Catholique] “Religion and Church in Public Life: Keynote Address of His Excellency Archbishop von Faulhaber at the plenary assembly on Sunday, 26 October, in the Krone Circus” My dear Diocesans! [I welcome the times in which the spirits are clearly distinguished and hate the times of double-mindedness. For Christ or against Christ. We want distinction and decisiveness, we want clarity about the spirits. We do not want politics, but if we must indeed protect consciences for the tasks of state citizenship, it is indispensable to outline the issues of public life, especially with my theme:] Religion and Church in public life. The new era has the desire to remove the influence of religion and the Church from public life. [The Weimar Reich Constitution is a new milestone of this modern development since the Peace of Westphalia. And Bavaria has hereby not only danced the Reich’s tune, it has preferred to go yet much further in pressuring the Church and religion out of public life. (Cries: Unfortunately!)] Therefore we must see to it that religion and the Church have a right in public life, that they are a state necessity, and that they are an eternal blessing for public life. Religion and the Church have a right in public life. Christ gave his apostles the mission: Go out into all the world and teach all peoples! To the whole world and all nations then, the good news must go. There is salvation in no other name, there is no other foundation laid. The religion of the cross shall become the salvation of the world and renew the face of the whole earth. Indeed for public societies of the people, the message of Christ shall become the yeast that penetrates the whole mass. The savior had already said to the apostles: What I whisper in your ear, you will thereupon preach from the rooftops, that is, in the public squares of the towns and villages. And when Peter, the gatekeeper of the Kingdom of God on earth, shook the dust of the Jewish land off his feet, his face then was turned toward Rome, that place where the military roads of world history came together. Not in the deep valleys of the Himalayas, not in the solitude of the African deserts, but in Rome, upon the capital of knowledge and world history of the time, was his doctrinal see established. You see, Christ built his Church on the military roads of history. Religion and Church have a right in public life. [(Applause.) Note: All audience reactions were omitted in the version published in Documentation Catholique.] There comes now from Erfurt a new gospel: religion is a private affair. If that means everyone can take of it whatever he wants, that anyone can put out his own catechism, as he wishes, if that means religion is not a community activity, if we are thus supposed to tear down our churches and smash our organs, if that means religion is only and exclusively a private affair, then the saying is false. (Quite right!) If it means religion is first and foremost a personal affair, then the saying is correct. First the interior life must be leavened by the Kingdom of God, first must the individual possess the spirit of prayer and of faith, of love for God and love for neighbor, before confessing this spirit on the streets of public life. Christ said to the Pharisees: Go into your chamber and pray! To the Pharisees, who went about the streets with their piety, who used piety as placard without having the Kingdom of God interiorly, to them he said: Whoever denies me before people, him I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Applause.) A human being is a personal unity, he is not an amalgam of a private half and a state citizen half. (Very good! strong acclamation.) So he cannot be inwardly a Christian and outwardly a pagan. (Very good!) One cannot be for Christ and gather for Christ at home with the family, and on the other hand be against Christ and scatter against Him upon the street as an official, as a parliamentary delegate. (Applause.) One can change coats when one goes out, but one cannot change what is in the soul as one changes clothes. (Applause.) If the individual is obligated to acknowledge God as Lord and Creator, and if the civil society of the state arises from individual persons alone, then why should that which is an obligation for the individual not also be reflected in public life. (Acclamation.) [Yet a third right pertains to religion and Church in public: a political right! Struggle against persons or parties is alien to us. For me, person or party is the form of an ideology and false doctrine. (Very good!) I am speaking not of the party of Social Democracy, I am speaking here of the false doctrine of Socialism. (Strong acclamation.)] If Socialism now advances the saying, religion is a private affair, then it must logically also advance the saying: hostility to religion is a private affair. (Tempestuous applause.) But if an anti-religious spirit lives in politics and weaves legislation on its weaver’s loom, then religion too must occupy itself with politics. (Acclamation.) How can one say: You are intruding from the ecclesiastical realm into the governmental-political realm, if one is continually intruding from the governmental realm into the ecclesiastical realm? (Loud cries of Bravo.) A few days ago a newspaper spoke out with an openness that is worthy of thanks: “The order of the day is the altercation between Socialism and the Church.” How can we, then, shut up religion as a private affair within the four walls of the house? (Absolutely right!) Now we also understand, my worthies, why the fight is always against the Catholic Church at the end of the day. All these battles of the day are local skirmishes in a great world battle, which began at the start of history between the good and evil spirits. The closer the fullness of time approaches, the more clearly the two camps, for Christ and against Christ, are revealed, and the more clearly appears the Catholic world religion as the Kingdom of Christ. The names change, the contrasts remain. Many a one thinks he is a big player and is only a piece on a chessboard. Religion and the Church have a right in public life. Religion and Church are a State Necessity for Public Life. Here I go back to ancient Plato and his fundamental principle: Whoever destroys religion destroys the foundations of the social order. (Absolutely right!) It would be good if Ministers of Education and Culture had to first undergo an exam about this ... (the rest of the words were drowned out by a tumultuous storm of applause). One state necessity is certainly authority, trust in those who are to lead the people. We know, unfortunately, how many it has smitten among us in Bavaria. For us, however, all authority rests upon God’s Fourth Commandment, and God’s Fourth Commandment sets this earthly authority upon God’s authority in the first three Commandments. If, therefore, a state government throws the first three Commandments out the window, then it has removed the foundations of its own authority and the people have said with instinctive logical correctness: If you no longer believe in the authority of God, then we too no longer believe in your authority. (Tumultuous applause.) Whoever wants to have authority must acknowledge the Fourth Commandment and thereby religion. Whoever destroys religion destroys the foundations of social life. Sound principles are certainly a state necessity. Only strong dogmas create strong nations. We have sound principles in our Catholic dogmas, anointed with the blood of martyrs since the time of the Catacombs, consecrated through the centuries by their confessions of faith. And these statements of the faith of the Church, they shine into the life of people and also strengthen the loyalty and faith of people. Where faith in God dwindles, the people’s trust necessarily becomes shaky. Sound principles are something we have in the glorious work that appeared at Pentecost in 1918, in the Code of Canon Law, the constitutional proclamation of the Catholic Church. 1918 brought us the constitutional proclamation of the Church, 1919 the constitution of the Reich. The constitution of the Church, which grew up from the Church’s life of law as a growth of peaceful development; the Reich constitution, the child of the Revolution. And the aftermath would indeed show what a difference there is between the laws of God’s realm and those of earthly realms. Everything is flooding and surging and pressing around us; but we do not want new floods, we want a rock in the flood. The Church’s Code of Canon Law is a rock of law in the floods of our time. There God’s spirit hovers over the chaos. There, sound goals without compromise (Very good!), there, a leadership to which we gladly extend our hand. Just compare what programs of recent years have had to be struck down and refashioned. (Cheerful acclamation.) Sound foundational principles, but also sound foundational laws! A foundational law is more than a foundational principle. A foundational law is a principle that offers a “You shall!” and takes me by the hand and sets me on a specified path. Such foundational laws are: Honor your father and mother, do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not lie. The Decalogue has given us the foundational laws of public life. To be sure, these are also points of natural law. But historically it is firmly established that only where these laws erect a longterm governmental structure worthy of humanity, do the citizens feel religiously obligated to their fundamental laws. If some individuals say: I too get there, without religion – they should not forget that they are living on soil where the mission of Christianity has introduced these foundational principles as the common intellectual heritage of our time. (Acclamation and applause.) How then will the state, when it casts its laws and regulations into the world, obligate its citizens in conscience to its laws? By police and new letters of the law? A state authority that is supported only by police and handgranades is going about on crutches. There must come about an obligation by conscience, and that comes only from religion. So it is remarkable, on the one hand one wants to exclude religion from public life, and on the other hand, one has to admit there is absolutely no moral obligation, no matter of conscience, thus no possibility of establishing the entirety of the state if it is not done with the foundation of religion. Whoever destroys religion destroys the foundation of the social order. So, have those who are advancing the saying that religion is a private affair, have they totally forgotten that there can be no real overcoming of capitalism (Very good!), that we, if we do not succeed in educating and obligating consciences in citizenship, will inevitably fail in actually breaking our era’s spirit of profit-seeking and damnable Mammonism? It was a world-historical moment when the final reading of the constitution ended in Weimar. There were the men of state standing around their constitution and asking themselves: Now we have a constitution; but how are we now going to obligate the citizens to it? (Very good! Jollity.) Naturally we are going to obligate them as in the good old days (Jollity), with the formula of an oath: I swear! But no! Swearing means to call on God’s name. For God’s sake, we really want to keep this name out of public life. The way out: The oath is taken as a religious oath by those who believe in the name of God, and in a civil oath for those who do not believe in it. (Jollity and acclamation.) But swearing an oath is not speaking with a forked tongue, it is intended to provide clarity and truth (Bravo!), it should rule out forked-tonguedness and double-mindedness in an important matter. (Bravo!) Either an oath is an appeal to God from the mouth of those who believe in God, or there is no longer any oath. (Absolutely right!) If, on the one hand, God is given the heave-ho, right in his face, from public life, then he cannot be summoned back again when you are helpless without him. (Prolonged applause.) We declare the oath permissible in public life, we never yet discovered in Kaiser era that it was a piece of the Middle Ages. But we must guard ourselves against the holy oath being emptied of meaning by this civil concept and guard against the holy oath being degraded to a matter of raw police power. (Absolutely right!) ... [Additional paragraphs substantially the same as later published in Documentation Catholique] [My dear Munichers!] From the arena of this Circus, [as in the days of Nero,] the faith in the invincibility of the cross and the love for our Holy Church are taken together out into public life. [Catholic Munichers and Diocesans,] do not allow your sanctuary to be [laid waste], do not allow the sacred rights of your Church to be trampled underfoot; [wake up and wake each other up!] (Thunderous, repeatedly crescendoing, minutes-long applause and hand-clapping.] Oct. 28, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: The Catholic Congress in Munich Most Reverend Eminence, From the 24th to the 27th of this month a Catholic Congress was held in Munich, which turned out successfully. The war having ceased even while a state of peace had not yet been proclaimed between the Entente Countries and Germany, the German Catholics believed it their duty to make a public affirmation of their strength and to come together to understand the situation created for them by the extraordinary events of world conflict and revolution. They could not gather all together in a single Congress as they customarily did before the war. The coal shortages were so acute that there was a threatened immediate suspension of all rail transportation for passengers, at least for a period of 14 days. That is why the Catholics decided to meet in diocesan Congresses. The one in Munich turned out truly impressively. During the four days of the Congress there were particular sessions of the Volksverein [People’s Association] of Catholic Germany, of students in higher education, of teachers, of male and female youth associations, of servants, workers, merchants, apprentices, of the press, of Catholic women and mothers, of students, and of the Missions. In each of these sessions, there was ample discussion of the interests of the associations in question and important resolutions were adopted, appropriate to the necessity of the present hour. Of great interest and solemnity were the meetings of the Federations of Catholic organizations, which gathered all the various associations in a general assembly, both in various churches for religious functions, and in the vast “Krone Circus” for speeches. The second of these general gatherings, that of October 26th, which concluded the Congress, merits a special report for its particular solemnity and importance. The “Krone Circus” was packed to the rafters. It is calculated that there were ten thousand persons. All social spheres were represented there: Princes of the Royal Family, Aristocracy, University Professors, Clergy, Religious Orders, students, workers, etc., and a truly impressive mass of people. As it was not possible to give entry to all the other people who wanted to take part in the meeting, a parallel assembly had to be held in another very spacious locale. In the meeting in the “Krone Circus,” significant speeches were delivered. The first to speak was the University of Munich Professor and Privy Councilor Dr. Beyerle, on the theme “The social order according to the spirit of Christianity.” Then opportune words were spoken by Madame Dr. Lang-Brumann on the theme, “The way of the apostolate to alleviate social needs.” Fr. Dionisio, a Capuchin, followed and gave a magnificent Conference on “The Papacy and peace among peoples.” Speaking of the Holy Father, he called him, amidst thunderous applause from the listeners, “the friend and father of all peoples,” explaining the compassionate work of the Supreme Pontiff during the war, in bringing back peace among peoples and alleviating the suffering caused by the great worldwide catastrophe. Also important and highly applauded was the speech by Justice Councilor Dr. Marx, who dealt with education, youth instruction and pastoral care, attacking the recent regulations from the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs about religious instruction. At this point was introduced at the podium, and greeted by most lively applause, the Archbishop of Munich, who delivered a splendid speech, learned in substance, brilliant in form, and apostolic in spirit, on the theme: “Religion and Faith in public life.” He explained that Religion and the Church have the right to be in public life; are a necessity for public life; and are a blessing for it. He spoke strongly against the Constitution of Weimar and that of Bavaria, against the anti-religious school policy of the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs in Bavaria, against the de-Christianization of public life, and concluded with truly felicitous emphasis, exhorting Catholics to wake up and pay attention, that their spiritual goods not be harmed and the rights of the Church not be violated. A storm of applause crowned the inspired words of the excellent Prelate. After the Archbishop’s speech, the President of the Congress read the telegram from Your Most Reverend Eminence imparting the Apostolic Benediction upon the Congress-goers. It was greeted with obvious signs of touching gratitude by the entire immense audience, which rose to its feet to hear it read. I also believed it opportune to intervene in the meeting at the beginning of Mons. Faulhaber’s speech, to say a few appropriate words in German to the Congress, expressing the paternal satisfaction that His Holiness had shown in learning how this Congress had turned out and encouraging all to continue in the love of Religion and the Pope. And finally I imparted the Benediction in the name of His Holiness, which was received with the greatest devotion and piety, while the frenetic applause was singing praise to the Supreme Pontiff. The unforgettable solemnity concluded with the singing of the Te Deum. Not being able, because of work, to intervene in all the numerous particular gatherings, I briefly attended those of the Catholic Press and the students. In one and the other I spoke some brief words of satisfaction and encouragement and urged devotion to the Church and to the Supreme Pontiff. In that of the Press (Pressverein) – presided over by Msgr. Triller, Vicar General of Eichstätt, who is personally known to the Holy Father, to Whom he is most humbly devoted with filial homage – I was able to confirm by the report that was presented me by the most zealous Secretary, the Priest Dr. Müller, how the subscribers to the Catholic newspaper “Bayerischer Kurier” are steadily growing in number from year to year in a truly consoling manner, so that this newspaper, despite its current lavishly increasing costs, can sufficiently support itself. Likewise increasing are the members of the Catholic Press Association, which were only 3,031 in 1917 and have increased to 26,757 at the end of 1918. Here-enclosed I am sending to Your Eminence the statistics for the year 1918 of the commendable Catholic Press Association in Bavaria. The gathering of Catholic students: Thousands of youths of all ages, of serious demeanor and wide awake together, some of them having functioned as Presidents of the assembly, lined up on the platform in their characteristic uniforms; a considerable number of professors of the Lyceums and of the Universities fraternized with the students; priests and members of religious orders, former students, all animated by sentiments of true faith, all proud to be able to make such a solemn religious demonstration (since it was the first time in many years that all the student Organizations were gathered together), all of which opened up their spirit, unfortunately oppressed and worried, to comfort for the present and hope for the future; so that, with such a great number of youths so full of fervor in the defense of their own religion, these will be able to effectively resist the blows of their enemies. In this assembly various speeches were also delivered by youths and by Professors, and also here the words of the Pontifical Representative and the Apostolic Benediction imparted by him were received with devotion and unending applause, while the young President of the assembly charged me to convey to the Throne of the Holy Father the sentiments of gratitude of the Catholic university youth of Bavaria and the assurance that they would always work for Religion and for the Church. The Socialist press commented on the activities of the Congress, stating that it represented nothing other than the old cry that the Center Party used to combat Socialism: “Religion is in danger!” The liberal newspapers were more vehement and reproved the Archbishop especially for having transformed a gathering that should have been only about religious interests, into a palace of politics, accusing him of fomenting discord in the minds of the people, precisely at this moment when, with all the immense difficulties of daily life, he should have been inculcating unity and peace, as well as respect for the Authorities, which he instead so strongly attacked. In concluding this my report, I cannot fail to indicate to Your Eminence that I was able to verify in fact how the presence of the Pontifical Representative in the popular gatherings, and in general his contact with the people, produced a great advantage for religious interests, an immense encouragement for devotion to the Holy See, and increased its prestige in a truly remarkable manner. This was also confirmed to me by personalities of the clergy and the laity, who reported to me the profound impression produced in the masses by the presence of the Pontifical Nuncio in their midst. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 328 Oct. 30, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Colloquy with Minister Hoffmann – About future relations between Church and State in Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, Yesterday afternoon Mr. Hoffmann, President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Education and Cultural Affairs in Bavaria, finally invited me for today, to an advance discussion with him about future relations between Church and State in Bavaria. In conformity with the venerated instructions imparted to me by Your Most Reverend Eminence in the obsequious Dispatch No. 95238 of this August 23rd, I immediately accepted the invitation, and at 9:30 this morning (the hour indicated to me by the same Mr. Hoffmann) I was received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The colloquy, marked throughout by courtesy, lasted precisely one hour, ending at 10:30. Mr. Minister began by telling me that he had gone in the past week to Berlin, where various Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs had convened in the Interior Ministry for a Conference about relations between Church and State and the school question under the new Constitution. Under the current legal order, in fact in Berlin and not in Munich, the aforesaid Constitution is interpreted and the norms for its implementation run wild; which, indeed for Bavaria itself make the work of the Apostolic Nuncio much more difficult. As to what concerns the first point, that is the relations between the State and the so-called religious societies (Religionsgesellschaften), Mr. Hoffmann told me that, contrary to what he himself was expecting, the second clause of article 137 of the mentioned Constitution was declared there to have already come into effect, but not the third section, according to which “the societies themselves confer their offices without cooperation by the State or Communities.” For this is required (as Article (1) has been strangely interpreted) according to the final paragraph, a further regulation by legislation of the individual States; a regulation that, it seems to Mr. Hoffmann, can be effected either by means of a simple ministerial order, or by means of a law through intervention of the Landtag. Moreover, in the same Conference it was likewise declared that international treaties, among which the most numerous include the Concordats, remain in force, to the extent, however, that their provisions are not in opposition with those of the Constitution. According to this authentic interpretation and within the aforementioned limits, the Bavarian Concordat of 1817 thus still perdures, and Mr. Minister asked me “what would be the view of Rome in this regard,” and whether it would intend to consider the Concordat as in force or no longer in force, in other words, whether it would want to proceed toward a new Convention with Bavaria. I responded by saying that I have not yet had occasion to receive instructions in this regard and that I was thus speaking exclusively in my own name, reserving my right to report, as I am obligated, to the Holy See. I did not deem it opportune to affirm the cessation of the aforesaid Concordat for the following reasons: 1st) because Your Eminence, in transmitting to me with the aforesaid dispatch no. 95238 a copy of the learned Voto of a Consultor to the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, in which such cessation is maintained, did not say to accept its conclusions. 2nd) because such an explicit assertion could in practice bring most serious harms to the Church in Bavaria. I am certainly not expected to make a critical theoretical examination of the arguments put forth by the eminent Canonist who authored said Voto; it is nonetheless my duty to inform Your Eminence how declaring the Concordat no longer in force would result in the possible loss of the only, certainly the most solid and secure basis for saving what can still be saved of the rights of the Church in Bavaria. Indeed it is by virtue of the Concordat that it is possible to preserve the various subsidies of the State in favor of the expenses of the Bishops, the cathedral chapters, the parishes, the Seminaries, etc., contemplated in Article 138 of the Reich Constitution, of affirming the right of the Church to have its own schools of philosophy and theology in the Seminaries, and related matters. Moreover, to disengage the Church to the maximum extent possible from the State’s right of appointment and presentation to ecclesiastical offices, there is already a most efficacious argument in the Reich Constitution. 3rd) because it is confirmed to me that the fact of such an aforesaid assertion would be interpreted (albeit wrongly for sure) by the Government as a hostile attitude of the Holy See toward the new republican form of Government. Thus avoiding a direct response to the question of the permanence or cessation of the Bavaria Concordat after the recent political changes, I said to Mr. Hoffmann that, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to conclude a new convention or agreement, and I further indicated the points that, still according to my exclusively personal point of view, would be appropriate to touch upon in that regard. These points had already been prepared by me, taking them especially, with modifications and additions, from a Memorandum sent to me by the Archbishop of Bamberg after the Freising Bishops Conference of this September, and a copy of which I have the honor of transmitting here-enclosed to Your Eminence. This Memorandum was edited in the name of the Archbishops and Bishops of Bavaria; in fact, however, as it was said to me by the Archbishop of Munich – the reason why he had not subscribed to it – not all the Prelates, him included, fully agreed with the ideas stated therein as to what concerns governmental interference in the appointment to ecclesiastical offices. In it, indeed, there is an inclination in this regard, subject always, however, to the superior judgment of the Holy See, to allow an opportunity for concession to the current Bavarian Government, as also there is an inclination rather in this direction in the sentence supporting the passage to the same Government of the right of patronato concerning the parishes, as contemplated in article XI of the Concordat. Turning to my colloquy with Mr. Minister Hoffmann, I started by saying that the Church, as a result of the new Reich and Bavarian Constitutions, has lost its privileged situation under norms contained in Article I of the Concordat; it thus certainly has the right to exact in compensation a greater freedom in the field to which it is entitled. After that I explained and illustrated, as the basis for a future agreement, the following points, which I carry out my duty to reproduce here below, adding explanations necessary for better understanding them: I. The Church appoints freely to all ecclesiastical offices without cooperation from the State or the Communities. The State continues to provide its subsidies as previously, including those called free or voluntary (freiwillige), which must be counted in their total amount for release. This point does not need explanation beyond what I have explained about Articles 137 and 138 of the Reich Constitution (cf. Report No. 13822 of last August 18) and about paragraph 18 of the Bavarian Constitution (cf. Report 14369 of this October 6). I must only add that in the aforesaid Freising Bishops Conference the Bishops were of rather differing opinions, concerning the question of free contributions, corresponding to the differing circumstances of their respective Dioceses. The Prelates, in truth, in whose territory is found the Diaspora, that is to say especially Bamberg, Speyer and Würzburg, receive much more of these contributions than the Bishops in the purely Catholic Dioceses of Southern Bavaria. All were unanimous, however, in maintaining that, giving the increasing misery and the very seriously excessive burden of taxation to which the population is subjected, it would be absurd to expect them to supply by free offerings and ecclesiastic fees the seven million Marks per year that have been represented up to now by the aforesaid subsidies, and thus it is indispensable that they be calculated in the amount to be released. II. For the appointment of professors of the Theological Faculties in the Universities, the State proposes one or more candidates acceptable to the Ordinary, whose advance consent is necessary before the appointment by the State itself can be effectuated. Moreover in the Philosophy Faculties of any of these Universities, there must be at least one professor of philosophy and one of history of sound Catholic doctrine in the judgment of the Ordinary. III. Lyceums for philosophical and theological formation of clerics are established by the Dioceses, depending as such upon the Ordinary, who freely appoints the rectors and teachers. (That is: For the appointment of teachers in the Lyceums, the Bishop proposes the candidates to the State, which then makes the appointment). IV. If a Professor of a Theological Faculty (or Lyceum) is judged by the Ordinary to be incapable of conducting his instruction by reason of doctrine or moral conduct, he shall be dismissed. The Concordat of 1817 established in Article V: “[paragraph in Latin]” These provisions, however, were not observed by the Bavarian Government, which did not provide the appropriate funds; it obligated the students of the Seminaries to complete their studies in State institutions, over whose direction the Bishops could expect to have little influence and whose teachers could not be appointed by them or in case of need freely dismissed by them; it presumed to supervise and to limit the appointment of rectors and vice-rectors of the Seminaries, the admission of students and the administration of property. As a result of that, even today the Seminaries of Bavaria do not have their own schools subordinate to the Bishops. Students pursue their studies of the humanities for nine years in the public Gymnasiums of the State. For their study of philosophy and theology they must attend either a State University, where a Theological Faculty is established, or the so-called Lyceums. Theological Faculties in Bavaria are established in Munich and Würzburg. Instruction in philosophy in these Universities, even for future students of theology, is not a part of the theological faculty, but the lay philosophical faculty; nevertheless, in the response of the Royal State Ministry dated March 29, 1889 to the Memorandum of the Bavarian Bishops, the Government committed that in each one of these there would be, both for philosophy properly so called and for history, a professor (lay) of sound Catholic sentiments. In the University of Munich this chair of philosophy was previously held by the now decease Count von Hertling, and today by Professor Baeumker, a good Catholic, even though a layman, well known for the “Contributions to the History of Philosophy of the Middle Ages,” (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters) founded by him and of which there more than a hundred issues have already been published. The Catholic instructor for history in the Philosophy Faculty of Munich is now the illustrious Prof. Grauert. The Lyceums “are higher schools for the study of Catholic philosophy and theology and as such have especially the purpose of providing for the formation of Clerics who are not attending a University” (Organic Provisions for the Bavarian Lyceums § 1). They are thus instituted by the government, established alongside the Clerical Seminaries, and they supplement the schools of philosophy and theology that according to the norms of the Concordat should have been established in the Seminaries themselves. They do not enjoy the authority to confer academic degrees, so that the Bishops provide for sending the best students to the Universities for this purpose. There are five of these in Bavaria, being located in Bamberg, Dillingen (Diocese of Augsburg), Freising, Passau and Ratisbon. Although the aforesaid Lyceums, as has been mentioned, are intended primarily for the academic formation of priests, nevertheless lay students can also attend the philosophy course of study ... As to what concerns in particular the aforementioned appointment of professors, the Bishops of Bavaria, in a Memorandum sent to the King dated October 20, 18150, asked that in the implementation of the Concordat there be given by the State funds to establish in the Seminiaries schools intended for the formation of clerics and that, at least, the Lyceums would be declared institutes of the Bishops and indissolubly united with the Seminaries, and that therefore the appointment of professors in the same would be left to the free decision of the Bishops under the norms of Article V of the Concordat. They further asked that, for the appointment of professors of the Theological Faculties in the Universities, there would be a requirement of a prior opinion and consent from the Ordinary. Although this most just request of the Bishops did not achieve the desired effect, nevertheless, by virtue of the sovereign decree of March 30, 1852 and by the consequent ministerial decision of April 8th of the same year, the Government declared that in the appointment of Lyceum professors it would have regard to the desires of the Bishops; and this assurance was repeated in the later supreme decision of October 9, 1854, which also expressly affirmed that it applied to all Lyceum professors, and not only to those in theology, and that for confirming the seats of theology in the Universities there would have to be a request for the opinion of the Ordinary concerning the theological doctrine and moral conduct of each candidate. Then, when during the time of the Kulturkampf, the above-referenced concession was revoked by the ministerial decision of November 20, 1872, a violent campaign commenced, especially in the press, which did not succeed, however, in inducing the Government to yield. Only after the Memorandum of the Bavarian Bishops dated June 14, 1888, which asked His Royal Highness the Prince Regent of Bavaria “that on the occasion of appointments of teachers in the Lyceums and of theology professors in the Universities, the Royal State Ministry would communicate to the respective Ordinaries the names of the candidates or those persons taken under consideration , and that the opinion of the Ordinaries would be given due weight,” was the right of the Bishops in this regard recognized anew. In fact, in the response of March 28, 1889 to the aforesaid memorandum, the von Lutz Ministry declared in the name of the Sovereign that “in the appointment of teachers in the Lyceums the greatest possible regard would be taken to the opinions and desires of the Bishops,” and that likewise “in the collation of the seats of theology in the Universities, there would be taken into account not only the opinions of the Theological Faculty and of the University Senate, but also that of the Bishop as to what concerns the doctrine and moral conduct of the candidate.” The Lyceum professors receive their stipends from the State, as also by means of these subsidies the maintenance of the Institutes themselves is provided for, although for this purpose there is also contributed the income, albeit relatively small, of special foundations. Thus, for example, the annual expenses of the Lyceum in Bamberg amount to about 80,000 Marks; the income from the foundation bring in a little more than 16,000 Marks; the remaining 64,000 Marks are given by the State. In recent times it has often been proposed, and sometimes indeed tumultuously demanded, that the Lyceums be suppressed, which by their nature have few students; but since the Center Party had the majority, these attempts were in vain. The Lyceum of Eichstatt finds itself in an exceptionally favorable situation, founded in 1838 with the consent of King Ludwig I by Cardinal Carl August von Reisach, then Bishop of that Diocese and later Archbishop of Munich... With this being said, it can be easily understood why the Bavarian Bishops are deeply concerned for the future of the Theological Faculties and the Lyceums. The Memorandum of the Archbishop of Bamberg indeed observes what very grave dangers the academic formation of the clergy would be exposed to if in the sensitive professorial positions such as theology and philosophy in these institutes, the Government were to name teachers with sentiments hostile to the Church, or with the modernist spirit, and he adds to this the fear that the current Minister Mr. Hoffmann might propose to give the Lyceums the additional function of popular higher schools, perhaps constituting for that purpose a greater number of philosophy professors, who probably imbibe anti-religious tendencies and doctrines. Therefore the Bishops are requesting that the negotiations obtain that no Lyceum professors be appointed without the prior consent of the ordinary. They make the same request also concerning the appointment of professors of philosophy in the Universities themselves, requesting that no one be appointed without being of sound doctrine in the judgment of the Ordinary. Being an elementary norm in any negotiation to present at the outset the maximum program, except then to fall back from it in case of need into the limits of the possible, as in Points II, III and IV going beyond what the Bishops themselves have requested as the minimum. For the appointment of professors in the Theological Faculties, I adopted the formula of the Memorandum of the Bavarian Bishops in 1850, repeated moreover in the recent Memorandum of the Archbishop of Bamberg, and requesting the prior consent of the Ordinary; and as to two Catholic professors in the Philosophy Faculty, I have abided by the current practice, ordained by the aforementioned response of the Royal State Ministry in 1889. For the Lyceums, it has seemed opportune to me to require what is based in the Concordat, - as the Bavarian Bishops also did in the same Memorandum of 1850, - that these are to be no longer the government’s institutions, but the Bishops’, and thus subordinate to the Ordinary, who can thus freely appoint the rectors and the professors; something all the more necessary now, because of the recent school legislation. In this case, for the sum to be released as subsidies from the State to the Church there must be also included the expenses for the Lyceums in question, both because otherwise the Bishops would be totally lacking the financial means to sustain them, and because the matter of subsidies is expressly contemplated in the above-cited article of the Concordat and thus goes into Article 138 of the Reich Constitution… Finally I deemed it necessary to fix also a point regarding the removal of professors of the Theological Faculties (as also of the Lyceums, even if these were to remain governmental institutions) whom the Ordinary might judge incapable of conducting their instruction by reason of doctrine or moral conduct. A similar provision is found already express as to what concerns the Universities of Bonn, Breslau and Münster in Prussia in the respective Statutes (cf. Zeitschrift für Kirchenrecht, vol. 40, 1908, pp. 386 et seq.) and it was also in the Convention concluded between the Holy See and the Imperial German Government on December 5, 1902 for the University of Strasbourg. V. – Also the teachers of religion in the middle schools are appointed by the State according to the proposal by the Bishop and will be dismissed upon request by the Bishop for reasons indicated in the preceding numbered section. The posts of teacher of religion in the middle schools were always until now instituted by the proposal of the Government by the Landtag, which voted the necessary funds. As a result of this the State exercised also the right of appointment of priests to the said offices and treated them as its employees. Nonetheless the appointment took place by agreement with the Bishop. The Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs inquired of the respective Ordinary in advance, if he had against the candidate in question any objections from an ecclesiastical point of view, and the practice in this regard varied: sometimes the aforesaid Ministry presented to the Bishop a list of all the candidates for a post of religion teacher and requested that his view be given in that regard; other times, only some were communicated; other times, finally, it requested the judgment of the Ordinary about a sole candidate proposed for such instruction. A similar procedure corresponded, moreover, all to the public statements of the Bavarian Government. Such as indeed expressed, for example, by Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs Dr. Müller in a letter to the Archbishop of Munich on December 9, 1891: “Already now, before the appointment of a religion teacher, there will always be communicated to the Most Reverend Archbishops and Bishops the list of all candidates and it is given in such a way that they will express their observations in this regard. The Government does not intend in any manner to modify or restrict this practice.” Similarly Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs Dr. von Wehner stated in 1904 in the Finance Committee of the Chamber of Lords: “Currently the list of candidates for posts of religion teacher in the Gymnasiums are always communicated to the Ecclesiastical Authorities, and the names of the candidates that the Government has in view are indicated. But the aforesaid Ecclesiastical Authorities could also propose another candidate, and the Government would give great importance to such a proposal, all the more as it would be a better way to govern with good judgment in this regard.” Other than the above-mentioned participation in the appointment of the mentioned teachers, the State recognized moreover the right of the Ordinaries to oversee, also by means of special Episcopal Commissions, ... VI. – The Church is authorized to administer its property freely... VII. – The buildings and funds of the State that currently serve ecclesiastical purposes are transferred into property of the Church ... X. – The Religious Orders and Congregations` Mr. Hoffmann listened attentively to my exposition ... As to what concerns the Lyceums ... In departing, I expressed my lively hope that, despite the profound theoretical differences, a practical way might be found to govern appropriately the relations between Church and State in Bavaria and I demonstrated to Mr. Hoffmann how that would succeed in ... I would therefore be most grateful to Your Eminence if you would deign to have sent to me with the greatest possible expedition the instructions that you may deem appropriate in Your superior judgment. Meanwhile I am continuing to pay attention also to the activity of some among the better Catholic Deputies of the Bavarian Volkspartei, whose attention I have focused upon yet another point of capital importance for the future of the Church in Bavaria, namely the teacher training schools or Lehrerseminare, where future teachers are formed. It is a very sad fact that young instructors who emerge from these institutes are for the most part of radical ideas and tendencies, which constitutes a most serious danger for the future education of youth in Bavaria. And the matter is of all the more urgent concern in that Mr. Hoffmann, who with stubborn obstinacy pursues his deleterious work in the schools issue, has recently reported as the official (Referent) in the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs responsible for the aforesaid teacher training institutes, Mr. Vogelhuber, a Socialist, and as I am told, an extremely radical one. In expectation ..., I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 4127 Oct. 30, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri, encrypted cable: I have received encrypted cable 195. Today, pursuant to his invitation, I had a colloquy with the Minister of Foreign Affairs; he discussed with me the question of parish patronato; article 137, section 3, of the Reich constitution concerning the free appointment to ecclesiastical offices is not yet in effect, as it needs to be implemented by legislation in the individual States according to the last section of that article: and thus no Education Minister could put it into effect before now. He therefore proposes that until a definitive resolution of the question, the former right of State presentation remain as the formality, although as concerns the Bishops they will freely exercise the provision insofar as the Government will not present any candidate without the previous consent of the Bishop. I asked if this might constitute a precedent affecting the future resolution of this question. He responded in the negative, saying he was prepared to accept a statement in this regard. Since it is impossible to predict when there can be a definitive resolution, and with the parish administrators in vacant parishes not having parish stipends, which under current economic difficulties produces a grave disadvantage for the clergy, I ask Your Eminence to tell me if, as to the parish patronato, the Bavarian Bishops can proceed in the same way the Holy See has adopted for Prussian canons under dispatch 97515. Pacelli Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 9710 Nov. 1, 1919 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland 164:9 (1919), p. 551: “Views of Reason and Faith upon the Puzzles and Troubles of the Time” In tumultuous times, when from one revolution to another, upon the unstable superficiality of public opinion, a general re-evaluation of ideas and things comes to pass, catchwords are an ineluctable need for the thoughtless public. They easily leave an impression and are massively used, and since under the prevailing freedom of thought, thereby each can think what he will, they rise and fall in value like paper money, which in times of emergency has to replace gold. Why, in a time when there are falsifications for everything, shouldn’t there also be an ersatz for truth? ... What is really intended by this? What shall be made new by this, what shall be struck down dead by it? Does it come from that spirit which gives life, or is it a cudgel of Hercules to annihilate everything that has not yet be brought to the ground? ... ... Charlatans and conjurers can use it to delude the astonished victims of their seductive art, as to the true wonders of a new fairytale world. Namely the enthusiasts of the Marx-Bebel-Paradise... Property, capital and capitalism have a very different meaning, each as it comes from the mouth of a Christian or an unbelieving thinker. Atheists, Pantheists and Monists simply see past the great contrast that distinguishes soul and body, spirit and body from each other … When according to this fatalistic and naturalistic viewpoint the worker is and wants to be nothing other than an impersonal tool in the hand of dark powers that with equally selfish instincts serve their own interests, as he lets himself be used by them, then there is a kernel of truth in the Marxist evolutionary theory and in the view that there is an irresistible law of natural inevitability that governs economic life and presses toward ever new developments – then it is to be expected that this developmental law, if only material causational factors and not moral influences can have an effect, then the culture will not lead upwards to life, but rather will press inevitably downwards to death and downfall... A social-political system that builds itself upon the freethinking of unbelief must in its consequences necessarily work destructively and dangerously for all ... Is it perhaps surprising that in the course of the revolutionary upheavals that shame and terrify our present day, those enthusiasts who publicly profess themselves to be adherents of a Marx and Bebel stand on the stage together at the closing scene of their actions as abominable criminals? Or are Lenin and Trotsky, Bela Kun, Levine-Niessen and Toller perhaps not criminals? They are such – even before they spattered their hands with blood as men of absolute freedom of action, they were criminals, not idealists, as students of ungodly freedom of thought, because godlessness formed the precondition for all the crimes to which they were disposed. It is not the deed that first makes the evil-doer a criminal, he is such already beforehand through the inclination that drives and enables him to the implementation… Universities where the cry was heard earlier from a united chorus of professors and students, “Long live unrestricted freedom of thought!...” have no right to get aroused if, in the name of the same godless freedom of thought, armed bands appear at their gates with the slogan of the terrorists: “Long live freedom of action!” The criminals of the world war and of the revolution were prepared in the workshops of the godless academy. If all proletarians were resolute students of their unbelieving teachers Marx and Häckel, then they would, by their attempts to socialize the world, all be Communists and criminal Socialists; but to the extent that Majority Socialists refuse to keep step with the Independent Socialists and Sparacists, they admit that their belief in Marx is already shaky. Perhaps they have already gone so far that they might call themselves reasonable Socialists or pro-order Socialists? They are not yet close to that. Marx still means more to them than Christ – they do not realize that without authority consecrated by God, there can be no order of uprightness, and thus without faith there can be no reasonable socialization... [p.559] The faithless and soulless pleasure-person of Marx-Bebel theory thinks only of himself and lives, without consideration of those who were before him and will be after him, only for the present. In the sense that he evaluates and considers the world and its phenomena, a truly social and cooperative economy in association with the whole rest of humanity is impossible. His simply unsocial mindset excludes any reasonable socialization... ... According to the principles of atheistic science of the real Spartacist and Bolshevik type, according to their schoolbook wisdom, criminal inclination and criminal power are the normal condition of human society, insofar as murderers and robbers are free from any concern about deadly attacks on the throne, while the friends of law and order belong in prison... The misfortune of Germany unfortunately resides primarily in that, with the falling away of sanctifying formation, by which the Christian worldview, so long as it was generally dominant, held spirits ... in order, the social thought and sentiment of the people have increasingly declined... In an era when God Almighty is not given the honor that befits him, there can be no talk of a true peace or a reasonable socialization. That is only possible where the Ten Commandments in the entire content of the two tablets holds spirits in order, whereby the principle of authority is upheld by all elements... ... In a realm of universal alarm and disturbance, where terror holds the scepter, in a hell of criminal insanity was in Bavaria, where all reason was at an end, while no order, but eternal horror dwelled? In an era that wants to know absolutely nothing of a higher authority? Which only knows one principle, to allow egotism unlimited free reign? ... Will the concept of democracy or of dictatorship be called to create order? And if, in a society that has become faithless, both are apparently unthinkable and impossible, what then? Then only one of two possibilities can come to pass: either downfall and despair, or an extraordinary divine intervention, perhaps by way of God himself, with his superior wisdom, via a dictatorship of his omnipotence, helps to re-establish the authority of his kingdom. Reflecting on these questions and difficulties, any thinking person might be gripped with pure anxiety as he considers on the one hand the ruins of the devastated world of culture, and on the other hand sees how frightfully small is the number of level-headed persons in relation to those in whom good will is totally lacking, both on the side of the proletarians and on the side of the power-wielding plutocracy. What the men of money and of work are striving for in the projects of industrial councils and the League of Nations surpasses by the height of heaven human cleverness and strength... ... As once in the days of Emperor Constantine, such a triumph of truth would in itself be a triumph of righteousness. That would then be a firm basis for a League of Nations, as the divine promise holds a prospect of such, whenever the whole of humanity speaks it a from a single flock that has only one shepherd. Nov. 6, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: A speech by Minister Hoffmann Most Reverend Eminence, I believe it my duty to bring to the attention of Your Most Reverend Eminence some passages of a speech given a few days ago by the Minister President, Mr. Hoffmann, at a meeting in Nuremberg, and published in the Socialist newspaper “Fränkische Tagespost.” Apparently the Minister wanted to respond to the magnificent dynamic speech given by the Archbishop of Munich to the Catholic Congress recently held in this city (about which I had the honor to report to Your Eminence by my respectful report No. 14552 dated October 28); but what he expressed is merely new evidence to illustrate his pertinaciously anti-religious position and activity. Thus Mr. Hoffmann said: “We find ourselves in the midst of a series of struggles. That these struggles are instigated by the other side (he had already spoken of the war the Democrats were conducting) is most clearly shown by the various Congresses held recently by the bourgeois parties. From these you could see how difficult is the situation of the Socialists in the Ministerial Cabinet. At the Congress of Catholics in Munich, Archbishop Faulhaber spoke in the tone that the priests desire for their political music. What should we conclude from this? Behind us there is a year of progressive agitation. What we could not attain in 20 years of difficult work, today, by the work of the revolution, in the course of one year, has become a fact. The old ideal of Socialism, the separation of Church and State and of Church and school stands at the center of the political struggle. Now we are preparing the way to achieve this ideal. Who among us ever believed that the separation of Church and State and of Church and school would not encounter the opposition of the entire organized force of Clericalism? The Catholic has before his eyes a grand ideal by which he lives. We can combat this ideal only if we well establish our ideal, the ideal of Socialism. In the Catholic Congress of Munich, Archbishop Faulhaber gave a presentation of this struggle when he placed in contradiction Socialism and Christianity! But that is false. We do not combat Christianity, the religion, for we have in our own ranks free thinkers and devoted Christians. Our struggle is directed against the domination of the priests and the question we pose is this: ‘Socialism or clericalism!’ What is endangered is not religion, but the dominion of priests! But religion is what they always put forward when assaults advance against the power of clericalism. It was thus and not otherwise 2000 years ago. Indeed Jesus of Nazareth fought against the clerical caste. The speakers at the Catholic Congress, Professor Beyerle, Privy Councilor Marx and Archbishop Faulhaber used pretty catchwords to claim their right to Kulturkampf!”... [ellipsis in the original] Concluding, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 267 Nov. 9, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Program for the formation of a monarchist party in Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, Here-enclosed I have the honor to send to Your Most Reverend Eminence a program for the formation of a monarchist party in Bavaria. The author, Mr. F. Mayer-Koy, a Bavarian official, who gave me this program and interested me in it, says that because of the most deplorable unfortunate conditions of the past year in Bavaria, a great many harbor a passionate desire for the past and a great number of men and women have come together for the formation of a Bavarian monarchist party: “Bayerische Königspartei.” The party says it proposes the liberation of Bavaria from the Prussian domination to which it is subjected today, by being reduced to a mere province, and at the same time the liberation of all Germany. Bavaria is to return to being under the reign of the House of Wittelsbach, but in a manner corresponding to the modern liberal principles of public law. The ministers are to be appointed by the King, but left with the power that has recently lost the trust of the people. The elections to the Chamber of representatives of the people (Volkskammer) are to be done according to a proportional system, with universal suffrage equally for men and women, and all from the age of 40 would have a double vote. Moreover another Chamber of representatives of the various social classes (Ständekammer) would be constituted, in which would be applied in a fruitful manner the Council system (Rätegedanke). All of this is summarized in the mottos “A Free Bavaria in a free Germany” and “A free people under a free King.” It is explained then that the new monarchy and in general the government and popular education are to be founded on these religious and moral principles. These principles would have to be Christian, but it is expressly stated that the new party will not serve any special confession and will allow its members, like all citizens, full freedom of conscience. It therefore proposes the complete renunciation of the old regalism and the recognition of the fullest faculties for religious societies with autonomous administration of their affairs. The State is to assume a benevolent attitude toward religion and be most ready, in an equitable manner, to carry out its obligations toward the aforesaid religious societies, assuring them the possibility of living by means of the exaction of church taxes. These principles find their expression in a motto like Cavour’s, “Free Church in a free State.” The program in question seeks, in sum, to resolve the school problem, combatting the uniformity of public schooling and recognizing for parents the fullest freedom of instruction for their children in what concerns the private school: “Free School for free parents.” The other articles of the program concern economic issues. What might be the effective political value of this program , and what hopes the creation of the new party might have, it is not easy to say with certainty; also according to information I have as of now, it cannot be given much importance. Undoubtedly from many quarters there is talk of an agitation in a monarchical sense, but it is very questionable whether this is the opportune time for such a movement, and thus it is prudent to receive with all reserve both the above-described program and the party that might perhaps be born from it. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 268 Nov. 9, 1919 “Vatican Review” section of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 45, page 346: The “Osservatore Romano,” the daily newspaper of the Holy See, is once again appearing after a two-month-long printers’ strike. One of its first issues now brings us the actual text of the London Agreement’s article 15, which provides for the exclusion of the Pope from the peace conference, as proposed by Italy and agreed to by England, France and Russia... Arriving unsung and unheralded in Prague is new Archbishop Kordac from Rome, who is also a well-disposed man toward the Germans. He is a student of the German Jesuits from our Collegium Germanicum [seminary in Rome]. Much work and struggle await him. Czech President Masaryk, a Freemason for years and a raging fighter against the Catholic Church, is promoting, in association with his American Jewish wife and their correspondingly raised daughter, all the efforts toward apostasy: members of Religious orders are being expelled, monasteries and Church property confiscated, etc. But now, finally, the resistance has stepped up. 1100 protest gatherings on a single day were held by the Catholic people. Prague witnessed a massive gathering of 50,000 persons, yet all of this was suppressed by our infiltrated international telegraph offices. Concerning the demands of some long-since rotten priests for the abrogation of celibacy, the Pope obviously instructed the new Archbishop to reject them absolutely... In Hungary the storm has passed over. It tore off some rotten branches, but far fewer than many had thought. The Hungarian Catholics displayed heroic courage, which the Pope then appropriately recognized and praised in a letter to Cardinal Czernoch of Gran (Esztergom, Hungary). The Pastor of Nikisch, who offered himself to the Bolsheviks in place of the father of a family who was condemned to death, and then was shot dead; Bishop Mikesch, who was humiliated by three months in prison as a common criminal; thousands who thronged to the Church and the sacraments despite all prohibitions; women among the people who placed themselves as human barriers in front of the threatened monasteries; and hundreds of other examples deserve to be made particularly known. Where such a spirit lives in the people, we do not fear for their future. Might I single out just one example, because it is so beautiful. The people’s delegate and liquidator for Church affairs, Faber, a fallen away cleric and bloody man like [Hungarian Communist Tibor] Szamuely, rushed into a girls’ school to control the instruction and asked that a student be quizzed on history. The 16 year old girl who was called out freely gave a glowing talk on patriotism and piety in Faber’s presence. Faber, white with rage, addressed her: “Comrade girl, do you know that I have the right, based on what you said, to have you hanged immediately?” The girl, the daughter of a respected family, replied: “I know that, but I do not fear you. If you have me hanged, I will pray in the next world for your conversion.” Pale and shaking, even this ruthless tyrant had to admit: “Such a character have I never before seen in my life” - and with that he left the school. That is the spirit that conquers even Bolshevism! ... Byline: Friedrich Ritter von Lama German original Nov. 10, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Provisional solution for the presentation of vacant parishes in Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, I have the honor to inform Your Most Reverend Eminence that, despite the sustained difficulties of the persistent regalistic tendencies of this Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs, I have been able to gain the acceptance by Mr. Hoffmann in writing, in conformity to the venerated instructions transmitted to me by encrypted cable no. 201, for the following formula about the presentation of parishes in Bavaria: “The presentation by the Bavarian Government of vacant parishes that are so-called patronato of the State (1) and acceptance of those that are considered “libera collazione” (2) will provisionally take place as before, it being agreed however that this cannot constitute a precedent for the definitive resolution of this question.” This provisional solution was immediately communicated by me with a Circular to the Most Reverend Bavarian Archbishops and Bishops. In sending this agreement to Your Eminence, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple … Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 253 November 10, 1919 Faulhaber to the Bavarian Bishops: Simultaneous with the present communication, the Most Reverend Gentlemen of the Apostolic Nunciature are receiving the information that now, after long interactive negotiations between the Nunciature and the Government, with agreement of the Holy Father, an agreement has been reached that for re-appointments to vacant parishes of both categories, for the time being, the previous modality – thus also with a three-candidate recommended list for benefices with local nobility presentation rights – can and shall be maintained. The agreement was decreed in writing as a purely temporary measure, by which the final measure is in no way anticipated and without prejudice to the legal position of either side as to this issue... Military chaplaincy. From April 1, 1920 on, the Bavarian group of the Reich Army will have only one Division Chaplain, and that in Munich. In all other garrison locations, chaplaincy in the Army will have to be a part of civilian pastoral care, as provided according to Art. 140 and 141 of the Reich Constitution. I may certainly count on the agreement of the Most Reverend Lord Bishops as I express myself to the Lord Cardinal of Cologne and the local Reich Army Command with the statement, “the Military Chaplaincy in Bavaria may under no circumstances be placed under the jurisdiction of the Prussian Military Chaplain, rather the Military Chaplains remain under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of the locality.” Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 4300, reprinted in L. Volk, ed., vol. 1, pp. 107-108. Nov. 12, 1919 Gasparri to Pacelli: I have received the important Report 14583 of October 30th. I completely approve the articles that You have so ably proposed for the new concordat. You shall procure that they be accepted, and whatever difficulties may arise, explain them to the Holy See. Card. Gasparri Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 4033 Nov. 16, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Statement of the Bishops of Germany about the new Reich Constitution Most Reverend Eminence, I am carrying out my duty to transmit here-enclosed to Your Most Reverend Eminence the original German text of the statement of the Most Reverend Bishops of Germany, who participated in the Fulda Conference, about the new Reich Constitution. The [Italian] translation of this important document was already included with the address to the Holy Father sent this October 27th in the name of the aforesaid Bishops by the Archdiocesan Ordinariate of Cologne concerning the question of the oath of that Constitution, and transmitted by me, as is customary, by means of courier. In concluding, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 1017 Enclosed German Bishops’ Aug. 24, 1919 memorandum to the German Government about the Weimar Constitution: “Memorandum of the Fulda Bishops Conference to the Reich Government” Exalted Reich Government! The most devoted undersigned Archbishops and Bishops of Germany consider themselves obligated by conscience to take a position on the Constitution of the German Reich of August 11, 1919 by the following statement. The Catholic Church is an institution that rests upon its divine institution by Jesus Christ and its rights, as such were conferred upon her by her divine founder and flow from her divine foundation, cannot be subjected to worldly legislative bounds and limitations. We gladly acknowledge that the new Reich Constitution in certain fields brings with it greater freedom for the activity of the Catholic Church for the good of our hard-pressed people. On the other hand, some provisions are nevertheless to be found, to our painful regret, which mean an intrusion into the inalienable rights of the Church. Among such provisions are: Art. 10, No. 1, where the Reich imputes to itself the authority to set up principles, by way of legislation, for the rights and duties of the Church; Art. 137, where with the passage, “Every religious society orders and administers its affairs independently, within the limitations of generally applicable law,” confers upon the State the right to intrude on occasion into the affairs of the Church, even in the most private and essential matters. Art. 138, where the Reich is declared competent to set up unilaterally, without involvement of the Church, governing principles for the event of possible dissolution of state subsidies to the Church that are grounded in law, treaty or particular title of right. Art. 143-149, which contain various provisions about instruction and education of youth, which on the one hand are not compatible with the rights of the Church (compare the relevant canons of the Code of Canon Law) and those responsible for child-rearing, in particular the parents, and which on the other hand confer upon the State far too extensive powers, among others an unrestricted right of oversight of the Church’s religious instruction in the school, not only of the external ordering of it in the curriculum and teaching plan. Against these and all the provisions of the new Reich Constitution that are injurious to the rights of the Church, we submit our solemn protest on the strength of our office. In doing this we gratefully acknowledge what has been done by members of the National Assembly, in defense of Church principles, for the improvement and completion of the original outline of the Constitution. As to what concerns the oath to be administered under the Constitution, Catholics will obviously not be able to be obligated to anything that contradicts a divine or Church law and thereby violates their conscience. That corresponds to the freedom of conscience that is solemnly guaranteed to all inhabitants of the German Reich in Art. 135. Proceeding from the Christian principle that State and Church are two powers willed by God, each independent in its own field and thus having equal rights, we might give expression to our conviction that a peaceful agreement between the responsible leading posts in State and Church concerning the various articles of the new Constitution of the German Reich that we had to protest might be allowed to come to pass. Source: E. and W. Huber, Staat und Kirche im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1988), vol. IV, pp. 133-135 Nov. 19, 1919 Gasparri to Pacelli: Most Illustrious and Reverend Signore, Baron von Cramer-Klett has presented to the August Pontiff a private letter from the Most Reverend Dr. M. Buchberger, Vicar General of the Archdiocese, in which is expressed the desire for a momento of Rome and the Apostolic Benediction for Madams Anna Spitzer, Emma Mahler, Caterina Sepp and Berta Schäfer, for the secretary Luigi Hennerfeind and for a District Judge (Amtsrichter Landes), which would all be well merited for their Christian education of youth. It also contained praise for Councilor Adolf Braun and especially for Rev. Giovanni Evangelista Müller. Together with this letter, Baron von Cramer-Klett presented two general certificates from the same Archdiocesan Ordinariate for Rev. Giuseppe Jud and Gioacchino Pölzl. He then had confidence to explain the desire of the Archbishop, beseeching for the first seven persons (one of which is actually not named) the Cross pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, for the two priests Müller and Jud the title of Supernumerary Privy Chamberlain, and for Rev. Pölzl the dignity of Domestic Prelate. The Holy Father, before making a determination in this regard, desires to have opportune information from You and to know, even more, the explicit and concrete desire of the Archbishop. In asking you to provide me the requested information with your sage advice in the regard, I gladly affirm myself with distinct and sincere esteem ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 1400 Nov. 28, 1919 U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing’s response to London after investigation: November 28, 1919 To: American Embassy, London, for Wright Document referred to in your 3253, October 16, 1 p.m. and received under cover of your letter of October 17, has been identified as a French translation of a statement originally prepared in English, under date of November 30, 1918, by a Russian citizen residing in America, who was employed at one time as an investigator by the War Trade Board. A copy of the statement is reported to have been furnished to the French intelligence office in the United States. This accounts for its reaching England through French channels. The author of the statement has been interviewed since the receipt of your letter and he is unable to add anything to the statements contained in the document itself. It is obvious that the document has no special validity and it would seem most unwise to give it the distinction of publicity. Lansing Nov. 28, 1919 Gasparri to Pacelli: Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Signore, I took care to bring to the Holy Father’s attention Your interesting Report, No. 14552, of this October 28th, concerning the Catholic Congress of Munich. The August Pontiff, Who follows with such paternal and loving solicitude the events in the Catholic Church in Bavaria, proved much consoled in learning of the courageous steadfastness with which the good people of Munich publicly professed their faith before all adversaries and affirmed the necessity that the eternal and immutable religious principles be the basis of the social order and especially of public education. Particularly comforting for the Holy Father was the dynamic and illuminating industriousness that was applied in this regard by the zealous Archbishop, who by his elect brilliance and his well known eloquence contributed so much to the splendid happy success of this solemn Catholic demonstration. His Holiness was also pleased by the cordial cooperation of all the social classes, especially of the workers and students, and nurtures a strong trust that these youthful and precious energies, blessed by the Lord, will quickly show the effectiveness of their contribution to the work of reconstruction of their country. With the most fervent wish that the beneficial results of the Congress will not tarry in being made felt in two particularly important points, that of the continuing progressive growth of the Pressverein, and in the defense of religious schooling, His Holiness interests himself in extending to the Archbishop, and to all the organizers and promoters of the Congress, the expression of his gratitude and a special Apostolic Benediction. With sentiments of distinct and sincere esteem ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 5503 Nov. 28, 1919 Pacelli to Faulhaber: Your Excellency! Most reverend Herr Archbishop! As is well known, by the Revolution and by the new constitutions of the Reich and of the Bavarian State, which have been recently published, a new situation has been created, so that there is a need to settle the relations between Church and State in Bavaria in a new agreement. For this purpose, I have put together several points, keeping in view the already expressed demands of the most reverend Bavarian Bishops, which should provide the articles for the future agreement, and which I have already expressed in a discussion with Herr Minister President on October 30th of this year. These points were submitted by me to the Holy See and were completely approved by the same, and I have receiving instructions to strive toward having these points find acceptance with the Bavarian Government. Nonetheless I consider it appropriate to share these hereby confidentially with Your Excellency and to request devotedly, if you have any special desires in relation to them, that you make them known to me without delay. 1. The Church freely appoints to Church positions without involvement of the State and the civic Communities. The State will also provide its subsidies in the future as previously, including the so-called free-will ones, and these latter will be included in the overall accounting. 2. For the appointment of professors to the theological faculties of the universities, the State will make a recommendation of one or several suitable candidates to the Ordinary of the Diocese, whose agreement is necessary for the appointment. Also, in the philosophy faculty of each university there must be at least one professor of true philosophy and one professor for history whose Church standpoint is sound in the judgment of the Ordinary. 3. The lyceums for the philosophical and theological formation of priests are Diocesan institutions and as such dependent on the Ordinary, who freely appoints the rectors and professors. 4. If a university professor is considered unfit by the Ordinary on account of his teaching activity or on account of his moral conduct, he is to be removed. 5. Likewise the religion teachers in middle schools are appointed upon recommendation of the Ordinary and will, upon complaint by the same, be removed for the reasons set forth above. 6. The Church is entitled to freedom to administer its property. The Church has the right to raise taxes from her members and to dispose freely of the proceeds thereof. The State will raise such taxes together with State taxes in return for reasonable compensation. 7. The buildings and real estate of the State that currently serve Church purposes directly or indirectly shall be transferred into property of the Church; the currently obligatory State duties of construction and maintenance of such buildings will be suitably discharged. 8. The State must recognize and as necessary implement the decrees of the supreme Church authorities within the ecclesiastical realm. 9. With the army, and in penal institutions, caring institutions and hospitals, a regular system of pastoral care will be established and the State will provide for it the necessary financial means as well as the required rooms, utensils and vestments. 10. Orders and Congregations may be freely founded and have legal capacity according to the laws applicable to all citizens and societies; they are independent with respect to the State in the ordering and administration of their affairs. Their property and their other rights are guaranteed. In deepest reverence your most devoted servant commends himself to Your Excellency +Eugen Pacelli, Archbishop of Sardis, Apostolic Nuncio Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 7480 Dec. 1, 1919 Fritz Gerlich, excerpt: Manche unserer Zeitgenossen sehen allerdings diese zerstörende Wirkung des Marxismus nicht als Folge des Systems, sondern als eine solche der Beteiligung von Juden an seiner Leitung an. So unhaltbar diese Auffassung auch ist, wir müssen ihr doch hier ein paar Worte widmen, denn die Hetze gegen unsere jüdischen Mitbürger droht zu einer öffentlichen Gefahr zu werden und die Elemente der Zerreissung von Volk und Staat noch zu verstärken. Source: F. Gerlich, Der Kommunismus als Lehre vom Tausendjährigen Reich (München: Hugo Bruckmann, 1920), p.227. Translation: Many of our contemporaries nevertheless see this destructive effect of Marxism not as the result of the system of Marxism, but rather as the result of the participation of Jews in its leadership. Even though this view is completely untenable, we must still devote a few words to it here, because the agitation against our Jewish fellow citizens is threatening to become a public danger and to strengthen the elements that would rip apart our people and our state. Gerlich noted the involvement of Jewish personalities in Bolshevism, while denouncing the Jewish-Communist world conspiracy myth. The December 1919 review of Gerlich’s book did not mention any aspect concerning Jews. Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, 164:11 (Dec. 1, 1919), pp. 718-720. Dec. 1, 1919 Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland, 164:11 (1919), p. 697: “The ‘Achievements of the Revolution’” The “achievements of the revolution” is a catchphrase that is current not only among the Social Democratic masses since the revolution of November 7 to 9, 1918... To speak of the “achievements of the Revolution” in a positive sense is a mindlessness and a contradiction in terms. A revolution, a collapse, a devastation of what exists is no achievement... [p. 703] The “self-government of the people” is no achievement of the most recent revolution, but rather a newly warmed-up old heresy of the philosophes of Geneva... What has governed in the new and revolutionary Germany is not the councils of works and soldiers, what has governed or dictated is not the proletariat, nor the parliaments, rather what has governed , as well or as badly as was possible, are Herrs Ebert, Scheidemann, Hoffmann, Heine, Noske, Erzberger, etc. [p. 708] ... A Bavarian democratic republic must soon bring down the province of Bavaria. The unique culture and art of Bavaria, the popular attitude and life of the people, ecclesiastical and social institutions are bound to the dynasty that grew up with the people, and with the elimination of the dynasty comes necessarily the beginning of political disorder, revolutionary leveling, and the finishing off of the uniqueness of Bavarian ethnicity. With the fall of the kingdom must fall also the holy respect for the head of state and state sovereignty ... Dec. 2, 1919 Lingg to Faulhaber Your Excellency! Most reverend Herr Archbishop! I have the honor to answer Your Excellency’s gracious letter of Nov. 27 as follows: 1. If the Lord Nuncio has the impression as though we Bishops were dissatisfied with the provisional arrangement for appointments to parishes, it is certainly not my fault. I am glad that this matter has found a solution, and I have never said otherwise. I have recently just expressed to Your Excellency the fear that the Minister might now consider putting off the final resolution, but I am not in the least dissatisfied with the interim arrangement on that account. 2. The Fulda declaration is in my opinion not a “protest” against the German Reich Constitution, as has been maintained. A “protest” would have had to be made against the outline of the Constitution and a protest against the now finished Constitution would have something anti-State about it. The Fulda declaration is merely a precaution against certain articles of the Constitution being implemented without involvement of the Church, and it contains in its conclusion, to my delight, the assurance that an agreement with the Church is to be achieved in most of the points… 3. I have already authorized Your Excellency to make a later statement in my name as well against Stahler’s State League of Diocesan Priest Associations… 4 and 5. Today I received the 10 points shared by the Lord Nuncio, which, as approved by the Holy See, should be the foundation for Concordat negotiations, and which the Nuncio already indeed on October 30th discussed with the Minister President. The points contain throughout strict Canon Law. Since there were already approved by the Holy See and made known to Hoffmann, the delegates will not be able to do anything but accept them as “substance” and “instructions.” We Bishops also cannot give any other instructions under such circumstances, and I consider even the introduction of the commission as a delicate matter. If the commission lets one or another of the 10 points fall by the wayside because hopeless in full session, then the fault falls upon the Bishops, that they did not hold to the instructions of the Holy See. As to the members of the commission that Your Excellency has in mind, I would have absolutely no reservations, but to give them or Dr. Heim any other instructions than the Nuncio’s 10 points would be wrong in my view… 6, 7 and 8. I took notice of this with satisfaction and I express my special thanks to Your Excellency for the concern in the matter of the bell-ringing. I am still being severely attacked, disconsolate over the development of things, and many days almost unable to work. Commending myself therefore to Your Excellency’s prayers, I remain Your most devoted Servant +Maximilian Bishop of Augsburg Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 4320 Dec. 3, 1919 Kiefl to Faulhaber: Your Excellency, most reverend Herr Archbishop most gracious Herr! The State Secretary in the Education Ministry, Saenger, issued in the press a declaration about cultural policy in Bavaria, in which he attacked Your Excellency’s Munich Catholic Congress speech. Unfortunately the Foreword to the second edition of my “Sozialismus und Religion” has already been printed. Otherwise I would have still highlighted Saenger’s speech there. In this Foreword I have called Your Excellency’s speech the most important event and the most courageous deed in German Catholicism since the outbreak of the Revolution, and I would like to express, without flattery, my most reverential thanks for it to Your Excellency. Into the entire Catholic world, it has finally brought back a vital energizing momentum that allows us to forge hope once again. This fact allows me to venture a respectful request. In the Concordat issue a great confusion reigns. Herr Prelate Hollweck has aggravated it by issuing a declaration that the Concordat is broken because Bavaria is no longer an independent state. I have occupied myself to some extent with these matters and feared that such concepts would cause enormous harm. In my opinion one should have held fast to the Concordat’s validity. Otherwise we would have no foundation any more for the entitlements of the Church. In any case the matter has enormous difficulties. Therefore it would be best to demand a revision of the Concordat. One can bring under the rubric “revision” everything that is to be demanded in the interest of the Church. Only if the Concordat is given up does the juridical question arise whether the Church’s entitlements can still be tied back to the secularization a hundred years later. This question is from a juridical perspective variously denied. Your Excellency, please do not take my most reverential presentation as if I wanted thereby to tell Your Excellency something new. But I would like to ask Your Excellency reverentially as well as privately to allow action so that the Concordat is not formally overturned but rather revised. The Church’s capacity for action would thereby in my opinion be significantly strengthened. Otherwise I would fear a radical separation of Church and State, in a manner known from other countries. Then what would become of the Church in Bavaria? In the papers (Regensburger Anzeiger) it said that Your Excellency had taken up the initiative to arrange a provisional way that the parish positions could be filled again. So far as I can see, and I have heard many clerics about this, people are extraordinarily grateful to Your Excellency for this. Frankly there are higher authorities that now want everything separated from the state for the sake of the Church’s freedom. It may be that I am deceiving myself. For I would fear that this way does not lead to the goal. Your Excellency, please pardon me if with these lines I venture to impose a burden. But the hope of the Bavarian Catholics now depends completely on the person of Your Excellency. In deepest reverence Your Excellency’s most obedient Cathedral Deacon Dr. Kiefl Dec. 4, 1919 Faulhaber to Kiefl: Most Reverend Cathedral Deacon! The supreme pastoral authority in Munich takes the standpoint that the Concordat, despite some holes that political developments and the Education Minister have made in it, still by law exists and must form the basis for further negotiations. For this concept, that the Concordat still exists for us, we have made great sacrifices and have still not claimed for ourselves the benefit of Article 137 Section 3 of the Reich Constitution up to this day. Also, after the disappearance of the monarchy, the desire of the Holy Father that the Nunciature might continue to exist in Munich would have no sense or foundation in law if the Concordat no longer exists or will no longer exist in some kind of form. The dissolution negotiations will take shape in a much more favorable way for the Church if the validity of the Concordat is recognized and the accommodation of the Concordat’s rights and burdens to the new state of affairs is carried out by direct negotiations between the Government and the Apostolic See and not handed over to the partisan wrangling of the Landtag. The Lord Nuncio stands so firmly on this standpoint that he had the text of the 10 negotiating points approved to him by the Vatican Secretary of State, so that for any amendment to them he must receive new instructions. Now he wants nothing whatsoever to be spoken about this in public; on the other hand the Minister President is seeking to introduce the key point of the negotiations in the Landtag. To make advance preparations on this issue, to the extent we are in light of the aforesaid authorized at all for that, we have set up a commission and have also invited the esteemed Cathedral Deacon of Regensburg to it (Address: Vicar General Dr. Buchberger, Munich, Sendlinger St. 63). With public statements like that of Prelate Hollweck, matters are not helped at this time. The freedom of the Church, nevertheless, we hope to save, because even the new shaping of the Concordat can only move in the direction of the phrase of the Reich Constitution, “There is no state church.” I would be delighted to be able to speak with you sometime soon about these burning issues. In sincere esteem! Dec. 6, 1919 Eugenio Pacelli to Francesco Pacelli: Dearest Brother ... As you may have read in the newspapers, to combat Bolshevism, which ruled here last April, given the insufficiency of the few troops that Germany is still allowed to maintain under the peace treaty, a civil guard called the Einwohnerwehr was formed, very well organized, which has been truly indispensable to hold the Communists at bay. But now Clemenceau, at the suggestion of Marshal Foch, has commanded Germany to dissolve it. I had occasion, today, to speak not only with a diplomat (the Prussian chargé d'affaires) and with a German parliamentary delegate (the Head of the Bavarian Center Party), but also with Captain De Luca, attaché with the Italian Military Mission in Berlin, who have said very seriously that if the commanded suppression of this guardian of security takes place, Bolshevism will inevitably return, especially in Munich, and in a much more grave and lasting form than last April. I, being already accused of being fearful, have written nothing of all this to Rome, because it would be wrongly interpreted and moreover no one can predict the future with absolute certainty. But I wanted to write this to you, so that if you see (what is unfortunately almost beyond doubt) this evaluation to be confirmed, you can speak with Card. Gasparri, because it is clear to me what I must do. I have already been in imminent mortal danger, and I do not know how a second time will turn out, but I am ready for anything, provided it is made known to me in a clear manner what is wanted of me, and without conditions like this “if there is danger.” As I learned from a German gentleman who returned from Rome today, they do not believe in the danger of the situation in Germany. It is said in the Vatican that the German people are a people of order, a disciplined people; and this would be true, if the Entente would permit and allow the means to resist the numerous powerful revolutionary elements. It is true that also in Italy there are dangers and I have followed with great anxiety the events of recent days; but there the Government and the parties of order can defend themselves, since there is no one who makes them dissolve the guardians of security. If you will speak with Card. Gasparri in the sense indicated, I ask you to do it in a way that does not appear to have been suggested by me. You might be able to say that I wrote about the situation here in a narrative manner and that our worried family is asking that the Holy See think of me in this way. In any case, I have written this matter to you and I am sure that you will do everything for the best. But you will be able to understand how, despite everything, this state of continuous anxiety is certainly not helpful for healing my stomach!... Italian original: Carissimo Fratello ... Come avrai letto sui giornali, per combattere qui il bolscevismo, che aveva imperato nell’Aprile scorso, non essendo sufficienti le poche truppe che la Germania può ancora tenere in seguito al trattato di pace, se era formata una guardia civile, detta Einwohnerwehr, assai bene organizzata, la quale veramente è valsa sino ad oggi a tenere a bada i comunisti. Ma ora Clemenceau, su proposta del Maresciallo Foch, ha intimato alla Germania di scioglierla. Ho avuto occasione, oggi, di parlare non solo con un diplomatico (l'Incaricato d’affari di Prussia) e con un parlamentare tedesco (il Capo del Centro bavarese), ma anche col Capitano De Luca, distaccato dalla Missione italiana militare di Berlino, i quali tutti seri hanno detto che, se la intimata soppressione di quella guardia di sicurezza avrà luogo, tornerà inevitabilmente il bolscevismo, specialmente in Monaco, ed in forma assai più grave e duratura che nell’aprile scorso. Io, essendo già accusato di paura, non scrivo nulla di tutto ciò a Roma, perché sarebbe male interpretato ed inoltre nessuno può predire con assoluta certezza l’avvvenire. Ma ho voluto scriverlo a te, affinché, se vedrai che (com’è pur troppo quasi fuori di dubbio) quella misura si verificherà, possa parlare col Card. Gasparri, perché mi si dica in modo chiaro che cosa debbo fare. Io già sono stato in pericolo imminente di vita, e non so se una seconda volta ne uscirò salvo, ma son pronto a tutto, purché mi si faccia conoscere in modo chiaro, e senza condizioni come questa “se v’è pericolo,” che cosa si vuole da me. Come ho saputo da un Signore tedesco tornato ora da Roma, costì non si crede ai pericoli della situazione in Germania. Si dice in Vaticano che il popolo tedesco è un popolo d’ordine, un popolo disciplinato; e questo sarebbe vero, se l’Intesa permettesse e lasciasse i mezzi per resistere ai numerosi e potenti elementi rivoluzionari. E vero che anche in Italia vi sono pericoli e io ho seguito con molta angustia gli avvenimenti di questi giorni; ma costì il Governo ed i partiti di ordine possono difendersi, giacché non vi è nessuno che viene loro a sciogliere le guardie di sicurezza. Se tu parlerai col Card. Gasparri nel senso suddetto, ti prego di farlo in modo che non apparisca che sia stato suggerito da me. Potresti dire che io ho scritto della situazione di qui in maniera narrativa e che la famiglia preoccupata domanda che cosa pensi la S. Sede di me. In ogni modo, io ho scritto a te della cosa e son sicuro che tu farai tutto per la meglio. Ma potrai ben capire come, malgrado tutto, questa condizione di continua angustia non giovi certo a guarire il mio stomaco!... Source: Andrea Tornielli, Pio XII: Eugenio Pacelli, Un uomo sul trono di Pietro (Milan: Mondadori, 2007), pp. 111-112 (emphasis and ellipses in original), quoting from letter in Pacelli family archives. Dec. 7, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, page one: “The Archbishops and Bishops of Bavaria to the Faithful of Their Dioceses” The following pastoral word of warning against the bad press [die schlechte Presse] is to be read annually on the 2nd Sunday of Advent from the pulpit to the faithful, after the Gospel, at the early masses and at the high mass. Dear faithful, We have the earnest and holy obligation to warn you of aspects of these new times that pose a severe and immediate danger to your faith and moral life. By this we mean the excesses of a press that often fights against the teachings of our Holy Catholic Church and violates good morals. Reading such material in the press is a sin against the faith and against the Lord’s commandments. That is why it is a matter of holy obligation of conscience for us to warn you about this, and a holy obligation of conscience for you to listen to this warning voice of your supreme shepherds. All of you know that holy faith, this highest good and noblest jewel of the soul, for which the greatest men of the Church have given their blood and life, can be lost through your own guilt. You incur such guilt, with full severe responsibility before God and your conscience, whenever you allow newspapers and magazines into your home and your family, which try to undo your faith, your respect and love for the Church and its servants; publications containing writings and pictures that are actually scornful of Christian morality. You will bring scandal and seduction to your own children if you passively tolerate the way such newspapers and magazines, with their style that is sometimes repulsively raw, sometimes seductively attractive, desecrate day by day the sanctuary of your families. We ask and adjure you: Do not allow the terrible woe declared by our Lord and Savior for those who give scandal, to come upon your head! Listen therefore to the voice of your bishops, whose concern for the salvation of your souls obliges them to give this word of warning! Prevent the entry into your home of all newspapers, magazines, calendars, books, brochures, etc., that have the purpose of undermining faith and morals, respect for the authority of Church and State. Remember the admonition of the Lord: “Whoever hears you, hears me; whoever despises you, despises me.” The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all of you! Amen! Original document, front page of Dec. 7, 1919 issue of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung Note: The Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung looks quite similar to diocesan weeklies in the English-speaking world today, with a combination of religious articles, news about the Vatican and Catholic Church developments in other countries, current events from a Catholic perspective, parish Sunday mass schedules, and announcements and reports about events of parishes and associations in the archdiocese, including talks and appearances by Munich’s Archbishop Michael von Faulhaber. The paper still exists today under the title Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung. Dec. 7, 1919 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, page one, following the Bishops’ pastoral letter. “Followers of Christ the Lord!” From every pulpit in Bavaria rings out today the pastoral word of warning of the Archbishops and Bishops against the bad press. The entire Bavarian episcopate are pursuing, with this urgent warning and heartfelt request of theirs, no other goal than that of Pope Pius X of blessed memory in his apostolic motto: Omni instaurare in Christo, “Restore all things in Christ.” This papal and episcopal wake-up call will produce an especially strong echo among the more than 200,000 members (individuals and entities) of the Catholic Press Association for Bavaria. This Catholic Press Association is not a political association, but rather a purely religious association marked by special indulgences. It stands under the special protection of St. Michael the Archangel and has the goal, like its sister foundations in Hungary, Serbia, South Russia, Spain, Brazil, Japan and North America, of promoting Catholic press and literature to the greatest extent and defending the Catholic people from irreligious and immoral literature. In 600 places in Bavaria such Press Associations have already been founded with their own youth- and peoples-libraries, and there is hardly a parish in Bavaria that does not have at least some members of this Association that is so warmly recommended by all Popes and all the Bishops of Bavaria. But it is not only the 200,000 members of the Press Association who will be newly roused by today’s pastoral letter and will feel newly enlivened to energetic further activity. Every Catholic, whether man or woman, right from today, must recognize what a severe urgency this renewal in Christ places upon us in view of the evident devastation by the bad press. Every Catholic must also, however, out of love for immortal human souls, make use of the means of renewal in Christ, every Catholic must himself become an apostle of the press, first in his own family, and then also among all his acquaintances. It is no coincidence that the same man who adopted the phrase Omnia instaurare in Christo, Pope Pius X of blessed memory, also declared that cooperation in the press apostolate of the Press Association is a “good work of the highest priority.” Followers of the Lord! If we have had cause to complain in recent years and decades of a falling away from Christ, from the Christian spirit, from Christian morals, it is not least the bad press that bears the blame. French President Combes himself admitted: “the pallid anti-Christian press is the reason that France has become two-thirds to three-quarters de-Christianized.” Equally among us in Germany and everywhere in the world, the awful accusation must be raised against the bad press, that it has injected, fed and promoted religious doubt among the people, and in this way has brought thousands upon thousands to fall away from the faith and turn away from Christ. It willfully suppresses everything that is beautiful and great in the Catholic faith and in Catholic life. Of such matters it either tells its readers absolutely nothing, or reports about the matters in a completely distorted way. And this press is celebrating absolute orgies right in our day. If in previous times such shameless doings were subject to at least some restriction by law, so that the flood of smut could be somewhat held back, so today in the free people’s state this plague from the press is allowed to spread unhindered and poison the people even in the remotest areas. They are content to watch how nicely the youth, caught up in this plague, wither away and are driven to their destruction. These plague-bearers are criminals against the people, they are those of whom the Savior spoke, saying to fear those who can cast body and soul into eternal damnation. It is a genocide in the worst sense of the word that is going on here right under the eye of the law, and actually under the protection of the law. We are horrified over the victims of the War. But the victims of the press-plague leave even these in the shadows. Perhaps many will think that I am seeing things too darkly, that I could be exaggerating – one glance at the type of literature that is on offer, as a result of the lifting of press censorship, with the help, that is, of the law, speaks for itself, one glance at the activity in the major cities will bring you to the conviction that I am right and that words do not suffice to describe the press-plague and its consequences. Beloved in the Lord! You will ask: how is it possible, and how can the press have such impact? The answer lies in the absolutely tremendous power of the written word. That is what explains the great power position of the press. We know the power of the spoken word, how it can enthuse and sweep people along. We have already often heard the echo that a call arouses in the hearts of men; but this echo often resounds without perceptible result. These are sudden effects that mostly disappear with equal suddenness. Not so with the written word. Its impact is slower, but all the more lasting, because it is called back to mind and retained by repeated reading. And the written word penetrates in many places where the spoken word cannot. Into the remotest corner of an attic the written word preaches in whatever form the press produces. And there it can work every hour of the day and night – always and everywhere. The zone of impact of the written word knows no limits and its potential impact is unlimited. This can, moreover, turn out for good or evil. And if we must speak of a press-plague, then we can also speak of a press-blessing. As far as the bad press reaches and sows destruction, just so far can the good press also work and impart blessing. And that is why I perceive precisely in the good press a first-rate means for universal renewal in Christ. Beloved in the Lord! Whoever wants to cooperate energetically here must become an apostle of the press. Yes, I would like to say that no one who has an interest in the souls of men can pass by the press-apostolate without taking part. And this apostolate really summons everyone without exception to take up the opportunity – some more, others less, but everyone something. But in this apostolate we need deeds above all. Words do not do much; that has been proven well enough by the past. Our activity here must be two-fold – both negative and positive. The one solution is this: Out with the bad press in every form – daily newspaper, magazine with or without illustrations, or book! For all of that there is only one word, “Out!” Do it mercilessly, even if we have to forgo access half a day earlier to some novelty, even if we miss the latest joke of the day, even if we are considered “backwards.” Frankly, it is a matter of religious courage to declare openly: “I will not stand for this newspaper, even if half the city stands for it,” or “I will not read this book, even if good breeding demands it.” Can we really not summon up enough courage to remain true to our own principles? There are, most unfortunately, not a few Catholics whose Catholic foundations are completely abandoned when it comes to the press. Here a lack of character becomes evident, which makes us blush with shame. Here the renewal in Christ places urgent demands on us, in Christ who so sharply condemned indecision and lukewarmness: “whoever is not for me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me, scatters.” “O, that you were cold or hot! But since you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” Let us apostles of the press drive out such products of the press whenever we bump into them! Frankly we must not be satisfied with just this negative work; we must also, at the same time, make way for the good press. Indeed we have allowed talk of the alleged “backwardness” of Catholics for so long, letting ourselves be talked into an entirely false modesty, that it has become almost a dogma for us. One of those many prejudices that proceed from a lack of Catholic self-confidence! But even if we once had to renounce something: “what good is it to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?” And if we once could rightly complain, must we not beat our breast in shame and acknowledge: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa – through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault? No, we owe it to our Catholic press, to our Catholic writers, to support them with all means at our disposal. (footnote: And we have a lack of good newspapers, which could also cooperate with each other by means of telegraph, and which always stand up full and well for matters of our Catholic Church and our Catholic schools. A Catholic newspaper belongs in every Catholic home. In Munich, however, other than the Bayerischer Kurier [Bavarian Courier], the Neue Münchener Tagblatt [New Munich Daily], and Das Bayerische Vaterland [Bavarian Fatherland], there are generally no daily newspapers that lay claim to the honorable title of “Catholic.” Note from the Editor.) Followers of the Lord! We can hardly imagine the blessing that we impart through the expansion of the good press. The apostle of the press can be compared to the sower in the Gospel, who sows seed in good soil, where it then yields hundredfold fruit. The apostle of the press has received his mission from the Savior himself in the words: “Teach all peoples!” In his hands, the dead letter comes alive and the book receives life and hurries out as friend, as fighter, as admonisher, as comforter. Through the apostle of the press the written word finds its way everywhere: into the dwellings of the rich and the garrets of the destitute, into the hands of the educated and unlearned, onto the beds of the sick and to children. And wherever it has arrived, it has served as a guardian angel and has spread light and life. Beloved in the Lord! How can I motivate you to indefatigable work in the press apostolate? I need only point out that this work is a work for the souls of men, for the souls for whom Christ poured out his blood on the wood of the cross. To be an apostle means: to win souls for Christ. Whoever saves even just one single soul through the press apostolate had done more than if he had distributed immeasurable riches among the poor. Yes, he has accomplished the work of salvation and stilled God’s heartstrings: A priest’s heart is Jesus’ heart, And souls are his only craving, For souls his heart suffers death and pain, For souls it is consumed by love. I appeal to you, Catholic men and women, get to work for salvation through the press! Renewal in Christ is done through the apostolate of the press. St. Michael is our leader. Once, at the call of the Lord, he led the battle in the heavenly realms with his host of angels against Satan and his minions and forever defeated them. Today again the battle is against Satan, against Satan’s work in the bad press, against Satan’s servants who poison our people. But today we are the ones who enlist in Michael’s legion and fight under his leadership – and conquer. “St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle! Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we earnestly pray. And may you, prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who roam about the world seeking the destruction of souls! Amen.” Albert Graf [Count] von Preysing Note: The author, a priest named Count Albert von Preysing, hailed from a prominent family of the Bavarian nobility. His brother Konrad later became Cardinal-Bishop of Berlin. The “Preysing Palace” can still be seen today at Munich’s Odeonplatz, beside the Feldherrnhalle, across the street from the former Residence of the royal house of Wittelsbach. An article immediately after Father Count Preysing’s added an antisemitic twist to the overall exhortation, making the outlandish claim that “nearly three-fourths of German newspapers are in the hands of Jews”: “An Earnest Word about an Earnest Matter” In Bavaria we have about 3,000 Catholic parishes and only about 600 open public youth libraries and people’s libraries of the Catholic Press Association for Bavaria. Even if we include the few so-called parish libraries, the great portion of parishes are without any public library. How long do we want to keep waiting before we establish a library in every place, even in the smallest village? We have reached the point in Germany and Bavaria where the number of newspapers has taken off, yet we are faced with the really shameful fact that, as established by the literary historian Barel, nearly ¾ of German newspapers are in the hands of Jews. And if those in position to safeguard Catholic faith and Christian morals in Bavaria do not immediately take hold of the situation, we are very quickly going to be faced with the horrendous fact that the majority of libraries even in Bavaria will be in the hands of Jews, Freemasons and Social Democrats. Because these people are working, and they are working all-out... Original document, second page of Dec. 7, 1919 issue of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 49, p.376. Note: We have not been able to find the study by a Barel that “established” the exaggerated assertion. A modern study states that approximately five percent of the editors of left-wing newspapers in Germany in the Weimar era were Jewish (20 of 400). Donald Dietrich, Catholic Citizens in the Third Reich (1988), p.71. The Catholic Press Association for Bavaria [Katholischer Pressverein für Bayern] was founded in 1901. The key figure in the Association from 1912 to 1932, as General Secretary and General Director, was a priest named Ludwig Müller, not to be confused with Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller of the Nazi regime, or with Ludwig Müller von Hausen, the publisher of the first German edition of the Protocols. The Bavarian Historical Lexicon states that as of 1920, the Catholic Press Association was the “most significant popular educational association in Bavaria.” “Katholischer Pressverein für Bayern,” Historisches Lexikon Bayerns, www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns. De/artikel/artikel_44741, visited March 11, 2013. With a membership of 200,000 Catholics, this association served as the publishing house for the Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung and a multitude of other Catholic papers throughout Bavaria. Pope St. Pius X’s promotion of the “good press” and condemnation of the “bad press” can be seen in his statement published in the Croce of Naples at Easter of 1907: In face of unrestrained license of the anti-Catholic press, which impugns or denies eternal laws of truth and justice, which stirs up hatred against the Church, which insinuates into people’s hearts most pernicious doctrines, corrupting minds, fostering evil appetites, flattering the senses and perverting the will – all ought to recognize the great importance of union between good people for turning to advantage of the Church and society a weapon the enemy uses to injure both. Source: “The French Ecclesiastical Revolution,” American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol. 32 (1907), p.665. The terminology of “good press” was also current in France, where the “House of the Good Press” published a mass-circulation Catholic daily, La Croix, beginning in the 1870s, and a weekly compilation of documents from the Vatican and the Catholic hierarchy of France and other countries, La Documentation Catholique, beginning in 1919. Bavaria after World War I was more fertile ground than secularized France for a focused initiative to limit Catholic readers to an approved set of publications. Dec. 7, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, In your venerated Dispatch No. 98860 of this past November 19th, Your Most Reverend Eminence deigned to inform me that the Holy Father, before making a determination about the request presented by Baron von Cramer-Klett for the purpose of obtaining some pontifical distinctions for various persons, desired to have opportune information in this regard from me and to know furthermore the explicit and concrete desire of the Archbishop of Munich. Having now inquired in this regard of Monsignor von Faulhaber, he has made known to me that he implores 1st) for Father Jakob Poelzl, Ecclesiastic Councilor, Deacon of the Parish of Garmisch, the title of Domestic Prelate; 2nd) for Father Dr. Johann Evangelist Mueller and Pastor Joseph Jud the title of Supernumerary Privy Chamberlain; 3rd) for Councilor Adolf Braun and for Mrs. Berta Schaefer the Cross pro Ecclesia et Pontifice; 4th) Finally for Madams Anna Spitzer, Emma Mahler, Caterina Sepp, for Secretary Fr. Ludwig Hennerfeind and for Judge Karl Landes, the Archbishop, not daring to claim for these also the Cross pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, although it would be merited by their work for youth, limits himself to imploring the Apostolic Benediction and possibly some momento of Rome, as for example a blessed image of the Holy Father’s tiara. As for me, after receiving detailed information in this regard, I associate myself subordinately to the requests of Archbishop von Faulhaber, while humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 4295 Dec. 20, 1919 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Concerning an ecclesiastical consultant in the German Embassy being established at the Holy See Most Reverend Eminence: I was able to read a letter that the German Ambassador to Bern, Dr. Adolf Müller, recently sent to the Editor-in-Chief of the “Bayerischen Kurier.” In it the aforesaid Ambassador says he understands that once the German Embassy to the Vatican is created (a matter that, according to him, is delayed by a divergence of views between Mr. von Bergen and the Government in Berlin concerning the budget for the Ambassador), thought will be given to establishing a special office at the aforementioned Embassy to handle the press. Mr. Müller is turning to the Editor-in-Chief of the Bavarian Catholic daily paper and with a great sense of opportuneness is giving him to think it would be convenient that this office be occupied by a person who is not only expert in ecclesiastical matters, but also in favor with the Holy See, and he asks for a name. The aforesaid journalist and other persons as well would put forward the name of Prof. Father B.R. Stempfle and would believe it opportune that he assume also the office of ecclesiastical consultant to the Embassy. Father Stempfle would be known in the Vatican, having worked a great deal in the Vatican Archives. I believed it my duty to report the above to Your Most Reverend Eminence for your information. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple, with sentiments of most profound veneration, I have the honor to confirm myself Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most Humble, Most Devoted, Most Obliged Servant +Eugenio Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: S.RR.SS., AA.EE.SS., Germania, 1919-1921, pos. 1698, fasc. 890, fol. 4rv, reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 985. Dec. 27, 1919 Pacelli to Hoffmann: The undersigned Apostolic Nuncio, by the authority of the Holy See, has the honor to communicate to Your Excellency as follows: The new Reich Constitution and Bavarian Constitution have unilaterally modified the complex of relations between Church and State and changed the juridical situation of the Catholic Church in Bavaria; thus indeed the Concordat of 1817 has been violated in quite a number of important points. The Holy See makes express reservations about these harms to the rights of the Church; it nevertheless declares itself disposed to enter into discussions with the Bavarian Government in order to resolve ex novo all matters of the aforesaid relations between Church and State, and has authorized me to begin negotiations for a new Concordat. In sending this note to Your Excellency and in anticipation of learning the thought of the Bavarian Government in this regard, with sentiments of the highest consideration, I beg to confirm myself Your Excellency’s Most Devoted Servant +Eugenio Pacelli, Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 1700 Dec. 30, 1919 Faulhaber’s Memorandum about his Audience with Benedict XV: I am happy to see you. I thank you for the care for our prisoners of war, who were very embittered. Yes really, but if we had only achieved something, but this Clemenceau! Brothers and fathers wanted to go into imprisonment for the others, but that was not accepted. We wanted to send priests at Christmas. I wanted an appeal, an open statement, but too few came. I thank you for the appeal to help the children. [footnote: cf. Benedict SV, Paterno iam diu] “Is the distress very great?” At the confirmations the children were pale. We no longer have this crying and bustling of children on the streets. For seminarians there are hardly any cassocks to be had. “Is it lack of money or lack of material?” The Government has other things to do: Not bread and coal and shoes, but rather policy about the schools. “Will the Catholic delegates really take a stand” and allow themselves to be advised by the Bishops? They think too much of their families, they need to be celibates and should make no compromises in fundamental issues. About the school issue he spoke at considerable length: That is indeed the fundamental issue of all. Minister-President Hoffmann was just a teacher and thus in his field of expertise. Very difficult to negotiate with this Government, because it knows nothing of reason and justice, but only its Party program. The school issue: Labor strikes are a two-edged sword. They are our last resort, if Hoffmann tries to force the children into the joint-secular-school or if Protestants are going to have supervisory power over Catholic religious instruction. But I don’t want to bless it. Is the situation still peaceful, and are people thinking of the monarchy? – It is impossible now to return to it. “How are the clergy?” Good, a third in the city of Munich and many new catechisms needed. “The filling of open pastor positions has now been provisionally agreed?” – Yes. “The death of Cardinal Hartmann was so sad for me, because I became Cardinal in the same Consistory, and especially on that account, because now there must be negotiation with the Government about Cologne.” “In Bavaria there is a different mode of appointment than in Prussia.” Yes, but the new Government cannot appoint the Bishop. No, no, but a way will be found: Many questions, whether agreement exists about a person.. The Nunciature in Munich: Pacelli is doing what he can. But it is difficult to negotiate with Hoffmann, because he is not familiar with the subject matter and must take account of his party. It is essential to preserve the Nunciature in Munich, because the political situation and especially unity is not stable and because he has a totally different level of respect among a Catholic people. If history would only go backwards. He agreed strongly with that. “We are doing what we can to preserve the Nunciature.” Concordat: There was an agreement and if in several points it has been violated, then it exists no more. But be ready, most promptly, to make a new agreement. Response: That is essential, because the Reich Constitution can one day be broken up, and because the freedom guaranteed in the Reich Constitution must be carried on. Kept saying again, we want to make an agreement. Anima: It is an ecclesiastical, not political institution, thus no new political order here! Germans from the Reich should participate (“a greater participation” as previously). It is very important for us that we be able to send seminarians here. Oh, yes, yes. Standing up: I should very soon make the donations for Prelates and honoraria so that I can bring along the Brevi. (But the secretaries have so much to do now). “Oh no, it will be done immediately.” I ask for his blessing and permission to impart the blessing publicly. He did not allow me to kneel, and he is very short. Very animated when speaking. German original in L. Volk, vol. 1, pp. 123-124. Dec. 30, 1919 Faulhaber’s Memorandum about his Audience with Cardinal Gasparri: Extremely warm and charitable, did not allow his ring to be kissed, ... How good it is that in the Codex there is nothing about “State and Church.” “We are very thankful for the observations of the Bishops. Do you want to see?” He holds up the first exemplar with inserted comments. How valuable the [canon] law book is. Bavaria: So long as you had a crazy king, you were for the monarchy, and now, when you had a sound and intellectually very capable king, you want a republic. Saar Diocese: Obviously he says: No, no... Nunciature: Political unity is a utopia. Bavaria and Prussia have such different character that such unitary undertaking is impossible over the long run. The Socialists want it for political reasons, the Reich Government for fear that Bavaria could seek to ally with France (“The French naturally want a splitting up”), and for later time it would be good if nothing would be changed. He thought that the Reich would rather want to have an Embassy. My response: Yes, but then first of all assurance that the Nunciature will be preserved in Munich as well, otherwise it will soon be said: Why then two? Extradition of the Kaiser: About that he spoke at considerable length and confidentially. First an article in L’Osservatore Romano, then right away to Wilson with this article, then to Italy. As to the Kaiser, entirely certain, Holland will not extradite him. As to other officers the text is different. He quoted in French [from the Versailles Treaty]: Here “Germany acknowledges the right,” but a right does not have to be used, Japan, Italy ... do not desire it, thus only England and France still remain, and they will also recognize it would be absurd, absolutely absurd. Thus he spoke at length. If the Kaiser is not extradicted, he has the Catholic Church to thank. [Bavarian Ambassador to the Vatican] Ritter is coming back tomorrow, he wrote. Our Government is a government by political parties. Since they are not about reason and justice, “we Bishops must speak a sharp word once in a while.” The Catholic people desire that (he smiles understandingly). Pacelli has traveled to Berlin and Cologne. Bishop Schulte is to be transferred to Cologne. The Government will certainly allow it, because no other person has come into the question. “Next to the stupidity by which Adam and Eve lost the earthly paradise, there has been no greater folly than what Germany did in this war. They asked for a lost war, because they rejected every opportunity to conclude peace.” Source: Ibid., pp. 124-125. Late 1919 to early 1920 The German Spirit and Jew-Hatred, published by the People Power League (1920); excerpts: Statement of Matthias Erzberger, former German Finance Minister (June 21, 1919 to March 12, 1920) (pp. 35-36): I condemn the antisemitic incitement that is currently being organized and promoted by certain elements in Germany. My view of the civil equality in rights and duties for all German citizens leads me to deplore unscrupulous antisemitic activity in the strongest manner. My view is supported by the German constitution. Article 109, section 1 provides that all Germans are equal before the law. Article 135 grants all residents of the German Reich the enjoyment of freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Article 135 provides that the rights and duties of citizens at the federal and state level may not be abridged or conditioned. The background of antisemitic incitement is well enough known. The circle from which it emanates is supported by elements that have a self-interest in seeking a diversion from their guilt for their rash chauvinism. Moreover, there are indications close at hand that alongside incitement against Jews there is a parallel incitement against Socialists and Catholics, or better said, there is a system at work, first on the Jews, then the Socialists, then the Catholics. I readily admit the notable fact that a certain prejudice against the Jews is understandable as a result of the preponderant role of Jewish elements in the Independent Social Democratic Party leadership, but in the final analysis this fact is also understandable. For it is clear that those elements that formerly were effectively shut out from power are now seeking to make up for it. The position I take as to antisemitic incitement is all the more plain since I have consistently stood up for the equal rights of our Jewish fellow citizens. I am reminded that, among other things, I regularly fought against holding Jews back in the army, particularly in the officer corps. Respectable demeanor and ability are the only criteria for every German. Equality of rights in civic activity and religious exercise belongs to the fundamental rights of every German. My view is that of the entire Reich Government. The Government is resolved to oppose antisemitic incitement with the full power of the law. In a democratic country, pogroms have no place. We have no need to resemble Russia. I myself – and I do not think it amiss if I say the Government as well – am sympathetic toward the efforts being pursued by the Zionists in Palestine. In that regard, I refer to the declaration issued by the former Undersecretary of the Foreign Office, Baron von dem Busche-Haddenhausen. As for the prospects of the Jewish people in this respect, so far as I am informed, the English Government stands well-disposed on this question. Should the Jewish State in Palestine become a reality, I hold out the firm hope that the Christian places on holy ground within that State will have all desirable freedoms. German original and continuation page. Statement of Antonius von Henle, Bishop of Regensburg [northeastern Bavaria] (p.56): I repudiate Jew-hatred with every fiber of my being, because every hatred is un-Christian, but we must be careful with this reproach. In most cases anti-Jewish agitations are directed not against a race or a religion, but rather against the dregs thereof. Statement of Dr. Baron von Ow, Bishop of Passau [eastern Bavaria] (p.94): Your invitation to send in my judgment about the Jewish question, I will not leave unanswered, even though I do not think that what I have to say will serve your purposes. Right in the first sentence of your highly esteemed request is something I cannot agree with. “Jew-hatred,” aside perhaps from some isolated instances that are diminishing and therefore meaningless, is not being incited in Germany. What passes today for so-called “Jew-hatred” in written or verbal remarks that are more or less overly high-spirited, is nothing other than the natural reaction against the vile, heartless, capitalistic spirit of usury and against the absurd destruction of all the achievements of our culture by a senseless Bolshevism: the representatives and promoters of these two movements are today, moreover, chiefly members of the Jewish race, and one of the leading mindsets within Jewry – a mindset that is found so predominantly only within this circle – is the primary handmaid and propagator of all those unholy phenomena that poison our entire economic life by driving out ethical values in favor of the crassest egoism and materialism. It is only against this aspect of Jewry that defensive measures are raised, which may sometimes in part be advanced in a sharp manner, but still are far removed from inciting “Jew-hatred,” much less a persecution of Jews on account of their religion or their nationality. Even if in one case or another, measures have exceeded the bounds of justified defense, there is in such cases not nearly so critical a danger to the “reputation of German culture” as there is from the phenomena against which those defenses are raised. Note: One historian who mentions The German Spirit and Jew-Hatred, only with respect to the Bishop of Passau’s contribution, is Rudolf Lill in “German Catholicism’s Attitude towards the Jews in the Weimar Republic,” in Otto Dov Kulka and Paul Mendes-Flohr, Judaism and Christianity under the Impact of National Socialism (1987), p.159. Lill attributes the Bishop’s statement to his strong attachment to the Bavarian monarchy, which was overthrown by a revolution which numbered Jews among its leaders. German original. Foreword of the People Power League: The moral principles of the People Power League – which does not serve any political faction, but rather desires to work in the purely cultural field – obligate its members to stand up for the noblest strengths of our people, for that form of humanity which allows itself to be led by the holy spirit of understanding, for the reconciliation of all who wear the face of humanity. To that category belong Jews as well as racial Germans. Those Jews who live by right in Germany, often rooted here even centuries-long, cannot be treated with hostility by our people. Those of us who are German-born are all called to cooperate likemindedly toward the dedication of the Fatherland to true culture. Violation of rights, terrorizing of Jews, would be civil war in our country and the discrediting of our new free state. It would be reactionary, and a foolish anachronism in the era of the League of Nations. In the face of all that is unsettling, the People Power League would like to help preserve our Fatherland, not as shock troops for some sort of party faction, but rather as the protector of a German character that does not depart from the ideals of our humanists, our great thinkers and poets going back to Lessing, Herder, Goethe and Schiller. Our League is no less enthusiastic for every virtue of the German race than the antisemites are raving for them. It is only that we are committed to proceed truly and critically, exactly toward the Jews as toward all other races. The People Power League is strictly neutral toward all political and religious inclinations, all classes and races. It is nationalist and at the same time internationalist, in that it strives in the best German way toward the best in humanity. Thus we have considered it our duty, in this time of intolerance and terrorism against our Jewish fellow Volk members, to approach several hundred outstanding non-Jewish Germans with the request that they frankly express themselves on the Jewish question. This is a matter of assembling contributions to a non-partisan judgment of the Jewish question and bringing the collected documents to the attention of the German people and other peoples ... This collection contains pro-Jewish and anti-Jewish responses to the inquiry we arranged. More than a hundred requests went unanswered. Many statements were given with careful reserve. But despite all that, so many prominent personalities from all spheres of present-day Germany have unambiguously rendered their judgment on Jew-hatred, that we could justifiably give this collection the title: “The German Spirit and Jew-Hatred.” May it contribute to expanding the spirit of understanding and reconciliation among our people. Without that spirit our people cannot be strengthened either economically or politically or culturally. Friedrichshafen, Spring 1920. German original and continuation page. Preface of President Ebert, on letterhead of the Reich President, dated Berlin, October 18, 1919: With lively interest I have taken notice of the efforts of the People Power League for the preservation of the solidarity and peacefulness of the German people and the furthering of understanding among the religious denominations. The fundamental democratic and social concepts on which our new form of State is built inherently exclude every form of differential treatment based on denomination, and in particular based on antisemitism; but I am also convinced that the healthy and fair spirit of our people condemns the disparagement of Jewry that is salient only idiosyncratically, and decisively rejects every slight toward Jewish fellow citizens, every antisemitic incitement and every attempt at arousing Jew-hatred. From my heart I wish your efforts complete success by way of enlightening our people to contribute to, and thereby cooperate in, the preservation of that domestic peace which is so indispensable for the future of our work. /s/ Friedrich Ebert [President of Germany, Feb. 11, 1919 to Feb. 28, 1925] German original Title page of Deutscher Geist und Judenhass [The German Spirit and Jew-Hatred] (1920). 1920 Jan. 2, 1920 Gasparri to Pacelli, encrypted cable: From confidential but reliable sources I learn that suppression of the Bavarian Legation to the Holy See is being considered and that there is an effort to persuade Catholics of the opportuneness of such suppression. Inform these Catholics that the Holy See would regard with great pleasure the preservation of the Legation, whose utility it values despite the co-existence of an eventual German Embassy. Card. Gasparri Jan. 2, 1920 Gasparri to Pacelli, encrypted cable: Archbishop of Munich present in the Curia having learned with great sadness the news that there might be a decree abolishing the Bavarian Embassy to the Holy See asks You to turn immediately to his Vicar General and interest him strongly in deploying without delay reasons to avoid this danger. Jan. 3, 1920 Documentation Catholique, Nr. 48, Jan. 3, 1920, pp. 1, 16ff.: To the German Catholics. – Religion and the Church in public life. Keynote address by Mons. Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, to the Catholic Congress of Munich: p. 16. I. The Church can intervene in public life. Our Lord himself gave the command for this. Religion is not just a personal matter. Objection: Clauso ostio, ora Patrem. Anti-clericalism leads the Church to be involved in politics. II. The Church and religion are a necessity for the State. A point of authority outside the 10 commandments, outside religion. Solid dogmas make the people strong. The Decalogue is: 1st The imperious expression of natural law; 2nd The surest support of civil law. Religion guarantees morality: 1st in commercial transactions; 2nd in the oath as to political matters; 3rd in the oath in fiscal matters. III. The Church and religion are inestimable sources of good for social life. Religion, through belief in the beyond, restrains earthly graspings. Religion introduces the soul of charity into the political mechanism. p.16: “Religion and the Church in Public Life: Keynote Address of Mgr Archbishop of Munich to the German Catholic Congress” (Ed.: One of the most significant manifestos emanating in recent times from German Catholic circles is undoubtedly the great keynote address delivered by the archbishop of Munich, Mgr Faulhaber, to the great Catholic Congress held in that city at the end of October 1919. These declarations have produced a great impression everywhere. It can be said that, in the person of the archbishop, it is the German bishops as a whole who are taking a position in the face of the new order of things, political and social, created in Germany by the Revolution. Our readers will find here, along with a doctrinal exposition of the civilizing role of the Church, some rather unexpected averments coming from German lips. We believe it our duty to translate in extensor, in accord with Catholic newspapers beyond the Rhine, this speech, which constitutes a document of premier merit and of striking timeliness:) [Note: Some portions of the following speech are enclosed in brackets, to indicate portions that were not in the original version of the speech but rather were added later, as it was sent to the Vatican and eventually to Documentation Catholique.] The Church can intervene in public life The new generation displays the pretention of excluding from public life the influence of religion and the Church. We would like to show, to the contrary, that religion and the Church have the right to intervene in public life; that they are the indispensable auxiliaries of the State, that they constitute an inestimable source of good for social life. Our Lord himself gave the order for this When Christ confided to his apostles the mission “to go into all the world and teach all the nations,” he insisted on the universality of this mission: “into all the world,” “all the nations.” There is no salvation in any other name than his. Likewise, in the order of public life itself, it is again the religion of the cross that must be the salvation of the world and that must renew the face of the earth. For political entities as well, the law of Christ must be the yeast that penetrates the entire mass. The Savior had already said to the apostles: What I confide to your ear, preach it from the rooftops, that is in the public squares of the towns and villages. And the day when Peter, who had on earth the keys to the kingdom of heaven, shook from his feet the dust of the land of Judea, he turned his gaze toward Rome, the great crossroads of the peoples. It is not in the valleys of the Himalayas that he set up his seat, nor in the solitude of the African deserts, but in Rome, the capital of knowledge, the home of world history. Christ built his church at the crossroads of the great paths of history. [Religion is not just a personal affair] Religion and the Church have the right to speak their message in public life. From Erfurt has just arrived an entirely new watchword for us: Let’s make religion a private affair. A private affair, what does that mean? If one means by that, that everyone can take from religion what he wants and make himself a catechism to his liking, or else that religion has nothing to do with the affairs of the community, or finally that we must stand by silent and unmoved at the ruin of our Church, in such case the formula is false. But if one means that religion is first of all a personal affair, the formula becomes acceptable, because it is necessary first that the interior personal life be impregnated and lifted up by the thought of the kingdom of God; the individual must be animated first and foremost by the spirit of prayer and the spirit of faith, by the love of God and love for neighbor, before going to preach this spirit at high noon in public life. [Objection: “Clauso ostio, ora Patrem”] Christ indeed said to the Pharisees: If you want to pray, go into a secret place. But he was addressing himself to the Pharisees, who were making the street into their place of prayer, displaying their piety like a placard, and neglecting moreover to keep the Kingdom of God within themselves. Jesus meant to say to them: “Your religion must not be only an exterior religion, go back first into the sanctuary of your heart.” To the apostles, by contrast, Christ declared: Whoever denies me before men, I will deny him before my Father who is in heaven. And whoever acknowledges me before men, I will acknowledge him before my Father who is in heaven. Man is constituted of only one and the same personality and not the aggregation of two pieces of personality: the one for private and personal life, the other for public life. One would thus not be able to be Christian on the inside and pagan on the outside. It is an illusion of being intimate at home for Christ and with Christ, and to want in public, as an official or representative, to be against Christ and dissipate his work. One can certainly wear one set of clothes at home and change when one goes out; but we cannot change like clothing the soul that holds the fiber of our being. How to judge this case of conscience of an individual who is bound, on the one hand, to acknowledge God as sovereign Master and Creator, [and who is placed on notice, on the other hand, by the civil power, to deny officially this faith?] Isn’t it necessary that what is a duty for conscience and the soul be reflected also in public life? [Anti-clericalism leads the Church to deal with politics] From the fact that Socialism establishes as a doctrine that religion is a private affair, it should logically follow that [anti-clericalism] be proclaimed also a private affair. If, then, the secular spirit pervades politics, inserts itself into the legislative machinery and begins to forge the laws, then religion is, by that fact, entitled to take an interest in politics. We are reproached for leaving the field of religion and invading that of politics; yet every day excursions are made from the domain of the State into that of the Church. The question of the reciprocal relationships between Socialism and the Church figures prominently in discussions in the public square; and religion is supposed to shut itself up, like any private affair, within the four walls of a house! Ah! Today we really see why it is always, in the final analysis, against the Catholic Church that one wants to make war. All the partial assaults that are directed here or there are nothing other than local skirmishes of a gigantic duel that began in the first days between the good and evil spirits; the course of centuries has only served to make more clear the division between the two camps of this universal battle. Now, from this side here, it is the Church of Christ that has the mission to keep up the good fight for the verities of Christ. The Church and religion are a necessity for the State Religion and the Church thus have their message to speak in public life. I say now: religion and the Church are a necessary factor for public life. Here, I make reference to the phrase of ancient Plato: “Destroy religion, that will upset the very foundations of the social order.” A point of authority from outside the 4th Commandment, outside religion One may profit by giving a little quiz on this issue to every Minister of Education and Culture. Does the State have need of authority? Undoubtedly. And what is the precondition of authority? Authority supposes that the population has confidence in those who want to govern the people. Now, for us, Catholics, all authority rests on the fourth commandment of God; in its turn, human authority that recognizes the fourth commandment is based on the authority of God, proclaimed by the first three commandments. If, then, a government has faith in the first three commandments, it establishes for itself the foundations of its authority, and the people, with their instinctive logic, have a right to say to them: “If you no longer believe in the authority of God, then we no longer believe in your authority.” Whoever wants to maintain his authority must recognize the fourth commandment and thereby religion itself. Whoever destroys religion destroys the foundations of social life. Solid dogmas make nations strong It is a necessity for the State to have at its base certain indestructible principles. It is only sound dogmas that make the peoples strong. These sound principles, we find them, we Catholics, in our Catholic dogmas, made fruitful by the blood of the martyrs from the time of the catacombs and consecrated by the faith of centuries. Now, these principles of the Church illumine and strengthen loyalty and confidence in human relations. Wherever faith in God is weakened, it is inevitable that loyalty among men will disappear. Sound principles, we have them in the magisterial work that became definitively applicable on the day of Pentecost 1918, I mean the Code of Canon Law, which is like the constitutional act of the Catholic Church. In it we find the Spirit of God that hovered over the chaos. In it we see clearly defined the ideal to aspire to and the most direct way to achieve it. There, no compromise, no hesitation; one is certain of finding the direction that does not lead astray and one voluntarily gives one’s hand to the guide who leads you. The Decalogue is: First, the imperious expression of the natural law Sound fundamental laws! The law, it is a principle in action that takes me by the hand with a command: “You shall,” and it intends to lead me on that specified path. What are these fundamental laws? “Honor your father and your mother, do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not lie.” The Decalogue has given us these fundamental laws of a public life truly worthy of men. One notes, undoubtedly, that these obligations are already dictated by the natural law. But history testifies that the prescriptions of natural law permit the establishment of a political edifice that is durable and worthy of humanity only when the citizens feel bound to these laws by a religious obligation. Some presume perhaps to be able to come individually to religion; but they do not take into account that they live on soil where Christianity has incorporated these laws into the moral heritage of our era and our people. Second, the surest support for civil law How could the State, when it published laws and ordinances, make its citizens obliged by conscience to obey them? Will it be, perhaps, by great multiplication of police or simply all at once by articles of law? A State authority that is only based on police and grenades is very shaky. It is to the conscience that the appeal must be made; the citizen should consider himself bound in the interior forum to carry out his duty toward the State; so, there is only the voice of God now for commanding the conscience; in other words, the voice and the prescriptions of religion. Religion guarantees morality: First, in commercial transactions Those who promote the formula, “Religion, individual affair,” also neglect another point of view. The excesses of capitalism will only be ended by furthering the education of the public conscience and the formation of citizens who embrace a moral obligation to renounce the disordered appetite of lucre and the execrable cult of Mammon, the idol of our era. Second, the oath in political matters Here, it is right for me to cite to these utopians another concrete example of the social importance of religion. One recalls the historic hour when, at Weimar, the debate over the Constitution came to an end upon the last reading. Our governors were there around this fundamental act and they said to each other: “The Constitution, here it is, but how to oblige citizens to observe it? Naturally, we will act as in the good old days, we will have recourse to the formula of an oath: I swear! Very well, but still, to take an oath, that is to take the name of God as witness. Now, at the same time, we never want this name to be officially mentioned. Thus we arrive at this solution: We share this oath as a religious oath for those who believe in God, and as a civil oath for those who do not believe in him.” But an oath is an oath, and it cannot be torn apart in that way. To take an oath is to speak in full clarity and truth; it is to desire, in a serious question, to exclude all ambiguity of formula and thought. Either the oath is the invocation of God on the lips of a believer, or there is no longer any oath. That is what cannot be forgotten. If then, from one side, one glories in signaling to God his dismissal from public life, one is not in a good position to call upon him again when one can no longer do without his support. We must take care that the oath, a holy thing, not be emptied of its true meaning by this secularized concept; we must keep it from being reduced to nothing more than a simple instrument of police. Third, the oath in fiscal matters While, after many hesitations, the new German Empire has decided to set its finances in order, it has not found any surer method than to have attestations made for each amount owed, under the faith of the oath, the importance of its fiscal obligation. There we see, Gentlemen, a case where the new State can recall one more time that there is a God whose sacred name is useful even for making payment of taxes. Ah, if one had a good police dog capable of sniffing out hidden fortunes, one would be protected from having recourse to the oath. But, failing any other expedient, it was necessary to resort to this procedure. Thus believers, bound by the oath, which is the sincere expression of their belief in God, are bound to pay into the tax authority their last penny under pain of perjury. The free-thinkers do not run such a danger. Thus, contrary to democratic principle, citizens have been divided into two classes. Now, a fiscal edict should apply to all, an exceptional law cannot be created for one category of individuals. Also, all believers should have the right to say: “I refuse to take the fiscal oath. If you, the new State, mean to avoid God for everyone else, if you do not want to acknowledge the sixth commandment and the other ones, if you allow blasphemy against God to be displayed right on the street, you are ill qualified to invoke the second commandment of God because you think it necessary for the functioning of your tax laws.” It remains that whoever destroys religion destroys thereby the very foundations of the social order. The Church and religion: source of inestimable benefits for social life We arrive at our third affirmation: religion and the Church are a source of inestimable benefits for public life. I will point out just a few of them. Religion, by belief in the transcendent, restrains earthly covetousness And first of all, they preach faith in the transcendent. Our society, permeated by the spirit of the age, is absorbed in the search and pursuit for earthly goods and pleasures; while people are dying of starvation, others are gorging on well-being; we are steadily sinking into the swamp of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is really time, Gentlemen, for religion to promulgate its code of well-being: “You were born for higher purposes.” “I desire that there be enmity between those who spend their life reveling in this miserable dust and those who raise their sights toward the Immaculate Virgin. I desire that the spirit reign over the flesh, that the eternal bring it upon what is happening; I desire that the divine law and the supernatural bring it upon the material.” There is the immense renewal that the Church and religion preach. The grace of God places the strength of the Church at your service; sustained by her, enlightened by faith in the transcendent, you will find the solution to so many problems and you will be able to raise up your family, your work, all of public life. Religion alone can provide the solution to social problems Allow me to recount the immortal Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII. One reads them like a communiqué for our time, like a prophetic appeal on the eve of a worldwide catastrophe. The Social Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII have already studied all problems and have indicated the solution. Religion condemns egoism It is in proclaiming for individuals the unlimited freedom to work to fill their pocketbooks, recognizing in particular the right to all pleasures without restriction, that social liberalism has plunged us into the chaos with which we are struggling. Only Leo XIII, in his Encyclicals, has formulated a solution to the social question: “The worker must not be considered like merchandise.” Religion ennobles work If we want ardor for work to be reawakened among us, let us not forget that in the final analysis it is only faith that can excite such ardor and inspire concern for the common good. To the eyes of faith, indeed, work takes on a higher meaning; it is the seed of eternity and makes the worker the servant of God. Sunday in the life of the worker, this social law, this divine precept, which introduces a bit of calm in the agitation of existence, which projects a trait of radiant light among the worries of daily labor, the hour spent in the mission of God, transfigured by the splendors of the Eucharistic liturgy and Christian art: these are the particularly active elements for stimulating ardor in work and thus promoting the solution to the grave problem of the present hour. Religion places love of truth at the foundation of social relationships Another blessing brought by religion and the Church into public life is the love of truth. Let me express a thought that has been with me for a long time. When indeed are we going to have in our legal codes a law that cracks down on organized lying, just as there is a law that punishes those who poison public fountains? When are we going to have a law that protects the truth? This law is what we will have when the State starts to keep watch over the observation of the eighth commandment: “You shall not lie,” with the same care that it watches over the observation of the seventh: “You shall not steal.” We ourselves, we impose upon ourselves the respect for the truth as a primordial law. We others, Germans, we have to disengage ourselves from this presumption of considering ourselves as a particularly chosen people, called to take a totally privileged place in the world. In honor of the truth, we will hold ourselves modestly in the place that is ours, and we will work that corner of the earth that has fallen to us today. This law of truth will open our eyes to many errors that are being committed. The economic struggle separates and divides like everything that is worldly. Religion unites, because it signifies the uniting of the soul with God. Religion gathers, in one shared faith and in one house of God, those that discord has separated. What a treasure for promoting social peace and for developing the sense of solidarity! Religion introduces the soul of charity into the political mechanism And, finally, the benefit of love. To be sure, we cannot complain of being malprovisioned in articles of law. To judge from the placards, decrees and legal provisions that were seen the day after the Revolution, one could hardly dare to maintain that we are freed from German bureaucracy and the passion for passing laws. Religion alone can extirpate to root the abuses from which we suffer; charity alone can give to the mass of the people soul, warmth and life. The governmental organism rests upon a machine of cold steel, brutal, insensible as steel, if charity, love of neighbor, does not come to animate this organism and give it life. Saint Boniface did more for the German State than Chancellor Bismarck; Bismarck’s iron machine is in shards, while the spirit of Saint Boniface remains with us, and he will help us rebuild our house from these ruins. Therefore give place to Christian charity in all its forms! It will make the beneficent influence of religion and the Church radiate into public life. This free daughter of heaven that is charity does not know the bonds of constraint; she is only able to accomplish her work if she if allowed to be liberally deployed. Here, in Munich, one has dared to declare publicly: “Since the cathedrals of the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church has never produced anything great.” The author of this phrase has certainly not read the Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and has still not opened the new Code of Canon Law. He does not know that the houses of Don Bosco pour into social life each year 2,500 young people who sometimes are led there by force, and in every case, have received there the blessing of instruction and education. This marvel of charity, is it not still like a basilica whose steeple extends proudly toward the heavens? In the Middle Ages, the popes crowned the emperors; in our day, they have given us, in the Encyclicals, social ideas that have an import that is fruitful in a different way. In this moment still, it is the Code of Canon Law that rises up before us, such a splendid cathedral of the spirit, worthy of figuring alongside the cathedrals of centuries gone by. [Catholics,] from this arena of the Circus Krone where you are assembled, carry out faith in the invincible cross and love of Holy Church, right into public life, just as long ago the Christians [of the Catacombs] did. Do not allow the sanctuary to be touched, do not allow the sacred rights of your Church to be trampled underfoot; be on your guard, [be on your guard,] and keep each other on alert! Jan. 4, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri: Returning last night from my trip to Berlin and Cologne, carried out per instructions of Your Most Reverend Eminence, I have the honor to report without delay about the outcome of the same. In order to have upon my arrival in Berlin a prompt response to the questions that Your Eminence instructed me to handle with the Reich Government and that of Prussia, I deemed it opportune to make them known in advance by two letters sent by me to the Prussian Chargé d’Affaires, Count von Zech, respectively dated the 19th and 24th of December last year and for which I carry out my duty to send copies here enclosed (Attachments I and II). In this way the competent Authorities (who, especially here in Germany, before making a decision on an important matter, are always in the habit of requesting legal opinions, holding meetings, etc.) would have a way to examine it beforehand and I would not expose myself to the danger of spending considerable time uselessly in Berlin. I further believe it my duty to add that in the two days of my stay in Berlin, the Government kept giving me much special attention. The evening of December 29, the Reich President, Mr. Ebert, held a dinner in my honor, attended by the Chancellor, various Ministers, Undersecretaries and officials of the State. Mr. Ebert (who was born a Catholic) welcomed me with the greatest cordiality. He told me that domestic conditions in Germany will tend to improve, albeit rather slowly, but that demands by the Entente could at any moment cast the Country into anarchy once again. In this regard the issue that most preoccupies the Government at this moment – apart from the threatened suppression of the civic guard or Einwohnerwehr, which has succeeded up to now in holding the Communists at bay – is the so-called Auslieferungsfrage [extradition issue], that is the extradition of persons demanded by the Entente. In Mr. Ebert’s judgment, it could cause a military revolt, which would provoke a reaction by the extreme leftwing parties with incalculable consequences; the Government would no longer be able to sustain itself and the Nation would fall into chaos. Germany has declared itself ready to have those guilty judged by German tribunals, where representatives of the Entente would also be allowed to take part in the proceeding, and it [the Government] is disposed in this regard to all possible concessions. When I reminded him that the Holy See had taken this question quite to heart, as demonstrated moreover in the magnificent articles appearing several months ago in Unità Cattolica, Mr. President charged me to ask the same Holy See to consider again an effort to forestall such a great danger. Mr. Ebert then spoke to me also about the proposed erection of a Reich Embassy at the Holy See. He confirmed to me that the Government already had such intentions, but that the proposal had remained suspended because, Bavaria wanting to maintain its Legation, Prussia also claimed an equal right, and it would have been impossible to have three representatives from Germany in Rome, being the Reich Ambassador, the Prussian Minister and the Bavarian Minister. Now, however, an agreement has been reached upon the following basis, already accepted by Mr. Hoffmann, in agreement with the heads of the various parties in Bavaria: The above-mentioned Embassy, to whose expenses Bavaria will not itself contribute, will be directly and immediately at the disposal of the Bavarian Government for handling its interests and for negotiations with the Holy See. To this end, it will receive its instructions directly from the Bavarian Government and will be bound to carry them out, with the Berlin Foreign Ministry excluded from any sort of intervention, and it will also send the related reports directly. Furthermore, the same Minister will give orders to the Embassy to transmit to the Bavarian Government copies of those reports sent to Berlin that concern the general situation or matters that have additional importance for Bavaria, as also to send the aforesaid Government reports, even when not requested, having any issue that may concern Bavarian interests. For Baron von Ritter, who would thus cease his functions as Minister to the Holy See, a convenient settlement would be made. President Ebert also mentioned the Government’s desire for the correlative institution of an Apostolic Nunciature in Berlin; but I, not knowing in any way the intentions of the Holy See in this regard, abstained from any sort of statement in this matter. I recommended to him instead, by charge of the aforesaid Eminence Bertram, that Germany also make energetic steps for the restitution of the property of the Diocese of Breslau that has been occupied by Czecho-Slovakia. The following day, December 30, I was offered a luncheon by the Imperial Chancellor, to which were equally invited various political personages, and that evening I left for Cologne, where I arrived the following morning towards 9:30. I celebrated Holy Mass in the Chapel of the Seminary, where I was staying, then went at 11:30 to the Cathedral, where I was solemnly received by the entire Metropolitan Chapter, and after having prayed in front of the Blessed Sacrament Altar, I was taken, always accompanied by the Most Reverend Canons, into the Chapter Hall. The Responsible, Monsignor Middendorf, commenced with suitable words of greeting and obsequy toward the Representative of the Holy Father, and then I gave a speech in German, which I hereby enclose in Italian translation (Attachment IV). In it, after giving the obligatory tribute of homage to the memory of the deceased Most Eminent Cardinal von Hartmann and describing the current state of relations between Church and State in Germany, I explained to the Chapter how, it being necessary to provide solicitously and in the best possible way for this most important Archepiscopal Church, the Holy See had permitted that the election by the Chapter would take place this time under the norms of the Bull De Salute Animarum and the Letter Quod de Fidelium, but with the express proviso, already accepted by the Government of Berlin, that this cannot constitute a precedent for the definitive resolution of the question, adding that the Holy See reserves to itself to subject to benevolent examination the privilege of election exercised up to now by the same Chapter. I indicated finally that the Holy Father would be prove most appreciative if the votes of the Chapter members were cast for the Bishop of Paderborn, a Prelate also most acceptable to the Government, and whose praises I sang. It seemed to me opportune and respectful to express in the mild form of a desire of the August Pontiff the order contained in the venerated cable no. 209, that is to say, the Chapter “this time shall postulate (or elect) the Bishop of Paderborn.” Despite that, this communication aroused a lively discussion, during which, as the result of questions repeatedly directed to me, I viewed myself as required to make it delicately understood that the aforesaid desire had in itself the force of a command. The Canons raised difficulties not only as to principle, in that their election, if restricted to a single name, would not be fully free, but also, and primarily, as to and against the person of Monsignor Schulte, as a persona non grata. To the objections of principle, I resonded that the adopted provision had been provoked by the current extraordinary circumstances which were amply described by me; that the Holy See, in permitting the election, had already given proof of its benevolence toward the Chapter, to which, at least for a majority (as the Canons themselves affirmed), the appointment directly by the Holy See itself would be considered even less acceptable; and that finally the Chapter members, freely participating, as devoted sons of the Apostolic See, to an August Desire of His Holiness, having freely elected the one indicated by the Vicar of Jesus Chrsit, could have complete assurance believing this in conscience to be the most worthy act of the office of the Pastors of the illustrious Archdiocese of Cologne. As to the person of the Bishop of Paderborn, I asked if there were serious well-founded objections. In reality, however, only two doubts were expressed, 1st, about his health; but I could respond, having learned from Most Eminent Bertram, that the Holy Father had already received information in that regard indicating it was more a matter of somewhat delicate health than of real sickness; 2nd, about his favor with the Volksverein [für das katholische Deutschland]; but I replied that the aforesaid Bishop is of sound doctrine and highly devoted to the Holy See (which all acknowledged), and had thus undoubtedly acted toward this Association, as also toward the interconfessional syndicates, in a manner responsive to pontifical directives and to his dignity as Archbishop. In any event I said to the Canons, to give them the necessary time and calm, that they could have longer to reflect upon the serious issue and that the next day a new audience would be held; a proposal that was accepted with satisfaction. Nonetheless already that evening, the above-mentioned Responsible and the Vicar of the Chapter, Monsignor Vogt, came to me to communicate officially to me in the name of the Chapter that the election of Monsignor Schulte was assured in homage to the pontifical desire (since otherwise he would not have been elected), and that moreover I had been able to convince the electors there were not any serious difficulties against this choice. Mons. Middendorf indicated to me also that ... Source: Italian original and German summary can be accessed at the www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1007 online searchable database, a project of the University of Münster, Germany, in cooperation with the German Historical Institute in Rome and the Vatican Secret Archives; it is financed by the German Research Foundation. Jan. 4, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri: Having returned last night from Berlin and Cologne, I have carried out everything according to the instructions of Your Reverend Eminence that I found in cables 275 and 276 [of Jan. 2, 1920]. Please assure the Archbishop of Munich that I spoke immediately with the Vicar General, who will act in the manner suggested. In Berlin I had it confirmed that already for some time there has been thought of establishing a new Embassy to the Holy See but that the proposal then remained suspended because Bavaria wanted to preserve its Legation also Prussia claimed the same right and it would thus be impossible to have three German Representatives. But now the Government of Bavaria, in agreement with party leaders, has subscribed to the proposal of a single Embassy, with the condition that it serve also to handle the interests of Bavaria and that the Bavarian Government be able to send instructions directly to the Ambassador and receive Reports without the intermediation of the Foreign Ministry in Berlin. It is not improbable that Bavaria, renewing insistently the preservation of its own Legation, will impede anew the creation of the [German] Embassy. Pacelli Source: Pacell-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 8598 Jan. 4, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Note Sent to the Bavarian Government Most Reverend Eminence, I am carrying out my duty to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence that, before my departure for Berlin, I also sent the Bavarian Government a Note dated December 27th in conformity with the general instructions imparted to me by Your Eminence’s venerated Dispatch No. 99630 of Dec. 6th and with the subsequent cable No. 210. This direct communication with Mr. Hoffmann seemed necessary to me, both because the said Government would be displeased to receive it via Berlin, and because the relations between Church and State in Bavaria have a particular character because of the Concordat of 1817, which moreover has already been violated in several important points, as I had the honor to explain in my respectful Report No. 14369 of October 6, 1919. In transmitting now here-enclosed to Your Eminence a copy of the said Note in Italian translation (to which up to now I have not received a reply), I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 1144 Jan. 5, 1920 Gasparri to Pacelli: The August Pontiff, wishing to give an attestation of special consideration to Mons. Faulhaber Archbishop of Munich and Freising has named him Papal Throne Assistant. Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 1402 January 8, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri, encrypted telegram: I have been warned that Minister Hoffmann, needing to go to Berlin next Monday, will ask me about the permanence of the Bavarian Legation to the Holy See. I request quick telegraphic instructions to indicate to me in a special way whether, for reasons expressed in cable 339, if it could not obtain the co-existence of a German Embassy and said Legation, the Holy See would prefer the second or the first. Pacelli Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 7004 Jan. 9, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri, encrypted cable: Since I have been alerted that the Foreign Minister here must go to Berlin next Monday and will ask me about the preservation of the Bavarian Legation to the Holy See, I therefore ask that instructions be quickly sent to me by telegraph and especially indicate to me, in the event that it is not possible to achieve the co-existence of the [German] Embassy and the Legation for reasons explained in my cable 815 [of Jan. 4, 1920], if the Holy See would prefer the second or the first. Pacelli Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 8012 Jan. 11, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Secession of the Bavarian People’s Party from the Center Party Most Reverend Eminence, The Bavarian People’s Party (Bayerische Volkspartei) was born with a distinctly separatist inclination. Its founder, Dr. Heim, is a well-known particularist. He makes no secret of his political views and his program is summarized in these words: “Bavaria for Bavarians!” There was a time - precisely when the revolution broke out in Berlin and it appeared that the central Government would not have the force to put it down - when the Bavarian People’s Party announced the slogan: “Los von Berlin!” [German: free from Berlin!] Moreover, although political adversaries of this party may strive to present it as a simple transformation of the old Center Party camouflaged under a label with a new name, the party has always denied this. And in fact the more influential organs of the Center Party, from the first days of the foundation of the Bayerische Volkspartei, tirelessly urged that it maintain unity with the Center Party and its old program, predicting that sooner or later it would end its separation. But despite the signs of a future secession,in the near or distant future according to the circumstances, the separatism of the Bavarian People’s Party had to be limited because of supervening issues that were more grave and of vital interest to Bavaria and the Reich, both as to the war demobilization and all the draconian conditions imposed by the enemy, and as to Spartacist movement, which, as is known, was an ephemeral but horrible success right in Bavaria. In fact during this period of pausing in the particularist tendencies of the Bavarian People’s Party, it was possible in the German National Assembly to secure the passage of laws concerning the cession from the individual federated States to the Reich of the railroads, the post, the finances, the army, the administration of justice and other Public Services, a cession which, for better or worse, the delegates of the said party had to support in Weimar. Every now and then, however, the separatist tendency of the Bavarian People’s Party popped up in the newspapers that interpreted their thinking, and in assemblies that gathered to discuss various political issues. But last month when the Prussian Landtag published a proposal signed by the Majority Socialists, the Democrats, and the Center Party, proposing the complete unification of the German State (Einheitsstaat), in other words that all the individual states would lose their political autonomy in favor of the Reich, retaining only administrative autonomy, then the Bavarian People’s Party, alarmed and directly harmed in its most cherished particularist aspirations, began to agitate, protest, threaten, and finally on the morning of January 9th convene a general assembly for the purpose of taking a clear and precise position as to this extremely grave proposal. It was not difficult to predict what the decision of the meeting would be. In fact, the Assembly enacted Dr. Heim's agenda, rejecting any proposal for the unity of the Reich and declaring that the Bavarian People’s Party is separate from the Center Party. There were no lack of speakers to speakers present the consequences of this secession, such as the withdrawal of party members from the various Reichstag Commissions, the dismissal of the Treasury Minister, who is a member of the party, the difficulties in working for a solution to important cultural issues, etc. Nonetheless, Dr. Heim maintained his point of view, and the Assembly strongly supported it, assuring however that in matters of a cultural character, the Bavarian People’s Party would naturally proceed in full accord with the Center Party. What will be the consequences of this schism, beyond those indicated above, is not easy to predict. It cannot really be said that the political horizon in Germany, and particularly in Bavaria, is clear. The men who govern public affairs are not prepared for Government and are scurrying in the dark. The parties are still uncertain about their definitive program. The masses, especially in Munich, are occupied and concerned about bread and coal more than politics, not to mention diversion of all sorts licit and illicit. The leaders of the Bayerische Volkspartei are promising that their secession movement will bring notable advantages for the elections, which are said to be upcoming soon in Bavaria, and they also hope to regain their former absolute majority in the Landtag. It is difficult for now, however, to foresee whether and to what extent these hopes will be realized; in any case, however, it is certain that the policy of the central Government, which is said to be conducted in large part by Minister Erzberger, whose finance program especially meets with the aversion of many, finds no sympathy in Bavaria. Yesterday evening there was a large, tumultuous assembly with the purpose and program of precisely “Los von Berlin!” Moreover, according to confidential reports now reaching me, even in Berlin the aforementioned project of the unitary State or Einheitsstaat will be abandoned, as it seems, since, at least for now, it is impossible to achieve it. In the assurance to Your Most Reverend Eminence that I will not fail, as is my duty, to keep You informed about further developments as to these grave issues, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 329. Italian original and German summary can be accessed at the www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 329 online searchable database, a project of the University of Münster, Germany, in cooperation with the German Historical Institute in Rome and the Vatican Secret Archives; it is financed by the German Research Foundation. Jan. 11, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 2, page 12: “Bolshevik Hatred of Christ and Christians” According to a recent issue of the Russian paper Prisyw, the Bolshevik powers that be have even composed a song and poem ... expressing in blasphemous verses their hatred toward Christ and Christians ... This type of Bolshevik poetry is yet another proof of the absolute deadly hostility of the Moscow regime toward everything Christian... Christ is also the real enemy of the Bolshevik leaders (Lenin and Trotsky)... In a small brochure of 16 pages that appeared recently under the title, “Publication of Bolshevik Atrocities against the Church and her Servants,” which only deals with the Dioceses (Eparchies) of Stauropolis and Kuban, a whole series of beastly brutalities are enumerated... German original Jan. 17, 1920 La Documentation Catholique, p.82: “Special Duty of Catholics after the Great War – Substitute Fraternal Charity for Hatred – Apostolic Letter Diuturni addressed by His Holiness Benedict XV to the Bishops of Germany” Venerable Brothers, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction. The day has finally come that marks the end, for your nation, of the sufferings of a long and terrible war. The signing of the peace treaty has put an end to the blockade that, particularly in your home, made so many victims among the non-combatants. We who bear in Our heart the belligerents of both sides, embracing all with a paternal love, We have used all means to extinguish this immense conflagration and to attenuate its consequences. Also, Venerable Brothers, We unite Ourself to you and your fatherland in giving thanks to the Most High for the blessing of peace. “Put everything into action to assure provisions for Germany” Your preoccupation must be to raise back up as promptly as possible the ruins accumulated by war. Now, there is no greater help for this work than the action of the Catholic Church, jointly with the help of divine grace; and that is the reason why We decided to address this letter to you. And first of all, with a view toward sparing Germany the political revolutions that have led your country, and as a result, Europe itself, into catastrophe and that menace, alas!, other nations, it is necessary to put everything into action to assure the provisioning. To this end, Venerable Brothers, by the mediation of the parish priests and other ecclesiastics in closest contact with the population, you shall insistently request the faithful in the countryside to manage alimentary foodstuffs carefully so as to be in a position to provide some to the city dwellers, who are suffering hunger. In such pressing distress, this is an imperative obligation of the law of charity. If this law requires us to love even our enemies, it orders us with even stronger reason to surround with our affection those who are united to us by the bonds of a common fatherland. Moreover, We firmly hope that all civilized nations, especially the Catholic nations, will hasten to come to the aid of your compatriots, who are reduced, as We know, to extreme destitution; and they will therefore act not only by reason of the perils that menace society, but equally because they are part of the same human family and to conform to the exigencies of Christian charity. All, indeed, should be presented by us with the memory of the word of the apostle St. John: “If anyone has goods of this world and, seeing his brother in need, closes his heart to him, how does the love of God dwell in him? My little children, do not love in word and language but in action and truth.” “Without Christian charity every peace treaty will be a dead letter” Each of you, Venerable Brothers, must moreover use all the authority of his holy ministry to bind up the moral wounds that the war has caused or aggravated. And it is most especially necessary to forbid all sentiment of hatred, both with regard to foreigners against whom one has fought, and against fellow citizens of various parties. In place of hatred you must substitute fraternal charity, which emanates from Jesus Christ, and which knows no barriers, nor frontiers, nor class struggles. We express anew the wish, the desire we already manifested during the last Consistory, to see “all men and all peoples united together by Christian charity, without which every peace treaty will be a dead letter.” We are assured, Venerable Brothers, that as good pastors, ministers of peace and love, you will know how to consecrate all the creativity of your zeal to the accomplishment of this duty and that you will not cease to intercede before the Lord, with your clergy and your flock. As for Us, Our course will not fail you in the immense distress in which your fatherland moans. It is, indeed, altogether spontaneously that the heart of a father inclines with the greatest tenderness toward those of his children who suffer the most, by the example of the most loving Redeemer of the human race, from whom compassion for the suffering of the multitude evinced this immortal cry: I have pity for the crowd. As a token of celestial gifts, and as witness of Our particular benevolence, We accord you most affectionately, Venerable Brothers, to you and all those committed to your charge, the Apostolic Benediction. Given in Rome, near St. Peter’s, July 15, 1919, the fifth year of Our Pontificate. Jan. 17, 1920 La Documentation Catholique, p.83: “Letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State to the National Congress of German-American Catholics” The Bulletin of the Catholic Federation of the United States (from Quincy, Illinois) of Dec. 1919 brings us the following information and documentd: The 63rd National Congress of the German Catholic Association (German Catholic Verein) concluded its three days of sessions on Tuesday, September 16, in Chicago. Obviously significant, since this meeting constituted the first public act since America’s entry into the war at which an appeal could be made to German Catholicism in the United States. A sensational document was communicated to the Congress, namely a letter from the Sovereign Pontiff; Mgr. Mundelein, Archbishop of Chicago, read it to a session on Sunday. On that occasion, His Grace delivered a vigorous speech, but he knew how to show an exquisite sense of discretion and moderation in dealing with certain delicate points. One was little surprised, naturally, to hear the orator celebrating the heroic loyalty of German-Americans toward the star-spangled banner. This is the letter written by His Eminence Cardinal Gasparri in the name of the Pope: Secretariat of State of His Holiness, from the Vatican, July 18, 1919, To Mons. George William Mundelein, Archbishop of Chicago. Most Reverend Archbishop, The Holy Father has just been informed that, after a long interruption caused by the war, the “Central Verein” (General Association) is going to resume in Chicago the series of its Congresses. “Past work and loyalty of the German-Americans” This news brings the greatest pleasure to the Sovereign Pontiff, who is not unaware of the magnificent services rendered by this Association. On the contrary, His Holiness is deeply grieved to learn that you have lost your worthy president, Mr. Frey, for whom he has begged the Lord to receive into his eternal reward. Today as the “Central Verein” resumes its work, the Sovereign Pontiff is pleased to address to it the praises that it has well merited by the so brilliant results of its past work; he takes this occasion to send to its associates his paternal greeting, the token of an ever more fruitful future. The Sovereign Pontiff has full assurance that these lovely hopes will be realized for you, given the remarkable qualities of which the German-Americans have given proof on every occasion and especially during the course of the last war. Always keeping in their hearts a spirited love for the country of their fathers, they have none the less accomplished their full duty with regard to their adopted fatherland: they have courageously responded to all their appeals, giving without stint for its defense, their gold, their strength and their blood. “May they now work for the sincere reconciliation of nations” Now that the war is finally ended, their beneficent zeal can be exercised on a field that is even richer in promise. It is only too true, alas!, that this cruel war, which has so completely divided the human race into two opposing camps, has left behind it a harvest of hatred of peoples toward peoples. And meanwhile, it is impossible for the world to taste at length the blessed fruits of peace unless the nations lose these hatreds to rebuild with each other the sweet bonds of Christian fraternity. Catholics must work for this rapprochement in an entirely special way: already united by so intimate a bond in the mystical body of Jesus Christ, they are bound to give continually to others the example of Christian charity. In this sense the German Catholics of the United States, who have such close bonds with each of the two belligerent sides, can play a particularly effective role. The Holy Father has no more cherished wish than a sincere reconciliation of the nations, and already he has addressed such an appeal to the Bishops of Germany. He turns now to you to ask you to collaborate, you as well, in this sublime crusade of charity. “May they come quickly to the aid of their brothers of Germany” Kept up to date about the lamentable situation with which your brothers of Germany are struggling, the Sovereign Pontiff beseeches you insistently to come to their aid by every means of the material and moral order, with all possible speed and effectiveness, notably by facilitating the immediate resumption of commercial relations and all the advantages that are their natural consequence. The Holy Father is convinced that his appeal will be warmly welcomed by you and by all the children of your generous country without distinction: they certainly recall the great services rendered to the United States during the war by their fellow citizens, both those born there and those of the German race; they will therefore make themselves the true benefactors of the human race, and will bring upon their own nation the very special benedictions of God Almighty. As a token of these benedictions and in the spirit of his paternal affection, the Holy Father accords to Your Grace, to all participants in the congress, and to all your faithful, the Apostolic Benediction. I am happy to transmit this message to Your Grace with the homage of my most sincere esteem, and I remain Your Grace’s Devoted servant, Pietro Cardinal Gasparri After having officially accepted the pontifical letter, the Congress adopted various orders of the day. One of them indicated the danger that the Catholic foreign missions of the entire world are encountering because of the clause of the Treaty of Versailles about the withdrawal of German missionaries. A second motion recommends anew the support of the Catholic press. A third calls attention on the fact that a just and lasting peace must have a moral and religious foundation. Jan. 20, 1920 Hoffmann to Pacelli: Your Excellency, I have the honor, in response to your obliging letter of December 27, 1919, to inform you most devotedly of the following: The Bavarian Government has recognized that the Reich Constitution of August 11, 1919 and the Constitution Declaration of the Free State of Bavaria of August 14, 1919 have transformed the extent and nature of the relations between Church and State, and have changed the legal status of the Catholic Church in Bavaria. The Bavarian Government is gladly prepared to enter into negotiations with the Holy See about new regulation by treaty of the circumstances of the Catholic Church in Bavaria upon the foundation of the Reich Constitution and State Constitution. In this it takes for granted the understanding of the Holy See that in the new agreement not only the governmental-legal, but rather also the financial circumstances of the Catholic Church, will receive their definitive resolution. I would promise a special furtherance of this opportunity, if the Holy See were prepared, before entering into official negotiations, to make known its wishes both in relation to the formal procedure for the negotiations and in relation to substance. I hereby take this occasion with pleasure to give the assurance of my highest esteem, with which I have the honor to be Your Excellency’s most devoted, Hoffmann. Source: Italian original and German summary at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 6618 Jan. 20, 1920 Lingg to Faulhaber: Your Excellency, Most Reverend Herr Archbishop! More unrest was to be feared last week here, so that the City Council had a public warning issued. On Friday I received a warning to go to a safe place. I took action for all events and retired for a few days with some well-wishing people. So it is only now, after returning home, that I am in position to express my delight and congratulations upon Your Excellency’s return from the Eternal City. Frankly, to participate in the misery of our fatherland is a dubious good fortune! Yet: God will provide. I am so attacked that I am capable of almost nothing and often feel life is a burden. That our public proclamation of right did not take place, seems most correct to me. As I have recently already observed, a protest against the Reich Constitution would have had to be against the outline itself, as a protest against the finished Constitution would have been taken as enmity to the State. But a proclamation in the sense that the state not unilaterally issue orders about Church matters would be pointless, since both the German and Bavarian governments are negotiating about such matters with the Holy See and would quickly just take our memorandum to be on account of the dissolution of state subsidies. But in the matter of the priests’ association, I cannot get past the thought that we Bishops are the ones being duped. The Ordinariates indeed have a working relationship with each other in important issues, but such a relationship is not enjoyed among the priest associations, rather they concluded a formal union and now have a single common Bavarian priests association. We can now merely harken that section 2 of this association we be strictly observed and intrusions in purely ecclesiastical matters will be avoided. Excellency, please forgive these expectorations. But my nerves! In deepest reverence commending myself to Your Excellency, I remain constantly as your faithfully obedient servant, +Maximilian Bishop of Augsburg Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 4320 Jan. 24, 1920 Archbishop Faulhaber’s pastoral letter for Lent 1920, translation of the copy sent this date by Nuncio Pacelli in Munich to Cardinal Gasparri in Rome: Pastoral Letter for the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, Lent 1920: The Papacy in our Democratic Era Michael, by God’s mercy and by the grace of the Apostolic Throne, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, confers upon the reverend clergy and all the faithful of the Archdiocese greeting and blessing in the Lord. Beloved faithful of the Archdiocese! A few days ago I returned from by pilgrimage to Rome, where I reported to the Holy Father about the religious-ecclesiastical condition of the Archdiocese and at the same time, in your name, at the grave of the Prince of the Apostles, prayed the Apostles’ Creed. For five long years it was impossible for the German Bishops to visit and speak with the supreme Teacher and Shepherd of the Church, the Successor to the Apostle Peter. “The roads to Zion mourn” (Lamentations 1:4), at least those roads that led from the central European Church provinces to the Eternal City. And still it must be felt by all Catholics around the world as a robbery of the Church’s freedom, when the undisturbed connection of the Bishops by letter and personal interaction with the Vicar of Christ on Earth can be torn asunder by political world events. That is why it remains indeed one of the most horrible omissions in the peace process, that not once in this peace was the Roman Question addressed, even though it was precisely in this war that the disgraceful and intolerable situation of the Holy Father as Prisoner in the Vatican was revealed in a new glaring light. In Biblical antiquity the soul of the Psalmist rejoiced when the days of pilgrimage to Jerusalem approached: “I rejoiced when they said to me: Let us go up to the House of the Lord. Now our feet are standing in your courts, O City of Peace” (Ps. 121:1ff.). Thus our soul rejoiced as the isolation of the central point of Christendom finally came to an end and the roads to Rome became free again. There in Rome one comes upon the ruins of pagan temples and theaters, upon the broken down pillars of pagan marketplaces and baths, upon the remains of the walls of the Golden House of Nero and of the palaces of the Roman emperors – and the stones of these ruins from pagan antiquity say to us: What God’s hand has destroyed, no human hand shall rebuild again. There in Rome more than 400 churches rise up, overshadowed by the dome of St. Peter’s Church above the grave of the Prince of the Apostles – and the stones of these churches say to us: What God’s hand has built up, no human hand shall destroy. There in Rome one goes on pilgrimage to the Catacombs and to the graves of the blood witnesses of our faith – and the graves of these heroes of the faith say to us: Your faith is anointed with the blood of the martyrs. There in Rome one climbs down into the Mamertine dungeon, where Christian witnesses to the faith celebrated the holy mysteries in the early morning hours and strengthened themselves for the final entrance into the arena of the amphitheater – and the stones of the dungeon and the amphitheater say this to us: Neither trouble nor hardship, neither danger nor persecution, not even the sword, shall separate us from the love of Christ (Romans 8:35). There in Rome one walks the streets on which, from the first century until today, innumerable saints, but also innumerable enemies of the Church, have walked, the streets of the ancient Babylon (I Peter 5:13) and of the new Jerusalem – and the stones of these streets say to us: “The Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the godless leads to the abyss” (Psalm 1:6). We celebrated, at the end of last year in Munich, the three hundredth anniversary memorial of the death of Blessed Lawrence of Brindisi, who lived here in the Capuchin monastery and preached here. [With Pope Benedict XV] ... We spoke about the school situation in Bavaria, where despite the need for bread and coal and clothes and work, people still have time to fight for the influence of the Church in the realms of school and education, and to deliver the souls of young people from malnutrition, and where ever more and more Catholic parents are waking up and standing up in the Catholic parent associations for their inalienable rights over their children. A reverential astonishment gripped me as I saw how well the Holy Father, in these and other issues, knows our situation in Germany and in Bavaria. ... Monarchical states with their military foundations have collapsed, but the Church, without any military means of power, has survived the upheavals of 1900 years as the Hierarchy of God’s Grace, and will preserve her fundamental monarchical character until the end of time. The Papal tiara will outlast all the kings’ crowns and emperors’ crowns of world history. Voices may well be heard speaking of self-government and the sovereign people, and saying to the Church: “Mother, don’t you want to be more accommodating to the democratic signs of the time and reform your strict hierarchical constitution in a more parliamentary way? Don’t you want to pour new wine into new wineskins and let the people participate in governing?” Then the Church will answer: “Children of the 20th century, you have drunk of the intoxicating wine of the democratic idea, but you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.” The Papal Primacy is an institution of God and is thereby raised up above the developments of contemporary history. ... The new Reich constitution has placed the Church founded by Christ on the same level with whatever religious society you like (Article 137, sections 5 and 7) and with it has granted truth and error the same rights. No state constitution, however, can abrogate the words of the Gospel: “Every plant that is not planted by my heavenly Father will be rooted out” (Matthew 15:13). No state constitution can abrogate the words of the Apostle calling the Church of the living God the pillar and foundation of truth (I Timothy 3:15). The wilder the spirits of untruth and mendacity go abroad in public life, the greater the Church appears to us, which guards the holy fire of Pentecost on its altars, and all the greater appears to us the supreme head of the Church, who strengthens the brethren in the faith... ... Whoever persecutes the Church with Saul gets to hear this word with him: “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting” (Acts of the Apostles 9:5). The Papacy is the rock of secure faith! Have we not experienced with horror in the era of revolution how all order falls apart, all sense of community dies, every depravity comes to power, if there is no strong government in the state? Let us thank God that we, at least in religious questions, still have an authority that has the last, decisive word on the strength of its supreme teaching office in matters of faith and morals! ... Whoever has eyes to see and ears to hear can observe today in the anti-Church newspapers and assemblies how the systematic campaign of lies against bishops and priests is taking up the old tactic of hell again and giving out the solution: Strike the shepherd, then the flock will scatter itself! My dear diocesan faithful! Do not let yourselves be ripped away from the community of your Church! Keep the inner and true connection to your shepherds, to your chief shepherd and to the supreme shepherd in Rome! Spare the sanctuary of faith the modern catchwords of self-government and self-salvation! ... Do not tolerate newspapers and pamphlets in your environment that bring incessant calumny against your Church, against Pope and bishops and priests, and sow division in your ranks! ... The Papacy is the rock of moral and social order! ... ... The comforting visits that the Apostolic Nuncio of Munich, Monsignore Pacelli, made to German prisoner of war camps at the charge of the Holy Father, will remain in thankful remembrance among the German people, as will the abundant loving gifts that were distributed among the prisoners by the Apostolic Nunciature in Munich. Since November 1918, since our prisoners of war were unilaterally detained in foreign lands, Pope Benedict has ten times undertaken official steps of solicitude for our prisoners without distinction as to their religion. Also for the war’s other emergencies, especially the food shortage, the Holy Father, although himself poor, was an exceedingly rich helper in time of need. What our brothers in the faith are sending us today from America, we are receiving by the appeal of the Holy Father, thus indirectly from his hands. Pope Benedict will live on in world history as the Pope of peace and of love. In the era of wrath he has become a reconciliation. Thus, precisely in this time of affliction, it is revealed anew that Christ lives on in his Church, lives on and suffers on, suffers on and continually blesses, continually blesses and continually conquers. “Christ is victor, Christ is king, Christ is ruler!” The German revolution is only superficially a political and economic upheaval; in its foundational impetus it is a moral and religious subversive movement. That will be shown as soon as the deepest roots and ultimate goals of the revolution are uncovered. In Bavaria up to now the open and even more the slinking form of Kulturkampf has not rested since the outbreak of the revolution. Even Pilate and Herod, those otherwise irreconcilable enemies, struck a bond of brotherhood when it was a matter of opposing the Catholic Church and its servants. The enemies of the Church are on guard and are forging ever new weapons; so the true children of the Church may not sleep and may not let the weapons of light get rusty. “See to it that no one leads you astray” (Mark 13:5), and do not let the blows of the Church’s enemies take you by surprise! Be wise and build your house on the rock! The Lord is going to visit his vineyard, which his right hand planted, and may a strong tower remain for the supreme shepherds of the Church against his enemies! As I departed, the Holy Father gave me authority to impart to my beloved Archdiocesan faithful the Papal blessing in his name, and thereby to commend all of you to the grace of the Almighty, and especially our dear prisoners of war who are now returning home. The greeting of the Holy Father is the greeting of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles: “Grace be with you and abundant peace” (I Peter 1:2; II Peter 1:2)! So may the Holy Father’s blessing, like the anointing oil from the head of the high priest (Psalm 132:2) come over you all in the name of the +Father and of the +Son and of the +Holy Sspirit. Amen. Given on January 24, 1920 at Munich. +Michael Archbishop of Munich and Freising Source: Faulhaber, Michael von, Hirtenbrief für die Erzdiözese München und Freising Fastenzeit 1920: Das Papsttum in unserer demokratischen Zeit, München 24. Januar 1920, in: “Kritische Online-Edition der Nuntiaturberichte Eugenio Pacellis (1917-1929)”, Dokument Nr. 6615, URL: (Datum 27. April 2017) Jan. 27, 1920 Gasparri to Pacelli: Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Signore, I have received your encrypted cable no. 341; and in response I will repeat to you what I said yesterday in a strong voice to the Prussian Ambassador. As you have opportunely stated, the Holy See would prefer: 1st) A German Embassy to the Vatican with a Pontifical Nunciature in Berlin for affairs of Germany except for Bavaria; a Bavarian Legation to the Vatican with a Pontifical Nunciature in Munich for ecclesiastical affairs of Bavaria. 2nd) If the central Government of Germany does not think it can concede this, then the Holy See desires to maintain the status quo ante, that is Legations of Prussia and of Bavaria to the Vatican with a Pontifical Nunciature in Munich. The proposal chosen by the Berlin Government (German Embassy to the Vatican with Nunciature in Berlin – suppression of the Bavarian Legation to the Vatican, but the ambassador, for ecclesiastical affairs of Bavaria, would correspond with the Bavarian Government and not with the central Government – Pontifical Nunciature in Munich, if the Holy See so desires) seems to present difficulties that are neither few nor light. In the first place, the Nunciature in Bavaria would have to be in correlation with a Bavarian Ministry in the Vatican. In the second place, it is strange that this German Ambassador would have to carry out part of his mission in accord with Berlin and unbeknownst to Munich, and part in accord with Munich and unbeknownst to Berlin. This split personality could at time become virtually impossible. If, for example, a question were to arise between the Archbishop of Cologne and the Archbishop of Munich, the same person would have to support the rights of Cologne as the Ambassador of Germany, and the rights of Munich as the Ambassador of Bavaria; a truly curious and embarrassing situation. Finally allow me to add an observation of an exclusively political nature that does not concern the Holy See. The Berlin Government, with its unitary proposals in general and in particular with the retaining for Bavaria of those prerogatives of former autonomy that are so cherished by Bavaria, obviously favoring the separatist sentiments of Bavaria, actually favored the current policy of France, which completely wants a peace treaty that divides up Germany. The Berlin Government has reflected on this? And has its own need to add this tremendous vital issue to so many others on its table? … If, notwithstanding these extremely serious considerations, the Berlin Government persists in its unfortunate proposal, the Holy See would undoubtedly desire to keep the Nunciature in Munich, trusting that a brief experience will persuade them to abandon their idea and turn to one of the first two above. With sentiments of distinct and sincere esteem … Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 6140 Jan. 28 - Feb. 26, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano headlines on “The Bolshevik Menace” in early 1920: Jan. 28, 1920, page one: “The Bolshevik Menace” Subhead: “Concerning the Fall of Irkutsk” Dateline London, Jan. 26 - The “Times” reports from Harbin: The first fugitives from Irkutsk have arrived in Harbin. They recount that the battle has begun in Irkutsk between the revolutionary socialists and the Czechs who have constituted the defenders of what remains of the Government of Koltchak [White Russian ruler and commander-in-chief]. The regiment of Koltchak that occupied the station declared itself for the revolutionaries and then the Czechs took over the bridge going from the station to the city ... The attitude of the Czechs who sympathized completely with the revolutionaries aggravated the difficulty of the situation. “Denikin’s Army Defeated” Dateline Buchariest, Jan. 25 - The newspaper “Romanian Renasteria” [Renaissance] has stated that the Government has received information that the Bolshevik troops had advanced by the end of the last week to within a few kilometers of Mohilew, but, prevented from crossing the Dniester River, have resumed their march toward the southeast. The minister of war, General Rascanu, has confirmed to newspapers that among the 40,000 Russian refugees who are requesting to pass into Bessarabia [Moldova] are the remnants of the defeated Army of General Denikin... “The Bolshevik Cavalry” Dateline London, Jan. 26 - A bulletin of the “Reuters Agency” says the report that the Bolshevik cavalry will arrive in India is unfounded. Four hundred miles separate the Bolshevik troops from the Indian Ocean. “The Dissolution Order of the Third Red Army” Dateline Warsaw, Jan. 25 - Reports from informed Bolshevik sources state that Trotsky has ordered the dissolution of the third army, to create a first army of workers who shall work for agricultural production, for coal production, and for the manufacture of agricultural machinery. “The People’s Commissars Leave Moscow” Dateline Stockholm, Jan. 26 - A radiotelegram arriving to the “Swedish Dagblad” from Dorpat states that the Council of People’s Commissars suddenly left Moscow because of the plague and moved to Tver. “Restoration of Commerce with Russia” Dateline Zurich, Jan. 25 - Reported from Warsaw: The decision of the Supreme Council about restoring commercial relations with “Soviet” Russia continues to be the principal topic of public discussions, of commentary in the press, and of what is going on in the corridors of the parliament... Public opinion is anxiously asking if there is not an obvious contradiction between the mandate confided by the Allies to Poland to combat Bolshevism and the decision to remove the blockade. Daszynski, a Socialist, has insisted on the necessity of an alliance of Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine as a counterpoise to Russian imperialism. Dateline Zurich, Jan. 25 - Reported from Warsaw on the 24th: The press continues to comment on the decision of the Supreme Council to remove the blockade from Russia, emphasizing the difficult position in which Poland is placed as the advance guard of Europe against Bolshevik invasion... According to the newspapers, reports from many sources are predicting that the Bolsheviks are preparing a general offensive against Poland; if the Russia of the “Soviets” succeeds in defeating Poland, they would rush with the Germans upon all of western Europe. Italian original of L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 28, 1920, page one, “La Minaccia Bolscevica” Jan. 30, 1920, page one headline: “The Bolshevik Menace” - Summary: The Bolshevik Army is expected to attack Poland in March or April; description of the White Russian general in the Ukraine, Denikin, as “an honest and good man.” Jan. 31, 1920, page one headline: “The Bolshevik Menace” - Summary: Bolshevik military leader Leon Trotsky has raised an army of eight million, of which two million are poised to attack Poland and Czechoslovakia. Feb. 1, 1920, page one headline: “The Bolshevik Menace” - Summary: The Reds’ best troops are preparing for an offensive against Poland and Romania, which is expected to begin in March. Feb. 4, 1920, page one headline: “The Bolshevik Menace” Feb. 22, 1920, “Archangelsk Occupied by the Bolsheviks” – with an adjacent article about the strength of the Catholic Church in Poland, ending with the motto, “Poland Semper Fidelis” [Poland Always Faithful]. Feb. 23-24, 1920, page one – “The Russian Question: How Koltchak Was Handed over to the Bolsheviks” ... “The Situation Facing General Denikin” Feb. 25, 1920, page one headline: “Examination of the Russian Question” Feb. 26, 1920, page one headline: “The Russian Question at the Conference” - Summary: The Allies, meeting in their ongoing peace conference, have warned Poland against attacking Russia, and have committed to support Poland if it is attacked by Russia. Commentary by L’Osservatore Romano compares the Soviet military threat to that of Napoleon’s French revolutionary army. Jan. 31, 1920 La Documentation Catholique, pp. 151-153: “Zionism: Grave Problems Instigated in Palestine by Jewish Immigration” A well-placed personality for having exact information sends us from Palestine the following article, which is worthy of serious consideration. I. The Zionist Spirit The two million Israelites who populated Palestine at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus in the year 70 (I am giving a probable population figure, but not certain), were dispersed little by little through the Roman world, where they went to join the Jews of the Diaspora. There was no act of expulsion properly speaking, except as to Jerusalem in the time of Hadrian (the prohibition on entering the Holy City was renewed by Omar). Yet the destruction of the Temple, the prohibition of living in Jerusalem imposed by Hadrian after the revolt of the false messiah Bar-Kochba, and finally the loss of all political influence, led the Jews to disperse in great numbers through the Roman Empire. They benefited everywhere from a generous toleration, even in the eras when persecution struck the Christians. Antony allowed them circumcision, which was rigorously prohibited for others. Caracalla allowed them the right of the Roman city and, despite the rigor of the laws, the practice of polygamy was tolerated among them. Even more, from the first or second century, and up to the year 429, they had a veritable national sovereign, a descendant of Hillel, who bore the title of ethnarch or patriarch, was surrounded by a sumptuous court, and sent his delegates or apostles through the civilized world to organize communities from the standpoint of exercise of worship and justice. Indeed of the rights of a sovereign, the only one he lacked was power over life and death, and he even used that one sometimes, with the toleration of the emperors. Nevertheless, eyes were turning towards Jerusalem. A first Zionist attempt took place under Julian the Apostate, in the second half of the 4th century. This emperor-philosophe, in his hatred of Christianity, had wanted to give the lie to Our Lord’s prophecy by restoring the former Temple. “That,” writes an Israelite, Mr. Juster, “would have given the coup de grace to the proof of Christianity and undermined the foundations of the the legitimacy of the existence of Christianity.” “The Jews,” said St. Jerome, “promise each other the restoration of the city of Jerusalem in the end times: then, with waters flowing from the city to the two seas, circumcision will be practiced anew, sacrificial victims will be immolated, the precepts of the Law will be observed; it will not be the Jews who become Christians, but the Christians who become Jews.” (footnote: In Zachar, XIV, 9 et seq.) When the last descendant of Hillel died in 429, Zionist hopes were not extinguished, because the ethnarch or patriarch had as successor, until the Middle Ages, the exilarch, or the chief of the exiles of Babylon, the veritable chief of the Jews, even in the Roman Empire. Undoubtedly Judaism suffered from the intrusion into their affairs by the emperors of Constantinople, but much less, certainly, than Christianity. There were treated as a protected sect. In the Middle Ages, the Jew was held in contempt. He kept himself apart and was kept apart. Relegated to live in the ghetto, one can suspect that he nurtured the hope of one day taking his revenge. In our days the Jews, whose numbers seem to have increased to a dozen millions, enjoy in certain countries an above-average prosperity; in others, they are still kept apart by custom and opinion, or they fell (I must speak in the past tense) under the force of exceptional laws. Even in certain nations where the Jew has acquired preponderance in business and where he enjoys equality under the law, he is rather often looked upon with an unkind smile. It was this situation that a Jew born in Budapest in 1860, Theodor Herzl, took advantage of to create the Zionist movement, whose goal was the founding of a Jewish nationality, a political Jewish State where the Israelites would impose themselves upon the regard of the world and reinstate themselves. For Herzl it was about a modern State that could be established, in a pinch, in another country than Palestine. Zionism had its detractors among the Israelites. “Nevertheless,” wrote Rev. Fr. Lagrange in an article in Correspondant (footnote: April. 10, 1918, p.17) that I have just recapped, “it grew by a force that its initiator had not suspected, the religious faith of Jews, especially the Jews of Russia. These had planned nothing and predicted nothing. They did not know what might be a concession of the Sultan, or a Colonization Bank. But, each day, they begged the Lord for a return to Zion. When Herzl proposed to them, as an interim solution, to establish themselves in Uganda, their tragic disappointment obliged him to recoil and finally completed the breaking of his energy. At his death (July 1904), all his plans were washed up and his proposal had been proven unrealizable, but an immense hope in the restoration of Zion survived. “The clever ones continued to see nothing, to understand nothing, being sure they understood everything. They knew that the Jews were little inclined to quit their businesses, to renounce their well-being, to go live miserably in Palestine. Their god, it was said, is money; and their Temple, the stock exchange. “But it is typical of the clever to misperceive profound movements that arouse the masses, which they term mystical to excuse their having failed to recognize their energy ... “There are materialistic Jews, there are prudent ones, informed ones, calculating ones; but it would be unjust to this race, and ignorant of its history, to fail to attribute an élan of idealism, or, if you wish, nationalism, ardent to the point of heroism - one might say almost to the point of folly. The state of humiliation in which the Jew lived during the centuries developed in him a foresighted calculating nature, at the expense of combativeness, but are we sure that combativeness is not latently preserved, awaiting the occasion to these pretentions of universal domination that have remained the dream of every ghetto?” If you doubt the combativeness of Jews, listen to what the rabbis of Jerusalem say: “We have the right, we are masters of our own house, we will boycott those who attempt to resist us.” There may well be a bit of bravado in these words, but it remains certain that the Jew knows what he wants and that he will easily be intolerant. That is how, on November 2, 1917, he obtained of the London government the declaration called Balfour’s, whose importance is difficult to exaggerate... [text of the Balfour Declaration] In rereading the text, one can understand the Jewish enthusiasm that manifested itself the moment it was published, and upon the two anniversaries of this already famous declaration. “What an unexpected oracle, what a miracle of Providence!” writes Rev. Fr. Lagrange. “In this earthquake shaking the earth’s foundations, when the whole world was in suffering, when the persecuting Empire, the Empire of pogroms was collapsing more lamentably than Babylon, a new Cyrus shows the Jews the way to Holy Zion. Is it to bring them back, that God has opened the way among such ruins? The Lord said: I will bring the race back from the East, And I will reassemble them from the West. I will say to the North: Give them up! And to the South: No holding them back! Make my sons come from faraway lands And my daughters from the ends of the earth. “All that is mysticism, but this mysticism is shaking millions of men. A dream, a mirage, I would willingly consider it, but at this time it is triumphing over the scribes and the prudent ones. Because it really is necessary that the leaders follow, as Ledru-Rollin said, when the troops are so determined to march. Now, that is what they are, and the leaders cannot refuse to go along. All that the spiritual masters can manage, and just recently the oracles of Judaism, is to moderate the explosion of joy, to remove from it what might be provocative and aggressive.” (footnote: Rev. Fr. Lagrange, op. cit.) The Univers Israélite promises us “that the universal empire assured to the Jews will not be exploitation of Gentiles for the profit of a nation; no, the Jews have the mission to do good for the world, and that is why they have the right of empire.” “If that is where the moderate spirits are at, if they are constrained to associate themselves with a ‘quivering of rejoicing’ which does not allow for worrying, then what do the masses think? This people of whom it is repeated unceasingly that they are persecuted, mocked, scorned for centuries by Christians, of whom one is thus accustomed to mix the instincts of revenge with the zeal of its interests, with its faithfulness to its God, will it preserve its sang-froid in the inebriation of such a hope? Will it not have to wish passionately for the humiliation of Christianity in its turn, for vengeance?... The noblest and highest souls are not, to be sure, much more numerous in Israel than elsewhere... thus one encounters the response and the danger.” (footnote: Lagrange, op. cit.) I know, the intellectual leaders of Judaism see the inconvenience of an exclusive nationalism and dream of establishing in Palestine, in preference to a Jewish State, a religious center, in the hope that “the Law will go forth anew from Zion and from Jerusalem the divine word.” ... II. Current Actions Let us leave these summits to look at what is happening in Jerusalem. The Jews are arriving. From the 25,000 to 30,000 who were in the Holy City as of December 9, 1917, they appear to have re-attained the figure of 70,000, their number, it would seem, before the war, perhaps they have even surpassed it. They are refounding their ancient organization, and they are perfecting it. Worker houses are providing lodging at reduced price to new arrivals. All the available rentals have been retained in advance by a Committee that pays the rent, all the while leaving them empty, which has produced a veritable housing crisis this year. I do not consider it indiscreet to cite the case of the Franciscan Sisters of Mary, who have to pay annually a sum of 500 Egyptian pounds (13,000 Francs or 21,000 at the current exchange rate) for a house with no grounds and, on the whole, rather limited dimensions. The Jews are making themselves, one is assured, owners of great expanses of land in all of Palestine, and, when the rules against buying or selling are lifted, matters will undoubtedly escalate to an even vaster scale. The farmer, it is true, is attached to the soil, but a certain number of farmers have debts; they allow themselves to be tempted by seductive offers that the Committee will make with its enormous financial resources. As for the rich bourgeois of the cities, who have acquired lands for purposes of speculation, is it a calumny to predict the facility with which they will allow these lands to be purchased, provided a good price is offered? The lands, once sold, will never again return to Christians or Muslims, because the only legal proprietor is the Israelite Committee, which will only cede them to its coreligionists. Commerce, including that in pious articles, is falling and will fall ever more into the hands of Jews, whose aptitude is proverbial, and who have at their disposition considerable funds loaned to them at rates of 3% by banks devoted to them (while the non-Jews must submit to rates of 10 or 12%, or even more), and who benefit from favorable prices offered them by big monopolists. I do not insist upon the hospital and scholarly works founded by the Jews, because the Christians have similar works at their disposal. But I must recount that last year a parcel was purchased on the Mount of Olives, where the first stone of the Hebrew University was solemnly laid. Already public works and employment are for the most part in the hands of Jews. What will it be on the day when their political establishment will have been more explicitly and definitively recognized, and when diplomas will be issued en masse from the new University! One can be assured that, to keep Christians and Muslims from public functions, the Jews will have their coreligionists accepted for honors of which they are manifestly unworthy, for which they will pay the fees by tapping the treasury of the Committee of Jewish expansion. In sum, these are the sorrowful manifestations of the Zionist expansion in Palestine from an economic point of view. The day is perhaps not far off when the Muslim countrymen could become the day laborers on their former lands and when the Christian and Muslim populations are forced to emigrate in order to live. Forced to emigrate! Words we have often heard under the Turkish domination, and which are being pronounced again today. Please God that we not hear them the more often as the Jews are the more strongly established in the land! The Christians, relatively small in numbers and too apathetic, the Muslims, even less prepared to endure the shock of such a powerful organization animated by the winds of religious enthusiasm and nationalism, will they resist? Doubt appears permissible. What will be more humiliating for Christianity is to see invaded by the Jews, and falling under their political yoke, the Holy Places where it was born, these Holy Places where its vitality was brilliantly manifested in the time of the Christian emperors of Constantinople, these Holy Places that the Crusaders tried heroically to deliver from the power of the infidels, these Holy Places, finally, which were in recent times the witnesses of a magnificent development of Catholic and Christian charity. I dare not deal with the very delicate question of the greatly increased liberty as to morals that Jewish immigration will contribute to introducing in this corner of the Orient, which were until recently restrained. Where are the conditions, so near and so far at the same time, whereby immorality will not dare to display itself publicly, and where the houses of toleration were themselves unknown? III. Precautions to Take Today and Tomorrow I now broach the most difficult part of this exposé. If Jewish immigration develops normally (and one can expect to see Palestine invaded by Jewish floods from Romania and Russia), the Christians will be quickly submerged. Nevertheless, all hope is not lost, because, finally, the immigrants will find difficulties for themselves as well, and it is not certain that the initial enthusiasm will not diminish progressively, at the same time as the material resources sent from Europe and America. There is no need to give up, but, on the contrary, to accept the struggle that Providence imposes. The first remedy to attempt against the dangers that menace the future of Catholicism and also of Christianity in this land where it was born, is to create a public opinion in the civilized countries. These countries are emerging from a nightmare, and they are emerging more or less wounded. They are gripped by very serious and pressing anxieties. Above all, it is a matter of living and raising the accumulated ruins. And yet it is essential to give a response to the moving plea of the Sovereign Pontiff, it is essential to speak to these Christian nations of the Christian ideal, of the shame that it would be to allow the cradle of their religion, of this religion that has made their strength and their greatness, to fall under the political domination, disguised or not, of Judaism. A second remedy would be perhaps to reach agreement among missionaries of various denominations (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants) and Moslem religious authorities, to persuade countrymen not to sell their lands to Jews, taking into account that these lands will later have acquired a much greater value. A bank that makes advances secured by land, at a low interest rate, advancing sums of money to countrymen in need, would be a most desirable thing. But I admit that the realization seems to me most difficult. In the meanwhile, a simple savings and loan would render precious services. But it will not be easy to have it accepted as a practical matter by the indigenous people. What they would like is exactly the opposite: to know great capital, difficult to find and which their inexperience would quickly dissipate. Finally (I must say above all), unity among Christians and between Christians and Muslims presents itself as a necessity for salvation. Let us say in conclusion, the politicians would be better advised to obstruct the progress of Zionist immigration than to facilitate it, in order to avoid struggling soon in inextricable difficulties: in Palestine, where 700,000 indigenous persons, Christians and Muslims, might not allow foreigners to come and lay down the law; in all the other countries of the world, where the antisemitic movement is reawakening and where, by the force of things, the Jews, having a refashioned country somewhere else, could no longer be considered as nationals of those countries. Christianus. French original of first page (p.151), second page (p.152), third and final page of article (p.153) Feb. 1920 Stimmen der Zeit “Masses and Führer” In times of a people’s greatest need, only great leaders can help. There is complaining among us that they are nowhere to be found. They must be born, some console themselves, and that is something no one can force to happen. The genius, of course, flashes out in the darkness, unexpected, with no preparation, a gift of nature, God’s gift to humanity. So too the leader whose like has not been seen for centuries, who is enormously creative with a master hand, who streams forth thoughts and deeds from a fullness of spirit and power, who appears unmediated and unconquerable. But these human wonders are not the only capabilities for leadership. There are, alongside the common average and the boring mediocrity, powerful ones who tower above, light-bearers who are strong in themselves, who stride toward the sun and lead toward the sun. They are significant, but not incomparable; they have brought along into the world a secret of power and mastery, towards which their effectiveness and momentum flow, however, only through training and experience. They can be formed as leaders, their form must really be chiseled out of the marble, because limbs and features, clothes and posture, are only hinted at in their being and await their completion. The training of leaders is the greatest task of the future. It stands in the ranks of the most important duties. Whoever spends just a few years to train up a dozen virtuous leaders has fulfilled a more valuable duty than if he had guided hundreds of fellow travelers through the struggle of life. For the endurance of the masses is faltering, and their influence is trifling. There is a lack of capable, resolute, tenacious leaders who stand watch over the fire with the bellows, to heat it and stir it up, to awaken the dying embers from amidst the ashes. Their flaming breath nourishes the chilled zeal of those who are easy come, easy go, of the burdened souls, of the hesitant. They accomplish hundred-fold work. The circle whose outer bounds are reached by the hand of the capable leader is incomparably greater than the narrow enclosures of a whole crowd of mediocrities... p.342: Leaders are to be taken from among the youth leaders and the youth associations, from the party leadership and parties, from academic circles and practical schools and from their leaders, from the circles of clergy and religious orders... p.348: A noteworthy new direction is winning the day in the specialized training of leaders. In politicians’ circles, there is increasing talk of the logical and dialectical formation of leaders. [footnote: Especially noteworthy in this regard is the article: “The School of Statesmen” by W. von Massow in the Preussische Jahrbüchern, vol. 177 (Aug. 1919), pp. 165 ff., and in the book by Dr. H. Schidkunz, The Formation of a Politician (Berlin, 1919, Dümmler).] The lack of a rich spiritual foundation has all too often harmed us… p.349: What is demanded here for politicians is necessary for all leaders… In all fields, the thoughtlessness of the masses must be bounded by the cultivation of logical thought, and their superstitious devotion to slogans extinguished by the brightness of a refuting and uplifting word of truth. That is the task of all logically and dialectically trained leaders of the future, filled with moral strength and earnestness. By Stanislaus von Dunin-Borkowski, S.J. German original: page 337 - 338 - 339 - 340 - 341 - 342 - 343 - 344 - 345 - 346 - 347 - 348 - 349 Feb. 4, 1920 19-Point Memorandum of Pacelli, “Punktation II”: 1. The Church has the full and free right to appoint to all Church offices without involvement of the State or the Communiities. The private Patronato right remains preserved intact, to the extent that it is still lawful according to the provisions of Canon Law. 2. For the appointment of professors of the theological faculties in the universities, there must be advance consent from the Diocesan Bishop. In consideration of students of philosophy who intend to devote themselves to the study of theology, there shall be employed in the philosophical faculties of the Universities of Munich and Würzburg at least one professor of philosophy and one professor of history whose Catholic standpoint is sound in the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop. 3. Professors in the Lyceums are appointed by the Government upon the recommendation of the Diocesan Bishop. In their internal administration the Lyceums are subject to the Bishop. 4. Religious instruction remains in all middle schools a subject of the curriculum. The religion teachers in these schools will be appointed, upon the Bishop’s recommendation, by the Government, which provides the necessary means for them. 5. Professors of the theological faculties and lyceums, and religion teachers whom the Diocesan Bishop considers incapable or unsuited to continue in their teaching position by reason of their doctrine or moral conduct will be removed from their position. 6. The State provides for a sufficient number of Catholic male and female teacher training institutes. Teachers who want to be employed in Catholic schools must attend these institutes and participate in religious instruction during their entire time of formation. The private teacher training institutes are on an equal basis with the governmental ones, if they fulfill the same requirements. 7. For access to teaching positions and for employment in primary schools or higher teaching positions, members of orders and religious congregations will be subject to no different requirements than lay persons. 8. In all Communities where parents or others responsible for childrearing submit a proposal, Catholic elementary schools must be erected, insofar as a sufficient number of students is reported for them. 9. In all primary schools religious instruction remains a subject of the curriculum in its previous dimensions. For students in the primary schools as in higher learning institutions, opportunity must be given for the fulfillment of their religious obligations. 10. Oversight of religious instruction and religious-moral life in the primary and middle schools belongs to the Diocesan Bishop. He exercises it either directly in his own person or via his delegees. The Bishop submits his complaints, based on observations made, or his proposals, to the State Government, which effects what is necessary to resolve them. 11. Orders and religious congregations are authorized, under the general legislative provisions, to found and conduct private schools. These private schools give the same titles as the governmental ones. 12. The Bavarian State will fulfill for the future its property-law-based obligations resting on law, treaty or particular title of right toward the Catholic Church. Expressly declared as such titles of right are, among other things, the Herkommen agreement, the Concordat of 1817 and the property-law-based obligations recognized by the Reich Deputation Main Committee itself. In the discharge of these obligations, the Bavarian State will take into account changes in the value of money and actual needs, and especially the so-called facultative and revocable State subsidies. Payments must occur in a form that avoids the effects of a rapid devaluation. Moreover, those Concordat-imposed obligations that the State has formerly not fulfilled or not sufficiently fulfilled will also be taken into consideration. 13. Governmental buildings and real estate that currently serve Church purposes directly or indirectly will be left to the Church free of charge for continuing and unrestricted use. The State will fulfill its obligations for building maintenance in their previous dimensions for the future and will take responsibility in cases of need for new buildings. 14. The Church’s property and its property rights remain secured forever. 15. The Church has the right to raise taxes. The State will raise these taxes together with State taxes in return for equitable compensation. 16. For the army, penal institutions and caring institutions as well as hospitals, a regular pastoral care will be set up. To the extent institutions of the Bavarian State are involved, it will provide the necessary means to support pastoral care and worship. 17. The State undertakes the obligation to recognize the order of Church authorities within the sphere of their competence and in case of need for implementation of the same, guarantees its support whenever this is requested. 18. In the exercise of their office, clergy enjoy the protection of the State, which will not allow, but rather punish, calumnies against their person and disturbances of their conduct of office. 19. Orders and religious congregations can be freely founded and are subject to no restriction by the State in relation to their establishments and the number of their members. To the extent they have previously enjoyed the rights of a public corporation, these remain guaranteed to them; the others acquire and retain legal capacity or the rights of a public corporation according to provisions of law that are applicable to all citizens or societies. Their property and their other rights are guaranteed to them. They administer their property and order their affairs independent of the State. Source: Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt. No. 6617 Feb. 10, 1920 Schioppa to Faulhaber: Your Excellency! Most Reverend Herr Archbishop! With Letter No. 14,899 of November 28th this past year, I allowed myself to share confidentially with the most reverend Archbishops and Bishops of Bavaria the points that are to form the articles for the upcoming agreement between the Holy See and the Bavarian Government, so as to enable the most reverend supreme shepherds to express their authoritative views. The kindly expressed observations already given by the most reverend supreme shepherds, as well as further studies and incisive counsels, have suggested several modifications and additions. The revised points were recently submitted by me to the judgment of the Holy See, and the Holy See has found itself moved to approve these as “sehr gut.” Frankly, whether the recommended points will be attainable is another question and hardly can be hoped; but nevertheless one must ask for what is fair and right. Since Herr Minister President Hoffmann asked that the Holy See express its desires as to the content and form of the negotiations for the new agreement , the aforementioned points have been submitted by me in the name of the Holy See to the said Herr Minister with Letter No. 15,750 of the 4th of this month. As to what concerns the formal aspect, I have likewise received authorization to share with Herr Hoffmann that negotiations about agreements with the Holy See customarily are accomplished in Rome, but that, in order to accommodate the Bavarian Government in every way, the Holy See is prepared to conduct them in this case in Munich itself and has entrusted me for this as its representative. I hasten now to hand Your Excellency a confidential copy of the aforementioned points and it would be ever appreciated if You, as before, would share with me Your wise counsel in this so difficult and important matter, on which the future of the Catholic Church in our beloved Bavaria depends. In deepest reverence, commending himself as Your Excellency’s most devoted servant, I.A. Dr. Schioppa, Auditor Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 7482 Feb. 14, 1920 Gasparri to Pacelli: It has just now been reported to the Holy See that the leader of the Bavarian Center Party, Dr. Heim, has let slip in public a statement to the effect that the Holy See itself has shown its preference for the secession of Bavaria from the German Reich. I believe it superfluous to put it to Your Excellency how it is the constant principle of the Holy See to stay remote from all purely political questions and thus, how no statement would have been made by It to the effect indicated. It would desire, therefore, to deny publicly what Dr. Heim has attributed to the Holy See, in the event, to be sure, that it would turn out that he publicly expressed such a thought. If it is shown that he did this privately, Your Excellency may arrange to make known, in a confidential manner, the complete groundlessness of his affirmation. In any case, since it is reported that the attitude attributed to the Holy See by Dr. Heim has made a profound impression on the lower clergy of Bavaria, see to it, Your Excellency, how best to correct that impression... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1563. Note: This communiqué may have been given to Nuncio Pacelli in Rome rather than transmitted to Munich. Pacelli traveled to Rome around February 10, 1920, the date of his mother’s death. He did not return to Munich until two months later, arriving on the night before April 12, 1920, according to the Bayerischer Kurier of that date. On March 5, 1920, the Auditor of the Munich Nunciature, Msgr. Schioppa, wrote Cardinal Gasparri that he had just received the Feb. 14 communiqué. See below. Feb. 14, 1920 Schioppa, Auditor of Munich Nunciature, to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, Baron Cramer-Klett came to see me upon his return from Berlin, where he had gone at the request of the Government to confer in general on the conditions in Italy and in particular on the question of German Representation at the Holy See. The aforesaid Baron charged me to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence how he carried out his duty to say what would be the current point of view of the Central Government concerning said Representation, subject to awaiting the decision that Prussia will take in this regard. The Reich Government is very much inclined to transform the Prussian Legation at the Holy See into an Embassy; and, to support the venerated desire of the Holy Father, would be disposed to have the Bavarian Legation remain alongside this Embassy, but only temporarily (provisionally), that is, so long as the all the issues arising in Bavaria in consequence of the well-known political changes have not been completely resolved with the Holy See. In this sense, the Bavarian People’s Party would have to work to overcome the difficulties that will certainly be put forward by Minister-President Hoffmann, who has already spoken in some way for the abolition of the aforesaid Bavarian Legation (see Report No. 15420), and Cramer-Klett has therefore spoken in this regard with one of the Leaders of the mentioned Party, who promised him to act in this direction. The Baron believes that this proposal could be accepted; 1st) because if the Prussian Legation were not transformed into a German Embassy, the “Reich,” as such, would not be represented at the Holy See, since until now the prevailing tendency is that the “Reich” itself should not be considered more unitary with Prussia; and thus the aforesaid Legation could not per se represent more than just Prussia; 2nd) because it can easily be foreseen that the solution of issues alluded to between Bavaria and the Holy See will proceed at great length and thus an abolition of the Bavarian Legation is not to be feared in the near future; 3rd) because, once the German Embassy is created, it does not seem possible that a new reduction of the rank of the Legation would follow, in case the Bavarian Government would ask, in consequence, that its provisional Legation at the Holy See would become permanent; finally 4th) because the status quo ante is no longer possible. The Central Government has every interest in showing that Prussia no longer has hegemony in Germany. A Prussian Legation at the Holy See would now represent just the opposite. The same Baron told me that the Archbishop of Munich, to whom he has spoken of the matter, expressed a view contrary to his proposed solution, fearing that the enemies of the Church in Bavaria could take advantage of the provisional situation of the Bavarian Diplomatic Representative at the Holy See as an occasion to demand its suppression. The Baron, however, does not share this fear of Archbishop von Faulhaber and believes the proposal from Berlin can definitely be accepted, in the event, naturally, that the Holy Father deigns to approve it. Meanwhile, Baron Cramer-Klett would like to know the August Thought of His Holiness in this regard. He believes that if the Central Government could eventually say to Prussia that this is indeed the desire of the Holy See, it would perhaps be easier to obtain its consent. My interlocutor further said to me that Mr. von Grünau, the Relator for Vatican Affairs at the Foreign Ministry in Berlin, told him that the German Government will strongly desire the creation of a Nunciature in Berlin, not at all in opposition to the continuance of that in Munich, and would urgently desire that this Berlin Nunciature be made a fait accompli as soon as possible, so that the Apostolic Nuncio can be given precedence over the other Diplomatic Representatives, who currently are only Chargés d'Affaires and who later, when they are eventually elevated to the rank of Ministers or Ambassadors, will have to acknowledge the indisputable precedence acquired by the Pontifical Representative. Finally, the aforementioned Baron told me that, having spoken about the issue with Minister Erzberger who assured him - with his accustomed optimism - that with the first of next March the Prussian Legation at the Holy See should be transformed into the German Embassy. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Lorenzo Schioppa, Auditor Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1018. Feb. 14, 1920 La Documentation Catholique, published in France, on Italian parliamentary electoral struggles, including quotation from L’Osservatore Romano: After having explained that Church authority remains, and intends to remain, completely removed from the struggle, not wanting to take part in purely political questions, in order to stay apart from and above them, but that there are moral duties that all are obligated to observe, the author [in L’Osservatore Romano] continues thus: ... This concerns a great battle that Christianity is forced to undertake on terrain that is political and social, a veritable battle pro aris et focis [Latin: for our sanctuaries and our homes]. Anyone who would give his vote, for whatever reason or upon whatever pretext, to one or another of the representatives of Masonry or Bolshevism, makes himself guilty of treason, a monstrous sin, for which he will have to answer before God, before the nation, before Christian civilization, doubly traitorous, to the supreme and vital interests of religion and morality. Source: Documentation Catholique, Feb. 14, 1920, no. 54, pp. 249-250, quoting L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 8, 1919. Feb. 15, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, page 50: “The Old and New Jerusalem” ... We, however, want to dwell upon this longer and hear what the deeply fallen Daughter of Zion speaks for our warning, our healing, and our salvation; for now has come to pass what the Lord threatened her through the prophet Ezekiel when he said: “Jerusalem! You shall become a shame, a mockery, a warning and a wonder to the peoples, because I have allowed my judgment to come upon you ...” Feb. 15, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, page 51: “How Does the Internationalism of Freemasonry Arise?” The origin of the Freemasons is usually placed back in the 18th century in England ... That the Freemasons want to rule is also explained by their hatred toward the “infamy.” This class of men does not sympathize with the Christian religion ... But the striving for dominion by the Freemasons and those in solidarity with them for attaining their goal in the various states demands yet a further explanatory cause. The Freemasons recruit in great measure from the influential, well-capitalized adherents of Jewry. The Christian Middle Ages rejected persecution of Jews... But the princes and people protected themselves against the exploitation and arrogance of many Jews. And the Christian Middle Ages certainly never conceded to Jews complete social and political equality with Christians. For the Christian Middle Ages regarded the Jews as a particular nationality, not merely as a religious group ... The [Masonic] Lodge-Jews have brought with them this spirit of sticking together and belonging together... and they keep this from the Talmud: “God gave all peoples (thus dominion over them) and their property to the Israelites.” Thus it is explained how the Lodge-Idealists for centuries have initiated the greatest revolutions. It is sadly true that such a clique terrorizes everyone and binds them in chains. German original Feb. 15, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, page 51: “Archbishop’s Decrees” In connection with this year’s pastoral letter, His Excellency the Most Reverend Lord Archbishop issues the following: Fasting Duty. Abstinence, that is abstaining from meat dishes, all Catholics have to observe on all Fridays of the year, except when Friday falls on a prescribed feast day... Easter Duty. All Catholics in the Archdiocese must, during the Easter season, that is from the 3rd Sunday of Lent through the 3rd Sunday after Easter (March 7th to April 25th), receive the Holy Sacraments of Confession and Eucharist. Whoever fails to receive Easter Communion and dies without having come to confess this failure, will be shut out from Church burial. Marriage under the Blessing of the Church. Engaged couples shall go to the office of the parish they belong to, and present a copy of their baptismal certificate, before notifying the state registry office. Catholics can only enter into a valid marriage before their Catholic pastor or his vicar. A validly entered marriage remains absolutely indissoluble until the death of one of the spouses; thus a re-marriage during the lifetime of the spouses is impossible, even if a divorce has been decreed by a civil court. A Church dispensation for entry into a mixed marriage will only be given if the Catholic upbringing of all children is guaranteed by a notarized contract. Whoever does not have his children baptized and raised Catholic thereby cuts himself off from the Catholic Church. Religious Upbringing and Religious Life. Catholic parents are obligated by conscience to have all their children take part in Catholic religious instruction and to send them, insofar as possible, to a Catholic denominational school... Participation in gatherings of Adventists, Spiritists and other opponents of the Church, as well as reading their writings and books, is forbidden under punishment of excommunication. Resigning from the Church and falling away from the faith have been considered since Apostolic times to be very grave sins; they incur excommunication with all its consequences. Papers that endanger faith and morals and attack the Church may not be possessed or read by Catholics. Associations for Each State in Life. Youth, just like children, should enroll in a Catholic association corresponding to their state in life. Such associations have been established in nearly all parishes of the Archdiocese. Especially recommended for youth are the Catholic Youth Association ... for students the Catholic Student Congregation ... for domestics servants in the province the Catholic Servants’ Association ... for laborers the Catholic Men’s Worker Association or the Catholic Women’s Worker Association ... for business-oriented vocations the Catholic Business Association Hansa or Young Hansa ... and the Association for Female Business Office Workers and Helpers ..., for women the Catholic Women’s League ... Those who want to travel abroad may turn to the office of the Association for Catholic Germany Abroad ... Single women who move into the city alone are exposed to great dangers. They should report their arrival to the Marian Single Women’s Protection Association, by means of a card that can be picked up at the train station. For poor, crippled, physically or morally endangered or neglected children and youth, care is provided by the Catholic Youth Care Association of the Archdiocese ... Church Burial. For the seriouslly ill, clergy should be called in a timely manner. Catholics who have given instructions for their body to be cremated are shut out, unless they revoke such instructions, from the Sacrament of Last Rites. Also, upon their death, no funeral mass can be conducted for them. German original Feb. 15, 1920 “Vatican Review,” Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 7, page 53: ... The Moslem and Catholic Arabs living in Palestine have protested in a memorandum to the Pope against England’s Jew-friendly policy in the Holy Land. Feb. 15, 1920 “Vatican Review,” Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 7, page 53:The recently reported appointment of a Dr. Krofta as Czech Ambassador is not yet final; all sorts of elements within the Czech Government are struggling for the upper hand, and it is questionable which will be the victor. In the end the victor will of course be the Church, which will still be standing there unbowed, while later generations will be shaking their heads and asking themselves who this Masaryk and Krofta might have been long ago. Byline: Friedrich Ritter von Lama German original Feb. 16, 1920 Faulhaber to Ambassador Baron Otto von Ritter zu Groenesteyn: Most esteemed Herr Baron! Up to now I have not expressed myself about pending issues because everything here is still unclear and in continual flux, and because one hears from many quarters that the postal police at the Bavarian borders open letters. Meanwhile you have had occasion to discuss our pressing issues with the Lord Nuncio personally, thus in a much more authentic manner. It has been a fight to the finish for me to win and prevent the surrender of the Bavarian Embassy to the Vatican: On January 15th Count Zech was with me and told me that the Prussian National Assembly, which is currently setting the record for particularism, will hold onto their Prussian Embassy so long as Bavaria sticks with its Embassy. I was able to answer him that Bavaria really possesses here an entirely different Church law basis in its Concordat and Nunciature, and could also point to an entirely different title of right in Church history. On February 13th Baron von Cramer-Klett came to me direct from Berlin and tried to win me over in the first place for a Reich Embassy that would carry water for the other Catholic provinces of the Reich, and for this additionally: The Bavarian Embassy could, until further notice, be maintained. I had to answer him: In the meantime the position of the Holy See has been established in two articles, “either a new embassy while maintaining the previous one, or the status quo ante,” and I did not consider myself entitled to twist the meaning by adding anything. In Berlin it was said to him that a status quo ante is now impossible on account of the totally changed personal relationships in the leadership of Prussia and the Reich. The Bavarian Volkspartei states that it was not to be previously consulted on the issue, and if the assertion to that effect in the well-known letter to Berlin ever comes to be publicly examined, there will be quarrels here or there. The Lord Nuncio is clear on the issue and has walked a straight path, and we cannot be thankful enough to him for that. Shortsighted politicians will let themselves be caught up in the view that the Reich Nuncio should be kept in Munich. Essentially, however, a Reich Nunciature in Munich would mean the same annihilation of the last Bavarian special right, and the same Reich-ifying, or better said, impoverishment, of the Church in Bavaria, as would be done by having the Reich Nunciature in Berlin. I still continue to trust that Vatican diplomacy, which has shown itself under Eminence Gasparri to be so magnificent in recent years in superlative ways, will indeed not cooperate with all the political somersaults and will think especially of the future. In any case, these days and their outcome have a long-term significance. More on this and other issues, I do not venture to allow myself, at the same time Your Excellency can draw more from the primary source. With the expression of my most upright respect, I remain Your Excellency’s Most Devoted, +Michael F., Archbishop of Munich Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 1352 Feb. 18, 1920 Faulhaber to Schioppa: Most Reverend Herr Prelate! With devoted thanks I confirm the receipt of the 19 negotiating points under confidentiality. In the permanent advisory commission that exists here to advise the political authorities, we will take this up in detail on the afternoon of the day after tomorrow. At the same time I am in correspondence with the Lord Archbishop of Bamberg in order to achieve a common position of the Bavarian Bishops. However, since the principles for the dissolution will be established by the Reich, and the Bavarian Education Minister will seek in this field, as in the school issue, to attain via the Reich what he cannot attain in Bavaria, it will be necessary to bring about an agreed position with the Bishops of the entire Reich well before the establishment of the Reich principles. Also in that the Lord Archbishop of Bamberg is of the same opinion. The situation is exceedingly serious, and all personal considerations must be set aside to the utmost in order to effect more freedom for the Church in Bavaria than in the Concordat of 100 years ago. With the expression of my pre-eminently high esteem Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 7480 Feb. 24, 1920 Nazi Party program: 1. We demand the unification of all Germans into a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples. 2. We demand equality of rights for the German Volk with respect to other nations, and annulment of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain. 3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our Volk, and colonization for our surplus population. 4. Citizens can only be those who are members of the Volk. A member of the Volk can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of denomination. Therefore no Jew can be a member of the Volk. 5. Whoever is not a citizen shall be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be subject to legislation concerning foreigners. 6. The right to decide about leadership and laws of the State may only belong to a citizen. Therefore we demand that all public offices, no matter what kind, whether in the Reich, the states, or the local communities, may be occupied only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary system of filling positions only according to party affiliations without consideration of character or abilities. 7. We demand that the State be obligated first of all to provide opportunity for livelihood and living for the citizens. If it is not possible to sustain the entire population of the State, then the adherents of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich. 8. All further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have immigrated to Germany since August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich immediately. 9. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties. 10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to produce both mentally and physically. The activity of the individual may not violate the interests of the common good, but rather must operate within the framework of the whole and for the benefit of all. Therefore we demand: 11. Abolition of income not earned by work and labor. Breaking of interest-slavery. 12. In consideration of the enormous sacrifice in property and blood that every war demands of the Volk, personal enrichment through war must be branded a crime against the Volk. Therefore we demand the complete confiscation of all war profits. 13. We demand the nationalization of all (previously) incorporated enterprises (trusts). 14. We demand profit-sharing by large enterprises. 15. We demand a large-scale expansion of public assistance for the elderly. 16. We demand the establishment of a financially sound middle class and its preservation, immediate communalization of large warehouses and leasing of their space at low cost to small businesses, and the focused consideration of all small businesses for contracts with federal, state, and local government. 17. We demand a land reform appropriate to our national needs, enactment of a law for uncompensated appropriation of land for purposes of the public interest, abolition of ground-rents and prevention of all land speculation. 18. We demand uncompromising war against those whose activity violates the common good. Common criminals against the Volk, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of denomination or race. 19. We demand the replacement of Roman law, which serves a materialistic world order, by German common law. 20. In order to enable every capable and diligent German to attain higher education and thereby a path into leading positions, the State is to bear the responsibility for a fundamental reconstruction of the entire educational program for our Volk. The instructional plans of all educational institutions are to be suited to the requirements of practical life. A grasp of the concept of the State must be imparted by the school (citizenship education) from the earliest age of reason. We demand State-funded education of especially intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of class or occupation. 21. The State is responsible for improving national health by protection of mother and child, by prohibition of child labor, by encouragement of physical fitness by means of legal enactment of a duty to engage in gymnastics and sports, and by the utmost support for all associations concerned with the physical education of youth. 22. We demand the abolition of mercenary troops and the formation of a Volk-army. 23. We demand a legal war on verifiable lies and their promulgation by the press. In order to enable the establishment of a German press, we demand that: a) All writers and employees of newspapers published in the German language must be members of the Volk. b) Non-German newspapers need express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language. c) Any financial interest in German newspapers, or influence upon them, by non-Germans is forbidden by law and punishable, for a violation, by the closing of such a newspaper, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the interested non-Germans. Newspapers that violate the common good are to be forbidden. We demand a legal war against artistic and literary forms that exert a destructive influence on the life of our Volk and the closing of organizations that violate the foregoing demands. 24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, so long as they do not endanger its existence or offend against the morals and ethics of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to a particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our Volk can only succeed from the inside out on this foundation: common good before self-interest. 25. For the execution of all this we demand the establishment of a strong central Reich power. Unconditional authority of the central parliament over the entire Reich and all its organizations. The formation of chambers by estates and occupations for implementing, in the individual states of the federation, the framework of laws decreed by the Reich. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary at the risk of their own lives, to work relentlessly for the realization of the foregoing points. Source: Georg Franz-Willig, Nationalsozialismus (Rosenheim: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1993), Anhang [Appendix], pp. 32-33. Feb. 25, 1920 Völkischer Beobachter, page one: “A Jewish Secret Document” In the Russian newspaper “Prizyv” (The Call) of February 6, 1920 is found the following significant article. It says, in literal translation: In the hostile encounter with Bolshevik regiments on the Estonian border on December 9th of last year, an interesting document in the Yiddish language was found in the pocket of a fallen battalion commander of the 11th Infantry Regiment named Sunder, which tells us about the activity and secret organization of the Jews in Russia. We quote it without alteration or commentary: “Secret! To the directors of the detachments of the International League of Israelites. “Sons of Israel! The hour of our final victory is near! We stand on the eve of our world domination. That of which we could previously only dream, is being transformed into reality. Recently still weak and helpless, we are now proudly lifting up our heads, thanks to revolution throughout the world. “Nevertheless we must be prudent, because it can be said with conviction that, having advanced over the destroyed altars and thrones, we now must continue yet further on the path we have determined. “We have subjected the authority and morals of the religion that is foreign to us to a relentless critique by successful propaganda. We destroyed foreign holy places, we threw into confusion the cultures and traditions of countries and empires. We did everything to subject the Russian people to our domination and to force them to fall on their knees before us. We have attained nearly everything, nevertheless we must be prudent, because our worst enemy is subjugated Russia. The victory that our spirit has carried off can yet be turned against us in the next generation. “Russia is totally destroyed and is completely in our power, but do not forget for a moment that we must be prudent! The holy concern for our security allows for now sympathy and now mercy in us. By means of taking their goods and possessions and gold, we have transformed this people into pitiful slaves. Be careful and discreet! We may not have pity on our enemies; we must eliminate the best and leading elements, so that subjugated Russia has no leaders. Thereby we will destroy any possibility that they can recover their power. We must arouse hatred among parties and incite a struggle between farmers and workers. “War and class struggle destroy the cultural treasures that have been created by the Christian peoples. But be prudent, sons of Israel! Our victory is near, because our political and economic power and our influence on the masses of people are growing stronger. We are buying up gold and Reich bonds and thus have predominance in the stock exchanges of the world. We have power in our hands, but be prudent! Do not trust false and dark elements! “Bronstein, Apfelbaum, Rosenfeld, Steinberg – all of them, as many others also, are true sons of Israel! Our power in Russia is unlimited. In the cities, commissariats, provisioning offices, etc., the representatives of our nation play the main role. Do not let yourselves be intoxicated by victory! Be prudent, because no one can stand up for us except we ourselves. “Think of this, that the Red Army cannot be trusted, because it can suddenly turn its weapons against us. “Sons of Israel! The hour of our long-sought victory over Russia is near! Form tight ranks! Preach loudly the national policy of our people! Fight for our eternal ideals!” The most secret goals of Judaism come to the fore, undisguised, in this secret circular letter of the Jews in Russia; who can doubt that the whole of Jewry throughout the world participates in this struggle with their innermost desires. Thus is it entirely unthinkable that today’s Jews in Germany work hand in hand with the members of their race in Russia? German original, Völkischer Beobachter, Feb. 25, 1920, p.1. Feb. 25, 1920 Völkischer Beobachter, page 4: “Bolshevism and Jewry” Our lead essay in the next to last issue finds a significant complement by way of a notice in the “Silesian News,” no. 27. The paper writes: “The leading role of Jews in the introduction and spreading of Bolshevism has until now been disputed by interested elements and characterized as antisemitic or just agitation by Germans. Thus it is noteworthy that the leadership of the Jews in the Revolution is not only openly admitted by Jewish elements, but even highlighted with a certain pride.” Herr M. Kohan does this in an article, “The Service that Jewry has Rendered to the Worker,” in no. 7 of the “Communist” newspaper of April 12, 1919. Secondly, it should be added that the “Communist” is published in the Russian city Charlow. Herr Kohan’s article says: “All possible reactionary and military elements and councils introduce land reforms, divide the land among the workers, establish the eight-hour workday and throw other bait to the workers, only in order to keep themselves in control ... It can be said without exaggeration that the great Russian social revolution [soziale Revolution] was equally a work of the Jews. And the Jews have not only led – no, still more, Soviet business rests in their dependable hands. We can be at ease so long as the supreme command of the Red Army rests in the hands of Lev Trotsky. It is true that the Jews do not serve as common soldiers in the ranks of the Red Army: but in the committees, in the councils of deputies and as commissars, the Jews audaciously and fearlessly lead the masses of the Russian proletariat to victory. Not for nothing do the Jews press into all Soviet governing bodies by means of elections. Not for nothing do we repeat that the Russian proletariat elects as head and leader the Jew Braunstein-Trotsky ...” If Jewry, striving for world domination, blinds the masses to this, drives them into misery, and makes them serve the purposes of Jewry, then Jewry is the “representative of the proletariat released from the chains of slavery.” If non-Jews and their colleagues from among their people collaborate to find a way toward the future, then it is “reactionary” elements doing this to “keep themselves in control.” As the Jews, however, audaciously and fearlessly kept the war going in war societies and other positions, in the writing bureaus of the communications department, etc., then they are “audaciously and fearlessly” leading the masses of the proletariat, “in the committees, in the councils of deputies and as commissars,” to victory. How long is the world going to keep letting themselves be taken for fools? German original, Völkischer Beobachter, Feb. 25, 1920, p.2. Feb. 26, 1920 Faulhaber to Bertram: Most Reverend Lord Cardinal and Prince Bishop! Your Eminence was so kind as to send the minutes of the January Fulda Conference, for which I am most devotedly grateful, and to raise the issue whether, in consideration of the common momentous fate that presently binds together in solidarity the German North and South in Church- and school-issues, a closer liaison between the Prussian and Bavarian Episcopates might not be something to strive for, and whether the two Bishops Conferences of Fulda and Freising should enter into a closer relationship via a committee comprising both sides. In fact the new Reich Constitution casts the Church in North and South upon each other; otherwise the upcoming Reich school law will create the foundations for the schooling arrangements in the individual member States, and even the general principles for the dissolution laws of the individual States will be established by the Reich. All of that makes a mutual coming together about the basic contours of the Church’s demands imperative. .. For the participation of a Bavarian Bishop in the Fulda Conference, the Freising Conference has already imparted authority, as previously stated. A reciprocal representation of the Most Reverend Lords of Fulda at the Conference in Freising is something I will recommend at the first opportunity to the Bavarian Episcopate, and I do not doubt that it will welcome this reciprocal recommendation gratefully, as it is also an express desire of the Apostolic Nunciature. I will allow myself to share the result as soon as possible. The priest Dr. Eggersdorfer, professor and delegate of the Bavarian Volkspartei, will pull together a little handbook with the Church Canons, governmental decrees and other important announcements about schooling, and he asks me in that regard whether he may make reference to or quote from Your Eminence’s most recent memorandum about schooling, which unfortunately I do not have at hand, or whether that memorandum is for now in no way intended for the public. In deepest reverence, I remain Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 3220 Feb. 26, 1920 Faulhaber to the Bavarian Bishops: Your Episcopal Graces! I. His Excellency the Archbishop of Bamberg has made a recommendation dated February 15th in reference to a decision of the extraordinary January Fulda Conference in Fulda, to institute a drafting commission under my chairmanship for preparatory consultations about the Church-State issues in Munich, such commission to consist of experts from the clergy and laymen who are loyal to the Church, and its memorandum to be presented in draft form to all the Bishops and Ordinariates for examination. As members of this drafting commission, Excellency von Hauck recommends: Auxiliary Bishop Senger, Prelate Buchberger, Prelate Pichler, Dr. Beyerle, Dr. von Knilling, Dr. von Haiss. In a letter from a Bavarian Ordinariate, however, reservations were raised against Dr. Beyerle on account of his optimistic view of the Reich Constitution and against Dr. von Knilling. For the outstanding essay by Herr von Knilling in the last issue of the Allgemeine Rundschau, however, we can frankly only be grateful. In the advisory commission that already exists in Munich, which at the moment is diligently at work and has discussed the 19 points for many hours, there are, in addition to myself: Prelate Buchberger, Cathedral Deacon Kiefl, Delegates Held, Wohlmuth and Eggersdorfer, along with Professors Eichmann and Scharnagl, Ministerial Counsel Goldenberger and two gentlemen from the Supreme Administrative Court. It is a question whether these could not now be set up with the confidential commission and material for the new mission in liaison with Dr. Senger and Dr. Pichler. The most important matters for consultation are surely the following three: 1. Foundations for the new drafting of the Concordat on the basis of the 19 points that were sent to the Most Reverend Lords on February 10th by the Nunciature. There still remains a one-sidedness and a major hindrance, that the Church side of the negotiation, at the request of the Minister President, made known its bottom line demands without the counter-demands of the governmental side being made known. It almost has the appearance that the Minister President only wanted to know the Church’s demands so he could better arm himself to attack them. In any event the Holy Father wants “una nuova convenzione” [Italian: a new concordat] for Bavaria, and on the part of the Cabinet Ministry, they are pushing to give the Church its walking papers [fn: German Scheidebrief, which appears in German translations of scripture for the Biblical/Judaic term meaning “bill of divorce”] if possible before the elections [which occurred on June 6, 1920]. The final negotiations about the new concordat are naturally a matter for the Apostolic See, but the Nunciature expressly desires to know the united joint view of the Bishops, and at the same time we jointly bear the responsibility for the long-term future. 2. The general outlines for the dissolution. The details for the dissolution cannot yet be established today, so long as the counter-proposals from the governmental side are not known. Since, however, the State legislative implementation of Articles 137 and 138 follows from principles set down by the Reich, it is a matter now of setting up these principles around eminently Bavarian interests, as Minister Hoffmann is known to be seeking to attain via Berlin what he cannot attain for his goals in Bavaria. The Prussian Bishops have already set forth principles for the dissolution and instituted a drafting commission to handle them further. 3. The Reich school conferences for preparation of the Reich school law. It will be very difficult if not impossible to overturn what is specified by the Reich school law in the field of schooling. The Stuttgart 8 points, reportedly authored by Minister Hoffmann, show with frightening clarity what we have to expect from the Reich in this regard; Hoffmann himself considers the current school conferences in Berlin to be so important that he begged off participating in the Ministerial trip to the Palatinate. In local educational circles the confessional curriculum is now coming under discussion. II. Excellency von Hauck makes the further recommendation: When the drafts of the drafting commission are ready at hand, the Bavarian Bishops should then gather for a conference regarding the draft and indeed in Munich, in order to be spared the time-consuming trip to and from Freising. All of this, naturally, as material for the Landtag delegates and as material for the final negotiations between Nunciature and State Government. I ask you most devotedly to express yourselves on this recommendation. For my part, the Most Reverend Lords would be most cordially welcomed in Munich as well as in Freising. As further points for a possible Bishops’ conference I would allow myself for now to recommend: Introduction of a State tax for the Church – protection of the religious orders that care for the sick, against revolutionary attaks – the new labor union strife among female helpers and office-holders in commerce – the Bishop-Graces of Eichstätt are of the opinion, in consideration of the travel difficulties to be expected currently, to question whether a Bishops’ conference will be considered necessary after examination of the commission’s draft. III. Cardinal Bertram of Breslau asked me at the charge of the extraordinary Fulda Bishops Conference whether, in consideration of the interest of solidarity of the Church in the North and the South, a representative from Bavaria to conferences of the Prussian Bishops should not be arranged, and vice versa. The Apostolic Nunciature expressed to me the direct desire for that I have a working relationship with the other German Bishops in view of the common issues of the Reich Constitution and the Reich school law… IV. The Apostolic Nunciature assigned me to share a resolution of the Cardinal Secretary of State: “The extraordinary authorities conferred upon the Bishops by the Consistorial Congregation’s decree of April 25, 1918, which were to expire 6 months after the signing of a peace treaty, remain in effect regardless of the signing of the peace treaty that was concluded already on June 28, 1919.” V. On this occasion I have the honor to share with the Most Reverend Lords of Regensburg, Augsburg and Passau further information from the Consistorial Congregation of January 23, 1920: In consideration of the exchange rates and the great losses in changing Marks into Lira, the Holy Father wants to come to the aid of the German Bishops and therefore allows them, for taxes on rescripts, briefs and Apostolic Bulls, to exchange Marks according to their nominal value in Lira, thus 10 Marks = 10 Lira … Since I have received from America a wealth of free-will gifts in money and especially in high mass stipends, I am in a position to send stipends to the Most Reverend Lords in a discreet manner for special instances of poverty, including those of clergy. The extremely sad fact that the yield of the Papal international assembly for the Day of the Innocent Child is to be distributed by the Swiss Committee of the Red Cross, headed by an English Protestant woman, has surely become directly known by the Most Reverend Lords. I have written the Caritas office in Freiburg that during the war we had painful disputes precisely with the Red Cross on account of its inter-confessional care for youth, and that in my opinion the Bishops are the hands of the Pope not merely to collect but also once again to distribute. With official fraternal greeting and in upright highest respect I remain, Your Episcopal Grace Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 4300 Feb. 28, 1920 Gasparri to Schioppa, Auditor of Munich Nunciature: Most Illustrious and Reverend Signore, I have received Your Excellency’s Report No. 15887 of February 14 regarding “German Diplomatic Representation at the Holy See.” I have carefully taken consideration of the proposal of the Central Government communicated by Baron von Cramer-Klett. This proposal seems to me for the most part acceptable, but on the condition that before arriving at the eventual suppression of the Bavarian Legation at the Holy See, there be a request for Its opinion, which will be taken into account. Your Excellency is interested in communicating in writing as to the above to the Prussian Chargé d’Affaires, Count von Zech, and in issuing to him, also in writing, an account of this communication. You can also provide this information to Baron von Cramer-Klett. I take this occasion to reaffirm my sentiments of sincere esteem... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition, Document No. 5583. Feb. 29, 1920 Faulhaber to Prince Wilhelm von Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen Your Royal Highness may I ask most respectfully for pardon that I only today for the first time am thanking you for the most graceful letter and allowing myself to reciprocate from the heart the best wishes for blessing for the person and the entire house of Your Royal Highness. The typewriter is excellent and disgorges its dictated letters like a threshing machine its bales of straw, but the hand is cramped from writing and does not let itself be convinced by the best of reasoning that its writing strike, in the face of its obligations, is a crime. Just as our Lord God delights from time to time in sending again a great consolation to make us strong again for the hours of the cross, so it was also a grace-filled gift that on the Feast of Christmas this year, in the castle of Sigmaringen, the martyr of Malta had returned home after long, bitter separation. I spent the time around New Year’s Day in Rome in the quiet Anima, which is finally returning from Italian occupation to its former lords; in Church circles “Tedesco” [Italian word for German] is taken in an entirely good way, and the Holy Father spoke with sincere goodwill of the situation in Germany. Of the much-touted pro-German nature of the Italians I actually tasted very little, and I consider it only the flip-side of being fed up with the French, which currently motivates the Italians on account of the Fiume issue and other matters that rub them the wrong way. On the whole they regard our situation as not so bad and consider our cries for help as a political maneuver to arouse sympathy, and that is really the most discouraging aspect of the story, that we are generally no longer believed. The military plays part of the street scene of Rome, and on the train plays a heroic role much different from previous times, so we have militarism in a different uniform. To judge by confidential reports inside the Vatican, we have only the farsighted preventive diplomacy of the Pope to thank that the Kaiser was not extradited. Your Royal Highness has confidence, and I rejoice in this, that the German people will heal themselves again from the inside out. The English Consul here even thinks that 10 years from now we will be as high as before the war! Perhaps I am too tired at the moment to share in such a flight of fancy, and I believe that we will only by a gratia externa [Latin: external grace], like further dissention within the Alliance, catch ourselves up again like a plummeting pilot. For our eastern and southern neighbors, especially for Vienna, Salzburg and Innsbruck, one is reckoning on a Räterepublik in the first weeks of March, and just as for our neighbors, this is a fateful hour also for us. Really in Hungary the reverse development is proceeding under better stars, because there the contrasts remained ever sharper apart and the rightwing parties concluded no coalition and thus had white flags for the new order. Religious events like Catholic Congresses and popular missions are having unexpectedly great success, but the terrorism of the parties, the low-as-dogs press full of lies and deception for the people, and the senile ungraciousness of the Government trample everything down. From America comes now cash and clothing and food, but what is that for so many? For March I wanted to make a speaking tour in North America and thus collect for our poor, but the endless political tension still holds me back, because I want to remain at my post in times of unrest. Endless constitution conferences, long memoranda, and yet we are coming to no Concordat, because the Government in Bavaria simply interrupts at every principled difference. How long the nerves will still hold out there, I don’t know. Pardon, Your Royal Highness, these Bavarian lamentations. As I myself ask for prayer, I also promise for the intentions of Your Royal Highness a faithful prayer at the mass. In respect and sincere reverence, +M.F. Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 7558 Feb. 29, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 9, page 69: “The Terrors of Bolshevism in Russia” The terrors of Bolshevism in Russia have, according to the testimony of Prince Trubetskoy, called forth a new religious wave. In 1918 a great religious gathering was held in Moscow, which, despite the life-threatening dangers felt by participants, experienced an unprecedented number in attendance. In this great gathering of people from various classes of society, one could no longer find any distinction of class. “Everyone was prepared to give up his life for Russia.” The reorganized church fought with all its might against lawlessness. The Patriarchate was reinstituted and Tichon was elected Patriarch. Tichon is fully and completely up to the task. While priests were being murdered everywhere, he hurled an anathema against the government and ordered it to be read in all the churches. Many priests were punished for reading the anathema, which excommunicated the government, that is, debarred it from the churches and condemned it, but no one dared to take action against the Patriarch. On the first anniversary of the Bolsheviks coming to power, Tichon sent a letter to Lenin, in which every phrase contained a strong reproach. The Bolsheviks arrested Patriarch Tichon for this, but nevertheless let him go free again. They feared the antagonism of the masses. Feb. 29, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 9, page 69: “The Catholic Press Association of Bavaria” ... The newspapers “Buchloe Bulletin,” “Türkheim Newspaper,” “Kirchheim Provincial Messenger,” and “Krumbach Latest News” were bought up by the Central Association for the sake of consolidating press, editing and publishing; also the “New Munich Daily Paper,” the “Bavarian Courier” and the “Munich Catholic Church Newspaper” went over to the Munich Local Association as to common and individual property... March 1920 Hochland 17:1:6 (March 1920), pp. 625ff.: “Russian Anarchism” by Karl Pfleger Früher oder später muß es einen heftigen Zusammenstoß zwischen Europa und der russischen Revolution geben, und zwar wird Europa als Ganzes und nicht irgendein bestimmter europäischer Staat mit der russischen Revolution oder Anarchie kollidieren. Ich sage Revolution oder Anarchie, da man heute wirklich nicht mit bestimmtheit sagen kann, was eigentlich in Rußland vorgeht. Ist es ein Wechsel der Staatsform? Ist es ein Kampf gegen jede bestimmte Staatsform? Eines steht nur fest, daß da ein gefährlicher Spiel gespielt wird; gefährlich ist es aber nicht nur für uns Russen, sondern auch für euch, ihr Europäer. Ihr verfolgt unsere Revolution mit Angst und Spannung, doch ist weder eure Angst noch euer Interesse groß genug: die Vorgänge in Rußland sind viel furchtbarer, als ihr denkt.’ ,Es steht alles in Flammen bei uns, das weiß man; können wir aber allein verbrennen, ohne auch euch in Brand zu setzen? Wer weiß?’ ,Selbst die kleinsten Einzelheiten unserer Revolution sind in Europa wohl bekannt, der tiefste Sinn der Ereignisse bleibt euch aber verborgen. Europa kennt nur den Leib, nicht die Seele der russischen Revolution. Diese Seele, die Seele des russischen Volkes bleibt euch ein ewiges Rätsel.’ ,Wir sehen euch nur so ähnlich wie die linke Hand der rechten ähnlich sieht. Die Linke kann sich nie völlig mit der Rechten decken, es sei denn„ daß man eine der beiden wendet. Wir gleichen euch, doch nur in verkehrtem Sinne; Rußland ist wie ein Spiegelbild von Europa. Kant hätte gesagt, daß unser Geist im Transzendentalen und der eurige im Phänomenalen liegt. Nietzsche hätte gesagt: Bei euch herrscht Apollo, bei uns - Dionysos; euer Genie liegt in der Mässigung, das unsrige - in der Ausschweifung. Ihr versteht rechtzeitig aufzuhören; wenn ihr an eine Mauer stoßt, so bleibt ihr stehen oder kehrt um; wir rennen uns aber die Köpfe ein. Es fällt uns schwer, uns aufzuraffen; wenn wir uns aber einmal aufgerafft haben, so bleiben wir nie stehen. Wir gehen nicht, wir laufen; wir laufen nicht, wir fliegen; wir fliegen nicht, wir stürzen. Ihr liebt den goldenen Mittelweg, wir lieben das Aeußerste; ihr seid nüchtern, wir sind trunken; ihr seid gerecht, wir haben keine Gesetze; ihr versteht es, euer Seelenheil zu retten, wir sind stets bestrebt, das unsrige zu verlieren. Ihr besitzt den Staat von heute, wir suchen den Zukunftsstaat. Schließlich stellt ihr die Staatsgewalt doch stets über alle Freiheiten, die ihr nur erreichen könnt; wir bleiben aber auch in Sklavenketten verkappte Rebellen und Anarchisten.’ So schrieb Dmitri Mereschkowski im Jahre 1908.* Er findet im russischen Menschen eine natürliche Veranlagung für den Anarchismus. [Note: * Im Vorwort zum Sammelband ,Der Zar und die Revolution’. München 1908.] Jedenfalls ist er überzeugt, daß er sich-niemals ,einen parlamentarischen Maulkorb' anlegen lassen werde, niemals mit dem ,konstitutionellen Kram, mit dem goldenen Mittelweg eines bürgerlichen Demokratismus’ sich begnügen werde. Das empirische bewußte Ziel der Revolution sei der Sozialismus, ihr mystisches unbewußtes Ziel aber die Anarchie. Die Gegenwart scheint diese Worte rechtfertigen zu wollen. Das alte heilige Rußland ist verschwunden, und der leergebliebene Abgrund ist von anarchischem Chaos erfüllt, in dem jeder Versuch einer neuen Ordnung hilflos zu versinken droht. Weggespült innerhalb 24 Stunden nach der Märzrevolution war der Plan einer konstitutionellen Monarchie. Kerenskijs Idee eines modernen liberalen Verfassungsstaates, welcher den geplanten Reformen nach in Freiheitsgeist alle bestehenden Demokratien überflügelt hätte, lebt nur so lange, bis die bolschewistische Flut alles in den kommunistischen Wirbel hineinreißt. Daß in solchen Katarakten einer rasenden Entwicklung alle in dunkelsten Seelentiefen verankerten, verborgenen, unbewußten Zerstörungstriebe losgerissen werden, ist selbstverständlich. Die bolschewistische Regierung kann nur mit Mühe und Not der anarchistischen Zügellosigkeit Herr werden. Aber ist dort erst Anarchismus, wo eine systemlose Wollust an Verbrechen aus dem allgemeinen staatlichen Zersetzungsprozeß wie Leichengestank aufsteigt - oder ist nicht der ganze in Rußland vor sich gehende Zersetzungsprozeß selber nichts anderes als die folgerichtige Entwicklung des Anarchismus? Gewiß ist Revolution noch nicht Anarchismus; Revolution ist nur gewaltsame, zeitweilig anarchisch aussehende Neuordnung der Verhältniffe, aber, sagt Mereschkowski, die Europäer kennen nur den Leib, nicht die Seele der russischen Revolution, und diese Seele ist: - Anarchie. Hat er recht? Rußlands Seele anarchisch, zur Anarchie geboren, veranlagt, verdammt? Rußland hat einen Dichter vor allem, durch dessen Mund es seine tiefsten Hoffnungen und Verzweiflungen, seine letzten Bewußtheiten und Unbewußtheiten aussprach: Dostojewski. Seine große Seele war das providentielle Schlachtfeld, auf dem die russischen Gegensätze sich bekämpften. In ihm ringt die Autokratie mit dem Anarchismus, die Orthodoxie mit dem Atheismus. Auf wessen Seite steht er? Wir wissen nur, auf wessen Seite er stehen will. Aber er gleicht, fürchten wir, jenen Heiligen, die ihr Leben lang gegen die lockendsten Versuchungen ankämpfen und gerade dadurch beweisen, daß sie von ihnen nicht loskommen. Seine geheime, ewig bekämpfte Leidenschaft ist die Anarchie. Alle seine Hauptgestalten von Raskolnikoff bis zu Iwan Karamasoff sind politische oder religiöse Anarchisten, sind nach allen menschlichen und göttlichen Gesetzen Verbrecher und zugleich Atheisten; doch echt russische Atheisten, die, wie Mereschkowski sich ausdrückt, nicht ohne Gott, sondern noch gegen Gott sind. Er fürchtet und haßt die Revolution, doch kann er sich nichts außerhalb der Revolution, die er haßt, vorstellen. Ist es deshalb, weil sie der russischen Seele angeboren ist? Dostojewski meint es. Anläßlich eines Streites zweier Bauern darüber, wer frecher als der andere sein könne, mit dem Gewehr nach dem Bild des heiligen Abendmahles zu schießen, schreibt er über eine seiner Ansicht nach dem Russen anhaftende psychologische Eigenschaft folgendes:* ,Das ist das Bedürfnis, aus Rand und Band zu geraten, das Bedürfnis, mit absterbender Empfindlichkeit sich der Schlucht zu nähern, sich halb überhängen zu lassen„ herabzublicken in den tiefsten Abgrund, um sich kopfüber hinabstürzen zu lassen wie der Wahnsinnige. Es ist das Bedürfnis der Verneinung im Menschen, das sich oft in sonst durchaus nicht verneinenden, durchaus ehrfürchtigen Naturen findet, das Bedürfnis, alles zu negieren, das Größte und Heiligste, das ihr Herz kennt, die eigenen höchsten Ideale, die ganze Fülle dessen, zu dem das Volk betet und zu dem auch sie eben noch gebetet haben, das ihnen aber dann plötzlich gleichsam zur unerträglichen Luft wurde. Da gibt es dann kein Halten mehr. Sei nun Liebe im Spiele oder Wein, Genußsucht, Eitelkeit oder Neid: gar mancher Russe gibt sich gegebenenfalls schrankenlos diesem Bedürfnis hin, bereit, alle Bande zu zerreißen, sich von allem loszusagen - von der Familie, von der Gewohnheit, von Gott. Der gutmütigste Mensch kann plötzlich zum widerlichsten Scheusal und Verbrecher werden, sobald er in diesen Zyklon gerät, in diesen verhängnisvollen Wirbel einer krampfartigen, momentanen Selbstverleugnung, der dem russischen Charakter in gewissen schicksale schweren Minuten seines Lebens so eigentümlich ist.’ Ob der Anarchismus wirklich im russischen Wesen wurzelt, das ist schließlich eine Frage, die wir den Russen überlassen müssen. Jedenfalls wird dem, der die russische Geschichte kritisch betrachten ohne weiteres klar, daß er ein durch die russischen Verhältniffe bedingter Geistes, und Gesellschaftszustand ist. Er ist kurz gesagt: das Ergebnis der Einwirkung von Europa auf Rußland. Rußland ist hier nicht als geographischer, sondern als geistiger Begriff zu fassen und bedeutet Verbindung von Autokratie und Theokratie. Durch die denkbar engste Durchdringung von absolutem Selbsthertschertum und hermetisch von jedem Lufthauch abgeschlossener Orthodoxie ist das geistige Wesen Rußlands bestimmt und gekennzeichnet. Daß die Orthodoxie, die russische Form der Rechtgläubigkeit, auf das Schicksal Rußlands einen ganz verhängnisvollen Einfluß ausgeübt hat, gibt selbst ein so ruhiger und konservativer Philosoph wie Solovieff zu. Ihr ungenügen hat den seinen philosophischen Geist Tschaadajews in den Katholizismus getrieben (er wurde für sein ,philosophisches Schreiben’ als irrsinnig erklärt) und den tief religiösen Tolstoi in die gähnende Leere jenes religiösen Anarchismus gestürzt, den er ,Das Reich Gottes’ nannte. Die russische Orthodoxie ist lediglich der fossil gewordene Hellenismus des dritten Jahrhunderts, und mit ihrem starren Haften in den ererbten Formen und [Note: * Bei Mereschkowski, ,Der Anmarsch des Pöbels’. München 1907.] Lehren, mit ihrem groben Materialismus der Frömmigkeit, namentlich in Bilder, und Reliquienverehrung, mit ihrem grundsätzlichen Haß gegen jeden Fortschritt legte sie sich wie eine erstickende Atmosphäre über den Staat, mit dem sie durch die theokratische Auffassung des Zarismus innigst verbunden war.* Das vorpetrinische Rußland war ohne weltliche und auch eigentlich ohne geistliche Bildung. Peter der Große beginnt, ohne die Folgen abzusehen, großzügig die Europäisierung, nicht auf einmal, aber doch unvermittelt denn die russische Kirche, die die geistige Führung des Volkes besaß, hatte nicht nur keine Philosophie, sondern nicht einmal eine Theologie. Im Westen hatte.die Scholastik die Menschen jahrhundertelang für das wissenschaftlich kritische Denken vorbereitet. Es gab die große geistige Bewegung der Renaissance und des Humanismus; die moderne Philosophie und Wissenschaft wurde überdies durch die Revolution und die Entwicklung innerhalb des Protestantismus vorbereitet. In Europa waren Voltaire, Hume, Kant, Comte, Fichte, Hegel, Feuerbach ein organisches Glied der Entwicklung, in Rußland bedeuten sie eine geistige Revolution. Das geistesstille orthodoxe Rußland überflutet vorerst der französische antichristliche und antireligiöse Nationalismus; Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu werden in der höheren russischen Gesellschaft heimisch. Dazu kommt dann der deutsche Einfluß, besonders Hegel und die radikale Hegelsche Linke: Feuerbach und Strauß; mit Feuerbach der Materialismus von Vogt und der Positivismus von Comte und Stuart Mill und der Evolutionismus Darwins und Spencers. Ihre politische Bildung suchten die zu Haus geknechteten Russen bei den liberalen und sozialistischen Schriftstellern Deutschlands, Lassalle und Marx liefern die sozialistischen und politischen Ideal, Hegel und Feuerbach lösen die byzantinische Orthodoxie ab. Man stelle sich die Situation recht deutlich vor: der staatslose Kommunismus von Marx soll die mittelalterlich, agrarische Naturalwirtschaft des theokratischen Rußland abschaffen und ersetzen!** Tolstoi erzählt einmal von der ungeheuren inneren Revolution, als er die Neuigkeit erfuhr, es gäbe keinen Gott. In Europa wurde diese Neuigkeit durch Jahrhunderte vorbereitet; in das theokratische Rußland fiel die Botschaft vom Atheismus und Materialismus wie ein Blitz aus heiterem Himmel. Der Deutsche hat die Renaissance den Humanismuß die Reformation; [Note: * In Abteilung 1 der russischen Staatsgrundgesetze von 1832 heißt es: Der russische Kaiser ist als christlicher Herrscher, oberster Beschützer und Bewahrer der Dogmen des christlich-russischen Glaubens, Ausseher der Rechtgläubigkeit und [eglieher guten Ordnung in der heiligen .Ku-che. In diesem Sinne wird er das Haupt der Kirche genannt. Bei Th. G. Masaryk, Zur russischen Geschichts- und Religionsphilosophie. Jena 1913. Band I, 94. Dieses bis jetzt auf zwei Bände angewachsene, noch nicht abgeschlossene Werk ist das beste und vollständigste, was in deutscher Sprache über Rußland geschrieben worden ist. - ** Masaryk a. a. O. II, 442. '] die Aufklärung durchgemacht und ist durch Jahrhunderte an kritisches Denken gewöhnt worden. Selbst Stirner, Schopenhaue,; Nietzsche bringen ihn nicht aus dem Gleichgewicht; drüben braucht Turgenjeff nur seinen harmlosen Roman ,Väter und Söhne’ zu schreiben, in welchem zum erstenmal das nihilistische Problem aufgerollt wird - und es beginnen endlose Diskussionen. Welche Folgen muß da erst der allen wissenschaftlichen und religiösen Dogmatismus umstoßende erkenntnistheoretische Subjektivismus und Individualismus der neuen deutschen Philosophie hervorrufen! Sie zeigten sich natürlich nicht gleich in ihrer ganzen Tragweite; von der mit aller Macht und Rücksichtslosigkeit von Peter dem Großen betriebenen Europäisierung wurden zunächst nur die oberen Schichten ergriffen. Die von ihr inspirierte Literatur stand wie irgendein anderer Zweig des Staatsdienstes unter staatlicher Protektion. Aber bald kam sie in die seltsamste Lage. Entweder sie verschrieb sich dem absolutistischen Regime; das eine Zeitlang die ,Zivilisation' repräsentiert, mit Haut und Haar; oder aber sie ging ihre eigenen Wege: dann war sie beargwöhnt; überwacht, verfolgt; zur vollkommenen Tatlosigkeit verdammt. Einer; der es miterlebte, Alexander Herzen, schreibt: ,Wir treiben alles: Musik, Philosophie, Liebe, Kriegskunst, Mystizismus, um uns zu zerstreuen, um die ungeheuere Leere zu vergessen, die auf uns lastet . . . man gibt uns eine weitherzige Erziehung, man impst uns die Sehnsüchte und Schmerzen und Tendenzen der zeitgenössischen Welt ein, und dann schreit man uns zu: Ihr seid Sklaven und sollt es bleiben; haltet den Mund und bleibt gehorsam - oder Gott gnade euch! . . . So wird man zum Onegin,* wenn man nicht zufällig in öffentlichen Häusern oder in den Kasematten einer Festung zugrunde geht. Wir haben die Zivilisation gestohlen; und Jupiter rächt sich an uns mit dem hartnäckigen Grimm; mit dem er den Prometheus quälte.’** Herzen legt hier den Finger auf Rußlands ewig blutende Wunde und sein tragisches Verhängnis: die Unfähigkeit, mit der unorganisch erworbenen Kultur innerlich fertig zu werden. Statt das ganze Volk zu erfassen, ergriff sie nur die ‘Intelligenz’, setzte sie instand, die groteske Halbbarbarei der russischen Zustände einzusehen, und trieb sie nach und nach in die Opposition, die zuerst heimlich und passiv, dann immer offener und kühner wurde. ,Tiefe Opposition nahm wie Proteus alle Formen und Sprachen an. Sie zerstörte, indem sie sang; sie lachte, indem sie Minen legte. Wurde sie in einer Zeitung unterdrückt, so schwang sie sich auf das Katheder einer Universität; wurde sie in einer Dichtung verfolgt; so flüchtete sie in eine Vorlesung über Naturwissenschaft. Sie sprach aus dem Schweigen und [Note: * Held im gleichnamigen Versroman Puschkins; Typus des ,Überflüssigen Menschen’. ** Herzen; ,Nouvelles Phase de la Litterature Russe’. Bruxelles 1864. 25. Von Herzen wird nachher die Rede sein.] stahl sich in die Schlafzimmer der jungen Pensionsdamen, in die Turnhallen der Kadetten und die Hörsäle der theologischen Seminare ein.’* Aus dem ,Überflüssigen Menschen’ wurde der revolutionäre Mensch; aus dem Trümmerhaufen, den der Zusammenstoß der neuen Lehren mit den alten Ordnungen schuf, erhob sich wild und drohend der Anarchismus. * * * Ihm die Wege zu bahnen, ihm im zeitgenössischen Rußland eine ungeheuere Resonanz zu verschaffen, war Alexander Herzen (1811-1870) durch Lebensschicksal und Geistesschicksal berufen. Es war der philosophische und politische Radikalismus, den der von 1847 ab immer im Ausland lebende glänzende Publizist dem aufhorchenden Rußland predigte - selbft der Zar versäumte 'keine Nummer seiner ,Glocke’ zu lesen. Dieser Radikalismus wird aus schmerzlicher Enttäuschung Nihilismus. Die Revolution von 1848 hat Herzen den Glauben an die Revolution überhaupt genommen. Wozu Revolution, wenn die Bourgeoisie ihr Erbe antritt mit ihren religiösen und politischen Halbheiten, mit Protestantismus und Liberalismus und der langweiligen Tretmühle des englischen Parlamentarismus! In dem seinem fünfzehnjährigen Sohn gewidmeten Essaybuch ,Vom anderen Ufer, das seine revolutionären Hoffnungen begräbt, sagt er: ,Suche keine Lösungen in diesem Buch - sie sind nicht in ihm, ihrer gibt es überhaupt bei Menschen unserer Zeit nicht. Das, was gelöst ist, ist beendet, und die kommende Umwälzung fängt eben erst an. Wir bauen nicht, wir reißen nieder, wir versprechen keine neuen Offenbarungen, aber beseitigen die alte Lüge. Der gegenwärtige Mensch, der traurige Pontifex maximus, baut nur die Brücke - ein anderer, Unbekannter, Zukünftiger, wird sie überschreiten. Vielleicht wirst du ihn erblicken - bleibe nicht auf dem alten Ufer. Besser mit ihm zugrunde gehen„ als sich ins Narrenhaus der Reaktion zu retten....’ Der Nihilismus ist für Herzen eine erhabene Erscheinung in der russischen Entwicklung. ,Nihilismus - das ist die Logik ohne Einschränkung, das ist die Wissenschaft ohne Dogmen, das ist die bedingungslose Demut vor der Erfahrung und die widerspruchslose Annahme aller Konsequenzen. Ihm kommt es auf die ,Entnüchterung’ der Menschheit, auf eine realistische Kritik Altrußlands, auf eine das Neue erst vorbereitende Revolutionierung der Geister an. Daß dies Programm der anarchistischen Predigt weder negativ noch positiv die neue radikale Bewegung Rußlands befriedigte, beweist der Erfolg seines Freundes Bakunin ** (1814-1876), der zum praktischen Anarchismus der Tat fortschritt. Das war der Anarchist aus Profession, der nur aus und in Empörung gegen Gott und Welt lebte. Das mephistophelische Wort ,vom Geist, der [Note: * Herzen a. a. O, 33. ** Siehe den Aufsatz Bakunin in ,Russische Köpfe’ von Th. Schiemann. Berlin 1916.] stets verneint’ mag selten auf einen Menschen besser gepaßt haben als auf ihn. Bei Hegel hört er in Berlin 1840 mit Entzücken die Botschaft von der absoluten Souveränität der Idee; nur hat er nicht wie der Meister die Geduld, den historischen Prozeß ihrer Verwirklichung abzuwarten, und da ihm die Wirklichkeit, vor allem die russische, vom Einklang mit der Vernunft noch weit entfernt scheint. so entschließt er sich kurzerhand. diesen Einklang gewaltsam herbeizuführen. Was er in seinem 1842 in den deutschen Jahrbüchern für Wissenschaft und Kunst erschienenen Aufsatz ,Die Reaktion in Deutschland. Fragment eines Franzosen’ veröffentlicht, enthält bereits sein späteres Programm der anarchistischen Pandestruktion. ,Öffnet eure geistigen Augen, laßt die Toten die Toten begraben und überzeugt euch endlich, daß der Geist, der ewig junge, neugeborene, nicht in verfallenen Räumen haust . . . laßt uns also dem ewigen Geist vertrauen, der nur deshalb zerstört und vernichtet, weil er der unergründliche und schaffende Quell alles Lebens ist. Die Lust der Zerstörung ist zugleich eine schaffende Lust.’ Zuallererst wird natürlich die Religion als Grundlager der alten Ordnung wütend bekämpft, aber dann überhaupt alles, was nach Autokratie aussieht, gleichviel, ob sie sich Kirche, Monarchie, konstitutioneller Staat, bürgerliche Republik, revolutionäre Diktatur nannte. Was Bakunin will, ist die vollständige ,Anarchie’. Er begnügt sich nicht wie Herzen, Revolution zu predigen, er betätigt sie persönlich aus allen Kräften und mit religiöser Inbrunst. Von 1843-1848 zieht er agitierend und wühlend durch ganz Mitteleuropa, erst durch Deutschland, dessen revolutionären Geist er viel zu pedantisch und philiströs findet, dann durch die Schweiz, schließlich durch Frankreich, bis die Pariser Revolutionäre selbst ihn zu hitzig finden und ihn mit einem Paß und 3000 Franks zur Revolutionierung Deutschlands über die Grenze abschieben. Sein ganzes wahrhaft internationales Leben, das ihn auch nach Amerika und England führt, ist nichts als eine einzige Kette von wilden Versuchen, die Welt aus den Angeln zu heben. Einige Punkte seines ,Katechismus der Revolution’ mögen eine Vorstellung seines anarchistischen Programms geben. 1. Der Revolutionär ist ein geweihter Mann. Er hat weder persönliche Interessen noch Geschäfte. Gefühle, Anhänglichkeiten, Eigentum, ja nicht einmal einen Namen. Alles in ihm wird absorbiert durch einen ausschließlichen Gedanken, eine einzige Leidenschaft, die Revolution. 2. In der Tiefe seines Wesens hat er nicht nur in Worten, sondern tatsächlich jedes Band zerrissen, das ihn mit der bürgerlichen Welt, mit Menschen, Anstand, Moral und geltenden Sitten in dieser Welt verbindet. Er ist ihr unversöhnlicher Feind, und wenn er fortfährt, in der Welt zu leben. so geschieht es nur, damit er sie um so sicherer zerstöre. 3. Der Revolutionär verachtet allen Doktrinarismus und verzichtet auf die Wissenschaft dieser Welt, die künftigen Generationen überlassen sein mag. Er kennt nur eine Wissenschaft, die Zerstörung. Deshalb und nur deshalb studiert er Mechanik, Physik, Chemie, vielleicht auch Medizin . . . das Ziel aber bleibt das gleiche: möglichst schnelle und möglichst sichere Zerstörung dieser schmutzigen Weltordnung. 22. . . . Der Revolutionär muß alle seine Mittel und Kräfte daran sehen, um die Leiden und das Unglück des Volkes zu steigern, seine Geduld zu erschöpfen und es zu einer Erhebung in seiner Gesamtheit anzustacheln. 25. Wir müssen uns der Welt der Abenteurer und Räuber anschließen, die die wahren und einzigen Revolutionäre Rußlands sind.* Herzen war nicht Systematiker; Bakunin, der sich bei seinem ruhelosen Leben nicht einmal Zeit nahm, seine Reden anders als improvisiert zu halten, noch viel weniger, Tschernysmevskij (1828-1889) und Fürst Kropotkin (geb. 1848) haben diesen Mangel gutgemacht. Tschernyschevskij hat die von Herzen verlangte Entnüchterung mit dem Feuerbachschen Materialismus als radikalster Verneinung der theokratischen Weltanschauung konsequent durchgeführt. Nicht als ob er die philosophischen Probleme gewissenhaft durchdacht hätte; ihn hat wie alle Russen die Philosophie nur so weit interessiert, als sie sich praktisch auf die russischen Verhältnisse anwenden ließ. Der Realismus, wie er den Materialismus nannte, war für ihn Glaubensatz und politisches Programm; aber ein Programm, das mit rückstehtsloser Kühnheit und flammender Überzeugung vorgetragen wurde und daher die Jugend mitriß. Er ist die Weltanschauung der sechziger Jahre geworden, für die Turgenjeff in seinem Roman ,Väter und Söhne’ den Namen Nihilismus aufbrachte. Der Nihilismus tritt hier nicht als klar bestimmtes Aktionsprogramm auf, sondern als eine durchaus antiromantische, der ganzen Welt kritisch gegenüberstehende Geisteshaltung. ,Ein Nihilist’, so läßt Turgenjeff den Freund des Nihilisten Basaroff definieren, ,ist ein Mann, der sich vor keiner Autorität beugt, der kein einziges Prinzip auf Treu und Glauben annimmt, gleichviel, in wie hohem Ansehen dieses Prinzip in der Meinung der Menschen steht.’** Der Nihilismus ist also nicht mit Revolution oder Terrorismus gleiehzusehen, genau genommen, d. h. entwicklungsgeschichtlich nicht einmal mit Anarchismus, sondern er ist die weltanschauliche und gefühlsmäßige Grundlage des Anarchismus und somit natürlich der fruchtbarste Nährboden für Revolution und Terrorismus. So nennt denn auch der bekannteste Vertreter des neueren Anarchismus, Fürst Peter Kropotkin, den Anarchismus eine philosophische Lebensanschauung; er hat sogar den Ehrgeiz, ihn eine Wissenschaft zu nennen, so wie Marx seinen Sozialismus als Wissenschaft proklamiert hat. Das Ziel, die Demokratie, hätten sie gemeinsam. Nur als Methode seien sie unterschieden, uns scheint diese Gemeinsamkeit des Zieles nicht so zweifellos; denn der Sozialismus steuert auf eine straffe staatliche Zentralisation hin, während Kropotkin eine natürliche staatlose Gesellschaftsordnung erstrebt, die auf dem Gefühl der menschlichen Zusammengehörigkeit und dem [Note: * Schiemann, a. a. O. 198. ** Turgenjeff. ,Väter und Söhne’. Reclam 32.] Bedürfnis des Zusammenschlusses beruhe und die er Mutualismus nennt. Aber das ist Theorie; in Wirklichkeit kommt Kropotkin ohne Staat doch nicht aus; in einer abgeschwächten Form, der autonomen Föderation einzelner Vereinigungen, muß auch er ihn als notwendige Bedingung des menschlichen Zusammenlebens anerkennen. Es ist sehr bezeichmend: was ihn von Bakunin vorteilhaft unterscheidet, das Positive, Planvolle seines Wesens und Denkens, das ihn über das Programm der Pandestruktion hinausführt, führt ihn genau genommen vom Anarchismus weg - der Anarchismus des Gefühls und der Tat kann vor dem eigenen anarchistischen Denken nicht bestehen. * * * Der westliche Anarchismus, wie ihn in der extremsten Form des Solipsismus und Ubermenschentums Stirner und Nietzsche vertreten haben, ist ein reines, lebensfremdes Gedankenprodukt und läßt sich darum unschwer auf eine Formel bringen. Den geistigen Inhalt des russischen Anarchismus begrifflich zu formulieren, ist fast unmöglich. Er ist etwas Lebendiges, etwas zwischen Flut und Ebbe der russischen Entwicklung beständig hin und her Strömendes, ein Kampf manchmal ganz wesensverschiedener Kräfte - und Kräfte, die miteinander kämpfen, können nur schwer abgeschätzt werden. Immerhin taucht eine leitende Grundidee aus dem Chaos auf: der unerbittliche Kampf gegen Autokratie und Orthodoxie. Der gibt ihm seine Eigenart. Im Anarchismus haben wir das russische Problem überhaupt - und zwar auf die äusserste Spitze getrieben. Wenn man ihn verstehen will, darf man vor der etwas verworrenen Psychologie der russischen Seele nicht zurückschrecken. Ein kompetenter russischer Schriftsteller nennt ihn ,eine eigenartige, rational unfaßbare und doch lebensvoll starke Verschmelzung antagonistischer Motive, eine Vereinigung von Nihilismus und Moralismus, von allgemeiner Glaubensskepsis und dogmatischem Glaubensfanatismus, von Prinzipienlosigkeit in metaphysischem Sinn und unerbittlicher Folgerichtigkeit in der Befolgung empirischer Prinzipien’.* Das von Peter dem Großen nach Europa aufgerissene Fenster ließ Ideen einströmen, mit denen die Russen nicht fertig wurden. Durch sie angeregt, vermochten sie die russische Wirklichkeit zu negieren, aber nicht zu kritisieren. Sie gaben ihren Kinderglauben auf, um sofort auf den neuen Glauben an Feuerbach Vogt, Darwin, auf den Materialismus und den Atheismus zu schwören. Dieser Materialismus war nicht wie im Westen eine Frucht qualvoller und langer Verstandes, und Willensarbeit, ein Ergebnis persönlichen Lebens - er war einfach ein Kredo, eine Selbstverstandlichkeit für den russischen Intelligente, ein Merkmal des guten Tons. Mit [Note: * Siehe Frank in der Sammlung ,Die politische Seele Rußlands’. Berlin 1918. 118. Die Schrift ist eine übersetzung der 1909 in Moskau erschienenen ,Grenzpfähle’, durch welche diese früher dem Revolutionismus nahestehenden Männer ihr Abrücken von der revolutionären Intelligenz begründen.] Feuereifer müht sich das neue Denken um das, was die russische Orthodoxie immer vernachlässigt hatte zugunsten der unsterblichen Seele: um das soziale Heil. Die einzige Sorge ist der Mensch. ,Herrlich ist der Mensch; alles ist im Menschen, alles für den Menschen,’ sagt der greise Luka in_Gorkis ,Nachtasyl’. ,Willst du an Gott glauben, so glaube; willst du nicht, so glaube nicht. Gott wird dich nicht retten. Glaube du mir nur. Wirst’s mir danken. Und wozu brauchst du denn durchaus die Wahrheit? Denk mal nach! Sie, die Wahrheit mein’ ich, könnte dich zermalmen!’ Ein anderer typischer Vertreter der russischen Intelligenz, der Dichter Tschechoff, schreibt 1903 in einem Privatbrief an den Redakteur einer Zeitschrift: ,Sie schreiben, wir hätten von einer ernst zu nehmenden religiösen Bewegung in Rußland gesprochen. . . . (Gemeint ist eine von Dostojewski und Solovjeff ausgehende Bewegung.) Ob das nun gut sei oder nicht, will ich nicht entscheiden, nur soviel behaupte ich, daß die religiöse Bewegung von der Sie sprechen - ein Ding für sich ist, und die moderne Kultur - wiederum ein Ding für sich, und es geht in keiner Weise an die letztere in ursächliche Abhängigkeit von ersterer zu setzen. Die heutige Kultur ist der Beginn einer Arbeit im Namen der großen Zukunft, einer Arbeit, die möglicher-weiß noch Hunderttausende von Jahren dauern wird, bis daß - sei es auch in ferner Zukunft - die Menschheit die Wahrheit vom echten Gott erkennt; d. h. bis sie dieselbe nicht mehr bloß errät, nicht mehr bei Dostojewski suchen muß, sondern sie klar erkenne, wie sie erkannt hat, daß zweimal zwei vier ist. Die heutige Kultur ist der Anfang der Arbeit, während die religiöse Bewegung von der wir sprechen, ein Überbleibsel ist, das Ende desjenigen, das ausgedient hat und abstirbt.’* Kurz und gut: dem dunklen Erraten, dem mystischen Glauben Dostojewskis, der Religion des Gottmenschen stellt die russische Intelligenz die Religion der satten Erde, des Fortschirittes, des irdischen Paradieses, die Religion des Menschgottes gegenüber. Dieser neue Glaube, der gewiß noch mystischer ist als der alte, soll durch die äußeren Mittel eines rein mechanisch aufgefaßten Fortschrittes verwirklicht werden. Alles Übel kommt ja - so verkündigt das Evangelium der Aufklärungsphilosophie - nicht aus persönlicher Schlechtigkeit der Menschennatur, sondern aus der Fehlerhaftigkeit der Verhältnisse. Diese gilt es zu bessern - wenn es sein muß„ durch Umsturz und Zerstörung; ,mit Gift, Dolch, Schlinge und dergleichen, die Religion heiligt alles in diesem Kampf in gleicher Weise, meint Bakunin. ,Alles ist erlaubt,’ sagt Iwan Karamasoff und der von Dostojewski in ihm zur Abschreckung verkörperte Empörungstypus wird vom Anarchismus mit Stolz angenommen. Warum soll auch dem Anarchisten nicht alles erlaubt sein, da er den Platz der entthronten Vorsehung einnimmt? Er dient einer großen Sache, er ist der Retter der Gesellschaft, und der Umstand, daß ihm die Erlösermission durch Verfolgung [Note: * Mereschkowski: ,Anmarsch des Pöbels’, 87.] Gefängnis, beständige Lebensgefahr erschwert wird, erfüllt ihn mit heroischer Ekstase. Man lese bei Boris Sawinkow, der die Ermordung des Ministers Plehwe leitete, wie die anarchistischen Genossen um die Ehre der Mitwirkung bettelten.* Je gefährlicher die Aufgabe, um so mehr berückt sie den Anarchisten. - Die Gefahr, die sie ihm bringt, der Tod, den er für sie erleidet, wird ihm der Beweis ihres Wertes. Der Anarchist ist von Natur aus Maximalist - Maximalist der Ziele und der Mittel. Es ist kein Zufall, daß in neuester Zeit das russische Parteileben sich so sehr radikalisiert hat: der sozialdemokratische Marxismus durch Verselbständigung der radikalen Bolschewiki; die Bolschewiki durch Fortschreiten zum Anarchosozialismus auf ihrem linken Flügel; die Sozialrevolutionäre durch Abtrennung der Maximalisten. Je ,linker’ man sieht, um so angesehener ist man. Warum? ,Linker ist derjenige,’ schreibt Isgojew,** ,der dem Tod näher steht, dessen Arbeit gefährlicher ist nicht für die bekämpfte gesellschaftliche Ordrnung, sondern für die handelnde Person selbst. Im allgemeinen stand der Sozialrevolutionär dem Galgen näher als der Sozialdemokrat und der Anarchist, noch näher als der Sozialrevolutionär, und dieser Umstand übte einen magischen Reiz auf die Seele der empfindsamsten Vertreter der Jugend aus. Er verkehrte ihren Verstand und paralisierte ihr Gewissen: alles, was mit dem Tode endet, wird geheiligt, alles ist dem erlaubt, der stets seinen Kopf riskiert.’ * * * Wer wundert sich, daß es zu einer inneren Krise des russischen Anarchismus gekommen ist? Er ist eine seelische Höchstspannung, die nur durch eine dünne Wand vom Wahnsinn getrennt ist. Das zu erkennen war kein Russe mehr geeignet als Dostojewski; man lese in seinem Roman ,Die Brüder Karamasoff’ das schauerlich großartige Kapitel: Der Teufel, Iwan Fedorowitschs Alb. Iwan ist der Typus der anarchistischen Intelligenz. Der Aufruhr seiner Nerven verdichtet sich zu einer höllischen Vision. Die Erscheinung sagt zu ihm: ,Dort gibt es neue Menschen -- dachtest du noch im vorigen Frühling, als du dich hierher aufmachtest - ,sie beabsichtigen, alles zu zerstören und wieder bei der Menschenfresserei zu beginnen. Die Toren, warum haben sie mich nicht gefragt! Wozu da so mühevoll zerstören! Das ist ja völlig überflüssig. Man braucht ja doch nur einfach die Gottidee in der Menschheit zu vernichten, uns alles würde nach Wunsch gehen. . . Hat die Menschheit sich erst einmal ganz und gar, d. h. ausnahmslos von Gott losgesagt, so wird die frühere Weltanschauung und vor allem die frühere Sittlichkeit ohne jede Menschenfresserei ganz von selbst fallen und dem Neuen Platz machen. . . [Note: * Süddeutsche Monatshefte Sept. 1917: Die Ermordung Plehwes. Den anarchistischen Heroismus schildert in glühenden Farben auch Peladan in seinem Roman ,Le nimbe noir’ (Paris 1907). ** Die politische Seele Rußlands, 58.] Die Frage besteht also jetzt nur darin, ob es möglich ist, daß eine solche Periode jemals anbricht, oder ob das ausgeschlossen ist. Wenn sie anbriche, so ist alles gelöst, und die Menschheit wird sich endgültig einrichten. Da dies aber im Hinblick auf die in der Menschheit eingewurzelte Dummheit vielleicht noch, nun ja, ganze tausend Jahre zum Durchdringen erfordern wird, so ist einem jeden, der jetzt schon die Wahrheit erkennt, im Grunde gestattet, sich völlig nach eigenem Gutdünken einzurichten, also nach neuen Grundsätzen. In diesem Sinn ist ihm alles erlaubt. Und damit noch nicht genug: selbst wenn diese Periode niemals anbrechen wird, so ist doch, da es ja Gott und Unsterblichkeit sowieso nicht gibt, diesem neuen Menschen vollkommen erlaubt, Menschgott zu werden, wenn auch nur er allein in der ganzen Welt es wird. Und der kann sich dann in diesem neuen Rang, versteht sich, mit leichtem Herzen über jede sittliche Schranke des früheren Knechtmenschen hinwegsetzen, wenn es nötig sein sollte. Für einen Gott gibt es kein Gefetz! . . . Alles ist erlaubt und damit - punktum! Das alles ist ja sehr nett; nur frägt es sich, sollte man meinen, wozu er, wenn er nun einmal gaunern will, - wozu er da noch die Sanktion der Wahrheit haben will? Aber so ist ja unser zeitgenössischer Russe: ohne Sanktion kann er sich nicht einmal zu Schurkereien entschließen, dermaßen hat er die Wahrheit lieb gewonnen,’ . . . der Gast ließ sich offenbar immer mehr durch seine Schönrednerei fortreißen, jedenfalls erhob er die Stimme und begann sogar spöttisch nach dem Hausherrn hinüberzublicken; er konnte aber seine Rede nicht zu Ende sprechen: Iwan ergriff plötzlich wütend das Glas vom Tisch und schleuderte es auf den Redner.“ Iwans Alb ist der Alb des Anarchismus überhaupt. Die Anarchisten haben ihre Lehre zur Weltanschauung erhoben, und diese Weltanschauung hat zu Konsequenzen geführt, vor denen ihnen heimlich bange wird. Der Gedanke ist in die eisige Höhenluft schwindelerregender Abstraktion gestiegen, aber das Gewissen ging nicht mit. Es sucht die lebensfremde Einsamkeit des neuen Menschgottes mit schrecklichen Visionen heim, bringt ihn durch furchtbare Ironisierungen um seinen Glauben, den er wie Rußland seine neue Kultur irgendwo ,gestohlen’ hat, und treibt ihn zur Verzweiflung. ,Alles ist erlaubt?’ Das große Dogma wankt. Nur Bakunin bringt es eigentlich mit gutem Gewissen fertig, das, was Herzen als unentrinnbare Folge des philosophischen Subjektivismus immer fürchtete: das Verbrechen, den Mord zum System zu erheben. Aber er konnte es nicht hindern, daß die weniger Skrupellosen für den Mord heimlich nach einer höheren, solideren Sanktion suchten und, da sie sie nicht fanden, zu zweifeln anfingen. 1909 erschien in Moskau ein Buch, das für diese Krise des Anarchismus noch bezeichnender ist als Dostojewskis prophetische Analyse des Problems, denn es stammte von einem ausübenden Terroristen, der einige Tage vor seiner Aburteilung für die von ihm gegen Plehwe und den Großfürsten Sergius geleiteten Attentate aus dem Gefängnis entkam. Der Titel der Novelle ,Das fahle Roß’, das Motto aus der Apokalypse: ,Und siehe, ein fahles Roß, und der darauf saß, dessen Name war Tod, und die Hölle folgte ihm, der Autor: V. Ropschin, das Pseudonym für das Mitglied der sozialrevolutionären Partei Sawinkow, der Inhalt: die alte, böse Anarchistenfrage ,Alles ist erlaubt’. Vanja, einer der fünfgliederigen Terroristengruppe, philosophiert: ,Hör mal, hast du jemals über Christus nachgedacht? Hast du nachgedacht, wie zu glauben, wie zu leben? Weißt de, zu Hause, auf dem Hofe les ich oft das Evangelium, und mir scheint, es gibt nur zwei Wege, im ganzen zwei Wege. Einer: - Alles ist erlaubt. Verstehst du - alles. Dann - ist Smerdjakow*. Wenn man nämlich wagen will, wenn man sich für alles entschließen will. Denn wenn es keinen Gott gibt und Christus Mensch ist, dann gibt es auch keine Liebe, d. h. es gibt nichts. . . und der zweite Weg: - der Weg Christi zu Christus. . . . Hör mal, wenn man nämlich liebt, viel, wirklich liebt, kann man dann töten oder nicht?’ Aber George, der Führer der Gruppe, liebt nichts und niemanden, sich selbst nicht; er haßt alles, verflucht alles, sich, sein Schickfal, die Welt, den Mord, das Opfer und den Mörder, - er tötet plangemäß den Gubernator . . . und dann sich selbst.** Dostojewski, der sein Leben diesem Problem gewidmet hat, stellte die Formel auf: Atheismus - Nihilismus - Mord - Selbstmord; Ropschin bestätigt dieselbe schauerlich. Auch Iwans seelische Erkrankung ist eine Selbstkritik des Anarchismus; immerhin ist sie noch individuell betrachtet, eine Art rettender Ausweg aus ihm heraus, ist das äußerste Mittel der Selbsterrettung des inneren Wesenskerns des Menschen durch das Opfer des sichtbaren selbstbewußten ,Ich’, das sich unfähig erwiesen hat, die moralische Aufgabe des Daseins zu lösen. Aber Ropschin gibt mit Georges Selbstmord den kompletten Bankerott des Anarchismus zu. Masaryk möchte Ropschins Verzweiflung beschwichtigen: er habe sich unnützerweise von Dostojewskis Iwan imponieren lassen; aber zwischen ihnen sei doch ein wesentlicher Unterschied, der Unterschied des absoluten Egoisten und des Revolutionärs. Diesem heilige die sozialpolitische Notwehr und die gute Sache auch die Anwendung gewaltsamer Mittel. Wir glauben nicht, daß damit dem russischen Menschen geholfen ist, der durch die immanente Logik des Anarchismus auf den fürchtetlichen Salz ,alles ist erlaubt’ hin: getrieben wird und seinen mystischen Schrecken durchlebt hat. Er wird mit Ropschin höhnen: ,Wer entscheidet denn, welches Programm die gute Sache führt? Kant, Marx, Engels? Unsinn! Keiner von ihnen hat je einen Menschen getötet. Ich, der getötet hat, weiß: Immer oder niemals darf man töten. . .' Wer in Arzybaschews ,Sanin’, dem Buche von dem aus ,Enttäuschung in Wüstlingsorgiasmus gestoßenen Rebellen, die Not und Ratlosigkeit der anarchistischen Intelligenz erahnt hat, wird sich sagen, daß bequeme Distinktionen hier wenig fruchten. ,Europa kennt nur den Leib, aber [Note: * Der von Iwan inspirierte Vatermörder in: ,Die Brüder Karamasoff’. ** Masaryk a. a. O. II, 408.] nicht die Seele der russischen Revolution.’ Gibt es einen Ausweg aus diesem Anarchismus des Anarchismus? * * * Masaryk scheint anzunehmen, daß der russische Anarchismus mit der Verwirklichung einer wahrhaften Demokratie verschwinden werde. Ob diese Ansicht richtig ist; muß die Geschichte zeigen. Einstweilen sehen wir bloß, daß der Anarchismus die Revolution gestärkt hat. Inwieweit diese aber wahrhaft dem demokratischen Gedanken diente, ist zweifelhaft; die bis jetzt von ihr gebrachte demokratische Lebensbeglückung ist nicht derart, daß man hoffen darf, sie sei die Überwindung des Anarchismus. Aber kann der russische Anarchismus überhaupt im demokratischen Gedanken zur Ruhe kommen - seinem ganzen Wesen nach? ,Ihr (Europäer) wendet euren eigenen Maßstab an. Ihr glaubt; wir machen jetzt eine normale, durch unser inneres Wachstum bedingte Krankheit durch, wie sie schon alle europäischen Völker durgemacht haben. Ihr glaubt, daß wir ans gleiche Ziel gelangen, an das ihr bereits gelangt seid; daß wir uns auch einmal einen parlamentarischen Maulkorb anlegen lassen werden, daß wir uns von den extremsten sozialistischen und anarchistischen Lehren lossagen und uns mit einem alten konstitutionellen Kram, mit einem goldenen Mittelweg eines bürgerlichen Demokratismus begnügen werden; so war es ja überall, so wird es auch wohl bei uns sein.’ Mereschkowski; der dies schreibt, glaubt also nicht an den rettenden Ausweg aus dem Anarchismus in die moderne Demokratie hinein; er glaubt es deshalb nicht, weil der russische Anarchismus nicht nur politisch, sondern auch religiös ist. Äußerlich steht diese Meinung mit der Tatsache im Widerspruch, daß der Anarchismus sich außerhalb des religiösen Bewußtseins und sogar gegen dasselbe entwickelt hat. Er ist atheistisch, weil er gegen die mit der Autokratie verbündete Orthodoxie kämpft; er ist atheistisch; weil die verhaßte Orthodoxie Gott in Beschlag genommen hat und Religion gleichbedeutend mit Reaktion ist. Aber dieser Atheismus ist nur ein Notbehelf, ein trauriger, unglückseliger Notbehelf, der bis jetzt noch kein wirklich friedebringendes Ergebnis, der nur Wahnsinn, Mord und Selbstmord - eben den schrecklichen Circulus vitiosus der Anarchie gebracht hat. Der Ausgangspunkt des Anarchismus war wesentlich religiös; auch seine innere Überwindung, wenn es überhaupt eine gibt, wird nicht aus dem Endziel einer demokratischen Entwicklung, sondern aus religiösen Kräften kommen. Das war die Überzeugung von Dostojewski, in welchem die tiefsten Bewegungen und Ziele des geistig ringenden Rußland ihre Inkarnation gefunden haben. Als er seinem schrecklichen Revolutionsepos ,Die Dämonen’ jenes evangelische Motto von den Teufeln vorausseßte, die aus dem Besessenen in eine Schweineherde fuhren, galt ihm das anarchistische Rußland als der große Kranke, den nur Christus heilen könne. Aber die schwere Frage lautet: Wird sich, will sich das anarchistische Rußland von Chriftus heilen lassen, von dem Christus Dostojewski's, d. h. dem Christus der Orthodoxie? Es ist gar kein Zweifel: jene Orthodoxie, welche in mönchischerAbgeschlossenheit die Klagen und Fragen des fiebergeschüttelten Rußland nicht hörte und nicht verstand und sich damit beschäftigt, ihre Reliquien zu hüten, welche durch den Mund ihres fanatischen Eiferers Leontjew den Analphabetismus als Rnßlands Glück erklärte und den Kampf gegen die Volksbildung als religiöse Pflicht hinstellte, welche Christus heimlich durch den Zaren ersetzte und von der übermächtigen Staatsgewalt sich oftmals zum Polizeiinstitut herabwürdigen ließ, welche Herzen mit dem Schmerz enttäuschter Hoffnung eine ,Religion des Todes’ nannte und Bakunin als die ,himmlische Schnapsbude’ des russischen Bauern verhöhnte - diese Orthodoxie hat nicht mehr die Kraft, die Geister an sich zu ziehen. Zwischen ihr und ihnen hat sich ein Abgrund aufgetan; sie hat ihn selber graben helfen dadurch, daß sie immer nur weltverachtend vom Himmel sprach und so alle weltfrohen Menschen in einen extremen Diesseitskult trieb. Über diesen ,heidnischen Dualismus, das feindselige Gegenüberstellen Gottes zur Welt, des Himmels zur Erde, des Geistes zur Materie’ hat der edle Wladimir Solovjeff im Sonntagsbrief vom April 1897 bitter geklagt.* Es sei ein Unglück und ein unrecht, wenn die orthodoxe Presse immer wieder von der gottlos aufgeklärten Intelligenz spreche, für die ,alles auf der Erde sei - und dem wahrhaft aufgeklärten Volk, welches wise, daß ,alles im Himmel’ zu suchen sei. ,Gibt es denn wirklich in Rußland nicht Menschen, die der christlichen Wahrheit treu sind und die in Kraft dieser Wahrheit verstehen, daß die Aufgabe des einzelnen Menschen im Volk und der ganzen Menschheit ebenso wenig in fruchtlosen Wahngebilden einer absoluten Vollkommenheit als in einem beschränkten und würdelosen Dienen um vergängliche Ziele zu suchen sei, sondern in der Übereinstimmung dessen, was unten, mit dem, was oben ist, und im tätigen Bemühen das persönliche und gesamte Leben allseitig zu vervollkommnen, damit der Wille Gottes ebenso auf Erden wie im Himmel geschehen könne?’ Wir glauben, es gibt jetzt solche Menschen nicht nur im russischen Volk, sondern in der russischen Kirche selber. Der Sturm, der den Zarenthron weggefegt hat, hat die Türen des Kerkers gesprengt, indem die östliche Kirche gefesselt lag. Schon in der Revolution von 1905 ertönte der Ruf nach dem Kirchenkonzil und wurde zum Losungswort aller, denen die Reform der Kirche am Herzen lag. Aber der Zarismus hat trotz seiner beginnenden Lähmung noch Kraft genug gehabt, das Zustandekommen des Konzils zu verhindern. Doch kaum kam er im März 1917 in dem Strudel der Petersburger Revolution endgültig ums Leben, so trat - fünf Monate später - das Konzil in der ehrwürdigen Himmelsfahrts-Kathedrale auf dem Kreml zusammen, und nun ist der seit Peter dem Großen vakante [Note: * Wladimir Solovjeff, Ausgewählte Werke (Jena 1914), I., 172.] Stuhl eines Patriarchen für die rechtgläubige Kirche von ganz Rußland aufs neue besetzt. Der Prozeß der inneren Befreiung hebt an, und die Wiedergeburt aus der byzantinischen Erstarkung kündet sich an in der Stellungnahme des Konzils zum Problem der Wiedervereinigung der christlichen Kirche. Vielleicht wird die Geschichte später in diesem von der Presse fast unbeachteten Vorgang die Anfangsstunde einer neuen Zeit erblicken. Erfaßt es ganz: aus der teuflischen Orgie von Blut und Eisen, aus dem wildesten Hexensabbath heraus, den der russische Anarchismus bis jetzt gefeiert hat, ertönt der Ruf nach dem, der allein den Höllengraus beschwören kann, der Ruf nach Christus, nicht dem orthodoxen, überweltlich fernen,sondern dem weltnahen, dem Haupt und Führer der in Liebe vereinten ganzen Menschheit, nach Christus, ,der die einzige Sonne ist von Orient und Okzident und der geheimnisvolle unerkannte Bräutigam der europäischen Kultur, die ohne ihn nur eine lebendige Mumie und ein Aas ist.’ (Mereschkowski.) ,Die unvollkommenheit unserer religiösen Lehre’, hat Tschaadajew prophetisch in seinem ,philosophischen Schreiben’ gesagt, ,hat uns von der weltumfassenden Bewegung, in der die sozial-christliche Idee geboren wurde, ausgeschlossen . . . Wir werden erst an jenem Tag wirklich frei sein, an dem sich unseren Lippen, wenn auch gegen unseren Willen, das Bekenntnis aller Sünden unserer Vergangenheit entreißen wird und unserer Brust ein so mächtiger Schrei der Reue und des Schmerzes entfährt, daß die ganze Welt vom Widerhall erfüllt wird.’ Wenn die Botschaft aus der Petersburger Himmelfahrtskirche dieser bis jetzt noch vom Kriegslärm übertönte Schrei der Reue ist, dann stehen wir vor dem entscheidungsvollen Wendepunkt in jenem Kampf zwischen Glauben und Unglauben, der das tiefste Thema wie der Weltgeschichte so auch des russischen Anarchismus ist, und mit Mereschkowski hoffen wir: ,Den nahenden Pöbel wird Christus, der Nahende, besiegen.’ March 1, 1920 Lingg to Fauhaber: Your Excellency! Most Reverend Lord Archbishop! I have the honor to answer herewith Your Excellency’s gracious letter of February 26/28. As to point I ... Your Excellency points out to me then the most important matters for consultation in the consultation conference. The issues totally correspond to the time we are in. Indeed I feel that the three main issues place upon us a great responsibility. I feel this all the more since with all three issues we do not know the intentions of our adversaries. But I have no doubt that the consultation conference, which surely has more material than I at its disposal, will do the right thing as to all of this. I can only just say that I really do not believe the Cabinet Ministry will give the Church her walking papers before the elections. I believe the Ministry would thereby be giving itself its own walking papers. And if the Reverend Lord Nuncio would like to know the view of the Bishops on the 19 points, I can only say that the points correspond thoroughly with the strict Canonical standpoint and I would like to hope that they really would be established by way of the Concordat. But I fear that this hope will not be fulfilled. To say more will only be possible once the governmental counter-proposals are made known... Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 4320 March 5, 1920 Schioppa to Gasparri re the Holy See and Bavarian secession: It is only now that this Nunciature has received the esteemed Dispatch from Your Most Reverend Eminence No. B-2435 dated Feb. 14 of this year, in which Your Eminence orders a denial of an assertion attributed to Deputy Dr. Heim, according to which the Holy See had shown its preference for the secession of Bavaria from the German Reich. Since Your Eminence, in the same aforesaid Dispatch, orders likewise that the profound impression that the declaration made upon the lower clergy of Bavaria be corrected in the best way possible, and since - as is known to me - the mentioned statement has also provoked a similar impression in political circles, I have deemed it opportune to have published in the Bayerischer Kurier, using the same language from the cited Dispatch, without alluding moreover to Dr. Heim’s assertion, the following notice in the form of a telegram addressed to a newspaper in Rome: “It has been recently denied that the Holy See has indicated its preference for the secession of Bavaria from the German Reich. The Vatican, which, as a constant principle, stays remote from all purely political questions, also in this case has not made any statement to the effect indicated.” The newspaper preceded the notice with these words: “We have received from a competent source the following news,” which was done without my authorization. While I now have the honor to append here the German text of the Note in question, which has also been republished in other newspapers, I humbly bow ... etc. Lorenzo Schioppa, Auditor Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 331. March 6, 1920 La Documentation Catholique, no. 57, pp. 326-328: “The Jews Are the Principal Factors of Worldwide Bolshevism: Note established by the official American Services” Are the Jews the authors of the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik horrors? The Jews – dreaming of dictating their will to all governments, thanks to the power of gold – do they have an interest in the red wave breaking upon all Europe and even upon the whole world? International Jewish high finance, if it is not the inspirer, has it not seized as its own “the pre-war plan” for Russia that we reproduce above? Didn’t it use Bolshevism to make the Czarist regime, which was hostile to Judaism, disappear, to annihilate Russian industry and commerce, and make off with the gold and precious objects, the property of the Russian aristocracy and middle class ( Footnote 1: In support of this assertion one could cite the following lines from Prizyf [The Call], a Russian journal edited in Berlin (11/24 Feb. 1920), that we just received as we were correcting the page proofs of the text above: “Our special correspondent in Switzerland alerted us to the arrival in Lausanne of a group of Jews from Paris. They entered into relations with the Russian emigrés and began to buy properties and woods in Russia, in this Soviet Russia where we, Russians, have not entered. These businessmen, without the slightest doubt, have excellent acquaintances there and possess serious information, because if they were not assured of success in their enterprise, they would not conduct it in this way, from afar, in such major business deals. For a long time it has been confirmed that there exists an elaborate plan, down to the minutest details, whose purpose has been to organize the future destiny of our country. Thus, from a great number of facts, one can conclude that this plan is being executed with the exactitude of a mathematical formula. They have taken away the land from its owners, under the pretext that the peasants did not possess enough: a revolting illegality, because this was nothing but legalized theft. But we do not even know if the peasants have gained any profit from this pillage: the extent of uncultivated and unplanted land is increasing in a frightful proportion. Aren’t we going to see a large number of grand proprietors appear from among the race of Israel, as has been happening for a long time in Galicia? The Russian Revolution had the result of placing in the hands of the Jews all the gold of the Russian capitalists: will the riches of the earth experience the same fate?”) [end of footnote] and thus open to Germany marvelous markets for its products and allow it to assure to itself the friendship of Russia while appearing to save it from misery? The “pogroms” of Russia, finally, are they the result of a conscious hatred on the part of antisemites, or doesn’t one have to see there the reaction of peasants against the tyranny of pitiless usurers? These are themes of ardent polemics, in which the pros and cons are thrown about with the same apparent conviction. It seems to us helpful to read into the record, concerning these troubling questions, the unedited document that you are about to read. The authenticity of this piece is guaranteed to us; as to the exactitude of the information that it contains, it is such that we can only leave it to the responsibility of the official bureau that authored this note, and we are happy that a public discussion may shed some light on these sanguinary shadows. “God has given us, his chosen people, the power to spread; and what seems to everyone to be our weakness has been our strength, and has now carried us to the threshold of worldwide domination. There is little that remains to be built on these foundations.” (Secret Protocol no. XI of Zion, 1897.) I. – In February 1916, it was learned for the first time that a revolution was being fomented in Russia. It was discovered that the following persons and firms had been engaged in this destructive work. 1 – Jacob Schiff . . . . . Jew 2 – Kuhn Loeb and Company . . . . Jewish Firm Directors: Jacob Schiff . . Jew Felix Warburg . . . . . . . . . Jew Otto Kahn . . . . . . . . . . . . Jew Mortimer L. Schiff . . . . . Jew Jerome I. Hanauer . . . . . .Jew 3 – Guggenheim . . . . . Jew 4 – Max Breitung . . . . . Jew There is thus hardly any doubt that the Russian Revolution, which broke out one year after the above information, was launched and fomented by distinctively Jewish influences. Indeed, in April 1917, Jacob Schiff made a public declaration that it was thanks to his financial support that the Russian Revolution succeeded. II. – In the spring of 1917, Jacob Schiff began to finance Trotsky (Jew) to conduct a social revolution in Russia; the New York newspaper Forward, a Jewish Bolshevik daily gazette, put forth its contribution as well towards the same goal. At the same time, in Stockholm, a Jew, Max Warburg, was financing Trotsky and Company, a Jewish firm; this Society was likewise financed by the Westphalian Rhine Syndicate, an important Jewish business firm, as well as by another Jew, Olaf Aschberg, of the “Nya Banken” in Stockholm, and also by Givotovsky, a Jew whose daughter married Trotsky. Thus were established the relationships between the Jewish multimillionaires and the proletarian Jews. III. – In October 1917, the social revolution [revolution sociale] took place in Russia, thanks to which certain Soviet organizations took control of the Russian people. In these Soviet councils, the following individuals made themselves prominent: Nom de Guerre Real Name Nationality Lenin Oulianoff Russian Trotsky Bronstein Jew Stekloff Nachamkes Jew Martoff Zederbaum Jew Zinovieff Apfelbaum " Kameneff Rosenfeld " Souchanoff Gimel " Sagersky Krochman " Bogdanoff Zilberstein " Larin Lurge " Gorev Goldman " Uritzky Padomislsky " Kamenev Katz " Ganetzky Furtenberg " Dan Gourkvitch " Meschkovsky Goldberg " Parvus Goldfandt " Riasanov Goldenbach " Martenoff Zibar " Chernomorsky Chernomordkin " Solntzeff Bleechmann " Piatnitzky Zivin " Abramovitch Rein " Zvesden Vogelstein " Maklakowsky Rosenblum " Lafinsky Loevensohn " Bobriv Nathansohn " Axelrod Orthodox " Garin Garfeld " Glasounoff Von Schultke " ... Joffe " IV. – At the same time, a Jew, Paul Warburg, formerly involved with the “Federal Reserve Board,” became noticeable for his active relationships with certain Bolshevik personalities in the United States, which, together with other information, led to the blocking of his re-election to the aforesaid Board. V. – Among the intimate friends of Jacob Schiff, there is a rabbi, Judah Magnes, a totally intimate friend and devoted agent of Schiff. The rabbi Magnes is a vigorous protagonist of international Judaism, and a Jew named Jacob Billikopf stated one day that Magnes was a prophet. At the beginning of 1917, the so-called Jewish prophet launched the first truly Bolshevik association in that country under the name “Council of the People.” The danger of this association only appeared later. On October 24, 1918, Judah Magnes publicly declared that he was a “Bolshevik” and was in complete accord with their doctrine and their ideals. This declaration was made by Magnes at a meeting of the American Jewish Committee in New York. Jacob Schiff condemned the ideas of Judah Magnes, and he himself, in order to fool public opinion, left the American Jewish Committee. Meanwhile Schiff and Magnes remained in perfect harmony as members of the Executive Committee of the Jewish Kehillah. VI. – Judah Magnes, financed by Jacob Schiff, is, moreover, in intimate relationship with the worldwide Zionist organization “Poale,” of which he is in fact the director. His ultimate goal is to establish the international supremacy of the Jewish workers party. There again is established the link between multi-millionaire Jews and proletarian Jews. VII. – Several weeks ago, the social revolution broke out in Germany; automatically, a Jewess, Rosa Luxemburg, took over political control, and one of the principal leaders of the international Bolshevik movement is a Jew, M. Haase. At this moment, the social revolution in Germany is developing according to the same Jewish directives as the social revolution in Russia. VIII. – If we notice the fact that the Jewish firm Kuhn Loeb and Company is in a relationship with the Westphalian Rhine Syndicate, a Jewish firm from Germany, and Lazare Freres, a Jewish house in Paris, and also the house of the Bank Gunsburg, a Jewish house in Petersburg, Tokyo and Paris; if we notice additionally that the above Jewish business concerns are in close relationship with the Jewish house Speyer and Company in London, New York and Frankfurt-on-Main, as well as with “Nya Banken,” a Bolshevik Jewish business firm in Stockholm, it will be seen that the Bolshevik movement, in itself, is in a certain way of speaking a generally Jewish movement and that certain Jewish banking houses have an interest in the organization of this movement. The Allies gained a marvelous victory over German militarism. From the ashes of German autocracy is arising a new worldwide autocracy – Jewish imperialism, whose ultimate goal is the establishment of Jewish domination over the world. Even though the Jews, during all the war, did nothing to fill the ranks of soldiers in the different countries, they still obtained the formal recognition of a Jewish State in Palestine. The Jews have equally succeeded in forming a Jewish Republic in Germany and in Austria-Hungary; these are the first steps toward the future worldwide domination by the Jews, but this is not their last effort. International Jewry feverishly gathers its strength, spreading its poisonous doctrines, realizing enormous sums of money (a few weeks ago they realized almost instantaneously in the United States a billion dollars, ostensibly to establish schools and chorales in Palestine and expended enormous sums for their propaganda). Christianity remains silent, inactive, passive and inert. Who among Christian men of state will dare to hear the prophetic words of international Judaism? Who among them has ever taken account that the Jews think exactly what they say, and here is what they say: “We must force the Goy Government to support by its action the vast plan that we have conceived and which now approaches its triumphal goal, probably thanks to public opinion, which we have secretly organized to help what is called ‘the Royal Secret’ of the press, which, apart from a few negligible exceptions, is already in our hands. In short, to sum up our system of subverting the Goy Government in Europe, we will show our power to some among them by assassination and terror, and if they think it possible to resist us, we will answer them with American, Chinese or Japanese cannons.” Secret Protocols of Zion, no. VIII, 1897.) French original of front page with title and summary of article First page of article Second page Third and final page of article March 6, 1920 Schioppa, Auditor of Munich Nunciature, to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, Your Most Reverend Eminence’s venerated Dispatch No. 2971 dated February 2 [sic] has reached me, concerning the proposal of the Berlin Government ... March 7, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 10, page 77: “Vatican Review” “Nothing else can be so precious to Us as the love of neighbor, whose mission and apostolate we have before all others. More than ever before it is most essential that love of neighbor be awakened and enkindled in every heart, so that, with the complete extirpation of hatred among peoples, simultaneously with the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, auspicious and lasting peace is created.” Thus wrote Pope Benedict XV recently once again, namely to the association of American students in Freiburg, Switzerland. Finally, louder and louder voices are also being raised by Catholic elements in hostile foreign lands, against the Paris peace treaty, which the Holy Father on high has implicitly condemned. Today it is the Catholic Times, under the title, “So That We Do Not Forget” the mendacity of that stigma, in that the representative of the Holy See was excluded from the peace conference ... and “negotiations,” in that during the negotiations he had a pistol put to his chest... May this knowledge ever more open a path, because without it a lasting re-establishment of international relations among Catholics is not thinkable; a secure foundation would be lacking. The “liberated” Slovaks have turned in a perplexed outcry to Cardinal Amette, that he might bring their frightful fate to the attention of the Supreme Council. The memorandum shows the ruthless culture war waged by the Czech powers that be, “who defame our Church, persecute our priests, while the anti-Church societies go about to destroy our youth. The clergy who are faithful to Rome are subjected to efforts to force them into the schismatic Jednota priests’ association. Every means is employed to rob us of our pastors, in order to make us all the easier to make into work-slaves in the Czech mines and work-cattle for their factories. We are being robbed of our God, our religion, our language and our Fatherland...” From the Ukraine, ruled again by Bolsheviks, came recently to the Vatican the first news of ... The Pope and French President Deschanel have exchanged very sincere dispatches, which are significant as a preparation for the future mutual exchange of diplomatic representatives. France is well known to be speculating on the further renewal of the Protectorate over Christians in Palestine, where it is in competition with England the Jewish national state established by England... Papal Diplomacy. According to telegraphic reports from Rome, Msgr. Scioppa [sic: Schioppa], who has served for many years as the Auditor in our Munich Nunciature, is to be promoted to the challenging post in Budapest as Vatican Representative to the Hungarian Government... Persecutions in the new Romania. With the establishment of the Romanian state a new opportunity has now been given to schismatic-Orthodox circles to persecute Catholics... German original March 10, 1920 Faulhaber to Ritter zu Groenesteyn: Your Excellency! Highly esteemed Herr Baron! With most devoted thanks I confirm the receipt of your treasured letters of February 22nd and March 1st and the issue of L’Osservatore, after sending which, Your Excellency surely received the Pastoral Letter in several issues. For competent authorities’ most important understanding of the danger to the continuation of the Nunciature by elimination of the Bavarian Legation, I immediately informed Herr Privy Councilor Held, not without indicating the seriousness of the hour and the responsibility before the forum of history. Likewise I mobilized several gentlemen to keep the food deliveries to the Nunciature from April 1st onward as previously, and Herr Privy Councilor Held assures me that this will be achieved without much effort. The ukase in this matter, which seeks to put the Papal Nuncio on short rations, is once again characteristic of the high line of statesmanship of the Bavarian Government. The calling away of that personality so highly esteemed by us, Archbishop Pacelli, would be most regrettable in general and especially with the current negotiations. Excellency Pacelli is not merely respected by the Bavarian Bishops, but admired – I have never heard a different opinion – and has won powerful respect from the governmental authorities. Certainly none of the previous Nuncios in Munich ever had so great a burden of work to master and certainly none of them became as thoroughly knowledgeable as Archbishop Pacelli in every single issue of principle. A change at the current moment would not only delay the recently started negotiations on the ordering of Church-State relations, but would also rob the ecclesiastical side of its most respected law specialist. I am exceptionally grateful to know that Your Excellency expressed these points of view to the highest authorities as also my viewpoint. I nevertheless do not venture to hold a vote of the Bavarian Bishops because, as I have already repeatedly heard, the Bishops believe they have to adopt the greatest reserve in issues of Papal competence and especially in the personal issue of the Nunciature. Finally for the reason that the Bishops, under the innumerable demands of the diocesan church buiildings, did not bring to pass the erection of a worthy Nunciature building and now face with doubled concern this issue with a deeply felt duty-bound honor. I will make a report of this to the Lord Bishops, since I must soon must send a circular letter to them on account of the Reich school conference. With the expression of my pre-eminently high esteem, Your Excellency’s most devoted Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 1352 March 10, 1920 Faulhaber to Bertram: Your Eminence! Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Prince-Bishop! As I already did by telegraph, I would like to repeat by letter my devoted thanks that Your Eminence directly sent me the information about the Reich School Conference, which will also be gratefully welcomed by us in similar pressing cases in the future... Concerning the manner of invitation to it, it was officially declared in our Landtag that the individual member States would have to initiate the invitations. When I sent my telegram it was not clear to me how many individual persons we are allowed to recommend. I would have had still more names those those that had been sent in to me then: Pastor Ernst Harth in Mömlingen (Lower Franconia), Cathedral Chapter Member Stahler in Würzburg, Cathedral Deacon Kiefl in Regensburg, but I suspect that I already exceeded the Bavarian quota with the list I sent by telegram. I do not have much trust. I consider the Reich School Conference to be an idea of our Minister President Hoffmann for a sneaky maneuver to force non-denominational schooling upon the Catholic States by means of Reich legislation. The parent associations are our hope... Source: Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 6945 March 13, 1920 Cable from Schioppa to Gasparri: Journals are publishing that last night a counter-revolution supported by troops overthrew the Ebert Government and took over power. I am without other reliable reports as is the Prussian Legation. A counter-coup is feared in Bavaria. The Cabinet Ministry met this morning in secret session. Schioppa Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 2397 (cable no. 346). March 14, 1920 Cable from Schioppa to Gasparri: Further to my cable no. 346, I transmit to Your Reverend Eminence news communicated to me now by the Prussian Legation. The Ebert Government has not abdicated, but has taken refuge in Dresden, from where it has launched an appeal to the individual States that they maintain relations with it, which proclaims itself the only legal government; but it is doubtful that it will be able to remain in power and break the general strike, proclaimed against the government, but that could degenerate into Bolshevism. If that happens, chaos is to be feared. Munich is quiet up to now, but worried: the Independent Party is meeting now to decide about the situation. Schioppa Source: Dokt 2398 (cable no. 347). March 14, 1920 Cable from Schioppa to Gasparri: Tomorrow there will be a general strike also in Munich as a protest against the new Berlin Government. Since I cannot yet know if public services will also participate in the strike I am alerting Your Reverend Eminence in case it will not be possible for me to telegraph for several days. I ask Your Reverend Eminence to calm my mother. Schioppa Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 8420 (cable no. 348). March 14, 1920 Cable from Schioppa to Gasparri: Hoffmann Ministry resigned. Provisional Minister President is Baron Freyberg; Saenger is Minister of Foreign Affairs and Education and Cultural Affairs. Parliament convenes tomorrow for formation of new Ministry. It is believed the former Ministers will be reconfirmed, except Hoffmann. Schioppa Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 5332 (cable no. 349). Note: Baron Karl Leopold Maria von Freyberg was Minister of Agriculture in the Hoffmann Cabinet beginning in May 1919. He was a member of the Bavarian People’s Party. March 15, 1920 Cable from Schioppa to Gasparri: Ebert Government charged the Prussian Legation to transmit the Nunciature for the Holy See the following telegram: “... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 5331 (cable no. 350). March 15, 1920 Schioppa to Gasparri: Re: Counter-Revolution in Germany With the following information, acquired from good sources, I have the honor to complete the summary reports about the counter-revolution in Germany, sent to Your Most Reverend Eminence by Cable Nos. 346, 347, 350. The Berlin Government had already had ... Director Kapp had a general staff composed of Captain Pabst and Publicists Grabowski and Schnitzler, all from the extreme wing of the Conservative Party. Monarchical elements had infiltrated the conspiratorial spirit in a part of the Reich Army (Reichswehr), especially among the troops returning from the Baltic area that were in Döberitz and the Marine Brigade of General Ehrhard, ... The apparent ultimate goal of all this movement was to overthrow the Ebert-Bauer Government. Friday March 12th in the afternoon it became known that the aforesaid troops – from 5 to 6 thousand men – were marching toward Berlin. While the Government believed itself the master of the situation as a result of the preparations it had taken, in the evening hours things changed, becoming ever more threatening. Some Generals were then sent to parley with the troops on the march. They returned, bringing an “Ultimatum” from these troops containing 7 conditions, among them the dismissal of several Ministers of the Bauer Cabinet and their replacement by technical Ministers. The Ebert Government rejected the ultimatum. On the other hand, to avoid bloodshed, it ordered a retreat by the troops mustered in its defense. It is said, however, that these soldiers had declared they were ready to defend against any attack by the left, but would not have fired in another case against their comrades. It was then that the Ebert Government, without abdicating power, left Berlin and, as has become known, took refuge in Dresden. During the night of the 12th to the 13th, the counter-revolutionary troops entered Berlin and, not having found opposition, occupied the government buildings. Director Kapp took possession of the Reich Chancellery and immediately appointed the Minister of the Army, General von Lüttwitz, and other personalities of his party to various Ministries, communicating to the population the fall of the Ebert Government and the taking possession by the mentioned Ministers of their respective offices. Moreover, in a second proclamation, Kapp announced the dissolution of the Prussian Landtag, and in a third, the dissolution of the National Assembly and the new Elections, in order to re-establish order. To the easy success of the counter-revolutionary movement, the Ebert Government ensconced in Dresden, as I have said, replied with a proclamation, in which it declared itself the only Constitutional Government and exhorted the individual States not to recognize the so-called new Government and to remain in official relations only with the one in Dresden. Moreover a convening of the National Assembly was announced for the 17th in Stoccarda, where the Ebert Government went on the afternoon of the 14th. Democracy in all its colors: white for constitutional, red for Socialist and black for the Independent Party, responded to Kapp’s attempt with the general strike that moreover was proclaimed by Chancellor Bauer himself at the moment of leaving Berlin. The “Center Party,” meeting on March 13th in Berlin with Trimborn presiding, approved the following order of the day: “The Center Party, as a Christian people’s party, remains unshakably upon the basis of the Constitution. It therefore strongly condemns the attempt to overthrow the constitutional Government. The dissolution of the German National Assembly and the Prussian Landtag are an act of violence. It will not be recognized by us. It is treason against the German people to disturb the obvious beginning of the restoration of the fatherland and provoke in Germany the danger of civil war. We are persuaded that in condemning the counter-revolutionary movement we find ourselves in full agreement with our Party’s friends and with the majority of the German people.” That is how things stand up to now. It remains to be seen what will be the result of this great and dangerous struggle between German democracy and what they call the Reaction. What is actually hiding under this name of Reaction is not easy to say. Kapp stated explicitly that he does not in fact want a monarchical restoration or a military dictatorship; but what he truly wants to attain by having overthrown or attempted to overthrow the Ebert Government, if not those, is not entirely clear. His political origin, his activities in public life, the persons with whom he has surrounded himself, have given public opinion full reason to judge his action as a reactionary attempt, a rebirth of militarism, a proper and true Counter-Revolution, which if it is not declaring itself at this moment openly as a monarchical restoration, is undoubtedly a preparation for one. In another Report I will carry out my duty to inform Your Eminence about the other developments of the crisis and about the resolution they will have. Meanwhile humbly bowing ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 2699. March 16, 1920 Cable from Schioppa to Gasparri: Munich strike also for services of water, electricity, gas. Without calling in technical help the people will be deprived of these services. Railroads completely closed. Landtag meeting at 11 a.m. Only now appeared nomination of Minister President Mr. Kahr, of the Bavarian People’s Party, Protestant but absolutely in unity with the Catholics. No reliable news from Berlin. Schioppa Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 2927 (cable no. 351). March 17, 1920 Cable from Schioppa to Gasparri: Formation of ministry now completed by Bavarian People’s Party and Democrats. Kahr is President and Interior. Ministerial Director Matt is Education and Cultural Affairs, cf. 25053. Member of the Farmers’ League is Agriculture Minister. Exclusion of Socialists from the government makes for fears of serious disturbances. City relatively quiet up to now, but immense agitation. Life of the city is completely paralyzed. If the strike continues for several more days expect certain catastrophe completely irreparable. Schioppa Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 5329 (cable no. 352). March 17, 1920 Cable from Schioppa to Gasparri: With the fall of the counter-revolutionary government in Berlin, action ceased on the part of the Military Commission created in past days in Bavaria. General strike in Munich is ended. Ebert Government regains complete power, represented in Berlin, for now, by Vice Chancellor Schiffer. Schioppa Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 2399 (cable no. 353). March 17, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage of the Kapp Putsch on page one: “Events in Germany” - Summary: re the Kapp Putsch and its aftermath Berlin, dateline March 13 – “The representatives of the Center Party have met and unanimously approved a motion that condemns the overthrow of the constitutional Reich and the dissolving of the Reichstag and the Prussian Chamber of Deputies.” Berlin, dateline March 14 – “Von Kapp, the new Chancellor of the Reich, has issued an appeal to German farmers expressing the hope that they will exert their greatest energy to provide everywhere to the peaceful population and city workers all that they need. Berlin, dateline March 13 – “The Chancellor reported that the Von Kapp Government Council has demonstrated the need to form a coalition Government that goes from the extreme right to the communists. Negotiations to form it will begin tomorrow at 10 a.m. “Elections for the new Reichstag are to take place on Saturday April 10th. Included in the notice is the fall of the Governing Council of Bavaria...” March 18, 1920 Schioppa to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, Further to my respectful report no. 16123 dated March 15th, I have the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence concerning the development and ending of the counter-revolutionary movement that occurred in the past days in Germany. It has not been easy, especially from afar, to follow the course of events. A jumble of contradictory reports has broken out in recent days throughout Germany. As soon as the Kapp Government had a report published, immediately the Ebert Government rushed to deny it. Thus, Kapp announced that the Entente had recognized him, and Ebert declared that to be false; Kapp made it known that the former Government was engaged in negotiations for a compromise; Ebert published that this was not true. And the examples could be multiplied, since it was rather difficult to be certain which of the two sources of information was the true one. It seems to me not useful to expound to Your Eminence the various phases, some of them indeed tragic (in various conflicts between the troops and the proletariat in Berlin and in other cities of Germany there were deaths and injuries) through which this violent struggle has passed between militarism and German democracy. I will rather limit myself to reporting on the latest events that have brought about a solution of the crisis in favor of the Ebert-Bauer Government. In the afternoon of Tuesday, March 16th there was a meeting in the Reichstag building of the Undersecretaries of State who had remained in Berlin, together with members of the Reich Council (Reichsrat). Present from the new Government were Generals von Lüttwitz, von Klewitz and von Hülsen. The Undersecretaries explained to the aforesaid Generals the gravity of the situation and called their attention to the proximate threatening catastrophe. General von Lüttwitz from the outset refused any type of agreement, while Kapp’s people had been informed that he believed he had already lost his situation, and Generals von Klewitz and von Hülsen, who had been against the march of the Baltic troops into Berlin and had declared themselves ready to repel these troops by armed force, these two generals said they were ready for an accord. Later these two Generals brought the news that their colleague von Lüttwitz had resigned. While these events were occurring in the Reichstag, deputies of the Independent [Socialist] Party, Cohn and Däumig, presented themselves in the Chancellery palace as Heads of the Councils Republic, which they proclaimed. The two were bearers of an Ultimatum: if by 9 o’clock in the evening the troops were not withdrawn from the workers’ neighborhoods, the proletariat would mount an assault on them by force. As a result of these events, Kapp, as Lüttwitz had already done, capitulated unconditionally. Vice Chancellor Schiffer had control of the Civil Government; General von Seeckt had command of the troops. Both as representatives of the Ebert-Bauer Government. Thus ended this episode in the still chaotic life that agitates Germany as the result of a lost war and a revolution that has shaken all its traditions and its systems. This turn to militarism has lost. Perhaps more than proletarian agitations, more than democratic sensibilities and Communist threats, the defeat is due to a tactical mistake. As I have been assured, the counter-revolutionary coup was supposed to be launched two months from now. Moving it up in time could probably be the true or primary cause of the defeat. Will the militarists, after the defeat inflicted by foreign enemies, endure another one by domestic enemies without thinking of taking their revenge at a more propitious moment and with more adequate preparation? That is doubtful. Another consequence, in my humble judgment, deserves to be considered concerning the events of these days. If the Ebert-Bauer Government could win the victory in the grave conflict against militarism, this was due in non-negligible part to the behavior of the Center Party and that of the Catholics. As I reported to Your Eminence in my report no. 16123, the Center Party, as soon as the counter-revolution broke out, published a strong declaration condemning Kapp’s gesture and openly siding with the Ebert Government and the constitution. Attendant to that, I believe that this act of loyalty and fidelity by the Center Party should be remembered and valued when it comes to negotiations with the Berlin Government to establish legal relations with the Holy See. I have already taken a step in this sense with the Chargé d’Affaires of Prussia, insisting in a particular way that the extremely serious question of the schools be resolved according to the just desires and sacred rights of the Catholics. Humbly bowing ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 2698. March 19, 1920 Schioppa to Gasparri: Re: The Counter-Revolution in Germany and the Government crisis in Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, As soon as the first news arrived in Munich of the Counter-Revolution attempted in Berlin by Director Kapp with momentary success, as I had the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence in my respectful Report No. 16123 of March 15th, the Capital of Bavaria was seized by great commotion, which extended immediately throughout the State. The Government, in an emergency meeting (cable 346), published a proclamation signed by all the Ministers, by the Commanding General of the Armed Forces, by the President of the Landtag and by Representatives of the various political parties, except for the Independents. In this proclamation the attempted counter-revolution in Berlin was energetically stigmatized and it was affirmed that the Bavarian people with the Government remain unshakable upon the basis of the Constitution, and that therefore there was no reason whatsoever to go on strike in Bavaria also. But later the situation got worse. A meeting of Officials on the evening of the 13th pronounced itself for a military dictatorship. In the late hours of the night another council of Ministers convened, which lasted until 4:30 in the morning. The Commanding General of the troops, von Möhl, declared to the Government that he could not guarantee the good behavior of all the soldiers. Then the Council of Ministers handed over to the General himself a mandate as Commissar with full powers, de facto if not formally. Upon his request, a Civil Commissar was also appointed in the person of the Governing President of Upper Bavaria, Dr. Kahr. Only Minister Hoffmann opposed this handing over of power to the Military Authorities. Meanwhile, however, the fact of the appointment of General von Möhl greatly aroused the spirit of the Socialist Party, which, whether as a protest against the events in Berlin, or in opposition to the Military Authorities, which were the locus of practically all power, immediately ordered a general strike (Cable 348), which on the day of the 16th extended to the public services of electricity, gas and water (Cable 351). The city presented a sad and gloomy sight. Life there was completely suspended. A few automobiles went through the streets. A few wagons were drawn heavily by skeletal starving nags. Shops were almost all closed. In the main plazas only were seen gatherings of mostly workers of a hardly reassuring appearance. They assembled around extemporaneous orators. There was no visible great show of force. The armed troops were hidden together with numerous police agents and with the Citizen Guard (Einwohnerwehr) in the public buildings. Every so often detachments of soldiers, or of police and armed citizens, elements of the Guard, went up and down the streets. I myself saw some machinegun installations at the most dangerous points and some armored cars making the rounds as a warning threat. It brought back sad memories of the tragic days of spring last year... [ellipsis in original] On the evening of the 14th an Official Communiqué made it known that the entire Hoffmann Ministerial Cabinet had resigned; that the Bavarian Landtag would be convened on the morning of the 16th to form a new Ministerial Cabinet; and that meanwhile the Ministers would remain in charge until then, while the Minister of Agriculture, Baron von Freybert, had assumed the office of Minister President (of which he was already the Representative according to the Constitution) and Undersecretary Saenger that of Foreign Affairs and of Education and Cultural Affairs. (Cable 349). From this Communiqué it appeared clearly that Minister President Hoffmann had not wanted to remain in office even provisionally until the formation of the new Cabinet. In fact, the attitude of the Army (Reichswehr) was so unfavorable to the person of Hoffmann that General von Möhl declared he could not guarantee the safety of the Ministerial Cabinet and of Hoffmann personally. In truth, it is affirmed to me that at least fifty percent of the troops, especially the officers, were for the new Kapp Government and for a Military Dictatorship in Bavaria. Four times, as a deputy in position to know told me in confidence, Munich was at the point of having a military proclamation like that in Berlin. The cabinet ministry crisis having occurred in the meantime, thoughts went immediately to the composition of the new Cabinet. The various delegations in the Landtag met for preliminary discussions. The Socialists declared that they would not assume responsibility to form a Cabinet Ministry. Then the Bavarian People’s Party, as the majority party, had to take on this extremely serious burden. The name of Dr. Heim was proposed, as Head of the Government, but this candidacy was abandoned. Heim was too compromised by his well-known separatist ideas. There could have been a danger from the right and from the left. Then thoughts turned to Dr. von Kahr, who had been President of the Government of Upper Bavaria and who, as I mentioned, was appointed Civil Commissar alongside General von Möhl in recent days. But this name immediately encountered opposition from the Socialists. They judged him compromised and unsafe, precisely because he had accepted the office of Commissar, offering to work together with the hated military. The proposal to opt for Kahr as Minister President being affirmed nonetheless, the Socialists declared they would therefore not want to participate in exercising power, also giving assurances that they would not obstruct the working of the Government. Kahr’s election, which was then confirmed in the plenary session of the Landtag, meeting on the 16th as had already been scheduled, with a big show of force, was due not only to his eminent personal qualities and the trust he enjoyed in his party, but also to the fact that (as I have been told in a totally reserved and confidential manner) he is one of the principal founders and supporters of the Citizen Guard (Einwohnerwehr) and enjoyed immense prestige among its members, the true and trusted guarantee of the tranquility of Munich, since, as I said, the military, if they are reliable for an assault by the left, are not equally reliable for a defense against an attack of the Kapp variety. As to what concerns the interests of Catholics, everyone is certain that Kahr is very well disposed toward them, even though he is a Protestant. Speaking yesterday in the session of the Bavarian People’s Party, he explicitly stated that he completely shares in their program, especially as to the very serious schools question. On this question the aforesaid Party has asserted in a clear way and has wanted a completely trustworthy man to direct the Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs, who has in fact been selected in the person of the Ministerial Director, Matt. For two months an unremitting war has intensified against Hoffmann, precisely for his schools policy. He, who did not intend to give up his anti-religious program for the schools, had finally realized the unsustainability of his position, and it appears that he had welcomed with satisfaction the occasion now presented him to exit the Government without appearing to give up on the schools policy that is so dear to his heart. The new Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs, Matt, is an excellent Catholic, already proven as to his loyalty to the Church and for his ideas about the schools question and in general about relations between the Church and the State. He was the right arm of the former Minister von Knilling, and has rendered excellent service to the Church in the course of his career in the Cultural Affairs ministry. For now the laws and decrees emanating from Hoffmann about the schools question cannot be repealed, but with him their implementation will be impeded. The Democrats having agreed at the last hour to participate in the Government, they had with their party the portfolios of Justice and of Commerce, with the same titles as the preceding Ministerial Cabinet. The Ministry of Agriculture was assigned to a representative of the Farmers’ League (Baurnbund), which had also agreed to participate in exercising power (Cable 352). The new Ministerial Cabinet was presented to the public with a program summarized in a declaration emanating from the President of the Landtag and which contains four points: 1st) the cessation of the Military Commissar and the return of power conferred upon the civil authorities; 2nd) unshakable loyalty to the Constitutions of the Reich and of Bavaria; 3rd) the firm commitment to combat any violent attempt against the Constitution, whether it comes from the right or the left, punishing the guilty according to the law; 4th) complete freedom of organizing (Koalitionsfreiheit) for employees and workers. This program found its sanction in the speech delivered yesterday by the new Minister President before the Landtag. It then, together with the news of the fall of the Kapp-Lüttwitz Government (Report 16141), brought about the cessation of the general strike (Cable 353), except for that proclaimed as to newspapers, which still continued still over an issue of typographers’ salaries. The hopes of the Bavarian People’s Party rest primarily on the elections that they trusted could be held in May at the latest, despite the opposition of the Socialists who would like to delay them. The current Ministerial Cabinet, as President Kahr himself declared in the above-cited speech, is provisional and will remain in charge only until the new elections to the Landtag, which meanwhile it will be able to prepare with the force that comes naturally from having power in their hands. Certainly, however, the resolution of the unexpected and violent crisis was a well-deserved benefit to the Bavarian People’s Party, which, despite undeniable defects and errors, has from the first days of the Revolution worked tirelessly to conserve and make prevail the Christian ideal in the public life of the nation. The serious problem that now preoccupies is whether the Socialists will break their promise to make no obstruction to the Kahr Government; and whether the new Ministerial Cabinet will be able to rule under the extremely grave weight of responsibility that the hour presents, especially as concerns the rather desperate issue of food in the State, and the still present danger of a repeat of Communist agitation. Humbly bowing ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 4048. March 25, 1920 Schioppa to Gasparri re the Record of the Counter-Revolution in Germany and its Consequences: Most Reverend Eminence, The political situation in Germany in the course of this past February could be called completely tranquil. After the law about Workers’ Councils (Betriebsräte) was debated in the National Assembly and finally approved, it was thought certain that there would be no further agitations by the proletariat. Even an armed attack on the Reichstag was easily put down, though unfortunately with the sacrifice of several victims. In passing I must say that it is not considered absolutely impossible that new agitations could be experienced toward the end of April and beginning of May, like last year. The bad potato harvest, especially due to a lack of hands to work in the fields, which left much of it to be lost, the reduction in bread rations, the lack of coal, the phenomenal devaluation and the corresponding incredible rise in prices have produced profound turmoil in economic life. There are, however, negotiations between America and Germany toward the goal of improving nutrition and procuring raw materials and credit, as there is with Holland; and in general there is hope that the situation can improve. However, while economic disadvantages are always a good opportunity for left-wing elements and are their battleground for exercising influence upon the masses, the right, on the other hand, is gaining support for the different motive of combatting the Socialist Government. With the revolution, the right has taken on an extremely grave task, made even more arduous by the devaluation of the Mark and by continuous labor agitations accompanied by strikes. Now, with the Government’s activities largely failing, it serves as an argument for the parties of the right and they say and write: See, it was better before: there was order and prosperity; the fault is with the republican, revolutionary Government and the Socialists. In fact the German Nationalist People’s Party (Deutsche Nationalvolkspartei) and the German People’s Party (Deutsche Volkspartei), at the beginning of March, introduced a motion in the National Assembly, in which they declared against the prolongation of the Assembly, which, according to them, was no longer representing the popular will, which had limited the mandate of its elected representatives to the concluding of the peace and the drafting of a Constitution, and for that reason these parties demanded that the Assembly be dissolved and general elections be held in early May. This motion was debated on the 8th and 9th of this month. The Government declared that the laws for employee stipends must still be taken up, as well as the budget and the electoral laws ... ... In fact the counter-revolution led by Kapp broke out on the 13th, about which I had the honor of reporting to Your Most Reverend Eminence in my respectful Reports Nos. 16123 and 16141... its most disastrous political consequence is the resurgence of Communism... Currently the armed activity of Communism is gradually ceasing, but their political agitation continues... In conclusion, the true enemy of Germany presently is internal. The Central Government is counting on the south and primarily Bavaria and Württemburg. If the south of Germany can break the Bolshevik storm, it will be an immense benefit for the entire Reich. But unfortunately the Bavarian Communists have opened a violent campaign against Minister Kahr, whom they attack as illegal, because they pretend he was imposed by the Military Dictatorship and have even declared to the Munich City Council that they will never recognize his Government and will combat it by all possible means... Source: Vatican Secret Archives, reprinted in Fattorini (1992), pp. 344-348; reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 4049. March 25, 1920 Schioppa to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, Although, as I had the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence in my respectful Report No. 16150 dated March 19, the Bavarian People’s Party, which is now in power, could not immediately abrogate all the laws, regulations and decrees emanating from Hoffmann concerning school policy, yet it has been striving up to now to mitigate the effects of that insane policy and is also trying to undo some of the provisions that most seriously harm the rights of Catholics relative to the religious instruction of their children. Yesterday gave us a praiseworthy example. On August 14, 1919, the general session of the Landtag approved the proposal of two Democrat deputies, Buehler and Link, by which it was enacted to add to Article 10 of the Law on Schools the following Paragraph No. 2: “ Until the enactment of a Reich law in conformity with Article 143 of the Reich Constitution, the provisions of the ordinance of August 1, 1919 remain in effect.” With the enactment of this paragraph by the Landtag, the aforementioned Ordinance of then Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs Hoffmann thus had the force of law, and by it was decreed the establishment of the Simultaneous School under certain conditions of place and number of children of various confessions. Now Deputies of the Bavarian People’s Party, Messrs. Wohlmuth and Held, yesterday presented to the Landtag a proposal, which seeks the abolition of the said Article so that the aforesaid Hoffmann Ordinance about the Simultaneous School will be of no legal effect. The Democrats declared themselves against the proposal. They maintained that the paragraph in question had emanated from the agreement with the Bavarian People’s Party in the meeting in Bamberg, while the formation of a coalition Ministry was being negotiated last year. The aforesaid Party, from the mouth of Held, responded that in the aforementioned meeting, it had made it clearly understood that it could not follow and accept the favorable tendency toward the Simultaneous School. The Socialists also expressed their opposition to the aforesaid proposal, based on the same agreement in Bamberg and accusing the Bavarian People’s Party of acting against the Constitution and creating a dangerous battle in the country. Deputy Speck, Head of the People’s Party, stated that, according to law, the ordinance of the Simultaneous School can well be changed by a vote of the Landtag without thereby coming into conflict with Article 174 of the Reich Constitution. The Democrats together with the Socialists challenged this legal point. The proponent, Wohlmuth, said that his Party would not have made opposition to the ordinance concerning the Simultaneous School if in drafting it, account had been taken of the desires of those who have authority over the instruction of children, but instead that ordinance, exclaimed Wohlmuth energetically, is a Ukase of the Soviets-Council Republic. The Bamberg agreement today no longer has significance, he concluded; and we have the right to change it. To this statement, the opposition responded with vociferous protests, shouting that in this way no agreements concluded with the People’s Party are worth anything. To which Deputy Held replied that in Bavaria a new legal order is at hand, something that has not happened up to now in the other German states. After which, being put to a roll call vote, the Wohlmuth-Held proposal was approved by 68 votes to 60, those against being of the Democrats and the Socialists. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple, with sentiments of most profound veneration, I beg to confirm myself Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most obliged, devoted, humble servant Lorenzo Schioppa, Auditor Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 335. March 26, 1920 Cable from Schioppa to Gasparri: The German Reich Government charges the Prussia Legation to inform me that it, in grateful recognition toward the Holy See, intends to create an Embassy at the same and intends that the Prussian Government would propose the appointment of Ambassador Bergen, currently Prussian Minister [to the Holy See]. The new German Embassy will absorb the Prussian Legation. The German Government asks me to request the Holy See’s agreement for Mr. Bergen as Ambassador. Schioppa Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 8662 (cable no. 354). Apr. 4, 1920 “From World and Church” section of Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 14, page 100: ... Communist East-Jewry in Austria, which represents a great danger to the Austrian Catholic Church, is soon going to bring about further disturbances, especially in Vienna. The old Army was already thoroughly infected by Jewry. During the war, not at the front but rather behind the lines, there was nothing to be seen but a swarm of uniformed Jews. The Revolution set the crown upon these elements. The German-Austrian ersatz military became a refuge for aggressive enterprising Jews. The West Hungarian ethnic Jew Julius Deutsch is State Secretary for Military Affairs; his brother Leo is a driving power in the Vienna soldiers’ council. The overall soldiers’ council of Austria is commanded by a Slovak Jew, Frey, who thus is actually the supreme commander of the Austrian military powers. The Bohemian Jew Braunthal is the all-powerful adjutant of the Jewish State Secretary and at the same time the military-political liaison officer with the German Reich. The Jew Fischer, former secretary of the comrades, was long-time commander of the Vienna arsenal, until he exchanged that post for a good living during the demobilization of the arsenal. The Austrian military justice chief is the Jew Koller; the supreme auditor in the state office for military affairs is the Jew Lelewer. The “investigatory commission for violations of duty in wartime” is likewise composed exclusively of Jews. The press chief in the state office for military affairs is the radical Jew Rager. The Reich education chief is the Jew Stern. The Jewish merchant Aron Wais is the political fixer in the Vienna provincial commissar’s office. Compared to this, the German officer corps in Austria is given over to misery. A homeowner in a Vienna suburb on the western line was looking for a butler. He was advised to turn to the officers association. He did so. And the result? Shattering. Those who responded: 1 major general, 3 colonels, 2 lt. colonels, 7 majors, 18 captains and over 100 subalterns. German original Apr. 10, 1920 Allen Dulles, “Report on the Present Conditions in Bavaria,” April 10, 1920, U.S. State Department files, NARA, RG59, M336, R15, pp. 667-679: [summary]: Several factors described by Dulles are significant for understanding the situation in Bavaria as of April 1920. He began by noting the impact of the short-lived Socialist and Communist revolutions in Bavaria. Dulles observed that the role of Jews in Communist leadership positions in Bavaria had changed “pre-war tolerance” into a growing antisemitic movement with several periodicals “whose program is to combat the so-called Jewish danger.” He commented on “the part played by the Catholic Church in Bavarian politics” and predicted that “the power of the Catholic parties will be increased” in the coming Bavarian Landtag elections. Finally, he noted the unique position of the Papal Nuncio in Munich: “The only foreign diplomatic representative at present accredited to the Bavarian Government is the Papal Nuncio.” In the Bavaria of early 1920, in sum, the terror of Communist revolution was still fresh in people’s minds, a growing movement was agitating against Jews as a present danger, and the Catholic Church was the most influential force, uniquely represented by an accredited diplomat to the Bavarian State Government. That diplomat, Eugenio Pacelli, was in Rome from mid-February 1920, when his mother died, until April 12, 1920. Dulles sent his report to Ellis Loring Dresel, American Commissioner in Germany. As the U.S. had not yet re-established diplomatic relations with Germany, Dresel was the highest ranking U.S. diplomatic representative in the country. Apr. 11, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 15, page 107: “Jewish Imperialism” The very respected Paris journal “La Documentation Catholique,” issue no. 57, has published an official American report on the Russian Revolution, whose authenticity is well-attested. According to this report, the Jews Jacob Schiff and Max Breitung, as well as the “House” of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., “took an interest” in the Revolution early in 1916. One year later the Czar’s empire collapsed. The American “observers” knew about it! Early in 1917 Schiff entered into a partnership with the Jew Trotsky Bronstein. In a similar way the Jewish millionaires and the Jewish proletariat banded together in Sweden and Germany. The report names individuals and firms. The Revolution succeeded. Jacob Schiff boasted publicly about his instrumental role. Before people could realize it, the Jews were seated throughout the Soviet councils of the Revolution. The report counts, for example, thirty leaders with their Russian “noms de guerre” and their Jewish family names, for instance Trotsky = Bronstein, Zinovieff = Apfelbaum, Kameneff = Rosenfeld, Bogdanoff = Silberstein, Maklakowsky = Rosenblum etc. Among Schiff’s confidantes is a Rabbi Judah Magnes, a prophet of Judaism, and, as his distant friends maintain, one of the first “Bolsheviks” on American soil, and at the same time a leader of white-and-blue Zionism. The Rabbi’s ideal is Jewish world domination, an ideal that unites Jewish capitalists and communists. Especially interesting is the report’s establishing that the firm Kuhn, Loeb & Co., for which Jacob Schiff serves as a director, stood and stands in association with the “Westphalia-Rhine Syndicate” in Germany, with Lazare Frères in Paris, with the Gunsburg Bank in Petersburg-Tokyo-Paris, with the firm Speyer & Co. in London-New York-Frankfurt and with the Nya Bank in Stockholm. All these institutions “take an interest in” Bolshevism! – No wonder that “Documentation Catholique,” which also is familiar with and cites to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (German translation available from Beek’s Auf Vorposten Publishing House in Charlottenburg), exclaims: “From the ashes of German autocracy a new world power raises its head, Jewish Imperialism, whose purpose and goal is Jewish world domination.” The Jews have universally avoided military service in order to finally refashion the Christian peoples of Germany and Austria-Hungary into Jew republics. That would be the first step toward the future domination of the world. German original, Apr. 11, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 15, page 107: Communism in Hungary annihilated the Catholic press and journals. All was suppressed, and the existing inventories of paper were confiscated and used for the establishment of the Communist press. With the fall of Communism freedom returned, but not yet paper, of which there was a serious shortage. So the various newspapers came back to life only gradually and with reduced circulation. With the new daily newspaper in Budapest, directed by the Jesuits, our Munich Press Association is in close contact. Every day the Bayerischer Kurier sends its latest news telegrams over the wires via Fussen and Tirol to Budapest. German original Apr. 11, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 15, page 107: Against Bolshevism and Communism in America, Cardinal O’Connell of Boston has decreed a warning. He calls the doctrines and deeds of Bolshevism “Satanic.” - The Archbishops and Bishops of Mexico have issued a joint pastoral letter in which they highlight the danger and insidiousness of Communism and urgently warn the faithful away from giving any credence to the promises of Communism. These promises could never be fulfilled, and wherever they are believed, they heap ruin upon ruin. German original April 14, 1920 Cable from Pacelli to Gasparri: Being aware of the order to suppress the Civil Guard, the Archbishop here implores the Holy See to intervene so that this our only defense against the Bolshevik menace can be maintained at least in Bavaria. He adds that if this were achieved it could contribute to a good election [on June 6th]. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 2926. Apr. 18, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Catholic Press in Bavaria” The Catholic Press Association of Bavaria recently published its annual report for the year 1919. It is interesting and can also be encouraging for the Catholic press of other countries to know the results attained by the meritorious Bavarian Association, which is one of the most important for the Christian education of the people. In the past year there have been founded 118 new local groups of this Association, so that, adding the 39 created in the first months of 1920, there are at least 640... For the 618 public libraries for the education of the people and of youth, there was an expenditure of 251,164 Marks, while in 1918 there were expenditures of 130,979. These libraries contain 440,003 works and loaned 1,451,250 volumes. The central Association has acquired the printing equipment, offices and property of these newspapers: “Buchloer Anzeigeblatt”; “Tuerckheimer Zeitung”; “Kircheimer Landbote”; “Krumbacher Neueste Nachrichten.” The newspapers “Bayerischer Kurier” and “Muenchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung” are exclusively owned by the same Association, which has also entered into ownership of some of the shares of the “Allgemeine Rundschau.” And this annual report takes on greater importance and merits even more sincere admiration when one considers the immense impoverishment into which the German people were cast by the loss of the war and the political revolutions, which caused at least as much damage as the military conflict itself to the financial situation. Italian original Apr. 18-30, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano on the San Remo Conference: Apr. 18, 1920, page one: “The San Remo Conference” Dateline San Remo (Official) The Council of the Peace Conference met today in the Villa Devachan at 11:00 a.m. and discussed the Peace Treaty with Turkey. After having consulting with the Editorial Committee and having examined the various questions still pending, it was decided to have the Ottoman Delegation come to Paris to receive the text of the treaty on May 10th... “A Zionist Motion for the Future of Palestine” Delegates of Zionist groups and circles from Belgium, meeting in an extraordinary assembly, approved and sent to Lloyd George in San Remo a motion stating: In view of the upcoming sessions of the Supreme Council that will deal with the Turkish Empire, the Federation of Zionists of Belgium express their conviction that it is a matter of urgency to settle definitively the political future of Palestine and to affirm the mandate of Great Britain under the control of the League of Nations, so that the restoration of Palestine as a national Jewish entity can be implemented without further delays, in conformity with the commitments assumed toward the Jewish people by Great Britain, by Italy and by the other Allied powers supported by the United States of American in conformity, in sum, with the ardent and irresistible will of the entire Jewish people. “Items from Abroad” Dateline London – Although General Denikin was received upon his arrival in London by the representative of the British Ministry of War, it was officially announced that his visit to England does not have any political character. April 24, 1920, page one “The San Remo Conference: Official Communiqués” ... “News Reports from English Sources” – dateline London ... For Syria there is the French application. For Palestine and Mesopotamia there is the English application. Then there is the problem of the Holy Places to resolve. The independent Kingdom of Hedjaz was also recognized. April 25, 1920, page one: “The San Remo Conference” ... the question of the mandate for Palestine was examined, and the problem of the creation in Palestine of a “National Home” for the Jewish people, and questions concerning the religious community were also addressed. April 27, 1920, page one – “The San Remo Conference” April 29, 1920, page one – “After the San Remo Conference: Statements of Lloyd George to Journalists” April 30, 1920, page one: “Millerand’s Statements to the French Parliament about the San Remo Conference” ... Great Britain has received the mandate for Mesopotamia and for Palestine; France has received the mandate for Syria. Apr. 22, 1920 Völkischer Beobachter, page one, on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: “The Secrets of the Elders of Zion” We can only keep expressing our astonishment that this book that appeared in 1919 has not yet been distributed in millions of copies to the entire German Volk, that today there are still German-Völkisch-minded men and women who have not yet gotten it into their hands. We therefore wish to call attention to this book with utmost emphasis, because in fact there is no book that so reveals the spirit of Jewry. Section headings on the front page: The Rule of Money; The End Justifies the Means; The Masses Are Blind; Principles of the Jewish Freemason Lodges; Reign of Fear, Terror; Liberty, Equality, Fraternity; Government Officials and Secret Councils; Success of Demoralizing Doctrines; The Mission of the Press; The Multitude of Jewish Freemason Lodges; The Plundering of Non-Jews. German original, Völkischer Beobachter, Apr. 22, 1920, page one. Apr. 27, 1920 Hitler’s speech at the Hofbräuhaus. Hitler’s April 27, 1920 speech at Munich’s Hofbräuhaus was reported by a Munich police observer and by a German army observer. The police report included Hitler’s words about Russia “under Jewish terrorism.” The army report included this passage: He also came around to speak about Russia, that the Russians, even though they fought for two years for their freedom, are even worse off now than before. They now have to work 12 hours a day. Unless our economic circumstances change, it will go for us exactly as for the Russians, and who has brought all this about? Only the Jew. Therefore, Germans, be united and fight against the Jews.” (emphasis in original) Source: Bavarian Main State Archive [Hauptstaatsarchiv], Munich, Abteil I for police report, Abteil IV for army report; reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, Hitler: Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen 1905-1924 [Hitler’s Complete Writings] (1980), pp. 127-129, cited hereafter as Jäckel and Kuhn. April 29, 1920 Völkischer Beobachter, page 2: “In Remembrance of the Hostages Murdered on April 30, 1919” By graduate student Karl Brassler “Every victim on our side is worth, in God’s eyes, a thousand non-Jews.” (Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 2nd Session.) “How shrewd is the maxim of our old sages, that a great goal can only be attained if one is not fastidious in the choice of means and does not count the victims who will be laid low. We have never counted those victims who are beastly spawn of the non-Jews...” (Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 15th Session.) So you have never counted those victims who are beastly spawn of the non-Jews! The hundreds of thousands of German victims of the World War, the thousands who fell as victims in the battles of the revolution and the civil wars, the hundreds that Jewish revolution murdered in cold blood. Your abysmal vulgarity and satanic vileness are unmasked and exposed. Professions of innocence cannot help you get out of this, because facts, since the outbreak of the revolution that you willed and summoned up, have spoken frightfully and have borne witness against you. You are guilty of the deaths and misfortunes of many thousands of people of German blood. You also have on your conscience the brutal murders of the members of the Thule Society on April 30, 1919. This murder is not yet atoned for! It is a year since that horrible day. Infamy weighs upon it. Under the unheard of yoke of a Jewish reign of terror, humanity is disgraced. What has become of our Munich? What has become of our Bavaria? The playground of foreign and “German” Jews! The graveyard of Germans! The authorities are still keeping quiet about those who gave money to erect an all-Jewish reign of terror. But we know who they are. And we can keep waiting, for our time has not yet come. One year ago! ... What did Levien say in a speech that he gave in the Munich Kindl Beer Hall on April 28th? “No matter if a couple thousand bourgeois get their throats cut!” In other words: Ordering the slaughter of Germans! His words became a terrible reality. Levien and Leviné and with them all of Jewry let their Asian lasciviousness and their hellish vileness go to work. They have to answer for double bloodguilt. The direct murder of the hostages, and the death of the Germans at the hands of torturers. Blind mass of workers! So do you never want to recognize the truth and turn away from your leaders who are only Jews? So do you still not want to believe that you will be the next victims of the Jews after us? Snap out of it! Levien, Leviné and Toller, they let premeditated terror go to work, terror that is prescribed by their religious law books for every non-Jew. And they also found help from the local Israelite religious community. If it had only answered the questions of the police straightforwardly, the authorities themselves would have had the means to sort out the Jews. But they, in the religious community, betray none of their co-religionists. In that way they supported those who summoned up the pogrom on the Germans. And so the “other” Jews, who shut themselves up in the Jewish Central Association, have until now still not come up with any satisfactory indication, consistent with the truth, that they were not in with these criminals of their race and adherents of their religious community. Why did Levien, Leviné and comrades give the order to kill the members of the Thule Society? Why must only Germans lose their lives, Germans like the various students, like the secretary from the railroad, like the countess, who were poor and powerless? Why are none of the super-rich Jewish millionaires of Munich arrested, much less condemned to death? Central Association, give an answer! I give you to the Germans! They did not reap death because they offended against the spirit of the Soviet Republic, or because they had false stamps in their possession. No! Because they were Germans! Because they strove against the Jewish predominance, because they were members of the Thule Society! Because the Jews want to destroy and degrade everything that is alien to their nature and that poses the only effective obstacle to their quest for world domination: The German! That is why Levien authorized the house to house search and the arrest in the rooms of the Thule Society. Central Association, can you give another answer? In the same way that in Russia all noble native blood was allowed to flow in streams, that in Hungary everything not Jewish was destroyed with ruthless terror and force, so here in Munich you also wanted to destroy and ruin everything, everything, that carried the German name and through which German blood still flowed. Munich too was to become a fortress and stronghold, a bulwark of Jewish world domination, of international Jewish profiteering finance. Those are the reasons, Hans and Fritz, why you must offer up your precious blood, unless you promptly shake off the Jewish yoke with all your might. Germans! Munichers! The first anniversary of the hostage murders approaches! Show up to honor and avenge those whom the Jews murdered. The hour of atonement will come! It will no longer hold off. Keep calm and steady, and wait for the call ! For on April 30th we want to show that we have not forgotten our murdered blood-brothers. On that afternoon the Luitpold Gymnasium will be witness to a German oath! German original, Völkischer Beobachter, Apr. 29, 1920, p.2. Apr. 30, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one, top of left column: “The Social Office of Leo XIII (Leo House) in Munich” Dateline Munich, Apr. 20th, from our special correspondent The appeal in the Encyclical Rerum Novarum for the formation of worker associations has found an especially strong echo in Germany... Italian original Apr. 30, 1920 Text of Bavarian Government’s 10-day publication ban on the Völkischer Beobachter, as printed in that newspaper on the first day after the ban ended, May 11, 1920, page one: “Ban on Publication of Völkischer Beobachter - from April 30 to May 9, 1920” “The Police Prohibition” I. Prohibition On the morning of April 30th we posted the following announcement: “Today’s issue of the Völkischer Beobachter contains the heading: ‘The Formation of the Red Army.’” “Yet with the powers of destiny No lasting bond can be woven, And misfortune follows fast.” In fact it did follow fast upon the “Observer,” in the form of a dozen-strong “Crime Squad.” Before Noon on that same day, Herr von Pöhner sent his minions to us with a ukase whose text we want to immortalize here: Munich, 29 April 1920 Subject: Prohibition of the “Völkischer Beobachter” Pursuant to the Regulations of the Plenary State Cabinet, enactments of 8 April 1919 and 4 November 1919, concerning provisional measures for implementation of Article 43, Section IV of the Reich Constitution, I hereby issue the following Decree: 1. The publication of the “Völkisch Observer” is prohibited through Sunday, the 9th of May. 2. The costs of the proceedings shall be borne by the publishers of the “Völkisch Observer.” The amount is not yet calculated. Reasons: On the 29th of this month an article appeared in the “Völkisch Observer”: “In remembrance of the hostages murdered on April 30, 1919,” by graduate student Karl Brassler. The article blamed the Jews for the deaths and misfortunes of thousands of people of German blood and the “brutal murder of members of the Thule Society committed on 30 April 1919.” Then the article said: “These murders have still not been atoned for! ...The authorities are still keeping quiet about those who gave money to erect an all-Jewish reign of terror. But we know who they are. And we can keep waiting, for our time has not yet come. Levien, Leviné and Toller ..., they also received help from the local Israelite religious community.” And in conclusion: “Even Munich was to be made into a fortress, a stronghold, a bulwark of Jewish world domination, of Jewish world-profiteering-finance. “Those are the reasons, Hans and Fritz, why you must offer up your precious blood, unless you immediately shake off the Jewish yoke with all your strength. “Germans! Munichers! The one-year anniversary of the murder of the hostages approaches! Show up to honor and avenge those whom the Jews murdered. The hour of atonement will come! It will no longer hold off. Keep calm and steady, and wait for the call ! “For on April 30th we want to show that we have not forgotten our murdered blood-brothers. On that afternoon the Luitpold Gymnasium will be witness to a German oath!” These words go far beyond the degree of anti-Jewish agitation carried on by the “Völkisch Observer” already for months, endangering public peace and order. They contain an unmistakable appeal to violence, to an anti-Jewish pogrom. Only because it was taken into consideration that this appeal represented one occasion of a misstep by an especially ardent contributor to the newspaper, and because furthermore the newspaper is being given yet one more opportunity to moderate its heretofore inflammatory tone, did this temporary prohibition appear to be, for the time being, sufficient. The State Commissar for Munich city and province. /signed/ Pöhner German original, Völkischer Beobachter, May 11, 1920, p.1. May 2, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, pp. 125-126: “Not Jew-Hatred but Christian-Defense!” What position does a Christian take on the Jewish question? He must take a position. For the Jewish question is the most burning and decisive, and frankly the most distressing, question of the present time. It will be the fundamental question of the future and of the end times. It is not only a national, but also an international problem, a world question that concerns all peoples. No, more! Not only a world question of political and economic life, but a worldview question, a question of spiritual warfare. For at the deepest level it is about an eternal war between earth and heaven, between Christian culture and Jewish imperialism. This is a distressing question! For we fully recognize that among the Jews are a great number of noble people, true Israelites in whom there is nothing false; yet where is the name or the group, where is the party, where is the protest, by which the spirits can be distinguished? We would gladly greet them as friends; yet they keep silent. They reject all our complaints. They cover their degenerate ones with their power, their money, their press, their names. So it does not become possible to distinguish Jew from Jew. The Jewish question is a distressing question because Christianity is the religion of peace, which is love. Yes indeed, we Christians and we Catholics know how to forbear, to forgive, to love, even our enemies! If it should ever come to pogroms against the Jews, we would be the first, in the name of Jesus, whom the Jews crucified, to want to protect them. Yet with all the love of a St. Paul, the Christian takes on the freedom and courage of a Paul in combatting anti-Christian Jewry. How this man of God stood up against the Jews in Damascus, in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in the cities of Asia Minor and finally in Rome! Christ is our model, our leader! And he called them out: “You brood of snakes and rats! How will you escape the judgment of hell? See, I send you prophets and teachers. But you will crucify and kill some of them, scourge others in your synagogues and persecute them from town to town, so that all the blood of the righteous that was spilled on the earth will come upon you, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachia, whom you murdered between temple and altar.” How would Isaiah and Jeremiah be slandered today, what names would they be called, if they came back today? They would be slandered as “antisemites”! But we are not antisemites. We are Christians, German Christians, who love their Fatherland and their Church. But both are in danger of being reduced to chains by Jewry. So I say: Not Jew-hatred but Christian-defense! The Jewish question is distressing for yet another reason. For I fear that the rightful resistance of the Catholic people against Jewish oppression could easily be taken as a comradely alliance by elements that are just as hostile to Catholic Christianity as to Jewry. Why do you so often find that pamphlets and essays directed against the Jews contain equally unrestrained outcries against the Catholic Church, Ultramontanism, and the Jesuits? Culture war agitation is just waiting to strike whenever the struggle against Jewry is not carried out in a Christian spirit. Then must we really fight against Jewry? Isn’t that against the spirit of the Church? On the contrary. However far back we look into the past, we find the Catholic Church in a defensive battle against secret conspiracies of the Jews. From the beginning, marriages between Jews and Christians were forbidden and declared invalid. The Council of Constantinople specified that no Jew may be a judge over Christians. Medieval Saxon law stated: “A Jew may not stand surety for a Christian.” It was forbidden to have meals with Jews, and the Church’s own laws protected Christian domestic servants from coming under Jewish masters. The decrees and laws designed to defend the Christian people against Jewish exploitation were really innumerable. Thus the Jewish question is nothing new. At the end of the 15th century it was just as burning an issue as today. The Frenchman Froissard wrote in 1497: “Hatred against the Jews is so commonly spread throughout Germany that even the most placid men rage when it comes to discussion of the Jews and their monetary exploitation. It would not surprise me if a bloody persecution were to break out simultaneously in all areas, as they have already been driven out of several cities.” In fact the Jews had already been driven out of Cologne in 1426, out of Saxony in 1432, out of Bavaria in 1450, out of Würzburg in 1453, out of Magdeburg in 1493, out of Württemberg in 1496, and this movement could have led to a powerful social transformation if the emergence of Luther and the Reformation had not shifted the focus. At the same time, the Jews were banished from Russia, while in France persecutions filled the entire 14th century until finally under Charles VI they were banned from the kingdom in 1394. On English soil the battle was already pitched in the year 1290. But the struggle was particularly tenacious and full of twists and turns in Spain, where the national uprising and the struggle for religious liberation against the Moors culminated in an altercation with Jewry. For these had allied themselves with the Muslim conquerors and threatened throne and altar through secret conspiracies. For that reason King Ferdinand the Catholic finally executed in 1492 the Edict of Expulsion. To defend against intrigues by the Jews and Moors who remained, who had let themselves be baptized without any inner change, a special court of inquiry was instituted, that so often-slandered Inquisition. Superficial writing of history and a corruptible partisan spirit, often led astray by Jewish representations, later made that discharge of self-defense of an oppressed people and defensive measures of national governments into persecutions and pogroms against Jews. The guilt for the constant distrust and often bitter struggles, however, lay with Jewry itself. For wherever Jews rise up, where they attain to power, influence and wealth, they prove themselves to be oppressors of peoples and persecutors of Christianity. For them it is all about the realization of all those illusory hopes for the Kingdom of God, on account of which they rejected and crucified the Savior. For them the Kingdom of God is really nothing else but the world domination of Israel and its religion. For the sake of this hope the Jewish people undertook powerful revolutions against the Roman Empire, which finally ended with the complete destruction of their national greatness and the scattering of the Children of Israel throughout the whole world. The bloody war was followed by secret and open struggle with economic means and weapons of the mind. The Jews sought first of all to tear apart young Christianity with heresies. Evidence of that is found in so-called Gnosticism. At the same time, however, they stepped up at every opportunity to agitate for persecution of Christians. Jew-hatred was already at work in the court of Emperor Nero and occasioned the first persecution of Christians. Jew-hatred vengefully built the pyre for the martyr bishop Polycarp. Jews were the favorites and counselors of the apostate Emperor Julian, who wanted to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem to please them and to defy God. Jews conspired with the Persians against the Christian Emperor in Constantinople. In short, wherever a conspiracy is at work against the Christian State, Jews stand at the very least as helpers in the background. That was so in the past; that is so in the present. More about this next time! German original, first page, Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 18, p.125; second page, p.126. Note: The article turned around the term “Jew-hatred” and used it to refer to supposed instances of hatred expressed by Jews in Rome and the Roman Empire of the first centuries after Christ. The article invoked the perspective of the Roman Empire, not Catholic faith, in its peroration against the Jewish world conspiracy: For them the Kingdom of God is really nothing else but the world domination of Israel and its religion. For the sake of this hope the Jewish people undertook powerful revolutions against the Roman Empire, which finally ended with the complete destruction of their national greatness and the scattering of the Children of Israel throughout the whole world. May 6, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Diocesan Synod in Munich of Bavaria” (from our special correspondent). Dateline Munich, April 2 [sic: content of article indicates it was written in mid-April or later] Mons. Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich and Freising, held a diocesan synod on April 14th and 15th, inviting professors, chaplains, presidents of societies and members of religious orders. The Synod opened with a solemn Pontifical Mass and a warm allocution by the Archbishop on the history of the Diocesan Synod and its purpose. The Archbishop also recalled his recent trip to Rome and emphasized the incessant beneficent activity of the Holy Father in these times of uprisings and revolutions. Diplomats of other nations, he said, have to alter course in their ideas; pontifical diplomacy has remained the same. We cannot sufficiently thank Divine Providence, he continued, for having given us a Benedict XV and a Cardinal Gasparri; we must be grateful to the Holy Father for sending us a prudent and hard-working Nuncio. He also took notice of how opportune the clear and wise Code of Canon Law was, while in civil states, by contrast, there reigns disorder and disrespect of the law and all authority. Moreover, the Archbishop warned that the Synod should not be affected by the modern democratic spirit, but should be penetrated by the mind of the Church, which should animate all the current pressing issues of dioceses and persons, and should recommit to the principle of discipline, and reaffirm the principle of mutual cooperation between the Bishop and the priests. Consequently, the Archbishop established the office of the Secretariat and entrusted the Vicar General to direct its work... The reports ended with some concluding words by the Archbishop... he exhorted all the priests to remain united to their Bishops and, with them and all the faithful, to the Holy Father in Rome. Same page: “An International Catholic Social Review” – from our special correspondent, Munich As soon as the World War ended, there appeared repeated and incessant attempts to create a Catholic International. It was at the First International Congress of Christian workers in Luzerne, in the spring of 1919, that some Catholic sociologists pushed the idea of a Catholic Social International and proposed to assemble a Congress for that purpose. Before the proposed Congress could take place, however, and precisely at Easter this year, the leaders of the Italian Popular People’s Party took concrete steps to prepare an International that would include all Catholic parties of the various nations, in opposition to the Red, Socialist and Masonic Internationals. The Catholic workers of the entire world already have a common base in the principles of their faith and their Church, and in the social teaching instilling these principles, so that it would be easy for them to agree among themselves, enter into an accord, and meet in a White International. To facilitate this union and the foundation of the desired Catholic International, now appears the “Soziale Revue,” published by the Social House of Leo XIII (Leo House) of Munich, Bavaria, which our newspaper recently covered. The Review itself is not new. It is celebrating its 20th anniversary. It is being transformed, however, in view of its newly expressed purpose, taking up the role of the Catholic International Social periodical, entitled in German “Soziale Revue” and edited by A. Retzbach, Dr. of Theology, and Msgr. E. Walterbach. Thus the purpose of the Review is to interest German Catholics in the idea of the International, to educate them for the realization of this idea, to make them aware of the social work of Catholics throughout the world, their culture, their public life, and their organizations. Equally the Review proposes to make Catholics in other Nations aware of the affairs of Catholic Germany, its social studies, its organizations, and its public life. In sum, a fuller and more complete reciprocal awareness of the international Catholic social movement: this is the concise summary of the new Review. In addition to articles by knowledgeable German authors, it will publish authentic works by foreign contributors about the manifestations and religious struggles of the Catholic world of social teaching and will also welcome unsolicited contributions as well as reviews and newspapers that reprint its materials. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, May 6, 1920, p.1. Note: Soziale Revue is available, according to Worldcat.org, only at the French National Library in Paris. May 7, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one, left column, top: “The General Assembly of the Catholic Press Association of Bavaria in Munich” Dateline Munich, April 28 (from our special correspondent) In the enormous festival room of the Royal Beer Hall [i.e., the Hofbräuhaus], where last year in these same days the turbulent revolutionary assembly of the Councils Republic met tumultuously, the General Assembly of the Catholic Press Association was held on the evening of April 28th. At least two thousand people were assembled in the immense venue. They all rose to their feet to applaud enthusiastically when His Excellency Archbishop Pacelli, the Apostolic Nuncio, entered through the doorway, received and accompanied by the President of the Association. The Pontifical Representative took his seat at the middle of the President’s table and, upn his request, the session opened with the singing of a hymn by an a capella chorus. Then Count Joseph Arco-Zinneberg, the President of the Association, took the floor, delivering a warm greeting and a touching thanksgiving to the Apostolic Nuncio and similar thanks to all those who are working in the development of the Catholic press. There followed letters and telegrams and statements of support from clergy and laity. Next was a detailed, encouraging report by the Director, Rev. Dr. Müller, about the state of the finances and the Association’s activities during the past year, of which l’Osservatore Romano has already given a summary in a recent issue. The Speaker concluded his exposition, frequently interrupted by applause, with opportune words about the obligation that Catholics have to encourage the press that fights for the faith and for the Church, saying there is no need for a good show as to facile criticisms of Catholic newspapers, nor for empty word of more or less sincere praise, but rather a need, even at the cost of sacrifices, to contribute to the development of Catholic propaganda, which is all the more difficult today, when the costs of keeping a newspaper alive are greatly increasing. After the new Board of Directors of the Association was unanimously elected, Archbishop Pacelli was presented, with utmost acclamation, and he pronounced a felicitous discourse in flawless German, expressing his joy in finding himself again at a meeting of the Catholic press, expounding with lively words the sovereign interest of the Holy Father for the Catholic press in general and for the association that is supported with such approbation in Munich of Bavaria, and, finally, imparting in the August Name of the Supreme Pontiff, the Apostolic Benediction, which was received by the overwhelming number of listeners on their knees, followed by an absolute tempest of applause for the Representative of the Pope. This was followed by the singing of some other Psalms, and finally Fr. Lang, S.J. delivered a noteworthy speech on the importance of the Catholic press in the present hour, proclaiming “the people’s pulpit in modern times.” This was the title of his lecture: “Völkerkanzel der modernen Zeit.” [German: People’s pulpit in modern times] The learned orator outlined the difficult battles that Catholics must fight in these stormy times, especially in the field of the schools, explaining the particular characteristics that this struggle presents in the free State of the new Bavaria. He proceeded to mention the dangers encountered by modern youth in the form of infamous immoral propaganda that seduces them, appealing to all the basest instincts, by means of newspapers, reviews, novels, theatrical and cinematic presentations, etc., and concluded by demonstrating how one of the most effective means to combat infernal, evil propaganda is the Catholic press. “We must,” he exclaimed amidst the applause of the Assembly, “we must go into the arena fully armed to fight like lions. We owe this obligation to our Holy Catholic Church; we owe it to our children; we owe it to our conscience! Nothing is too much to do for the Catholic press.” This energetic peroration was accompanied by prolonged acclamation ... Italian original, L’Osservatore Romano, May 7, 1920, p.1, left column. May 7, 1920 Capture of Kyiv: L’Osservatore Romano’s May 12, 1920 front page article on the Polish Army’s capture of Kyiv after invading the Ukraine and defeating a Bolshevik army: “The Taking of Kyiv” Newspapers report from Paris: The taking of Kyiv by the Poles was officially announced today in Russian dispatches. There were five days of fighting inside the city. Militarily Kyiv had already been lost for several days given that the strategic points were occupied by the Poles. Today dispatches from Warsaw announced a further advance and the conquest of new positions toward the Dnieper River. Also the region around Odessa, it was officially communicated, has been reconquered by the Ukrainians, notwithstanding the lack of any precise news coming from the city as of this moment. In any event it is apparently considered lost by the Bolshevik troops. Examining the war dispatches with the aid of a map of the Ukraine, it can be seen that the military actions were launched along three principal lines. The first, from north to south, conquered the coastal territory between Odessa and Kherson; the second, from west to east, has already gone beyond the city of Kyiv; the third, from southwest to southeast, appears to be moving along the Dnieper toward Dnipropetrovsk to make contact with the army of the north. Along the Dnieper, then, another military decision could occur. The Polish advance has strongly brought out the national Russian spirit and has certainly weakened the authority of the Soviet Government. From these two new factors in Russian politics, there could arise, in the not distant future, a situation of great political interest for Eastern Europe. “No Radio-Telegrams from Moscow” Dateline Paris. The Petit Parisien reports that, for perhaps the first time since the beginning of the Russian Revolution, no radio-telegrams have been received from Moscow between the hours of 1400 yesterday and 9 today. May 9, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, page one: “Where Stands the Adversary?” At the assembly in Lvov, a young Jewish rabbi cried out: “The time will come when the Christians will wish to become Jews; but the Jewish people will push them away with contempt. The main enemy of the Jews is the Catholic Church. That is why we have planted the spirit of dependency and disunity in this tree. We are the ones who magnified the conflict and disunity among the Christian denominations. First of all we will struggle against the Catholic clergy with the greatest determination. We will smear them with mockery, contempt and scandalous stories about their life, in order to make them despicable to the world. We will take over the schools. And the Church will soon lose its influence if it is made to be poor. Its riches will become the booty of Israel!” This trumpet call of war from the year 1912 rings in my ear like the shrill battle cry of Lucifer. Now I know from what source those scandal stories flow, those mocking caricatures and rabble-rousing articles against the Pope, Bishops and Priests, against Catholic institutions and sacraments, and whence the smutty flood of newspapers and magazines. Everyone knows of course that a great portion of the press is in the hands of the Jews. I no longer wonder in vain what the origin is of the degradation of our art, the debasement of our fashion, and the undermining of Christian morals. I know who is hiding behind the film “Vow of Chastity” and whose stage it is where the only plays performed are the likes of “Devil’s Wives” and “Rectory Farce.” The French culture war against the Church was opened by the Jew Gambetta with the slogan, “Clericalism, that’s the enemy.” How is it in our schools? Of every ten professors in our universities, six are Jews, authentic, baptized, or related. Bewail to God what a frightful battle has been waged from there against our Christian faith, in the name of science; and now the spirit of Christianity is supposed to be driven from the public schools. There also the Jews are among the leaders. Hardly had [Ernesto] Nathan ascended the mayoral seat of Rome [in 1907] with the help of the Freemasons, than he went about removing religious instruction from the public schools. We have seen the same and even worse in Austria, Bohemia and Hungary. What is being planned in Prussia and Germany is known to everyone. The Jew has said: “We will take over the schools.” Hasn’t he prophesied correctly, if the Church wants to act weak? “The riches of the Church will be the booty of Israel.” That is what happened in France. In Germany it will be no different. And whoever wants to know what Jewish rule would bring us, can open his eyes and look at Hungary and Russia. Are these not true persecutions of Christians, in light of what has happened there? And who led them? I’ll name only a few names: Bela Kun, Szamuely, Lenin and Trotsky. In Budapest an insolent Bolshevik dared to drive his auto into the midst of the Corpus Christi procession and mock the Blessed Sacrament with shameful gestures. Who can blame the people if they boxed the blasphemer in the ear? All the signs confirm that we are headed into a new era of persecutions of Christians, and it is Jews who are stoking the fires. But will they have the power to carry out their plans? Jewry dominates the world. World finance is Jewish finance. They dominate commerce, trade, the press, art, politics, the States, the spirits. They have at their disposal more than two powerful armies, Freemasonry and international Social Democracy. What then is to be done? We must immediately liberate ourselves from Jewry and the Jewish spirit, from materialism and worldliness. We must be completely Christian in thoughts, intentions and conduct. But then we must break off, by every lawful means, the fetters with which Jewry has bound us. Shut the gates to immigration from the East! The countries of the New World keep close watch against foreign immigration, but with us the dam is yielding before the immigration of peoples that oppress us and then force us into migrating. What must we do? We must use lawful means to bring down the tyranny that makes us into Jew-slaves. Christian peoples may not be governed by Jews. “America for the Americans! Asia for the Asians! Africa for the Africans!” resounds today throughout the world. And “Jerusalem for the Jews!” Good, so this also applies: “Germany for the Germans!” And “Christendom for Christianity!” What must we do? We need a new Reformation! Marx, the founder of Socialism, himself a Jew, says: “An organization of society that casts out the exploiters, that removes the possibility of exploiters, has been made impossible by the Jews.” Everything must be built anew, all of economic life must be built anew according to Christian concepts, the spirit of profiteering rooted out, the nature of law must once again become German and Christian. And if the enemies are too powerfully many – the Lord says: “Do not fear, little flock. For it has pleased the Father to give you the Kingdom!” Citation: Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeiting, May 9, 1920, no. 19, pp. 131-132. German originals: front page (p.131) and page 132 Article immediately following, MKK, May 9, 1920, no. 19, page 132: “Vatican Review” In St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome at this moment, preparations are underway for the canonizations and beatifications scheduled for later this month. If it is certainly no small task to decorate a cathedral such as the Church of Our Lady in Munich, for instance, in grand style from top to bottom, imagine what an immense task it is to hang and arrange the decorations so that such an enormous space as St. Peter’s Basilica gives the overall impression of greatness and majesty! Since two of the new saints are from France, the French element will naturally make an especially strong appearance on this occasion. The French Government has also been moving quickly to expedite the negotiations with the Vatican so that the new French Ambassador to the Vatican can appear for the first time in this new position. The motive for this relationship is something we do not wish to analyze. A very significant reason for France to turn again to Rome was concealed, to be sure, during recent days at San Remo. So, just incidentally, we were made aware that henceforth in Palestine the special protectorate [of France over Christian missions] was eliminated, and consulates of individual nations will only protect their own citizens. This can only be considered as a defeat for France, at the hand of its allies, if one considers what great importance France formerly placed upon this protectorate, how jealously it was guarded, and that it was only a few months ago that France sent Cardinal Dubois to the Holy Land as its envoy, who expressed his firm conviction several weeks ago to the Nouvelliste of Lyon that the Holy See could absolutely do nothing other than renew this special prerogative. England, moreover, received the “Mandate” over Palestine, that is the “right” to govern and rule there as it pleases. They went even yet a step further in San Remo and interfered directly with the rights of the Pope. Namely, they as good as eliminated the Custodianship of the Italian Franciscans [over the Holy Places], which is not a governmental institution, even though political considerations have conceded them a certain role in recent times, and placed them under a Commission to be named, consisting of two Catholics and two schismatics, under a chairman to be appointed by the League of Nations. It is really the Pope who will yet have the last word in this matter... May 15, 1920 Civiltà Cattolica, pp. 385-386: III. Foreign Matters (General News) 1. The so-called white terror in Hungary. – 2. The Allies and Russia. – 3. The results of the San Remo Conference explained to the French Parliament and the English Parliament. In journalistic jargon the red terror is that which the reds, that is the socialists, especially the most ardent ones, the maximalists, communists and bolsheviks, dream of instituting by their revolutionary power, cruelty and tyranny, once they achieve the mastery of public power. Russia knows this by long experience; Hungary knew it for a period of time. But now has been discovered, alongside the red terror, the white terror; and it is attributed by the socialists to Hungary, now ruled no longer by Bela Kun, but by a Christian-Social government. For some time there have been in the newspapers, in the political assemblies and in the Parliaments, loud complaints against this government for the presumed ferocity of its vendetta and its repressions against the former communists: in sum, a cry of Hungarian white terror, against which the British Labouristas as well, not content with verbal protests, have also made practical proposals. Now the Hungarian prime minister has thwarted this invention by giving nothing less than an invitation by telegram to the Trade Unions to send a delegation to Hungary and verify with their own eyes the falsity of the rumors that are being circulated. Then, recently, on the 12th of last month, a Stefani telegram stated that the engineer Mantner and his three accomplices who are accused of conspiracy against the life of the Governor of the Hungarian State, Admiral Horthy, having been condemned to death by hanging, have now received a commutation to life imprisonment at hard labor. It cannot be said that this is an act of a terrorist. The truth is that the Jewish-Bolshevik tyranny made such an evil name for itself, that just the memory of it arouses terror in the Hungarians; but this does not mean they want to undo one terror in order to institute another. The first to disbelieve this are the same socialists who squawk in bad faith; for they know that terror is the privilege, if ever (and previously that of 1793), of revolution and revolutionaries, and not of men of order. Italian originals: page 385 - page 386 May 20, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri, encrypted cable: Newspapers are publicizing a note, which I believe to be authentic, from Your Reverend Eminence about my transfer to Berlin. I recognize the attestation of the Holy See’s trust, nonetheless I venture to appeal to the kindness of Your Reverend Eminence, asking, if possible, to be dispensed from this. Pacelli. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 8665 May 22, 1920 Allgemeine Rundschau, No. 21, p. 286: “Election Appeal of the Bavarian People’s Party” Men and Women Electors! On June 6th are the general elections to the Reichstag and Landtag.’ What does the Reich need? The Reich needs: peace, order and security, rule by justice and law, state authority. Without these fundamental pillars of all orderly governments, there is no security of body, life and property of citizens, no orderly means of care for food and necessities of daily life, no re-establishment of the people’s economy in our Fatherland. On June 6th, it is a matter of building an insurmountable dam against the flood of eternal revolutions. This unbreakable dam is the determined and unbroken will of a powerful majority of the people for the preservation of peace, order and law-abidingness in the state. The Bavarian People’s Party has proven itself during difficult times to be the strongest bulwark of state order and economic peace. Therefore vote into the Reichstag men and women of the Bavarian People’s Party! The Reich needs: the enthusiastic joint effort of all: for the formation and fashioning of the Reich government domestically, for the re-establishment of its economic strength, for the restoration of its dignity and respect in the outside world. This enthusiastic joint effort will not be produced by taking away the time-honored rights of the individual states, by the ignorant suppression of all cultural particularity or by the centralizing of all power in Berlin, but rather by the one and only way of building the German Reich on a federalistic foundation. The Weimar Constitution does not correspond to this goal. The Bavarian People’s Party will therefore endeavor, in association with like-minded parties, to amend it by lawful means in a federalistic manner. The Reich needs: equal political consideration for all major occupational classes. The Bavarian People’s Party therefore tolerates no sort of class domination in the Reich. It will never allow the worker’s hard-earned rights and liberties to be taken away; on the other hand, it will also not allow the bourgeois and farmers to be trodden down as political pariahs, or white collar workers to fall into distress, impoverishment and contempt. The Reich needs: the reinvigoration of the nationalist concept and the self-understanding of all Germans of their national dignity. The Reich needs: the domestic and foreign unity of all Germans, whether they now live within the borders of the old German Reich or outside in the German districts of the former Habsburg monarchy. This unification if only possible if a domestic and foreign policy of understanding is pursued, and only possible if on the basis of such policy the dictated Peace of Versailles is revised. Both of these, domestic as well as foreign understanding, are the aspiration of the Bavarian People’s Party. What does Bavaria need? Bavaria needs: a Landtag and a government that forces with all its strength, in these times of unrest and ferment and governmental disarray, the upholding of state authority and the rule of justice and law. Therefore vote for the Bavarian People’s Party, whose efforts succeeded in the month of March in establishing a strong government of order. It will under no circumstances give up the sole support of order that is still at our disposal: Reich Army and Einwohnerwehr! Bavaria needs: a Landtag and a government that fearlessly makes a manly front, supported by the unbending will and trust of the majority of the people, against all attempts by Berlin to trample down the rights of the Bavarian State in the interests of a culture-leveling Socialistic national government and thus suppress the still-remaining element of our independence. Bavaria needs: Upright holding together of all order-loving elements; reciprocal understanding of the individual classes for one another; peaceful, understanding cooperation of employers and employees, bourgeois and farmers, workers, teachers and government employees. The Bavarian People’s Party will therefore not be a one-sided class party, but rather a true People’s Party, in which the interests of all classes will be represented according to the principles of equitable justice. The political and economical significance of the major professional classes shall find their fulfillment in a first chamber for professional classes. Bavaria needs: a thrifty Landtag and a thrifty government. The Bavarian State shall not fail to satisfy the absolute needs of its officials and governmental employees, its administration, its schools and the churches, but it shall observe everywhere a prevailing thriftiness in the fulfillment of governmental tasks. Bavaria needs a Landtag and a government that have will and power to protect the state energetically from inundation by ethnically foreign, destructive elements from the East, a Landtag and a government that drives out from the people, with most severe emphasis, the spirit of usury and exploitation. Bavaria needs: Peace for School and Church. Kulturkampf is a crime against our Fatherland, a double crime when we are up to our necks in bodily distress. The Bavarian People’s Party will therefore stand up energetically, true to its principles, for the religious education of our youth according to the principles of Christianity, for without such there is no auspicious future for our state, for the protection of the rights of those who are qualified to teach, for the freedom and independence from all-powerful government for the church of both confesssions, but it will also be a sincere opportunity for freedom of conscience and consideration of the earnest convictions of others. On the other hand, it will combat known moral well-poisoning with all its power. In this it counts upon the special cooperation of women. The woman now has a political voice, and her mission is first of all to make use of the weapon of the voting right in this struggle over the moral foundations of the state. Therefore, Bavarian women, vote for the Bavarian People’s Party! Fatherland above party! Parties are necessary, however, for the joint effort of the like-minded. A strong, determined government of Reich and state is only possible, however, if there are only a few major parties at hand, which can cast the whole weight of their credibility into the balance for important matters of state. So vote for the Bavarian People’s Party. It is the strongest guarantee of sound governmental conditions. Bavarian People’s Party: Speck, Chairman Bottner, 2nd Chair C. Schirmer, 3rd Chair Mrs. E. Ammann. J. Leicht. L. Giehrl. F. Matt. G. Stand. H. Held. Dr. A. Pfeiffer. Dr. S. Schlittenbauer. C. Walterbach. Responsible editor: Dr. Hans Eisele; for … H. Sell. Publishing house of Dr. Armin Kausen, Inc. Printing by the publishing institution of G.J. Manz, Book- and Art-printers, Munich Source: German original May 23, 1920 Munich Post: “Opponents of the Spirit of Pentecost” The Acts of the Apostles movingly describes how, on Pentecost, the Spirit of brotherhood descended upon the young Christian community and awakened a general joyfulness of self-sacrifice, which led to a selfless sharing of property and a primitive form of socialism. Among the political parties today that claim to be Christian, we do not find even the slightest trace of a reconciling, active, practical love. The German National Party, in which Protestant Pastors like Mumm during the war preached bombs-and-handgrenades Christianity, is systematically poisoning our public life by their antisemitic propaganda and are paving the way for pogroms against Jews … Antisemitism enjoys the widest promotion in the Bavarian People’s Party. Here Heim and companions are shoveling with both hands out of the dreary, super-abundant sources of antisemitic smear words. Here they thunder against the “Berlin Jew-Dwarves,” against the “New Jerusalem on the Spree” [River in Berlin]... In Bavaria, Herr von Kahr has been promoted to Minister President by Heim and his shield-bearers, and he inaugurated his tenure with some words against “racially foreign” elements. Right under the eyes of the Minister, who before the assembled home defense force made a solemn confession of Christianity, such a shameful anti-Jewish campaign has been organized that finally even the Protector of the German-Völkisch, Herr von Pöhner, had to intervene against the “German-Völkisch Observer,” because this paper had too forcefully and crudely tried to incite pogroms against Jews … Agitation against Jews has become, for the “Christian” parties of the Right, a political weapon for the overthrow of republican government. These pious “Christian people” who are trying to buy the souls of the spiritually blinded with the blood money of heavy industry, with the most iniquitous Mammon of the world, have never understood the depths of the Gospel, which called all peoples and all races, through the “miracle of Pentecost,” to a great service of mankind, which was also expressed immediately in the practical socialism of the first Christian community. May 25, 1920 Gasparri to Pacelli, encrypted cable: I received the encrypted cable. The Holy Father cannot rescind the decision already made about the transfer of Your Illustrious Excellency to Berlin: but until you receive Credentials, you must remain as Nuncio in Munich. In the meantime, prepare the Bavarian Concordat materials, and immediately after the elections, take up again and quickly bring to a conclusion the negotiations. I would like you to inform the Archbishop of this; it is understood that this Nunciature will not remain vacant for any considerable time; indeed, as Your Excellency departs for Berlin, Munich will see its new Nuncio. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1807 May 27-28-29, 1920 Munich Post articles: May 27, 1920, page 2: “Christianity and Socialism” The only major example in history where a powerful State became socialist was offered to us by the history of the missions in South America. There the Jesuits, in the course of the 16th and 17th centuries, on the banks of the Parana and Uruguay, founded the so-called Indian Reductions. The Church must place itself on the side of the proletarians. Then the proletariat will stop seeing the Church as its enemy. Christianity does not claim any sort of power over economic and political life. It desires only that the economic and political efforts not be in violation of faith and morals. That the State professes to be Christian is a secondary thing [Nebensache], that it acts Christian is the primary thing [Hauptsache] Church and Socialism must engage each other and learn to understand each other. In that lies the fate of the world. From Kral: Are Christianity and Socialism incompatible? May 28, 1920, page 6: “Antisemitic Agitation Speeches” [Antisemitische Hetzreden] The German-Völkisch swastika brethren brought a lawyer Dr. Butz into the Wagner Hall on Wednesday to speak about the “Struggle for Germany.” His statements were almost exclusively in the field of race and language research. These were grounds on which the discussion of the most hateful antisemitism could be worked out. An opposite-minded speaker dared to confront the rather youthful swastika men with the unreasonableness of their “anti-Jewish agitation at any price.” Rude interruptions made it often impossible for the speaker to make himself understood and finally the gathering declared that they did not want to hear this opponent further. A half dozen German-Völkischers sprang after him onto the podium and led songs. The antisemitic rage is beginning to get pathological. May 29, 1920, page 2: “Consequences of Antisemitic Agitation for Pogroms” ... The mouthpiece of the antisemitic movement in Munich, the “German-Völkisch Observer,” had to be banned even by a Pöhner, because this paper directly appealed for a pogrom. We will bring ourselves to the condition of Hungary if we do not finally enlist the bearers of German popular culture for a systematic combatting of violent antisemitism. May 29, 1920 Allgemeine Rundschau, No. 22, pp. 300-301: “Supporters and Friends of the Center Party!” The German National Assembly is placing its mandate back into the hands of the people. The German people are being called upon to elect the first Reichstag under the new Constitution. A momentously fateful hour for people and Reich! It demands above all examination and retrospection. On February 6, 1919 the German National Assembly came together in Weimar in accordance with the unanimous desire of the entire German people. Without it, and its successful expeditious work, no peace with the outside world would have come to pass, the Reich would have gone down, and civil war would have ground up our last energies. Such misfortune has been avoided. Already by February 10th, the National Assembly decreed a provisional emergency constitution. In place of revolutionary dictators, a lawful Government stepped forth immediately, a new Reich army arose to defend against violence and insurrection, ruin and disorder were gradually overcome, and the rebuilding of the state and the economy could begin. This decisively significant new achievement was only possible on the basis of the Coalition. A majority formed by the Center Party with the parties of the right was not possible. These parties together had at their disposal only 154 delegates. They were 58 votes less than half the total number of delegates. Even if the 75 members of the Democratic Party are added, the result is just a small numerical majority of the non-Socialist party delegations. But even such a government, without the participation of the Majority Social Democrats, would have been impossible for foreign and domestic reasons. For the re-establishment of order, it required the active, constructive cooperation of the masses of workers in city and country. Only the participation of the 165 members of the Majority Socialist Party could guarantee this cooperation. It was equally impossible to do without the cooperation of those bourgeois elements that had committed themselves to democracy. A purely Socialist government would have inevitably ended up dependent upon the extreme left. Only those willing to gamble upon complete collapse could have wanted that. For the German economy an irresponsible bet! A coalition without the Center Party is something that neither the Social Democrats nor the Democrats would have joined. A coalition being necessary for the salvation of Germany, we were forced to participate apart from consideration of our cultural interests. For coalition means concessions, it means reaching agreement upon a middle course. None of the participating parties can implement their own party program in that way. They could only unite upon a common governmental program offering political common ground. Today even broad circles of the right openly admit the indispensability of the coalition. On February 21st the new Reich Constitution was brought before the National Assembly in outline form, and on July 31st, 1919 it was finalized. What had never been accomplished after any great revolution of modern times, the German National Assembly has completed in five months: a re-invigorating, reformational Constitution for the Reich; a Constitution that to be sure represents a compromise that we must speak against as to details, but which is nonetheless exemplary in its social-minded spirit and valuable in the protections that it guarantees for our moral and religious heritage. The new Germany could not live by the formal Constitution alone. It needed peace and the necessary means of existence. The National Assembly also took care of that. How the Center Party and the Social Democrats were at odds on account of the concluding of the peace treaty! Today these accusations have gone almost totally silent. It is the details of economic and financial rebuilding that are fought over. By and large the possible and the necessary have happened. If ever, in these times the economic situation has been much stronger than the people involved. Only future generations will fully value the work of the German National Assembly in its full significance, and especially recognize the decisive participation of the Center Party in this work. Towards the future is where the elections direct our attention. The future will demand even more insistently than the past a strong Center Party. What unites its supporters, now as before, is the fellowship in an idea: the idea of a Christian Volksgemeinschaft. State, Religion and Church are inseparable. We are well aware that our people will not be helped by governmental measures and laws alone, unless a deep interior renewal takes hold of all members of our people. The overcoming of the materialistic spirit, the reconciliation of classes, the victory over class struggle and class egoism can only be brought about by the spirit of Christianity. Faithful to our past, we therefore stand up for a position of religion and Church in the state that corresponds to their significance. The greatest significance of all, in our assessment, is the new school law to be fashioned by the future Reichstag. Upon its design will depend, first and foremost, the future of schooling in the entire German Reich. We expect that all supporters of the Christian Volksschule, especially the members of the Center Party, will not lose sight of this viewpoint during the elections. It will not fail in the Reichstag delegation of the Center Party. We will exert our full effort so that the constitutional rights for a Christian school will not be denied to the parents. We will oppose by all means any proposal for school compromise that is disadvantageous to Christian education. Indeed in the future there will be a most dependable joint stand by all religious-minded elements, whatever their confession, to ward off attacks from the anti-religious side upon our Christian worldview. Also our national communal sentiment must be born from the spirit of Christian charity and social justice, outwardly just as domestically. Thus we hold firmly in foreign policy to the ideal of reconciliation among nations. The Versailles Peace Treaty poses the greatest obstacle to a comprehensive cooperation among civilized Christian peoples. Thus we demand its revision; but not by means of force, rather with the help of a wise, understanding policy. We expect a clear and focused negotiation with the Powers that are ready to give back to Germany its possibility of life. Our most important goal thereby must be to ameliorate the situation of our Germanic brethren in the occupied and cut-off districts. We demand even stronger interest from the Government and a yet greater economic assistance for the occupied districts than previously. In domestic policy our goals are: The democratic state. We acknowledge ourselves to be a Christian people’s state. On the basis of political equality of rights, we demand most active participation of every member of the people in the state. Equal rights and equal duties for everyone! We most sharply condemn every effort to overthrow the Weimar Constitution by force, and we demand unrelenting punishment for all crimes against the Constitution, whether they come from the right or the left. We reject any form of class domination. And for the time after the elections, we demand a strong, capable government. In its formation, all valuable groups of the people that have an earnest will toward the rebuilding of the state upon a constitutional foundation, must be represented. A government of the extremes is something we hold, now as before, to be the greatest misfortune that Germany can meet. It would be its downfall. The new organization of the Reich. We hold fast to the newly created fundamentals of a strong Reich, to national systems of taxation, transportation, defense and law. But we reject over-centralized national government. The historic particularity of the individual states and cultures is to be preserved by appropriate allocation of authority. Any predominance by an individual state must be set aside. All states should have their appropriate part as to law and economy. The resolution of these issues should begin immediately. Administrative Reform. The new reconstruction of the entire governmental administrative structure must be set in motion as soon as possible. We desire an organic relationship of self-government and governmental unity. The immeasurable growth of the machinery of government must be re-directed by a systematic equity between Reich government and self-government of states and provinces. The most stringent economies in all governmental operations is indispensable. A reliable army. The defense of the state and domestic order require an expansive, reliable defense force. We desire the purging and exclusion of all unreliable elements from the Reich army, whether of the rightwing or the left. Therefore we represent the exclusion of politics from the Reich army. In order to be able to fulfill their duties, members of the Reich Army must be in an economically secure position. The wounded warriors and surviving spouses of the previous army have a right to care and economic support. And this spirit is responsible for the new Reich care law. The Strengthening of the National Economy. In the formation of self-governing bodies for the individual sectors of the economy, growing up organically from the will of the participants, we see the foundation for the new ordering of our national economy. We stand for an organic relationship of economics and politics. State interventions in economic life must be restricted to what is necessary and can only succeed by extensive consultation with experts in the respective economic sectors. Therefore we demand expeditious introduction of a final Reich economic council and district economic councils with sensitive consideration of the special economic interests of the individual sectors of the individual states. We stand for unremitting struggle against the importation of luxury items and trashy goods, and for necessary controls upon imports and exports under extensive consultation with the self-governing bodies of the individual economic sectors. Luxury consumption by the war profiteering indulgent rabble of our big cities must be relentlessly combatted, and racketeers stopped by all means from their shady operations. We are and will remain the party of economic and social equity. We tolerate no egoism of class or status. Thus we promote the interests of every group within the framework of the common good. German agriculture is and will remain the foundation of our national economy. Thus one of our most important goals is to bring our domestic agricultural production back to its previous levels. We are therefore in favor of the deliberate dismantling of government controls. We demand a price policy that rewards and promotes agricultural production in all districts. Production of fertilizer must be increased by all possible means. Medium and small farms are to be protected and increased in number. Germany’s industry is just as indispensable for us after the war as before. Upon its operating at highest capacity for domestic needs as well as export, depends the rebuilding of the German economy. We strive therefore for its technical advancement and its organizational coordination by the initiative of its participants. Since employers and employees have agreed on the basis of labor associations, we promote this agreement toward the goal of peaceful progressive development of our economy. Freedom of economic initiative must be preserved for the entrepreneur corresponding to their exercise of responsibility. Motivated by such views, we will accord to German industry every lawful support and will welcome, to this end, the active participation of representatives of industry and commerce in the life of our Party. A strong middle class appears to us economically and socially indispensable. Thus we desire its protection by legislation, as guaranteed in the Constitution, and extensive governmental support for private initiative in trades and small commerce, especially for the purpose of supplying raw materials and participating in government contracts. In contrast to excessive communalization efforts, the independence of popular-based handicraft and commerce is to be upheld. The future of trade and commerce is to be assured by training of a new generation in trades and professions. For the ranks of workers in industry and agriculture, in commerce and the trades, the Center Party stands by its legacy of loyalty. We stand for the further implementation of the legislation already undertaken to assure and expand the right of employees – both blue and white collar workers – to have a say in the shaping of our economy. The unified tariff system is to be fully implemented and secured by law. The securing laws are to be appropriate to the new order of things. One of our most important concerns is solving the shortage of housing and providing assistance for moving and setting up homes. We especially support the Christian worker movement because we see in it effective ideas and energies that can only lead to a healing of our sharply divided social and governmental conditions. It is assured of our warmest sympathy and energetic assistance in the struggle for true democracy and in the struggle against the sabotage of our economy. We recognize a dutiful bureaucracy as one of the most important supports of the state. Thus we stand for securing its economic position. We are cooperating in the creation of a unitary legal code for the bureaucracy. We are striving for a timely rejuvenation of the governmental work force and the promotion of lower and middle-level workers according to their achievements and capabilities. Alongside all economic groups and interest groups stands the academic profession. They suffer presently from severe multifaceted economic distress. We desire from the state, therefore, far-reaching consideration for the academic professional movement, and generous measures to protect new generations of academics from misery and to create new work opportunities corresponding to their education. Above all, we want an entirely different valuation of intellectual work. Means must be placed at the disposal of academic establishments and research institutions so that they are placed in position to uphold the worldwide reputation of German science as before. Academic freedom must remain assured. Excellence and academic achievement should constitute the only claim to the professorial chairs of German universities. Women have been, by the recent course of events, forced into employment in increasing numbers and introduced into political life. We acknowledge their equal rights in public life and desire that women be drawn into fields they are especially talented in, above all the field of popular education and general caregiving. We demand particular protection for mothers and working women. Christian men and Christian women in German Lands! Step into battle for these lofty goals! We all share in the same fate, in the same distress of a struck down and pauperized people. This shared fate is our common burden, but also our common honor. We bear it with pride and with loyal devotion, to stick together in every distress and danger that the future may bring. Faith in divine providence and in the inner strength of our Christian love will overcome the hardships of these days and lead us to a re-arising. Forget the narrow cares of your private interests and think of the great whole! Close ranks for the league of the Christian, German Volksgemeinschaft in the Center Party! Reich Party Leadership of the German Center Party. Trimborn, former Privy Justice Councilor and State Secretary, Unkel a. Rh. City Councilor, Freiburg im Breisgau. Herold, State Economic Councilor, Haus Lövinkloe im W. Dr. Hitze, Prelate, Münster in Westphalia. Dr. Spahn, Excellency, former Justice Minister, Berlin. Burlage, Reich court councilor, Leipzig. Hedwig Drausfeld, federal chairperson, Cologne. Dr. Porsch, Vice-President of the Prussian State Assembly, Breslau. Stegerwald, State Minister, Berlin. Albersmann, association secretary, Düsseldorf. Dr. Beyersdörffer, medical professional, Neustadt in the Rhineland Palatinate. Dr. Brauns, Director, Mönchen-Gladbach. von Brentano, Excellency, Justice Minister, Darmstadt. Esser, Guild Director and Business Manager of the Rhineland Artisan League, Euskirchen. Graf, Minister of Agriculture, Stuttgart. Graw, State Economy Councilor, Wormditt in East Prussia. Joos, Editor, Mönchen-Gladbach. Baron von Kerckerinck zur Borg, Rinkerode in Westphalia. Lensing,, publisher, chairman of the Augustinus Association, Dortmund. Prince zu Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg, Klein-Henbach in Breisgau. Schofer, clerical council, Freiburg. Astor, businessman, Bernkastel i. Rhld. Beyerle, teacher, Constance in Breisgau. Otte, association chairman, Düsseldorf. Ulitzka, pastor, Ratibor. Dr. Cremer, industrialist, Dortmund. Itschert, Privy Justice Councilor, Berlin. German original: first page and second page June 2 and 6, 1920 Hitler speeches incorporating the Jewish-Bolshevik theme: June 2, at a Nazi Party meeting at the Bürgerbräu Beer Hall in Munich, according to an army observer’s report: ... The attached program for the speech was followed. Primarily about stock exchange and bond transactions, which really only the Jews conduct. Also the collecting of indirect taxes. Because the power of the Jew is his business activity. Also brought up the completely Jewish press, Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, Frankfurter Neue Zeitung. He said, we Germans do not want any such turn of events as we have seen in Russia. Therefore every worker must educate himself so that he will have nothing to do with Bolshevism. Because that is all an affair of the Jews, for it expresses their faith. Christians may never receive Jews onto their ground. In this way also unity in regard to the Jews. The speaker also pursued the subject that we must be tightly unified, if we want to take up the struggle against the Jews... Citation: Jäckel and Kuhn, p.140. June 6, at a Nazi Party meeting at the Bürgerbräu Beer Hall, as reported by an army observer: ... What then has Bolshevism brought about in Russia? It has so incited the people that it has carried off a raid upon the entire country. The result is that Russia is completely given over to hunger and misery. And the responsibility for this is upon no one but the Jews. Who were Eisner, Levien, Toller and companions, nothing but Jews who wanted nothing other than to bring misery to Germany. But hopefully our Volk will yet come to reason and take up the battle against Jewry, and second against the Peace Treaty. Only that can be our salvation ... Citation: Jäckel and Kuhn, pp. 140-141. June 3, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, As was easily predictable, while the German Government and Catholics have greeted with satisfaction the establishment of an Apostolic Nunciature in Berlin, the parties of the right, on the other hand, composed above all of conservative Protestants (many of them adherents of the infamous Protestant League), have lost no time in opening fire against it, and their newspapers, for example the Dresden Anzeiger and the Reichsbote, have denounced the danger of an augmentation of Catholic power. Now then, according to what is read in issue No. 394 of the Frankfurter Zeitung of June 1st, the broadsheets of the right are reporting that “a conference took place on Sunday in Berlin of representatives of the German Anti-Ultramontane Union (the Antiultramontaner Reichsverband) - connected to these same parties. The discussion concerned the necessity of intensifying the struggle against Ultramontanism and the Center Party with regard to the new Reichstag and the establishment of the Nunciature in Berlin. It was also decided to publish a special periodical to this end.” All of this shows all the more how delicate and difficult the situation of the future Nunciature in the Capital will be, and how worthwhile it will be, in my humble opinion, to proceed with maximum circumspection and prudence... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1133 June 5, 1920 Allgemeine Rundschau, No. 23, p.304: “Awaken a Leader for your People” That is the need of the day! What we lack above all: A strong leader who inspires the people, Who raises them up out of their humiliation, From the bondage and chains forced upon them. Who charms the spring with the staff of Moses, So it comes out from the rock to revive the people, And inscribes the law – not on dead stone – But with flaming ardour in the heart. Who will send us the hero full of down-to-earth greatness, To unleash the people from dull numbness, And lead them safely on the steep rocky bank Up to higher paths bathed in light? Who will show them, glowing brightly in the morning beams, The Holy Grail, the protector of the ideal? Oh that he would come – strong and ready to help, For whom the land cries out in thousand-fold distress, Who selflessly – unmoved by hatred and anger, Creates for us a future, full of light and peace? That we, in determined hard struggle Bring down the Hydra of the interior enemy! Awaken a leader for your people, Bring him forth, Lord, in the stormcloud. And after the heat-scorched fire of the desert, Lead us into the ardently desired land of peace! By Josefine Moos Source: German original June 7, 1920 Gasparri to Pacelli, encrypted telegram: Not a few fear that Deputy Erzberger returning to the Reichstag would be a discordant element for the Center Party, all the more so in view of recently reported proposal. Extreme necessity of Catholic unity, which would require that Erzberger desist from this proposal, and it is considered most usefully opportune that you invite the Bishop of Rottenburg to Munich and ask him yourself to exhort Erzberger forcefully and in a loud voice to refrain from any and all activity harmful to the unity of the Center Party and Catholicism, adding that the Holy See would not be very happy, in the interests of the Church and Germany alike. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1492. Note: Rottenburg, a town near the city of Stuttgart, was the Diocesan See for Erzberger's home province of Württemburg. June 10, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri about the June 6th Reichstag elections: Most Reverend Eminence, The German Reich political elections this time had a very special importance. They concerned the election of the first Parliament after the proclamation of the Republic and the National Constitutional Assembly, and moreover had to clarify the political situation following the attempted reactionary coup of Kapp and Lüttwitz, as well as the Sovietesque agitations of the proletariat in the Ruhr district. The preparations on the part of not a few parties were more intense and heavy than ever. Expectations were enormous. After the failed Kapp Putsch, the National Assembly, impelled primarily by the leftwing parties, set the elections for June 6, and they in fact took place with great calm as hoped. The definitive results will not be able to be known until after June 23rd. Meanwhile the current Ministerial Cabinet immediately resigned, because the early returns are clearly opposed to its political direction. It has been asked, as counseled, to stay to discharge ordinary business and to maintain order. From the news thus far, it can easily be concluded what will be the character of the new Reichstag. The known results demonstrate the failure of the Coalition Government, which until now has been in power, and which, as is known, was composed of the Socialists, Democrats and Center Party. This failure is now irreparable, as it seems to exclude the possibility that a new and lasting Cabinet could be formed solely by the three aforementioned parties. On the contrary, the strength of the two parties of the right has been notably increased, namely the German National People’s Party and the German People’s Party, corresponding to the former Conservatives and Nationalist-Liberals. As is known, then, these parties were for the most part formed of Protestants, but recently a notable group of Catholics of conservative tendencies broke off from the Center Party and joined themselves, at least for this occasion, to the German Nationals, and also founded their own weekly periodical, “Mein Glaube,” [My Faith] whose first issue appeared May 25th. Also, the Independent Socialists have seen an increase in their ranks from all those discontented with the Majority Socialists. In sum, the elections have given a notable preponderance to the extreme parties of right and left at the expense of the parties in the middle. The cause of this phenomenon is two-fold. It is to be found both in domestic policy and foreign policy. In domestic policy, the election results signify a clear, open opposition of the great part of the German people to the so-called coalition policy, which was, and could not be anything but, a policy of half measures and compromises. It naturally could not satisfy either the right or the left: not the right, because it did not sufficiently pursue the interests of the bourgeoisie and the middle classes; not the left, because it did not sufficiently pursue the socialization that was in its program and in the expectations of many of its adherents. It was expected by both sides that the Government could do more than it actually could under current circumstances. So now the disillusionments of the one side and the other have been marshaled against the Government, and the one side with the extreme right, the other with the extreme left, have sought to bring about their desired policies: the bourgeoisie, that is, with the Conservatives or Nationalist-Liberals, the Socialists with the Independent Socialists. As for what concerns foreign policy, the result of the elections represents all too clearly the reaction of the German people against the peace imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. A rebirth of nationalism was almost inevitable following this peace, which was accepted only by force and against the will of the conservative parties and not only them. The agitation produced by the conditions dictated by Versailles, some of which are considered extremely harsh, and others even impossible to fulfill, has driven anew a large part of the bourgeoisie toward those parties that have been first and foremost strong proponents of the war policy of Germany. Indeed the Center Party has suffered, as it seems at this point, significant losses in this election. Its policy, accused of being too favorable to the proletariat, has caused it to lose many supporters from the middle classes. Moreover the hostility to Erzberger, who is the object of hostility on the part of very large numbers, has also hurt the Center Party. Good results have been experienced by the Bavarian People’s Party, which, as is known, separated from the Center Party for its known federalistic tendencies. In the event that an alliance could currently succeed between the Bavarian People’s Party and the Center Party, this will also have a notable influence in the new Government. No party has an absolute majority. Neither the extreme right nor the extreme left can govern alone. The Socialists have declared they will not enter into a Cabinet together with the German Nationals (former Conservatives), whom until yesterday they have accused of being responsible for the enormous catastrophe to the German people. The Independent Socialists refuse to participate in a Ministry of the Majority Socialists, who do not believe they could accept their program of vast socialization. A cabinet of a coalition between the extreme right and extreme left is obviously impossible because of the enormous distance that separates their respective programs. There is thus much groping in the dark, and the most widespread prediction of what will soon be seen (if it is even possible) is either new elections or a profound class struggle, which could also lead to civil war. In fact just two-thirds of the Parliament would be able to bring about an amendment of the Constitutional Charter of the Reich. In the program itself of the Independent Socialists, in which a vast plan of socialization and innovation is espoused in a more or less Sovietesque sense, there is not a word about religious issues. Nevertheless it is natural that, if the present dark situation should lead (as not a few fear) to violent conflicts, the Church also could easily experience extremely grave harm. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple, with sentiments of most profound veneration, I have the honor to avow myself Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most Humble, Most Devoted, Most Obliged Servant, + Eugenio Pacelli, Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: Vatican Secret Archives, reprinted in Fattorini (1992), pp. 349-351; Italian original and German summary at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1050. June 12, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri Re: Political elections in Bavaria The elections to the Bavarian Landtag took place, like those for the Reichstag, on the 6th of this month... Indeed in Bavaria, as in the Reich, there has been grave dissatisfaction with the parties of the center, in favor of the extremes. Here in Bavaria, however, the most revealing victory has been that of the Bavarian People’s Party. It has not gained an absolute majority, but a plurality of votes ... Given that the Bavarian People’s Party shall assume power, it is not without interest to know the directions that will guide its future policy and that are espoused by Deputy Held, the Head of the same Party's delegation to the Landtag ... The program of the Party will be a program of order and reconciliation... Maintenance of order and tranquility at whatever cost; the civic guard (Einwohnerwehr), the army (Reichswehr) and the police (Polizeiwehr) must not be touched. Bavaria must be freed from all threatening elements. There will need to be cultivation of a religious and moral renewal of the people by every means... In the aforesaid Assembly there was also discussion of the direction to be followed by the Deputies of the Bavarian People’s Party in the German Reichstag and the question of eventual participation by this Party in the central government of the Reich. A Reichstag Deputy, Canon Leicht, said that if the Party is called to participate in the Berlin government, the first condition must be the preservation of Bavaria’s autonomy at all cost. For a closer collaboration with the Center Party (it is known that the Bavarian People’s Party is distinct from the Center), the condition sine qua non must be that Deputy Erzberger not have any post in the Government... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 338. June 16, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, The excellent Bishop of Rottenburg, involved by me in conformity with the esteemed orders imparted by Your Most Reverend Eminence in coded telegram no. 231 of the 7th of this month, communicated to me today that he had now been able to talk with Mr. Erzberger, who is currently in Jordanbad near Biberach in Württemburg. “I strongly exhorted him (Bishop von Keppler told me) to observe the utmost reserve, to appear as little as possible in the Reichstag and to avoid everything that could disturb the union. He accepted this admonition well and added that he had already, on his own, made a resolution to remain apart from everything, which is precisely the reason that he did not go to the first meeting of he Center Party delegation, that he returned to Jordanbad after a very short stay in Berlin, and that he will no more accept a State position, but will limit himself to collaborating tranquilly in the delegation itself. I hope that he will remain faithful to these intentions.” Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1051. June 9, 1920 Völkischer Beobachter, page 4: “Catholics and the Jewish Question” How deeply the Jewish agitation – conducted under the cloak of Freethinking and Enlightenment – against everything cherished by non-Jews – has wounded the sentiments of our Volk, is shown by the following open letter to Publisher Müller of the Bayerischer Kurier [Bavarian Courier], which was handed to us. Herr Dr. Müller, Publisher of the Bayerischer Kurier! On the occasion of a meeting called by the Israelite Community of Munich in the Bavarian Hof Hotel, at which a Dr. Holländer of Berlin spoke against antisemitism, you said in the discussion period: that from your standpoint you have no objection to raise concerning your Israelite fellow citizens, and that you deeply regret that there are Catholics who participate in antisemitism. You apologize thereby that such Catholics have long ago abandoned their faith and really are no longer Catholics. You say this considering the severe accusations leveled against the Jews not only by laymen, but also by real scholars, even by university professors, and in the face of books, journals and newspapers written by Jews that daily preach against the Holy Father, against the doctrines of the Church, against the clergy, against the Catholic religion in general. That the Lord God has not imparted feelings and character equally, I have known from my childhood. If our Catholic Church had not found fighters along the way, then it would long ago have ceased being what it is today. But love for enemies has a limit. Even you will not demand of a Catholic that he must not believe the severe accusations against the Jews (see the Talmud). Hopefully you also stand on that point. As the “Bayerischer Kurier” last year took a position against the heads of the Revolution: Eisner, Levien, Toller, and identified them as Jews, and also exhorted the Israelite Community no longer to recognize these Jews as Jews, Israel remained silent. But they have left their Catholic brethren who participate in antisemitism in the lurch. Does the Catholic teaching: love your neighbor, no longer apply? I can tell you, God has also not imparted love equally. Signed: A Catholic labor organizer, subscriber to the “Bayerischer Kurier” and the “Völkischer Beobachter.” June 9 to July 14, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano’s series of articles on Zionism and Palestine: June 9, 1920, page one: “Zionism and Anti-Zionism in Palestine” – upper left lead June 16, 1920, page one, upper left lead: “Palestine and Zionism” “Although it is well-known that Palestine is a part of Syria from a historical, geographical and economic point of view, the Supreme Council of the Allies, at the San Remo Conference, entrusted it to the British Government under what will be a mandate from the League of Nations...” The article goes on to describe the opposition and protests in the Holy Land by Christians and Muslims against Jewish immigration. A bold heading within the article proclaims a “Systematic Invasion.” Under another bold heading, “A Dangerous Policy,” the article describes the appointment of “Sir Herbert Samuel, an English Jew” as head of the new British Government in the Holy Land. June 16, 1920, page one: “The Anti-Zionist Program of the Syrians in Palestine” – dateline Paris, June 16 The attention of our circles that are most favorable to peace and equilibrium in the Mid-East continue to be preoccupied with the Zionist question. Jewish leaders are not hiding their precise intentions in Palestine, in proclaiming their own rights as against the Arabs, whom they regard as an inferior people, and against the Christians and Catholics and against their faith, keeping up a centuries-long hostility, showing what would be the condition of the Holy Land if it were to come under such a hegemony... “The Response of Faysal to the Pan-Syrian Congress” ... Quoting a statement attributed to Faysal: “I remain faithful to my commitments in defense of Palestine,” said Faysal, “I maintain that a Jewish home in the Holy Land would be a serious harm to all of Syria, since Palestine is Arab and not Jewish. The Arabs have their representative in Europe, Mohammed Rustour Haidar; and I like to hope that he will never accept either the separation of Palestine from Syria nor a Jewish ‘home’ in that region.” June 20, 1920, page one: “Palestine and Zionism: The Arabs’ Protest to Lloyd George” June 21-22, 1920, page one – “Zionists and Anti-Zionists Among the Israelites” and “Events in the Middle East: Sending of British Reinforcements” June 23, 1920, page one – “Palestine and Zionism: The Program of the New Government” [summary]: Jews are gaining a preponderant position in the British administration of Palestine, taking most of the administrative posts, immigrating in large numbers, buying up the land and homes of the impoverished natives and forcing them out, and asserting dominion over the Holy City of Jerusalem. June 28-29, 1920, page two – “The Sanctuary of the Last Supper in Jerusalem” July 2, 1920, page one – “Turkey and the Treaty” July 7, 1920, page one – “Palestine and Zionism: The Serious Question Before the House of Lords” July 14, 1920, page one: We are able to convey other interesting details about the parliamentary debate on Palestine and Zionism, a debate that has had and still has a widespread echo in these political circles and in the press. Particularly serious is the attitude of the eminent “Morning Post.” The Government is accused of having supported Zionism too much in Palestine, and for unjustifiable reasons. In order to clarify the policy of the “Foreign Office,” the “Morning Post” has published, as a typographic contrast, a communiqué of the Jewish Correspondence Bureau and some contemporaneous statements made by the Foreign Office in Parliament. They are indeed worthy of being known for their evident contrast. The Jewish Correspondence Bureau, according to Reuters, has stated thus: “Sir Herbert Samuel will solemnify his entry into the office of High Commission for Palestine with a proclamation of amnesty for all those who were convicted in relation to revolutionary uprisings in Jerusalem, and this amnesty will be applicable to Arabs and to Christians and to Jews.” Specifically to be released is Lieutenant Vladimir Jabotinsky, who was convicted by Court Martial for having organized a Jewish defense corps. Lord Curzon, on the other hand, expressed to the House of Lords his reasons for not being able to deliver to Lord Sydenham the unofficial report of Mr. Samuel and that of Lord Allenby on the incidents in Jerusalem, as this question was still pending judgment in the courts. Minister Churchill responded to General Colvin that the court and General Allenby would not render a favorable judgment to Lieutenant Jabotinsky and that he could not justify his actions toward the Arabs. High Commissioner Samuel will be able to review the case after having consulted Lord Allenby who is the authority on the spot. Here it can be seen that the Jabotinsky affair will be “judged in the courts” by the British Government, but it will have already been resolved by the Zionists, with the practical result that the Lieutenant will be set free. “The Judgment of the ‘Morning Post’” In another attack on the Government, the above-mentioned London newspaper showed itself decidedly hostile to the appointment of Sir Herbert Samuel. In a region where Jews and Arabs are opposed to each other, and where the passions and prejudices of moderate Jews have been extraordinarily inflamed by bold-spirited Zionists and the animosity they have brought from Central Europe, the British Government has considered it opportune to appoint not a common English citizen but in fact Sir Herbert Samuel. He may appear to Lord Curzon to be “a man of judgment, comprehension and experience,” but the Arabs will see in him nothing but a Jew. June 18, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri, encrypted cable: The Foreign Minister in Berlin charges me to inform Your Reverend Eminence that he has been questioned by journalists about the effective date of the Berlin Nunciature. The Minister gave a dilatory response, but, fearing renewed unpleasant persistence from the press, he would request that the presentation of credentials not be delayed, it being understood that, upon accomplishing these formalities, I will return to Munich until the conclusion of the Bavarian Concordat negotiations. The Government also makes it known that, with this, the question of diplomatic precedence would be avoided, at least this time, as no ambassadors have yet presented credentials in Berlin. Pacelli. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 9934. June 16, 1920 Historisch-Politische Blätter für das Katholische Deutschland [Historical-Political Papers for Catholic Germany], vol. 165, pp. 741-752: “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” In the Vorposten Publishing House (League Against the Arrogance of Jewry) in Charlottenburg has appeared a book, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” published by Gottfried zur Beek, in which, along with an abundant, often tendentiously hostile collection of materials, details and quotations on the Jewish question, excerpts from minutes of a Zionist Congress in Basel (1897) are reprinted. “Dedicated to the Princes of Europe!” Under the motto of a phrase that Louis XVI uttered upon his arrest on June 22, 1791 in Varennes: “I knew all this already 11 years ago; but how did it come about that I still did not want to believe it?” As the introduction of the work conveys, the published excerpts of the minutes came in Russian possession through bribery, or through theft according to another version, so that they could be published as early as 1901 by S. Nilus and 1907 by G. Buhmi. Putting off for the moment any critical examination of the authenticity or falsehood of the documents, we want first of all to get an overview of them in their entirety. In 24 sessions the “Elders of Zion” develop an “ingenious,” satanic-ingenious plan for the goal of destroying the order of Christian culture and society and the goal of establishing Jewish world rule. Devilish craftiness and devilish use of violence are paired with each other in order to attain the great goal: the transformation of the Christian world into a Jewish world. All of individualism, liberalism, capitalism, democracy-ism, materialism, like all of socialism, servile-ism, communism, autocracy-ism, and spiritualism of Christians-become-pagans is placed at the service of the mania for Jewish world rule, of Talmudic messianism. With full consciousness, Zion uses destructive, disintegrative enlightenment (revolutionary individualism, etc.) equally with the petrifying, fossilizing spirit of servility (reactionary socialism, etc.). “In our service are men of all viewpoints and political dispositions, enlightenment thinkers and democrats, socialists and communists. We have harnessed all of them under our yoke” (9th Session, p.92). Thesis and antithesis, revolution and reaction alternate in history, but all serves the chosen people of Zion. The minutes clearly reflect, albeit not systematically, the three historical phases of the modern movement of civilization: the revolutionary thesis of destructive individualism, capitalism, etc., the reactionary antithesis of petrifying socialism, communism, etc., and the Jewish synthesis of the great world rule of the mammon-archs from the seed of Zion, of the false pope and false kaiser in one person, the Talmud-patriarch of a Jewish world that caricatures the Christian world. The minutes lay out these three phases of history conceptually in three parts, even if the reporting style often intermingles the three spheres. The “Elders” take neither individualism nor socialism seriously; they use both and believe in a quasi-organic order of society that is openly Jewish and caricaturing Christianity, but neither capitalistic nor communistic. They exploit free-thinking for their purposes and goals, just as they exploit slave-thinking. They determinedly promote destruction in the time of revolution and just as determinedly the petrification in the time of reaction. The destruction serves: 1. the contagiously-acting enlightenment, the licentiousness, that will only play into the hands of the rule of one new lord, thus individualism (1st Session, p.69); 2. godlessness, which will replace the concept of God and the Holy Spirit in the souls of non-Jews through numerical calculations and bodily needs, thus liberalism (4th Session, p.82); avarice and greed of the non-Jews together with national economics, conceived by Jewish sages and promulgated ex cathedra (5th Session, p.84), thus capitalism, the rule of money promoted by enlightenment, individualism and liberalism (1st Session, p.69); the slogan of liberty, equality and fraternity, “worms that eat away at the prosperity of the non-Jews, since they generally undermine the peace and quiet, the solidarity, and the public spirit of the non-Jews” (1st Session, p.74), a slogan that inevitably breaks up the order of state and society, in combination with so-called popular sovereignty (parliamentary constitutionalism = partisanship, 10th Session, p.97) and their puppet-presidents (p.97), for the elected upstart (1st Session, p.73) as democracy-ism and amateur-ism (2nd Session, p.95) in ignorance of all tradition and good breeding, all races, all natural instincts of calling and position in life; 5. the greed of non-Jews for things, their materialism, “alcohol, humanism and vice” (1st Session, p.72), to which the workers shall especially be accustomed (6th Session, p.88), whereby the Jewish power enhances their debasement, their hunger and their weakness, their hatred and envy (3rd Session, p.78), further “pleasures, games, sports, passions and public houses,” a whole range of diversions for the purpose of distracting from those issues for whose implementation the Jews would otherwise have to struggle hard (13th Session, p.108), finally luxury, thus “seduction of the non-Jews to great expenditure out of all proportion to their income, and finally degenerating into a supercilious life to which everything will unthinkingly be sacrificed” (6th Session, p.88). In this way Christian society will be systematically hollowed out, Christians will become herd-beast-people and needy slaves of men from hell. If this revolutionizing of all cultural, individual and social life succeeds and Christianity is transformed like every single nation into an atomized Tohu va Bohu [Hebrew, from Genesis 1:2, for “formless and void”] , then, in a reaction, the second act of the whole process sets in: petrification. If they have previously worked destructively during a long period and for this purpose hidden economic problems behind the political problems they shoved to the front, then they will act in the opposite manner now during the somewhat shorter in duration petrifying, reactionary period (15th Session, p.107). We live in the era of Socialism. We see how the Jewish wolves are driving the mutton on before them (11th Session, p.101), how terrorism and servility are building upon each other, how nevertheless the Jews hardly take utopian Communism seriously (15th Session, p.115), which through their – avoiding all honorable commerce, inciting city and country, and established industry and agriculture – devilish speculation (6th Session, p.91), never losing sight of the preplanned transformation of the golden plutocracy into a red bureaucracy (8th Session, p.91), systematically implementing the autocracy of their world rule, and beginning, by mystically pointing the non-Jews to the “Western doctrines” of a pseudo-religious theosophy, to shore up their rule quasi-metaphysically (13th Session, p.108). We know in the modern era, since the Renaissance and Reformation, that alternation between creeping revolution (dissolution) and sudden reaction (petrification), and we know how both Extreme Individualism and Socialism, both Democracy and Autocracy, were used by the Jews for their goal and purpose. The minutes also speak often of inciting the democratic and autocratic factors of a people, those that lead and those that are led, factors that are played off against one another. “In order to instigate the powers that be to an (autocratic) abuse of their authority, we have played all forces against one another, while we have brought the (Jewish influenced, democratic) enlightened viewpoints (of the people) into contradiction with the (princes’) independence of all constitutional limitation. We sought in this way to invigorate each (the autocratic and the democratic) bias, we equipped all the parties. The (interiorly weakened by us) power of the ruler, just like the (well-fed by us) blind power of the people has lost all meaning; for each is helpless on its own like a blind man without a cane” (3rd Session, p.77). “We might fear that the perceptive powers of the (besieged by us) rulers would united with the blind powers of the (ensnared by us) peoples. But we every precautionary measure to prevent this. Between the two powers we have erected a two-sided wall of rule by terror (autocratic on one side, democratic on the other)” (9th Session, p.92). And the Jews direct Capitalism and Communism both alike: “No worker can count with certainty on a constant wage; he is dependent on the (capitalistic, Jewish-golden, plutocratic) alliance of the lords of industry and on the (Communistic, Jewish-red, bureaucratic) strikes of his fellow workers” (3rd Session, p.78). The mutually disintegrative revolutions and reactions, long capitalistic-creeping destructive periods and sudden-communistic petrifying periods remained pagan in nature so long as historical opposite poles were present. First with the complete conquering of all governmental, cultural centers of order in the Central European collapse, and through the final conquering of the last conservative remains of the Middle Ages, the Holy Roman Empire, the Talmud-dream indeed became fulfilled through the simultaneous combination of the present Socialist reaction and the hitherto existing individualistic revolution. The ongoing historical repetition of thesis and antithesis has finally transformed into a synthesis in our days, which the third part of the Protocols depicts, and for which the systematic organization of Jewry as Freemason Lodges prepared during the two first ever-changing phases, thus during the different modern revolutionary theses and counter-revolutionary antitheses. Working thus by word and writing – in “all sorts of ways of which the non-Jews have no clue” (5th Session, p.83) – the secretly working Lodge is the Jews’ organizational center. The “Elders” call it “unconquerable and unshakeable,” a secret organization strengthened by cunning and violence, acting by bribery, deceit and treason, in preparation for the time when the Lodge can no longer be suppressed by any means of power or law (1st Session, pp. 70, 72). “Since we already form a world power, we are impregnable” (3rd Session , p.80). A head, which must remain out of sight, governs the League. “The plan of our directorate must go forth, in finished form, from one head, for it can never take on a powerful form if innumerable heads work on it. This suffices for us, so that our plans are made with full power and are successfully implemented. Therefore we must not throw the strong-spirited work of our leader to the pigs or indeed let it be carped at in narrow circles” (10th Session, p.96). At the side of the leader stands the main directorate of the Elders, in whose fingers, since Freemasonry really encompasses all secret societies, “the threads of all revolutionary and enlightened-minded efforts run together (15th Session, p.112). For the training of such a type of leader, the purpose is served by specialized schools in which the Jews are taught “how the human soul must be conquered, how the cords of the innermost voices of human nature must be struck and manipulated, upon which we are called to play” (8th Session, p.90). The struggle of the three-point-brothers against altar and throne, their routine and virtuosity in destroying social classes and nations, must, as the “Elders” further calculate, finally lead to national and international crises, to economic and political crises, to the arising of the social and national question. Only a united league of all non-Jews could prevent the pre-planned catastrophe that threatens. “Against this danger, however, we are protected by the deeply rooted unbridgeable schism among the non-Jews. Even if a spiritual hero arises in the enemy camp, who would engage in a struggle with us, he would nonetheless be defeated” (5th Session, p.84). And yet the “Elders” fear this personality: “There is nothing more dangerous than the power of the sole personality. If he is gifted with creative powers of the spirit, then he can accomplish more than the millions of people whom we have divided in two. Therefore we must divert the formation of non-Jewish society so that it allows its hands to sink in hopeless weakness in the face of every issue that demands power of action and capability of decisiveness.” (p.86) Out of universal political and economic chaos, Zion hopes there will come “inflation of wages and prices of necessities” (6th Session, p.88), “upheaval, strife, enmity upon the entire world” (7th Session, p.89), and finally the unleashing of world war (p.89). After this world war, if it should come to a general uprising of Europe against the Jews, then that would be answered by American and Asiatic cannons in the name of the Jews (p.89). At the same time the world revolution must succeed (14th Session, p.110). The non-Jews, interiorly worn down, will offer the supreme rule to the Jews. In place of the former rulers, the “Terror-ghost” will step forward, called the “supra-national government” (5th Session, p.86). “Once we have accomplished the governmental revolution we have planned, then we will say to the peoples: Everything has gone so horribly wrong, you are all exhausted by suffering and grief. See, we are eliminating the causes of your sufferings: the national isolation of peoples, the borders of countries, the differences in currencies. Then all will acclaim us and do anything for us. The universal popular referendum, systematically planned by us for so long, by which we intend to secure lawfully our rule, will provide their last great service to us. The people will declare themselves for us with unanimous resolution, in order to test us before they pass a judgment upon us” (10th Session, p.95). Now, however, a historical moment appears to have arrived, to create the great caricature of world-mammon-rule: Demon mammon finds its pope and its emperor in the person of the “Patriarch” from the seed of David, with the serpent as its symbol (3rd Session, p.76). Now follows the crowning of the world ruler, the prince of this world (p.79). The violent rule of the Lodge is actually the support of the king from the blood of Zion (p.80). The self-rule of the Lodge takes the place of constitutions, which are completely eliminated, and the peoples of the earth cry out to the king of the Jews: “Remove the monarchs and give us a single world ruler who will unite us all and eliminate the causes of unending strife – the oppositions between nations, the differences of faith, the borders of states and their efforts at expansion – who will finally bring us peace and quiet, for which we hoped in vain from our rulers and national representatives” (10th Session, p.99). Jewish world rule will be a strict Jew-ocracy, a Jewish dictatorship, an “unshakeable government”(1st Session, p.71), form of self-rule (p.72), a reign of terror, which demands blind and unconditional obedience (p.73). “Our empire shall be marked by such a boundless rule of violence, that at all times and places it must be prepared to nip in the bud any resistance by malcontent non-Jews” (5th Session, p.85). “We will have anyone unmercifully executed who takes up arms against us and our rule. Any founding of a new secret society will likewise be punished with death.” (15th Session, p.110). A new class of nobles will drive out the old nobility (1st Session, p.74). In recognition of the racial laws of organic life, in recognition of the mystical constitution of society, the Jew-ocracy will be a monarchy resting upon the principle of hereditary succession, namely the mammon-archical caricature of a monarchy. “Only a personality who has been trained in tyrannical rule from his youth onward can recognize and act according to the principles of the great instructions for statescraft” (1st Session, p.71). These principles, indeed, shall be handed down from father to son as a family secret (p.73). The “Elders of Zion” explicitly depict the institutions of the Jewish world for its adherents. Zion wants to establish neither a capitalist-pagan, nor a Communist-pagan, but rather a both-Jewish order of society, that is, a caricature of the Christian order of society. “Pagan democracy and free thinking” have played out, and pagan “autocracy and servility” have also been overcome. The new Jewish freedom will be a matter of right, to which the Jewish authority is obligated (12th Session, p.101). Now also there will be a muzzling of the press, which was previously known to have led the Jews to power, while keeping them still in the shadows, which heaped mountains of gold on the Jews without any concern how this gold made for streams of blood and tears (2nd Session, p.76). “No one shall be allowed to question with impunity the halo of our governmental infallibility” (12th Session, p.102). And to be sure, the muzzling will occur indirectly, by means of high printing taxes, required posting of bonds (p.102), (eventually also by throttling the supply of paper?). “No newspaper, no journal, no book will be allowed to appear without pre-publication review” (p.102). Everything will be centralized in monopoly news bureaus. “Every publisher, printer or bookseller will be required to apply for a special permission permit for the exercise of his trade, which we will immediately shut down for the slightest violation against our instructions” (p.103). A great amount of capital is devoted to tactics for the press, which are of great interest (p.102-105). “As soon as we have achieved world rule, we will tolerate no other faith but ours alone. For this reason, we must destroy every other faith in God. Our thinkers will uncover every error and inconsistency in the non-Jewish faith confessions. Never, indeed, will a non-Jew be in position to inquire into the deep secrets of our doctrine, because they are a book of seven seals for all non-initiates. Anyone who is initiated, however, will never dare to reveal the secrets of our faith to one who is not called” (14th Session, pp. 109-110). After the destruction of the Christian faith comes the destruction of the Christian academy. Academic freedom will be removed from the universities, the professors must remain in constant dependency on the government. Teaching of history will be reformed. “We will strike from human memory all historical facts that are uncomfortable for us, and only allow those to survive by which the errors of the non-Jewish governments are especially highlighted.” In education, the new order of societal classes that caricatures Christianity shall also be considered, an order of classes and life that the Jews bear as the nobility of the nations (16th Session, p.119). Lawyers will be “governmentalized,” the police “socialized,” especially since all Jew-loyal citizens will furnish services as spies and informants (17th Session, p.121, 123). A broad expanse is filled with finance problems (20th and 21st Sessions, p.127-138). A graduated scale of property taxes shall symbolize the fairness of the Jew-ocracy. “The power by which our king will be supported consists in the fair allocation of tax burdens, which is a major civil measure for domestic tranquility. For the sake of this domestic tranquility, property owners must hand over to the state a portion of their income. The state’s need for money shall be borne by those who live in superfluity and from whom there is something to take” (p.128). In the state treasury, there will always be only a certain amount at hand for cash payments, all the rest will be put into circulation. The future currency will not be the gold standard that was a ruin for every state that took it up. (“The gold standard could all the less satisfy the monetary needs of peoples as we removed gold from circulation to the extent possible and made new editions of bank notes dependent upon gold reserves” p.131.) The new monetary standard should be based on the cost of living, the money supply must be brought into accord with the size of the population. The currencies themselves can be of paper, wood or metal. “We will calculate the average monetary need of a citizen by the average cost of living and then place as much money in circulation as correspondents with the aggregate needs of the population” (p.132). All safe long-term interest-bearing government bonds, which draw away money from the non-Jews in the interest of the Jews, who suck themselves full like leeches on the sick body of the non-Jewish state until it goes under from loss of blood (p.133), will be done away with. “The only allowable form of government bonds will be short-term with 1% interest (series) at the responsibility of the treasury department” (p.134). Stock exchange securities must be exchanged for governmental bank notes, state securities under a lawful rate remain issued, all commercial paper becoming dependent on this state stock exchange. How the entire reform proposal of the minutes is generally for the creation of a pseudo-Christian, caricatured Christian order of classes and fee holdings is carried out, upon the establishment of a quasi-organic order of society with a Jewish noble class; thus also the individual reforms, as they are described in the 23rd Session (p.140): Restriction of the production of luxury items, re-establishment of cottage industries and dismantling of large industrial concerns, promotion of home production and elimination of unemployment, prohibition of drunkenness. A new society shall arise, upheld by the nobility of “God’s Chosen People,” who congregate around the throne of the King of the Jews. This world ruler will preserve the appearance of the reign of antiquity. The people will idolize him as the Patriarch of the World (15th Session, p.118). The King of the Jews will become the real pope of the Jewish world church (17th Session, p.123). He will not have himself guarded by police, but rather by plain-clothes agents; the people will give him everything (18th Session, p.125). Everyone is allowed, for appearance, to submit petitions and suggestions (19th Session, p.126). The new rule will be infallible (12th Session, p.106). The king, on proud moral high ground, shall embody the destiny of the people, he and the three Elders alone may unveil the future (24th Session, p.141). With this grandiose prospect of a domination (papacy, empire and kingdom in one person!) guaranteeing order, peace and tranquility, the minutes conclude. There remains for us the question of the authenticity or falsehood of the Protocols. It must first be put forward that the described virtuosity and routine of revolutionary dissolution and reactionary petrification is certainly authentic, also that the Jewish world order’s caricature of the Christian order of classes and life corresponds to known facts, that the Jews equally caricature everything, and that in their religion and in their race they actually represent nothing other than the caricature of noble humanity. Even if the three phases, which we may call the revolutionary-capitalistic thesis, the reactionary-Communist antithesis, and the Jewish-demonic-mammon-archy synthesis, are rightly perceived and depicted, there are nevertheless intrinsic and extrinsic reasons for doubting the authenticity of the document. The Jew is cunning and brutal, criminal and dumb, he has routine and virtuosity, but he lacks any brilliance that is the necessary presupposition to serve any conception that is so grandiose. Also, his striving for world domination, as expressed in the above three phases, remains instinctive, which frankly does not rule out that the three “Elders of Zion” might be reflexively addicted to their Talmud-dreams. Whether this occurred in Basel? Extrinsic considerations speak also against that: The diction and style of the minutes, which appear to betray the setting as Russian. Also the fact that the arch-enemy of the eternal Jew, namely the eternal Christ, the Church, is only mentioned three times, which could be advanced as evidence, in the event one does not want to believe there was an alteration, which is further thereby apparent, that without any doubt authentic elements were inserted. Of the Church, the “Elders” speak in the 5th Session (p.84): “Can it be a matter of indifference to the world who rules it, the head of the Catholic Church or our dictated King of the blood of Zion?” Further in the 15th Session (p.111), where the Czar, “aside from the Pope,” is called the sole earnest enemy of Judaism. Finally, yet again in the 17th Session (p.122), where it says: “As soon as the time has come to destroy finally the power of the Pope, the finger of an invisible hand will point the peoples to the Papal Curia. If they rush to it to take revenge for centuries-long oppression, then we will want to step up as the presumptive protectors of the Pope and prevent a huge bloodbath. By means of this artificial tactic, we will make it into the innermost chambers of the Papal Curia and will not leave them until we have gotten to the bottom of all the mysteries, and until the entire power of the Papacy is completely broken.” Whether at the end of the day the minutes are authentic or false, they exude throughout, in any event, the Jewish spirit, even if the authorship may not be Jewish. They reveal completely the reflexive active striving for world domination that is instinctive in the Jews and perhaps also in some “Elders of Zion.” All the details of the destructive or petrifying, anarchistic or mechanistic activity of the Jews are common characteristics of the race, alive in the blood, working instinctively. The proposition that a spiritual headquarters must exist, giving its instructions, is entirely superfluous. Racial Jews will always and everywhere show up and act in the same manner in all situations in their behavior toward non-Jews, even without special instructions. That is precisely the secret of Jewish success, that the Jew instinctively acts, instinctively denies the idea of Christ and affirms the demonic-mammonistic Jew-Ahasuerus delusion. June 25, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, I believe I have the duty to transcribe herewith, translated from the German, a passage from the excellent Mons. Schulte, Archbishop of Cologne, dated June 23rd: “The news that the definitive transfer of Your Excellency to Berlin will not take place immediately, as You are obligated first to conclude the negotiations for the Concordat with Bavaria, made me happy and relieved, I tell You sincerely. The domestic political situation of Germany is, and indeed will remain for months to come, so insecure that truly, it seems to me, it would not be possible to choose a moment so inopportune as now for this transfer. No one dares to hope that the new Reich Government, which is now being formed, can be vital and lasting.” Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple, with sentiments of most profound veneration, I have the honor to prove myself Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most Humble, Most Devoted, Most Obliged Servant +Eugenio Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1134 June 27, 1920 Völkischer Beobachter, page 2: “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” From the Jewish side, the authenticity of the meeting minutes of the Elders of Zion is again being heavily disputed. As to this, the following is to be noted: Even if the minutes are not historical in the full meaning of that word, still the history books by Jewish authors, just like those by serious nonpartisan German researchers, show us nothing other than that the content of the disputed book is completely true to the character of the Jewish spirit of power-greed, money-greed, and destruction, down to the most detailed explicit reflection of it. Should the veil over its authorship not be capable of being completely lifted beyond dispute, we also have to thank for that the Jewish effort, for longstanding good reason, not to let the truth about it come to light. For us the book is a Völkisch revelatory writing, because every proposition in it can be proven from other indisputable historical sources, and thus we may and will quote relevant passages from it as occasion arises. Moreover, the position of “even if it comes from the Jewish side,” is hardly proof of anything; and so long as the Jews do not produce clear incontestable proof that the content of the book is fabricated, we also have no need to believe that their congresses for the ethnic identity of their business people are “harmless” and “innocuous,” while a considerable anthology of opposite reports can be put together daily from their Jewish-national papers (“Jewish Rundschau,” “The Jewish Echo,” etc.) It is also remarkable in this regard that an exemplar of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” has been in an English library since 1906, and the present day shows that historical events have been playing out, and are still, almost literally in the exact ways these plans would have them go. Moreover, one of our collaborators will report insightfully yet again on this in a later issue of the “Observer,” and will give the answer to Jewish objections. German original Summer 1920 Excerpt of Herbert Samuel’s memoirs about the condition of Palestine in 1920: Palestine had for centuries been almost derelict, politically and materially. We had to build, from the very beginning, a modern state. Further, the country was suffering from the effects of several years of war. Great armies had fought over it; many of its villages had been destroyed; trees cut down wholesale, orange-groves neglected, livestock depleted; there was a general air of poverty and depression. Brigandage was rife in many districts and the Bedu had been raiding across the Eastern border. The capital had lately been the scene of a serious racial riot. Source: Herbert Samuel, Memoirs (1945), p.161. July 4, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 27, page 173: “Bohemia” How deeply religious life is already being shaken in many sectors of society by the outrageous efforts of fallen away sects, by shameful slanders and distortions, is apparent in may ways. Allegedly many “nationalist” Sokol [Falcon] associations (so name on account of the falcon feather, or falcon, that they wear as their symbol) are planning for people to leave the Catholic Church at the conclusion of the big holiday ceremonies on July 6th, the date of the death of John Hus. If all the signs are not misleading, the Church in Bohemia is facing serious religious convulsions. - Also in Moravia the movement to leave the Church is gaining ground in a frightful manner. Thus the Social Democrat newspaper “Rovnost” in Brno is appealing to all party members to leave the Church on July 5th in memory of John Hus and to form associations of unbelievers. In this the Social Democrats are again boasting, especially at election time, of their ostensible principle: Religion is a private matter! Also the Sokol associations, who are celebrating their World Congress with massive participation in these days - from America alone more than 600 Sokols have recently arisen - should at all cost be torn free from Rome. In a flaming appeal to the Sokols it is said: “...we are and must be against Catholicism, even if many are still perhaps apparently adherents. It is necessary to proclaim this loudly and show it by deeds. Brothers, sisters, do not be deceived! The reckoning with Rome stands before us... From all sides the open, unveiled, true Sokol solution will ring out: No Sokol member can be a Roman! Sokols, ever onward! ... Free from Rome!” Until now they have hidden behind the hypocritical slogan: Clericalism; now they are saying openly: We are against Catholicism! The distinguishing of spirits is everywhere apparent. Freethinkers, Socialists, Sokols and others in raging struggle against the Church. Behold, the synagogue of Satan! In the Holy Land, also in the region east of the Jordan, peace prevails again, only along the border between Palestine and Syria have unfortunate disturbances arisen. In Jerusalem, armed Indian troops are patrolling the streets day and night. The Jews are now calling Palestine “the land of Israel,” the Arabs call it “South-Syria.” May the Lord God thwart these two crown-pretenders and bestow the Holy Land upon the Christians! This issue is seething at the moment in the newspapers; even on the street, the one side reads it in Hebrew, the other in the Arabic newspapers. Yesterday it was reported that the English wanted to hoist their flags, but it did not happen. The prospects for a peaceful solution to the Jewish- and Arab-question are negligibly slight. - The harvest has begun. The weather is comfortable. After Easter 60 more wagons of flour arrived from overseas. Brother Lucas, who is well known to many Munich pilgrims, was recently buried. He died of inflammation of the lungs. - The Patriarch is staying in Rome. Original German: MKK, 1920, no. 27, p.173 L’Osservatore Romano, July 14, 1920, page one: “The Berlin Nunciature” – The Stefani Agency reports: Dateline Berlin, July 12. The Pontifical Nuncio, Archbishop Pacelli, returned on the 9th of this month from Berlin to Munich to finish negotiations on the concordat with Bavaria. Then the Nuncio will take up residence in Berlin. L’Osservatore Romano, July 15, 1920, page one: “The First Nuncio to Berlin” Dateline Munich, Bavaria On the evening of Monday, June 28th, Archbishop Eugenio Pacelli left Munich to go to Berlin as the Apostolic Nuncio to Germany. The Bavarian Government showered him with the greatest courtesy by placing at his disposition a special salon train car for his trip. The newspapers in the capital wrote in most complimentary terms about the arrival of the Representative of the Pope... “The Speech by the Nuncio” Mr. President, I have the honor to transmit the Pontifical Letter that accredits me as the first Apostolic Nuncio to the German Reich. The establishment of an Embassy of the Reich in Rome and the correlative institution of an Apostolic Nunciature in Berlin represent an event of historical importance in the development of the relations between the Apostolic See and Germany and at the same time are a solemn recognition of the beneficent and impartial works of the Holy Father, Who, situated above human passions, was during the War the vindicator of law, the angel of charity, and the supporter of a just peace, and now continues to placate, with a tireless fatherly hand, the sufferings caused by inhuman conflicts, and to promote reconciliation of peoples based on Christian principles of truth and justice. But to give back to the people of Germany, severely tried by such grave upheavals, the stable tranquility necessary for all solid reconstruction and lasting progress, His Holiness values this high moment of concord between the ecclesiastical and civil powers. That is why the Sovereign Pontiff has given me the high charge of dealing with the competent Authorities to regulate ex novo the relations between Church and State in Germany, in a manner corresponding to the new situation and to current needs. In this mission of reconstruction and peace, confided by the August Sovereign to my feeble powers, I trust that I will not lack the effective cooperation of the German Government... July 21, 1920 Hitler speech on “Spa, Bolshevism and Political Questions of the Day” to a Nazi Party meeting, as published in the Rosenheim, Bavaria Tagblatt of July 25, 1920: Social Democrats of all shades as far as Communists want complete disarmament. Then they want to put Germany out of its misery with the help of the Soviets. O sancta simplicitas, what a ridiculous strategy! . . . We must seek to merge forces with nationalist, antisemitic Russia. Not with Soviet Russia. A right, without the power to exercise it, is only a phrase. The World War showed that a Volk without weapons is insanity. Then can the Reds take over any people on earth that lacks sufficient national armaments? In Soviet Russia there is the most brutal force of arms, the dictatorship. Marxism has completely wrecked Soviet Russia, and there rules the Jew. In Germany he leads first of all the Social Democrats and hopes through them to take the reins in his hand. And then workers, woe to you! Then it will be a matter of trampling down nationalism and erecting internationalist exploitation. Jäckel and Kuhn, p. 163 July 25, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 30, page 193: “From World and Church” From the Holy Land. According to the peace treaty with Turkey, the protection of the Holy Places will be entrusted to an English commission under the control of the League of Nations, the protection of minorities is transferred to the League of Nations, and the Catholic Protectorate is eliminated. - In Palestine, despite the British Mandate recognized at San Remo, this is still not ordained to ever result in a just peace. The Moslem population, which actually forms the great majority in the country, does not trust the promise that their previous possession of the land will not be affected and that only limited new Jewish immigration will be allowed; for they know by experience the power of Jewish money. The Jews are complaining just as much, and they say they are worse off than in Turkish times, because the taxes are higher, the level of commerce is less, life is more expensive, and colonies are sometimes exploited, sometimes left in danger. In this they are disunited among themselves, as the recent election by the Jewish community in Jerusalem showed, and most of them want nothing to do with Zionism. Of the 84 seats in their special Jewish council, 63 went to long-established Jewish residents. Germans living in Haifa and both neighboring communities, mostly descendants of the Germans from Württemberg who have lived there for more than 50 years, are increasingly losing hope that they will be able to remain in the country. The German Borromeo society can continue to work in peace; and it is gratifying that beginning in May of this year, seven German novices, mostly from Silesia, could take holy vows at their “Elijah” institute on Mt. Carmel. The Carmelite monastery that suffered so much during the war is now inhabited by seven mostly Spanish monks and is developing under the tireless English superior, Father Lamb, with new blood. Herbert Samuel has been appointed High Commissioner (Governor) of Palestine. He belongs to the respected Jewish family of Montagu and is known as a law-observant Israelite. Born in Liverpool in 1870, he has been a Member of Parliament since 1902 and is counted among the leaders of the Liberal Party. The appointment of Herbert Samuel as British High Commissioner in Palestine is closely connected with the policy being followed by England in Palestine. The Holy Land is to be placed under Jewish influence, to become a Jewish state under the English protectorate. Yet the Christians just like the Muslims of Palestine are determined adversaries of this plan and have formed a union together for the purpose of representing their common interests. It is profoundly deplorable that Catholics in the various countries have not developed the same adeptness as the Zionist Jews in the highly important Palestinian questions, and thus the Holy See could only raise and succeed with modest demands at San Remo. For the same reason it is also extraordinarily regrettable that the International Catholic Palestine Congress, most recently scheduled for July 12th to 16th in Einsiedeln [Switzerland], after repeated announcements and reschedulings, has once again been postponed, for an indeterminate time. German original: Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, July 25, 1920, no. 30, p.193 July 25, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Situation in Poland” ... “War of Terror” “... The invading army is leaving behind death and extermination.” July 26-27, 1920, page one: “The Situation in Poland: The Causes and Effects” ... “The Soviets Authorize an Armistice” “Hindenburg and Ludendorff Against Bolshevism?” Dateline Paris, July 26 – The Berlin correspondent of the Petit Parisien reports that British circles in Berlin are negotiating with Ludendorff and Hindenburg for a project of German military collaboration against the Bolsheviks. The German project, already outlined, provides for the suspension of the treaty [of Brest-Litovsk] during the campaign, the reconstituting of Germany’s pre-War eastern boundary, the autonomy of Poland under the sovereignty of the Empire and Germany’s participation in the concessions obtained by the Allies from Russia. As a form of military guarantee the Allies will maintain their occupation of the left bank of the Rhine and will obtain rights to occupy all German forts for the duration of operations... July 28, 1920, page one – “The Russian-Polish War” August 1, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Palestine and Zionism: the Entry of Sir Samuel into Jerusalem” – from our sources – Paris, July 30 The Action Française has published correspondence from an eyewitness of the entry of Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner for Palestine, into Jerusalem. On July 30th the correspondent wrote: a 1:00 p.m. the British troops, with fixed bayonets, barred all the roads. At two o’clock a locomotive entered the station, two hundred meters ahead of the special train that carried the High Commissioner. Almost no one had been alerted to his arrival. A procession was arranged. Four armored cars with machine guns preceded and followed the car in which Sir Herbert Samuel took his post. Then came two trucks with English soldiers in campaign uniforms. Between two rows of bayonets, in a profound silence, the procession went up the Mount of Olives. Some aircraft circled in the sky, as during the bloody week of Easter [anti-Jewish riot in Jerusalem]. When the High Commissioner arrived at Mount Scopus, a battery began to fire a periodic series of shots. The British flag was flying over the hospital of St. Paul, the residence of a German official which has now become the new home of the Commissioner. And this is the way, comments L’Action, that the peace treaty is being carried out, a treaty to realize the noble ideals of President Wilson for the independence of people and the protection of small States: the English Jew Sir H. Samuel is the arbiter of Palestine by the will of Great Britain, and the condescendence of the Allies makes a glorious entry for him into Jerusalem... Some London papers have written of a triumphal entry. Indeed, according to a Zionist correspondent of the London press, the entire population, Christians and Muslims, had received Sir Samuel with loud vivas and acclamations, and their enthusiasm had overflowed when amnesty was proclaimed for those convicted for the Easter uprisings. The contradiction could not be more striking or more significant. “Zionist Proposals for the Revival of Palestine” – from our correspondent – London, July 30 ... Aug. 2-3, 1920, L’Osservatore Romano, page one – “The Russian-Polish War” Aug. 4, 1920, L’Osservatore Romano, page one “The Russian-Polish War” See additional excerpts below in August 1920. July 1920 Two different versions of Polish Bishops letter; first from a contemporary author, in translation from the original German: Bolshevism is truly out to conquer the world. The race that controls it already once made the world subject to themselves via gold and the banks. Today, driven by the age-old imperialistic impulse that courses through their veins, they are now directly undertaking the final subjugation of nations under the yoke of their tyranny. Everything else they speak about, the people, the workers, freedom, these are only masks intended to conceal their actual goals. Source: Alfred Nossig, Polen und Juden (Vienna: Interterritorialer Verlag Renaissance, 1921), p.45. An English translation of this portion of the Polish Bishops letter is found in Paul Hanebrink, A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism (Cambridge: Belknap Harvard Univ. Press, 2018), p. 26, citing Stephanie Zloch, “Nationsbildung und Feinderklärung - ‘Jüdischer Bolschewismus’ und der polnisch-sowjetische Krieg 1919/1920,” Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook (2005), p. 291 (including also the sentence: “Bolshevism is truly the living embodiment and manifestation of the Antichrist on earth.”) Second, from Civiltà Cattolica, Oct. 2, 1920: And this is not in fact too strong a word about the conquest of the world that we send to you. Whoever knows how Bolshevism has also enveloped Nations more distant from Russia with a network of propaganda and intrigues; whoever knows how the Communist International is spread out through the world and even in governments, whoever knows the psychology of the people who direct this entire network of conspiracy, and whoever knows their methods, their teachings and their goals, such persons will understand and appreciate our words. All that Bolshevism proclaims, speaking of the people, of the destiny of the worker masses, of freedom, and of the dictatorship of the proletariat, all this teaching masks their hidden real goals from the eyes of the uninformed. Complete translation of Polish Bishops’ letter from Civiltà Cattolica is here. Aug. 1, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, page 199: “From World and Church: ... Czecho-Slovakia” The 6th of July is Hus Day, a legal holiday; even in the ethnic German schools, lectures must be held on the significance of Master Hus... German original Aug. 4, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The English Catholic Congress in Liverpool” – from our correspondent in London, August 3 The English Catholic Congress has finished it successful activities, which opened on the evening of July 30th. Present were various Bishops and all the representatives of the Catholic societies of England and Scotland. The Honorary President was Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster. The Congress was especially focused on questions of labor, and eminent political figures spoke on the topic. Cardinal Bourne gave a noteworthy address with an extremely important mention of British policy in Palestine. He asked if the British Government had thought through the consequences of a non-Christian influence being re-established in a land where so many generations have been forced to expel an anti-Christian power. He also observed that it will not be without economic and financial detriment that a Zionist dominion is installed in Palestine. The Congress applauded heartily. Its activities concluded with a filial homage to the Supreme Pontiff. Aug. 5, 1920, L’Osservatore Romano, page one, banner headline: “The Russian-Polish War: Bolshevism at the Gates of Central Europe” Under this same headline, the leading Christian Social newspaper in Vienna, the Reichspost, published on July 24th a profoundly moving article that we believe is opportune to reproduce in exact translation, concerning an extremely serious problem of interest to the entire civilized world, threatening the most horrendous barbarism that the world has ever seen, in great part brought about by the unpardonable errors of those who would “reorder Europe” without God... Aug. 6, 1920 Hitler speech, in Rosenheim, Bavaria: ... In Russia it is not the Dictatorship of the Proletariat that rules, rather the Proletariat is dictated to by 478 People’s Deputies, of which 430 are Jews, who have long been the greatest enemies of the Russian Nation. Source: Rosenheimer Tagblatt, Aug. 8, 1920, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p.172. Note: Hitler’s claim of 430 Jews among 478 Russian Communist officials is similar to the later “Who Governs Russia” piece in Der Stürmer next to the swastika blessing photograph, and to an October 21, 1922 Civiltà Cattolica article, presented in translation below. Aug. 7, 1920, L’Osservatore Romano, page two headlines: “The Russian-Polish War” “The Bolshevik Movement Is Against Europe, Says the Hungarian National Assembly” Aug. 9-10, 1920, L’Osservatore Romano, page one – “Russian Tergiversation Denounced at the League of Nations” Aug. 12, 1920, L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Russian-Polish War” An article in the Tribune, as to which we do not know, in truth, whether what predominates more is obscurity of thought or contortion of style, comments on the Pontifical letter to the Cardinal Vicar about prayers for Poland, categorizing it, with blatant incompetence, as the same as other recent documents that have very different purposes. We do not follow the author of the article in his many inaccuracies, in several affirmations that are so unfounded as to be grotesque, which he knew, in a manner that cannot be believed, all collected together into a few lines with a sectarian geniality: we observe only that he sees in the letter a new denunciation “of the anti-Christian essence of Socialism” while he finds a direct contradiction in the pious exhortation in favor of Poland, because this is what provoked the new war. Now the Pontifical document hopes and implores exactly for the salvation of the national existence of Poland and of Europe from the menace of new wars. Of Socialism, Communism and Bolshevism, it says not a word; and not a mention that could authorize and justify statements such as that of the Tribune about responsibility for this war. If there is anyone here who is “harming a hair of the truth” – and not just one hair – it is indubitably our contradictor. He has also forgotten that the choice and desire of the Holy Father correspond perfectly with the expressed desires of Great Britain, France and Italy, as to keeping intact the unfortunate new State and sparing Europe new woes; and correspond to the intent of the simple and highly reasonable motion of the English Prime Minister, who said very clearly in the House of Commons, according to the news today, that it is one thing to admit the responsibility of Poland in its first offensive and another to admit the destruction of its national independence, which would be a crime. To be able to write what the Tribune published under the headline “The Pole and Poland” requires not only a failure to read the last document and an ignorance of the social and civil thinking of the Church, it requires an open purpose of criticizing and denigrating, whatever the cost. Even at the cost of ignoring – even in the columns of a Government-affiliated newspaper! – the traditions of fraternal solidarity with Poland, which the Liberals of Italy have fed ever since the two nations were both subjected, at the same time, to foreign domination. Aug. 14, 1920, L’Osservatore Romano, page one – “The Russian-Polish War” Aug. 13, 1920 Hitler speech in the Festival Hall of Munich’s Hofbräuhaus; Jäckel and Kuhn, p.184: My dear members of the Volk! We have already become accustomed to being called horrible creatures and what is considered especially horrible is that we indeed walk point on an issue that mostly gets on people’s nerves, namely the question of opposing the Jews. They understand so much about us, but this one thing they do not want to understand ... p.191: The Jew later understood how to insinuate himself into a state, especially emerging Rome. We can follow his trail in southern Italy. There he has already settled everywhere 2-1/2 centuries before Christ, and he is beginning to be offputting. He is already talking big, he is the merchant, and it is said in many Roman writings that he was treating everything there already the way he does today, from shoelaces all the way to maidens (very right!), and we know that finally the danger became greater and greater and that the uprising after the murder of Julius Caesar was first and foremost incited by Jews. The Jew already understood then very well how to present himself to the lords of this earth. And when their lordship began to get shaky, then he started to become the Jew of the people and all at once disclosed his wide-open heart for the needs of the broad masses. Now we know the same course of events right in Rome. We know that it was precisely the Jew who made use of Christianity, not out of love for Christianity, but rather in part just from the realization that this new religion above all rejected earthly might and supreme power, recognizing only a higher supernatural lord, and that this religion had to lay the axe to the root of the Roman state, which was built upon the power of the authorities, and he became the bearer of this new religion, its greatest disseminator, and he utilized it not to become Christian himself, that is something he absolutely could not do, he remained always the Jew, exactly as today our socialist of Jewish race never lowers himself to the worker, but rather always remains the lord and plays the socialist (bravo and handclapping)... pp.198-99: These proletarian-feeling people are some Jewish billionaires, and we know full well that over these 2 or 3 proletarians, at the end of the day, exists another organization, which is not at all within the state, but rather outside it: the Alliance Israelite and its grandiose propaganda and directing organization, the special organization of Free Masonry ... p.202: Then this gentleman thinks our movement means a struggle that the labor movement should be brought into. Yes, that we would promise our people God knows what sort of kingdom of heaven, such as these gentlemen have done for 40 long years and now have nothing more than a heap of rubble instead of a kingdom of heaven, a filthy heap of misery, that is something we want nothing to do with. (Bravo!) We promise no heavenly kingdom other than this one, that if you want to implement this reform in Germany, perhaps one day the time will arrive again in which the individual can live. If you implement the glorious reform that these gentlemen here desire, you will even more quickly find yourself needing to pretty things up by exactly the same decrees that your leaders Trotsky and Lenin etc. are now issuing: Whoever is not ready to fight for the blessings of this state, he dies. Finally he said they combat every form of capitalism. My esteemed listeners! The communists have up to now merely combatted industrial capital, merely hanged industrial capitalists perhaps. But you name me one Jewish capitalist whom they have hanged. (Very right!) 300,000 Russians have in fact been murdered. That is something the Soviet government itself now admits. Among the 300,000 is not a single Jew! But in the leadership more than 90% are Jews. Is that really persecution of Jews or is it in the truest sense of the word persecution of Christians? Aug. 16-17, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one, banner headline – “The Russian-Polish War” [note]: After describing the Polish defeats, the Russian advances toward Warsaw, and the imminent danger of Warsaw falling to the Russians with the coming hours, the article states: “Remaining however in Warsaw are the Apostolic Nuncio, the Italian Ambassador, and the Chargé d’Affaires of the United States.” August 16-17, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one, lead headline in right column: “The Circumstances of Palestine in a Speech by Cardinal Bourne at the Liverpool Congress” Dateline Liverpool, July 30 In an important keynote address today that stirred unanimous approbation among the numerous other speakers, His Eminence Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, observed that Catholic Action worldwide has entered into a new phase, with special interest for the English-speaking world, dealing at length with two questions: the present and future circumstances of Palestine, and the progress of the foreign missions in the new situation created by the War. Given the importance the English language has acquired, and the resulting widespread dissemination of British news, the words of Cardinal Bourne could bring a large number of readers his beneficent teaching for the good of the Church. The Cardinal recalled the taking of Jerusalem towards the end of 1917; an occupation that gladdened English Catholics in a special way because it occurred by means of British soldiers. Nevertheless this joy was followed by a period of notable apprehension. According to the decisions of the San Remo Conference, Britain obtained the mandate for Palestine, and at the end of June a High Commissioner was sent, in the person of Sir Herbert Samuel. In that there is nothing alarming, because Sir H. Samuel has gained universal esteem for his rectitude. But there remains the severe problem that the administration of Palestine is faced with elements of unique character. On November 8, 1917, Mr. Balfour wrote to Lord Rothschild, promising that the British Government would be favorable to the re-establishment in Palestine of a National Land of the Jews. The promise was repeated at various points in time and obtained formal approval at San Remo. “The Zionist Peril” Certainly there is widespread realization in Europe that numerous groups of Jews have not yet been assimilated in various nations and can constitute domains of dissidents and agitators. For that reason it is hoped by some that these vulnerabilities can be eliminated by establishing for the Jews a territorial and national center of attraction. But it is also certain that there could be not the slightest illusion that the more elevated classes among the Jews will leave England, France, Germany and Italy to establish themselves permanently in the new State. Thus the project appears to be absolutely lacking in practicality. Moreover it is a troubling fact that a strong non-Christian influence is being deliberately constituted in this region, from which Christians have been trying for centuries to remove a non-Christian Power; also just as troubling is that many, even those without the slightest antisemitic prejudice, are justifiably asking what is the reason for such a radical departure from traditional lines. It is true that definitive assurances have been given that no political dominion will be conceded to this new immigrant population, but these assurances are very far from satisfying the original inhabitants of Palestine and the Europeans. When I had the personal consolation of visiting Jerusalem in January 1919, continued His Eminence, men of all classes and religions came to see me; they were Latin rite and Greek rite, Melkite and Orthodox, Christian and Moslem. All of them, with one voice, openly protested against the promise of Mr. Balfour and against the projects of the Zionists. And they assured me that the promise and the projects would be seriously harmful to British prestige. Certainly if any importance should be given to the right of self-determination of peoples, these projects cannot be justified. The many serious meddlings by the Zionists are well known to our officials. Upon returning from my trip, I did not fail to convey many precise facts to the authorities. As a result I received many letters from Christians and Muslims who were resisting the Zionist invasion. They were poor people, often without homes, while the Jews had notable financial means at their disposal, and at least in this respect were already dominators. Aug. 15, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, pages 212-213: The Danger to Christianity in Palestine. The new Jewish Governor Henry [sic: Herbert] Samuel, appointed by England, has instituted Saturday as the official day of rest, which he also observes personally. All Jewish officials in the civil and military service are obligated to observe the sabbath. Moreover the Muslims can remain away from their offices on Friday, and the Christians on Sunday, so that actually on Friday, Saturday and Sunday the governmental services in Palestine will always be partially inactive. The Holy Father has most warmly congratulated Patriarch Barlassina, via the Cardinal Secretary of State, for his project to establish an activity for the preservation of the faith in Palestine. The new circumstances make it urgently necessary to devote all attention not only to the preservation of the Holy Places, but also to the preservation of the Catholic faith in Palestine. Not only because Jewry knows how to secure ever more influence for itself, but also because various American sects are trying to lure apostates under the pretense of humanitarian activities. German original: page 212 and page 213 Aug. 18, 1920 Pacelli to Gasparri re political situation in Germany and Bolshevism: Most Reverend Eminence, In my respectful Report No. 17150 dated June 26th this year, I explained to Your Most Reverend Eminence the political situation in Germany... The German people are following at the present time, with great anxiety, the development of events in the East. The victorious advance of Bolshevism is raising a whole series of questions, whose weight and consequences are impossible to measure at this time. Germany is studying attentively how to exploit these events in its favor. It signed the Treaty of Versailles with clenched teeth and without a domestic consensus ... Now it is exactly in the Russian events and the collapse of Poland that many believe they see the opportunity for such a major revision of the Treaty of Versailles... I had just finished writing these lines this morning when Bavarian Minister von Kahr came to visit me after midday, for precisely the purpose of talking with me about Bolshevism, which he considers to be the most serious question in the world at the moment... The Minister President thinks that Bavaria, together with the other States of southern Germany, will eventually be able to organize an effective action against the Bolshevik tide. It is for that reason, he affirmed, that the Bavarian Government does not intend, come what may, to disarm the civic guard or Einwohnerwehr, which is the only guarantee for the protection of public order. When I observed that Germany has nonetheless assumed such an obligation in the Spa conference and that, in case of non-fulfillment of that obligation, the Entente would have occupied the Ruhr Valley, he answered me that France (and of this the Government in Berlin is also persuaded) is resolved to carry out such an occupation in any event, which is thus inevitable and only a matter of time. I fear that this solution of Mr. von Kahr may be a little simplistic ... Source: Vatican Secret Archives, reprinted in Fattorini (1992), pp. 352-355. Italian original and German summary at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1053. Aug. 19, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Russian-Polish War: The Poles Defend the Capital” ... “The Bolshevik Regime in Kyiv” – dateline Vienna, Aug. 13 The Christian Social newspaper of Vienna, the Reichspost, published a horrifying report on August 10th by a distinguished lady of Kyiv, who escaped execution at the last moment for capital punishment decreed upon her by the “Bolsheviks,” and who arrived fortunately in Vienna a few days later. The reader will be able to understand how much the Bolsheviks are hostile to Christianity and how it is only misguided souls and the totally ignorant who can defend and propagate their theories, which are the negation of all civilization. All peoples must unite in helping unfortunate Poland, which is combatting this terrible enemy, and in defending their own homes with all means and with the greatest energy against the infamous propagandists of “Bolshevism” – these true enemies of Christian civilization – who “unfortunately infest every country today with impunity.”... [note]: After describing unspeakable brutality inflicted by the Bolsheviks upon the people of Kyiv, especially upon merchants, nobles, academics, and other distinguished persons, the article introduces Jews as persecutors of Catholic and Orthodox priests: “It was especially Priests, Catholic and Orthodox, who had to experience the hatred and murderous avidity of the Jewish ‘judges.’ The Priests were burned and subjected to every torment imaginable before finally being granted the coup de grace. Jewish women took part in this business with predilection. One of the bloodthirsty Jews found his principal entertainment in calling out to men near him who were facing imminent execution, pointing his revolver in their face, ordering them to open their mouth so he could shoot into it, and then sending them off with a smile and the words, ‘not yet today!’” Aug. 22, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 34, pages 215-216: “The 6th English Catholic Congress” In Liverpool, the center of Catholic life in England, the 6th English Catholic Congress took place and was the occasion for an important proclamation. Even if we regret with deepest sorrow that the English Cardinal Bourne did not summon up the extent of love and justice toward us Germans that appeared appropriate to us, nor toward our German missionaries, we nevertheless do not want to withhold from our readers the content of the two main parts of the speech. Cardinal Bourne’s speech, which opened the Congress, was an extremely noteworthy Church policy proclamation, in some ways a program for Catholicism worldwide. Addressing the new era tht has come upon mankind, he considered the establishiment of the Jewish State as an unmistakable marker of the change in the times. With the greatest bitterness, the Cardinal criticized the position of the British Government in the Balfour Declaration (Nov. 8, 1917) to Rothschild, that the British Government would pursue with great favor the establishment of the Jewish State. This repeatedly cited Declaration found its sanction at San Remo. The proposition was unique, without precedent. He did not believe that the statesmen who created it would have imagined its immediate, not to mention its ultimate, fine consequences. The Cardinal then described his trip to Palestine, where protests against the obligations imposed by the Balfour Declaration were brought to him from all elements of the population, from Latins, Greeks, Melchites, Orthodox, Christians and Muslims. Then Cardinal Bourne explained further that he had just recently received a letter, in which it was said that if things were to keep going in this way, soon the whole land would be bought up by the Zionists. Many fields of activity are already in their hands, a bank has been established, which gives the Jews loans at three percent and the Christians loans at ten percent or even higher. The cornerstone of a Hebrew University has been laid, and in a few years the Jews will have a monopoly in every field there. That is not what the revolting Christians and Arabs fought against the Turks for, nor allied themselves with the English for, nor spilled their own blood for. But the first thing that the liberators of Palestine had to experience after the liberation of the Holy Places was the “Balfour Declaration.” These warriors had not imagined in their dreams that this country liberated by them would be handed over by England in such a manner to such an avaricious people. The Cardinal described a second great danger for Catholic interests in the widespread proselytism in Palestine by the “American interdenominational world movement,” which is trying to snatch up the orphanages and schools of the Catholics, by means of the enormous sums of money at its disposal. To oppose the Zionistic peril, at the suggestion of the Cardinal, the Congress asked for the establishment of the post of “liaison officer” for the purpose of vindicating Catholic interests with the governing authorities; informing and meeting with the Commission for decisions about the possession of the Holy Places, representation of all the nations present there for defense of their national claims to the Holy Places, and care for the Catholic schools and institutes in the Holy Land. In the second point of his program, the Cardinal considerred the future of the missions ... Also, the speech of Cardinal Gasquet (O.S.B.) contained no points of high policy... Less confortable for the British Government than the speeches of Bourne and Gasquet are the Catholic Congress’s proclamations of sympathy with the Irish: “Ireland is mired in difficult battle and is bleeding at the present moment. May Ireland know that we bear its sufferings in our hearts.” German original: page 215 and page 216 Aug. 28, 1920 Allgemeine Rundschau, no. 35, p. 456: “World Review” by Dr. Otto Kunze, Munich The entire conduct of nations and governments today is essentially determined by their position on Bolshevism. Like the Masque of the Red Death in Poe’s horror story, it goes around in the palace of culture. The guests draw their swords against the foreign intruder, but what they pierce is an empty shell. The Red Death takes possession of their members and carries them off. Russia brings Bolshevism into all the world, but is perhaps already going about under its mask. Whoever lets it in, falls to the Red Death. The nations of the West conduct themselves variously. Germany is struggling with difficulty against the sickness and lies in dangerous crisis. Italy appears for the moment to have overcome a heavy onset. England acts against the infection and its symptoms in its own body somewhat frivolously. France reacts with the ardor of a healthy but sensitive body. America keeps its distance. It feels only the breath of the infection and remains strong enough to defend against it... Germany can defend itself against external Bolshevism, now as before, only by strict neutrality in the Russian-Polish War. The Reich Government is publicly holding fast to this policy and thereby deserves every support and, if needed, reinforcement. On the other hand, in the fight against domestic Bolshevism, unfortunately no longer is everything being done with the strengthening of governmental power in the Reich. The Spa dictate prevents the government from deploying its full power. The civil self-defense force must expand that power. That is why it is very sad to see that the Orgesch, uniquely useful for this purpose, is being outlawed not only by individual local authorities, but by the Prussian Government. Naturally it is Herr Severing, the Interior Minister, the man of the Bielefeld agreement, who signs the prohibition. As a result the Orgesch is struck down in East Prussia, where Russians and Poles are at the gates, and as proof that it really is needed, a new self-defense force is founded, which because of the inclusion of politically dubious elements can be no defense against Bolshevism. Against the unlawful prohibition of the Orgesch, which is a registered association, Escherich has raised a strong protest in a letter to the Reich President. Also a legal complaint is being prepared. Saxony is likewise moving against the Orgesch and, incredibly, so is Württemberg. The Reich itself will now have to show whether it really has a civic bourgeois government. Reich Finance Minister Wirth had to repeatedly warn of sabotage of the tax deductions by the workers. Berlin’s short-sighted tax policy ... German original Aug. 31, 1920 Hitler speech in Rosenheim, Bavaria: “Why We Are Antisemites” ... The proposed Zionist State “Jerusalem” would be considered not as a place of national gathering, but rather as the base of the central committee for Jewish World-Power-Plans [Weltmachtpläne] of exploitation and fraud. An independent state for those whose real home is to be found elsewhere. A fortress in which to secure the booty. Karl Marx, the founder of the Red International, was the conscious underminer of the social concept. To be a social being means to work for the common good. Marx preached class struggle, incited brother against brother, instead of reconciling social principles... The poorer a people, the more the Jew has them in his power. Look at Soviet Russia. Trotsky, Lenin, Sobelsohn, 3 Jews and today? 14-hour workday and the scourge of hunger. The Jew wants to generally have rights under the law, but not duties. If you remind him of his duties, he cries “Antisemitism.” The left-wing leaders of the workers are Jews or in the pay of Jews. They have never worked and never will... The speaker rounded against an article of Wendelstein that tried to ride the coattails of the “Free from Rome Movement” by alluding to a very clear appeal out of German Austria. The Party stands on the basis of Positive Christianity and all Christian activity as the foundation of authority. That means the organized struggle of the broad masses against their oppressors, the blood-sucking vampire, International Jewry of the “Alliance Israélite” and Freemasonry. Source: Rosenheimer Tagblatt, Sept. 2, 1920, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, pp. 219-220. Note: Jäckel and Kuhn’s “Complete Writings” of Hitler include earlier mentions of Freemasonry, the Alliance Israélite, Zionism, and Jewish State of Jerusalem or Palestine on August 13, 1920; mentions of social teaching about the common good, and the Free from Rome Movement, appear first in the above speech. Sept. 5, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 36, page 229: “Jewish Immigrant Shirkers” At the Jewish immigration stations at Jaffa and Haifa, it came to major riots. More than 200 immigrants from eastern Galicia and Poland refused to go to the jobs that were indicated for them. They had been promised land and they wanted land. They would have had work in their homeland if they had wanted it. If they were lured to Palestine under false pretenses, then they wanted free return passage and board, as well as monetary compensation for their lost time and their losses from being tricked into selling their homes at distress prices. Since their demands could naturally not be met - the organization did not have money for that - it came to great blows, which could only be restrained by force. German original Sept. 11, 1920 Documentation Catholique, pages 170-171: “The Jewish Peril Expands: Initial Accomplishments and Final Goal of the Zionists” We read in the Peuple Juif (Aug. 20, 1920), “A Propos of the London Conference”: The time is past when, for reasons of convenience, one must hold back inside oneself the criticisms that one is tempted to formulate. The situation is too serious for us at the present hour to persist in an attitude of dangerous discretion out of fear of giving a facile satisfaction to our irreducible adversaries. It is necessary that, from now on, our leaders, whoever they may be, feel the scrutinizing gaze of the Jewish people turned upon them ... That is why, for the moment, we have to say - and to demonstrate - that the Conference that just took place in London missed its goal, both in form and in substance. Even though greatly elevated by the prestige of some high Zionist personalities, Nordau and Brandeis, notably, this Conference was only a re-edition, hardly retouched, of that of last year, which, by unanimous opinion, was pitiful... ...What, specifically, have we obtained? The possibility of a national home in Palestine... But what prevents us from succeeding? ... many English sincerely desire to see a national Jewish home established in Palestine, we can believe in this sincerity on the part of a people nourished by the Bible; but all Englishmen are not Balfours or Lloyd Georges, there are also the Sydenhams... The second obstacle that we can recount is found in Palestine itself, that is the Arab obstacle. It is pointless to analyze it, the whole world is familiar with it. And there is the occasion for a second organization having its mission to watch over our relations with our neighbors the Arabs... As to the supreme role of coordinating all our work and directing it gradually, in executing the dominant desire of the Jewish people, toward our final goal, the Jewish State, that is for the continuers and defenders of the Herzl conception to which this goal belongs, and not for those who have fought against it. French originals of page 170 and page 171 Sept. 20, 1920 Hitler speech to a Nazi Party meeting, “Might or Right,” from an observer’s report: He subjected the words Liberty, Equality and Fraternity to a thoroughgoing examination and then came around to speaking about Soviet Russia, of which a Dittmann says that it is hell, but for a Levi, a Goldschmidt, etc., it is heaven. For these, sure, it can be that, since they feel like they are in heaven there (lively applause). Jäckel and Kuhn, p. 229 Sept. 23, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “From Poland: The Enemy at the Gates – Religious Demonstrations – The Heroism of a Priest” – from our special correspondent – dateline Warsaw, Sept. 1 ... “The Bolshevik ‘Paradise’” – from our correspondent – dateline Vienna, Sept. 16, 1920 [summary]: Personal testimonies of horrors of Bolshevism, with no mention of Jews. Oct. 2, 1920 Lengthy article on the Polish-Russian War in Civiltà Cattolica, pp. 86 ff.: Summary: Poland (from our special correspondent) - 1. Poland and the Treaty of Versailles. - 2. Conditions in Poland since the Armistice. - 3. The Bolshevik menace. - 4. Polish-Lithuanian questions. - 5. Ukrainians and Poles. - 6. Poland’s political program. - 7. Soviet imperialist policy. - 8. The social goals of Bolshevism. - 9. The magnificent Polish counter-offensive. I do not know which French writer of the 18th century said there is a simple and infallible way to make a falsehood look like truth, but it is repeated hundreds of times. This maxim has been very widely applied during the war years and peace negotiations to bolster so-called propaganda. Also recently a newspaper in Rome, writing about the Pontiff’s plea in favor of Poland, repeated as indisputable truth the idea that an attack by Poland was the cause of the Bolshevik war. Now, before pronouncing a judgment, it is necessary to examine the factual circumstances that gave rise to the Russian-Polish conflict. 1. The Treaty of Versailles recognized a free and independent Poland but did not properly create a Polish State. To create a State it is necessary, first of all, to give it boundaries, and it is even more necessary when, as in the case of Poland, the State does not have natural geographic boundaries. The Allied Supreme Council failed to determine the boundaries of the Polish State, either in the east, or in the west, or in the north, except for a the small part along the Baltic coast and Pomerania. In the west and south, the decision was turned over to four referendum votes, one of which, for the region of Teschen, posed a choice as against Czechoslovakia, and the other three, Upper Silesia, Marienwerder and Allenstein, posed a choice as against Germany. Now four referendums represent four vast fields of battle that aggravate exasperations and inflame the contending passions of the opposing peoples. Added to this were the results of the referendums, which were not done in the course of normal conditions in the life of the people, arousing enormous resentment over the changes from one political order to another. Moreover, in the events pertaining to Marienwerder and Allenstein, the referendum took place in the days when the Bolshevik tide swept upon Poland. Then in the east, not only did the Treaty of Versailles fail to determine boundaries, but it established nothing internally within these vast territories of mixed populations. 2. Immediately after the Armistice, Poland found itself in extremely grave circumstances. Already in November 1918, that is in the week preceding the Armistice, its territories became the bridge of passage for the remnants of the stricken armies of Austria and Hungary that were returning from the Italian front in Galicia, as well as Germans being repatriated from the front lines on the Russian Front and Russians who were returning to their country. In the middle of this disorder the Ukrainians on the one hand attacked the Poles around Lvov in eastern Galicia, and on the other hand in the west, the Czechoslovaks were seeking to establish possession of the Teschen part of Silesia. As if that were not enough, the Bolshevik wave was aiming to break upon Poland. In October 1918 there were still German troops on Polish territory, and there was serious difficulty in disarming them and forcing them to leave Poland. The Polish leadership elements, divided into action committees that worked in full accord with the governments of the Allies, had not yet returned to Poland, but were still in foreign capitals. Thus it could be said without exaggeration that Poland had been the country worst flagellated by the War, but was also the one that received the most harm in the wake of the Armistice, while the population was shattered and exhausted by the sacrifices they were still enduring. In November 1918 Marshal Pilsudski, who is today the head of the Republic of Poland, had just been released from Magdeburg Prison, where the Germans had confined him in 1917, and by the will of the people he assumed the highest office, which could only be sustained in such serious circumstances by the full strength and energy of such a man. Meanwhile on all the borders of Poland threats from neighboring peoples were felt, as the Poles had a small army of 50,000 soldiers, short on gear and provisions, in the face of enemies who could put in the field forces of ten to twenty times that size. At Versailles there were such serious problems to resolve that the Allied Powers could not turn their attention to events developing in Poland and were content to rely on commissions. Finally, starting from Italy, help began to arrive in the form of “medical supplies,” weapons and ammunition, in January 1919. These were the conditions in which Poland began its work of political reconstruction. Its patriotism and concord seemed like a miracle, as everyone who was involved in this work in Poland in 1919 was unanimous in admiring the results attained in an extremely short time by the superhuman accomplishment of an entire people. 3. To liberate eastern Galicia and its capital of Lvov from the Ukrainian menace, the Poles had to provide for their defense in the territories of Grodno, Vilno and Minsk, which have mixed populations, in which however the Catholic Poles were the leading elements, for reason of numbers, culture and economic considerations. The Bolshevik peril was not at all dispelled, though it was rather far off during the first movements of the Polish Army, which advanced and grew larger and organized for this work all the legions that were created and formed as in France and Italy, where volunteers and Polish ex-prisoners of war streamed forth under the banner of the nation. The Paris Conference, as we have already said, had not defined the boundaries of Poland in the east, but had allowed full freedom to the Poles to develop their own actions in the territories that separated Russia from Poland proper, “expressly reserving the rights of Poland to assess its territories itself.” These territories in fact were the cause of all the discord between Poland and Russia... 4. It is noted that Lithuania was united with Poland toward the end of the 14th century to defend against the Teutonic Knights ... This union was maintained up until the dismemberment of Poland... But Lithuania in the historical sense does not correspond with Lithuania in the ethnographic sense, populated by Lithuanians properly so called (around 2 million), with minorities of Poles and Jews, occupying the northern part of the province of Suwalki, part of the province of Vilno, and the whole province of Kovno, which was entirely Lithuanian in character. The White Ruthenians, which are divided two groups, western and eastern ... The Poles, in the two years following the Armistice, tried in every way to arrive at an accord with the Lithuanians on a basis of full independence for ethnic Lithuanians. The bone of contention, however, was always the possession of the city of Vilno, the capital of historic Lithuania, which is inhabited however, by an overwhelming majority of Poles, with a minimal percentage of Lithuanians. The same thing can be said of the surrounding district, in which Poles are also the majority. In order to possess Vilno, the Lithuanians concluded an alliance with the Bolsheviks; but the Bolsheviks, after the Polish retreat, occupied Vilno and would not hand it over to the Lithuanians. The goal of the Bolsheviks is obvious: they want to “Bolshevize” Lithuania. Thus, between the two contending parties, Poles and Lithuanians, a third has intervened, who has reaped the harvest of their quarrel. Is it not, therefore, time to put an end to a vain competition, in the interests of both parties, and to join in a united work for the salvation of both countries and of Catholicism menaced by Bolshevism? The Lithuanians should stop hesitating over which state they choose to make an accord with. This is a matter of their very existence, which the Bolsheviks have shown they have no disposition to respect. Despite all the disappointments felt by the Poles in their relations with Lithuania, the Polish Government is always disposed to arrive at an agreement. 5. The conflict between the Poles and the Ukrainians was even more serious. But it is no less true, as events have shown, that it also could be resolved. Indeed it seemed that the problem was in the course of being solved, but the solution itself has been the cause of the recent Bolshevik invasion of Poland. Because, in fact, the Poles, in their professed idea for such a solution, accidentally found themselves coming up against the Russian-Bolshevik program. But let us first look at some facts. The main area of disagreement between the Poles and Ukrainians is so-called eastern Galicia… The cities of eastern Galicia, in general, are Polish. The Dniester River divides eastern Galicia into two zones: the mixed Polish-Ruthenian, north of the Dniester, where the two ethnic groups are equal in numbers (and where the Poles have their great national center in Lvov) and that of Ruthenian Ukraine south of the Dniester, where the Polish minority approaches 29 percent. Therefore it cannot be said that Lvov is a Polish island in a Ruthenian sea, or that it is similar to an English Ulster in Catholic Ireland. Rather than a matter of an island, it is an inter-population of ethnic groups living together in free association for centuries. From the historic point of view, the older Russian historians such as Nestor affirmed that the Polish population of eastern Galicia was native to the area and were not immigrants; from the intellectual and cultural point of view, eastern Galicia owes everything to Poland. Economically, the Poles, when Galicia was part of Austria, paid taxes in all regions at 81.7 per cent and in eastern Galicia the percentage concerning Poles was 73.8… In 1918, it must be recalled, the Polish population of eastern Galicia showed itself to have a national consciousness, numerous, strong in energy, without ulterior motive, to defend against the pressures from the Ukrainians coming from Ukraine proper. The Allied Supreme Council, leaving the administration of the entire zone to the Poles, intended to guarantee autonomy to the Ukrainians on the basis of a special statute. This sort of mandate for the Poles, entrusted by the Council for 25 years, was made by a decision of the same Council on December 25, 1919 and suspended indefinitely in favor of Poland: everything that happened was motivated by the national and economic importance of eastern Galicia for Poland, and also in view of the sacrifices that the Poles had to make in favor of Ukraine, in the territory of Podolia and Ukraine proper, because outside the borders of eastern Galicia, the Polish element is scattered in Ukrainian territory, where it constitutes a small minority, which represents, however, an intellectual and economic force of the first order. Suffice to say that in Ukraine, in addition to owning great properties, the Poles are at the head of important commercial and industrial enterprises, which employ a large number of people and touch upon a number of extremely important interests of incalculable value, embracing not only owners but also industrial specialists, professionals, workers and farmers. Polish properties in Ukraine amount to 25 million square kilometers. This mixture of one people with another is explained by the facts of five centuries of shared history. The Polish-Ukrainian problem thus cannot be resolved other than by reciprocal sacrifices and concessions. A solution was not possible while Ukrainians and Poles were under Austrian rule, which had every interest in keeping them enemies and adversaries of each other, but once they had become the masters of their own destiny, they had a common interest in coming to an understanding. In fact, as to the conflict over Lvov, the Polish-Ukrainian negotiations lasted about a year and a half, and three proposals were advanced to establish the borders between Ukraine and the Polish State, and it is clear that two of these, agreed by the Ukrainians, included eastern Galicia within the borders of the Polish State. Thus a Polish-Ukrainian agreement was reached on April 25, 1920, concluded between General Petliura and the Polish Supreme Command. This agreement had as its foundation the assistance that the Poles offered to Petliura’s government against the Bolsheviks. 6. Between Poland and Russia a series of independent States arose, masters of their own destiny. To this end, the Poles proposed that these territories be vacated by the armies, Russian and Polish alike, to assure the population the freedom to express their will. This program was in contrast to the Soviet Government’s program of centralization and absorption, but this should not have offended them if the principles of independence they proclaimed for the people had been sincere. In addition to that, the Soviet Government itself, after the Brest-Litovsk Agreement and before the victory of the Allies caused the collapse of the Central Powers, officially denounced to Austria and Germany the treaties concerning the partition of Poland. By this denunciation, Russia was automatically brought back to the frontier lines that marked the boundaries of Poland in 1772. What reasons could the resurrected Polish nation have had to feel limited in its right to make agreements with its neighbors! The Allies, having set Poland’s boundaries only in the west, left it free in its movements and encouraged it with demonstrations of sympathy. Such encouragements coincided with the economic interests of all of Europe, because while the imports that could come from Bolshevik Russia were rather problematic, it would have been more convenient to receive them from an economically restored Ukraine for the benefit of the entire West. Thus it was in Europe’s best interests that these lands, which were subjected to Bolshevik misgovernment, should be liberated and become a source of common good. So it was not a spirit of imperialism that drove the Poles to help neighboring peoples against Bolshevik barbarism, but rather their traditional policy of conciliation and mutual recognition of freedom. Nevertheless this program was the spark that ignited the explosion of Soviet militaristic policy. It was a miscalculation by the Poles to trust in a mainly idealistic policy, or in the cooperation of the Ukrainian people, because it appears now that Petliura’s prestige among the Ukrainian people was not such as to assure the success of the enterprise, but it cannot be denied that it was a noble effort. 7. On the other hand, the Polish offensive in the Ukraine was related to the military preparations of Bolshevik Russia. The Bolsheviks, as illustrated by events today, did not want to give up their active propaganda for Bolshevism in Poland and in western countries accessed through Poland. That should be strongly emphasized, because it was certainly not the Polish Government’s choice of Borysow as the place of negotiations that caused the Soviets’ refusal to arrive at a peace agreement, but rather the desire to gain time in order to push forward their military preparations and hurl upon Poland the masses summoned up from Asia to impose a Soviet regime. Poland therefore, partly out of the necessity of the historical moment, driven by the Bolshevik menace, and partly also because prompted by the Allies, was forced to pursue war, in order to be placed on a path of alliances with the neighboring nationalities and States situated between Russia and the Polish State, confident of gaining those territories for civilization and for the European economy and at the same time protecting itself from Bolshevism. This seemed the only way to force Russia to a lasting peace. But once Poland was basically engaged in this policy, Britain changed course and opened peace negotiations with the Bolsheviks to relieve their pressure on India, and France continued to encourage Poland in the undertaking. Only at the last moment, the French State, taking account of the logistical difficulties and especially the lack of munitions, counseled against the march on Kyiv, while the Polish State, informed of the military preparations of the Bolsheviks, was of the opinion that there was no other way to derail the Russian offensive except by a move toward the Ukrainian capital. The Poles responded to criticisms by saying if they had not attacked and if the Bolsheviks had taken the initiative from their original lines, the Bolsheviks would have immediately invaded all of Poland, while by means of the Polish advance, the threat against the Polish ethnic territories was kept at bay for some time. Both theories are debatable, and it is not within our competence to render a judgment. What is certain is that events had taken for some time a disastrous turn for Poland, so that the Western Powers had only two paths to choose from: either impose a peace immediately at the time of the Spa Conference, when the danger was already manifest, or extend immediate and adequate aid to Poland. Instead the governments of Britain and France were caught up in futile battles of words, with diplomatic notes and telegrams, giving the Bolsheviks time to invade a Poland that was short on munitions. Thus Poland was made a plaything for the Soviets, who could not want anything better. But Poland, abandoned to her own devices, knew how to find in herself enough faith and enough strength to break the iron circle that was trying to choke her. 8. The morals and political methods of the Bolsheviks are well-known today. The negotiations for the Armistice and the peace negotiations placed them again on display. The Bolsheviks had no intention of renouncing active propaganda for Bolshevism in Poland and in the rest of Europe through Poland. Bolshevism pursues two goals, the conquest of political territory and moral conquest. The first is nothing other than the pursuit of the former program of the Czarist schismatics, to gain control of all Slavic territory; the other, even more dangerous, goes beyond racial boundaries and strives to upset the foundations of Christian society and the family, overwhelming European peoples with the darkness of atheism and moral misery. It pretends to take up the defense of the people, and instead, with diabolical artifice, drives them onto the path to perdition of the soul and perdition of material well-being. Where Bolshevism passes by, there remains misery and famine. This is how the Polish Bishops expressed themselves about Bolshevism in their letter to the Bishops of the entire world, published in the month of July. We are not fighting against the Russian nation, but against those who have trampled Russia and sucked their blood while dragging souls down in new conquests. Just as locusts, after destroying every sign of life in a place, fly off elsewhere, driven on for further works of destruction, so Bolshevism, having poisoned and plundered Russia, turns its design to Poland. Our spirits do not fail because we know the vitality of our nation, because we trust firmly in Divine Providence, but we feel completely isolated in this grave hour. Here at this moment we lift our voice to you, our venerable brother bishops, with the strong desire that this letter be disseminated throughout the world. And the threats of today are not against us alone. For the enemy that fights us, Poland is not in fact the final goal of their conquests: Poland is only the first stage and the bridge for the conquest of the world. And this is not in fact too strong a word about the conquest of the world that we send to you. Whoever knows how Bolshevism has also enveloped Nations more distant from Russia with a network of propaganda and intrigues; whoever knows how the Communist International is spread out through the world and even in governments, whoever knows the psychology of the people who direct this entire network of conspiracy, and whoever knows their methods, their teachings and their goals, such persons will understand and appreciate our words. All that Bolshevism proclaims, speaking of the people, of the destiny of the worker masses, of freedom, and of the dictatorship of the proletariat, all this teaching masks their hidden real goals from the eyes of the uninformed. Today everything has already been prepared for the conquest of the world. The organized forces in every country are only awaiting the signal to begin the battle; first and foremost, strikes are being continually planned to paralyze the organic life of the nations. The class struggle is being transformed into a paroxysm of hate, and with their international influence they are effectively able to impede any healthy reaction of public opinion and national self-defense. Poland stands as the last bulwark preventing the triumphal march of Bolshevism, and if this bulwark is breached the destructive waves will sweep over the entire world. These waves that threaten the world today instill real terror, because Bolshevism is the flowering of all the negative principles that were festering over the last century in the lower level of life and that attack the family, education, the social order and even science, which until recently was idolized. Bolshevism has only added action to these doctrines: it puts its principles into action by means of murder, bloodshed, dictatorship, and the despotism of a single personality. Along with doctrine and action, Bolshevism bears in its bosom a heart full of hate. Its hatred is directed first of all against Christianity, of which it is the very negation: it is directed against the cross of Christ and against his Church. We intend to speak in general of Europe and the modern world. For if the world wants to remain indifferent to the fate of the Church, of supernatural life, and of the Christian spirit, it still could not look with indifference upon the annihilation that threatens its own civilization, which was born from Christianity. That is why we turn to you, our brother bishops, with a plea for help. We are asking you neither for money, nor for munitions, nor for ranks of soldiers. We are not asking for those because we do not want war, but only peace, so long as this peace will not be a new conquering of our country and threat to the world. We want peace, peace is what we implore, and therefore what we ask of you, venerable brothers, is the arm of peace, and that is prayer. More than once the Catholic world has prayed for our country, but when has the occasion ever been more distressing? Prayer for Poland, venerable brothers, would multiply blessings for every Christian nation. For thanks to prayer, the threatened Catholic world will form ranks in an army that takes up the battle against that terrible and so extraordinarily well organized enemy; prayer will reinforce the Christian spirit that will be manifested in the world by imploring souls, and that will be opposed to the ambitions of those who want to dominate the world. In truth, Bolshevism is the living incarnation and manifestation on earth of the spirit of the Antichrist. This spirit betrays itself completely as it goes so far in its passionate desires for sacrilege upon the churches, the murder of priests, the merciless massacres of the Catholic population, and bestial torture and cruelty. Raising our voice today for Poland, we raise it for the whole world, and when we speak of ourselves, we speak at the same time for you also, brothers. At the end of the day, prayer carries with it divine mercy, it will awaken the conscience of the nations because this conscience, which had been awakened after the war, died again, and how quickly! The echo has still not died away of the invocations declaring that Bolshevism menaces the peace of the world, that it conquers at the cost of bloodshed, that it is a plague that is destructive of all life, and that no State that wants to survive can establish relationships with it or negotiate with it. The voice has still not died away that solemnly proclaimed this order of the day from governments and diplomats, and yet here Europe is beginning to bow at the feet of its relentless enemy. Whereas until recently Europe rejected any negotiations with Bolshevism, rather isolating it like a district struck by the plague, here today Europe itself is striving to find a way to recognize for the Bolsheviks a right of citizenship among the nations. Until now Europe stigmatized the spirit of Bolshevism as a harmful ferment for the world, and now it proclaims that for grain and for commerce it needs to free its conscience from a supposed hyper-sensibility. At first the nations did not hold back money, nor sacrifices, to stop the Bolsheviks, while today they have become so bold that they dare to offer their gold to the Powers. Until just a short while ago, the nations were sending armies and munitions to conquer the Bolsheviks, yet here today, they look with a cold eye upon Poland, which is bleeding in a terrible struggle, thus giving the impression that certain States, instead of isolating the eastern plague by means of a powerful Poland, want to see it small and weak. We add these details without any intention of entering into politics: we summarize them only as the real manifestations of moral change in Europe and the world. In truth, Europe of a few months ago, and Europe of today, do not resemble each other. The former, by the principles it espoused, becomes the judge of present-day Europe. May prayer lead souls to a deep remorse and fear: and with the resplendence of truth, may artificial sophistry be destroyed, and may the world be awakened to a new conscience and drawn to new spiritual forces. 9. The appeal of the Polish bishops, and the prayers lifted up to the Lord by all the Church at the invitation of the Pope, did not return void. We have been able to be present this past week at a victory that is truly miraculous and that could surely never have occurred apart from the divine will. After they retreated more than four hundred kilometers under pressure from Bolshevik hordes advancing under their fluttering red flags; after the tired and nearly hopeless Polish armies were reduced to defending the walls of their capital, deprived of weapons and abandoned by the world; a strength suddenly descended upon them, and these same armies, with a sudden impulse, in the name of Christianity and their fatherland, lunged upon the enemy and put him to flight. All the bells of Warsaw greeted the miraculous victory and in all the churches thanks were returned to the Lord, who willed to save his faithful people and willed to give yet one more time a sign of his omnipotence. And the joy of the exultant hearts of the faithful was not the fierce joy of those who have taken down an opponent, but the deepest and sweetest joy of those who, though commiserating over the need for such great bloodshed, know that by this human sacrifice on the battlefield, Europe has been saved from the certain engulfment of its society in far more terrible and bloody massacres of civil war and the ruin of all that is healthy and moral in the world. These sentiments of Christian moderation, which inspired and pervaded Poland, appear now in the peace conditions proposed by Poland, and mainly in the first condition in which Poland proposes that negotiations be conducted on the principle that there be neither victors nor vanquished. This condition would be enough; it has long been preached and discussed but never put into action by any victorious people, and for this we should pay tribute to Poland, which is really demonstrating that their own political thought is informed by those principles set forth by our Holy Father, Benedict XV, during the long years of the most extreme travail of European life. Poland has paid attention to His word and has promptly received, we are certain, the fruit of their Christian virtue. Italian original of page 94 - Polish Bishops’ letter Oct. 3, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 40, page 253: The Key to the Puzzle. Dateline Zürich. We initially took the report of the Bolshevik-friendly position taken by the leaders of the Swiss Freemason lodge “Alpina” at the meeting of the Paris Great Orient lodge as hardly believable. Because such direct propaganda by Swiss Freemasonry for Russian Bolshevism is rather extreme stuff. But now we learn that the selfsame Isaak Reverchon is the current Grand Master of the Alpina, belongs to the highest 33rd grade of Freemasonry, and as a Jew is playing his role quite well. Significantly, the highest positions in Freemasonry are almost entirely in Jewish hands, and today they are the ones who actually make policy. And this so remarkable policy toward Bolshevik Russia and its current Jewish powers that be, who are well known to belong, without exception, to Freemasonry, becomes really understandable if you look past the subterfuges of the Lodges. The Czech Culture War Against the Church is now intended to begin systematically... German original Oct. 9, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism in Palestine” – by our special correspondent – dateline London, September (no date given) It appears that Britain and Greece have concluded agreements pursuant to which Venizelos has given orders to begin an offensive in Asia Minor. Greece would have become the advance guard of Great Britain and the signing of such a reciprocal accord would have its effects especially in Palestine. A letter received from Jerusalem correspondent Roger Lambelin offers us a characteristic proof. The Prince of Israel – as the Jews of the Holy Land call him – the British High Commissioner, made his prayer on Saturday, July 24th at the Great Synagogue of the Ashkenazim, which is found within the dividing wall of the Jewish Quarter, adorned with carpets. For the Commissioner it was a day of real triumph. On the evening before, Sir Herbert Samuel had gone to the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre and was solemnly received there. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch accompanied the High Commissioner, who passed between two rows of Greek monks holding lighted candles. The Holy Sepulchre and Calvary were illuminated and decorated. But, despite the strong insistence of the Greek Patriarch, Sir Samuel did not enter the Holy Sepulchre itself. This very strange visit provoked a serious incident among the Orthodox. The same evening the Synod declared Patriarch Damianos deposed for complicity in Zionism. But the attempt at unity remains there in all its gravity. In 1916 Palestine was internationalized, and Mr. Briand had been able to maintain, to the strong approbation of the parliamentary deputies, that the principle of internationalization would never be sacrificed, much less the influence of France. Nevertheless Article 95 of the Treaty of Versailles indeed provided for the application of a mandate also for Palestine, and provided this precisely to establish a national land for the Jews. The history of this is well-known. And it was to a Jew that the British Government entrusted the custody of the Holy Land. “Lieutenant Jabotinsky” The statement of Lieutenant Jabotinsky is interesting, and it is well known that this officer, when Lord Allenby occupied Palestine, had constituted the famous Jewish Legion and precisely for that was prosecuted and sentenced to 15 years in prison. The press has mentioned a statement made by Sir Herbert in favor of this Lieutenant before leaving London... “An Authoritative Contrary Opinion” The Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem, Dr. Rennie MacInnes, recently gave a serious warning about the danger of Zionism. It is noteworthy that this bishop is considered a broadminded man, not an alarmist, who is generally held in esteem and sympathy. According to statements he made upon the arrival of the High Commissioner, there were in Palestine 540,000 Muslims and 65,000 Christians. He believes that at the first occasion of popular elections, the Christians and Muslims will all vote the same. According to Dr. MacInnes, few Jews of high rank have as yet come to Palestine. It is notable that a barbarian element from Russia, Poland and Romania, all of them openly Bolshevik, have been nonetheless protected and supported by the Zionist Commission. Still according to the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, this immigration constitutes the gravest danger for the future well-being of Palestine. “The Agrarian Policy” At the London World Zionist Conference, it was decided to collect a sum of 25 million to carry out the project of Zionist expansion in Palestine. After the approval of this project, a serious debate arose over the basic lines of policy concerning Palestine. The principles that were adopted are the following: 1. Lands for Jewish settlement shall constitute property of the community as a whole. 2. Administration is to be in the hands of the local Jewish council. 3. Lands shall be worked only by Jewish laborers. 4. The ultimate purpose of the agrarian policy will be the complete settlement of the land by Jews. Many believe that that Britain, despite having accepted the mandate, does not intend to retain possession of Palestine... The testimony of an American billionaire indicates the entire program of Zionism. Occupation of territory, tactful expulsion of the Arabs, commonly held property administered by the Jewish community; enormous intellectual and technical development with global support. All this to achieve the ultimate end result of placing all religions under the lowest Jewish common denominator. “Cardinal Dubois and Zionism” Dateline Paris, Oct. 7. The Petit Parisien , which has published its interview with Cardinal Dubois, also contains interesting statements of the illustrious man of the Purple about the new regime in Palestine, where he visited not long ago, as we have reported. The status of the Holy Places, said Cardinal Dubois, does not yet appear resolved. It disgusts me to think that a dissident Confession would be given custody of them. This is an anomaly, one of those human imperfections to which we are accustomed. St. Louis certainly could never foreseen this as he lay on his deathbed! Zionism? And Britain appearing to promote it? But who, among the Jews of this world – I mean to say those who have any influence – will go to place their riches at the door of the temple? The Jews claim Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth! Which Jews? Those who traffic between the colonies and who are hunted at a crack of the whip? Or the poor farmers, or lazy shepherds, or clever brokers? Are these the ones that Zionism wants to summon to Palestine? To do what? Zionism does not appear to be a thing of misery; I say this without rancor. But who knows? For believers, the designs of Providence are inscrutable. The Holy Places were abandoned for a long time to a sad and unfortunate maltreatment. Who knows that a higher design did not allow nations other than ours to prepare them to be later returned to their former glory, to the Catholic peoples? Oct. 15, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “A Peril” The foreign press, and especially that of France, has taken up what has been called the Jewish peril. La Croix and L’Action Française have raised their voice: One with a compelling article by Mr. Vuigent, the other with an interesting piece on the Jewish power in England and the Alliance Israélite. Opportune Distinctions La Croix says that the considerable role played by the Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution, of which they were the leaders, the posts that the Jews hold in the political and financial congresses, the relations they have with official personages everywhere for gaining favors, especially with what has been set up in Palestine by the British Government, all of this powerfully attracts attention to the Jewish peril that seems to be overlooked in the face of the alleged German peril. One must immediately distinguish between Jew and Jew, just as in a similar analysis we would want to distinguish between Christian and Christian. It is indeed too easy to generalize and represent the Jewish race as immoral and incapable of good... In reality, it must be mentioned that there are still individuals in the world from Jewish families who live in good faith in their centuries-old path, directing their sincere hearts to the true God. But these are very few in number. In their immense majority, the Israelite people have passed from worship of the true God to worship of Satan ... The Jewish peril exists; and it needs to be understood in its hatred toward Christ and Christian peoples. What can seem surprising is that the attention of the public has been drawn to this peril by an English newspaper, the Times, whose relations with the Jewish world are well known. Jewish Peril This past June the Times spoke to its readers of a book by Sergio Nilus, published in Russian in 1902 and in 1905, a translation of which came to be published in London under the title Jewish Peril. The author reproduced in this book the speeches given by a Jewish personality at the Zionist Congress of Basel in 1897, who espoused the clear religious and social policy of the Israelites. Sergio Nilus spoke of having gotten this document from a woman who had gotten it from a Masonic dignitary. We read there of things that are actually not certain… The reader will judge for himself about these excerpts: ... [four paragraphs of the Protocols are reprinted here] These are so clear that they do not need any commentary. What to think about this document? In our opinion its Jewish provenance remains doubtful, as it rests only on the testimony of Sergio Nilus. Is It Possible? La Croix said it decided to question Abbot Meniglier about this, since he is something of an expert and well informed about Russian matters ... I do not remember, said Abbot Meniglier, “having read the book of Sergio Nilus, and thus I cannot guarantee the authenticity of the words that are attributed to him. But these words have nothing extraordinary about them in my view… -- Do you believe that the Jews have a plan of revolution that was applied in Russia? Yes. Nowhere else were the Jews as powerful as in the Czar’s Empire, where they had a magnificent field for experimenting. -- You say they were powerful. But how so? Didn’t the law prohibit them from living in the interior of Russia? That is true. The law permitted them to establish themselves only in Poland and in some outlier cities, such as Odessa, where there were 300,000 Israelites among 700,000 inhabitants. But there were ways to get around the law. Since the Russians had a shortage of doctors and pharmacists, the sons of Jewish merchants took degrees in medicine and pharmacy to go and practice these specialities in Kyiv, in Moscow, in St. Petersburg and other places. These degrees were actually like passports, and all these supposed doctors constantly and openly practiced commerce and speculation. -- But is it true that the Jews had established themselves enough to direct the Russian Revolution? I believe that they planned to bring about their dream, that is, to become the masters of Russia and the world at one blow. In this regard my recollections are more precise. I was in Odessa at the time of the visit by Kerensky, a Jew, as is known. The Israelite population went delirious. The Czar never encountered such enthusiasm when he was in power. They were clamoring for our Kerensky. They believed that with him the kingdom of Israel would be installed in Holy Russia. A Jew in front of me said to an Orthodox woman, we will take your churches and turn them into theater halls and stables. -- Do you believe, therefore, that the Jews have actually established the reorganizational plan that is attributed to them by the author of The Jewish Peril? Fiction and Reality I am convinced of that. The novel that I alluded to, whose title I do not remember, sets forth precisely this plan. -- Do you know what sentiments motivated these personalities? For a vendetta, Israel had to get back at its oppressors by killing some and enslaving the others. -- And its oppressors were Russian? Yes … Russia had, no doubt, committed wrongs toward them, but one must recognize that the vendetta has far surpassed the measure of the offense. -- Can you give us some news of the massacres organized by the Jews in Russia? You can read what is published about Russia today. Reports from that country have already informed us and it is not surprising to learn that the victims of Bolshevik Judaism mounted to a hundred per day just in the city of Odessa. -- All these reports of Bolshevik horrors, are they not exaggerated? Certainly not. The fact is that we only know parts of the reality. -- But all this is the result of passions of the moment and not rather the execution of a pre-made, concerted plan against the Christian world? As can be seen, these important statements of persons with such expertise in Russian matters produce a confirmation of Sergio Nilus. It may well be that he invented the document: what remains beyond doubt is that the subversive ideas expressed there are exactly the same as what animated the Jews in Russia before the Bolshevik terror. The Jewish peril is not an empty phrase. We do not deny that Satan is only a spirit and to conquer us he uses quite other things than cannons. Only prayer can save from the Jewish peril. But we need to join to it human means. That is all from the La Croix. The Protocols of Zion L’Action Française, pointing out that the Director of the Morning Post has put an interesting preface into the book The Cause of World Unrest, which contains articles appearing under that title in the newspaper over a three-month period, observes that an allusion is made there to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which has provoked such anger. The authors of this book, he writes, do not take care to guarantee the authenticity of all the reported documents, but what gives these documents a particularly noteworthy interest is that the Jewish Bolsheviks have carried out almost to the letter in Russia this program announced in the Protocols. The Hungarian Jews have tried, but with only ephemeral success, to apply the same methods. The action committees of the Labour Party, which are closely related to the Soviets, have set out on the same path. If one is willing to believe The Hidden Hand, the new title of the old Jewry über Alles, the Jews are not strangers to the strikes and threats of the British miners. Smillie, Williams and Thomas would only be puppets in the hands of Israel, which is pulling the strings. It also seems that among the labor actions in the coal mines of Scotland, many of the miners are Polish Jews. Smillie is only the spokesman for Emanuel Shingwell, a Jew from Glasgow, who was the main factor in all the labor conflicts in the Clyde region during the War. Williams owes his authority to the fact that he has a Jewish wife, and Thomas is the damned soul of Abraham. All three are in close relationship with the Lansbry-Fels-Zanwill group.” The Jewish peril is not a pipe dream, it is a tangible reality, even in England. The Jewish power, concludes the article, has left bloody tracks on the battlefields, in the devastated cities of eastern Europe, and it will further extend its evil activity if it continues to find complicity and support from government funds and labor organizations. From our standpoint it appears at any rate that the news of the day cannot avoid the importance of these writings. Oct. 15, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine: Serious Criticisms and Protests” It appears that Zionism is encountering unexpected obstacles on its path. Independent newspapers are not sparing in their criticism of the influence and works of Zionism in Palestine, in their news reports and commentaries. And a singular echo of the state of mind arising in Palestine concerning Zionism comes to us in a speech by Cardinal Bourne at Church House in Westminster, in which he strongly deplored the administrative actions of the authorities in Palestine. He affirmed that after 1918 the Zionists manifested the most profound aversion to all the former inhabitants of the Land, including Jews. Not lacking among the immigrants were extremist provocateurs who proposed to destroy all the sacred vestiges of the Holy Places. Sir Samuel certainly speaks otherwise, but he gives free reign of speech and action to the Zionist agents who are growing daily in their audacity and insolence. The Russian, Polish and Romanian Jews are permeated with Bolshevik ideas; they presume that millions of men and rubles in Russia are only waiting for the opportune moment to pour again into Palestine... Oct. 23, 1920 Cramer-Klett to Pacelli: Most Reverend Excellency and dearest Monsignore, In all haste - my train for Frankfurt leaves in a few minutes - allow me to make known to you that I heard yesterday semi-officially that the French are trying anew to destroy the Einwohnerwehr! Just at the moment when order is being re-established, and ordinary life is being re-established. Just when winter is threatening us with food shortages. They are threatening to send garrisons not only to the Ruhr Valley but also to Munich. It seems these hysterical Crazies want to establish bolshevism in all of Germany. This great Peril requires me to say this to Your Most Reverend Excellency: and to exorcise it by asking the Holy See to do everything possible to prevent this insanity. The demonstrations by the Einwohnerwehr were such as to strike fear in the lowlife and have been greatly successful. - (the split in the Independent Socialist Party). No one in the Einwohnerwehr is thinking of war! Without Artillery Arms etc. The will to destroy enemies is manifest. Once again I implore the Holy See to prevent the disarmament of the People of Order in Germany and especially in Bavaria. In this case Minister Kahr will indeed go away and we will have Chaos again! Excuse my haste and my handwriting but this seems to me of the greatest importance and Peril in [illegible] I kiss your hand and ring and glory in being Your Most Reverend Excellency's most humble and faithful servant Cramer-Klett Source: Vatican Secret Archives, reprinted in www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 3434. Pacelli transmitted Cramer-Klett's letter on the same day to the Vatican, with a cover letter stating: Allow me to transmit here-enclosed to Your Most Reverend Excellency a letter from Baron von Cramer-Klett, in which he invokes the supreme intervention of the Holy Father to prevent the threatened dissolution of the civic guard (Einwohnerwehr). Source: Pacelli to Tedeschini, Oct. 23, 1920, Vatican Secret Archives, reprinted in www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 341. Nov. 7, 1920 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” – dateline Paris, November 4 The French press continues to cover with much interest the Zionist movement in Palestine, which it says is the result of British policy and the nationalistic activity of Governor Sir Samuel, whom the Jews of the Holy Land are now calling “The Prince of Israel.” The Governor indeed misses no occasion for showing openly the orientation of his actions toward the Zionist program, which has in him more than a guardian, defender and proponent: and this is now revealed by a series of events, including the public prayer on the Sabbath in the Great Synagogue of Jerusalem; the recognition of the Jewish Sabbath as a legal holiday in opposition to all the traditions of the indigenous population, of whom the Jews are only about a tenth part; the decree about the official languages, which contains systematic exclusions [of European languages]; and the freeing of Lieutenant Jabotinsky, head of the famous Jewish Legion. Such is the continuing discontent and disorder that the bonds of the opposition are growing ever stronger among the various races that have inhabited Palestine for centuries and that are feeling threatened, despite all the assurances, threatened with persecution, with ostracism, with exile. Muslims and Christians of all denominations are ever more fervent anti-Zionists; and their issue is not so much religious or political, as it is a matter of life and death, since the tranquil possession of their goods and exercise of their civil rights are being threatened by an ever more powerful and intolerant Zionist organization under the protection of the Governor. A proof of this is the big incident that erupted among the Greek Orthodox. The Governor could not fail to visit the Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, and on that day the schismatic Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox rite, Damianos, encountered him and rendered him the honors due to his position, and was repaid immediately with a blunt refusal by Sir Samuel to set foot in the chapel of the Holy Sepulchre, a refusal that was positively offensive and incomprehensible because it was in fact an obligation, whether he wanted it or not, for visitors to the Basilica. Damianos remained ill disposed, but others even worse, when several hours later his Synod dealt with the wrongdoings of the honors rendered to the effective head of Zionism in Palestine and the insult given in return. And meanwhile, between Jerusalem and London, Zionist action is active, tenacious, just as silent as it is skillful in developing relations and continuing its own program, so as to have the greater Israelite community believe that England will hold the mandate in Palestine until the time when Israel, attaining a majority, will be able to take over on its own account. There is a naiveté in this, in light of evidence that history itself is being ignored. This does not lessen the fact that this hope is represented by Mr. Landmann, the Secretary General of the Zionist Association in London, and his most persuasive argument for organizing – as is being done – offices for immigration of Jews into Palestine, in all of Central Europe, in Galicia, in Poland, and at Trieste, the preferred place where the children of Israel should embark in this new Exodus to the promised land. That is, those children of Israel whom the Promised Land has not already found. And those are the majority. The Stefani Agency reports that Mr. Landmann came to Rome and was received together with Mr. Sullam, the representative of the Italian Zionist Federation, by the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs. Which, the Agency correspondent says, would have rather beat out the tune – as they say - confirming to Mr. Landmann the interest and strong sympathy for the development of the Middle East on the part of Italy, which hopes that economic and cultural ties between Italy and Palestine will increase over time. Nov. 19, 1920 Hitler speech to a Nazi Party gathering in the Festival Hall of Munich’s Hofbräuhaus, excerpt: We want to build up and not just dash everything to pieces the way the Majority Social Democrats, the Independent Socialists, the German Communist Party and the Bolsheviks in Russia are doing. Russia is an agricultural state that can’t even feed itself so long as the Bolsheviks govern under the Jewish regime. The Jew sits in Russia just as in Berlin and Vienna, and so long as the capital remains in the hands of this race, there can be no talk of buiding up, because the Jews have control of the international capitalists, who are likewise Jews, and they sell us Germans out... If we just look at Moscow, a growing city has shriveled down to 85,000 residents. I must repeat once again: We want to be a united German nation, and if anything still remains of it, we want to think of our brothers in other lands. German and racially pure is what our flag stands for ... Source: Jäckel and Kuhn, p. 260 Nov. 20, 1920 Documentation Catholique, cover page précis of articles: “The Catholics in Czechoslovakia – Dangers that Religious Persecution Has Brought to Life” I. Bolshevism. – Religious anarchy engenders political and social anarchy. The Marxism of Masaryk. Socialism, the electoral arm. The parties of the left adhere to the 3rd International. The fall of Socialist minister Tuschar. The victory of Poland saves Czechoslovakia for the time being from Bolshevism. P.443. II. Separatism of Slovakia. – Struggle between the Slovak faith and Czech anti-clericalism. Slovak demands. The priest-deputies Juriga and Hlinka heads of the movement for autonomy. France only knows how to accord a blind confidence in Czechoslovakia. P.445. First article: “The Catholics in Czechoslovakia” The first part of this Dossier appeared in our edition of July 31, 1920 (pp. 83-96) under the title “Ecclesiastical Questions: 1st Those in Revolt; 2nd Attitude of the Holy See and the Bishops; 3rd Justifiable Reforms and Condemned Reforms” Wanting to imitate Bismarck, President Masaryk and his government placed at risk the cohesion, the unity, and, consequently, the solidity of the new Czechoslovak Republic. The French public seems not to know about it But, on the whole, what do they know about this country, other than its antique name of Bohemia and some aspects of its history? The “big” press, for which silence is often golden, keeps quiet as it pleases about events that are unfolding there. Thus, “thanks to the falsification of history and information by liberalism, foreigners do not know the fact that an anti-religious minority terrorizes the majority of the Bohemian people, who, at the core, are still honest and Christian.” And nonetheless, one must take account, this tyranny of retrograde sectarians, copied with a bit too much ink from the Kulturkampf [“culture struggle” between Bismarck and the Catholic Church], and especially of the “French manner of forty years ago,” is shaking this young State that France contributing in creating. In anguish, the Bishops of Czechoslovakia, or more exactly of Bohemia and Moravia, in their eloquent Pastoral Letter of last September 18th, solemnly informed their faithful, and the echo of their voices should ring in the greatest number of French and Catholic ears. They publicly denounced the passivity and the complicity of the government in the attempts recently perpetrated yet again against the freedom of the Church, attempts that we have already identified: Some apostate priests, having left the Catholic Church, and excommunicated by her, occupy in the ministries the posts of officials for matters concerning the same Church; they patronize the schismatic movement among the clergy and the people ... Threatened in their goods and their lives, Catholic priests unceasingly protest against this situation; they make appeals to the political and judicial authorities, even to the premier magistrate of the Republic, for the defense of their rights; but most often this is in vain. Concerning this intolerable situation of the Catholic Church, the Bishops of Bohemia and Moravia sent a memorandum to the President of the Republic and to the government. In it they demanded religious freedom, guaranteed by natural law and by the Constitution of the State. All the Bishops have repeated this appeal to law each time that this law has been grossly violated, giving the name of witnesses of these outrages. But until now their voice has had no echo. I - Bolshevism: Religious Anarchy Engenders Political and Social Anarchy The inevitable consequence: this systematic tolerance accorded by the government to anti-religious hatred finds its condemnation in the gruesome effects it engenders. This is totally pure anarchy - continue the bishops. A State that allows injury to natural law with impunity, to the guarantees of freedom of religion and of conscience in its Constitution and in the clauses of the international peace treaty, loses the consideration of the civilized world and all right to the title of an orderly State. (footnote: The Czechoslovak Catholics have indeed not forgotten Article 86 of the Treaty of Versailles nor Article 57 of the Treaty of Saint-Germain ...: “The Czechoslovak State accepts, in agreeing to the insertion into the treaty with the principal allied and associated powers, the provisions that the powers judge necessary to protect in Czechoslovakia the interst of inhabitants who differ from the majority of the population by race, language or religion.”... Yet who does not know that these general provisions have been taken principally in favor of Jews, without prejudice moreover to the special privileges assured to the Jews of Poland and specified in the “Letter of the President of the Peace Conference to Mr. Paderewski”?) In Slovakia, this anarchy has removed from the State all sympathies of the people and threatens the loss of this entire province. The government of the street and the influence of Masonic sects and free-thinkers allied to Bolshevism are working by violence and illegality to make us deviate from the wise principles that must preside over a politics that conforms to the requirements of law and liberty. In his Czech-Hussite patriotism, Masaryk commits a political fault when he seeks to tear away from his people the religious idea all the while claiming to recognize the importance of religious progress. He is fooling himself or seeking to fool us when he pretends that “the future of the State will be assured if schooling is conducted by the methods for forming good democrats and good republicans.” Atheism can only develop egotism and thus ruin the most solid State, were it founded on a democratic and republican foundation. The Czech leaders forget that “every religious Luther inevitably has for a successor a political and social Luther,” and that “religious anarchy finally becomes political and social anarchy.” Must they nonetheless forget this, while they are seeing the influence of the Bolshevik Muna, the Czechoslovak Lenin, set itself up against the turncoat Masaryk? The Marxism of Masaryk In any case, a social catastrophe, if it is produced in Czechoslovakia, will surprise no one. The “father” of the young State, hasn’t he insisted publicly upon his admiration for Marx, to whom Moscow-the-Red recently raised a statue? ... The parties of the left adhere to the 3rd International ... After having flirted with the Red Bolsheviks, tolerated the presence in Czechoslovakia of the sinister Bela Kun, the Bohemian Jew who brought about, for several weeks, the reign in Hungary of the most atrocious Red terror, allowed agitation by Alois Muna, the big ringleader of the Bolsheviks of Bohemia, the government of Masaryk has found itself in the presence of a political group that it must take seriously and “whose energy and power of expansion have been preparing sleepless nights.” He has made an appeal to the agitators of the 3rd International to combat the Slovak nationalists, and “he has remained totally alarmed before the spirits that he has aroused himself.” The Fall of Socialist Minister Tuschar The Socialist cabinet of Tuschar had to resign from power and hand it to the “business cabinet” of Tcherny. Full of hatred to the end, the resigning government desired its last act to be the official recognition of a schismatic Church called: The National Czechoslovak Church. The Victory of Poland Saves for the Time Being Czechoslovakia from Bolshevism This turn to the right that constituted the fall of the Socialist minister can be counted as an indirect victory of a Poland that was saved by Mary on the day of her Assumption, saved by France, which up to the present is an irreducible enemy of Bolshevik theories. The defeat of Poland was being counted on openly by Germany, secretly by Masaryk and Benes, his Minister of Foreign Affairs, these latter hoping to participate anew in the dividing up of Poland that the Cabinet in Berlin was preparing, supported by the Red armies and playing in 1920 the role of Austria in the 18th century... Fortunately victory, the friend of France, smiled upon Poland, and, under these circumstances, upon law and liberty: the Bolshevik peril was for the time being removed, as for a time the audacity of the Bohemian communists appeared broken and the German covetousness reined in again. Second article: “Separatism of Slovakia: Struggle Between Slovak Faith and Czech anti-Catholicism” But the internal discussions, the opposition of a large part of the Czechs, and of the Catholic Czechs, to their own government, were not the only result of the Masonic blindness of the government: the Czechoslovak State is, furthermore, threatened by dismemberment, on the part of Slovakia, that is to say by a province of three million inhabitants. A correspondent of the Temps, faithful to the traditions of that house, thinks he must incense Masaryk and find his work admirable. He pretends that all efforts made to create among th Slovaks a national anti-Czech movement have failed. Now, an impartial personality, one who has seen, does not fear to state that On the religious question as on many others, the disagreements are profound and grave within the country itself. Between the two principal elements of the new nationality: Czechs and Slovaks, it is “opposition” that needs to be spoken. Invested by the Entente with political power - which they merited, moreover, it must be acknowledged, by their intellectual superiority - the Czech population is unfortunately, for the most part, imbued with the grossest anti-clericalism, while Slovakia remains profoundly faithful... From now on, the struggle is an open one between Slovak faith and Czech anti-Catholicism. If the government commits the fault of aligning itself on the side of the latter, it will cause irremediable division of the country into two opposing parties, a division that is religion, but which, from now on, constitutes a danger of political separation. Furthermore, hasn’t the Episcopate of Bohemia affirmed this straightforwardly? In Slovakia, this anarchy has removed from the State all sympathies of the people and threatens the loss of this entire province. And this authorized warning, Monsignor Baudrillart made his own when, upon his return from Prague, he wrote: If the persecution does not stop definitively, the Slovak people will finish by giving themselves to the Poles or rather will return to the Magyars, just as easily as the peace treaty left to the Slovaks a million Magyars, most of them educated and influential. Slovak Demands Here are the desiderata that the Slovaks recently submitted to Mr. Micura, the Czech Minister for Slovakia: 1. Slovakia must be governed independently from Prague. 2. The official language used in Slovakia must be Slovak. 3. Czech functionares must be allowed only in the event that Slovak functionaries are incapable. Their appointments must be equal. 4. Slovak schools with instruction in Slovak must be reopend. 5. Places confiscated from the Slovak Church must be returned to it. 6. Czech legionnaries must leave Slovak territories and the former borders of the Comitats must be maintained. 7. Censorship must be abolished and political freedom assured to all. The memorandum claims that the famous pact signed in Pittsburgh (United States) on May 30, 1918 between the leaders of the Czech movement and the Slovak representatives assured Slovakia: an absolute autonomy, its own Parliament and separate tribunals. It bears the signatures of the two Slovak deputies, Abbés Juriga and Hlinka. Abbés-Deputies Ferdinand Juriga and André Hlinka Leaders of the Movement for Slovak Autonomy The sentiments of Father Juriga, one of the five Slovak deputies in the Hungarian Parliament during the war, are sufficiently characterized by this ironic reflection on the subject of the Czechs: “History only knows one honest Czech, Saint John Nepomucene; even he was killed by the Czechs themselves.” As for Father Hlinka (or Glinka), the Curé of Ruzombersk, it appears his name must remain immortal in the history of Catholic Slovakia. Zealous priest, ardent patriot, immense was the “action he has exercized by his works” since before the war. He created in his parish a publishing house where the newspaper Slovak was edited, and various other works: volumes of piety and scholarly manuals. A studio and a bookstore complete the enterprise. Associated with Messrs. Srobar and Houdek, who afterwards became ministers and his adversaries, Father Hlinka founded a bank in order to help his compatriots to “conquer economic independence and no long be subject to the good pleasure of Hungarian credit establishments.” He has since been shown to be emulated by his brothers, the Polish Canon Adamski, of Posnan, and Father Lucaciu, of Transylvania. Put in prison by the Hungarian Government, persecuted by his Bishop, a Magyar, against whom he had to appeal to Rome, Father Hlinka initially greeted the union of Slovakia and Bohemia with enthusiasm. Soon, his infatuation with the Czechs was singularly rattled when Prague sought to “Czechize” Slovakia by oppression and religious persecutions. Accompanied by Dr. Jehlichka, Father Hlinka went to Warsaw in September 1919 and succeeded in procuring Polish passports. Arriving in Paris, the two Slovak patriots submitted to the Peace Conference a memorandum filled with the justified complaints of the Slovaks against the Czechs and demanding autonomy for their land. Prison, a Czech one this time, awaited Father Hlinka upon his return to Ruzombersk. As for Professor Jehlichka, he remained in Budapest. Their activity, which was accused of being inspired by Hungary (footnote: On this subject, see Osservatore Romano, Feb. 23-24, 1920) and Poland, was not completely ineffective. For a time, alas very brief, the Czech Government ameliorated its methods: it saw itself forced to have the “Sokols” brought back, to replace Czech soldiers with legionnaries; it even ordered soldiers to attend Holy Mass and recalled culpable Czech functionaries and employees. For his part, Father Hlinka explained his conduct in a letter sent from prison to Czech Deputy Mr. Myslivec, the editor of the Cech. He had never wanted, he said, to betray the Republic, but what he did, he did for his beloved people, for religion and for the Slovak language. If his sentiments changed, if he was led to state “some reservations about the benefits of the Czechoslovak union,” the fault falls only upon the Czechs. In any case, whatever point of view is taken for studying and judging the Czechoslovak question, this national hero does not appear to merit the insults of a certain press that comes to speak of his “puny ambition,” of his “fanaticism,” of his “bad faith toward his adversaries.” If this Catholic priest is ambitious, his ambition is certainly not the sort for which the correspondent of the Temps reproaches him. Recently, indeed, Masaryk offered the leader of the Slovak Popular Party the Archepiscopal See of Olmutz (or Olomouc), which became vacant by the resignation of Cardinal Skrbenski-Hriste. Now, Father Hlinka responded proudly “that he would prefer to remain Slovak in his curate position than to be Czech in the See of an Archbishopric.” France Only Knows How to Accord Blind Trust in Czechoslovakia As we see, the Czechs will only be able to take this upon themselves if, at the end of the day, their national edifice collapses. We do not wish, let us hasten to say, that as Catholics, we would accept to be among those who “cannot forget that it is precisely the Czech nation that, by its categorical ‘never,’ condemned to dissolution the former conservative Austria.” Nor can we forget that “the Protestant Peace” of the Treaty of Saint-Germain has “spared Protestant Germany, dismembered Catholic Austria-Hungary, submitted the Slovaks (Catholics) to the Czechs (Hussites) and the Croats (Catholics) to the Serbs (schismatics), thus accusing its fundamentally anti-Catholic spirit.” Moreover, they like to constantly contrast “monarchical and Catholic” Austria, the enemy of France, with “democratic and Hussite” Czechoslovakia, the ally of the Entente. But, after all, can’t the question be asked, who were these men of State who were masters of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and inspirers of the enslaving policy of the German Empire? Do you want - a remark made in the Senate on June 30, 1920 Mr. Imbart de la Tour, reporter for the Treaty of Saint-Germain with Austria - me to indicate to you the Ministers of Foreign Affairs who succeeded each other in Vienna in the years that preceded the war? ... Is it not necessary that the proverbial generosity of France be tempered by a bit of defiance? Do we not indeed have the right, we, Frenchmen, to suspect the complicated maneuvers of Mr. Benes, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Czechoslovakia, maneuvers from which emerge the “Little Entente,” which a Parisian newspaper - not one of ours - calls the “Little Treason”? The Little Entente is first and foremost pro-German... Mr. Benes impatiently awaited the fall of Warsaw to divide up with Lenin the spoils of Poland, and, certain of the victory of that man holding a knife between his teeth, he boasted that the Czechoslovak nation will not budge even if the Soviets are installed in Warsaw. Mr. Benes had the imprudence to use similar language even at the moment when a Bolshevik victory was threatening the existence of the Treaty of Versailles; he was encouraging the Germans in all their aggressions against France, even encouraging them to refuse to pay the reparations upon which a large measure of the future of France depends, at the moment when Mr. Millerand and Marshal Foch risked everything to save Poland and prevent the cataclysm that menaced Europe... Anti-French, anti-Polish, pro-German and pro-Bolshevik, the policy of the Little Entente is still directed against Hungary, this same Hungary that has faithfully fulfilled all the commitments it has taken toward France ... Mgr. Baudrillart has the conviction - or might it be only a desire? - that “the Little Entente is definitively oriented toward France without looking any longer toward Germany.”... But as great as our desire may be to attach to our cause these new-born States that owe us in great part for their existence, we cannot accord them, especially not Czechoslovakia, blind trust. Mr. Bainville, with his exalted competence in foreign politics, has advised us: Czechoslovakia unites within itself too many diverse peoples and “does not represent today either an ethnographic unity, nor a historical, geographic or economic unity... The Czechoslovak State, in the opinion of true Czech patriots, is destined to collapse sooner or later...” Can we not sense, moreover, what great fear for the future is expressed by this exclamation from the principal Catholic daily paper Tchèque, writing in the aftermath of a series of outrages inflicted on the Church: “Do we need to appeal about this to the President, to the Government, to the authorities? That would be totally pointless! But we fear for the existence of the Republic! What is happening within it is in fact a den of robbers.” French originals: Page 443 Page 444 Page 445 Page 446 Page 447 Nov. 20, 1920 Civiltà Cattolica’s three-part series of stories about Jewish-Bolshevik terrorism against civilians in the Ukraine. Part one, Nov. 20, 1920, vol. 4, pp. 379-384: 1. The City in the Hands of Jewish Brigands. At the beginning of March 1919, Petliura’s Ukrainian army left Vinnitsa, and the city found itself undefended. Thus there was a sort of interregnum, during which criminals lorded it over us. The Jews, anticipating the approach of the Bolsheviks, their allies, showed unheard of arrogance. United in bands of brigands, they attacked houses, robbed, looted, and killed those who offered them the least resistance... I was then in the dining room with my mother and some acquaintances who had come to visit. Suddenly, the door of the adjoining room was thrown open violently and I saw a Jew, an ugly mug of the worst kind, savage-looking, frightful, with a revolver in his hand, then a second, a third, and all the others. At this sight, I got to my feet, but a gesture of his armed hand made me sit down. It was intimated we were not to move, not to cry out, and one of the brigands, aiming his pistol at us, stood guard. Meanwhile, another, short and stocky, appeared in the doorway, his face masked, and two black eyes could be seen darting sinisterly behind the mask. Extending his arm toward my mother and me, he pointed to his companions who were there. The greater part of these brigands were Jews and the band was led by them... At one point, the Jewish head of the group led me into the next room and said to me in Russian: “Do you love life? If you do, give me immediately all your valuables, otherwise...“ 2. The First Invasion of Bolshevik Soldiers At Noon on March 18 the Bolsheviks entered Vinnytsia! Many of those who had not yet seen Bolshevism up close hoped that with their arrival things would change for the better, thinking that an authority of whatever type is preferable to an absence of all power. How bitterly disillusioned they must have been! The entry of the Bolsheviks was greeted with enthusiasm by the Jews; and the first act of the new bosses was to arm them to the teeth. Then the freshest blokes were seen strutting through the streets, awful ugly mugs, true refuse of society, armed with carbines, pistols, bombs, their mouths issuing arias of defiance and triumph. Led by guides, just a few hours later, the Bolsheviks began a real manhunt for every Ukrainian who was left in the city. Without trials and without any way of escape, all those who were suspected in any way were shot. This first act gave the answer to the poor optimists as to what there was to expect from the new supremacy... Several days passed in a certain calm. Then, here again, some cars stopped in front of our house: a handful of soldiers, led by a Jew, were coming to load some furniture from the house and take it away quietly. Unfortunately we were powerless in the face of such a violation of all law and needed to constrain ourselves to keep quiet. After this event, we had a few weeks of tranquility, and we began to become accustomed to the hardships of our new abode, much preferable to the life together with the soldiers. (To be continued) The second article in the series, published in the December 4, 1920 issue, vol. 4, pp. 477-480, begins as follows: 1. A fierce Jewish Bolshevik Commissar. One night, violent knocks at the kitchen door woke us up with a start. It opens and in walks a certain “Towarysz Tomin,” pseudonym Circasso, in reality a Jew, the most out-and-out lowlife, capable of any extreme. What a way to wake up! He being the representative of the “Czerezwyczajka” (Extraordinary Commission), which is the highest Bolshevik authority, there was no one to turn to for help… 2. Robbery and slaughter by the Bolsheviks ... The third and final article in the series, published in the December 18, 1920 issue, vol. 4, pp. 564-568, features the following headings among others: 6. The Red Terror. 7. Persecution against the clergy. 8. Horrors of Bolshevik prisons. The third article also contains this passage: A friend of ours, young M.M., was arrested with his father. One night he was led away to prison together with other companions, to be sent to a more commodious prison; the father, a short time after, was transported to Kyiv. The unhappy mother was not able to learn anything about her son, despite all her efforts. After the departure of the Bolsheviks, his body, in an advanced state of decomposition, was found among those who were disinterred in the forest: his identity was ascertained by means of a medal he wore around his neck. A soldier who was witness to his death recounted that, when the youth was condemned to death, all the Christian soldiers, touched by his youth and his noble features, refused to shoot. Unfortunately there was a Jew among them who volunteered for that barbarous task. With him, ten companions were also shot, and later, we learned that the father of the youth had also met the same fate in Kyiv, at the moment when the Bolsheviks had to leave the city. I am mentioning only some of those who were criminally dealt with. The number was enormous in proportion to the small city... 9. Liberation. Traces of unheard of cruelty. I believe that these particular horrors should be known to everyone, but especially to those who still harbor any illusions about Bolshevism and Bolsheviks as “benefactors of humanity.” This will bring advantage from the harsh experience of our city of Vinnytsia and will be at least an attempt to put into action the force to liberate the fatherland from the most terrible plague that has tortured humanity in centuries. A resident of Vinnytsia. October 1919. Nov. 21, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, Nov. 21, 1920, page 294: “A Pointed Warning to the Jews” The arrogance of Jewish writers in the defamation of the Catholic Church and Christianity has so increased everywhere, that even those journals inclined to be extremely reserved toward the Jewish question are no longer maintaining their silence. Thus the Jesuit-published Stimmen der Zeit [Voices of the Day] writes about the defamation of Catholic rectories and Catholic priests by Jewish theater directors and writers, as follows: “Just in passing, we would like to give these Jewish theater directors and critics, who are defaming Catholic priests and thereby all Catholic people in the most unrestrained and shameful way, something to think about. The anger of the entire Catholic people against the Jews has increased frightfully for many reasons (swindling, usury, Bolshevism). Fever is approaching paroxysm, and already on many occasions it has been precisely the rectory taking great effort to restrain powerful riots. It is going beyond material harm to the Catholic people, that is, to involve attacks and contempt toward their most holy sentiments, and these holy sentiments pertain also to the Catholic rectory, from which so much comfort, help and blessing flows to the people. There can arise such heightened tensions that the word of the Catholic priest is no longer followed, so that the embittered anger of the crowd breaks loose. Then may the Jewish theater people and writers account for the consequences. They themselves will have brought it on.” German original Note: Stimmen der Zeit was the leading Jesuit publication in Germany; the passage above was excerpted from the article “Das katholische Pfarrhaus” by Bernhard Duhr, S.J., in SDZ, vol. 99, no. 9 (June 1920), pp. 275-276. Nov. 21, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, Nov. 21, 1920, page 295: “Zionism and the Bolshevik Danger” The example of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem has now been followed by the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem in a public statement against the dangers of Zionism in Palestine. Up to now only a few Jewish notables have come to Palestine; most of the immigrants supported by the Zionist Committee have been Russian, Polish and Romanian Bolsheviks, who present deplorable prospects for the future wellbeing of Palestine. According to view of Dr. MacInnes [the Anglican Bishop], the 540,000 Muslims and the 65,000 Christians in Palestine will vote the same way in a referendum concerning the Jewish element. German original Nov. 21, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, Nov. 21, 1920, page 293: “The Storm in Bohemia over Statues” ... German original Nov. 21, 1920 Gasparri to Pacelli: Most Illustrious and Reverend Sir, I have the pleasure of communicating to Your Most Illustrious and Reverend Excellency that the August Pontiff, upon the proposal of Baron Cramer-Klett, has deigned to send to the students of the “Student House” of Munich one hundred quintali [100-kg units] of pasta of 61% finely sifted wheat. This pasta, which is packed in boxes of 25 to 50 kilograms, fills an entire train car, which is currently being dispatched directly “to the Student House, University of Munich, Bavaria.” With the request that you alert Baron Cramer-Klett and the Director of the Student House, I gladly prove myself, with distinguished sentiments of sincere esteem, Your Most Illustrious and Reverend Excellency's Servant, P.C. Gasparri Source: Vatican Secret Archives, Archive of the Munich Nunciature, pos. 356, fasc. 5, fol. 12r, reprinted in www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document 5982. Dec. 8, 1920 Hitler speech at the Festival Hall of the Hofbräuhaus in Munich: Just as they have already made themselves masters in Russia over this great European people (of 674 state commissars 466 are Jews), so they are now seeking in every other country to make themselves masters of the host peoples there, by way of democracy leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat, in order to establish at the end of the day the promised world domination of Jewry. Source: Jäckel and Kuhn, p. 276 Dec. 12, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, pp. 313-314: “French Freemasonry” Catholic France provides continual evidence of the decisive role that Freemasonry plays in the political and religious realm. The clergy, which long underestimated the importance of the destructive efforts of this secret society, now sees clearly and shows itself committed to strong defensive measures as in the past against hypocritical creations of certain elements that stand totally in the service of Jewish Freemasonry. Indeed the Church has, from Benedict XII to Benedict XV, unceasingly called attention to this arch-enemy and applied the strictest penalties against its adherents. But the French Catholics perhaps saw less clearly than the Germans and did not want to believe the extremity of this danger ... An outstanding representative of the French clergy, Father Jouin of St. Augustine in Paris, Domestic Prelate of His Holiness, has undertaken in several journals a well-directed and yet restrained campaign against the threatening power of Freemasonry. In an essay appearing November 15, 1920 in the Revue du Clergé Francais, supported with powerful evidence and entitled “The Clergy and Jewish Freemasonry,” the excellent Prelate strenuously exhorts all French priests to study the Freemason question from its foundations, to fearlessly expose this frightful enemy that is sworn to the destruction of the Church, and to put it in the pillory. In August 1920, the Abbess of the Benedictine nuns of Maredsous in Belgium told an archbishop who retold it several days later: “Sitting on the same seat where you are now, Herr Archbishop, Kaiser Wilhelm told me: ‘It was not I, but the Jews and Freemasons who wanted the war.’”... “’If from this day forward,’ writes Prelate Jouin, ‘the French clergy exerts itself with the Pope against Jewish Freemasonry, then France will turn itself against the world revolution and the life force will disappear from Jewish Freemasonry.’” Source: Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, Dec. 12, 1920, no. 50, p.313. Dec. 12, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, pp. 313-314: From the Czech-Occupied Region come complaints about the brutal conduct of the Czech military against individual clergy. Thus the guardian of the Franciscan monastery in Bartha, Father Hugolinus Flyss suffered a true martyrdom. He was implicated by the chiefs of police in a case of treason, roughly mishandled, bloodily beaten, held in pretrial confinement and, as his complete innocence became apparent, was set free with many requests for forgiveness... German original Dec. 19, 1920 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 51, pp. 321-323: “The Church and the Well-Being of the People” Despite all the progress of technology, art and science, the misery of ever wider elements of our people grows more and more instead of diminishing. What is causing this remarkable phenomenon? Mankind submits to the forces of nature under royal power; every day brings new discoveries, even the realm of the air acquiesce in our desire to conquer; at the same time, however, a great part of humanity is reduced to a continual struggle for survival. It would be completely false to think that these facts flow only from an unequal distribution of the goods of this world and of intellectual gifts, or only from the overwhelming liberty in commerce and conduct which makes it possible for the stronger to exploit the weaker; no, the ultimate reason lies deeper: in people turning away from practical Christianity. There is no blessing upon human industriousness, because people think they can do it without God, and yes, think they can establish a paradise on earth contrary to God’s will. If the deepest reason for today’s great international evils is thus laid bare, then the main path is also shown for relieving this misery. So long as the Church maintained its influence in the public life of the people, we knew little of the monstrous, miserable circumstances of which we complain in our countries. Even our adversaries must admit that much. The Social Democrat Kautsky writes in an article entitled “Work 500 Years Ago”: “That which is an ideal for today’s workers, for which they must wage a bitter struggle against the bourgeoisie, was an acknowledged reality half a millenium ago, in the ’Dark Middle Ages.’ Workers 500 years ago worked less strenuously and for shorter hours than today. Despite that, their pay was higher. Testifying to that fact are the many luxury prohibitions and levies of the 14th and 15th centuries, which declare that the worker is entitled to not more than two meat meals and a certain amount of wine or beer per day ... and in society is forbidden to dress in velvet and silk and the like. Today such prohibitions would be highly superfluous.” It was the Church that always performed the greatest deeds for the well-being of the people through the centuries by its emergence into the pagan world. The Church took the poor to itself and spent alms on them; the Church loosed the chains of slaves and gave them freedom as citizens; the Church bound up the wounds of the injured and founded hospitals and clinics. In view of such facts, even a Protestant author called the Catholic Church “a great asylum for humanity.” (Gregorovius, “History of the City of Rome …” II. 59) And today – a struggle against this greatest of all benefactors of humanity! And the struggle is by exactly those who always received the most help from her. Yes, the leading standard-bearer of unbelief is the great seducer of the people, Social Democracy. How is its snow-balling growth to be explained? Of real success in the field of social legislation it has mighty little to show; these accomplishments have been done entirely by others. But it is supremely well organized, and the main secret of its power is this: it preaches also the gospel of free love and independence from all authority, even divine authority. For that reason millions pledge allegiance to it, for whom the commandments of God have become burdensome fetters. The happiness they so desire has not been attained thereby; on the contrary, they have become even more unhappy and appear to harbor more sinister resentments. How far does it still have to go before people strike onto the path of recovery: return to practical Christianity? Then it will be confirmed once again, as a great thinker about religion said centuries ago: “The Christian religion, which appears to have no other mission but happiness in the next world, has also established happiness in this world.” “Catchwords, Price Reduction and Bolshevism” Today’s German people live in an era of catchwords. The masses feed day by day on the catchwords that are thrown to them. Sometimes it’s the phrase of price reduction, sometimes it’s Bolshevism. It is remarkable! How easily the people fall for such bait, without even thinking about it for a moment and testing it, they gladly go for it. This is not a good advertisement for the country of thinkers, who have now become so sadly credulous. May we finally learn once again how to think! What are we saying now of the state of price reductions? It says: So long as raw materials are not in supply, goods are not in surplus, which is more than what is needed, and food is not as much as we need, so long as at least 23 billion marks annually must be extorted from the German people, for that long there will be no price reductions which are of any consequence. But how would a reduction in prices be possible? Only when and if the majority of the German population puts aside covetousness, all egoism, all spirit of exploitation and usury. Only when and if all producers, all service providers, all workers were again satisfied with minimal goods. If the manufacturer, the retailer and the merchant would want only what was really necessary to maintain a certain position in life and existence. That so many chain transaction merchants, exploiters and usurers do not all at once become angels, we can all see, and thus the phrase about price reduction will long remain what it is today: a catchword. A further catchword, however, a much more dangerous one, is the hankering after the blessing of Russian Bolshevism, a blessing that must fill every thoughtful person with alarm. It is certain that an invasion by, and cooperation with Russian Bolshevism would mean war for us, and in reality a war with a forebodingly threatening subjugation such as no people has ever before been so terribly subjected to. It is therefore infinitely easy to overlook ... Social world brotherhood has failed as completely as one could ever imagine. Isn’t it precisely the socialist government of France that is bringing us the greatest humiliations? Let us leave the distant future to the foreknowledge of the Lord God! Each and every injustice is avenged already on earth and no one will remember it, for: “Vengeance is mine! says the Lord God!” “Christianity and Socialism” Bebel wrote in a brochure “Christianity and Socialism”: “Christianity and Socialism are as different as fire and water,” and in the Reichstag he said: “In regard to religion, we take the standpoint of atheism.” Liebknecht declared at the Party Congress at Halle in 1890: “Proper education must above all put aside religion. Our Party is a party of science; science is hostile to religion.” Lesinski wrote in the Socialist Monthly in 1912: “To be a socialist means to be anti-Christian; the final victory will only be possible through the final overcoming of Christianity.” Scientifically based Social Democracy takes the standpoint of Monism, which is so much like atheism. It is well known that Kurt Eisner was an atheist of the purest sort, and former Culture Minister and Minister President Johannes Hoffmann revealed with special emphasis that in the field of school policy he is of a fanatically anti-religious disposition, in particular when he spoke on the state of culture in 1912. The leader of a great assembly which the U.S.P. [Independent Socialist Party] held in the cattle market of Berlin on July 27, 1920, made the following remarkable statement, according to the report in “Germania”: “It is truly regrettable that nothing is accomplished in families toward real Social Democratic education. Many colleagues intend to have done their duty if they are Party members and cast their votes for the reds. They allow their children, after as before, to go into the religious dumming-down institutes of the clericalists and even go into the churches. That must finally be radically broken off.” Christianity commands: “Love your neighbor as yourself! Do good to those who hate you. - What you do not want others to do to you, don’t do that to anyone else.” Karl Marx, on the other hand, recommends violence against violence, and the revolutionary Radek says: “The Revolution does not discuss with its enemies, it smashes them.” ... “... in this sense we praise once again: Overthrow of the bourgeois government, down with capitalism, crushing of the capitalist economic order, takeover of production by the proletariat, establishment of the soviet councils system; therefore comrades, all who are with us, knees on their chests, thumbs in their eyes, hang them from the lampposts, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Source: Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, Dec. 19, 1920, no. 51, pp. 321-323. Go to Overview-Contents Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Translations and Notes, 1921-1922 1921 Feb. 25, 1921 L'Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” – from our correspondent – dateline Paris, February 20 The new Cabinet Ministry is concerned about the circumstances created in Palestine by the Middle East policy of the Allies and above all about the Zionist movement. A phrase attributed to Mr. Briand about the moral protectorship of the Holy Places that the Head of the Government mentioned pertain to France, or more precisely that France does not intend to let them go untended, has been regarded in these political circles as indicating a more resolute French activity in matters of the Holy Land. Apr. 7, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” – by our correspondent – dateline Paris, April 1 Governmental and political circles here continue to follow with great interest the Zionist events in Palestine. While also in England, with the most delicate conditions of the Moslem world, matters of the Holy Land and the continually hostile attitude of the Arabs are arousing concerns that are starting to be manifest also among the public. Indeed the attitude assumed by Lord Churchill in Palestine has been much commented upon in the English press. It is observed how serious the issues of Palestine are, and it is hoped that the Churchill mission will be able to bring a satisfactory solution; but the early news does not promise any open spirit of optimism. Two dispatches indeed explain that yesterday Churchill received in the Governor’s palace representatives of the Moslem, Christian and Arab circles. The Arabs were effective and vehement advocates of their aspirations and protests, and they showed themselves openly hostile to the policy of the Zionists. Churchill responded to them in these terms: “I see in your discourse a partisan and unjust sentiment. You are demanding that I reject the Balfour Declaration and suspend all Jewish immigration. That is not within the bounds of my authority, nor is it consistent with my own will. The Jews have an obvious right to have a national center and a national land in which they can gather. And where else would a place be found on earth for this, if not in Palestine where Jews have lived for three thousand years? We believe that to be good for the Jews, good for the world, good for the British Empire, and good also for the Arabs who live in this region; and this is the way we want it to be. The Arabs will not be expelled and will not suffer; rather they will participate in the flowering and progress of the Zionism. I would like to direct your attention to the second part of the Balfour Declaration, which is committed to preserving and protecting your rights; and I am sorry to see you have not accepted that the giving of a national land to the Jews is not intended to lead to the subjection of the Arabs. We could not tolerate that. The present form of government will last for many years; only gradually will be developed a representative […] of government.” To give merit to this program Church, receiving next the Jewish deputation, strongly recommended respect for the Christians and the Arabs: “The Arabs have expressed,” he concluded, “their fears of a Bolshevik nature among some immigrant Jews. Whatever people may think of us, we have the obligation to dispel this fear and to promote peace within this city [Jerusalem]. Your obligation is to be patient and prudent.” Churchill’s words did not convince the Arabs and encouraged the Jews while making them more cunning. Everyone saw that Zionism soon began to reign in an uncontested manner. And unfortunately among the Arabs a turbulent element became more dominant, seeing that the moderate element had not been able to obtain satisfactory protection from Britain. In precisely this way the news accounts recapitulated the thinking of the more illuminated part of the English press. Its reservations are more than justified. That the Arabs have reason to fear, to remain hostile, and to distrust the Balfour Declaration, is confirmed by many of the ideas espoused by Churchill, the events developing in recent times, the character of the Jewish penetration that results in spoliation of the law and undermining of the rights of others; it is confirmed by the necessity itself of the same Lord recommending to the Jews patience and prudence, two virtues that tend in any case to make intense activity more trustworthy, more tenacious and more effective. The Arabs, with the non-Jewish element, have not asked for anything more than good grace and sagacity toward the immigrants; they have requested a full recognition of their own rights against the usurpation and arrogance that are legitimized now by the theory of three thousand years of Judaism, though for fifteen centuries it would not suffice to declare the prescription. It is noted, in this regard, that with this strange conception, the ethnic and geographic-political map of the world should be subverted in ways that come to mind, for example to reconstruct the Roman Empire or that of the Muslims, and the Allies would be inconsistent in their opposition to Greek aspirations in Asia and Europe, and smiles of contentment would be brought to the faces of the irredentists who flowered in the Great War. The Jews, Churchill said, should have a national center and a national land: and this should be Palestine; the Palestinians – these being Moslem or Christian – should then lose their own land in the face of a superior nucleus of another race, while tolerating an immigration that will make them a minority. This is an ethnical, juridical, and political absurdity… The unsustainability of the Zionist thesis is so clear that English public opinion is aware of it and raises its criticism. Zionism begins to look all the more like a preconceived policy, whether good or bad for the British in the Middle East does not matter. Based on the most reliable information that has come here from people who know very well the circumstances of Palestine, claiming that the national Jewish land does not mix, after a thousand and five hundred years, with the Holy Land; and that these immigrants under the economic guide of the Zionist movement there are feeling estranged, it all has the air of being an illusion, and of not being able to plant forever its roots. And instead the Action Committees, not always with patience and prudence, are insisting on catching the natives who are very well off there. Apr. 23, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Concerning a Masonic Visitor” Freemasonry, which has always had an urge to imitate Catholicism, could not but look with envy upon the true fatherly solicitude of Holy Father Benedict XV toward the land of the Middle East, revealed in many ways in recent times, including the sending of Apostolic Visitors; thus Masonry too wanted to send its Visitor, in the person of Mr. Wellhof, who passed recently through Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine... What has been seen in Masonry is a most effective means to fight against the Christian body, and thus exercise its dominion over the Christian masses who are stupidly left disorganized and impoverished; but in what concerns the Jewish body, which so closely resembles the Masonic body, it avoids very well any weakening whatsoever. The Jew remains always a Jew, even when he no longer believes in the religion of his fathers, and always, especially in the Masonic Lodges, thinks of nothing but his own interests intimately linked with those of Judaism. The label of his businesses may vary: here they will be called Zionism, elsewhere Bolshevism; but the goal is always the same, the triumph of the Jews over the Christians, the predominance of Jewish race in the whole world, to be attained by whatever agreement, by whatever means. We do not know what Mr. Wellhof did in Egypt and Palestine. We’ll bet that he was in rather marvelous agreement with Mr. Samuel and in general with the leaders of the current Zionist movement... May 1, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” – from our correspondent in Paris, April 25 ... ”Difficulties and Obstacles” ... But the truth is that, despite all these efforts, Zionism as a national movement is not taking root among the Jews in the way its more fanatical promoters would like. And it is not taking root for two reasons: Because Palestine is not able to offer to Jewish activity the advantages that it encounters among flourishing nations and peoples, in rich lands and well advanced markets. Those who are attracted by the promises and subsidies of the Zionist Commission to move to the ancient land – especially from regions devastated by the war or threatened by antisemitic reactions – have realized very quickly that it is far from offering the comforts of the promised land; that is it necessary to build down there what is elsewhere ready at hand without further effort. In the second place, as noted by the American correspondent, the indigenous Jews have shown little enthusiasm for the immigration of their brethren, which they neither request nor desire; and while waiting for the future to arrive and mature, they must divide and subdivide the current fruit of the land, which is enough for the natives, but insufficient if distributed among all. May 8, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine: The Genesis of Serious Disorders” We have already spoken of the recent visit of Sir Churchill in Palestine. But, for an ever better understanding of the situation and a correct evaluation of it, it is useful to add the following report ... On April 19th, Sir Herbert Samuel, the British High Commissioner, who had gone to Egypt to meet this prominent guest, re-entered Jerusalem together with the English Minister. The journey was marked by several significant aspects. In Gaza, for example, approximately 20,000 demonstrators, having prepared a protest demonstration against the English Declaration, around the institution of the foyer Israelite in Palestine, offered the Minister an eloquent proof of the state of mind of the indignant population. In Majdal and Battir the demonstration was repeated, and as news arrived that in Jerusalem something similar and perhaps more serious was being prepared, there was time to take rigorous measures to avoid such an explosion of incidents, although that did not diminish the significance and importance of the news. All the same, as they arrived in Jerusalem, the Governor and the Minister received disturbing news from the provinces. In Jaffa all the stores and offices were closed in observance of the protest, and dispatches in goodly number reported the exasperated spirit of the citizenry. Even the women of the city manifested in this way their thoughts to Mrs. Churchill, who accompanied her husband on the trip. In Haifa there were also bloody conflicts with two dead and many injured. It was after these events that the English Minister received the representatives of the indigenous population, or explained to them, in his opinion, that the Balfour Declaration was misunderstood, because it was not contrary to the interests of the population, whose rights were safeguarded in the interest of the well-being and prosperity of the Country (see Osservatore of May 1st). Of course this pacifying word encountered some prejudiced minds. The intentions of the English Government, so well presented by Sir Churchill, contrasted with the events that took place during the preceding year or so, under the Zionist invasion, which was not sufficiently restrained and controlled to satisfy the basic terms of the Declaration. The discontent still remained; and the impression remained that the intentions pursued by the leaders of the opposition to Zionism, during Churchill’s stay, had in reality failed. As a result there were meetings, protests and demonstrations, in a widespread agitation, which some Bolshevik elements took as the occasion for the most serious rioting and uprisings. This is the genesis of the riots in Jaffa reported on May 2. In fact, during a Bolshevik demonstration led by Russian Zionists, a real battle broke out between Muslims, Christians and Jews. The police were not able to stop it in time and thereby prevent the bloody aftermath. It was a dreadful day, during which the anger of the population overflowed into the gravest reprisals. Forty dead and many wounded were counted among the population and especially among the Jews. Also in Jerusalem, similar provocations by Communist Jews erupted in bloody tumults. The anti-Zionist agitation then culminated in demonstrations that were predictable to most people, but were apparently not expected by the optimistic authorities, who interpreted the growing indigenous opposition as the unjustified and futile working of a few agitators. But it must be noted that the conflict now assumes an entirely new aspect. First, because the day of bloodshed ended to the disadvantage of the Jews, as it was caused by Semitic immigrants and by Bolshevik fanaticism. It is this poison of violence or rage that gradually, together with the general discontent, produces the most distressing effects. Indeed, we have already noted that the greater part of the 10,000 Jews who entered Palestine in the past year under the patronage of the Israelite foyer came from Galicia and southern Russia. It is clear that numerous revolutionary elements, emissaries of that Russian Communism which is now identified with Judaism, were thus able to penetrate into the Holy Land, taking advantage of all the benefits of the Zionist organization, under whose umbrella they are preparing the revolution. Of this preparation there is irrefutable and authoritative proof, in the numerous searches that have been conducted. Hundreds of revolutionary posters have been confiscated, which were designed to appeal to the Arab tribes of Palestine on the occasion of May 1. They were intended to produce a real Communist movement among the population, confirming that the Jewish immigrants were “the fighters of the revolution against the capitalists.” Whether the population has seen in this a pretext for a Jewish coup to seize power, whether this is a glimpse of another serious facet of the Zionist peril, the fact is that this arose in its turn by taking the Semitic-Bolshevik provocation as an excuse for giving vent to their vendetta. In the face of these tragic events, it is still not known precisely whether the revolutionary movement came about in agreement with the Zionist leaders, as we have seen Britain itself to suspect, as does the co-religionist of the Zionists himself, Sir Samuel, who is judged to be too cautious and prudent, or whether Zionism, in its mania of invasion, might be the only snake in the grass. In any event, a more imperious blow could not be given to the Zionist movement, in the face of the domestic situation, as well as in the face of public opinion, world opinion and the program of the English Government. May 30-31, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Concerning a ‘Jewish Policy’ and a ‘Jewish Awakening’” from our correspondent in Paris, April 27 The French press, the exponent of prevalent opinion in our most influential political circles, has for some time been dealing with and denouncing a “Jewish peril” that is not lacking for documentation, not only as to its obvious existence as regards the destiny of the Middle East and Palestine, but also as regards European politics. The danger here appears so precise and so vast that there is indeed talk of a “Jewish policy” that England would be forming and continuing under pressure from extremely influential Jewish elements... And here we turn to the famous Protocols of the Elders, which would show the Jewish people the path to follow to become masters of the world, and the publication of which arouses all the anger and protests of Israel. They were declared a fraud, they were held to be true: that has remained among the unsolved questions of literary history... June 8, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Bavarian Minister President for the Holy Father and Cardinal Faulhaber” – from our special correspondent in Munich, dateline May. The President of the Bavarian Ministerial Council, Mr. von Kahr, recently held an official banquet in honor of His Eminence Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich-Freising, to celebrate his recent elevation to the Sacred Purple. Present among others were His Excellency Archbishop Pacelli, Apostolic Nuncio; Minister of Education Dr. Matt; His Excellency Baron von Ritter zu Groenesteyn, Bavarian Ambassador to the Holy See; and the Vicar General, Monsignor Buchberger. Mr. von Kahr gave a very important speech that we deem opportune to reproduce in its entirety, as a precious testimony paid by a Head of State to the beneficent work of the Holy Father and to the salutary influence of the Catholic religion in public life. “The Acknowledgement of the Pope” “May I be permitted,” said Mr. von Kahr, “first and foremost to remember with the most profound respect His Holiness the Pope and to express to Him most devoted and deeply felt gratitude for the new attestation of paternal benevolence that he recently chose to give the Catholics of Bavaria. Indeed His Eminence, Lord Cardinal von Faulhaber has had the goodness, on repeated occasions, to assure us that the most exalted dignity conferred on him must also be considered as a sign of the affectionate solicitude of the Holy Father for the Catholic population of Bavaria; indeed His Holiness himself has confirmed it to our Ministerial Council and most recently again in a most gracious letter addressed to me. We all know perfectly well and with utmost gratitude the benevolent interest the Holy Father takes in our dear and now so sorely tried Bavaria, how great is the intelligence with which he judges the special circumstances and particular needs of our country. This is eloquently demonstrated by the fact, which I wanted to point out with particular gratitude, that we have the great joy and privilege to be able today to greet again in our midst His Excellency the revered Nuncio Archbishop Pacelli, who is also so solicitous of Bavarian interests, since the Holy Father, in acknowledgement of our special prayer, has consented that he, before his departure that would be so sorrowful for us, shall bring to a felicitous conclusion, as we trustingly hope, the important matters and difficult negotiations for the Bavarian Concordat. “The Works of the Pontiff”... Most Venerated Lord Nuncio, permit me to pray Your Excellency to place at the Feet of the Holy Father, toward Whose August Person we all elevate our gaze with most sincere veneration, our most lively and respectful return of thanks for the benevolence shown so many times and recently again toward Bavaria, and to convey our cordial and respectful wishes for His well-being and for the works He performs that are consecrated to the reconciliation and to the temporal and eternal good of peoples. “Homage to Cardinal Faulhaber” And then turning to His Eminence, he continued thus: Reverend Lords, when the glad tidings spread through this Land that His Holiness the Pope wanted, in His goodness, to deign to elevate to the Sacred Purple the highly meritorious and most venerated Pastor of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, the hearts of all Catholics, not only of the Archdiocese but of all Bavaria, experienced the most vivid and intimate joy. This joy fills the hearts of all those who were present in spirit at the august ceremony that was carried out in the supremely holy place in the Eternal City, and Your Eminence was able to see the solemn reception with which Munich celebrated your return. Such joy and care are the effects of that love and veneration, which a people develop in a man, who in the most difficult times proved to be a true Pastor and a strong guide who led them to their goal in safety; they are the effect of the conviction that this highest of ecclesiastical honors could not be confided in a more worthy person. Today, when we are gathered in this familial conference to honor Your Eminence, I can repeat the guarantee: The Bavarian State Government joins in the most cordial and sincere manner in the jubilation of the Catholic population. We see the Bavarian Episcopate represented anew in the Sacred College by an Eminent Personage not less for his gifts than for his works. As such, the personal honor deriving from the naming of Your Eminence as Cardinal acquires an extraordinary significance equally much for the Catholic population and for the Bavarian Government, which has a taste of being in union with the Authority of the Church in appreciating the high merit of religion and ecclesiastical life for the people and for the State... June 11, 1921 Open letter from a Jewish citizen to Munich Police Chief Ernst Pöhner, published in the Berliner Tageblatt [Berlin Daily News] on June 11, 1921: German-Völkisch excesses are, at the moment, the order of the day in Bavaria and especially in Munich ... In recent days, moreover, placards flaunting swastikas were displayed at all the street corners of Munich … Insofar as these placards made a demand for the exclusion of Jews from eligibility to vote, from the universities and from the press, such frills and phantasies may find their pathological motivation in the heat wave that set in unusually early in Bavaria this summer ... We are not unaware that the Bavarian Ministers of Commerce and Finance, in particular, are well informed of the seriousness and extent of this state of affairs, that the Ministerial Cabinet in recent days took up these matters once again, and that the Bavarian State Secretary of the Interior, Herr Dr. Schweyer, condemns to the utmost these excesses of antisemitic agitation at every opportunity that arises within the parliament and outside it. The leader of the Democratic Party, Dr. Dirr, has also just recently given resolute expression in the Landtag to the alarm of his party over the rabble-rousing character of the placards tolerated by the Directorate of the Munich Police. But the real political leaders of the Bavarian People’s Party, Herrs Held, Wohlmuth, Knilling, Giehrl, Stang etc., have until now maintained utter silence in the discussion of these matters, at least in the Landtag. Source: Reprinted in Hans Lamm, ed., Von Juden in München [From Jews in Munich] (1958), pp. 306-309 (editor’s note states that this letter was written shortly before the assassination of Independent Socialist Gareis; Karl Gareis, the leader of the Independent Socialists in the Bavarian Landtag, was murdered on June 9, 1921). June 13, 1921 Pope Benedict XV’s allocution to the Consistory of Cardinals: There are two main reasons why for the second time this year We have called you together: to add illustrious prelates to your Sacred College and to give with full solemnity new Pastors to the widowed churches. But, following old custom, We wish first to speak to you on several important matters connected with the government of the Universal Church. You will certainly remember that in the Secret Consistory of March 10, 1919, We showed Our great anxiety regarding the trend of events following the war in Palestine, land so dear to Us, as to all Christians, because consecrated by the Divine Redeemer Himself in His mortal life. And now, far from diminishing, that anxiety is increasing every day. Indeed, if at that time We lamented the iniquitous activity in Palestine of non-Catholic sects which are pleased to glory in the name of Christian, to-day, too, We must repeat that lament, seeing how they are carrying on that work with even greater activity, themselves possessing abundant means and cleverly profiting by the misery in which the inhabitants of the country were plunged after the war. On Our side We have left nothing undone to assist those afflicted people, giving new impulse or new life to various charitable institutions, and We shall not cease to do so as long as the power remains in Us; but We are unable to give them help adequate to their needs for the special reason that out of the means given Us by Divine Providence We have to meet the cry of suffering that reaches the Apostolic See from every part of the world. Thus, to Our unutterable sorrow, We have to look on at the progressive spiritual ruin of souls beloved by Us, for whose salvation men of Apostolic zeal have worked, first among them the children of the Seraphic Patriarch of Assisi. And further, when by means of the Allied troops the Christians returned in possession of the Holy Places, with all Our heart We joined in the general rejoicing of all good men. But with Our joy was also the fear, expressed in the Consistorial Allocution alluded to above, lest as a consequence of that great and glorious event the Jews might attain a position of preponderance and privilege in Palestine. If We are to judge from the present condition of affairs what We feared has come to pass. It is well known, in fact, that the situation of the Christians in Palestine has not only not improved but has even become worse through new civil ordinances put in force there which tend – if not in the intentions of those responsible for them, certainly, however, in fact – to turn Christianity out of the positions it has occupied up to now and to put Jews in its place. And again We cannot but deplore the intense activity which is being shown by many to take away the sacred character of the Holy Places, transforming them into pleasure resorts with every worldly attraction. That is worthy of reproof everywhere, but above all in places where at every step the holiest memories of religion are encountered. However, inasmuch as the situation in Palestine is not yet definitely regulated, We now raise Our voice that, when the time comes to establish there a permanent condition of things, to the Catholic Church and to all Christians shall be assured the inalienable rights they hold. Certainly We have no desire that any damage shall be done to the rights of the Jewish element; what We mean is that they must in no way be put above the just rights of the Christians. And to this end We warmly urge all the Governments of Christian nations, even if not Catholic, to bring vigilant pressure to bear on the League of Nations which, it is commonly said, is to consider and adjudicate on the English Mandate in Palestine. If We turn Our eyes from Palestine to Europe, there, too, is seen an unhappy spectacle. Recent events, as you know well, Venerable Brethren, have shown all too clearly that disagreements and competitions between the peoples have not ceased, and that if indeed the flame of war has been almost quenched, the iniquitous spirit of it remains, nevertheless. Wherefore, renewing once again Our urgent appeal to all Heads of Governments of good will, We ask that by their counsel and instance they may bring about that the peoples, each and every one, may put aside enmity one to another, and after discussion in the spirit of Christian charity may resolve all such differences as still exist between them, and so may come to troubled Europe the peace which all long for. But, amidst so many great anxieties, the Divine Redeemer has still deigned to grant His Spouse the Church and His Vicar on Earth reasons for some consolation and comfort. You have seen, Venerable Brethren, immediately after the close of the terrible war, almost all the civil nations which had no diplomatic relations with Us hastening to Us of their own free will to put before Us their desire to have them, feeling sure that they would gain much advantage thereby. And We, faithful to the traditions of this Apostolic See and in conformity with Catholic teaching, which seeks agreement between the two powers for the common good of State and Church, willingly agreed to such desire, without, however, compromising any of those principles which are inviolable for Us. Even France, which for over sixteen years had been officially separated from the embrace of the Church, has desired to regain with the Vicar of Christ the position which she occupied for centuries, and her return has brought to Us and to all good men pleasure equal to the sorrow caused by her departure. And so what seemed a short time ago most unlikely, considering the unhappy conditions of the times, is now, thanks to Divine Providence, an accomplished fact: that is to say – where an unhappy condition of things does not exist as an obstacle to the necessary liberty and independence of the Roman Pontiff – nearly all the civil States of the world have diplomatic relations with this Apostolic See, and We pray to God fervently that this mutual co-operation may be in fact, as it should be by right, instrumental of all salutary prosperity for the Church and for the single States. Source: The Tablet, June 25, 1921, vol. 138, pp. 821-822. June 16, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “For the Pacification of Peoples” Wherever the Holy Father’s allocutions at consistories have been reprinted in full or faithfully summarized, agreement or at least understanding of the elevated and serene thinking that predominates, and of the paternal charity that animates, is universally apparent. Once again Benedict XV invoked pacification among peoples, in international and political competition as in bloody social conflicts; and for this he summoned the attention of the world – of those above all who have authority and power, to concretize our duties in the face of history and our responsibilities in the face of the greatest civil good – upon the difficult and threatening situation created in Palestine; upon disruptions even now severe and perilous in Europe; and upon diplomatic relations that the Holy See has been strengthening recently with almost all States. The words of the Supreme Pontiff indeed insisted above all that conditions be created in the Holy Land for Christians, as for all the other indigenous population, not for religious antagonism, a concept so obviously beyond the effective measure and serene objectivity of language, but rather for the reaffirmation of those fundamental rights which, when violated upon any pretext and despite great rectitude of intention, deeply disturb, even more than interests, the soul and conscience of the people, and are a source of political and social disturbances that are too often irreparable. In Palestine these fundamental rights, moral and religious rights above all, but also ethnic and political rights, exist indisputably yet are threatened with being subverted. There exists a moral and religious right, to which the places consecrated to the life, preaching, death and resurrection of the Divine Savior are preserved for the grateful and perennial veneration of the Christian world, with every perfect guarantee that its conscience and its faith have claimed, and that no one ever has dared or ever would dare to disturb in favor of other lands, other places dear to other faiths less illustrious, less glorious, less worthy than Christianity, during twenty centuries of history, for humanity. And it is impossible in the new structure, in the new order of a region so great and yet so at hazard, that purportedly Christian Powers can forget the most grandiose event that mankind remembers and admires as the basis of redemption, not only spiritual and eternal, but also moral and social for the new civilization. There exists an ethnic and political right, still, for Christians and Muslims in Palestine, deriving also for this land from their fathers, and never abandoned for other countries more vast or more rich or more fruitful: it exists for them just as much as for other peoples who have invoked – and not in vain – the ethnic and political principles that are the vaunted boast of the Treaty of Versailles, as the seal of the Great War, and as it were, at the beginning of a new era for just national aspirations, which were recognized elsewhere without trying to make such ancient claims – which would have the capacity, if admitted for all, to revolutionize the political geography of the world – valuable as against the current situations of fact and law. After the bloody conflicts in the Holy Land that were recently the fatal consequence of unheard protests and unrestrained arrogance, the paternal admonition of the Head of Christianity not only appeared with a perhaps persuasive eloquence, but also corresponded exactly to the solicitous sentiments that pervade the entire Allocution; since peace returns finally to comfort all civilized nations – the old as well as the new... June 18, 1921 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Trip to Berlin – General Political Situation – Various Special Issues Most Reverend Eminence, As I had the honor to make known in my respectful Report No. 20867 of June 12, on Tuesday evening the 14th, in conformity with the authorization imparted to me by Your Most Reverend Eminence, I left Munich for Berlin, where I remained until this past Friday evening, in order to make contact with the new Reich Government. In a particular way, I had occasion to meet with Chancellor Wirth and with Foreign Minister Rosen. The Chancellor, a native of Baden, a committed and practicing Catholic, is (so it is said) a friend of Erzberger and belongs to the left wing of the Center Party. Though sincerely professing Catholic principles, he is among those who in practice, especially in the field of social reforms, find ways to go as much as possible with the Socialists. Wirth aims thereby to attract to himself the Majority Socialist Democrats and to prevent them from uniting in a single bloc with the Independent Socialists and the Communists. He would indeed have wanted to give the Foreign Office portfolio to Mr. von Bergen, the Ambassador to the Holy See, or to Mr. von Rosenberg, German Ambassador to Vienna, but neither of them are disposed to accept. The current Foreign Minister, Mr. Rosen, whose appointment was supported by Reich President Ebert, has represented Germany until now at the Hague. Born in Jerusalem while his father was there as German Consul, he knows many Middle Eastern languages; his religion is Protestant, but he has a Hebrew wife; politically (as he himself told me) he does not belong to any party, but it is noteworthy that, while at first during the revolution he did not disdain the favors of the Kaiser, with whom he was in good favor, immediately after the advent of the new regime he allied himself closely with the Socialists. Reports that I have been able to gather from various sources concur in painting him as a man of little character, opportunistic and ambitious; with the courteous manners and experience of a career diplomat, he nevertheless does not appear to merit that personal trust that one could have in his predecessor Dr. Simons, who, despite his political and diplomatic deficiencies, was demonstrably and recognizably honest. The Interior Minister, Gradnauer, to whose ministry are also assigned the Concordat issues pertaining to the Reich, is Hebrew and Socialist, two qualities, in truth, little reassuring, and which would not recommend him well personally; nonetheless Mr. Wirth assured me that he is a fine, educated man and that, in his opinion, he will not create much future difficulty in the aforesaid issues. Also a Hebrew is Reconstruction Minister Rathenau, notable for the discussions he had in recent days at Wiesbaden with French Minister Loucheur; he belongs to the Democratic Party and is said to be a man of value and very rich. Remaining in the Cabinet as Labor Minister is the priest Brauns. The current Government proposes sincerely, as I already reported in my obsequious Report No. 20616 of May 11th, to make every effort to fulfill the enormous commitments accepted by Germany in the ultimatum, be it in what concerns the reparations, or in what concerns disarmament; up to now it has held to its obligations, overcoming extremely serious difficulties, especially in the already initiated disarmament of the Bavarian citizen army*… In addition to the general political situation, in the conversions I had with the Chancellor, the following points were touched upon: 1. On the issue of the Concordat, I repeated in substance the concepts already outlined in my earlier Report No. 20493 of May 2nd, especially in what concerns its possible repercussions in regard to ecclesiastical administration in the Saar District (this argument which has never failed to produce in the men of State of Germany a strong impression, and which therefore needs to be maintained intact in all its force). 2. Anticipating the instructions imparted by Your Eminence with the obsequious Dispatch No. 21845 of the 15th, which reached me this morning, I deplored the indiscretions occurring recently in the press, noting how damaging this is to Germany itself, which is losing the trust of those Powers possibly disposed to intervene in its favor. Mr. Wirth assured me that he will take the most particular care that such problems do not recur. As to the well-known Commission of Inquest, which would now have to continue examining documents concerning the action of the Holy See for peace in 1917, it has been arranged, thanks above all to the attentions of the excellent Reichstag Deputy, the Most Reverend Mons. Kaas, that it is postponing indefinitely the study of this point... Finally, I had a discussion with Prussian Education Minister Dr. Becker about the difficult issue of the mutual relationships among the proposed Concordats for Bavaria, for the Reich and for Prussia; but on this I intend to report in its time to Your Eminence in a separate Report. For now, humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 3773. *Note: The Bavarian citizen army, or Einwohnerwehr, violated the Versailles Treaty limitations on German military numerical strength. Strong opposition to its dissolution was expressed privately by Pacelli as early as December 1919 and by Baron Cramer-Klett as early as October 1920. June 18 to July 8, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano’s five “Zionism and Palestine” articles in a three-week period: June 18, 1921, page one: “Zionism and Palestine: New Disturbances” – from our special correspondent in Paris, June 15 It is reported from Cairo that the Egyptian press is publishing news of new disturbances in Palestine, provoked by the state of mind created among the indigenous Christian and Moslem population against Zionism, and exacerbated after the recent events that showed the evident sympathy of the supreme civil authorities for the Jews, combined with the uprising of Bolshevik Jews this past May. It is noted that the response given by Sir Churchill, when he went through Jerusalem, to Christian and Moslem notables, constituted a serious disappointment for the National Committee ... June 23, 1921, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” To continue the diligent documentation that our newspaper strives to produce, of the most interesting and, in many aspects, the most serious political events of the day involving Zionist activities in the Holy Land, we should not omit the lucid and concise article of Crispolto Crispolti, published in volume VII, issue XXXVI of the Rassegna Italiana, under the title: “The Danger of the ‘Jewish Nation’ in Palestine.”... June 29, 1921, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” – from our correspondent in Paris, June 25 The exalted words of the Holy Father on the conditions of Palestine have been able to add to the predominantly political character of the serious Middle Eastern problem, aspects of a religious and moral character that expand and raise the painful question – which is of interest to the whole Christian world. The Palestine Government … has necessarily had to be convinced that the anti- Zionist conflict could not be regarded in Europe as only the result of religious antagonisms, nor as a simple reaction against the Bolshevik infiltration: and above all that none of them were in fact in Palestine. In the last piece by our correspondent (see Osservatore of June 23rd) we took notice of the threatening ferment in the entire Land, and the most serious protests set off by new Jewish immigration, which the populations were preparing to prevent, even by force. The repercussions are clear in this article, issued, according to the Alif Ba of Damascus, around May 14th to the Palestinian press, which was brought to the attention of the Government and later to the daily papers in of all countries: It has been announced to all the inhabitants that His Excellency the High Commissioner is currently in continuous negotiations with the Government of Great Britain in London for the resolution of some questions of import that concern the current social situation of Palestine and its prosperity... According to La Bourse - a fine Jewish name – of Cairo, for example, the Pope’s mention of the profanation of the Holy Places was welcomed with irony because there is an assurance that... And further: “the fact is that – if not like Mecca – at least like the Holy City of Rome, Jerusalem is beginning now to have lighted streets and practical, good inns, cafés and even cinemas.” ... on the good soil of the Holy Land, as we ourselves documented (see Osservatore Romano, February 25th) their program. July 4-5, 1921, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” – from our correspondent in Paris, July 2 While the Commission of Indigenous Delegates moves toward Europe to express directly to Governments … To all this is added the ever more serious threat of Bolshevism that the indigenous residents consider an epidemic imported by the Zionist immigrants ... Moussa Kazaiur Hosalny, President of the Anti-Zionist Executive Committee, has taken the occasion to say in recent days: We have continually warned the governments of the Allies of the fact that the Jewish immigrants are introducing and popularizing in Palestine the principles of Bolshevism ... Therefore we call for the stopping of immigration. July 8, 1921, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” In its last issue, Echi e Commenti reported from the Al-Bachir of Beirut on June 14th: “In a solemn conference that took place on the Mount of Olives, on the occasion of the anniversary of the coronation of King George, the High Commissioner of Palestine made important statements,” of which we call our readers’ attention to the following points: The establishment of a national Jewish center means only that some Israelites are allowed to immigrate to Palestine, within limits consistent with the interests of the indigenous inhabitants, to give effective impetus to a healthy progress in their activity and with financial means available to them... July 10, 1921 Pacelli to Pizzardo: Re: His Eminence Cardinal Faulhaber and my trip to Switzerland of November 1918 His Eminence Signor Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, during his last stay in Rome to attend the Sacred Consistory, had occasion to hear some echoes of rumors, “contrary to truth,” as he expresses it, already circulating about my trip to Switzerland in the wake of November 1918, a trip I carried out in full conformity with the instructions imparted to me by His Eminence my Superior in encrypted cable No. 154 of the 13th of that same month. Returning to Munich, the aforesaid Cardinal Faulhaber, who “saw up close the singular events of that time,” wanted to put down in a written exposition, to be preserved in the Archive of this Nunciature, the truthful account of the selfsame events, of which he was an eyewitness. Of this his Expository Account, to which the greatness of his Authority gives particular importance, he delivered me three copies, all of them signed by him, and I allow myself to send one herewith enclosed to Your Reverend Excellency with the request to please arrange that it be included in the appropriate Files existing in the appropriate Archives of the Secretariat of State. Eminence Faulhaber begins in the above-mentioned Expository Account by describing “the revolutionary terror, which, in those days of extreme tension and unending agitations, took on an ever more menacing aspect against the Church.” In this situation, he maintained that “the representative of the Holy Father had to not be exposed to the peril of maltreatment and outrages,” and it was therefore that on November 14 (since, in the execution of the order given me by His Eminence my Superior in the above-cited encrypted cable No. 154, I went to him to take counsel) he came back again to exhort me to leave Munich and go to Switzerland, indicating particularly Rorschach (or Menzingen) to me as a suitable place for my temporary stay. But that was not the only reason that led him to give me this counsel. The Hebrew Kurt Eisner, - remembers the same Eminence - “to consolidate his still uncertain position, changed tactics, and on November 20th tried by means of State Councilor von Lössl to enter into diplomatic relations with Archbishop Monsignor Pacelli, thus to give to the eyes of the Catholic population the appearance that the Apostolic Nuncio had recognized his government and legitimized the revolution. ” Cardinal Faulhaber states that “in those days a meeting of the Nuncio with Minister President Eisner could not have taken place without completely upsetting the mind of the people and that as a result “the Nuncio had to go away from Munich, in order to avoid any occasion of encountering Eisner.” Then, when Auditor Schioppa on the following January 18, 1919 asked him (at my instance) whether, in his opinion, the Nuncio could now return to Munich, he replied that “in the current state of things, Minister President Eisner would have sought anew to enter into official relations with Nuncio Pacelli, and the Bavarian Bishops would have seen in that a recognition of the revolutionary Government and a scandal for the entire Land … For the political-religious situation in Bavaria it would also have been fatal to have the simple appearance of official relations between the Foreign Ministry and the Nunciature.” ... Eminence Faulhaber recalls in this regard the aggression by armed force against the Nunciature and my own person on the 29th of the same month of April and adds (if I may be permitted, despite the tenor of his words, to quote them verbatim): “In an energetic and dignified way, the Nuncio protested against this violation of international law and gave proof of his personal intrepidity, of which only those could give an exact impression who personally experienced those days of most brutal abuse and most cruel terror, not indeed in other countries and tranquil times.” And finally, following other similar considerations, he concludes: “The entire Bavarian Episcopate is with me in agreeing that the conduct of our most venerated Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Monsignor Pacelli was solely guided by the highest ecclesiastical viewpoints.” After this, with sentiments of profound obsequy … Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 4417. Enclosed Declaration of Michael von Faulhaber: July 7, 1921 A newspaper news item, contrary to the truth, and a casual remark about the matter in Rome, occasion the undersigned Archbishop of Munich to give the following declaration and presentation for the files of the Apostolic Nunciature. Already on November 11, 1918, thus already on the third day of the Revolution, I had asked, during a visit to the Nunciature of the Herr Apostolic Nuncio, His Excellency Archbishop Eugen Pacelli, in consideration of the entirely insecure situation, to go into Switzerland, or at least the Zangberg Cloister. The street terror of the Revolution had taken on an increasingly threatening posture against Church circles, and it was not foreseeable, in those days of unlimited tension and endless agitations, what the next day would bring. The first President of the new republic at that time, the Jew Kurt Eisner, had uttered the expression during the constituting of the new government (Friday, November 8th at 2 in the morning), in the Landtag building: “And now with all severity against the Pfaffen!”* and in the beginning had actually denied permission for communications with Rome in the old form of code. Thus one had to be ready for anything, and if indeed the Archbishop himself had to stay at his place and position, if only because officials were ever and again posing the question whether they are allowed to swear the oath to the new government and generally work with it, still the Representative of the Holy Father should not be exposed to the dangers of smears and abuse. Perhaps it characterizes the situation at the time if I mention that in the chaos of the public situation then prevailing, which almost every day threatened us with storming of rectories and cloisters, I imparted as Bishop a general dispensation from the enclosure, in the event of emergency, for the cloistered women. On November 14, 1918, I advised Herr Apostolic Nuncio anew to leave Munich for Switzerland, and thereby pointed to Menzingen or Rorschach. A few days later the mood in the Foreign Ministry suddenly changed: Kurt Eisner realized that a position of open warfare against the Nuncio and clergy would inevitably inflame the Catholic people against his own government and now sought, through negotiations with the Apostolic Nunciature, to bolster his shaky government. On November 19th or 20th, he made the effort, through the mediation of State Councilor Lössl, to come into contact personally with Archbishop Pacelli, and thereby awaken in the eyes of the Catholic people the appearance that the Apostolic Nuncio had recognized the Eisner government and thereby legitimized the Revolution. The people's views swung about in those days, as from the 13th to the 14th of November King Ludwig III released officials and soldiers from their oath of allegiance and thereby had himself unintentionally furnished a building block for the solidifying of the new usurper government. Right at that time, on November 19th, the then Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs, Hoffmann, informed me through an intermediary that he awaited my visit. I declared to the intermediary that I wanted nothing to do with Hoffmann, an outspoken Kulturkämpfer** and hater of the Church. And yet much less could a meeting of the Apostolic Nuncio with Minister President Eisner have occurred in those days without completely confusing the minds of the people. In my opinion, Herr Nuncio must then leave Munich, in order to foreclose this opportunity of meeting personally with Eisner and not to confer on the Revolution the aura of the Apostolic See having quickly reconciled with the new circumstances. For whatever pastoral and institutional cases of necessity that might require recourse to the Holy Father, contact with Rome was preserved intact through Msgr. Schioppa, who remained in Munich. On January 18, 1919, Msgr. Schioppa asked me whether I was of the view that Herr Nuncio could now travel back again from Switzerland to Munich. I had to answer: Under the current circumstances Minister President Eisner would immediately seek again to gain an official connection with Archbishop Pacelli, and the Bavarian Bishops would perceive in that connection a legitimization of the revolutionary government and scandal for the whole State. The Bavarian Bishops had in fact refused to hand over to the new government, without anything further, the previous royal prerogatives under the Concordat (for example in the appointment of pastors), and had therefore broken off negotiations with the government. For the political situation of the Church in Bavaria, it would have become fateful if only the appearance of official relations between the Foreign Ministry and the Nunciature had arisen at the time. On April 29, 1919, the Nunciature building was invaded by a hoard of heavily armed soldiers, and Mons. Pacelli was ordered with pointed revolver and armed hand grenades to hand over his auto. In an energetic and dignified way, His Excellency protested against this violation of diplomatic law and gave proof of his personal intrepidity, of which one can give an impression only of those days of most brutal abuse and most cruel terror, not indeed in other countries and tranquil times. On May 13th the Nuncio informed me that owing to those incidents in the Nunciature he had twice received orders from his superiors to go into Switzerland. Obedience to this order came to him with great reluctance, and on May 17th he declared to me yet once again that he did not fear death, but that he must protect the authority of the Holy Father from profanation. Just as then, I must also still today in hindsight upon those circumstances, identify Archbishop Pacelli's travel to Switzerland as a diplomatic necessity in the interests of the authority and dignity of the Holy Father himself. I experienced that time, whose individual events can only be judged in the context of the whole situation, from the closest proximity, and the entire Bavarian episcopate is with me in the view that the conduct of our highly esteemed Herr Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Pacelli was guided solely by the highest ecclesiastical point of view. Munich, July 7, 1921 +Michael Card. Faulhaber Archbishop of Munich Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 7528. *Note: Pfaffen is a contemptuous term for priests used by earlier German anti-clerical and anti-Catholic movements. **Note: Kulturkämpfer, literally “culture warrior,” alludes to the time of the Kulturkampf, or “culture battle” in Germany against the Catholic Church in the 1870s, when Otto von Bismarck was Chancellor of the recently united German Reich. Aug. 21, 1921 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, no. 34, p.213, on the “Black Shame”: From World and Church: The “German Emergency League Against the Black Shame” has now published the first issue of its propaganda monthly “The Shame on the Rhine.” In eloquent and impressive words, it is shown therein how Europeans are endangered by the most frightful tropical diseases of all sorts through the occupation of European districts by colored soldiers, how white women and girls are infected with tropical syphilis and other serious venereal diseases, how white children are extremely endangered in their moral upbringing by the quartering of colored soldiers in homes of the citizenry, finally how the occupied districts are being mulatto-ized, and thereby conditions are being created whose consequences for the spiritual, cultural and physical life of the affected white nation are inconceivable. The next issue intends to await the complete officially announced details of the period from the beginning of March to the end of May 1921. – Rise up for the moral battle against the greatest shame for culture [Kulturschmach] of our century and perhaps of all time, brought about by the insane policy of hatred and the phrenetic sadism of the French nation! Aug. 28, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Ex-German Minister Erzberger Assassinated – Representative Dietz Wounded” Dateline Berlin, August 26 – The Wolff Agency reports from Offenburg on Meno: Former Finance Minister Erzberger, who was vacationing with his family at a spa in the Black Forest, was found murdered this morning in the forest on a path in Griesbach. The body bore the marks of 12 pistol shots. The same Agency says that according to the investigation conducted by the police, Ex-Finance Minister Erzberger and Reichstag Representative Dietz were on a leisure walk in the Black Forest mountains when there were attacked by two young men of about 25 years of age. Dietz was wounded and is currently at the Oppenau hospital. Erzberger was killed; on his body no signs of robbery were found. On the killing of Erzberger the following details are reported: Erzberger was shot with several pistol shots in the chest and in the head. Investigative authorities went immediately to the scene of the crime; it is believed that robbery was not the motive of the attack. “How the Crime Occurred” ... “The Impression” – dateline Berlin, August 27 – In Catholic circles the news of Erzberger’s assassination has produced an enormous impression. Friends of the assassination victim say they believe the misdeed was the result of the violent hate campaign. One of the Center Party leaders, Representative Fleissener, assured reporters that although in sectors of the Center Party itself Erzberger’s political direction was not completely approved nor shared, the crime today is deplored with all vigor. Opposition newspapers expressed nearly the same sense. Commentary: We express our complete horror at the repetition of these savage bloody acts, the result of aberrations of political hatred, committed by men without faith and without piety. The political work of Erzberger, considerable without doubt, has been variously assessed, according to partisan spirit or sympathy toward him as a politician or as a human figure. His activities as a parliamentary politician, as a polemicist, and especially as a writer provided reason for criticism and strong attacks because, even though he pursued noble ends, at times he presented facts and events as realities that were actually the fruit of his own personal judgments. But his extraordinary activity, sustained by a gifted mind, will always remain in any event, even though he was lacking the thoughtful consideration and prudence necessary in a complete politician; there remain the unconditional attachment of his works and his heart to the fatherland and his fervent sincerity in the Catholic faith. Aug. 27-28, 1921 Munich Post, page one: “The Political Murder of Erzberger” Even if we Social Democrats often stood in sharp opposition to Erzberger’s politics, we must nevertheless acknowledge that he was a political opponent who strictly avoided personal attacks in all disputes about substantive issues. A skillful debater, whose skill developed over the course of the years, he also had at his disposal, as a typical South German, a wealth of humor and wit ... By authoring the Peace Resolution of July 1917, he brought upon himself the deadly hatred of the war instigators and warmongers ... After the terrible collapse, Erzberger, who had become State Secretary and Reich Minister without Portfolio, was entrusted with the thankless task of conducting the Armistice negotiations as the representative of Germany. As thanks for his sincere efforts, he was branded as a “Traitor to the Fatherland” in contradiction of all historical truth. When the National Assembly, of which he was a member, formed the Reich Cabinet, Erzberger was appointed Reich Finance Minister... Aug. 29-30, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “After the Assassination of Erzberger: Premeditated Assassination” Dateline Berlin, August 28 – According to news arriving in the afternoon, it appears that the assassination of Erzberger was premeditated for a long time. In the town of Bennren in Württemberg, where Erzberger stayed for some time before going on vacation in Griesbach, a suspicious individual was seen whose features correspond to those of one of the attackers. At that time an assassination attempt was feared and there were also measures taken by the police. “A Reward of One Hundred Thousand Marks” – dateline Berlin, August 27 – The Reich Government, on the theory that the assassination of Erzberger was a political assassination, has put up the sum of 100,000 Marks for the apprehension of the perpetrators or sponsors. At the place of the crime, the Berlin police, responding to a request by the Baden State Government, have sent several squads of investigative agents with dogs to sniff and find a trail. It seems, however, that the rain that fell during the night made the dogs’ efforts useless. Various conjectures are being made: some connect the event with the recent release from prison of Ensign Ultwig Wirtelf, who tried to kill Erzberger at Weimar. According to other news reports from Griesbach, some gentlemen recount that in recent days two young men came up to them asking if Representative Erzberger was in the area. They received a response in the negative. Several days later the two were noticed on the paths of the countryside, arousing much attention. Mrs. Erzberger recounted that her husband was stalked by a young blond man. The lady expressed the desire that her husband be buried in the Willelmsdorf cemetery next to their two children who did during the War. Two young men arrested last night were released, as they were not recognized by Representative Dietz. Note: Carl Diez, a Center Party delegate and friend of Erzberger, was walking with him and was severely wounded by the assassins; twelve years later Diez was the only Center Party delegate who did not vote for the Enabling Act of 1933 that gave Hitler dictatorial power. “The German Press Against Political Assassination” Dateline Berlin, August 28 – The Forward, the newspaper of the majority Socialists, and the Freedom, the newspaper of the independent Socialists, made an appeal to the proletariat for a mass demonstration against political assassination on the occasion of the burial of Erzberger, which will take place on August 31. The Freedom said these demonstrations will be the first step in building a united front of labor. The Red Flag, the newspaper of the Communists, called for a mass demonstration today by the Communist Party at Potsdam, where the German Nationalist Party is planning a celebration of the anniversary of the Battle of Tannenberg. The Potsdam prefect of police has prohibited all outdoor meetings. “The Funeral” – dateline Oppenau, August 29 – Erzberger’s funeral was celebrated today in the presence of a considerable crowd. After the ceremony, the body was brought back to the Oppenau hospital, from which it will be transported to Biberach in Württemberg, where the burial will take place on Wednesday. Sept. 9, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “After the Assassination of Erzberger: Numerous Arrests” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 1 – The police are following various leads and have already made more than 50 arrests of young persons who are characterized by the misfortune of looking more or less remotely like those who are reportedly killers of Erzberger. In most of the cases they had to release them. “Have the Assassins Taken Refuge Abroad?” Dateline Karlsruhe, Sept. 1 – The editors of the Baden Press have received from Gossensass [on the Austria-Italy border at the Brenner Pass] a postcard with the following writing: “Not wanting to create useless difficulties for the authorities, we are telling you that we have the Brenner Pass behind us. So that Oppenau and Griesbach [near where Erzberger was murdered] can calm down, and so that all those can be set free who have been arrested. You are free to make use of this postcard as you think best.” The postcard was immediately sent to the Prosecutor to confirm if it truly was from the assassins of Erzberger or was a falsification... Sept. 12-13, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” – dateline Paris, Sept. 9 As opposed to the discussions and votes published from the Zionist Congress, one can contrast the publication by the Damascus Alif Ba of the statements that Kazem Pascia, head of the Arab Delegation of Palestine in Europe, made to the press during his voyage from Alexandria, Egypt. We were chosen and sent to London to demand in the name of our country the abolition of the Balfour promise and the satisfaction of many other aspirations of a people who are struggling to avoid having our country taken away from us. During the War Britain enlisted the Arabs in the struggle against the Turks, who were also their co-religionists, and promised King Hussein the establishment of a well-founded Arab kingdom. Afterwards they also made the famous Balfour promise to the Jews. Of these two promises, the first was just, but the second was not at all just, and thus was not realizable. Palestine is our land; we have received it from our forefathers and we must hand it on to our posterity, and it is not the business of any power to interfere in the affairs of this our hereditary possession through the centuries. And if the Jews had some right over Palestine, they should have asserted it several hundred years ago. Kazem Jascia then said: We have suffered a bitter illusion. We rebelled against Turkey but fell into the hands of Jewish immigrants from Russia, from Poland, and from other countries imbued with the spirit of Bolshevism. They have occupied the most important offices and imposed laws and levies on the people. Indeed new offices have been established with exorbitant stipends and entrusted to Israelites ... The people have reposed confidence in us and have entrusted us with the mission of making the strongest efforts to revoke the promise of Balfour, abolish the idea of a national Jewish center, and suspend Zionist immigration ... “The Zionist Congress and the British Government” – dateline Carlsbad [Karlovy Vary, Czechoslovakia], Sept. 11 – The British Government has sent the President of the Zionist Congress the following telegram: We are pleased to transmit to the Zionist Congress the cordial best wishes of the Government ... “Britain and Ireland” – The Stefani Agency reports from London: The evening newspapers report that according to the latest news from Dublin, it can now be affirmed that the representatives of the Dail Eireann [Irish parliament] are meeting with the British delegates to the conference ... Note: Sergio Minerbi, in The Vatican and Zionism (1990), pp. 158-159, says the British Government was alarmed by a threat that the Vatican would take action in favor of Irish independence if Britain gave the Jews a monopoly of power in the Holy Land. Minerbi quotes from an Italian newspaper in which the threat appeared from an anonymous Vatican-connected source on Sept. 29, 1921. Minerbi cites documents from the British Foreign Office showing the impact of the threat. The Vatican categorically denied the accuracy of the Italian newspaper article. Oct. 15, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” – from our correspondent in London His Eminence Cardinal Bourne recently had the occasion to express his authoritative thoughts on the question of Zionism. He indeed set forth in a speech, which is well worth reproducing verbatim, his own ideas about the facts and events that show how wise and to the point have been the counsels and opinions he expressed some time ago. “I have not had the occasion, during the past year, to speak to a Catholic assembly like this one; permit me therefore to enter into an important argument. Those of you who took part in the great Catholic Congress that was held with marvelous success last year in Liverpool under the presidency of the late Archbishop of that place, of sacred memory, will remember that in one part of my speech I spoke of the question of the Holy Places of Palestine. I took great care to limit my remarks and not speak everything I knew. I tried, and I believe I succeeded, to stick strictly to the established facts; and I mentioned the fears that these facts have aroused, not only in Britain but throughout the Christian world. “One year later, my thoughts return to that speech, and I believe I have every right to say that what I said then has been perfectly confirmed by what has happened, not indeed because I want to agitate public opinion in any way on this matter; but because I am of the opinion that this question should be constantly and clearly presented to the minds of all Catholics, just as to all Englishmen. “During the War, at a rather critical time, Mr. Balfour made a promise of which he did not take full account, I believe. For this promise he had the approval of the Cabinet. But I cannot arrive at the belief that the Government had attentively considered this promise, that is as to its consequences – not only possibly – but probably. “This promise was that the Jewish people, led by those who call themselves Zionists, would possess ‘a’ or ‘the’ land in Palestine. “This promise could have various meanings; and on this basis the Zionists have continually demanded to have in Palestine their fatherland, in the sense of a Jewish State. “The import of this promise was rather diminished by Mr. Winston Churchill, who on the occasion of his trip to Jerusalem, gave assurances that everything that had been said had this meaning, that the natives of the Holy Land would have possession of ‘a’ country in Palestine. “But whether the meaning was to give them their true home in Palestine, or whether it was only to concede them simply a little colony, it is perfectly certain that this promise existed in reality and that, even if restricted in its scope, it will need to be retracted, if there is not to be a bloodbath. “The other day I received the visit of the Delegation of Palestine (Moslem), which spoke to me extensively in a moderate way, even while they were using plenty strong language when I was in Jerusalem two years ago. You must take into account that of the population of the Holy Land, the portion that is of the Jewish race is much smaller than the Arab population that is majority Moslem and in part Christian. “I ask all of you to consider very attentively this question; because this could bring incalculable harm to the name of Britain in all the other countries; and because it would require – and on this political question I have no intent to give any personal opinion – the maintenance in Palestine of a British garrison as an enormous imposition upon the taxpayers of this country. “I do not believe that the British people are disposed to throw away their own money to establish in Palestine a Jewish State... “For my part, I want to reaffirm now what I said last year. What I knew then – or rather what was then already apparent – has been verified in all its reality. We are encountering terrible difficulties in Palestine, and Britain will have the gravest difficulties with all the Christian countries, if this question is not decided to their common satisfaction. “It would be a grave insult to the conscience of all of Christianity if the Holy Land, torn out of the hands of the faithful today by the work of British soldiers, were to be placed under the dominion of those who have renounced the name of Christ. “Everyone knows very well that I have absolutely no antisemitic sentiments: I have never spoken a single word against the Jews as such. In love I have publicly defended them and demanded for them just treatment with equality. But I am certain that if this question of Zionism is not resolved in a just and equitable manner for all the population of Palestine, which in its great majority is not Jewish, we will have terrible disorders as a result.” His Eminence the Archbishop of Westminster had occasion to repeat these thoughts when speaking to the Palestinian Delegation in London, who had come to defend their own land in the face of the Government and public opinion. ... His Eminence recalled to the Delegation the speech he gave in Liverpool upon returning from the Holy Land in 1919 and expressed his sympathy for the Arabs concerning the current difficulties in Palestine, and expressed his regret that the Commission nominated to investigate the question of the Holy Places had not yet been able to complete its work. “Respect for the Church in British Legislation” – our correspondent – dateline Ottawa, September The theme of respect for the House of God by Britain and all States and colonies among its dependencies, was the aim of the legislative provisions that “the buildings of the church, dedicated or consecrated to divine worship, are considered personal property of God, and thus exempted from taxes of all sorts and possess the right to a special reverence.” And at this point in time, the law turned out to be very opportune, since for several years the Cathedral of St. Andrew in Vancouver has been threatened with being put up for public auction because the Catholic Archbishop refused to pay the taxes that the Victoria authorities had assessed on the cathedral itself. In recent days a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the supreme tribunal of the British Empire, prohibited the sale precisely on the grounds of the above-mentioned legislative provision. Oct. 28, 1921 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine: The Hebrew University” – our correspondent – dateline Paris, October 25 The national Jewish Home, this ambiguous phrase of the now famous Balfour Declaration, which could mean simply a center of propaganda and culture, or – if it succeeds – an Israelite State, has always had among its programmatic cornerstones a higher institute of studies, a University of Jerusalem, owned by Jerusalem, which can become the beacon of thought and wisdom of the more or less direct and legitimate descendants of Solomon. Also here, nonetheless, also in this initiative Zionism presents itself as highly concerned about the cultural conditions of Palestine, and generously disposed to provide, for the benefit of all the races coexisting without religious prejudice. But today, three years after the University of Jerusalem took its first steps, one can easily evaluate the new evidence of this altruistic Zionist fairness that adorns, at least at the beginning, all its reforms and all its institutions. We quote the Beyt-ul-Makdes of Jerusalem: “The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, founded in 1918, will be, with the assistance of American Zionists, at the same level as the great European and American universities, adopting, as it will, more recent methods that contemporary progress has produced. The three faculties of natural science, medicine, and Jewish studies will be the first ones established. “The university aims especially to be useful to the Palestinian population and in general to give a major contribution to the progress of science and the arts. “The most illustrious professors of the Zionist world will be called to teach, and lessons will be conducted in the Hebrew language. “The University, however, will not take on any religious character.” Nov. 13, 1921 Bonaventura Cerretti, Vatican Nuncio to France, to Cardinal Gasparri: Re: Separatist Movement in Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, Equipped with a letter of introduction from Baron Cramer-Klett, Professor Fuchs [a/k/a Sachs], a Bavarian, introduced himself to me, accompanied by one of his friends and by a high official of the French administration in the Saar District. I consider it opportune, first of all, to transcribe the substantial part of the letter itself: “Professor Fuchs, who has gone to Paris at the invitation of the French Government, would like to inform Your Most Reverend Excellency about some Bavarian-German proposals and beseech Your Excellency to forward this most important information to the Holy See. As the ideas presented by him are for the greatest part ideas not only of the Bavarian people, but also of the German people, who fear the destructive and fatal influence of Judaism of Masonic-Bolshevik Berlin, may I allow myself to introduce him to Your Excellency, humbly beseeching you to receive him well, assuring you that his supporters are serious and good people. I personally see in these proposals a matter of indescribable importance for German Catholicism.” Prof. Fuchs began by saying that Bavaria can no longer tolerate union with Germany, especially with Prussia. All the ills that Bavaria currently suffers are due to this union. Catholicism in particular is gravely threatened by it. A movement is therefore outlined that tends to separate Bavaria from the Reich and to form a powerful new Catholic State that would include Bavaria, the German Tyrol, the Rhineland provinces and perhaps also Austria. At the head of this movement, latent for now, are men of value and of totally proven patriotism. “We desire,” he concluded, “that all of this be known to the Holy See and that it counsel the Bavarian Episcopate not to hinder this movement.” After Prof. Fuchs, the Frenchman began to speak, whose name I did not understand well when he was introduced. He was compelled to say that he came as a friend of the aforesaid Professor and without any official character. “I accompanied him,” he added, “to assist him in conversation, because he is not very expert in the French language.” Then he developed more fully the concepts expressed by Fuchs, affirming that in his continuing trips in Bavaria he has experienced everywhere this state of mind, that the separation between Protestants and Catholics in Germany is most profound, and that the formation of a Catholic State mentioned above, in the center of Europe, would save Europe itself. Responding, I first of all made the observation to my two interlocutors that I did not know how to explain why they had turned to me to break this news to the Holy See, that in Munich there is a Nuncio, and they could have turned to him, not to me. “The Nuncio of Munich,” observed Prof. Fuchs, “is accredited also to the German Reich, and therefore we believed it opportune not to entrust this to him.” As to the merit, then, of the proposal, and as to any sort of intervention by the Holy See, I said it is my personal opinion that the Holy See would abstain from putting in a word to the Bishops, and from giving them instructions, no matter from what source such requests were made to it. “This is a merely political question,” I added, “which concerns exclusively the interested parties. Therefore I cannot make myself your spokesman to the Holy See.” In being dismissed, Prof. Fuchs said that very soon Baron Cramer-Klett would be coming to Rome and would expound to the Holy Father what I have reported above. This is also why I have deemed it opportune to bring this to Your Eminence. Bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 3298. Nov. 16, 1921 Pacelli to Gasparri: November 16, 1921 Pacelli to Gasparri Re: Trip to Berlin – Political situation in Germany – Negotiations for a Concordat with the Reich The political situation in Germany is currently going through a rather critical period. The former Wirth Cabinet (as I predicted to Your Reverend Eminence in my respectful encrypted cable no. 397 of October 12th) resigned as a result of the unfavorable decision concerning Upper Silesia. The Chancellor had in fact justified, in the face of public opinion, his so-called “fulfillment policy” toward the burdens imposed by the London ultimatum, by the consideration that in this way Germany would succeed in preserving this important territory. For many deputies this was the only reason they had voted in favor of accepting this ultimatum. “Save Upper Silesia by means of a faithful policy of fulfillment however extreme”: this was the thinking that guided the Chancellor in the development of his policy. The hopes thus aroused in the German people, perhaps not very prudently, were bitterly disappointed by the decision in Geneva, which the English Ambassador to Berlin, Lord Abernon, did not hesitate to characterize, in speaking to me, as an “injustice” to Germany. Chancellor Wirth, who had repeatedly announced that he would resign in case of such an unfavorable outcome, thus had no alternative but to resign. The Center Party then thought it would be possible to form, in place of the former, a larger coalition, which would thus include also the German People’s Party (Deutsche Volkspartei). The negotiations initiated in that regard were already rather far advanced when an unexpected breach arose because of the insuperable resistance that the leaders of the German People’s Party encountered among their delegation. This party then decided to reject the execution of the Geneva decision; the Democrats and the Bavarian People’s Party took the same position, while the Center Party and the Socialists remained the only ones disposed to consent to the sending of a Commission for negotiations about Upper Silesia. In this way the situation became extremely complicated. A Cabinet of the right was impossible for obvious reasons of foreign policy; the Center Party had announced itself against a coalition with only the Socialists, and these for their part rejected the proposal to form a Cabinet Ministry by themselves. The Reich President, who had threatened to resign if faced with such a situation, which seemed to have no way out and was an all the more critical situation by the fact that there were only two days left before the date set by the Entente for the naming of the aforesaid Commission, ended by turning anew to Wirth, imploring him to form a Cabinet that could at least provisionally see out the completion of business, since it was not possible to form a Government on a larger base. Wirth accepted, and faced with the gravity of the hour, the Center Party delegation did not dare to oppose. Thus was born the new Cabinet Ministry, composed of four members of the Center Party (Wirth as Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs; Hermes as commissary and provisional finance minister; Fr. Brauns for labor; Giesberts for post) and of four Majority Socialists (Bauer as Vice Chancellor and Treasury Minister; Köster = Interior; Schmidt = Economics; Radbruch = Justice). The Democrat Gessler has remained Minister of Defense, even though his party has exited the coalition. This solution has drawn even more upon the Center Party the opposition of the parties of the right; and Catholics of nationalist tendency and thus against the policy of submission before the Entente followed by Wirth and the Center Party itself, are distancing themselves in ever greater numbers and going to increase the ranks of the German Nationalists and the German People’s Party, in which the Protestant spirit reigns. If things should continue in this way, it would make for a rather dangerous period of a lasting schism among German Catholics, and the strength of the Center Party could collapse with incalculable consequences for the interests of the Church in Germany. Shortly thereafter crisis came also upon the Prussian Cabinet with the resignation of Minister President Stegerwald, who is a Center Party deputy. At the head of the new Cabinet Ministry, composed of the Socialists, the Center Party, the Democrats and the German People’s Party, is the Socialist Braun. The Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs is Dr. Bölitz, director of the gymnasium in Soest and belonging to the German People’s Party. He has been proudly associated with various Socialist and Democratic organs, which attribute reactionary tendencies to him, and some Center Party newspapers also accuse him of intolerance toward Catholics. Certainly the current Government in Prussia represents, compared to its predecessor, a notable worsening as regards the Church. The former Minister Dr. Becker has returned as State Secretary in the same Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs. After the colloquy Your Reverend Eminence had with the German Ambassador on the issue of the request to name an Apostolic Administrator in the Saar District (Dispatch No. 27237 of the 8th of this month), a colloquy that did not fail to produce the desired impression, I was made aware that in Berlin there was a desire to speak to me as soon as possible. I therefore left without delay for the Capital, in conformity with the authorization imparted to me by Your Eminence, and on the morning of the 11th I was received by the Chancellor. He described to me first of all the very grave and so to speak somewhat desperate financial situation of Germany and then, after having mentioned the aforesaid issue of the Saar District, expressed to me his desire that there be initiated, without the slightest delay, negotiations for a Concordat with the Reich. This request he renewed the following day and then also by writing a letter dated the 14th of this month, a copy of which I have the honor to enclose herewith for Your Eminence, together with the Italian translation. (Enclosures I and II) Although for multiple reasons already noted to Your Eminence, it would have been preferable that the negotiations be commenced only after concluding the Bavarian Concordat, it seemed to me nonetheless, all things considered, impossible to reject such a request; and thus, by the Note of the following day, the 15th, which I likewise carry out my duty to enclose herewith in German text and Italian translation (Enclosures III and IV), and in which I took care to include, for good effect, the explicit clause “reserving possible future modifications and additions,” I sent Dr. With the points containing the desires of the Holy See in this regard. These points were prepared by me, as You will undoubtedly recall, taking into account the preferences expressed by the Fulda Bishops Conference in March of this year in Rome, where they met with the approbation of the Holy Father and Your Eminence. As a result of discussions I had with competent personages and of some observations put forward by His Eminence Cardinal Bertram, there were some modifications introduced little by little, but only of a secondary order, and, as to what concerns the Theological Faculties and the school question, I substituted for the original edition the new formula adopted for Bavaria (cf. Report No. 17896 of September 11, 1920 and No. 20850 of June 8, 1921, and Dispatches No. 13174 of November 24, 1920 and No. 21860 of June 21, 1921). Finally on the 12th of this month, by the express desire of the Chancellor, the same points were discussed confidentially in my presence in a long session, participating in which were His Excellency Mr. Spahn, Reichstag deputy and former Justice Minister in Prussia; Dr. Porsch, Vice President of the Prussian Landtag and Head of the Center Party delegation in that Landtag; Mr. Marx, Privy Councilor, Head of the Center Party delegation in the Reichstag, President of the pro-Schola organization of the Volksverein; and Rev. Msgr. Kaas, Professor of Canon Law in Trier and a deputy in the Reichstag. Some wise modifications, suggested during the discussion, were added by me into the definitive text, which Your Eminence will find, also translated into Italian, in Enclosures V and VI. It is also noteworthy that the points under discussion represented the complete matter proposed by the Holy See for the negotiations; nevertheless a further examination of them will show which of them can be included in a Reich Concordat, and which instead, under the norms of the German Constitution, will have to be left to eventual later Concordats or particular agreements with individual States. By the immediate commencement of Concordat negotiations, the Reich Government obviously wanted to remove the feared danger of the naming of an Apostolic Administrator for the Saar. If this Government can indeed be kept under the pressure of current events, it would be disposed at the present moment not unfavorably in regard to concluding a Concordat, whose necessity for imperative political reasons is recognized not only by the Catholic Chancellor Dr. Wirth, but also by the Socialist Interior Minister Dr. Köster, with whom I had occasion to talk. These dispositions of the Reich Government will encounter, however, as can be foreseen, rather strong opposition in many of the individual States, which must give their approval in the Reich Council to this proposal, and above all in Prussia, which, according to what I have already mentioned in my obsequious Report No. 22173 of this October 27th, is opposed in principle to including the school question in the Concordat. For my part, I have not failed to make clearly understood on all occasions that, to the extent this point were to remain excluded, the Holy See would no longer have, if it can be said, any interest in agreeing to such a Concordat and thus it cannot be seen how it could be induced to consent to it; the Government, however, would then naturally have to suffer the inevitable consequences of such a state of affairs, created by its own position. To complicate still further the already difficult and complicated situation, there is also the question of the relationship between the Bavarian Concordat and that for the Reich. As indeed Your Eminence will undoubtedly recall, in November last year I succeeded without effort in obtaining from then Minister of Foreign Affairs in Berlin, Dr. Simons, a written communication, in which he declared having nothing against the continuing to a conclusion of the negotiations for the Bavarian Concordat, and moreover that this would not concern later laws of the Reich (Report No. 18532 of November 14, 1920). That however aroused the jealousy of the Prussian Government, which (as a further result of the letter sent to me by date of June 21st this year by then Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs Dr. Becker, and that I have the honor also to enclose here with the corresponding Italian translation (Enclosures VII and VIII), repeatedly requested that the Bavarian Concordat also would remain included in the general one for the Reich, adding that, if Bavaria would instead have to have a concordat entirely separate and independent, Prussia would also claim for itself the same right. It is clear, then,, that in the event an entirely separate and independent Concordat were stipulated, then Prussia would claim for itself the same right. It is also clear that in the event a separate Concordat were stipulated also for Prussia, there would only remain little or no hope of concluding a Concordat for the Reich, since in the remainder of the States (in many of which the Socialists and Protestants dominate), it would not be possible to assemble a favorable majority, and thus it would no longer be possible (and this would be a grave misfortune) for the Catholics of the Diaspora to come to help in this way. Despite these non-negligible difficulties, I have always striven up to now to maintain the point of view of a separate Concordat with Bavaria, whether because a renunciation or yielding in this matter would cause (at least so far as I could confirm) strong disappointment among the the Bavarian Catholics and Bishops, or whether above all because such has seemed to me to be the will of the Holy See (for example, in Dispatch No. 20766 of May 20, 1921 it speaks explicitly of a “Concordat that is hoped to be concluded between Germany – excluding Bavaria – and the Holy See”), a desire represented, so to speak, tangibly by the maintenance of the Munich Nunciature. The Berlin Government, which feels discomfort in connection with the aforesaid statement of Dr. Simons, and would long for a Concordat for the Reich including also Bavaria, has not failed to indicate to be in recent days such a desire, moreover emphasizing that the obstacles to the conclusion of the aforesaid Concordat would multiply; but I have avoided giving them reason to hope on this point. The Chancellor has benefited also from the nearly contemporaneous presence in the Capital of the Bavarian Minister President, Count von Lerchenfeld, to discuss the delicate issue, without however coming to a solution; in this way the negotiations for the Concordat with Bavaria, in conformity to the oft-mentioned statement, will continue meanwhile as the most important. In the meantime, another issue has arisen, which, as has been confirmed to me, worries the German Government no less than that of the Saar District, and can thus represent in the hands of the Holy See a new effective weapon for the concordat negotiations with the Reich: that is to say the ordering of ecclesiastical administration in the eastern territories lost to Germany, and in particular in the Free State of Danzig and in the part of Upper Silesia awarded to Poland. On this last point, Reich President Ebert as well as Chancellor Dr. Wirth have already asked me warmly to interest the Holy See; moreover, the German Embassy, as has been reported to me, will soon present proposals about this to Your Eminence. Now, in the judgment of competent persons, to exert pressure on the Prussian Government and seek to overcome its resistance, especially toward the inclusion of the school question in the Concordat, it would be of great importance if the Holy See – naturally without giving for now a formal promise, which would immediately remove from the weapon all its effectiveness – would nonetheless give in some way the impression of benevolent dispositions in this regard, in the event of a happy result in the concordat negotiations. Allow me therefore, subordinately, to call in this way, upon this rather important point, the superior attention of Your Eminence. After which, humbling bowing ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 10433   Dec. 9, 1921 Pacelli to Gasparri: I have received the obsequious Dispatch No. 28059 dated November 25th, the subsequent Personal Letter from Your Reverend Eminence of November 29th, and finally, today, the other also personal one of December 4th, concerning the question of the Relationships between the future Bavarian Concordat and the Concordat for the Reich. In obedience to the orders from Your Eminence and in response to these proposals, I am carrying out my duty of submitting to Your superior judgment the following considerations: The greater part of the Bavarian population – with the exception, that is, of the Socialists and in some sense also the Democrats – are federalist, which is to say that, while wanting to remain German and continue to be part of the German Reich, they are tenaciously attached to their particular rights. The unitary and centralizing tendencies that have dominated in the Weimar National Assembly and the Government in Berlin, and which have caused for Bavaria the loss of many of its aforesaid rights, have provoked strong discontent in the Bavarian people and have exacerbated their traditional antagonism toward North Germany. The crisis became even more acute, when Bavaria, having emerged from the revolutionary period, decisively oriented herself toward the establishment of a purely bourgeois Cabinet Ministry, presided over by Mr. von Kahr, while the various Reich Cabinets up to the current one have always been more distinctly republican and left-wing. Despite that, the Bavarian population is not currently thinking of separating from the Reich, all the more since such a separation would clash, in the common judgment, against insurmountable political and economic difficulties. In one case, however, such a separation would come to pass, that being if in northern Germany revolutionary and Bolshevik tendencies were to end up taking hold. Such a hypothesis is not entirely improbable in the near future. From various parties it has been recently reported to me, in truth, that serious agitations are expected in Berlin, and, what is more, Chancellor Wirth, who indeed being rather left-wing and until now seeing only the danger of agitation by the reactionary and monarchist elements, revealed to me instead, to my surprise, on the evening of December 1st, his concerns and fears about revolutionary movements of the left. Even in that case, nonetheless, the separation would only be provisional, for as long as a Bolshevik or Bolshevizing Government were to last there. This is undoubtedly the sentiment of the mass of the Bavarian population. In this regard it is also noteworthy that particularist sentiments are rather more pronounced in the south than in the north of Bavaria, and this difference is revealed in the Episcopate itself, in which, for example, the current Archbishop of Bamberg is less disfavorable to Berlin than the Archbishop of Munich. Alongside these varying federalist sentiments, there are then the separatist aspirations, represented more or less covertly by a rather small group composed of elements of the right, and this tendency, which up to now cannot be properly called a “movement,” has become all the more intense in consequence of the forced suppression of the exceptional status of Bavaria and the subsequent resignation of Minister President von Kahr (Report No. 21936 of October 3, 1921). The Most Eminent Archbishop here confided to me one day that the (former hereditary) Prince Rupprecht two times in the past had affirmed to him that Bavaria cannot be separated from the Reich, but at the end of September, after the fall of von Kahr (on whom many were counting for a future restoration of the monarchy), Baron Cramer-Klett presented himself to him one evening to indicate himself, at the charge of the aforementioned Prince, to be at this time in favor of separation. His Eminence maintained a reserved attitude and limited himself to taking notice of the communication. Given this, it does not seem to me that, at least for now, the separate Concordat for Bavaria would be or appear in Germany as a step and a push toward the aforesaid separation, or that it could thus expose the Church to the consequences justly highlighted and feared by Your Eminence. – In fact, 1st) The Concordat under consideration need not contain provisions contrary to the Reich Constitution, and in this regard, before it is submitted to the Bavarian Landtag, the Central Government in Berlin has the right to examine it (Report No. 18532 of November 14, 1920). This implies a positive recognition that Bavaria is part of the Reich and an explicit negation of the separatist principle. And in fact the Education Minister in Bavaria, Dr. Matt, in a letter of August 26, 1920, by which he commenced his responses to the points for the Bavarian Concordat (Report No. 17896 of September 11, 1920), expressed himself thus: “First of all, allow me to call to mind a principle that I have always emphasized in our repeated discussions. Bavaria is part of the German Reich, and as such wants and is required to respect and apply the current Constitution and legislation of Germany. A new accord between the Holy See and Bavaria must thus remain within the limits set for the Bavarian Republic by the Constitution and legislation of the Reich. Therefore any type of formula or expression that would constitute inadmissible modifications or additions to the legislative provisions of the Reich must be avoided.” 2nd) The separate Concordat is undoubtedly an affirmation of federalism, and is therefore so strongly desired by Bavaria that it sees in it an exercise of its (now rather reduced) state rights; but no one in Germany who I know would interpret this as a step toward separation. Even in Berlin, nothing like that has been said to me up to now. The reasons that the Reich Government would want Bavaria also to be included in a Concordat for all Germany (apart from its own particular Agreement), are, so far as I am aware, both its centralizing tendencies and the reason I will express as follows. – I said however: at least for now; since, if subsequently during the negotiations new unforeseen events were to place the unity of Germany in peril, or (what is unlikely) a serious separatist movement were truly to appear in Bavaria, or if indeed the rash actions of Prof. Sachs came to be publicly known (a person, moreover, so far as I have been able to determine up to now, who is unknown here in Munich in Catholic circles), perhaps the situation could change and the separate Concordat rather probably could take on, especially in the eyes of the Socialists and the Democrats, the appearance of a stimulus in those directions. Then indeed the Holy See could eventually find a necessity to retreat from such an idea. But there is furthermore, in my humble opinion, a way to make the Church henceforth secure from all suspicion: for the future as well. – In this regard, it is my duty to report to Your Eminence that, after the Reich Concordat negotiations began in Berlin (Report No. 22353 on November 16th), I was asked both by Count von Lerchenfeld, President of the Ministerial Council in Munich, and by some members of the Bavarian People’s Party, if on the part of the Holy See there would be changes concerning the separate Concordat for Bavaria. I stood on the instructions received up to that moment and responded no, and all of that calmed down. In Berlin, on the other hand, my support was sought to be obtained for Bavaria being included in the aforementioned sense in the Reich Concordat, but I, while avoiding leaving any hopeful impression in that regard (cf. cited Report No. 22353), made it known that it was too delicate a matter for me to enter into the debate and I thus preferred to remain apart from it... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 3422. Dec. 15, 1921 Pacelli to Gasparri: Pacelli to Gasparri, re: Article in the Frankfurter Zeitung about the proposed Reich Concordat Most Reverend Eminence, The Jewish-Democratic newspaper Frankfurter Zeitung has published, in its issue number 917 of the 10th of this month, an article about the proposed Reich Concordat, which I dutifully transmit herewith to your Most Reverend Eminence together with its Italian translation. In it is found reproduced in rather precise form (apart from several inaccuracies) the principal points of the proposal for the future Reich Concordat presented by me to Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Wirth with the Note of this November 15 (cf. Report No. 22353 of the 16th). It is truly deplorable that, while in Bavaria during the past almost two years, nothing of the Holy See’s proposals has leaked out to the public papers, those on the other hand given to the Berlin Government, where all sense of discretion seems to be lost, have appeared in the press, in their most important parts, just twenty-five days after being presented, notwithstanding that the aforesaid Note had explicitly requested, in the very interest of good progress for the negotiations, the observance of the strictest secrecy. I did not fail, therefore, to take action against these inopportune leaks, by remonstrating strongly to the Reich’s representative in Munich, Count von Zech, and I leave it to Your Eminence to judge whether it would be most useful to have a word about this also with the German Ambassador. As to the substance, the article in question reveals the hostile disposition of the Democratic Party toward a Concordat favorable to the rights of the Church, especially in the schools question, and shows the most serious difficulties that stand in the way of concluding such a Concordat. It is superfluous, then, to point out how false and unjust are the attacks contained in the article itself. It is enough here to note that the proposal in question was presented after insistent requests, oral and written, of the Chancellor (above-cited Report), and how, meanwhile, on the one hand, it was indeed sought to maintain the said points as to the limits of the Reich Constitution, and on the other hand, in the above-mentioned Note there was an express declaration that the Holy See, motivated by a sincere desire to reach agreement, is ready to take under serious and benevolent consideration future proposals for modifications and additions, which could be made by the Reich Government. In conclusion, humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple, with sentiments of most profound veneration, I have the honor to prove myself Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most Humble, Most Devoted, Most Obliged Servant, +Eugenio Pacelli, Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, Vatican Secret Archives, AA.EE.SS., Germania, 1920-1921, pos. 1728, fasc. 906, fol. 32r-33r, reprinted at www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1168. Frankfurter Zeitung, Dec. 10, 1921, page one: “Concordat Plans” A South German politician writes us: For some time, rumors about the Concordat that the Bavarian Government intends to conclude with the Vatican have been making their way into print. The desire is there in both parties; nonetheless the difficult negotiations do not appear as yet to have come to a conclusion; they are being carefully kept secret. For all that, the plan of the Concordat is not hidden from Bavarian politicians. It is probably far less well known that the Curia is making efforts to achieve a Concordat with the German Reich as well. The opportunity to pave the way for this appeared really quite favorable when the Center Party filled the highest governmental positions not only in the Reich, but also in Prussia in the person of Herr Stegerwald. Just as in the Bavarian Concordat, decisive importance is being placed upon the school issue by Papal diplomacy for the Reich Concordat. In the drafts, a proposal has been put forward to make religious instruction a part of the curriculum in all middle schools and high schools, without, however, the governmental right of supervision provided in Art. 149 of the Constitution. The government will indeed appoint the religion teachers, but only those who have been approved by the Bishops, and the teachers are subject to dismissal if the Diocesan authorities are not satisfied with them. Also in elementary schools, religious instruction would have to be regulated in cooperation with ecclesiastical authorities. To the Church would be confided not only the supervision of religious instruction, but also the designation of the textbooks used in it. In places whose Catholic population is few in numbers, Catholic elementary schools would have to be built upon a request by parents. It is a natural consequence of the foregoing, and it is further demanded, that the government shall provide for sufficient numbers of educational institutes to train male and female Catholic teachers, institutes that are for the sole purpose of imparting religious instruction. Members of orders and religious congregations would be subject to the same stipulations as lay persons for admission to teaching positions. Upon these religious corporations would also be conferred the right to establish private schools with the same range of privileges that the government schools have. Finally, for the formation of their own clergy, the Church demands the ability to establish philosophical and theological teaching institutions under its control, while in the Catholic theological faculties of the state universities, the only instructors allowed are those who are and remain in possession of a canonical certification. In Article 138 of the Reich Constitution, it is declared that government obligations to religious societies pursuant to laws, treaties or particular titles of right will be discharged by state legislation in accordance with principles that are established by the Reich. The Vatican would now like to obtain a requirement that an agreement with the Pope must precede the confirming decree pursuant to this Article as to the determinative Reich and state legislation. The costs that grow out of this expansion of religious instruction at all levels obviously have to be borne by the government. The arrangements about schools do not exhaust the dimensions of the intended Concordat. A proposal to again have the Church ceremony before the civil ceremony for Catholic marriages is being considered. A demand has also been made to institute for Church officials the same status and prerogatives as for public officials, without requiring them to take an official oath to the state. But the main issue remains the schools, and Vatican diplomacy has responded to indications that the school provisions would be very difficult to put through, by answering that the Vatican would rather do without a Concordat than give up on these provisions. Apparently there is self-deception in the Curia about the political implications of the aforesaid demands and the impression that they inevitably make upon the non-Catholic circles of Germany. If these demands were to be pressed with all earnestness, then there would be no hiding that the currently existing governing coalition would be seriously endangered. Finally it must be emphasized that the Curia wishes to hold its ground in concluding a Concordat with Bavaria even after concluding a Concordat with the Reich, of which they indeed assume that in all events it will go even further. If this information had not come from a personality whom we must regard unconditionally as well-informed, we would not have passed it along, because it would be hardly believable that such far-reaching Concordat plans are a reality. Not that the Curia does not have such wishes; they are naturally inclined in that direction. But it is really not understandable how the Curia can bring them to fulfillment, even if it only has in mind Catholic schools with Catholic students. In this, as in other areas, the fulfillment of these wishes would require changes to the Constitution that would bring about the fall of the governing coalition, and what the Curia could expect to gain from an ensuing bloc of right-wing parties, whose basic coloration would be Protestant, is hard to imagine. German original Dec. 21, 1921 Gasparri to Pacelli: Dear Monsignore, First of all, sincerest best wishes for the upcoming holiday and the new year... [discussion of matters of economics and German reparations] ... I must add that Baron Cramer-Klett told me of a very grave matter, indeed extremely grave if it is true. He told me that in Bern there is a Jewish-Masonic society that has its long arm in the Berlin Cabinet Ministry; he had information of my idea and, so that it could not be said that Europe's economic situation was tuned by an idea from the Holy See, he arranged that the idea was not mentioned in any German newspaper, then France could raise a cry and finally Germany would not accept it. I add nothing further; if this turns out to be true, Germany would have what it deserves. Affectionate greetings. Pietro Cardinal Gasparri. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 5472. 1922 Feb. 27, 1922 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Church administration in Danzig – Concordat Negotiations As I already had the honor to make known in my respectful encrypted cables Nos. 402 and 403, as soon as I received the venerated Dispatch No. 159 of February 16th, in which Your Most Reverend Eminence informed me it is the intention of the Holy Father to delay no longer the installation of an Apostolic Administrator for the territory of the free city of Danzig, I went without delay to Berlin, in order to obtain, if possible, opportune concessions in exchange. I was able to confer there immediately in this regard, both with Reich President Ebert and with new Foreign Minister Dr. Rathenau, for the Central Government (Chancellor Wirth was absent from the Capital by reason of the illness of his mother), and, for the Prussian Government, with Education Minister Dr. Boelitz, together with State Secretary Dr. Becker, Ministerial Director Dr. Fleischer and Governmental Councilor Niermann. In these discussions I endeavored to make known and duly appreciated the sovereign condescension of the August Pontiff, who is disposed to give for the Danzig question without delay an exalted solution to protect in the best way the national interests of Germany, and indeed I allowed them to hope (without, however, giving any assurance) that the future Apostolic Administrator would be of German nationality (cf. Dispatch of Mons. Pro-Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs N.B. 30440 of this January 28th). The above-named gentlemen showed strong satisfaction with this solution, and Dr. Rathenau expressed to me the desire to know beforehand the name of the ecclesiastic whom the Holy See would propose to appoint to this office. After this, I added that His Holiness, in exchange for such signal proof of benevolence, expects that the Government will also show, on its part, promptitude and a spirit of conciliation and accord in the question of the Concordat. The above-mentioned Foreign Minister Rathenau, a man of notable intelligence and ability, though a Hebrew, showed me at great length the desire of the Reich Government to come to a conclusion as soon as possible, notwithstanding the very grave difficulties, of a Concordat satisfactory for both Parties, and promised me to engage, together with the Catholic Chancellor Dr. Wirth, with all solicitude toward that end. A similar promise, though in a rather more reserved and circumspect form, was also expressed to me by the Prussian Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 22. Apr. 5, 1922 Memo from Bishop Mergel of Eichstätt, Bavaria to Cardinal Faulhaber: Your Eminence! Reverend Lord Cardinal and Archbishop! 1. Concerning the issue of the school law ... 2. Concerning the Concordat negotiations, I deplore the continual procrastination (Verschleppung) and lack of straightforwardness of the Government in the North [Berlin]; on the one hand they cite the Weimar Constitution, on the other hand they keep taking away from the Church the freedoms that were guaranteed at Weimar ... [specific responses to provisions in latest draft of Bavaria-Vatican Concordat] ... In conclusion, my sincere sympathy and my protest concerning the slander against Your Eminence that is enclosed [from an article in the Bavarian Courier describing an attack by an ex-priest of a religious order against Cardinal Faulhaber at a Freethinkers’ association meeting in Munich]... /s/ +Leo, Bishop of Eichstätt Source: L. Volk, ed., Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, 1917-1945 [Faulhaber Papers] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1975), vol. 1, p.245 Apr. 15, 1922 Nuncio Pacelli’s letter of Apr. 15, 1922 to Bavaria’s Ambassador to the Vatican, Baron von Ritter zu Groenesteyn: ...Concerning the Concordat negotiations, the last part of the response from Herr Education Minister Matt (of whose upright intentions I have not the slightest doubt) on Points XII, XIII, XIV and XV was an almost complete rejection, and has consequently also made a painful impression on our much-beloved Lord Cardinal. I have nevertheless not lost heart ... Source: Bavarian Main State Archive, Nachlass Ritter, folder no. 63. Apr. 15, 1922 Pacelli to Gasparri, re Concordat negotiations - proposals by the Bavarian Government (with enclosures): Most Reverend Eminence, The Education Minister sent me on March 30th a letter (Enclosure I), in which he explained the requests (Enclosure II) that, it appears to him, will be put forward by the Bavarian Government, with a view to concluding the new Concordat. The long-standing close relationship existing between the State and the Catholic Church in Bavaria (explains Dr. Matt), and above all the relationships developed under the Concordat of 1817, have allowed ideas to develop in the mentality of Bavarian Catholics, which require indeed for the future on the part of said State as on the part of the Church, reciprocal regard and mutual assistance... III Part 1a - Election of Bishops by the Cathedral Chapters The Bavarian Bishops have unanimously declared themselves against this request, and they propose that Bishops be appointed by the Supreme Pontiff ... I must add that several influential deputies of the Bavarian People’s Party have expressed the opinion to me that it is greatly important for the success of the Bavarian Concordat that the Cathedral Chapters be conceded the right to elect the Bishops (Canon Wohlmuth, a deputy, especially insists on this), or at least the right to submit a terna [list of three names] (thus thinks Mr. Held, the head of the party’s delegation in the Landtag)... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document 4148, reprinting from Vatican Secret Archives, S.RR.SS., AA.EE.SS., Baviera, 1922-1928, pos. 72, vol. II, fol. 95r-110v Enclosure I: Education Minister Franz Matt to Pacelli, March 30, 1922: Most Reverend Lord Nuncio! Your Excellency, I have the honor now, in follow-up to my devoted letter of the 18th of this month, to convey the proposals that, by my assessment, are to be set down by the Bavarian State Government for the concluding of a new Concordat with the Holy See. As to the basis of these proposals, I believe I do not have to add very extensive explanations. The long history of the close bond of the Bavarian State with the Catholic Church in Bavaria, and particularly the relations established under the Concordat of 1817, have created a rooted legacy in the mentality of Bavarian Catholics, of concepts that entail, also for the future, reciprocal considerations and requirements from State and Church. The new Constitution of the German Reich has certainly guaranteed the Church all the more freedom of conducting its affairs within the framework of public law. ... Issue No. 3: With the cessation of the royal right of nominating Archbishops and Bishops, there has been no disappearance of the interest and desire of the Bavarian people that their own popular sentiments and thoughts might find representation in the weighty matter of the appointment of Bishops. This popular desire will undoubtedly also be given emphatic expression by the Bavarian Landtag in its position on the Concordat... Up until the Concordat of 1817, there existed in Bavaria the common lawful mode of election of Bishops by the Cathedral Chapters. Thus it is natural, after the cessation of the King's special appointment right, to reach back to this mode, which also fully corresponds to the desires and expectations of the Cathedral Chapters themselves and the other clergy. Since Papal confirmation of the Cathedral Chapter’s choice will still remain ever preserved, the interests of the Holy See in this procedure can indeed in no way be endangered. These proposals, based upon an accurate knowledge of the Catholic portion of the people, and directed toward the smooth-operating, successful and blessed activity of the Catholic clergy in Bavaria, seek only to make plain to the Holy See, while showing the willingness of the Bavarian Government to compromise, that the tradition of the Bavarian people from the previous Concordat corresponds with the obligations assumed since then by the Bavarian State toward the Catholic Church, in my view, and so would form the basis for a true commitment by the Catholic people to their Church and for the desired good relationship between the Catholic Church and the Bavarian State. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document 10237 Enclosure with the letter of March 30, 1922 from Matt to Pacelli: “Proposals by the Bavarian Education Ministry for the new Concordat with the Holy See” ... 3. The filling of Archbishop and Bishop positions will be done through election by the Cathedral Chapter provided that the Investiture is by the Holy See. Before the Investiture, the Holy See will ascertain that there are no objections to the nominee on the part of the Bavarian State Government. The filling of Canon positions for the Archdiocesan and Diocesan Chapters will occur half through assignment by the Archbishop or Bishop and half through election by the Chapter. Source: Franz-Willig (1965), p.222. April 21 to July 4, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano publishes seven articles about Zionism. Apr. 21, 1922, page one: In the name of the Italian Zionist Federation, Dr. Dante Lattes wrote us the following, dated “26 Nissan” or April 18, 1922: We would be most grateful if you would be willing to publish a correction in your newspaper, to the effect that Dr. Weizmann, in the speech he gave at the Roman Collegio, did not speak in any way of a Jewish State in Palestine to which the Jews of the world would be bound by political ties, nor of a dual citizenship, things which he has always been against. As to relations with the Arabs, one cannot speak in any way of expropriation of their lands, a measure which Dr. Weizmann maintained and maintains to be unjust and illegal, and which Zionism has no need to do. All the lands that the Jews have acquired have been purchased on the open market, as all are at liberty to do. With deepest gratitude for your utmost consideration, etc. And now that we have fulfilled our duty to publish the correction that was sent to us, here are some additional words. That Dr. Weizmann is and always has been opposed to a Jewish State in Palestine, in the sense of tying all the Jews of the world into a direct relationship as citizens, it can be - because among other things it would be an absurdity of international law – important to confirm that Weizmann declares himself against this on occasions of more than just private character. May 4, 1922, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” [summary]: Quoting the Morning Post of England for the proposition that the Balfour Declaration cannot be carried into effect without “grave injustice to the Palestinian population.” May 13, 1922, page one: “Zionism and Palestine: A Conference of the Patriarch of Jerusalem” [reporting a talk in Rome by the visiting Roman Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem, Luigi Barlassina] “...Zionism intends, in fact, gradually to expel the present inhabitants of Palestine, in order to seize the entire country and to erect on it the Zionist kingdom ... Zionism has caused damage of the gravest sort to Palestine ... they aroused the opposition and animosity of the native inhabitants, mainly the Arabs, and the anger of the Catholics... The constant battle of Zionism, cold and merciless, is waged not only against the Moslems and Christians, but also against the Jews or religious in Palestine against whom means of terror are employed...” (quoted by Minerbi, p. 173-174). May 13, 1922, page one: “Zionism at Geneva” The Israel has published a letter from Geneva dated April 30 in which it is said that Dr. Weizmann ... said: “Zionism encounters a great loathing on the part of the Vatican, which should not be especially surprising... “Italian public opinion is somewhat apprehensive toward Zionism for two main reasons (other than what derives from its attachment to the Holy See and its influence on the Italian public) ...” May 17, 1922, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” The Stefani news agency reported on May 16th: It is announced that the Council of the League of Nations is today taking up the Mandate conferred upon England over Palestine for the purpose of ratifying it. In a letter sent to Lloyd George and to Churchill, the President of the Arab delegation from Palestine, M. Kazin Hussein, states that his compatriots will not accept the Mandate over Palestine as it exists today and that the delegation has been surprised to learn that the Council of the League of Nations is ready to take up this matter for the purpose of ratification. In conclusion, the President asked the British Prime Minister to undertake nothing in this matter to the extent that the representatives of the Arab people and those of Great Britain have not examined the question of the future of Palestine. June 8, 1922, page 2: “Zionism and Palestine” ... In our turn, not for the first time, we now spell out our thoughts. We have never taken under consideration the issue of the Mandate for Palestine; it is quite distinct from Zionism. The Mandate does not really concern the point of view from which we always address the Palestinian problem: on the other hand, it is clearly not possible to avoid taking an interest in it. And about Zionism, we have never discussed whether or not there actually is a Jewish problem and thus the possible need for a solution; we have never entered into the details of the solution itself, and therefore we have not examined and will not examine them, whether it is a matter of an imprecise formula of a national Jewish center to solve a problem that is considered a real and urgent social concern, or from a different perspective, from the standpoint of tolerance and possible initial agreement, as to the radical transformation of Palestine ethnic policy that Zionism has also said it wants. We have not only proceeded to chronicle all the documents concerning the thought and program of Zionism, which from time to time we have described based on various objective sources. We have also from time to time objected that a Zionism that disturbs the social tranquility of Palestine and the sovereign natural rights of its population is not acceptable – or even favorable for the interests of Jews around the world – or for international law and the principles proclaimed by treaties. We are most concerned for the supreme interests of peace in the Middle East and the tranquility of the Holy Places, which are certainly compromised by any potential disruption or political or racial conflict in Palestine. And all of this, exclusively, is in rapport with our Catholic publishing activity which is neither influenced by this nor any other question, nor by any party or prejudice. July 4, 1922, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” Concerning our last note of June 8th, the Israel writes: “This whole controversy about the “Jewish State” and “Jewish homeland” could be avoided if L’Osservatore Romano would draw its “documentation of the thought and program of Zionism” from truly authoritative sources rather than just from El Pueblo of Buenos Aires. “In substance, L’Osservatore Romano says that Zionism is unacceptable because it is ‘disturbing the social peace in Palestine and subverting the natural rights of its people.’ Unfortunately we are compelled to challenge once again, this time with even more precision, the documented mindset of L’Osservatore Romano. On what occasions, and with what actions, has the Zionist Organization, in the long years of its civilizing and colonizing work in Palestine, subverted the natural rights of the Palestinian people? Did it ever offend their religious sentiments, whether Christian or Muslim? Did it ever harm an honest Arab worker or peaceful farmer? Or is it not true instead that Zionism, with its settlements, has been the engine of continuous civil progress in Palestine? We know that a concrete answer to these questions will not and cannot be given.” The Israel gives us credit in advance for acting always on the basis of principle; thus it is admitted that “all this controversy about the Jewish State and Jewish homeland” does not concern us and did not interest us in the past, if not for the integrity of the Catholic rights in Palestine, and the peace of the Holy Land which is closely bound to the respect and the worship of the Holy Places. We must observe, moreover, that even if El Pueblo of Buenos Aires had not recounted facts and echoes that already appeared in English newspapers, and not just English ones, it was not the only source from which we have been presenting and documenting the news for the past two years. Our readers here can testify to that. So, if there is anything simplistic and naive in our serene and objective debate, it is only the “questionnaire” that the Israel puts to us, while hastily warning that there will be no answer because it is impossible to answer. We invite them to browse our entire series of articles, in which we have written of “Zionism and Palestine” with accurate citations; we invite them to read and publish the Arab protest memorandum that was presented in 1920 to the British Mandate authorities, which also contains the protest of the indigenous population’s ethical and religious sentiments, the call for protection of the interests of peaceful laborers and honest farmers; just as we have memorialized the events and documents brought to bear by illustrious Catholic personages in public conferences, thus placing them within the realm of European public opinion. And these have certainly not been refuted. Thus, we repeat, it is no longer possible to equivocate: the Israel now appears to be speaking of a Zionism influenced by Jewish aspirations, placed next to and on a par with the rights and aspirations of the other Palestinian races and religions; we, instead, make reference to that Zionism which is insupportable even among the Jews, that which thinks, or at least thought, of a Jewish hegemony over Palestine. That, we say, is fatal to the peace and prosperity of those populations, and is contrary to the spiritual rights of Christianity in the Holy Land. Moreover, the diplomatic note of the Holy See to the Council of the League of Nations is the most authoritative and genuine interpretation of the mind of Catholics with respect to this great problem. (N. d. R.) May 6, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano, page 2: “Roman Imperialism” Reporting on a conference at a Catholic university in Italy at which the speakers included two priests and an archbishop, the Vatican newspaper focused on the role of Christianity in creating a new and unexpected greatness of Rome: “Victorious Rome did not give new life to ancient civilization: this task started with the abolition of slavery and was taken on by Christianity which created the new civilization. “The final focus of this conference was on the port for the ship after the storm. After the unfolding of so many local, national and imperial wars, while economic inequality and moral decay humiliated ancient Rome in the days of glory and dominion, a synthesis full of civilization and hope commended the long road pursued by Rome and opened up a new path for humanity. “The speaker profoundly understood the history, which he more experienced than narrated, with tirelessly incisive and encouraging words that transported the listeners among ancient events giving enhanced understanding of this sequence of events that then formed the unexpected greatness of Rome.” May 20, 1922 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 2, pp. 299-312: “Zionism According to the Opinions of the Jews” Contents: “The old aspirations of the Jews resuscitated by new propaganda. A conference in Rome on Zionism. Reasons, discussions. - I. Precursors of the idea. Political Zionism proposed by Theodor Herzl. - II. Early enthusiasms: Congress of Basel: diplomatic actions. - III. Financial difficulties: internal contradictions. The proposal for Uganda. Death of Herzl. - IV. New colonial location. The war opens new hopes. The declaration of the English government. - V. The British Mandate for Palestine. Immigration: Jewish culture. - VI. Financial assistance: Jewish hopes and visions.” For nineteen centuries the people of Israel, scattered among the nations of the world, upon the vigil of the feast of Passover - 14 Nisan - have celebrated their traditional rites in all places of the world “standing up as one man at the same time, and taking in their hands the cup of blessing, repeating three times the sacred phrase, Next year in Jerusalem!” - Every day, at the hour of prayer, it is the custom of the sons of Judah to turn towards Zion with yearning, and one of them – a convert and a priest, Rev. Giuseppe Lémann – depicted with fraternal pity the love with which certain of his former co-religionists, too poor and too advanced in years to undertake the sacred pilgrimage to see with their own eyes the Holy City and kiss its walls, instead have sent to them little sachets filled with the earth where their fathers sleep and, at the end of their lives, advise their own sons to bury them with this earth upon their heart. But those who are more fortunate can visit the city and find asylum there, where they gather every Friday toward evening around the ruins of the ancient temple, hugging and kissing convulsively, repeating together, between sobs, the lamentations of Jeremiah, crying: “Have mercy, Lord, and gather the sons of Jerusalem; make haste, O savior of Zion! Act soon to restore the kingdom of David! Comfort those who mourn over Jerusalem.” But for nineteen centuries, until recently, those sobs and lamentations had no answer but the frightful echo of a curse. “May his blood be upon us and upon our children!” - Today it is said that things are different. A few weeks ago we even heard in Rome a voice that wanted to emulate that of the prophets of this people, publishing the news that from now on the Jew will no longer be forced to wander the earth: the roads of Palestine are reopened and the sons of Israel are going to rush frantically, not as they were once guided by the wonders of the hand of the Lord, but by the simple escort of the Jewish Colonial Association under the guarantee of England. The difference is not a small one. The Jews feel, and the proponents of this Jewish revival are convinced, that under the name of Zionism they would like to restore to Israel its national unity on Palestinian soil: therefore indeed they turned all their powers of negotiation to an endeavor to obtain the assent and cooperation of governments, and today we see the head of the Jewish Zionists, Chaim Weizmann, trying even among the Italians to arouse sympathy for the cause of his political and religious ideals. If we are not mistaken, the reception of his propaganda in Rome must have encountered the indifference of Italian public opinion, plagued by other problems domestically upon which the salvation of the country turns. And it is also known that, despite the twists and turns of diplomacy, there are more or less open oppositions and clashes against Zionist pretensions from many other nations, as well as from irate followers of the synagogue, among whom the new political movement for Palestine has already been a cause of lengthy quarrels. Our readers will not have forgotten how the Roman Pontiff intervened with his august words to remember the rights of Christians over the places of Palestine which were consecrated by the presence of the divine redeemer: and all Catholics must take to heart the protection of the holy places that has always been for their fathers a tradition of faith and honor. Zionism, therefore, gives rise to a conflict of political and religious interests: and we want to explicate the events and their various aspects in order to administer to our readers, who have requested this, the necessary arguments to form a dispassionate judgment. I. The Zionist idea is not new: It is easy to recall the names of many pseudo prophets who, sustaining here and there the old messianic hope with the name of Jerusalem, attempted to agitate in the depths of the ghetto where the Jews crowded who were despised by all the nations. Also a Huguenot, Isaac La Peyrère, probably of Jewish origin, wrote in the 1600s about the return of the Jews and pleaded with Louis XIII to liberate, like a modern day Cyrus, the tribes of Israel from slavery and rebuild the temple of the Lord. In the past century, when wars of independence of the various peoples of Europe exalted the idea of nationalism in contemporary politics, that idea was also applied in favor of the Jewish people, and in his Nuova Questione d’Oriente [New Question of the Middle East], Ernest Lajaranne, a relative of Napoleon III, proposed the redemption of Palestine from the hands of the Turk, and the establishment of a Jewish government for the territory from Suez to Smyrna, as a guard post for the route to the Indies and a mediator between the East and the West. The same proposal was put forward by Moses Hess, a friend of Karl Marx, published in his Rome and Jerusalem: the same as Moses Montefiore, moreover, who presented Mohammed-Ali, the Viceroy of Egypt, with a program designed to carry into effect the proposal: and from the year 1876 a society was founded to bring Jewish settlers to the banks of the Jordan. Thus far, however, the movement appeared to be limited for the most part to hypotheses and systems of politicians and party leaders. For these aspirations to become popular, it took a man endowed with the magical power of speech, with that strength of persuasion that irresistibly attracts the multitude. Theodor Herzl, born in Budapest of a “Sephardic” family (footnote: The Jews are divided historically into two main groups: the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim. The latter bear the name of Ashkenaz, a descendant of Japheth; the former bear the name of Sepharad, the Biblical name of a region that is believed to be Spain. The Sephardim are still considered to be an aristocratic caste), with a degree in law at Vienna, then working in journalism and writing with the Neue Freie Presse [New Free Press]; from his youth he had been wounded in his pride to see the inferior condition in which the Jew was held, a fact signaling suspicion and aversion in the midst of the Christian nations. Later, in 1881, the prosecutions for the assassination of Czar Alexander II revealed the portion among the Jewish students affiliated with nihilistic sects: based on that, there followed violent repressions by the police, a more severe political and religious regime, especially through the work of Chief Procurator Pobedonostsev, and a stirring up of popular passions against this unpopular lineage, which here and there signaled bloody reprisals and forced them to escape from the universal hostility and wander in misery along the frontiers of eastern Europe or emigrate to the shores of Palestine. In the same years a movement less brutal but no less ardent in antisemitic hatred spread also among the nations of western Europe, especially in France with the Dreyfus case, and in Austria-Hungary with the founding of the Christian Social Party under Lueger and Wieskirchner against the danger of Jewish interference in the orders of the State. This intolerable state of affairs moved Dr. Herzl to disdainful and compassionate reflections, which concentrated upon a practical conclusion: the necessity of returning to the children of Israel a free and independent homeland. This was exactly the thesis he put forth in a writing which later became the code of Zionism: The Jewish State: Proposal for a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question (1896). The book begins by positing the existence of a “Jewish question” which it would be futile to deny: “it arises in every country where Jews attain some importance.” What is it worth, he says, to turn to nations that are not persecuting us? Our appearance there will cause persecution. The Jewish question is neither an economic nor religious issue, although it takes on now one appearance, now another: it is a question of nationality: and to resolve it, we must first of all make it a worldwide question and place the matter before the Great Powers. Persecution has increasingly awakened the strong ethnic character of this nation that is distinguished in the midst of all the others and does not assimilate with them. “The Jews are a unique people”: If this people is given sovereignty over a territory proportionate to its legitimate interests, the Jewish question will be resolved. The territory of Palestine would be most suitable, where the memories of the national tradition reside. A society representing the Israelite people would collect the funds necessary to regulate immigration and implement the administration and the laws of the Jewish community under the form of an aristocratic republic, because, in the opinion of Herzl, ancient theocracy no longer corresponds to modern ideas. “If the Sultan cedes Palestine to us,” he continues, “there would be enough to promise that in short order we would reset the finances of Turkey… We would form a neutral State in continuing contact with a Europe that would guarantee our existence. As for the Holy Places, they would be under a form of extra-territoriality that would accommodate all the interests. We would form the honor guard within the sanctuary and would stand up for our existence with the fulfillment of this duty which would be the pledge of resolving a question that has dragged on for 18 centuries of cruel suffering.” II. This little book caused an extraordinary commotion among all, but in the ghettos of Russia, Poland, Finland, Romania, it aroused a real delirium. The “mirage” of Jerusalem, the hope of seeing Zion again and the rebuilding of the temple, gave rise to enthusiasm in those wretched hordes at the mercy of the terrors of the “pogroms” that were spreading destruction and death: it was salvation, liberty, reconquest of the homeland. Theodor Herzl was the idol of those multitudes, who saw him as a prophet, a commander who would take care of oppression and slavery by leading them to the land of their fathers. The power of the impulse with which he gave new life to the Zionism of their ancestors, of the “Friends of Zion,” of the “Children of Zion” and other similar societies, derived from the audacity with which he, instead of a timid action, hidden and disguised behind the veil of private philanthropy, affirmed openly a political program, nationalistic, imposed on the public debate and the competition of public powers. And because of the manifest nationalistic character of his work, his first concern was to convene a worldwide Zionist congress, pan-Judaic, from which his mission and his program would receive authenticity and legitimacy. The venue of the congress was Basel, where for the first time after so many centuries, the people of Israel saw the dispersed tribes meeting, with representatives from all points of the globe. Zionism was no longer just an internal matter of Jewish life, but entered into the ambit of international life. Above the building of the congress, from August 24 to 28, 1897, waved a Zionist flag: on a white background, two bands of turquoise that frame two overlapping triangles forming a six-pointed star. From that time onward, Judah had its assembly every year, its week-long parliament. At the one in 1901 there were 200 delegates, coming from Manchuria, from Siberia, from America, from Lake Chad, from southern Africa, from Egypt, and from all the countries of Europe. The voice that dominated those congresses was naturally that of Herzl, hailed as the “prince of the exile.” Elected president of the permanent committee for action, he immediately put himself to work on what was entrusted to him by the body, to “create for the Jewish people a protected refuge guaranteed under international law.” And because he knew that in the business world, everything is assessed by its value in cash, the first step he took was the establishment of a Jewish Colonial Bank, which was to be the indispensable financial instrument for Zionist activity. Thus, with the practical intuition that is traditional among his people, he resolved to make his case to the German Kaiser and win him over to the Zionist cause. Kaiser Wilhelm II had recently taken over the reins of the Empire, following the dismissal of Bismarck, and was keenly occupied with solving the problems that were agitating the Empire. He undertook then a trip to the Holy Land (1898): Dr. Herzl found a way to meet with him near the gates of Jerusalem. The residents of the Jewish Quarter had erected a triumphal arch with the legend, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” in German and in Hebrew: two old rabbis, wrapped in ritual cloaks, carried the heavy tablets of the law, and Jewish school children sang hymns to the Emperor about the Messiah. Dr. Herzl, as chairman of the action committee, directed a greeting to the imperial pilgrim, asking him, in the name of the friendship that ran along with the Sultan, of wanting to second with his patronage the actualization of the Zionist idea: and the German gentleman showed his agreement and assented, surely seeing an opportunity to extend German influence in the Middle East. III. But the hopes and enthusiasms did not last long. When the Zionist committee turned to Sultan Abdul-Hamid, there were many words and great courtesies, but the price demanded was even greater: 50 million Francs: the Colonial Bank had only collected five, donated by the little people. The rich Jews, the millionaires of Jewish finance, had only given a mite; the bankers Hirsch, Rothschild, had rejected Herzl’s idea as utopian. For the greater part of the merchants and usurers, the restoration of Jewish life, of Talmudic traditions, of the glory of Zion, left them indifferent: they had accepted the country where they had found prosperity, and if they had a concern, it was to conceal the traces of their origin. The Zionist movement could harm the smooth running of business by provoking antisemitism: thus it was annoying. It is indeed a rather curious thing to see Zionism opposed by the first among the masters of Israel, such as the Chief Rabbi of Vienna, Güdemann, and the one in London, Adler: The union of German rabbis deemed it necessary to publish a protest, accusing Zionism of being in opposition to the Messianic promises: the Conference of American Rabbis explained their refusal instead by the ample liberty they enjoyed, which could not be greater even in the purported Jewish State to be created. In essence, the pride of the well-fed rabbinate of the rich centers of European countries rebelled against the fanaticism of a man unknown to the synagogue, who was lifting the crowds of the eastern ghettos. The damage would have been minimal if Theodor Herzl had succeeded in laying a foundation with his diplomatic negotiations: but Wilhelm II, after the initial courtesies, dissuaded perhaps by other councilors, showed no more sign of sympathy. Then, with the Sultan, in addition to the difficulty of the price, there was a greater difficulty of legal guarantees to be established for the possession of territories conceded to the new State. Things took a long time, but it quickly became clear that the Turks did not intend to cede any of their sovereignty: and after a thousand verbal twists and turns, the concessions were reduced to this: that with the payment of two million pounds sterling, the Jews could acquire the right to found colonies distributed in various parts of the empire other than Palestine, but without any legal links among them. It was the reversal of Zionist aspirations. Herzl’s entire work was in danger of falling apart. He tried to sustain strong support at least for the purpose of an independent State, even outside Palestine: and he was inclined to accept territories in Uganda offered by England. When he made this proposal to the sixth congress (1903), the more ardent Zionists, seeing themselves confined to a savage land on the African continent, after such hopes of a country, indulged in a scene of tragic despair. To restore calm to the agitated assembly, Herzl closed off the discussion by repeating, with raised hand, the solemn formula of the oath: “If I should renounce you, O Jerusalem,” which are the words of Psalm 136 (footnote: Si oblitus fuero tui, Jerusalem, oblivion detur dextera mea, etc., Ps. 136: 5 [“If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill …”]. After the death of Herzl, the question of Uganda was taken up again by Max Nordau, one of the Zionist leaders who succeeded upon his death: but England revoked the offer. Another Zionist, Zangwill, founded the Jewish Territorial Organization with the intent to accept whatever region for the new State: Cyprus was talked about, and Argentina, and Tripoli: the war interrupted all this.) Turning then to seek a way to bring back his co-religionists to Palestine, which alone represented the religious ideal that could sustain a national movement among a proletariat who were tenaciously conservative of their traditions. And to resume diplomatic negotiations, he undertook a trip to Italy, where in Rome, wanting to overcome the distrust he suspected in the opinions of Catholics toward Zionist agitation, he turned to the Vatican, asking to be granted an audience with the Supreme Pontiff, who was then Pius X, having just succeeded Leo XIII. The audience was naturally granted with no other significance than a common act of courtesy to all visitors. He could have greater hopes in the support of Russia, which would have favored Zionism to get rid of those unwanted guests who infested its southern provinces and were the cause of continual troubles: and he negotiated at St. Petersburg with Minister Plehve, requesting support to obtain optimal terms from Turkey, when he died on July 3, 1904. IV. It might be thought that with the passing of Herzl the entire machinery that he had architected with great difficulty would be ruined: but this was not the case. The nostalgia for Palestine had by now taken control of the proletarian crowds of the synagogue: but disheartened by the bitter disappointments of Herzl’s political initiatives, which had sought to realize the kingdom of David in international public law, the Zionists, following old advice, returned to the system of private immigration already initiated by Rothschild, adopting a course to succeed silently and securely by the usual artifices of which the traditions of this race have made them masters. Expert emissaries had the means to purchase large properties in the country. Setting foot at a point that was convenient to the ends, waiting for the propitious occasion, for example, a year of drought or bad weather, when the crops failed, so that the Arabs did not have much to pay: they offered a loan then against a mortgage of 200 per cent on the territory of an entire village, which in Palestine is an indivisible property: and at the end of the year the Arabs, insolvent, were obliged to cede all at that price. Entire villages were expropriated in this manner in short order, under the umbrella of the Alliance Israelite, with the support of the “English Palestine Company,” and then again with subsidies from the JCA or Jewish Colonial Association founded by Hirsch, which had a fund, it is said, of 250 million. According to the information of the Bulletin of the Italian Geographic Society, already before the war a third of Palestine was in Jewish hands, especially in the districts of Jaffa, Tiberius, and the area surrounding Jerusalem. Certainly the new immigrants, unable or ill prepared to work the unfamiliar land, did not always receive enough yield to derive sustenance so as not to perish in misery. But they learned from experience. Thus there was a shrewdly expanding economic penetration via these events. And the events were not slow to occur. When the great war ... Of these promises the first official document was the letter that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain sent to Lord Walter Lionel Rothschild, vice president of the Zionist Federation of England. The Allied troops were about to begin a march of invasion of Judea from the south. The British came and joined an Italian contingent. On October 31st they occupied Bir es Seba, the former Beersheba, and prepared to assault Gaza, which they took on 7 Nov. 1917; on the 17th the Allies were in Jaffa: twenty days later they entered Jerusalem. On the eve of these events, the 2nd of November, Balfour wrote these words: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of the object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious’ rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, (signed) Arthur James Balfour V. France and Italy subscribed to this English declaration. The League of Nations, noted for its Israelite affinity, took haste to confide to Great Britain the mandate over Palestine. Among the articles of this mandate, no. 2 provides: “The mandatory power shall organize in the country a political, administrative and economic government that will make possible the establishment of a national Jewish center (home), and develop for it autonomous governing institutions.” No. 6 provides that: “The administration of Palestine, shall be vigilant to respect the rights of all, shall Jewish immigration … Jewish settlement in the lands of the State and those senza coltura.” As the first commissioner of the British Government in Palestine, a Jewish Englishman, Sir Herbert Samuel, was appointed. There was no greater occasion for the Israelite world to go wild with joy, seeing their golden dream come true and already sensing the rule of the universe in their grasp. The Univers Israélite had the courtesy to explain, however, that “the universal rule of the Jews will not be oppression or exploitation of the gentiles for the profit of the Israelites: indeed the mission of Israel is that of making humanity happy, and it is for that reason they are given the rule of the world.” A moving mission for which the world should certainly be grateful. But that concerns the future. As for the present, to take advantage of the favorable dispositions of the Powers, there quickly spread among the Jewish proletariat a new ferment for the most active emigration toward Palestine. In Jerusalem up to the 17th century there were barely 100 Jewish families: at the rise of Zionism there were more than 15,000 Jews in the Holy City: in 1900, it already contained 30,000. After the events of the war, they did not cease to rush in, to spread out through the region, to regroup everywhere more strongly. The preparation of housing, the purchases of land, and the provision of subsidies is assured by the Committee. In addition to Jerusalem, where there are today reported numbers of already 60,000, out of 85,000 residents, there is the colony of Safed, north of the Sea of Galilee, which contained already by the outbreak of the war 25,000, of a population of 40,000. Also Tiberius and Jaffa are two centers of great affluence and activity for the Jewish community: in the latter, especially, a school of agriculture was just opened, which is very useful for immigrants, for whom there were already established primary schools and technical instruction. Then the most special care is devoted by the Zionist Committee to the revival of the Hebrew language, abolishing the Yiddish dialect mixing Aramaic and Germanic, which the German influence had introduced: and already before the last war, much favor had been aroused for the strictly Hebrew school established in the settlement of Rehoboth. (footnote: It is noted that at the Peace Conference, a Zionist delegate, Menachem Ussichkine, was admitted and gave a speech in Hebrew. For several years among the Russian Jews, there was an awakening of study of the national language and it seems there were meetings in that language. In France, a Jewish youth admitted to the exams for the Central School a year ago, had permission from the Ministry to present his work in the Hebrew language.) Of greater importance will be an institute of Hebrew culture, a University for which the first twelve stones were laid in July 1918 on Mt. Scopus, on the north side of Jerusalem, one stone for each of the ancient tribes of Israel, so that from this intellectual center the word that is already master of the world goes out. While the university is going up, however, the Committee decided to expand the smaller schools in the midst of the populations of the new settlements, under the auspices of the diplomatic conventions adopted by the governments of the Entente nations: and that is how we heard Weizmann, at the conference in Rome, affirm in a somewhat Oriental phrase that “already as of now in Jewish Palestine the children know how to cry and how to play in Hebrew.” How marvelous are these little ones! But the Jewish babies are not capable of these things. VI. To sustain all this movement, an appeal was made to the whole Zionist community, and their contribution was continually increasing with the hope of the coming national restoration. This we know from Les Archives Israélites, that, while in 1919 the Zionist administration collected the sum of 5,552,000 Francs, in 1920 it received 9,567,000 Francs collected from 45 States, among which the foremost was naturally the United States of America. Italy participated only in the amount of 92,000 Francs; but the Republic of Argentina contributed 918,000 Francs and Mesopotamia 621,000: a tangible indication of the number of Jews to whom the aforesaid propaganda had been communicated in these regions, for whom there was no hope of entering Palestine themselves. A striking peculiarity in the midst of this economic accounting was the announcement made in American newspapers of the founding of a Society in Boston to raise funds for the rebuilding of the temple in the Holy City to become once again the center of worship as the metropolis of the nation. We do not know any other news about the society, and probably the erecting of the temple will have been judged to be somewhat premature, but the problem is unavoidable, and it certainly stirs in secret every Zionist soul, in which the thought of the restoration of the kingdom of David cannot advance separately from the glorious memories of the temple of Solomon. It seems that the threat of evangelical prophecy casts a fearful shadow over those glories, and in spite of this, the Jew does not dare raise his voice against the voice of Christ, nor extend his hand to disturb the ruins fallen under the blow of the divine condemnation. What would the rest of the temple if God does not come down more to live there? What would be served, moreover, by rebuilding the temple if God does not come down to dwell in it? Instead of the temple, Israel is perhaps content with a hall for parliament: and the vote already promulgated a decade ago by the Jewish World for the constitution of an International Jewish Assembly, appears to be on the way to actualization in the near-term future, since the English High Commissioner of Palestine, as announced by Les Archives Israélites, had already called, in March 1921, a Grand Council of seventy rabbis – the traditional number – and thirty-five laymen, to constitute a Grand Sanhedrin to which would be entrusted the Jewish religious organization in the Holy Land. The Grand Council established, among other things, the institution of an appellate tribunal presided over by two rabbis representing the Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities and composed of eight Jews to handle cases that concern religious law. Such are the first steps, the first tests, with which the Zionists came to organize the establishment of the Jewish State which should give their people political and national unity. These invasions and these intentions collide with and offend other people and other rights that we will discuss in another edition. Source: Civiltà Cattolica, May 20, 1922, vol. 2, pp. 299-312. June 3, 1922 Nuncio Pacelli’s June 3, 1922 letter to Ritter zu Groenesteyn: ... With yearning I await instructions from there [Rome], to which I attribute the greatest importance, because they must serve as my guidelines for everything further [in the Concordat negotiations]. I have also gained the impression from various symptoms that in Rome the difficulties are not sufficiently recognized, though I have not failed always and ever again to direct attention to them. That comes apparently from the well-known good reputation that “Catholic Bavaria” enjoys in Rome. In any event I consider it fortunate that His Eminence [Cardinal Faulhaber] sojourned in the Eternal City precisely in these decisive days and could have an enlightening impact. I am allowing myself, moreover, no illusions about the future: We are not yet at the end, as they appear to believe there. All the more, however, I am working for the great and far-reaching work, which shall also be a model for other German states ... Source: Bavarian Main State Archive, Nachlass Ritter, folder no. 63. June 11, 1922 Pacelli to Gasparri, re: Negotiations for the Bavarian Concordat Most Reverend Eminence, Yesterday afternoon your venerable Dispatch No. 4443 of June 1st reached me, in which Your Most Reverend Eminence deigned to inform me of the decision taken by the Eminent Fathers of the Sacred Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs and confirmed by His Holiness, concerning the requests forwarded by Education Minister Dr. Matt. While heartily thanking Your Eminence for this important communiqué, may I be allowed to request respectfully Your further instructions on the following matters: (1) As a result of the letter from the aforementioned Minister dated March 30th, transmitted by me in my dutiful Report No. 23740, Dr. Matt now expects that I will transmit a new Concordat proposal in the name of the Holy See, and he has repeated this to me verbally in recent days, adding that it will be necessary for further negotiations to have before his eyes the entire text of this proposal... (2) If the Government insists on major concessions concerning the provisions for filling Archbishoprics and Bishoprics, would the added proposal already made by the Most Reverend Bishops be acceptable: “after having consulted the local Ordinary”? ... (4)(b) These rights of patronage (and of presentation) are today made purely and simply to cease by the norms of canon law. It is predictable that such an affirmation (indeed, in my humble opinion, in all exactitude) will probably encounter opposition from the Bavarian State, all the more as the opinion of the permanence of these laws is held also by Catholic canonists, such as, for example, Hollweck (cf. Report No. 13509 of April 3, 1919). The power of the Chapter to “express to the Bishop their proposed votes” is a new matter, in this form. Perhaps the Sacred Congregation wanted to make something of a concession in this manner to the Cathedral Chapters... Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, Vatican Secret Archives, AA.EE.SS., Baviera, 1922-1928, pos. 72, vol. II, fol. 178r-180r, reprinted in www.pacelli-edition.de/Dokument/4151, Document 4151. July 10, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber’s letter to the Bavarian Bishops: ... My recent trip to Rome for the International Eucharistic Congress, at which the German episcopate was notably weakly represented, was occasioned by a particularly urgent invitation at the last hour, and perhaps as it turned out for good reason, because there commenced at the same time (namely Sunday, May 28th) the decisive session of the Roman Cardinals Commission on the draft of the Bavarian Concordat. With every single one of the members of this Commission, I was able to talk before the session and explain to them that even in Bavaria, which they imagined to be a purely Catholic province, the composition of the state parliament and the overall political situation make it impossible to attain a Concordat built solely on the principles of Canon Law without any concessions, so that, to our regret, we cannot hope to put through a Bavarian Concordat that will be a master template for such as Belgium and Poland. In general the recommendations of the Bavarian episcopate, which were already known via the report of the Nunciature, came off as the most practical, while some members of the Commission made no secret that the demands of the cathedral chapters could endanger the whole Concordat... Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 4300, reprinted in Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol.1, p.256. Emma Fattorini (1992), pp. 226-227, describes a major issue that was central to the “overall political situation” in Bavaria to which Faulhaber alluded in his letter. The Vatican wanted the new Concordat to give the Pope sole power to select new Bavarian Bishops, a principle embodied in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Traditionally, Catholic Bishops in Bavaria had been selected by Cathedral Chapters, clerical committees at the local level, with the Pope then appointing or “investing” the new Bishop who had been selected by the Chapter. July 15, 1922 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 3, pp. 116-132: “Zionism According to the Opinions of Non-Jews” Contents: I. Zionism prejudices the rights of the Arab population which has possessed Palestine for so many centuries. - II. England is violating the treaty in which it gave Palestine to the Sheriff of Mecca. - III. The Allies promised the Arabs independence and the option of having their own government. - IV. Zionist abuses and overbearingness against the population in order to found the State of Israel. - V. Arab resentment: appeal to England with adverse results. - VI. Turmoils: protests: threats and dangers for the future. - VII. Union of all the inhabitants of Palestine against Jewish predominance in Palestine. - VIII. A vote in the House of Lords. We described in our preceding article, concisely, the long history of the tenacious forces, political maneuvers, and public agitation with which the Zionists have accomplished in the midst of the world the opportunity to constitute for a second time in Palestine a national center for the dispersed tribes of Israel. These aspirations have found particular favor, as it is said, in England, to which the League of Nations has confided the extension of the articles of the “Mandate” with which Palestine will be governed. The Zionists could not wish for anything better: and in truth they give no thought to hiding the joy of their victory. Palestine is in their hands: and even if some prudent voices seek to moderate the excesses that could too soon betray the future, the facts of today suffice and then some, to provide the measure for knowing what to do tomorrow. Ab ungue leonem. [Latin: From its claw we understand the lion.] But in the midst of Zionist joy there are shadows. We closed with succinct details warning how the occupation of Palestine and the proposal to create a Jewish state were a slap in the face to the rights of other peoples, giving rise to a struggle that threatens to disturb the peace of the Orient and to add another to the many causes of distressing unrest in which the early years of this eventful century have been floundering. We want to inform our readers also about those rights and that struggle for the sake of fairness, so that they know the necessary elements for making a judgment according to truth and justice. I. The struggle was inevitable. It would be rather naive gullibility of the Jews to believe that they could take over Palestine by just reaching out their hand, as if it was something found abandoned on the street: and the Jews are neither naifs nor fools. But accustomed to seeing everything bend their way in the political world and the stock market, they did not think they would have to take account of some nomadic tribes or savages who might oppose their aspirations. And this was a mistake. Savages or not, these people have rights, and if rights are worth anything in the world, they should not be allowed to be trampled even by Jews without a sense of shame. For many centuries the Arabs were established on Palestinian soil and for a long time they were the sovereign rulers; but what is most important, they continued to live there and still live there today as the majority, as among a population of 800,000 souls, eighty percent, that is 640,000, are Arabs, and the Jews, even with the immigration of recent years, are only about 80,000, same as the Christians of various denominations. Now every land belongs to its inhabitants. When a people, over countless generations, going back to the beginning of its history, lives, works, and develops upon a territory, they certainly have the right to be considered as the legitimate possessor. That is the condition of the Arabs in Syria and in Palestine. The Zionists, trampling on this state of affairs which no one contested until just yesterday, today arrogantly invade the country, which is the home of the Arabs, to plant their home by expelling the peaceful former inhabitants. Their official representative, Chaim Weizmann, made a tour of Europe - and we heard him in Rome - repeating the word of the day: Palestine for the Jews like America for the Americans! But the Americans are in their own home, while the Jews are going into someone else’s home. With what right? They cannot give any other foundation for their strange pretensions than the memory of a past that is buried in the ruins of the centuries. If it is true that God one day gave that land to their people; and it is easy to understand the instinctive passion with which the eyes of Israel are turning from countries of the dispersion to the shores of that land which was once the cradle of their greatness: but the poetry of sentiment in the record of a glorious past does not constitute a present right: and when crowds obsessed by the suggestions of Theodor Herzl and his cronies in the Congresses of Basil raved frantically, calling for the possession of the land of their fathers, those poor people forgot that over the course of more than eighteen centuries their fathers, struck by the divine malediction, or, if that is not pleasing, then subjected to a hand stronger than they, were expelled and scattered over the whole earth. So many events have occurred since then in the history of peoples! Who could ever imagine claiming title of right to a house he owned in former times, without taking account of the facts that have given rise to new rights in the subsequent inhabitants? A striking response in this regard was given by an Arab (and we have it from one who was there) to one of the Zionist leaders who recently, in a certain village not far from Jerusalem, was calling for the return of Palestine to the Jews who had conquered it and made their civilization flower there. Turning to declaim: “We, let’s say, will give back Palestine to you when they have been made to return Spain to us.” And he spoke well, for Spain still has traces of Arab rule that are far more notable than Palestine has of Jewish rule. The witty reply closed the mouth of the Jew, who turned away. II. That the idea of occupying Palestine without any regard to the rights of others or the offense given others arose in the minds of Jews is not surprising, indeed the opposite would be surprising. But that England has embraced such an idea and made it its own, this should not only surprise but stupefy, especially if one considers the circumstances in which such Anglo-Jewish connivance was cemented. In truth, who obligated Great Britain to assume a commitment to give form to the utopias of the Zionists and to promise them Palestine, which they certainly would never have had without its support? Palestine was perhaps English property? By what right did they possess it? Perhaps by military occupation during the war? But the belligerent forces included Italy and France as well as Great Britain. And then perhaps Palestine was a land of conquest for the Allies? Here is the most serious ground of reproach against that Power. It is proven by documents from these war years that beginning in July 1915 negotiations were opened to break the Arabs away from the Turks: Sheriff Hussein, who was in command at Mecca, insisted on the condition of the recognition of the independence of the Arabs in all the countries, from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf; and in October of the same year the English representative in Egypt, Sir McMahon, replied categorically: “I am authorized to give you, in the name of the government, complete assurance that Great Britain will recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all territories within the limits indicated by the Sheriff.” With these agreements the alliance was concluded. It is easy to understand how helpful this arrangement of matters was to the victories of the Allies in the Middle East. Even before the opening of armed conflict, the hostility of the population hindered the operations of the Turkish-German army. General Liman von Sanders complained in writing to General Headquarters of “being caught between two fires, the inhabitants of the country and the enemy armies: the whole country is against us.” Thousands of Arab deserters then served the cause of the Allies when in June 1916 the Sheriff declared war and placed his soldiers under the command of his sons, one of whom, Emir Feisal, had escaped from the hands of the Turks to join the Allies. So already in 1915, that is two years before the Balfour Declaration – November 1917 – England had signed a contract with the head of the Arabs under which he was obligated to make war on the Turks, and it recognized the independence of the Arabs in their entire region, including Palestine. Sheriff Hussein, proclaimed King of Hedjaz, faithfully kept his word. How did England keep its word? While the Arabs had exposed their land and their goods to the dangers of war, while they had taken up arms and were fighting alongside the Allies in the hope of winning the freedom of their country, here comes news from London that their country is instead given to the Jews who will establish their “national home” there, and this precisely under the protection of Great Britian which had accepted the agreement of October 1915 with the Sheriff of Mecca! Who can imagine the dismay in the souls of that entire population who felt they were made fools, and in place of their longed-for freedom saw themselves passed from the yoke of the Turk to the despised and odious tyranny of the Jew. It was such an unexpected and greatly stunning blow that many did not want to believe in the possibility of such a traitorous betrayal. But they surely had to believe it when they saw the Zionist Commission arrive and after it began the rush of Jews from all parts of the world to grab a place in a poor Palestine put up for auction. Then began that immigration and that land grabbing of which we spoke last time, by which the Zionists intended in short order to change the proportions of the nationality of the inhabitants and the rules of land ownership, in order to attain a majority in the country and dispose of its fate according to the requirements of the utility and development of the Jewish people. If the Arabs did not like this, big deal: like it or not, repeated Weizmann, Palestine must be Jewish: no human power can prevent that fact. This was said clearly. III. Aggravating even worse this state of things was the institution of the “Mandate,” the hypocrisy of new terms to mask the same old solutions to all wars: the annexation of a greater or lesser extent of conquered territories. We do not discuss whether Palestine deserved to be subjected to such treatment. Turkey was conquered, not the Arabs who rather had negotiated with the Allies. Palestine should then have been all the more considered as one of the “little nations” which the code of “Fourteen Points” should bring to freedom and independence. And precisely, as if on purpose, in November 1918, shortly before the Armistice, a solemn proclamation in the name of France was repeated in all the villages of Palestine, proclaiming to the population that “the purpose of the Allies in conducting the war in the Middle East was the full and final liberation of the Arabs, and the establishment of governments founded on the authority and on the free election of the people of the country.” The Allies were “very far from wanting to impose a form of government contrary to the will of the people” and only wanted to “provide security with moral and material assistance for the proper development of those governments and of those forms of administration that will be adapted to the people themselves,” putting an end – this was noticed – to “those internal discords which had so long been exploited by the Turkish government.” Golden words, magnanimous propositions, which however were to go up in smoke, not to say in new lies. In April 1919 an American commission was sent to Palestine which made diligent inquiries, questioning delegates in each village to ascertain the preferences of the populations. The response was everywhere one and the same: all declared themselves in favor of independence and in favor of the establishment of national government. It seemed the dawn of a happy day and souls were opened to hope: but what was the result? The report of the commission was suppressed and nothing more was heard. The other Arab regions, that is Syria, Mesopotamia, Hedjaz, Iraq, had the autonomy they desired: Palestine, on the other hand, was kept like a pupil incapable of its own government, and confined under the strictest tutelage of England, that is to say, of the Zionists it had taken under its protection. Now who can explain why the Arabs of neighboring Syria and even those of the shores of the Red Sea were judged to have gifts of intelligence and the social habits required by the League of Nations in order to be independent and to stand on their own, and their brothers in Palestine were considered so worthless as to need to be governed by Jews. We give up trying to find the reason why, and perhaps many readers will do the same, since it is too obvious that the reason why the Palestinians were not given freedom like the others is not their imagined inability to know how to govern themselves, but an act of arbitrary despotism by which the Allies sacrificed the weak Arabs in the service of the powerful Jews. So all the proclamations and all the promises and agreements were just glitter to tease the Palestinians and give time for the Jews to complete their plan. It was a deal already done at the outset of the movement: the Zionists would not have talked so lofty and so loud if they had not had a secure pledge in hand that the power of England would support them in the enterprise of the new kingdom of Judah. The Arabs were condemned to either servitude or exile: and the audacious were not ashamed to shout provocatively from the rooftops. The Zionist Palestine Week of July 30, 1920 printed in the light of day: “The Jewish nation has resolved its own national regeneration in its former fatherland. As for the Arab nation, there are other lands outside Palestine where they can develop their activity.” That newspaper only kept repeating the extremes dictated by the gang leaders, such as Dr. Eder, president of the Zionist Executive Committee, who wrote, in a report on the troubles of last May: “In Palestine there can only be one national center and it must be the Jewish national center … because no equality of treatment can be given between Jews and Arabs. It is necessary that the Jews dominate as soon as they have reached a sufficient number.” Even more cynical language was used by Zangwill, another satrap of Zionism, before a meeting of friends of the party in London. He warned that “all conquests involved the shedding of blood: No empire has ever succeeded without blemishes”: so it was not surprising if there were some bashed heads also in Palestine. If there was a Mandate for Palestine, it was for the advantage of the Jews, and “the High Commissioner should order his power for the sole purpose of establishing the Jewish homeland. The existence of the Arabs was an obstacle: if the Mandate does not order to drive them out, it still does not require help for them to remain in place, as if I was promised a property for building a house and a tribe of gypsies had the right to erect its tents, I could tolerate the tents but I would not be obligated to build their kitchens or teach them hygiene to prolong their lives” and going on in this sardonic tone, which elicited laughter and laughing applause from the Zionists, but will undoubtedly arouse the indignation of all the honest. In the “Mandate” for Palestine it is repeated abundantly that the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants will be “strictly respected.” The reader has seen from what has been said thus far how the Allies – and England, in their name – have practiced respect for those rights, at least on the part of the civil side. IV. The Zionists did not lose any time in the midst of realizing their dream of a kingdom and affirming their domination over the country. We said in our previous article that England designated a Jew as High Commissioner to govern Palestine, a fervent proponent of Zionism, Herbert Samuel. We will let every dispassionate man judge the opportuneness of this choice, which sent, to govern a country in the throes of the most acute irritation against hated invaders, a man who professed to be their partisan: but it seems a rather naïve reflection put forward by Churchill, Secretary for the Colonies, that Samuel “would not be suspected by his co-religionists of having made judgments against them.” And what a statement! But would he not have to judge against them all the time if he wanted to do justice? And what would the Arabs have thought when he judged in favor? Of course, that position, given in relation to the Balfour Declaration, was as good as a full dedication of authority to the mercy of that sect, which expected nothing other than to rack up everything. To the post of legal secretary (which took the place of a minister of justice) a Zionist was appointed: to a Zionist was given the post of Director of Commerce and Industry, to another that of head of immigration, a post of maximum importance, as is easy to understand under the circumstances of the moment. Everywhere, in all the public offices, the Zionists occupied positions in numbers exceeding their proportion to the indigenous population. The use of the Hebrew language, admitted by governmental disposition as the official language, naturally excludes non-Jews from all those public services that require knowledge of it, and the Arabs found that closed the door for them to each job, for example, in the postal, telegraph and telephone offices. In every way, in every occupation, the competition from the Jewish workers combined with Zionist immigration inevitably removed each post from the indigenous, who, while seeing nearly every day the best ones monopolized and exploited by foreigners, experienced every day also the inflation as to necessities of life as a result of the same immigration, experienced increases in taxes and the state of discomfort following the war which he had hoped would bring prosperity to his nation. And as if this was not enough, he soon saw the Zionists not only supplant him in everything where a profit was to be made, but also damage the fruit of his own work. So last year, for example, the abundant harvest of wheat and millet (footnote: that is common sorgum, whose seed is used for food) would give a fair profit to the farmer, if according to custom it was possible to send it to the market place in good time. But he was truly not to be permitted. The Zionist government, to assure the supply of immigrants, prohibited the exportation of wheat in spite of general protests, and the prohibition was only removed when Sudan’s harvest was already on the market and the prices were so low as to lose all profit. The year before, another event even more serious showed the arrogance with which these sectarians treat the country and its inhabitants. An agreement was obtained from England to provide farmers with loans to restore agriculture ruined during the war. Now the Zionist Commission made every effort because these loans were revoked, and obtained it. Then the financial advisor to the English government, out of loyalty of spirit, went to London to show the harm the revocation had done and to re-establish the order of the loans. But he was forced to return to Palestine “for political reasons.” So everything had to yield before the arrogance of these nefarious tyrants descended from all the gangs of Europe. The Arab, a proud and reflective spirit, remembered the pacts and promises of a few months earlier and began to take account of what was happening around him. So this was the fulfillment of what he had been told: Palestine for the Jews! A really nice change was done to him by escaping the old and feeble hand of Turkey to come under the iron fist of the Zionists. At least then he was governed by their own deputies to Parliament at Constantinople. Turkey was only represented in the midst of the Arab people by a single official, the Wali or the Mutessarif and he, more often than not was himself Arab, as Arabs also were members of the Council, all elected by the indigenous people. Indigenous persons were likewise the judges and assessors of the tribunals: every Palestinian could aspire to any office in the judiciary. They had schools too for them, for all civil studies, and their diplomas opened the way to all jobs in the country. Today he is in a situation deprived of everything. The country is no longer his. The head of the Palestine government, the representative of Zionism, the High Commissioner put in place by England, is called the “prince of Israel”; the postage stamps of Palestine bear the inscription “Eretz Israel, Land of Israel.” What remains for the Arab? V. The Palestinians, treated with such impertinence and despotism, thought they at least had the right to object and appeal, arguing their own case. It was the least they could request: and to give greater weight to their arguments a congress of notables was assembled, the elders of the nation, in other words men of great account, according to the tradition of the country. One such congress – there were three (footnote: The first was held in Jerusalem in 1918: the second was announced but then blocked by the government solely on a partisan pretext. The third was in Haifa in 1920: the fourth next year again in Jerusalem.) – gathered in Haifa, convened with eighty delegates elected from all of Palestine. The result of the discussions was compiled in a memorandum in which, exposing the causes of the disputes, it was concluded: “For all these reasons we demand in the name of justice and right: 1st, that the principle of a national center for the Jews be discarded; 2nd, that a national government be constituted which is responsive to a parliament elected by the Palestinians who inhabited Palestine before the war; 3rd, that Jewish immigration be suspended until the time when the national government is constituted; 4th, apply the laws and decrees that were in effect before the war and cancel all those issued since the British occupation and do not promulgate new laws until the future national government is constituted; 5th, unite Palestine with its sister, Syria.” The protest was the word of free men, representatives of a nation, one of those “little nations” whose defense and protection was one of the points for which the war was fought. They knew to turn to England which had agreements with the Arabs, and they believed they had the right to courtesy from its minister. Mr. Churchill instead began by refusing to receive them and sending them back to the Commissioner as the representative of the Crown in the country, whom, as a Zionist partisan, they could not tolerate. When he then granted their request and admitted them to his presence, he protested openly that he “could not and did not want to annul the Balfour Declaration and prevent immigration: it was right that the Jews could come together in a national home in Palestine, to which they were tied by three millennia: this will also be a benefit even for the Arab Palestinians.” To these statements, so strange for those present who felt only too well the effects of the Jewish invasion, the minister added some phrases that did not ease the harshness, recalling that “the validity of the promises made to the Jews is just as much as the validity of those made to the Arabs... National home does not mean a Jewish government to rule the Arabs. England, which has more Muslims than any country in the world, is well disposed toward the Arabs and esteems them as friends. You should not have fears for the future: England has promised to give the Zionist movement a chance to show its worth, but it will only succeed on its own merits. These words were quite enigmatic since the showing its worth, for the Zionist movement, consisted in oppressing the Arabs. However, Mr. Churchill showed that he did not quite understand the spirit of his audience when he invited them to admire the progress of the new Jewish settlements where, with millions administered by the Anglo-Jewish Bank, electricity and other modern inventions had been introduced. The Arabs could certainly not enjoy progress that was costing them their freedom. Finally, making an allusion to the memorandum they had presented, he added with crude irony: “You speak as if it were you who had brought down the Turkish Empire: but that is not so; many English lives have been sacrificed for Palestine ... You speak as if you miss the Turkish administration ... And if you liked the Turks so much, why did you rebel against them?” The answer was simple and was expressed by the Carmel, an Arab newspaper in Haifa: The Arabs rebelled against the Turks to have independence, and it was precisely the English who urged them to rebel by the promise of liberty which now they do not want to keep. To devalue thus the cooperation of the Arabs after the victory was neither just nor responsible. VI. No one will be surprised that the Arabs, seeing how resorting to peaceful ways and legal remonstrations served them nothing, would lose their patience and let themselves be dragged into the path of violence. The discontent eventually became irritation and the brazen Zionist provocations easily became occasions for quarrels, commotions, brawls or worse. At the end of April 1920 Jews and Arabs fought in the streets of Jerusalem and a dozen men from one side or the other remained on the ground. The following year on the occasion of the 1st of May, certain demonstrations were carried out by Bolshevik Jews, quite a number of whom had come from the eastern provinces of Europe, who came to blows with other non-Bolshevik Jews making noise in the city: which outraged numbers of Arabs who happened upon them: scenes of bloodshed followed: the city was put into a state of siege and tumult which lasted several days. News of these events spread through the countryside and there excited a ferment of rancor against the foreigners who had come to disturb the country. Arabs attacked Jewish settlements on the plain of Sarona: they plundered houses in Kafr Saba and Ain Hai, whence the inhabitants fled. Another day, it was rumored that the Jews of Kedera, a village between Jaffa and Caesarea, had imprisoned some Moslem workers, a group of Arabs rushed to invade the land and tried to force the place where the inhabitants had barricaded themselves in: but an English airplane suddenly appeared nearby and bombed from high up, wounding and killing many, and dispersing the others. When the serious conflicts in Jaffa of the same month of May 1921 occurred, the English government applied a rigorous censorship to the telegraph service and the press, so that the truth of matters would not leak out to the public and everything would be contained within the prescribed limits of “minor incidents.” But will “incidents” always be left smothered in silence? And is silence the appropriate medicine to heal the plague that gnaws at the souls of the people? Meanwhile it is necessary to augment the military contingents in the face of a continual state of alarm in which the hostility of the parties has divided the inhabitants. The Arabs, so submitted to authority until yesterday, no longer contain their opposition to the government: and if they could, they would express their reasons to the same Secretary for the Colonies who since his first landing at the port of Haifa was greeted with an anti-Jewish mutiny and then going through the villages on the way to Jerusalem heard the gathered people hurl the cry in his face: Down with the Jews! While visiting the Holy City he went onto the site chosen for the erection of the Zionist university, of which we spoke in the preceding article, for an official ceremony of planting a tree, and his speech there contained an augury for the foundation. During the night the tree was uprooted and replaced by a pile of filth. From a report published in the Edinburgh Review, we know that the same Sir Herbert Samuel, in a tour he made recently in the northern part of Palestine, was surrounded by a crowd of malcontents which pressed in close to him menacingly, and he could only be saved by starting to give orders for the stopping of Jewish immigration. In sum, Palestine has lost the security and tranquility of order that it formerly enjoyed. VII. But Palestine has lost, by the stroke of Zionism, something more serious and precious than material order: that of moral order and honesty of tradition. A great number of the foreigners whom Zionist propaganda has summoned back to the country are far from the flower of humanity: they come especially from the lower levels of the ghettoes teeming within their confines in Russia, Poland, Hungary, Romania: and from there with other pestiferous infections has been brought the insanity of the most extreme Bolshevik Communism. Behind those crowds a filthy tribe of nameless females invaded the city and suburbs, spreading vice and depravity throughout. On the authority of the same High Commissioner, in those districts that had for so many centuries the dear name of the Holy Land, whence the shadow of the Divine Redeemer had until now kept them far from prostitution, it began to have a legal hotel with some restrictions, then, by order of February 3, 1921, with full freedom for anyone to open houses of ill repute, in the face of the Sepulchre of Christ, in Jerusalem, or next to his manger in Bethlehem, or in Jaffa, or in Haifa, or in Gaza or in other townships: and the turpitude immediately swept in so shamelessly that in short order the Holy City alone had five hundred of these miserable creatures. Together with vice, its inevitable contagions spread, and according to information we receive from the localities, there are thousands of victims of these shameful diseases that were previously unknown in this country: not to mention the illegitimate births and other vileness that are wont to accompany the dissoluteness of public morals. Against all this filth that dishonors Palestine together with the Arabs, and more, there are protests from the Christian population, which suffers the abuses of power and the oppressions with which the Jews arrogantly tyrannize the country, and much more do they complain of the insult done to their faith by converting the consecrated sanctuary of the life of the Man-God into a refuge of vice and a theater of corruption. In other issues we have already reported the conference held here in Rome by His Excellency the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem concerning the damaging upheaval caused by the Zionist invasion and the deplorable influences that the invasion has exerted upon public morality. How much and how far the ugly truth of the facts as to the lying declamations of religious ascendancy that Israel would be established by the return to the land of their fathers! The truth is that the misconduct and political intrigues of the Zionists are condemned by the same Palestinian Jews who are the most faithful followers of the Mosaic traditions, who always lived in peaceful proximity to the Arabs. That is why they are full of wrath against these pseudo-brothers and their work of arrogance and oppression. Let us think with the reader about what can be expected from such sectarians, by the Catholic portion of the population, with all the works the Church has created and maintained through the centuries in memory of the august mysteries that came to pass on that sacred soil. Until recently, the respect for the ancient rights sanctioned by international treaties was imposed upon that same Turkish government, as well as the universal sympathy surrounding the beneficial activities of the Catholic nations in their institutes of religion, education and charitable works in the holy name of Christ. What will be the fate of those institutes, those activities, those rights, under an empire in which Protestant-Jewish-Bolshevik influence vies, without any guarantees but those inscribed in the Balfour Declaration, of which we know the value? The common danger has already united the Christian and Muslim populations in a defensive league for the rights of their own existence, raising protests in public rallies and, in view of the hostility of Great Britain, taking direct recourse to the Council of the League of Nations, to which the conventions of war have assigned the decisions about the future of this country. (footnote: The Muslims had recourse to the Holy See via Cardinal Giustini when he was in Jerusalem as pontifical legate for the feast of the eight hundredth anniversary of St. Francis of Assisi.) Will the force of law finally have its rightful weight among the rulers of the people, or will it prove true that might always makes right? VIII. It is the opinion of many that England has not adequately weighed the consequences that could result from the cruel step into which it has been led by Zionism. Anyone who knows the Arab knows how, along with his frank generosity of character, he is tenacious in his vendettas. The greater the trust he placed in Great Britain when, embracing its cause, he had hoped from it political independence, the deeper will endure in him the rancor over the deception he suffered. The wrong he received in Palestine has repercussions from the Taurus Mountains to the Cape Ras el Hadd among all those tribes linked by bonds of race that line the seas on the way to India. It should stand close to the heart of Great Britain to avoid having enemies along that way: the methods used by them, however, in their conduct toward the inhabitants of Palestine, are not optimal for success. Among the politicians of that nation are those who do not fail to hear: and to seek more effective means for a remedy, a large meeting was held last May in London at the instance of the National Political League, with the involvement of a large number of members of the two chambers of parliament and other personages. At it, after having observed that it is not possible to allow the current form of the government of Palestine to continue without danger to order and peace in the country and without shame to the name of Britain in the Middle East, the assembly chose by unanimous vote to present to the Prime Minister a resolution requesting the abolition of the Zionist Commission, the concession of an autonomous government for the Palestinians and a parliamentary vote whether to approve the Mandate. This National League wanted to show its favor to the justice of their cause by holding a banquet in honor of the Arab delegation sent to England to present its memorandum to the government and to request an impartial inquest into the state of matters in their country. Also on this occasion Member of Parliament Joynson-Hicks, who presided over the meeting, recognized the rights of the Palestinians, denouncing the Balfour Declaration as a “mystery of modern politics,” and concluded by exclaiming sadly: “The violation of our word of honor in Palestine would bring even worse than in Ireland!” It is certain that the state of more or less open agitation and hostility that has been reigning in the region has forced England up to now to maintain a strong garrison of occupation, to be prepared for any possible eventuality, which is costing it no less than 60 or 70 million per year. Neither is it to be hoped that such a state of agitation will cease, if the current state of violence and oppression does not cease, and if the Arabs are not given the essential guarantees of their freedom and independence. Thus the advantage of the English public Treasury accords fully with the interests of the Palestinian people founded on fidelity to treaties and principles of the strictest justice. A resolution of the House of Lords came in these days to recognize faithfully the principles of these treaties, approving by 60 votes to 29 a motion by Lord Islington, in which it was stated, “the Mandate for Palestine in the present form is unacceptable, because it is directly in violation of the promise made by the government to the Palestinian people and is opposed to the sentiments and desires of the majority of the English people”: and it proposed that it not be accepted by the Council of the League of Nations unless changes were made in accordance with the contractual obligations of the government. Finally, with superior authority, intervening in defense of the population that has sought its protection, the Holy See sent a letter on June 28 to the League of Nations protesting against the granting of economic, administrative and political predominance to the Jews over the other nationalities of Palestine and calling for guarantees of security for the Catholic interests that the new Mandate threw into play among warring passions. July 19, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Jewish Question in Poland” As soon as one crosses the Polish border, one is immediately struck by the presence of a great number of men who are distinguished from all others by their long black coat, which extends to the feet, by their long hair and large beard, and especially by their repellent filthiness: these are the Jews… Poland was called the “Paradise of the Jews” because of the great hospitality that these people, dispersed and persecuted in many other countries of southern Europe, have always found from the generous spirit of the Poles ... But in the last decades of the past century, a new emigration of Jews began into Poland. Hundreds of thousands of Jews, expelled from Russia, found a refuge in Polish territory under the protection of the Russian Government itself, which was interested in dividing the population of Poland in order to rule it more easily, seeking to use every means to embitter the relations between the Jews and the Poles and thus create an insurmountable barrier between the one and the other. From this period, the nationalistic evolution of the Jews of Poland began. They stopped considering themselves Poles, becoming foreigners instead, assuming an attitude of open and combative hostility toward Poland and desiring to achieve the formation of a State with the State... Also, socialism and communism count a great number of ardent supporters among the Jews of Poland; these constitute an extremely grave danger to the young nation which is permanently menaced by Bolshevik invasion at its eastern frontier. One need only recall their betrayal during the advance of the Bolsheviks to the gates of Warsaw in the summer of 1920 and their battalions of volunteers alongside the invaders and their collaboration in the establishment of Soviet councils in the cities and lands occupied by the Bolsheviks. The Zionist Party is well organized in Poland and largely supported and financed by international Zionism. It brings together Jews of all categories and is represented by four deputies in the Parliament... Its program is not only the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine, but the national transformation of Poland into a colony of Palestine... July 29, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Zionism and Palestine” Achille Loria [a prominent Italian professor of political economy] has published in Echi e Commenti an article in which he purports to distinguish what is true from what is utopian in Zionism. His writing is so precise and incisive that, even though it contains opinions and comments with which, if we are allowed to penetrate to the heart of a policy question, we must sometimes disagree; but it is nevertheless inspired by such an objectivity that even opposing opinions must squarely cope with it. And we say this because those who have followed our articles on Palestine and Zionism and our own controversy with the Israel will have noticed how we came to this conclusion: namely, that Zionism has compromised the Jewish question itself, as “firebrands” often do for any cause, however just; thus its adversaries are found not only in other religious circles, but among the more prudent Israelites themselves; at the end of the day Zionism cannot wrap itself in invulnerability, under a hauberk of peaceful Jewish aspirations respectful of the rights and traditions of the other Palestinian races. In fact Loria, in a short historical summary of these Jewish aspirations, concludes that they are realized in a “Jewish settlement of Palestine” not “meant just for the renaissance of the destination country, but rather also for the peace and serenity of the countries of origin, freeing them of a population that is groaning, restless and subjected to the repugnant spectacle of barbaric persecution.” This is an endeavor, Loria believes, against which there could be no possible objection whatsoever. “But the trouble,” he continues, “is that the great part of its proponents do not stop a that, and are not satisfied with an economic Zionism, but rather mean to establish a real political Zionism of their own. That is to say, they yearn for the re-establishment of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, formed not only out of the detritus of the European persecution, but also intended to gather, on a later day, all of Israel scattered in the world. Indeed, as these organizers think, when the Jews emigrating from Europe have reached a critical number, they will conceive the legitimate desire to establish themselves as an independent nation and their numbers alone will make it possible to actualize such a program. So it will be possible then to resurrect the ancient Kingdom of Zion, to which all the Jews of the earth will then not fail to rush. However, this second and more ambitious part of the Zionist program is one that we are not inclined at all to approve, because to us it appears permeated with a double error, political and psychological. First and foremost indeed, this program manifests a belief that nations and states are essentially voluntary creations, which can be established by an arbitrary act, according to the attitude or inclination of a given number of interested parties. Now nothing could be more erroneous. Political aggregations, far from being arbitrary creations, are natural formations that are created independently of human will, by the silent ongoing action of irresistible social factors. There is not a single example of states emerging solely from ideas that become concretized as facts, and those states created by Plato and by Dr. Herzl are not descending from a literary Olympus as concrete realities. So to believe that some fine day the immigrant Jews will be able to erect the new Kingdom of Israel is the most illusory utopia.” And to the political and psychological errors one can add the obvious practical absurdity. And in fact, according to Loria, “it is absurd to think that the new Kingdom of Israel might have the power to draw to its bosom the Jews of Western Europe, or of America, or generally of any of the countries not dishonored by persecutions. The Jews of these countries, in fact, feel quite other, citizens of countries where they have been settled for a long time, to the progress of which they have consecrated the flower of their energy and their thoughts, which they have defended at the cost of their blood against foreign aggression and against their co-religionists from among other peoples, toward whom they do not feel a common bond of ideals and sacrifices comparable to what a Catholic in France can feel toward one in Bavaria. Now these Jews, so rooted in their homelands, will refuse to their last breath to be part of the new Zionist State, which therefore will not be able to recruit from the detritus of Eastern Europe. Thus it will always be a rather mutilated Zionism, a kind of Kingdom of Judah, but all events rendered so insignificant that it will not be able to create an element of discomfort to the Israelites of the West, who will often be, however unfairly, implicated in direct or indirect responsibility for conduct of the new state, and for whom their presumed solidarity with the state will erode the confidence and intimacy they had with their own true compatriots.” Neither can the presence of the Holy Places be overlooked with respect to the difficulty of the Zionist State as a source of conflicts and profound tensions, such that the intervention of interested Nations will not be able to weigh heavily on the person or sovereign of the new political collectivity. “And besides, what language will be spoken in the new State? The overwhelming majority of Israelites of the West have by now completely forgotten Hebrew, while the Jews of Central and Eastern Europe speak a jargon that is a composite of various linguistic strains. And how does one bring together men of such diverse character and traditions, such as bankers or Parisian lawyers, accustomed to all the refinements of the most exquisite civilization, with the rabble, filth and ignorance of Bucovina [Romania] or the Caucasus? What type of parliament would come from the agglomeration of individuals so dissimilar as to civilization, customs, and ideas, individuals separated by whole centuries, by abysses of history and intellectual development? Could such problems ever be resolved?” And the conclusion is a warning: “The Zionists,” concludes Loria, “are concentrating all their energy in efforts to expand and ennoble the place of refuge, which they believe is providentially opened to the persecuted Jews of Eastern and Central Europe; to develop, that is, and refine economic Zionism, which has so opportunely begun, and it will be accompanied by the blessing and praise of honest and free spirits of the whole earth. But charity does not extend to the more ambitious aims ...” “The Problem of the Mandate in Palestine” – dateline Paris, July 27 Viviani, upon his return to Paris, spoke to the Petit Parisien about his work in the Council of the League of Nations, especially concerning the Mandate for Syria and the objections raised by Italy. He said: “For twenty months we had the Mandate for Syria, precisely since December 20, 1920, and the Italians did not raise any complaint. So one can imagine how surprised I was when the Imperial Marquis, the representative of Italy, announced that the Italian Government, namely Schanzer, would present observations and make objections. I protested against the tardiness of this effort, and it was then that England, agreeing with my observations, accepted my proposal, which consisted in uniting, with respect to the solution, the Mandate for Syria with the Mandate for Palestine. I did understand that there was a common interest, and I asked for a reaffirmation of the solidarity of the nations. Balfour, with a nobility of insight and spirit that deserves recognition, agreed to combine the two terms, so that the Imperial Marquis was forced to declare himself opposed to both. Thus the Italian crisis suddenly arose, which stopped the endeavors of the Imperial Marquis, thus producing the well-known solution. Article. 14 concerns a moral issue, on which we request a fuller examination, and therefore its definitive resolution has been postponed. The articles of the Mandate for Palestine have been approved, as have the articles of the Mandate for Syria. These articles are intangible and supportive, and the two Mandates will take effect on the same day, the day when the Italian Government and the French Government notify the Council of the League of Nations of the Franco-Italian agreement. I hope this day is not far off. I maintain, however, there is one thing you need to know, that this means the Italian demands to France do not have any relationship to the Italian demands received by England. These demands are so serious that it is in the interest of France to examine them closely. Now the remaining tasks are up to the government, since my part is finished. There were rumors circulating in Paris following telegrams from Cairo, that news of the French Mandate for Syria had caused serious unrest. It was stated that French troops had been attacked, and that two officers and 17 French soldiers were taken prisoner, adding that the insurgents had considerable French military materiel, including an airplane and two cannons. However, the latest news that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has received directly, indicates that the riots were exaggerated in their proportions. Aug. 21, 1922 Chancellor Joseph Wirth’s letter to Cardinal Faulhaber: Your Eminence will have been informed of the adverse position that is taken precisely by the Catholic circles of Bavaria toward my policy and my person and which, as letters have shown me, reaches deep into the ranks of the clergy… As an indication of the nature of this struggle, I call attention to the “Bayerischer Kurier’s” article in issue no. 315 of July 31st, in which it is stated: “At a secret meeting of the action committees of the Independent Socialist Party and the Communist Party of Germany in Berlin in February 1922, a representative of the Soviet Government declared that it is essential to disarm the rightwing before the outbreak of fighting. This could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the Government. Thanks to the intervention of Dr. Rathenau, I have become convinced that only the formation of a pure workers’ government can prevent the outbreak of counter-revolution. The precondition for a successful coup d’état is the aforesaid disarming of the counter-revolution, a step the Reich Government has decided to take.” Upon these supposed statements the “Bayerischer Kurier” commented: “The Republic Defense Law [enacted July 21, 1922] is a new, triumphal stage in the advancing world revolution. The plan of February 1922 to break up and dissolve the nationalist formations, to disarm them before the struggle, has nearly been accomplished thanks to this law. Today the entire north of Germany is already the virtually uncontested domain of the advance guard of chaos. Only one blockade has not yet been eroded: Bavaria. The entire months-long systematic incitement conducted against Bavaria has only one purpose, to undermine it, discredit it, and finally draw it into the vortex that has cost Russia far more than 30 million dead.” Whether the statements placed in the mouth of the Soviet representative ever actually occurred, I do not know. In any event they are so completely inappropriate, like the remarks that the “Bayerischer Kurier” adds to them, whatever the nature may be of the facts. As relates especially to the allegations in the article concerning Dr. Rathenau, I owe it to the memory of my friend and colleague, murdered at the hand of knaves shortly before this appeared in the press, as well as to Your Eminence, to stipulate that they are completely made up out of thin air. The role that the “Bayrischer Kurier” would have Dr. Rathenau playing is the absolute opposite of his mentality and his entire outlook on things. It should certainly be expected of the leading Catholic paper of Bavaria that it would verify all such portentous assertions before publishing them in a form that has to arouse among readers the conviction that they are correct. As I hear it, Your Eminence considers it advisable that I not take part in the German Catholic Congress this year. I am also of the view that considering the dominant mood in Bavaria I should keep away from the upcoming Congress, - not as if I had concern for my own life, but rather because I consider it my duty to spare our Fatherland the unrest that would be the inevitable consequence of a nonetheless possible attempt on my life. I cannot conceal, however, that it is a deeply distressing feeling for me as a Catholic that the Catholic Chancellor of the German Reich cannot attend the German Catholic Congress, because the mood of the province in which it will be held has been agitated to such an extent. Of Your Eminence, as Bavaria’s highest bishop, might I venture to request that you take a stand, with whatever means you will and can, against this mood among the Catholic population of your province, which I for the good of our Fatherland must denounce as extremely injurious. With the fullest high respect, Your Eminence’s devoted, /s/ Wirth PS In consideration of the importance I place upon this matter, I have taken the liberty to share copies of this letter with various German Bishops. Source: L. Volk, Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol. 1, pages 260-261. Aug. 24, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Receptions for Hindenburg in Munich” – dateline Munich, August 22 The nationalist associations and the parties of the governing coalition have enthusiastically received General Hindenburg, who went in full uniform with marshal’s baton to lay a wreath on the tombs of the Wittelsbachs and made visits to Minister President Count Lerchenfeld and to three men who were commanders of the Bavarian army during the war, Prince Rupprecht, Prince Leopold, and General Bothmer. Under orders from the Central Government, the Reichswehr had to remain secluded on the street of the Academy, while the ceremony in honor of Hindenburg was to be held in the gardens of the royal court; but the patriotic associations, the body of senior officials, the students, and the entire crowd moved in a long procession from the gardens and came into position next to the Reichswehr. All around was a forest of flags, white-blue and black-white-red, the colors of Bavaria and of the former German Empire. Prince Rupprecht delivered the welcoming speech addressed to the Field Marshal, thanking him on behalf of the combat veterans, exalting the valor of the “leader who brought his armies victory after victory,” and concluding with the words: “I remain steadfast in loyalty to the Empire.” Hindenburg responded that he earned his military successes through the heroism of the German soldiers and in particular the Bavarians. It is his firm desire to dedicate the rest of his life to the good of the Fatherland; he hopes that his sacrifices will not have been in vain and that he will live to see, with the help of God, better times. One incident of the day that may have been significant was provoked by Captain [Hermann] Schützinger, head of the German Republic Union, who attended as a journalist. According to one version he made a very favorable observation [presumably about the Weimar Republic] and people simply walked away. But another version says that he was spat upon in the face and struck in a way that drew blood. The police had to protect his departure. “Munich and Berlin” The Bavarian Minister of the Interior and Minister of Justice are returning together today to Munich from Berlin and have revealed the results of discussions with Wirth at the Chancery which took place this evening. We have no reliable news about it. Nevertheless it is stated that, while the protocol signed by Count Lerchenfeld remains in effect, it would be better elucidated by a further exchange of letters. Aug. 27, 1922 The first words of Cardinal Faulhaber’s address to 100,000 German Catholics at the Katholikentag mass on the Königsplatz: Brothers, be strong in the Lord! Put on the armor of God on the day of evil!” Ephesians 6: 10, 13. Catholic Congress day is arming day, arming day of Catholic character and conscience, arming day of Catholic joy in labor and Catholic labor associations, arming day of Catholic unity and Catholic candor with unfurled flags in the open sunshine. Catholic Congress day is arming day! Put on the armor of God on the day of evil! I greet you from all regions of the German tongue, assembled around your multicolored flags in all the variety of German ethnicity, in the unity of Catholic faith, assembled around the cross and the altar of the Lord! The name Catholic is no mere external label, the name Catholic is the expression of our innermost character, an expression of a racially pure type [Ausdruck reinrassiger Art], a confession of Catholic action. With this mass, the cornerstone of the Catholic Congress shall be laid, and the Bishop of this City shall place a certificate in it and write upon it the fundamental issues of Catholic doctrine, the baselines of the Catholic order of life, the deep sources of Catholic power for action. To be Catholic means, first of all, to be a believer on the basis of Church doctrine. Two flaming lights stand at the entrance to the Catholic Congress: the word of revelation and the teaching office of the Church. God has spoken in revelation. The fact of revelation lies in the sunlight of history. A sincere seeker of truth gratefully and faithfully accepts the word of God. Christ founded a Church, and only one Church, and instructed the seeker of truth to “hear the Church,” to go into the school of the Church. The sincere seeker of truth says: God’s Church, you are the pillar and foundation of truth. The doctrines of salvation are not at the mercy of the preference and option of the individual or of independent research... Cardinal Faulhaber’s words to the Catholic Congress about perjury and high treason: ...Compromises are unavoidable in the interplay of oppositions and interests. Superior to all compromises, however, are principles, like the eternal stars, and there comes a limit where we say: Up to here and no further! The Revolution was perjury and high treason and remains in history congenitally tainted and branded with the mark of Cain. Even if the upheaval brought some successes, even if it opened the way for adherents of the Catholic faith to higher offices far more than before, its moral character is not assessed by its results, for a misdeed may not be sanctified on the basis of its results. The Catholic Congress will set Catholic principles as a beacon on high. Give me a hundredfold personalities of strong character around every church tower, a dozen around every association flag, and we will renew the face of the earth. To be Catholic means to be a moral character. To be Catholic means, third, to be an apostle on the basis of Church teaching about grace. Grace is the helping hand of God, it is being strong in the Lord, it is the putting on of the armor of God. Where God’s grace is, there is the greater power, there is always, at the end of the day, victory... [concluding paragraph]: That is the ABC of the Catholic Catechism. I have not intended to speak about advanced astronomy, we must begin small and build from the ground up with the ABC of the Catholic Catechism: Be a confessor on the basis of Catholic doctrinal teaching, be of character in the school of Christian moral teaching, be an apostle in the power of Church teaching of grace. In this way I have laid the foundation of the wall. Now may the other speakers of the Catholic Congress build further upon this foundation, and may they inspire us to take care of the schools and the youth, of missions at home and abroad to the heathen, of popular education and morality, of charity, patriotism [Staatsgesinnung] and concern for peace. Now the Apostolic Nuncio will step up to the altar and celebrate the Sunday mass for all of you, and we pray with him the Apostle’s Creed and receive from him the blessing for the Catholic Congress. Then become strong in the Lord, put on the armor of God! Source: Ansprache des hochwürdigsten Herrn Kardinals Michael v. Faulhaber [Address by His Eminence the Most Reverend Lord Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber], reprinted in: Die Reden gehalten in den öffentlichen und geschlossenen Versammlungen der 62. General-Versammlung der Katholiken Deutschlands zu München 27. bis 30. August 1922 (Würzburg: Fränkische Gesellschafts-Druckerei, 1923) Aug. 27, 1922 Speech by Nuncio Pacelli at the 1922 German Catholic Congress: It brings me the greatest joy and honor to be able to take part again in the General Assembly of the Catholics of Germany. I cannot refrain from thanking you sincerely for the warm reception and for the friendly words of greeting that the most honorable Herr President directed my way in your name. With honest joy and satisfaction I have welcomed the fact that the Bavarian capital has been called this year, by the trust of German Catholics, to carry on the work of the forefathers in the old faithful Catholic spirit. The special bonds that have attached me to Catholic Munich in the now more than five years of my activity here, the love and the reverence that have been offered here to the representative of the Holy See in such rich measure, make it for me - aside from all else - a joyfully exercised duty to appear today in your midst, in order thereby to proclaim to Catholic Munich and beyond to the entirety of Catholic Germany, with what active interest the Holy Father accompanies this splendid congress, and what importance he attributes to your deliberations and decisions. In these difficult times of general deprivation, it does the fatherly heart of His Holiness unending happiness when he sees how the Catholics of Germany, despite all distress, work with unbroken courage for the religious-moral rebirth of the people, and how earnestly they are striving with all their strength to contributte to the achievement of the longed-for peace among the nations. The Holy Father will be especially glad if I can report to him how united and resolute the German Catholics have been at this congress in the advocacy of their holy interests, how they, despite all differences of ethnicity and character, were of one heart and one soul after the model of the first Christians, and how they felt most ardently connected with the visible representative of Christ on earth. In an impressive way this has all been already brought to expression here today. May the Lord God be close to your deliberations with the support of his supernatural grace. May the holy Mother of God, the “Patroness of Bavaria,” be for you a “Mother of Good Counsel”! As a pledge of this heavenly support of grace, I impart to all of you in the name and in the particular charge of His Holiness, the gloriously reigning Pope Pius XI, with all my heart, the Apostolic Blessing. Source: Ansprache des hohen Vertreters Sr. Heiligkeit des Papstes Nuntius Pacelli gehalten am 27. August 1922 gelegentlich des Begrüßungsabends [Address of the High Representative of His Holiness the Pope Nuncio Pacelli delivered on the 27th of August 1922 on the occasion of the greeting-evening], reprinted in: Die Reden gehalten in den öffentlichen und geschlossenen Versammlungen der 62. General-Versammlung der Katholiken Deutschlands zu München 27. bis 30. August 1922 (Würzburg: Fränkische Gesellschafts-Druckerei, 1923), pp. 11-12. Aug. 28, 1922 Münchner Neueste Nachrichten [Munich Latest News], page 3, on Nuncio Pacelli’s Pontifical Mass and Cardinal Faulhaber’s sermon: “The Catholic Congress” The Papal Nuncio then celebrated the Pontifical Mass, and at its conclusion, no fewer than 129,000 voices rose up to the clear blue sky singing the Ambrosian praise song, Great God We Praise You! A celebration of extraordinary energy was at an end. “The Catholic Church and the State” From the sermon of Cardinal von Faulhaber, there are some especially significant passages in which he spoke about Catholic doctrine in relation to the state. He said in that regard: “Woe to the state that does not build its legal order and legislation on the foundation of God’s commandments, that creates a constitution without the name of God, that does not recognize the rights of parents in its school laws, that does not protect its people from diseased theater and cinema, that passes laws enabling divorce and protecting motherhood outside marriage. Where God’s commandments are not applied, 10,000 state laws will not suffice to maintain order. If the state’s laws are in contradiction of God’s laws, then the saying applies, God’s law trumps the state’s law. “To be Catholic means to be of strong character on the basis of Christian doctrine, it means to have principles. Compromises are sometimes necessary in the interplay of oppositions, but principles are superior to all. The Revolution was ...” Source: Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, Aug. 28, 1922, page 3. Aug. 31, 1922 Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, page 2, on Konrad Adenauer’s response, as President of the Catholic Congress, to Cardinal Faulhaber: Where there is much light, there will naturally also always be some shadows. Here and there during these events on the occasion of the Catholic Congress, there have been some words used that can be best explained in relation to concerns of a local nature, which the entirety of German Catholics, however, do not make their own without anything further. It is quite obvious that our unity in the evaluation and judgment of many things suffers from the heterogeneity of our judgments about governmental interactions of the present day. In governmental life it is necessary to have sound principles that are calmly considered, but equally necessary are deep and clear recognitions of matters and possibilities. Much appears different after days and years, once you have eventually gained a real remove in time. Until then it is good for all parties to keep peaceful and to place uppermost what is unifying; unity must be above everything else for us. That is necessary in the interest of Catholicism, and is also necessary in the interest of the German people. It has been repeatedly said here, and rightly so, what significance Catholicism has for the German people. Note: The newspaper reported that Adenauer’s remarks met with some consternation [Befremden], while Cardinal Faulhaber’s remarks met with a jubilant reception [jubelnden Aufnahme]. The Munich Neueste Nachrichten, a secular newspaper with the largest circulation of any in Bavaria, contained no word of criticism or questioning of the Cardinal’s remarks. Aug. 30, 1922 Völkischer Beobachter, page 2: “Signs of the Times” ... Cardinal Faulhaber, in his speech at the opening of the Catholic Congress, made the following statement about the Revolution: “The Revolution was perjury and high treason and remains in history congenitally tainted and marked with the sign of Cain.” -- Cardinal Prince-Bishop Bertram said recently to the Brandenburg Catholic Congress, “One must above all else honor the established state order. In that regard it is completely irrelevant how this state of affairs came to be.” Now who is right? Of the two opinions, only one can be the official Catholic one. Herr Wirth, as a Center Party man and Chancellor of the German Reich, has in any case made the view of Prince-Bishop Bertram his own and sits as a racially pure Catholic with Cohn and company at the table of the German Government. The same Cardinal Faulhaber, in the first main public gathering of the German Catholic Congress, said the following among other things: “Since Moses delivered the Eighth Commandment: ‘You shall not lie,’ this requirement applies also for the Jewish press in Berlin and its Munich correspondents ... We live in the time of the Protection Laws. So it would be good if we also had Protection Laws for the truth.” (frenetic applause from the gathering.) Are they really that much at a loss? Or if the Lord Cardinal has un-learned something, then it must be assumed that it is the fault of the evil Völkisch Germans. Völkischer Beobachter, August 30, 1922, page 2: “Thoughts About the Catholic Congress” by Alfred Rosenberg Every German surely felt his heart beat faster on Sunday as all the waving flags, all the exemplary earthy men, passed by as they processed from the Königsplatz. Greeted by loud hailing cheers, a slice of the dance-, song-, and drink-cheered Middle Ages went through the streets of Munich. Halbardiers, scythes, sutlers, old-time hats, colorful costumes from all Catholic regions. And in view of this variegated yet closely related crowd, I must reflect on something else: on the Luther- and Reformation-Congress in northern Germany. In old Lübeck, members of the German Volk also processed through the city in similar celebrations. People from Silesia, Holstein, Frisia, in their splendid costumes. I cannot help asking myself whether it shouldn’t be possible sometime – yet this is really a lark of a dream – to unite these North Germans and South Germans sometime in a combined German Christian celebration. They once stood shoulder to shoulder, year after year in damp trenches; service to the Fatherland brought them together on aircraft and battleships: an idea emerged and became a deed, which could have encompassed both Catholic and Protestant religious life. Today if you placed a man from Dithmarschen [in northern Germany] alongside a man from Bolzano [in southern Tyrol, a German speaking part of Austria that became part of Italy after WW1], they would sometimes not completely understand each other as a matter of dialect, they would discover marked differences in character, and in the same way their inclinations toward forms of religion would be different. And yet they would feel a unity going beyond that: their German Volk-ness, at the end of the day, their sharing in the same destiny. In view of many a high level consistorial speech and in view of many a speech at the Catholic Congresses, one sees that only the Völkisch worldview is capable of realizing the goals of the best Germans. It borders on the tragic to see how single-mindedly these hundred thousand recently stood together at the Königsplatz and listened to words that to some extent were worthy and sublime, but to some extent were apt to define the cleft between German and German as permanent, while establishing the connection with non-Germans, insofar as they were Catholics, as heart’s desire and doctrine. Twice Cardinal Faulhaber summoned “Catholics of pure-racial type” (a remarkable word), but he expressly added, among other things, that this is to be taken in no event as “German-Catholic.” Fundamentally, the rigid emphasis on denomination is exactly the same as emphasis on class. While Marxism is also a doctrine with sad results, there are unfortunately many thousands of Germans who are attached to it with a directly religious sentiment. They believe themselves to be more closely related to the “oppressed and exploited” among other peoples than to German people of other classes. Their class-consciousness cuts deeply and destructively into the living body of German Volk-ness. It is exactly the same when church membership is placed before this Volk-ness. Believers among Germans seldom are really clear about how distinctively different a character, from a Völkisch perspective, has been taken on by Catholicism in Italy, Spain and the colonies. Perhaps they really don’t know that their saints are Christian-renamed old-time Germanic gods, that their whole faith at the end of the day is really not dogmatic, but rather Völkisch, if they understand how not to miss the forest for the trees (one compares the Völkisch currents in the Middle Ages). In just this way the Protestant forms are Völkischly determined: here the more artistic, multiform German South is encountered by the more brooding North German. If one does not recognize these sources that cannot be further explained, then the bridges will be stricken that are so completely essential to us, then the opposite recognition of the justification of another sentiment will penetrate more deeply; but then it will also be possible to finally build a wall against the attempts to use one denomination against the part of the Volk that belongs to another denomination. The signs of the time are unmistakable. Both Christian denominations would have every reason to study them, because they will be carried out whether they want it or not. Previously our lot was often a struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism. Neither Catholics nor Protestants are following this approach any longer today. Whoever pursues denominational power games today must do it under a cloak such as humanity, common Christian love of neighbor, or whatever. New organisms are being formed as a result; in place of the Catholic brother advances the Frenchman; in place of the Protestant – the Swede or Englishman; in place of the Jewish denomination, the foreign Jewish race. The great task of all the German churches would be this, to meet halfway with this new spiritual turning point. To rely on traditions would never accomplish anything interiorly fruitful and would only summon up catastrophies. The Völkisch worldview, which recognizes that many dialects, many customs, many philosophical and artistically expressed differences of the North and South, together with the shadings of religious sentiment, arise out of one and the same Volk-soul, the Germanic Volk-soul that we all share in common, whether it was as in the time of Wolfram von Eschenbach, predominantly Catholic, or as in the time of Goethe, predominantly Protestant. The time of class- and denominational-politics is going toward its end. A perspective is arising of joint membership, based on the Völkisch worldview. But the new form arises only through a demarcation ... That the Völkisch concept will one day be realized is just as certain as the fact that there is a German Volk. That alone will bring the salvation of our future. A.R. Aug. 30, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The German Catholic Congress” – dateline Munich, Aug. 28, from our own sources The most solemn inauguration of the sixty-second National Congress of German Catholics took place yesterday, as we reported telegraphically yesterday. The City is bedecked with flags and extremely animated: the Bavarian and German flags alternating with the pontifical: and the pontifical flag waving over the Cathedral Church of Our Lady. The imposing inaugural ceremony took place in front of an immense crowd of delegates at the Royal Residence of Bavaria, including Prince Rupprecht, the Cardinal Archbishop, His Excellency the Apostolic Nuncio, and many Bishops and ecclesiastical and lay personalities from all over Germany. Among the inaugural speeches, the most notable was that of His Eminence Cardinal Faulhaber, who spoke of the prestige and influence of Catholics in the State, with the most eloquent words about the position of the Catholic religion in the new German Constitution. The Cardinal’s words met with a huge ovation from the hundred thousand Congress-goers and listeners. Before the Nuncio, Mayor Adenauer sang the praises of the union of all German Catholics, and the Minister President of Bavaria gave his greetings to the Congress-goers and extolled the patriotism of Catholics, offering as an example the House of Wittelsbach itself, which made for a spontaneous demonstration of devotion. Finally amidst an indescribable enthusiasm and incessant “viva” cheers for the Holy Father, Archbishop Pacelli spoke the most noble words, wishing that the works of the Congress succeed abundantly for the cause of Religion and the good of the Country. The Latin message from the Pope prompted a renewal of poignant demonstrations. For the immense crowd, the inaugural ceremonies took place on the King’s Plaza. Work began today with the general report by Adenauer. Cardinal Faulhaber also took part, and there has been discussion of the need for a Catholic press that defends the truth. The Congress approved the following resolution at the end of the general report: “The Assembly profoundly deplores that, during the numerous peace conferences, the Roman question has not yet been resolved in a manner worthy of the representative of Jesus Christ. “The discussion of this question that continues in the Italian press with dignity and respect towards the Holy See shows that even liberals admit that the situation of the Pope in Rome is unacceptable and that the majority of the Italian Nation desire that a just and rapid solution put an end to this painful and harmful wrong. The Assembly expressed the wish that in the environment of the Italian Nation sentiments of equity and justice would grow ever stronger so that a felicitous solution may be concluded for the Roman question.” Aug. 31, 1922 , page one: Republic, what is becoming of you? This question is really appropriate. At the Munich Catholic Congress Herr Archbishop Faulhaber thundered against the makers of the Revolution, branding them with perjury and high treason. Among the makers of the Revolution are the previous Ministers of the Government of the Republic, and according to the Defense Law, a defamation of previous Ministers of the Republic is punishable. The Bavarian Government has obligated itself to implement the Defense Laws; will they proceed against Herr Faulhaber – or does this Herr possess freedom to defame because of his crosier? In the same way the Bishop thundered against the Reich Constitution; this defamation is also punishable. What feelings must have come upon the Center Party Ministers who were present?... Citation: Ingolstadt Freie Presse, Aug. 31, 1922, page one. Sept. 2, 1922 Völkischer Beobachter, page one: “The Catholic Congress and National Socialism” The Catholic Congress is now over. The warm affirmation of Germanism and the unanimous protest against our undoing by the Entente was, on this occasion, especially significant. Now is the time to undertake a close examination of the general political message. The Munich police, by their prohibition of our placards on this occasion, gave witness to the influence of Jewish elements. At the Catholic Congress no other words received such frenetic applause as those of Cardinal Faulhaber when he summoned up a true description of the “Berlin Jewish press” (by the way, he could rightly have given the same general description to the “Bayerischer Kurier”). With this remark, Cardinal Faulhaber took the concept of Jewish nationality and made it his own. For the Jewish press of Berlin (“Berlin Daily News,” “Forwards,” “Freedom,” “Red Banner,” “Midday News,” “World on Monday,” “Financial Courier,” etc.) includes religious and non-religious Jews. Until now Churchmen have spoken of Jews only in a religious sense, not in a racial or tribal sense. In this instance, however, the former sense was replaced by the racial sense, on the part of a high authority. (Though in another instance, granted, it was not: concerning the “Black Shame” in the Rhineland, Cardinal Faulhaber spoke of “pagans and Mohammedans” instead of negroes). In what concerns Bavaria and Berlin, the words “perjury and high treason” of the Revolution dealt a resounding blow to the entire policy of the self-styled Christian and Catholic Center Party, and thereby also to the shady dealings of Dr. Wirth. These words from one of the highest Catholic dignitaries are naturally not a spontaneous temperamental utterance, but rather were the fruit of thorough discussion among leaders. They must have realized that the overwhelmingly predominant number of Center Party followers would turn away from a ramshackle anti-German politics, after they had involuntarily cooperated with it and brought about the “perjury and high treason.” One will have assumed that the elements led by the successor to Matthias von Biberach, already too closely bound to the party of Oscar Cohn, were becoming uncomfortable and that a change in the nationalist camp should be induced. However that may be, the fact is that the ten thousand representatives of Catholicism who were in conflict both with Jew-Berlin (with its Center Party head) and with German Bavaria (unfortunately still with the other Gorgon head) have placed themselves on the side of the latter. Now any Bavarian Government that can halfway understand how to read the soul of the entire German Volk, must renounce its lukewarmness or, if it is incapable of that (which we think we know to be the case), immediately abdicate. But we witnessed the grotesque fact that Count Lerchenfeld [the Minister President of the State of Bavaria] still spoke in high dudgeon at the same Catholic Congress. A mocking-bird could write a magnificent satire about this. The third politically remarkable fact was Cardinal Faulhaber’s talk about “The Peacemaking Power of the Church.” That was above all a criticism of the League of Nations, which we welcome. This is, according to the Cardinal’s words, “no support for world peace, but rather flammable material and new world war. What contains the seeds of death in it, is that it does not serve the interests of world peace, but rather of world finance, and it is a gambling-hell of big capitalism. It cries out to heaven that the consequences of all the peace conferences and the League of Nations are always this finance-maneuver and the increasing hunger of isolated peoples.” These words were greeted with great applause. They express what National Socialists have been proclaiming day after day in public meetings, what the “Völkischer Beobachter” is often proclaiming, as the only such newspaper in Munich. The only thing lacking is the recognition that 90% of the directors of the League of Nations are Jews (Hymans, Hamel, Mantoux, Brockmann, Haas, etc.), that moreover these world financial markets are exclusively in the hands of several dozen Jewish bankers. We hope that by next year’s Congress the Völkisch movement will be so strong as to make it possible for Cardinal Faulhaber to speak the whole truth without fear of contradiction. “Crying out to heaven” is certainly the state of things; but why does the “Christian” press not take the trouble to enlighten their readers? Yes, why not? “Germania” speaks more Jewishly than Oscar Cohn, and the “Bayerischer Kurier” received Herr Rathenau with friendly nods. Why, why? In any case it is now established that the head of the Church hierarchy has placed himself behind the Völkisch critique. From that also follows, if it is really intended earnestly and not just as the exertion of a small bit of political pressure, a relentless struggle against this international plague of the world finance markets. And this Völkisch shot against this international conspiracy is one of the most important program points of National Socialism. Right at that point, however, the Cardinal considered it necessary to direct sharp words against an “exaggerated nationalism,” which promotes “a form of idolatry” among his people. One should have “an open eye for the positive side of other peoples.” We find it not very pertinent to direct these words to us Germans. Slandered, oppressed and wrongfully accused, we have every reason to forge complete Völkisch power and steel ourselves; it is not only no sin, it is our most holy duty to cultivate in our Volk this type of idolatry, for that is what all the blossoms of our culture have sprung from for millennia. To brand this high love as “foreign gods” is anyway just a leftover from the protests of a spirit whose lifespan has ended. Because we consider the Völkisch in us as something great, therefore we respect it also in other nations. We are gladly prepared to acknowledge the fineness and clarity of ancient French thought, the religious fervor of the simple Russian, the artificial matter-of-course of the Italian. We want to cast off the dross which – thanks to the common materialistic attitude – has sometimes been produced by nationalism, so that we can clarify and strengthen Volk-ness. We want to do this, however, with a solidarity in suffering, and energy, until finally the German Volk has awoken from its current sleep and found itself and its own path. Cardinal Faulhaber should have spoken his words with his face towards Paris, London and – Jerusalem. Then they would have been pertinent. Regrettably the Cardinal went on to find it necessary, in his peace talk, to stir up anew denominational conflict. His remarks about “a religious society” (no Christian Church! Editor), which lives “by contradiction” and has “no fashionable (!!) ideas,” are directed openly against the majority of the German Volk, which is well known to be Protestant. The Cardinal said further: “It was pleasing in the North when it was said: rather Bolshevism than Catholicism.” If another man tossed such an unattributed quote into a gathering, everyone would label it incitement. But since it was Cardinal Faulhaber who did it, he must still be regarded afterwards as the font of authority, from which the word was spoken, if the Cardinal was rightly informed. We would just like to remember the year 1919. Then it was men from Württemburg and Prussia who freed Munich and saved Catholic Bavaria from Bolshevism. No one spoke then about denominations. We would like to make the Cardinal aware, however, that a certain Sontheimer [a leader in the April 1919 Munich Soviets-Councils Republic] was going about here and there at that time to arrest then-Archbishop Faulhaber. In Russia almost 3,000 clergy fell victim to the same fate as the hostages. So, good and pernicious are mixed in the great talks of Munich’s Cardinal. As to the appeal to the “Catholic conscience,” we are not going to speak. It will have exactly as little impact as the appeals of our Marxists to their comrades in the Entente countries. The arch-Catholic Marshal Foch is not, on that account, going to remove a single negro from the Rhineland. This is really one of the final distress cries from an already exploded faith in universally applicable concepts that move all peoples. For us it will bring the success of favorable attention for the Völkisch. The recent Catholic Congress was a gathering of Catholic Germans. May it also be called that next time; no longer “General Gathering of German Catholics.” From all classes and from all German denominations, a new worldview is growing up irresistibly, young and joyous. It will one day build a cupola over us, under which – not all races – but certainly all Germanic peoples will stand together and fight for each other. That is the Völkisch concept. And its pioneers today are called – National Socialists. Sept. 5, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber’s report to the Bavarian Bishops on the delays in Concordat negotiations and the position of the Vatican: “Minutes of the Conference of the Bavarian Bishops, September 5-6, 1922” ... II. The new Bavarian Concordat and our overall church-political situation in Bavaria. The reporting Archbishop of Munich presented the reasons why the concluding of a Concordat in the past year was again delayed. The outline from the Roman Cardinals Commission was read aloud verbatim. At the request of the Lord Apostolic Nuncio the Conference took a position especially on Art. 4 § 1 (order of studies for theology and clerical philosophy professors), Art. 5 § 2 (canonical permission for public school teachers), Art. 10 (establishment of stipends for Bishops, Auxiliary Bishops, Cathedral Rectors, Cathedral Vicars and other financial commitments of the State), Art. 12 (circumscription of the faithful), Art. 14 (selection of Bishops). The reporter will assemble these amendment proposals for the Nunciature, and will once again present a petition to the Education and Religion Ministry for financial subsidies for our cathedrals and their personnel according to the concluding passage of Art. IV, and for our seminaries according to Art. V, of the old Concordat. The bill in the Bavarian Landtag for the expansion of deaneries for purposes of their administration and their appropriate compensation (cf. the Landtag sessions of July 27 and 28 and Aug. 1) is supported by the Bishops. Private patronage for Beneficiates, whose endowments do not correspond any longer to current levels of expense, if they are not committed to a foundation, lose their title of right and the exercise of patronage. Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 4055, reprinted in Volk, Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol.1, pp. 262-263. Sept. 14, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber’s letter to Chancellor Joseph Wirth: Honorable Herr Reich Chancellor! Today for the first time, after handling the many official matters brought upon me by the Catholic Congress and especially the Conference of the Bavarian Bishops in the following week, I am now getting around to answer unofficial correspondence. Actually I expressed the desire in my earliest confidential conversation at the Munich Catholic Congress that the attempt in Frankfurt to influence public opinion in an anti-Bavarian political direction, via the Augustinian Association, might not be repeated in Munich. That my remark was brought back to Berlin was an indiscretion, but after what we have experienced in Bavaria in this connection, I have reckoned with it from the beginning and cannot regret it today. If Your Excellency remarks in your letter of August 21 that it is a painful feeling that the Catholic Chancellor of the German Reich could not attend the Catholic Congress, then allow me to respond that for us Catholic Bavarians, it was an even more painful feeling last year to hear of the speech by Your Excellency at the Catholic Congress in Frankfurt and of the indignation of the attendees of the Catholic Congress returning home from there. Since a Catholic Congress is not a political party congress, it is not in my opinion absolutely necessary that the entirety of Catholic cabinet ministers participate; given the religious character of the Catholic Congress it would be far more appropriate to have a stronger representation of the Bishops. The fear of Your Excellency that there could be an attempt on the life of the Reich Chancellor in Munich is unfounded, I am convinced. Neither the criminal murder of Erzberger nor that of Rathenau occurred in Bavaria, and there is currently more incitement toward an attempt on the Archbishop of Munich than toward an attempt on the Reich Chancellor. The attitude in Bavaria against Reich policy is in all events, so far as I can assess, very deeply engrained. But the reason for that is not, as Your Excellency writes, to be attributed to a domestic Bavarian incitement of the Bavarian people, but rather to be sought in events outside Bavaria. I must personally reject any responsibility for the article in the ‘Bayerischer Kurier’ to which Your Excellency calls attention, since I must allow this newspaper freedom in political questions and can no more prevent such articles than Your Excellency could prevent rabble-rousing articles printed in Berlin and shameless defamations and provocations against the Munich Archbishop on account of his New Year’s sermon or Catholic Congress speech. In order to form a complete assessment, one must be much better acquainted with the deeper driving forces of politics than is possible by means of fragmentary and partisan spun reports in the newspapers. Personally, however, I have made the deeply painful observation that the foreign Cardinals who were speaking with me in February before the Conclave in Rome with still the greatest confidence for the future of Germany, by May of this year, on the occasion of the International Eucharistic Congress, regarded Germany as the forerunner and ally of Bolshevism, and after the passage of a few months had become openly and deeply alienated from us. At the Catholic Congress in Munich, I tried to put the spotlight on faithfulness to Catholic principles. After the glorious theme of “People’s Sense of Community,” so apologetically significant for the Frankfurt atmosphere, had been laid in Frankfurt as the foundation of the Catholic Congress there, I thought for the Catholic Congress in Munich that I could once again take up the foundational theme of faithfulness to Catholic principles. My catechizing about faithfulness to Catholic principles was not directed against the German Constitution: a constitution can lawfully come into existence even though the Revolution that preceded the constitution remains, according to the Fourth Commandment, a wrong. If speakers and newspapers are now maintaining that with the condemnation of the Revolution the later constitution was also condemned, that just shows anew how thoughtless it is to call the Germans the people of thinkers. If a Catholic Bishop may no longer preach about the Ten Commandments of God and condemn the Revolution and assess historical events according to the standard of the eternal Decalogue rather than according to the Revolution’s fortuitous day-to-day consequences and other inessential appendages, then who in all the world should distinguish light from darkness! The Munich Catholic Congress was also not directed against the Center Party. Compromises are also in my view not avoidable on the basis of realities, but superior to all compromises, principles must be preserved. Whoever speaks about faithfulness to Catholic principles will naturally be attacked today from all sides. That some Center Party newspapers, especially in Baden, have the gall to write in such tones against the preacher of faithfulness to Catholic principles is deeply deplorable, even if on the other hand it is to be welcomed if the spirits have revealed themselves. In my view it is unity enough if a Catholic Congress is united on Catholic questions, even if it preserves the freedom of citizens in political questions. In any event the Catholic Congress had an impact domestically and internationally, as innumerable letters attest to me. Since Your Excellency’s letter with the severe accusations in its postscript was shared with various lords of the German episcopate, I will allow myself to send this response also to various lords of the German episcopate. With the expression of my outstanding high esteem! Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 3503, reprinted in Volk, Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol.1, pp. 275-276. Sept. 18, 1922 Hitler’s words to crowd of 7,000 in Munich: ... Settling of accounts with the November Criminals of 1918 (minutes-long roaring applause). It cannot be that two million Germans fell in vain and yet later they sit down amicably at the table with traitors. No, we do not forgive, rather we demand – retaliation! The dishonoring of our nation has to come to an end. Traitors to the Fatherland and collaborators belong on the gallows. Our streets and plazas should once again bear the names of our heroes and not be named for Jews. The issue of guilt must be pronounced according to the truth... Sept. 19, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber’s letter to Archbishop Giuseppe Pizzardo, Sostituto, Vatican Secretariat of State: Most Reverend Lord! Your Excellency has written to the Apostolic Nunciature in Munich that our beloved Holy Father is pleased with my speech to the Catholic Congress in Munich. For me that was a great joy and a great comfort. I lay down reverential thanks at the feet of His Holiness. In connection with that, allow me to explain my intentions and impressions from the recent Catholic Congress. My intention was to give the foundational theme for the Catholic Congress in Munich: faithfulness to Catholic principles, return to the principles of the Catholic order of life and society. The Catholic Congress the previous year in Frankfurt had the foundational theme: People’s Sense of Community. In Bavaria and Munich, with a far higher percentage of Catholic inhabitants than in Frankfurt, there needed to be once again a principled explication not only of the German-ness, but rather also the Catholic-ness of German Catholics. And really clear and concrete, not in diplomatic speech, so that the people understand the principles: We are not merely German citizens, we are by grace children of the supranational world Church. Most Reverend Lord Apostolic Nuncio Pacelli, by his glorious, powerfully expressed speech in flawless German, contributed essentially to the success of the Catholic Congress and aroused great enthusiasm for the Holy Father. My guests from neighboring countries, Bishop Rieder of Salzburg and Bishop Schmid-Grüneck, stood faithfully by my side in the battle over principles. I did not anathematize the current republican form of government, nor demand the violent overthrow of the current Weimar Constitution. I did, however, declare the Revolution to be a sin against the Fourth Commandment of God and pointed out the other ways the current German Constitution and legislation contradict the Commandments of God. A constitution can come into existence lawfully, while the preceding Revolution remains a wrong. In Germany they want to sanctify the Revolution on account of some good consequences and play with new revolutions, thus this principle had to be expressed. The Center Party, allied as a political party in the government with the Social Democrats, offers no unified picture of principled clarity. Compromises are the order of the day and yet the principles of Catholic ethics of government may not be forgotten. In the Center Party there are many men of character faithful to the Church, but there are also representatives, especially from industrial areas, who base their judgments on electoral tactics and opportunistic points of view rather than on eternal principles. To these men and women representatives it had to be said that, in addition to the fabric of governmental laws, there is yet a teaching office of the Church, and that public life must also be ordered according to the Commandments of God. Without speaking of politics, I wanted to give a warning, so that the entry gate to the German people would not be opened to Bolshevism by way of endless compromises and alliances with the Social Democrats. Moreover I wanted to awaken consciences, because now with deliberations over the School Law and Concordat it must be proven whether or not principles stand higher than mandates and cabinet minister positions. A gratifying event from the quiet negotiations at the Catholic Congress is not yet known publicly. Some Center Party gentlemen, especially ex-cabinet minister Brauns – a priest! – wanted to attract more Protestants into the Center Party and thus allow the denominational character of the Center Party to erode even more. In the Augustinian Association, that is in the association of Catholic journalists, this proposal was rejected by nearly all (nine-tenths) of the journalists present. At a time when we are struggling over the rights and the freedom of the Church and over the denominational schools, we cannot encourage the Catholic people to give their votes to non-Catholic representatives. Beginning in October the Socialists of all types will form a common left-wing bloc with 180 votes in the Reichstag. Since this left-wing bloc is still 40 votes short of an absolute majority and the Center Party only has 67 votes, they want to form a right-wing bloc. I believe, however, that the Center Party will only begin to have great impact if it becomes an anvil once again and does not form a common bloc with the old enemies of the Church. A Catholic Congress with the theme “faithfulness to Catholic principles” naturally encounters contradiction from left and right. The Socialists hate our principles as the devil hates holy water. The nationalists were angry that I spoke of a heretically exaggerated nationalism. It was the same for me as for the Holy Father in Poland [in 1920 when Achille Ratti as Nuncio to Poland was criticized from both the German side and the Polish side], the straight path of neutrality is criticized from right and from left, especially whenever the political atmosphere is so highly strained as in these days. The President of the Catholic Congress, Mayor Dr. Adenauer of Cologne, ventured suddenly in his concluding speech into the purely political realm and wanted to defend the policy of the Center Party. He maintained the Revolution came about “organically,” the overthrown royal houses (spoken thus even of pious King Ludwig III of Bavaria, who wanted to make good again for the sins of his Wittelsbach predecessors) had become shriveled trees, “German Catholicism” (!) was cast upon the German Fatherland. Also Herr Reich Chancellor Wirth, likewise a Catholic, declared he will soon take a public position against the Munich Catholic Congress. I therefore ask Your Excellency that no Papal pronouncement might ensue that could be interpreted by Catholics as agreement with the policy of the Center Party and with its coalition with Social Democracy. President Adenauer cannot receive the Papal order that was customary previously for Presidents. I also ask Your Excellency to make no response to this confidential letter. I wanted and had to write, as the Catholic Congress brought me a great deal of joy and comfort, but also some anxiety. The Journal des Débats in Paris wrote on September 7, 1922 that I had spoken of “victorious imperialism,” that during the war I held a mass in Wambrechies without permission from the Bishop of Lille, that I terribly mistreated a French pastor there, that I was previously Bishop of Trier. Every phrase is an untruth. In my 23 speeches and talks to the Catholic Congress I have never once used the word imperialism, I have never held a mass in Wambrechies, never said an unfriendly word to a French priest, never been Bishop of Trier. I have indirectly, via the Foreign Ministry, requested a retraction from the Journal des Débats. Please forgive, Your Excellency, that this letter has become so long. In sincerest and greatest respect I remain Your Excellency’s devoted, etc. Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 1200, reprinted in Volk, Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol.1, pp. 278-280. Sept. 19, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber’s letter to the Bavarian Ambassador to the Vatican, Baron von Ritter zu Groenestyn: Honorable Herr Baron! Since I have the opportunity to hurry a letter to Rome via the Mother Superior of the Via Nomentana, I am taking the liberty of sending Your Excellency a confidential report about some details of the Catholic Congress. Attendance was extraordinarily strong, and from other countries, especially on account of Oberammergau [Passion Play in 1922], was much stronger than before. The weather was splendid in these four days of August 27-30 ... From the beginning onward I sought to give the Catholic Congress a foundational theme: faithfulness to Catholic principles, return to the principles of the Catholic order of life and society. The previous year’s Catholic Congress in Frankfurt had the foundational theme: People’s Spirit of Community – a beautiful and empowering theme for Frankfurt’s environment; the Munich Catholic Congress in a more Catholic atmosphere could dare to take up the far more difficult theme: Faithfulness to Catholic principles. To the extent that it occasioned a little examination of conscience for Center Party and other politicians, it could not hurt, and if outsiders learned thereby that a policy which opens the back doors to Germany for Bolshevism no longer is compatible with the principles of a Catholic statesman, then this insight could only be an advantage. And if consciences were awoken somewhat to the recognition that for the upcoming School Law and Concordat, a policy of compromise must also for once have a limit, then again that could not hurt. I expressly said that compromises may be unavoidable based on reality, but superior to all compromises there must be firm principles. Sunday [August 27th], as the first day, and for foreign attendees the only day, made an indescribably deep impression on everyone. Early on the Königsplatz, at 10 o’clock under a white-blue heaven, a hundred thousand people gathered around the altar, a group from the Tyrol lugged the big cross from the Bergisel [in Austria] in procession, and the students marching in brought many to tears. On Sunday afternoon the separate gatherings for the innumerable foreign guests took place, and Sunday evening the first public greeting assembly. On this occasion Lord Apostolic Nuncio Pacelli spoke in the great hall of the court of the Residenz in flawless German that was easily understandable, and carried along everyone to enthusiastic homage to the Holy Father. Count Lerchenfeld also put before the whole world a resolute confession with the theme, ‘Bavarian culture is Catholic in its roots,’ and left a deep impression by the distinguished bearing and poetry of his lecture. The President of the Catholic Congress, Mayor Adenauer of Cologne, indeed at that point really introduced a little noticed tactlessness with the remark that Bavarians are only half as bad as they say of them in the Rhineland. Monarchical statements were carefully avoided by us. When Count Lerchenfeld unintentionally made one passing reference to the hereditary royal house, a storm of applause and standing ovation let loose, which could hardly be restrained. It was an easy thing to unleash storms of applause with a mere mention of the royal family. Crown Prince Rupprecht, after the mass on the Königsplatz, was accompanied to his car by loud cries, but intentionally stayed away from all other ceremonies and also did not come to the students’ evening festivities, which he had already turned down, in order not to occasion on his part a monarchistic ovation. On this occasion Catholics from the North and from the South saw how much more deeply rooted the Bavarian royal family is with the people than the House of Hohenzollern is with the Prussians. It is really quite a difference, when a bridge or a museum is named after the Hohenzollerns, or when the hereditary castle of the Wittelsbachs is turned into a Benedictine monastery and a Wittelsbach gives the people a new Feast of the Patroness of Bavaria [in 1916 by recommendation of King Ludwig III to the Vatican], just as another Wittelsbach had already done 300 years before [in 1623 during the Thirty Years War when the Elector of Bavaria, Maximilian I, placed Bavaria under the patronage of Mary Mother of God]. The concluding assembly on Wednesday, after everything had transpired in beautiful accord, brought a sad dénouement. In his concluding speech President Adenauer ventured into the purely political realm and sought to justify the republican standpoint of the Center Party. The Revolution, he said, had grown organically, like everything in the world, the hereditary trees of the princely houses, uprooted in the storm, had become shriveled up, and German Catholicism – just this expression shows his unclear thinking – was now cast upon the German Fatherland. Then he announced for another day the preaching of a religious order priest from Cologne, without knowing that preaching in Munich must receive the prior approval of the local Bishop. Another day he had some explanations given to me which somewhat alleviated the misimpression, but did not completely remove it. Concerning my sermon on the Königsplatz about catechism of Catholic doctrine, and concerning my speech at the last public assembly about the Church as the great power of peace, many misinterpretations have been published. I branded the Revolution as a wrong against the Fourth Commandment of God and also demanded that governmental legislation be measured by the Commandments of God. I did not thereby condemn the Weimar Constitution and the republican form of government in themselves; for a constitution can lawfully come into existence, without the preceding Revolution being legitimized. A child born out of wedlock can be legitimized without single motherhood thereby receiving justification for itself. I had to attribute this moral characteristic to the Revolution, because on the one hand, the left wants to sanctify the Revolution of 1918, and on the other hand, the right wants to play with revolutionary ideas yet today. Now the Independent Socialists and the Communists have presented a motion to have the government initiate proceedings under the new Protection Law against my slandering of the republican form of government and to have them establish the precise words of my speech (to be sure, this last should have been demanded in the first place). The Reich Chancellor has also announced that he will soon take a public position against the Catholic Congress in Munich. With the Reich Chancellor, anyway, I recently had a debate by letter, because we in Munich did not want his participation, considering that at the previous Catholic Congress in Frankfurt he threw a political hand grenade into the assembly and took the field in an unheard of manner against Bavaria at the Augustinian Association. It is deeply deplorable how far removed Reich Chancellor Wirth is from the basic conduct of a statesman standing above the parties. Thus, a few days ago he took an article from the Ingolstadt newspaper, which apparently the diocesan Bishop had not even read there, and copied it in the Reich Chancery and had it sent to all the German Bishops to show how they are inciting against him in Bavaria. Since it is possible that they would try to involve the Holy Father in this dispute, today I wrote His Excellency Pizzardo a lengthy report about this undercurrent and the after-echoes of the Catholic Congress. I was all the more occasioned to do this after Archbishop Pizzardo, at the instance of the Holy Father, expressed through the Lord Nuncio in highest words the acknowledgement of his satisfaction and agreement with my speech. The explanation that I delivered to the Bavarian Bishops Conference in Freising about the Catholic Congress met there also with the full agreement of Lord Cardinal Schulte of Cologne, who took part this year, in place of Cardinal Bertram, in our Freising deliberations. Moreover I received emphatically from all sides, even from Protestants, enthusiastic agreement. The Concordat negotiations are unfortunately still not yet concluded; however, they have entered into their final phase, especially since the recent statements from the Rome Cardinals’ Commission. The overall situation in Bavaria is not unfavorable for these negotiations. The situation in the Reich is, to be sure, highly strained. Beginning in October the entirety of the left-wing parties will form a left-wing bloc with 180 votes in the Reichstag, against which there are only 67 Center Party votes... Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 1352, reprinted in Volk, Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol. 1, pp. 281-284. On October 19, 1922, Cardinal Faulhaber wrote the following letter to Nuncio Pacelli explaining once again his position, in similar terms, but more concisely: Your Excellency, Most Reverend Lord Apostolic Nuncio! The phrase in question from my Catholic Congress speech, whose meaning the “Correis de Manha” of September 14 distorts, did not intend to give a moral commentary on the republican form of government but only on the German Revolution. The phrase went: “The Revolution of 1918 was perjury and high treason and remains for all time branded with the mark of Cain.” The context of this was my speech about the Ten Commandments of God (of the precepts of the Church I was not speaking on this occasion) as the necessary foundation not merely of the private order of life, but also for the public ordering of society, and as an example of the Fourth Commandment of God the above-mentioned phrase was spoken. Of republic or monarchy or other form of government, no word was spoken. A constitution or republic can, despite the preceding bad revolution, be good and lawful, if it came into existence for the common good and as the will of the people – to speak about that was in line with my topic – but the Revolution of 1918 is and remains a crime against the Fourth Commandment. Thus it was only the instigators of the German Revolution whom I branded as perjurers, not those who stand today in good faith on the ground of the republican form of government. L’Osservatore Romano gave the accurate text. With regret that Your Excellency must trouble himself with this matter alongside your many other official labors, and with the expression of most reverential sentiment and deepest respect, Your Excellency’s most devoted servant, M. Cardinal Faulhaber Archbishop of Munich Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 3503, reprinted in Volk, Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol.1, pp. 289-290. Sept. 23, 1922 Hitler’s appeal in the Völkischer Beobachter includes, along with repeated attacks on the “Jewish press,” the following: If the Jew believes he can conquer, then we want to show that the Germanic skull is harder than his, and that a Volk for whose existence two million died on the field of battle, can yet summon up the means to avenge those who were cheated of their lives abroad and whose deaths were made futile for our Fatherland by deceivers and criminals... The National Socialist movement shall represent the combat troops for the liberation of our German Volk from the fetters of its international world-enslavement. Its intellectual sword shall be its press. Its material weapons the self-sacrificial willingness of its adherents... Arise for battle for our deeply beloved German Volk and Fatherland! Reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, p. 690-695. Sept. 23, 1922 Völkischer Beobachter, page 5: “Rome and Jewry” We have briefly reproduced the remarks of Munich’s Cardinal-Archbishop von Faulhaber in which he said: “Since Moses delivered the Eighth Commandment, ‘You shall not lie,’ this requirement applies also for the Jewish press in Berlin and its Munich correspondents.” We have elsewhere added the observation about this, that the Prince of the Church of Munich does not stand alone in this regard. Also the current Bishop of Rottenburg, Paul Wilhelm von Keppler, has seen through the impulses of the Jews outside Palestine. In his book “Travels in the East,” he writes concerning the sad state (the Zionist millions will probably change this picture) of the Middle Eastern Jews: “One can scarcely believe that these are a part of the same people who, outside Palestine, are like a thorn in the side to Christian peoples, suck their blood, enslave them with chains of golden millions, and with reed scepters of poison-soaked pens, poison the public fonts of culture and morals by interjecting disgusting, putrid material.” Further, an expansion upon the position of Munich’s Archbishop on the Revolution and the position of Prince-Bishop Bertram of Breslau: In the opinion of Cardinal Faulhaber, the Revolution was perjury and high treason; in the opinion of Cardinal Bertram, this political system that arose from perjury and high treason must “be honored in all things. It is thereby totally irrelevant how it came into existence.” As we now learn from the “Trier Province Newspaper,” the late Trier Bishop Korum is to be placed in the same knuckleheaded category as Cardinal Bertram, for he remarked: “What shall we think of the Center Party? The Center Party rebuilt a roof over our heads after the Revolution. If the house still isn’t completely finished and much of it still doesn’t please us, that is not surprising. The plasterwork comes later.” But we must add yet another expansion upon our observations about the German Catholic Congress. We have written that the Munich Cardinal’s demand upon the “Jewish” press for truthful reporting could be directed with the same justification to papers like the “Bayerischer Kurier.” That we have not just pulled this opinion out of thin air, is shown by the fact that at last year’s German Catholic Congress in Frankfurt, the Hungarian Bishop Ottokar von Prohaszka gave a fervent speech against Jewry, but the major pertinent points of the speech were cut out of the official report of the Catholic Congress. In order to learn whether this time, once again, the Commandment of Moses in relation to Cardinal Faulhaber’s demand, will be circumvented by the official reporting and especially by the Center Party press, we would be grateful to our readers if they would send us clippings of such reports. Oct. 1, 1922 L’Osservatore Romano, page one, top center lead: “The Journal des Débats and His Eminence Cardinal Faulhaber” Our illustrious confrère the Journal des Débats [Journal of Debates] evidently must have been surprised by his good faith when it wrote, in its issue of September 7th, that His Eminence Cardinal Faulhaber, the Archbishop of Munich, in the recent Congress of German Catholics held in that city, spoke in a tone of “triumphant imperialism.” Now, those who have known about the talks of His Eminence, while not indeed hearing the word “imperialistic,” did see how passionately the Cardinal scourged “the heresy of exaggerated nationalism,” an expression that earned him the attacks, not the praise, of the Prussian imperialists. But there is more: in fact the same newspaper has dug up, from where it is not known, that His Eminence Faulhaber, during the war, had celebrated mass in the church of Wambréchies without the permission of the Bishop of Lille. In this we congratulate our confrère for its familiarity with canon law; but we can assure it that Cardinal Faulhaber has never celebrated mass in Wambréchies. Then it stated that His Eminence, on that occasion, cruelly mistreated a French priest, which no one would ever believe who knows Cardinal Faulhaber’s noble and mild character; the journal was certainly misinformed in this matter, as when it writes that the same Cardinal was once Bishop of Trier… The French, who have now been in Trier for the past four years, should know that the same Bishop was there for forty years, namely Bishop Korum, who died just last year. Perhaps our confrère confused Trier with Speyer [where Faulhaber was Bishop before becoming Archbishop of Munich]. We do not doubt that the Journal des Débats will take note of these corrections, which are available to it starting now. Its assertions do not fall into the category of political attacks against a man or a political activity, which are usually resolved in the course of public debate; these are serious allegations without any foundation whatsoever, against a Minister of God and a Prince of the Church, who also spoke, at the Munich Congress, with the heart and mind of a priest. Oct. 5, 1922 Cardinal Faulhaber’s letter to the Catholic Bishops of Bavaria: ... The laicistic attacks by Center Party papers in Baden, and by the executive secretary of the workers’ association based in Gladbach, against my speech at the Munich Catholic Congress, are still going on and on, and were taken to a caustic extreme last Sunday by Center Party parliament member Joos in Essen. I regard these developments with great calmness as to myself personally, but with great concern as to our political representatives. The Holy Father, who knows the entire content of my speech, has expressed to me his full agreement. In order not to play upon the authorities, and not to bring foreign derision yet again on the German disposition toward clear principles, I will not make public this acknowledgement by the Holy Father unless there is a pressing necessity. This morning I received information from Rome that the splendid rebuff that L’Osservatore Romano rendered on October 1st to the attacks of French newspapers on my Catholic Congress speech stemmed from official Church circles. I ask your reverend lords, not for personal reasons, but in the interest of the Catholic name in Germany, to share a Memento with your priests about this matter. Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 4300, reprinted in Volk, Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol.1, p.287. Oct. 21, 1922 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 4, pp. 111-121: “World Revolution and the Jews” The world is sick. Are we not to say: today it is repeated also by second-rate moralists: today even the most carefree people, frightened by the chaotic whirlwind into which every social order is precipitated ... Where are we headed? This is the frightful question that is heard repeated on all sides: and alongside this, another question is murmuring in the subconscious: Who is directing? Because the multitudes are herds that do not know where they are going unless they obey someone who guides or drives them along. Who drives this mess of parties, laws, lodges, who guides this movement of world revolution that upends human society from one end of the world to the other? Sinister voices arise on many sides to accuse the synagogue. A wolf remains always a wolf: they attribute the old blame to new suspects and reopen a wound covered over but never healed. A profane hand has also brought to light secrets that bear the mark of the ghetto. Evidence or falsifications? It will be difficult, as always, to dispel the darkness in which Israel is jealously enveloped. The veil of the temple that Jehovah ripped, the sons of Judah have sewn back together with double thread; but that which they want to cover up is not as great as the holy ark of the Lord: it is the stronghold of their usury and of their egotism. In any event, to their tenacity in covering up, we oppose the right to search about and bring into the sunlight that which concerns us, which touches upon the public good of the Christian people, which the Talmudists are commanded to harm by the laws and tenets of their religion. To tell the truth, these Jewish mysteries have already been discussed and written about in Italy and abroad for a long time, and more outside Italy than within Italy, because this race dominates more there than here. We have been silent thus far on purpose, so that no one accuses us – as at other times – of being partisan instigators of antisemitism. Today, given where matters stand, we believe it to be part of our duty to put our readers on notice of the facts involved in our inquiry. We start with those facts that stand out from all the others in light of the magnitude of the movement and the importance of its consequences. Today Russia is the field of battle where the world empire of tomorrow is being decided. However dense the darkness in which that unhappy country is artfully enveloped by the arrogance of tyrants who want to seize power, they cannot entirely hide the faint glow of fire, nor choke the cry of the agonized victims shot and murdered upon a mere whim, nor stifle the desperate struggle of a people put to sword, fire and blood, for the delight of the Communist government. Four years ago a foolish or enervated Europe stood spectator to that systematic destruction in cold blood by robbers transformed into heads of state, surrounded by assassins fully worthy of the telling title of “Red Guards,” ministers of murder and terror. Europe had to witness the residences of ambassadors, its representatives, sanctuaries protected by the most elementary law of nations, attacked and plundered, abused, wounded, its envoys taken prisoner, its flags and banners dishonored: the political cowardice, sectarian connivance dissimulated or buried in silence the dark mysteries of Bolshevik terror. Meanwhile most of the industry of the country was destroyed, commerce was killed: looting and squandering sent all wealth to rack and ruin. In four years Russia, such a vast and fertile region, with such abundance in all things, was reduced to the extreme torture of starvation. There have been reports of millions of children, innocent lives harvested in full flower by this implacable scourge: reports of millions of other lives so unfortunate that starvation will end up consuming them, if a helping hand of the Christian nations will not be ready to give them a piece of bread that saves them from death. It is just and humane that the Vicar of Christ himself gave the example, but just as a deep sense of compassion inclines us to rescue an innocent crowd to save it from so terrible a fate, so an equally profound impulse of profound indignation brings forth a cry of malediction against the scoundrels who have swept this people into a bottomless abyss. Let the unfortunates be rescued, but let the intriguers be put in chains and taken directly to the court of justice, those ringleaders who in order to implement their crazy utopia betray the country and assassinate the nation. Who are they? The reader does not expect an answer from us. For too long they have been sadly famous even here across the Alps, the kabbalistic names of the rabble-rousers who hold themselves out as founders of the Communist International in Moscow, which they vaunt as the paradise of future human society. But if passing beyond the names, we look at them directly in the face to recognize who they are, it turns out to be a very strange fact that the greatest number, according to what is said, of the members of the governing body of the Communist Republic in Russia are not indigenous Russians, but Jewish intruders, who almost always take measures, however, to conceal their original name under the guise of a Slavic type name. In a booklet published in 1920 by the Society “Unity of Russia,” we find a long list naming all the members of the Council, of the Commissions and delegations, of the Committees, Commissars, Central Offices, of which the organism of the State is constituted in the establishment of the Communist government. This list has been disseminated in every language, in every country, without contradiction: its information presents matters of value such that, in addition to its first origin, its peaceful notoriety accredits at least its substantial veracity. Now in that list of more than 545 names of the holders of the governing offices of the State, citizens of Russian ethnicity are not more than 30: those of the Jewish race are a striking 447; the rest are scattered among Latvians, Finns, Germans, Armenians, Poles and other peoples that made up the Russian Empire. On the other hand, the total population of the Russian republic certainly does not number less than 90 million Russian nationals vis-à-vis four million Jews who until yesterday were swarming in the trash of the ghetto, made into a sign of common contempt. Yet today this tiny minority has invaded every avenue of power and imposes its dictatorship on the nation. And what a dictatorship! ... Now let us pause to observe. We have a list of the members of this council of commissars, which can be compared to the councils of ministers in other European governments; it contains twenty-two names that make us aware of the men in whose hands lies the destiny of the nation. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, known by the name of Lenin; he is a true Russian and belongs to the hereditary nobility. Born in 1870 in Simbirsk, he studied law and political economy at the Universities of Kazan and Petersburg. It is said by some that his mother was Jewish; it is certain that she was brought up in the Orthodox religion. Caught up in revolution, he was imprisoned as a socialist, exiled to Siberia, released in 1900, became an expatriate, and went back most ardently to socialist propaganda. A brother of his was executed in 1887 for having taken part in a terrorist conspiracy. He himself has a coldly cruel mind, with an iron will, audacious, resolute, dominated by intelligence and by disinterest in those around him. Another Russian is the commissar for foreign affairs, Cicerin, also of a noble family, from which he inherited a considerable fortune which he abandoned to keep faith with his profession of socialism. These examples can be seen in other countries. The third is the commissar for education (known there as the Ministry of Public Instruction), Lunacharsky, son of a State Councilor, Orthodox, and a propagator of Communism among the lower clergy. To these Russians can be added the commissar for agriculture, Protian, and the commissar for matters of nationality, Djongachvili [translator’s note: Josef Stalin], who are of Armenian origin. – The other seventeen are all sons of Israel. Among them we find the one who after Lenin holds the first office in the republic and was the real commander of the “Red Army,” Bronstein, called Trotsky, Commissar of War and of the Navy. Born in 1877 of a Jew who had an apothecary shop in the province of Kherson, even as a boy he was a rebel and got himself expelled from school for having horribly profaned an icon. Arrested several times, sentenced to Siberia, he escaped, wandered around Europe, writing books and newspapers for the revolution. When it broke out, he remained uncertain which party to clutch onto, not knowing which would prevail, and appearing to lean toward the “Mensheviks” or moderates; today he is a crazed and bloody Bolshevik. His worthy companion in ferocious cruelty is the Commissar for the Interior, Ovsei Gershon Apfelbaum, called Zinoviev, a Jew from the Ukraine, born in 1883. Tied by a childhood friendship with Lenin, he was with him in Switzerland, where until 1917 they published the newspaper Social Democrat, and with him represented the Russian socialists at the famous conferences of Zimmerwald, Bern and Kienthal. Returning to Russia with the revolution, when the Bolshevik government moved from Petersburg to Moscow in 1918, Zinoviev remained in Petersburg as president of that community; the acts of savage barbarism in that unfortunate city are to be attributed to him... ... Jews are also the ministers of justice and of public works. Other institutions of the republic in Jewish hands are the commissariat for “State lands,” that for “reconstruction,” that for “economics,” that for “the return of refugees,” that above all for “elections,” held by Moise, made famous by the entirely Jewish fraud and election-rigging with which he conducted the great constituent elections of the republic. A final commissariat, sign of the times and the methods, is that of the “press,” which is naturally under complete Jewish domination. Tied to this is a journalism office to which are attached 42 writers, of whom only one is a Russian, Maxim Gorki, the others are all Jews, such as Moch, Kuhn, Eliasson, Katz, Efron, Davidson, and 30 others. These are the prophets who give the word to the proletarian mob and direct public opinion via the columns of Pravda, Izvestia, Znamia Trouda, etc. The anti-Bolshevik newspapers have been suppressed. At the Foreign Ministry a special section engages many foreigners to translate into all languages the revolutionary propaganda pamphlets that are spread throughout the world. IV. Such is the composition of the first council of commissars of the people according to the constitution of the “Russian Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” From this demonstration one can judge the whole. Just like this, the other State councils are all under the predominance of the synagogue. In fact, at the Foreign Ministry, of 17 officials, 13 are Jews; in that of the Interior, of 64, 45; the Ministry of War numbers 34 Jews out of 43 officials, and among them not one is a Russian; that of Finance numbers 26 out of 30; that of Public Education 44 out of 53... Without lingering over all the other officials and committees that sprang up under a hundred names in the pride and vanity of democracy, we will cite the additional fact that of the two Central Executive Committees that arose from the 4th and 5th “Soviet Congresses” of workers-soldiers-peasants-cossacks from all of Russia, according to records that have come to light, the first was composed of 34 members, and of these 33 were Jews, only one was a Russian; its presiding officer was Jacob Mosseivitch Sverdlov, son of a Jewish pharmacist from Nizhni-Novgorod. The other Central Executive Committee contained 62 members, of which 43 were circumcised, the others Russians, Latvians, Armenians, Georgians, Czechs, Germans, etc. Thus from all this information one fact is clear and manifest: this breed which until yesterday lay in blind alleys, at the lowest levels of Russian life, all of a sudden is transformed and in possession of the throne; yesterday they were nothing; today they are everything and everywhere, following the instincts of this decayed race hurrying to vent the rage of their triumph in the fear that it will not last long. How to explain this strange reversal of things, this calculated eruption, sages who take over unfailingly all the organs and machinery of society, so that one can say that in Russia – a unique example – the yoke of another nation, the Jews, has been imposed on the Slavs? Source: Civiltà Cattolica, Oct. 21, 1922, vol. 4, pp.111-121. Note: This article is cited in Frank Coppa, The Papacy, the Jews, and the Holocaust (2006), p.144, and in Ruggero Taradel and Barbara Raggi, La Segregazione Amichevole: “La Civiltà Cattolica” e la Questione Ebraica 1850-1945 [Amicable Segregation: “Civiltà Cattolica” and the Jewish Question 1850-1945] (2000), p.51. Oct. 22, 1922 Nazi Party planning document, dated October 22, 1922, confiscated in 1924 by Munich police from the Nazi Party headquarters, reprinted in Jäckel and Kuhn, pp. 702-708: ...The recognition of a life and death struggle is totally lacking here, and it will first arrive exactly as it did in Russia as machine gun bullets bleed to death the intellectual leadership of the country, when it is too late. The Bolshevizing of Germany means the complete annihilation of the entire Christian-Western culture. The goal of [the Nazi Party] is, in just a word: Annihilation and rooting out of the Marxist worldview... Its suitability for this role has already been proven wherever the battle for real power has flared up between Marxism and the National Socialist German Workers Party... Like the Fascist movement in Italy, this young movement has already understood how to reduce to submission the Jewish-Marxist terror on its own, with its numerical minority, by a ruthless will to fight... If the movement is to defend Volk, State and thereby also the economy in the coming battles, then its organization must be built up with the utmost expedition in the two directions outlined above. Thus: Completion and expansion of the propaganda organization and second, the utmost strengthening of those means of power which, where propaganda falls short, alone are in a position to reduce to submission the coming terror and to keep the national economy going... The most effect means of combat of this type is a daily newspaper... The expansion of the Völkischer Beobachter, which currently appears twice a week, into a daily newspaper, is one of the most essential tasks of the moment... The accomplishment of this mission can only occur if the following are considered: 1) The creation of a daily newspaper is not only bound up with greater capital expenditure to and for it, but also with the current economic developments it is not profitable. Additional subsidies are thus continually necessary. The expansion of the practical power means of the movement [SA stormtroops]: ... 26.1 million German Marks [for buildings, transport, weapons, gasoline, uniforms, depot, etc.] The parliaments once could not prevent the catastrophe of November 9, 1918, but 300 determined men in each city would really have sufficed to turn the specter of Revolution into a trifle. The three hundred were lacking then. The organization of these hundreds and ten thousands is formed today. It will be able to accomplish its mission in the coming months ever more thoroughly, the deeper is the recognition of the looming danger and the larger is the scale of the expansion of the organization to combat that danger. If the coming time will demand ten thousand men who consecrate their lives to the existence of the Fatherland and to the preservation of its national existence, then they have the holy right to demand at least of the other ten thousand that they do not hold back their gold from this cause. For more precious yet than all money, at the end of the day, is really the blood. Note: We have not found a historian who discusses the character of this document as a fund-raising pitch to build a powerful daily propaganda organ, and to build the SA into a paramilitary force strong enough to contemplate overthrowing the Weimar Republic. As events turned out, both of these developments occurred in the subsequent months. Major elements in the document appear directed to persons concerned about economic and business affairs. Ian Kershaw, Hubris, p.245, discusses Hitler’s thinking with reference to his June 22, 1922 speech as well as the October 22, 1922 Nazi document: What he visualized, he had stated in June 1922, was a fight to the death between two competing ideologies, the idealistic and the materialistic. The mission of the German people was to destroy Bolshevism, and with it “our mortal enemy: the Jew.” By October the same year he was writing of a life and death struggle of two opposed “world-views,” incapable of existing alongside one another ... It meant a war of extermination… “The Bolshevization of Germany ... means the complete annihilation of the entire Christian-western culture.” Oct. 23, 1922 Robert Murphy’s political situation report of Oct. 23, 1922, from the American Consulate in Munich: The “Muenchner Post” in commenting upon the prominence accorded by the bourgeois press to the recent communistic disturbance at Berlin remarks that notwithstanding the criticism of the press of the Berlin occurrence, no fault is found in the reported collision at Coburg on October 17, 1922, between the delegation of the “Nationalsocialistische Arbeiterpartei,” a radical nationalist group who were journeying to Coburg to celebrate a so-called “Deutscher Tag” and representatives of labor organizations, unsympathetic with the meeting. The parties are reported as having indulged in a general fight in the railroad station with blackjacks and clubs much in evidence. Several persons were injured. The police apparently did little to prevent the encounter. Requiem for King Louis. Another occasion for an exhibition of the cordiality existing between the members of the Wittelsbach House and the present coalition government was afforded by a requiem mass sung in the Frauenkirche at Munich on October 17, 1922. On this as on other similar occurrences, such as the Hindenburg reception covered in my report of August 24, 1922, the Minister President and such other government members as may be present are content to occupy places ordinarily accorded to those of subordinate rank... Source: Report of R.D. Murphy, U.S. Vice Consul in Munich, to U.S. Secretary of State, Oct. 23, 1922, U.S. National Archives Records Administration (NARA), M336, Roll 18, pp. 176-177. Oct. 27, 1922 Pacelli to Gasparri, re Negotiations for the Bavarian Concordat: Most Reverend Eminence, Last Monday, October 23rd, I went to make a visit to the Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs, in order to accelerate the concluding of the Concordat negotiations and to learn confidentially his views about the new proposal presented by me, as I had the honor to report in my respectful Report No. 25205, on the 26th day of this past month of September. From the conversation with Mr. Matt, I immediately realized how serious a problem lies in Article X regarding the State’s financial obligations. Nonetheless, considering the note on page 7 of the printed proposal [from the Vatican in August 1923] transmitted by Your Eminence with venerated Dispatch No. 6380, I was able to calm down the Minister sufficiently on this issue. I recounted, in truth, that the first schema proposed by the Holy See contained only general principles, but the Minister himself did not accept that edition and requested that, instead of referring back with a general formula to the old Concordat of 1817, which in its implementation had given rise to many doubts and controversies, the new Convention should indicate exactly and clearly each individual obligation of the State. Dr. Matt admitted that fully, confirming that is what he desires. I then added that the new proposal includes that to which the Church has a right in virtue of the above-mentioned Concordat; where, however, that would result in an impossibility of the State fulfilling one or another of these obligations, I had reason to believe that the Holy See would not be opposed to according the necessary waivers, especially in view of the current economic situation. That (I also made known) will also facilitate the Minister’s defense of the Concordat in the Landtag, since it will show how the Holy See, while it has affirmed its rights in principle, as was certainly natural, has still not refused to condescend generously to those diminutions that were required by the sad condition of the Land. Unfortunately, the point that seems to run up against insurmountable obstacles in the matter of finances is that regarding the Seminaries, upon which the Holy See for good reason has particularly insisted in the note on page 9 of the above-cited printed proposal, especially so that the Most Reverend Bishops establish complete courses in philosophy and theology. In fact it appears extremely difficult for the Bavarian State, which for more than a century under the monarchical regime, due to a false interpretation of Article V of the Concordat of 1817, did not carry out its obligations in this regard, to begin to do so after the revolution under the democratic-republican regime, at a time so economically unfavorable, and to introduce for this purpose relevant increases in the public budget. The Most Eminent Cardinal Archbishop of Munich and Freising, and the Most Reverend Archbishop of Bamberg, questioned by me in this regard in compliance with the instructions contained in the above-mentioned note on page 7, deem that it would actually be a most notable benefit if the Government would effectively assure the entire payment of the expenses for the final year, called the Alumnatsjahr or Seminary Practicum, and would guarantee the preservation of the present-day Lyceums for the study of philosophy and theology, nor do they believe it possible to attain more than that. It is sad to think that in this way, rationales of an economic character will still persist for an indefinite time, in opposition to introducing the full two-year requirement under the Code of Canon Law for the philosophy curriculum, and that the Diocese of Speyer will likewise most probably remain with only a Seminario Pratico, as I had occasion to point out in the obsequious Report No. 23649 of April 5th of this year. And that is why it is necessary for me, in a matter so grave and important, to implore further instructions from Your Eminence. Mr. Minister observed moreover that, while the State must assume a long series of many obligations, the concessions by the Holy See appear instead rather limited; in other words, that while the obligations of the old Concordat continue to weigh upon the State, on the other hand almost all the rights recognized for the former King of Bavaria are removed, “seeking to implement that what remains in the Concordat is what pertains to matters of the Church and religion” (art. IX). This will make it, as it seems to him, extremely difficult to have these proposals accepted by the Parliament; indeed I must add that the two above-named Archbishops, while so jealous for the freedom of the Church, consider some further concessions to be nearly inevitable, if shipwrecks of the entire Concordat are to be avoided. In particular, Dr. Matt noted: 1st) that in Article XIV § 1 the words “before the publication of the Bull” will create fears that the notification of the name of the candidate will be made at the last minute, so that perhaps the Government will not have the possibility to make known its eventual objections. I therefore ask Your Eminence to indicate to me if the proposed edition could be modified to this end, putting in, for example, “before the appointment.” 2nd) that it would be somewhat desirable if at least concerning the presentation of benefices some concession were to be made to the Government. Therefore I submit to Your Eminence’s superior judgment , if it is not perhaps possible, in an extreme case, to admit a similar right for those benefices which, after the concluding of the Concordat of 1817 and up to the promulgation of the Code of Canon Law [in 1917] were actually founded by donations not from the Crown but from the State; however, a) with an exception for limitations included in the Act of foundation, in virtue of which, for example, the presentation by the Government takes place only after the Bishop’s free collation; b) with the obligation of that Government to choose the candidate from among a list of three freely designated by the Bishop from among the candidates for the benefice; c) with an exception for honors that are held as patronage under Canon 1469; and finally d) on the condition of abandoning the unacceptable terminology used up to now by the Bavarian Government, according to which the “presentation” is called the “collation” of the benefice. It is true, in fact, that, according to the doctrine recently espoused in Civiltà Cattolica (71st year, 1920, vol. 2, page 319 and vol. 3 page 123), the right of presentation does not pass to Governments arising through revolutions, even though they may become legitimate later through the passage of time; nonetheless it seems difficult, along these lines, to manage to have the Bavarian Government continue to perform the aforesaid honors, without them being newly recognized, even if the corresponding rights of presentation are restricted within the limits described above. It is also useful to note that the benefices in question, founded with donations from the State in the aforesaid period, constitute (so far as I have been assured) a relatively small part of those as to which the Bavarian Government has exercised up to now the right of presentation, while there would remain all the others, rather more numerous, for which that right formerly belonged to the King of Bavaria in virtue of the apostolic indult conferred by the Concordat (art. XI). As to the clause of Article XII in the new proposal, “if the political-territorial situation of Bavaria does not undergo changes,” Dr. Matt spontaneously informed me that he does not see serious objections in this regard, it being clear that, for example, in case the Saar District were to be lost to Germany, a change in the diocesan administration would become difficult to avoid; the Government is interested primarily in having a guarantee that the current status will not be affected before the plebiscite and the definitive decision about this district. This clause is also justified, moreover, by the German Constitution, which in Article 18 provides for the possibility of changes in the territories of the individual States (as has already been verified for Bavaria with the admission of Saxony-Coburg), changes that could bring with them corresponding modifications in the diocesan boundaries. This consideration will also be able to serve to render less difficult and painful to national sentiment the acceptance of the clause in question. Mr. Minister further recognized that in regard to other points (schools, theological faculties, etc.) the new edition took large account of his observations. Finally, he let me know that the proposal is now, as to what concerns the economic part, being studied by the competent Cabinet Ministries, and I instantly asked to have it accomplished in the shortest possible time, avoiding procrastinations and delays, which were to be lamented in the past. I made the same strong recommendation to Finance Minister Dr. Krausneck and to various deputies of the Bavarian People’s Party. In conclusion, in expectation of the venerated instructions from Your Eminence, I humbly bow to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 4154. Nov. 4, 1922 Vice Consul Murphy’s report, Nov. 4, 1922, describing the fall of Count Lerchenfeld as Prime Minister (Minister President) of Bavaria, and rumors of an impending coup d’état by monarchist forces: Re resignation of Count Lerchenfeld: (p.2) His prestige as a leader was severely damaged when he permitted a second deputation headed by Minister of Justice Gürtney (Middle Party) to proceed to Berlin and complete the negotiations commenced by his looking to a compromise of the states’ rights question arisen between the Federal Government and Bavaria. His position as leader of his party and of the coalition was weakened thereby and his control at an end. His transmission of the memorandum suggesting economic reform in the Empire to the Federal Government prior to its submission to the Bavarian Cabinet met with emphatic disapproval. There is also a fueling current that Lerchenfeld’s elimination is intended to clear the way for the commencement of a counter revolution, rumored to take place on November 11, 1922, or during the latter part of the month, is the dissatisfaction of the Bavarian peasants, aristocrats, ex-officers, etc. with the policy of performance of the Wirth Cabinet and the internal economic chaos waxes ... the apprehension in the ranks of the socialist ... of a coup d’etat proportionately increases. The answer to this question depends greatly upon who will be Prime Minister. As yet it is impossible to name the new leader. The leaders of the Volkspartei, Mittelpartei and Bauernbund meet today to decide upon the nomination. Violent acts ... on the part of the monarchists are not expected at least in the immediate future. Several days ago it was generally accepted that the successor to Count Lerchenfeld would be Dr. Meyer, at present Staatsrat of the Ministry of Justice. It was he who framed the recent Bavarian Emergency Ordinance in opposition to the federal laws for the protection of the Republic. Source: U.S. NARA, M336, Roll 18, pp. 228-231. Nov. 10, 1922 Vice Consul Murphy’s political situation report of Nov. 10, 1922, mentioning Hitler as the self-styled “Bavarian Mussolini”: After quoting an official announcement of the Bavarian Government rejecting rumors of an imminent counter-revolutionary putsch as “fairy tales,” and “stupid gossip or unfounded suspicion of the police and the Bavarian government,” Murphy writes: The effect, however, that the success of Mussolini and the Fascisti have had in Italy is reflected in certain of the Bavarian groups, particularly the National Socialists. Representatives of the latter organization participated in a large meeting on November 3rd and listened to a number of radical speeches, the gist of which was that in Italy a small handful of national spirited men had been successful in establishing order. Bavaria, too, should have its Mussolini if order is not established otherwise. The leader of the National Socialists is Hitler, who is regarded by his followers as the Bavarian Mussolini. The socialist and bourgeois press speak of him only as the leader of the National Socialist ‘blackjack’ squad. The sentiment at the above mentioned meeting was to the effect that a national dictatorship would be better than life in the present republic. The speakers were not reticent in scathing remarks concerning the weakness of the Wirth Cabinet. Hitler and his followers did not hesitate to say that Wirth regards himself as a latter day saint and is at the same time a misguided fool and a menace to the German people. It is on this point that Hitler and his followers have scored their largest gain in popularity. Hitler is a naturalized German, originally a Czech, and formerly a painter by profession. For the past two or three years he has played the role of an agitator. Like Kurt Eisner his start was modest, but he has shown steady progress. While Eisner at the time of his advent to power, it is said, could only depend upon thirty men, Hitler is credited with a following of 4,000 faithful, eager to do his bidding. Hitler is a typical agitator who understands local prejudices and is keen enough to take advantage of the present discontent to further his own aims. He is bitterly opposed to the Wirth Cabinet and the policy of performance; he is strongly anti-semitic; he has visions of a change in the domestic order of things which would somehow result in the casting off of the burden of reparations. The reports, however, appearing in certain American newspapers and also in the French press to the effect that Hitler is working hand in glove with such monarchists as Ludendorff, Tirpitz, Luttwitz, Erhardt and the like under a united plan for a royalist coup d’etat in Bavaria do not appear to me to be made of whole cloth. That part of such reports which says that such a counter-revolution will take place on November 11, or shortly thereafter, appears to me unsupported by facts. A coup d’etat by the right would be at present not only inopportune but unnecessary as far as Bavaria itself is concerned. All that can be expected at this time can be accomplished by the administration constitutionally. The Bavarian people, no matter how royalist and how discontented with the present order, still retain sufficient sense of reason to ask – what will violent measures gain. The secret treaty supposed to exist between France and Czecho-Slovakia whereby in case of a counter-revolution France would take the Ruhr and Czecho-Slovakia a portion of Bavaria does not go for increased sentiment for revolt. Bavaria is German and its people have no sympathy with French separatist schemes no matter what the temptation. Undoubtedly the French are working to that end. I am confidentially informed that the French Minister at Munich has even approached Auer – Socialist leader – with a view to obtaining Socialist support of the plan. There is no indication, however, of progress made. On the contrary, Minister Dard’s activities have made him extremely unpopular here. Another much discussed political possibility is that of a State President, who is to have a certain tenure of four to seven years and who will exercise a stabilizing influence on the government. The weakness of the present system was forcibly illustrated during the recent . . . When the Premier was forced to withdraw, there was no central figure who could call upon someone to form a new cabinet and take over the reins of policy. Instead there was a long inter-party squabble resulting in the selection of a man well thought of and respected, but not a strong man. The strong men of the Volkspartei – Heim, Held and Speck, did not wish for the office, as they selected another man who has not even the privilege of choosing his own cabinet, to occupy the chair while they continue on in charge of party affairs and policy. That a Wittelsbacher – probably Rupprecht – may be the State President should one be elected, is not considered as impossible. Source: U.S. NARA, M336, Roll 18, pp. 206-216. Nov. 10, 1922 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Resignation of Count von Lerchenfeld – Appointment of Dr. von Knilling as President of the Ministerial Council of Bavaria – Concordat Negotiations Most Reverend Eminence, As I have already had the honor to present to Your Most Reverend Eminence in my respectful coded communiqué no. 415 of October 30th, Mr. Minister President, Count von Lerchenfeld, found it necessary to submit his resignation. The opposition, which was mobilized against him from the beginning by the nationalist groups – from the Mittelpartei [Middle Party] to the so-called national-socialists (Nationalsozialisten), a sort of Fascists led by Hitler – became ever more acute in these recent months, especially during the occasion of the conflict of Bavaria with the Reich on account of the Law for the Defense of the Republic. Count Lerchenfeld’s adversaries were indeed not inclined to make use of a purely personal affair, concerning his wife, in a political struggle. The accusation, which was beginning to be discussed secretly since last April or May, was spread little by little, as allusions were made to it in the press, then clear hints in public assemblies, until a paper entitled Deutsche Wohlfahrt, which was widely distributed (Enclosure I), spoke openly of the matter, indicating the names and citing the files of the legal proceeding. After the resignation of Count von Lerchenfeld was definitively decided, the Bavarian People’s Party turned to State Councillor Mr. Meyer in the Ministry of Justice, as the successor, but he did not want to accept the position. Then, after much discussion, the choice fell to Dr. Eugene von Knilling, who, as I was obliged to emphasize in the next coded communiqué no. 416, was elected by the Bavarian Landtag in the afternoon of the day before yesterday, the 8th, by a vote of 86 (from the three parties of the current coalition – Bavarian People’s Party, Middle Party and Farmers League) out of 143. The new President of the Ministerial Council, born in Munich in 1865, pursued, after finishing his studies in law, his career as a State functionary, until he was named Education Minister in 1912, an office he retained up to the fall of the Monarchy in November 1918. Catholic by birth, he was not fervid, however, in the practice of religion and followed somewhat liberal principles; but after the revolution he changed his leanings and joined the Bavarian People’s Party. In February-March 1920, indeed, he published in the Catholic periodical Allgemeine Rundschau three notable articles about the relations between Church and State in Bavaria, and the future Concordat, in which he combatted the ideas espoused by the then Minister President, Mr. Hoffmann, and in a programmatic speech delivered yesterday in the Landtag, he said: “The maintenance of close and good relations with the Holy See corresponds with a Bavarian tradition. This will be doubly close to my heart at the current moment, in which I hope that we are close to concluding the Concordat negotiations.” (Enclosure II). In the official visit Mr. von Knilling paid me this morning, I did not fail to represent how profound the desire of the Holy Father and Your Eminence would be to see a good turn of events bringing these negotiations to a conclusion; and he, in beseeching me humbly to bring his devoted homage to the August Pontiff, assured me that everything will be done so far as he is concerned to attain this goal. Then he pointed out all the severe difficulties that the Government will encounter during the upcoming winter on account of the devaluation of the German mark and the enormous increases in prices, which could easily cause riots and upheavals, especially in northern and central Germany. He also spoke of the rumors that are circulating these days of a coming coup d’état, especially by the National Socialists, in Bavaria, and, though admitting there exists some danger in this regard, he showed trust in the force at the Government’s disposal to cope with all eventualities. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple, with sentiments of the most profound veneration, I have the honor to prove myself Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most Humble, Most Devoted, Most Obliged Servant, +Eugenio Pacelli, Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, AA.EE.SS., Baviera, 1922-1925, pos. 152, fasc. 3, fol. 41r-42v, reprinted in www.pacelli-edition.de, Document No. 1094. Nov. 25, 1922 Robert Murphy’s political situation report of Nov. 25, 1922, from the American Consulate in Munich: ... The third inquiry made by the Socialists, probably of the greatest current interest, deals with the attitude of the Government toward the activities and breaches of the public peace caused by the national Socialists [sic] Workmen’s party. This interpolation was based on the claim of the United Socialists that armed bands of the national Socialists organization were terrorizing the Government; that the police sympathized with the activities of the organization and offered no resistance to it; that Hitler’s strength had been greatly fortified by Mussolini’s success which Hitler is attempting to imitate in Bavaria with the sympathy of the Government or at least without its active opposition. The Socialists claimed that action should be taken against Hitler’s organization under the special laws for the protection of the Republic. The Government through its Minister of Justice in its reply characterized the National Socialist movement as a natural effect of the burdens imposed upon Germany during the past four years, and a natural reaction against the view of the United Socialists that the German people were justly bound to perform the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. He stated that the Government was, however, holding the movement under control and within reasonable bounds; the movement had a constitutional right to exist; the rumors of counter revolution founded upon the activities of Hitler’s organization were not supported by acts of violence on the part of the organization; the responsibility for such disorders as had occurred could be attributed just as well to misdemeanors on the part of United Socialist workingmen as to members of the Hitler group. My observation leads me to the conclusion that the so-called Bavarian Mussolini – Hitler, concerning whose activities the Department was advised in my report No. 221 of November 10, is countenanced by the government because he through his organization provides vent for the inevitable outcroppings of public discontent which lie so near the surface of things in Bavaria during this period of economic disorder. He is an opportunist quick to appeal to popular prejudice, as is demonstrated in his campaign against the Jews, but it does not seem that he has developed sufficiently to play the larger role of dictator which is his avowed ultimate aim. He is content to progress slowly and submit to the control of the present government, and the government seems likewise content to have a useful tool which provides an exhaust for the element which craves attendance at the usual beer-hall assemblies to listen to denunciation of the Jews, the Entente in general and France in particular, to the condemnation of the Treaty of Versailles, and such ‘Schlagwörter’ [catchwords] as the “Berliner Judische Räterrepublik” [Berlin Jewish Soviets-Councils Republic] and a vivid portrayal of its economic woes. Interview with the Bavarian Prime Minister. Premier von Knilling yesterday granted me a thirty-minute interview in which he expressed himself somewhat as follows: Serious social disorders due to oppressive economic conditions during the coming winter months are possible but he has full confidence in the strength of the government and the police to cope with and suppress excesses. Anti-Jewish sentiment is strong and increasing. He himself is anti-semitic. While Hitler’s organization is growing in numbers, the Premier does not feel that Hitler is of large enough caliber to advance beyond the point of a popular agitator. He does not partake of the qualities of a Mussolini, nor will he even attain the measure of success of Kurt Eisner. He has not the mental ability and furthermore the government is now on guard as was not the case in 1918. To the question of where Hitler’s organization obtained its funds, he said there were many rumors. He of course denied that the present government is supplying funds or assistance in any way. (From a high government source I learn that it is strongly rumored that Henry Ford’s organization is furnishing Hitler with funds to assist him in his campaign against the Jews). Many of the more respectable element which has recently been attracted to Hitler had contributed, but his financial resources were far from unlimited. The Premier gives the impression of capability and good judgment. He is unquestionably reactionary and a royalist. Source: US NARA M336, R18, pp. 256-258. Nov. 29, 1922 Letter from the Bishop of Passau, Baron von Ow-Felldorf, to Cardinal Faulhaber: Your Eminence! Reverend Herr Cardinal and Archbishop! The past Reich Chancellor Herr Dr. Wirth somehow felt the need to unburden his heart to us bishops ... ... I could not deny myself the opportunity to convey to Your Eminence my most sincere thanks and interior joy for bringing to expression such a frank and weighty intervention for right and truth. Standing in support of your highest Church position is the entire episcopate and certainly likewise the entire part that matters (Latin: Pars sanior) of the clergy and people of Bavaria. May God will that, with Dr. Wirth no more and the system embodied by him – to the extent his behavior had anything to do with the term “system” – gone from the face of the earth, the helm of the ship of state may finally one day pass over into hands that are equal to the increasingly urgent and assertive demands of a portentous juncture! With the most distinguished respect ... Your Eminence’s most deferential and devoted, /s/ +Sigismund Felix Bishop of Passau Source: L. Volk, Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, vol. 1, pp. 295-296. Dec. 11, 1922 Pope Pius XI’s words about Palestine to the Consistory of Dec. 11, 1922: To mention some of the most serious - great sorrow is still caused Us by the trend of affairs in Palestine, that Holy Land, cradle of our faith, bathed with the sweat and the Blood of the Divine Redeemer. You know well, Venerable Brethren, all that was done in defence of the rights of the Holy Places by Our revered Predecessor Benedict XV, one of the gravest records of whose Pontificate remains in the memorable Allocution pronounced in the Consistory of June 13 of last year. Now, inasmuch as it seems that the representatives of the Powers at the League of Nations are soon going to consider the Question of Palestine again, We make Our own both the protest and the purpose of our Predecessor - “That when time comes to establish there a permanent condition of things, to the Catholic Church and to all Christians shall be assured the inalienable rights they hold.” Source: The Tablet, Dec. 23, 1922, reprinted in Minerbi, pp. 194-195. Dec. 20, 1922 Völkischer Beobachter, Dec. 20, 1922, page 2. The first piece reads as follows in translation: “Signs of the Time” ... Herr Pastor Dr. Braun said briefly in a gathering in Nuremberg “that we (namely the Catholic part of the German Volk and its priesthood) will not stand so very far from the National Socialists, if the time comes.” Obviously the Bavarian People’s Newspaper [Bayerische Volkszeitung] disavowed these words when it declared “that the Catholic Church stands and will stand very far from this movement (Nazi Party), if the time comes.” Regardless that Herr Pastor Braun was speaking of the Catholic people, not of the Catholic Church, we believe that Herr Pastor Braun knows his parishioners better than the scribe of the “Bavarian People’s Newspaper.” The second piece reads as follows: “Cross, Swastika and Cardinal Faulhaber” On December 18th Cardinal Faulhaber spoke about “The press in service of popular education.” He alluded to the importance of the press in current day life, to the need to open up the profiteering paper industry and then sharply criticized the “tyranny of phrases and lies” in the realm of the newspaper sector. As for examples, the Cardinal furnished as good as none, much less did he identify – as he had already done at the Catholic Congress – the Jewish lies and deception of our Volk. Then he came to speak of anti-Christian voices, briefly named the Berliner Zeitung [Berlin Newspaper] and then went into a criticism of the – “Völkischer Beobachter.” He said literally: “In a Munich newspaper, in the ‘Völkischer Beobachter,’ the Christian cross was mocked that Sunday in a manner that must make every Christian red in the face. To be sure, the cross was not often depicted in the catacombs, because the first Christians really had to keep everything hidden from their persecutors ...” Then Cardinal Faulhaber referred to the anchor symbol and the mock-crucifix [Spottkruzifix]. The issue of the “Völkischer Beobachter” in question (no. 98) is thoroughly concerned with the Volk-traitorous [Volksverräterischen] politics of the Center Party, and we had thought that every Christian must have, above all else, become red in the face over the supposedly Christian Center Party marching in step all year with atheistic Marxism and giving it a mandate in the Reichstag. The Cardinal appears to be of a different opinion. Now in what concerns the “mockery” of the Christian cross, there is the following in our essay in regard to attacks by the Bavarian People’s Party: “Pagan, old-Germanic is our swastika; the Christian cross has exactly the same origin (just as the symbol of the sun, later re-interpreted into the gibbet of the cross; yet not extant in any of the Roman catacombs).” Thus a purely factual determination. In that case we have the following to say: It is not understandable that a historical indication that a particular symbol was one taken over, can be taken as mockery. Then the dome of St. Peter’s in Rome would have to be considered a mockery, because its architecture was taken from Hellenistic, that is “pagan” forms. That the cross as such represents an ancient symbol of salvation and symbol of the sun, there is not the least doubt today. Primitive man, from his everyday experience, identified the sun as a wheel. The ring with spokes became the symbol of the sun; later just the spokes (that is the +), in order to represent the movement of the sun, i.e., rays of sunlight, also identified as the original form of the hooks, i.e., spikes. The anchor arose as a Christian symbol before the cross as a special symbol and has remained such up to today. The simple cross appeared in ancient times related to the swastika. We do not know whether Cardinal Faulhaber knows the work of Theophile Roller, “The Catacombs of Rome.” There he will find a range of such images... Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Translations and Notes, 1923 Jan. 3, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, page one, banner headline: “Our Mission for 1923” Text: ... The Volk, however, remains! It must bear the sins of a system in which people have been taught to believe for decades... Hopefully it will at some time rub from its eyes the devastated condition to which the criminals have brought it, and then it will also be ready to conduct a reckoning with its seducers and their fantastical reliance on visionaries and chatterers. The mission of our movement for the year 1923 is to hasten this hour, to work untiringly toward it, so that a clearer recognition and a stronger German will emerge... And so the first goal to strive toward is the advancement of training and support of a German nationalist government that will feel at home with running out the entire band of criminals ... Only when Germany has become domestically pure and strong can foreign policy play a role, and then it can play a decisive one. The foreign policy problem is one of our domestic political system’s fate. This can only be brought about by an enormous strengthening of the will. To accomplish this is the mission, the great mission, of the National Socialist German Workers Party! Jan. 13, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, page one, banner headline: “Down with the November Criminals!” Text: Under this phrase our Party appealed to Munich on Thursday in the Circus Krone [largest indoor venue in Munich, capacity 7000] Thousands streamed there to hear how we have the Shame of Versailles to thank for the Scandal of Essen. Long before the start, the Circus was overflowing. Thousands were standing in all the passageways of the arena. Approximately 9,000 people waited patiently for our Führer. Thousands streamed into the hastily arranged parallel gatherings in the Hacker beer hall, the Augustiner beer hall, the Arzberger beer hall, which also were blocked off by the police because they were overflowing. Jan. 14, 1923 Vice Consul Robert Murphy’s report of Jan. 14, 1923 to the U.S. State Department: The German National Socialist Workingmen’s Party (Deutsch Nationale Socialist Arbeiter Partei) under the leadership of Herr Adolf Hitler (the self-styled Bavarian Mussolini) has been most in the public eye and its development has been most interesting. It is not represented in parliament. The party was founded through the agitation of Hitler who made his cause known by the use of enormous red placards posted in conspicuous places throughout the city announcing a meeting with speeches on current problems, and ending with the statement “No Admission for Jews.” While Hitler’s platform is anti everything, the principal plank seems to be anti-Semitism. He has denounced the Entente, the capitalists, the profiteers, the Federal Government, and the Bavarian Government, the Communists and the Socialists, as enemies of the people. He was not generally taken seriously until, carried along on the wave of political and economic discontent and misery, the people began to look up to him as the man who was always in the right. Most of his immediate supporters are young men, as he is himself, and have shown themselves well disciplined and aggressive in their frequent street collisions with Socialists and Communists. Hitler has succeeded in making an impression on those classes who have most to fear from Bolshevism. He has unquestionably raised funds from industrial circles who look to him to assist in suppressing strikes. Before Mussolini’s coup d’etat in Italy, Hitler began to be looked up to as the man from whom the Bavarians and possibly the German nation could expect deliverance from present distress. As an indication of his popularity he was recently able to hold ten over-flow meetings in a single evening. He is not necessarily regarded as a monarchist, but rather as standing for a dictatorship or powerful government along the lines of the Mussolini model. He has so far avoided pinning himself down to say definite details of constructive programs. Those who are personally acquainted with Hitler contradict many of the press accounts of his personality. He was the son of a petty Austrian employee who made his home in what is now Czecho-Slovakia near the Bavarian border. He fought in the Bavarian army during the war and is said to be self-educated. He appears entirely devoted to his cause, and apparently desires to avoid the sensational and theatrical. He is said to have declared that his anti-Semitic views are merely for advertising purpose, which is no doubt true since the Jewish question cannot justifiably be called acute in Bavaria. His party includes all classes of society, with workmen in the minority as compared with students, government employees including policemen, officers, and the middle class generally. His well organized bands of disciplined young men are much in evidence, but it is difficult to estimate as to how many of these who crowd his meetings are moved by more than vaguely sympathetic curiosity. In the beginning of 1922 Count Lerchenfeld was head of the Government of the Center, composed of the Bavarian People’s, Peasants, and Democratic Parties. Himself a man of liberal tendencies, he would have preferred to maintain the government as it was and thereby keep it less obnoxious to Socialists both in Bavaria and in North Germany than had been that of his predecessor, Dr. von Kahr. The majority of the Bavarian People’s Party, however, desired to introduce the Nationalists (Middle Party) into the coalition... This swing of the Government towards the extreme right proved fatal to the Prime Minister, whose personality had also not endeared him to his nominal supporters. Count Lerchenfeld had to resign, and was succeeded in November as Premier by Dr. Eugen von Knilling, the last Minister of Religion in the Bavarian Monarchy, and subsequently a prominent member of the Bavarian People’s Party. Source: US NARA M336 Roll 18 pp. 541ff. Jan. 22, 1923 Encrypted telegram from Pacelli to Gasparri: Baron Cramer-Klett has informed me secretly having learned from a trustworthy and well-informed person that the Berlin Government has decided, in the question of the Ruhr, to resist, even to ultimate consequences, which, in their development, could indeed place in danger the peace of Europe. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 120. Jan. 24, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, page one, banner headline and advertisement: “National Socialists and Party Members!” Saturday, January 27, 1923, begins the Party Congress of the Movement, at 8 p.m. Mass Gatherings in the Largest Munich Halls Sunday, January 28, 1923, morning: Consecration of Flags ... Feb. 2, 1923 Vice Consul Murphy’s situation report of February 2, 1923: I have the honor to report the following concerning the Bavarian political situation during the past week: Landtag, Government and Extraordinary Powers. The oft-postponed national convention of the National Socialists Workingmen’s Party (Hitler’s organization) was held at Munich on January 27, 28 and 29 in an orderly manner unattended by excesses of any kind and with no attempt on the government. Party representatives from the south as well as the north of Germany together with members from Austria and Czecho-Slovakia filled to overflowing twelve large halls. A proclamation of a special condition of affairs by the Cabinet under the provisions of which the Secretary of the Interior was named State Commissioner and clothed with extraordinary powers for the protection of the government and the maintenance of peace and order best indicates the apprehension felt by the government that Hitler’s followers would attempt a coup d’etat. The Secretary for the Interior had previously requested Hitler to indefinitely postpone the convention. The latter replied that postponement was impossible. Whereupon the proclamation was issued and the Secretary forbade all open-air assemblies and limited the number of indoor meetings to six instead of twelve. Hitler in return announced to the government that notwithstanding the government’s edict he intended to carry out the party’s programme as planned, and if the government prevented by force he would resist in like manner and assured the authorities the results would be bloody. The government thereupon, at the intervention of von Kahr, the recognized leader of the patriotic societies, helped by the sympathetic attitude of Polizei-President Nortz, an avowed royalist, weakened, and announced that the indoor meetings could be held. Hitler, however, insisted on the open-air assemblies also, and he finally carried his point and the programme was completely followed as originally planned. The proclamation of an extraordinary condition, the stationing of an extra battalion of Reichswehr in and about Munich and the vacillation of the government were induced by fear and alarm and apparently not warranted by conditions. The Minister President yesterday addressed the Landtag in explanation of the government’s much criticized motion, and though the Chamber accorded him a vote of confidence, his coalition has been seriously weakened. Several newspapers announced the retirement of the Secretary for the Interior, and when he made a public denial of the report, openly declared that when the report was published it was taken for granted that after his shameful exhibition of weakness and vacillation his resignation was the only thing possible. The government’s mistake has furnished Hitler and his party, as well as the United Socialists and the Communists new ammunition and ground for attack of which the best advantage is being taken. The convention itself, the centre of the teapot tempest, was well attended, orderly, free from violence, and the speeches merely a review of the usual subjects of anti-semitism, necessity for a strong government, nationalism and resistance to the ‘enemy.’ The only new point uncovered was the opposition evinced to the new national ‘Einheitsfront’ – a united Germany. Hitler’s party refuses, and in order to continue to exist because of its past record and its anti-semitic platform it must refuse, to have anything in common with the United Socialists or the Communists. A State’s President Possible. The government’s predicament and weakened position has again renewed the agitation for the creation of the office of President of the State of Bavaria. The office would be elective and the tenure a definite period of years, possibly seven. Under the present system the sins and weakness of the government are borne by the Minister President who is likewise Minister for Foreign Affairs. In case of a lack of confidence the Minister President withdraws and the other ministers remain leaving the government without a responsible head. The selection of a new Minister President is then in the hands of the leaders of the majority parties. Much comment has been caused because of the fact that party leaders sidestep the responsible positions but control the situation through their party position. The principal function of the State’s President would be in case of resignation to call upon someone to form a new cabinet. Ex-Crown Prince Rupprecht and Dr. von Kahr (Middle Party) are the most prominently mentioned candidates for the proposed position. Source: US NARA M336 Roll 18 pp. 623-625. Feb. 3, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, page one headline: “National Socialists! Our deepest desire will soon be fulfilled:” our fighting paper, the “Völkisch Observer,” is becoming a daily newspaper ... The newspaper of the Völkisch freedom movement must receive help from all of you so that the “Völkisch Observer” becomes the leading paper and the most feared weapon. Mar. 3, 1923 Vice Consul Murphy’s report of March 3, 1923: National Socialist German Workmen’s Party (Hitler). Campaign against Socialism, Profiteers (meaning thereby all Jews), Hunger, Poverty and the Parliamentary system of Government. If the same amount of agitation, as is today the case in Bavaria, was indulged in and directed against the same objects among a people of more volatile temperament, serious explosions would have long since occurred. At the regular weekly meetings held by Hitler’s organization throughout the state enough sparks are struck to build a nation-wide conflagration but they fall among green timber. The speakers at the meetings invariably adopt the well-worn tactics of opposing everything that readily arouses popular antagonism, viz., the errors committed by the socialists, the weakness of the government, the ‘Einheitsfront’ fake, the vicious party system, the illusion of Bolshevism, the evils of ‘unearned increment’ and above all the Jews. Upon the hands of the latter are heaped not only the sins of Germany but of the entire world, and to them are attributed the economic woes of the entire people. The only published platform of the party, a copy of which is transmitted with this report, contains twenty-five planks, but fundamental throughout is opposition to the Jews. To them are accredited the evils of the present financial system and the race is portrayed as a menace to society. The arguments used by the party are far reaching. They endeavor to prove a united Jewish movement for world hegemony using Soviet Russia as an illustration of the first important step. Responsibility for the world war is laid at the Jewish door in the claim that the large Jewish money interests controlled the European situation and desired the disruption of Russia because of its attitude towards the Jews. The war was to be and was actually a source of profit to Jewish profiteers, but the principal aim was the destruction of the then existing order looking to the gradual progress of Jewish universal control. The present money system and corporation system of business are savagely attacked as a yoke and fetter upon the German people. Hitler’s party demands a publicly owned banking system operated by and in the interest of the people. It does not demand public ownership of other private enterprises or the elimination of the master-servant relation. It imitates the Gandhi movement in advocating retrogression by elimination of the corporation in favor of individual ownership. A reasonable profit is to be granted the owner and the rest distributed to the employees in the form of fair wages. Multitudinous stock-holders – all Jewish – who offer increased dividends and decreased wages are to be entirely dropped. Socialism is wrong and a cover for Jewish maneuvers. The evil genius of Rathenau has been a moth in the German fabric. The Reichsbank is a purely private and Jewish enterprise busily engaged in undermining the German nation. It is claimed that Jews actually control 80 percent of Germany’s wealth and have systematically manipulated the world situation with a view to plunging the German people into eternal poverty so that Germany which before the war produced 200 percent of its potatoes, 90 percent of its grain and 75 percent of its entire food requirements today is obliged to import 50 percent of its foodstuffs. The details of the evidence offered in support of these platform arguments in pinning the responsibility for the difficult economic situation on the Jews, Socialism, etc., may be vague and nebulous but are impressed upon listeners, ready to be convinced, by positive expression. Even many members of the middle class, professors, doctors, etc., are ready to believe on an empty stomach that the Jews and socialists are to blame if convincingly told. Such arguments seriously impress the Socialist workman who today receives an average wage of 18,000 marks per day while coffee costs 20,000 marks the pound. Many Bavarian Jews regard the movement with apprehension. The Jewish War Veterans League as well as the Society of Free Thinkers hold meetings and distribute counteracting literature. At a time recently when the situation looked threatening, a leading Munich banker, Jewish but of old Munich family, inquired whether I could safeguard a number of securities for him should a pogrom occur. For the Department’s information there is also attached a copy of a recently taken photograph of members of the Hitler storm troops (Sturmtruppen) which are estimated at four thousand, showing the Swastika (Hakenkreuz) – the organization’s symbol – as well as the slogan “Germany Awake” (Deutschland Erwache). These are all young men who maintain military discipline and drill regularly in the country. They are divided into groups of hundreds, the leader of each of which receives the insignia of a metal star worn on the cap. The colors are red, white and black with the eagle. Members may also wear distinctive arm bands in these colors with Swastika. The party proposes a united German people including Austrians, Czech nationals who are of German blood, etc., under the dictatorship of a strong man – a Bismark. The official organ of the party is the ‘Völkische Beobachter’ which now appears daily. At the annual convention on January 27th Adolf Hitler was again elected party leader. Many stories are afloat concerning the source of the party’s funds. As previously reported Henry Ford’s organization is credited with contributions to assist the anti-semitic feature of the movement. Contributions from the French are charged by the Socialists who principally authorize the statement because of the arrest on suspicion of treason and of being a French agent of a Hitler leader (Ludke) recently. He was found in possession of a number of French francs as well as other foreign money. As a matter of fact the organization is not believed oversupplied with funds, and probably most of the money is contributed by Bavarian royalists, some of the larger industrials who look to Hitler’s people for assistance against the Socialist workmen, and the modest subscriptions of middle class sympathizers. The party is now meeting with the active opposition of both the United Socialists and the Bavarian People’s Party. Black Troops in the Rhineland. As of possible interest to the Department there is transmitted with this report a sample of the propaganda published at Munich on the subject of the French colored troops in the Rhineland. The Ruhr Occupation. Notwithstanding that the Bavarians generally hope against hope that the United States will intervene in Germany’s favor in the Ruhr occupation the following view as expressed by the extremely nationalistic ‘Muenchner Augsburger Abendzeitung’ is probably illustrative of the majority view: “There was a time when even Scheidemann and Ebert declared that the Treaty of Versailles must be revised...” Source: US NARA M336 Roll 18, pp. 682ff. Note: Vice Consul Murphy later wrote in his memoirs that he had “many enlightening conversations” in Munich with Papal Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli, who had “intimate knowledge of international politics” and was “one of the first to recognize that the future of Europe depended largely upon what happened in Germany.” Diplomat Among Warriors (1964), p.19. Murphy’s reports in 1922 and 1923 did not disclose that one of his sources was Nuncio Pacelli. March 29, 1923 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Attacks against the Holy See and the Jesuits for supposed participation in separatist movements in Bavaria Following up my respectful Report No. 26845 dated March 18th about the trial commenced against Prof. Fuchs, I am fulfilling my duty to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence that some organs of the press, as much German-National ones as Socialist ones, have attacked the Holy See in recent times, as if it had participated in separatist movements in Bavaria. The Catholic newspaper Bayerischer Kurier, No. 86 of March 27th (cf. enclosure) has replied energetically to the stupid accusations and I, for my part, have not failed, for a good resolution, to give this Government some verbal, confidential information about the entirely correct attitude taken by the selfsame Holy See on the occasion of the visit (of which the Government itself already had received rumors) of the aforesaid Prof. Fuchs to the Apostolic Nuncio in Paris. The same Number of the Bayerischer Kurier published, moreover, an anonymous letter (dated Innsbruck, December 1, 1922), bearing the signature, “A faithful old Tyrolese ecclesiastic,” and sent indeed to ex-Kaiser Wilhelm. It is a vulgar diatribe against the Jesuits, who are accused of having, for the purpose of bringing back the Christian world to the bosom of Rome, worked with the Hebrews and with Jewish Freemasonry in the war against Germany, to weaken definitively the Protestant preponderance of Prussia… Source: www.Pacelli-Edition, Document No. 1087. Apr. 17, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, page one, large three-column-wide advertisement: Today! Tuesday, April 17, 1923, is the third of the great Huge Gatherings at the Circus on the Mars Field. Führer and Party Member Adolf Hitler will speak on “The Peace Treason of Versailles as the Eternal Curse of the November Republic.” The Gathering Begins at 8 p.m. Entry 100 Marks / Free for disabled veterans / Jews have no entry. Members of the Volk, appear en masse! Apr. 26, 1923 Letter from Baron Theodor von Cramer-Klett to Konrad Adenauer: As I have learned from a gentleman from the Rhineland sojourning here, Your Honor has expressed the view that Cardinal Faulhaber, my most reverend Archbishop, has been advised from Rome that “they were dissatisfied with his conduct at the Catholic Congress last year and he should not allow his voice to be heard again in political matters. It can be considered as proof of this, that the Cardinal in recent months has kept silent about politics.” I allow myself to inform Your Honor now that this view is wrong, and I can do this, because I a) know from authentic sources that in Rome they were extraordinarily satisfied with the course of the Catholic Congress and that this has also been shared with Cardinal Faulhaber, and b) because I personally had the good fortune in December of this past year to be received by Pope Pius XI, and the Holy Father spoke about the Cardinal in the most expansive and highest tones of recognition and satisfaction, whereby the Holy Father also touched upon the Catholic Congress, but with not a word that could be interpreted in the slightest as a criticism or lack of agreement. I consider it my duty, Your Honor, to communicate this to those who are falsely informed in this matter and to leave to you, Your Honor, if it is allowed by the interests of your party, either to set right the above-mentioned false report or at least not to disseminate it further. Kindly allow me, Your Honor, a further short general remark. We see clearly that divine providence, in the moment of upheaval and great danger but also great developmental possibilities, gave the Catholics of Germany a wealth of outstanding Bishops to an extent not seen for decades, perhaps centuries, so that we, in deepest gratitude, cannot sufficiently marvel at this wonderful dispensation. Think of those who occupy the Sees of Munich, Cologne, Breslau, Rottenburg, Freiburg, Mainz and Meissen, the most outstanding apostolic personalities, without allowing local-patriotic sentiments to dominate them, – Cardinal von Faulhaber actually does not belong to the old Bavarian hereditary nobility – and may I rightly say that in this circle of glowing stars our Archbishop does not stand in last place. Among any other people such a man would surely, at least among his co-religionists, be considered pure gold. Allow me therefore, most honorable Lord Supreme Mayor, to express to you my astonishment that from Catholic sources such things are said about this man as are designed to diminish his respect and his influence, and which certainly will be taken in that manner. You forget that this man is the Archbishop of a great diocese, a successor of the Apostles and a Cardinal of the Roman Church, before whom every Catholic, including a member of the Center Party, should have reverence and respect. I allow myself to tell you openly that it is not Catholic in my opinion, when you publicly put down a Bishop, much less a Cardinal, based only on the most laughable and most small-minded considerations, merely because he makes some party bosses uncomfortable. Reverence toward a priest, and certainly a successor of the Apostles, should take precedence there. The leaders of the German people bemoan the frightful decline in general morals in all areas. Can these rulers really desire moral strengths among those they rule when they themselves are so enslaved to a spirit of partisanship that they trample Catholic principles underfoot? “Whoever dishonors you dishonors me.” Forgive, Your Honor, this frank expression, only as a member of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, and as a loyal son of my Archbishop, I feel myself obligated to combat and refute such erroneous utterances that diminish holy respect for him. Source: Baron Theodor von Cramer-Klett to Konrad Adenauer, April 26, 1923, Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 3503, reprinted in Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 289-290. Apr. 29, 1923 Announcement of Nazi stormtroop (SA) mass gathering in Ingolstadt on Sunday, April 29th: “From the Movement of the National Socialist German Workers Party” Public Gatherings ... Ingolstadt: Sunday, April 29, speaker Party member Hermann Esser ... “Announcements of Local Groups Outside Munich” Ingolstadt. Program of festive celebrations on the occasion of the delivery of flags to the Sturmabteiling [SA], with participation of outside local groups and the Patriotic Formations, on Sunday, April 29, 1923: From 7 a.m., pick-up of festival guests and leading them to the base camp; 9:30 a.m., gathering of Abteilungen; 10 a.m., march from the assembly points to the formation ground in front of Kavalier Elbracht, talk by the priest, delivery of flags by the local groups to the leaders of the SA, commitment of the SA by the stormtroop leaders, talk by the Führer of the Nazi Party, Adolf Hitler, SA and Patriotic Formations march off via the Esplanade, the Feld-Church-Tower, Ludwigstrasse at Stein and Harderstrasse to the Warrior Memorial, pass-in-review before the commander of the SA in the presence of our Führer Adolf Hitler; 12:30 p.m. dinner for guests in the Hotel Wittelsbach; 3 p.m., great public festival assembly in the Exerzier Hall (former 13th Inf. Regt.) by the Wunderlkajatie; Party member Hermann Esser speaks on “National Socialism, the Way to Freedom”; 8 p.m. in the Schäff Beer Hall, Great Patriotic Concert by the band of Herr Obermusikmeister Zimmer. Source: Völkischer Beobachter, April 29-30, 1923, page 5. Apr. 30, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, page 4: Sunday Worship Services: Catholic Churches. (Tuesday, May 1st, evening, beginning of May-prayers) Church of Our Lady [i.e., Munich Cathedral]: 5 a.m. -12 Noon hourly masses, 8:30 sermon, 9:00 high mass, 10:00 school mass, 11:00 holy mass with talk and congregational singing, 3:00 rosary... [and so forth for all Sunday masses of Munich’s Catholic Churches]. Old Catholic Church. [remnant of those Catholics who refused to accept Papal infallibility as defined doctrinally at the First Vatican Council, 1870; two masses are listed, one in a schoolhouse, the other at St. George Episcopal Church] Protestant Churches [three services total] May 1, 1923 After-the-event coverage of the April 29th stormtroop celebrations in Ingolstadt, from the Völkischer Beobachter: “Announcements of Local Groups Outside Munich” Ingolstadt. This past Sunday brought the Nazi Party here such an outstanding success, as Ingolstadt is considered a stronghold of the Reds. The Nazis’ arrangements were grouped around the flag blessing, for which about a thousand stormtroops as well as the entire Patriotic Formations were in appearance. First was the Festival Mass, at which City Pastor Wagner gave an inspiring nationalist sermon. Then the Formations marched with two bands to an open plaza in the fortress area, where the flags were ceremonially delivered by the Local Group to the Ingolstadt SA. Thousands of people gathered around the plaza while our Party members prepared them for enthusiastic announcements, especially Adolf Hitler, who gave the flag speech. Then followed the marching off into the City through the Marketplace, where Adolf Hitler as well as the Commander of the entire SA, Captain Göring, took in the passing in review of the SA as well as the Patriotic Formations, among them the “Bavaria and Reich League.” Source: Völkischer Beobachter, May 1, 1923, page 6. Note: The same page of the Nazi newspaper described the massive efforts at Nazi recruitment that were occurring in late April and early May 1923: “News of the Movement: National Socialist German Workers Party: Meeting Calendar” The enhanced recruiting activity of our Party in recent weeks is expanding further. In the midst of our great propaganda campaign against the lies and multi-faceted slanders that people use to drive out the Nazi movement, there is the series of speeches by our Führer Adolf Hitler in the Krone Circus on the Mars Field on the theme: “The Origin and the Program of the Nazi Party.” We expect that our friends and members will not miss the opportunity to hear from the mouth of our Führer himself the explanation of our goals, essential for everyone who wants to spread the Nazi message. This gathering, which every single National Socialist has a duty to bring people to for a huge crowd, will become a powerful demonstration of the will of the German freedom movement. These massive demonstrations, which have never before occurred in such numbers at our regular meetings, will take place repeatedly, on Tuesday May 1st, on Friday May 4th, etc. On account of the gatherings the regularly scheduled meetings of the Party in Munich will not take place. In particular, for the duration of the great demonstrations in the Circus building, all Party section gatherings are suspended. It is the obvious duty of all section members, therefore, to attend the mass gatherings without exception... Source: Völkischer Beobachter, May 1, 1923, page 6. May 2, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano’s article about Hitler, page 2: “... and in Bavaria” Dateline Berlin, May 1 The May 1st celebration caused some concern to the Bavarian Government. Radicals of the right and the left organized parades and demonstrations for today. The Communists then made it known that they intended to go through the streets of the city bearing the flags and symbols of the Soviets, to which the leader of the National Socialists, Hitler, responded with a statement that the Communist demonstrations would be met with force. It seems that all Hitler’s units had indeed been mobilized. April-May 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber’s trip to America, as reported in L’Osservatore Romano, May 16, 1923, page one: “From the United States: Cardinal Faulhaber in New York” Dateline: New York, April Thursday morning His Eminence Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, arrived in this city on the steamship Bayern. This being the first time a German Cardinal has visited the United States, grand preparations were made to give maximum solemnity to the occasion. Present to receive His Eminence were many personalities of the Clergy and the laity; among others, two representatives of Archbishop Hayes of New York, the chancellor of the German Embassy, and directors of various Catholic Associations. Hon. [Murray] Hulbert, representing the City of New York, immediately gave a welcome to the Most Eminent guest in the name of the citizenry, greeting him as an “Ambassador of the Omnipotent for great works of Christian charity.” His Eminence replied: “The mission of a Bishop is a mission of peace and this is precisely what mine is. I am eager to meet the American people to thank them for all they have done and will yet do for my nation’s suffering people and especially for its poor children. What America has done is a golden page in the history of civilization, not only for the benefit of a conquered people but for the entire world. “Once Germany gave a large part of its strength, by way of emigration, to the United States, which is now reciprocating with full hands the previous benefit. My trip has no political purpose; I hope that my trip will contribute to the cause of peace and to good relations between two peoples.” Then His Eminence, escorted by a squad of police on motorcycles, was conducted to the Archiepiscopal residence, where he was the guest of the Archbishop. “A Great Assembly” After having made the opportune visits and having brought his eloquent words to a few meetings of the faithful and of his co-nationals, the Most Eminent Cardinal attended a great assembly on April 24th, held in his honor at the Lexington Avenue Theater, with Prof. Remy of Columbia University presiding... “Card. Faulhaber’s Speech” After giving thanks for the welcome and cordial hospitality offered to him, His Eminence the Archbishop of Munich continued felicitously to say: “At the tomb of General Grant on Riverside Drive I read the words: ‘Grant us peace”: but not only at the tomb of your great deceased did I read these words, but in the hearts of the living. In my country there is still no peace, however; we have war, and war against children; grant us peace, a Christian peace. “I have not failed to censure my fellow Germans; indeed I frequently denounced their faults and errors; I also condemned the grave faults and errors committed by the Kaiser and the Imperial Government, before as well as during the war. Thus with a tranquil conscience and confident spirit, His Eminence could present himself to his fellow brethren of America: “I know that you Americans also endure serious sacrifices to sustain the great works of charity for the benefit of your poor fellow citizens, and nonetheless each time an appeal rings out after a foreign catastrophe, America is always the first to respond; that is why I came to tell you how much my fellow Germans are grateful to you for all you have done for them. I was not sent by the German Government but came of my own initiative, and everything I can say is under my own personal responsibility, for I speak solely as a Catholic Bishop.” The Cardinal, who made this exhortation in English, continued his speech in German, giving an impressive outline of the disastrous conditions experienced by the innocent children of his nation, lacking clothing and nutrition. “Kids are so enervated they cannot study, while they are continually preoccupied by the thought of what they might be able to eat tomorrow. Dogs and cats in other countries drink more milk than German children...” It is easy to imagine the impression produced by the Most Eminent Cardinal’s speech. In the coming days he will go to Washington, to continue his charitable trip to Baltimore and Philadelphia, where cordial welcomes are also being prepared for him. Italian original An earlier report in L’Osservatore Romano, on May 5th, page one, summarized Cardinal Faulhaber’s fundraising purposes in America in somewhat different terms: “From the United States” (Our correspondent) “The Arrival of Cardinal Faulhaber” There has been an announcement of the upcoming arrival of Most Eminent Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, who is coming to the United States to bring thanks to his co-nationals for their continuing valuable aid provided to their co-religionists, which has meant salvation from ruin for so many thriving Catholic institutions of Germany, whose rescue must be close to the heart for all sons of the Church, whatever their nationality. The Most Eminent guest will deliver talks in German and English in several of our great cities on religious and moral issues. Newspapers are dedicating articles of welcome to him, recalling the Most Eminent Cardinal’s conduct during the revolution of 1919, especially in opposing the laicizing aggressions of the revolutionary government against numerous Associations of Parents for the protection of the Christian school, an opposition that he instigated and that stood its ground effectively against the adversaries; also likewise recalled with admiration are his sermons on Christian-Social thought, held in the Munich Cathedral, after the example of the great Bishop Kettler of Mainz. Cardinal Faulhaber is making his crossing on the steamship Bayern of the Hamburg-America Line; the President of the Reception Committee sent a wireless telegram two days before his arrival worded thusly: “Archbishop Hayes of New York offers hospitality to Your Eminence extending his welcome.” The Most Eminent Cardinal responded: “I thank you for the welcome and cordially reciprocate your greeting. I accept with gratitude the courteous hospitality of the Archbishop. I debark Tuesday morning.” There is no doubt that the influential Cardinal will have a most cordial welcome and hospitality in all parts of the United States; his first speech will be held in the “Town Hall” of New York, where he will be able to deploy his well known qualities as an orator. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, May 5, 1923, page one. May 8-15, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano reports on the visit of King George V to Rome and his meetings with Mussolini and Pope Pius XI: L’Osservatore Romano, May 7-8, 1923, page 3: “The English Sovereigns in Italy” London, May 5 – The Sovereigns of England left today at 4:30 p.m. for Rome... Lord Curzon was not able to accompany the English Sovereigns to Italy because of the precarious condition of his health... At exactly 3 p.m., their Royal Majesties the King and Queen of England arrived in Rome with their retinue, with the customary ceremonies. At the station to receive their august guests were King Vittorio and Queen Elena, Prince Umberto, the Duke and Duchess of Aosta, as well as the Civil and Military Authorities and the Commissioner of Rome, who gave the official greeting to Their Majesties... At 4 p.m., Hon. Mussolini went to the Quirinale to render George V the greetings of the Italian Government... “Comments by the Newspapers” It is not insignificant that the King of England, before departing, had conferred at length with Lord Curzon. Concerning the trip to Italy by the King and Queen, the Morning Post says in its editorial: There are numerous and sufficient reasons why there has existed between the 2 countries not only friendly relations, but also a secure and durable alliance. “We were allies during the war,” writes the newspaper, “and we must be that during peacetime.” France, Italy and Great Britain, united, could assure peace in Europe. The Daily Chronicle dedicates its lead article to the trip of the English Sovereigns to Italy and says that Great Britain today, in the person of its Sovereigns, carries out a gesture of admiration, affection and respect towards Italy. It is not an exaggeration to say that all the English harbor a traditional love for Italy, because it is from Italy that the Western countries have received all civilization. The Nations that were infused with the Italian genius for legislation and the art of Government are today, and will remain, the dominant Nations of the world. The newspaper Observer, speaking in a lead article about the visit of the English Sovereigns, points out that it could not have taken place at a more opportune and important moment. “The Association among the Romans of Hon. Mussolini” The Stefani Agency reports that the President of the Council received on Saturday a representation from the Association among the Romans that presented him the following order of the day: “The Association among the Romans trusts that the Government, conscious of the greatness of Rome and its exalted significance, in conferring on the capital the necessary means for the worthy development of its life, will conserve that degree of municipal autonomy conceded to other cities, which is the right of all civil populations.” The President recalled that the problem of the capital was already the subject of broad examination by the Government and by the Grand Council of Fascism ... Italian original May 9, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The King and Queen of England Visited His Holiness Pius XI” Their Brittanic Majesties visited the Holy Father today. The event, like the earlier visit of Edward VII, while finding sympathy in the noble English nation, gives rise to a sentiment of particular satisfaction in its Catholic subjects, and finds an echo of strong agreement in the entire Catholic world. Tradition validates, with the authority of history, with the eloquent influence that the past always exercises in human events, this happy encounter of the successor of George III, of Victoria, and of Edward, with Him who sits on the Seat of St. Peter after Clement XIV, Pius VI, Pius VII, Pius VIII and Leo XIII; after Popes who saw the value in the past two centuries of having closer ties between Rome and one of the oldest and greatest Powers of the World, beneficial relations for religious and national interests... The power of England, which came out of the war enlarged and strengthened, reaching out toward new undertakings and civil and political responsibilities, touches upon, sustains, and governs interests that are more vast in all parts of the world as the greatness of its empire … implicates in important ways the universality of Catholicism and the moral and humanitarian interests recognized by the Roman Pontiff, as Head of Christianity, the most ancient and most respected tutor... “Details of the Visit to the Holy Father” Tomorrow, Wednesday, at 9 a.m., their Royal Majesties the King and Queen of England will be received in solemn audience by the Holy Father Pius XI. The English Sovereigns will go at 10:00 to the Patrizi Palace at St. Nicholas of Tolentino, the seat of Great Britain’s Legation to the Holy See. At 10:30 they will move privately in the direction of the Vatican, where they will be received with appropriate ceremonies. After the Pontifical Audience, the English Sovereigns will go to Most Eminent Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, Secretary of State; then they will return to the Seat of the Legation, where, immediately afterwards, Cardinal Gasparri will go to reciprocate their visit. Then, at the same Legation seat, their Royal Majesties will offer a private luncheon at which, in addition to Cardinal Gasparri, high officials of the Pontifical Curia will participate. Italian original L’Osservatore Romano, May 9, 1923, page 3: “Comments by the English Newspapers” Dateline: London, May 8 All yesterday’s newspapers commented at length and sympathetically on the English Royals’ trip to Italy. The Times says that King George will be greeted in Italy as a friend and as no other Sovereign; he will find in the Italian people a Nation freed from incipient general paralysis, whose energy is entirely placed at the service of revival and national reconstruction. The Daily Telegraph’s correspondent says from Rome that the Italians are proud to receive the royal guests under the Government of Mussolini in an Italy newly alive and full of fervent patriotism and conscious of its power and its destiny among the great nations of the world... The Daily Express writes that the Italian people consider King George’s visit as a special tribute by the Empire to the Fascist Government and hope that the royal visit will coincide with the satisfactory resolution of the question of Jubaland [part of present-day Somalia given by Britain to Italy in the 1920s]. Italian original L’Osservatore Romano, May 12, 1923, page 4: “The English Sovereigns in Rome” “At the English Embassy near the Quirinale” ... “At St. Paul’s Basilica” Yesterday, Thursday at 10 a.m., Her Majesty Queen Mary of England, with her retinue, went to visit St. Paul’s Basilica… “At St. Clement’s Basilica” Immediately thereafter, the Queen of England, still accompanied by her retinue, went to the ancient Basilica of St. Clement... “The Visit of the English Sovereigns to the Catacombs”... Italian original L’Osservatore Romano, May 15, 1923, page 3: “The Departure of the English Sovereigns: The Final Visits” ... St. Mary Major ... “The Commissioner of Rome to the Lord Mayor of London”... “The Return of Hon. Mussolini” [to Rome] Italian original May 13, 1923 Robert Murphy’s report of May 13, 1923: May Day at Munich Preparations for an orderly celebration of this annual Socialist fete day had proceeded quietly enough ... During the celebration approximately 2,000 National Socialist (Hitler) “shock troops” fully outfitted with side arms, steel helmets, uniforms, etc., several bomb throwers and machine guns were held in check and prevented from colliding with Socialist groups by a detachment of Reichswehr in armored motor lorries, and by the police. Due to excellent police control and supervision, only a few minor street brawls, netting one killed and several wounded, occurred. A counter demonstration in the form of a monster mass meeting was held by the National Socialists in the evening. It passed off uneventfully and proved a disappointment to the hot-bloods of Hitler’s organization. An incident worthy of mention in connection with the section of this report dealing with the swing of public opinion against Hitler happened at the meeting during Hitler’s usual inflammatory address. A feminine member of the Landtag, democratic fraction, was observed in the audience taking stenographic notes. She was ordered to refrain but refused at which the overzealous guards forcibly took the notes away, subjected the Landtag member to a physical examination and arrest, and generally conducted themselves in an insulting manner. The matter caused much indignation in the Landtag and especially antagonized the democratic group. The subject is mentioned because it is typical of many similar incidents which have done much to render Hitler’s movement unpopular with the conservative element in Bavaria. The showing made by the Hitlerites on May Day has gone far to discredit and weaken its organization... Swing of Public Opinion Against Hitler Former Bavarian Premier von Kahr now President of the Government of Upper Bavaria (which district includes Munich) as recognized leader of the patriotic societies in Bavaria delivered an impressive appeal on May 9, 1923, at a crowded meeting of the association “Bavaria and the Reich,” of which he is honorary president, calling upon his audience and all of Bavaria to forget factional and party strife and to unanimously support the Bavarian and Federal Governments. The speech is important because of von Kahr’s political strength, his position as an avowed loyalist and former Premier of Bavaria, and his popularity in monarchistic, nationalistic and student circles. As reported in previous despatches he is a close friend of Ludendorff, and it will be remembered that at the time of Hindenburg’s visit to Bavaria, the former field marshall was entertained and lodged at von Kahr’s home. Von Kahr is the strongest candidate, in the event Rupprecht should not desire the position, for the position of State’s President, and will probably be elected to that office if the coalition parties ever summon enough strength to amend the constitution. While the speech was along the lines of the usual appeal to unity, that is to say, the usual assertions were made that the enemy stood neither to the left nor to the right but on the Rhine, and while it contained much criticism of the communistic element and the working classes who are unsympathetic to the old order of things, its principal importance lies in its criticism of Hitler’s organization, the National Socialist German Workmen’s Party, and the fact that it was timed two days in advance of the official government appeal and emergency ordinance mentioned elsewhere in this dispatch. Von Kahr, among other things, said: “Many feel today that they are called upon to guide the reins of government and in their ignorance of the relevancy of things and of the effectiveness of political negotiation believe themselves capable of correcting the destiny and psychology of a nation with fiery speech or several machine guns.” The foregoing and other parts of the speech clearly apply to Hitler although the latter’s name was not specifically mentioned. It confirms the belief of the writer that the National Socialist movement is on the wane, and it probably marks the return of Escherich as leader and moulder of the patriotic movement. Escherich will be remembered as founder of the “Orgesch” (Organization Escherich) which until two years ago was regarded as one of the most powerful patriotic and legalist societies in Germany. Escherich was also the leader of the Einwohnerwehr, the voluntary home protective league organized in Bavaria after the demolition of the Eisner regime. Escherich has expressed himself to us as bitterly opposed to Hitler (obviously because of Hitler’s increased political strength which interferes with Escherich’s personal ambition) and as confident of a return of the so-called patriotic movement to his leadership for the reasons that the people are wearied of Hitler’s inflammatory agitation which yields no results and offers nothing constructive; his anti-semitic campaign has made many enemies; the rowdy-like conduct of many of his youthful following has antagonized order-loving members of the community. Hitler has failed to make serious inroads on the United Socialist ranks. His funds are reported very low and the financial status of the organization precarious because of large demands made upon it by the two-thousand odd “shock troops” many of whom are maintained on a salary basis by the party. The fiasco of May Day, described elsewhere in this report, has also done much to tarnish the stars of Hitler. In addition to the above the leaders of the Bavarian Peoples Party (the majority coalition group) have slowly come to a realization of the political potentiality and competitive strength of Hitler, who has been thus far patronized and his organization regarded as a useful exhaust for the discontent of a troublesome element. If mass meetings and lurid speeches, play at military organization, drilling in the country, etc. would appease the ultra-patriots and die-hards, the government felt the movement should be fostered within reasonable bounds and a friendly attitude of understanding adopted to deflect the discontent from itself. The time has arrived, however, when, to quote the Bavarian Premier, it is a question of whether the state is sovereign, or an independent organization is to be permitted to usurp the function of government. On May 11, 1923, the Bavarian Cabinet, as a direct consequence of the demonstrations on May 1st issued a Proclamation and Emergency Ordinance – advance information of which was furnished our Embassy in Berlin... Partly to blame for this condition of affairs is a certain element (Hitler’s group) who instead of supporting a patriotic government, as the former Einwohnerwehr (Escherich) did, see fit to follow their own political ideas, the object of which is often unclear, and the methods employed in execution impossible. The State cannot permit usurpation of its authority by private organizations, and will not countenance opposition on their part to its regulations whenever such dissatisfy or displease. The experiences of May Day serve to illustrate the unbelievable confusion of political factionalism expressing itself in extremist meetings and public demonstrations, which the government must decisively eradicate. With this purpose in view the emergency ordinance has been passed furnishing the authorities with legal means for finally combatting the abuse of public assembly, misuse of the streets for dangerous parades and demonstrations, the despicable poisoning of public opinion by unlimited distortion and lies, and shameful treasonable conduct. The government is decided to take the necessary measures to preserve its authority and to protect public order. National Socialists and Reichswehr. Interesting disclosures have recently been made by the Socialist ‘Munchener Post’ concerning the close liaison apparently existing between certain officers of the Reichswehr and the National Socialists (Hitler) Organization. Source: US NARA M336 Roll 19 pp. 45-51. May 28, 1922 Vice Consul Murphy’s report of May 28, 1922 on the political situation in Bavaria: ... Escherich is defended against bitter attacks being made upon him by Hitler’s organ (Völkischer Beobachter) especially in connection with the charge made that Escherich deserted the former officers of the Home Guard (Einwohnerwehr) of which Escherich was leader until the time of its dissolution two years ago, and as a result many have been forced to become desperadoes and adventurers attaching themselves to any extremist organizations which will employ them. The reply is made that the Einwohnerwehr was dissolved by orders of the Federal Government at the request of the Entente. Escherich did not wish to abandon his then organization but was obliged to conform to the government’s foreign policy. National Socialists and Emergency Ordinance The previously reported Emergency Ordinance is being judiciously but firmly enforced by the government, and treated with respect by the National Socialists. The Munich police department forbade a large mass meeting scheduled during the week and seized the usual large red posters advertising the assembly... The usual Sunday parades and exercises of Hitler’s ‘shock troops’ which formerly began and ended in the city of Munich are now held sixty kilometers outside the city limits. Conclusion The situation of the government in respect to the patriotic movement is delicate but not critical. The past week reveals no political occurrence of an important nature. The emergency ordinance for the protection of the government is being judiciously and firmly enforced. Source: U.S. NARA, M336, Roll 19, p.76. June 7, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Roman Pontificate at the University of Munich” Dateline: Munich, May, from our correspondent At the Great Auditorium of the University of Munich, the well known Baron von Cramer-Klett, in the week before Pentecost, gave a lecture with projected slides about the Conclave of 1922. The gross receipts of the session were earmarked for relief for poor students. The speech of introduction and presentation was to have been given by the President of the Council of Ministers, von Knilling. He being unable to come, however, the Magnificent Rector of the University, Prof. of Theology [Fr. Georg] Pfeilschifter. He, having described the conditions of the poor students and the expedients used to procure for them the means to live and acquire books, working during vacations and also during the academic year, came to speak of how much the Holy Father, in addition to considerable subsidies accorded to other charitable activities and purposes, has particularly expanded those for students in Germany, without distinction of religion. The sums to date for this particular purpose amount to 300 million Marks. In the name of the students and instructors of the University, the Rector asked His Excellency the Apostolic Nuncio, present at the session, to convey to the Holy Father the sentiments of cordial and sincere gratitude by which they are animated. He also recalled that the Nuncio, Archbishop Pacelli, as the result of numerous demonstrations of sympathy for the University, has been inscribed in its roll of honor, and finally he had words of regret for his coming departure from Munich, as he was obligated to move to Berlin. Then Baron von Cramer-Klett spoke, starting with a historical review of the elections of Roman Pontiffs, about political and religious influences that determined the development of the Conclave in various epochs, and how, in its turn, the selection of a given person had an influence upon the civil and religious history of his epoch. Then he came to the main issue, what happens from the death of a Pontiff until the election of his successor. The slide projections were the subject of great interest, for the milieu they created for the viewers and for the events depicted. That is how the locking of the Conclave was seen. The audience attentively followed the eloquent and interesting words of the speaker. Italian original June 12, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter’s front page coverage of the June 10th Catholic mass for Nazi and Völkisch stormtroops, which immediately followed a speech by Hitler on the Königsplatz: “Plighting of Troth on the Königsplatz” ... [Hitler]: We must gain from Schlageter’s death the realization that freedom will not come by way of protests and demonstrations, not by way of speeches, but only by way of deeds, and training for deeds! This single fanatic Schlageter was more hated by the French than 10,000 members of [German President] Ebert’s unity front! It is not the great front of weaklings that will bring us liberating deeds, but rather the fighting front of fanatics! Yet it appears that this heroic death will eventually pass us by without any practical success. Why? Because we lack what could bring success from such a deed. It is necessary first that such heroes stand at the summit of the Reich itself, heroes who sweep along the Volk and rouse them to resistance. For lack of such men we lost the War, and we are experiencing the same thing now. The spirit of resistance must be enflamed from above! ... Lord God! We promise you that we will sacrifice ourselves to the last breath for our freedom, and for that give us your blessing! Not for peace and not for rest is the spirit of resistance, until the day arrives when it will be sounded throughout Germany: The Volk arises! The storm breaks out! The Deutschland über Alles [“Germany Above All”: national anthem] song rose powerfully up to heaven... A worthy conclusion to the mourning service was achieved by the memorial mass in the St. Boniface Church. On both sides of the altar the flag- and standard-bearers of the patriotic fighting leagues stood as honor guards during the course of the mass, while the stormtroops and a great crowd filled the nave of the church to the last seat ... After the reading of the Gospel, the former Abbot of Emmaus, Msgr. Schachleiter, who had been expelled from Prague, gave a talk to the stormtroops that was aflame with patriotic love, the gist of which was as follows: The pulpit may well not be the place from which a political speech should be given, even though the time calls for it more than ever before; he has kept to that rule his whole life long and so it shall continue to be. But what the present hour has brought upon our poor Fatherland is nothing other than the curse of the criminal Revolution that cries out to heaven, it is the result of the outrages by those who incurred the guilt for our debacle through their unpatriotic ways. Albert Leo Schlageter, murdered by the cowardly French, was a German man with his whole heart and soul, a martyr for the German cause. We may not presume to judge the holiness of a human soul, but Schlageter fell in the service of the Fatherland and can approach the judgment seat of God as a sacrifice of the truest fulfillment of duty. Abbot Schachleiter continued further to say that there is only one single path upward for the German Volk from the current oppression and crisis. That path is a return to true faith, separating and disassociating from all that, in a criminal manner, aided and abetted the unfortunate ending of the war, brought about the revolution, stabbed our victorious army in the back and thereby incurred the guilt for the entire calamity and crisis of the present time. The salvation of Germany can only succeed in a spirit of deep patriotic sentiment and willing self-sacrifice and strong unwavering faith in God. For that reason everyone who believes in the Fatherland and its future must renounce those who have incurred the guilt for the current calamity - must turn back to the ideas that once made our Volk great: to fulfillment of duty, self-sacrifice, fear of God and love of Fatherland. Then the day of reward will not delay. During the consecration, the flags and standards were lowered at the command “Attention! To prayer” - on either side of the high altar, in the vow, true to the words of the preacher, and in the spirit of the patriotic fighting league, dedicating all our strength to the reconstruction and the future of our Volk community [Volksgemeinschaft]. Note: Page 2 of the same issue of the Völkischer Beobachter, June 12, 1923, says that the newspaper Vorwärts [“Forward”: the leading Social Democrat newspaper in Germany] was furious about German imperial tricolors and swastika flags at the funeral for Schlageter - and denounced as a vile exploitation of nationalist sentiment the talks of Prelate Neumann and Pastor Fricke at the transfer of Schlageter’s body to his home region in the Black Forest. June 17, 1923 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, No. 24, pp. 186-187: “German-Völkisch - Antisemitism, Fascism, National Socialism” By Dr. Fr. Erhard Schlund, Franciscan priest; excerpt from his book “Catholicism and Fatherland” In the German-Völkisch movement lies a good kernel, which possesses a strong inner right-ness: That is the striving to preserve the purity of the German race. But around this good kernel lies a bad husk. That is the character of extremism. The German-Völkisch movement proceeds in its praxis and in its theoretical demands often too sharply and thereby unjustly. It often allows a reprehensible hatred to arise against everything non-German and especially non-“Aryan.” Thus the Völkisch movement or many of its temperamental representatives sometimes try to bring back pure old-German morals and religion, which makes Catholics seem all the more suspect. Good German and good Christian are just as much non-contradictions as good German and good Catholic; to the contrary. The old-German religion has disappeared and will remain disappeared, and the old-German thought-world, however much we would love to regain it for historical and nationalistic reasons, can no longer be brought back to life. It is through Christianity that German blood first became what it is now; with Christianity the German race achieved its greatest cultural accomplishments. We are proud of it if we are good Germans and good Christians; but we never again want to become German pagans. We may seek to learn to know and love the morals of our forefathers, but we do not make a futile effort to roll back the clock by thousands of years. Honor the morals and customs of ancient forefathers; but no old-German un-culture. Our blood is and remains good and pure and German; but our culture is Christian. The Völkisch movement is closely associated with antisemitism, thus with those efforts that really go back in time and seek to take power and wealth away from Jewry, and actually long to remove the legal and political equality guaranteed to the Jews. Also in the antisemitic movement, the Fatherland-loving Catholic must again make clear distinctions. He will share with antisemites the pain over the ever-increasing influence of Jewry, particularly in Germany, and the desire to see this influence ever more diminished. He will above all regret and combat the avaricious quest for money and material possessions, the predominance in the financial realm, the destructive influence of Jews upon religion, morals, literature and art, and political and social life. He will certainly remain ever conscious that the Jews are racially foreign. But he will not go so far as to want to combat and dislodge the Jews solely on account of their race, and even less will he reject the Old Testament on account of its having been imparted to the Jewish people. He will much more always remember that the Jewish people were God’s chosen people and that he as a Christian has a duty to be just toward Jews as toward other people. The thoughts expressed here arise concerning a movement that we also think we can identify as an outgrowth of patriotism, Fascism, or in Germany National Socialism. Many spirits allow themselves to be taken up by this movement, since among us the socialism of the Revolution brought such bad consequences and since in Italy Fascism remains victorious with hardly any shedding of blood. We can safely understand it as a counterstroke against socialism, or better stated, against Marxism, which through its conquest in Russia and Germany has become a danger to the world. “Person vs. Masses” is the slogan of Fascism, and thus it sets up an antithesis to every thesis of Marxism. Marxism recognizes the international, Fascism recognizes the nation. Marxism proclaims the dictatorship of a class, Fascism proclaims the freedom of the person. Marxism conceives of the state mechanistically and lets it be determined by the majority; Fascism conceives of the state organically and demands the rule of the head, the reason of the Führer. Filippo Meda, the leader of the Catholic party in the Italian parliament, recently assessed the relationship of Catholicism and Fascism in his article “Il facismo e i cattolici” [Fascism and Catholics], and expressed it in this way: “Though there may be good in its goal of defending the Fatherland against destructive forces, and the revival of patriotic virtues – its violent means are not good. For the end does not justify the means. Fascism wages war against anti-state forces. But waging war may be done only by the state, not by individuals or groups. Fascism combats revolution. That also is an affair of the state. If the state is too weak to maintain order, then self-help is allowed only temporarily.” We can agree with that and add to it: Among us National Socialism has arisen, much less than Fascism in Italy, out of a more critical stance against Social Democracy and Marxism. It certainly says what should be put aside, but it does not say how it can be made better, or what should arise in place of what is put aside. We see that it lacks a positive program, namely a declaration of how National Socialism stands on religion and the Church, and what it means by the term “socialism” in its name. In any case, it frightens Catholics when occasional invective of a rather derisory nature is expressed toward the Church and Church institutions, while on the other hand the necessity of religion is still affirmed; then there are the terroristic methods and the strong antisemitic admixture, namely when one wing in Munich completely “rejects” the Old Testament, and finally the restoration of ancient pagan practices like, for example, the Yule-fest. In all events a Catholic must be careful and reserved, for the aforesaid reasons, toward this movement, which can yet develop much differently than perhaps it has appeared to date. Moreover, Church authority has not yet spoken. German original: first page and second page July 1, 1923 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, No. 26, p. 204, on the role of the Church, in the Munich Archdiocese, as the infallible guide in issues of the day as well as doctrine: “From World and Church: More Catholic Courage!” No one has less cause to keep quiet and stay in the background than we Catholics. We belong to a Church that is the foundation of truth and justice, that, in her greatness and unimpeachability, has defied all the storms of the centuries, that today as then is the eternal glowing light that illuminates the darkness, that infallibly shows all those the way who seek enlightenment and orientation in the errors and confusions of present day times. No, we do not want to stray from the Church nor stray from the Savior! Nearer, my God, to Thee! Lord, we remain in You, bcause You have the words of eternal life, and we want to have eternal life. German original July 1, 1923 Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung, No. 26, p. 204, on the Christian cross vs. the swastika (twisted cross): “Aus Welt und Kirche. Ave Crux!” [Latin: “Hail the Cross!”] The new gospel that is preached to us today, the gospel of the swastika, will not be able to save the modern world, because hatred and force do not produce any lasting peace. Our cross knows no twists! It is the simple old Christian cross, on which our Lord and Master died. It is the same holy cross whose sign our worthy Catholic mother first taught us to make on our forehead, mouth and breast, which will one day be pressed in our final hour into our fast-chilling hands, as legitimation for our far journey into a better world. Our respects to you, holy cross, our only hope in life and in death! German original July 24, 1923 Father Lorenz Pieper’s speech on the swastika to a Nazi gathering in Munich on July 24, 1923: We find swastikas as early as 3,000 years before the birth of Christ, in the so-called Stone Age, first in Siebenbürgen, engraved on rocks, cliffs, etc. Approximately 1,500 years before the birth of Christ we find them in the City of Troy, then later as well in the Far East in Asia, 100 A.D. we see it in China, 600 A.D. in Japan. Even among the negroes we come upon some isolated examples. Likewise, in the West we see them proliferating, and we observe the swastika as a Christian symbol many thousand times over on the stones used to close up the sepulchers in the catacombs of Rome. We find them often on the armor of knights in the Middle Ages, and even on many clerical vestments for the Mass. The speaker then went into the meaning of the swastika. The swastika is in and of itself not a pagan symbol. It represents the concept of the complete revolution around the sun, the light that shines and gives life. The sun was holy to the peoples of the North, because it [provided? - unclear] them essential light, warmth and life. It was thought of as a god driving a wagon and as a symbol, the wheel was thought of as this wagon, so that in the turning of the wheel there were four [parts?] and these [moved?] in a way that was thought to mean the movement of the sun. The cross on which Christ was crucified was not exactly like the Church’s symbol of today. Christ’s cross was two beams which had the form of a Latin “T.” The similarity of this so-called Christian cross with the swastika and the equivalence of the symbols – both represented light and – Christ even says of himself that he is the light – moved the Christian Church from practical considerations to take up a somewhat altered swastika as the cross of the Christian Church. The swastika is also a Völkisch symbol, it does not in that regard represent the sun, but rather is a symbol of the Volk, intended to fulfill the Volk, with Völkisch warmth, with national and social will, and with national and social strength. It is intended to be a battle symbol against everything that harms the Volk and therefore it is also for us Nazis a holy symbol which should be borne everywhere in honor and love. These outstanding words were received with well-deserved applause. Party Member Kilger explained that the swastika was actually detectible much earlier than 3,000 years before Christ. The swastika is not a political battle symbol, but rather a Völkisch one, under which everyone can work together for the well-being of the entire Volk. The adherents of the swastika do not shy away from battle, when they must fight for the salvation of the productive German Volk. Additionally, Party Member Kilger called for a numerous turnout for the evening celebration of the First Company at the Bürgerbràu Beer Hall [in Munich], and for donations for the Neuhausen Section. Pause: The result of the collection taken up at this time: 115,000 Marks. Party member Ostberg explained that it is the duty of every Party Member to bring the swastika into all places where respectful honor can be shown to this symbol. Party Member Kilger closed this speech evening with a request to a Frieslander named Turner who was present, to convey best regards to the Party Members in Friesland. Source: Fr. Lorenz Pieper, “The History and Meaning of the Swastika,” July 24, 1923, Protokoll der Ortsgruppe Neuhausen [Meeting Minutes of the Local Group in Neuhausen – a district of Munich], NSDAP Hauptarchiv [Nazi Party Main Archive], Reel 1a, fol. 218. July 25, 1923 Matt to Pacelli: Most Reverend Herr Nuncio! Your Excellency! At our meeting yesterday, Your Excellency made me aware that in the recent statement that I had the honor to transmit to Your Excellency on the 21st of this month, only a partial answer was given to the inquiry posed in Your Excellency’s letter of May 26th this year on Art. XIII sec. 1 subsection b of the Concordat draft, namely the issue whether the presentation of proof on account of private schooling is allowable only to the State high schools, or to any other equally qualified institution... Aug. 1, 1923 Matt to Pacelli: Most Reverend Herr Nuncio! Your Excellency requested of me during our most recent discussion a further statement of position on the expressions in Your letter of June 16th this year about the expression "to give opportunity for reminders" in Art. XIV sec. 3, sentence 1 of the Bavarian Concordat draft, as the Papal See feels this expression is too imprecise and recommends as a substitute the customary form used in the Austrian states. I have the honor to state the following herewith. Aug. 18, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, Aug. 18, 1923, page 4: “Bavarian Review . . . Wasserburg am Inn (Patriotic Celebration.)” On Saturday and Sunday the consecration of flags occurred here for the artillerymen’s alliance of Wasserburg and vicinity. Approximately 60 military and other associations from here and parts beyond made an appearance. The field mass on Sunday was celebrated by the pastor and religion teacher Franz Römer from Augsburg, himself a former artilleryman, who memorialized the war dead in an earnest address. In the afternoon a festive procession took place through the main streets of Wasserburg, and then a beer hall banquet concluded the beautiful celebration. Aug. 22, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, Aug. 22, 1923, page 6: “German Congress in Ottobeuren” Our Party has very quietly established itself also in Middle Swabia recently, and in the past weeks one local group after another has been formed up with genuine Swabian talent. Along with Kempten and Lindau, there are now fighting units in Memmingen, Leutkirch, Legau, Buchloe, Markoberdorf and Ottobeuren, the latter of which invited our Middle Swabian Party members to a German Congress for this past Sunday, the 19th of August. Even though the individual local units could naturally send only small representations, nearly 2,000 National Socialists nonetheless responded to the invitation... On Sunday morning the consecration of stormtroop flags was conducted for various SA units, which began with a mass in the famous Benedictine church. In an unprecedented manner, the city pastor office refused to allow the consecration in the church, which aroused boundless exasperation among the Party members, who are almost entirely of the Catholic faith. The Church authorities do not do well to give offense to the faithful in this way. Aug. 24, 1923 Father Pieper’s speech of Aug. 24, 1923 affirming Nazi racism and proclaiming that “a convinced Christian and Catholic must be an antisemite”: “Can a Catholic Be a National Socialist?” This question was broached at a well-attended public gathering of our Party in Straubing [a town in Bavaria, northeast of Munich], by Party Member Vicar Dr. Pieper, where he said essentially the following: Certain Center Party newspapers and representatives of the Center Party unscrupulously keep expressing the opinion that it is an obligation of conscience for a faithful Catholic to belong to the Center Party. No Center Party delegate and no Center Party newspaper has the right to speak with the authority of the Church, but only the Pope and Bishops. Leo XIII, one of the most spiritually gifted and important followers of Christ, explained in several Encyclicals: The Church is completely distinct from any party. To bring the Church into politics is not permissible. The speaker then posed the further question: Can a Catholic without prejudice to his faith belong to that party? The answer came: one may adhere to only one party, one that stands on the foundation of positive Christianity and shows its convictions through its deeds. Considered from this point of view, two parties can be excluded from the outset. First, the Social Democrats, and second, the Democratic Party. The first because, as Bebel (one of its prominent leaders) declared, it stands on a foundation of atheism, that is godlessness. The second, because it does not positively represent the Christian worldview, but rather has thrown itself in with the Jewish-liberal and freethinking point of view. A visible picture of the Democrats can be gained from the “Frankfurter Zeitung” and the “Berlin Daily Paper.” The Nazi Party stands on the foundation of positive Christianity and so works practically under the banner of a Christianity of deeds. It fights above all for Christian education and the denominational school. Alongside religion is a higher, holy concept of Fatherland, that is the collectivity of all members of German blood, destiny and Volk. God himself created the peoples differently according to blood, character and type, and thus wants the distinctions of blood, Volk and races. He also desires that what he created be kept and preserved pure. So we must turn away from everything that impairs racial purity. For this reason the racial viewpoint of National Socialism corresponds completely with Christianity. In the Spirit of Christ we must also turn against Jewry, an Asian horde, as the “famous” Rathenau called it. We have the right and the duty to direct ourselves against it. Dr. Pieper further mentioned the statements of Chaplain Roth of Indersdorf, which follow: Every Jew is from the outset a hidden danger to the Christian religion, and for this reason the Jew must be driven out of the public life of Christian peoples. The Völkisch movement is reproached for lack of love of neighbor on this ground, but it is an expression of neighborly love to keep one’s fellow men away from moral dangers, and it is an offense against Christian love of neighbor to dawdle while humanity is being plundered morally and economically by the Jews. Bishop Prohaska said it: Not hatred and incitement, but rather the love that we owe to ourselves leads us to pass laws against the Jews who hang on our necks like a millstone. Other writer-witnesses among the Catholic clergy include the author Hansjakob, the Bishop Martin, the Austrian Priest Sebastian Brunner, Bishop Keppler of Rottenburg, etc. All of them recognized and fought against the danger of Jewish contamination of our Christian life. Based on these considerations, a convinced Christian and Catholic must be an antisemite. How does it look for the parties to hide behind Christianity everywhere. The Center Party press and the Center Party itself are forerunners of Jewry. Privy Counselor Marx, the leader of the German Center Party and a Catholic, has been required by the Jews to speak out against antisemitism. He did this with the following words: The Jews can depend on it, that we will support them. And how does it look now in the Christian Bavarian Peoples’ Party: In 1918 as the elections were right around the corner, the Party leadership in Regensburg made an alliance with Supreme Rabbi Dr. Mayer and said they would be happy if as many Jews as possible became delegates of their party in Parliament. Dr. Heim, easily the most important leader of this Party, was very inconsistent in his position toward Jewry from 1901 to 1923. In the early years he said the Jews should not push themselves forward so arrogantly, but in 1923, as a member of the board of directors of the Jewish-dominated Deutsche Bank, as father of a director of a Jewish malt factory in Schweinfurt, as father-in-law of a man in the Jewish Darmstadt Bank in Regensburg, he was happy as a Christian being taught by Jews. The other political parties from Breitscheid to Stresemann sail in Jewish waters and, true to their men behind the scenes, in common with the all-Christian party, created the Law for the Protection of the Pre-eminence of the Jews (Republic-Defense-Law). Since the National Socialist Party stands on the foundation of positive Christianity theoretically and practically, it is obvious that its Catholic members also identify with every single doctrine of faith and moral law of the Catholic Church. However, your Party gathering is not the place to deal with particular issues of the Catechism. Far more appropriate would be to inquire into how the Center Party with its unprincipled policies since the Revolution has harmed religion. Thunderous applause showed that the evening was a complete success for the National Socialist German Workers Party. A related article follows immediately afterwards. “The Antithesis” The antithesis of the recent gathering in Straubing with our Party Member Dr. Pieper, with its dignity and calm and mutual toleration, was seen in a supposedly non-political gathering of the so-called Christian Association of Pfaffenhofen, in which Father Rupert Mayer spoke about “Christianity and modern contemporary currents.” Right away the introduction showed that this “non-political” lecture would be nothing but a demonstration against National Socialism. Taking as a pretext the “modern intellectual current of socialism,” the Bavarian People’s Party agitator in a priestly cassock tried to take down National Socialism as an “un-Christian intellectual current,” because National Socialism: rejects the Old Testament which is inspired by the Holy Spirit; confers on positive Christianity so-to-speak a new content; teaches not only hatred toward Jewry but also against our enemies. These statements could naturally not be left uncontradicted. So our Party Member Haselmayer from Ingolstadt took the floor and disputed in front of everyone, with emphasis, whether the Christian organization of the Bavarian People’s Party combats Marxism. He rightly identified this organization as a comrade-in-arms with Marxists, because it gave up its Christian principles in establishing itself on the acknowledged foundation of the Jewish-internationalist-Marxist bank- and stock-exchange Revolution... By the way, it must be set forth clearly that the method and manner in which Fr. Rupert Mayer engages in political struggle steadily causes direct scandal among the widest circles of the Catholic people. Source: Völkischer Beobachter, Aug. 24, 1923, p.6. Sept. 1, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, page one: “German Congress in Nuremberg” In the city of Albrecht Dürer it is German Day. From every district of Bavaria, especially Franconia, patriotic-minded men are streaming together, easily 50,000 of them, to experience and give voice again to this sentiment of Völkisch unity, which has been bitterly hated and persecuted by traitors to the Volk ever since those portentous days of November. In few cities does the contrast between old and new come so meaningfully into expression as in Nuremberg. Battlements, mighty walls and towers testify there to manly vigor and military valor, yet in the midst of these testimonies to a great past sit the bloodless, degenerate souls of democrats: and within the walls are offered for sale the printed works of arch traitors... German original Sept. 4-5, 1923 Minutes (Protokoll) of the Bavarian Bishops’ meeting of Sept. 4-5, 1923: The Conference received a confidential report from the Archbishop of Munich with respect to the negotiations of the past year, which have been led by His Excellency Apostolic Nuncio Pacelli with remarkable sagacity and patience. The Conference must regret that the Holy Father was treated with such distrust by the Bavarian State Government and that some Cathedral Chapter members (not the Cathedral Chapters on the whole) showed so little understanding of the Church’s freedom to appoint bishops pursuant to Canon 329. For the undesirable event that the Concordat does not come to fruition, our next tasks are thoroughly considered. ( pp. 305-306). Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, No. 4056, reprinted in Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol.1, p.310. Cathedral Chapters obstructing Concordat negotiations, as described by Nuncio Pacelli in 1929 at the end of his Nunciature: During Concordat negotiations the stance of not a few members of the Cathedral Chapters and Theological Faculties was grievous. The former, indeed, in order to preserve, contrary to the intention of the Holy See, their full right to elect Bishops, did not stop short of lobbying state cabinet officials and Landtag delegates right up to the end, even non-Catholic and liberal ones, so that they would support the preservation of the Chapters’ election rights, which were portrayed as an old German right that was important even from a nationalist point of view; the latter acted in the same way with the Education Ministry, in order to impede to the utmost any improved establishment and expansion of the rights of the local Bishop in the appointment and removal of professors in the aforementioned Faculties, thus aggravating the already very serious difficulties presented in the negotiations on this issue. Source: Eugenio Pacelli, Sulla Situazione della Chiesa Cattolica in Germania [On the situation of the Catholic Church in Germany: a detailed report to the Vatican at the end of his Nunciature], Nov. 18, 1929, reprinted in Hubert Wolf and Klaus Unterburger, eds., Eugenio Pacelli: Die Lage der Kirche in Deutschland, 1929 (2006), pp. 210-212. Sept. 11, 1923 Pacelli to Matt: Your Excellency! The Holy See has not failed to turn its full attention to the Memorandum with the esteemed Note of July 21 this year, supplemented by the writings of July 25 and August 1, which was most kindly delivered to me by Your Excellency, and has now imparted to me the honorable task of informing Your Excellency of the answer to the statements given there... Article III sections 1 and 2. Notwithstanding the special importance of these points and the weighty reasons (as presented in Note No. 27728 of this June 16th) that showed the retention of the provision as proposed by the Holy See to be advisable and just, the Holy See will not reject the proposed wording from the Bavarian State Government, trusting that the spirit of extreme accommodation that has animated the Holy See consistently in the present negotiations will be appropriately appreciated and reciprocated by the Government... Article XIV section 1. The Holy See takes the matter as indeed settled, that the Bavarian Government accepts the text set forth by the Holy See insofar as it establishes the principle that the appointment of Archbishops and Bishops is a matter for the Holy See, as the Holy See will ascertain semi-officially, before the publication of the Bull of appointment, whether any objections of a political nature exist against a candidate. Nevertheless, the Holy See cannot accept the new proposal of the Government, whereby the Chapter, upon a vacancy in an Archdiocesan or Diocesan See, delivers a proposed list with the names of at least two candidates to the Holy See, which will then appoint one of the proposed candidates. Such a proposal differs only as a matter of form from that of election of Bishops by the Chapter, which has been declared unacceptable. It would thereby completely preclude the vote of the Bavarian Bishops in the selection of candidates, of which it is to be presumed that the Bishops have a broader view of the religious needs of Bavaria than do the members of a Cathedral Chapter. Furthermore, the proposal would reduce the task of the Holy See practically to nothing, even though it is simultaneously recognized that the appointment of Archbishops and Bishops is a matter for It. It has caused the Holy Father considerable pain to perceive that the Government of a predominantly Catholic State insists so much on shutting out the Holy See from the selection of Bishops, as if the Holy See had not always shown toward Bavaria the most opportune care and as if the Bishops chosen by Rome had not served well for religion and for their Fatherland. If the Holy See wanted now, finally, to give in to Bavaria in such a vitally important matter for the Church, it would retain no convincing arguments for denying the same privilege to all other Catholic States; that would, apart from the easily foreseeable confusion, undoubtedly effect a considerable dissolving of the bonds that tie all Churches to the See of Peter. Based on these considerations, and for many other reasons, which will be passed over in the interest of brevity, the Holy Father has decided after careful consideration and lengthy prayer to stick to his position, which I had the honor to communicate to Your Excellency in my Note No. 27488 of May 26th this year, in which He allowed the Bavarian Chapters to submit their candidate lists directly to the Holy See every three years; the Holy See reserves the freedom to choose from these as well as from the lists submitted by the most reverend Bavarian Bishops. So that the Bavarian Government may nevertheless not believe that the Holy Father has paid no regard to their desire and has not considered an accommodation to the extent possible, He has – going to the furthest limits of His ability to compromise – let the matter rest with this amendment; that in the event of a vacancy of a Bishopric, only the interested Chapter – even if it has just recently sent the other Bavarian Chapters its aforementioned triennial list – will be convened in a new session within the established timeframe and procedures, in order to establish a new list of worthy and approved candidates for the office of Bishop and to submit the list to the Holy See. The latter will consider this list along with the earlier submitted triennial lists of the various Chapters and Bishops, while preserving its complete freedom. The foregoing is the absolute most that the Holy See can concede, so that any further pressure in relation to this matter would be pointless, and a posture of rejection by the Bavarian Government as to this point would thus bring the Concordat negotiations definitively to failure, for the alleviation of which the Holy See has shown such great accommodation on all other points. The Holy See can nonetheless not help but observe that, if the Government were not to accept the rightful considerations of His Holiness, the responsibility for the failure of the negotiations would fall upon it; for it would not be understandable how the Bavarian State cannot be sufficiently protected by the proposed provisions, according to which the candidates for the office of Bishop must have German citizenship, must have received a graduation certificate from a high school recognized by the Bavarian State, after which, moreover, the lists of Bishop candidates from the Bavarian Cathedral Chapters and the Bavarian Bishops must be compiled, and finally the Holy See, before publishing the Bull of appointment, must ascertain that the Government has raised no objections of a political nature against the chosen person... Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, AA.EE.SS., Baviera, 1918-1922, pos. 72, vol. III, fol. 244r-251r, reprinted in www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1974. Sept. 12 and 14, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter headlines: Sept. 12: “How the November Republic Is Stealing from Its Citizens Under Cover of Law”; announcement of a speech by Hitler to a mass gathering on the Mars Field on the topic “The Collapse of the November Republic and the Mission of Our Movement.” Sept. 14: “The Republic Is Ripe for Collapse” – “The Revolution Is a Singular Theft” – “We Are Ready to Fight!” - “The Collapse of the November Treason” Sept. 15, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, page one, banner headline: “Successful Revolution in Spain” Subheads: “Military Dictatorship in the Country - Madrid Agrees with the Movement - The Fascist Intervention in the Spanish Crisis” Additional features on page one: Left-side lead: “The Announcement of the Patriotic Fighting League” Large advertisement in center of page: “Adolf Hitler will speak on September 15th and 16th at the German Congress in Hof an der Saale. Party Members! Turn out en masse! Völkisch Formations in Processions with Your Flags!” German original Sept. 24, 1923 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Trip to Berlin – Political Situation – Ruhr Issue Most Reverend Eminence, As I did not fail to make known by private letter to Mons. Sostituto [Pizzardo] of the Secretariat of State – after having delivered to Bavarian Education Minister Dr. Matt the Note concerning the Concordat negotiations, a copy of which had already been transmitted by me to Your Most Reverend Eminence, I believed it my duty to go to Berlin, in order to introduce myself to the new Chancellor, Mr. Stresemann. This visit was indeed awaited by him with strong desire. Arriving in Berlin the morning of last Tuesday, the 17th, I was immediately received by him at 11:30am. The Chancellor explained to me the domestic and foreign situation of Germany. As to the first, he said that the rumors circulating in Bavaria that a Bolshevik or purely Socialist government will soon come to power in Berlin (rumors that steadily feed separatist tendencies) are unfounded. The Reich Army is loyal and ready to oppose any form of insurrection, be it from the right or the left. It is also false (he said) that the Socialists have a preponderant influence in his Cabinet, since they leave him freedom of action. If they were to exit the coalition, he would not resign, but would form a Cabinet purely of the bourgeois parties and, if necessary, obtain from the Reich President the dissolution of the Reichstag. It is rather likely that, because of the enormous increases in prices, there will be lootings in the shops and in the countryside, but these can be repressed. The situation is undoubtedly rather tense in Saxony and Thuringia, where the Red parties predominate, and the Reich Government is indeed disposed to act eventually at the opportune moment, but this has not yet arrived, because then he would be obliged to proceed also against the elements of the extreme right (National Socialists) of Bavaria, which, no less than the elements of the extreme left, despise and deprecate the Authorities of the Reich. I had to add, however, that if the Chancellor is expressing himself with so much confidence with regard to Bolshevism in talking to me, who am currently living in Bavaria, evidently for the purpose of calming the rumors circulating there, with other Ambassadors on the contrary, according to what they themselves have told me, he has depicted the Bolshevik peril in Germany, especially in Berlin, as grave and threatening. Coming then to discuss the foreign policy situation ... Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, AA.EE.SS., Germania , 1923-1928, pos. 525, fasc. 39, fol. 71r-75v, reprinted in www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 107. Sept. 24, 1923 Hitler’s appeal on page 4 of the Völkischer Beobachter: “Combat Veterans!” Comrades who victoriously fought with us shoulder to shoulder for over 4 years against overwhelming enemies, but through the treason of the November Criminals were deprived the victory of our arms, enlist in our ranks for the fostering of our former comradeship. What we expect from you is boundless love for our subjugated Fatherland, thus boundless hatred toward our enemies at home and abroad. What we demand from you is voluntary submission under our leadership and standing up for our goals and our movement, even at the risk of your lives. What we offer you is hope in a free life in a free Greater Germany for the attainment of our goals for you and your children. Report daily from 10 to 12 a.m. and from 4 to 6 p.m., Schelling Street 39/I, at the stormtroop unit of the N.S.D.A.P. [National Socialist Democratic Workers Party]. Bring your military papers and your report of separation from active duty. /s/ Hitler, shock trooper Sept. 26, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, page one, banner headline: “The Result of the Berlin Capitulation: Adolf Hitler Entrusted with the Entire Political Leadership of the Fighting Formations” Left side lead article: “A Unanimous Decision” In the leadership session of the German Fighting League on the morning of September 25th, the leaders of the Oberland Fighting Formation and the Reich Flag Fighting Formation, which were already consolidated with the Nazi Party’s SA, declared: In view of the seriousness of the political situation, we sense the necessity of a unitary political leadership. In complete agreement as to means and goals, we the leaders of the Fighting Formations, with full preservation of their internal resolution of purpose, entrust this political leadership to Adolf Hitler. This news will certainly arouse the utmost rejoicing in all Völkisch circles... Large advertisement in middle of front page: National Socialists! Antisemites! The position of the Nazi movement and the Patriotic Fighting Formations united with it on the increasingly imminent catastrophe and the events arising from it is resulting in 14 Mass Gatherings which will take place on Thursday, September 27th at 8 p.m. in the following Munich halls: Bürgerbräu Beer Hall, Löwenbräu Beer Hall, Hofbräuhaus Festival Hall at the Platzl, Schwabing Beer Hall, Hacker Beer Hall, Arzberger Beer Hall, Blüte, Kreuz Beer Hall, Coloseum Beer Hall, Franziskaner Beer Hall, The Rococo Hall, Thomas Beer Hall, Grosser Wirt in Schwabing, and Salvator Beer Hall Our Führer Adolf Hitler will speak in every one of the gatherings, and Party members will appear as speakers from every German-speaking region. We expect a massive turnout. German original Sept. 27, 1923 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Appointment of Mr. von Kahr as Commissar General of the State of Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, Following up my respectful coded communiqué no. 442 of today, I have the honor to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence that the Bavarian Government, having (as Minister of Finance Dr. Krausneck told me yesterday evening) come to the certainty that the radicals of the right with Hitler at their head had already decided to give battle and were preparing political upheavals for the upcoming days, has appointed as Commissar General of the State, with exceptional powers for maintaining order, Mr. von Kahr. Since this appointment has been publicized this morning by the press, I believed (given the good personal relations I have had with the aforesaid gentleman from the time when he was Minister President) that I had an obligation of courtesy to go to his residence this afternoon to leave a letter of congratulations for the high office entrusted to him. Mr. von Kahr, however, having learned of my coming, wanted to see me, and he responded to my congratulations by expressing the grave responsibility that has been placed upon him. The Bavarian Cabinet indeed remains in place, but all powers are in reality in the hands of the Commissar. He had to begin by prohibiting, albeit reluctantly, the fourteen assemblies that Hitler wanted to hold today in Munich; he desires, however, to unite gradually with him and with the aforesaid elements of the right, which, in his opinion, have the defect of being too ardent, defending however in substance the good cause. As a result, he observed, one will see the meetings of the right permitted and those of the left prohibited. Then he added that the Government in Berlin, upon merely being apprised of the appointment of von Kahr, and fearing its influence even far outside the borders of Bavaria, had proclaimed a state of emergency also for the Reich, conferred executive power upon the Minister of the Reich Army, Gessler, and appointed in its turn, based on the principle that the law of the Reich prevails over the law of an individual State (Reich law trumps State law), a special Commissar for Bavaria in the person of General von Lossow (who, however, does not intend to accept). Thus he, von Kahr, however, has decided not to accede to, and not to obey, the decisions of the Reich Government, seeing in this a grave conflict with Berlin, a conflict that could lead even to a separation and to a restoration of the monarchy in Bavaria. The King [i.e. crown prince Rupprecht of Bavaria] – he added – who in recent days was in Munich (whence he has now departed), had a capable posture and played a rather important part in the development of the crisis and in the appointment of the Commissar. General Ludendorff – who had a discussion with the “King” in recent days, during which, while the two personages explained themselves to each other, they did not arrive at an understanding – had sought to become himself dictator for Bavaria, but this was not accepted. These confidential statements by Mr. von Kahr reveal, in my humble opinion, all the gravity of the situation and the most difficult domestic complications that could occur in Germany. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple, with sentiments of profound veneration, I have the honor to prove myself Your Most Reverend Eminence’s Most Humble, Most Devoted, Most Obliged Servant, +Eugenio Pacelli, Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, AA.EE.SS., Baviera, 1922-1925, pos. 151, fasc. 2, fol. 77r-78r, reprinted in www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1089. Sept. 29, 1923 Article on Gustav von Kahr and Nazism vs. Monarchism, Völkischer Beobachter, Sept. 29, 1923, page one: “Dr. von Kahr and Crown Prince Rupprecht [Wittelsbach heir to Bavarian throne]: A Statement from Dr. von Kahr” In various conversations in recent days Dr. von Kahr has stated what he is doing, whether or not he is doing it with the approval of the King, he considers himself his regent... We have stated, from the first moment of our appearance, that the current struggle in Germany is not a struggle about form, but rather about substance, namely the struggle between the Jewish-internationalist and the Völkisch-German concept. The Republic form and the Monarchy form may play out their conflict, but this only signifies a concealing and a mostly well-known silencing of the real and unbridgeable substantive dichotomy. If it was this conflict over form that was decisive for the salvation of the German Fatherland, then it could be resolved by a popular referendum on the form of government. As opposed to the whole vulgar, dishonorable Marxist leadership, we have defended the merits of the houses of Hohenzollern and Wittelsbach; as to Frederick I, Kaiser Wilhelm I and King Ludwig I, we have held them in highest honor. But we have left no doubt about our viewpoint, that to play around now with the imposition of a monarchy, or to pass oneself off as an official of the monarchy, would be a crime against the Fatherland as well as against the monarchical concept in particular, which the officials think they are serving... German original Adjacent article: “France and Hitler” Dateline: Paris, Sept. 28th In informed circles it is said that the danger of a civil war in Germany, even in the event of a successful putsch in Bavaria, is actually non-existent. Le Temps on the other hand reckons with the possibility that Germany could undertake a war with France (!) If Hitler succeeds in seizing for himself the leadership of the nationalist movement, then a battle against the left-wing parties and against France could also set in. Sept. 30, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, Sept. 30, 1923, page one, banner headline: “An Appeal to Separatism!” Picture of General Erich Ludendorff Column one headline: The “Bavarian Courier” writes: At Noon on the 1st of May 1919, as the socialist soviet domination in Munich was collapsing, the population, in their rejoicing, hoisted the white-blue [royal Bavarian colors] flag at the Residenz. That flag fluttering in the breeze served as a symbol that Bavaria had been victorious over the Red International. Four and a half years later, the widely visible white-blue signal was also raised, as former Minister President von Kahr took over full executive power in Bavaria. And the whole Bavarian Volk and the rest of Germany and beyond know that Bavaria, German Bavaria, will be the guiding star of his leadership in office... Announcement in middle of column one: “To All Local Party Organizations!” I refer anew to my instruction on the position of Party members in associations that are not incorporated in the German Fighting League. I hold the administrators of the Local Party Organizations responsible to follow the instructions of the Party directorate, which the members of the movement are to follow without exception, insofar as they are not within ten days dismissed from associations that do not belong to the Fighting League. If a Local Party Organization and its directorate refuse to follow this instruction, I will make use of my right to declare that they are no longer members of the Party. Eventual exit from the Party is not grounds for failing to honor this instruction. The work of the movement rests not with its fellow travelers, but rather with its fighters. This instruction does not have applicability to Local Party Organizations outside Bavaria. Adolf Hitler. Oct. 1, 1923 Vice Consul Robert Murphy’s Report, “Bavarian Dictator under Martial Law,” Oct. 1, 1923: Coincident with the formal cessation of passive resistance to the Ruhr occupation by decision of the Reich, the Bavarian Cabinet on September 26, 1923, without formal notification to the central government of its intention, proclaimed a state of martial law throughout Bavaria, and under Article 48, Section 4 of the Federal Constitution, appointed Dr. von Kahr, former Bavarian Premier, and now President of the District Government of Upper Bavaria, as Commissioner-General (Generalstaatskommissar). The following is a translation of the official proclamation: In accordance with Article 48, Section IV of the German Constitution and Par. 64 of the Bavarian Constitution, Dr. von Kahr has been appointed Commissioner General of the State until further notice. Art. 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, and 124 and 153 of the German Constitution and Par. 14 and 16 of the Bavarian Constitutional Charter have been provisionally abolished. In consequence the following is authorized: Restrictions on personal liberty, of the right to freely express one’s opinions, including the liberty of the press, of the right to hold public meetings, of inviolability for letters, telegrams and telephone messages, the issue of search warrants and orders for the sequestration and confiscation of property, also outside the limits otherwise prescribed by law in this connection. With the proclamation of this decree executive power is conferred on the Commissioner-General. All the authorities of the Reich, of Bavaria, and of the boroughs will remain in office, but with the exception of the Courts of Justice, the administrative courts and the military authorities – they must obey the instructions of the Commissioner General. He is authorized to perform official acts in their stead. According to Par. 17 of the military law, he is empowered to demand the assistance of the army. The decrees and orders of the Commissioner General supersede all decrees and orders of all other authorities with the exception of the courts of justice, the administrative courts and the military authorities. Legal appeals against the decrees and orders of the Commissioner General are not admissible unless he himself decides otherwise. The Commissioner General can issue decrees for the maintenance of public safety and order and threaten with punishment the transgression of the same or any incitement or instigation thereto. He is also empowered to detain in protective custody and to restrict the rights of sejours. The decree comes into force simultaneously with the proclamation of it. Munich, September 26, 1923. Dr. von Knilling, Gürtner, Dr. Schweyer, Dr. Matt, Dr. Krausneck, Oswald, Wutzlhofer, Dr. v. Meinel. Article 48 of the German Constitution confers the power upon the state government as it does upon the Federal executive to temporarily waive certain constitutional rights, such as freedom of the press, and others, and adopt all necessary measures to insure the public safety and the maintenance of order should they be threatened or disturbed. Such measures are to be voided upon demand of the President of the Republic, or the Reichstag. Section 64 of the Bavarian Constitution authorizes the Cabinet ‘in case of threatening danger’ to take all necessary measures to insure peace and order. For this purpose the state executive may temporarily abolish in entirety or partially such constitutional rights and privileges as he sees fit. Temporarily under the proclamation the Bavarian legislative branch has ceased to function. It will be recalled that the parties of the right have endeavored in parliament to secure by the device of a constitutional amendment providing for the initiative and referendum a provision for a State’s President. The person upon whom support united was Dr. von Kahr who has now received temporarily at least the reins of government untrammeled by constitutional restrictions. The government’s action, as embarrassing as it may be to Premier von Knilling, was well timed to satisfy public demand for strong action of some kind at the critical moment of surrender in the Ruhr question. It calmed nervous tension and alarm existing among the people and did much to prevent possible violence. Von Kahr is a member of the Bavarian Mittelpartei (Deutsch Nationalen) was transition Minister President of Bavaria in 1921, and at the time of his appointment occupied the position of President of the District of Upper Bavaria. Of possible local interest is the fact that he is a Protestant. He is an intimate friend of Field Marshall von Hindenburg who enjoyed von Kahr’s hospitality during his two recent visits, and has been closely associated with Ludendorff in the patriotic movement. He is strongly nationalistic and outspokenly royalist. In referring to ex-Crown Prince Rupprecht, von Kahr is reported to have said that what he does, is done with the approval of the “King.” Until recently he was Honorary President of all the patriotic societies in Bavaria. He is reactionary and conservative. He is an advocate of a strong military establishment, and lent vigorous support to the Einwohnerwehr, and the oranizations resulting from its dissolution. He shares the view of the present Premier that the Versailles Treaty is to be regarded as null and void, and supports the campaign against the so-called “lies as to guilt for responsibility of the recent war” (Kriegsschuldlüge). Upon his assumption of office as virtual dictator for Bavaria he immediately announced an open fight on socialism declaring that he governed for the Right. The announcement was accompanied by a prohibition against armed protective organizations of the United Socialists and Communist Party and a police raid conducted against the Muenchner Post (official Socialist organ) resulted in the seizure of a quantity of small arms, ammunition and handgrenades. No order was issued against the armed groups of the National Socialists (Hitler). Strikes and lockouts have also been prohibited. Responsible for this prohibition was the fear that the railroads, posts and telegraph might close down because of a general retaliation strike engineered by the trade unions. The prohibition provided for severe penalties. The Commissioner-General also issued an order punishing treason with death, and leaving the interpretation of treason vague and indefinite. Political assemblies and public meetings of a political nature have also been prohibited. Fourteen mass meetings of the National Socialists (Hitler) scheduled for one evening were cancelled. The order was passively received. Von Kahr’s appointment has caused further dissension among the patriotic groups and a distinct line has appeared between the views of Ludendorff and Hitler on the one side, and von Kahr and the government on the other. Certain of the patriotic groups known as the ‘Kampfbund’ threw their support to the Hitlerites. It is believed that von Kahr may succeed in his aim of consolidating the patriotic movement. Source: U.S. NARA, M336, R19, pp. 294-298. Oct. 3, 1923 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: Visit of Mr. von Kahr – Negotiations for the Concordat with Bavaria Most Reverend Eminence, This morning the State Commissar General in Bavaria, Mr. von Kahr, came to pay me a visit. He repeated to me how grave a responsibility weighs on him, and how painful it is to have to fight against the radical elements of the right, the National Socialists, who, despite their excesses, are felt to be fundamentally united by common ideals. Hitler has gone so far as to express his homage and personal devotion, and Kahr does not despair of being able to arrive at an agreement with him and his followers, which does not appear possible, on the other hand, with regard to General Ludendorff. Moreover, he has the power to make his authority respected; the Reich Army (he said) in Bavaria is faithful to his authority to the last man, and he has been able to seize most of the weapons at the disposal of the National Socialists. - As to the parties of the left, Kahr told me he is not afraid; he has dissolved their defense organizations; the Socialists are attempting to reconstitute them clandestinely under false monarchical names, like the King Ludwig III Memorial Association, and the Crown Prince Rupprecht Association, but he is not being deceived by these maneuvers, which, moreover, come to his attention before they are first discussed in the Socialists’ meetings. - Kahr added that the conflict with the Reich Government, which he expected (Report no. 28600 of Sept. 27), has not assumed an acute form, at least so far; in Berlin they will most probably want to avoid a rupture with Bavaria at this most delicate moment, as it could bring about the most serious consequences. - Kahr added that he wants to establish a solid foundation of order and authority. As to the numerous measures he has already taken, and which the press has reported, they will be followed by others, including one concerning foreigners, especially for the purpose of freeing Bavaria from not a few Russian and Polish Jews, who have infiltrated Bavaria. I asked Mr. von Kahr if, as a result of the new political situation, the negotiations for the Concordat with Bavaria could encounter obstacles or delays. He replied to me resolutely that no, he has already asked the Education Minister, Dr. Matt, about the status of the negotiations, who assured him that he would send me right away the reply to my last Note (Report no. 28495) of this past September 12th. Kahr (Protestant, but fair toward Catholics) added that he intends to favor Christian principles and Christian education for youth, and that it is proposed to eliminate gradually from the schools those teachers who assume an anti-religious attitude, while leaving them freedom of conscience outside these matters... Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, AA.EE.SS., Baviera, 1918-1922, pos. 72, vol. III, fol. 257r-258r, reprinted in www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 411. Oct. 6, 1923 Heinrich Held’s letter of Oct. 6, 1923 to Cardinal Faulhaber: Your Eminence! Serious religious and political concerns press me to take pen in hand for a letter to Your Eminence. What has long been my suspicion has now become my rock solid conviction: The entire nationalist-Völkisch movement in Bavaria, whose nucleus is the National Socialists and the Fighting League with Ludendorff at the head, is in its main tendencies a major movement of apostasy from the Catholic faith and the Church and at the same time a cunning struggle against the State of Bavaria and the House of Wittelsbach. The leading “initiates” of the whole movement are almost exclusively Protestants and mostly non-Bavarians, whose immigration here is mostly of recent date; of them it is clear that they are in closest contact with the Protestant League [Evangelischer Bund] and the North German sort of German nationalists surrounding Helfferich (the author of demagogic pamphlets under the name of Ulrich von Hutten). Ludendorff is the archtype of a Protestant Leaguer and Hitler is the docile student of Wolf and Schönerer, the Free-From-Rome people of Braunau. The financiers in Germany are Stinnes and the financiers of the Hollenzollerns, along with foreign antisemites and lodge members.* (*Notes by L. Volk, ed.: Ludendorff ... fought against international powers (Jews, Freemasons and Jesuits) and for a religion based on north German race. Karl Helfferich was Vice Chancellor of Germany in 1916-1917. Karl Hermann Wolf was an Austrian politician prominent in the Free-From-Rome movement, as was Georg Ritter von Schönerer. Braunau am Inn is the Austrian town, directly across the Inn River from Bavaria, where Hitler was born.) The Catholic Church and we German Catholics are denounced as anti-nationalist and opponents of the Reich. The “Black International” [Jesuits or Rome-directed international movement] is branded by these people as at least as dangerous for Germany and national unity and agreement as the Red International. Their systematic, veiled incitement, laced with nationalistic slogans, has a confusing and poisoning impact even in our Catholic ranks – many Catholics go along with the big crowd, without knowing how they are being exploited and wronged by resounding slogans. Yes, even clergy get entangled in National Socialist ideas and allow themselves to be shamelessly exploited as agitators. With devilish cleverness “German” Christianity is propagated and the real – Catholic – Christianity is conjured away. With “field masses” as drapery, the Catholic people, especially Catholic youth, are thoroughly deceived about the true intentions of the leaders of the movement. It is a pity and a shame, how the Catholic people of Bavaria are allowing themselves to be brought to their end by political and religious tricksters, charlatans and criminals. Your Eminence! The danger is enormously great. No government or representative of the people can master this danger, because a year-long lying and poisoning demagoguery has deprived them of respect and trust, even among a considerable portion of the Catholic population. Herr General State Commissar Dr. von Kahr will also be unable to accomplish anything in this direction – either he does not recognize this danger or he is unable, as a Protestant, to summon the inner strength to dispel it, even if he is yet well intentioned otherwise. The danger is acute in the highest degree – the conduct of France aggravates it from day to day. Thus there is only one salvation and it lies with Your Eminence and the episcopate as a whole. Your Eminence, do not take it as presumption, but as an imploring request, arising from a recognition of facts, from a true son of the Church and a friend of the Fatherland, if I implore Your Eminence to stake out a sure signpost showing the way out of this intellectual and spiritual entanglement, by means of an open strong word of warning and resistance to the Catholic people. I am convinced that one word from Your Eminence will bring our Bavarian Catholic people back to their senses and to proper Catholic and Bavarian behavior. Your Eminence, excuse the frankness of my expression – it is the result of a long interior struggle. With respectful greetings, Your Eminence’s grateful servant, /s/ Heinrich Held Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 7601, reprinted in Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol.1, pp. 314-315. Note: Heinrich Held is described by one historian as “the most important single figure behind the BVP [the Catholic Bavarian People’s Party] and long a decisive influence from behind the scenes. He became Minister President of Bavaria in mid-1924 and continued in that position until the Nazis took over the Bavarian Government in March 1933.” Harold Gordon, Jr., Hitler and the Beer Hall Putsch (1972), p.547. The Bavarian post of “Ministerpräsident” was not the same as “president” in a modern republic. It was actually the equivalent of prime minister, subject to change with shifts in parliamentary majorities. Oct. 5, 1923 Gasparri to Pacelli: It is learned with pleasure from the German Ambassador that Your Excellency's presence in Berlin is desired not only by the Government, but also by the Diplomatic Corps. The Holy Father considers it opportune that Your Excellency, to satisfy this honorable desire, divide your sojourning between Munich and Berlin until such time as it is possible to leave Munich definitively. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 10285. Oct. 7, 1923 Pacelli to Pizzardo: Dearest Monsignore, I have continued to purchase new things by means of the religious note. I already have all the dishes and glasses. So far I have spent 1,300 Lire (not 1200 as I think I wrote you the other day) + 4,400 = 5,700. I find myself, Monsignore, in no small embarrassment, especially since I remain in considerable deficit also with office expenses, and I do not have any money! Yesterday I received the telegram about residing in Berlin – Munich. I will seek to implement it to the extent it is humanly possible, and I allow myself to note: 1) In Berlin the Government and the Diplomatic Corps desire my presence, it is true, but everyone knows and acknowledges the important reason that keeps me in Munich. I repeated to the Chancellor that any time my presence is specially desired, he need only make me aware of it and I will come immediately. I said the same to some Ambassadors. 2) If I must keep myself frequently in Berlin for long periods, the Bavarian Concordat negotiations will inevitably suffer further deplorable delays, since I have there neither the Archive nor the necessary books, nor the means to confer with Ministers (the other evening I had a two-hour conference with the Education Minister), with Deputies, with Ecclesiastics and other Bavarians, nor the time and tranquility to work, being continually assaulted and molested by visitors, invites, etc. I might consider this to reflect on the excellent Ambassador Bergen, but of course the Bavarian Concordat means nothing to him, indeed . . . [elision in original] I therefore interpret the instruction to divide my sojourn in such a way that the Concordat will not suffer. In the event this interpretation is not correct, please advise me, but of course in that case I decline all responsibility for the inevitable delays and the results that could follow. 3) Finally (not complaining by returning to this argument), if I have to spend more and stay longer in Berlin than I have up to now, I will need a considerable sum of money to sustain the related expenses. With unchanging affection, Yours always, +Eugenio Pacelli Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 2041. Oct. 8, 1923 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, The separatist tendencies that I have already had occasion to report to Your Most Reverend Eminence (Report Nos. 28486, 28600 and 28643 dated respectively September 10 and 27 and October 3), having become much stronger in Bavaria at the moment the passive resistance in the Ruhr collapsed, have now, thanks to a calmer view of reality, notably lost their intensity. This is proved by recent statements of State Commissar General Dr. von Kahr (cf. enclosure), who, receiving the representatives of the press last Saturday, spoke as follows: Bavaria must become again a strong State. Strong States are an indispensable condition for a sound and strong Reich. From this it follows that Bavaria cannot conduct a separatist policy. The Bavarian people, in their great majority, have no love for the Weimar Constitution, which has been a disgrace for the German people. We in Bavaria want a new Constitution according to the principles of Bismarck. But this has nothing to do with separatism. The German people enjoyed blessing and prosperity in Bismarck’s time; today they are in misery, to which Bavaria does not want to shirk its part. The ties between Bavaria and the Reich are so close that the two of them, like Siamese twins, cannot be separated without placing in danger the lives of both. The question of the monarchy also comes in second place to that of the fate of the German people, as our Crown Prince Rupprecht recently stated with words truly worthy of a Prince. A majority of the Bavarian people are monarchists. There has already been in these days repeated talk about proclaiming a monarchy, placing my person in rapport with it ... [elision in original] But I am too good a monarchist to carry out foolishness in this field, nor to offer myself for any policy of adventurism. Moreover, as I have learned from various reliable sources, the same Crown Prince Rupprecht is (wisely, in my humble opinion) against a restoration of the monarchy at the present moment. Indeed, not only would it easily create a series of complications in domestic and foreign policy, but also, not being able to ameliorate the extremely sad current political and economic conditions, it could quite speedily produce the most serious disillusionments among the people, who would want bread at bargain prices and would expect from a King humanly impossible miracles. In that manner the monarchical principle would be left compromised, perhaps irreparably. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple etc. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 1090. Oct. 13, 1923 German Chancellor Gustav Stresemann’s letter of Oct. 13, 1923 to Cardinal Faulhaber: Your Eminence, May I hereby express my deepest gratitude for the very good news that Herr Baron von Geier and Herr Dr. Mittelmann brought me. In the eight weeks that I have been at the summit of the Reich Government, I have learned much of great sadness from the German States, and the outer- and inner-political pressure of the responsibility upon me has been nearly unbearable. The courage to take on responsibility in Germany has sunk to lowest ebb. The concept of self-sacrifice for the State is overshadowed by an egoism that leaves us doubting the character of our people. Sometimes I have had the feeling as if, in my effort to steer the ship of State through the conflagration, I am standing all alone, and I can expect nothing of positive cooperation, but only negative criticism from those who otherwise are close to me. In this situation, which oppresses my soul extraordinarily, the news of Your Eminence’s standpoint was a great encouragement. Thus, as in my opinion the rising again of the German people can only grow up from a moral idea, so those who have positions of responsibility in the leadership of the State can only achieve something if along with their conscience their soul is strengthened through the conviction that outstanding friends of the Fatherland stand near them in their way of thinking and support them with their power and their desires. For that I am obligated to thank Your Eminence in an upright and heartfelt manner. If I might direct a request to Your Eminence in connection with this, it would be that you take a public stand with the great influence of your personage for the concept of moral renewal of the people even beyond what has been accomplished up to now. Everywhere we see only destructive and subversive tendencies at work. Never has the unity of the Reich been so severely threatened as presently, for there often intrudes into the relationship of the States to the Reich, in place of the ideal source of power in which the Reich concept is rooted, a self-seeking that asks whether the individual States can only succeed if they free themselves from the whole. Never was the self-seeking of the parties greater than this, as they repeatedly consider the issue of whether they would lose this or gain that in taking this or that position. Never was the opposition among interests livelier than now, never were we so far removed from that viewpoint to which Germany owed its rising up again in Napoleonic times. In that time the Prussian Government could dare to reduce the salaries of its officials by one-third. In those days the King sold his gold tableware to improve the finances of the Reich, and the East Prussian nobility took out mortgages on their property to save the existence of the State. Today many believe that we have lost the greatest war in the history of the world, few work, and more people than ever are able to make greater claims upon the State. What does technical legislating matter, what do parliamentarianism and governing matter, compared to the great question of the reawakening of the moral strengths of the people, without which we will not overcome strong foreign pressure and domestic political anxieties! In the struggle for the soul of the people the Catholic Church and its leaders have always been able to exercise a great influence. In that regard I see it as one of the least favorable results of the World War, however, that the previously often prominent distinctions of the denominations have faded now and the great common idea of a Christian concept of life has stretched its hand out beyond these distinctions into all the issues that concern the Fatherland. If Your Eminence would have the kindness to involve yourself in the service of matters of this moral rebirth of the people, then Your Eminence would be heard far beyond the bounds of your co-religionists, by the entire German people. We need speeches to the German nation that show us the way from the depths to the heights, out of darkness into light, that show us the way from division to unity and that enable us once again to live with faith in the future. If Your Eminence is not inclined to refuse this appeal, then please be convinced that the Reich Government will consider it a matter of honor to place all possible support at the disposal of this work, and I ask that you consider me at your disposal in this regard. If Your Eminence should travel to Berlin, I would consider it a great honor to have Your Eminence as a guest in my home and to present openly to Your Eminence the thoughts that motivate me, and also thereby perhaps bring up the many misimpressions that in my view arise from Bavaria to my deep regret. Herr Dr. Mittelmann is entrusted with my intentions, and I ask Your Eminence to receive him in the most cordial manner and to let him have your answer. Please accept, Your Eminence, the expression of my most marked respect and complete devotion, with which I have the honor to be, Your Eminence’s gratefully devoted, /s/ Dr. Stresemann Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 7229, reprinted in Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol.1, pp. 316-318. Nov. 6, 1923 U.S. Ambassador Houghton’s cable from Berlin to U.S. Secretary of State about Stresemann’s precarious position, Nov. 6, 1923: Had a long talk last night with Stinnes. He is somewhat disturbed by what he terms Stresemann’s obstinacy in refusing to recognize that a new government based on the right parties is now necessary. He so advised Stresemann at a People’s party conference yesterday afternoon. Stresemann had replied, however, that England, America and even France would regard his fall as calamitous and that under these conditions he could not surrender his post. Stinnes answered that no man who had lost the confidence of Bavaria could possibly continue long to function as Chancellor. There the incident ended. This morning, however, the town is placarded with appeals to strike, in which Stresemann asserts definitely that the government proving both the means and the will to put down any illegal efforts to unseat it and calls upon all good citizens for support. It is uncertain just what this really means. Stresemann is undoubtedly slated to go. I am afraid if he does not go willingly an effort may be made to put him out by force. Whether he is prepared to take this risk only events themselves can tell. On the face of it he means to stay. Stinnes told me further that he believed Wiedfelt would be called back to head the new government as Chancellor and Foreign Minister and that Minoux, an industrialist of great ability who has worked with Wiedfelt for many years, will act as Minister of Finance and probably supervise the internal reorganization. The program Stinnes said contemplated the reduction of the powers of the national, state and local governments to the one naked function of preserving order and the alienation for a definite number of years of all other functions such as railroads, trams, waterworks, electric light and power and the like to private ownership and control to the end that non-productive labor may be reduced to a minimum, that these functions may be efficiently and profitably managed and that a share of these profits may thereby be obtained for reparations purposes. Stinnes told me also that the Separatist state was now probable. He said that the French were driving ahead with every means in their power to force the issue and that the population has been so manhandled and was so miserable that it was losing all power to resist. Telephonic communication this morning with consuls in Munich, Leipzig and Frankfurt all tell the same story as in Berlin – that the high price of food and its scarcity are making a situation which is dangerous in the extreme and can not endure for long. November 6, 9 p.m. Houghton Source: US NARA, M336, Roll 19, pp. 367-369. Nov. 6, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter headlines on Nov. 6, 1923 about “treason” and “criminals,” as well as a piece on an Arab “anti-Zionist prayer” and an article about fears in Berlin of a Hitler coup. Page one, top, six-column-wide banner headline: “Invasion of the Palatinate by Rhineland Traitors” Column 3, middle of page: “The Struggle over the Rhineland Spreads from the Rhineland Treason of the Palatinate” Column 3, bottom of page: “The Banishment of Traitors from Aachen” Column 4, middle of page: “A Victim of High Treason” Column 4, middle of page: “Negotiations with Traitors in Ohren” Column 6, top of page: “The German Officer Since the Crime of November” Page one features a prominent notice of price increases to 10 billion and 60 billion marks for monthly mail subscribers to the Völkischer Beobachter; the increases are explained as necessary in light of the rapidly escalating costs as the value of the Mark continues to plunge. By contrast, the cost of a monthly subscription mailed to the U.S. is just one dollar, Italy is 14 Lire per month, and England 3 shillings. Page 2, headline: “An Arab Hate-Prayer against Zionism” The Arab newspaper “Miraat el Sdart,” in one of its issues, brings up the text of a prayer that they recommend to Arabs for their daily prayer times. The prayer says: “We do not recognize the Balfour Declaration (seven times). We do not want Zionism (eight times). We want our complete freedom (seven times). We want complete freedom without any type of Mandate; he hate the English (seven times). We hate the government of Palestine (seven times). Down with Zionism!” The article closes: Everyone who might come into contact with Zionism in any way should continually repeat this prayer in order to be freed from the scourge of Zionism and become good and loyal nationalists. In “Germany,” however, they make Zionists directors of the greatest commercial institutes. Page 2, headline: “The End of the German Mark” On November 5th in Berlin it was semi-officially announced: Last Sunday the Reich Finance Minister in cooperation with the Commerce Minister undertook comprehensive discussions with subject matter experts about the stabilization of the Mark... Page 2, headline: “Consequences in Linderung of the November Crime” Page 2, headline: “A Speech by Sollmann” Dateline: Berlin, Nov. 5. The Workers Association of the Republican Youth League of Germany held a rally yesterday for Reich unity and the German republic. Former Reich Interior Minister Sollmann declared that the German republic is still lacking in energy as a result of the economic crisis and the lack of freedom that results from the Versailles Treaty that holds down our Volk. (No, it is because of the inner incapacitating concepts that allow such thinking!) He had withdrawn from the Reich Government because he had lost confidence, and this cabinet could really be bereft of all means. If the republic dies, it will die as a result of the cowardice of its leaders. Germany can only be saved if Christianity and Socialism work together in a powerful way. The rally closed with a resolution that contained commitment of the Youth League to the German republic. Page 2, headline: “Fear of the National Socialist Movement” Dateline: Berlin, Nov. 5. The republican assemblages that held a session last Sunday in the building of the former Herrenbank have decided to make an immediate appeal to the German people, regardless of party, in order to raise volunteers to strengthen the governmental defense forces against the Hitler forces. Page 2, headline: “Yet Another Who Wants Nothing More to do with the November Criminals” Nov. 6, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter on Cardinal Faulhaber’s words denouncing antisemitism, Nov. 6, 1923, page 5: “Cardinal Faulhaber as Jew-Protector” We have heard that Cardinal Faulhaber, in his All Soul’s Day sermon in the Cathedral, allowed himself to be seen setting himself up as a Jew protector. He rounded against the anti-Jewish movement, especially against the antisemitic press, with the addition that Jews too are persons and that we also may not allow them to starve and freeze in the winter. These statements have been brought to us and confirmed from several sources, so that we consider ourselves entitled to take notice of them. Such views do not really surprise us, if we might also take this occasion to remind the Lord Cardinal that he spoke entirely otherwise at the last Catholic Congress in Munich, where he used very sharp words against the Jewish press. The churches, however, have protected the Jews from time immemorial, which they have also repeatedly acknowledged in public. In any event, this acknowledgement has never induced the Jews to curb or moderate their struggle against Christianity in any way. Politically, on the other hand, the un-Christian Center Party and materialistic, anti-Christian Marxism get along famously well. If the Lord Cardinal thus stands up so warmly for the “poor” Jews, so that they do not starve and freeze in the winter – who does not laugh at that in view of the well-stocked cellars and storehouses of Munich Jewry! – then there is probably a political goal bound up with it. The powerful Völkisch upsurge goes against the grain for the Center Party just as much as for Marxism. Note: All Souls Day was celebrated in Bavaria on Sunday, Nov. 4, not on the 2nd of November as occurs each year in the United States and some other countries. Völkischer Beobachter, Nov. 6, 1923, page 5, column one, bottom of page: “Appeal !” Winter draws near! Party members, think of our stormtroops who offer not only their health but even their clothes in service to the Fatherland. Remember the self-sacrificing devotion of our forefathers in the year 1813! Contribute second-hand articles of clothing, uniforms, woolens, field wear of the old army, shoes, etc. We can use everything! Articles will be picked up on request, otherwise drop them off at: Regimental office, 12 Cornelius Street (Party location). “German Men!” We stand at the fateful turning point of our entire Volk; those of you who are still outside our ranks, are you going to allow the fate of your brothers and sisters to be completely passed over in silence? Remember that from time immemorial the highest virtue of German manhood has been military valor. Tarry no longer, do not think there is still time, but go and report immediately to serve the prosperity and the freedom of the German Fatherland, at the Regimental office, 12 Cornelius Street (Party location). “Students!” Those of you who may someday be called to be leaders of the German Volk, consider that only those who know how to obey are able to command! Along with the desire for intellectual development, today’s student must above all train his body and his will. Come to us, everyone who wants to have lively interaction with other callings and classes, everyone who wants to help purify the soul of the German Volk from Marxist poison! Step in rank and file with workers in the battle for the highest good of the Volk! “Turn out, You Students!” Report: Regimental office, 12 Cornelius Street (Party location). Nov. 6, 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber’s Nov. 6 reply to Chancellor Stresemann’s Oct. 13 appeal for help: Esteemed Herr Reich Chancellor! In your esteemed letter of October 13th you repeatedly expressed the idea, which also resounds to an extent in your public statesmanlike speech, namely that only in the moral rebirth of the German people lie the strong roots of its economic and social re-uplifting, and that the Catholic Church is in position to exert a great influence for this saving of the soul of the people. This idea is so near to my heart and contains such a high valuation of the harmonious cooperation of Church and State, that I feel myself obligated to thank Your Excellency most devotedly for the letter of October 13th. Unfortunately, for reasons of health and for considerations of Church law, it is not possible for me to place myself at the disposal of the recommendation made in your letter. I may, however, give Your Excellency the assurance, without intervening in purely political developments and trying to take up today all the political issues of the moment, that the Church considers it a conscientious obligation to cooperate powerfully for the moral rebirth of the people, especially in the dismantling of a raging critical spirit and the fostering of a sense of authority, in the dismantling of hatred and opposition among classes and the fostering of a sense of the common good, in the dismantling of self-seeking and the fostering of a sense of self-sacrifice. I am writing this letter on my own authority, but I know that I am in unity of thought with the pastoral letter of the Bishops gathered in Fulda this year. How should men called to be statesmen have the enduring courage to bear the burden of responsibility in government, when their permanent guideposts are destroyed and all proclamations and measures of the government are answered with unfruitful and purely negative criticism instead of positive cooperation? How should we master the immensely growing economic crisis and the coming misery of winter with unemployment, if all the moral powers do not work together without distinction of denomination and social class and party? How otherwise do we intend to dismantle the hatred that rages blindly against our Israelite fellow citizens or wholesale against other ethnic groups, without any indication of guilt on the part of the individuals who are condemned, or how do we prevent a civil war that would inevitably bring new devastations and would seal the misery of our poor people with self-destruction? History testifies that civil wars are always the bitterest and bloodiest and most damaging wars. I have never made a secret of my view that the federal structure of the Weimar Constitution was a statesmanlike necessity, in order to end the incipient civil war and to muster the valuable energies of the various elements of the German people for the service of the whole. I have never made a secret of my view that all efforts toward Reich school laws that until now have threatened the legal status of the rightly existing denominational schools and thereby infringed upon the freedom of conscience of parents, have shaken the trust of widespread elements of the people in the new Reich. I have never made a secret of my view that the loyalty of the Bavarian people to their Royal House is entitled to recognition under the principle of self-determination for a people. But all of that may proceed only according to the Constitution, in non-bloody ways, not through revolution and powerful bloody interventions in the course of events. With God’s help may we succeed first of all in giving our poor people bread and work, in coming to a peaceful resolution with neighboring countries on the basis of justice and mutual respect and in preventing a civil war. It was a necessity for me, esteemed Herr Reich Chancellor, to write this answer to your esteemed letter. With the expression of exceptional justifiable respect I remain, M. Cardinal Faulhaber Archbishop of Munich Footnote by editor L. Volk: ... Faulhaber wrote an explanation for the editor of Stresemann’s papers: “I wrote the letter in the evening hours of November 6, 1923 in one sitting and gave it to Baron Geier at 11 p.m. that night, which he, as far as I know, immediately telephoned to Berlin... My verbal and written response that it was impossible for me, for reasons of health, to place myself at the disposal of his recommendation, also could naturally only be taken as relating to the theme of moral renewal. If the Reich Chancellor, for his part, was of the view that I should first of all work for the strengthening of the unity of the Reich, then that would have best been accomplished here in this place, not by a trip to northern Germany. To that extent the book (about Stresemann), concerning what the goals of the interaction between the Herr Reich Chancellor and me were about, surprised me a little... For myself no political task crossed my mind, rather a moral task, and there, where I touched upon political questions in the letter, I touched upon them only from the moral aspect, not to shy away, rather because then just as now I cannot consider cooperation in purely political questions to be the task of a Bishop. I have decided to provide this explanation because I see how one-sidedly some newspapers misrepresented and exploited my letter to the Herr Reich Chancellor, without covering the full meaning of his letter and mine.” Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 7229, reprinted in Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol.1, pp. 318-320. Nov. 8, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter: “The 9th of November” On this day the shame of the Revolution arrives at its fifth-year anniversary. It seems to us a meaningful sign that the criminal Marxist newspaper of Altheimer Eck is now allowed on Friday to resume publication. This noble paper then comes out, just exactly as to be expected, with an enthusiastic article to pawn off on its simple readership at the beginning of the sixth year of the Republic born of perjury and treason. But will this old Marxist hag pull it off so easily this year? We know it will, for no party has at its disposal so many unctuous and lying catchwords as the United Social Democratic Party of Germany, every word of whose name is just a lying cliché. For it is neither united nor social, nor democratic, it is no party, but only a bunch of dumbheads, led by prostitute Jew-lackeys and manipulated by cunning Jews, and so it has nothing at all to do with Germany, nor has Germany with it. Nonetheless, the puff piece in praise of November 9th is harder to be done with. Therefore we want to direct some effort to the Marxists’ hired writers and hold up to the eyes of the German Volk the dimensions of this year’s 9th of November. In the five years of its existence, the German Republic, as the daughter of the Jewish Revolution, has wasted and squandered the whole inheritance of the past. It promised peace, according to Scheidemann’s phrase. Since it arose from the unspeakable cowardice and treason of the stab in the back to an undefeated army, it could only bring a cowardly and rotten peace. Only the latent energies in the German Volk itself halted and delayed the process of final collapse. Without these, the unspeakable pacifistic passivity of the November-traitors would have already led much earlier to our absolute subjection to the enemy Entente. The first leaders of this Republic predicted to the Volk that capitalistic, imperialistic France would concede to Eisner-Germany a charitable peace. No one aside from our Adolf Hitler took a stand then against this enormous swindle, even though it was obvious; for how was a Clemenceau or Poincaré expected to handle foreign proletarians, who had been led to war across the Rhine against them, the militarists, more charitably than their own class of workers? Instead of summoning up the strengths of the Volk after the example of the first French Revolution, in a levee en masse against the foreign enemy, every last part of the army was broken up into atoms and Erzberger was sent into the woods of Compiègne to sign the most unheard of ceasefire stipulations of all world history. From that November 9th on, the German Volk staggered foreign policy-wise into the abyss. Versailles, the destruction of the old Wehrmacht, the robbery of the colonies, of Alsace-Lorraine, the ripping off of good old German territories by Denmark, Poland, Italy, Yugoslavia, Romania, and Czechoslovakia, the perpetuation of the Rhineland occupation, the invasion of the Ruhr district, all these are just the consequences of November 9th, which crippled Germany’s strengths and turned them self-destructively inward. Why has no German government since 1918 taken up the battle against the war guilt lie? Because the war guilt lie is bound inseparably with the lie of November 9! If one falls, the other goes too; if the old Germany is absolved of this infamy, then every justification for the Revolution falls away, it becomes perjury and treason before the whole world, its still living instigators and leaders from “high” to low turned over to the judgment of the nation. Foreign policy enslavement was in step with domestic political mangling. This Revolution, this Republic, cowardly to the point of surrendering to those outside its borders, so that it acted itself to subordinate its constitution to the dictate of Versailles, conducted and conducts war against those inside its borders. Who is conducting this war, with whom, against whom? The Jewish International conducts this war with its bribed subjects and deluded workers and unreasoning intellectuals against the German Volk ... German original Nov. 8, 1923, Midnight Vice Consul Murphy’s telegram to Washington sent from the city of Ulm on the Bavaria-Württemberg border because Nazis were preventing telephone and telegraph communications from Munich and environs: November 8, 12 p.m. (Midnight) Urgent. Confidential. At a political assembly arranged by united patriotic societies this evening to which were invited Commissioner General Von Kahr and the entire Bavarian cabinet at which Kahr was to speak on the future of the German nation in contemplation outbreak of revolution at Munich five years previous. Adolf Hitler leader national socialists suddenly appeared accompanied by body guard having surrounded building with so-called Munich regiment of his organization announced that at that instant, approximately 9 o’clock national revolution had broken out and the new provisional Federal Government Hitler, Ludendorf, Poehner and Kahr was German. According Hitler task of this Government is to march on Berlin, wage twelfth hour fight; asserted that the dawn would see either new national government or the death of speaker. Bavarian Premier Knilling forced to retire and Kahr appointed States President... Poehner member of Hitler organization Bavarian Premier with dictatorial powers; Ebert declared hereby removed from office and German National Government declared German in Munich. Hitler undertakes political direction new government Ludendorff military direction. General Von Lossow named German Reich’s Minister of War Colonel Seisser German federal police commissioner. Kahr accepted the Hitler appointment with the statement “I have decided to undertake as Governor of Bavaria and Custodian of the monarchy the direction of Bavaria.” Hitler’s declarations appointments were greeted by tumultuous applause apparently had the full approval of entire assembly. Ludendorff who was not present, was secured from home, accepted appointment with the statement he would make every effort bring back honor glory to the Imperial colors. Telegraphic communication is cut off and little information available of troop movement toward Berlin. Rupprecht has not openly participated in movement which came as a complete surprise to Kahr and Bavarian cabinet though meets with approval. Rupprecht’s restoration will depend on success of move. If successful his restoration as King of Bavaria appears imminent. Murphy. Nov. 9, 1923, before dawn Translation of Franz Matt’s proclamation posted around Munich in the early morning of Nov. 9, 1923: Proclamation. By a Hitler-Ludendorff Putsch the constitutional government was declared overthrown. The constitutional government still stands. It appeals to the entire bureaucracy, police and Bavarian contingent of the Reich Army to remain true to their constitutional government and to refuse to serve the revolutionaries. Whoever acts contrary to this will be treated as a Traitor The government expects the Bavarian people in city and countryside will refuse obedience to the Prussian Ludendorff and his adherents, who have undertaken to lead our Bavarian and German people into unspeakable misforturne. Further proclamations will follow. November 9, 1923. For the entire constitutional ministerial cabinet: Dr. Matt. Source: L. Schmidt, Kultusminister Franz Matt, pp. 74-78 and E. Ludendorff, Auf dem Weg zur Feldherrnhalle (1938), p.63. Note: Ludendorff’s book asserts that the drafters of Matt’s poster were Munich City Councilors Rauch and Scharnagl, who were prominent members of the Bavarian People’s Party, and that Rauch went to the Munich Archbishop’s Palace at 1:15 a.m. on November 9th to discuss matters with Cardinal Faulhaber. Ibid., pp. 76-77. Some sources asserted that Franz Matt was with Cardinal Faulhaber and Nuncio Pacelli on the evening of November 8th. Matt said he was at the theater that evening. One of his family members, however, when Gustav von Kahr called the house in the late evening of November 8th, said that Matt was away on a business trip. See Schmidt, op. cit. Nov. 9, 1923 Völkischer Beobachter, Nov. 9, 1923, on the Faulhaber-Stresemann correspondence: “Chancellor and Cardinal” Several days ago the former Marxist Reich Interior Minister, Sollmann, who had been ousted from the Stresemann Cabinet, used this striking turn of phrase in a speech or talk: Christianity and Socialism must work together to help the Fatherland out of the present emergency. This sudden acknowledgement by a cabinet minister who has been obligated for decades to follow the party program of religious indifference and the party practice of hostility to religion, has a remarkable enough ring to it, but it can also be taken as a veiled warning to the Center Party against helping their red coalition partners back into the saddle so as to restore to them their lost dominance over the left-wing-oriented masses. The exchange of letters between the Chancellor and the Cardinal, however, indicates the possibility that Sollmann’s expression was made under a particular understanding and that he was perhaps informed of certain efforts undertaken by Herr Stresemann to engage the influence of the Church for the rescuing of the current system. When matters are seen from this general perspective, the concerted actions of Stresemann’s comrades are not so unappealing. The Chancellor needs help from all sides and now he is falling back upon the Church. There are certain parallels in the past. The great French Revolution with its cult of reason – somewhat comparable to our worship of economics as the savior from all crises and the ruler of the world – nevertheless called upon the old God, and Frederick the Great ascribed the following words to his Minister of Culture and Worship: May he bring me back religion in the land! Crisis teaches prayer, and waves are threatening to crash upon the Crisis-Governors of Weimar. Like a second Noah, Stresemann is sending out his dove, but it has not yet returned with an olive branch in its beak as the sign of emerging highlands, and the rainbow of peace is spanning neither between Berlin and Paris, nor between Berlin and Munich. For the Munich Cardinal’s reply letter is actually a refusal. It is essential, if one wants to understand things in their entire interrelationship, and trace the Chancellor’s intentions all the way to the innermost wrinkles of his statesmanlike heart, to distinguish between what the Chancellor wants to attain for the Reich, and what he wants to attain for its relationship with Bavaria. The meaning of Stresemann’s letter to Faulhaber is not apparent on the surface, and one is left to go by conjectures – albeit ones of high probability. According to those, the Chancellor, based on statements by the Cardinal about the current state of Germany, encouraged him to propound his thoughts about the moral renewal of the Volk as the basis of a political and social mission for Germany. If one considers this line of thought to be at the basis of Stresemann’s letter, as reflected in the Cardinal’s reply letter, then it yields the following: The Cardinal is rejecting the Chancellor’s end-justifies-the-means proposal for sound reasons and based on concepts of Church law. This rejection is grounded in considerations that are rooted in the somewhat weakened physical constitution of the Cardinal since his trip to America and general overwork, together with his high position as a Prince of the Church. Apparently the Cardinal does not himself see that the way is opportune, since he as a clever man knows well that in the burning questions that await a solution, the purely political question of the decisive battle between Nationalism and Marxism stands before us, and that the current system, still embodied in the rump cabinet of Stresemann, can only be rescued by means of his powerful word, because it is ripe for its downfall. But the Cardinal comes to the Chancellor in a realm that has been turned into a real battlefield. The recent appeals of the Reich Government, like those of the parties in the previous coalition, express the need to gather all powers to rescue Reich and Volk. It is comprehensible from a human and party-political point of view, that for the authors of these appeals, the hopes for rescuing the Fatherland are bound up with their ardent wishes themselves to help, personally and party-politically, to bring salvation from the monstrous crisis. The realization has penetrated far into the masses of workers that Marxism has enslaved, taken away rights, robbed and devastated, in foreign and domestic policy, in the economy and cultural life, and that it must be replaced through outward-directed activity, inward-directed peace among Reich, States, interests and social classes, opportunity for work, bread for body and soul. It is the tragedy of Stresemann and the bourgeois parliamentary parties of the coalition, that they are still not able, even today, to recognize the necessity of this fundamental change, that they still continue to think that they themselves are able to rescue the situation, the system, by means of parliamentary twists and turns, powers without conviction, with tricks and treats. One after another they have tried everything, and we have experienced the amazing spectacle of the Red International and internationalist democrats even becoming nationalistic. Now they, these sworn anti-Christians, have resorted to religion, and the Cardinal of Munich, as the most outstanding exponent of the Catholic Church in Bavaria and the Reich, is supposed to exorcise the approaching storm. The once so abhorred mixing of religion and politics suddenly becomes a necessity of state. How times change. The foregoing reflections would be incomplete for anyone who does not want to ignore the import of some of the especially significant things that should be seen as program points in the Cardinal’s letter. Dr. von Faulhaber turns against civil war, and he takes up the cause, even more pointedly than in his All Souls Day sermon that made such a stir, of the “Israelite fellow citizens” and other ethnic groups, with respect to which it still remains uncertain whether he means thereby Marxists, or the citizenry who are threatened by them in body and life. The Cardinal sharply raises yet three more challenges: The need for a revision of the Weimar Constitution in the interest of greater federalism, the preservation of the denominational school, and self-determination for Bavaria in the question whether to have a monarchy. Here the Cardinal’s distinctively Bavarian program is combined with the overall series of concepts that he develops for the avoidance of civil war and for bringing peace to the Reich, and here there are also total and halfway contradictions. The Jewish question is closely bound up with solving the problem of Marxism, and solving it radically and decisively in the sense of an overall purification of the Reich from those dangerous elements from the East that plunder our country and Volk; this is one of the first priorities for reestablishing our mission. The Cardinal’s letter says here only what should not be allowed, but not what must surely be done according to the Cardinal’s conviction expressed in previous talks. In the domestic and cultural-political program, the majority of the Bavarian Volk, including those who stand outside parliamentary circles and have grown powerful, want to combine decisive forces for the formation of the will of the Volk with this concept of an active federalism; in that regard, however, it must be emphasized to the utmost that the nationalist circles in Bavaria that are unbound to political parties and have nothing to do with the parliamentary blundering and bungling under the Weimar Constitution, want to build rather from the ground up. The advocacy for a Bavarian monarchy is actually more a mental reservation for possible future development, than a postulate for the moment. The Cardinal, in his reply to the Chancellor, showed himself to be more than a match for him. The attempt to win over the Munich Church Prince for specified parliamentary exigencies and thus preserve some influence over the direction of the governing factions in Bavaria, must be seen as having failed, despite the concessions to one point or another that are contained in the letter ... Matters are rushing to a resolution, and the way is open for those men who alone can save Germany! Nov. 9, 1923 Cable from U.S. Ambassador Houghton in Berlin to U.S. Secretary of State, Nov. 9, 10 a.m. Last evening in Bavaria a new Reich Government was set up including Kahr as National dictator, Ludendorff as commanding general and Lossow as War Minister. Movement initiated by Hitler but apparently indorsed by Royalists. At one o’clock this morning Maltzan came to Embassy to say that at cabinet meeting just held Ebert presiding it was determined to fight and that General Von Seeckt had been given full military power and charge. No direct communication with Munich has been possible since midnight. This morning however Maltzan has just called to hand me a copy of a wireless message received from the Mayor of Nuremberg translation of which follows: “Herr Von Kahr, General Von Lossow and Colonel Seisser have declared that their consent to the action of Ludendorff and Hitler was extorted and that they are against the movement in every respect. They hope in the course of the day to gain control of the revolt. Any advancing troops of the Reichswehr would be informed of the facts in order to prevent further consequences. General Von Lossow has informed the Bavarian troops in this sense by wireless. Herr Von Kahr has instructed all local authorities to exercise the strictest passport control and to arrest all members of the National Socialist party and the Oberland organization. General Ludendorff and Hitler are to be arrested where found. It is reported from Bamberg that the leaders of the National Socialists there have already been disarmed. Maltzan tells me further that all reports from Northern and Eastern provinces indicate that the nationalist forces there had no previous knowledge of movement and will not join it. In his opinion confidentially expressed Crown Prince Rupert has intervened and ordered his friends to oppose movement. Houghton. Source: US NARA. M336, Roll 19, pp. 373-374. Nov. 9, 1923 Bavaria Ambassador Ritter zu Groenesteyn’s cable of Nov. 9, 1923: Groenesteyn to the Bavarian State Foreign Ministry, Munich, November 9, 1923 Re: The Ludendorff-Hitler Putsch in Munich The first news of the Ludendorff-Hitler Putsch in Munich had already been published in this country’s morning press when I paid my visit to the Cardinal Secretary of State this morning at the usual diplomatic reception. The Cardinal appeared to be much alarmed by the news and especially expressed the fear that the name Ludendorff in connection with these events would provoke the French and offer them a welcome opportunity to proceed with new arbitrary and forceful collective punishment against Germany and against Bavaria in particular. Also, moreover, the Cardinal deplored a violent revolution of this sort because, even if by all appearances it was not motivated by the cause of separatism, it could still produce great dangers for Bavaria and the Reich, as it could cause unforeseeable results even beyond the borders of Germany. Therefore it is to be hoped and desired that a solution to this untoward incident be found as soon as possible, to re-establish lawful conditions for the good of Bavaria and the Reich. The Cardinal had not yet received any reports from the Nuncio in Munich, and so it was entirely understandable that His Eminence would refrain from any further judgment about the foregoing press accounts. He raised only one other issue: what might become now of the Bavarian Concordat, if it should really come to a dictatorship in Bavaria. In the Vatican they seem to be in considerable doubt whether it would be possible to conclude a Concordat with a dictator, because it is to be suspected that its validity under law could be subsequently disputed by the representatives of the people. Lacking instructions, and since the issue is not really pressing, I demurred to express myself on this. The Vatican press has not commented on the proceedings in Munich. The other press here has, to be sure, contrived opinions about it, but has not raised any kind of malicious criticism about it; rather, their assessments have even taken account of many mitigating circumstances as well as pointing out the position of France, which ever more betrays that France only wants to achieve a single goal, namely the annihilation of Germany. On the other hand, however, the press does not fail to recognize the great dangers that could arise from such events for Germany and all Europe, and warns Germany earnestly therefore about trying to get out of its obligations under the Versailles Treaty in this manner. Also, Italy must insist on its own rightful claims. Rastignac in the official “Tribune” takes the opportunity to impart to France the good teaching that it is in its own interest to avoid drawing the bow too taut. Source: Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, “Akten der Gesandtschaft beim Päpstlichen Stuhl” [Bavarian Main State Archive, Files of the Embassy to the Papal See], no. 996, pp. 71-72. See also Gerhard Besier and Francesca Piombo, The Holy See and Hitler’s Germany, trans. W.R. Ward (2007), pp. 32, 217 & note 265. Nov. 9, 1923 Pacelli to Gasparri: Coded telegram no. 443 During the past night Hitler with armed troops declared the Bavarian Government fallen, arresting the previous minister president, another minister, and proclaiming the new national German government with Ludendorff as head of the army. Commissar General Kahr, as reported to me, only apparently gave his adherence to the movement at the beginning in order to gain his freedom and thus take measures in opposition; it is believed that in a short time a restoration will be possible; probably, however, not without spilling of blood. Source: Historical Archive of the Secretariat of State (Holy See), Section for Relations with States, AA.EE.SS., Baviera, 1922-1925, pos. 151, fasc. 2, fol. 6r, reprinted in www.pacelli-edition.de, Document No. 3198. Nov. 10, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano front page articles about the Hitler-Ludendorff Beer Hall Putsch, Nov. 10, 1923: “The Situation in Germany: A New Reich Government Is Installed in Munich” French news reports, dateline Paris, Nov. 9, 5 a.m. The Havas Agency reports from Berlin that General Ludendorff has been made dictator and that Bavaria is presuming to take over all of Germany. The Echo of Paris is reporting these details from Berlin as of 1:00 a.m.: The Bavarian troops, commanded by Hitler, have begun their offensive. A dispatch from Berlin to the Matin datelined middle of the night states that, according to telegrams from Munich, von Kahr has been proclaimed Regent of Bavaria. The Interior Minister, Schweier, has been arrested together with von Knilling. Poehner, the former prefect of police, has been designated as President of the Imperial Council. According to the Petit Parisien, the Reichswehr took possession of Weimar and immediately occupied the parliament building and the Interior Ministry. Some officials went to announce to the President of the Council the arrival of new contingents assigned to assure the constitutional situation in Thuringia. The city has been surrounded to prevent the arrival of any suspicious persons. In the evening a ministerial crisis was announced. It can be concluded that the government of Thuringia has been simply completely deposed. According to the New York Herald, continental edition, a proclamation by Hitler says that the movement will not be localized and that the new government will necessarily be considered as the National Government of Germany. The Havas Agency reports from Berlin concerning a proclamation of the Government to the German people: In its proclamation to the German people, the Reich Government states that the authors of the coup d’état have arrested Von Knilling, have arrogated to themselves the power to form a Government, have conferred on Ludendorff the supreme command of the German Army and have appointed Hitler as the arbiter of the destiny of Germany. The proclamation then states that whoever supports the coup d’état will be guilty of high treason. It exhorts all patriots to defend the unity, the order, and the freedom of the Reich. Finally, it announces that all measures to combat partisans and to re-establish order have been commanded and will be executed with maximum force. The Correspondence Bureau of Vienna reported yesterday from Munich that Hitler has deposed the current Government and has formed a new one with former Police President Poehner as administrator of the state, Ludendorff as supreme commander, and General Lossow as Minister of the Reichswehr. Von Hitler assumes the office of political counselor. “The German Version” Dateline Berlin, Nov. 9, 1:50 a.m. As a result of the deposing of the constitutional Bavarian Government, the Reich Government has suspended domestic transit to and from Bavaria. There will be nothing more provided by the Reich to Bavaria until the re-establishment of constitional conditions. (2:50 a.m.) The National Defense Ministry has prohibited the publication of domestic news concerning the events in Munich, except for official statements. The Reich Government has directed an appeal to the German people, stating the decisions by the “putschists” in Munich are not valid and adding that all measures commanded to strike down the “putsch” will be applied with extreme force. The Wolff Bureau, datelined yesterday, published the following: Private reports from Munich indicate that, following a speech given by Commissar General von Kahr in the Bürgerbräu against Marxism, Hitler appeared in the room with 600 men, stating that the current Bavarian Government has been deposed and has been replaced by a new Provisional Government formed of Ludendorff, Hitler, Lossow and Poehner. Hitler’s troops blocked off the Bürgerbräu. Up to 10 p.m. no incidents have been confirmed. The troops of the patriotic organizations occupied plazas in various quarters. The attitude of the Reichswehr and the Bavarian Police is still unknown. Currently Von Kahr is seeking to negotiate with Von Hitler. The post and telegraph offices have been occupied by the Bavarian Police. The same Agency commented on the situation on the eve of the events and described it thus: On the eve of November 9th the general domestic situation was considered to be completely calm. All measures had been taken to neutralize any eventual anti-constitutional attempts. Newspapers affirmed there were no indications that similar actions were to be expected. Reliable informants from Munich confirmed that also in Bavaria the situation is calm. “How the Coup d’Etat Developed” Dateline Berlin, Nov. 9. In a vast beer hall in Munich, yesterday evening around 5 p.m., von Kahr was speaking when Hitler burst into the hall with a command to stop and fired pistol shots into the ceiling. He declared the Bavarian and Berlin governments overthrown and declared a new Reich Government installed in Munich. He said the Bavarian Ministers had been arrested and that Poehner had been chosen as President of the Council, von Lossow as Minister of the Reichswehr, and Seisser as Prefect of Police; that he reserved to himself the political leadership of Germany and entrusted to Ludendorff the command of the German armed forces. Von Kahr was proclaimed State Regent, a position existing at the time of the monarchy and having a dictatorial character. Hitler spoke to the crowd, wishing that Germany would return to the great and strong nation it had been, in the hands of a nationalist government. Nov. 11, 1923 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 11, 1923, page one: “The Situation in Germany: The Bavarian Movement Fails: Hitler and Ludendorff Prisoners: The Official Report” Dateline Berlin, Nov. 9 (Official)... Nov. 14, 1923 Pacelli to Gasparri: Re: About the anti-Catholic character of the nationalist uprising in Munich Most Reverend Eminence, The details of the nationalist uprising that disturbed the city of Munich in the past days (cf. encrypted cables Nos. 443, 444 and 445), are already known to Your Most Reverend Eminence from the Italian press; thus I have no need to repeat them in this respectful Report. On one point, however, already alluded to in encrypted cable No. 444, I believe it opportune to communicate to Your Eminence some further details, that is to say on the demonstrations of an anti-Catholic character that have accompanied the uprising itself, but which have not surprised those who have followed what is published in the organs of the radicals of the right, such as the Völkischer Beobachter and the Heimatland. This character was revealed above all in the systematic agitation against the Catholic clergy, with which the followers of Hitler and Ludendorff, especially in speeches on the public streets, whipped up the population, thus exposing ecclesiastics to insults and mockeries. Their attacks, however, targeted in a special way the learned and zealous Cardinal Archbishop here, who, in a sermon he delivered in the Cathedral on November 4th and in his letter to the Reich Chancellor published by the Wolff Agency on November 7th, had reproved persecutions against the Hebrews. To this was added the unfounded and absurd rumor that was spread in the city, and probably tailor-made, that accused His Eminence of having produced a change of opinion in Mr. von Kahr, who, as is well known, while at the beginning in the Buergerbraeukeller had apparently, to back away from violence, adhered to the Hitler-Ludendorff coup d'etat, then declared himself against it. Thus it occurred that, during the disturbances of last Saturday afternoon, a numerous group of demonstrators went before the Archbishop's palace, crying "Nieder mit dem Kardinal!" (down with the Cardinal!). His Eminence was fortunately absent from Munich, having left that day to go consecrate a new church in a locality near Mühldorf; but, when he returned the following evening in his automobile, he was similarly greeted with a hostile demonstration. These anti-Catholic sentiments were further manifested in the tumultuous meetings of students that took place the day before yesterday in the University, in which disturbing outside elements were also mixed with the selfsame students (not even from Bavaria), forcing the Rector in the end to close the school until further notice. Also in the aforesaid Atheneum, the object repeatedly in recent times of the charitable solicitude and generosity of the Holy Father in favor of the students, there was squawking against the Pope, against the Most Eminent Archbishop, against the Catholic Church, against the clergy, against the Jesuits, against the "White International," against Mr. von Kahr, who, although Protestant, was characterized by one of the speakers as an Honorary Member of the Society of Jesus (Ehrenmitglied of the Jesuits). I enclose an article that appeared today in the Bayerischer Kurier, in which these deplorable events are described and denounced. Humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple ... Source: www.Pacelli-Edition, Document No. 1091. Nov. 16, 1923 Cable from U.S. Ambassador Houghton in Berlin to Washington, Nov. 16, 1923 A new political crisis is evidently approaching. Ebert has decided not to give Stresemann again power to dissolve Reichstag and so deprives him of his strongest weapon. If Ebert’s position does not change meanwhile Stresemann is likely to fall when Reichstag meets on November 30th. Efforts are being made to patch up a new cabinet which will bring nationalists into government and reconcile Bavaria. New government perhaps succeed but a government so created can only be one step nearer a dictatorship and full control by the Right. In reality von Seeckt now dominates situation and these parliamentary efforts are largely a pretense to maintain the fiction of the republic. Houghton. Source: US NARA, M336, Roll 19, page 516. Dec. 7, 1923 Pacelli to Gasparri: Most Reverend Eminence, During my recent sojourn in Berlin, I had repeated occasions to engage in conversations with the new Chancellor of the Reich, Mr. Marx. He is undoubtedly an excellent and meritorious Catholic with truly edifying piety; however, I had to draw the conclusion that it would be an illusion to expect of him, for now at least, any positive action in favor of the Church’s interests. Many times I asked him if it would not be opportune to take advantage of the current moment to negotiate rapidly a Concordat between the Holy See and the Reich, taking as a foundation the already quasi-definitive schema that will soon be concluded with Bavaria, and I showed him how (prescinding from all other considerations), since the aforesaid Concordat would constitute an affirmation of the unity of the Reich, the German Government would have a most salient political interest in stipulating to the same, especially with regard to the population of the Rhineland; but Mr. Marx kept responding in an uncertain an evasive manner, and finally yesterday, upon my renewed request, he declared more clearly to me that it is impossible, adducing as a reason that the current Reichstag is already close to its end. In that regard, nonetheless, the good but timid Chancellor seems not to be taking sufficiently into account that the future Parliament – in which, at least as is commonly predicted, there will be greater numbers of extreme elements of the right and the left, sad to say Protestant nationalists and communists – will probably be even less favorable than the present one to the acceptance of a Concordat advantageous to the Church. – Not even for the school question will Mr. Marx, whom Osservatore Romano itself has called “the apostle of the confessional school,” dare, so far as it appears, to undertake anything. Certainly he is faced with formidable difficulties of domestic and foreign policy; it needs to be recognized, however, that the current Center Party and its leaders are for the most part far different from the great founders of the Party, thanks to whom the courageous struggle succeeded in victoriously coming out on top, and in breaking the resistance of the Iron Chancellor. – I spoke to Mr. Marx, moreover, about the project of the Concordat for Bavaria, which, as is well known to Your Most Reverend Eminence, must be submitted to the Government in Berlin, so it can examine it and confirm that it contains nothing in violation of the German Constitution, and he expressed the firm expectation that the current Reich Cabinet will not advance any difficulties in this regard. I am certain that the current Chancellor will not create, on his part, hindrances or objections of any kind; nonetheless his response here has also been more hesitant and less clear than that of his predecessor, Mr. Stresemann, now the Foreign Minister, who assured me in this matter without the least uncertainty that the examination in question would have been merely a formality. This was my duty to report to Your Eminence, while humbly bowing to kiss the Sacred Purple. . . etc. Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Document No. 47. Dec. 7, 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber’s Memorandum of His Audience with Cardinal Secretary of State Gasparri, Rome, Dec. 7, 1923: ... “I have heard from Baron Ritter [zu Groenesteyn, Bavarian Ambassador to the Vatican, 1909-1934], you would have 30,000 Lire sent to you in connection with the defamation.” So you are the only chancellor, who after 10 years in office, a proof, that papal diplomacy has gone on straight and sure paths. They have written now in France: The Pope is Germanic, then in Germany: The Pope is a Francophile. Then the same from him. “Eminence, there are also episodes among us in Munich that pass, but the historical reality remains constant.” Pacelli is under strict instructions from us not to say a word, because whoever takes a position, is like a separatist. “And he has followed those.” So often in history the Church has reached out its hand in such things, and has gotten its fingers burned. I explained why Pacelli did not send a telegram during the Hitler Putsch, that he had been working on the Concordat that night. The lies against the Papal See (the rage of the Protestants that the Church has such respect. Protestant officers have sold out countries). It is what was in the Kaiser’s letter... Other lies: That a Danube State would be founded from here. He laughed loudly. “I have never even thought of it, never spoken about it. What states should then be in it?” Likewise the beatification of Emperor Charles [of Austria-Hungary]. Again he laughed loudly and said, why not also beatify Kaiser Wilhelm. The Concordat has been impeded again by the recent events, because apparently the Bavarian Middle Party (Mittelpartei) is not cooperating. I asked, what then, if it fails, will the old one still be valid. To that he gave no answer... My letter to Stresemann: He did not go into that, apparently because of the political side of the letter. To Ritter he had said that it was a declaration of the Cardinal’s patriotic sentiment. To me he was silent, because I, to the inquiry of Corriere [redacted by L. Volk, ed.], which appeared to be inspired by him... Source: L. Volk, ed., Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, 1917-1945 [Faulhaber Papers] (1975), vol. 1, pp.321-322. Dec. 8, 1923 Cardinal Faulhaber’s Memorandum of His Audience with Pope Pius XI, Rome, Dec. 8, 1923 He was so tired that he spoke Italian the whole time... The situation is serious. Hunger, embitterment, nationalism as heresy, antisemitism and anti-Catholicism. The Archbishop of Bamberg informed me. That is why your trip was postponed so long. I will donate to you a sum for the Anima. Just yesterday I received a lot of money and just said, then we can give that to Cardinal Faulhaber. My thanks for the donations for Germany, for quiet help (the slanders on account of the telegram to Pacelli are receding, but the fact remains that no one, no government has promoted justice for Germany as the Holy See has), [redacted by L. Volk, ed.] for patience with the Concordat. No sovereign has done that for us. That will remain a historical fact, even when all these episodes are past. “We have done what our conscience demanded. I just said to the French Ambassador: all that our conscience before our common Father ..., then he was calm. But it is very difficult. Whenever I write a word, then something else comes along ...” But some good news. [German Chancellor Wilhelm] Marx sent me a long telegram and thanked me: 300 prisoners have been set free in the Ruhr district. We hope the number increases further still. We will do everything possible. Also in Ireland it is going better. Of 8,000 political prisoners, there are now only 5,000 in prison and we hope that they will be set free by Christmas. Great damage by flooding, also around Rome. (Migone told me that Pius XI had suffered much under the terrible heat)... My letter to Stresemann: A warning of civil war and the danger still exists today: it was an excellent thing, he said twice. My most special blessing (benedizione specialissima) to the benefactors in America and my thanks (gratiarum actiones). Father Lukas: ... A little about the Concordat: This morning I addressed it until 2:00 with [Cardinal] Borgongini and “the Cardinal” [Gasparri]. He obviously spoke with you already. We are hopeful (speriamo). Pacelli is always finding another government in Berlin. Oh, he is working outstandingly, so sagaciously and so swiftly. During the Putsch he did not send a telegram. Such situations I also encountered in Warsaw. I said how difficult the situation is currently and that there is not much hope. We are hopeful (speriamo). He did not go into details. It will be a model for other Concordats, because it is a good Concordat, he repeated many times. Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, reprinted in L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp.322-323. Go to Overview-Contents Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Translations and Notes, 1924-1932 1924 Feb. 15, 1924 Cardinal Faulhaber’s words about Hitler in a speech to a Catholic audience in Munich on Feb. 15, 1924: Adolf Hitler knew better than the Diodochs of his movement that German history did not first begin in 1870 or in 1517, that for the re-establishment of the German Volk the power sources of Christian culture are indispensable, that this work of re-establishment cannot be accomplished with the cult of Wotan and hatred of Rome. As a man of the Volk he also knew the soul of the South German Volk better than others, and knew that with a movement whose flip-side is struggle against Rome, the soul of the Volk will not be won over. There is a deeply moving tragedy in the fact that the originally pure spring became poisoned by later influences and by Kulturkampf. Source: Rudolf Reiser, Kardinal Michael von Faulhaber – Des Kaisers und des Führers Schutzpatron [Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber – The Kaiser’s and the Führer’s Patron Saint] (2000), p.41. Cardinal Faulhaber’s speech of Feb. 15, 1924, including his remarks about Hitler, was republished in Faulhaber’s book Deutsches Ehrgefühl und Katholisches Gewissen [The German Sense of Honor and the Catholic Conscience], which appeared in 1925, the same year as Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Notes concerning Faulhaber’s remarks about Hitler: The Diodochs were the lieutenants of Alexander the Great, who are famous to those familiar with classical Greek history for their rivalry for power after Alexander’s death. In the context of Hitler’s movement at the time of the Putsch, “Diodochs” could be taken as a reference to Ludendorff (military commander of the “Patriotic Fighting League” forces), Rosenberg (editor of the Nazis’ newspaper), Ernst Röhm (commander of some of the paramilitary forces), and Scheubner-Richter, a White Russian emigré and advisor to Hitler; none of these lieutenants were Catholic. March 11, 1924 Cardinal Faulhaber’s letter to Cardinal Bertram, Prince-Bishop of Breslau: Your Eminence, May I most respectfully ask your forgiveness that I am so tardily and deficiently answering your letter of January 24th. The past months have brought new surprises and tasks from day to day and it is still difficult today, with the flow of events, to summarize with certainty the main strengths and ultimate goals of the Völkisch movement. The German University Movement (Hochschulring deutscher Art) has shown itself, in the November events in Munich, to be actually an anti-Church element of the young academic circles. Through repeated statements it is now seeking to spin the facts as though the Movement did not officially participate in the November events, as though the individuals rather spoke and acted only as private persons. Later, however, when the elections to the general student governing council took place, and the results were announced, no Catholic students were elected to the council, and the University Movement tolerated, at the very least, this flagrant violation of academic parity. Unfortunately some Catholic students, thankfully not many, played the role of Judas on multiple occasions, among them a Herr von Savigny (from Berlin?), who rejected all efforts by his fellow students to correct him, on the principle that these are political matters, in which the Church has nothing to say. Since Savigny wants to become an advanced seminarian, and his relatives have spoken out in the press, thus causing public scandal, I have already decided to withhold the necessary letters of support for his priestly ordination. The Catholic student organizations are lacking in Catholic solidarity, and this lack on the part of individual students and student organizations has a crippling effect in holding back the others from coming forward decisively... Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, reprinted in L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp.332-334. July 19, 1924 Civiltà Cattolica, page 106: “‘The Unity of Italy’ and the Disunity of the Italians” ... And just as the spirit of revolution has arisen among the multitude, and is spread and rooted among them, by the principles of liberalism and the school with which it has perverted the people for decades and corrupted above all the young generation, as we have said before, so now it is manifested today in all its violence of fierce and frenetic disintegrating and destroying; it is manifested in the Socialists, in the Communists, in the anarchists, but no less in their liberal, Masonic, agrarian, nationalist and Fascist adversaries ... using the same methods of fighting and violence ... and the predominance of brutal force ... and the well-known “law of the fist” from the barbaric era, reinforced by the manganella, the dagger or the pistol of modern civilization... Italian original Aug. 2, 1924 Civiltà Cattolica, pages 193-206, on the Italian polical situation in the wake of the Matteoti assassination and ensuing crisis: “The Delinquency in Public Life and the Church’s Opportune Warnings” ... In any case, however, when a form of government is legitimately constituted, even if it may be initially defective or questionable in various respects - be it in its origins, in its exercise of power, in its representatives, or other such - there is a duty to support it, for the sake of public order and the the common good of society; nor is it licit for any individual or party to plot to overthrow it or supercede it or change it by unjust means. To the extent modern liberalism, with the volubility of its leading representatives and “all the armament of democracy,” after hearing all the continuing social perturbations, proposes to justify political changes not only by peaceful and lawful means, but also, as we hear, by illegal and violent ones, this cannot be imagined, much less required, to meet with the unqualified approbation of Catholics, who are citizens uniquely called to promote the true common good: bonum ex integra causa But for the same reason Catholics know the wisdom that brings good even from evil, the restoration from the revolution, like light from darkness ... Aug. 16, 1924 Civiltà Cattolica, Aug. 16, 1924, pp. 297-306, on the obligation of priests and all Catholics in Italy to obey the Mussolini Government: “The Role of Catholics in the Current Political Party Struggles in Italy” The present circumstances of Italy, especially as concerns the dissensions and struggles of the political parties - which we touched upon in our preceding issue - are extremely trepidatious and distressing. Indeed, the endeavors of the parties, which are tearing each other to pieces, have had ruinous effects far beyond Italy, especially with the discredit heaped upon the duly constituted government of the nation, to the joy of all the false friends and real enemies of Italy who are competing to stoke ever more our internal strife and to throw oil, as they say, on the fire of already raging political passions. But the damage is more extensive and more profound domestically, within the nation, which is handed over to disintegration, anxiety and upheaval, everywhere, even in the sanctuary of the family, and also in the ordering of civic life as well as the circle of religious societies. Political divisions have so penetrated the ranks of Catholics themselves, not excluding the militant faithful of Catholic Action nor priests of one or another order of clergy, notwithstanding repeated rebukes from Church Authority... Thus it seems all the more necessary to us to summon the minds of all sincere Catholics - also because some of our readers have indicated to us a desire for that - to a serene consideration of some cornerstones or eternal principles of Catholic doctrine, which are consistent, moreover, with principles that are closely associated with public law and with the most rational norms of natural ethics. From a clear, simple statement of the truth, there will flow forth then the clear implications, both speculative and practical, that remain close to our heart and that hold in balance so many dignified and clear consciences, whether of the simple faithful or of dukes and rulers: what should be the proper role of Catholics in the midst of these political party struggles that threaten to divide even their own ranks with such harm not only to the nation alone, but to everyone, and to the Church itself, their mother and teacher. II. The factual preliminaries - which are the necessary preamble to the question - do not need a lengthy exposition or commentary: they are right under the eyes of everyone, and the question makes itself felt strongly to all, but especially to those who participating most directly in political life. A young party, ardent, hot-blooded, formed rather tumultuously in extraordinary circumstances for Italian society, rapidly strengthened by the lack of will of the preceding government and by the intolerable tyranny of Bolshevizing Socialists, especially in some provinces of Italy, grabbed hold of power with the audacious violence and illegal ways of a strange and not bloodless revolution, concluding finally with a “march on Rome” ... III. ... 1. We have at present a duly constituted Government and are therefore, in fact, distinctly subject to civil authority, according to the laws that are currently in force. Now it is a principle of natural law, expressly inculcated as well by Holy Scripture, that to such a Government, in all things legitimate, there is an obligation of submission, respect and obedience, and signally from Catholics... 2. For that reason the above-mentioned submission certainly prevents good citizens, and Catholics before all others, from thinking of overthrowing the Government by illegitimate means, as by revolution, by riots, by conspiracies, and the like. that would be precisely in direct opposition to the enunciated principle, as is obvious... 3. But this obligatory submission does not deny good citizens, including Catholics, the ability to criticize the lawfully constituted Government in proper ways, for the purpose of correcting acts that are deemed to need correction; this can even be a positive duty. And neither does it deny the ability to consider, and provide by legitimate means, a change of Government, which in our days is accomplished by the peaceful votes of the electorate, since, all things considered, such a change can be accomplished without grave harm to public affairs, and can even produce improvement. That is true of submission in general; but the clergy, especially if in pastoral care, must guard well against placing their spiritual ministry at the service of such political struggles, and especially at a moment of overly strong partisan passions, they must refrain from demonstrations that compromise their decorum and the essence of their ministry. 4. Consider if, on the contrary, all things well considered, a change of Government, even if achievable by legitimate means, that is by means of political elections, is impossible without grave misfortune in public affairs, and much more if there is probable danger that the new Government, far from improving, will make public conditions worse, then any citizen who truly loves his country may well endeavor to weigh that impossibility and that danger, but allowing such conditions to continue while he wants a change of government, because the salus populi [Latin: well-being of the people] must be for everyone the supreme lex [Latin: supreme law] that has to prevail. 5. On the other hand, the duly constituted Government must allow the opposition full freedom to exercise the rights granted by the constitution and the laws, and must require subordinate authorities to respect and protect them; otherwise it would be a Government outside the law, that is a tyranny, which, in civilized countries, do not ever have a long life. IV. ... If the Fascist Government were made to give up power, it has been pointed out by various parties that what would be substituted would be the Socialist Party in coalition with the People’s Party. This “proposal” aggravates more than ever the question, and is worrisome for every serious citizen, and much more for ecclesiastical authorities in that they desire, as they must, to remain removed from, and above, all parties and issues that are merely political. For this reason, while an article by Father L. Sturzo, published in Il Popolo on the 6th of this month, may appear to distance itself from this “proposal,” we consider it important to say clearly that such collaboration, under current circumstances and with its “ingredients” that it contains on the one hand or the other, would be neither convenient, nor opportune, nor permissible. We readily admit that if the Socialists came into possession of public power, Catholics could, and even should, respect and obey them in legitimate matters, as a duly constituted Government; the principles mentioned above say that openly. Under conditions that were altogether “abnormal” in a society, such as were the conditions of Catholics in Austria and Germany signally after the War, where they found the Socialists in power or participating, if not ruling, in a coalition Government. The Catholics were obligated to submit, out of necessity, to save the nation from greater evils, but they submitted there to an already constituted Government; they did not contribute to constituting it by their own endeavors as an ideal of concord. Now that is precisely what we deny is permissible for the Italian People’s Party that professes to be informed by Catholic principles. V. Indeed a comparison is being made between the Fascist Party and the Socialist Party. Fascism does not profess, properly said, a fixed system of doctrines, boasting first of all of being a party of action, and if some extremely grave errors can rightly be criticized, at least this much is noteworthy overall, that it has suppressed the Socialist tyranny, it has disavowed Masonry in a manner that we hope is sincere, it has restored order in the public sector, and then for Catholics in particular, it does not profess hostility against religion, and in more than one case it has in practice professed respect for religion, and for the family, and for the right to own property. On the other hand Socialism, even that portion of it that presents itself in a moderate form, is essentially hostile to Christianity... We have demonstrated that it is not permissible to desire a change of Government where the new Government would make public affairs worse: and would that not be the case in the substitution of the Socialist Party for the Fascist Party? ... From that, the results are clear as to the role that Catholics have to play in the midst of the political party struggles in Italy, as is the extreme delicacy with which members of the clergy must comport themselves, whether or not they are in positions of pastoral care; taking active participation in these struggles can pervert justice, inflame passions, and utterly jeopardize the exalted spiritual ministry of peace and love. Source: Civiltà Cattolica, Aug. 16, 1924, vol. 3, pp. 297-306. See also ibid., pp. 492-493. Sept. 10, 1924 Bavarian Bishops Conference minutes re blessing of political party flags: In the official bulletins the clergy are to be most strongly bound by conscience to reject emphatically from the outset every request for joint masses with Protestants, from whichever side they may arise, and in no way to cooperate with them. The flags of political organizations are to receive no Church blessing. Since these two decrees have been made unanimously, petitioners cannot appeal to other Dioceses. Source: “Minutes of the Conference of the Bavarian Bishops, Freising, September 9-10, 1924,” Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 4057, reprinted in L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, p.346. Sept. 12, 1924 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Jewish Immigration to Palestine Diminishes” Dateline Jerusalem, Sept. 11 In the past month 206 Jewish families have arrived in Palestine. The number of immigrants is diminishing month by month. This diminution is attributed to the fact that the Jews, scattered through the world, had at first believed that Palestine could become their free and sovereign state, where they would have the ability to work and develop ethnically and economically. Instead the first arrivals there became convinced that Palestine had become one of the standard British colonies, exploited by the British for the benefit of the economy of the British nation. Sept. 12, 1924 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 12, 1924, page one: “The Pope’s Paternal Speech” The unanimous interest with which all camps greeted the Pope’s speech to the Catholic University Student movement, and the deferential and respectful citations to it in all the newspapers, attested to its timeliness and usefulness for orienting the political thought of the Country. But above all it was directed, necessarily, to Italian Catholics, for Catholic Action and Catholic journalism, for all those who work and fight in close union with the Church for the coming of the Kingdom of Christ, and for all those forces of youth who are preparing for advocacy in demonstrations and civil and social institutions of the nation: preparing, that is, for what the Holy Father defined as the salutary and supreme politics of Jesus and his Apostles. The very fact that the Pope wanted to deal with such a serious and delicate matter, and wanted to deal with it by addressing the most select segment of our youth, shows how the heart of the Pope is not left unmoved by the painful evidence that our camp suffers from divisions and controversies within the ranks of one and the same army; his prudence as Shepherd has perceived the urgency of sending a clear warning and a pacifying appeal; the most high wisdom of the Master has wanted to chart the way that leads everyone back to the consciousness of the true , the good, the right: showing everyone the peril and harm that loom over us if a ready sense of filial obedience does not animate us finally to the fraternal charity of old, to respect, and to reverence toward the papal directives that were always our greatest pride. Recent discussions, in which we also participated with objective impartiality, revealed even more bitterly the unfortunate results of these political disagreements, which divide and oppose one against the other of these same select ranks of Catholics and citizens who are united by religion and who have consecrated to Catholic Action their intellect, emotions, intentions, their very lives; who manifest like minds and spirits, also moved by the same ideals, guided by Christian sociology, by a desire for the common good and by the struggle against the triumph of evil; these have been led astray only by particular applications of principles, into discord, into polemics, into inexcusable arguments; so that the combat they have all undertaken in the name of common principles, toward common achievements, instead of being brought fraternally to agree upon the same applications and methods, are separated in the bitterness of strife, in violent discussions that appear too often to be a rivalry by methods of a sort that Christian charity does not know or profess, and that turn those who profess the same faith into adversaries. In such a state of things that does away, bit by bit, with the fraternity of old, with the just vision of common obligations, with the immutable teaching of our social doctrine, with the precepts of Christian morality themselves in their most direct application to our collective life; a word that summons us to our most dear traditions, to once-beloved obligations, to the cornerstones upon which Christian morality is founded and advanced, to Catholic sociology, to the “politics of Christ” for the salvation of the people of our time, to the salvation of souls for eternity; a reconciling and clarifying word could not fail, as it descends from on high from a sacred and serene wisdom, from a limpid vision of social needs rather than any purely political activity or any partisan interest or competition; all of which raises us back up to its sheer restorative eminence. And the Pope spoke; he spoke to a privileged group of youth, to a portion of Catholic Youth, which is an auxiliary of our religious and moral Catholic Action and thus cannot be confused with any political activity: he spoke in reference to events and contingencies, based on firm and immutable principles that apply to everyone; he spoke in a way that revealed once again that teachings in religion and morality take only the side of the good, and wherever there is or might be error or evil, there will be expressed its impartial condemnation. In this luminous atmosphere of pious solicitude for the moral and social safeguarding of our collective life, thoughts soared, echoing the words of the Pope. We who heard these serene, moving, confident words, like the words of a Father to his beloved children, we felt all the love they conveyed, all the bitterness that inspired them, together with the hope from the certainty of knowing they would be obeyed at once. It should be said emphatically that such serenity, such paternal confidence, do not thereby render this admonition less pointblank, less serious, or less solemn, this admonition that has been addressed to all, to the Clergy and to the Italian Catholic laity, as coming from the heart, and invested not only with the Holy Father’s own authority as Teacher and Pastor, but with the venerable majesty of the Father, which conveys to the children the indisputable, sacred, inviolable duty to accommodate him. We do not remember, going back through the years, whether Italian Catholic Action was ever as sorely tested at any other time: but we do know this: that every single time the Holy Father spoke, Italian Catholics obeyed as one man, and every sacrifice of personal opinions, every sacrifice of individual interests, seemed to be repaid many times over by the feeling of absolutely everyone being of one heart with the Pope. And today, like yesterday, it cannot be otherwise! Sept. 14, 1924 L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 14, 1924, page one: “The Message and the Messengers” The Holy Father has spoken to youth... Here are Catholics who are consistent in all their activities of Christian restoration, recognizing the supreme spiritual Authority as a shepherd to their consciences, whenever they deal with moral problems, whether individual or social or political; here are Catholics prepared in the ranks of Catholic Youth, fighters in the ranks of Catholic Action, who feel they are soldiers in a single army as they participate in political struggles for the good of the Christian Fatherland, organized in distinct groups but always connected to the supreme guide with inseparable moral unity. “Concerning a Commentary” Il Popolo in its issue no. 215 has reported in full the Holy Father’s speech to the Catholic University Student movement and added to it a commentary entitled, “Its Meaning.” We will limit ourselves to examining the final paragraph: “The words of the Pontiff,” writes Il Popolo, “are not, nor can be on the part of any Catholic who is affiliated with other political parties other than the one involved, interpreted for their own advantage in political contests.” In this they are perfectly correct. But what appears strange is what Il Popolo writes next: “We believe that they have a much different import, of calling all Italian Catholics, without exception, to a more diligent examination of their own responsibility and their own conscience, in order to orientate their own practical conduct toward what their conscience indicates, at any given time, is the supreme good of the Nation.” In truth, we must note that the Holy Father did not limit himself to a general call to everyone toward a more diligent examination of their own responsibility, leaving to individual conscience the freedom of forming its “orientation”; rather he gave a positive rule, which imposes upon the conscience of every Catholic the obligation to “orient his own practical conduct” where this directive “indicates at any given time what is the supreme good of the Nation,” and not only of the Nation, but of the Church and of all Society. Thus he did not exhort to a free “examination,” but to a clear and precise rule for the very conscience of every son of the Church. So the desire to rely on subjective judgment for a question that is already clearly decided by a categorical directive could be understood as an excuse for disobedience. If it is insinuated, then, that the Pope cannot enter into such questions of political directives because everything is left to the conscience of each individual, we would be facing a most serious error, certainly alien to the mind of the writer. And the Holy Father himself condemned that view in words that we repeat here anew for their finely sculpted clarity: “when politics approaches the Altar, then religion and the Church and the Pope who represents it not only have the right but also the duty to give guidance and directives that Catholic souls have the right to request and the obligation to follow.” And Catholics in other countries have understood this well, as for instance La Croix (September 11th), which indeed introduced the news of the Pope’s speech under the headline, “The Pope must in certain cases give political directives that are binding on Catholics.” L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 15-16, 1924, page one: “Toward Unity of Ideas and Intentions” Under the title “Clear Ideas and Words,” the Italia of Milan has published an article in which G. Molteni ... discussing the Pope’s recent words prohibiting any alliance between the Catholic People’s Party and the Socialists ... In short, the Holy Father not only saw a matter set before the public which, in itself, had an inherent capacity to mislead, but he saw it enter and disturb the minds of Catholics, especially young people, and establish itself as worthy of consideration and approval; saw it rise as a “preparation of conscience” to an eventuality which thus had the capacity to arise as a matter of discernment, persuasion, and then in compromise of the principles of Catholics, which would not have been a historical event, the contingency of tomorrow, but as of today became the elaborate formation of that event and of that contingent future... L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 17, 1924, page one: “Clarifications” Yesterday the Popolo faithfully published our observations about its article on the Pope’s speech and for that we are grateful. But even though we recognize their good will and their effort to mitigate their previous statements, we still cannot declare ourselves totally satisfied with their reasoning in the rest of the article. Their reasoning tries to justify their previous claim of “a subjective orientation” by stating that they meant to speak “of all Italian Catholics, none excluded, and thus also of the overwhelming majority of Italians who are however not members of Catholic Action nor of political parties inspired by Christianity.” Now, it seems obvious to us to observe that all these Italian Catholics, if they really are practicing Catholics as the Popolo supposes, cannot take their direction, after the words of the Pope, from their own subjective criteria, nor therefore be satisfied with a more vigorous examination of their own responsibility and their own conscience, when now the Pope has spoken, and spoken so clearly, whether against violent modes of action of some, or against perilous modes of action of others. Thus it is not accurate, then, when the Popolo adds that the Holy Father “with his exalted words wanted to signify how the element of reconciliation and normal recovery of our moral and political life resides in the simultaneous avoidance of falling prey to violence on the one hand and to Bolshevizing subversion on the other.” We agree as to the need to avoid violence, but as to what concerns Bolshevizing subversion, there appears to be a bit of exaggeration, as noted yesterday in Molteni’s article; an exaggeration that would displace the force of the argument and relegate the word of the Pope to being merely academic, as Molteni writes, which would be reckless in our view. It is not actually a matter of “Bolshevizing subversion,” the danger of which, we all trust, is quite remote, at least in Italy; it is a matter of Socialism, and the Pope has deplored Socialism’s currying favor under the pretext of opposing Fascist violence, which no Catholic can ever approve. Oct. 3, 1924 Pacelli to Pizzardo: Re: On the appeal sent to the Fulda Bishops Conference by the Committee of Catholics belonging to the German-National Party Most Reverend Excellency, Together with the relevant Enclosures, which I carry out my duty to enclose herewith for Your Most Reverend Excellency, I received the venerated Dispatch No. 34510 of September 20th this year. The appeal sent this past July to the Fulda Bishops Conference by the Committee of Catholics belonging to the German-National Party was already known to me, having been communicated to me by President Baron von Landsberg-Steinfurt. Not having discovered, however, any mention of this issue in the Minutes of the aforesaid Conference, I turned to Eminence Cardinal Bertram to know what resolution, if any, the Most Reverend Bishops had taken in this regard. Today I received this Highest Eminence’s response, a copy of which I have the honor to send here-enclosed to Your Excellency, and from which You will be able to deduce the view of the aforesaid Cardinal concerning the position of the Conference. Although, as I have already had many occasions to report to the Holy See (cf., for example, Report No. 22353 of November 16, 1921), the left-wing tendency manifested in recent years by not a few members and leaders of the Center Party, represented especially by ex-Chancellor Wirth, has created grave discontent among Catholics of a nationalist and conservative tendency, it is necessarily recognized by Eminence Bertram, nonetheless, that indeed the current Center Party, despite its not few defects and errors, is the only party upon which secure trust can be placed when it is a matter of defending the rights and interests of the Church in Parliament. In the German-National Party (Deutschnationale Volkspartei), the Protestants, of whom a notable portion are rather intolerant and profoundly hostile to Rome, have a nearly absolute preponderance, which can only with difficulty be neutralized by the relatively small number of Catholics who have joined this party. This explains why the great majority of the clergy favor the Center Party. The aforesaid Baron von Landsberg-Steinfurt and other members of the aforesaid Committee of Catholics belonging to the German-National Party have at various times asked to be received by me, and I, differently from what Eminence Bertram writes that he has done, did not believe I could refuse to welcome them, the Representative of the Holy See needing to be, in my humble opinion, accessible to Catholics of all tendencies. In the discussions I had with these Gentlemen, I told them that I was and intended to remain at a remove and above all parties, but I also could not fail to keep in mind, in a sensitive and general way, the grave obligation of conscience incumbent upon all Catholics to support only those parties that give sufficient guarantees for the supreme interests of the Church. And because they maintain that their purpose is precisely that of seeking to exercise within the German-National Party a favorable influence for religious interests, I made them understand that the touchstone will soon be at hand in Bavaria in the parliamentary debate over the proposed Concordat, it being obvious that if the party under discussion were to vote against, the presence in it of true and faithful Catholics could become unsustainable. I would be most grateful to Your Excellency if you would let me know, for my opportune direction and guidance, the view of the Holy See in this sensitive issue, and together with sentiments of profound obsequy, I have the honor to confirm myself Your Most Reverend Excellency’s Most Humble, Most Devoted Servant, +Eugenio Pacelli Archbishop of Sardis Apostolic Nuncio Source: www.Pacelli-Edition.de, Dokt 86 Dec. 20, 1924 Civiltà Cattolica, Dec. 20, 1924, p.487: “An Episode of Zionism in Palestine” The board of directors of the Catholic Union “for the Holy Places,” obedient to the voice of the Supreme Pontiff in his promulgation of the Holy Year, enacted a resolution at a meeting last October in which, reaffirming the program for revendicating the rights of Christianity over Palestine and especially over Jerusalem, Catholics of the whole world are exhorted to cooperate for “settlement and final ordering of the Holy Land as required and called for by the sacred rights of Catholicism.” The Rome office of the Zionist Organization considered itself entitled to protest against this resolution, in a circular released to the press which, among many declarations and justifications, of moderation, of the value of Zionism and of its basis in revelation and in the prophets - things that all indeed have value - affirms as obvious and incontrovertible that “Zionism has never done anything to profane the Holy Places”; that indeed “the Zionist movement proceeds respectfully toward the rights of others, staying within the bounds marked by international accords and by the Mandate, under the responsible control of the Mandatory Power and the League of Nations”: and appealing to the humanity and to the love of neighbor that the Jewish Bible teaches to all men, exhorts anti-Zionists to “a more rigorous and decent understanding of the ideals of a resurgent people who are committed to spreading among all civilized peoples ... the message of brotherhood among sons of the same father.”(footnote: The circular also complains that someone has described as a “filthy rabble” those minions traveling today to Palestine from Poland, Russia, and Romania. It seems that the Zionists of Rome have not read what Herzl wrote about the filth in which they squatted and lived as wretches in his time, dens of pestilence for the nations among whom they lived! Theodore Herzl’s Zionistische Schriften, vol. II, p. 150.) [Investigator’s Note: We have not been able to find the cited passage in Herzl’s Zionistische Schriften. There is a substantial question whether he wrote the above passage, or whether it was invented.] To tell the truth, we do not have a mission to defend the board of directors of the Catholic Union against the diatribes of the Zionist Organization. Of Zionism, its qualifications, its juridical validity with respect to the more remote past and with regard to the more recent past of the day before yesterday, namely the circumstances of Palestine in the European War, we have written in timely detail, and perhaps our readers have not forgotten. (Cf. Civ. Catt. 1922, vol. 3, pp.116ff.) Today we only want to report a public fact that touched our brothers in the Holy Land and aroused even the Muslims to anger, and to place that fact up against the “incontrovertible” statements of the Zionist Organization. A fact is worth more than a volume of words. The episode we take up here touches upon the religious question and the respect for the beliefs of the non-Jewish people that is repeatedly promised by the Mandate for Palestine. It is not as though this is the first or only event for which Christians might have complained of Jewish hostility. There is not enough time to circulate the rumors about film and theater performances that are insulting to Christianity, and in particular about an uproar during a Jewish feast, called Simon the Just, in which an effigy was crucified, stoned and burned. But the event occurred in a Jewish neighborhood, and although certified by several witnesses, the news was not divulged to the citizenry. Quite different are the circumstances of the sad episode to which we call the attention of the Christian reader today. It originated from a chance event which should be introduced with a few reliable words. Dr. Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, of whom we spoke amply in his time, died at Vienna in 1904, leaving a son Hans who, educated until around the 1890s in Judaism, moved to England for studies and there lost, as he himself writes, the time and the memory of his family traditions. (footnote: See The Universe of London, November 7, 1924. The convert tells his story succinctly there.) But the religious problem tormented his soul and drove him to seek a doctrine first in the conventions or lessons of theosophy and spiritualism, but to no avail: then in the conferences held in London’s Hyde Park by the Catholic Evidence Guild, often standing several hours at a time to listen to the speakers: he had finally found “food and drink” for his intelligence. But his heart had its difficulties: He remembered the maxim his father inculcated in his last years, that it is an unworthy thing for a Jew to abandon his people. For the convenience of his office he had to return for several months in 1923 to Vienna as the English correspondent of a bank: and there he heard talk of a Baptist community that was said to live a life inspired by the dictates of the gospel. Curiosity drew him often to their religious functions: his soul was profoundly moved by the words of the pastor who, agreeing with his lively desire, first gave him the book of the gospels to read, and then baptized him on the 20th of July. Receiving baptism, Hans Herzl wanted, he writes, “to enter into the larger Christian community: but even then he understood that this would not be true if he did not become a Catholic.” In fact, back in England, he revealed what had happened to one of his relatives who, though not a Catholic, told him frankly that the path on which he had placed himself should logically lead to Catholicism, and sent him surely to a religious Jesuit, Fr. Day, “and everything went full speed ahead.” On last October 19th, in the chapel of Our Lady of Zion, Herzl was received into the Catholic Church in the presence of a good number of the more honorable converted Jews: and on the 24th, the feast of the Archangel Rafael, he made his first communion in the same chapel. “May the archangel who restored sight to Tobias, also illuminate me and guide my journey to salvation.” God verifies the augury. If such an event gave strong reason of spite to all the synagogue, for the Zionists it was a double blow of thrust and slash. The new convert was the one who had to consider Zionism as the legacy of his family. Was it not the work of his father who, as the new captain, had aroused among the dispersed remnant of Israel the hope of a new Kingdom of Judea? And here he is instead, not only deserting Zionism but disowning the same national tradition. The humiliation was shameful: for revenge they tried to cast ridicule on his conversion and thus contempt on the convert, the typical artifice of all the shamed. And the way it was done is this. (footnote: Note that the satire in the Zionist newspaper was published after the first news of the conversion of Hans Herzl from Judaism to the sect of the Anabaptists. That sufficed for the blasphemy.) In the Zionist newspaper entitled “Doar Hayom,” which is published in Jerusalem, a humorous story was inserted of a certain Asmavet, placing in the scene the persons and matters we mentioned, styled even worse, as can be imagined. Old Theodor Herzl, unhappy at his son’s bad end, goes venting his discontent, between the serious and the comic, with the Almighty. “When the righteous (Theodor) was called to the court of heaven, he came into the presence of the angel of repose and noticed that he remained silent. The righteous thought this was a subaltern who surely did not know all the secrets. Then he approached the higher officials and stood erect before the Meta-throne, the executive vice president of heaven. And he noticed that he also remained silent and made no mention of the sin of his convert son. So he thought that only the director himself held the matter in confidential form, that is in secret. Finally he was introduced into the presence of the Holy One – may he be blessed forever – in all his glory and all his being. He was met with a smiling face and a solemn greeting. “When the righteous saw that he also remained silent, he began to fear and ponder: and he resolved to begin to speak immediately himself. Then these words popped out: Lord of the world! Surely the story of the disgrace of my son will have come to your knowledge... The Almighty replied with a familiar gesture of his hand: Even here, an instance like that once occurred. That’s bunk, they’re not at all alike, cried out the righteous: for ‘yours was a bastard,’ but mine, on the other hand, was the legitimate son of a father and mother.” The phrase alluded openly to Jesus Christ, the son of the Virgin Mary, and the blasphemy publicly struck all followers of the Christian religion in the divine object of their faith. Thus the Zionist newspaper did not hesitate to violate with audacity the laws of the country and to offend with filthy cowardice the most sacred rights of the majority of the Palestinians. The thing was not to be tolerated. As soon as news of this sacrilegious affront was disseminated in the city and the religious authority made sure of the exact incriminating text, His Beatitude the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem sent the government of the district the following protest: “Your Excellency, I have the honor of calling the attention of the Government to a recent edition of the newspaper Doar Hayom, which contains an odious article blaspheming the sacred person of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, described as a “bastard,” and insulting at the same time Almighty God. “It is impossible to conceive a more wanton and flagrant crime against religion, or a more provocative and injurious violation of the rights of Christian citizens in this City of Jerusalem. That the Christian religion is so publicly blasphemed with such insolence in the Jewish press, that the most sacred objects of Christian faith and love are traduced with such odious and repugnant cynicism by a Jewish newspaper in Jerusalem, are facts which the Government, I believe, cannot permit, in the interest not only of Christianity but of maintaining public peace. I have the honor to suggest that the most energetic measures be taken immediately to incarcerate the editor and to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused. By such action the irritation of our people will be quelled and trust will be maintained in the power of the Government to protect the common honor of Christianity and defend the rights of the Christian population against similar sacrilegious publications.” “I have the honor, etc., Luigi Barlassina, Patriarch.” To this protest the governor hastened to answer the next day in these words: “Your Beatitude, I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday and to inform Your Beatitude that I have not tarried to call the attention of the central government to the sacrilegious article you so justly reproved, and to ask that a case proceed against the editors as soon as possible. “Thanking Your Beatitude for calling my attention to this event, I have the honor etc., Ronald Storrs, District Governor.” Thus even the civil authorities, understanding the gravity of the event, proved ready to enforce the laws and punish the impious recklessness of the blasphemers. Meanwhile the Patriarch, awaiting the governmental action, had news of the scandal published in Raqib Sayum, the diocesan Arabic newspaper, and in a circular letter of August 28th ordered that in all the churches of the diocese there be held public functions of adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and of prayer to the Blessed Virgin in reparation for the execrable impiety written against Him and his divine Son. The announcement in the diocesan newspaper concluded with these words: “We have full hope that the civil authority will know how to take the necessary measures to prevent a repeat of such sacrilegious provocations that are an atrocious offense against the Christian conscience. And would it really be the case that in Palestine, in this land bathed with the precious blood of the Redeemer, we would have to tolerate vituperation against the Christian name? The Jews know that, if they are descendants of the crucifiers of Christ, we are sons of those heroes who defended the faith at the cost of their blood and their lives.” But meanwhile the Government remained silent. After waiting eleven days, not seeing any indication of the legal action mentioned in the same letter of the governor, the Patriarch addressed him by means of an explanation in this form: “September 9, 1924 “Your Excellency, In reference to your letter of the 29th of last month, in which it was disclosed to me that you had informed the central Government about the blasphemous article published in the Jewish press, requesting that process be instituted against the editors in the shortest time possible, I allow myself to ask what is the current status of this request and what process has been instituted? “I am prompted to ask particularly by the news in the Daily News Bulletin yesterday, which rather said “no trial will be conducted by the Government against the Doar Hayom. A reply in the morning would be appreciated. I have the honor etc.” And in fact the governor courteously sent the following information to the Patriarch that same morning. “September 9, 1924. “Your Beatitude. – In reply to the letter of today I have the honor to inform Your Beatitude that, as a result of the strong remonstration of the Government, the Doar Hayom published in its Chronicle section of September 2nd a formal retraction of the blasphemous article printed in an earlier issue. I have the honor etc.” The reply was a little hasty and a little strange. Things were changed: there was no more talk of a trial, but a retraction had been published. Why was no notice of it given to the Patriarchate? Who rendered authoritative judgment of its worth? Did it provide the just satisfaction that the Christian religion and the people who profess it had a right to demand? Let this be judged by the reader, under whose eyes we place the text of the “formal retraction” which the Jewish newspaper published according to the remonstrations of the Government. “Declaration. – We have been made aware that the Christians of Jerusalem are enraged on account of the novella about Asmaveth published in Doar Hayom on August 15. The community of Jerusalem knows that our newspaper has never entered into religious discussions. We regret to have given, unintentionally, discomfort to some of the Christian community: and we declare publicly that we are very sorry for having given rise to bad interpretations with our literary appendix, if this novella has a significance which affects the religious sentiments of our Christian readers.” It requires not good faith but simple-mindedness to see a retraction in these phrases of ironic contrition for a discomfort given “unintentionally” and for “bad interpretations” without intent, as if the sacrilegious injury was not expressed by the letter and the explicit text of the novella. Of this, which was the main point at issue, not even a word. But to offer a just basis for assessing this hypocritical declaration, it is necessary to read what the Zionists wrote in the same days in their newspaper, laughing sarcastically at the horror and indignation of the Catholics, and caricaturing the steps they took with the government to punish the insult against their religion. In an article entitled “A tempest in a teapot,” they are surprised that Catholics “make so much noise over a funny joke without a shadow of offense to Christian sentiments. Even if the joke had mistakenly brushed up against their religious sensibility, a nod to the newspaper would have sufficed to elicit its apology without anything more, as it did of its own will (!) ... and instead they have tried to turn the whole world upside down.” And in another article directed to Jewish school students there is a burlesque description of crowds of police and servants of the Patriarchate buying the issue of the newspaper to read the incriminating novella. “Golden business for the newspaper! The passage against religion was translated into seventy languages, and a copy of it was sent to the Chief Rabbi, to the Pope in Rome, to the League of Nations in Geneva, and above all to the Government: in a word, our Holy City was in complete consternation. From one of our students who was sent to spy, I knew that one of our Israelite brothers was charged with translating my prose into the language of the Romans, and when he came to the guilty passage … he lost his Latin and gave the newspaper back to the bosses saying he found the Talmudic expressions too difficult to understand and turn into Italian.” With this impertinence the Zionists mocked the Christian people, the Government, the Patriarchate: and did not hesitate to raise their voice even a bit higher, in quasi-menacing tones: The purpose of these malefactors against Israel is always one and the same: to show the authorities that nothing here is going well and that we have to make changes to things in London as to what concerns our national home… But I tell them that no reaction ... and not even all the prayers ordered this week in all the churches will come to anything, because little by little sound reason will do its part to win over all the Blacks to the extent they are powerful in our national territory. In this state of things, the ecclesiastical authorities could not be in doubt. In the face of the aggressive audacity of the blasphemers, any sign of indecision would have brought harm and shame to the Christian name. The Government had not taken the word of the Patriarch into account: but they miscalculated. Turkish law, which is still the law in force in Palestine, under the heading of chief crimes that disturb internal security, in article 55, provides that “whoever speaks against the chief prophets shall be sentenced to prison for one to three years”: and the Council of Jerusalem, at the time of the promulgation of the law, posed a question to Constantinople: does the name of the prophets contemplate only Mohammed and some other personages of Islam; the Minister of Justice replied: it contemplates all the prophets: and Jesus is one of the greatest prophets honored by the Muslims. Now who can deny that this law is brutally violated by the rude insult flung in the face of Christ by this pack of Zionists who publish the “Doar Hayom”? Justice requires therefore the appropriate remedy: and His Beatitude the Patriarch, the representative and custodian in Jerusalem of that faith which recognizes in Jesus Christ the Son of God himself made Man for the redemption of the world, by the power of his high ministry and for the protection of the faithful people, could not agree to the guilty escaping the merited sentence. To this effect he sent the Governor the following communication: September 11, 1924 Your Excellency, I have received your letter of the 9th of this month. From your letter of the 29th of last month, in which it is affirmed that the article in question was truly reprehensible and blasphemous and thus a request had been sent to the central government for an action against the newspaper, I had been led to suppose that the government would immediately open a legal process. A serious crime has been committed: the authors are known: the law is clear in this matter. If there is no government action, I will be forced to file a formal complaint for a proceeding against the perpetrators of that horrible blasphemy committed with brazen impudence by the press in an official language of this country. I have the honor, etc. And the complaint was formally presented to the court of the Holy City by a Catholic Englishman, attorney Mockler, who was duly appointed by the Patriarch. It was now up to the Turkish magistrates to do their duty. The people of Palestine have already done their part: and from all the religious elements that it comprises, arose a unanimous cry of detestation against the sacrilegious crime of the Zionist newspaper. It would be superfluous to collect all the voices of the Catholic population that were the first to protest, following with all their soul the word of their Pastors. Listen instead to the voice of the Moslem Community of Haifa which, through its head Sulaiman Saleh, presented to the High Commissioner of Palestine a brief but proud declaration in which, after having recalled the text of the Turkish law we cited, continued: “For the insult of the Zionist newspaper against our Lord Jesus (to whom be glory) greatly disrespected all Muslims, because our noble Koran confesses the purity of the Messiah and the chastity of the Virgin Mary, our Lady. Wherefore the Muslim Society of Haifa strongly protests against such audacity and demands that the government severely punish the brazen author of such infamous writing: and thus calm Moslem souls and public opinion and also provide a lesson so that other writers will not dare to imitate this. “Otherwise all responsibility for what may happen will concern the Government which has not given serious consideration and care to the matter.” The tone of the writing, as can be seen, is quite proud and resolute. In its turn, the Islamic-Christian Session of Jerusalem published a “General proclamation to the noble Arab Nation,” in which is manifested the keen anxiety of souls upon hearing “the extreme injury inflicted against our Lord Jesus Christ (worthy of all glory and respect) by the Zionist society Hassallel in one of its newspapers, saying Christ was the son of adultery (which may God pardon a thousand times over).” And it continued with hardly repressed rancor: “And we recall that the same society, a while ago, in one of its newspapers greatly insulted the noble Arab nation by publishing that the Arab is a born assassin. Before that, the same society had severely maligned some religious congregations dedicated to teaching and education. “To remedy, therefore, in some way, this nefarious religious insult which was never experienced in our country before the perverse policy by which today we are governed by force, the executive committee of the sixth Palestinian Arab Congress charged its secretary to initiate cases in the civil courts against the above mentioned Zionist society: this secretary is appointed as a prosecutor and vice-regent of Muslims and Christians of Palestine whose beliefs were injured deeply by such insult. The aforesaid secretary will also initiate cases in his capacity as a Moslem private person. “The Committee asks everyone to keep calm until the case is finished and justice has run its course.” The schismatic Greek Orthodox of Jaffa did not want to be outdone by the others and sent the English High Commissioner an open letter, complaining of the offense done to their religious beliefs, all the more since the government of his royal majesty had declared and had not ceased to declare by the mouth of his political representatives that the first duty of the Mandate is to preserve and protect the religious dogmas and traditions of the population that inhabits Palestine. “Therefore we demand legal inquest against the director of the newspaper and against the author of the article, and ask for the application of the laws of the press against the aforesaid newspaper. We await the outcome of these our legitimate requests. We trust we will see in the representative of the English government in Palestine a man who maintains order and peace in the Holy Places and severely punishes offenders who would have such a great deal of audacity.” Even outside Palestine, in the neighboring populations reached by reports of the turmoils, there were demonstrations of full agreement with the anti-blasphemy protests, and perhaps among others there arose more serious reflections, such as was the following from the Moslem university of Cairo: “To His Excellency the High Commissioner of His Brittanic Majesty for Palestine. We the undersigned, professors and students of Ruak-Assuan in Azka (the main mosque), in our religious character, denounce and protest against what the Zionist newspaper Doar Hayom published in disrespect to Christ the Lord – may He be hailed – saying that He was a bastard. (The word that comes out of their mouths is grave enough, not to mention it is a lie)(footnote: Words from the Koran). “We consider the publication in the aforesaid newspaper to be a violation of the respect due to the heavenly religions and an agitation of public opinion. We find that the silence of the Palestinian Government about such a violation is contrary to the principle of the Mandate which commands respect for the sentiments and beliefs of the people under its tutelage. We therefore ask Your Excellency to remedy such a grave evil, striking with an iron hand, driven by duty, with such bravery to calm minds so that serious evils do not ensue nor the example be followed by publishing similar infamies. And we agree with the Secretary of the Executive Committee of Jerusalem in his protest and in the lawsuit initiated in the name of the Committee. Signed by professors: Roteb Abu Gazzal Iusef Abdel Aruzak By students: Muhammed Rafik Elababidi Aly Mohammed Schrab Ganem P.S. It was just reported that the trial before the tribunal of Jerusalem concluded in recent days, with a sentence that condemned the author of the article to a fine of twenty-five pounds sterling and the editor to one of five pounds sterling – thirty pounds in all, like the thirty denarii that the people paid [to Judas] in the Gospel. We do not want to search out the reasons that inclined the tribunal to be less severe than the Turkish law: we at least hope that the sentence is warning enough to persuade the Zionists to respect the rights of others. Meanwhile, the facts that we have documented at length in response to the adversarial statements, suffice to show the rabid animosity [rabbiosa animosità] brought by Zionism into the Holy City and the tumultuous danger to the tranquility and mutual respect that the Mandate promised to maintain. 1925 1925 Deutsches Ehrgefühl und Katholisches Gewissen [The German Sense of Honor and the Catholic Conscience] by Michael Cardinal Faulhaber: Book cover Excerpts: ... Thesis 2. A Fascistic wave is flowing through the nations, summoned forth by the bankruptcy of the Socialist worldview. At its purest and for that reason most successful, the Fascist wave has opened a way in Italy up to now. In America it has already branched into two streams, the Legionnaires and the anti-Church Ku Klux Klan... The flaring up of the nationalist concept is today an international, not a purely German phenomenon. Three currents of this Fascist “Gulf Stream” can be distinguished. At its purest, Fascism has opened a way in Italy... In America the Fascist stream is divided into two currents: While the Legionnaires take up the Pan-American concept with all means and not always with pure spiritual weapons, but still without taking a frontal position against the Roman Church ... In Germany the nationalist concept, after it fell on bad times during the war and the post-war years by the overburden of victims that it demanded, and by the Revolution, has recently broken forth again like a spring from hidden deeps, but it threatens for a great part of the people to get stuck once again, because, as it flows along, it is deviating from the pure nationalist concept and ending up in the Church-hatred of the Ku Klux Klaners, who are already self-identified as Indianerrests from a bygone time. Adolf Hitler knew better than the Diodochs of his movement that German history did not first begin in 1870 or in 1517, that for the re-establishment of the German Volk the sources of strength of Christian culture are indispensable, and that this work of re-establishment cannot be accomplished with the cult of Wotan and hatred of Rome. As a man of the Volk he also knew the soul of the South German Volk better than others, and knew that with a movement whose flip-side is struggle against Rome, the soul of the Volk will not be won over. There is a deeply moving tragedy in the fact that the originally pure spring became poisoned by later influences and by culture war against the Church. More for patriotic than religious reasons is this change of direction by the Völkisch movement toward Völkisch culture war against the Church to be deplored... Feb. 7, 1925 Civiltà Cattolica’s summary of the Bavaria-Vatican Concordat, Feb. 7, 1925, vol. 1, p.282: Art. 1 – The Bavarian State assures the freedom and public exercise of the Catholic Religion. It recognizes the right of the Church to promulgate within the sphere of its competence laws and decrees which are binding on its members; it will not impede nor render difficult the exercise of this right. It assures the Catholic Church the peaceful exercise of its worship. In the conduct of their office, ecclesiastics enjoy the protection of the State. Art. 2 – Religious Orders and Congregations can be freely formed in conformity with the canonical prescriptions, and are not subject to any limitations on the part of the State regarding their residences, the number and quality of their members – subject to article 13, paragraph 2 – indicated by their way of life in accordance with their Constitutions approved by the Church... Art. 3 – The nomination or mission of professors or docents in the Theological Faculty of the Universities and in the Philosophical Academies, as also of teachers of religion in the high schools, shall be appointed by the State only if there arise no objections against the respective candidates on the part of the competent diocesan Bishop. Art. 4 – Instruction in the Theological Faculty of the Universities and in the Philosophical-Theological Academies shall correspond to the needs of the candidates for the priestly state and to ecclesiastical prescriptions. In the philosophical faculties of both the Universities of Munich and Würzburg, there shall be at least one professor of philosophy and one of history against whom there shall be no objections from the Catholic and ecclesiastical point of view. Religious instruction shall remain in all middle schools and high schools as ordinary curriculum at least to the extent currently in effect. Art. 5 – The instruction and education of children in the Catholic elementary schools shall be entrusted solely to male and female teachers who are willing and able to instruct in a sound manner in Catholic doctrine and to educate in the spirit of the Catholic faith. Art. 6 – In all communities where parents or others request, Catholic elementary schools shall be founded, unless, or order to have a sufficient number of pupils to attend the school, it is only possible to have a smoothly functioning school in the form of a so-called ’undivided school.’ Art. 7 – In all elementary schools, with the exception of those covered by the following paragraph, religious instruction shall remain an ordinary part of the teaching curriculum. The extent of that instruction shall be fixed in accord with the superior ecclesiastical authorities, to an extent not less than current practice. Art. 8 – To the Church is guaranteed the supervision and direction of religious education in the elementary, middle and high schools. Art. 9 – Religious Orders and Congregations are allowed to found and direct private schools in accordance with the general prescriptions of civil law... Art. 10 – The Bavarian State will always fulfill towards the Catholic Church in Bavaria its financial obligations based on its laws, conventions and particular juridical titles. The obligations of this nature set forth in the Concordat of 1817 are replaced by the following agreement: a) the State will provide for the support of the Archepiscopal See and the Metropolitan Chapters and Cathedrals, etc... Art. 11 – The Bavarian State will provide at its own expense that those who are in its Institutes (prisons, nursing homes, colleges, hospitals) will have appropriate religious assistance, whether through priests who are specifically appointed, or in another appropriate manner. The appointment of these priests will be done in consultation with the Diocesan Bishop... Article 14 - ... the appointment of the Archbishops and Bishops is up to the Holy See in complete freedom. August 1925 Testimonies to Pacelli’s reputation as Vatican Nuncio to Bavaria and Germany, 1917-1929: Typical of historians is this from Stewart Stehlin, Weimar and the Vatican (1983), p.279: The thoroughness of Pacelli’s knowledge of Germany and his vigilance in safeguarding the Church’s interests, while still remaining on good terms with civil officials and commanding their respect, had made Pacelli an important figure in Munich and his tenure as nuncio a most productive and influential one. A contemporary and fellow diplomat who related with Nuncio Pacelli in Munich was U.S. Vice Consul Robert Murphy. Murphy, who became America’s post-World War II Ambassador to Japan, wrote in his memoirs that he had “many enlightening conversations” in Munich with Papal Nuncio Eugenio Pacelli, who had “intimate knowledge of international politics” and was “one of the first to recognize that the future of Europe depended largely upon what happened in Germany.” Diplomat Among Warriors (1964), p.19. Note: Murphy’s reports in 1922 and 1923 did not disclose that one of his sources was Nuncio Pacelli. A contemporary who knew Pacelli well in Berlin and later testified to his reputation is Franz von Papen. In his Memoirs (1952), Papen described how Nuncio Pacelli overcame the initial suspicion of largely Protestant Prussia: However, his personality was soon appreciated at its true value, and when he finally left Berlin, after signing a limited Concordat with Prussia, which at least gave the capital a Catholic Bishop, he was seen off by immense crowds which had come to pay tribute to him rather than his religion. While he was living in Berlin I occasionally had the honour of inviting him to meet some of the country’s leading conservative and Catholic personalities. Note: During Pacelli’s time as Nuncio to Germany, Papen was the controlling owner of Germania, the flagship Berlin newspaper of the Catholic Center Party, and the president of the Herrenklub, Berlin’s premier aristocrats’ club. He was also a member of the Knights of Malta chapter that refurbished the large residence near Berlin’s Tiergarten in 1925 which became the Vatican Nunciature in August of that year. See Papen, Memoirs, pp. 111, 113, 126, 247. Dec. 11, 1925 Quas Primas, Encyclical Letter of Pope Pius XI to the Bishops of the Catholic Church worldwide. Excerpts: In the first Encyclical Letter which We addressed at the beginning of Our Pontificate to the Bishops of the universal Church, We referred to the chief causes of the difficulties under which mankind was laboring. And We remember saying that these manifold evils in the world were due to the fact that the majority of men had thrust Jesus Christ and his holy law out of their lives; that these had no place either in private affairs or in politics: and we said further, that as long as individuals and states refused to submit to the rule of our Savior, there would be no really hopeful prospect of a lasting peace among nations. Men must look for the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ; and that We promised to do as far as lay in Our power. In the Kingdom of Christ, that is, it seemed to Us that peace could not be more effectually restored nor fixed upon a firmer basis than through the restoration of the Empire of Our Lord. We were led in the meantime to indulge the hope of a brighter future at the sight of a more widespread and keener interest evinced in Christ and his Church, the one Source of Salvation, a sign that men who had formerly spurned the rule of our Redeemer and had exiled themselves from his kingdom were preparing, and even hastening, to return to the duty of obedience... 12. It was surely right, then, in view of the common teaching of the sacred books, that the Catholic Church, which is the kingdom of Christ on earth, destined to be spread among all men and all nations, should with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings... 17. It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia. 18. Thus the empire of our Redeemer embraces all men. To use the words of Our immortal predecessor, Pope Leo XIII: "His empire includes not only Catholic nations, not only baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism, but also all those who are outside the Christian faith; so that truly the whole of mankind is subject to the power of Jesus Christ." Nor is there any difference in this matter between the individual and the family or the State; for all men, whether collectively or individually, are under the dominion of Christ... 20. If the kingdom of Christ, then, receives, as it should, all nations under its way, there seems no reason why we should despair of seeing that peace which the King of Peace came to bring on earth ... 24. ... The empire of Christ over all nations ... 31. When we pay honor to the princely dignity of Christ, men will doubtless be reminded that the Church, founded by Christ as a perfect society, has a natural and inalienable right to perfect freedom and immunity from the power of the state; and that in fulfilling the task committed to her by God of teaching, ruling, and guiding to eternal bliss those who belong to the kingdom of Christ, she cannot be subject to any external power... 1927 March 2, 1927 Hitler’s letter to Fr. Magnus Gött, the Pastor or “Beneficiary” of the Catholic parish in Lehenbühl, Bavaria, Germany: ... Christianity waged a religious crusade against paganism in all its unhealthy outgrowths and manifestations. National Socialism wages a political crusade against the present concept of the state, against the contamination of our race, the undermining of our Volk, the annihilation of the Fatherland, etc. Thus it is an eminently political struggle, and the cross under which we conduct this struggle is our swastika. And therefore just as you, Herr Beneficiary, are convinced that the German Volk can never experience blessing other than through Christ, so I am convinced that it can never experience health and strength other than through the swastika. And I can only long for the day when the German Volk stands on this earth strong, unshakable, and united, with the swastika on the left or sword-side as the banner of the struggle of day-to-day life, but the cross of the Lord on the right as the symbol of faith and the struggle for the eternal... Source: Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte [Contemporary History Quarterly], 1994, pp. 473ff. 1927 Articles in Civiltà Cattolica during 1927 on Bolshevism, Palestine, Islam, and religious circumstances in Britain do not contain propaganda against Zionism or “Jewish-Bolshevism”: Feb. 19, 1927 a news item about a treaty concluded between the King of Hejaz, Ibn Saud, and the Imam of Asir, makes no reference to Palestine. (p.372) The same issue features a ten-page article on religious conditions in England, but says nothing about religious conditions in Britain’s Mandate territory of Palestine. (pp. 374-384) Aug. 6, 1927 Report on a severe earthquake in Palestine. In August and September, Civiltà runs a lengthy two-part series on Islam, with nothing about the particular situation of Muslims or Arabs in Palestine. Dec. 17, 1927, Civiltà Cattolica publishes lead article on Bolshevism. Entitled “After Ten Years of Bolshevism” (p.481), it contains nothing about Judaism. 1928 Civiltà Cattolica’s article on the history of Bolshevism, Jan. 21, 1928, vol. 1, p.116, does not mention Jews or Judaism. Civiltà Cattolica’s lead article, “Bolshevism and its ‘Ideology,’” Feb. 18, 1928, vol. 1, p.289, does not mention Jews or Judaism, even in its three-page section on “The religious problem according to Bolshevism” on pp. 298-300. Mar. 20, 1928 Cardinal Faulhaber’s letter to Prince Löwenstein, March 20, 1928: Your Highness! In your highly esteemed letter of March 14th, Your Highness touched on exactly the points that have given me much consternation in the issue of Catholic Action. In my pontifical sermon on February 12th I wanted to say public just once, concerning the great silence in the German woods, that the Holy Father’s repeated orders about introducing Catholic Action are directed also to the residences of the Germans. I make no secret that a three-fold obstacle exists in Germany, and that is certainly the reason why Catholic Action so far has been implemented less in Germany than in Austria, in Poland, in Belgium and even in Portugal: First, in Germany we have such an array of organizations in apparently all parishes, which really also want what the Holy Father hopes of Catholic Action, namely the gathering together of the powers of the Catholic laity for Catholic deeds under the leadership of the Church. In an Italian parish, where up to now generally no Catholic organization exists, it is easy to start a Catholic Action group and assign it all the purposes and activities that are within the Holy Father’s intent. On the other hand, in German parishes, where a half dozen organizations already exist, it is much more difficult to implement Catholic Action and still allow the pre-existing organizations to exist, and not create a super-organization over them, in order not to have to say to the pre-existing ones: You have not been on the right path! ... The second difficulty I see in the German situation is that Catholic Action intends to rely strictly on the parish and in a higher denominator on the diocese, while we Germans always want to found right away state organizations and Reich organizations and summit organizations and world organizations. Fundamentally I recognize in the Holy Father’s idea a healthy call for us to return to those details from which the renewal of the world should proceed, the quiet little way in the individual parishes. The third and perhaps greatest difficulty for Catholic Action in Germany, I see in the Holy Father’s desire not only to keep the Action free from all politics, but also not to allow those men who are active in political life to participate generally in Catholic Action... Some thoughts would be: First, for Catholic Action to keep itself strictly to the direction of the Holy Father and desire to attach itself to the parishes and dioceses as a systematic active society of the powers of the Catholic laity. Second, for Catholic Action to desire to free up the clergy from excessive association activity, thereby as an active society, which in the final analysis wants to serve souls and the Kingdom of God, remain unreservedly under the direction of the Church. Third, Catholic Action can be implemented in Germany only through a correct relationship of its activity with the already existing organizations... Source: L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp.425-426. Mar. 25, 1928 Vatican official decree of March 25, 1928, suppressing the Friends of Israel and condemning “the hatred that today is commonly called ‘antisemitism’”: The Catholic Church has always had the custom of praying for the Jewish people, custodians of the divine promise until Jesus Christ, notwithstanding their subsequent blindness, nay even because of this very blindness. Moved by charity, the Apostolic See has protected this same people against unjust vexations, and just as it reproves all envies and enmities between peoples, so it most strongly condemns the hatred against the people once chosen by God, the hatred that today is commonly called “antisemitism.” However, with respect to and considering the association “Friends of Israel,” observing that its manner of acting and speaking is abhorrent to the sense of the Church, to the mind of the Church Fathers, and to the sacred liturgy itself, the Eminent Fathers, with the simplicity of the memorandum of the reverend doctor consultors, in plenary session of the Congregation on 21 March 1928, resolved to abolish the association “Friends of Israel” and in fact declared it abolished, and commanded that no one dare to write books or publications to foster in any way these erroneous initiatives. And the following Feria V, the 22nd day of this month and year, the Holiness of Our Lord, Pius XI, Pope by divine providence, in the customary R.P.D. audience with the Assessors of the Holy Office, reviewed and approved this resolution, confirming it and ordering that it be published. Given in Rome, from the Holy Office, 25 March 1928. Source: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 20, p.104 (1928). May 19, 1928 Civiltà Cattolica, “The Jewish Peril and the ‘Friends of Israel,’” May 19, 1928, vol. 2, pp. 335-344: Our readers are aware of the news in our preceding issue about the decree of March 25th promulgated by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, condemning the association named the “Friends of Israel.” (1928, vol 2, p.171) The text of the document is so clear, the reasons for the decree so clearly expressed, and all together the meaning of the condemnation so precisely determined and circumscribed, and the balanced decision equally far removed from the opposite extremes of antisemitism and semitism, that we really do not need commentary. But since we hear there are some seeking to quibble from one side or another, firing up their passionate discussions, we believe some observations are not without utility, the better to keep our readers abreast of the news of all the current questions. Initiated under the highest auspices and with sincere apostolic intentions, at least for the greatest part of its organizers, the society ‘Friends of Israel’ came unfortunately to depart, almost imperceptibly and in short order, from its original intent, in several exaggerations or deviations, which aroused scandal among some and intense polemics among others. And although these have not always appeared to be dispassionate or completely disinterested, especially in some of the less honest and more noisy antisemites, nonetheless they were not devoid of foundation or reason. Contributing to these, moreover, was the excessive zeal of the impetuous and reckless, but even more the abuse or exploitation of this matter by the real semites, some of them extremely violent in their opposition to their adversaries. So far from subsiding, the struggle between the extremes, always reprehensible, was becoming more intense, between semitism and antisemitism, and was not furthering the cause of social peace or of the Catholic religion, much less the intended goal of the conversion of the Jews. The exaggerations and thus the basis of the disapproval and, in the end, of the authority for the condemnation promulgated by the Holy Office, appeared above all in a booklet, or rather a series of booklets, providing the rules or program of the new league or association, entitled “Peace Over Israel”; and, as the decree itself states, was “published and widely distributed by the heads of the society, precisely because it made publicly known the character and method.” (footnote: We were able to acquire some of these little booklets, written in a rather medieval elementary form of Latin and with such simplicity that they make one smile, as when some people discover something and shout to the four winds they have just found a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy or some such. Far from it; but the partisanship, the orientation, the spirit of these short little pages, and still more the inexact expressions or erroneous propositions, notwithstanding all good intentions, provide the reason for the strict terms, as well as the rightful basis, of the condemnation.) This booklet was not conveyed to us like other publications of the same society; so that we did not believe it opportune to write in particular about it, nor to give it praise or special commendation, nor to give it censure or explicit reproof. All the more, if the idea of a special institute for the difficult conversion of the Jews, with a name so partial as “Friends of Israel,” gave rise to some apprehension or uncertainty, and thus also to a rightful reserve on our part, on the other hand, however, the open and public membership, not only of many of the faithful and priests, but also of quite a few bishops and cardinals, among them some of the more eminent and venerable, must have been more than sufficient to remove all fear, if not to completely convince of the practical effectiveness and of the wise opportuneness in our time of the idealistic attempt of this new and singular institute, if not inasmuch as it was more modestly announced, with good intentions, such as a simple crusade of prayer for the conversion, prophesied in sacred scripture, of the ancient [or former] chosen people. And one of the warmest appeals that was confirmed in this tranquil confidence was that which came earlier from Paray-le-Monial, from the “Society for the Social Reign of Christ” in the fervid booklet of the couple G. and H. Noaillat, appearing first in an ascetical review (footnote: “May He Reign,” International Review of the Sacred Heart, April 1922, p.464, The Society of the Social Reign of Jesus Christ. Current Apostolate: the Sacred Heart and the conversion of Israel. Whoever knows personally, as we have known, the extraordinary religious fervor of the pious writer, who passed in a tragic but holy death a few years ago, and the piety of her worthy husband, can only read these pages with great respect, even if there are some points that warrant disapproval.), and then reprinted in part and widely distributed with those best intentions and that zeal with which it was written and which appeared in its title: “The Sacred Heart and the conversion of Israel.” The booklet did not gloss over at all, but rather described, and to some extent perhaps exaggerated rather than attenuated the Jewish danger, deducing a secret power whence the Jews govern the world, be it with their physical strength, whereby they also scatter and multiply under all climates in all countries; be it with their intellectual power that has the strangest gifts of assimilation and dissimulation, of tenacy at the same time, and of flexibility or adaptability, and above all, of dominating ambition; be it finally with power combined with their “methods of operating,” signally in the secret societies, in the press, with wealth, which is to such an extent in their hands, as in high finance. In all this, the piety of the authors does not allow a hasty judgment of hatred, of combat or almost of extermination, as some others transgress who are called antisemites and are actually anti-Christians or anti-Catholics; but they deduced from this the necessity of striving to remove, by the apostolate of maximal prayer, the menacing social danger of the Jews, achieving the conversion of the Jews themselves and, with this, their cooperation in the work of the universal triumph of the social reign of Christ. Thus there is talk of the “conversion of Israel through the Sacred Heart,” there is praise of “the events already come to pass,” such as the conversion of the Ratisbonne brothers and their foundation both of a religious institute and of the priests of Our Lady of Zion, the conversion and the institute of Ven. Libermann, and so forth; the “current events” include such things as crusades of prayer, novenas of masses, special outdoor preaching to the Jews and the resulting numerous conversions; in sum the great “well-founded hopes” for the future and the warm and vibrant “call to action” of an enthusiastic fervor of spirit. There was in all this, evidently, a foundation of candor combined with noble ardor for a form that was learned somewhat by inspiration, of a new and more efficacious apostolate: on the whole suggesting originally a sincere “spirit of love.” Now such a spirit, in truth, is totally other than what was condemned: it is, to the contrary, highly praised and explicitly inculcated by the aforementioned decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office; since by this “spirit of love” indeed it is assured that “the Apostolic See protects this same Jewish people against unjust vexations and reproves all hatred and animosity among peoples, that maximally condemned hatred against a people who were chosen by God, that hatred which is today commonly called by the name of antisemitism.” And similarly by the same spirit of love the Catholic Church, according to the immediately preceding words of the cited decree, “was always in the habit of praying for the Jewish people, the recipients until the coming of Jesus Christ of the divine promise, notwithstanding their subsequent hardening, or rather because of it.” In the same tenor, in the explicit words of the decree, we find, therefore, two well-established points, which are capital to the question. The first is the example and recommendation of a special prayer for the Jews, from which their blindness itself should not distract us, but rather press us toward the necessary means: as it is all the more necessary and urgent to pray for sinners, and all the more when they are blinded or hardened in guilt. The other point is the special condemnation of hatred toward this people in particular, not as if they are innocent or more meritorious than others, far from equal to Christianity, and apostates from it; but because most of the other peoples are exposed to hatred for their own wrongdoing. Therefore the solemn condemnation that follows it, of all the unjust vexations that proceed from time to time from the angry passions of the masses, or incited by parties, or provoked by the injustices, vexations, or insolence of the Jews themselves, at the expense of the poor, weak and defenseless, as appears in history, and not only in the Middle Ages. With that, antisemitism is condemned by name, as the decree adds; but it is condemned, as is well understood, in its anti-Christian form and spirit, as it was interpreted and implemented by some of its promoters, ancient and modern, alien from the rest of genuine Catholicism and even from any practice of the Christian life: adversaries of the Jews by violence or passions of partisanship or nationality, for material interests, jealousies and competitions for commerce and profits, and similar reasons, with no moral or religious justification. (footnote: We would prefer that among these not be the noted pseudonyms which go to the extreme – for example, in the Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes, Apr. 29, 1928 – of accusing us, along with others of our fellow brothers – of being complicit, as friends or supporters of the Jews, the Masons, etc., solely because we do not approve certain methods, inventions or exaggerations that seem to us extremely damaging precisely because they are contrary to truth and justice. Now one of them writes, under the assumed name of Pierre Colmet, commenting on the decree of the Holy Office, in which he wrongly sees his triumph: “A sole passage appeared to worry some of our friends. It is that which bore the condemnation of antisemitism. But it is necessary to understand the thinking of the Holy Office. It is concerned above all with evidence, with a necessary carefulness of style.” An explanation that would be scandalous coming from the mouths of others, but from an Italian panegyrist of the French review it is allowed to pass without censure, while suspicion is cast upon the Jesuits. The other reason for the condemnation of antisemitism “is that the word antisemitism is a pejorative term.” Are these only “mistakes of language”? But why is it silent about criticism of Fede e Ragione?) With such “antisemitism” it is clear they do not understand at all the true Church of Christ and must likewise abhor those who faithfully follow its spirit and its commands while also avoiding, with equal diligence, the other extreme that is no less dangerous and even more seductive under the appearance of good. The constant concern of our journal has been, as was our duty, to always maintain - in the same painful opposition to the Jewish danger - the balance of charity and justice, avoiding and sometimes explicitly combatting the excesses of antisemitism that have been recently condemned. And even more, we rule out the methods of struggle of the antisemitic politicians, even though they are called a “patriotic” cause. And these causes, although they often have a reasonable basis, are not always totally appropriate, especially in the modern order of States. In this order, in fact, liberalism has removed the Jews from their special status that distinguished them from the rest of the nation and confined them, more for their protective care than as a punitive measure, in an enclave of their own homes, that is, the ghetto: and this has made them bold and powerful, giving them, under the pretext of equality, a condition ever more dominant, privileged, especially in economic ways, in modern society. Now it is not logical to complain of these results after having been the cause or the proximate cause that led to them. And much less is it logical to lay the charge or make the accusation against those who wanted to remove the cause, rather than just suppress the inevitable results, and suppress them in a hateful and violent way that borders on injustice. Because from all injustice of whatever sort the Catholic Church is obligated, and always intends, to protect, as it has always protected in fact, even its most bitter enemies and persecutors, who are the Jews. Not only does it protect and benefit them by warding off evils and dangers of all sorts, but also by procuring for them positively the greatest good possible, individual conversion and eternal salvation. Besides such kindness of the Church and the printing of its good word, mentioned above, against antisemitism - to not hate Jews and much less to oppress them unjustly, but rather to pray for them, despite their blindness - one should not forget or turn a blind eye to what is the sad reality as it seemed to some of the principal leaders and promoters of the association the “Friends of Israel.” Now as to these particulars, precisely, the cited decree deserves the close attention of the faithful. It denounces all the problems in it: that “mode of acting and speaking alien to the sense of the Church, to the mind of the Holy Father and to the Holy Liturgy itself,” which induces the decree of abolition of the society “Friends of Israel” and the order that “no one publish in the future any books or pamphlets that in whatever intended manner favor this erroneous initiative.” Of these books and pamphlets that are mentioned, it is very clear they included: those mentioned concerning the Central Committee of the Friends of Israel, or others similar, not doctrinally correct and not impartial as a practical matter due to the anxiety to always excuse and defend the Jews as somewhat unjustly persecuted. (footnote: See, for example, the lament that we read in issue no. 1 of 1928 of the cited publication Pax Super Israel, p.14, inspired by manifest partiality: Although we have no specific information about what to announce, however there was particularly manifest pain from the attacks...) But the decree does not touch in the least upon learned publications, because it is rather serene and removed from polemics or what is worse, bluster and invective, which others avoid with works tht are firm in principle and solid in their conclusions, inspired by the doctrines of the Church and a sincere zeal for the well-being and the conversion of souls, even those most remote, like the Jews. Against these publications would arise unfortunately the antisemitic extremists, especially those who enjoy trafficking in legends and spreading all the more inopportunely what is injurious to their own cause, to the extent they are not based in fact. These people, among whom we do not fail to mention Leo-Taxil, wrongly suspected and reviled all those to whom critical diligence and even more conscience prevented from admitted as certain and authentic some of their documents. And these are, to give an example, those that from the plot of the famous book of the so-called Protocols of the sages or elders of Zion, like certain other sometimes fantastical or not sufficiently substantiated documents about the Jewish conquest of the world and such. (footnote: compare, for example, The Documents of the Jewish Conquest of the World, The Protocols of the Sage Elders of Zion, The Report of the American Secret Service, The Bolshevik Documents of Jewish-Russia, etc., etc. Florence-Rome, Fede e Ragione, 1921. Translation and notes by Fer.) But turning to the point of the document as to the Jewish peril, it threatens the entire world by its pernicious infiltration or harmful interference, particularly among Christian peoples, and even more especially among Catholics and Latins, where the blindness of the old liberalism has mostly favored the Jews, while persecuting Catholics and religious most of all. The danger is more urgent every day; and it merits the attention of our journal - we can say with all sincerity - having constantly denounced from the beginning and documented piece by piece, with good evidence of reason and fact, the frequent and undeniable alliance of Masonry, the Carbonari and other sects and groups, disguised by a patriotic appearance, but in truth putting on whatever appearance or direction is suited for subversion, however much contemporary religious and civil society does not admit it. Thus, for example, while excluding the overly facile readiness of some who want to attribute to the Jews all the guilt for the worst events that have affected modern society, and Europe in particular, as seen for example in the question of Bolshevism; we have tried to make clear in these pages how much guilt and how much influence Jews had in the Russian Revolution, as in the French, and recently in Hungary, with all its bloodshed, cruelty and savage horrors; hence the resulting collapse of the great Moscow empire and the dictatorial tyranny of Bolshevik criminality, which menaces Europe. This, moreover, is admitted openly by all those most knowledgeable about contemporary history, and it was seriously wrong of the Jewish journal Univers Israélite, in its issue of August 8, 1925, to try to show, based on the most tenuous evidence, that the Jews of Russia were not dedicated to Bolshevism, but rather to Menshevism. A futile effort, and not only because of the weakness of the arguments, but still more because, given also the truth of the assertion, it remains certain that Menshevism is only a step, and a decisive step, toward Bolshevism, as liberalism is toward socialism, and to communism, and so on, until the final barbarity and evil of Bolshevik anarchy. Now to such extremes Jewish propaganda leads, to the extent it is allied with Masonry and Bolshevism; whence it is hard to understand how it comes to be protected even by governments that show resolve to fight Masonry and liberal, socialist and communist propaganda. This has already resulted, in less than a century, in a full license and favorable conditions, more than just liberty or equality, granted to the Jews, in their hegemony over many aspects of public life, especially in economics and industry, as well as high finance, where a dictatorial power is directly attributed to them, such as to give laws to States and Governments, including that which concerns policy and finance, without fear of rivals, as occurred during the war. This fact, which is really a strange “phenomenon,” cannot be explained, nor justified, by a consideration of the number of Jews in the population of these countries: It is instead the result of their secret influence and undue power, exercised disproportionately to their numbers, besides being contrary to reason and the common good. We recall in fact that as recently as 1925, in the Univers Israelite cited above from August 8th, there were exact statistics on the Jews, dispersed through the world, that confirm to us apodictically their exiguous numbers. According to these statistics, there would be 14,163,542 Jews in the world, that is to say about one per cent of the total current population of the human race! Of this number, the great majority occupy Europe, that is 9,232,576, thus less than two percent. The greater part of the remainder are dispersed in the Americas, and in the United States they have even reached three percent; and much more, incontestibly, in the great metropolis of New York, where they could of themselves form a “Jewish city.” Palestine, which is being repopulated by Jews, counts them today at a little more than eleven percent; Poland at a little more than ten, Lithuania at ten, the Ukraine is reaching almost eight percent; Hungary - having successfully exited from Bolshevism after its vigorous campaign against the Jews - has gone down to two percent, while Romania is at a little less than five. In England the Jews are about 200,000, that is 0.7 per cent; in France 150,000, being 0.4 percent; in Italy even less, that is 45,000 which is to say 0.1 percent. And in all this they stand out in the greatest endeavors, the highest posts, especially in industry, in high finance, in diplomacy and even more in the secret sects, plotting their world hegemony. By this we mean that if many men of State and politicians and journalists and other writers, even industrialists and financiers, complain: but none of them thinks, while the Jews are easily blamed for everything, how much complicity and terrible responsibility they also have, along with all of modern society, for the extremely sad conditions they so deplore. It is they who prepared and sometimes even triggered, together with this generation of the sons of Judah, religious persecution against Catholics and clergy, and that anti-Christian struggle which was the sad foundation of the entire liberal and Masonic movement. Thus the cooperation of liberalism and Judaism with Masonry, which has also devastated and then given so much influence, and such extreme social power, in all aspects of modern life, especially economic, to the lineage and nation of the Jews. And this is a very painful and humiliating servitude, but it is the result and punishment for false liberal patriotism and its insincere “nationalism.” To such harmful influence, it is manifest how Italy in particular has succumbed, most of all in its economic, social and political circumstances, as other nations have been similarly subjected, especially the Latin ones. But what is even more sad is than these circumstances, but the complacency and encouragement of them, as they are encouraged also by the famous institution of the so-called “League of Nations.” Such a state of affairs, certainly, the founders and supporters of the association “The Friends of Israel,” as well as its good members, meant to oppose; and to oppose particularly by union of prayer to God and by efforts for conciliation and rapprochement among men of whatever ethnicity or nationality, even Jews. (footnote: That is displeasing above all to the most obstinate among them, as appears from a hostility-filled note that we corrected in these pages, which was shown to us in the Jewish periodical Jewish World. It recognizes but bitterly deplores the sense and meaning of the condemnation, as touching upon only a booklet and the association that distributed it, not indeed the efforts for conversion of the Jews, which it calls “the miserable business of Perversion”, and asserts that the decree “lauds the perversion and even has the temerity to proclaim in the face of all history how the Catholic Church has always been guided by the spirit of charity toward the Jews and has protected this people against unjust oppression.”) If then, as it happened, they wanted to conceal not only defects but even crimes of history, and go so far as to attenuate traditional language and even that used in the sacred liturgy, it was an unintentional error, we believe, and, in any case, is today repaired in a salutary manner by their prompt and unanimous submission to the decree of the Holy Office. If only some of their well-known critics, such as supporters of the condemned association Action Française and of other anti-Christian nationalisms, might have followed, or might finally follow in the future, their example of submission to authority! 1929 Feb. 22, 1929 Völkisch Observer’s front page headlines and text covering Hitler’s speech on the Vatican-Mussolini agreements: Banner Headlines: “A Hitler Speech on the Solution of the Roman Question” - “The Peace of Rome and National Socialism” Subheadlines: “Adolf Hitler on the Concluding of Peace between Fascism and the Vatican” - “The Recognition of the Fascist Concept of Government by the Pope” - “Liberalism and Nationalism” - “The Vindication of Nazi Foreign Policy” [Editor’s Preface]: “This newspaper needs to undertake herewith a correction of its party-policy view of the Holy Father.” [Text of Hitler’s speech]: For if the Church today has come to an understanding with Fascist Italy, which was unthinkable with liberal democratic Italy, then it is conclusively demonstrated that the Fascist realm of ideas is more closely related to Christendom than is the Jewish-liberal one, much less the atheistic-Marxist one, with which the self-styled Catholic Center Party feels so closely bound today, to the detriment of that same Christendom and of our German Volk. If the Pope today comes to such an understanding with Fascism, then he is at least of the view that Fascism and thereby Nationalism are acceptable for the faithful and are compatible with the Catholic faith. But how then can the “Bayerischer Kurier” of Munich, for example, as the so-called “Catholic newspaper,” fill believers in the Pope’s policy with doubt about its own position? I foresee a day coming when the Pope will welcome it if the Church, right in front of the Center Party and its ilk, is taken under the protection of National Socialism. One thing stands established, and therein I see the great significance of the treaty concluded between the Pope and Mussolini: it is henceforth demonstrated by a historical event that Nationalism is not, as the German Center Party and its organs deceitfully maintain, inherently anti-Christian and anti-Church. The Nationalist worldview - no matter whether it is Fascist in Italy or National Socialist in Germany - is a positive Christian one, and every good Catholic can, just like every committed Protestant, be an opponent of parliamentary government and a supporter of the Nationalist idea of dictatorship. 1930 Feb. 28, 1930 Cardinal Faulhaber’s letter to Hermann Ritter von Lenz, Colonel and head of the Bavarian Stahlhelm, Feb. 28, 1930: Honorable Herr Colonel ! I thank you for the manly declaration in your letter to me of February 11th, expressing the readiness of the Stahlhelm to cooperate in the religious, moral renewal of the life of our people and in the rescuing of the foundations of our Christian culture. We are agreed that these foundations of Western culture are threatened by Bolshevism from within and from beyond the borders of Germany and that Bolshevism has already taken root in greater or subtler form among our own people. For anyone who has eyes to see can no longer have any doubt today that the decision whether Russian Bolshevism will conquer the world depends on whether it succeeds in conquering Germany. Thus one can hardly comprehend how the responsible authorities in Berlin treat the diggers of their future graves with such hospitality and toleration that the Soviet Ambassador and other Russian authorities in Germany can gather around themselves such a great army of officials and agents under the protection of diplomatic immunity that we have a piece of Russia right in the middle of Germany. What military leader in the field would remain so calm if he heard the sound of pickaxes digging tunnels under his own position that would blast him into his grave in the air? We are agreed that a people without a strong moral order, especially without a moral concept of marriage, and without a clean public life, cannot survive, and that moral principles must also maintain the right in international relations, and may not give way to merely economic-commercial points of view. On the other hand our paths diverge, dear Herr Colonel, on the question of how we, at the end of the day, ward off the danger of Bolshevism from our people. You speak in your letter of February 11th of a combat organization against Bolshevism and thereby give a hint that in the extreme case, this danger must actually be warded off by force of arms. For our conscience, on the contrary, every violent intervention in the course of events is forbidden and only those means of rescue are allowed that work by lawful means and with spiritual-moral weapons. My sermon against Bolshevism could only have the purpose of appealing for the rescue of our governmental and social order with spiritual weapons, not indeed for promoting the formation of a combat front. I may nevertheless assure you that I take your letter to be a manly and solemn deed based on noble personal goals. The newspaper clippings from the days of mid-February offer the sad picture, on the one hand, of how little even the so-called patriotic elements could manage in your direction, and on the other hand, of how much Bolshevism is already at work among our people. Source: L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 486-487. 1931 Feb. 10, 1931 Pastoral Instructions from the Bavarian Bishops, Feb. 10, 1931, about Nazism: From the ranks of the clergy, in recent months, have arisen repeated inquiries to the highest Bishop’s office, asking how they should respond to a request for a Mass on the part of National Socialist groups. Since the clergy have a right to receive guidelines from their Bishops in all pastoral questions, the Bishops of the eight Bavarian dioceses are issuing the following joint instruction. This instruction issues at a somewhat long remove in time from the electoral campaign [of Sept. 1930], in order to throw into bold relief the unpolitical, purely pastoral character of this instruction. 1. National Socialism contains heresies in its cultural policy program, because it rejects or erroneously conceives essential doctrinal points of the Catholic faith and because, according to statements of its leaders, it wants to erect a new ideology in place of Christian faith. Far be it from us to concern ourselves with the government policy goals of National Socialism; we consider only what position it takes toward Catholic Christianity. Leading representatives of National Socialism place race higher than religion. They reject the revelation of the Old Testament and even the Ten Commandments of Moses. They do not acknowledge the primacy of the Pope in Rome, because his position is outside Germany, and they toy with the concept of a German national church without dogma. In section 24 of their Program the eternally valid Christian moral law is supposed to be tested against the moral sentiment of the Germanic race. Concepts of a right of revolution, to be accompanied by success, and of the priority of might over right, are in contradiction with Christian social teaching. It can be established from previous proclamations of the Party or Party leaders that: What National Socialism calls Christianity is no longer the Christianity of Christ. Therefore the Bishops, as guardians of the Church’s doctrine on faith and morals, must give warnings about National Socialism for so long and so far as it proclaims culture-policy views that are not compatible with Catholic doctrine. 2. For Catholic priests it is strictly forbidden to cooperate in the National Socialist movement in any manner whatsoever. To Catholic priests, who are capable of distinguishing dogma from heresy on the strength of their theological training, the anti-Christian and anti-Church principles and phenomena of this movement cannot be unknown, such as the rejection of every concordat, the promotion of the inter-denominational school, the radicalism of the nationalist concept, the resistance to protecting embryonic human life. Priests cannot assume that an erring conscience is without guilt. For the same reason, pastors of souls have a duty to explain to the people in a calm objective tone that National Socialism, originally a government-policy movement directed against Marxism, has swung in the course of recent years more and more into the culture-policy realm and thereby has ended up in a culture-war Kulturkampf] posture against the Church and its Bishops. In the leading newspapers of this Party a tone has been struck against Catholic proclamations, even the appeal of the Holy Father for defense against Bolshevism, that is bereft of all expert knowledge in theological questions and bereft of all reverence. 3. The participation of National Socialists at liturgical events in closed ranks with uniforms and flags is and remains forbidden, because such a Church parade would give the people the impression that the Church had come to terms with National Socialism. If an individual National Socialist shows up in church with the insignia of his Party, that can only go uncorrected if there is no prospect of a demonstration or a disturbance of religious observances. 4. As to the question whether a National Socialist can be admitted to the holy sacraments of confession and communion, it is to be judged from case to case whether the person concerned is a fellow traveler of the movement who has not taken account of the religious and culture-policy goals of the movement, or whether he, as a political representative, as a writer, or as an agent has stood behind the entire goals of his Party, thus also for those points that are not in conformity with the nature of Christianity and with the doctrinal teaching of the Church... Source: L.Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 541ff., reprinted from AB München, annex to No. 4 of Feb. 10, 1931, Pastoral Instruction, directed to the clergy, reproduction forbidden. March 17, 1931 Proclamation of the Catholic Bishops of the Paderborn German Church Province against Nazism: ... We encounter statements that stand in sharpest opposition to Catholic teaching on faith and morals, full of invective against the Catholic Church and her beliefs, against Sacred Scripture ... In this sense the swastika is the symbol of the struggle against the Cross of Christ. Source: Hans Müller, Katholische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente 1930-1935 [The Catholic Church and National Socialism: Documents 1930-1935] (1963), p.32. Other similar Catholic Bishops conference denunciations of Nazism circa 1931 are also reprinted by Müller. June 20, 1931 Civiltà Cattolica, June 20, 1931, vol. 2, p.513: “Bolshevism: Destroyer of All Christian Civilization” ... Today all can see the manner and extent to which Russian Bolshevism acts to propagate its doctrines throughout the world and to win over all nations to the Soviet revolution. The goal of worldwide revolution is manifest also in the title they use: “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” (USSR), where, avoiding all reference to the Russian nation, they . . . And it is proved by the fact that in every nation Soviet Communism has prepared and conducted Communist sedition, notably in China and most recently in Spain, where it relentlessly continues its efforts to gain complete success. But not everyone knows how radically and totally it is contrary to all human and Christian civilization, and thus how serious is its threat to civilized nations and all of human society. Soviet Communism is in every aspect the declared enemy of God and the human race, because it is directly opposed to every principle, divine and human. To the extent that Christianity is the sustainer of the rights of God and of mankind, Soviet Communism is essentially anti-Christian; and, morally speaking, it is, in its social expression, perhaps also a preparation for the anti-Christ himself. That is why the Catholic Church, which is the true and genuine Christianity, has raised its voice, through the mouth of its august Head, the Pope, against this enemy of God and of mankind; a voice of warning to the peoples, a voice exhorting everyone to pray, including all Christians and all dissidents, but especially its sons, Catholics throughout the whole world. August 1931 German Chancellor Heinrich Brüning’s memoirs on his audience with Cardinal Pacelli in August 1931: Pacelli broached the matter of the Reich Concordat... Pacelli thought I should just form a government with the Right with a view toward a Reich Concordat and make it clear in the process that a Concordat was to be concluded immediately. I retorted that he was misperceiving the political situation in Germany and above all the real nature of the Nazis. (p. 358) Toward the end of a 45-minute contentious meeting, Cardinal Pacelli returned to the subject: He thought he had to repeat his request that I enter into a coalition with the Nazis. I explained to him that all the attempts to enter a coalition with the Right in a responsible manner for the nation and the people had failed. He misperceived the nature of Nazism. The Social Democrats in Germany were not religious, but they were tolerant, while I was so far convinced that the Nazis were neither religious nor tolerant. Source: Heinrich Brüning, Memoiren 1918-1934 (1970), pp. 358-359. Note: Heinrich Brüning remained Reich Chancellor until May 1932, as Germany’s economy went from bad to worse during the Great Depression. In June 1932, President Hindenburg appointed Franz von Papen as Chancellor in place of Brüning. Brüning on his audience with Pope Pius XI: The Holy Father spoke almost uninterruptedly, with a wonderful power of recollection, about personal experiences and relationships that bound him to Germany. After the conversation with Pacelli, I could hardly believe my ears when the Pope suddenly congratulated the German Bishops on their clear and intrepid position with respect to the erroneous doctrines of National Socialism. Source: Heinrich Brüning, Memoiren 1918-1934 (1970), p.360. Sept. 10, 1931 Germania, Sept. 10, 1931: “Konsequenzen” The recently deceased Hessian Gauleiter and Reich parliament representative of the Nazi Party, Peter Gemeinder, has been denied a Church burial by Catholic Church authorities. The National Socialist press is naturally trying to exploit the Gemeinder case for sharp anti-Church partisan propaganda. Thus it is necessary to set out the true state of the matter in this case. The Diocesan Ordinariate of Mainz, at the beginning of October 1930, issued a well-known, entirely clear instruction, whereby every Catholic is forbidden to be a card-carrying member of the Hitler Party, and whereby a Catholic who is a card-carrying member of the Hitler Party may not be admitted to the sacraments. Since October 1930, the Nazi Party leadership has not done anything whatsoever to clarify unconditionally its ambiguous culture-policy goals, or to revise in any way the points that are in explicit contradiction to Catholic doctrine. As a result, the aforementioned instruction remains valid, after as before, and it is totally obvious that inevitable consequences flow from it for the support or non-support by Church authorities for the burial of National Socialists. The Vicar General of the Mainz Diocese, Fr. Mayer, took a position on the Gemeinder case in the following statement: The German Bishops have unanimously condemned National Socialism as a heresy, because it includes provisions in its written and unwritten program that contradict Catholic doctrine. Therefore no Catholic is allowed to belong to the Nazi Party as a card-carrying member. Whoever fails to heed this prohibition and joins the party can receive no Church burial unless before death he somehow makes it known that he repents for his disobedience. The law applies to every Catholic, be he prince or commoner, rich or poor, a representative in parliament or a simple citizen. Since in the aforementioned case there are no mitigating factors, the law must be strictly carried out. In matters of principle, the Church knows no compromise. Since the National Socialists, for their part, purport to reject all compromise just as decisively, we do not rightly understand why they do not summon up the necessary understanding for the consequences flowing from the Catholic Church and its doctrine. National Socialists should also be very familiar with the concept of unconditional obedience, to which the Catholic Church obligates its members. It would mean surrendering the authority of the Church, if its principled position were to be subordinated to the commands of an Adolf Hitler, who orders his people to obey him more than the Bishops. It is reported from Hesse that the National Socialists there have been responding to the stance of the Mainz Ordinariate by inciting a movement to leave the Church. Thus far two Nazi Party members have announced their departure from the Catholic Church. The Nazi Party may, if it considers it good, continue confidently in this way to launch an attack against the Catholic Church. It will never, with such methods, bring the Church to agree to bend its principled position to accommodate Nazi heresies. But it may well thereby create decisive clarity that between the doctrines of Adolf Hitler and the doctrines of the Catholic Church, common ground is unthinkable. Note: A notation at the top right of the document in Italian, “Enclosed with Report No. 2815,” identifies this copy as an enclosure with a report from the Vatican Nunciature in Berlin to the Vatican Secretariat of State in Rome, which is the immediately following document. German original article clipped from Germania. Sept. 12, 1931 Report by Luigi Centoz, Vatican Nunciature Berlin, to Cardinal Pacelli in Rome, with side-by-side translation: Centoz to Pacelli Catholics who joined the Nazi Party were denied the sacraments in the Diocese of Mainz Sept. 12, 1931 Letter from Nazi press chief to Hitler, Sept. 12, 1931, with enclosed proposed public statement: Letterhead: Otto Dietrich, Press Office, National Headquarters of the NSDAP Dear Herr Hitler, The statement of the Vicar General of the Mainz Diocese concerning the burial of our Gauleiter Gemeinder is so unprecedented and will undoubtedly – if it remains totally uncontradicted – become a fait accompli which the Vatican for its part will certainly not disavow; it is being used for such strong propaganda against us that a statement from us must no longer be held in abeyance. Since this provocative Vicar General Mayer undoubtedly planned this in advance – the appended clipping from the Münchener Zeitung is a clear indication of this – I believe the time is right for us to defend against this attack, by undertaking now an offensive that will render this transgression by the Mainz Vicar General ineffective from a propaganda standpoint and will make our own position prevail eventually against all this, while the manner in which we explain the local church’s position will make the Vatican less likely to speak up. I do not believe that the Vatican itself – after recognition of our declaration, which once again rejects all pronouncements that contradict the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Christian religion – will intervene against us and thereby nail itself down once and for all. The Church’s centuries-long operational policy would be against it. Nevertheless an intervention by the Vatican against our statement cannot be ruled out and needs to be taken into consideration in our drafting. I have already presented the accompanying draft to Herr Strasser, who thought it was suitable. I ask you to decide whether you consider a statement on our part to be necessary and appropriate at this time, and if you do, to specify the form in which you would like it. In the event you consider a statement appropriate, it needs to happen, in my opinion, as soon as possible. Your most devoted, Otto Dietrich The draft public statement to which Dietrich referred reads as follows. On the occasion of the denial of a Church burial for the Catholic National Socialist official Gemeinder, the Vicar General of the Diocese of Mainz, Dr. Mayer, has published a declaration in which he states: “The German bishops have unanimously condemned National Socialism as a heresy, because it includes in its program written and unwritten propositions that contradict Catholic teaching. Therefore no Catholic is allowed to belong to the NSDAP as a card-carrying member.” Compared to previous conditional positions of the German Bishops concerning National Socialism, this position represents a decidedly positive development. The previous position of the German bishops is summed up in the well-known statement of the Bavarian episcopacy, which was adopted by nearly all the German bishops: “The bishops must, as guardians of Church doctrine and moral teaching, warn against National Socialism, for so long and insofar as it proclaims culture-policy views which are incompatible with Catholic teaching.” Since the NSDAP has never proclaimed any such culture-policy views, the bishops’ denunciations, which expressly rely on the supposition of such proclamations in their warnings against National Socialism, have absolutely nothing to do with National Socialism as it is defined in the NSDAP party program and by its Führer, Adolf Hitler, who, in the final analysis, is the only one who can represent the movement. If point 24 of the NSDAP party program is described as incompatible with Catholic teaching in various denunciations from the hierarchy, then it is a question here of a formal theological exegesis and interpretation that falsely expounds meaning and content. Its central part reads: “The party as such advocates the viewpoint of a Positive Christianity without affiliating itself with a particular denomination or confession.” It is self-evident that National Socialism, a purely political movement and true Volk community, which numbers in its ranks members of all denominations, does not intrude upon the freedom of conscience of its political comrades-in-arms and accordingly cannot be made responsible for their purely private expressions. National Socialism knows, in contrast to other parties, how to keep politics and religion separated. The type of private expressions of National Socialist party members of various denominations that are characterized as heretical “declarations” from our ranks, cannot with any semblance of justice be laid to the charge of the party, which has expressly rejected to the utmost all declarations that contradict the doctrinal and moral teachings of any Christian religion. In light of these clear facts, the previous denunciations by the German bishops in reality signify nothing more than an illustration of the incontestable fact that there is no reason whatsoever – on grounds of any sort of infallible doctrinal decision – for describing the NSDAP as contradicting Catholic doctrinal and moral teachings. In fact the Pope has never made any decision of the sort. Nevertheless the Vicar General of the Diocese of Mainz has now, for the first time, with reference to an “unwritten program” of the NSDAP, made the positive assertion that no Catholic is allowed to belong to the NSDAP. Yet this denunciation – however clearly set forth – cannot concern the relationship of the NSDAP with the Catholic Church. First, it concerns a proclamation which is effective – if at all – only within the authority of the Diocese of Mainz. And second, every Catholic, on the basis of the clear decisions of the Vatican Council, has the right, on the basis of conscience, to ignore the erroneous proclamations of an individual bishop who intrudes in political battles unsupported by any infallible doctrinal decisions. In any event, the obviously provocative proceedings of the Vicar General of the Diocese of Mainz have created a situation in which the NSDAP, in the name and in the interest of the many millions of its Catholic supporters, has a responsibility to pose the question of the legitimacy of these statements. The NSDAP, as the political representative today of at least 10 million voting Germans, who fight under the flag of Adolf Hitler against anti-religious Marxism and Bolshevism, on behalf of freedom and true Christianity, has a right to know whether Vicar General Dr. Mayer, in his unprecedented battle against the NSDAP, is acting in agreement with and by authority of the highest Church authorities, or whether his statement, which represents an intolerable intervention in politics, has been undertaken without respect for the position of the Pope as the holder of the highest doctrinal office of the Catholic Church. Unless and until such a clarification is made, the NSDAP considers the denunciation by Vicar General Mayer on the relationship of the NSDAP with the Catholic Church to be entirely unauthoritative; the NSDAP advises its millions of Catholic supporters as to their right and their duty to reject, once and for all, every political browbeating by unauthorized Church officials who place themselves in opposition to the position of the Catholic Church, and that all Catholics remain free in the realm of universal Church law to belong to any party they wish. Source: NSDAP Hauptarchiv, Reel 52, fol. 1223. “Der Geistliche Terror in Mainz” Völkischer Beobachter, Oct. 4-5, 1931, page 2: [summary]: Under the headline “Religious (or Clerical or Spiritual) Terror in Mainz,” this article discusses various provisions of the Canon Law of the Catholic Church in an effort to show that the policy of the Diocese of Mainz is inconsistent with Rome. 1932 Mar. 2, 1932 Cardinal Faulhaber’s letter to Bavarian Privy Councillor Georg Heim, March 2, 1932: Honorable Herr Privy Councillor! The concerted action of the German Bishops against the Nazis has met with unconditional support in Rome. If rumors to any other effect are circulating, they are lying trickery. “Osservatore Romano” would not have taken up so agreeably and expressly the proclamations of the German Bishops, if any kind of other opinion prevailed in the Curia. Moreover, the Nazis for their part have often enough sent out feelers to the Vatican, and we even read about a delegation that was supposed to present their case in the Vatican. The Nazi press, however, has never reported whether this delegation was received or otherwise got an answer. Source: L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, p.602. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Translations and Notes, 1933 1933 Jan. 1933 L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage of Hitler coming to power, Jan. 29 - Feb. 5, 1933: Jan. 29, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “In the Politics of the Reich: Arduous Negotiations Among Party Leaders of the Right and the Center” Dateline Berlin, Jan. 28 The Reich Council, as previously reported, has decided that the Reichstag will convene on January 31. All attention is concentrated on the colloquy that von Hindenburg will have today at 12:15 with von Schleicher, who, it is said, will ask him to sign a decree of dissolution in order to oppose the no-confidence motion in the Reichstag. If von Schleicher does not obtain such a decree, he will probably submit his resignation before the Reichstag meets. Some political circles are squarely stating that von Hindenburg will refuse the Chancellor’s proposal, influenced as he is by the violent campaign of the German National Party and the opposition from the Agrarian Party. It is possible, however, that no decision will be made today and that it will be held off pending the termination of negotiations between Hitler, Hugenberg and Kaas. Some predict the reconstituting of the Harzburg front and the formation of a coalition government of the German National Party and the National Socialists, tolerated by the Center Party and thus having a parliamentary majority: von Hindenburg would thus have no reason to refuse Hitler the Chancellorship. If the Center Party were to refuse its support, the two Nationalist parties might propose to von Hindenburg the formation of a Presidential Government, probably led by von Papen, with the participation of the National Socialists and the German Nationals. The Nazi Völkischer Beobachter states that in the discussions at the Reichstag the National Socialists will vote in favor of the no-confidence motion against von Schleicher presented by the Communists. It concludes by affirming that the decision whether to dissolve the Reichstag on February 4 depends on President von Hindenburg. “We do not know,” it says, “if von Hindenburg will be convinced in the meantime that the crisis can be resolved only by entrusting the Reich Chancellorship to Hitler.” For the moment, however, the official press of the Nazi Party states that the party is always disposed to cooperate with the government, provided that it obtains offices proportionate to its importance. Hitler arrived yesterday morning in Berlin and participated in the negotiations among the Nazi Party, the Center Party, and the German Nationals. Hugenberg had a long colloquy with Msgr. Kaas, leader of the Center Party. “Von Schleicher Resigns His Office to von Papen” Dateline Berlin, Jan. 28, p.m. The von Schleicher Cabinet has submitted its resignation. President von Hindenburg accepted it, charging von Papen to begin negotiations with the parties to clarify the political situation and determine the possibility of forming a new cabinet. Jan. 31, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30-31, 1933, page one: ”Hitler Appointed Chancellor: Has Formed a Presidential Ministry” Dateline Berlin, Jan. 30, p.m. Hitler has been appointed Chancellor by the Reich President, Marshal von Hindenburg. This is the composition of the Cabinet Ministry: Chancellor, Hitler; Vice Chancellor and Reich Commissar for Prussia, von Papen; Interior Minister, Frick; Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, Hugenberg; Finance Minister, Schwerin von Krosigk; Labor Minister, Seldte, leader of the Steel Helmets; Foreign Minister, von Neurath; Reich Army Minister, von Blomberg; Minister Without Portfolio, in charge of aviation and works of the Interior Ministry, Goering, Nazi President of the Reichstag. “Arduous Negotiations for the New Reich Ministry” Dateline Berlin, Jan. 30 Von Papen continued the discussions to determine the basis for the formation of the new cabinet ministry. He met with key confidantes in the Nazi Party and the German Nationals, making indirect contact also with the Center Party. Ex-Chancellor von Papen held a discussion yesterday with the President, whom he informed of the negotiations, saying that they would have to end today at noon, and that the President will have to make a decision in light of their result. According to reports from well-informed circles, von Papen, in his negotiations, which moreover are still continuing, sought to revive the Harzburg front coalition, which appeared to result in difficulties. In the meantime, they are attributing a high probability of success to the contemporaneous negotiations among the Nazi Party, the Center Party and the Bavarian People’s Party for the formation of a government with a parliamentary majority, led by Hitler, with the support of the Popular Party and the Christian-Socials, and excluding the German Nationals and von Papen. But these negotiations have also encountered difficulties, as to guarantees demanded by the Center Party in case of conflicts, and as a result the formation of a government appears that it will require more time than was originally thought. “The Chancellorship Offered to Hitler?” Dateline Berlin, Jan. 30 According to reports from generally well-informed sources, von Papen and his friends have established a list for presentation to Hitler after approval by von Hindenburg. The list is the following: Chancellor, Hitler; Vice Chancellor and Commissar for Prussia, von Papen; Reich Army Minister, General von Stuelpager; Minister of Foreign Affairs, von Neurath; Minister of Crises (Ministries of Labor and National Commerce), Hugenberg. The other portfolios were to be given to Nazis. Hitler, after a long discussion with his lieutenants, supposedly reserved a response. Jan. 31, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, Jan. 30-31, 1933, page one: “The Significance and the Hopes for the Holy Year: Statements of the Archbishop of Paris” Dateline Paris, Jan. 26, from our correspondent In an interview given to F. Sergente of the Petit Journal, and reported in part by La Croix, the Archbishop of Paris expressed his hope for the efficacy of the upcoming Holy Year for the crises of society. “We live in this time of ferment, in a tempest, in which pessimists and weaklings are uniquely predicting irreparable collapses and catastrophes,” the Cardinal said. “One must fearlessly get one’s bearings. To be better on guard, consider the rainbow that foretells salvation. Yet to catch sight of it, it is necessary to prioritize contingencies, to perform one’s duties as a Christian and as a Frenchman, come what may. The future, that is salvation, belongs to the strong, and as to this jubilee year, I conceive it not only as a year of prayer, but as a year of action, of realization, of conscience, of reconciliation. The malaise that our country suffers is certainly profound. All the more reason to act with greater energy by the light of loyalty with the certainty that personal and collective force is never in vain. “But it is essential to realize some things. It is indispensable to possess intense life in oneself before one can give it to others. With all life, moreover, which is a matter of body, mind and spirit, man can only give what he has already developed in himself, what he has already experienced. And that is what gives every human influence its true greatness and beauty.” To interlocutors who have asked how to inspire enthusiasm, passion, and hope in those who suffer, the Cardinal responded: “The problem of suffering is the order of the day. For a long time I was weighed down by misery. I know the physical and moral anguish of those for whom I have spiritual responsibility. “I raise them up as best I can in every way. Don’t think I am indifferent to all these wounds, many of which are profound. My task is not only to direct the conscience but also to relieve suffering, to give bread to those who lack it, and to give also the paternal word that comforts and vivifies. Even on my knees before my Crucifix, I hear the rumors on the street, and my prayer is always accompanied by action. “This is why I hope. Faith that acts can realize great things. The destinies of France rest upon a past of force and peace, which must not be denied, and which equally permits us to look to the future with the assurance of better days to come, with that serene confidence that illumines sad days. Yes, the future belongs to the strong, for men of good will, in candor, sacrifice, and courage. “The 19th centennial of the Redemption recalls all of that for us. “Prayer is action, sacrifice is hope, the extension of a life more vast and more strong, the restriction of egotism ...” Feb. 1, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “After Hitler’s Coming to Power” Subheads: “The First Council of Ministers – The Reichstag Convened by February 7 – The Constitution Will Be Respected – Demonstrations by Berliners – Decisions by the Center Party Are Awaited – Comments of the Press” ... Feb. 2, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Awaiting Hitler’s Government Program - Official Reassurances – The Impressions in Various Camps” Feb. 3, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “A Response from Hitler to Mons. Kaas, Leader of the Center Party” Dateline Berlin, Feb. 2, p.m. Hitler has responded with a personal letter on the problems that the Head of the Center Party laid out also in a letter. An official note specifies that the Chancellor considered that the problems laid out by the Center Party showed that the party would not lend itself to a one-year adjournment of the Reichstag. As a result of this confirmation, the Chancellor has decided to present for von Hindenburg’s signature a decree of dissolution. The note adds that the government has taken a loyal attitude from the first days and that it does not aim at any modification of the electoral system. Afterwards, government circles are affirming that there could occur circumstances whose details on the whole could prevent elections from being carried out normally to a good conclusion. It will be considered on this point, that all depends, in the final analysis, on the parties themselves. Two adjacent articles: On the right: “A Cordial Appeal from a Converted Jewess to Her Ex-Coreligionists” from our correspondent in New York, dated January On the left: “The Dispositive Pontifical Bulls for Achieving the Jubilee” As we already announced, beyond the Bull Quod Nuper, which signaled the Extraordinary Holy Year and universal Jubilee, three other Bulls or Apostolic Constitutions establish the arrangements, the faculties, and the inherent dispensations for achieving the Jubilee itself. These will be published soon in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis... The three Bulls, which we have briefly summarized here, will bear the date of January 30 of this year. Feb. 4, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Political Events in Germany: Presidential Decree on the Next Elections” Dateline Berlin, Feb. 3 The President has issued a decree that slightly modifies the electoral law. To present a list of candidates for the second scrutiny, groups that have not gained enough votes in the first scrutiny will have to get at least 60,000 signatures, the figure necessary to have a legislative mandate in a district... “Bloody Conflicts in Cologne and Königsberg” ... “Student Demonstrations in Vienna” ... “Under the Bolshevik Yoke” Dateline Moscow, Feb. 1 – The People’s Commissar for Finance, Hrynko, has presented his report for the 1933 budget. It provides for the sum of 34 billion 600 million rubles in revenue and the sum of 33 billion 500 million rubles in expenditures. The military budget has been increased by 230 million rubles, that is 19 per cent, over that of the previous year. “Complaints of Great Severity Against the Opposition” Dateline Riga, Feb. 1 ... “The Price of Newspapers Is Doubled” Dateline Moscow, Feb. 1 ... Feb. 5, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Political Events in Germany” Subheads: “Forty-five million voters are preparing for March 5th” - “If the Prussian Legislature Does Not Dissolve Itself It Will Be Dissolved by Others” The Prussian legislature will meet today to debate the National Socialist motion for dissolution, which depends for approval in great part on the Communists, who refused to disclose their game... “State Legislative and Provincial Elections in Prussia” Dateline Berlin, Feb. 4 Contemporaneously with the Reichstag elections there will probably also take place elections to the Prussian legislature and the Prussian provincial councils ... “The Fears of the Social Democrats” Dateline Berlin, Feb. 4 The Social Democrat newspaper Vorwärts was suspended yesterday for three days as a result of a public manifesto. Social Democrat circles fear that the three-day suspension of Vorwärts is related to the suspension of numerous other newspapers that have published the same manifesto, which the Prussian authorities see as a call for rebellion. The Social Democrats say this manifesto is simply an appeal to Socialist voters for the next elections... March 1, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber's notes on Papen's visit: He arrived very suddenly. Forcefully kissed my ring. At the end he asked for my blessing and again kissed my ring. At the beginning: In these difficult hours, which sometimes weigh overly heavy on his shoulders. His voice failed him and tears welled up in his eyes, as also at the end. Otherwise in the discussion he made a very strong impression. How everything came to pass. He has had the trust of the Reich President. Schleicher had always said he would bring over a portion of the National Socialists and create a parliamentary majority. Then it turned out that Gregor Strasser did not have a single Reichstag member behind him, let alone 60. The President summoned him again: Is there no way out? Yes, if Hitler becomes Reich Chancellor. He figured the hour: between 11 and 12. Hitler was very moderate in his demands. An authoritarian government, but Hitler wanted to know nothing of the Center Party, and nevertheless, if Kaas, instead of posing 13 questions, had said to him: Yes, but we will keep ourselves from withdrawing. The elections now had only one purpose, clarifying as a matter of intellectual history, not real elections. I said: Never doubted his good will. Distrusted only Hugenberg, whether he would become too overbearing toward the Church... The history of recent days: The fire in the Reichstag building, 40 burn places. In Liebknecht’s house, where an underground passage was not discovered until now, there was evidence that the Center Party was befriending the [Independent] Social Democrats and was never well-intentioned. The Communist revolutionaries would not, like before, storm government buildings, but would wear down the people, setting fires simultaneously in a hundred places ... Source: Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 651-654. March 10, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber’s notes on his Audience with Pope Pius XI, March 10, 1933: White talar (rochet) of moirée silk, white zucchetto (skullcap), red shoes. Spoke mostly Italian with some German interspersed. The Holy Year: I came before, because the Holy Father had so much work. A good sign about his health that he had undertaken so much work. He has gotten healthier since the recent Holy Year than before. Welcome, I am happy to see you and to see you looking so good. He was long in doubt whether little [St.] Therese [of Lisieux] had given him an inspiration after Holy Mass. He was only concerned that the Pan-Protestantism of [Lutheran Archbishop] Söderblum [of Uppsala, Sweden] would come before him. We could not have said: No. The nicest thing about my reception was that we heard about his health. The Pope also looked really good and very ruddy, only just at the conclusion, I felt tired. “You look better in Rome than in Munich.” “For everyone who is saved by the blood of Christ” – ready! Pious souls do not understand: Salvation without ceasing – comes next year [Holy Year of 1933]. Bavaria: How is [Bavarian State President, 1924-1933] Held? A good man, a true Catholic. Early today I read – I’m helping: von Epp as Commissar, he is intended for Bavaria. I said: Not for the state police. I said: Thus kept from the revolution. Minister Stützel and a journalist [editor’s note: Fritz Gerlich, editor of anti-Nazi newspaper Der Gerade Weg, “The Straight Way,” in Munich] maltreated. “That is hateful – brutal.” Hindenburg is an upright man. Hitler: He has pleased me, he is the first statesman who has spoken against Bolshevism. “For political reasons.” I said: He speaks very piously, in Königsberg about Providence and how he prays. He has read or heard everything. The Bolsheviks themselves have written of him: They will find a way to kill the Pope. He is certainly threatened, he must be well protected, a bodyguard is essential. I said: He does not say anything contrary to Rosenberg and the others hostile to the Church, because he fears to be considered as a Rome-ling, a lackey of the Pope. Papen has the trust of von Hindenburg and he is a true Catholic. He will not do anything against the Church as long as Hindenburg is alive, thus ... [ellipses of L. Volk, ed.] Bolshevism: Very long. They have their money only for their own purses and for propaganda. A Father Neveu, Redemptorist, consecrated Bishop, sends a long letter every month, very brave, who knows how long he will live. He stands up and takes from a small bookshelf three heavy packages, not yet opened. These are secret reports from the “East Help.” In Berlin, we receive everything that goes out “Strictly Confidential” or “Secret.” Likewise in Spain, Mexico. Here on this table lie pamphlets, exact translations of Russian pamphlets. Mussolini said to him: In Italy they are surveilled, he promised not to do anything in Italy, but in the harbors they expect ships, also in Spain ... [ellipses of L. Volk, ed.] I said: Klausener promised no longer to allow radio messages like the one of Christmas 1931, before turning them on, but now he has been removed from his post. Toward Russia, I said: St. Therese must help. At that he livened up. Here on the table is a relic of hers. She has often helped me. In the Holy Year I was often tired, did not want to keep going. – With a relic in my pocket I went out. Inspirations too, from the Holy Year. Many thoughts on serious issues. I recounted: The reliquary helped me in innumerable occasions. He said: Me repeatedly too. The “Senza Dio” forbidden in Germany, naturally also its newspapers. But there is a spiritual hatred that only pastoral care can attack, to that no answer. But he continued: One should not make martyrs in Germany, and quiet propaganda can accomplish just as much as loud. All money sources coming out of Russia. The people are dying of hunger, the old and the young, because everything is going for propaganda. To us the question, whether to do something toward “Senza Dio.” He has received several answers to that (as it appears, he has not yet read them, perhaps even mine). Protestant propaganda: They are exploiting the sad state of the people. Our people are very poor. He holds printed statistics about all the dioceses of Italy: Only just a few parishes where there are no Protestants. Totally remote dioceses and parishes. Fortunately no more money is coming from America. He leafed all the way through the statistics. Rome has grown and seeds have been sown that the Protestants use also. There is so little in the new suburbs, we are a mission territory. And now six (editor’s ?) churches built. I saw them in the “Vatican Illustrated.” “Good people help me, the need is so great, they write me: They are going to the Protestants.” I said: Also many letters to me, people leaving the Church, if not . . . [editor’s ellipses] He gave every month 50,000 Lire for bread for people who eat only once a day, and only bread and water. The Bourbons in Italy have exhorted the Bishops to keep the people under control. No streets are built. 84% [editor inserted a ? mark here] illiteracy. One typical person says: I believe in God, but there is a difficulty for me in believing in him, that he has left the Bourbons in power so long. They have built no parish churches. Now there are still 4,000 parish churches to build, we have built 600. With new methods it goes so fast. When good people help me. In Germany there are parish churches everywhere. We should have 400 built per year in order to have 4,000 in 10 years. But in my view there should be more built. He spoke long and expansively about this. We want to work through “Deus Scientiarum” so far as possible. It did not come to the point that we gave “relazione.” If universities are built among us, then Catholic universities become doubly essential. I should say a word about the Catholic university at the Catholic Congress. That is good. He became animated again and held a printed statistic: All the dioceses, all the parishes, gave 3 million for the Sacred Heart University in Milan, not less than before. I have not lost trust in our people, but this horrible state of things, it made a deep impression on Mussolini. Here Sardegna: He read the name aloud. Totally impoverished villages and they gave. I will say that in the Consistory. I said: If there is unrest at home, one must start travel earlier. Half standing, he asked: Whether a restoration is coming. I said: Some from the coalition want it, others not. With us it was earnest, but still impossible. Whoever comes must provide work and bread, and that he [editor’s note: Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria] cannot do. In conclusion: “Don’t work so much!” Nothing compared to the work of Your Holiness. “Munich alone would give enough work for a Bishop.” Dr. Weissthanner was called in, very quickly: My blessing upon everyone. Standing to talk, very sincerely. Pulled on the tablecloth. They work a lot. I read your speeches. He himself had read a manuscript between the audience of Cardinal Rossi, a Carmelite, and me. Source: L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 1, pp. 659-662. March 12, 1933 German Flag Decree of March 12, 1933: “Decree of the Reich President on the Provisional Regulation of Flag Hoisting” Upon this day when, throughout Germany, the old black-white-red flags fly at half-mast to honor our war dead, I order that from tomorrow until a final regulation of the Reich colors, the black-white-red flag and the swastika flag shall be hoisted together. These flags connect the glorious past of the German Reich with the vigorous rebirth of the German Nation. Together they shall embody the power of the State and the inner agreement of all national elements of the German Volk! Military installations will hoist only the Reich War Flag. Berlin, March 12, 1933. Signed: Reich President von Hindenburg Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler German original from online German document archive Mar. 23, 1933 Hitler’s speech to the German Reich Parliament, March 23, 1933 (excerpts): ... The National Government perceives in the two Christian denominations the most important factors for the preservation of our Volk. It will respect any contracts concluded between these churches and the states... ... It will be concerned for an upright coexistence between Church and State; the fight against materialistic ideology and for a real Volk community [Volksgemeinschaft] serves equally the interests of the German nation and the well-being of our Christian faith... The National Government, seeing in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the moral and ethical life of the Volk, attaches utmost importance to the cultivation and maintenance of the friendliest relations with the Holy See ... Source: http://archive.org/details/Hitler_Speeches and Max Domarus, ed., Hitler’s Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945, trans. M. Gilbert (1990-1997). March 28, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, March 27-28, 1933, page one, on Catholic parties voting for the Enabling Act: “The Statements of the Center Party and the Bavarian People’s Party on the Law of Full Powers” German journalists have reported the statements made by representatives of the Center Party and the Bavarian People’s Party on the 23rd of this month, debating in the Reichstag the law about expanded powers to be conceded, as then were conceded, to Hitler’s government [the Enabling Act]. According to certain newspapers, Monsignor Kaas made the following statement in the name of the Center Party in favor of the program of Hitler’s government. “For us this is not the time for words. The only law incumbent upon us at this moment is that of prompt, constructive, salvific action. Such action is possible only through concord. The German Center Party, which has long served vigorously the great idea of concord, out of shame for disappointing transient measures, rises up at this moment, in which all miserable and mean-spirited ideas must remain silent, based on a consciousness of its national responsibility, which outweighs any hesitation. It places less importance on some concerns that in normal times might not be disregarded. In the face of burning necessities that the people and the State are now experiencing, we of the German Center Party offer our hand to all, even to our past adversaries, to assure the continuation of the work of national salvation. (Applause from the Center, from the right and from the podium). In this way we want to accelerate the return to ordinary governmental and legal conditions and put up a solid bulwark against chaotic developments. The statement today by the Chancellor contains many ideas that we accept, and that idea – might I be allowed to say with all candor – which, in the interest of concord – the law of the hour – we conscientiously do not want to dispute. We trustingly expect the serene judgment of history upon the governors we are now supporting. (Approbation of the Center). Several of your statements, Mr. Chancellor, concerning certain essential points of gpvernmental, legal and cultural life, viewed also in relation with confirmations during the preceding negotiations, offer us the possibility of modifying our judgment about various important doubts that the duration and content of the law of full powers [Enabling Act] had aroused in us and could not fail to arouse in us. On the premise that the Chancellor’s statements will define the practical foundation and orientation for the legislative work of the future, the German Center Party give it consent to the Enabling Act. (Applause from the Center and the right). “The Statements of the Bavarian People’s Party” The speaker for the delegation of the Bavarian People’s Party, Ritter von Lex, stated that even the most expanded powers given to the government have their limits in fundamental Christian legal principles. The Bavarian People’s Party concedes the full powers requested by the government, in trust that – in conformity with the Chancellor’s statement – the application of the Enabling Act will always observe the signal limits of Christian moral law. No law – said the speaker – can dispense of this duty of governments and individuals. The responsibility for the particular provisions will weigh upon the government that issues them, before God, before the people, and before history. March 27-28, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one, on the Holy Year: “The Second Promulgation of the Bull of Jubilee” Yesterday morning, “Laetare Sunday,” there took place in the Portico of the Vatican Basilica the second public reading of the Bull of Announcement for the Extraordinary Holy Year and Sacred Jubilee. The ceremony occurred in the same way as the first promulgation. A little before 11 a.m., the Vice Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, His Excellency the Most Reverend Boncompagni-Ludovisi, accompanied by the Clerics of the Chamber, the Secretary and the Sostituto of the Apostolic Chamber, together with the Auditors of the Sacred Rota, Monsignors Eard and Janasik, as well as the Prefect of Apostolic Ceremonie, Mons. Respighi, went into the Vatican and were received in special audience by the Holy Father. They requested of the August Pontiff permission to be able to promulgate for the second time – as is prescribed – the Bull “Quod Nuper.” Obtaining the assent of His Holiness, the aforesaid Prelates went down to the Portico of the Basilica of St. Peter where already waiting were the Most Reverend Capitolo and the clergy with the text, the Vicar of the Patriarchal Basilica, His Excellency Mons. Vicentini and His Excellency Mons. Pellizzo, Economo and Secretary of the Fabbrica of St. Peter. Two pulpits had been prepared in the Portico: the two Auditors of the Rota read the Bull from them; Monsignor Eard in Italian and then Mons. Janasik in Latin. After the reading, the Pontifical Ceremonialists, Mons. Dante and Mons. Calderari, went to the other Patriarchal Basilicas of St. Paul, St. John and St. Mary Major, where they repeated the reading of the great Pontifical Document at the appointed hour. March 30, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “A Statement by the German Bishops about National Socialism” Dateline Cologne, March 29 His Eminence Cardinal Schulte, Archbishop of Cologne, published a statement of the Fulda Bishops Conference, in which the thought and attitude of the Catholic Church are expressed, following the government program reflecting the thought and attitude of National Socialism in consequence of events of recent days. Explaining the reasons for the positions previously taken with respect to National Socialism, the German Bishops, taking account of the statements of Chancellor Hitler, also as the leader of National Socialism, observed that the Chancellor himself has expressly assured that Christian doctrine will not be violated, and that the concordats concluded by the German States with the Church will remain in full effect as to all their provisions. Hence, without revoking their previous condemnations of the striking religious-moral errors, the Bishops deem that their general prohibitions and warnings are no longer necessary. The warning to political associations to avoid anything that could appear to be a party demonstration inside a church remains in effect. Apr. 1, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, April 1, 1933, page one: “The Antisemitic Campaign Sharpens” Dateline Munich, March 31, as reported: The Nazi campaign to defend against tendentious foreign propaganda will not be trimmed back under any circumstances, given that up to now the threat of a boycott has had no visible effect on those who are giving rise to such an anti-German campaign. According to statements from competent news sources, the defensive action will begin tomorrow, Saturday, at 10 a.m. Under the presidency of Reichstag deputy Julius Streicher, the central boycott committee of the Nazi Party is addressing an appeal to the population of Munich for a demonstration that will take place today on the Königsplatz. The Bavarian Interior Minister, Wagner, will open the boycott campaign. The Nazi newspaper in Berlin, the Angriff, writes about the threat of a boycott, that the last warnings have not been taken seriously by international Jewry. They still have 48 hours of time to make the smear campaign stop; if those hours pass in vain, Jewry will recognize that the Israelites’ war against Germany will strike with full force the German Israelites themselves. In Breslau, Israelite citizens had to turn in their “passports of faith” by April 3rd. After having their validity limited to domestic travel, the passports will be returned to their owners. In Kiel, the Nazi student association has addressed an open letter to the rector, stating that the students, with the beginning of the new semester, will make it impossible for Israelite students and teachers to come into the University. At the same time, they are demanding the canceling of all facilities for Israelite students. At Hindenburg the new community council has approved a resolution for the temporary suspension of orders to the aforesaid Israelites and to shops associated with them. “How the Boycott Will Occur Against Jews Even if They Are Converts” Dateline Munich, March 31 The central committee for the boycott against the Israelites published yesterday a manifesto giving instructions for the campaign. The boycott will be directed against all shops, business houses, stores and offices of owners who are members of the Israelite race, even those who have gone over to Christianity. Fixed price stores and stores owned by foreigners are excluded from the boycott. This exclusion is applied to the notable house of Woolworth, which is expressly declared in the manifesto to be “American and not Israelite.” Pickets posted in front of the boycotted shops will warn anyone who wants to shop, but will refrain from disturbing anyone with physical violence and from causing damage to goods. All Israelite shops will be indicated by posters bearing yellow spots on a black background. Boycotted businesses will not be able to lay off their employees. “In the German Nationals Camp” Dateline Berlin, March 31 Dr. Oberfohren, for many years the president of the German Nationalist faction in the Reichstag and a close collaborator of Hugenberg, has resigned his mandate. While no personal explanation has been given, it is believed however that the resignation was due to an apparent change in the direction of the party with regard to relations toward the Nazis. “The Launch of the Second Pocket Battleship” Dateline Berlin, March 31 the second German “pocket battleship” will be launched tomorrow at Wilhemshafen and will be named “Skaggerack” in memory of the famous naval battle during the Great War. It predecessor “Deutschland” was ordered built at the same time. “English Concerns over the Fate of the Israelites in Germany” Dateline London, March 31 There was discussion yesterday in both Chambers about the treatment in Germany of the Israelites. During a discussion of foreign affairs in the House of Lords, Viscount Cecil stated that many thousands of Israelites are subjects of the King and are among the most peaceful and orderly citizens in Britain. It is obvious that events in a foreign nation that have caused worry and anxiety in a large part of the British population should be a matter of interest to the government. If the government will not be able to do anything, that is another question; but will be grateful if the government will be able to give some assurance. The words of Lord Cecil were supported by Lord Ponsonby, who also recognized that the government is in a difficult position in this regard. Apr. 4, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, Apr. 3-4, 1933, page one, on the Holy Year and the German Bishops’ rationale: Banner headline: “The First Day of the Holy Year: The Faithful Crowd into the Basilica and Receive the Blessing of the Vicar of Jesus Christ” ... Headline: “After the Statements of the Fulda Conference” Dateline Munich, April 1 Concerning the news of the Fulda Bishops Conference relative to National Socialism, it has been learned that the conference itself has taken account of the following statements by Chancellor Hitler, leader of the German Government and of the Nazi Party. In the proclamation of the German Government on February 1, 1933, the following passage is contained: “The nationalist government will consider first and foremost its duty to reestablish the unity of spirit and will of our people. It will safeguard and defend the foundation on which the strength of our nation rests.” It will take under its firm protection “Christianity, as the foundation of all our morality,” the family, as “the basic cell of our body as a nation and a state.” One of the points condemned by the Bishops was precisely the one positing as the norm of morality “the sentiments of the German race” (Art. 24 of the Nazi Party program). In place of this criterion has now been substituted, fortunately, Christian morality as the only foundation of German morality. Another important statement was made by Chancellor Hitler in his programmatic speech of March 23, 1933, in the new Reichstag hall: “In order to accomplish the liberation of public life from poisons today, as to politics and morals, there is a need for religious life. The national government sees in the two Christian denominations elements for preserving our people. It will respect the accords agreed between them and the German States. It likewise expects, however, and hopes, that its work for the renewal of the customs and morals of the German people will find equal consideration also on the part of the same Christian denominations. “It will act with complete justice toward all the other religious confessions; but it cannot allow membership in one particular confession or race to signify a dispensing from general legal obligations or a granting of a privilege of impunity for crimes committed or tolerated. “In the schools there will be guaranteed and protected the right of cooperation of religious denominations.” This declaration establishes a difference between the Christian confessions and “all others” and just by the word “others” admits the possibility of a conflict, if they do not instill national discipline. Beyond respect for the Concordats, the Chancellor also assured, in the same statement, that the Reich Government attaches maximum importance to the preservation and further development of amicable relations with the Holy See. The proclamation of the Bishops could thus conclude from these assurances the results stated in the proclamation. The condemnation of doctrinal errors remains unchanged, but trust is necessarily accorded to the new solemn promises, which do not exclude diligence in their application. The exact text of the Bishops’ proclamation is the following: “For well-founded reasons the diocesan pastors of Germany have taken a contrary attitude in recent years toward the National Socialist movement, expressed in prohibitions and warnings. “Now it must be recognized that the supreme representative of the Reich, who is also the authoritative leader of that movement, has made public, solemn statements that recognize the inviolability of the teachings of the Catholic faith and the immutable tasks of the Church...” Apr. 5, 1933 Cardinal Faulhaber’s Pastoral Instructions for the Clergy, April 5, 1933: The principles of the pastoral letter are not affected by the vagaries of political life. Concerning the application of these principles, however, inquiries have been directed to the office of the Archbishop from the ranks of the pastoral clergy, since the new Reich Government has promised, in a public policy speech, to honor the rights and freedom of the Church, and these inquiries are answered comprehensively in what follows . . . 1. Masses for special occasions can only be authorized by the diocesan authorities... 2. A special mass for individual associations or assemblies inside a church or in the open can only be scheduled, therefore, if the same prerequisites are fulfilled that were previously stated for masses such as those for the army or those for large regional congresses or national Catholic congresses. Such exceptional cases have been allowed when the mass was requested for religious reasons, and the pastoral and personal relationships of the priests allowed for a perhaps unavoidable bination [celebration of mass by a priest twice on the same day]. Open-air masses therefore come into the question only when a church is physically too small and diocesan approval is obtained on a case-by-case basis. Diocesan approval must likewise be obtained whenever special masses are to be celebrated by a priest not assigned to the place. 3. The ringing of church bells on the occasion of a governmental or political ceremony may only occur upon the order, or at least permission, of the Bishop’s office. And here the responsible pastor may not allow himself to be intimidated by threats. No one may appeal to the precedent of the church bell ringing of 1919, because on that occasion, the cremation of Eisner, the ringing of bells was compelled by members of the red army by force of arms. 4. Attendance at mass in uniforms and formations may be allowed only under the following preconditions: The parade in the church may not degenerate into a disturbance of the community mass for the other members of the parish. Participants in the church parade must obviously remove their head coverings; also outside the church, when they are participating in a procession with the Eucharist, they must proceed with heads uncovered, as was required some years ago in a diocesan decree for the Bavarian Warrior League. Loud commands and forms of the parade ground must be forbidden in the church. Only that previously customary command, “To Prayer,” may be allowed at the consecration and the doxology. In all events the pastor, as the master of the house of the church, remains responsible for order in the church. 5. Bringing in flags not consecrated by the Church and not bearing religious insignia contradicts traditions that date to the pre-War period. Nevertheless the celebration of the mass should not be suspended on this account, if on the whole the conduct of the participants does not violate the dignity of the house of God, and if disturbances would be anticipated in the event of an outright refusal. For the honor guard in the Corpus Christi procession, up to now only flags consecrated by the Church have been allowed, and that shall remain the case also for the future. There can be no consideration of a consecration of political flags, according to previous decisions of the Bavarian Bishops Conference... Source: Appendix to the Munich Amtsblatt [Official Bulletin for the Clergy], no. 7 of April 13, 1933, pages 2-5, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, pp. 35-38. Note: The strict control over ringing of church bells on governmental or political occasions has significant historical context. Not only did Cardinal Faulhaber disapprove the ringing of church bells in honor of the assassinated Minister President of Bavaria in 1919, he also refused to allow ringing of bells in honor of German President Friedrich Ebert when he died in 1925, in honor of German President Paul von Hindenburg on his 80th birthday in 1927, and in honor of the Weimar Constitution on August 11th each year. April 16, 1933 Papen’s Memoirs on his audience with Pope Pius XI around Easter in 1933: After I had discussed these questions [about the Concordat] thoroughly with the Cardinal Secretary of State, I was received by Pope Pius XI. His Holiness greeted my wife and me with great fatherly kindness and with words about how happy he was to see in Hitler a personality at the summit of the German Government who had inscribed on their banner [“auf ihre Fahne geschrieben”] the uncompromising struggle [Kampf] against communism and nihilism. Note: The authorized English translation of Papen’s autobiography omits the phrase “inscribed on their banner,” using instead a paraphrase. Apr. 26, 1933 Hitler’s words to Bishop Berning at meeting in Berlin on April 26, 1933: ... I have been attacked on account of my handling of the Jewish question. For 1500 years the Catholic Church regarded the Jews as pestilent, sent them into the ghetto, etc., since the Jews were recognized for what they were. In the time of liberalism this danger was no longer recognized. I am going back to the time of what was done for 1500 long years. I do not place race over religion, rather I recognize the pestilence of the representatives of this race for State and Church, and perhaps I am rendering the greatest service to Christianity; that is the reason for their expulsion from the universities and governmental positions... Source: “Minutes by Negwers of Conference of Representatives of the Church Provinces, April 25-26, 1933,” Rottenburg Diocesan Archive, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, pp. 87, 100-101. Nuncio Orsenigo’s report of the meeting to Cardinal Pacelli, dated May 8, 1933, is reprinted in G. Sale, Hitler, la Santa Sede e gli Ebrei [Hitler, the Holy See and the Jews] (2004), pp. 362-364. June 18, 1933 Invitation to Hudal’s consecration as Bishop by Cardinal Pacelli on June 18, 1933: The Priests’ College of the Anima has the honor to inform Your Grace / Your Reverence that our Holy Father Pope Pius XI, on the 1st of June this year, deigned to appoint the right reverend Herr Rector of the Anima, Prelate Hudal, as Bishop of Ela. The High Protector of the Anima, His Eminence Lord Cardinal State Secretary Pacelli will, on Sunday the 18th of June at 8:30 a.m., perform the consecration… Source: Nachlass Faulhaber [Faulhaber Estate], File No. 1395/2, Archive of the Archdiocese of Munich. June 30, 1933 Memorandum from Cardinal Pietro Gasparri to unidentified addressee at the Vatican, June 30, 1933: So that Hitler does not declare war on the Holy See and on the Catholic hierarchy in Germany, 1. The Holy See and the Catholic hierarchy in Germany are to refrain from condemning Hitler’s party. 2. If Hitler wants the dissolution of the Catholic Center as a political party, he is to be obeyed without making a noise. 3. Catholics are free to join Hitler’s party, as the citizens of Italy are free to join the Fascist Party. 4. I believe that Hitler’s party is responding to nationalist sentiment in Germany: therefore, a political-religious struggle in Germany over Hitlerism must absolutely be avoided, especially while Eminence Pacelli is Secretary of State. Source: G. Sale, Hitler, la Santa Sede e gli Ebrei [Hitler, the Holy See and the Jews] (2004), p.380, citing Vatican Archives, AA.EE.SS., Germania, Pos. 645 P.O., fasc. 163 fo. 20r. July 20, 1933 Excerpts of the Vatican-Germany Concordat of 1933: Selection of new German Bishops by the Vatican (with opportunity for the German Government to object to a selection on political grounds) rather than by local cathedral chapters, or clerical committees. The Vatican-Germany Concordat applied to the entire Reich the change in the selection procedure for German Bishops which had already been instituted in Bavaria, Prussia and Baden pursuant to the three state-level Concordats. The Pope, rather than local cathedral chapters, would henceforth select new Bishops. The Vatican-Germany Concordat conferred on the German Government a power to object to individual Bishop selections by the Vatican, a power previously conceded to other governments, whether totalitarian (e.g., Mussolini’s Italy, 1929) or republic (e.g., Poland, 1925). Article 14(2) of the Vatican-Germany Concordat states: “Before the bull is issued for the appointment of Archbishops, Bishops, for a Coadjutor Bishop with right of succession, or for a Prelate with a physical jurisdiction, the name of the appointee will be communicated to the Reich Governor in the corresponding state and it will be ascertained that there are no objections of a general political nature.” The Supplementary Protocol to Article 14(2) states: “It is understood that when objections of a general political nature exist, they shall be presented within the shortest possible time. If no such declaration has been presented after the passage of twenty days, the Holy See will be justified in considering that no such objections to the candidate exist. Until publication of the appointment, the names of the persons in question will be kept in complete confidence. This provision does not create a governmental veto right.” Note: This translation and the following Concordat translations are made from the German version of the Concordat and the Italian version. Article 34 of the Concordat states that the German and Italian versions are equally authoritative. We have followed the general rules for treaty interpretation in such cases, which are well described in an article by Enrico Zamuner, “International Treaties Authenticated in Two or More Languages,” LexALP (“When a comparison between the authentic texts reveals a discrepancy of meaning and the divergence of interpretation still persists, the interpreter has to individuate the meaning that best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty. As a result, it is of primary importance to give preference to an interpretation that is compatible with both texts and not an interpretation that, although compatible with one of the texts, is in contradiction with the other. Consequently, a comparison of all authentic versions is necessary in order to find the meaning that reconciles all versions of the treaty.”) Defining which Catholic associations would be allowed to exist in Nazi Germany. Article 31 of the Concordat was an “agreement to agree” on which of the extensive array of Catholic associations – ranging from youth groups to spiritual and charitable groups in virtually every parish, to nationwide labor unions and professional associations, to Catholic newspapers numbered in the hundreds – would be protected: Article 31 states: Those Catholic organizations and associations which serve exclusively religious, pure-cultural and charitable purposes, and, as such, are placed under the Church authorities, will be protected in their institutions and in their activities. Those Catholic organizations which, in addition to religious, cultural and charitable purposes, also serve other purposes, such as social or professional tasks, shall, without prejudice to their eventual incorporation into State organizations, enjoy the protection of Article 31, paragraph 1, to the extent they provide a guarantee to conduct their activity outside all political parties. The identification of organizations and associations that fall within the provisions of this Article remains to be agreed jointly between the Reich Government and the German episcopate. To the extent that the Reich and the individual states take charge of athletic or other youth organizations, care will be taken that their members be enabled to regularly fulfill their religious obligations on Sundays and Holy Days, and that they not be required to do things that would not be compatible with their religious and moral convictions and obligations. Loyalty oath to be taken by Bishops at the time of their installation: The oath for Catholic Bishops in Germany required them to state as follows. “Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise, as befits a Bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and the state of _______. I swear and promise to honor the constitutionally formed government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it. With dutiful concern for the welfare and the interest of the German State, I will endeavor, in the performance of the sacred office entrusted to me, to prevent everything injurious that could threaten it.” Prohibition of political activity on the part of priests. Article 32 of the Concordat provides: “By reason of the currently existing particular circumstances in Germany, and in consideration of the guarantees created by the provisions of the foregoing Concordat for legal preservation of the rights and freedoms of the Catholic Church in the Reich and its states, the Holy See will issue instructions to exclude clergy and members of religious orders from membership in political parties and activity for such parties.” Aug. 19, 1933 Ivone Kirkpatrick’s report to the British Foreign Office, Aug. 19, 1933: ... Cardinal Pacelli equally deplored the action of the German Government at home, their persecution of the Jews, their proceedings against political opponents, the reign of terror to which the whole nation was subjected... These reflections on the iniquity of Germany led the Cardinal to explain apologetically how it was that he had signed a concordat with such people. A pistol, he said, had been pointed at his head and he had had no alternative. The German Government had offered him concessions, concessions, it must be admitted, wider than any previous German Government would have agreed to, and he had to choose between an agreement on their lines and the virtual elimination of the Catholic Church in the Reich... Source: Kirkpatrick to Vansittart, Aug. 19, 1933, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939, 2d Ser. (1956), vol. 5, pp. 524-525. Sept. 9, 1933 Confidential Promemoria of the Holy See, Sept. 9, 1933, from Cardinal Secretary of State Pacelli to the German Chargé d’Affaires, Dr. Klee, around the time of the exchange of ratification decrees for the Reich Concordat: Far be it from the Holy See to involve itself with internal German governmental affairs. It would like, nevertheless, at this moment when an amicable understanding has been established with the Reich Government by the concluding of the Concordat, to express the following request. Very many Catholic officials and employees have been dismissed from civil service and employment, according to information transmitted here, because it is feared that they were not reliable from a nationalist standpoint. This concerns particularly those who, up to the time the Nazi movement came to power, stood in opposition to it as the result of another political persuasion, and because they deemed themselves obligated as Catholics to observe, for reasons of conscience, a reserve or distance from the doctrines of Nazism. After the Herr Reich Chancellor’s declarations in March, and even more after the concluding of the Concordat, useful collaboration in the new State was thoroughly possible for them, and they were to a large extent ready for that. It is painful for the Holy See to have to see that these officials and employees, even though the obstacles to useful collaboration in the new State have fallen away, are being harmed by their rejection. On this occasion the Holy See allows itself to intercede with yet another word for those German Catholics who have themselves converted from Jewry to the Christian religion or who are descended in the first generation or more remotely from such Jews converted to the Catholic faith, and now, for reasons known to the Government, suffer likewise from societal and economic difficulties. It would contribute very much to amicable agreement between the Holy See and the Reich Government if the here-mentioned measures of recent months were re-examined and were, to the greatest extent possible, reversed or ameliorated in their burdensome effects. Source: Dieter Albrecht, ed., Der Notenwechsel Zwischen dem Heiligen Stuhl und der Deutschen Reichsregierung (1965-1980), vol. 1, pp. 396-397 (hereinafter cited as Albrecht, Note Exchange). Oct. 15, 1933 L’Osservatore Romano, page 2: “The Voice of the German Bishops After the Reich Concordat” “The Words of Cardinal Schulte, Archbishop of Cologne” Sunday, the 10th of this month, the day of youth, a pastoral letter from His Eminence Cardinal-Archbishop Schulte was read in all the churches of the Archdiocese of Cologne, on the tasks and duties of contemporary youth. “Youth,” writes the Cardinal, “always take a lively part in all that is new, bustling, strong. The country needs youth more than adults to provide the necessary work for its reconstruction and defense. Also our Master Jesus Christ spoke from the Cross to the youngest of his Apostles, John. We appropriately commemorate in this Holy Year the last moments in the earthly life of Jesus Christ. In those extreme moments, in the agony of Good Friday, youth, represented by John, was the closest to the Cross. In the present hour the Church speaks indeed first and foremost to youth, with the care and love of a mother. The new State has solemnly recognized Christianity as the religious foundation of the State. It wants to confirm in the people the religious force of faith and of Christian charity. Without doubt, the rebirth of the people and of the State will be better served than otherwise if their entire life is fed with the energy of faith. The country will thereby have the maximum yield of youth who combine German nationalist energy with Christian faith. All those who are in concord as to this goal, without distinction of groups or society, are now called to form up with the Bishops and the clergy around the Cross, ready to defend it with apostolic zeal and a spirit of sacrifice, to carry it courageously in their own life and to seek in it their own happiness in this world and the next. The new State has assured in a solemn form in the Concordat not only the existence of Catholic youth associations, but has also promised them its special protection. It knows the conserving and useful energies for the State that characterize these youth; it knows their courageous unceasing campaign against the deleterious spirit of liberal religion and of the organized atheism of Bolshevism. It knows that Catholic youth constitutes an irreplaceable guarantee of fidelity and abnegation, in service to the country, the people, and the State. The Church has received a promise from the new State; it trusts in this promise. Therefore your Bishop calls all the faithful of the Archdiocese of Cologne and exhorts all of them, clergy and laity, male and female youth, to remain in concord, in a unity of iron; to carry the force of the love of God and of neighbor into all fields of the life of the people and the State. Our Catholic youth will not let themselves be outdone by anyone in active fraternal charity, especially during the upcoming months of winter. A special word to parents and teachers: The new times impose new tasks, especially on youth. How much greater becomes the responsibility, and the more sacred the obligation of parents toward right education. Your hand, o parents, protects the sanctuary of your family. Boys and girls frequent our good Catholic associations. The State has guaranteed the defense of freedom for these associations and their fruitful work, and has also expressly and repeatedly assured that members of these shall not suffer any harm, in the school and in the State, from their membership in Catholic societies. Give, therefore, everyone, your offering for these youth societies; the offerings will serve to furnish the means to continue systematically pastoral care for youth, for the mutual benefit of Church and State. “A Speech by Mons. Groeber, Archbishop of Freiburg” ... The Concordat between the Holy See and the German State will be a surge of new life for all Catholics; the regenerative force of this agreement will be the same as what flows from the symbol of the Cross; the same roots feed the greatness and prosperity of the State, the people and the Church. Homage to the Cross has the value of an oath of fidelity to the Cross and is truly an act worthy of the Jubilee of the Redemption that we are now celebrating. It was not a long time ago that the Crucifix was mocked in a public procession on the streets of Dresden and a Mass of atheists was celebrated. Today our old God is revived and extends his arms in blessing over the people who are returning to the faith ... “Statements by Mons. Berning, Bishop of Osnabrück” ... In the Catholic Church, the principle of the authority of the leader is nothing new. It was indeed introduced into the church by its founder, Jesus Christ. The Gospel teaches us that the Holy Spirit instituted the Bishops, in order to guide and govern the Church. . . Catholics uphold the new State, not indeed for reasons of political calculation, nor fear of reprisals, nor illusions of utility, but by obligation of conscience. Also the State wants to posit Christianity as the foundation of its government and that should please us. Experience has taught us that materialism and liberalism ruin a people, and that States do not prosper if God is not with them. The Concordat, concluded between the German State and the Church, assures it of its rights and its freedom, guarantees the Catholic school and the freedom of the Catholic press. We must be grateful to the Holy Father and to our government for the gift they have given us in this agreement, directed at pacification of souls and the common good of the entire people. “Arab Agitation in Jerusalem” Dateline Jerusalem, Oct. 14 Despite the prohibition on public demonstrations, about 10,000 Arabs paraded yesterday through the streets of the city as an act of protest against the immigration of Jews in Palestine. The police filed various charges against demonstrators, also making use of nightsticks in efforts to disperse the gathering. Various persons were left injured. Finally the streets were cleared and order was restored: the Arabs remained agitated, however, by the measures taken by the authorities. “For the Protection of the Jews” Dateline Breslau, Oct. 14 A severe warning against those who molest Jews has been issued by the prefect of police in the industrial region of Silesia, adding that those who are found guilty of molesting or maltreatment against Jews will be transferred immediately to concentration camps. The statement adds that this has occurred up to now by acts of irresponsible elements, but also now the units of the SA will bring a halt to these abuses and arrest those who are guilty. Nov. 4, 1933 Civiltà Cattolica, Nov. 4, 1933, vol. 4, p.217: “Concerning the Concordat Between the Holy See and Germany” I. We do not believe the heat of general enthusiasm for Concordats is obligatory. We understand Concordats as special measures that appeared in history at the end of the Middles Ages and at the threshold of the modern era that progressively split away princes and civil governments from the Church, a schism that was the precursor and provoker of the subsequent distancing of peoples from their Princes and Governments. These Concordats, that is, marked concessions or compromises extracted from the Church by princes and governments, as from a mother afflicted by riotous and arrogant children: Concordats, in which the laicistic power of the former absolutist and royalist governments took advantage of precarious and particularly difficult circumstances to obtain the greatest temporal or political advantages, at the expense of the spiritual rights and universal interests of the Christian family. These could have seemed like a sort of humiliation for Holy Mother Church; indeed it pertained to the mother per se to dictate laws and require her children to observe them, for their own good; not indeed to give in to them or descend to their level by way of “bilateral” agreements or pacts, as they call them. But, in truth, when these come about without violence, under particular historical circumstances, out of concern for the greater common good, and are actuated by mature deliberation according to the inspiration of charity and condescension of the Church herself, this type of agreement with her children cannot be seen as a detriment or humiliation, even as these contracting parties are in a lower and subordinate spiritual order to hers; these also being bonds that are not owing, in appearance anyway, to her supreme spiritual authority; an aspect that induced many theologians, at an earlier time, to deny the propriety of strictly “bilateral” obligations in what is an essentially “contractual” act, made in the manner of agreements, considered rather as benevolent concessions. Indeed, in the historical circumstances of our times, among the successively formed and growing new types of nationalities, parties, governments, institutions and dynasties that are undermining the Christian spirit, cutting or loosening the bonds of Catholic unity, disadvantaging or overshadowing the rights and the credit or “prestige” of the Church itself and of its Pastors, Concordats, including those that are bilateral pacts, have become today a religious and social necessity. These are a necessity, we say, for the Church, which is a perfect society within its sphere, but bound to necessary relations with the State; and these relations are also necessary for the State itself, which in its sphere is likewise a perfect society and independent as to what properly pertains to it; but in other matters, i.e., those that pertain to spiritual matters, it must deal with the Church as to rights and obligations, especially if the State is not Catholic, but neutral. Concordats are not just a necessity in the way that some others consider them, as a lesser evil to the extent they remedy or prevent more or less serious violations of the rights of the Church and of the people, which would indeed have real merit, but in a rather negative way; they are also, more often, a positive good, the greatest that can be obtained under certain historical circumstances and contingencies in the Christian nations themselves. And a great good indeed, if even better could not be attained, as they make clear, by means of a proper contract under international law, totally analogous to international treaties, and thus confirming, in the view of modern society, the proper “legal status” of the Church; a condition that is certainly not created by Concordats, while they are within the ambit of divine right, but recognizing this, assuring the free exercise of the Church’s rights and obligations, at least as to what is essential to its divine mission. II. This is especially true of the many Concordats concluded in the first decades of this century, and especially after the upheaval of the world war, which forced almost everywhere a profound social reordering and thus a new and radical rearrangement of the nations. This reordering was observed by the farsighted mind of the Pontiff of peace, Benedict XV, and as the first to have made allusion to this in many allocutions, such as the strong emphasis in his Encyclical Pacem Dei, which we remember but which is too often forgotten, in which he desired to modify the old protocol for the visits of Catholic sovereigns to Rome, for the sole purpose of facilitating, after the war, mutual diplomatic contacts and negotiations for restoration and peace. Even more repeatedly and intensively, harvesting the heritage of his Predecessor, succeeded the reiging Pontiff, Pius XI. And not only did he mention this same ideal of reconciliation in the strong exhortations of his first Encyclical, Ubi Arcano, but then insisted ever more on practical and constant applications of it. Thus, despite all the difficulties, and right before our eyes, all that vast and arduous design of restoration was being actualized, which his Predecessor had already yearned for, and which had become all the more necessary and urgent in the aftermath of the war, following the sad experiences and sorrows of an ill-negotiated peace agreement. So we see, in fact, amicable relations between the Church and many States being re-established, recognizing essential rights and enabling the people to feel again the beneficial effects of spiritual restoration; in such a way, in the end, according to the phrase of the same Pontiff, that God is restored to the nations and the nations are restored to God. For what has been said about Italy was intended and sought by the Pope, without any partiality, for all peoples and nations, because He is equally the Father of all. It is indeed the rights of God and of his Church, the rights of souls and of the human person itself, the rights of the most basic society, namely marriage and the family, and those of other natural and positive institutions, religious and civil, to the extent they are in relation with the appropriate ecclesiastical legislation; all of this is, indeed, an organic system of religious jurisprudence, which the Pope governs for the common good of each of these societies, that is, for the salvation and spiritual and temporal well-being of individuals, of families and of civil interaction itself. From this, according to the selfsame diversity and multiplicity of cases and circumstances of nations and governments, there follows the breadth and variety of what is proper matter for such Concordat agreements, as well as the diversity of their nature and extent, according to whether just one aspect is being regulated, or the totality of relationships, and thus dealing with purely religious matters, or even just temporal ones, or matters more accurately called “mixed.” Yet, together with this diversity there is always the unity of goals and the commonality of concepts and the similarity of solutions, given in law and expressed in by legal formulas, as others have already well observed, almost identical but always more sharp and precise than the rigor of the written provisions. In this one must recognize the part that can be played by the noteworthy philosophical preparation and legal competence of the ministers and staff of the Pontiff, who by nature are inclined to give emphasis, quite rightly, to the original imprint of genius as well as the personal preferences of the august contracting party; an imprint and preferences that are manifest, for example, in the points of the Concordat that deal with the family and the school, with Catholic Action, with politics, and so forth. Each Concordat, therefore, is not to be considered as a solitary event, but as an act in the context of other similar ones; each has rather a rightful continuity; it is like a new link that is inserted, without interruption, into the long chain of other Concordat agreements. This series of acts - which are not merely political acts in the life, in the considerations, and in the purpose of the Church, but much more religious acts - will order and form as an integral whole, and as a corpus juris, all its questions of the present hour, like its most vital points about many religious and civil institutions; a complete legal and juridical statute, that is, of Catholicism, even in countries where it is not the State religion, but has all the more need to find an equitable order, as in so many contemporary countries and nations that have only just emerged from the abyss of war. The present series of Concordats, therefore, does not just initiate, but continues, carries out, and consolidates a recognized juridical “position” of the Church. Indeed, as such, it may well be, and has already been rightly pointed out, that this is a principal part of the more general “evolution” of contemporary institutions, which we see advancing more rapidly in the second and third decades of the century. But what is more, and better, we might add: it is a partial, if you will, and gradual but effective, penetration of the Christian spirit into secular legislation of modern society. III. Nor is this, in substance, a new event in the history of the Church: considered in its essence, as a force of Christianization not only in private and individual life, but also in social and public life, and in the highest of all manifestations of social and public life: legislative and juridical life. This is indeed a force or tendency that is inherent in the mission of the Church, and it is also, in the order of events, in the entire course of the Christian centuries, one of the most constant features of the Church itself and of the Roman Pontificate. We see it shining already in the aftermath of the cataclysm of the great persecutions, afteer the first three centuries with the advent of the first Christian emperors; and we see it in the penetration that soon occurred, of the Christian spirit into the ancient Roman laws, leding to the implicit or explicit introduction of the Church’s Canons themselves into the legal provisions of the imperial authorities, as exemplified by the Justinian Code. And even more, after the barbarian inundation that destroyed ancient Roman civilization, the Church taking up again the work of Christian civilizing, pursued it throughout the Middle Ages, procuring even more widely the introduction of its Code of Canon Law into secular legislation. Nor was this all at one stroke, or by means of violent imposition, but rather little by little, by means of sage character and necessary adaptability; preserving in this the essential immutability of principles, while following a variety of contingent applications, in conformity with the varied and changing needs of the times and of the people. Hence the agreement, and often indeed the interpenetration, of ecclesiastical jurisprudence with civil jurisprudence; and by the international nature of the Church, from which also derived the formation and then the enduring character of an international jurisprudence, which was the boast and the energy of that too often misunderstood age. In this way the relations between State and Church came to universally governed and differences resolved; thus assuring the union, without detriment to the necessary distinctions, of the two powers, in the field of law and in the theoretical order. That there still remained in the practical order too many disagreements and even frequent disputes - as there would be among men - was a deplorable evil; but there was a ready remedy in the opportunity to call upon the considerable unity as to principles, upon the “force of law,” which prevailed over the supposed “law of force.” By the light of these truths were illuminated the controversies and struggles, the reconciliations and peaces of the Middle Ages, as States recognized in law, even if they did not always honor in fact, the juridical framework and social function of the Church. Royalism and laicism, on the other hand, conspired and overshadowed, with sophisms first from Protestantism and then from naturalism and rationalism, and most of all in their crudest and most universal form in liberalism. And there appeared in great part in the modern era that witnesses the conspiracy of princes and governments against God and his Christ, and then the official apostasy of nations, with the denial of the legal recognition of the true religion and decreed separation of the State from the Church, or a supposed religious neutrality and indifference, which then results practically in a more or less moderate hostility, or even open persecution. In these historical conditions of society, Concordats represent an implicit annulment or condemnation of the dominant errors, of liberalism and laicism in particular, in that these Concordats are a solemn recognition of the Catholic religion and its social and public rights. And they are also a recognition produced by “reason of State,” or merely political interests on the part of the temporal authorities; they will always be a form of homage, even if forced, to the social power and authority of the Church; nor will the fact of a political interest be able to destroy all the moral and spiritual good that is associated with the Concordats. We do not at all say - we are preventing any exaggerated interpretation to this effect - that in the Concordats the State recognizes the truth of the Cathoic Church per se; just as it is likewise obvious that the Holy See per se says nothing about the proper merit of the State with it concludes a Concordat, nor about its theoretical principles nor about its practical methods of governing or the like; far less does it approve it in any way at all, as has been explicitly adverted to in the case of the Concordat with the German Reich. IV. These may seem, more than one, elementary and obvious truths, and we do not deny that. Nor was it necessary, certainly, to draw out a recollection of them, had we not only found them forgotten or debated, but also strangely obfuscated and distorted by many, even among Catholics, who were motivated by prejudice or political passions, nationalistic or partisan, concerning recent Concordats, and especially the one concluded with Germany. It is painful to recall what has been said and written, and is still being whispered, even by those who profess to be Catholics; which makes the discussion even more annoying. (footnote: A full response to the opposition in the French press in particular has been given by our valorous confrère Yves de la Brière, in Etudes of September 5, 1933, with an erudite and limpid article (pp. 600-614) about the preliminaries and enactment of the Concordat.) Therefore, instead of insisting, we repeat, on what has been too often forgotten: it is a matter of the basic doctrine and tradition of the Church that the reigning Pontiff has just followed and applied in the Church’s relations with civil States, whether in particular agreements and conventions, Concordat treaties or pacts, or the like. And this one, as we have outlined above, with its great consistency, felicity and constancy, as it appears to us, this is one of the most beautiful glories of the present Pontificate: a reaffirmation of its sovereignty and supreme spiritual authority. There are already more than a dozen such Agreements signed by him, in addition to particular issues such as the two agreements concluded with Portugal in 1928 and 1929, concerning the Dioceses of Meliapur, and the double accord with France in 1926, concerning the controvery over the liturgical honors pertaining to the representatives of France in mission countries, already established or proposed as French protectorates; others much more general and important, such as those that govern in full or in part the relations of States with the Church, of which our readers have found succinct but sufficient summaries in our periodical, corresponding to the dates of their publication, and the authentic text in the official compilation of the Holy See (Acta Apostolicae Sedis). (footnote: See also, for an opportune compilation and chronological list, La Documentation Catholique, no. 653 of April 8, 1933, Paris, 5 Rue Bayard.) The first, signed on May 30, 1922, was the Concordat with the new republic of Latvia; then in the next year the Concordat signed Bavaria on March 29th and ratified the following January. then came, in 1925, the Concordat with Poland, signed February 10th and rtified June 2nd; with Lithuania in 1927, signed September 27th and ratified December 10th; with Czechoslovakia under the form of a Modus Vivendi, accepted February 2, 1928; with Italy under the name of the Lateran Agreements, which comprised the Treaty and the Concordat, for not only the resolution of the Roman Question, but for everyone a new social restoration; with Romania, signed May 10, 1927 and ratified September 7, 1929, which was followed by an agreement that determined the interpretation of article IX of the same concordat, signed on May 30, 1932; finally those concerning German-speaking States: Austria in 1933 (June 5), Baden in 1932 (October 12), Prussia in 1929 (June 14), and then followed, as the fulfillment and crown, the Concordat mentioned above with the German Reich, signed July 20th and ratified September 10th. The latter Concordat more than the others, as we have outlined, has encountered objections, and we could also say “misunderstandings,” on the part of many, even Catholics. But it has equally inspired great admiration and encomiums, even from non-Catholics, together with manifold comments of publicists and jurists of various schools of opinion that debate in today’s juridical field. Nonetheless everyone, even adversaries, is unanimous in recognizing the extraordinary importance of the Concordat. This can be seen, for example, in the whole chorus of German journalists, Catholic and Protestant. (footnote: Cf. Weekly Review of the Foreign Press, rome, August 24, 1933, pp. 33-34. But see especially the many extensive excerpts and copious quotations in the commentaries of the press, not only German press, in Documentation Catholique, special edition, October 7, 1933, 15th year, volume 30, no. 672.) Some of them hope, as a result, “for a general reconciliation of souls and the elimination of all unnecessary conflicts”; others exalt its special importance in domestic politics, as in foreign politics, as “extraordinarily great”; the first for the domestic development of the new Reich and for the internal coordination and incorporation of German Catholics into the new State system; the other for the moral effects, indeed highly beneficial, against the difficulties that have been accumulating in international relations and international conferences against the new German Reich concerning its “interstate” order. Others note, emphatically but rightly, that “the Concordat creates - ... and Others note its historical importance, in that “for the first time in the modern era, the relations between the German Empire and the universal Roman Church are governed by a lasting formula, and the boundaries that separate our State and the greatest spiritual power are neatly defined.” Finally, not to go on at great length, there is a general recognition that “the Concordat will be of benefit at the same time to the Church and to the State, to Religion and to the Nation.” For good reason, therefore, our German confrère (footnote: Ivo Zeiger, S.J., Das Reichskonkordat, in the periodical Stimmen der Zeit, October 1933, p.1) affirms that “the Concordat was welcomed by the German public with a unanimity of agreement that is not easy to find in other similar events.” And to this can well be attributed, he adds, the eager commitment with which the new government undertook to gain popularity and favor for its public provisions; but even better evidence that this is “such a great thing” is furnished by the ability of this Concordat to attract to itself the admiration even of adversaries. The two powers, surmounting many prejudices and difficulties, were in fact in agreement with each other to initiate a new and profound social re-ordering with such a legislative work that bears in itself the noble imprint of its origins and its authors; the clarity and legal sagacity of a legislator of the people, breadth of thinking and Roman patience on the one hand, and on the other sound Germanic realism and a new daring ideal for the nation. In this encounter of the two powers, ecclesiastical and secular, it is not entirely the case that the religious ideal of the great Ivo of Chartres is coming true: “what good prevails in the world when the kingdom and the priesthood stand in agreement between themselves.” But at least a program of concord is being started on its way which indeed Leo XIII in his Encyclical Immortale Dei wanted to carry out forcefully by his then-questioned but actually perspicacious and not merely political conduct towards the German Empire, which was then under the dictatorship of Bismarck, indeed the fierce enemy of Catholicism and the author of the notable persecution mitigated under color of civilization, the famous Kulturkampf. Now here it has been exactly an interval of 30 years - precisely on the 20th of July, the thirtieth anniversary of the death of Leo XIII - that the first signature was placed on this Concordat, in which the entire substance of his teaching and program were revived, as our confrère well observes. A coincidence, not planned, we believe, but thus all the more significant. VI. But however noteworthy these considerations may seem, the preparatory and drafting steps of the Concordat are only of secondary consequence. What is primary is the national re-organization, from a religious perspective especially, as well as the social restoration, which is most urgent since the worldwide upheaval of these past two decades and the fearsome advance of the Bolshevik and Communist tempest, which already broke upon Germany, threatening European Christian civilization itself with the peril of a new barbarism. To this peril of Bolshevism the German Chancellor himself alluded rightly, in his forceful speech broadcast recently (October 14) to the entire German people in an hour of great trepidation for the new Reich, pulling out of the League of Nations at Geneva: “A long-civilized people like ours,” Hitler proclaimed, “found ourselves, with more than six million Communists, on the brink of catastrophe; if the Red revolution had passed over Germany, the civilized countries of the western world would absolutely not have looked with indifference upon outposts of the Asiatic Empire on the Rhine and the North Sea, instead of farmers and German pacifist workers.” The conclusion is not denied even by those who deplore the abuses and reminders of this as in other revolutions; certainly it was recognized in the face of the horde of the invading “Godless ones” by the impartial judgment of the visible Head of the Catholic Church. And thus the Holy Father also not only believed it was lawful in itself, but obligatory to carry out in the best way possible, announcing even with all Catholic forces, for the same essential purpose of social salvation; and so he condescended to conclude agreements with the constituted authorities of the new Republic. In this, the reigning Pontiff certainly gave proof of his generous loyalty; he who receives reproofs from adversaries suspicious of Germany and of its new regime. But wrongly; and while little bits of it might come true in the future, no sane man, no man of State or Government, would hold him guilty. Well did he rely, and with good reason, on that sense of loyalty and honor that everyone must assume in civil relations, and much more in those of public international law: the sense that Hitler himself, in his speech mentioned above, had to proclaim in front of the world, with the vigorous protest that “the world can only be interested in negotiating with men of honor, but it must also take account of the sense of honor of such a Regime,” that is his own, the renewed German Republic. And this is exactly what the reigning Pontiff has done in the present Concordat with the German Reich, in this respect consideration has been given to the Concordat itself: as a full and fair program of religious reconciliation and restoration; thus also in order with, and in relation with, the other Concordats already concluded, namely those above-mentioned with the three German states, Baden, Bavaria and above all Prussia; of which this is meant to be, as we already mentioned, a synthesis, and in part a fulfillment. And it must also be considered as a well-understood code of ecclesiastical legislation, which can be applied to a mostly Protestant nation, with these Protestants divided into innumerable sects, enemies to each other, and agreed in being adversaries of the one true Church, the Catholic Church. But of this more presently, with a view to the individual articles of the Concordat, in our next issue. Nov. 18, 1933 Civiltà Cattolica, Nov. 18, 1933, vol. 4, p.331: “The Concordat of the Holy See with Germany” I. It is a unique event, more than extraordinary, in the history of the last four centuries since the explosion of the Protestant heresy and the resulting division of Christian Europe, as we noted in the preceding issue, that there is now a formal and solemn Concordat between the Government of the majority-Protestant German Reich and the Holy See. But its inestimable importance derives not so much from the event itself as from its expanse and circumstances: not so much from the Concordat as from the close concord between the Holy See and Germany, from the scope and totality of the questions embraced in this concord. And now we are recalling indeed the distinction that we already outlined in our previous article: between Concordats concerning particular matters of controversy between Church and State, and those that rather settle the totality of relations between the two powers, religious and civil. These latter have been the object of our study (footnote: Civiltà Cattolica 1933, vol. IV, pp. 217-229), because they provide the occasion for a fundamental law and a sort of general “map” for the State in all religious questions and in all the actually mixed civil-religious questions. As to what this is, and how it should be evaluated above all other considerations, the Concordat of the Holy See with the German Reich appears to have already been explained as to extrinsic matters as well as the many testimonies we outlined. But even better results should follow here from an examination of the document itself, in its content and its tone. About this, we have already spoken of a religious and civil “program of reconciliation and restoration” in Germany. To that we now add that this is a most opportune and eloquent example for other civilized nations that find themselves in similar straits as they strive for a sound reordering of their internal state and at the same time dependable protection against external threats, such as those of modern Communism or Bolshevism, which are indeed raging in our era, and which are threatening the very life of Europe and the civilized world. This would require a lengthy juridical study, which the topic certainly deserves, but this is not the place: it is enough to took at the individual articles of the Concordat, as promised at the end of the preceding article. And from these it appears, in light of the status accorded to the Catholic Church and her sons by the State of a country that is majority Protestant, that it will be all the more obvious that the objections raised against the Concordat are groundless, as we will discuss presently. What we say also supports the hypothesis, which is not far-fetched, that fears may come to fulfillment in the practical order, concerning speculative possibilities that are encouraged and expressed today from many quarters, about the future observance of the current provisions. However, just as an abuse does not have the effect of eliminating a right, so, and much more, the violation of a law does not have the effect of rendering the law itself invalid or inapplicable, nor can it invalidate juridical and moral norms in the social life of a people. Consequently the juridical status of the Church and the legal recognition of the essential rights of its pastors and the faithful in the midst of a majority non-Catholic people remain safeguarded under all possible contingencies by means of the Concordat; these are underway in fact and are well founded in law, even if the desired religious reconciliation has not yet been fully realized in practice. II. We find the cornerstones of this reconciliation in the first articles of the Concordat (1-4), which show us precisely the concept and the general foundation of the agreement as a statutory law of the Church in Germany. The German Reich there guarantees in fact the liberty of preaching and public exercise of the Catholic Religion, and recognizes the right of the Catholic Church itself, consistent with the laws generally in effect, to freely regulate and administer is own affairs and to promulgate laws and ordinances that bind its members, withing the sphere of its competence (article 1). And this guarantee and recognition, properly considered, is no small matter for the development of Catholic life in a majority Protestant country. The Concordats previously concluded with three German States already mentioned - Baden, Bavaria, Prussia - remain in effect; whereby the rights and the liberty of the Catholic Church remain unchanged in these States; in the other States, from now on, the provisions agreed in the present Concordat will apply completely; while in the three aforesaid States they are binding to the extent they cover matter not treated in the previous Concordats or provide a desirable complement to the system of rules already established (article 2). The diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the German Reich are thereby confirmed, consisting of an Apostolic Nunciature located in the capital of the German Reich, and a German Reich Ambassador to the Holy See (article 3). Then in the “final protocol,” which “forms an integral part of the selfsame Concordat,” it is added that, in conformity with previous agreements (of March 11 and 27, 1930), the Apostolic Nuncio to the German Reich is the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps accredited there: this is an international norm, it is true, but it did not come into effect, or was not accepted so formally in the past, except in Catholic States, for which it was recognized also by the Congress of Vienna, by the Act of June 9, 1815. Equally guaranteed to the Holy See is full liberty of communication and correspondence with Bishops, with clergy and with those that belong to the Catholic Church in Germany. And the same liberty is similarly accorded for Bishops and other Diocesan Authorities in their communicatoins with the faithful, concerning all that pertains to their pastoral ministry (article 4). These four articles thus contain everything essential that establishes the rights and guarantees the exercise of the necessary dignity and independence of the Church. In this manner the last provisions (of article 4) break off the old shackles of of the royal exequatur and placet rights [to approve papal pronouncements or block their implementation within the realm], which were often like a noose in the despotic hands of former absolutist or regalist governments to the detriment of ecclesiastical liberty. Actually, this was already included in the Weimar Constitution, article 137 of which aims to end the purported placet right of the government; and while this may be stated less explicitly, it is completely consistent with the substance of article 2 of the Italian Concordat, which provides for the formal abolition of the placet. But the newly-imposed suppression of the placet by the cited article of the present German Concordat adds to what was included in the Weimar Constitution adds a new and more solemn guarantee by contract, independent of the Weimar Constitution as well as following the example of other States. And the same has to be said about the stipulation that is indeed contained in the first article, concerning the Church’s right of autonomy. It repeats in fact, in similar terms, the same provision from the Weimar Constitution (article 137): “Each Church orders and administers its own affairs autonomously within the limits of generally applicable laws”: but reinforces that provision and applies it with the new obligatory strength of a bilateral agreement: no longer just an internal Constitution, but rather an agreement under international law, similar to the international treaties, according to the particular nature of Concordats between the Holy See and civil States, as we have explained elsewhere. There is no need to demonstrate how advantageous, therefore, these juridical conditions are for the Catholic Church, for its Pastors and its faithful, over the preceding conditions - though simultaneously supported and restricted by the limits of “the generally applicable laws” rather than by the divine dignity proper to the constitution of the Church - for the spirit of the Concordat itself and its intrinsic validity do not depend on feared contingencies or passing developments as to its observance in the order of events. But these matters are clarified and confirmed by the subsequent provisions, which we will see faithfully covered here, most often by means of the words themselves from the official document. III. In accordance with the cited fundamental articles, the entire legal circumstances of the clergy are regulated in general, along with the organization and circumstances of the Catholic Church itself, no less than the circumstances of the diocesan clergy, and thus the religious Orders and Congregations, the property of diocesan and religious order clergy, as ecclesiastical patrimony, and of the Church’s own ministry, especially that related to teaching. First and foremost, ecclesiastics are promised, in the exercise of their priestly activity, the same State protection that is given to State officials themselves, so as to prohibit, as a norm of general State law, offenses against their persons and against their dignity as ecclesiastics, as well as any disturbance of their ministry. This is not simply a matter of protection under generally applicable law, as appears in the Bavarian Concordat, but a special application of the sanctions set forth in the German Code for those who resist officials of the State (article 5). Also, ecclesiastics are exempted from obligations to assume public offices and duties, which according to the norms of Canon Law are incompatible with the ecclesiastical and religious state, especially in the Offices of taxation and financial tribunals (article 6). Indeed they are forbidden to take any assignment or office from the State or from public entities dependent on the State without the permission of their Bishop, which can always be revoked for serious reasons of ecclesiastical interests (article 7). And both of these provisions are of course consistent with Canon 139 of the Code of Canon Law, to which we alluded; but more generally they are comparable to those in article 5 of the Italian Concordat. The revenue of the clergy, which they enjoy by reason of their office, is given an exemption from distraint in the same measure as the pay and allowances of the employees of the Reich and the States (Article 8). Exemption is also updated for ecclesiastics from any questioning, even by magistrates and other authorities, about information and matters that have been confided to them in their exercise of pastoral care (article 9); this exemption already having been recognized in the German Code of Civil Procedure. In a similar manner the unauthorized wearing of ecclesiastical or religious order garb is punishable in the same way as that of military uniforms (article 10); as already covered under the Penal Code of the German Reich (article 360). Let us proceed to the particular provisions about the organization and boundaries of the Catholic Church in Germany: the present organization and boundaries of the dioceses are preserved; changes that may appear necessary in the future are reserved to agreements with the competent Government of the respective State, together with the Reich Government if the changes go beyond the confines of a particular German State. And in the case of changes in the territorial structure of the German Reich, no re-ordering of the diocesan organization and boundaries shall be done before the Reich Government is consulted and is in agreement with the Holy See (article 11)... For each nomination to a Bishopric, notification of the name of the selected person is given to the Reich Lieutenant, to ascertain if there are any objections to the nominee of a general political nature (article 14). This last point, a very delicate one - which is found in other Concordats, as has been noted - is now more explicitly clarified in the “final protocol”: it does not mean a veto right for the State, but simply a process for presenting political objections, as to which the Holy See remains entitled to make the final judgment; and if such objections are not communicated within the space of twenty days, the Holy See will be entitled to conclude that there are none. Similarly inspired by the amicable spirit of concord are all the subsequent provisions concerning religious Orders and Congregations, allowed by the State without being subjected to any special restrictions, whether as to foundations, residences, the number and character of the religious order members, whether concerning their activities of pastoral care, of teaching, of aid to the sick and of other works of charity, of the regulation of their affairs and of the administration of their property; except for the provision that religious order superiors residing in the German Reich must have German citizenship; but other superiors including foreign citizens have the right to visit their houses situated in Germany. The Holy See alone will see to it that religious houses existing in the territory of the Reich are not, so far as possible, subject to foreign provincial superiors, save for possible exceptions with the agreement of the Reich Government (article 15). IV. Then comes a notable concession by the Church: this is article 16 regarding the oath that Bishops will swear before taking possession of their Dioceses, administered by the Reich Lieutenant for the State concerned, or by the Reich President himself. But the formula of the oath of loyalty, similar to those in other recent Concordats, especially those with Italy and Poland, excludes all danger or uncertainty about the limits of the obligations undertaken. The limits, that is, are already implicit and sufficiently included in the nature of the act itself, originating in the explicit meaning of these words: “as befits a Catholic Bishop.” This is a comprehensive formula that says it all. Very significant for our times, moreover, are the two subsequent articles about the ecclesiastical patrimony, which guarantee, as a norm of the general law of the State, the property and other rights of entities under public law, including the goods of institutions, foundations and associations of the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted to demolish a building dedicated to worship without the agreement of the competent ecclesiastical authorities (Art. 17), and it is likewise prohibited to discontinue services provided by the State to the Catholic Church, founded on laws, conventions or special juridical statutes, except by amicable agreement between the Holy See and the Reich, and including appropriate compensation as to provision of services by right to those currently served by the State (article 18). But by far the most important are the subsequent articles (19-25) that cover at least the essential points of the entire legal status of Catholic teaching at all levels. And when these articles are observed, they will ensure in the future a good state of school legislation for the Catholics of Germany; if not completely ideal and perfect, certainly much better than in other European countries, including Catholic ones such as France, not to speak of those in which religious war rages more openly, as in Spain. First and foremost, the faculties of Catholic theology in the State universities are preserved; they are duly governed and guaranteed in conjunction with the ecclesiastical authorities, and secured with the uniform practice for all (Article 19); finally constituted as a “fundamental rule” in the recent Apostolic Constitution “Deus Scientiarum Dominus” of May 24, 1931, and the subsequent Instruction of Jully 7, 1932, as is provided in the “final protocol” addendum. Also recognized is the Church’s right to erect, for the formation of clergy, its own schools of theology and philosophy, dependent exclusively upon the ecclesiastical authorities, who have sole discretion as to the erection, direction and management of ecclesiastical Seminaries and Convents (article 20). And the above-mentioned “final protocol” adds that such Convents, alongside high schools and gymnasiums, are recognized, with regard to taxes, as essential institutions of the Church and constituent parts of the organization of the diocese. The teaching of the Catholic religion is estblished in the elementary schools and in the professional, middle and high schools, as part of the regular curriculum, and will have to be imparted in conformity with the principles of the Catholic Church and with special care, in the teachings, to educate students in a consciousness of their patriotic, civic and social obligations, according to the maxims of the faith and of Christian moral law; the program and the selection of textbooks will be determined in agreement with the higher ecclesiastical authorities, who are given the role of supervising, in agreement with the school authorities, the conformity of this religious instruction with the doctrines and needs of the Church (article 21). Hiring of Catholic religion teachers will occur by mutual understanding between the Bishops and the Governments of the particular States, thus excluding those teachers that the Bishop will have declared unsuitable by reason of their doctrine or moral conduct, for as long as such impediment lasts (article 22). Moreover, conditions prevailing already in almost all of Germany are confirmed as to denominational State schools, with the additional guarantee, which was lacking, for the erection of new denominational Catholic schools, which will be built by the State itself in all communities where the families so request and where the number of students is sufficient for a regular course of studies (article 24). In these schools, then, only Catholic teachers suitable to the purpose will be employed, and for their training there will have to be special institutes within the framework of general professional teacher training institutes, in order to meet the particular needs of Catholic denominational schools (article 24). And further, in the “protocol” addendum, it is formally declared that for the new organization of teacher training schools, there will be private institutions meeting the other requirements of the State for the training of male and female teachers, and there will be a recognition of the proper respect due also to the existing institutions of the Religious Orders and Congregations. With this is accomplished a great step for the just liberty of education, as against the former monopoly of liberalism and laicism in the schools, which prevails to this day for example in the French legislation, despite the mitigations of the Falloux law with some rights recognized for private schools. Nor can it be said that unjust pretensions of Hitlerism are involved here, as some have written, in the provision about taking care to “educate students in a consciousness of their patriotic, civil and religious obligations”; because this too is a proper subject of Catholic pedagogy, and the Church is well pleased, on all occasions, to give place to the civil power. May this always be met with a reciprocal loyalty! V. The article on marriage (article 26) contains a lesser fullness of concessions [to the Church], while leaving better hope for the future, in the form of a proviso that the steps of the present agreement are without prejudice to a further and fuller regulation of the questions of marriage law, in order to reconcile civil law completely with Canon Law. For now, the agreement is limited to providing that a religious marriage can be celebrated before the civil act, besides the case of terminal illness of one of the spouses, as well as cases of serious moral necessity, the existence of which is to be identified by the competent authority of the Bishop. And “serious necessity” means, moreover, a difficulty that is insurmountable or not removable without excessive inconvenience, and that prevents the procuring of the necessary documents in time for the celebration of the marriage. It remains the obligation of the Catholic parish priest, however, to inform the state registry office forthwith, and this is something quite reasonable and also necessary for good governance as well as for the mutual understanding of the parties. Very opportune and in no need of clarification are the subsequent provisions (article 27) regarding the spiritual care of the army and the Military Ordinariate, which are quite similar, though not an exact copy of what has been established for Italy; but all the more significant for a country where Catholics are in the minority. Not only is pastoral care provided for Catholic soldiers, officers, functionaries, and their families, but it is regulated and directed as a whole by its own military Bishop, whose appointment will be made ​​by the Holy See after communication with the Reich Government for the designation of the appropriate person. He will be entitled then to appoint military pastors and other military clergy who have first obtained the permission of their diocesan Bishop and the corresponding certificate of suitability, after having heard from the competent authorities of the Reich. Finally, there is a promise that precise standards for a set of rules governing Catholic spiritual assistance in the Army will be issued with an Apostolic Letter, where the regulation of the circumstances particular to military chaplains, as officials of the State, will be set forth by the Reich Government. The provisions about the organization of religious assistance in hospitals, penitentiaries and other establishments that are public entities, i.e., dependent on the State (article 28) appear less precise to us. It is set forth there explicitly, however, that the Church will be admitted into the framework of the general schedule of the institutions to provide for the spiritual needs of souls and to carry out religious functions, and that the regular spiritual assistance and the hiring of clergy for such purposes shall be done in accord with the higher ecclesiastical Authorities. An issue particular to Germany is that which concerns non-German ethnic minorities, governed by article 29. Catholics belonging to such minorities will receive, for the use of their native language in worship, in religious education and in ecclesiastical associations, treatment no less favorable than that which corresponds to the circumstances in law and fact for citizens of German origin and language in the territory of the respective foreign state. Then, in the “final protocol” addendum, the Holy See also declares that, in conformity with principles it always defends concerning the right to use the mother tongue in pastoral care and in the religious life of Catholic organizations, it will procure, upon entering into future concordat agreements with other states, a mandatory equivalent provision for the protection of the rights of German minorities. These declarations and dispositions of one side and the other, which undoubtedly have a great intrinsic importance, as they should have a particular efficacy for the future international protection of the rights of ethnic minorities in various States. VI. Without difficulty we then find (in article 30) the provisions, concerning finally the main religious services of Sundays and designated feast days, the provisions that set forth the liturgical prayer for the well-being of the Reich and the German people: whose substance is in complete conformity with ancient traditions, doctrines and liturgical usages of the Church. And did not the prince of the Apostles prescribe prayer even for the pagan States and their governors, even in the first century of persecutions? Nor was this just some sort of recommendation, it was policy! Some difficulty, however, comes to mind concerning the practical order at least, in the two subsequent articles, with their concordat provisions or legal status as to Catholic Action. Certainly protection is promised and assured for Catholic organizations and associations that have exclusively religious, cultural and charitable purposes, or those of Christian beneficence, and which are under ecclesiastical Authority: the others, or those that have other purposes as well, including social and professional ones, are only to be given security to the extent they conduct their activities apart from any political party; and there is a commitment to draw up a list of the protected groups in agreement with the Reich Government and the German Bishops. They will also then be able to be incorporated into unions of the State that have a similar social or vocational purpose. With regard to youth organizations, supported by the Reich or the individual States, care shall be taken to enable their members to fulfill their religious obligations on Sundays and holy days, and not to force them to do things that are incompatible with their faith and with their religious and moral obligations (article 31). And these principles, as the “final protocol” adds, apply also for organizations of obligatory work, which shall therefore not be incompatible with obligations, for example, to observe the holy days. Finally, in light of the current particular circumstances of Germany and the corresponding guarantees in the provisions of the current Concordat for legislation protecting the rights and the liberty of the Catholic Church in the Reich and in its States, the Holy See promises to take measures that exclude priests and religious from membership and activity in favor of political parties. This last provision is certainly serious as it appears to restrict the range of civil rights belonging to priests and religious considered as citizens under laws applying equally to all; but it is quite obviously justified by the particular circumstances of the German Empire, be it for the convenient protection that the current provisions introduced by the Concordat assure us for the rights and the liberty of the Catholic Church: protection that priests and religious must have before all else in their civil and religious conduct. But this, as we are told in the final addendum, will not restrict only the Catholic clergy in regard to abstention from political militancy, but will also be imposed on the ministers of other, non-Catholic denominations with the same provisions about partisan political activity. And finally it is explicitly declared that the abstention from militant political activity itself, or partisan activity, does not mean restriction of any sort in teaching and public preaching, which is the obligation of priests and religious, as to the doctrines and maxims of the Church, not only dogmatic but also moral. Thus the abstention is quite reasonable and healthy, particularly under the present circumstances, and it is an abstention from partisan politics, so-called militancy, not actually from that which is an aspect of lawful justice, be it a matter of cooperating in the common good, applying and promoting genuine Christian morality, that is, in social and public life itself; for this type of politics is the essential obligation of citizenship; nor is it being renounced. A final epilogue, and the most comprehensive, we find in the penultimate article, as regards comprehensively all the matters that concern ecclesiastical persons and things which are not treated in the preceding articles; and with this generic comprehensiveness of understanding, we are promised that all of it in the ecclesiastical field will be governed according to the Canon Law currently in effect, and if in the future any disagreements arise as to the interpretation and application of the present Concordat, the Holy See and the German Reich will proceed by common understanding to reach an amicable solution (article 32). Such comprehensiveness, we say, should assure well into the future the consistency of civil legislation with applicable ecclesiastical legislation, and thus the application in future Concordat provisions of the Code of Canon Law in all its fullness, according to the provisions of the present Concordat. And of that there is already a good sign in the accomplished ratification and thus the entry into force of the Concordat itself, as anticipated by the final article (article 34), in spite of all the difficulties that have arisen, and confirmed, as we have already said, with the exchange of the instruments ratifying it on September 10. VII. Thus German Catholics had good reason to celebrate the extraordinary event, and to celebrate it indeed with religious ceremonies of thanksgiving, arranged in all the dioceses of Germany, and with the greatest crowds of people. The Catholic people, more than the politicians, so yearn for the new era promised for religion in Germany, and thus also for domestic peace and unity, no less than for the external prosperity of the nation. There was no actual reason, but only rather a pretext motivated by non-diverse considerations, for journalists of other rival nations, and even Catholic writers, to deplore and criticize the Concordat, especially in France. Thus an issue of the Temps (August 31st) came to perceive a canonization of Hitlerism, with a whole series of dogmatic errors and moral travesties, which it enumerated, such as to make them clamor for the extreme remedy of an ecumenical council. This outcry brings too much “anxiety,” but still more sorrow for the lack of basic catechetical, historical and juridical understanding that it signifies! And such a lack, or ignorance, is a strange thing to find in any journalist, but especially in one who professes the Catholic faith. A Frenchman should certainly remember the example of other Concordats that turned out advantageous for the nation, but far less favorable to religion, like that of Pius VII, on the morrow of the bloody and ungodly revolution. It made the monarchical party indignant for giving an appearance of weakness towards the “satanic” arrogance of revolutionary idolatry. But the monarchists were wrong, despite the “organic articles” that proceeded to disclose the hypocrisy of the men of the revolution who were attenuating or withdrawing the concessions. On the contrary, as the mild-mannered Pontiff, far from approving, with his condescending Convention, the doctrinal errors and the moral excesses of the Jacobin revolution and the Napoleonic dictatorship, set up a powerful bulwark at least, if not a complete refuge, according to the possibilities of the time. Less excusable than the old monarchists are the modern French critics, even if sincere, like the two writers in the Correspondant (September 10 and October 10, 1933): one of whom insists on scrutinizing “the Catholic perspective and the future of the Concordat” from so far away; the other, the dangers of failure and the probability of violation of the Concordat itself, to the detriment of Catholics and of religion in Hitler’s Germany. Unfortunately we cannot deny the foundation of their fears, at least not now; but we deny the merit of the reasoning they use to deduce illogically the lack of utility or worse, the harmfulness, of the Concordat. And on this point alone we have insisted, without “optimistic” illusions, up to the first echo that the current discussions caused to arrive here, and to the response, historically and legally incontestible, there could be no reply. However, we now conclude, to be brief, with our confrère from France, after recalling the noted objections, how “we believe that the Holy See has considered the matter more and better than anyone else, but may have equally good reasons that are firm and wise and weighty to pass over a concern, for the purpose of a great good.” For the purpose of this good it is therefore the obligation, for every honest citizen, and more so for every Catholic, to cooperate with all their energy, promoting better understanding along with the application of the terms and laws of the Concordat, without which the simple promulgation of a new legal statute would certainly not be a great thing. And we have said “new” not because all the ecclesiastical rights and liberties that it recognizes were given to the Church for the first time in Germany: those, as we well know, were for the most part recognized in other Concordats made with the various provinces or individual States (Länderkonkordate), as was mentioned above; but because a new and more solemn recognition was added to the former juridical status - on the schools question, for example, the rights of Church organizations, etc. - thus new force and range throughout the German Reich, and with this, hope is established for the future, if the rulers are not lacking in a sense of good faith and integrity, which must be assumed in all honest contracting parties, and much more in the men of the German Government, who are well aware of the terrible “present hour.” Nor should one vainly skip by the “great hour” that is passing, for we can truly call it “a historical and providential hour” for Germany. But why not also add: for Christian Europe and for all the civilized world? Nov. 24, 1933 Bishop Bornewasser of Trier, Germany to Cardinal Bertram, Prince-Archbishop of Breslau, Germany and Chairman of the German (Fulda) Bishops Conference, Nov. 24, 1933: Your Eminence, Reverend Lord Archbishop, Upon my return from Rome, where I had gone on account of Saar District matters, I received Your Eminence’s letter. In response to this letter, I can say the following: A letter from von Papen to Bishop Gröber [of Freiburg, Germany] arrived in Rome on Friday of last week. In this letter von Papen expresses his desire that we bishops take the initiative to lead our young people into the Hitler Youth. The Bishops of Cologne, Rottenburg, and Trier, who were in Rome at the time, heard from Kaas about this letter. All three of us spoke up strongly against Papen’s request. Cardinal Pacelli was immediately informed by Kaas of the letter, which Archbishop Gröber had faithfully sent to Rome without yet having taken any kind of step. Cardinal Pacelli had Kaas inform Archbishop Gröber by telephone that this had to do with a Causa major [Stasiewski, ed., footnote: referring to Canon Law section 220*), which could only be handled between Rome and Berlin. *Note: The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1909 describes “causa major” as “one of those important matters in which the bishop possesses no authority whatever and which the pope reserves exclusively to himself.” A. Van Hove, “Diocese” Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 5, republished and available online. Source: Trier Bishop’s archives, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, p.463. Archbishop Gröber to Cardinal Bertram, Nov. 24, 1933 Your Eminence, Reverend Lord Archbishop, Concerning your esteemed letter of November 22, 1933, I am responding to your position as follows: 1. It is entirely unknown to me that four German Bishops have agreed to the dissolution of Catholic organizations ... 3. I have been informed from Rome by telephone that no negotiations may be conducted by the German Bishops on this matter, because it is a question of a Concordat issue, which concerns solely the Holy See and the German Government. For me that settles the whole matter. At the same time I emphasize that this is a question that involves not only the Catholic associations but the entire Catholic youth. I personally have no opinion on the matter, but I can understand if particular Bishops discuss not only the reasons contra dissolution but also pro. Once Rome has spoken, however, the issue no longer rests with us... Source: Freiburg Archbishop’s archives, Nachlass Gröber, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, p.865. Note: The ability of Fr. Kaas to give orders to German Bishops in the name of Cardinal Pacelli and to have those orders accepted unquestioningly, as seen in Bishop Bornewasser’s letter to Cardinal Bertram above, was related to Kaas’s long-term work with Nuncio Pacelli in Germany and their long-term friendship. As seen in the following letter, Kaas let on to at least one German Bishop that he was on a first-name basis with Cardinal Pacelli: Ludwig Kaas to Conrad Gröber, Archbishop of Freiburg, Germany, from Rome, Dec. 21, 1933: Dear Friend! Heartiest thanks for your good reports. Also for the letter about the German student group, etc. Albert’s [Hackelsberger, a Nazi Party member in the Reichstag] visit was very significant in my opinion. He made his case excellently. In the very thorough discussion with Eugen [German for Eugenio], such rich and clarifying light was shed on your activity and your fundamental evaluations of the situation and themes, that I was very satisfied with the entire result, which was consistent with your outlook... Source: Archdiocese of Freiburg archive, Nachlass Gröber, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, p.484. Nov. 24, 1933 report of Bishop Berning’s words to Catholics in Hamburg, Germany after the Nov. 12, 1933 nationwide referendum: In the new German State, German Catholics joyfully stand behind the Führer, whom the German Volk unanimously affirmed as it was called upon this past Sunday to stand up for unity and unanimity in Germany. For German Catholics, true adherence to the Führer and responsibility for the well-being of the State is a patriotic and religious duty. Catholics bring with them valuable cultural assets for the upbuilding of the Volksgemeinschaft [Volk community]: a strong optimism and belief in progress, a lively sense of community, a warm love for German Volk-ness, for the blood and the soil, for our language and traditions, for the formation and fate of the German Volk.” Source: Klemens-August Recker, “Wem Wollt Ihr Glauben?”: Bischof Berning im Dritten Reich [“Who Do You Want to Believe?”: Bishop Berning in the Third Reich] (1998), p.69, quoting from Nachrichtenblatt für die Kath. Gemeinden von Hamburg, Altona und Umgebung [Newspaper for the Catholic Communities of Hamburg, Altona and Vicinity], November 24, 1933. December 1933 Excerpts of Cardinal Faulhaber's Advent sermons on the Old Testament: Sections sometimes quoted for their affirmation of the Jewish people: The German Classicists held the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament in honor... We would have to give the lie to our German Classicists if we wanted to disrespect the Old Testament and ban it from the schools and the bookshops of our people. We would have to strike many expressions from the verbal treasury of the German language. We could no longer speak of the forbidden fruit and sins that cry out to heaven ... We would have to deny the intellectual history of our people. Let us hold the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament in honor! It is a fact of cultural history: Among no other people of pre-Christian antiquity is such a great number of intellectually pre-eminent men to be found, who stand up for the religious order of their people with their words and their whole personality, as among the people of the Old Testament... Source: Advent 1933 sermon of Cardinal Faulhaber, reprinted in Hans Lamm, Von Juden in München: Ein Gedenkbuch [On the Jews of Munich: A Book of Remembrance] (1958), pp. 340-341. Other portions, translated from Cardinal Faulhaber, Judentum, Christentum, Germanentum: Adventspredigten [Judaism, Christianity, German-ness: Advent Sermons] (Munich: Huber, 1934): After the death of Christ, Israel was dismissed from the service of Revelation... She had repudiated and rejected the Lord's Anointed ... The daughter of Sion received her bill of divorce, and since that time the eternal Ahasuerus wanders restless over the earth... (p.10) Other portions, excerpted from the translation by George D. Smith, published in 1934 with an imprimatur from the Cardinal-Archbishop of New York: ... a priceless heritage from the sacred books of pre-Christian Judaism. This wealth of thought is so unique among the civilized nations of antiquity that we are bound to say: People of Israel, this did not grow in your garden of your own planting. This condemnation of usurious land-grabbing, this war against the oppression of the farmer by debt, this prohibition of usury, is not the product of your spirit... Either we believe in the inspiration of the sacred books, or else we must say to the Jewish people: "you are the cleverest people in the world's history." We believe in inspiration. (Smith trans. pp. 68-69) But it is an extraordinary thing that the reproaches which are leveled at Charlemagne for the compulsory baptism of the Saxons are not made with the same indignation against the Emperor Julian the Apostate, who in the fourth century with a much more brutal abuse of political power, and in league with the Israelites, tried to destroy Christianity and to set paganism once more on the throne. (Smith trans. p.103) From the Church's point of view there is no objection whatever to racial research and race culture. Nor is there any objection to the endeavour to keep the national characteristics of a people as far as possible pure and unadulterated, and to foster their national spirit by emphasis upon the common ties of blood which unite them. From the Church's point of view we must make only three conditions: First, love of one's own race must not lead to the hatred of other nations. Secondly, the individual must never consider himself freed from the obligation of nourishing his own soul by the persevering use of the means of grace which the Church provides... Thirdly, race culture must not assume an attitude of hostility to Christianity... The Christian, so long as he observes the above conditions, is not forbidden to stand up for his race and for its rights... (Smith trans. pp. 107-109) Source: Judaism, Christianity and Germany, trans. G. Smith (New York: Macmillan, 1934). Go to Overview-Contents Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Translations and Notes, 1934 Alfred Rosenberg (1893-1946), Nazi ideologist; writer for Nazi publications (1920-); editor of the Nazi Party newspaper, Völkischer Beobachter [Völkisch Observer] (1923-); head of Nazi Party while Hitler was imprisoned (1924); Reich Minister for Occupied Eastern Territories of Ukraine, Baltic States, Russia (1941-1945). Rosenberg authored the leading Nazi book on racial theory, Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts [The Myth of the 20th Century] (1930). This book expounded Nazi ideology, glorifying the “Aryan” Germanic Volk; calling for a rebirth of German nationalism and greatness; and denigrating Jews, Africans, Asians, and “non-Aryan” Europeans such as the French. The book’s fundamental racist character can be seen at a glance from the dust cover: “The ‘Myth’ is a grandiose, racial-psychological drama ... Rosenberg proves himself to be ... a brilliant thinker and a gifted seer ... ‘The Myth of the 20th Century’ is the myth of the blood, which, under the sign of the swastika, unleashes the racial world revolution, and it is the awakening of the racial soul, which after a long slumber puts a triumphant end to racial chaos.” The book’s introduction emphasizes racial conflict: “the mission for the future means ... altercation between blood and blood, race and race, Volk and Volk.” Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts (Munich: Hoheneichen, 1935), pp. 1-2. Rosenberg repeatedly denounced Christianity, especially Catholicism, as a weakening influence on German-ness. Rosenberg held the Catholic Church responsible for the “numerous pacifist priests” in Germany who are “robbing the German Volk of their pride in the defenders of the homeland in 1914” and who “drag through the mud those who preserve Volk and Fatherland.” In place of Christianity, Rosenberg put forth elements of ancient Nordic myth, such as Odin, the supreme god, the guardian of law and agreements. Ibid., pp. 8-9, 598. Rosenberg’s exaltation of the swastika as the symbol of racial struggle for the supremacy of German, Nordic, Aryan bloodlines, parallels Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which describes the swastika as the symbol of the Nazi Party’s “mission” to fight and triumph for the Aryan race over the Jews. Early 1934 Evidence of German Catholic Bishops resisting Nazi regime pressure to display swastika flags on churches on national memorial days such as January 30 (Hitler’s coming to power) and April 20 (Hitler’s birthday), includes: (a). Cardinal Faulhaber’s “Flaggenfrage” [Flag question] file. Files of Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich from 1917 to 1952, include a copy of a 1929 Prussian state law exempting churches from obligations on flag display days, along with many other documents about the issue, and correspondence and notes concerning other German Bishops. Cardinal Faulhaber’s resistance to displaying swastika flags on churches on national memorial days designated by the Nazi regime led to conflict reflected by documents in the file. On March 6, 1934, the Rector of Munich’s Cathedral of Our Lady [Frauenkirche] received a letter from a Nazi official expressing his “astonishment” that “the symbol of the new Germany, the swastika,” was not displayed on the Cathedral together with Bavarian flags and Church flags on the most recent flag display day. Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 8212. (b) Vatican Nuncio Orsenigo’s meeting with an official in the German Foreign Office on February 19, 1934, as reflected in a memorandum prepared by a German official: Memorandum by Bülow, Berlin, Feb. 19, 1934 In his visit today the Nuncio mentioned that in the Diocese of Mainz the flag question has taken an embarrassing turn. The Bishop of Mainz had apparently been the only Bishop in Germany to allow the national flags to be displayed on churches on the occasion of national holidays. When he noticed that in the rest of Germany only church flags were displayed, he gave the instruction to do the same in the future in his diocese as well. Thereupon, however, a government regulation was enacted for the State of Hesse [in which Mainz was the Diocesan See] directed at January 30th – signed by Jung – whereby the national flags are to be displayed next to the church flags. He found it embarrassing that for Hesse a different regulation applied than in other German States. The Nuncio mentioned that Herr von Papen is already involved in this question. He continued that the Bishop of Mainz is in an embarrassing position that he finds extraordinarily difficult. He is accused unjustly of separatist inclinations, and on Fasching [Shrove Tuesday, i.e. Mardi Gras] about 30 people dressed up as Frenchmen and serenaded him with French music. Source: German Archives, reprinted in Dieter Albrecht, ed., Der Notenwechsel Zwischen dem Heiligen Stuhl und der Deutschen Reichsregierung, [The Note Exchange Between the Holy See and the German Reich Government] (1965-1980) (hereafter “Note Exchange”), vol. 3, pp. 19-20. (c) Archbishop Gröber of Freiburg, in addition to Bishop Hugo of Mainz, apparently displayed swastika flags on Nazi-ordained memorial days around this time. Guenter Lewy, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), p.221. (d) German historian Gerhard Besier’s observation, based on archival documents, that Bishop Berning of Osnabrück stopped displaying swastika flags on churches in his diocese in early 1934, after displaying swastika flags previously. G. Besier and F. Piombo, The Holy See and Hitler’s Germany, trans. W.R. Ward (2007), p.141. (e) Diplomatic note from the German Government to the Vatican, dated March 14, 1934, protesting the German Bishops’ reluctance to display swastika flags: “... The Church knows well, from its own experience, the close association that a people has with the symbols of its inner vitality. That the decision whether to display the symbols of nationalist Germany on church buildings is mostly framed as an issue of rights rather than joyful participation in the fulfillment of a duty seen by the people as a patriotic matter of course, shows a deplorable lack of sympathy, with consequences that are not the fault of the government or the people.” Source: Albrecht, Note Exchange, vol. 1. Feb. 7, 1934 Cardinal Schulte’s report of his meeting with Hitler: Among the factors I have observed in the Rhineland, especially in the Archdiocese of Cologne, which since Fall 1933 have combined to jeopardize the initially positive and joyful agreement of the people toward the new Reich, I called attention to the public speeches of various government Ministers and Party leaders, against Christianity and the Church, especially the appearance of Rosenberg as author of “The Myth,” which is a pack of slanders against the Catholic Church and her sovereign, the Holy Father. The Reich Chancellor interrupted me energetically with the words: “I don’t want this book, Rosenberg knows it, I’ve told him myself; I want nothing to do with pagan things like the cult of Wotan and so forth.” At that I replied: “So, Herr Reich Chancellor, you can speak no more about Rosenberg and his book.” To the Reich Chancellor’s quick, sharp retort of “why not?” I answered: “Because a few days ago you officially installed this same Rosenberg as ideological head instructor of the Nazi Party and thereby of a major part of the German people. From now on, whether you want to or not, you are going to be identified with Herr Rosenberg.” The Reich Chancellor’s reply: “Yes indeed, I am identified with Herr Rosenberg, but not with the writer of the book ‘The Myth.’” The impossible distinction between Rosenberg and the author of “The Myth” gave me the occasion to ask the question: “How do you intend to make this clear to the world?” Instead of going into this question, the Reich Chancellor explained to me: “Rosenberg is our Party dogmatist” and then went into an unexpected accusation: “The Bishops helped Rosenberg’s book to gain significance and circulation; without them this book never would have aroused attention.” To my astonished and emphatic question: “What, the Bishops should be held guity?” I found myself hearing: “Yes, the Bishops; didn’t the Cardinal of Munich preach about it and try to destroy for German youth their ideal of old-German-ness?” After I said it was turning things on their head to put the blame on the Bishops for Rosenberg’s “Myth,” the Reich Chancellor dropped the topic. Source: Cardinal Schulte’s contemporaneous notes, given by the Cardinal’s secretary to Cathedral Rector Corsten, reprinted in Bernhard Stasiewski, ed., Akten Deutscher Bischöfe über die Lage der Kirche, 1933-1945 [Papers of the German Bishops about the Situation of the Church] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1968-1979), vol. 1, pp. 539-540, hereafter cited as Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers. Feb. 7, 1934, p.m. L’Osservatore Romano, page 2: “A Book of Odious Falsity for German Youth” The Myth of the Twentieth Century by Alfred Rosenberg, one of the more prominent figures of the German National Socialist Party, is now widely disseminated (73,000 copies in three years), especially among the youth in Germany today. The truth, writes Father Barbera in Civiltà Cattolica, is not encountered in this book, in every page of which, as in Rosenberg himself, so many errors are compounded, with such rash propositions and insults agaisnt what is most sacred at the heart of Christianity. Not only the Catholic Church and Catholics, who numerically constitute a good third of the population of the Reich, but all Christians who believe in the Religion revealed by God, who are the great majority of the Reich, are dragged there through the mud, are fingered for suspicion, in anti-Christian contempt and hatred. And that in the name of the German fatherland and nation, in the name of a new religion promulgated by Rosenberg, which must replace Christianity: the religion of race. This book is fanatical and violent to excess, sowing racial and religious hatreds, sowing discord and rivalry among the offspring of the same nation, and thus entirely opposite to the general goal of National Socialism - to unify the German people for their national rebirth - it is entirely opposed to Hitler’s statements of wanting to found the “Third Reich” on “Christian foundations,” and furthermore most troublesome with respect to other nations, which cannot be expected to welcome the exaltation of Germanism that Rosenberg presents throughout his book as the original fountainhead of all civilization. It is very well known that Catholic doctrine, confirming and illuminating the natural law, not only does not reprove, but indeed promotes the legitimate love of country, of one’s own nation and one’s own race, a love prescribed by well-ordered charity. But the racist theories of Rosenberg are presented by him in intimate relationship with an essential opposition to Christianity; and thus the well-being of the German nation through the resurgence of the Nordic-Germanic race is made by him to depend on the total destruction of Christianity, not only that professed by Catholics, but also that professed by believing Protestants. Everyone sees, in this respect, how insulting this book is, not only to religious conscience, but also to national conscience itself. Thus it gives rise to a profound sadness to see common sense so misled by the dissemination among youth of a work that is so anti-pedagogical, anti-Christian, anti-national, and anti-human. There is no need to take the time to refute its individual errors, since their enormity is so great that merely the manner in which they are presented, with arbitrary suppositions and inductions and bold affirmations, without real proof, contains their own refutation; moreover, a learned and serene refutation of these errors that are current today in Germany was given by His Eminence Cardinal Faulhaber in his magisterial lessons on Sacred Scripture in the Church of St. Michael in Munich, with extraordinarily high attendance and universal plaudits. L’Osservatore Romano related a lengthy summary of it... And these are the principal lines of this “Myth.” As for prehistory, the legend of submerged Atlantis had its real foundation in a continent at the North Pole, between northernmost America and Europe, having then a more mild climate, and it was a “prehistoric northern center of culture,” indeed the “central point of the world,” from which the Nordic race went forth. In all these regions there remain traces of the Nordic race, “of whitish skin, blue eyes and blond hair.” Also in Galilee, since “the Amorites founded Jerusalem,” and they constituted the stratum of the Nordic race in Lower Galilee, that is in the ‘region of the Gentiles,’ from which, moreover, Jesus was born“ (pp. 24-27). Thus, Jesus, according to Rosenberg, was of the Nordic race, and not of the Jewish race, and therefore must be regarded as such after exposing the false Judaization: “the young generation wants to consider the great personality of the founder of Christianity in his proper greatness, without those false mixtures with which Jewish zealots like Matthew, materialistic Rabbis like Paul, African jurists like Tertullian, or useless sophists like Augustine have made him into a terrible hodgepodge” (p.13). It is useless, however, to wonder what Rosenberg means when he speaks of the “great personality of Jesus,” since he simply endeavors to destroy all belief, not only of Catholics, but also of Protestants who believe in the Gospel. His book, which has the appearance of an energetic and active work, is in reality a negative and destructive book. All that is great, noble and civilized in the history of the world and its peoples, all of it comes from the Nordic, Atlantic and Aryan race, say what you want, according to the racist mythomania of Rosenberg. “Whatever may be the results of research into the country of origin of the Nordic race and into its migrations,” Rosenberg asserts, “one great fact cannot be changed, which is that the sense of history of the world has been spread through the entire world from the North, carried by a blue-eyed and blond-haired race, which in rather great waves has determined the spiritual aspect of the world, even where it has had to fade over time... May 14, 1934 Cardinal Pacelli’s diplomatic note of this date was one of his longest to the German Government; in the middle of the note is this passage responding to the German Government’s complaint of March 14 about the Bishops’ resistance to the swastika: ... How generous and peacefully-inclined the Bishops of Germany were from the first moment onward, when the former stance of National Socialism toward the Church appeared to accomplish a turnaround-to-the-positive, was evident in the position of the Bishops following the March 23, 1933 speech in the Parliament by the Reich Chancellor making solemn statements of a cultural- and Church-policy-nature, and his [Hitler’s] promise to honor the Concordats previously concluded with German states and to strengthen relations with the Holy See, as these [statements] were immediately taken by the Bishops as an occasion for considering as a given that the ruling Party was guaranteeing an accommodating policy, and thus as an occasion for revoking the measures previously imposed by the Church and having them [prohibitions on Catholics joining the Nazi Party] decreed to be positions that are now overtaken by events... ... The Promemoria maintains that the scruples of the Bishops against the hoisting of the swastika flag on the churches should be seen as “a deplorable lack of sympathy” with the new reality of the nation. Anyone familiar with the many un-Christian or even anti-Christian meanings that often have been and are being given to this symbol by National Socialists, will be able to understand that the Bishops’ scruples were and are justified. To see in this any kind of hostile attitude toward the state is false. Beginning on the day when the swastika is no longer connected by its partisan champions with meanings and missions whose anti-Christian tendency offends the faithful, the resistance based on religious considerations will diminish of its own accord. It should also be considered that in other countries where relations between Church and State are amicable – countries with no less claim to be “authoritarian” states – the display of national flags on the churches has never been demanded, as for example in Italy. Anyone who appreciates the character of the Catholic Church as house of God and abode of the eucharistic presence and the liturgical sacrifice will understand the reasons why the truly religiously sensitive person must wish that this realm, dedicated to the eternal, not be dragged into the din and conflict of the day. A Catholic way of expressing solidarity with the people on patriotic holidays will never be rejected if the bishops are allowed freedom to find the forms that they consider appropriate. Source: German Foreign Office Archive, reprinted in Dieter Albrecht, ed., Der Notenwechsel Zwischen dem Heiligen Stuhl und der Deutschen Reichsregierung [The Note Exchange Between the Holy See and the German Reich Government] (1965-1980), vol. 1, pp. 138-139, hereafter cited as Albrecht, Note Exchange. May and June 1934 Diplomatic notes from Cardinal Pacelli to the German Government: May 4: Protesting the order of a Nazi district leader prohibiting and dissolving Catholic youth associations. May 8: Protesting delays in the negotiations over Art. 31 and Catholic associations. May 9: Protesting pressures on students to engage in swordfights and duels. May 9: Protesting pressures on Catholic theology faculties and students. Ibid. May 14: Inquiry concerning reports that the head of the SA has forbidden SA members to take part in “church-political demonstrations.” May 14: Lengthy protest as to lack of progress in negotiations about Catholic associations, pressures on Catholic youth, promotion of Nazi neo-pagan religion, and various attacks on the Catholic religion, together with response as to German Bishops’ resistance to swastika. May 31, 1934: Protesting a unilateral Prussian state decision concerning a university theological faculty, which affected Catholic seminarians studying for the priesthood at the state university and Catholic priests on the university’s theology faculty. June 1, 1934: Protesting reductions of state subsidies for Catholic philosophy and theology faculties in Bavarian state universities. June 11, 1934: Protesting actions of the Munich police in banning the films “Rome the Eternal City” and “The Vatican in Art and History.” June 12, 1934: Protesting propaganda against Archbishop Faulhaber of Munich (signed by Stempel, not Pacelli). June 14, 1934: Following up the May 4, 1934 protest against a prohibition by a Nazi regional leader [Gauleiter] of Catholic youth organizations. Source: Albrecht, Note Exchange, pp. 118-173. June 7, 1934 German Bishops’ Joint Pastoral Letter, translated from the original German: Dear Faithful! The Holy Father has gifted Catholic Christianity and the entire globe with a Holy Year, announced in his Apostolic Constitution of April 2nd this year. Holy Years stand as milestones on the broad expanse of the centuries along the path of divine love and mercy. Divine love wishes to be imparted then more than other times, wider than ever are the spiritual treasuries of the Church opened, full of the incalculable merits of Christ and his saints. The explicit occasion for the proclamation of the Holy Year has been provided by the 1900th anniversary celebration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ and the solemn memorial of all the events that were closely associated with Christ’s sacrifice on Golgotha: the institution of the most holy sacrament of the altar, the first communion of the Apostles and their consecration as priests, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the conferring upon the Apostles of the power to forgive sins, the establishment of the Primacy of Peter, then the Ascension of the Lord, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the glorious commencement of apostolic preaching. If ever a centenary celebration was justified, it is doubtless the one decreed by the Pope for the year 1933 and now presently extended for the year 1934. There are underlying events that no other centenary anniversary can point to – events that are proceeding according to Pius XI’s words, the true rebirth of the world, the beginning of all blessings of the Christian life and of Christian civilization, whose ripe fruits we are tasting. This is the deep meaning of this Holy Year. According to the view of the Holy Father, the Holy Year should be a mission time for all Catholic Christians ... Dear faithful, in earnest consideration of these thoughts, how bitter the pain is to us Bishops, and how agonizing the anxiety about it, that precisely in recent years currents and movements have arisen in our Fatherland and grown stronger, which turn themselves directly against the above-mentioned great events of Jesus Christ and against the fundamental truths of the Catholic Church, and – not satisfied with that – toward the goal of founding a new religion and a German national church, which they want to found with a “new faith,” as they say, with the “myth of the blood.” ... As children of the Church of Christ, taught by Christ’s word, we believe in a God, a true and living God, who is creator and Lord of heaven and earth. This God is not an image created by human hands, like the idols of the ancient pagans, nor an image of the spirit of man that is born from blood and race and “becomes and grows in people,” as modern representative of a new paganism say... With the vow of our baptism we are obligated to faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, our Lord: who out of love for us men and for our salvation, took on human nature; who suffered and died on the cross to save us from sin and guilt; Christ, whose glorious resurrection is our pledge of victory over death and hell; Christ, who sometime will come again to judge the living and the dead. Today, however, false prophets are arising in our Fatherland who deny the divinity of Christ and teach another way than what Christ teaches by word and example... As baptized Christians we have obligated ourselves to faith in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Catholic Church. The third person of the Godhead, the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17), speaks to us through the holy books of the Old and the New Testament ... Christ has endowed his Church for all peoples and for all times ... Those who are bringing us a national church want to set us free from Rome, from the Rock of Peter, on which however Christ, the Son of God, has built his Church; they want to separate us from this Church, which according to the words of Saint Paul “is the pillar and foundation of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15). Certainly if “blood and race” are supposed to be the basis and determining factors of faith and religion, as the new pagans maintain, then the State would take the place of the communion of all believers, that is the place of the Church, as the collective power of the members of our people. Then its claim to “totalitarianism” would be justified in the sense of understanding that it means a claim of complete rule over all human relationships, so that all rights of the individual, all rights of the family and all human association is completely subjected to its rule. Such is this neo-pagan doctrine, then, you recognize it, beloved, and have often heard complaints about it from your pastors, a radical denial of Christianity in the entirety of its doctrine, its morals, its richness of mercy... Sincerely bound to love for the Church and love for our German people and Fatherland with the faithful who are entrusted to us, we protest against such subversive activity against Christianity and the Church, and especially emphatically because it seeks to contravene the intentions of the Reich Government that have been proclaimed repeatedly in clear words, and if it were to succeeds, it would destroy all hope of a secure continuation of our form of government and a prosperous future for our suffering people. The authority of the State must inevitably collapse if it is no longer founded on the authority of God, “from whom alone all authority has its origin” (Romans 13:1), which therefore can also only demand obedience “as a matter of conscience” when it is in conformity with the will of God. If in human society belief in God and fear of God wither away, and God’s authority, which binds the conscience, is disrespected, then sovereign power becomes involuntarily borne human caprice, and obedience becomes superficially produced slavish fear. Truly the gates and doors are then opened to uproar and anarchy and security and order are continually in danger. When such dangers threaten, we Bishops may not remain quiet... We may not timidly remain quiet when we see that not only private individuals but public persons are found among the bearers and proclaimers of neo-pagan ideas, to whom far-reaching influence and powerful means are at their disposal. And now the antithesis: While neo-paganism is recruiting aggressively, our Catholic press no longer has the freedom to address candidly the great issues of the day in the light of Catholic doctrine and moral teaching and to ward off the attacks upon Christianity and the Church. Sunday, the day for God and the family, is continually so severely caught up in the demands of state-recognized organizations for compulsory ceremonies and deployments, that no time remains for prayerful participation at mass and for nurturing Christian family life... Dear faithful! To speak totally clearly, we Bishops will not cease to warn you against those empty slogans that confuse your faith and can weigh down your conscience. You have heard and read: Dogmas are made up by men. But we, your Bishops, say to you: Dogmas, articles of faith, are divine concepts, divine laws, which are taken from divine revelation by the Church in its teaching office under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and are presented to us to believe. Thus dogmas are not made up by men. You have heard and read: Whenever you put on a uniform, you cease to be Catholic or Protestant. To that we Bishops say: However loyally you must nurture comradely service and mutual respect, nevertheless religious conviction is not something that you put on and take off like your coat and hang up on a nail during your duty hours... You have heard and read: You can even without faith in Christ, the Son of the living God, and without faith in the Gospel of Christ, confess a positive Christianity. We, your Bishops, say to you: Positive Christianity is only present when you confess Christ, God’s Son, the savior of the world who became man, and believe in his whole Gospel and acknowledge all his commandments... You have heard and read: Morality is what serves the interests of the Volk. Morality is what corresponds to the demands, the goals and the well-being of the race. . . . You have heard and read: You can place yourself under an unconditional oath. We, your Bishops, observe as a precaution: An oath is a solemn invocation of God and thus can never obligate you to fulfill it in a way that would violate a commandment of God. One can take on an obligation under oath such as the oath taken by officials or by soldiers, for loyal work in a profession, for obedience toward the rightful authorities. But whenever an order shall require something that violates God’s commandments and conscience, then what applies is what the Fulda Bishops Conference expressed in November 1919 in a solemn statement about the law of the Weimar Constitution: “In what concerns the oath to be taken to the constitution, Catholics will obviously not be obligated by it to anything that conflicts with a divine or ecclesiastical law and thus with their conscience.” You have heard and read: Christianity was a misfortune and a corruption of the race for our Germanic ancestors. But we, your Bishops, say to you: The introduction of Christianity among the Germans was a precious gift from heaven . . . Dear faithful! You may perhaps hear it said, as it has often been said, that the Bishops’ standing up for the faith of our fathers, their warnings about the heresies of neo-paganism and the slogans of its representatives is an uncalled-for “meddling in politics.” Conscious of our religious mission and the obligations of our holy office, we reject this untrue misinterpretation of our conduct... Thus we reject it as an untruth, whenever Catholic Bishops are portrayed in speeches or writings as representatives of worldly interests or political hacks striving for power... Dear faithful! Last year we joyfully greeted the Reich Government’s announcement of its decision and steadfast desire to respect and to defend the rights and the freedom of the Church. In sincere love for our German people, in upright recognition of the Government’s measures to stop godless propaganda and public immorality, in trusting their intent to make the force of Christianity the weight-bearing foundation of the new Volk-order, we were and are ready to set about the unhindered work that has been guaranteed for us on the part of the Church for the salvation of people, for the true good of our people... Dear faithful! Thus we have expressed anew in a serious time openly and candidly the painful anxieties that fill us in view of the undisguised attacks of neo-paganism against God and his truth, against Christ and the religion of the cross, against the Church and her task of sanctifying humanity... Remain true to the religion of your fathers! Be assured that Christ, the God-man and savior of the world, remains with his Church, to which he gave the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it... The Apostle spoke these comforting words: “Cast all your cares upon the Lord” (I Peter 5:7)... May almighty God bless you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit! Given at Fulda in the St. Boniface Church, on June 7, 1934. Signed, Adolf Cardinal Bertram, Archbishop of Breslau Source: Breslau Amtsblatt [Official Bulletin for the Clergy], no. 9 of June 25, 1934, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, pages 704-715. Italian translation published in L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 4, 1934. Spanish translation published in Criterio (Buenos Aires), Aug. 30, 1934. June 18-19, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage of Papen’s June 17 Marburg speech: “The Political and Spiritual Problems of Germany in a Speech by von Papen at the University of Marburg” Vice Chancellor von Papen gave an important speech on the internal situation of Germany at the University of Marburg, highlighted “by his devotion to Hitler and all his work.” Von Papen emphasized the anti-Marxist and anti-collectivist character of the revolution and the necessity of a satisfactory solution to the dualism between Party and State. In a State of true national community, internal cries of fighting must cease. The Vice Chancellor sought to demonstrate the duties of the German revolution in a decisive period in which the press must be courageous and sincere. The Government is strong enough to tolerate constructive and loyal criticisms. The Vice Chancellor deplored “young and over-zealous revolutionaries” who consider as reactionaries even “those conservatives who are conscientiously dedicated to their duties. The one-party system is all the more justified to the extent it is necessary to assure regime change, and until the new system has become fully operational.” Education for service to the State is natural, but it has its limits. Speaking of religious discord, the Vice Chancellor exhorted “those Germans who demand a unitary religious foundation to remember that Christian doctrine is the religious force behind all Western thought.” The unfolding battle will decide if the new Reich is Christian or if it will be lost in a pseudo-religious idealism. The Germans do not have the right to rule themselves out of the ranks of Christian peoples. That would impede them from acting within the European sphere and would endanger the Reich. Von Papen affirmed that there exists currently an abyss between intellectual tendencies and the daily realities of the German revolution. No one has the right to judge religious life with intellectual disdain. “On the other hand, the concepts of humanity, liberty and equality under consideration are German Christian notions, not expressions of liberalism. The Reich Government draws itself up against only false concepts of personality cult. The nation will know how to overcome serious sacrifices, provided that all criticism is not interpreted as malice and patriots who think differently are not stigmatized as enemies of the State.” July 21, 1934 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 3, p.219, on Papen’s Marburg speech: [following a discussion of Germany’s economic difficulties] ... Added to these difficulties -- the inevitable result of the generalized crises of today -- is the exaggerated anti-Christian racial spirit, which, while pretending to make of the German people a homogeneous, close-knit community, offends the most sacred rights of conscience and digs a deep gulf of division. Of this mindset Vice Chancellor von Papen became the authoritative interpreter when, in a speech at the University of Marburg on June 17, lamenting that “young and overly ardent revolutionaries” are accusing conservatives of being reactionary, he admonished “those German citizens who demand a unitary form of Germanic faith” not to forget “that Christian doctrine is the religious impulse of all Western thought,” adding: “The impending battle will necessarily decide if the new regime will be Christian or will be lost in a pseudo-religious idealism. Germans do not have the right to exclude themselves from the ranks of Christian peoples, because, in that event, they could not act European-wide and they would impair the idea of the Reich.” June 18-19, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano on Hitler’s speech in Gera, Germany: “A Speech by Hitler: After the Meetings at Stra” [with Mussolini] Dateline Berlin, June 18. Chancellor Hitler gave a speech in Gera [Germany] about National Socialist policy. The Chancellor mentioned, among other things, how the German Nation had regained the consciousness of its strength, and then said: “... if we are asked, “What do you plan to do for world peace?” we will respond that we will not only teach a Nation of 70 million people to respect themselves, but also to respect the rights of other Nations...” “... we do not want to attack others, but we want to be strong enough to defend ourselves if we are attacked. We do not engage in conspiracies with other powers, but we must beware of the dangers and conspiracies directed against us: we want peace, but we will defend to the last drop of our blood if we are attacked.” Civiltà Cattolica’s coverage of the same Hitler speech two weeks later: ... Chancellor Hitler, having departed Venice the evening of June 15, gave a speech at Gera in Thuringia on June 17, setting forth essentially peaceful intentions, saying that Germany respects the rights of others, just as it wishes to have its own rights respected, and that it claims equality of rights in matters of armaments, not, that is, for an ability to attack, but for power to defend. Far from any “conspiracy” with other Powers, it guards against any insidious efforts against it and is disposed to peace, yet ready to defend itself against attacks to the last drop of its blood. From the words of these two men of state themselves, one can conclude that Italian-German action does not seek to be a threat to anyone ... Thus, this is not an arrangement or combination or bloc that seeks to set one group of Powers against another group... Newspapers commented on the meeting in Venice, adding that Italy would have to help Germany regain its place in the community of nations, with parity of rights and treatment, which is implicit in any international assembly but has thus far been refused. Finally, it is said that one of the points agreed upon was the absolute independence of the Republic of Austria. Source: Civiltà Cattolica, July 7, 1934, vol. 3, pp. 101-102. June 27, 1934 Bishop Berning’s notes of the meeting of three Bishops with Hitler in Berlin: After the Reich Chancellor greeted us, Bishop Berning thanked him for the audience and for the opportunity for an exchange of views with the Reich Government. He pointed out that the Bishops had placed themselves on the footing of the new State and had led the people to it, but were filled with great concern about whether the Concordat would be implemented in all its provisions... The Reich Chancellor spoke about the duties of the Party and State, whose goals are only to build a Volk community [Volksgemeinschaft] and build the State... He will in all events protect the Church in its proper sphere... ... Bishop Berning asked the Chancellor at the end for a specific instruction to the Party and the Government agencies to cease all neo-pagan propaganda. The Chancellor agreed to this. Also Bishop Berning asked for utmost efforts toward a compromise agreement on the question of Catholic associations. Source: Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, pp. 731-732. June 30, 1934 Reaction of Vatican Nuncio and Catholic Bishops who were in Berlin for negotiations with Nazi regime June 25-29: “At a meeting on the evening of June 30th at the Berlin diocesan offices among Nuncio Orsenigo, Archbishop Gröber, Bishop Berning, Bishop Bares, Vicar General Steinmann and Cathedral Vicar Adolph ... under the impact of the events, the Nuncio exclaimed, ‘That’s Soviet-esque,’ Bishop Berning: ‘Bolshevism’ and Bishop Bares: ‘The shooting of Klausener was the ending point of our Concordat negotiations.’” Source: Stasiewski, German Bishops’ Papers, vol. 1, p. 753, editor’s footnote. Night of the Long Knives L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage of the Night of the Long Knives and the days that followed (originals can be accessed from links in source citations): July 1, 1934: “Röhm Suspended from Office” Dateline Berlin, June 30, p.m. The German News Bureau reports that Captain Röhm, Chief of Staff of the SA and Reich Minister Without Portfolio, has been suspended from office and expelled from the SA for lack of loyalty to Hitler. Lutze, group leader of the SA, has been named Chief of Staff in place of Röhm. “Unfounded Rumors of Unrest in Munich, Bavaria” Dateline London, June 30, p.m. The surrounding of the fashionable neighborhood of Tiergarten by Göring’s special police has given rise to rumors of unrest in Munich, Bavaria. These rumors appear to be unfounded. Agricultural policy was being discussed at the Ministry of Propaganda when Goebbels was informed of the events in the Tiergarten and the strong reinforcement of Göring’s troops. All traffic in many important areas has been completely interrupted. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, July 1, 1934, page 1. Note: The Tiergarten was a large park in Berlin with a zoo (Tiergarten means literally “beasts-garden”), bordering on a fashionable residential district which included the Vatican Nunciature and other diplomatic residences. Göring, as President of the German Reichstag and Premier of Prussia, had placed SS chief Himmler in charge of the Prussian Police and Gestapo several weeks before the Night of the Long Knives. July 3-15, 1934 Headlines and excerpts of articles appearing in L’Osservatore Romano: July 3 L’Osservatore Romano, July 2-3, 1934, page one: (Italian original with translations of headlines and excerpts) Headline: “The Events in Germany” Sub-headlines: “Repression of an attempted revolution – arrest and shooting of the head of the SA – the tragic death of ex-Chancellor Schleicher and his wife – numerous executions” Heading: “Details of the Plot” A communiquè from the press office of the Nazi Party exposes thus the details of the plot: For many months various elements have tried to drive a wedge between the SA and the State and so create a division ...” Heading: “An Appeal to the Army” Text: “The Minister of Defense, Gen. von Blomberg, directed the following appeal to the army: “The Führer, with military decisiveness and exemplary valor, has personally attacked and annihilated the traitors and mutineers. The army, which keeps far away from all internal political disputes, expresses its gratitude ...” Text: “The first notices on Saturday of the shooting of ex-Chancellor Schleicher and the arrest of Röhm concerned an attempted insurrection that was promptly crushed.” Text: “Papen’s home is guarded by police and no one can pass. It is not confirmed whether he was arrested for his own protection.” Heading: “Statement of the new Head of the SA” ... July 3 L’Osservatore Romano, July 2-3, 1934, page one, article on lower half of page: (Italian original of article) “Demonstrations in Favor of Hitler” Dateline Berlin, July 2 Official reports confirm that the population’s state of mind is the same in all of Germany, whereby telegrams of fidelity are continually arriving for Hitler, demonstrating the loyalty of the population. Demonstrations in favor of the Chancellor that were conducted on Saturday evening, when Hitler arrived from Munich, continued Sunday morning. Along the Wilhelmstrasse intense excitement reigned throughout the morning and increased extraordinarily at midday. Hitler, accompanied by General Litzmann and Minister Frick, appeared at a window of the Chancery and was greeted with unending ovations. The city, the nation, the press, the street, all are impressed by the putting down of the conspiracy and are unanimous in admiring Hitler’s energy. This fact is highlighted by the newspapers’ special editions and taken up as well in the press yesterday and today, which added the sober and eloquent description that Goebbels gave yesterday evening over the radio, which was also transmitted by a station in Buenos Aires, by English stations, and by shortwave stations in English, French and Portuguese. News reports from abroad show the strong echo aroused abroad by the events in Germany. Vienna highlights the energy with which the conspiracy was put down, and the strengthening of the authorities, and New York explains the increase in Hitler’s prestige. In Munich, the Führer’s swift and energetic action has brought about the most intense satisfaction. Munich, the capital of the movement, continues to be faithful to the Führer and his work. Already by yesterday morning the city was showing an appearance of normal tranquility. Goebbels gave a radio speech that was retransmitted throughout Germany. “Taking the slogan of ‘the second revolution’ as their rallying cry,” he said, “reactionary rebels revolted against the will of the Führer, maintaining relations with a foreign power...” Commentary by L’Osservatore Romano in italics following article about “The Events in Germany”: “Some newspapers have received and published ‘with all reserve’ the report that ‘eminent members of Catholic Action committed suicide to avoid arrest.’ Among these, supposedly, was ‘the head of Catholic Action in Berlin, Klausener,’ the director general of the Prussian Interior Ministry. “Such reports need no denial, as they are obviously absurd. Just as the faith and the program of Catholic Action exclude in Germany, as in all other countries, participation in political movements, so the faith and life of its members exclude also the believability of suicide. The double defamation thus insinuated, even if it be ‘with all reserve,’ is in any event belied by the facts, it being completely false that the unfortunate Klausener has taken his own life. “Raise to his memory a moving, reverent, Christian thought recalling the noble words he spoke to the solemn gathering of Catholics in Berlin. They will remain engraved in the hearts of German youth as a testament of singular piety, of fervent zeal and of exemplary love for Church and Fatherland. May God receive this chosen soul where peace forever blooms, the eternal reward of sacrifice.” July 4 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: (Italian original) Lead headline: “The Causes of the Revolt and Repression in Germany” Sub-headlines: “The toll of the sanguinary day – Hitler’s totalitarianism and the contrast between the right and the left – the moral standards of the SA – the new situation” The particulars of the sanguinary German repression of the threat of a coup d’état are now known through the official and unofficial detailed accounts. The firing squads and the SS have assured control of the situation. The official communiqués have not yet stated how many victims lost their lives on the day of June 30th; they have, however, assured the world that the seditious attempts have failed. An ex-Chancellor, a Minister in office, seven generals of the Hitlerite militia, and other personalities have been subdued with the methods of Reason of State. Now that the “purge” - according to the terminology of the German press - has achieved its results, it is important to explain the causes of the threatened “putsch,” because only by going back to the reasons of the revolutionary upheaval is it possible to understand the new conditions following the sanguinary day of June 30th. The crisis of the new regime, which exploded so loudly, is a political and moral crisis. Conflicts of political, economic and religious views and interests came to light in an increasingly obvious way in recent times from within the contours of that spiritual unity about which the German press spilled so much ink on the eve of the revolt, upon the occasion of the anniversary of the Treaty of Versailles. The story is very clear and significant. Von Papen’s speech at Marburg represents the first public manifestation of discontent. In Berlin Goebbels responded and prevented the publication of the speech, in Munich Rosenberg attacked while Hitler was going to the summer residence of Hindenburg. What antagonism hides under the ashes? In addition to tall the discontents of a religious and spiritual nature, concerns had been growing in the ranks of the right over the proposals for socialization of industry and agriculture that would strike at the interests of the capitalist and landed classes. National Socialism was shown to be like a nationalism and a socialism that are not merged but are in conflict. The military situation appeared equally murky, especially as concerned the relationship between the Reich Army and the Nazi SA (Sturmabteilung): recently there had been an attempt on the part of Minister Röhm to merge the two armed bodies, but this effort had failed because of the intervention of Hindenburg himself in favor of maintaining the political non-involvement of the Reich Army, considering it to be a bulwark for the security of the State, high above all partisan struggles. To that might be added the recent conflicts between the Steel Helmets and the Nazi militia. The discontent created by the seriousness of the economic situation is the penultimate cause of the discord and malaise aggravated by the condition of international isolation in which Germany found itself after withdrawing from [the League of Nations at] Geneva. It was a damaging isolation, which Minister Röhm could take advantage of to go seek support in the Danube and Balkan countries of Europe for a coup by military force against Austria, planned in Munich by the heads of the Bavarian Hitlerite legion who would have had to enter Austrian territory “manu militari” [Latin: by military hand or means]. But the reasons for the crisis are much more profound, as they concern the very spiritual roots of a civilization, the moral standards of a class of political leaders who were not ashamed to alienate themselves from Christian precepts on the basis of the dim-witted deviations of atheist and racist philosophy. A picture of the moral standards of the squadrismo [Fascist cult of violence] that victoriously came to power was given by Hitler himself in his “administrative order” to the new Chief of Staff of the SA. Hitler said that among the legionaries who “saved and won over Germany” were some “ridiculous apes.” Was this perhaps a matter of irresponsible individuals, or of subversive elements? Hitler himself stated that in the luxurious Berlin headquarters of the SA “as much as 30,000 Marks were spent monthly on meals and parties,” that the leaders were using “luxury limousines” while millions of their fellow citizens “lack the most basic essentials of life.” While Germany is writhing in a grave economic crisis that does not allow it to pay its debts, the Hitlerite militia were spending “public funds for merrymaking and such things” and were making “thousands of useless and expensive orders” for an “indecorous and gaudy” lifestyle against which there were criticisms of intolerance from the totalitarian regime. The extravagance and unbridled immorality promptly aggravated the situation to the point of making it necessary to shoot and subdue those responsible, along with some not responsible, for the serious corruption of public morals. The killing of von Schleicher and the temporary sequestering of von Papen are posited, by official communiqués, in relation to a mysterious plan to overthrow the regime, prepared by right-wing elements with the collaboration of the SA headed by Röhm, and in accord with a foreign country... The events of June 30th and July 1st cannot fail to have consequences at the heart of the formation of the Cabinet itself, where the influence of the triumvirate Hitler-Goering-Goebbels is increasingly evident. But what are the moral forces capable of re-establishing an order that is respectful of the human person and just in the guarantees of rights? This is the problem. An SA order requires the removal of Röhm from his position and establishes that “the honorary daggers dedicated to Röhm must be immediately retired and replaced with service daggers.” That is not all. “It is impossible to make a population happy by violence,” says Dollfuss commenting on the events in Germany. “The Events in Germany” We note some affirmations of the press about possible developments in the German situation. Le Journal writes: “The latent conflict of the past several weeks has placed in contention, on the one hand, the conservative Catholics of von Papen and the military element of the Reich Army, and on the other hand, the leaders of thousands of SA units that, after constituting the guard of the Hitler regime, were now appearing to be won over to a system called ‘socialist,’ tending to communism. The situation is grave for the Chancellor, who must now choose between nationalism and socialism. Two perils threaten him: on the right, a restoration, and on the left, communism. Finally, as if the situation was not already full of unknowns, it has been heard that President Hindenburg is gravely ill. The passing away of the old soldier at this moment could only aggravate the discontent and uncertainty of the hour.” The Times reports: “The Reich Army is the most stable element in Germany today and, as General Blomberg said this past week, it remains the tie between the regime and its head. But then, Hitler has given proof of his will, and the Reich Army keeps in full effectiveness and remains apart from politics. It can thus be said, continues the Times, that the ‘purge’ of June 30th, apart from the ruthless methods resorted to, was necessary. And for that reason, June 30th has perhaps signaled a decisive step in the tempestuous history of Hitlerism. To begin with, von Papen can consider himself eliminated, and now the Nazi Party is entirely commanded by the triumvirate of Hitler, Goering and Goebbels, and while their authority may be a matter of discussion to some extent in Germany, there is no doubt that the triumvirate holds supreme power after the tragic episodes of June 30th.” July 4 Additional headlines and articles on the front page of L’Osservatore Romano: Headline: “How the Attempted Treason was Crushed” Subheads: “Reorganization of the SA – new executions – Von Papen freed – various versions about the repression” The Minister President of the Prussian Government, Goering, has issued a decree in which he appoints the head of the Nazi SS and the police general of Prussia, Dalnege, to reorganize the units of the SA in Berlin-Brandenburg, Pomerania, Eastmark and Silesia, acting in concert with the competent authorities of the Party and the SS. The Minister of Propaganda, Goebbels, has praised the German press for discipline and rectitude it showed during the suppression of the Röhm revolt... “Von Papen to Neudeck?” Dateline Berlin, July 3 The surveillance of Vice Chancellor von Papen was to be removed last night. According to some reports, von Papen will travel today to Neudeck. Note: Neudeck was the rural estate of German President Hindenburg in East Prussia. July 6 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: (Italian original) Headline: “Von Papen Remains Vice Chancellor by the Intervention of Hindenburg: The Reorganization of the SA” Page One Heading: “The Position of Von Papen” July 8 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: (Italian original) Headline: “Those Arrested and Now Released” Subheads: “Von Papen did not Participate in the Cabinet Meeting – the Reorganization of the SA” Dateline Berlin, July 7 The “German News Bureau” reports that Guenther von Tschirschky, Karl von Savigny, and Margarete von Stotzitgen [three members of Papen’s staff] ... have been released because they had nothing to do with the traitors. This official report is the first positive indication that the position of von Papen is now stabilized ... his close collaborator von Bose was killed by a pistol shot in the office of the Vice Chancellor... July 10 L’Osservatore Romano, July 9-10, 1934, page one: (Italian original) “The Events in Germany: A Pacific Speech by Hess” Dateline Berlin, July 9 The German News Bureau denied that ex-Minister Treviranus was shot... Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s Lieutenant in the Directing of the National Socialist Party, gave a speech yesterday to the Party Congress in East Prussia, which was transmitted by radio to all Germany via the Koenigsberg station. After briefly describing the recent events as a necessary action to avoid civil war in Germany, Hess dedicated all the rest of his speech to the issue of peace, with particular respect to Franco-German relations...” July 12 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: (Italian original) Headline: “Speech by the Minister of Propaganda: Goebbels Repeats that June 30th Passed Without Incident: Criticisms of the Foreign Press that Described the German Events” Dateline Berlin, July 11 In a radio address transmitted over all German stations, Minister Goebbels spoke on the theme: “June 30th seen from abroad.” The minister attacked certain international press whose only ambition is to publish the most sensational news possible, declaring that June 30th gave them the opportunity to establish some matters of falsehood and calumny and real distortion of facts, in a way unprecedented in the history of journalism. “June 30th,” the minister said, “passed in Germany without the least incident or public commotion...” Commentary in italics by L’Osservatore Romano at the end of the article: We are publishing this for the record, but also for the record we attest that if on June 30 there occurred in Germany, according to the speaker, not the slightest disturbance, then also by declaration of the speaker, these “facts” nevertheless occurred. And to deny then the reported exaggerations, lies, calumnies of the foreign press, it suffices to point out these “facts” in their true rationale, in the manner of their implementation, in their exact proportions. This obviously would be accomplished more effectively by a comparison between the methods of the foreign press on German matters and the methods of the German press on foreign matters; especially because such a comparison could not avoid referring to the news that German newspapers published about events in Vienna, and in recent days, about the “most painful existence” in Austria under the Government of Dollfuss. But a speech has been announced by the Chancellor to the Reichstag this Friday, on the “facts” of June 30; we can thus await this far more authoritative word without attributing an importance to yesterday’s speech that goes beyond a curiosity about the news. Note: Because of the still unrepaired damage from the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933, the Reichstag delegates convened in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin rather than in the Reichstag building. Following the Reichstag election of November 12, 1933, all Reichstag delegates were members or supporters of the Nazi Party. July 15, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: Italian original “Hitler’s Speech to the Reichstag on the Repression of June 30 - the Absence of Von Papen” Dateline Berlin, July 14 The plenary session of the Reichstag, held as usual in the Kroll Opera House, opened at 8 p.m. with a brief introduction by Reichstag President Göring, who immediately yielded the floor to the Reich Chancellor. Hitler began by stating that he had convened Parliament to illuminate the German people about facts that he hopes will go down in history as a sad cautionary reminder. “Political reasons and personal guilt,” said Hitler, “human weakness and human failings, have provoked a crisis in the young Reich, which could have produced truly disastrous consequences.” “The Limits of Sincerity” I propose to present these matters with a sincerity limited only by the interests of the State and the demands of propriety. From the abdication of the Kaiser and the German princes, the German people found themselves at the mercy of people who, as representatives of a world of parties of the past, either knowingly caused or else allowed the political and economic decadence of Germany that we found upon coming to power. All the former parties and their Marxist or bourgeois leaders had the opportunity to show their capacity to govern in Germany, but they all failed ... “The Plans of Röhm and the Deceased” The Chancellor identified the various elements which, in contrast to the 41.5 million Germans who are enthusiastic supporters of the Nazi State, thought they could poison the soul of the German people again... Röhm and other SA leaders … with Schleicher ... wanted to place the Army under the command of Röhm and dismiss Vice Chancellor Papen and the other members of the Cabinet. “Details of the Session” Hitler arrived at the Reichstag in an open car and was greeted with applause. In front of the hall were numerous SS foot soldiers with rifles. On the governing bench were Goebbels and von Neurath. Von Papen was absent. In all the plazas and principal arteries of Berlin there was great bustle. Double rows of SS lined the passages for the official cars. It can be said that all Germany was glued to the radio waiting for the Chancellor’s statements. Hitler’s two-hour speech was followed by Göring’s declaration that the Reichstag approved it fully. Commentary in italics by L’Osservatore Romano at the end of the article: From our information here, similar to what appears in all other newspaper reports, it is clear that this is a limited summary, in comparison with the full communication by the Chancellor, which lasted two hours, so that it does not allow a precise idea and an accurate assessment of the statements themselves nor, therefore, of the eventuality of appropriate relief. Civiltà Cattolica’s coverage of the Night of the Long Knives two weeks later, July 21, 1934, vol. 3, pp. 220-221. And here, suddenly, the political sky darkened and an unexpected storm let loose, in which approximately sixty persons are thought to have tragically lost their lives, according to the most recent official notices. According to these, when Chancellor Hitler learned that Captain Röhm, head of the SA, was collaborating with ex-Chancellor General von Schleicher and allegedly with a ‘foreign power,’ in a plan to overthrow the present order of things, Hitler went immediately from Bonn in Westphalia to Munich in the earliest hours of June 30th. There he dismissed Röhm ... Later notices said that Röhm, arrested and jailed by Hitler, had refused to commit suicide, and was shot; that General von Schleicher ... was killed along with his wife ... that another seven regional commanders of the SA suffered the same fate; that two colleagues of Vice Chancellor von Papen were arrested, and that Papen was held under house arrest until July 2nd. There was talk of his departure from the government, all the more since he refused to participate in the Cabinet meeting of July 3rd. Then it was announced that he will remain at his post, by the will, it is said, of President Hindenburg. There is mystery about a man remaining in the government who is treated with such little regard for his colleagues ... President Hindenburg congratulated Hitler for his energetic action, which had ‘spared the German people a great shedding of blood and spared the Fatherland grave upheavals.’ The Cabinet declared that the measures of June 30 and July 1-2, since they were taken for ‘legitimate defense of the State,’ should be considered ‘legal.’ But this declaration did not dispel the shadow cast on a repression carried out with no semblance of even summary justice. All the more, since among those killed were the names of persons who were far from any idea of subversion, like Father Muhler and Klausener, the head of Catholic Action in Berlin, on whom was cast the shame of suicide for reasons unknown. The German press protested against exaggerations in foreign newspapers, but did not deny the insinuations or intimations of suicide against those arrested, or the refusal of corpses to relatives, the cremation of Klausener, the refusal of assistance of clergy to him when condemned to death, because these ‘were not worthy of refutation.’ Another relief arises spontaneously. Captain Röhm was known as a pervert, and a scandalous trial would not have kept his repugnant tendencies concealed from the public. Other faults of Röhm and his companions were revealed by Hitler in the instructions given to the new stormtrooper chief: gourmet banquets that cost ‘up to 30,000 marks per month,’ luxurious automobiles, waste of public funds for celebrations, making ‘a thousand useless expensive orders’ for an ‘indecorous and raucous’ life. These facts, not just vigilance against betrayal, explain the reluctance of Catholics to let their own sons enter into the stormtroops. So the explanation now given by Hitler to justify his actions is this: ‘I wanted every mother to be able to entrust her sons to the SA organization or to that of the Hitler Youth, without fear that their morals would be corrupted.’(footnote: While we were going to press, newspapers gave a summary of the speech of the Chancellor on July 13th. From this summary it is clear he spoke about the bankruptcy of the ‘second revolution,’ but not so as to the other points. We will speak of this again in the next issue.)” Civiltà Cattolica’s next issue, Aug. 4, 1934, devoted five pages to coverage of Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag. The last page, in a footnote, mentioned three of the prominent Catholic victims, Papen’s press secretary von Bose, Catholic Action leader Klausener, and Catholic sports association president Adelbert Probst, as well as General Schleicher and his wife, and Gustav von Kahr, who as Commissar of Bavaria in 1923 had played a central role in putting down Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch. These are excerpts from pp. 330-334: “III. International News. “1. Germany. The repressive measures of June 30 according to Hitler’s speech. 2. Austria. Changes in the Government and measures against terrorists. Assassination of Dollfuss. “1. (Germany). In the hall of the former Kroll Opera House, on July 13, Chancellor Hitler spoke about the events of June 30, promising to speak frankly, with no other restraints than those imposed ‘by the interests of the Reich and the requirements of propriety.’ “In the first part of his speech, the Chancellor brings to light the salvific work of National Socialism, which, coming to power on January 30, 1933, found the State in complete disorder ... ‘absurd to think of returning to a regime of political parties.’ ... “Speaking now of the general question of enemies, the Chancellor passed into the second part of his speech, bringing to light the disruptive aspects of the SA. At that time the voice of a new revolution was heard with such insistence ... “The third part of Hitler’s speech, dedicated to describing the conspiracy ... Röhm ... Schleicher ... “On the first of June, Hitler summoned Röhm. In a meeting that lasted five hours, he gave indications that he was preparing a National-Bolshevik revolution ... “... according to Hitler the persons killed in putting down the “Röhm Putsch” were ... In total, 77 persons. (footnote: The list however is not complete. Missing from it, for example, are the names of Schleicher and his wife; the name of von Bosen, press secretary to von Papen; the name of Dr. Klausener; the name of von Kahr, former Governor of the State of Bavaria; the name of Probst, president of Catholic Youth; and others.)” “... A serious gap is noticeable in the categories of the victims. The Chancellor spoke of a National-Bolshevik movement. But National-Bolshevism certainly does not pertain to Klausener, Muhler, Probst and other Catholics who were killed, as appears. His silence on this question of the killings weakens his effort at self-justification.” Civiltà Cattolica also published the condolences of Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli to the Austrian President and the widow of Engelbert Dollfuss, along with Mussolini’s guarantee of the independence of Austria. Ibid., p.335. July 4, 1934 Diplomatic Note from Cardinal Pacelli to German Government, addressed to Ambassador von Bergen: Your Excellency, I have the honor to request respectfully that the following be communicated to the German Reich Government: According to information that has reached the Holy See, the Reich Government has forbidden German nationals to study at the Theological Faculty in Innsbruck. The Holy See must call the Reich Government’s attention to the fact that Art. 13, sec. 1(c) of the Bavarian Concordat ... was given the following binding interpretation by the ... Bavarian State Government. Source: Albrecht, Note Exchange, vol. 1, p.174. Diplomatic Note from Pacelli to Bergen, July 4, 1934: Your Excellency! In connection with the Note from the Holy See of May 9th this year concerning the protection of the freedom of conscience of Catholic citizens of the Reich against pressures to engage in swordfighting and duels, which has thus far received no comment in reply ... Developments have indicated the urgency of the concerns raised by the Holy See in the above-referenced Note. Source: Albrecht, Note Exchange, vol. 1, p.175. July 13-15, 1934 Argentine press coverage of prohibition of swastika flags in Buenos Aires Province; clippings of the following articles are in the German Argentine Embassy files maintained in the Foreign Office Political Archive in Berlin: La Nacion, Buenos Aires, July 13, 1934: “The Display of the ‘Nazi’ Flag in the Province of Buenos Aires: Issuance of a Decree by the Governing Ministry in Response to an Inquiry” Dateline La Plata, July 12, 1934 A decree has been issued by the Government Ministry, informing police headquarters that according to provisions contained in the decrees of April 28, July 8, and November 7,1933, issued by the national government, regulating the display of flags, it is only authorized to hoist with the Argentine flag the flags of foreign nations with which the Republic maintains friendly relations, requiring the prohibition of any other foreign symbol. The decree is based on an inquiry submitted by police headquarters about the procedure to be adopted with reference to the display of flags on patriotic anniversaries and because of the hoisting in a particular locality, along with Argentine and German flags, another with the swastika cross. In the preamble it says that the regulation of the display of national symbols pertains to the national government and not to the provinces, and that the national Executive Authority, in the decree of April 28, 1933, prohibited “in public meetings, assemblies, demonstrations and parades, the display of other flags than the Argentine and those of foreign nations with which the Republic maintains friendly relations.” Additionally, in that same decree, it is specified that the provincial governments, as the natural agents of the federal government in their respective territories, are responsible for its implementation. Note: This clipping is attached to a short memorandum typed in German, stating as follows: The Government has promulgated a decree in this regard. La Plata, July 12 – The Province today informed the police, by a decree, that they must confiscate flags whose display is not authorized by the applicable laws of the national government. This measure is the result of flags with the swastika of German fascism being displayed on various houses on July 9th of this year. As a result, the police will have such flags taken in if they are displayed in public. Source: “Flaggenfragge” [Flag Question] file, vol. 3, German Embassy to Argentina, Political Archive of the German Foreign Office, Berlin. El Pais, Cordoba, Argentina, July 13, 1934: “Concerning the Hoisting of Flags, the Executive Authority of the Province of Buenos Aires Explained” Dateline La Plata, July 12 Because of an inquiry submitted by police headquarters, the Executive Authority, via the Ministry of Government, has made it known that, in accordance with decrees enacted by the national government regulating the display of the flag, display of flags jointly with the Argentine flag is only authorized for the flags of foreign countries with which the Republic maintains friendly relations, requiring the prevention of hoisting of those that are not in this category. In the preamble of the resolution, it is stated that the inquiry was submitted in reference to a particular locality where a swastika cross was displayed jointly with another flag, citing the point that the regulation of national symbols pertains to the government of the Nation and not to the provincial authorities, who are to implement the provisions contained in various decrees concerning the display of the flag. Source: Flaggenfragge file, see above. Critica, Buenos Aires, July 15, 1934: “The Nazi Flag Is the Symbol Not of a Nation but of a Party: Its Presence in our Country, Says a Reader, Profanes Our Streets” Reflecting a state of mind that I take to be widespread, and responding to a current event, concerning the prohibition by Dr. Rodolfo Moreno, Minister of the Provincial Government, of the display of the swastika flag in the entire province, we are publishing a letter that was sent to Critica, which contains commentary that deserves to reach our readers: Among the German Nazis ... in Buenos Aires – and among them there are quite a few who have not been removed from the lists of the Party because it has its local seat in the same German Embassy – the decision of the Minister of the Government of the Province of Buenos Aires, Dr. Rodolfo Moreno, prohibiting the display of the swastika in the entire territory of the Province, has been passionately discussed. It is argued that the swastika is the flag of the German nation. It should be highlighted that it was officially established in 1924 as the flag of the Nazi Party. By Hitler’s decree, the swastika was made official in the early weeks of the past year, but international law does not recognize the decrees that emanate from authorities that are not constitutionally legislated bodies. Therefore, the Nazi cross should not and cannot be recognized abroad as the symbol of German sovereignty, but only, consequently, as signifying a party flag. It is not amiss to note that the swastika remains the emblem of the Nazi Party, which is a very different matter from the German people and nation. If humanly speaking it can be understood that some German fanatics are fooled by Hitler’s grandiloquence, it is right to believe that the aspect of the Argentine street is profaned by exhibiting the cross of the confessed murderer of 77 of his friends, the result of which is not only intolerable but extremely pernicious for the good name of the Argentines, among whom are three generals of our national army who attended a party of German Argentine adventurers, where homage was rendered to this flag and where the Horst Wessel Song was sung, the sanguinary partisan song of Hitlerism. El Diario, Buenos Aires, July 15, 1934: “Efforts for Prohibition of the Nazi Flag: The Directors of Accion Argentina Submitted a Request to the Interior Minister: Reasons Disclosed” In the last meeting of the Executive Committee of Accion Argentina, it was resolved to address the Interior Minister, requesting that, in accordance with the decree of April 28, 1933 given by the Executive Authority, the display of the Nazi flag be prohibited in the entire territory of the nation. In accordance with this decree – they state – the national flag can only be displayed with flags of countries with which our country maintains relations. This flag, whose display is requested to be prohibited, is not that of any nation, but rather represents a political idea of a portion of the German people in which our fatherland has no interest, and whose display could lead to internal unrest by its professed ideology, which is to be prevented by good governance. Accion Argentina, a patriotic institution that aspires to a reign of peace and harmony emanating from the faith of our ancestors, adopts this resolution considering that, in the days of the celebration of the anniversary of our political independence, various Nazi flags have been hoisted. El Liberal, Santiago del Estero, Argentina, July 15, 1934: “Request for the Prohibition of the Display of a Flag: The Nazi [Flag] Represents a Political Idea that is of No Interest Here” ... La Vanguardia, Buenos Aires, July 15, 1934: “The Flags of Hatred Can No Longer Fly Under the Skies of Our Liberty” The Nazi flag, the same one whose shadow fell on those assassinated on June 30th, and whose folds drowned the protests of the victims of Hitler’s savagery, can no longer be hoisted under the skies of Buenos Aires. The swastika cross, the symbol of racial persecution, can no longer be caressed by the breezes of a nation whose Magna Carta [the Argentine constitution] offers a home to all the people of the world who want to live here. July 18, 1934 German Ambassador Thermann’s memorandum to Argentine Foreign Minister Saavedra Lamas: The enclosed clippings show that the Government of the Province of Buenos Aires has issued a decree concerning display of flags, in which, according to the opinion of the said newspapers, it would be prohibited to hoist the flag with the swastika cross jointly with the national flag. The German Embassy has the honor to ... be permitted to make reference to its note of April 22, 1933, No. 214 (to which the Ministry responded on the 26th of the same month), which note communicated to the Ministry of Foreign Relations that the German flag is composed of two, the black-white-red and the swastika cross, which should be hoisted jointly. Note: Red pencil marking at the bottom of the memorandum indicates that it was hand-delivered to Carlos Saavedra Lamas by Thermann on July 19. Note: A letter from Argentine Foreign Minister Saavedra Lamas to the German Embassy said that the anti-swastika decree of the Government of Buenos Aires Province would have no effect on the display of the swastika flag, thus indicating that the federal government of Argentina would allow swastika flags to be displayed with the German imperial tricolor. A red pencil question mark to the right of nada afecta indicates Thermann’s uncertainty about the effect of this memorandum. It does not appear that this memorandum or a countermanding of the Buenos Aires Provincial Government’s anti-swastika decree was publicized in the Argentine press. Source: Flaggenfrage file, vol. 3, German Embassy to Argentine, German Foreign Office Archive, Berlin. July 18, 1934 Diplomatic Note from Cardinal Pacelli to German Ambassador to the Vatican Diego von Bergen: Your Excellency! The Holy See has for a long time followed with increasing consternation the efforts that have arisen from the time of the ratification of the Concordat to change the de facto and de jure status of the denominational schools to the disadvantage of teh Catholic Church... Source: Albrecht, Note Exchange, vol. 1, p.176. July 29, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Hitler’s Letter to the ‘Most Esteemed’ von Papen” Dateline Berlin, July 28 Esteemed Herr von Papen, As the result of the events in Vienna, I have felt constrained to propose to the President of the Republic of Austria the dismissal of Dr. Rieth, German Ambassador to Vienna, for being ready, at the invitation of the federal ministers of Austria, to give his support to an agreement concluded between them for the safe conduct and transport of the rebels into Germany, without having consulted with the Reich Government. The ambassador thus involved the Reich in an internal Austrian question for no reason whatever. The attack on the Austrian Chancellor, which has been condemned and deplored in the strongest terms by the Reich Government, was fatal through no fault of ours ... and I desire, if possible, to contribute to a detente in the overall situation and to a new beginning of normal and amicable life in the long-troubled relations between the nations of Germany and Austria. For these reasons I turn to you, most esteemed von Papen, with the request that you take up an important assignment, yours because you, from the time of our collaboration in the Cabinet, enjoyed and still enjoy my exalted and unlimited trust. Therefore I have proposed to the Reich President that you, having left the Cabinet and the post of Commissioner for the Saar, be sent as special ambassador to Vienna. In this position you will report directly to me... Civiltà Cattolica on Hitler’s appointment of Papen: ... On July 26th, the Cabinet, commemorating Dollfuss and resolving to continue his works faithfully, decided to institute a special tribunal to try the rebels. German Ambassador Rieth was recalled ... the body of the heroic former Chancellor lay in state among the condolences of all the people ... In the midst of these events, the German authorities dismissed Habicht from the office of “inspector for Austrian National Socialism” and prevented Frauenfeld, an Austrian who had made death threats against Dollfuss and his government colleagues on the eve of these events, from speaking on Munich radio. A great impression was made by the appointment of von Papen as Ambassador to Vienna, by Hitler’s letter deploring the events, and by his declaration of his desire to restore amicable relations between the two nations. Source: Civiltà Cattolica, Aug. 4, 1934, vol. 3, p.444. July 31, 1934 Ambassador von Bergen’s cable to Berlin: From confidential sources I have learned the following: The Pope has been deeply affected by the news he has received from Germany about the details of the shooting of Klausener, Probst, Schmidt and Beck, the alleged denial of assistance of clergy to some persons condemned to death, the cremation of Catholics and the way their ashes were sent to family members, as well as the death of Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss. He is therefore little inclined at the moment to enter into negotiations with the Reich Government and is decidedly against giving unconditional agreement to the decision reached in Berlin between the Reich Government and the Bishops, against which various German Bishops have already asserted their views. We have no decisive interest in pressing to expedite negotiations on pending issues, and we can wait. And the momentary psychosis will pass. Source: Documents on German Foreign Policy (1959), vol. C3, p.166. Aug. 2, 1934 Text of oath taken by members of the German military on the day President Hindenburg died and thereafter: I swear before God to give my unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, Führer of the Reich and of the German Volk, supreme commander of the Wehrmacht, and I pledge my word as a brave soldier to observe this oath always, even at peril of my life. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Aug. 4, 1934, page one; John Wheeler-Bennett, The Nemesis of Power (1954), p.339. Aug. 4, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: Banner headline: “After the Death of President Hindenburg: The First Acts of the New Head of the Reich Adolf Hitler” “General Demonstrations of Condolence - A Law for the Reform of the Constitution - The Validating Plebiscite Set for August 19 - The Army Swears Loyalty to Hitler” L’Osservatore Romano’s article on Aug. 4, p.1, about the German military’s oath to Hitler personally [rather than to the constitutional government of Germany]: “The Oath of the Army” In virtue of the law concerning the Head of State of the Reich and the Nation, Reichswehr Minister General von Blomberg ordered that all soldiers take an oath of loyalty to Hitler. The form of the oath is the following: “I pronounce this sacred oath before God: I will obey unconditionally the Führer of the Reich and of the German People, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the Armed Forces, and as a brave soldier I will be ready to commit my life for this oath.” “The New Responsibility of Hitler as Assessed by the French” Dateline Paris, Aug. 3 Hitler, head of the National Socialist Party and Chancellor of the Reich, has now become President of the Reich and has an absolute power that no Emperor or King has possessed in Germany. He is Head of the people and of the State, and his will becomes the raison d’état. He is truly the sole master of the destiny of Germany. The Nazi regime thus wields the totality of power. Death has taken away the only man whose moral authority still prevailed, in the eyes of the German people, over the person of the Führer, and who, by the major powers within his ambit, could give orders to Hitler. These are now his alone, and his responsibility increases. Great importance should be attributed to the words spoken by Hess in the afternoon. It is striking indeed that in his eulogy for the Marshal [Hindenburg] he emphasized only his military glory and his decision to call Hitler to power. A decisive struggle is beginning for a total renewal [rinnovamento totale]. No one could now prevent Hitler from completely carrying out the famous program of February 23, 1920. The original idea of National Socialism, proclaimed at the outset of the movement, will enter into a decisive phase of realization. Aug. 4, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano, page two, full-page publication of the German Bishops’ pastoral letter of June 7, 1934, which was withheld from publication by the Bishops during the June 1934 negotiations with the regime, then banned by the Nazi regime from publication in Germany in July and thereafter: “The Joint Pastoral Letter of the Bishops Gathered Around the Tomb of St. Boniface” The joint letter of the German Bishops, from their last meeting in Fulda, was covered by newspapers at the time, in more or less brief summary form, and its exact text has not been known until now. The document is of singular importance above all for the principles it commemorates in the face of circumstances that make it more necessary than ever to appeal to the conscience of the faithful and to public opinion; secondly, for dignified and exhaustive refutation of the accusations leveled against the Catholic Church in recent times, as if the Church’s beliefs, discipline, works, and faith itself were at odds with the ideals and the interests of the Fatherland. But the letter not only provides a clear dogmatic exposition, not only a defense of the thought and action of the German clergy and Catholic people, but also, as to the spread of pagan doctrines that pretend to be a genuine interpretation of the national tradition and spirit, the letter recalls and celebrates the national Christian tradition and spirit, which has more than a thousand year history in Germany.” Headings in the Pastoral Letter, as published in L’Osservatore Romano, were as follows: “The Profound Significance of the Jubilee Year - The Ancient Creed Against All Error - The Church of Christ and the New Rebellion Against It - The Bishops Counter the Attack on the Christian Faith - Catholic Associations and Catholic Press - Religion and Politics - For Truth and Justice - Always Ready for God and Fatherland - And the Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail” The following is a partial translation of the text of the Pastoral Letter: Dear Faithful! The Holy Father has gifted Catholic Christianity and the entire globe with a Holy Year, announced in his Apostolic Constitution of April 2nd this year. Holy Years stand as milestones on the broad expanse of the centuries along the path of divine love and mercy. Divine love wishes to be imparted then more than other times, wider than ever are the spiritual treasuries of the Church opened, full of the incalculable merits of Christ and his saints. The explicit occasion for the proclamation of the Holy Year has been provided by the 1900th anniversary celebration of the passion and death of Jesus Christ and the solemn memorial of all the events that were closely associated with Christ’s sacrifice on Golgotha: the institution of the most holy sacrament of the altar, the first communion of the Apostles and their consecration as priests, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the conferring upon the Apostles of the power to forgive sins, the establishment of the Primacy of Peter, then the Ascension of the Lord, the sending of the Holy Spirit, the glorious commencement of apostolic preaching. If ever a centenary celebration was justified, it is doubtless the one decreed by the Pope for the year 1933 and now presently extended for the year 1934. There are underlying events that no other centenary anniversary can point to – events that are proceeding according to Pius XI’s words, the true rebirth of the world, the beginning of all blessings of the Christian life and of Christian civilization, whose ripe fruits we are tasting. This is the deep meaning of this Holy Year. According to the view of the Holy Father, the Holy Year should be a mission time for all Catholic Christians ... Dear faithful, in earnest consideration of these thoughts, how bitter the pain is to us Bishops, and how agonizing the anxiety about it, that precisely in recent years currents and movements have arisen in our Fatherland and grown stronger, which turn themselves directly against the above-mentioned great events of Jesus Christ and against the fundamental truths of the Catholic Church, and – not satisfied with that – toward the goal of founding a new religion and a German national church, which they want to found with a “new faith,” as they say, with the “myth of the blood.” ... As children of the Church of Christ, taught by Christ’s word, we believe in a God, a true and living God, who is creator and Lord of heaven and earth. This God is not an image created by human hands, like the idols of the ancient pagans, nor an image of the spirit of man that is born from blood and race and “becomes and grows in people,” as modern representatives of a new paganism say... With the vow of our baptism we are obligated to faith in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, our Lord: who out of love for us men and for our salvation, took on human nature; who suffered and died on the cross to save us from sin and guilt; Christ, whose glorious resurrection is our pledge of victory over death and hell; Christ, who sometime will come again to judge the living and the dead. Today, however, false prophets are arising in our Fatherland who deny the divinity of Christ and teach another way than what Christ teaches by word and example... As baptized Christians we have obligated ourselves to faith in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Catholic Church. The third person of the Godhead, the “Spirit of truth (John 14:17), speaks to us through the holy books of the Old and the New Testament ... Christ has endowed his Church for all peoples and for all times ... Those who are bringing us a national church want to set us free from Rome, from the Rock of Peter, on which however Christ, the Son of God, has built his Church; they want to separate us from this Church, which according to the words of Saint Paul “is the pillar and foundation of the truth” (I Tim. 3:15). Certainly if “blood and race” are supposed to be the basis and determining factors of faith and religion, as the new pagans maintain, then the State would take the place of the communion of all believers, that is, the place of the Church, as the collective power of the members of our people. Then its claim to “totalitarianism” would be justified in the sense of understanding that it means a claim of complete rule over all human relationships, so that all rights of the individual, all rights of the family and all human associations are completely subjected to its rule. Such is this neo-pagan doctrine, then, you recognize it, beloved, and have often heard complaints about it from your pastors, a radical denial of Christianity in the entirety of its doctrine, its morals, its richness of mercy... Sincerely bound to love for the Church and love for our German people and Fatherland with the faithful who are entrusted to us, we protest against such subversive activity against Christianity and the Church, and especially emphatically because it seeks to contravene the intentions of the Reich Government that have been proclaimed repeatedly in clear words, and if it were to succeed, it would destroy all hope of a secure continuation of our form of government and of a prosperous future for our suffering people. The authority of the State must inevitably collapse if it is no longer founded on the authority of God, “from whom alone all authority has its origin” (Romans 13:1), which therefore can also only demand obedience “as a matter of conscience” when it is in conformity with the will of God. If in human society belief in God and fear of God wither away, and God’s authority, which binds the conscience, is disrespected, then sovereign power becomes involuntarily borne human caprice, and obedience becomes superficially produced slavish fear. Truly the gates and doors are then opened to uproar and anarchy, and security and order are continually in danger. When such dangers threaten, we Bishops may not remain quiet... We may not timidly remain quiet when we see that not only private individuals but public persons are found among the bearers and proclaimers of neo-pagan ideas, who have far-reaching influence and powerful means at their disposal. And now the antithesis: While neo-paganism is recruiting aggressively, our Catholic press no longer has the freedom to address candidly the great issues of the day in the light of Catholic doctrine and moral teaching and to ward off attacks upon Christianity and the Church. Sunday, the day for God and the family, is continually so severely caught up in the demands of State-recognized organizations for compulsory ceremonies and deployments, that no time remains for prayerful participation at mass and for nurturing Christian family life... Dear faithful! To speak totally clearly, we Bishops will not cease to warn you against these empty slogans that confuse your faith and can weigh down your conscience. You have heard and read: Dogmas are made up by men. But we, your Bishops, say to you: Dogmas, articles of faith, are divine concepts, divine laws, which are taken from divine revelation by the Church in its teaching office under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and are presented to us to believe. Thus dogmas are not made up by men. You have heard and read: Whenever you put on a uniform, you cease to be Catholic or Protestant. To that we Bishops say: However loyally you must nurture comradely service and mutual respect, nevertheless religious conviction is not something that you put on and take off like your coat and hang up on a nail during your duty hours... You have heard and read: You can even, without faith in Christ, the Son of the living God, and without faith in the Gospel of Christ, confess a positive Christianity. We, your Bishops, say to you: Positive Christianity is only present when you confess Christ, God’s Son, the savior of the world who became man, and believe in his whole Gospel and acknowledge all his commandments... You have heard and read: Morality is what serves the interests of the Volk. Morality is what corresponds to the demands, the goals and the well-being of the race... You have heard and read: You can place yourself under an unconditional oath. We, your Bishops, comment as a precaution: An oath is a solemn invocation of God and thus can never obligate you to fulfill it in a way that would violate a commandment of God. One can take on an obligation under oath such as the oath taken by officials or by soldiers, for loyal work in a profession, for obedience toward the rightful authorities. But whenever an order shall require something that violates God’s commandments and your conscience, then what applies is what the Fulda Bishops Conference expressed in November 1919 in a solemn statement with respect to the law of the Weimar Constitution: “In what concerns the oath to be taken to the constitution, Catholics will obviously not be obligated by it to anything that conflicts with a divine or ecclesiastical law and thus with their conscience.” You have heard and read: Christianity was a misfortune and a corruption of the race for our Germanic ancestors. But we, your Bishops, say to you: The introduction of Christianity among the Germans was a precious gift from heaven ... Dear faithful! You may perhaps hear it said, as it has often been said, that the Bishops’ standing up for the faith of our fathers, their warnings about the heresies of neo-paganism and the slogans of its representatives are an uncalled-for “meddling in politics.” Conscious of our religious mission and the obligations of our holy office, we reject this untrue misinterpretation of our conduct... Thus we reject it as an untruth, whenever Catholic Bishops are portrayed in speeches or writings as representatives of worldly interests or political hacks striving for power... Dear faithful! Last year we joyfully greeted the Reich Government’s announcement of its decision and steadfast desire to respect and to defend the rights and the freedom of the Church. In sincere love for our German people, in upright recognition of the Government’s measures to stop godless propaganda and public immorality, in trusting their intent to make the force of Christianity the weight-bearing foundation of the new Volk-order, we were and are ready to set about the unhindered work that has been guaranteed for us on the part of the Church for the salvation of people, for the true good of our people... Dear faithful! Thus we have expressed anew in a serious time openly and candidly the painful anxieties that fill us in view of the undisguised attacks of neo-paganism against God and his truth, against Christ and the religion of the cross, against the Church and her task of sanctifying humanity... Remain true to the religion of your fathers! Be assured that Christ, the God-man and savior of the world, remains with his Church, to which he gave the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against it... The Apostle spoke these comforting words: “Cast all your cares upon the Lord” (I Peter 5:7)... May almighty God bless you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit! Given at Fulda in the St. Boniface Church, on June 7, 1934. Signed, Adolf Cardinal Bertram, Archbishop of Breslau Cardinal Faulhaber’s report to Cardinal Pacelli about Abbot Schachleiter’s meeting with Hitler on Aug. 10, 1934: Your Eminence! For the current negotiations about the Reich Concordat, the following report may be important. On August 10th Abbot Schachleiter was with Reich Chancellor Hitler in Munich. When the Abbot remarked that the pastoral letter of the German Bishops had been banned by the police, the Reich Chancellor literally threw up both hands above his head and said, “I had wanted that pastoral letter to be read aloud from every pulpit...” A few hours ago I had a conversation with Herr State Secretary Hofmann, the new State Secretary in Munich for the Reich’s Governor of Bavaria; he is a practicing and earnest Catholic man, who told me: Several days ago he was at Obersalzburg with Führer and Reich Chancellor Hitler, who openly said he was waiting for an answer from Rome: “I bent over backwards in the negotiations with the Bishops, going as far as I could...” State Secretary Hofmann had the impression that the Herr Reich Chancellor greatly desired to reach agreement in the negotiations. Source: Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 1201, reprinted in Stasiewski, German Bishops Papers, vol. 1, pp. 895-896. Aug. 16-17, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: Headline: “Hindenburg’s Last Testament: Von Paper Delivers the document to Hitler” ... Headline: “The Testament and the Campaign for the Plebiscite” Dateline Paris ... The plebiscite on Aug. 19 will be important. Indeed, Hitler has boundless confidence and appears destined to increase his authority prodigiously. Aug. 19, 1934 On the day of the nationwide referendum to confirm Hitler’s usurpation of the Presidency, page one of the Völkischer Beobachter features Bishop Berning’s statement, along with another Bishop’s scheduling of special masses for the referendum: “The Bishops of Speyer and Osnabrück on the Referendum” Dateline Speyer, Aug. 18 The Bishop of Speyer, in a message to his faithful, has called upon God’s help, enlightenment and protection for the referendum of 19 August. Masses of intercession are being scheduled, to which th e faithful will be invited by extra ringing of bells. Hanover, Aug. 18 The Bishop of Osnabrück, Dr. Berning, made the following statement about the referendum: “I consider it the obvious duty of every single German to vote emphatically ‘Yes’ on the Führer question for the sake of the solidarity and unity of the German Volk.” Aug. 21, 1934 In Bishop Berning’s letter to the Catholic Bishops of Germany, he claimed he was misquoted and taken out of context, and then continued: I know that the publication of such a statement caused great unrest in many Catholic circles, and I deeply regret that through this misrepresentation which victimized me, many Catholic consciences came under pressure. I think I owe your Excellencies this explanation. Source: Letter of Bishop Berning to the German Bishops, Aug. 21, 1934, reprinted in Hans Müller, Katholische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente 1930-1935 [Catholic Church and National Socialism: Documents 1930-1935] (1963), pp. 298-299. Aug. 30, 1934 Criterio, no. 339, p.429, page one, on persecution of the Catholic Church by Nazi Germany: “The Voice of a Church” We have removed some material from this issue to make room for the entire text of the June 7 pastoral letter of the German Bishops Conference. The Nazi government prevented its publication from the outset ... The events of June 30 and the subsequent assassination of the great Austrian Chancellor Dr. Dollfuss have darkened the outlook even more. To give an idea of the lack of freedom to which the Church in Germany has been reduced, consider the fact that L’Osservatore Romano, despite its exceptional access to information, only recently became able to present the complete text to its readers on the 4th of August. The document has a masterful simplicity, in lines of admirable clarity of expression, and an intensity of doctrine that is seldom achieved. It goes far beyond the succession of events: it searches out the roots, the deeper causes profound, and brings them to light. It shows that, at the foundation of everything, there is a direct hatred of Christianity, the logical consequence of a pagan restoration involving racism. It is a warning from an episcopacy that is aware of the dangers that threaten the faithful, and that is nobly fulfilling its duties, knowing the vengeance that it has to suffer. Indeed some recent words from Hitler that might seem pacifying do not deceive anyone, because they are contradicted by painful experience. The march of events since the advent of Nazism is instructive. Hitlerian documents prior to the seizure of power, beginning with the Führer’s speeches, were so deeply and absolutely contrary to Catholicism that the German Bishops, individually and collectively, expressed the incompatibility between the religious attitude of National Socialist and Christian faith. But on March 23 of last year, in a speech to the former Reichstag in Potsdam, Hitler stated among other things that “the National Government considers the two Christian denominations to be the most important factors for the moral preservation of the race. Their rights will not be touched… The National Government will accord and assure to the Christian denominations the influence that corresponds to them in formation and education: it will cultivate a sincere cooperation between State and Church.” For these and other stances of the Chancellor, the Bishops, assembled at Fulda, declared on the 28th of the same month that “without removing the condemnation contained in our previous measures against certain religious and moral errors, the episcopate to think confidently believe that these general measures of interdiction and prevention (prohibition of Catholics belonging to Nazi organizations) should not be considered necessary.” Peace was only in appearance. According to what I said in correspondence I sent from Munich last year, at that time I found not a single priest who did not fear for the future. And many episcopal documents of April and May, while doing everything possible to pacify souls, still give a discernible impression of anxiety. Various events that need not be related here led the German Bishops to decide to make their position even more clear, and this was the purpose of the magnificent pastoral letter of June 12 [1933], which provoked commentary even far from the country of origin. An event supervened that was destined to make all fears seem to dissipate. On July 8 a Concordat was concluded between the Holy See and Germany, which provided a solution in principle for all problems, and the same day a decree from Chancellor Hitler revoked all the measures against the Catholic Church. The additional Protocol of July 20 completed the work, and the Bishops expressed their sincere joy. This did not last long. Attesting to this, among other documents, is the pastoral letter of Cardinal Bertram of October 15, 1933, and the allocution by the same Cardinal pronounced a fortnight later. Events moved quickly, and by the end of the year the battle against the Church was openly underway. Criterio has published two articles about this conflict, with facts that we need not repeat here (Nos. 313 and 314, March 1 and 8). Since these dates, the Bishops’ documents have been multiplying, and above them the voice of the Holy Father has been heard in increasingly energetic terms. The shooting of the President of Catholic Action of Berlin, Klausener, and of other Catholics, the imprisonment of dozens of priests, the closing of nearly all the press, and the destruction of the youth associations, have escalated matters to the extreme of a real persecution. Sept. 2, 1934 Diplomatic Note from Cardinal Pacelli to Dr. Klee, Chargé d’Affaires of German Embassy to Vatican: Mr. Chargé d’Affaires, I faithfully request that Your Excellency bring the following to the attention of the German Reich Government. The review of the Bishops’ report on the negotiations that took place between the representatives of the Bishops and the Reich Government ... leads the Holy See to state the following: 1. What the representatives of the German Reich Government have insisted upon, in various essential matters, is less than what the Concordat guarantees by way of freedom for the Church, and thus cannot be considered a reasonable implementation of the Concordat by the judgment of the Holy See nor by the viewpoint of the German Bishops ... Further negotiations with the German Bishops’ representatives are thus necessary, to agree on the required modifications... 2(a) The express exclusion from political party activity under Reich Concordat Art. 31, section 2, does not entail for Catholic organizations any restriction on their collaboration for the common good in the spirit of the classic encyclicals of recent Popes... Source: German Archives, reprinted in Albrecht, Note Exchange, vol. 1, pp. 184-185. Sept. 5-11, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage of Hitler and the Nazi Party’s Congress in Nuremberg: Sept. 5, 1934, p.8 (back page), articles previewing the Congress: “On the Eve of the Nazi Congress at Nuremberg: The Program of Events” Dateline Nuremberg, Sept. 4 Preparations for the second Congress of the National Socialist Party since Hitler came to power are reaching maximum intensity. The Congress will be opened tomorrow, Wednesday, in the afternoon, with the ringing of the bells of all the churches of the city and with the official reception for Hitler in the City Hall. The whole city is decorated with flags of the national colors and with flowers. The streets on the way into Nuremberg present a scene of utmost animation. The first special train of participants in the Congress carried a thousand members of the volunteer work service from the regions of Berlin and Potsdam. Another 500 special trains will arrive in Nuremberg during the night. The first special envoys of the press have already arrived in Nuremberg; they will number more than a thousand. Under the direction of the noted film actress, Leni Riefenstahl, scenes have already been in production for several days for the prologue of a great film that will present all phases of Congress. The diplomatic corps, specially invited by Hitler, will arrive in Nuremberg by special train and will be accompanied by the head of protocol from the Foreign Ministry. During the Congress Chancellor Hitler will give a speech every day... “The Foreign Missions to the Reich Chancery” It has been officially announced that German Chancellor Adolf Hitler, in his capacity as Head of State, will receive the heads of the various foreign missions on Wednesday, September 12, in the old palace of the Reich President. This reception is the official visit of presentation after the naming of Hitler as Head of State and will permit the heads of the foreign missions to greet him personally and present their congratulations... “The Latest by Radio: On the Eve of Nuremberg” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 4, p.m., as reported: On the occasion of the opening of the Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg, the Minister President of Prussia, Göring, in an article entitled “The Day of Hosts,” published in the Völkischer Beobachter, writes that the days of Nuremberg have ceased to be an affair that concerns only the Party, because it is not only representatives of the Party who are gathering there, but delegates of the German people united in this one movement. The unity of the people and of the German State solidly forged by Hitler is vigorously demonstrated... Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 5, 1934, p.8. Original document in Italian Sept. 6, 1934, p.6 (back page), articles about Nuremberg’s welcome for Hitler with church bells, Hitler’s World War I service, attendance of diplomats at the Congress, and “the Thousand Year Reich”: “Nuremberg’s Welcome for Hitler” Dateline Nuremberg, Sept. 5, as reported: When Hitler arrived in the city, the bells of all the churches rang, signaling the official opening of the National Socialist Congress. The “Führer” arrived at City Hall, accompanied by leading officials, at 8 p.m. A dense crowd of 100,000 people welcomed him. In front of the gate into the city was an honor guard of blackshirts [SS], brownshirts [SA], and young men of the labor service, and of police with their standards, and a company of the Reichswehr bearing the bloodstained flag of the Bavarian reserve regiment in which Hitler himself fought during the war... Hitler said the Congress of the Nazi Party of the Reich will be not only a great spiritual and intellectual experience, but also a true gift to all citizens... “The Event Observed from London” ... “The Invitation to Diplomats” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 5 At the invitation of the Führer, participating in the Nazi Congress, in addition to Foreign Minister von Neurath and his State Secretary von Bülow, were also the German Ambassadors to London, Paris, Rome and Moscow, the German Ministers to The Hague, Sofia, Brussels, Warsaw, Bern, Budapest and Stockholm, and the German Consul Generals to Zurich, Danzig and Milan. “The Latest by Radio: Hitler Proclaims in Nuremberg There Will Be No Revolution in Germany for the Next Thousand Years” Dateline Nuremberg, Sept. 5, p.m., as reported: Today at 11 a.m. at the opening of the Nazi Party Congress, a proclamation by Hitler was read. The Führer and Chancellor of the Reich declared that the last twelve months have brought a definitive consolidation of Nazi power in Germany and represent a year of work by the Government that has been immensely constructive and productive. The revolutionary effort for power has been terminated and has gotten exactly what it deserved. Revolutions only abolish powers. It is only evolution that changes the state of things. I warn those who want to have the right to critique the apparent disproportionality between the power of our movement and the number of its representatives in the tens of thousands of managerial offices in the State, because what was not capable of accomplishment up to now, will be done in the future. The strength of our idea did not die on January 30th: on the contrary, it is beginning now to be propagate even where it first encountered superficial resistance. From the supreme leadership of the State to the vast masses of offices, tens of thousands of collaborators have adhered interiorly in ever increasing measure to the National Socialist idea. The will of the National Socialist leadership is absolute: it knows what it wants and wants what it knows. The form of German life has been definitively determined for the next thousand years. Casting a retrospective glance upon the popular vote of March 1933, Hitler observed that overwhelming majority have approved government decisions in the field of foreign policy and declared themselves in favor of the National Socialist State. The fact that our enemies ... During the next year we must continue to develop the internal order of the Party and its associations, purging this community of all elements that do not want to belong to it with unconditional obedience, absolute fidelity and loyalty. We will implement new efforts to gain compatriots who belong to us by blood, but we will also cope with those who think the time has come when they can resume their destructive work. The fist of the National Socialist State will strike them. We will do everything to strengthen faith and trust among our people. “Long live our German people, long live the National Socialist Party and our Reich!” Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 6, 1934, p.6. Original document in Italian Sept. 7, 1934, back page, article on Hitler affirming Nazi doctrine of race and blood, which presents him upholding European culture against Bolshevism, Marxism, “Jewish intellectualism,” and the effects of the French Revolution; article describing Hitler being honored as the first to wear a new German combat decoration; and article conveying Hitler’s speeches in Nuremberg: “Nazi Art: Hitler Reaffirms the New Esthetic of Blood and Race” At the cultural session of the National Socialist Congress, Hitler made ​​a lengthy report on the rules that must dominate the aesthetics of a Third Reich that is based on blood and the Germanic race. “War and peace are natural alternatives in the life of peoples,” he said, “but war dominates historical memories.” According to Hitler, after the turning point in history produced by the French Revolution, disorder has reigned on earth. Putting on trial Bolshevism and Marxism, Hitler maintained that the German people have recently broken the tide that threatened to bury European culture; then he hurled abuse at doctrines injected into the nations by Jewish intellectualism that is limited to social forms without roots and complete emptiness from a cultural point of view. The Chancellor protested against some schools, stating that two perils threaten the National Socialist movement. It is essential to avoid at all costs novelty in art, which is devoid of the significant ideas based on race and blood. It is essential to guard against Cubism and futurists who understand nothing of National Socialism. Thanks to National Socialism, creations without value will be replaced. “Hitler First to be Decorated with the Battlefront Cross” Dateline Nuremberg, Sept. 6 The memory of President Hindenburg was particularly invoked today when the Interior Minister, Dr. Frick, asked Chancellor Hitler to be the first to wear the Battlefront Cross for combat veterans, created in honor of Hindenburg. “The Latest by Radio: Hitler’s Speeches in Nuremberg” Speaking to the sessions of the labor service, Hitler said: We are not National Socialists because we are in power, but we will that Germany become National Socialist so because her offspring are such. You, men of labor, who are participating for the first time in the National Socialist Party Congress, you are the first witnesses who will guarantee that our great effort will not fail, to educate the people according to the new concept of labor and labor community, erasing the former social and professional class distinctions. The entire nation will pass through your school. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 7, 1934, p.8. Original document in Italian Sept. 8, 1934, front and back page articles in L’Osservatore Romano about the Nazi Party Congress; the front page article reviewed British press coverage of the Nazi Party event and a Hitler speech. The back page quoted a speech from the Nazi Party Congress glorifying Hitler for his road construction projects, comparing his roads to Roman roads, and proclaiming that future generations will have “eternal gratitude” for “Adolf Hitler’s roads.” “The Speeches at Nuremberg in the Opinion of the English” On the recent statements of Hitler at the Nuremberg Congress the Times makes the following comments: “Mr. Hitler has repeated that if Germany continues to work for peace and to seek friendship with other countries, this does not mean that the present generation should show less resolution in defending its honor, its independence, its freedom. But,” replies the Times, “who wants to deny the honor, the independence and the freedom of Germany? On the contrary, there is a general disposition to accept it and treat it as an equal in the community of nations.” “However, it will be necessary that Germany not measure its honor, its independence, its freedom only by reference to its material needs while condemning as an enemy any other nation that does not agree immediately, without any discussion, to everything it asks.” Source: em>L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 8, 1934, p.1. Original document in Italian Back page: “The Latest by Radio: Speeches in Nuremberg” As reported: “Speaking about the construction of roads in Germany during the past twelve months, the Inspector General of Roads, Todt, declared to the Nazi Party Congress that approximately 500,000 persons have found work in road construction. “The construction of expressways has commenced at 51 points in Germany. “The Frankfurt-Darmstadt section and the one from Munich to Holzkirchen will be finished by winter. In 1935 around 300 kilometers will be finished and by 1937 the total is expected to be 2,700 kilometers... The expressways, the technological expression of the National Socialist Reich, will always be tied to the history of Nazi Germany, as the Roman roads are with the history of the Roman Empire. “The task of road construction will be completed in such a manner that future generations will acclaim these roads with eternal gratitude as Adolf Hitler’s roads...” “A Speech by Bishop Hudal in Graz on Christianity and the German Race” - dateline Vienna, Sept. 7 His Excellency Bishop Hudal, Rector of the German College of St. Mary of the Anima in Rome, gave a speech in Graz in which he acutely criticized racial theory, concluding with the statement that the Germans need to break free from the teachings of Nietzsche and find the way towards the Church. “It is false,” he said, “that race is the supreme good. The continually variable factor of ethnic character cannot be made an end in itself. It is false that Germanism has been put to sleep by Christianity, which, rather, has contributed to the greatness of Germany.” Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 8, 1934, p.8. Original document in Italian Sept. 9, 1934, front page article about Nazis forces passing in review before Hitler, with words about Hitler being “visibly moved” and giving a “vibrant appeal to loyalty, discipline, obedience and devotion”: “The Nazi Congress: Two Hundred Thousand Political Leaders Pass in Review before Hitler” Dateline Nuremberg, Sept. 8, as reported: Yesterday evening at 6 p.m. the appeal to the political leaders of the Nazi Party took place. Present were 200,000 men in brown uniform. The reviewing platform for the leaders dominated the immense arena to the west. The political leaders had been brought during night and day by 180 special trains. they advanced into the arena in ranks of 12 with haversacks on their shoulders. Many appeared exhausted. The 180,000 leaders carried 21,000 red standards with the swastika cross. Hitler arrived under floodlights casting a spectral light, advanced and ascended to the platform. Ley said: “My Führer! Here are gathered 200,000 political leaders, from the heads of districts to the heads of the smallest groups. Above and beyond the 200,000 who are present, there are 800,000 united with us in thought. They are the General Staff of the Party.” Standing, visibly moved, Hitler spoke to the immense crowd and recalled how the same appeal took place the previous year, but then the political leaders were only 100,000. Hitler thanked them and asked them to continue their work to maintain and develop the results that have been achieved. “We will hold onto power so they will not get the better of us. Today the Nazi Party is the Reich, and it is the German people. Even if foreign countries are malevalent toward us, Germany can never pass away.” Hitler concluded with a vibrant appeal to loyalty, discipline, obedience and devotion from the political leaders, who must demand sacrifices of others and must make sacrifices personally. Alfred Rosenberg delivered a violent diatribe against Russia. Speaking of contemporary Russian youth, Rosenberg declared that the Soviet regime represents a return to absolute tyranny. “A small group of bosses are armed with all the technical means of the 20th century, and they are requiring tremendous efforts from tens of thousands of men in order to aggravate social problems in other States with economic disintegration and to carry the torch of Communist revolution throughout the world.” Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 9, 1934, p.1. Original document in Italian Sept. 9, 1934, back page: “The Voluntary Labor Service” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 8, p.m. In reports about the presence of the voluntary labor service at the Nuremberg Congress, the German press is emphasizing that all the world knows that the shovel is the unique arm of the German laborer, and that for at least six hours per day, the members of the labor service are employed in shoveling fallow ground by way of peaceful labor. In light of these facts it is incomprehensible that military intentions are being imputed to the German labor service. The Nuremberg correspondent for the Tag speaks of the presence at the Nazi Congress of 600 delegates from the international motorists congress, who have taken note that the only purpose that Adolf Hitler proposes to realize with these “peaceful soldiers” can only be a work of peace. Road construction alone shows that Hitler is not thinking of war, but of a long period of blessed labor. Sept. 10-11, 1934, back page, two articles on the Nazi Party Congress and four short articles with other news from Germany: “Parade of the Nazi SA Stormtroops in Nuremberg: Hitler Declares He Will Keep the SA Organization” Yesterday morning in the immense Luitpold Arena, the grand parade of the SA and the SS took place, the culminating ceremony of the Nazi Congress. Splendid weather favored the performance of the ceremony, which included 115,000 members of the SA, the SS, and special units such as political police and aviators. From the first hours of the morning, the stands for the public were packed. On the main platform the guests of honor had taken their places, among them members of the diplomatic corps accredited to Germany, who had been personally invited by Chancellor Hitler. A little after 8 a.m., Chancellor Hitler arrived in the arena accompanied by his lieutenant, Rudolf Hess, and a small retinue. He gave homage to those fallen in the Great War, whose monument stands prominently in the arena. Hitler headed from the main platform toward the monument, accompanied at a short distance by the head of the SA, Lutze, and by the head of the SS, Himmler. Reaching the monument, he saluted with raised arm, while the military band played the song, “Ich Hatt’ einen Kameraden,” [German military song: “I Had a Comrade”] and the flags and standards were lowered. To complete the ceremony, Hitler addressed brief remarks from the main platform to the members of the SA and SS. A special theme has made me convene a new Congress about one year after the “Congress of Victory” [the theme of the Nazi Party Congress of 1933]. He said: “A few weeks ago a dark cloud came over our movement, which led our enemies to believe that the strength of National Socialism had come to an end. I have called my comrades to this place to make a triple declaration: First, to affirm that this cloud does not strike the SA or any element of the Nazi Party; second, to show that my relations with the SA have not changed, and that thousands of times over I have experienced fidelity; third, to declare that I have no intention to dissolve what I myself have built.” He concluded with a “Viva” to the SA. Hitler then proceeded with a so-called “baptism by blood” of 126 new SA standards, 75 SS standards, and numerous flags. They were then carried to the city center to be present for the passing in review of the SA and SS before Adolf Hitler in the plaza. The parade was conducted in perfect order and lasted from midday until 5 p.m. “The Latest by Radio[telegram]: The Final Day of the Nuremberg Rally” Dateline Nuremberg, Sept. 10, p.m., as reported: “After numerous demonstrations, marches and sessions, in which hundreds of thousands of Germans have participated, the Congress ended today with a political speech by the ’Führer.’ Moreover, today was dedicated to the Reich Army, which was participating in the Congress for the first time. This participation is natural because now the ‘Führer’ and Chancellor of the Reich is the supreme head of the Reich Army. “The City of Nuremberg already has an air of departing. While the sun favored the demonstrations of the past days, today the sky has become gray. The Hitler Youth departed yesterday evening in 55 special trains. In order to return the SA to their homes, 293 trains are required. “Also today, Monday, the Zeppelin landing zone disgorged tens of thousands of spectators, anxious to be witnesses to the beautiful military spectacle that will take place today before the ‘Führer.’ The Minister of the Reich Army, General von Blomberg, arrived a little before 10, frenetically greeted by the spectators, together with General Fritsch, chief of staff of the Army, and the chief of staff of the Navy, Raeder. Among the military personalities were noted the head of the ministerial service of the Ministry of Defense, General von Reichenau, and numerous generals.” *** Dateline Nuremberg, Sept. 10, p.m. According to a communication from the management of the railways, during the Nazi Congress 770,000 persons arrived in Nuremberg by ordinary trains and special trains. Already 112 special trains have left Nuremberg, 70 of them in the past 24 hours. All of this traffic moved without the slightest incident, except for some minor delays. “Motorway Conventioners in Germany” Dateline Leipzig, Sept. 10, p.m. Participants in the 15th International Motorway Congress, who are currently finishing a trip through Germany, arrived here yesterday, visiting the city and primarily the central train statino, one of the most beautiful in the world, and left today for Dresden. “Unemployment in the Reich” “The number of the unemployed in Germany at the end of August was 2,398,000, which is 28,000 fewer than at the end of July. The decrease is due to new measures to provide private sector jobs.” “The Death of a Noted Banker” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 10, p.m. Banker Oscar Wassermann of Blomberg has died at 65 years of age after a long illness; he was president of the “German Bank and Discount Society” for several decades. Named director of the stock exchange by the Deutsche Bank in 1912, the deceased had directed the affairs of this bank for many years. Note: Oscar Wassermann had approached Cardinal Bertram of Breslau, Germany, on the eve of the Nazis’ first nationwide boycott against Jewish businesses of April 1, 1933, asking him to speak out against this injustice. Cardinal Bertram declined. “German Branch Offices in England?” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 10, p.m. According to news reports from London, 18 German garment manufacturing companies are planning to open branch offices in London, 9 of them in Manchester and 9 in London. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 10-11, 1934, p. 6. Original document in Italian Sept. 12, 1934, front page article about the Nazi Party Congress: “The Nazi Congress: Hitler Repeats His Principles about the State: The Exercises of the Reich Army” Dateline Paris, Sept. 11 It was from Berlin that Hitler presided over the closing session of the Nazi Congress. He delivered a speech in which he critiqued the old ways of the political parties of the Weimar Republic, affirming that only National Socialism was qualified to assume power. Nazism long remained a minority because it represented the highest values of the German people. As long as the National Socialist State exists, the National Socialist Party will also exist. “We want this State of the Reich,” said Hitler, “to live for the next thousand years.” Therefore the first task is to reinforce the essential unity of all the members of the Party. Hitler finished by saluting the Army and the Party. One day the Party will have, nexxt to the Army, the political direction of the Reich, and then these two institutions will form “the Germanic man” and will bear on their shoulders the German State, the German Reich. Yesterday afternoon the exercises of the Reich Army took place. They were carried out in the form of a small military maneuver, with a regiment of infantry, a battalion of engineers, a public affairs unit, a unit of drivers stationed in Munich, a regiment of infantry stationed in Nuremberg, a regiment of cavalry stationed in Stuttgart, and finally a battalion of engineers stationed in Magdeburg. Mock battles between infantry and cavalry, with machinegun fire, firing of mortars, double frontal assaults, then moving to a scene of artillery fire against infantry and a final combined battle between two sides, blue and red, engaging all arms of the services. After the exercises, the units of the Reich Army passed in review, carrying torches, before Hitler. The 800,000 participants at the Congress have now left the city. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 12, 1934, p.1. Original document in Italian Sept. 12, 1934, back page: “The Latest by Radio: Hitler to Berlin” – Berlin 11 a.m. “Early this morning Hitler left Nuremberg by airplane, arriving at 8 a.m. in Berlin.” “The Reich Expressway” Yesterday morning the groundbreaking for the expressway from Goettingen to Cassel took place in the presence of the authorities. “Return of the ‘Zeppelin’” Dateline Friedrichshafen, 11 a.m. Returning from its seventh voyage this year, in South America, the “Graf Zeppelin” landed yesterday morning ... Sept. 13, 1934, L’Osservatore Romano’s back page features six items about Germany. The first two concern Hitler and foreign ambassadors. As Erik Larsen’s historical work In the Garden of the Beasts (2011) points out, Hitler and the Nazi regime tried hard to get foreign ambassadors to attend the Nazi Party Congresses of 1933 and later, which U.S. Ambassador Dodd refused to do. “The Latest by Radio: Yesterday Hitler Received the Diplomatic Corps” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 12, p.m., as reported: For the first time in his capacity of Head of State, the Führer received yesterday the heads of missions of countries accredited to the Reich. In extremely large numbers, the population of Berlin, from the first hours of the morning, gathered on the pavement in front of the Chancellery and the former palace of von Hindenburg, which is now the Presidential Chancery, to attend the interesting spectacle of the arrival and departure of the diplomats and to greet the Führer. Numerous guards on foot and on horseback had to keep struggling to hold a passage open for the diplomats’ automobiles. The roofs of houses were crowded with the curious. From a palace window hung a large flag with a swastika cross and the flag of the Reich. In the meanwhile an honor guard consisting of one official, one drummer, six subalterns, and 30 soldiers, was brought to the entrance of the palace to render honors to the diplomats according to their rank. At 11:30 the Russian Chargé d’Affaires and the Ministers of Uruguay and Haiti, Sampognara and Mrs. Costantine Fouchard, presented their credentials. The entire diplomatic corps was then received. The ceremonies that ensued were those of the annual New Year reception. Count Bassewitz, the Master of Protocol, received the diplomats and led them into the great reception hall, where they were presented to the Führer. The dean of the diplomatic corps, His Excellency Archbishop Orsenigo, Apostolic Nuncio, delivered a speech of well wishes, to which the Führer responded by thanking the diplomats for having come, and greeting them by shaking the hand of each one. The Führer was accompanied by Minister von Neurath, by the State Secretary for the Presidential Chancery, Dr. Meissner, by State Secretaries von Bülow and Lammers, by the Ministerial Director, Dr. Doehle, by the Legation Counselor, von Plessen, by Military Aide de Camp Hossbach, and by his personal adjutant, Gruppenführer Brückner. Even after the automobiles of the diplomats left the Presidential Palace, the enthusiasm of the crowd knew no limits. The crowd rhythmically repeated the words, “We want to see our Führer,” until Hitler was drawn to the window together with von Neurath and Meissner. Then they came down and showed themselves under the portico, where they were applauded frenetically. “Thanks to Hitler” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 12, p.m. In the name of the diplomats who attended the National Socialist Congress, the Ambassador of Japan, leaving Nuremberg, sent a telegram of thanks to Hitler for the cordial welcome they had received. “Disputes in the Saar District” ... “Reflections in Berlin on the Oriental Pact” ... “Fatal Automobile Accident” [in Berlin] ... “Railway Incident in the Ruhr” ... Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 13, 1934, p.6. Original document in Italian Sept. 14, 1934 Völkischer Beobachter, page one, on Hitler’s visit to Vatican Nuncio Orsenigo: “The Führer’s Visit to the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps” In reciprocation for yesterday’s visit of the Diplomatic Corps, Führer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler conducted an exchange visit at 12 Noon today to the dean of the foreign representatives accredited to Berlin, Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Orsenigo, in the Nunciature on Rauchstrasse; the Führer was accompanied there by the State Secretary of the Presidential Chancery, Dr. Meissner, and by his personal adjutant, Gruppenführer Brückner. Source: Völkischer Beobachter, Sept. 14, 1934, p.1. Original document in German Note: It was rare for the Nazi newspaper to show favor to the Catholic hierarchy. Any appearance of favor toward the Vatican in this instance was counterbalanced by the adjacent headline: “Alfred Rosenberg to the Westphalia Congress at the Hohensyburg.” Rosenberg, the editor of the Völkischer Beobachter, was the main target of condemnations by the Vatican and German Bishops against Nazi neo-paganism. Sept. 23, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano’s coverage of Reich Bishop Müller and his reported words calling for a unified German church free from Rome: “Notes – Correction” Given the particular importance of the facts, it is not out of place or superfluous to return to the words that the newspapers reported on the 21st of this month, in summarizing the speech given in Hanover by the head of the Reich Church, Dr. Müller, words attributed to the speaker himself. That is: “We want a German church that is free from Rome. The purpose for which we fight is: one State, one people, one church.” Such statements, if they were confirmed to be accurate, would obviously give rise – particularly at this time in which negotiations are developing between representatives of the Catholic Bishops of Germany and the Government of the Reich for an equitable agreement for religious peace – to a justifiable regret not only in the minds of Catholics, but of those who know and feel that it would be harmful for everyone, without distinction, among such material troubles, to have a spiritual backlash. We have seen, however, that a statement released for publication by the same Müller acknowledged that the above sentences attributed to the head of the Reich Church not only were not spoken, but were contrary to the letter and spirit of his speech. “I only said” – says Müller in fact – “that Luther wanted to form a church free from Rome. We do not want a fight against the Catholic Church in Germany; on the contrary, I maintain that the two great Christian churches should not act in conflict, but that they have a common moral duty and humanity.” These statements come at a good time. Of course they merit appropriate reservations on the part of Catholics, whether as to the appropriateness of discussing such delicate matters in a public speech, or as to the doctrinal content of the same press release. In any event it is fair to take note of the promptness with which they were confirmed publicly and the intentions that they openly manifested. Immediately following is this article: “From Sinai to Moscow “A Titta Modia in Mattino of Naples says that, regarding women in the criminal code of the Soviet Republic, the Bolshevik law approximates the divine law of the Decalogue, to which it is similar if not identical. Protected and favored in Moscow, just as the woman is protected and favored at Sinai. And he writes: This favoritism towards the woman is not of today: it was already found in the Sacred Laws, in the commandment that prescribes, ‘do not covet another’s woman,’ but does not say ‘another’s man,’ which does not put limits on the desires of women; and St. Paul as well, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, insists upon a unilateral formulation … ‘and the man must not repudiate his wife ... Men, love your wives as Christ loves the Church ...’ “Thus, first of all, that the liturgy of ‘memento homo’ on the first day of Lent, should be thought of as woman not being ‘pulvis’ nor ‘in pulverem revertetur’; it should be concluded that since it is always stated ‘rights’ and ‘duties of man,’ the woman has no rights or duties. And it should be demonstrated that because ‘human’ and ‘humanity’ are words derived quite evidently from ‘man’ and not from woman or female, because otherwise it would say ‘feminine’ and ‘femininity,’ the woman does not appear to belong to the human species and is not ‘within the bounds’ of humanity. “And in fact it is not to be suspected that the admonition of St. Paul does not apply also for the woman, seeing that the man is to love the woman as Christ loves the Church, and the woman - even more so - is to love the man as the Church loves Christ. This is especially so since this bilateralism does not emerge only from logic, but from the texts. And anyone who has the Sacred Scriptures at hand should not forget verse 10 of chapter 2 of Leviticus, where adultery is punishable by death, as much for one spouse as for the other; as it should be perfectly remembered about those who are ready to stone the adulteress, whom Jesus defended, but also commanded: ‘sin’ no more. “The article from Mattino strikes at the Soviet code with a bit of burlesque irony. But such a game does not lend itself to the Sacred.” Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 1934, p.2. Sept. 28, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano, page 3, juxtaposing picture of Cardinal Pacelli with this article about a speech by Bishop Hudal: “Rome, Christianity and Germanism: At a Lecture by Bishop Hudal in Trier” In the course of a recent conference of the Görres Society in Trier, a lecture was given by His Excellency Bishop Hudal, Rector of the College of St. Mary of the Anima in Rome. His chosen theme is of the greatest current relevance and – at the present moment in Germany – is extremely delicate: “Rom, Christentum und deutsches Volk” (Rome, Christianity and the German People). The select audience of this leading academic association of German Catholics, including most notably the Bishop of Trier, the President of the State of Rhineland [Koblenz-Trier], and Duke John George of Saxony, followed Bishop Hudal’s talk with rapt attention and warmly applauded him in agreement and gratitude. We are looking forward to a summary of the salient points of this lecture, as the proceedings of the conference have not yet gone to press. The speaker took his starting point from the episode told by Tacitus, in the second book of his Annals, of the two brothers Flavius and Arminius, who found themselves fighting, one on the side of Rome, the other against Rome. This episode, said the most excellent Bishop, has value as a symbol that still has significance even in our day. When the two opposing armies were facing each other from the opposite banks of the modern-day Weser River, the two brothers, accosting each other across the river, spoke, the one of the “magnitudo romana” [Latin: the greatness of Rome], the other of the “fas patriae” [Latin: the right of the country]. The scene was repeated many times in German history. The cultural upheavals of the German people, especially during the course of the 15th and 16th centuries, seem accompanied by the roar from the Germanic Pantheon coming forth from the abyss. We find in the Germans, on the one hand an enthusiasm for the civilization of southern Europe, and on the other hand a struggle and incessant search that would like to reconcile the two civilizations, one of which, via the Imperium Romanum [Latin: Roman Empire], disseminated Christianity with such success into northern Europe. Many want to think that in the Middle Ages the contrast between the Germanic genius and the genius of Rome was the result of the antithesis between the sacrum imperium [Latin: holy empire] of the Popes and the lay empire of the German Nation; that would be, it seems to them, the essentially most profound problem of Germanic history. To clarify this problem well, it is necessary to follow the tracks that the German genius has indelibly stamped in its encounter with ancient civilization, and then with that of Rome, above all as the center of Catholicism. We must examine, that is, whether the German genius has not indeed had an essential part in the religious formation of Western thought and thus also in the formation of a culture and homogeneous civilization in Europe. We do not share Spengler’s idea that civilizations are subject to ineluctable organic laws of development and decay. Civilization is certainly more than the result of influences of the land and the climate, of blood and of race, even as these are elements of remarkable influence. Traveling through Germany, one is profoundly impressed at the sight of Gothic cathedrals and ancient Germanic monuments, testimonies, all of them, to Roman history and German history. This coexistence and harmony of the two civilizations was, it is certainly true, undermined by the destructive philosophies of Chamberlain, Nietzsche, Lagarde and similar writers, but today the West needs unity in its moral decisions; it needs to collect its thoughts within the rock that is the bulwark for those who believe in Christ. The speaker thus illustrated, with numerous examples from history, the efficacious collaboration of the Church of Rome and the German genius in the formation of Western civilization. The city of Rome itself, he said, bears the profound imprint, more than any other city, stamped upon it by the German genius. The great dispute between Gregory VII and Henry IV gets assessed from a spiritual point of view, by eternal values, since in the final analysis, it was interiorly about the goal of instilling in the spirit of the time a more perfect understanding of the Christian spirit. The deplorable religious struggle of the 16th century was fatal for Western civilization. Its devastating results were presaged already by Melanchthon, the disciple of Luther, who, in his commentary on the Book of Daniel, given to Archduke Ferdinand after the session of the Diet of Speyer, expressed his fears for the fate of Western civic unity and confessed to seeing collapse, in the upheavals of his day, a millenium of Roman and German history. Since that time the German people limp along, like Amfortas in the legend [of Parsifal], with a wounded heart, which all the glories of their history do not have the power to heal. Rome and the German people, working in concord in past times, built a new ideal of civilization upon the civilization of old, and more recently they have been seeking since the 16th century to draw closer. This aspiration to draw near again, to collaborate in a new concord for new tasks, represents the tragic impulse – because it still remains unfulfilled – in the history of the German people. Between Rome and the German people there exists no contrast by reason of race, because Rome does not represent a race, but rather an indelible expression of a great civilization. Man of classical antiquity gave to civic progress the contribution of his practical sense, the fruit of worldly experience and of the vigor of the expressive forms in his creations; Germanic man, for his part, has brought with him the impulse toward the infinite, the restlessness of seeking and of dialectic, the inclination to mysticism and romanticism, with ardent enthusiasm for all the issues of the time, gifts of high value that preserved ancient civilization from the rigidity of formalism. Christianity, triumphant over pagan antiquity, then conferred upon Rome and Germanism a spirit of new heroism. Today the German people are presented with the vital question of whether they are going to have the strength to break free from the dissolute doctrines of their 19th century philosophers and turn back anew to Rome to find the liberating syntheses for their civilization. The German people have a mission all their own, which is to mediate between East and West and to act as a trusted bulwark against Bolshevism. For its part, the mission of Rome will always remain the same, which is to act as a faro delle genti [Latin: light to the nations]. The more that particular civilizations freely progress, the more they need an integrating center that is the custodian of eternal truth. A great son of the Church, of German blood, Nicholas of Cusa, stated in his last will: If I die in Rome, may my body be buried in Rome but my heart returned to German soil; if I die in Germany, may my body stay there but my heart go to Rome. In the same way – concludes Bishop Hudal – we too want to love Rome and the Fatherland with all our hearts. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 28, 1934, p.3. Original document in Italian Note: A summary of Hudal’s lecture in Trier can be found in the annual volume of proceedings of the Görres Society, Jahres- und Tagungsbericht (1934). This detailed multi-page summary contains no mention of Nazi Germany’s “mission.” Oct. 1, 1934 La Prensa, Buenos Aires, page 12: “The Flags of the German Section of the Congress Were Blessed by Archbishop Copello” In the sober setting of the Church of St. Ignatius, yesterday shortly before noon, occurred the blessing of the flags and standards of the German delegation to the Eucharistic Congress, which were displayed in the great ceremonies of an international gathering. The former colonial edifice had been decorated for the occasion with red drapes and Argentine flags, and the main altar was brightly illuminated with candelabras and lights. During a mass, in which a choir performed a program of sacred music, a sermon was given by Father Jacob Wagner, president of the German delegation to the Congress. After prayers, seats facing the main altar were occupied by the Minister Plenipotentiary of Germany, Mr. von Thermann, and by the sponsors designated to act in the consecration of flags, the Argentine flag, the German flag, and the Pontifical flag, as well as the red flag with swastika and pendant, which had been placed in the sanctuary. Moments later Monsignor Copello, Archbishop of Buenos Aires, recited the customary prayers to consecrate the flags, and then solemnly blessed the faithful with the Most Blessed Sacrament. With this and a hymn sung by the congregation, the event came to an end. Source: La Prensa, Oct. 1, 1934, p.12. Original document in Spanish Oct. 1934 Bishop Hudal’s description of his meeting with Pope Pius XI in October 1934 (excerpts from Hudal’s memoirs, in translation): After my return from Trier in Fall 1934, I brought to Pope Pius XI certain thoughts of nationalist-minded German Catholics who found it remarkable, as a contradiction and double-mindedness, that this same Nazi movement that was considered Concordat-worthy in the German Reich was denounced in Austria from the pulpit, in the confessional, and in the meetings of Catholic Action, using every means of religious propaganda to call it “anti-Christian.” ... (p.216) Then I told Pope Pius XI in our private audience for the first time about my preparations for this book and also gave the name of my original title, “The Spiritual Foundations of National Socialism” ... (p.217) Nazism had, religiously speaking, in my opinion, a providential mission in Europe vis-à-vis the advance of Nihilism from the East ... (p.217) The Pope interrupted me with the remark: “There you have made your first mistake. One cannot speak of spirit in this movement. It is a massive materialism.” ... (p.217) A crippling pessimism was expressed in the Pope’s closing words to me: “We do not believe in the possibility of an agreement, but I wish you all the best.” He would prove right!” (p.218) Source: Alois Hudal, Römische Tagebücher: Lebensbeichte eines alten Bischofs [Roman Diaries: The General Confession of an Old Bishop] (1976). Note: The title of Hudal’s memoirs is an exercise in irony. Lebensbeichte is the German term for what is known among English-speaking Catholics as a “general confession.” A general confession consists of admitting before a priest, in a confessional or other private setting, the sins of one’s entire life, including especially mortal sins. General confessions are familiar to converts to the Catholic Church and to Catholics who make an in-depth spiritual retreat. Hudal’s memoirs are in fact the opposite of a general confession. They acknowledge no wrongdoing. They seek to excuse and justify what any normal human being would regard as grave sins and serious crimes. Hudal openly boasts in his memoirs about helping Nazi war criminals flee Europe to escape justice. The objects of his favor included death camp commandants and other significant figures in the Holocaust. Oct. 9-16, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano’s page one coverage of Cardinal Pacelli’s arrival in Buenos Aires: Banner headline: “The Voyage of the Cardinal Legate: The Triumphal Entry of the Cardinal Legate into Buenos Aires” Subheads: “The President of the Republic Receives Him at the Port - The Grandiose Cortege - the Cathedral - The Visit of His Excellency General Justo - Enormous Crowd, Unparalleled Spectacle” Text: (From our correspondent) The crowd covered everything, blotting out all views of factories, wharves, boats ... On the deck, mantled in Roman purple, the Papal Legate. Aloft in the wind, in the sun, in the homage of a people, the banner of the Authority of Peter. An invocation: Christ the King! Ambassador d’Estrada whispered to me with tears in his eyes: “What a precious heritage Columbus left behind.” “The Grandiose Homage by the Metropolis” Dateline Buenos Aires, Oct. 9, 8 p.m. local time. For the arrival of the Cardinal Legate and the Eucharistic Mission, on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress, the jubilant city bestowed on the august Guest a triumphal welcome... His Excellency, Signor Presidente, also introduced to His Eminence General Martinez Pita, Rear Admiral Flabet, assigned during these days to His person. When the introductions ended and the exchange of these first cordial greetings, the Mayor of the City advanced toward the Cardinal Legate, who, surrounded by the Mission and the Government Officials, had the President of the Republic at his side among this imposing crown of authorities. And he pronounced the following greeting: “The City’s Greeting” “Your Eminence! I greet in the Pontifical Legate the foremost sovereign of the world to whose spiritual power all other sovereigns bow in veneration. “Your Eminence arrives among us in a tragic moment for the historiy of the world, due to the crises of civilization, the crises of labor, a general anxiety by which all people cry for justice, hope for peace, and must generously collaborate for that, not locking themselves into the most fatal egotisms. “The Representative of the Pope comes at this hour like Jesus to the gates of Jerusalem. “But Buenos Aires will know to recognize in him a gift of God himself. Buenos Aires will listen to the message of peace brought by the envoy of the Vicar of Christ the King, invoking and actualizing the peace of the Lord. This peace lies in order, in harmony, in charity. Treasures, these, that come from God: happy will be the people cuius dominus Deus eius [Latin: for whom God is Lord]. “This peace is to be found first and foremost at the Tabernacle of Christ with the prodigy of love, outdoing all miracles, which remains among us and with us, so that all peoples and all souls are a new Jerusalem that He desires to conquer. “May we also be worthy of this saving and vivifying conquest, all the more knowing to renounce materialism in life with its destructive legacy of violence and injustices. “Happy, therefore, I repeat, the people that understands this sweet message, the call coming from Christ, which is repeated here in You, Eminence, in the name of the Father of All.” Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 14, 1934, p.1. Original document in Italian with headlines translated Oct. 11, 1934 German Ambassador von Bergen’s report to Berlin on his audience with Pope Pius XI on Oct. 11: ... After a few remarks about the excellent progress of the Eucharistic Congress at Buenos Aires ... the Pope, obviously quite purposely, turned the conversation to Germany. All sorts of events, especially in recent months, had given him cause for serious anxiety, not only about the Church but also about Germany as a whole. The Pope read out a report from the French newspaper L’Aube which had just been submitted to him and according to which a National Catholic Church had been established at Essen with its own Bishop, services in the German language and the admission of Protestants... To all appearances Germany wanted to bring about a schism, but despite all sufferings and persecutions the Catholic Church would remain unharmed, for she was under God’s protection ... Moreover, he could not conceal from me his great dissatisfaction over the slow and unsatisfactory progress of the negotiations hitherto ... I protested against the Pope’s accusations ... The Government had no intention whatever of establishing a National Catholic Church ... Although a speeding up of the negotiations is most desirable and has been impatiently awaited by the Pope, I would renew my plea that the negotiations be protracted until the Cardinal Secretary of State returns; without his moderating influence the danger that, under certain circumstances, the Pope will take disastrous decisions is considerably increased. Source: German Archives, reprinted in Documents on German Foreign Policy, C3, no. 245, pp. 477-478. Ben-Dror Cover Photograph of swastika flag near large cross at central point of 1934 Eucharistic Congress La Prensa article Passage in La Prensa describing honor guard with swastika flag around the altar and monumental cross Oct. 15, 1934 La Prensa, page 9, description of Pontifical Mass celebrated by Cardinal Pacelli on Oct. 14, 1934, with swastika flag in honor guard near the altar at the large cross of the Eucharistic Congress; including this passage: “Flags and Pendants of the Foreign Delegations Surrounded the Christian Altar” From early on, the foreign pilgrim groups that had come to Buenos Aires were arriving at the central point of the ceremonies to attend the culmination of religious commitment. While groups of the faithful, some numerous, others smaller, but all enthusiastic, were finding their places in the areas reserved for each group, the flag-bearers, with emblems and pendants, ascended the steps of the platform, to form in the foreground an honor guard for the symbol of Christianity. The monument then took on the appearance, as the ceremony began, of a large international trophy decorated with the most widely recognized national colors in the western world. The Vatican flag, in the midst of all the others; multiple Argentine flags; the French with its bow of crepe; the British next to the American; the German with the cross of the National Socialist regime; each, in sum, adding its own particular significance to a most eloquent meaning for the enormous crowd of people straining to take in all that was happening. Spanish original full page with these headlines: “The Pope Imparted His Blessing on the Final Assembly of the Eucharistic Congress Yesterday Morning in Palermo - The solemn Pontifical Mass, which the Cardinal Legate, Mons. Pacelli, celebrated beforehand, was heard by an incalculable multitude - An honor guard was formed around the high altar at the intersection of Alvear and Sarmiento Avenues, by flags of the foreign delegations to the Congress - Homily was given by the representative of the Holy See - Plenary indulgence was given to the faithful - Countless Faithful Came Together for the Solemn Pontifical Mass in the Morning - Flags and Pendants of the Foreign Delegations Surrounded the Christian Altar - Cardinal Pacelli Arrives in Palermo - The Solemn Pontifical Mass Begins - The Congress Proclaims the Kingship of Jesus Christ - The Eucharist of Divine Counsel - From the Vatican the Pope Spoke by Radio-Telephone and Imparted the Blessing - Conclusion of the Ceremony and Departure of the Cardinals” Photograph from Official Proceedings of Congress showing arrangement of cross, altar, loudspeakers and platform Oct. 1934 Ambassador Thermann’s account of his interactions with Copello and Pacelli at the Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires, as told to an Allied interrogator after World War II and reported to the U.S. State Department: “Relations with the Catholic Church, which in the beginning had been somewhat strained, took a dramatic turn for the better when Cardinal Pacelli (the present Pope Pius XII) visited Buenos Aires in 1937 [sic] for the Eucharistic Congress and on that occasion attracted wide attention by inviting the Thermanns to social functions and conversing with them in fluent German. Having discovered that Pacelli was interested in aviation, Thermann offered to place a Junker plane at his disposal for the duration of his visit. This offer was accepted and Cardinal Pacelli, Thermann and Archbishop Coppello [sic] took a sight-seeing trip together in that plane. Since that day, Archbishop Coppello had been a frequent visitor to the German Embassy. Incidentally, it was through the Archbishop that the Thermanns became friendly with General Martinez Pita.” Source: Report of interrogation of Edmund von Thermann, former German Ambassador to Argentina, dated July 11, 1945, page 3. Original Secret interrogation report, declassified Additional post-war reports of interrogations of Thermann reveal that the newspaper El Pueblo received German propaganda subsidies of 3,000 German Marks per month. El Pueblo was the daily Catholic newspaper of Buenos Aires, a semi-official publication of Copello’s Archdiocese according to Austen Ivereigh, Catholicism and Politics in Argentina, 1810-1960 (1995), p.80. The first page of the Special Interrogation Report of November 30, 1945 indicates that Thermann was interrogated on a total of nine days, after the date of the earlier July 1945 report. The first paragraph of an interior page of the report shows El Pueblo receiving German propaganda subsidies as of 1942: “The prisoner was confronted with a list prepared by the German Embassy in March, 1942, setting forth the monthly needs in marks for subsidizing publications in Argentina. The principal beneficiary was El Pampero, with 42,000 marks a month; other substantial sums were paid to Ahora (7,200 marks), Deutsche La Plata Zeitung (7,000 marks) and El Pueblo (3,000 marks)." Oct. 17, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 17, 1934, page one, headlines and excerpts: “The Cardinal Legate to Our Lady of Lujan: At the Temple of the Patroness of the Republic - In Flight over Buenos Aires - The Inauguration of the Atheneum for Youth ...” (By radio telephone and radio telegraph from our special correspondent) “Remembering the Unforgettable Hours” Dateline Buenos Aires, Oct. 15, 9 a.m. local time (C.L.) - The city awakens as in a dream. Not exactly: It continues in the dream, so engraved in the mind are its imaginings, so bound to the heart... “Visions” ... The crowd, first and foremost the crowd, enormous, incredible; like two great walls along the Avenue Alvear ... Newspapers of every persuasion have affirmed that two million persons participated in these incredible apotheoses. Two hundred thousand on the platforms, a million in the field, eight hundred thousand along the street. ... In the afternoon His Eminence accepted an invitation from the Argentine Association and went to the airport toward 5 p.m., and took a flight over the metropolis for twenty minutes... Note: It is not clear whether Cardinal Pacelli took the flight with Ambassador Thermann at 5 p.m. as indicated here, or whether he took two flights, one at 5 p.m. and another with Thermann. The latter explanation is more likely, since photographs of Pacelli disembarking from the German JU-52 plane show it on the water, equipped as a hydroplane, not equipped for takeoff and landing from an airport. “The Atheneum for Youth” ... “The Homage by the Armed Forces” Half an hour later, in accordance with the desire expressed since Friday and welcomed with spirited acceptance, the Legate received the visit of homage by the armed forces. Present were sixty general officers and admirals, that is the entirety of the Argentine general staff, with the President in his character as a general, and Ministers of War Rodriguez and of the Navy, Videla... “Radio Transmissions in Germany” ... Throughout Germany, Catholics had the possibility of hearing the words of the Pope transmitted from Vatican City to the closing of the International Eucharistic Congress. Radio stations in Munich, Breslau and Cologne broadcast the ceremony and the speech ... “The Next National Congress of Catholics in India” ... “The Government of Manchukuo and the Catholic Missions” ... Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 17, 1934, p.1. Oct. 20, 1934 Civiltà Cattolica, pp. 126ff.: “‘The Jewish Question’ and National Socialist Antisemitism” Note: This article and its sequel discuss a book that was central to Nazi antisemitic propaganda, the Handbook of the Jewish Question. First published in 1887 by German antisemite Theodor Fritsch, the Handbook was incorporated into the German school curriculum, along with Rosenberg’s presentation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by an October 13, 1934 decree of the Reich Education Minister. Civiltà Cattolica criticizes the Handbook for taking antisemitism to undue extremes and for attacking the Jesuit Order and the Catholic Church. The October 20th article denounces “rowdy and extreme ‘antisemitism’” among the Nazis, which is “ineffective as to just and equitable restrictions on Jewish predominance or arrogance in all parts and levels of social life ...” The article concludes with the statement that Zionism “signals a very bad policy [pessima politica] as well as an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic initiative, and prepares turbulent days in Palestine by its initiation of Jewish colonization. And all this information certainly confirms the existence and the seriousness of the ‘Jewish peril.’” Civiltà Cattolica’s first of two articles, Oct. 20, 1934: “‘The Jewish Question’ and National Socialist Antisemitism” If contradiction is a reliable indicator of error – as we have often had occasion to note, and most recently again in relation to Luther and Lutheranism – then it is no less an indicator when there is exaggeration of that part or at least semblance which it retains of the truth. And it is in fact easiest to make exaggerations or falsifications of truth in the speculative order, as it is very easy to move or slide from one extreme to another ... Of this equally old and new truth, we find today a fresh example in Germany, in a current of the Nazi movement, a naturalistic and neo-pagan current, as was also demonstrated with too sad evidence (cf. Civiltà Cattolica, 1934, vol. I, p. 238, “Antichristian Racial Myth”; p.374, “Defense of Christian Race and Ethics,” etc.) It has gone from an openly declared and Masonic “semitism” to a more rowdy and extreme “antisemitism,” thus also ineffective as to just and equitable restrictions on Jewish predominance or arrogance in all parts and levels of social life, which was a result of the old liberalism, connected with certain Protestant sects, to the detriment of the Catholic religion. It has gone, that is, from one extreme to another, and with equal offense to truth and to justice, as well as open violation of the most essential precepts of Christian equity and charity. And the exaggeration or imbalance becomes all the more intolerable to the extent the dubious zeal of the Nazi antisemites vaunts and opposes its own excesses to the moderation of the Catholic Church, of the Roman Pontiff in particular, and of the hierarchy and its unity. And it so opposes with such boldness as to outdo the most excessive calumnies and defamations against the Church itself and against Catholics, progressing then from words to deeds consistent with the words, that is, to the most unjust and violent persecutions toward Catholics, both people and hierarchy, including also bloody deeds - like those of last June 30th - which the history of modern civilization will record with horror. II. The absurdity of such calumnies, moreover, had already been prefigured by old Ludendorff, exasperated by the defeat and the spectacle of the subsequent disintegration of his country: as he dreamed of striking a blow at all the ills brought on by the Masons, whom the Protestants had so cherished, and by the Jews, and even also by the Jesuits, all supposedly working together, each with the others. But the nice little find that consoled him in his distress was not even his own invention: it was rather the dream of a certain G. zur Beek, who, publishing “The Secrets of the Elders of Zion” to many curious and helpful notices, mixed exaggerations and incredible absurdities, with defamations of Catholics and Popes, but above all the Jesuits. As to the latter, a whole chapter poured forth the most ridiculous legends, told with all the presumption and condescension of the scholar, starting with the most far-fetched imaginings: that “the Jesuits have made a truce with the Jews,” and then also with the Masons, their natural allies: that they wanted to negotiate with them to make better profits, and then divide the universal sovereignty, notwithstanding that they rule the world: that with such plans they would form “a great Catholic central power comprising Rhineland-Westphalia, Bavaria, Austria and Poland,” and dismember Italy in the process. All of this was written by the erudite German in 1919, purporting to presage the future! But the prophet is only as credible as history bears him out; and he presumed to accredit his inventions with a long and fantastical enumeration of Popes “of Jewish ancestry,” including of course the so-called Popessa Joan and then, without a shadow of proof, “Innocent II, Anacletus II, Callixtus III, Alexander VI, Clement VIII, Paul V and Pius IX; and then a series of Archbishops and Cardinals who were likewise “Jews,” including “the famous Cardinal Antonelli, Cardinals Henry Newman, originally Neumann, Mariano Rampolla, Netto of Lisbon, originally Solomon Netter.” ... [p.129] These accusations are made in a publication that is distributed in Germany in the hundreds of thousands - the Handbook of the Jewish Question - edited by Theodore Fritsch ... the publication speaks of a league against Judah and Rome ... There is a chapter in the Handbook by an Alberto Kunkel, which studies the question of the ancestral origin of the Jewish people ... the Handbook speaks of “the Popes of Rome, who give a Christian label to their ambition to rule the world!” The Handbook refuses to affirm the Judaic nature of our savior Jesus Christ ... The heretical sense of Protestant antisemitism is confirmed again in the subsequent historical turns in which it encountered Judaism in the medieval and modern eras, whether that of the ghetto - the Ghetto Era as it is called - or in our days, particularly with reference to the Jews in the Germanic countries, under the Hapsburgs in Austria no less than under the Hollenzollerns in Prussia and the rest of the German empire. And if it is possible to recognize truly with the author and deplore the progress of “Judaizing,” as it is called, then it is not only in Berlin but in many other cities around Germany, as in France and Poland, as well as all Europe. But Protestant unbelief does not see, or does not want to see, that this “Judaizing” was in fact one of the triumphs of the Protestant revolution and of the unbelief disseminated through Europe, with the original foundation and then the total predominance of Masonry, which was so favored by Protestantism, as previously noted... but the incoherence and contradictions and absurd conclusions of the author’s study ... “And under all international organizational questions stand two powers: Rome and Judah,” exclaims our astute German, without needing any proof. So, the phenomenon of “Rome and Judaism” can be seen in all Christian civilization and is found in struggle, naturally, with the German people; a perennial struggle that is the history of two thousand years, leading to the last world war, which represents: The Highpoint of this Struggle. “We have lost!” - so concludes tragically - Rome and Judah are the principal victors in the world war and revolution: our defeat signified the victory of the world domination of Rome and Judah. ... this incites hatreds among so many millions of souls of the worst sort ... fanatics and imposters seeking the salvation of the fatherland... as Bismarck ... Policy of the Middle Way - and according to Wolf, the greater ... of the immense German ... not to value Rome for avoiding the danger of Judaism and Marxism, nor of Jews and Masons to conquer the danger of Rome.”... This, according to him, is the only renewal that can save them. And for this nonetheless it is “the example of Jesus and of Luther,” in accordance with which they intend to “liberate the religion of Jesus” from what makes for the German people a mixture, the “amalgam of Rome and Judah.” This is the struggle against Rome, which is against Catholics and all Christian civilization, palliated by a clumsy pretext of a mixture, or alliance, with Judah, that is with Judaism its irreconcilable enemy. Only this struggle, so to speak, “only a radical revolution will bring help: a return that is to the way of Luther, of the Hohenzollerns and of Bismarck, without which there is no thought of true progress”... With that we are well advised of their true intent, and the meaning of what is promised. But hope smiles on them: that the enemies themselves, the Jews and the Romans, will help them: because, Jews and Romans, like Latins and Slavs, do not know how to preserve the extent of their good fortune, and “by abusing their own strength, pursuing impossible goals, they precipitate themselves into the abyss.” And this will be, he concludes, a nice “irony of history.” Such is the curious historical pragmatism, or strange philosophy of two new adversaries of Rome and of Christian civilization! The conclusion of this rationale is meant to be the proposal of a renewed persecution - a renewal of the old Lutheran and Bismarckian culture war - against the Catholic Church. The matter of these aberrations exhausts historians, not least theorists; the expositors, we say, of the doctrine of Judaism. And here the next chapter, one of the most temerarious of even the undersigning “pastors,” the Protestant Pastor Falck, involves the most absolute condemnation of Judaism and the entire Old Testament Bible, and that of a collection of texts interpreted according to rationalist criticism, with an exegesis of scorn, as with the old incredulity of the French Encyclopedists and German Enlightenment. Thus, as a necessary prerequisite, the good Protestant “pastor” rejects as not only incorrect but also totally unfaithful - absolutely useless - the translation of the Bible of their so vaunted Luther ... ... that Yahweh, the God of the Jews, is unjust, is vindictive and cruel ... in sum is a popular divinity solely and totally created by the Jews. With similar impudence ... that suppose that such opinions or rather formal oaths of our Protestant antisemites... On the other hand, with a more serious appearance and with a foundation of truth, the study follows Jewish doctrine concerning the Talmud, the Jewish Kabbala, ritual murder, and other similar questions, debated and debatable, pertaining to the Jews subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem, when they ceased to be the chosen people, and the religion of Moses became that of the Talmud. In this sense we can see the reasonableness of the author’s statement that “the Jewish question in our times is no longer a religious controversy.” But the argument treated here by a Protestant scholar with such superficiality and passion, which would require many reservations, was rather well, fully, and serenely studied and discussed by Catholic authors, including modern ones, of whom we would like to name two who have written with a particular competence in history and doctrine: Bonsirven and Vincent. In the works of the first the reader will find, in addition to a good orientation on the history of Judaism, an excellent summary of its essence and its own doctrine, inasmuch as it is at the same time a nation and a religion, but a nation and religion in a form all its own. In the works of the second - who has drawn much from the first, and rightly so - in addition to the most strictly expositive part on rabbinic literature, on Jewish doctrine and morals, will be found also concise historical information on the destruction of Jerusalem and ... and on Jewish autonomy giving rise to the great Talmudic schools, which fostered the rabbinic tradition and the decline of Judaism, then faded with modernism and contemporary liberalism into complete unbelief, as for instance that of the recently deceased Solomon Reinach and such other Jewish scholars. The Catholic authors do not conceal the irreparable rift that runs between Jewish thought and Christian thought; they show it and document it as a historical fact, with serene impartiality, but altogether without the hostility of a preconceived polemic, which is rather the custom and method of the partisan antisemites such as the Nazis of our “Handbook.” We do not deny at all that these also appear excusable, and perhaps even worthy of commendation, if their political opposition were contained within the limits of a tolerable resistance to the intrigues of the Jewish parties and organizations: on which another long chapter of the Handbook covers much important information, albeit not all of it proven and accurate. It calls attention to the various associations of the Jews in different countries, notably that in France of the famous Alliance Israélite Universelle, founded in Paris in 1860 by a lawyer, Crémieux, with a second branch in England, formed in London in 1870, the “Anglo Jewish Association”; but especially the many Jewish associations of Germany, and the last known attempt of “Zionism,” much favored by Dr. Herzl and the famous Lord Balfour: as it seems to us and has been reaffirmed by our journal (CC 1922, vol II, p.299; III, 116ff; 1924, IV, p482ff), signals a very bad policy [pessima politica] as well as an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic initiative, and prepares turbulent days in Palestine by its initiation of Jewish colonization. And all this information certainly confirms the existence and the seriousness of the “Jewish peril.” Source: Civiltà Cattolica, Oct. 20, 1934, vol. 4, pp. 126-136. Nov. 1, 1934 Völkischer Beobachter, Nov. 1, 1934, page 3, reporting the meeting of the two reinstated Lutheran Bishops, and a third Bishop, with Hitler: “Reception of the Regional Bishops by the Führer” The Führer and Reich Chancellor today received Regional Bishops Mahrarens, Meiser, and Wurm, in the presence of the Reich Interior Minister, for a discussion about questions of policy toward the churches. Nov. 1, 1934 All Saints Day sermon by Bishop Hudal: “The Führer Role of the Catholic Priest” The Führer concept has come of age. After the aberrations of democracy, Marxism, and the liberal concept of government, all peoples are calling for strong Führer figures. The realization is dawning that it is not the masses but only individual personalities who shape the direction of history, that without goal-directed leadership, States and peoples are consigned to their downfall. ... As meritorious and necessary as this Führer role is in the purely political realm, so must it receive an extension into the realm of the religious worldview through the Führer role of the Catholic priest, which is essentially such by the grace of God. No other Führer role can be established on the same level with this. Source: “Das Führertum des Katholischen Priesters: Gedanken aus der Primizpredigt am Allerheiligenfeste in der Anima” [The Führer-ness of the Catholic Priest: Thoughts from the Sermon at the First Mass on the Feast of All Saints at the Anima], Munich Archdiocese Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, no. 1395. Note: An examination of the files of the Cardinal-Archbishop of Munich shows that he regularly received materials from Hudal, which are found in folders no. 1395 and no. 4006 of Nachlass Faulhaber in the Munich Archdiocese Archive. These materials show Hudal sending copies his books, an invitation to his consecration as Bishop by Cardinal Pacelli in 1933, and a printed copy of his sermon on All Saints Day 1934 in Rome, excerpted above. The “Führer role” of the Catholic priest was exemplified literally in some historical examples both before and after Hudal’s sermon. In March 1933, the Catholic priest who had been head of the Center Party in Germany since 1928, Ludwig Kaas, insisted that all Center Party delegates vote in favor of the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler power to rule by decree. In March 1939, a Catholic priest who had become the leading figure in the provincial government of Slovakia, a province of Czechoslovakia – Josef Tiso – led Slovakia in seceding from Czechoslovakia, one day after meeting personally with Hitler in Germany, and one day before Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Bishop Hudal’s active role in sending his writings to key German figures in the Catholic Church can also be seen in the files of Otto von Ritter zu Groenesteyn, Bavarian Ambassador to the Holy See (1919-1934), for example: Letter from Bishop Hudal to Ambassador Ritter zu Groenesteyn, November 4, 1934, from Rome Most Honorable Excellency, For the exceedingly lovely words of the Rome-concept, I would like to express my most sincere thanks, which go especially to our mutual friend Prelate Wilpert. I will send you each month our Church Bulletin, and further, as soon as my Trier lecture is in final printed form, a copy of that also. Source: Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Nachlass v. Ritter [Bavarian Main State Archive, Ritter Papers], Folder 24. German original: Für die so überaus liebenswürdigen Worte der Rom-gedenkens möchte ich meiner herzlichtsten Dank aussprechen, dem sich unser gemeinsamer freund Prälat Wilpert besonders einschliesst. Ich werde jeder Monat unsere Kirchlicher Mitteilungen senden, ferner, sobald der Trierer Vortrag in Drucke fertig gestellt ist, auch ein Examplar... Nov. 3, 1934 Civiltà Cattolica’s sequel about the Handbook of the Jewish Question, Nov. 3, 1934, vol. 4, pp. 276-284: The worst and most inexcusable wrong of the antisemitic writers of the Handbook - of which we wrote in the article in our preceding issue - is their constant pertinacity in wanting to trample with the same accusations as Judaism, others who do not deserve it: the Popes, that is, and Catholics, as well as Catholicism as such. We wrote of this in the previous article, but they are still overcome by the passionate hatred of the other authors of the Handbook, who assess Judaism in its relationship with civil society in Germany, with respect to policy and with respect to the Christian churches and all religious sects, especially Protestant and also Catholic; also with respect to industry, arts, letters, medicine, statistics and the like. A certain Paul Dehn has acutely studied the political parties, that is, with regard to antisemitic motives, in the 19th century, and has pointed out the interference by the Jews. Another writer, Arno Franke, deals with the “Marxist parties,” that is, those derived from the socialism of Karl Marx, who published his book Das Kapital in 1867, followed by so many other socialist and communist writers: and in this is also shown a false democracy, that of a social-democratic party of Jews. And that which is said against Jewish Marxist theory - that which has given embodiment to the new socialism and communism, as well as Bolshevism, which was in great part a creation of Judaism - which can only be admitted as a notorious fact. But we may well add that, well before these German Protestants, the matter was not only affirmed but well demonstrated by us and by other Catholic writers. (CC 1920, IV, p. 90 ff; 1922, IV, p.111; 1922, II, p.299; III,, p.116) We have also early and often reiterated the true Catholic meaning of peace and Christian brotherhood, against that pacifism and that movement joined to it, of international brotherhood which is the palliative of Masonry and of modern Judaism as it was formerly of the famous three-fold slogan of the French Revolution. As to this pacifism, a work of Jewish inspiration and anti-national impact, Alfred Miller writes, but with blunders and exaggerations that we cannot approve. And yet they are worse yet in the subsequent writing about the so-called Pan-Europe movement, in which they see only the hand of Judaism and Masonry, more than that of its inventor, Count Coudenhove Calergi (a Greek born in Tokyo in 1894). This movement in fact is a purely political one, albeit subject, like all others, to exploitation and abuse by Jews and by Masons. Miller takes on the latter, denouncing Masonry, with all its lodges in Germany, as a more or less conscious instrument of Judaism for the domination of peoples. And in this he would have been completely right, but he included an error by stating the obvious historical falsehood about Masonry along with the idea of the priesthood of the ancient Jews; because the priesthood, founded, he says, by the Patriarch Abraham, continued its existence to the present day, precisely via Masonry... Miller adds such a legend that is not at all necessary to confirm the origin or the preponderance of Jews in Masonry; legends on which the serious historian cannot rely in the absence of solid foundations, and which appear to be the fruit of popular imaginings or even fantasies of Masonic writers: who pretend to ennoble their sect and its rites with fictitious references to the ancient origins of Israel, as with Solomon and his temple. More serious and pernicious, however, are the errors committed by this same Miller, in another chapter, which immediately follows, which considers Judaism in its relations with the Christian churches, with Protestantism especially, and with Catholicism. But he acknowledges, rightly, that the position of Protestantism with respect to the Jewish question is fundamentally not essentially different from that of Catholicism: the one difference flows from the greater freedom, might we say, granted for free examination by Protestants, for the faithful of the Protestant churches: that of free interpretation of the sacred scriptures, those of the Old as well as the New Testament; which makes it easier to be “liberated from Jewish dogmas, and so prevent the Jewish spirit, under the veil of religion, from penetrating too much among the people.” But this, the author adds, “is the only advantage that the Protestant churches have over the Catholic Church.” Now it is clear to all that such an advantage is nothing other than an ability to more easily deny the original divine revelation and all the supernatural, which informs the Old Testament, as the divine preparation for the New... ... Luther’s commentary in the last decade of his life, in which he recognized the danger of Judaism. The new Protestants thus move away from Nazism, also in this, to their own confession, by their old teachers, while rejecting the Old Testament as opposed to the German spirit, and thus reject, even while professing not to reject, all the official teaching of their churches or evangelical sects. To this, in fact, we attribute, among other things, the great wrong of providing credibility and support to Judaism, by their adherence to the Jewish idea of the Messiah: so, we add, “because of this church our people, with respect to Judaism, can in no way say they have difficulty seeing clearly.” Miller writes, “The Catholic Church has a worldwide supranational power like Judaism ... both these powers yearn to dominate the world: for this reason, one depends spiritually on the other, that is, it is subject to serving it in all things; both in full or in part work together and cooperate for the realization of their designs.” Can one imagine reading such impudence and ignorance in a writer who wants to be taken as learned and serious? Yet similar things were said of the Catholic Church with respect to Masonry, as we have cited above... Those who even emphasize such a point of the accord or union of Masonry with Judaism, what is it for them to aver the strange song of the imagined cooperation of these with the Church, with the Pope, with the Jesuits, and so to speak with all Catholics ... Such is the idée fixe and the constant refrain of the Nazi Protestants: which, if little henceforth related to the old heritage of their Protestantism, is still related to the whole hatred against the Church and Catholics. Protestantism having, in fact, lost all concept of the supernatural spirit and the universal mission of the Church - since their pretended “reform” was nothing but deformation and corruption with enslavement of religion to the secular powers and to material interests - cannot see anything but a hateful current in Catholicism, and in the Church, which concerning the salvation of souls is just an ambitious tyranny of worldwide universal domination! This hatred explains the massacre plotted and carried out against Catholics in the turbulent days of this past June, and the vexations that continued up to the present day, which has still not appeased the Nazis. It is true that the poison of hatred breaks out less from the pages of Miller, than in those of the old errors and prejudices of Protestants, as the author knows how to dissimulate under a guise of impartiality; but his accusations engender of themselves, among a crowd of unsuspecting readers, hatred and revulsion against the accused. ... and supposes the conduct of the Church toward Judaism is contradictory, as if it alternates between opposing and abetting; then adds more that is even less coherent and more false, that “the Jewish question in the Catholic Church is well buried forever”: and this solely because it is not located, and much less resolved, in the absurd and brutal terms of the German Nazis. He adds, but in his generosity says he does not really mean to agree with these things - thus it is still not said - “that the ultimate intentions of the Catholic Church and of Judaism are really identical and that both of them should therefore merge in an indissoluble unit.”! What nonsense! And who does not admire the great concessions of the Nazi antisemites? But he ... states: “The Catholic Church - so it goes - has drawn its most powerful impulse and full operating strength from having proclaimed itself the continuation and consummation of the Judaism of the Old Testament, while taking up the heritage of the Caesars in the world subject to the Roman Empire. But in order to take up this heritage it had to allow in the Messianic-Judaic spirit, and from this alone it had to exchange the spirit of serving love of Christianity for the spirit of world conquest at the foundation of the traditions of Rome, with this spirit masquerading as the true Christian spirit.” Such is the foolishness of the ideas confounded in this poor text, in which do not enter the concepts of the spirituality and universality of the Kingdom of God and of the resulting universal mission of the Catholic Church; that type of “world conquest” has nothing to do with the traditions of pagan Rome. It derives all its explicit mandate from Christ himself, which Protestantism denies or distorts, concerning the continuity of its spirit and of its mission with that of Christ. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you,” says Jesus to his apostles ... (John 20:21). And again: “There has been given to me all power in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and teach all peoples, baptizing ... and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded. And behold I will be with you for all days to the consummation of the ages.” (Mt 28: 18-20). Such a universality is the antithesis of Jewish or Pharisaic “particularism,” that is the narrow nationalism of old, no less than of recent times, which is also that of Nazism, just as totally unoriginal as Judaism and equally exclusivist. Yet Miller is not aware of his contradictions and continues undaunted to say: “The spirit of the Catholic Church today is the spirit of Pharisaic Judaism, for otherwise the church would not have been able to think in terms of world conquest.” But the identity, according to this logic, has brought a rupture and struggle between the two conquering Phariseeisms: “the representatives of the one (the old) Phariseeism, have become enemies of the representatives of the other (the new). And that is the root of the hatred of Judaism against Christianity! The old (genuine) Phariseeism seeks to destroy the new.” And with this passage Miller, ignorant of the true cause of the struggle of the Jews against the Christians, while recognizing the fact, which remains historically incontestible, thus manages to confirm the testimony of the Fathers. But the recognition of the ancient dogmatic opposition of the Catholic Church to Judaism must serve as Miller’s excuse for deploring the claimed conciliation or pacification with the Jews of our day. Of this he thinks he can find a sign in the new code of canon law. This, we are told, has deleted the references to Jews among the canons concerning the resolution of impediments to marriage related to differences of religion. Now such an argument is truly childish, like so many others of our Nazi antisemites. The Jews, in fact, are clearly addressed, for anyone who can read plain Latin, in the section that speaks of the non-baptized (canons 1070, 1071); there is no special mention of the Jews because the law is general, extending, that is, equally to all who are not Christians. And like this, the other omissions of previous particular laws that mentioned the Jews explicitly - omissions that the author deplores in the new code as indications of philo-semitism - are explained and justified, for every man of good sense, in the new summary of ecclesiastical legislation, which corresponds with the progress of the science of law in modern times, and with recent civil legislative practice among Christian peoples: therefore one cannot give umbrage or insinuation of philo-semitism, as the German antisemites do. Such is the bullying and smallmindedness of scholars who have a mania for gathering mud to sling at the Catholic Church! And not to be ignored in our reflections: those parts that are worthy of praise, as Miller’s treatment of the article in Civiltà Cattolica of May 19, 1928, commenting on the decree of condemnation of the association “Friends of Israel.” He covers it to a great extent in more than one dense page, and concludes with an expression of surprise, that “such great insight (into the Jewish question) could hardly be expected from these quarters.” But he hastens to annul this favorable recognition, grasping small items of news, rumors and gossip from the newspapers, to conclude that the article ended with words that do not signify that “Rome wants to renew the struggle against the Jews or their deplorable manifestations”; inasmuch as “Rome needed Judaism,” which serves its interests; as with the “Italian Commercial Bank (director general Toeplitz)” - which would be entirely a Jewish matter, according to this erudite collection of fairy tales - and similar ... nonsense. We feel that we must now ask pardon of our readers for covering such nonsense, yet there is even an echo of applause: so we save ourselves the trouble of following the sad event. From the data described, now appears fanaticism, hatred and confusion of ideas where the Nazi fantasy unites Rome with Judah, the Catholics with the Jews, the Catholic Church with Jewish society. Now such an excess of fanaticism impairs, without doubt, the practical effectiveness of the antisemitic movement: indeed it raises the suspicion that the Nazis have more against Catholics than against Jews and Masons. We had rather hoped to sense a dispelling of this by the last chapter, where the noted “Pastor Falck” prepares us with his concoction “the history of German antisemitism.” But that was not the case, nor in what concerns the first upsurge, the development and the progress of the antisemitic movement before the War, nor its development and outbreak after the War, when it intensified in various fields and in the entirely different form of “antisemitism of the old type,” with the cropping up of “first signs of a springtime of the people,” as the Protestant pastor says. To this springtime the Epilogue of our “Manual” alludes, or rather sings its praises; and the lyrical praise exalts it to an absolute rebirth that has made the German people into the archtype and model for all peoples, of natural civilization on earth; but it is combatted, however, by international Judaism, in which we are still shown “the Jew as a peril to the human race.” This Jewish peril, moreover, was well warned against before, insofar as it is a sad reality, and denounced by the Catholic elements. And the Nazis themselves cite at the beginning of their epilogue the testimony of Civiltà Cattolica - putting this work in Milan! - which has just been repeated for more than eighty years, but in quite another style, with more moderation and precision, than what is found in modern exaggerations of antisemitism. Thus no one will be able to interpret our words of open criticism of the present Handbook of the German antisemites, as if it were an apologia, or worse, an exaltation of Judaism and the Jews, who always have been and still are, as it is professed, sworn and irreconcilable enemies of Christ and of Christianity, especially of open and frank Christianity, the Catholicism of the Roman Church. But by this enmity, which is of the essence of Judaism, we had all the more to rise up against the lies that are repeated throughout the book, and in the epilogue itself it is reaffirmed: that Catholicism, or as it is said at the end, Ultramontanism, is approached and infused with Judaism, even with no less than Rabbinic Talmudism! And that by the spirit of reference to and obedience to authority, according to the laws of Christ and the Church, which have nothing to do with the blind servility of the Talmud (p.546). From the enormity of such prejudices and their conclusions - although we reported thoroughly - one could well see reason in the false concept that the authors of the Handbook have of the Jewish question and danger, and of the remedy they propose to apply to make us safe. The remedy is worse than the disease, for the disease is so much worse as to call it even the “Life-Lie of Humanity”; as the greatest lie of humanity. And because this deception of life, as they denounce it, begins with religious teaching in the schools, with the introduction of the study of the Bible, which they want to take away, abolishing all biblical instruction, or religious instruction, that is in use in the schools. And there is no writing to justify this radical abolition: that in the religious teaching that is still in effect, the Jewish spirit of cunning and malice that is represented as the creator of the world, as divine; and with this fundamental deception of Judaism, the youth are introduced to the world to be given over to the grasp of the age, which is liberalism, that is Judaism. And the sticky disease of Judaizing has become hereditary among men, where it is necessary to the word of the men who surround and obey Adolf Hitler, to obtain the renewal of the people.“ As the Nazi antisemites, clarifying their program, under the pretext of fighting the Jews and Judaism, want to banish religious instruction, as it was said of the Masons, which they presume and boast of fighting. And “much has been done - they add at the end - but infinitely more remains to be done.“ It remains to remake everything, more than reform, of the state and the people, in all parts of life, public and private: politics, economics, arts, culture, religion”: the new formation of State and Volk... So, leaving aside the rest, turning to the sole point of religion - Christian dogma and morals - we have insisted, because the Jewish danger is not so grave and extreme as the danger of a new apostasy from genuine Christianity, from the true religion of Christ, an apostasy even worse and more radical than that of the old Protestantism. This would not be a solution of the Jewish question: it would be a catastrophe, from Judaism to a more extreme atheism, as has occurred in Russia with that Bolshevism which Nazism boasts of fighting to the bitter end, but in reality imitates and favors. But such a catastrophic solution and that true Catholic solution to this vexing question which must be opposed to it, will be appropriate to discuss with more ease and respect, keeping equally distant from both extremes, according to the balance of the pure doctrine of the Gospel, which is that of the Catholic Church alone. (footnote: other than that policy proposed for the Jewish question by the Englishman Hilaire Belloc in The Jews, recently translated into Italian). Source: Civiltà Cattolica, Nov. 3, 1934, vol. 4, pp. 276-284. Nov. 17, 1934 Civiltà Cattolica, Nov. 17, 1934, vol. 4, pp. 400-407, reviewing a book by Bishop Hudal: “German Culture in Italy” At the present moment, Germany does not enjoy general sympathy in the world. This is a fact whose reasons are noted by all. Nontheless, we believe we are able to say that in Italy, a country of balance and moderation between extremes, it is known how to make distinctions between what is characteristic of the German nation and what is particular to this or that excessive or fanatical current, between that which is permanent and that which is a passing phenomenon. But beyond this subjective reason about the disposition of mind of the Italians, there is another objective reason that has not made and will not make them lose all sympathy for the German nation. Ever since the German people were converted to Christianity - which is the strongest civilizing force and at the same time the most agreeable - more than a millenium ago, the most elite part of the German nation has always been in spiritual contact with Rome and with Italy, in greater numbers than from other nations, which is primarily a result of the religious idea and the cultural and artistic yearning toward Christian Rome and the Rome of classical and medieval antiquity. With this element, the better representation of the German nation, the Italian, Catholic and Roman spirit naturally finds itself in harmony, in a mutual communication of religious, artistic and cultural life. And with this likewise are found in similar harmony all the other nations, to the extent they participate in Christian civilization, and the more sincerely and fruitfully they do so, the closer they approach to the universality “of that Rome where Christ is Roman.” In this way there appears a much appreciated opportunity to skim through history up to our times and through various regions of the Italian peninsula, especially the Eternal City, as the works and institutions of German culture in Italy pass in review, under the enlightened and serene guidance of the current Rector of the Anima ... For Milan, Bishop Hudal notes with pleasure, the intiation of regular pastoral care for the German Catholic enclave originated from the voluntary service provided by Monsignor Achille Ratti [who became Pope Pius XI, 1922-1939], from 1886 to 1914, for the German Catholics residing in that city. Spiritual care became ever better organized, so that, in 1904, the protectorate for Germans residing in Italy was instituted by the Holy See. The First Cardinal Protector was appointed by Pius X, Cardinal Kopp, the Archbishop of Breslau, who assigned Monsignor de Waal as his deputy. The current Protector is Cardinal Schulte, since 1921, and his Commissar-deputy, since 1932, is Bishop Hudal. *** While the various Protestant sects, especially those of American origin and the Waldensians, are devoted to a more or less fanatical proselytism in Italy, Lutheran Protestantism, in our peninsula, is at present limited to the “Evangelicals” of the German nation and language, who are for the most part travelers, students, business people, and persons who are seeking out the mildness of the Italian climate. In the past, an early introduction to Lutheran Protestantism in Italy, but always just among the Germans, was that arising in the 16th century in the so-called Foundation for Germans in Venice, a commercial emporium, where at a certain point Protestantism had the upper hand, until, by the work of the Jesuits, the German community was led back anew to Catholicism... After an account of the diplomatic representatives and ambassadors to the Holy See and the Quirinale [seat of Italian Government in Rome], from Austria, Bavaria, Prussia and the German Reich, with historical comments up to our time, Bishop Hudal records the long list of scholars from the Germanic nations who came to Italy since the 15th century. Especially in the Eternal City in the 19th and 20th centuries, there are numerous names of world-renowned Germans; among the Catholics it suffices to name Cardinal Hergenröther, Father Denifle, Cardinal Ehrle, Cardinal Franzelin, Cardinal steinhuber, Bishop Ehses, Ludwig Pastor, Bishop Wilpert, Father Hagen, director of the Vatican Observatory, Father Fonck, organizer of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Bishop Kirsch, director of the Pontifical Christian Archeological Institute; and among the non-Catholics: Mommsen, Gregorovius, von Sickel, Ernesto Steinmann, P.F. Kehr, Christian Hülsen and Arthur Haseloff. After a final chapter about the schools for the German community in Rome, Florence, Genoa, Milan, Naples, Palermo, Trieste and Venice, Bishop Hudal concludes with some nice comments about friendly relations between Italy and Germany in various fields, especially culture, and about two recent institutes that promote these relations... With this book, ordered in its parts and accurate in its historical details, bishop Hudal has accomplished a highly commendable work, showing legitimate patriotism towards his noble nation, and above all a Christian, cordial harmony between peoples, who certainly feel more bound in brotherhood as they consider their links with Rome and strengthen them. We are pleased therefore to conclude with the selfsame noble words that the Most Excellent Author laces at the conclusion of his book: The modern era, in its relations between peoples, has today other ideals and other means than those of the men of past centuries; but the world will be saved neither by politics nor by scientific theorizing, but by a clear adhesion to the immutable and absolute. Christianity and Antiquity are again today the two cornerstones on which Western culture is built. Once again today Rome is the custodian of the seal of great truths, which stands erect through all times up to the present, living and fruitful. When German pilgrims of the Middle Ages, after walking for many weeks, arrived at Mount Mario and saw the Eternal City for the first time from that height, they greeted it with the ancient pilgrim song of the ninth century, whose words historically present the great capital thoughts of German pilgrims in Italy, and with these we would like to conclude our book: O Roma nobilis, Orbis es domina, O Roma, salve! [Latin: O noble Rome, you are the ruler of the world, O Rome, hail!] Source: Civiltà Cattolica, Nov. 17, 1934, vol. 4, pp. 400-407. Dec. 26, 1934 Statement of the Catholic Bishops of the Cologne Church Province: On Sunday, January 13, 1935, the referendum in the Saar District will be held, on the question whether this German State and its inhabitants shall or shall not remain in the separation from the German Reich which was forced upon them by the dictated peace of Versailles. In the face of the upcoming decision in the Saar, so momentous for our Fatherland, no true German can be indifferent. As German Catholics we are obligated to stand up for the greatness, the welfare, and the peace of our Fatherland. Source: Hans Müller, Katholische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus, Dokumente 1930-1935 [Catholic Church and National Socialism, Documents 1930-1935] (1963). Dec. 30, 1934 L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 30, 1934, back page, review of Bishop Hudal’s newest book: BISHOP HUDAL: Rome, Christianity and the German People, Tyrolia-Innsbruck-Vienna. 1935. 61 pages. L’Osservatore Romano has covered (Sept. 8 and 28, 1934) the speech that His Excellency Monsignor Hudal, titular Bishop of Ela and Rector of the Church of St. Mary of the Anima in Rome, gave in September in Trier and Graz on the theme, which today is of the greatest importance for the German nation, of the relationship between Catholicism and Germanism in the past, in the present, and in the future. Now this speech, whose salient points we had noted immediately, has appeared as an elegant booklet, expanded and annotated with bibliographic references, and represents a precious feature of the Catholic defense against the historical and logical errors of the “Myth” of Rosenberg. The author’s profound consciousness of the providential, productive collaboration of the German genius and the Latin genius, in Rome and in the world, offers abundant documentation of the congruence and harmony, rather than division and irreconcilability, between the German race and the Catholic Church. If Luther nefariously dug an abyss which four centuries have not been able to fill back up, on the other hand the Catholic Church and its faithful sons have continued to give to the German people, and to all the nations of the world, light and energy that have saved German civilization from the barbarism into which it would be led by the new false prophets of a fantastic paganism that is more foolish than all the old theogonies. If the latest utopia of blood and race should mislead the German people to separate from the civilization of Rome, then would be realized – as Bishop Hudal observes – the sad prognostication of the satiric poet and atheist philosopher Heinrich Heine, who a hundred years ago characterized the German philosophy of his day with his caustic pen in these words: “It is natural that a methodical people like the Germans would begin with a religious reformation, continue with philosophy, and finish with political revolution. The heads that are engaged by philosophy to think, can then be chopped off by the revolution, according to its unique talents.” Never fear, you German republicans: your revolution will not be milder or more moderate than others, just because it was preceded by the criticism of Kant, by the transcendental idealism of Fichte, or by so-called natural philosophy. From the doctrines of German philosophy will arise the revolutionary forces that are just waiting for the right moment to release and fill the world with awe and terror. They will arise from the Kantians who also, in the real world, have no interest in piety, and who, with no compunction, go rummaging about with scissors and paste through the dark underworld of European life to tear up as well the last roots of the past. From Fichte’s followers will arise fighters who in their determined fanaticism cannot be held back by fear or self-interest, because they live in the spirit and resist all material influence. But worst of all will be the natural philosophers who put their hand to a German revolution, identifying themselves with the work of destruction. For, if the hand of the Kantian strikes with conviction and force because his heart is not moved by respect for tradition, if the Fichtean courageously withstands all dangers because for him they do not exist, the natural philosopher will be a terror because he considers himself invested with the primeval force of nature, because he can invoke the demonic power of ancient German pantheism, and because that will awaken in him the ancient German love of battle that does not fight to destroy, nor to conquer, but simply for the taste of battle. The sarcastic anti-Christian poet must at least recognize at this point that Christianity has the great merit of mitigating somewhat this warlike passion of the Germans, but – so he says – Christianity was not able to eliminate it, and if one day on German territory the Cross should collapse, there would flare up the old warlike ferocity, the insane “furor teutonicus,” of which the Nordic poets tell us and sing to us so many things. Then, the ancient gods of stone would rise again from the derelict rubble, shake off the dust of millenia, and Thor, with his gigantic hammer, would destroy the gothic cathedrals.” Preventing Heine’s grim prediction, already partially fulfilled, from becoming completely fulfilled, is essential, writes Bishop Hudal, not only for the German nation, but for all of Europe, because the fury that would destroy Christian civilization in Germany would not stop at its borders but would inexorably take hold of those other European states that think they can escape the scourge of Bolshevism. In this field there is only one doctrine that can prevail, and that is Catholic doctrine. The impressive systematic philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great, monumental in its simplicity, imperious through the years, suffices also today to dispel all doubt, to resolve all problems. The doctrine of Christ is the sole and infallible touchstone for recognizing the truth in the midst of all error, because through it shines the divine ray that dispels all human weakness. The author shows that no people, and least of all the German people, can have any reason to break away from Rome, to renounce faith in Christ. Bishop Hudal’s study will serve to clear up many doubts, to restore peace to many consciences troubled by presumptuous and absurd theories of Pan-Germanism and materialism in our day. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 30, 1934, p.8. Italian original Dec. 1934 Excerpts from Bishop Alois Hudal’s Rom, Christentum und Deutsches Volk [Rome, Christianity and the German Volk], published in winter 1934-35; manuscript dated last Sunday of October 1934 (Feast of Christ the King in the pre-Vatican II liturgical calendar); Hudal posited a religious obligation to serve the Nazi authorities and to love Volk and Fatherland: Introduction ... Nation in the broadest sense, my homeland, my dear Fatherland, Austria, but above and beyond that, all Germany, whose rising again, after the years of Marxist destruction of all ideals, so many patriotic Germans beyond Germany have welcomed... Fidelity to Rome and national consciousness, love for homeland, Fatherland and Volk are really not a conflict of conscience for the German Catholic. Rome is not a danger that brings nations death, but rather blessing; for the Church, whose spiritual wealth as the heir of antiquity means the spiritual unity of the West, is not international in the sense that Marxism is... We want to remain faithful to Rome without thereby lowering to halfmast the ideals of the Fatherland and the Nation. We Catholics, in our love for the Fatherland and the Volk, are bound not by means of momentary formulas of a governmental constitution, for we serve the authorities not merely out of national motives; rather our love for the Fatherland, as a religious virtue, is anchored in the granite rock of the concept of Christian culture. Hudal continued with a visionary appeal for the flags of Nazi Germany and Roman Catholicism to fly jointly over Germany: We therefore desire only that along with the banner of the nation, the flag of the Kingdom of Christ might also wave over the whole German country, because only under the signs of the Fatherland and of Christ is an auspicious future assured to our Volk. So as German Catholics in a world-historic hour for our Volk, we want to fulfill our duty toward Church and Fatherland... Rome, on the Feast of Christ the King, 1934. Source: Bishop Alois Hudal, Rom, Christentum und Deutsches Volk (1935), pp. 7-12. Go to Overview-Contents Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Translations and Notes, 1935-1937 1935 Jan. 8, 1935 Völkisch Observer publishing Goebbels’ statement on the upcoming referendum in the Saar District: In recent days nearly all the Catholic Bishops of the German Reich have issued proclamations about the Saar referendum, stating clearly that in the face of the upcoming decision in the Saar, so momentous for our Fatherland, no true German can be indifferent, and that German Catholics are obligated to stand up for the greatness, the welfare, and the peace of their German Fatherland. Source: Hans Müller, Dokumente, pp. 330-331, reprinted from the Völkischer Beobachter. Jan. 15, 1935 Pope Pius XI’s letter to Hitler, translated from the original German: To the most honorable and illustrious Herr Adolf Hitler, Supreme Führer and Chancellor of the German Reich, The most honorable and illustrious Pope Pius XI offers his greetings and well wishes. For the informal transmittal of the official letter in which You [Du] recently put Us on notice that following the passing away of the outstanding and unforgettable Herr Paul von Beneckendorff und Hindenburg, by the law of August 1st of last year, the office of Reich President was consolidated into one with that of Reich Chancellor and You thereby became the Supreme Führer of the German Reich, We express to You Our grateful thanks. With joy We took note of the sentence in Your letter: “It lies very close to Your heart, that the ties that bind Germany with the Apostolic See might not only continue but be continually made closer.” Since now in fact a true peace between ecclesiastical and worldly authority contributes optimally to the well-being of the people, We will most eagerly strive that, after overcoming the still existing difficulties, so far as it is within Our power, Your desire for the common good will be crowned with auspicious success. For that We implore Almighty God, that He may impart to You, most honorable and illustrious man, and to the whole German people, His efficacious help. Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, January 15th of the year MCMXXXV, in the thirteenth year of Our pontificate. Pope Pius XI Source: D. Albrecht, Note Exchange, vol. 3, p.73. Jan. 1935 Excerpt from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s memoirs, starting with a question from Hildebrand to Cardinal Pacelli: “Your Eminence, what will the future bring, how will matters unfold with National Socialism?” He answered: “It looks very serious, and it will get worse unless the moderate elements in National Socialism gain the upper hand.” At that I answered: “Don’t say that, Your Eminence! The moderate elements are the most dangerous. Far better the Rosenbergs, who take off the mask and openly display their absolute irreconcilability with the Christian faith, than those who confuse and entice Catholics by disguising their battle against Christ. It is not a question of moderate or radical – National Socialism is in its essence filled with the spirit of the Antichrist.” At that he said, “Yes, you’re right – racism and Christianity are absolutely irreconcilable, like fire and water. So there can be no peace, no bridge...” Source: Dietrich von Hildebrand, Memoiren und Aufsätze gegen den Nationalsozialismus [Memoirs and Essays against National Socialism] (1994), p.121. Feb. 2, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 1, p. 303-304: Bishop Alois Hudal - Rome, Christendom and the German People. Innsbruck, Tyrolia-Publishing, 1935, octavo, 64 pages. Bishop Hudal, Rector of the German National Church of the Anima in Rome, publishes in this booklet some lectures that he gave at convocations, for the Görres-Society in Trier, for Catholic Action in Graz, and for German-speaking Catholics in Rome. He deals with a subject of current importance for Germans, namely love of fatherland and nation in harmony with the supranational universalism of the Catholic faith, contrary to the errors, misunderstandings, and exaggerations of nationalism and racism that are prevalent in the well-known neopagan currents of today’s Germany. His Excellency demonstrates eloquently through the history of the Church and the German people that, far from being in conflict, fidelity to Rome is really in perfect accord, in the conscience and heart of every German Catholic, with national consciousness and with love of the fatherland and the German people. Thus is presented explicitly and in detail the thesis that was implicit in the remarkable book by the same author, “German Culture in Italy,” which we treated at length in Civiltà Cattolica, Nov. 17, 1934, p.408. Feb. 2, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 1, p.318: Germany. Dr. Moesmer, president of the Marriage Law Session of the German Law Academy, gave a lecture in the Great Hall of the University of Munich on January 12th, explaining the grounds of future German marriage law. According to the new law, mixed marriages between racial Aryans and non-Aryans will not be allowed, nor marriages of persons afflicted with hereditary maladies or venereal diseases. The age for marriage will be raised to 23 years for men and 20 for women. Among the documents that must be presented will be an attestation of marriageable capacity and a racial certificate going back three generations. Divorce will be based on the principle of marital incompatibility, but will be possible also for hysteria, impotence or sterility. In certain cases, then, divorce will be “officially” permitted, upon request of the State Procurator. Original document in Italian Mar. 12, 1935 Cardinal Pacelli writes to Cardinal Schulte, calling the Nazis “false prophets with the pride of Lucifer” who are trying to create an opposition between “faithfulness to the Church and to the Fatherland.” Source: Ronald Rychlak, Hitler, the War, and the Pope (2010), p.88, citing Volk, Akten Deutscher Bischöfe, vol. 2, pp. 114-117. July 15-21, 1935 Der Stürmer, no. 29, third week of July; contents related to Catholic Church: Page one: Photograph of a Stürmer display case in the City of Mainz, Germany; this relates to the Bishop of Mainz refusing a Catholic burial for deceased Nazi Gauleiter Peter Gemeinder, described in the article “Hatred Extending Beyond the Grave,” on page 5, above and below the swastika blessing photograph. Page 3: “Priests and Pfaffen” Priests are those “who feel inwardly compelled to stand by heavily burdened people in their sufferings and sorrows ... they even love their enemies ... Priests never point a finger at their fellow creatures, because they know that they themselves are only – human. Priests do not make common cause with Jews.” Pfaffen are “people who want to appear better than they actually are. Pfaffen are hypocrites ... Pfaffen are men for whom the consecrated garb of the priesthood serves only to gratify their egotism ... Pfaffen are men who have no qualms about exalting the Jewish people as the people of God.” Note: Pfaffen was used as a term of contempt toward priests in Germany long before the Nazi era, as seen for instance in the book Der Pfaffenspiegel [The Pfaffen-Mirror] from the mid-19th century. Page 5: Photograph with caption, “An Archbishop Blesses the Swastika Banner: Before the Cathedral in Buenos Aires Archbishop Dr. Luis Copello blesses the swastika flag of the German Pilgrim Group, who came to the Eucharistic Congress in Argentina. This Ceremony was attended by the German Ambassador and the Argentine Foreign Minister” Article above and below the photograph: “Hatred Extending Beyond the Grave” Many have already forgotten: when Gauleiter Peter Gemeinder died, the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church refused to give the Catholic Peter Gemeinder a church funeral. They refused to do it because the deceased was a National Socialist. Because he was a man who hated the crime of the post-War era that was brought about by the Jews and Jews’ lackeys, and fought so that things would become better. Because he was a person who honored Priests and hated Pfaffen. That is why a church funeral was denied to National Socialist Peter Gemeinder. Hatred extending beyond the grave... In the freestate of Danzig a Hitler Youth leader died. Because he was Catholic, his mother wanted to have him buried according to Catholic custom. The pastor refused to give the deceased Hitler Youth a church funeral, if his comrades were to be present. No Hitler Youth, whether Catholic or Protestant, may step into the cemetery or the church. No Hitler Youth flag may bedeck the bier of the dead comrade. If these demands were not satisfied, so wrote the pastor to the hard-pressed mother one day after the death of her son, then the burial could not take place. Hatred extending beyond the grave... Article to the right of the swastika blessing photograph: “Who Governs Russia” Excerpted from the anti-Jewish Belgian newspaper “L’Assaut” no. 18 of May 3, 1935 This question receives a categorical answer through the following enumeration of the approximately 550 upper and highest level officials of the Soviet paradise. There are 447 Jews without a fatherland, 30 Russians, 34 Latvians, 22 Armenians, 12 Germans, 3 Finns, 2 Poles, 1 Georgian, 1 Czech, 1 Hungarian. These figures are excerpted from the official Russian daily press, such as Isvestia, Golos Truda and Rote Zeitung. Aug. 1, 1935 Memorandum by Menshausen, Berlin, German Foreign Office, Berlin: Subject: Defamation of the Pope Yesterday evening the Nuncio delivered informally the attached brief note (footnote: no attachment found) with the remark that he was for the present disinclined to make a formal written protest, since he was convinced that the Foreign Office would want to act of its own accord to remove the picture of the pope with the “malicious graffiti” from the “Stürmer” display case at 86 Kurfürstenstrasse. Source: German Foreign Office Archive, reprinted in D. Albrecht, Note Exchange, vol. 3, p.112. Note: There are multiple instances of Nuncio Orsenigo submitting protests or otherwise writing about Nazi publications in the course of his work as Vatican Nuncio, including the Stürmer (May 5, 1934, Note Exchange vol. 3, pp. 24-25), Angriff [The Attack] (Sept. 2, 1935, Note Exchange vol. 3, p.120), Siegrune (Oct. 4, 1935, Note Exchange, vol. 3, p.130), and the SS weekly Das Schwarze Korps [The Black Corps] (Nov. 4, 1935, Note Exchange, vol. 3, p.138). Aug. 3, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 3, pp. 295-299: “Gold, Money and the Jews (H. Wast)” Gold is the dominator of the world! This has been said and repeated through the centuries... Vain lament! The dominion of gold is fatal, because it constitutes the only monetary basis in all the world, and money is necessary for commerce and all trade, without which there is no social life. Its tyranny would only be shaken by devaluing it as the basis of money and reducing it to its own value as a metal in proportion to its real utility for human uses; taking away, in sum, its symbolic artificial value and giving its real value. That was precisely the dream of a great humanist, great saint and great martyr of conscience, Thomas More. In Utopia he says that only human folly has attributed a value to gold for its rarity and not for its utility, which is much lower than that of iron; for this reason the citizens of Utopia, who have no money, do not use gold for anything noble or decent, such as ornaments and vessels for food and drink, for which they use instead glassware or pottery, but for the most sordid and vile vessels and for chains of those sentenced for crimes, and as a sign of opprobrium upon those who are publicly deemed infamous and must wear earrings, rings, bracelets, necklaces and crowns of gold. A worse devaluation cannot be imagined! But that imagination of More is nothing but a satire of human folly and greed ... Now we see a modern writer taking up and amplifying – most probably without ever having thought of the great work of his predecessor – the same dream of More: the devaluation of gold, in a manner better adapted to our times. The illustrious writer and prolific novelist Hugo Wast (footnote: literary pseudonym of Gustavo Martinez Zuviria, whose works we have spoken about many times in Civ. Catt. and purposefully in 1924, vol. 3, pp. 232 ff.), who has described so many times and in the most varied scenes, with picturesque palette and effective dramatic style, the life and customs of Argentina, has published in two volumes a novel (footnote: El Kahal, Oro), which is, in the language of today, “sensational”: a sort of modern “utopia.” He believes it possible, such is the vividness and verisimilitude of the details with which he describes it, intertwining the most recent events, such as the great Eucharistic Congress celebrated in Buenos Aires just a few months ago. The thesis of the novel, in two parts, is the following: The basis of money and thus of commerce and politics of the nations, in the whole world, is gold. Gold, for the most part, that is three-quarters, is hoarded and “controlled” by the Jews, who crave and seek to acquire the remaining fourth and so possess all the world’s gold. (footnote: As one of the proofs of this gathering of gold by the Jews, Wast, in the introduction to the first part of his novel, brings up the fact that, in Buenos Aires and in all the cities of Argentina, prominent signs are seen: “I buy gold.” “We buy gold.” “Gold, gold, gold, we pay the highest price.” Also in Rome and in other cities of Italy we see the same signs: “I buy gold.” “We buy gold ...”) So the Jews, the bosses who control the gold and thus the value of money, effectively control commerce and channel economic crises, actually guiding politics and deciding about war: everything in order to completely enslave Christians, destroy Christianity and establish Jewish world domination, which personifies their long-awaited “Messiah.” The present economic crisis is, in fact, according to Wast, the result of the Jewish hoarding of gold. To shake off this domination it is necessary to dethrone gold, “the only god of the Jews,” by devaluing it as the basis of money and reducing it to its industrial value, like all other metals. Down with gold, god of the Jews, bogus idol of the world! But how? Here the fertile imagination of the novelist comes into play with a supposition, not far-fetched, which he presents powerfully with all the appearance of a real current event. The scene is set in the great metropolis of Buenos Aires, where the Jews, who numbered only 366 of 443,000 inhabitants in 1887, have grown so numerous (not specified precisely, because the last census did not take note of religion), increasing constantly, to the point that Wast claims Buenos Aires is the third city of the Jewish world after New York and Warsaw. (footnote: According to statistics from the Encyclopedia Italiana, vol. XIII, Ebrei [Jews], p.328, in the Republic of Argentina, in 1924, there were about 100,000 Jews. Assuming all are in Buenos Aires, or at least the majority are, they must have almost tripled in number by today, so that Wast's assertion can be true. According to the Encyclopedia, there are 13 cities with more than 100,000 Jews: New York, more than a million and a half; Warsaw, 350,000; Chicago, 225; Budapest, 217; Vienna, 200; Moscow, perhaps 200; Philadelphia, 200; Odessa, 280; London, 175; Lodz, 150; Kiev, 140; Berlin, 115; Cleveland, 100. Thirty cities have more than 50,000 of them. In Italy, ther are 56,000 Jews; the major centers: Rome, 12,500; Mila, 7500; Trieste, 5700; Turin, 5200; Florence, 3300; Fiume, 2600; Genoa, 2500; Leghorn, 1800. We also read there: “It can be calculated that currently the total number of Jews in the world is more than 17 million, of which about 11 million are in Europe, 4.5 million in America, 800,000 in Asia, 500,000 in Africa, and 25,000 in Oceania. Toward the middle of the 18th century the total number was probably not more than 3 million, increasing to about 12 million in 1910.”) They dominate because of the great Jewish bankers and the Synagogue with its Kahal, or supreme council, which maintains the unity of the Jews; so that even the richest among Christians are inevitably undermined by the usury of the Jews, the hoarding of gold and the holding of money. ... Both these characteristic rebels, powerfully sculpted by the literary style of Wast, are smitten by Grace, like Saul on the road to Damascus, at the great Eucharistic Congress, which our novelist, who was a spectator and a participant, depicts brilliantly, with the impact of a thunderbolt, as a great artist and a profound believer. With the conversion of these two unique protagonists the novel worthily reaches its conclusion. It would have been more opportune, therefore, to omit the appendix on the “Antichrist” and some fantastic pseudo-prophecies... This is not an antisemitic novel. Wast does not proclaim any crusade or any persecution against the Jews. It is much more a warning to Christians, especially those of Latin America: “That the Jew among you not mock you” (Par. 5, 81). It is a clear affirmation of living faith culminating in the memorable Eucharistic Congress, the richest thus far of the wonders of Grace of the true and only King of the world, Jesus Christ. In sum, if not a solution of economic questions, this is at least a balanced satire, not unworthy to stand in comparison with the Utopia of St. Thomas More. Aug. 4, 1935 Excerpts of Goebbels’ speech in Essen, Germany: ... The National Socialist movement stands and will continue to stand on the foundation of a Positive Christianity. We wish and desire, however, that just as we are religiously for Positive Christianity, the Church must be politically for National Socialism. Lip service cannot suffice, we want service in deed. That churches still exist throughout Germany is thanks to the fact that we knocked out Bolshevism (thunderous applause). The Center Party was too weak to do it, and it really didn’t want to, because it felt it was more closely related to Bolshevism than to us. They should not think that we have so easily forgotten their past sins. We respect all religious convictions. To each his own! We will not tolerate a new Inquisition. We are not the sort to build pyres around a stake as in the Middle Ages. With us, each can become holy in his own way. Forming the youth in religiosity may be the business of the Church. Forming the youth politically is our business! ... The youth belong to us, and we give them up to no one. And a denominational press is superfluous (thunderous prolonged applause). We had 400 of our number give their lives to overcome the political parties’ disintegration of our Volk. What we have driven out by the front steps, are we now to let in through the back stairs? We will root out every form of enmity to the State, wherever it may show its face. We desire no Culture War. But we have the impression that there are certain cliques in former circles of the Center Party who would like to bring on a Culture War... Source: Völkisch Observer, Aug. 5, 1935, reprinted in Müller, Dokumente, pp. 361-362. Aug. 4, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Religious Situation in Germany: Observations and Clarifications” This past July 7th His Excellency Dr. Frick, Interior Minister of the Reich, made official statements in Münster which our newspaper demonstrated in an article in the July 15-16 issue, “Concordat Questions in Germany,” to be irreconcilable with the Concordat concluded on July 20, 1933 between the Holy See and the German Reich. Ten days later, the Prussian Press Office and the “German News Bureau” published a summary of a circular decree of His Excellency Mr. Göring, Minister President of Prussia and head of the Secret State Police, to the local governing authorities, which spoke of a supposed “political Catholicism” and exhorted them “to proceed with all legal means against those ecclesiastics who abuse their spiritual ministry for political ends.” ... From our point of view, for addressing today’s religious tension one could not find a more erroneous and fallacious formula than the pretended “political Catholicism.” The Minister President of Prussia has declared that he is against a “Kulturkampf.” We are sad to say that the facts tell an entirely different story. The real situation is that the Bishops in Germany do not have the freedom to preach the Gospel or to apply it to the issues of the day, without subjecting themselves, under the decree in question, to penal sanctions... Spiritual ministry in the churches and schools, in the associations and organizations, is subjected to continual hostile spying, which could not be more odious. Under the circumstances, the Minister President’s declaration that he does not want a “Kulturkampf” lacks genuine meaning, and cannot, as might be the case in other circumstances, lull Catholics into complacency. “Kulturkampf” in Germany is no longer a danger for the future; thanks to Rosenberg and his fellows, it is a tragic reality in the present... Aug. 17, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 3, pp. 426-431: “The Religious Persecution in Germany” The ordinary conditions of the Church, living and progressing in the midst of opposition and persecutions, has become worse in our times in many countries. Above all this is because modern persecutors, more than former ones, have come up with various political justifications ... Among these in the past century, for example ... were the famous ones in Germany under Bismarck, in the longlasting persecution against Catholics ... which was called “war of civilization or culture” or “Kulturkampf.” ... Today ... vexations by the German government are multiplying and becoming worse every day towards Catholics ... extreme of a paganism ... defense of the government and the Nazi Party against its opponents and enemies. Such is the sense, in spite of ... the article in L’Osservatore Romano on August 4, 1935, which reported ... the recent episodes of persecution... The 7th of July His Excellency Dr. Frick, Reich Interior Minister, made an official declaration which our journal covered in the article “Concordat Questions in Germany,” showing that it was irreconcilable with the Concordat concluded on July 20, 1933 between the Holy See and the German Reich. Ten days later, the Prussian Press Office and the “German News Bureau” published a circular decree of His Excellency Mr. Göring, Prussian Minister President and head of the Secret State Police, to the higher local authorities, which spoke of a supposed “political Catholicism” and called them “to proceed with all legal means against those ecclesiastics who abuse their spiritual ministry for political ends.” ... The decree gave the impression that it concerned a considerable number of members of the Catholic clergy who, under the Concordat, were guilty of abusing their spiritual character for political ends. Aug. 1935 Bishop Hudal’s lectures in Salzburg as published in his book Der Vatikan und die Modernen Staaten (1935); excerpts: [Flyleaf]: ... This new book by Bishop Dr. A. Hudal is a balance of the relationship between the non-Christian State leadership of the present time and Catholic Christianity. That is one side, the principal one, of this book; the other has a deliberate, reflective facet, which is dedicated to a unique examination of all the many difficult efforts to find the urgently needed modus vivendi between the despotic totalitarian claims of the States of today, and the unalterable demands of the Christian state of life. [Text]: A mystical aura surrounds each Papal coronation in St. Peter’s, whose glorious liturgy reaches back in part to the early Middle Ages. It is a moment when the world-historic position of the Papacy on earth comes particularly into focus. It is that consecratory act, in which the most recent Cardinal-Deacon sets the Tiara on the head of the newly-elected with the words: “Receive the Tiara, bedecked with three crowns, and know that You are the Father of princes and kings, the ruler of the orbit of the earth, and the representative of our Savior on earth!” ... Will the modern cult of State and Nation, which is leading the world into an epochal cultural turning-point by its totalitarian claims and a myth of blood and race, recognize alongside itself another form of leadership which is not of this world, and which does not make claims upon the world in the manner of an anachronism or an institution from a long-gone era of history, but rather as the most living reality issuing forth from the character of Christianity and likewise a decisive voice? Shall Schiller’s words apply: “Even Rome in all its splendor is only rotten mould of the past”? It is precisely the present that teaches us, however, that the position of Rome, unbeknownst to many hostile movements, is not in retreat, but rather on the point of a significant enhancement of power. From the Tiara shines forth, even today, an illustrious light into the world. In the midst of the chaos of post-War Europe, the Vatican has become the throne of the world. The light is not extinguished, as Nietzsche thought, rather it still glows, from a more elevated torch. In no other field does this Führer-role and cultural-religious worldly importance of the Church come so obviously to the fore as in those fourteen State treaties by which Rome is engaged to protect the rights of the Catholic Faith face-to-face with the modern concept of the State... [Bishop Hudal goes into a lengthy analysis of the main features of the post-War Concordats, including those with Italy and Germany] ... The modern State, to the extent it has totalitarian claims, wants to build upon the concept of the Volksgemeinschaft (Volk community)... Today there are 40 million people in Europe who live in States where they represent a minority in contrast to the majority Volk of the State. Even if their rights are assured by special constitutional provisions, and sometimes also by the peace treaties, still these minorities live in various States under exceptional regulations that restrict their intellectual and economic development... (pp. 47-48) ... Wherever revolutions and government upheavals come to pass, Moscow has a hand in the act. It is the religious and moral dregs of Judaism, coming forth from Moscow today, that keep the Christian peoples of Europe in constant unrest, in order to prepare the way for the worldwide dominion of a race that has given mankind precious cultural values and outstanding personages, but which, as soon as it is loosened from its religious roots, must undermine every other cultural field... (p.82) ... As Catholics we want to see not only the dark side of present times, but also the light, and to thank God that we might be fighters for the Church Militant in a great era, in order to preserve the Christian West. Based on this consciousness, we want to believe with firm joyful agreement in the final victory of Christ. (p.85) Sept. 1935 Special Edition of Der Stürmer; page one headlines and inside page excerpt: Banner headline: “Murderers from the Beginning” Subhead: “Jewish World-Bolshevism from Moses to the Comintern” Inside page caption under photograph of Joseph Stalin: “The Non-Jew Stalin: Comes from Georgia. He is not the dictator of the Soviet Union. He is, just like Lenin, an instrument in the hand of the Jews. The daughter of the Jew Kaganovich is his wife.” Caption under photograph of Lazar Kaganovich: “The Jew Kaganovich - The real dictator of the Soviet Union.” Sept. 7, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 3, pp. 554-559: News Chronicle (Germany): In our last issue we mentioned an escalation of Nazi totalitarianism against Catholic sentiment. The demonstrations in Münster did not remain isolated. Dr. Frick, the Reich Interior Minister, as noted, reiterating the idea expressed at the Congress of Münster, engaged the competent authorities to repress vigorously all movements against the sterilization law... Also the struggle against the Jews is marked by a fresh outbreak of violent incidents. In Berlin, on July 16, a Swedish film of antisemitic bent was shown. Then, because there was a move among the Israelites to protest against the showing, the Nazi paper Angriff called upon Nazis to react forcefully against “Jewish arrogance.” The arrest of a soldier who had beaten a Jew was the occasion of a violent scuffle. Two thousand Nazis sought and obtained the release of the soldier. Then the demonstrators went to the Kurfurstendamm, devastated the Bristol Cafe, pounded the Jewish owner of another café with their fists and beat up some passersby who they thought were Israelites. Other antisemitic demonstrators were also in the area, for which they tried to cast the blame on provocations by the Jews; but it is to be remembered that Goebbels, the Reich Propaganda Minister, in official speeches he gave on June 29 at the Sport Palace and at Tempelhof, had ordered the strengthening of antisemitic action. And Goebbels’ delegate for vigilance over Jewish activity in the artistic-intellectual field, on August 7, upon being informed that the Jewish League, which heads the organizations of Israelite writers, artists, musicians and actors, has 30,000 members in Berlin alone, and that in Berlin and other cities of the Reich there are theaters managed by Jews, where it is exclusively Jewish artists who act on stage, announced that he would make sure that the audiences were composed exclusively of non-Aryans. In many places, signs are being posted that forbid access for Jews; many town mayors are promoting a boycott against those Germans who do business with Jews; and because hotels that are favored by a Jewish clientele are being threatened with closure, in some places hotel owners have decided not to admit Jews. Sept. 13, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Hitler’s Proclamation at the Congress in Nuremberg” Yesterday morning in the Luitpold Hall the Congress of the National Socialist Party was officially opened. The immense hall was filled with more than 15,000 persons from the Party’s organizations. In the front row were the guests of honor, including Minister of War von Blomberg, the other ministers who are not members of the party, and foreign diplomats. Chancellor Hitler entered the hall, which was magnificently decorated in white, red and gold, accompanied by his staff, and went up on the stage to sit down with his lieutenant Rudolf Hess; the head of the SA, Victor Lutze; the head of the SS, Himmler; and the political head of the Franconia district, Julius Streicher. Immediately afterwards, the flags entered the hall, preceded by the “blood flag,” and the head of the SA, Lutze, read the list of the fallen Nazi Party members, while those present stood and raised their right arm. Then Hitler’s lieutenant Rudolf Hess declared the opening of the Congress, giving a speech of welcome to the Chancellor. Hess recalled in his speech that the high point of the year was the re-establishment of the military freedom of Germany and alluded also to the new Bolshevik menace arising in the world from the latest Communist International Congress, affirming that Germany continues to be the strongest bulwark against the international expansion of Bolshevism. Then Julius Streicher took the rostrum to welcome all the participants; and then the political leader of Bavaria, Wagner, went up to the podium to read the proclamation of the Leader. Hitler began his proclamation, which we reported yesterday, recalling that the first Congress of the Party since its rise to power was focused on the achievement of victory, the second on the consolidation of power, and the third Congress is now on freedom. After mentioning the new positive results achieved in the struggle against unemployment, the Chancellor gave a pessimistic description of the world situation. “National Socialists will understand me,” said the proclamation, “if I, at this solemn hour, ask them to look around at this vast world. “The Marxist theorists who say ‘no more war’ are in fact themselves the greatest instrument for a future war. The apostles of reconciliation among peoples in practice actually fill the world with anxious hatreds and unfounded denigrations; the alliances for peace study the possibilities and methods for a future war. “Germany can tranquilly assist in all this, resolved to be no longer a passive instrument in a game, as it has been until recently. For its security is not assured by means of treaties, pacts and accords of whatever nature, but by means of the real strength that resides in the people and in the Nation. “Yet we feel all the more secure to the extent that neither the Government nor the German people want anything more than to live in peace and friendship with neighboring Nations.” The German Army is the protector of the peaceful work of Germany. Our party, continues the proclamation, is a “militant party,” because it will continue with greater vigor the struggle against its traditional enemies. These are: Jewish Marxism and parliamentary democracy, its ally the Catholic Center Party, which is pernicious from a political and moral point of view, and finally some incorrigible reactionary bourgeois elements. The struggle against these forces will continue without vacillation or diminution. The patience of the Government has been misunderstood by the Jews, and the National Socialist State will continue on its course to overcome this grave peril. Hitler then criticized severely those priests who apply themselves to politics more than to pastoral care, also asserting it is a calumny to accuse National Socialism of conducting an anti-Christian struggle. Finally, after touching upon on the necessity of reducing international debts as a contribution to solving the worldwide economic crisis, Hitler outlined the program for the next year. It consists of intensifying the struggle against unemployment, attending to the rebuilding of the German Army, and making Germany a home for peace and European culture. International Communism, concluded the proclamation, has declared to the world a new war of destruction. National Socialism has managed to grasp its glorious flag more firmly than ever and fight against its old enemy to defend the honor of Germany and to affirm its future life. In the meeting of the cultural organizations, Rosenberg stated that an annual prize of 20 thousand Marks has been created “for art and science.” This year the prize has been awarded to poet Hans Johst and Professor Hans Guenther, noted for his “Racial science of the German people.” Note: L’Osservatore Romano published the following commentary at the end of its report of Hitler’s proclamation: If the transmission of these words is accurate, we do not know whether it is inexplicable that the dissolved Center Party was included among forces still operating in Germany, or whether it was confused with those that, because they profess principles opposed to Christian morality and to the social teaching of the Church, are pernicious “from a political and moral point of view” to the ordered life of the people. On the other hand, it is perhaps perfectly understandable that since it is now customary in Nazi circles to mention “those priests who apply themselves to politics more than pastoral care,” insofar as this is the only way to pretend the conflict with the Church in Germany is not an anti-Christian struggle, but simply political; while the activity of the clergy today in its sacred ministry, against hostile doctrines and laws, is not partisan, but is strictly in accord with the defense of Catholic dogmatic and moral principles, and with pastoral care. Sept. 14, 1935 Goebbels’ speech against Jewish-Communism, as published Sept. 14 in the Völkisch Observer, pp. 1-4, contains the following themes: Main headline: “Bolshevism: the Open Enemy of All Nations” (p.1) Nazism has a world mission to fulfill against Bolshevism (p.2, col. 1) Russia suffers under a Judeo-Marxist rule by force (p.4, col. 1) Page 4 headline: “The Bolshevik International is in reality the Jewish International”; subheadline: “It is Jews who founded Marxism and who stand at its forefront in every country today. Bolshevism is brutal materialism based on the lowest, speculating instincts, fighting a battle against Western culture in the interests of international Jewry.” (p.4, col. 4-5) Bolshevism is organized and led by Jews (p.4, col.5) Lazar Moissewitsch Kaganovich, Stalin’s deputy and right hand man, will rule over the land of the Czars; his daughter, who will soon be 21, is now Stalin’s wife (p.4) “The greatest service the Führer has given to mankind in the course of his German mission is to erect a dam against the advance of Bolshevism in Germany, against which the waves of this Asiatic-Jewish flood of filth have broken.” (p.4, col. 5) Sept. 14, 1935 Nuncio Orsenigo’s communiqué of Sept. 14 to Cardinal Pacelli: ... I do not know whether Russian Bolshevism is the exclusive work of the Jews but here the way has been found to make this believed and to take measures in consequence against Jewry. If, as it seems, the Nazi government will have a long life, the Jews are destined to disappear from this nation... Source: Peter Godman, Hitler and the Vatican (2004), p.80, quoting in translation from Vatican Secret Archives, AES, Germania, 1935, “Scatole,” fasc. 9a, 32-33. Sept. 15, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Proceedings in Nuremberg: Three Other Hitler Speeches” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 14, as reported: Yesterday Chancellor Hitler spoke three times: to 100,000 leaders of the political associations of the Party, meeting on the Zeppelin field; to the delegates of the Nazi overseas organization; and to representatives of women’s organizations. To the political leaders Hitler declared the solidarity that exists between the Leader and those who exercise leadership functions. Any type of effort to sew discord between the Führer and the leaders will be futile ... The struggle for power is not finished: on the contrary, the Nazi Party must continue the struggle to become more worthy every day of the mission it has assumed before the German people. The Nazi movement is destined to remain alive, because it has demonstrated its vitality in adverse times and its origins reside in enthusiasm and idealism, not in the cold calculations of reason. “When I began the struggle to conquer the powers, reason told me that the endeavor was impossible; but I did not arrive at anything less, because I believed I had discovered the pulse of the German people, and time proved that I had not been mistaken.” Then Hitler spoke about the German army, declaring that it does not pursue imperialistic goals, but only defensive goals for the existence and work of the German people. It does not exist to touch upon the freedom of other peoples, but to defend the freedom of Germany. At the end of the speech Dr. Ley shouted: “Adolf Hitler is Germany, Germany is Adolf Hitler: long live Adolf Hitler” the masses broke through the cordons, forcing those on automobiles with Hitler to walk on foot amidst incessant acclamations. Speaking to the delegates of the Nazi overseas organization, Hitler, after listening to the greeting from leader of the movement, Bohle, directed his words to those present, exhorting them to feel part of the community of the German people, no matter when or where they are laboring, and to govern their conduct by Nazi principles. Today’s Germany represents a united people, to which Germans residing abroad should be proud to belong. In the meeting of the women’s associations of the Party, Hitler rejected the accusation often leveled against Nazism, that it does not allow to women, in the life of the nation, as elevated a place as they occupy in other countries. Such an accusation is unfounded, because Nazism attributes a fundamental importance to women not only as mothers, but also as educators of future generations. “Goebbels Against Communism” Minister Goebbels also spoke at the Congress yesterday, refuting an article that appeared in a London newspaper under the title “Two Dictators,” in which a parallel was drawn between the Nazi and Soviet regimes. The minister emphasized the fundamental difference between Communism and Nazism, irreconcilable doctrines, the one destructive of culture and the other constructive and uplifting for higher national and social values. Then Goebbels gave a detailed presentation of the Communists’ methods and their results in the economic and social life of Russia, as well as the bloody battle that Nazism was obliged to sustain in order to prevent Communism from becoming established in Germany and transforming it into a danger and threat to Europe and the whole world. The minister denounced Judaism as the original cause of Bolshevism, demonstrating with citations and names that in all the countries where there are revolutionary disorders, the Communist tendency of the Jewish elements has played an important part in their preparation and their execution. Sustaining its battle against Communism without ceasing and without compromise, Germany and its head are carrying out a mission for which all the nations should be grateful. The period of Communist revolution continues menacingly for all peoples. Without presuming to intrude in the internal politics of any country or to give counsel to any government, Germany is raising its voice of warning to all the nations against the gravity of the danger that Communism, of Jewish inspiration, represents for their culture and their existence. Italian original Sept. 16-17, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano’s back page reported Hitler’s words on the occasion of the introduction of the Nuremberg Laws, followed by a detailed article-by-article summary of those laws: “Hitler’s Speech Before the Reichstag” “Statements about Peace - The Memel Question - Concerning the Jews - Three News Laws about the Flag, Citizenship and Race” Dateline Nuremberg, Sept. 16 Yesterday morning the parade of the National Socialist formations, the SA, the SS, the sports detachments, aviators and automobile drivers took place in the Luitpold Arena. There were 116,000 persons present. At 8 a.m. Chancellor Hitler arrived at the Arena and directed brief words to the Nazi formations to congratulate them for their fidelity and discipline demonstrated during the year, and to announce that during the Reichstag session, the flag of the movement that has given freedom to Germany will be the object of the highest honor that can possibly be conferred. At midday commenced the passing in review of the various formations before Adolf Hitler, on a raised podium of honor in the plaza. The Chancellor participated while standing on his automobile, accompanied by his lieutenant, Hess, and General Goering. The passing in review continued until three, the hour at which they were to gather in the Arena for a speech by the head of the Nazi Party press office, Dr. Dietrich, and other functionaries. “The Extraordinary Session of the Reichstag” Then in the evening, in the palace of the cultural association, the previously announced session of the Reichstag took place, carried out in the presence of the public and the journalists who were crowded into the designated stands. In addition to members of the Diplomatic Corps who participated in the Congress, there were Ministers Goebbels, Seldte, Schwerin-Krosig and others. At 9 p.m., welcomed by vibrant demonstrations, Chancellor Hitler entered the hall, accompanied by the President of the Reichstag, General Goering. The latter opened the session, immediately yielding the floor to the Chancellor to read the statement of the Government. Hitler began by saying that Nuremberg was chosen as the seat of the present session because the laws that the Reichstag will be called upon to approve are in intimate relationship with the the Nazi movement that holds its Congress in Nuremberg. This, with its development over time, has demonstrated the strength of the movement and the unity of the nation. Germany desires to be a sound Country and its institutions are in good order, whether as to domestic or foreign affairs. The responsibility of its leaders is thus all the greater. The only possible guide for our conduct and our greatness is our indestructible love of peace. This declaration is necessary, Hitler continued, because certain of the international press want to accuse us of bad intentions, some toward France, others against Austria, yet others against Russia. But that is only to justify the coalitions that were deemed necessary. We will never act based on any proposal to move against anyone, but only according to the sense of responsibility that we have towards Germany. We have no desire to take a position on matters that do not concern us, nor do we want to get mixed up in them. Hitler then moved on to examine the situation of Lithuania, stating that Germany follows with great interest what is happening in the territory of Memel, remembering that it was ripped away from Germany in what was supposed to be peacetime, with the League of Nations unable to do anything but guarantee a state of autonomy. The German population of Memel has been mistreated and persecuted for years. Its only fault is to be Germany and to want to continue to be such. Protests made to the guaranteeing powers have been ineffective up to now ... A nation of 75 million inhabitants has the right to at least as much respect as the arbiters of a people of two million. Continuing his speech, Hitler said that the revolutionary maneuvers of international Communism will be fought in Germany by all possible means. It is a fact, moreover, that Communist agitators are almost all Jewish, just as it was a Jewish official in America who insulted the German flag and whose conduct was disavowed by the United States Government. In Germany there are increasing signs that reveal the effects of international Israelite agitation within the country, such that the Reich Government wants to try to find a solution that will permit, up to a certain point, the German people to co-exist with the Jewish people. If this effort should fail, it will be necessary to examine the situation anew. Concluding his speech, Hitler had three legislative proposals read, one about the flag and two about the Jewish question, after which General Goering presented the proposals for the approval of the Reichstag, thanked the “Führer,” and noted the necessity of these decisive provisions. “The New Laws” The first of the three laws approved by the Reichstag provides as follows. Art. 1: the Reich colors are black, white and red. Art. 2: the national Reich flag is the swastika flag. This is also the merchant marine flag. Art. 3: the Führer and Chancellor will decide the form of the Reich war flag. Art. 4: the Interior Minister will issue regulations to implement this law. The second carries the title: “Reich Citizenship Law.” Art. 1 provides that nationals shall be all persons who live under the protection of the German Reich and have particular obligations to it. By Art. 2, citizens are those nationals of German blood or kindred blood who by their conduct have shown their disposition toward loyal service to Reich and people. Art. 3: the right of citizenship is conferred by means of citizenship papers. Art. 4: Reich citizens are the only ones who enjoy fully the political rights recognized by law. The third law is called: “Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor.” It prohibits marriage between Jews and nationals of German or kindred blood. Such marriages are null and void, even if contracted abroad (Art. 1). Also prohibited (Art. 2) are extra-marital sexual relations between Jews and nationals of German or kindred blood. Jews (Art. 3) may not take into their service females of German or kindred blood under the age of 45. Jews may not display the national flag or colors: but they are authorized to display their own under the protection of the State. Male and female violators of Art. 1, and male violators of Art. 2, will be punished with incarceration. Violators of Articles 3 and 4 will be punished with a fine or incarceration up to one year. Source: L’Osservatore Romano, September 16-17, 1935, page 6. Note: The “Jewish official in America” was a magistrate judge in New York City, Judge Louis Brodsky. Several demonstrators who had torn a swastika flag off the German liner Bremen and thrown it into New York harbor were brought before him on criminal charges. He dismissed the charges on grounds that the flag was not a national flag but a political party flag that amounted to a “pirate flag.” The German Government protested, and U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull issued an official statement of regret. L’Osservatore Romano also published the following notice in its September 16-17, 1935 issue, on page 6: “The American Government and the ‘Bremen’ Incident” Secretary of State Cordell Hull officially expressed the regret of the American Government for the remarks that Judge Brodsky made in pronouncing a sentence of dismissal for five defendants accused of desecrating the flag of the Bremen, remarks deemed offensive by the German Government. The communication was made to the German chargé d’affaires, noting that the American Government was not responsible, but also acknowledging that Judge Brodsky’s statement was ultra vires. Sept. 16-17, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page 2: “More on the Message of Nuremberg” We have given a summary of Chancellor Hitler’s message to the Nuremberg Congress and have commented on the part of it that referred to conflict with the Church, to the extent that the relevant passage was communicated accurately. We have now received the text of the speech. The Chancellor said precisely: “The party has never intended and does not intend today to fight Christianity... Moreover, by signing a Concordat, we attempted to establish with the Catholic Church a lasting and useful relationship for both parties, which tried to annihilate the organized atheist movement and in that sense purified our entire life from elements that the Christian denominations have or should have fought. But the National Socialist State will not tolerate, under any circumstances, the making or continuing of the churches as a political instrument by any type of detour. There was a time when we fought the political clergy and drove them out of Parliament, when we did not have state power and the other side did. Today we have this power and can fight more easily for these principles. But we will never fight this battle against Christianity or against either of the two denominations. We will fight it to purify our public life from those priests who missed their calling and should have been politicians and not pastors of souls.” As can be seen, our commentary does not need substantial modification, because our summary the day before yesterday was not substantially different from the text we print today. It still speaks of political priests; it repeats that religion, Christianity and the Concordat are not the motives or the objects of the current conflict: rather, it is only those priests who engage in politics. But the fact remains that so far no one has been able to show when or how, or by what “detour,” the Catholic Church is being made into, or continuing as, a political instrument; because no one has been able to show that the “politics” of which priests are accused is anything other than the teaching and defense of Catholic dogmatic and moral principles, pertaining to pastoral care; all of which are defined in the pastoral letter of the German Bishops’ Fulda Conference as “mixed questions” that relate to “provisions in the Reich Concordat for the peaceful collaboration of Church and State”; as with the activity, in the final analysis, of Catholic Action as recognized and guaranteed in the same Concordat ... No one has ever been able to show precisely where clergy and Catholics are engaged in politics, except in the sphere proper to sacred ministry ... It therefore seems necessary to decide once and for all to get rid of suspicions or else document the alleged political activity on the part of clergy and Catholics, or declare that those activities which are strictly inherent in the religious and moral mission of the Church are allowed by the same Concordat ... The question would be cleared up once and for all. Because, with no evidence of party politics, it will be obvious that we are dealing not with actions but with what is inherent in religious life; so that the fight is against Christianity, “annihilating the Gospel.” Sept. 18, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page 8: “The Military Parade in Nuremberg” Hitler speaks to the troops: “The stability of the Government is guaranteed forever” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 17, as reported: Yesterday evening, at the conclusion of the last day of the Nuremberg Congress, dedicated to the new German army, Chancellor Hitler spoke to the troops, saying that that the German people have made an act of indestructible faith, prepared to make every sacrifice in the certainty of continuing to keep the peace of the nation ... After the speech the great military review took place ... Late in the evening in the Luitpold Arena, the Congress closed with a new speech in which the Führer traced the history of the German people ... the National Socialist Party, to which alone Germany owes its salvation. Hitler said that for all Germans it is an imperative necessity to recognize blindly and without any reservations, the authority of the National Socialist Party ... It is not a matter of discussing questions of infallibility: the party requires that the people subordinate their will ... In the face of the indestructible principle of obedience, all must obey. Concluding, the Chancellor declared his unchanging solidarity with the party, which guarantees eternally the stability of the Government and people of the Reich. Sept. 18, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page 8: “The Swastika Flag on the German Merchant Marine Fleet” The head of German navigation and state counselor, Essberger, ordered that starting today the entire German merchant marine fleet will adopt the swastika flag. Aboard all ships anchored in port, the solemn ceremony of the changing of the flag was conducted. Original document in Italian Sept. 18, 1935 Völkisch Observer’s lead article saying Catholic associations in Germany are under the control of Moscow: Banner headline, page one: “Moscow Speaks of an Established Front of Unity with German Catholic Youth” Subheads: “The Führer Clarifies the Roles of Party and State” - “The Party is the Führer, and the Führer is the Party!” - “The Red ‘Trojan Horse’ and the Catholic Organizations” Source: Völkischer Beobachter, North German Edition, Berlin, Sept. 18, 1935, p.1. L’Osservatore Romano’s five articles in the week of Sept. 18-25, 1935 about the implementation and effect of the Nuremberg Laws on the flag, citizenship, and marriages with Jews: Sept. 19, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, back page: “International Consequences of the New German Laws on Marriage” Dateline Amsterdam, Sept. 18 The German law on the protection “of German blood and honor,” which prohibits marriage between Aryans and Jews, has consequences also in Holland. In fact, in virtue of the treaty of June 12, 1912, a marriage cannot be entered between German subjects of non-Aryan origin and those of Dutch Aryan origin, and vice versa... Original document in Italian Sept. 20, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “New Regulations for the Reich Flag” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 19 For the implementation of the law enacted by the Reichstag for the new flag, the Interior Ministry has issued regulations for the hoisting on public buildings of the only permitted flag, that with the swastika, it now being prohibited to fly the old black-white-red flag ... Municipalities can fly local flags next to the Reich flag. Original document in Italian Sept. 21, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Jews in the Reich Considered as Foreigners” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 20 Commenting on the recently promulgated laws, the Nazi Party press writes that relations between Germany and the Jews require a special agreement given the position that they occupy in the midst of the German people. They are visitors in Germany like other foreigners, but they are special visitors, because they have no Fatherland. Numerically they constitute a minority, but one which does not come within the concept of an established minority under international law: with the result that, while they are conceded an equality of rights with other minorities, the Jews will have only the rights of foreign residents in Germany. Original document in Italian Sept. 24, 1935 Excerpt from Bishop Hudal’s book The Vatican and Modern States, p.82: Wherever revolutions and governmental upheavals come to pass, Moscow has a hand in the act. It is the religious and moral dregs of Judaism, coming forth from Moscow today, that keep the Christian peoples of Europe in constant unrest, in order to prepare the way for the worldwide dominion of a race that has given mankind precious cultural values and outstanding personages, but which, as soon as it is loosened from its religious roots, must undermine every other cultural field. German original: Ueberall, wo Revolten und staatliche Umwälzungen sich vollziehen, hat Moskau die Hand im Spiel. Es ist der religiöse und sittliche Auswurf des Judentums, der heute von Moskau aus die christlichen Völker Europas in ständiger Unruhe hält, um der Weltherrschaft einer Rasse die Wege zu bereiten, die der Menschheit wertvolle Kulturgüter und hervorragende Persönlichkeiten geschenkt hat, die aber, sobald sie religiös entwurzelt ist, jeden anderen Kulturkreis zersetzen muss. Source: Bishop Alois Hudal, Der Vatikan und die Modernen Staaten (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1935)(internal date of Sept. 24, 1935 in book) Sept. 26, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The New Laws of the Reich Explained to Nazi Leaders” Dateline Berlin, Sept. 25 The “Nazi Party Post” reports: “Yesterday another conference of Party leaders was convened in Munich to make known the latest arrangements concerning the new laws as to citizenship in the Reich. After a presentation by Dr. Wagner on the ideological basis of the new decrees, Chancellor Hitler took the floor to point out the fundamental aspects of the problem under consideration. The meeting concluded with the words of Deputy Hess, who saluted the Fuhrer, extolling the work realized with the new decrees. Original document in Italian Oct. 5, 1935 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 4, pp. 81-82, on the Nazi Party Congress: III. Foreign News 1. GERMANY. Congress at Nuremberg. Chancellor’s Speeches. The religious question... 1. (Germany). The Nazi Party Congress opened on the morning of September 11 in the Luitpold Hall in Nuremberg. Chancellor Hitler, after reviewing the positive results recently achieved by the Nazi regime, described the sad state of world politics, shaken by unrest and insecurity. But Germany is experiencing tranquility in all this, with security that comes not by means of treaties, pacts and agreements, but by means of the vital force that is in the people and nation. The Party will continue with increased vigor the fight against its enemies: Jewish Marxism and parliamentary democracy, the pernicious Catholic Center Party ... As to the religious question, the Chancellor declared: The Party has never intended, and does not intend, to oppose Christianity... L’Osservatore Romano (16-17 Sept), commenting on this speech, noted: “There continues to be talk about the politics of priests: it is repeated that religion, Christianity, the Concordat, are not the reason or the object of the current conflict: rather it is those individuals, those priests, who engage in politics. But in fact no one has ever been able to demonstrate when and how ... no one has ever been able to prove that the “politics” of which priests are accused is anything but the teaching and defense of Catholic dogmatic and moral principles ...” The pastoral letter, mentioned in L’Osservatore Romano, addressed to German Catholics by 26 bishops at the end of August at the annual bishops’ conference at Fulda, around the tomb of St. Boniface, with clear and authoritative accents, together with paternal charity, showed the true state of the “religious question” in Germany, where “the enemies of the Christian faith and the Catholic Church have become legion,” and despite their divisions, they are united in their battle against the substance and fundamentals of the Christian religion. Therefore the faithful need to “be constant in the faith,” to listen to the word of God ... The faith is the basis of the moral order of the world ... The Kingdom of God must be realized also in the life of society: “one cannot be a Christian at home, in his room, and out in public be a pagan.” There is a battle against “political Catholicism”; but what does this term mean? ... And the bishops recall the Concordat, which “assures the public exercise of the Catholic religion,” which establishes “the peaceful collaboration between Church and State” in the questions of schools and the rights of marriage. In the Concordat, the German Government guaranteed “with the word of honor and with the signature” the preservation and further institution of Catholic denominational schools. The bishops concluded: “Be patient in troubles and persevering in prayer! We are in prayer for our Church. But we are in great prayer for our people and our Fatherland.” Chancellor Hitler gave three other speeches at Nuremberg ... Nov. 17, 1935 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Application of the German Laws on Citizenship - Dismissal of the Jews” Dateline Berlin, Nov. 16 Yesterday the Reich Government issued the first decrees for the application of the laws on Reich citizenship and the laws on the protection of German blood and honor, approved by the Reich Parliament in the session held on September 15 in Nuremberg during the Party Congress. Until the promulgation of new regulations on citizenship identity cards, those nationals of German blood who had the right to vote for the Reichstag, as of the time the law on citizenship went into effect, will be provisionally considered citizens, as well as those on whom the Reich Interior Minister, with the consent of the Deputy Führer, confers provisional rights of Reich citizenship. A Jew cannot be a Reich citizen and has no right to vote on political matters nor to hold public office. All Jewish public servants will be dismissed at the end of the year and as retirees will receive the normal pensions allotted to all those who fought at the front during the World War, whether in the German army or in allied armies. The second decree specifies the criteria of Jewishness, amplifying the provisions contained in the bill of September 15. Original document in Italian Dec. 25, 1935 Christmas Day news item in L’Osservatore Romano, page 8: “Antisemitic Laws Approved by a Jew” Dateline Berlin, Dec. 24 The Nuremberg Laws will introduce a new era in the history of the Jewish people and will delineate a clear line of demarcation between the two peoples that live together, according to a statement to the Angriff by Mr. George Kareski, appointed director of the Jewish cultural association of Germany with the consent of the political police. Kareski approves the Nuremberg Laws and the schools and theaters reserved to the Jews. It is believed that the prohibition of mixed marriages will further the maintenance of Jewish family traditions. It is expected that the Jewish community of Berlin will organize a petition against Kareski. Note: The Angriff [“the Attack”] was a Nazi newspaper published in Berlin, founded and supervised by Nazi propaganda chief Goebbels. Original document in Italian 1936 Feb. 6, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “New Objectives of Soviet Foreign Policy” (G.G.) – Two sinister figures of propaganda of hatred have traversed Europe in recent days, holding meetings and political discussions in London and Paris: the commissar for foreign affairs, Litvinov, and the field marshal of the red army, Tucaschevski... Italian original Feb. 23, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page 8: “Antisemitic Speech by Goebbels” Dateline: Berlin, Feb. 22 Yesterday at the municipal hall in Magdeburg, Minister Goebbels spoke before eight thousand persons. The speech was broadcast by radio into other halls, where the listeners were numbered at twenty-five thousand. With impressive words, Goebbels spoke of the world enemy, the Jew, who a few days ago leveled a revolver against a representative of National Socialism. “I deplore the foreign press that supports the point of view that the guilty one is not the assassin, but the one assassinated.” The events in South America, the churches burned down in Spain, are warning lights that show where the promoting of such Jewish intrigue reaches. By contrast, the minister emphasized the order currently existing in Germany. (Minister Goebbels, evidently, leaves aside the juridical order). Italian original March 17, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Germany conditionally accepts the invitation to participate in the meeting of the Council: Reconstruction” The signatory Powers to the Locarno Pact have judged that Germany has violated it. Germany has justified the militarization of the Rhineland by the necessity of affirming its equality of rights with other Nations and standing up against the Franco-Soviet Pact, which would be in its turn an irreconcilable violation of the Locarno Pact and a threat to the Reich, from which, notwithstanding any other commitment, arises the natural right of defense. In the polemics that whirl around these days in parliamentary debates, in diplomatic conferences, in the press, the reply has been the upholding of the inviolability of Treaties; denying that the Franco-Soviet Pact violated the Locarno Pact and was directed against Germany, since Germany was invited to participate in it. As for equality of rights, for any alleged harm, for any natural right of defense, before unilateral action there is the obligation, agreed at Locarno, to resort to the League of Nations. We are facing the essential question of the most grave international crisis of today. On the one hand, Treaties and Pacts that peoples and governments deem inviolable by the fact itself that both sides signed it; on the other hand, claims from the great war that other peoples and governments then have not renounced despite agreements that have been drawn up; considering rights and interests of Nations as salus pubblica, suprema lex [Latin: public safety is the supreme law] in the face of anything else. We note how incontrovertible it is that the civil co-existence of peoples under international law cannot prescind from a foundation, from an inviolable norm, and that respect for it by all must mean for all the common salus pubblica, that is the common supreme lex. In the public law concerning this foundation and this norm is the law guaranteeing the sovereignty of the State. In international law a pact can only be guaranteed by ironclad reciprocal fidelity. There cannot be seen, there does not exist, another principle or another force that can assure justice, inspire and regulate conduct, give stability to international life, constitute the safeguarding of civilization and the ubi consistam [Latin: essence] of its secure development and progress. “Fundamentum autem est justitiae fides, id est dictorum conventorumque constantia et veritas.” [Latin: Fidelity to justice is fundamental, moreover, that is, constancy and truth for promises and agreements.] From ancient Rome to the great war, history confirms the irreplaceable sagacity of these words. Benedict XV, in the face of a sanguinary reality, to redeem the future of humanity from it, translated the passage from De Officiis, in his famous Note: “And first of all, the fundamental point must be to uphold the moral force of law”: the fidelity that serves for treaties and for arbitrations. It is true. For we are always among men. Injustice, evil, inequity can always be insinuated even into civil peace agreements. The laws as well, and the tribunals, are unfortunately not exempt from this. But that does not mean that it is licit to rebel against a law or a judgment; it does not mean that this other way would be more certain or less pernicious; above all, that in the triumph of justice, by the means of justice, we should have confidence. We think therefore that the greatest benefit for peace above all, for the aspirations of peoples themselves, consists in the re-establishment among the Powers and thus in the conscience of the Nations, so profoundly disturbed in these recent times, of the sense of fidelity; consisting in removing the sad persuasion that, despairing of the sanctity of signed treaties, can only rest if armed; that considers war to be inevitable; so that preparing for it is an obligation and necessity for all. We think this all the more with the great expansion of disagreements, disputes and conflicts of today, and the strengthening of the peril for all of a doctrine and a praxis that is the negation, the “opposite,” of religion and Christian civilization, and thus of order and of civil society in the world: the expansion and strengthening of Communism, which for its ferociously materialistic conception of life, has precisely and unfortunately, everything to gain from the weakening in this life of virtues, of moral institutions; from the dissolution of all sentiment and all constraint of faithful solidarity. Italian original June 19, 1936 Excerpt from Bishop Hudal's book The Foundations of National Socialism presented in pre-publication form to Hitler on this date: As Christians and Catholics, we have not the slightest reason to defend that Jewry which, after the World War, seized hold of the leadership of the worker masses under the banner of Marxism, and misused that leadership richly enough for their own selfish ends; yet, only because we condemn every injustice, we avoid any generalization, as if in history it is only Judaism that has been responsible for social and political abuses. (pp. 92-93) Sept. 9, 1936 Hitler’s speech to the Nazi Party Congress (headlines and excerpts): “The Führer’s Speech” Who indeed will doubt it still today, that we no longer live at the eve, but rather in the midst, of one of the greatest conflicts that has ever haunted humanity? ... “Freedom and Community” ... We all know that it is the goal of Bolshevism to root out the existing racially organic leadership of the peoples and thereby subject the Aryan peoples to foreign Jewish elements. Therein lies the basis of the international character of this problem. Just as in Russia 98 percent of the entire current leadership of the Soviet and commune republics is in the hands of Jews, none of whom were ever farmers or workers, but simply over-educated parasitic world intellectuals who needed to feed off other peoples, so we are experiencing in recent weeks, as Marxism in Spain begins to rage, the same process of striking down and rooting out the racially appropriate völkisch and governmental leadership in Spain, by means of Jewry, partly native there and partly coming from other countries... “The Highest Communal Achievement of Humanity is Culture” ... “Culture is the Essential Expression of Political Leadership” ... “The Will to Idealism” ... “New Authority or Destruction” ... “The Laws of National Socialist Art” ... German original, published in Völkischer Beobachter, Sept. 11, 1936, page 4 - page 5 - page 6 Sept. 10, 1936 Goebbels’ speech to the Nazi Party Congress (headlines and excerpts): “Bolshevism must be annihilated, if Europe is to be healthy again!” ... What goes by the name of Bolshevism has absolutely nothing to do with what we are accustomed to understand generally as idea and ideology. What it is really about is a pathological, criminal insanity, provably invented and led by Jews with the goal of destroying the peoples of European civilization and establishing an international Jewish world dominion over them. Bolshevism could only come forth from the Jewish brain ... The bourgeoisie is powerless in the face of Bolshevism in all countries and completely disunited in the struggle against it... “The System of Bolshevistic Propaganda” ... “Jewry and Bolshevism” ... “Bolshevism’s Fraud on the Workers” ... “The Bloody Terror of Bolshevism” ... When I raised a warning voice last year at the Nuremberg Party Congress about the likely foreseeable effects of the Seventh Comintern Congress of July 25th to August 21st 1935, the world exhibited only silence and ignorance toward my warning... “Spain as Beacon” Nothing, however, gives us better graphic instruction, nothing could more profoundly convince us, of the gravity of the decisions of the Seventh World Congress, than the bloody and shocking events in Spain. They represent the word for word carrying out of the orders that were given there... The world press finally had to report, indeed, about the inhuman horrors that the Spanish Marxists committed under orders from their foreign leaders... The details that have reached us about the murders of priests and rapes of nuns are unimaginable. Some examples: the Archbishop of Tarragona and the Bishop of Lerida were murdered ... That is the true face of Bolshevistic atheism, which dares, in other countries, to profess its readiness to cooperate with the churches. The picture of the bodies of nuns ripped out from their cloister in Barcelona is a symbol of the violation of everything holy by Bolshevism... That is what the true face of Bolshevism looks like! Who bears the guilt for what is going on in Spain, as an ideological and practical matter? All these events represent nothing other than the decisions made in Moscow. For their implementation, the Bolshevistic Jew Bela Kun, the “Murderer of Hungary,” was sent to Spain... “National Socialism as the Rampart against the Red Storm” ... “The Red Army” ... German original, published in Völkischer Beobachter, Sept. 11, 1936, page 6 - page 7 - page 8 Oct. 3, 1936 Civiltà Cattolica, vol. 4, p.83: III. News from Abroad 1. Germany. Nazi Congress in Nuremberg. Message of the Chancellor. Conscription for a two-year term. 2. Switzerland. The World Congress of Youth for Peace... 1. (Germany). Of extraordinary importance and foreboding significance is the eighth Nazi Congress held in Nuremberg from September 9 to 14, to which an Italian delegation was also sent, presided over by Hon. Parini. The dominant themes of the assembly from its opening were the affirmations of military force, hostility against Bolshevism and the necessity of destroying it. At the opening ceremony in the Luitpold Hall, Minister Hess gave the greeting to the assembly and in particular to the heads of the army. Germany, he said, forms a bloc against Bolshevism, which is tirelessly advancing its forces to carry out world revolution and destroy Western Civilization. For years Germany has been raising its voice of warning, and today Europe is witnessing the Spanish conflagration that is casting its sinister light on the entire continent. We know Bolshevism, and what is happening in Spain does not surprise us. The fanatical rage, burning people alive, crucifying children, the destruction of the treasures of an ancient civilization, all this is standard Bolshevik practice, and how it was done there can be repeated elsewhere. But Bolshevism also uses deceptive tactics, and we see the fruit of that in certain Countries where civil populations sympathize with the bloody criminals of Spain and thus some Governments do not know how to enforce observance of the neutrality obligations they themselves have proposed. Then where populations regard Communism with indifference, Bolshevism introduces the “popular fronts,” real Trojan horses that serve to mask its true intentions and threaten the peace of the world. Then addressing the Italian delegation: “We greet the delegates of those peoples who want to establish a great European solidarity against Bolshevism, and in a particular way the representatives to the Congress from that which is the most powerful anti-Bolshevik organization, the Italian Fascist Party.” These words were received with great acclamation of agreement: the delegates, rising to their feet and giving the Roman salute, provoking new applause from the assembly. After the Minister’s speech, the Message from the Chancellor was read. In it, after having recalled the works already accomplished by the party, the economic situation was explained: he affirmed the proposition of improving the conditions of the classes of people: the Government wants a populous Germany and is resolved to continue its demographic policy. To give work to everyone, he has studied how raw materials can be produced domestically, and for this purpose a plan has been made by which, within four years, Germany can be completely independent of foreign countries for all raw materials that German science, technology and industry are able to produce. The carrying out of this work is already underway. It requires the nation’s disciplined coordination: it is a matter of its life and its freedom. But this does not mean that Germany can renounce its claims to its colonies, because the German people have the same right to life as other peoples. The message concluded with the absolute guarantee of social peace assured by the party. Germany wants to live in peace and friendship with all those who want peace, but is resolved to defend proudly its freedom. Stormy times are coming. “While Governments are speaking of non-interference, the Hebrew revolutionary headquarters is preparing the world revolution with indefatigable tenacity.” We have no fear of Bolshevism, but we do not close our eyes to the peril. This is the reason for the military measures adopted by the Reich. Conscription for two-year terms will be implemented immediately. The Nazi Government can call the nation to this sacrifice, because its members wore the uniform in the Great War and have been fighting against Bolshevism for 14 years. The last day was dedicated to demonstrations by the Armed Forces, with military combat exercises between armored cars and anti-aircraft batteries against squadrons of airplanes on the Zeppelin Field, followed by the grand parade and finally the national anthem. The Congress closed on the evening of the 14th with a solemn assembly in the Luitpold Arena, and the Chancellor gave an important speech again there, emphasizing first of all the profound transformation undergone by Germany. The Nazi State was intended to restore its honor and its parity: and it has done so. In the future, if the world will respect our rights, we are disposed to respect the rights of others. Others may prohibit Nazism in their countries as we prohibit democracy in Germany: we have known democracy and that is why we detest it. Bolshevism cannot deny that in Russia 98 percent of the governing positions are in the hands of Hebrews, who are not however proletarians, while at the head of the Reich is a man who twenty-five years ago was a worker. The events in Spain show that Bolshevism is a regime of violence and barbarism. 2. (Switzerland). The joyful holidays of September were studiously chosen by disguised emissaries of the Jews from Moscow for putting on their clever social farces. The first theater was Geneva, where from August 31 to September 6 the fantastic World Congress of Youth for Peace was held. Organized by the General Secretariat of the Federation of League of Nations Societies, it gathered in its sessions 500 delegates and several hundred observers. In the front row were the delegates of the Communist Youth International with those of the Soviet delegation and the Spanish Popular Front, and those again fraternally united with the German Jews and Communists. The French delegation were almost all members of the Popular Front: the other delegations, including some Italian anti-patriots, varied more or less from dark red to bright red. Some groups of Christians silently made objections to the organizers’ game. However, the insolence of this brutal mob was disturbed by the presence of the Bulgarian and Hungarian delegations, and by that of two Swiss who were representatives of the group Spirito, and even more by a young Belgian painter, Antonio Alard, who came on his own account and who, with ability and frankness, knew how to take on the mob and smash to pieces their utopias. These were the only ones to proclaim the absurdity of any collaborations with the bandits of civil war, who are fighting against religion in the U.S.S.R., Mexico and Spain. But all was in vain. Supported by the favor of those who were directing the Congress, the reds succeeded in evading the questions under discussion and attaining their goal. The Congress will have thus served not peace, but rather the reinforcement of ties for the International Popular Front. Oct. 4, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page 8: “Arrest of Polish Communists” The Polish police have arrested in Warsaw 40 Jewish Communist participants in a secret meeting under the pretext of a banquet on the occasion of a Israelite holiday. Among them were numerous Communist agitators known to the police. Italian original Oct. 28, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Eighteen Communist Leaders Arrested in Warsaw” Dateline: Warsaw, Oct. 27 Polish political authorities are continuing their energetic action directed at putting down subversive activity encouraged by Moscow. In Warsaw, after intense investigations, the police, during the night, surprised a meeting of the leaders of the central committee of the Polish Communist party, proceeding to arrest eighteen leaders, almost all Jews, and to seize a huge amount of materials and incriminating documents. Italian original On the same page: “An Official Comment of the Reich About Italian-German Conversations” Dateline: Berlin, Oct. 27 Among the comments published in Berlin newspapers following the official communiqué and the statements made by Italian Minister Count Ciano before departing Munich for Rome, that of the Diplomatic-Political Correspondence merits particular emphasis. In accordance with the reconstructive policy followed by the two Countries, it says, the conversations were not based on an egoistic or narrow point of view, but were conducted from a completely European perspective. The exchange of German-Italian views had the purpose of resolving everything that is necessary in the interest of a true European peace. The realization of these purposes seems all the more important to the extent the League of Nations, in its structure and current operations, proves to be ever more incapable of fulfilling the mission incumbent upon it, contributing instead to aggravating the situation, acknowledging that its own principles are being abused. The understanding reached between Germany and Italy concerning the issue of the Danube shows that it is perfectly possible to obtain appropriate solutions, so long as good will prevails and special demands are renounced. Naturally, then, the exchange of views between two States like Germany and Italy had to extend to the Spanish events and the Bolshevik peril. In every State that wants to be considered as a civilized nation of Europe, there must be unreserved approval for the moral recognition of the struggle of the Spanish people against Bolshevik destruction. The new affirmation of the policy of non-intervention and the statements made by Ciano show how Germany and Italy have no other desire than to see Spain become again in concert with European nations, with absolute integrity of its nation and its colonies ... Immediately following article: “The Flight of the Zeppelin” Dateline: Hamburg, Oct. 3 At 8:00 this morning the “Graf Zeppelin,” returning from South America, was about 600 kilometers off the Cape Verde islands. At the same time, the “Hindenburg,” returning from the United States, was near the Isle of Wight. Oct. 30, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Protest Against the Arrival of Jews in South Africa” Dateline: Capetown, Oct. 29 Two thousand demonstrators answered the invitation of the nationalist movement of South Africa yesterday and gathered to protest the arrival of the ship Stuttgart with 450 Jewish emigrants on board, who were arriving before the new immigration law enters into effect. Leaflets were distributed that said: “These Jews are coming to take the bread of the sons of South Africa. Think of the thousands of whites in South Africa who are struck with dire poverty. Each year the Jews send, thanks to the sweat and tears of South African workers, 140,000 pounds sterling overseas to finance the plans of the Jews in all the world. Africa for the South Africans and the money of the nation for the population of South Africa!” The crowd waited in vain for the arrival of the steamer, delayed by a storm. About 100 persons were present for the arrival that came nine hours later than expected. Italian original Nov. 4, 1936 Cardinal Faulhaber’s report to Cardinal Pacelli: Dated: Nov. 4/5, 1936 Re: Strictly confidential report about the discussion with Herr Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler at the Obersalzburg on November 4, 1936, 11:00 to 14:00 hours. The visit with the Führer was, in the final phase, prepared by Herr Apostolic Nuncio Orsenigo and Herr State Secretary Lammers, who, after the telephonic arrangements made the day before, and my three hour trip on the Reich Autobahn, was waiting for me at the foot of the Obersalzberg, and brought me in his car up the steep road to the Führer’s remote retreat. The discussion, for which only Herr Reich Minister Rudolf Hess was present as a third party, lasted three hours: For the first hour only the Führer spoke, frankly, confidentially, agreeably, sometimes temperamentally. For the second hour I could answer the Führer’s train of thought almost without interruption and bring up my own points; in the third hour there was an increasingly tense dialogue. The discussion closed with a half-hour luncheon in a niche of the dining room, with a view of the snow-covered Alps, which today, after a long period of rain, broke out in bright sunshine. Herr Reich Chancellor began: Many of his statements would not meet with my agreement, but it must be said with complete openness how things are, and a resolution must be arrived at, “positive or negative.” The first theme was the foreign policy danger of Bolshevism. If the fall of Madrid does not succeed in giving the Reds in Catalonia a devastating blow (I must handle some aspects of this question confidentially), then each success of Bolshevism will bring further violent movements; first in France, where everything has been prepared by the policy of Léon Blum, then in Czechoslovakia, in Poland and other states. This is not pessimism. He has already often been a prophet. The Catholic Church may not deceive itself about this: If National Socialism does not become the lord over Bolshevism, then Christianity and the Church are finished in Europe. Bolshevism is just as much the mortal enemy of the Church as of Fascism. Unfortunately the Center Party committed the crime and tangled up everything. The Volk must have thought things were not so bad with Communism if the Center Party priests went along with it. He had good information about how the subhumans, egged on by Jews, are wreaking havoc like beasts in Spain ... [ellipsis by L. Volk] He will not let the historic hour pass by. For the sake of summarizing, I am placing here the answer I later gave him to these basic thoughts: That does not come off to me as pessimism, Herr Reich Chancellor, that was all said in a deeply moving way, only without the details, in your great speech at the Party Congress in Nuremberg, in part openly, in part between the lines. Pope Pius XI, in his speech of February 1930 and this year in the speech to the Spanish refugees, identified Bolshevism as the mortal enemy of all Christian civilization, and the Fulda Bishops Conference expressed themselves likewise in their pastoral letter this year and in previous proclamations. While the Führer’s speech at Nuremberg set forth the general cultural and economic effects of Bolshevism with an impressive cadence of thoughts (it can only tear down, it is led by Jews, it destroys the economy of every people), the Holy Father’s speech, given on the same day, identified atheism, Godlessness, and hostility to God as the root and innermost essence of Bolshevism. It is a pity that the Pope’s speech and the proclamations of the Bishops were not allowed to be disseminated in German newspapers or in the form of brochures. (footnotes by L. Volk, ed.: Pius XI’s referenced “speeches” were a letter of Feb. 2, 1930 to the Vicar General of Rome, AAS 22 (1930), pp. 89-93, and an address at Castel Gandolfo on Sept. 14, 1936, AAS 28 (1936), pp. 373-381.) I was an auricular witness when Pope Pius XI, in an open Consistory in 1933, openly called the Reich Chancellor of the German Reich the first statesman who candidly and in line with Him, the Pope, had recognized the Bolshevik peril. (I was able to give specific citations, because I had naturally prepared on this point). You can imagine, Herr Reich Chancellor, how painful it must have been for us Catholics to hear and read the untruths that are still being disseminated today in German newspapers and talks at schools: “The Pope is still standing in league with Moscow, he is even thinking of concluding a Concordat with Moscow, that is why he remained silent at first about the atrocities in Spain, and they are still hoping that Bolshevism will annihilate the Third Reich.” In my Pontifical address in 1936, I cited Osservatore Romano, that is, an official statement, to identify this fairy tale about a Concordat with Moscow being in the works as the “height of unscrupulous inventive artifice.” Nonetheless the Schwarze Korps [Blackshirt Corps: SS newspaper] recycled these lies with reference to a newspaper article in Prague entitled: “Herr Cardinal - who is lying.” I looked into the matter and established: The writer of the article in the Deutschen Presse [German Press] in Prague, with the pseudonym of Roland, was an emigrant and, as he himself declared, a fanatical opponent of National Socialism, who based on the Moscow-friendly mindset in Prague had expressed as a private view the opinion that hatred of religion is no longer so bad today as it was in the beginning, and the Schwarze Korps was prepared to throw up this falsification by an emigrant as against the official statement of the Vatican newspaper. for myself, I confirm the fact that at the Catholic Congress in Salzburg in 1921 I spoke these words: “The peoples die with Bolshevism,” which is “the deepest mortal wound of our era.” On the same occasion I repulsed the frightful phrase: “Better Bolshevism than Catholicism.” In 1922 I identified the Marxist Revolution of 1918 and 1919 as “perjury and high treason,” and despite all threats did not take back these words. Shortly after that, there appeared the first posters of the early Nazis with the appeal “Against the November Criminals.” In February 1930 I gave a special sermon about the “Struggle of Bolshevism against God and all Religion.” All of this is not backdated to the years 1921, 1922, 1930; it can be read in my books. (For the first time here in this report I will add: Rufenden Stimmen, pp. 14-25, 378, 383, 470). Even if somewhere a priest in the west of the Reich or a priest in Bohemia or, as Herr Reich Chancellor says, priests in Catalonia, say conciliatory things about Bolshevism - there will always be some going off the tracks - I can assure you, Herr Reich Chancellor, that all the German Bishops and all officials in the Church are convinced that Bolshevism can only bring chaos and ruin to religious life, and that all of them are ready, with ecclesiastical means, without getting mixed up in politics, to fight against it. The second theme of the Führer was National Socialism and the Church. In that the Führer spoke only of the Catholic Church. He said things have changed in the Church over time: the question whether the world was created in 6 days or 6 million years, whether the sun orbits around the earth, the invasion by the Huns, the Reformation, the French Revolution ... [ellipsis by L. Volk, ed.] So the Church must give up its struggle against our racial legislation, “which concerns absolutely scientific research.” These laws are still being preached against constantly from the pulpit. He has files on his desk about 380 (370?) complaints against clergy who have made hostile statements against the new State. The Center Party priests cannot get over the fact that Nazism has succeeded and has accomplished such a great deal. Christianity was inextricably bound to our Volk and western civilization by a thousand year history. Not everything can be called good of the what came to pass in these 1900 years, as in the history of the German Kaisers with the Popes, but Christianity thereby became a great power. If the Church now continues a hostile stance toward Nazism and carries on the struggle, then Nazism would have to finish things without the Church. They tell him: We can do what we want, the Church cannot be reconciled with, it struggled against us before our seizure of power and still does it today despite the danger that widespread elements will turn away from the Church. If the Church would only just give up the struggle out of tactical considerations! In comparison to the great goal that the Führer has gotten behind, to smash down Bolshevism and make the German Volk auspicious, everything else is really a small and laughable bagatelle. My answer: Herr Reich Chancellor, I am shocked that you are talking of a “struggle” by the Church against Nazism and of an “irreconcilable” position of the Church. The German Bishops, from the time of your first speech to the Reichstag, in which you spoke of Concordat-peace with the Church, have withdrawn their previous warnings and declared themselves in a solemn joint declaration (I did not have the precise date in my mind) to be ready for peaceful cooperation with the New Reich, and time and again the German Bishops have warned their clergy to refrain from all political escapades and to keep their tongues under control even in private discussions. They keep bringing up the warnings of the Church before the seizure of power. The warnings from that time had to do with utterances and events that were incompatible with Church dogma and Christian moral teaching, and as to those the Bishops had a duty to speak. But I can confirm that according to an official survey in Bavaria, not one single person was denied a Church burial in those years for reason of being a National Socialist. Herr Reich Chancellor spoke of the “eternal changes” in the Church. The dogmas of the Church have not changed. Herr Reich Chancellor spoke of a peace “out of tactical considerations.” For us there is nothing tactical in this question, but rather dogmatic moral considerations. You, as the sovereign of the German Reich, are for us the God-given authority, the rightful authority, to whom we owe, in conscience, respect and obedience. Herr Reich Chancellor has so clearly said that disrespect of governmental authority shakes up respect for all authority. I believe that the concept of authority is not emphasized in any other religious society as strongly as it is in the Catholic Church. Frankly, if your administrative authorities or laws violate dogma or the moral law, that is, violate our consciences, then we must be allowed to speak out as the responsible heralds of the moral law. We respect the great goals of your policy, but the disturbances of the peace between State and Church still do not involve just trivialities and bagatelles. Might I be allowed to point out three matters that are increasingly disturbing the peace, or, as you say, increasingly signifying struggle against the State: 1. The German Faith Movement of Stuttgart. The Führer waved that off with a forceful gesture: “The Party has nothing to do with that.”... A second disturbance of the peace is the ways and means that the struggle about the schools is being waged: The denominational school is being sidelined by the use of pressure ... A third disturbance of domestic political peace is the prohibition of double membership in the workers associations, the youth associations, and in most recent times also for the women teachers associations and even for the religious teaching orders... Over and again Herr Reich Chancellor turned the discussion back with raised voice to the “Struggle of the Church against the racial laws of the Third Reich.” ... he stated: We want to protect the German Volk from such hereditarily disposed criminals as are wreaking havoc in Spain. “I perceive that to be the will of God.” The healthy want to have only a few children, and so should the sick have a heap of children? The operation is really simple and does not make people incapable of work and marriage, and now the Church is leaving us in the lurch... As a sign of his readiness to “put the past behind” and make peace, the Führer twice raised the matter of the trials of the members of religious orders. “I have given instructions,” he said with emphasis, “that the news reports about these trials will be discontinued.”... The Führer: “Without faith in God people cannot exist. The soldier who lies under artillery bombardment for 3 or 4 days needs a religious foothold. Godlessness is emptiness.” I responded: “The glorious acknowledgement of God that the Führer set forth on various occasions and precisely in solemn speeches, just this summer in the concluding speech at the Party Congress in Nuremberg and on the Bückeberg, avowals that one seeks in vain to find from the mouth of a Léon Blum, as in his spiritually vacuous answer to the Nuremberg speech, or from other statesmen, have certainly made a deep impression in the world. Exactly in this question of faith in God and religion, the Church can help the State and support souls based on primordial powers... The Führer with rising voice: The thousand-year Christian past cannot simply be erased from the history of the German Volk. He had separated himself from Ludendorff because his wife thought Nazism should found a new religion. “I have always and again told my Party leaders, I do not want to play the role of religious reformer. I do not want to do it and I will not do it.” For the same reason he had separated himself from Artur Dinter and von Reventlow. In the middle of this the Führer began to speak about the Myth by Alfred Rosenberg. A faith in the hearts of the Volk cannot be overcome just by a myth. If he had only chosen a different title! It was only when the Bavarian Bishops Conference warned about the book and then finally the Church placed the book on the Index, that editions of the book began to multiply rapidly so that the book was selling in the hundreds of thousands. Even with that, there aren’t 10,000 people in Germany who understand this book. This opinion stands in contrast to the facts that even before the Church’s prohibition, Rosenberg’s Myth was made a foundation of the entire school curriculum and that, as Herr Bishop of Berlin already said to Herr Reich Chancellor, the Myth was already disseminated in huge numbers among the people before the condemnation via the Index. In some connection or other, I don’t know any more exactly what, I remarked: An institution like the Catholic Church that has 1900 years of history behind it naturally has more time for human shortsightedness and weakness to come to the fore among its officials than an ideology that has only been around for a few years. In another connection I asked whether the priests who struggle against Bolshevism together with the State authorities are not also mixing in politics and thus should be considered to be violating the Concordat. Of that Herr Reich Chancellor may be certain. Even if he has 380 cases of irresponsible or misunderstood turns of phrase by priests in his files, the clergy as a whole know that if Bolshevism becomes lord over our people, Church life also, like all fields of life, would be thrown into complete chaos. Toward the end of the third hour, Herr Reich Chancellor summed it all up: “Consider, Herr Cardinal, and talk with the other ‘Leaders of the Church,’ about the way in which you will support the great mission of Nazism to not let Bolshevism become lord, and how you want to come into a peaceful relationship with the State. Either Nazism and the Church will triumph together or they will both perish. I tell you: I will remove from the table all the little things that disturb peaceful cooperation, like the trials against the monks, or the German Faith Movement. I do not want to engage in any horse trading. You know that I am the enemy of compromises, but this will be a final effort.” The Bishops will thus have to make certain offers, be it in the form of a new pastoral letter or in the form of a new speech, before Bishop Hudal comes to be named court theologian of the Party. I did not say any word that could restrict the German Bishops in their freedom of decision. During the exchange, the Führer conducted himself with an imposing confidence as he also does in his major speeches, among the ranks of statesmen, and that gives him the advantage that, as soon as an issue is brought up, he can be done with it in a word: “That is really just a triviality.” Even to the Party leaders he is always saying: “Just stick to the major objectives and do not work for the present day, but for the future.” The Führer has command of the diplomatic and social forms more like a born sovereign has command of them. He does not let matters take their course as governments did in the time of parliamentary debating; he stands up to them. He develops his thoughts emotionally and yet noticeably with self-control. At the same time he can become totally solemn and almost soft, as in these words: “The individual is nothing. The individual will die. Cardinal Faulhaber will die, Alfred Rosenberg will die, Adolf Hitler will die. That is why one becomes interiorly humble before God.” The Reich Chancellor lives undoubtedly in faith in God. He recognizes Christianity as the master builder of western civilization (rather than Chamberlain as such). Less clear is the picture of the Catholic Church in his mind as divine foundation, with its independent divine mission alongside the State, with its immutable dogmas, with its historical and cultural greatness. At the beginning of the discussion a thunderstorm was gathering, as if severe weather was about to be unleashed. Although the discussion went very noisily several times, in the second and even more in the third hour it arrived increasingly at a peaceful terminus. Just as in the 28th Psalm: First a storm over Lebanon, then at the conclusion: Dominus benedicet populo suo in pace. [God blesses his people with peace] At the table there was conversation about the economic condition of the people, in which the Führer possessed astonishing command of details and at which I was allowed to make some suggestions. Naturally I have recounted my own words in more detail in this report than the words of the Führer. Yet I believe I have not left out any essential concepts from what he said. M. Cardinal Faulhaber Source: L. Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 2, pp. 184-194, reprinting a German typed carbon copy from folder no. 8203 of Nachlass Faulhaber at the Munich Archdiocesan Archive. Nov. 7, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Communists in Romania” Dateline: Bucharest, Nov. 6 p.m. The lawyer Radu Alteanu, member of the radical zaranista party, was arrested today in Kronstadt. In his home was found voluminous correspondence with French communists. At the same time Communist cells were uncovered in Jassy, Kishenew and Czernovitz. In each one of these cities from 40 to 50 persons were arrested. The majority of the arrestees are Jewish. Italian original On the same page: “On the Sidelines of a Trial” Dateline: Berlin, Nov. 6 Since, taking as a pretext the assassination trial against the Jew David Frankfurter, the Israelite press of the whole world and especially the worldwide Jewish League for defense against antisemitism, is attacking Hitler, Swiss newspapers are criticizing this attitude. Thus the liberal Bern Bund, speaking of the new antisemitic laws in Germany and recalling the last speech by Goebbels in the Sports Palace, affirms that it understands very well how Germany does not want to be occupied with such base intrigues. The article then points out the excesses of this irresponsible international literature, recalling that the emigrant German Jew Emil Ludwig Cohn was involved in the assassination of Gustloff. This article shows that Switzerland has no interest that is being abused in the Frankfurter trial. Nov. 10, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “A Speech by Hitler in Munich: For three and a half years German factories have worked day and night for the defense of the Country” Dateline: Munich, Nov. 9 As reported: “On the vigil of the celebration of the thirteenth anniversary of the day on which National Socialist pioneers carried out their failed attempt to overturn the Bavarian government and re-establish the honor and self-respect of the Fatherland, lost by the defeat in the world war, Hitler addressed a speech to the old guard in the historic Buergerbraeu, where the party had met before carrying out its first audacious attempt to take over power...” Nov. 10, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Anti-Bolshevik Demonstration in Bucharest” Dateline: Berlin, Nov. 9, p.m. As reported from Bucharest: The Romanian Capital had its historic day yesterday. More than one hundred thousand persons marched in an imposing procession, for six hours, with the head of the Christian-Social Party, Professor Cuza, the old leader of antisemitism, and with Octavian Goga. More than two thousand vans and innumerable farmers’ wagons transported the adherents of the nationalist movement into the capital. At the head of the deputations of 71 districts marched the youth organizations in blue shirts with swastika armbands, the women dressed in national costumes or blue blouses, and thousands and thousands of workers with brains and brawn. With arms raised, they marched carrying the blue flag with the gold cross at the peak. Signs carried in procession showed the close union of the nationalist movement with King Carol and declared war on Communism, false democracy and Judaism. The broad Via Bratianu was full of thousands of citizens who applauded cordially for the parade that proceeded totally without incident and in perfect order. Speaking to the demonstrators at the end of the parade, Goga emphasized the necessity of domestic reform, reminding that Bolshevism is the most grave danger for humanity and declaring that Romanian nationalists are determined not to serve as the vanguard of Communism by cooperating with the U.S.S.R. or concluding a treaty with the French Government of the Popular Front. Nov. 13, 1936 L’Osservatore Romano, page 2: “Concerning a Book” From various quarters we have been asked if the recent publication of the book “The Foundations of National Socialism” by John Gunther Publishing in Leipzig and Vienna was done with the prior agreement of the Holy See, since this rumor has spread. Our information requires us to respond in the negative, in accordance with what the author himself said to an Austrian news agency: his book was not inspired by anyone and he was not officially commissioned to write it. Note: This notice appeared several days after Cardinal Faulhaber wrote to Cardinal Pacelli, reporting on his three-hour meeting with Hitler, and urging Pacelli that something must be done before Bishop Hudal is declared the “court theologian” of the Nazi Party. See Cardinal Pacelli’s reply to Faulhaber of November 16, 1936 in L. Volk, ed., Akten Kardinal von Faulhabers [Faulhaber Papers], vol. 2, pp. 196-197 (“With respect to a passage in your report about this subject, allow me most devotedly to point out, that according to a notice published in the L’Osservatore Romano, the Holy See stands thoroughly removed from a certain publication of the Titular Bishop of Ela.”) The article about Hungary, Jews, and Communism on the same page 2 of L’Osservatore Romano on Nov. 13, 1937 reads as follows in translation: “Violent Antisemitic Demonstrations in Budapest” Dateline: Budapest, Nov. 12 Antisemitic demonstrations by university students continued unabated yesterday and culminated in a crowd of about 300 students overwhelming the police guard that had been posted around university buildings, battering down the door of the Philosophy Department, and forcibly removing all Jewish students from the halls. The police succeeded in preventing other attempts to break into other departments. The crowd, massed in the streets, demonstrated against the Jewish press of Budapest while singing antisemitic songs. Squads of mounted police had to disperse the demonstrators time after time. Badges of the Hungarian nationalist movement were distributed, and anti-Bolshevik placards were carried in the streets, the result of the Communist agitation having Jewish characteristics. The students of the university requested a “week without Jews.” Commenting on the situation, the government newspaper Esti Uysag said it is no wonder that Jews and Communists are inseparably united in Hungary, because in recent months all Communist agitation has been done by Jews. Dec. 24, 1936 Christmas Eve pastoral letter of the German Bishops, excerpt praising Hitler and pledging support of the Church: “The Weapons of the Church against Bolshevism” Dear Faithful! Führer and Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler sighted the onmarch of Bolshevism from far off and directed his faculties and concerns to ward off this monstrous danger from our German people and all of Western civilization. The German Bishops consider it our duty to support the supreme head of the German Reich in this defensive struggle with all the means at our disposal from our sanctuary. As certainly as the Bolshevik mortal enemy of the governmental order is equally and even primarily the gravedigger of religious culture, and directs his first attacks always against the servants and sanctuaries of Church life, as the events in Spain are demonstrating anew, as certainly as this is also a matter of life or death for the ecclesiastical order, just so certainly has cooperation in the warding off of this satanic power also become a religious and Church task of our time. Source: Reprinted in Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 2, pp. 244-252. German original, p.245: “Die Waffen der Kirche gegen den Bolschewismus” Geliebte Diözesanen! Der Führer und Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler hat den Anmarsch des Bolschewismus von weitem gesichtet und sein Sinnen und Sorgen darauf gerichtet, diese ungeheure Gefahr von unserm deutschen Volk und dem gesamten Abendland abzuwehren. Die deutschen Bischöfe halten es für ihre Pflicht, das Oberhaupt des deutschen Reiches in diesem Abwehrkampf mit allen Mitteln zu unterstützen, die ihnen aus dem Heiligtum zur Verfügung stehen. So gewiss der bolschewistische Todfeind der staatlichen Ordnung zugleich und sogar in erster Linie Totengräber der religiösen Kultur ist und seine ersten Angriffe immer gegen die Diener und Heiligtümer des kirchlichen Lebens richtet, wie die Vorgänge in Spanien aufs neue beweisen, so gewiss es sich also um Sein oder Nichtsein auch der kirchlichen Ordnung handelt, so gewiss ist die Mitarbeit an der Abwehr dieser satanischen Macht auch ein religiöse und kirchliche Zeitaufgabe geworden. German historian Gerhard Besier describes the cover letter Cardinal Faulhaber sent to Hitler on December 30, 1936 with this pastoral letter, in which Faulhaber referred to “our agreement” in their meeting of early November 1936 and wrote further: “The new pastoral letter in the New Year will sound like a trumpet, and even abroad they will be unable to ignore this unanimous confession of the German Bishops to the Führer and his mission in world history, his defence against Bolshevism.” Besier, p.163, quoting in translation from Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 2, p.261-262. Dec. 30, 1936 Faulhaber to Hitler: Most Illustrious Herr Führer and Reich Chancellor! I have the honor to submit the Pastoral Letter of the German Bishops, which I initiated in light of our discussion of November 4th and which will be read aloud to the people next Sunday, January 3rd in all the Catholic Churches of the Reich as the unanimous admonition of all 23 German Bishops and 3 Diocesan Administrators. The Pastoral Letter appeared two months after our discussion because I, consistent with our agreement, first had to obtain the concurrence of each individual Bishop to the text of the Pastoral Letter, and because a Pastoral Letter following immediately after our discussion would have appeared a command performance, which would have weakened its impact on the people and would have diminished respect for both parties. Now the Pastoral Letter will ring in the new year like a trumpet, and even in foreign lands, this unanimous acknowledgement by the German Bishops of the Führer and his internationally historical work, his defense against Bolshevism, will be impossible to ignore. Unfortunately, precisely during the weeks in which I conducted the preparatory negotiations with the Lord Bishops, more things came to pass that gave the Bishops deepest concern, further attacks against the legally guaranteed cooperation of the Church in the school, further de-Christianization efforts of the State youth organization, further resignations from the Church by those in high positions. The Bishops had to mention these concerns in the Pastoral Letter, in order to remain truthful and not fall into the un-German role of Byzantine yes-men. We honor the great goal of our Führer, the defense against Bolshevism, but we cannot consider domestic policies that drive our people forward toward de-Christianization to be a trivial and peripheral matter. It remains to be hoped that the negotiations that are to be taken up again in mid-January in the Cabinet Ministry for Churches after a long pause will bring resolution and domestic peace in these disputed issues. As a forerunner of this joint German Pastoral Letter, the Bavarian Bishops had a Pastoral Letter read aloud from all the pulpits of their Dioceses on December 13th, which said: “The Führer may be assured that we Bishops support him in every way with moral means in his internationally historic defensive struggle against Bolshevism.” This Pastoral Letter was banned and confiscated on December 19th by the Cabinet Ministry for Church Affairs. I thank you yet again, esteemed Herr Reich Chancellor, for the discussion conducted on November 4th in manly German frankness. I stand at your service for further discussions. I know what a burden of work rests upon you at precisely this time and I expect no answer to this cover letter. May Providence indeed continue to hold sway over your work! In respect and esteem, Cardinal Faulhaber Source: Munich Archdiocesan Archive, Nachlass Faulhaber, File No. 8200, reprinted in Volk, Faulhaber Papers, vol. 2, pp. 261-262. 1937 Jan. 23, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Hitler Will Make Important Statements to the Reichstag about the International Order” It is reported by good sources that the speech that Hitler will deliver to the Reichstag on January 30 will be important and include statements both on domestic policy and international policy... “The Movement of the ‘Blue Cross’ in Hungary” Also in Hungary, a new group has been formed that rather resembles a monarchist movement. The “Blue Cross Movement,” as the new party is called, met publicly for the first time on Thursday in Budapest. The motto of the new movement is “struggle against Bolshevism,” and it will be particularly oriented toward Christian youth of the Christian-Nationalist parties. The group will also fight against the Jews and Jewish influence in public life, the abuses of capitalism and large estates. Italian original Jan. 31, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Religious Situation in Germany: An Eloquent Document” After the declarations at Fulda about the schools, which demonstrated yet again the extremely grave concerns of the German Bishops and indicated the bounds of this new conflict, in the sad situation of the Church in Germany, a new document gives it an indisputable confirmation. Reading it, the reader should bear in mind the attacks of the National Socialist press on the Bishops. The defense of the Christian school conducted apostolically, according to this press, is only an activity of opposition to the regime, a political action, a threat to that spiritual unity of Germany which the Fatherland needs... Italian original Jan. 31, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Today’s Reichstag Session: The Directions of German Policy in Hitler’s Speech” Dateline: Berlin, Jan. 30 p.m. An atmosphere of intense expectation characterized the day in which the people of the Third Reich solemnly celebrated the coming to power of National Socialism. Toward mid-day all the shops and all public and private buildings began to close, in preparation for listening to the speech that Hitler would give before the Deputies meeting in the former Kroll Opera House. The only exception was the plaza opposite the Reichstag, where, despite the biting cold, which hundreds of coal fires placed in the middle served only to mitigate a little, tens of thousands of persons were gathered in the hope of seeing Hitler and his lieutenants as they passed by. As the automobile approached in which Hitler was riding, strong applause arose from the multitude. Then Hitler entered the Reichstag, and all those present stood as one, saluting with the Hitler salute... At 1:20 p.m. the Führer Chancellor began to speak ... In the first part of his speech, Hitler reviewed the progress accomplished by the German people in the past four years, in “its energetic struggle to regain the position to which it is entitled by its history and its national civilization.” Economic Independence ... International Cooperation In this regard the Führer alluded to the observations made recently in the House of Commons by Foreign Minister Eden, and emphasized the need to correct the erroneous concepts contained therein, that Germany has any intention of isolating itself from other nations, of treating the rest of the world with indifference, or of not taking into account the common needs of humanity. Refuting the assertions made by Eden, Hitler emphasized that in recent years Germany has improved its political relations with numerous Countries, and has established very close relations with various States... The accord with Japan to combat the subversive activity of the Comintern shows that Germany is not following a policy of self-isolation... The Chancellor made three concrete proposals for the limitation of armaments, but completely made a stand of clear rejection of concluding alliances by means of which the gigantic power of Russia would be thrown into the arena of Central Europe, which would make the armaments of the Red Army the measure of other nations’ essential military force. Then mentioning Spain, Hitler said that Germany has no other interest than that of cultivating economic relations and not colonial aspirations... A series of proposals Finally, Hitler enumerated the points that, as it seems to him, constitute the means to arrive at the pacification not only of Europe, but of the world. ... (6) tranquility among nations is possible only if there is a stop to the continuous agitation of irresponsible international groups that deliberately poison public opinion; (7) the attempt at a body of rules for Europe will only be fruitful within reasonable limits; (8) European peace will be served if the treatment of minorities forced to live abroad is guided by mutual considerations of justified national pride. This will bring a diminution of the tension between neighboring States whose political boundaries do not correspond with boundaries of race. Feb. 2, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “International Comments on Hitler’s Speech” ... “Impressions in the Reich” ... The Voelkischer Beobachter gives particular importance to the words replying to Eden in regard to anti-Bolshevism, pointing out the merit of Germany’s realistic policy that fully confronts the Bolshevik peril that menaces Europe. Italian original Feb. 4, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Innovations in the Reich Government ... Germany Denies Rumors of its Participation in a Disarmament Conference ...” “New Center of Bolshevik Propaganda in Kaunas” Dateline: Warsaw, Feb. 3 According to reports from Moscow to the local press, the Comintern is currently considering the possibility of establishing in Kaunas, Lithuania, a third center of Communist propaganda for Germany. As is well known, two other centers are actively functioning in Prague and Amsterdam. It is further reported that the directors of the third international hope that, given the verifiable improvement in relations with Lithuania, the activity of Communist agents will become much easier in this new center of propaganda for Germany. “The Trial of Germans in Moscow” ... “The Reich’s Point of View on the Colonial Problem” According to the Reuters news agency, Germans are convinced that Hitler will obtain not only the return of a single colony, but the restitution of all the German colonies in their entirety. Official circles are naturally more guarded in discussion of the question. But a German who occupies an important position defined in the following way what he considers to be the Government’s point of view: Hitler repudiated this past Saturday the shame of German responsibility for the war. It follows that the confiscation of the colonies by France, Japan and the British dominions after the war was nothing other than an act of robbery. Germany today is strong once again, and it demands the restitution of what legally belongs to it... Italian original Feb. 5, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Problems of European Reorganization: Perspectives from London: Examination of a Speech by Hitler ...” ... the issue of Anglo-German relations came into discussion during the session of the House of Commons, as various Members of Parliament questioned the Foreign Minister at length for precise clarification as to what attitude the British Government intends to assume and maintain toward Nazi Germany in the wake of the recent speech by Chancellor Hitler. In particular, some Members wanted to know whether the Government would take under consideration the possibility of restoring some colonial territories that formerly were German and now are under a mandate, as an integral part of a general systematization of European relations, which should be centered at Geneva and which presupposes the acceptance of Germany into the heart of the League of Nations. “The Activity of Communism” ... Italian original Feb. 7, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Struggle Against Communism: A Speech by Goebbels in Hamburg” Dateline: Berlin, Feb. 6 Minister Goebbels gave a speech in Hamburg, where he dealt with domestic policy and made some comments about foreign policy. He said it is essential to save western civilization from the peril represented by Asiatic-Jewish Bolshevism. No State should close its eyes in the face of this peril. Thus German policy, as it was propounded by Hitler in his last speech, should be seen in a generally constructive outline. The world must understand that Germany is a great Power and that in Europe there is only one great enemy, Bolshevism, which aims at chaos and destruction. Italian original Feb. 24, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Middle Eastern Politics and Reality in Palestine – Statistics of the Disorders – Economic Prosperity and Expensive Necessities of Life – The Ideals of the Zionists – The Fateful Work of Bolshevism” Dateline: Jerusalem, Feb. 17 (Fidelis, our correspondant) A volume has come out, by the Jewish Agency, summarizing the balance sheet of the six-month revolt by the Arabs of Palestine from April to October of last year. The chart of its statistics, concerning the activity of violence and terrorism in the half year under examination, provides the following very eloquent figures: “Jews who were massacred numbered 82, while 9 others died as the result of causes directly connected to the disturbances. Those injured amounted to 405... Among the Arabs there were also to be lamented 305 episodes of terrorism by their co-religionists... There has been such a fuss in recent years about the so-called economic prosperity of Palestine, that it has succeeded in transforming it, in the eyes of public opinion worldwide, into a sort of myth... The Arab press is returning with particular insistence to the threat of Bolshevism in Palestine and is openly placing the responsibility upon the directors of Zionism. ... the weekly “Palestine and Transjordan,” edited by the Secretary of the Arab Supreme Committee, devotes a long article to the peril of Jewish Communism in Palestine... Also the Jewish press, while coming from a different perspective, denounces the perils of religious agnosticism and Bolshevism among Zionists in Palestine... Italian original March 14, 1937 Excerpt from Mit Brennender Sorge, para. 43: No one would think of laying an obstacle in the path of the youth of Germany that should lead them to the realization of a true Volksgemeinschaft, the fostering of a noble love of freedom, and steadfast loyalty toward the Fatherland. Note: Volksgemeinschaft denoted denoted community and solidarity of the German Volk. An essential aspect of Volksgemeinschaft in Nazi Germany was that it excluded Jews. The Nazis proclaimed in their founding Party platform in 1920 that “no Jew can be a member of the Volk.” (Platform point no. 4). German historians have observed that Volksgemeinschaft was a central concept of Hitler’s worldview. E.g., Michael Wildt, “Die Ungleichheit des Volkes” [“The Inequality of Peoples”], in Wildt and Frank Bajohr, eds., Volksgemeinschaft (2009). German youth, to whom the above passage was addressed, were aware of the meaning of Volksgemeinschaft. E.g., Baldur von Schirach, Die Hitler-Jugend [The Hitler Youth] (1934), pp. 76, 191. English translation of same passage from Vatican website (para. 34 in the Vatican's English version): No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country. Note: The paragraph numbering is different in the Vatican'sEnglish translation from the Vatican's German original. Excerpt from Mit Brennender Sorge, para. 51: Then the day will come when, in place of the premature victory songs of the enemies of Christ, from the hearts and from the lips of Christ's faithful the Te Deum of liberation will rise up to heaven; a Te Deum of gratitude to the Almighty; a Te Deum of joy that the German Volk, even in its currently wayward members, has trodden the path of religious returning home, that it, in faith purified by suffering, again bends the knee before the king of time and eternity Jesus Christ, and that it is preparing itself, in struggle [Kampf] against the deniers and destroyers of the Christian West, in harmony with all well-intentioned other peoples, to fulfill the calling that the plans of the Eternal assign to it. Compare English translation/paraphrase from Vatican website (para. 42 in the Vatican's English version): The day will come when the Te Deum of liberation will succeed to the premature hymns of the enemies of Christ: Te Deum of triumph and joy and gratitude, as the German people return to religion, bend the knee before Christ, and arming themselves against the enemies of God, again resume the task God has laid upon them. March 19, 1937 Excerpts from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical against Atheistic Communism: Paragraph no. 5. “...In fact, the most persistent enemies of the Church, who from Moscow are directing the struggle against Christian civilization, themselves bear witness, by their unceasing attacks in word and act, that even to this hour the Papacy has continued faithfully to protect the sanctuary of the Christian religion, and that it has called public attention to the perils of Communism more frequently and more effectively than any other public authority on earth.” 6. “... Our words are now receiving sorry confirmation from the spectacle of the bitter fruits of subversive ideas, which We foresaw and foretold, and which are in fact multiplying fearfully in the countries already stricken, or threatening every other country of the world.” 24. “In making these observations it is no part of Our intention to condemn en masse the peoples of the Soviet Union. For them We cherish the warmest paternal affection. We are well aware that not a few of them groan beneath the yoke imposed on them by men who in very large part are strangers to the real interests of the country.” 58. “... Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever.” Apr. 14, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “From Oligarcy to Dictatorship in Russia ... The Semitic Question and German-Soviet Relations” ... The evolution of Soviet politics, beyond having the characteristic of tending toward a dictatorial-military State with the renunciation of integral socialization, has other aspects not less worthy of comment. The demise of the Leninist oligarchy has also produced the demise of the large part of the semitic element that characterized the old guard. Stalin is a Caucasian, and the affirmation of his dictatorial supremacy is accompanied by a progressive elimination of the Jewish element from positions of power: some observers have even come to consider Stalin’s action as a veiled form of antisemitism. In reality, the antisemitic motive never surfaces in recent trials, and it can therefore be maintained that the persecution against Lenin’s old guard has been conducted by Stalin out of motives of jealousy for power and not for racial or religious motives. There is confirmation of this in the fact that Soviet foreign policy is currently guided by an element that is in great predominance Jewish. The semitic question in regard to Soviet policy is a considerable matter in relation to the antagonism between Berlin and Moscow. The French press considers the supposed antisemitism of Moscow to be one of the reasons apt to attenuate the German-Soviet contrast, a contrast that is to be considered all the more reducible in the event that German policy comes under the influence of Ludendorff and the Reich Army, a portion of which is not against a rapprochement with Moscow... Italian original Apr. 15, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one, top center: “Bishop Hudal speaks in Vienna on ‘Nietzsche and Today’s World’” (By telegraph from our correspondent) Dateline: Vienna, Apr. 14 His Excellency Mons. Luigi Hudal, Titular Bishop of Ela and Rector of the National German Institute of St. Mary of the Anima, gave a lecture yesterday evening, Tuesday, at the Kulturbund. [Culture League] The great hall, nobly appointed, was crowded with a highly select audience, which made a worthy crown for the representatives of the Austrian Federal Government. In addition to some notable ecclesiastics, those present included high personages of the laity belonging to the highest intellectual classes of the capital. The lecture, magistrally delivered and followed with strong interest, dealt with the theme: “Nietzsche and Today’s World.” The most excellent orator retraced the intellectual foundations of the “Weltanschauung” [ideology or worldview] of Nietzsche, an atheist movement pervaded by hatred against Christianity and directed toward struggle against Rome and the negation of the idea of a Christian State. These fundamental notions would be implemented today by Bolshevism in Russia and a movement formed in Germany. Bishop Hudal then went on to analyze at length the “Deutsche Glaubensbewegung” [German Faith Movement], which is nothing other than the religious Spartacist movement of the Third Reich and the intellectual bridge to Russian Bolshevism, differing from it not in the theoretical field but only in its practical method. Moreover, the “Glaubensbewegung,” the orator added, is not purely German. Beginning towards the conclusion of his speech, Bishop Hudal traced a clear picture of the task that pertains to Austria. Its mission is essentially religious and consists in the safeguarding of the union of Christianity in the name of Rome and of German-ness for the entire German people. The victory of the religiously sound part of the German people – concluded the most excellent orator amidst applause – will be a necessity for the whole of Europe. Italian original Apr. 18, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Catholic Press Exposition (hours from 9 to 1 and from 3 to 6): The finale-cycle of Lectures and Conferences” As we have announced, this evening at 5pm begins that cycle of Lectures and Conferences which will crown the World Exhibition with a great display of Catholic journalism, through the work of the principal Countries and Authorities exhibiting. With the Lecture that Bishop Hudal will deliver this evening on the periodical Catholic press in Austria, fifteen Conferences are on the program, all at the Exhibition Hall... Articles on L’Osservatore Romano’s front page during the preceding week about Hudal’s role include: Apr. 17, 1937: “At the Catholic Press Exhibition” ... For tomorrow, Saturday evening, the Lectures and Conferences, offered for April and May, begin with a lecture by His Excellency Bishop Hudal on the periodical Catholic press in Austria. It will take place at 5pm and will represent a prime affirmation of the opportune initiative welcomed everywhere with strong sympathy. Ecclesiastical and lay personalities have already announced their participation, as have student youths and many associates. Apr. 16, 1937, top of page one: “At the Catholic Press Exhibition (hours from 9 to 1 and from 3 to 6): The Opening of the Lectures and Conferences” As we have announced, this coming Saturday evening, at 5pm, is the opening of the series of Lectures and Conferences, organized by the Governing Committee in cooperation with the Committee for Events during the Exposition, in which various Authorities and Exhibiting Committees will display not only their contribution to the grand opening, but also the activities that individual religious or national works are carrying out in favor of, and by means of, the press. The opening will therefore take place with the illustration of the organization and development of the Austrian Catholic press. The President of the Committee will speak opening words, and then the much-expected lecture of Bishop Hudal will be held... Apr. 14, 1937, page one: “At the Catholic Press Exhibition (hours from 9 to 1 and from 3 to 6)” ... Preparations are commencing for the Lectures and Conferences that will go on in the Great Hall and the Cinemagraphic Hall. This week will be distinguished with the Lecture by His Excellency Bishop Hudal, Saturday at 5pm; and Sunday morning by the collective visit of the Roman Congregations... Apr. 13, 1937, page one: “At the Catholic Press Exhibition (hours from 9 to 1 and from 3 to 6)” The announcement of the lectures and conferences that will highlight this final period in the life of the Exposition has been received with much sympathy, if we should judge from the requests for programs and tickets made to the Secretary of the Committee for Events and Meetings, which presides over the arrangements for the interesting gatherings. The entire program will be made known as soon as possible. It will be inaugurated, as has been announced, with the Lecture by His Excellency Bishop Hudal on next Saturday evening at 5pm on the “Catholic periodical press in Austria.”... Apr. 11, 1937, page one: “At the Catholic Press Exhibition (hours from 9 to 1 and from 3 to 6)” The announced series of Conferences and Lectures, which will be held at the Exposition, on the press apostolate of the Authorities and Religious Orders and of Catholics in various Countries, will be inaugurated next Saturday, April 17, at 5pm sharp. Speaking will be His Excellency Bishop Luigi Hudal, Titular Bishop of Ela, on: “The periodical Catholic press in Austria,” thus highlighting one of the most extensive, most organized, and most productive activities in the field of Catholic journalism... Apr. 20, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Germany and Russia: Categorical strong denials in the Reich press to rumors of a rapprochement” Dateline: Berlin, Apr. 19 The Voelkischer Beobachter, observing how certain organs of the foreign press continue to report news of a supposed intention on the part of Germany to make peace with the Soviets, writes that these false reports have the goal, among other things, of impressing the Baltic States and Poland to reawaken in themselves distrust toward the policy of the government in Berlin, accused of fickleness. In the face of these accusations, the newspaper explains the reasons that have prompted Germany to pursue the policy it has applied in regard to the States of Eastern Europe and especially Poland. It mentions the reasons that have led to rapprochement with this latter country and affirms that the attitude of Germany has been hostile in an absolute way to Soviet Russia from the moment in which Moscow affirmed the predominance of the Soviets. This hostility – continues the newspaper – is based upon the consideration that according to National Socialist Germany, the power of Soviet Russia up to this time is at the orders of international Bolshevism and always ready to support revolutionary maneuvers of Communism in all the States of the world. Russia is not a State that can be measured along the lines of international norms, because it is the starting point of a movement of an international character, the goal of which is that of destroying and annihilating European culture. Of this threat, Germany has taken account in time: it does not want think like the other European countries that consider all States along the same lines and are ready to change with maximum readiness the contracting parties with whom they conclude treaties of assistance and non-aggression, like pieces on a chessboard... Italian original May 12, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Jews and the Universities in Germany: How the New Regulation is Assessed” Dateline: Berlin, May 11 The decision of Reich Education Minister Rust to no longer allow Jews to receive degrees in German universities has provoked a certain emotion in Jewish circles of Berlin. The Jüdische Rundschau [Jewish Review], Zionist newspaper of Berlin, observes that the new measure annuls at a single blow one of the essential achievements of the German Jews: free access to the universities. The review observes that the title of doctor has been considered by numerous Jews as “part of their surname” and indeed as “a name.” Since, from the coming to power of National Socialism, the number of German Jews enrolled in the universities has become practically insignificant, Rust’s ordinance has especially theoretical importance.” Article alongside the above article: “Ministers and Diplomats Received by Hitler” ... May 23, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “From Germany: After the Encyclical ‘Mit Brennender Sorge’” C.P. reports that the Gestapo has searched, by orders from on high, eighteen Catholic publishing houses that, by commission from their respective Bishops, had printed the Encyclical on the religious situation in Germany. Included among these publishing houses are indeed some of longstanding and widespread reputation, like the Regensburg Publishing House of Munich and the Bachem Publishing House of Cologne... Italian original June 17, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “From Germany: A Speech By Bishop Berning Against the Campaign of Trials” Dateline: Lucerne, June The Bishop of Osnabrück, His Excellency Monsignor Berning, preached to a numerous pilgrim group of Catholic men and youth convened at the Sanctuary of Mariano di Rulle, exhorting his listeners to remain faithful to the Catholic religion, to the Catholic Church, to the Catholic school, shaming all the contrary currents of the present time. He deplored in this circumstance the violent attacks by the press and the organs directed by the State and the party against the German clergy. “More terrible for the Church than any persecution from outside,” said the Bishop, “is the felony by her own sons. Doubly terrible, if the traitors were charged, by election or by sacrament, to give testimony to Christ by an immaculate life. No one suffers more than the Church from the guilt of her ministers and no one condemns it more than she with the maximum severity... Italian original June 18, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “From Germany: Numbers and Quality” A letter from L’Italia of June 13th, concerning the trials underway in Germany, especially against lay members of some Religious Congregations, highlights some considerations expounded by Benedictine Abbot Don Placido Glogger of Augusta, in the last issue of the Klerusblatt [Clergy Paper] of the Archdiocese of Munich. After having established that the majority of the trials in question concern Congregations composed of religious laity, employed in teaching and helping the sick, Don Glogger recalls that in recent decades, to meet the needs for numbers in recent foundations or to fill the vacancies produced by the war, there was not enough strictness in the selection of candidates, while people were received instead with great trustful facility... Italian original June 22, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “A Protest by His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne” Dateline: Cologne, June 18 His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Cologne has sent His Excellency the Interior Minister of the Reich and Prussia a formal protest against the arbitrary search and removal of documents from his Vicariate General by the Secret Police... Italian original Aug. 10, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Person and Works of Father Mayer objectively illuminated in the Munich trial (from our correspondent)” Dateline: Munich, August We have already reported extensively on the arrest of the famous Munich preacher, Father Robert Mayer, S.J., sentenced on July 23rd to six months incarceration, but nevertheless released in freedom immediately thereafter. As his case concerns a vital issue of principle, we consider it opportune to give some details about his trial and above all to reproduce that part of Father Mayer’s speech before his judges that concerns precisely this issue. The famous trial before the Special Tribunal was begun on July 22nd, and the charges of indictment against the accused centered around these three points of his preaching: the struggle against the confessional school, the struggle against publishing in the German press about the morality trials, the struggle against National Socialism and against Nazi literature... Italian original Aug. 17, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Towards the Nuremberg Congress: Predictions of fighting - The preparation of the press - The neo-pagan ‘breach’ - Significant intemperance” Dateline: Zurich, August The Congress of National Socialist workers in Nuremberg is expected to be the probable occasion of new revelations about the attitude of the party in the religious struggle. Various rumors are circulating. Intervention of authorities into the Religious Orders is mentioned, as well as a type of plebiscite about religious unity, formulated in such a way that the response can only be favorable to the struggle against Christianity, foreign religion contrary to Germanic traditions, and obstacles to the unity of the German people... Italian original Aug. 21, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “From Germany: Cardinal Faulhaber to ‘The Tablet’” Dateline: London, August The London Catholic weekly The Tablet publishes the following colloquy it had with a distinguished correspondent from a North American newspaper, who recently returned from a trip of study in Germany. Cardinal Faulhaber spoke at that time of uncertain understanding, in which in order to survive, one had to watch with complete prudence: – I knew, said His Eminence, that secret agents were seeking to provoke our ecclesiastics and that an inopportune act on our part would give the pretext to take even graver measures against the priests and the Church. But at this moment, the time has come to talk. What is called Kulturkampf [culture war] has entered into a new phase that aims at nothing less than the complete destruction of the Catholic Church in Germany... America and the German religious conflict Dateline: Paris, August Under the auspices of the “Legion of Christ,” a protest aginst the anti-religious persecutions that have been occurring in Germany has been signed by about 70 thousand Brazilian Catholics and presented to the Reich’s Ambassador in Rio de Janeiro... Italian original Sept. 8, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Opening of the National Socialist Congress in Nuremberg” Dateline: Nuremberg, Sept. 7 Yesterday afternoon Chancellor Hitler arrived in Nuremberg, accompanied by his General Staff and by enthusiastic popular demonstrations, to proceed today to open the National Socialist congress... Adolf Wagner then read the Chancellor’s proclamation, which began with a retrospective summary of the National Socialist movement during the past ten years ... Continuing, the proclamation emphasizes the need to assure the recruitment of leaders well prepared to serve the nation and then a confrontation between the National Socialist organization and that of Bolshevism. In vigorous terms, it criticizes the Soviets ... The proclamation then treats the friendship between Germany and Italy, which it calls “an element of security in Europe in the face of chaotic insanity,” adding that no one will be able to ignore this community in the future and no one will be able to violate this common will. “Our accord with Japan,” it then says, “likewise has the purpose of remaining united in defense against all aggression upon the civilized world that today can be taking place in Spain, tomorrow in the east, and the day after tomorrow in other places. We hope that the other Powers will also understand these signs of the times and will come to reinforce this combined front of reason, of protecting peace and our civilization.” Italian original Sept. 9, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Congress in Nuremberg” ... Italian original Sept. 10, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The exalted social action of Holy Father Pius XI in a speech by the Archbishop of Detroit” ... Italian original Sept. 10, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Congress in Nuremberg” Dateline: Nuremberg, Sept. 9 Yesterday, for the third day of the National Socialist Congress ... Italian original Sept. 11, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Congress in Nuremberg” The Stefani News Agency reports from Nuremberg that the Minister of Propaganda, Dr. Goebbels, spoke at the National Socialist Party Congress on “The Truth about Spain,” stating that the nationalist movement is a movement of liberation for all the people against the revolutionary organization of the Communist Party commanded by Moscow, while the Comintern up to 1935 wanted “Spain to be a theater of experimentation for the expansion of Communist territory into all of Europe.”... Italian original Sept. 12, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “At the Nuremberg Congress” Dateline: Nuremberg, Sept. 11 Yesterday evening, at the conclusion of the fourth day of the National Socialist Congress in Nuremberg, Chancellor Hitler hald a reception for the members of the Diplomatic Corps ... Recalling the struggle the Party sustained in coming to power in Germany, Hitler denounced Communism as disruptive in the world, but destined to be smashed by solidarity of the National Socialist movement. The Chancellor then added that Germany is now “an element of tranquility, a factor of security and thus indeed a guarantor of peace,” and, mentioning Italy, said that it is fortunate for Europe to have another Power, at midday, sound in the defense of peace. Finally, the further work and achievements proposed by National Socialism were displayed, insisting again on the desire for peace that animates every German citizen. Italian original Sept. 14, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “At the Nuremberg Congress” Dateline: Nuremberg, Sept. 13 ... Italian original Sept. 15, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “After the Nuremberg Congress” The big demonstration of German National Socialism in Nuremberg has now ended. In various circles, it was expected that there would be progress at such a symbolic occasion for the purpose of reducing the current tension – not to use a stronger expression – in the relations between Church and State, which are approaching a dramatic break that would demolish, by a unilateral fait accompli, the last bridges that still exist, by virtue of the Concordat, between the two Powers in Germany. Such an expectation has not been confirmed by the visible propensity of the Congress. Though with an extremely aggressive literature, and the usual rhetoric indeed of highly positioned personalities, it may have appeared likely before the Congress – at least to those who were not aware of what was going on behind the scenes – the prognosis of imminent forceful blows; instead, for reasons the examination of which can be reserved for another occasion, in the Congress itself it has been possible to feel the influence of a certain governing rule, according to whose tactical plans it did not seem useful to disturb the Nuremberg Convention with a decisive move in the struggle against Christianity and the Church. Unfortunately, however, anyone who would like to draw optimistic conclusions from this for the future development of relations between Church and State in Germany, would show that he has not drawn any profit from the teachings and the experience of the past four years. The relative moderation, explainable by the complexity of the current situation, in the public oratory of Nuremberg, cannot – and we attest this with sorrow – live down the fact that the hidden and open struggle against the Church and against the rights guaranteed to her in a solemn Concordat continues unabated. Obvious proofs of this, among many other things, are the continuing crescendo of a press that is ever more immoderate and, to say the least, indecorous, and the recent anti-Concordat regulations concerning religious instruction, by which it is removed from its competent authorities, namely the clergy, or the clergy is required to renew and reform the catechism “in a National Socialist sense,” which, as the result of declarations made by its most authoritative interpreters, means the negation of the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. Moreover, the Nuremberg Congress indeed showed that the process of penetration into the National Socialist movement by neo-paganism of a “Nordic” stamp is in continuing progress, and that the official representatives of the movement are not only not opposed to this penetration, but, in favoring it and promoting its expansion, allow ever more to fall by the wayside those tactical considerations that they had followed for a certain time. Thus, when the Holy See in the past, whether by Diplomatic Note or by direct conversations, initiated discussion about the struggle against Christianity proclaimed in theory and inspired in fact by Rosenberg, it repeatedly received the assurance, in writing and verbally, that his writings were a private work for which the Reich Government assumed no responsibility. Indeed, high government representatives did not hesitate to express in unequivocal terms their judgment of the lack of any scientific merit and value in Rosenberg’s well-known book. That, however, did not prevent official propaganda and the imposition of Rosenberg’s ideology from taking on ever greater proportions, so that it became the foundation of all courses for teachers employed by the State and the party, so that it made its entry into the State schools, so that the “Myth of the 20th Century” was enclosed inside the first stone of the great edifice of Nuremberg, and that in this manner, by facts so obvious, the declarations and assurances of the Reich Government came to be devalued. And as if this series of facts still needed a crowning symbol and symptom to open the eyes of those who found it more comfortable to keep them closed, it came to pass in Nuremberg that the highest national recognition was conferred upon Alfred Rosenberg. This solemn proclamation of Rosenberg not as “poet” but as “prophet laureate” of National Socialist thought and of the National Socialist State is a fact whose symbolic significance undoes the double game that has been played for years in the dissemination of the official position of National Socialism toward Christianity and the Church. In light of these facts, whoever recalls the Encyclical “Mit Brennender Sorge” and the capital importance it attributed, in the interest of true peace between Church and State, to the dissolution of the fatal union of State powers with forces hostile to Christianity, can understand how perilous is the path that the cultural development of Germany is beginning to take, after the direction of the State has declared itself so fully and solemnly in the highest degree of sympathy with the literary production of Rosenberg. We are very sorry to have to attest how such an identification tends to suppress the necessary conditions and suppositions for that religious pacification to which the Holy See has sincerely aspired and still aspires in the interest of the German people itself, and renders vacuous any assertions of a benevolent attitude toward Christianity. Thus, for example, when one reads in the Nuremberg speeches the truly stupefying affirmation that the National Socialist revolution “has not harmed a hair of a single ecclesiastic,” as if the actual events in Germany have not been sufficiently sorrowful – not to compare them to the bloody facts of Red Spain – one comes to make the observation that every revolution has its successive phases. Also in Spain the anti-religious book was the conscious or unconscious precursor of the later atrocities. Anyone familiar with the anti-clerical Spanish press before 1936 sees today with terrible clarity what sanguinary fruit it has yielded. But who can guarantee to today’s rulers in Germany that the seed of hatred and of denigration of everything sacred, which is developing ever more powerfully under the eyes of the Authorities, will not also produce in German soil, fruit that must instill dread in every true friend of the German people and its future? Italian original Sept. 15, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “At the Nuremberg Congress” Dateline: Nuremberg, Sept. 14 After the military review occurred yesterday afternoon, Chancellor Hitler closed the events of the National Socialist Congress in Nuremberg by delivering the previously announced political speech. According to the Stefani News Agency, the Chancellor began by speaking of Bolshevism, noting the seriousness of the threat that it brings against civilization and against the very existence of peoples, and, therefore, the need for Europe to be immunized, indeed since the destinies of the various States are each bound to the others. Touching then upon the Jewish problem, Hitler passed on to deal with Spain, declaring that it is an absurdity to affirm that the Bolshevik oppressors there are the incumbents holding lawful power whereby the nation of Spain would be a revolutionary Spain. He added that, just as England and France do not want a shift in the balance of power toward the German or Italian side, so Germany does not want a shift in this balance in the form of an increase of Bolshevik influence. Just as in England and France there are worries that Spain could be occupied by Italy or Germany, so in the Reich there is worry over the possibility that it could be conquered by Soviet Russia. Given then that “a shift in the balance in favor of Bolshevism would be identified with an economic catastrophe in all of Europe,” and that “Germany has a real, serious interest that the Bolshevik plague not expand through Europe,” the Chancellor spoke of France. “With the nation of France,” he said, “we have had many disagreements in the course of history. But in a certain way we belong to the great family of European peoples. Therefore I believe that we National Socialists do not have any interest in seeing any of the true civilized Nations of Europe disappear. We have every reason not only to abhor this, but on the contrary to love each other as neighbors, Nation to Nation. In this European community, Bolshevism is an absolutely foreign body.” Reaching the conclusion, Hitler observed that Germany does not want to be isolated and is not isolated either politically or economically. On the contrary, it seeks the cooperation of all States that have the goal of European solidarity, but only categorically refuses to be placed on the same level with those who want the destruction of Europe; “Moscow remains Moscow,” concluded the Chancellor, “and Germany, thanks be to God, remains Germany.” Italian original Sept. 29, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Visit to Berlin by the Italian Head of Government” Dateline: Berlin, Sept. 27, night The Head of the Italian Government arrived from Essen at 5:30 p.m. and was met at the station, decked out with the Italian and German colors, by the Führer, by Ministers of the Reich, and by all the public authorities, civil and military, while various formations rendered honors. The procession from the station to the Hindenburg Palace went for fifteen kilometers, amidst interruptions by the applauding people, in streets that were decorated and beflagged. The Chancellor left his guest in the apartment assigned to him and returned to the Wilhelmplatz, where His Excellency Mussolini joined him at 8 p.m. to participate in the official banquet, in which two hundred invitees took part. As the tables were cleared, toasts were exchanged, in which the solid Italian-German friendship was reaffirmed, and in which Germany’s welcome to the Head of the Italian Government was given unanimous emphasis, and commitments were made to general international understanding, as the friendship between the two peoples does not intend to be an exclusive bloc, but a collaborative force with all other nations of good will. The Führer expressed the most cordial wishes for the King of Italy and Emperor of Ethiopia. After the meal there followed a musical concert, in which artists of the Theater of the Opera performed. The city was magnificently illuminated. Italian original Sept. 30, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Italian Head of Government in Berlin” Dateline: Berlin, Sept. 28, night Yesterday morning the Head of the Italian Government visited the Italian Embassy, the House of Fascism, and was the guest of Minister Goering at lunch... After a greeting by Minister Goebbels, who announced that a million listeners were present in the stadium and the vicinity, and another two million in the Via Triumphalis where loudspeakers transmitted the stages of the ceremony, the Chancellor spoke, noting the importance of the demonstration that “what is signified most profoundly is the sincere desire to guarantee to our Countries that peace which ... is the result of a conscientious defense of our national, spiritual, material and cultural values and elements.”... The Head of the Italian Government spoke immediately after, reaffirming the historic parallelism between the two nations that came into freedom in the same century ... He concluded by affirming that in Italy and Germany there exists no dictatorship, that the powers rest on a popular consensus so vast that nowhere else than these regimes are there so grand and authentic democracies currently in the world; meanwhile elsewhere “the immortal principles” are exalted, of domination by money, by sects, by political competitors... Italian original Oct. 6, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Christianity and Nazism in a Scholastic Regulation” Dateline: Zurich, Oct. 4 (C.P.) - The Ministry of Popular Culture for Thuringia recently published a new curriculum plan for teaching religion in the schools, all the more symptomatic as the same Ministry in its region is the precursor for general regulations. This regulation establishes: 1. The selection of materials and the method of instruction must place emphasis on the virile and combattive character of Christianity. 2. Materials and instruction must tend to create an intimate contact between Christ and German National Socialist man, in a way that in itself results in a vital force for fulfillment of duty toward the fatherland, toward the people and the Führer. 3. The religion schedule must be specially adapted to the holiday schedule in order to open the whole mind to the revelation of God in Christ in the German nation and fatherland. In the program of this holiday schedule, appropriate passages of Sacred Scripture are to be included, as well as the best German choral songs and the best works of German religious artists. 4. The teacher shall choose from these passages and special songs, those that are to be committed to memory. 5. Religious instruction must always be in accordance with the German calendar year. This applies to the primary schools. For the middle schools and high schools, the Thuringian Cabinet Ministry has ordered that from now on the Old Testament must be omitted entirely, as well as Israelitic religious history and the other themes of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ must be described as antisemitic. The fifth year of elementary school will deal with the theme: “Jesus’ struggle against Jewish egotism and for a kingdom of love, honor, purity, and strength.” The sixth year will focus on “Jesus’ struggle against Judaism and against the clericalism represented by the Pharisees and priests.” Aside from so monstrous a metamorphosis by which the Redeemer of all men becomes racist and anti-clerical, precisely against those for whom He suffered, according to His teaching, His prophecy, and His example, these scholastic norms will be at the ready to be taken up by all those who maintain that Christianity no longer gives a virile and combattive character, that God is revealed in the German nation and only in the fatherland of blood and race, that the law of love is no longer associated with the law of honor; that a faith that admits original sin is vile and cowardly, never pure and strong. Italian original Nov. 7, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Italy Joins the Pact Against International Communism” (From our correspondents and radio reports) This morning at 11:00 in Rome, Italian Foreign Minister Ciano, Reich Extraordinary Ambassador von Ribbentrop and Japanese Ambassador Hotta signed the text of the following agreement: ; “The Italian Government, the Government of the German Reich and the Imperial Government of Japan, considering that the Communist International continues to place the civilized world in constant peril in the West and in the Orient, disturbing and destroying peace and order there; convinced that only a close collaboration among all States interested in the maintenance of peace and order can limit and remove this peril; considering that Italy – which, with the advent of the Fascist Regime, has combatted this peril with inflexible determination and has eliminated the Communist International within its territory – has decided to close ranks against the common enemy, together with Germany and Japan, which, for their part, are animated by the same will to defend against the Communist International; in conformity with Article 2 of the Pact against the Communist International concluded in Berlin on November 25, 1936 between Germany and Japan; have agreed as follows: ... Italian original Nov. 9, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 8-9 issue, page one: “After the Anti-Communist Pact” On the occasion of the signing of the anti-Communist accord, deliberately in Rome this past Saturday, telegrams of congratulations for the future of the accord were exchanged among the Heads of the three participating Governments. Commenting on this accord, the Daily Telegraph writes that no one can contest the exalted nature of the statement made by Ribbentrop, according to which the pact is an event that has a truly historic importance. The Jour confirms that the anti-Communist pact of Rome has a worldwide importance and furnishes a new proof of the energy and dynamism of the three great totalitarian States, contrary to the democratic States that pursue an incoherent policy. The Asahi of Tokyo observes it is natural that the three Countries, exposed to the same peril, would conclude the Pact, and says to consider that this will press other countries, especially small European countries, to participate in the anti-Communist Pact, since all the nations of the world will be obligated to declare their position without duplicity either against or for the Soviets. “The tragic balance sheet of twenty years of Bolshevism: Three million killed and dozens of millions dead from hardship” On the occasion of the anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, German newspapers are publishing a balance sheet of the disastrous conditions of Russia and the terror that has reigned there in the past twenty years... “Petition of the citizens of the Canton of Zurich against Communism”... “The hammer and sickle are symbols of slavery and death” Dateline: Filadelfia [sic], Nov. 8 The Philadelphia Inquirer highlights how the 20th anniversary of Communism finds Russia in the grip of the most violent and brutal purging that the country has ever had, at the end of which its peasants have been reduced to famine or are dying of hardships... Italian original Dec. 25, 1937 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Exalted, Heartfelt Words of the Holy Father on the Persecution that Afflicts the Church” ... “Intrepid Defense of the Truth” The Holy Father began by saying that it is always particularly beautiful, this joyful Christmas audience; beautiful, joyful, great indeed, for the majesty that the Sacred College and the Roman Prelature confer upon it; and in this year even more beautiful, joyful and great, not only for the imposing number and representation of the components of the Sacred College, but also since the Roman Prelature added to the representation of the multiplicity of the Pontifical Family with its most exalted exponents… The Supreme Pontiff wanted to state the sad, most painful fact of the religious persecution in Germany: since, said the Holy Father, we want to give things their right name, since it does not have to be repeated by Us what ancient history said in a determinative moment: Vera etiam rerum perdidimus nomina. No, continued His Holiness, by the grace of God, we have not lost these names: we want to clarify things with their names. In Germany there is in fact religious persecution. For some time it has been said, it has been made to be believed, that there is no persecution: but we know that there is, and a grave one; indeed, there has seldom been a persecution so grave, so fearful, so distressing; and so sad in its most profound effects. It is a persecution for which is lacking neither the prevailing of force, nor the pressure of threats, nor deceptions of guile and sham. The August Pontiff would not have wanted to treat so sad a matter: but he wanted to add this relief for those who have need, since no one can doubt that in speaking of such grave matters, which touch so closely upon His responsibilities, the Vicar of Jesus Christ could appear less informed or say one thing for another. The Holy Father then passed on to the second point, to the question of merit and principle, still under the same issue, and also connected to the first word, and still concerning Germany. I know that in Germany, and it has often been repeated abroad and repeated in accentuated colors, that the Pope has been and still is such a friend of Germany. In fact, few Countries have known such good of His Holiness as Germany … there are many that He has admired: not only because they came to Him as pilgrims, but because he knew them in their home; in their library, in their great institutes, in their great cities. Hence it is sad, doubly sad for the Supreme Pontiff to have to recall how in this Country the truth is violated … but that he regards in a way so very grave that it touches what He has most at heart; that for which he invests all His responsibility before God and before man, both the Catholic Hierarchy, the Catholic Religion, the Holy Church of God, that the divine goodness has confided to the care of His Vicar on earth. It is said that the Catholic Religion is no longer Catholic, but is political, and this pretext is taken up, this entitlement to justify the persecution, as if it is not a persecution, but, so to speak, a defensive maneuver. Those most beloved sons shared and are sharing with the Father the realization of those who traffic in the same accusation made against Our Lord when he was brought before Pilate, when everyone accused him of doing politics: of being a usurper, a conspirator against the political empire, an enemy of Caesar. And Pilate showed, in a first time, that he did not understand the spirit of the matter, or at least pretended not to have understood, and thus his question: So, are you a king? That is, have you come to overturn things, like a great political leader, one who stirs up politically the empire of Caesar? And the Lord, in His divine calm, responded with the affirmation: My kingdom is not of his world. It is not of this world that you thought or seemed to think. If my kingdom were of this world, my people would have taken up arms to come to my aid. This – continued His Holiness – We too can say. If We are doing politics as We are charged, as is attributed to Us, then this is to speak of rearmaments, and of war, that would then be a position for Us, to the extent it is small and exiguous, even for Us. No, the Supreme Pontiff does not have need of going there: My kingdom is not of this world. The Pope does not do politics: He does not live, does not work, to do politics, but to give testimony to the truth, to teach the truth: this truth that the world so little appreciates, which is cared for so little, while all the rest is cared for, precisely like Pilate who did not expect an answer to his question: what is truth? The Supreme Pontiff wanted to say and repeat and protest on high in the face of the whole world: We do not do politics; on the contrary, just to return to the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, if that were the case, Our people – and in all the world We have Our people: dearest sons, devoted faithful, believers, adorers of God – would be seen aiding Us. Well then, no one of Our sons scattered around the world, not one believes that We are doing politics; when everyone sees instead and continually confirms that We are doing religion, and do not want to do anything else. Certainly, added the Holy Father, concerning this it must be affirmed that the simple citizen must conform his own civic life to the law of God, of Jesus Christ; is this to do religion or politics? Certainly not politics. We desire then – continued the Holy Father – that also in civic life, in human and social life, there always be respect for the rights of God that are also the rights of the soul. And this, said the Holy Father, is what we have always exclusively done. If others have thought otherwise and said otherwise, that is contrary to the truth. And it is what profoundly saddens the Supreme Pontiff: the casting of this complex accusation of abusing religion – one of the worst thoughts that can come into the human mind – the accusation of abusing religion for a political purpose; the hurling, to use the true word, of this calumny against so many of His venerable brothers in the Episcopate, against authoritative members of the Sacred College, against so many priests, against so many of the good faithful, whose only concern is to obey the law of God, to make known this divine law, to do good Christian works, and thus, obviously, works of the best citizens, who are conscious of being responsible also in these civic and social obligations not only before men, but before God himself. The Holy Father therefore declared that His protest could not be either more explicit or more exalted in the face of the whole world: We do Religion, we do not do politics: everyone knows it, everyone sees it who wants to see. Italian original Go to Overview-Contents Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Translations and Notes, 1938-1945 1938 Aug. 8, 1938 Social Justice, pages 5, 19: “Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion” ... The second document, treating of the financing of the Russian Revolution by the Jewish bank of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, is the one drawn up by the American Secret Service and transmitted by the French High Commissioner to his government. This document is quoted at length on pp. 88-91 of ‘The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.’ It was published by the Documentation Catholique of Paris on 6th March, 1920, and was preceded by the following remarks: ‘The authenticity of this document is guaranteed to us. With regard to the exactness of the information it contains, the American Secret Service must assume responsibility.’ This document was quoted in 1920 in a supplement to the paper La Vieille France, which added: ‘All the governments of the Entente were aware of this memorandum, drawn from the data of the American Secret Service and sent at the time to the French High Commissioner and his colleagues.’ In addition to the information about the Jewish banking houses which financed the Russian Revolution, the document also gives the long list of the Jews who took over the direction of the Russian people in 1917. Lenin is given as a Russian, but all the other twenty-four given on the list - Trotsky, Zinovieff, Kameneff, Parvus, etc. - are stated to be Jews... All this goes to prove that Stalin's government, in spite of all its attempts at camouflage, has neveer been, and will never be, a national government. Israel will always be the controlling power and driving force behind it... As a matter of fact, the conspiracy against civilization in the world emanates from Russia, or from those who are responsible for organizing the Russian revolution under the leadership of Trotsky, and other bad Jews who have not been castigated in the Jewish pulpits of America... We regard every organization against War and Fascism as a menace until the officials of such organizations incorporate the war against Communism in their program... Sept. 9, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Holy Father’s Paternal Commendation to the Pilgrims from Catholic Youth of Belgium” Yesterday morning, Wednesday, the Holy Father received in audience a large number of the faithful from various places. The August Pontiff deigned, first of all, to direct His words, in the Gallery, to a group of religious comprising 60 students from the Pontifical University of St. Anthony and 40 theology students from the Monastery of Saints John and Paul, heartily congratulating them for the commitment they have shown in their studies and for the benefit they have gained in sacred and profane knowledge. ... To a group of 120 pilgrims from Catholic Radio Belgium, gathered in the next room, the Holy Father expressed his most hearty thanks for the gift of a radio, and His congratulations, equally for the good they do and for the evil they seek to avoid in the use of one of the most popular means of propaganda today. Then he urged them to do ever more and ever better and to consider that however much they do - and the Pope knows they do a lot - nothing can be considered done when there is still more to do. Then, in the Candalabra room ... Finally in the Swiss Room, where there were 400 pilgrims of Belgian Catholic Youth and 390 married couples meeting, the August Pontiff, greeted by the heartiest applause, responded to those beautiful, good, filial acclamations, giving everyone his most cordial blessing in the house of the Universal Father who had come to try to obtain the Paternal Benediction, all the more precious for the children when the Father is so loved and so old. Equally welcome are the newly marrieds who have come to obtain an augmented share of grace on Christian marriage instituted by Our Lord His Holiness thanked them for having thought of Him, these favorite children of his who belong to the Associations that represent so well those that go by the name of Catholic Action. His Holiness the Pope knows well that those who have finished of the specialized branches of that great umbrella that is Catholic Action of Belgium, and thus wanted to congratulate them for all the good they have done in Belgium. It is a great joy of the paternal heart ... marvelous union of hearts. In fact it is a magnificent thing to obey the great laws of nature: Unity makes for strength... it is a word that the Pope repeats especially to the Youth of Catholic Action: Most excellent, but always more, always better. And these words appeal opportune to the Holy Father because a value like holiness is always susceptible to further progress, to new perfections. The ancient Romans had, in this regard, a saying that can also be a good souvenir of Rome: Nothing is done if something remains to be done. Civiltà Cattolica, Oct. 1, 1938, pp. 3 ff., “La Questione Giudaica e ‘La Civiltà Cattolica’”: ... The order of considerations weighing upon us up to now has exempted us from entering into an examination and discussion of some of the more detailed aspects of the Jewish question, the more so as not a few of them have already been treated, more or less fully, in our periodical (footnote: 1934 vol. 4, pp. 126ff., 267ff.; 1937 vol. 2, pp. 418ff., 497ff., vol. 3. pp. 27ff.; and 1938 vol, 2, pp. 77ff.) ... The fallacy, moreover, in the liberal argument for the abolition of the former laws governing the life of the Jewish nation in the midst of Christian peoples, was recognized by Mazzetti himself, who acknowledges it quite candidly. The fallacy is found, for example, in their insistence upon attributing the vices of the Jews to the natural effects of the laws themselves, and thus seeing the remedy in “connecting them to modern life” more and more, with full equality of rights, and without any protection for the rights of the Christian people themselves. That left a completely open field for the Jews, and this was to their own detriment, as we have reasoned in our periodical. About that, finally, the same Mazzetti praises “the coordinating and inspiring work” whereby “Italian culture set out a framework for the Jewish question, in all the richness of its guidance, and held to it with unquestionable seriousness of scientific knowledge.” But precisely because of this, the work of our periodical could not depart, even in the understandably lively controversy, from the sincere study of the truth and the obligatory balance between justice and Christian charity that we have demonstrated. E. Rosa, S.J. Oct. 16, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “A Proposal for Solving the Palestine Problem” Dateline Jerusalem, Oct. 15 ... [deals with the Mufti of Jerusalem] ... Nov. 8, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “A Speech by Hitler in Weimar” Dateline Berlin, Nov. 7 Chancellor Hitler gave an announced speech in Weimar yesterday at the convention of the Brown Shirts in Thuringia. He described Germany’s development in recent years, calling it miraculous. He said that the German people are peace-loving, but that “disarmament of weapons must be preceded by disarmament of the spirit. The absolute guarantee of the right to German parity and self-determination is established by the armed forces. It is to them that Germany owes its political successes that were entrusted in vain for fifteen years to negotiations. The Reich is willing to negotiate, but not as to its indispensable rights.” The essentially polemical talk among the democracies and among English politicians who were most critical of the Munich accord has shown conclusively that the German people must be steadfast, resolute and united with their friends; living, that is, in Europe together with Italy. Nov. 9, 1938 Völkisch Observer, page 2: “Harmless Kid?” - Berlin, Nov. 8 For the second time, a Jew has shot a German person. David Frankfurter fired his deadly shots against Wilhelm Gustloff, a standard-bearer of the Party. Herschel Grünszpan, however, raised his murder weapon against Legation Secretary vom Rath, a diplomatic official of the Reich. The crimes in Davos and Paris show uncanny similarity. And this is quite easy to explain. The criminal predisposition of their race enabled both Jewish murderers to employ the same assassination methods in the execution of their ruthless deed. With the same premeditation, the men behind the scenes went to work to assure the least possible punishment for their vile tools. In Switzerland they sought out a Canton where capital punishment is unknown. And in France they sought out a minor to implement their intentions, who is brought before a Paris juvenile court and can expect there an equally mild punishment. In order not to charge this to the Jews of the country in which the murder took place, they pressed the murder weapon into the hand of a Yugoslavian citizen in Switzerland and a Polish citizen in France. With the same scrupulosity as before in the Gustloff case, the Jewish world press now turns attention away from the men behind the scenes, those who can be found in the same circles as the ones who put David Frankfurter up to it, who can be found among the ranks of those who, forever and a day, have been inciting world war against National Socialist Germany. Although everything that has come to light so far about the circumstances of the crime in Paris reveals systematic preparation, the Jewish-Bolshevik press is beginning to exculpate the cowardly assassin. They are already beginning to present the Jewish murderer as a “poor child,” or as an “over-excited Jew” who was not in his right mind... Nothing else was to be expected but that world Jewry would stand united behind the criminal who fired shots at one German official of the Reich but hit the entire German Volk. Since the Jews of the world identify themselves with the criminal in Paris, it is the right of the German Volk to identify this criminal with the Jews of Germany, no matter whether they hold a German or foreign passport. The shots of Paris will not remain unatoned; Judaism can be assured of that! When the Jews throughout the world approve the most recent bloody deed, the Jews in Germany cannot be thinking differently. The evident Jewish attitude obligates everyone to take preventive action against new criminal deeds breaking out. The German Volk has suffered too much harm from “harmless Jewish kids” to be willing to bear more of the same. German original Nov. 10, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “A Further Speech by Hitler in Munich” Dateline: The “Stefani” agency reporting from Munich, Nov. 8: In the historic Bürgerbräu Beer Hall this evening occurred the annual gathering of the Brown Shirt comrades who, fifteen years ago, flocked to this beer hall in response to Hitler’s appeal to revolt on the 9th of November. The highest leaders were convened together with the humblest followers, all attired in the same uniform: a simple brown shirt without distinctions of rank; on their chests the insignia of the “Order of Blood,” conferred by the Führer on all the participants in the revolt. Altogether there were about 3,000 Brown Shirts present. Among them, for the first time, there were also representatives of Austria and the Sudetenland, as guests. After the solemn entrance of the flags at the beginning, led by the “Blood Flag,” the Führer entered, greeted by enthusiastic jubilation. The ceremony was broadcast by loudspeakers in the other historic beer hall, the Hofbräuhaus, where all the other senior leaders of the Party were convened who had not participated in the revolt of November 9th. After a greeting by Christian Weber, a comrade of Hitler’s from the beginning, the Führer took the floor. He began his speech by recalling the times of twenty years ago and attributing Germany’s defeat to the cowardice of the governing classes of the time. “If I had been in power in those days,” he added, “Germany would never have suffered the shame of defeat.” Hitler then lashed out with lively sarcasm against the attitude of Churchill and the English opposition, saying he had to exhort the German people to be alert because, in homage to the systems in use in democratic countries, it cannot be ruled out, and must even be considered possible, that those who today are in opposition will tomorrow be in power: “And these potential governors of tomorrow declare today that they do not want to attack the German people and the Italian people but only their regimes. This is the same tactic,” exclaimed Hitler, “that our so-called friends first adopted in 1918 when they said the wanted to bring down the dynasties and not the people. But we know this about that: only by destroying the German people can they bring down its current regime.” The Chancellor went on to say – to much applause – that when others talk so much about agreements with Germany, the Germans themselves do not understand what agreements they want, since Germany no longer has anything to negotiate about except the issue of colonies, an issue for which, moreover, they will never resort to war, because justice will inevitably triumph. After emphasizing that the German nation must be ready to endure yet greater sacrifices for the security of peace in view of the fact that the Nazi Party does not intend to count only on its own strength, Hitler concluded his speech, which lasted almost two hours, by remembering, with words of profound gratitude, the Fallen of the Nazi Revolution. The speech was interrupted many times by the most lively applause, especially the polemical parts. After the gathering at the Bürgerbräu Beer Hall, the leaders attended the solemn march of the Party standards that were carried before the memorial to the Fallen Nazis at the Odeonsplatz, where they will remain on display throughout the day tomorrow. Detachments of Hitler Youth kept watch near the standards. L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 10, 1938, page 6: “The Canton of Vaud’s Fight Against Communism” The National Council, with 101 votes in favor and 39 against, has conceded the federal guarantee to the new article of the constitution of the Canton of Vaud [in Switzerland] that prohibits, on the territory of the Canton, organizations affiliated directly or indirectly with the Communist International or any other international or foreign organization whose activity is harmful to public order. “The Church of St. Nicholas in Magdeburg Dedicated to Combat Veterans” The National Zeitung reports that Hitler has given his consent so that the famous Church of St. Nicholas in Magdeburg will be devoted to the memory of German combat veterans. All the flags of the former association of the Steel Helmets, founded there in Magdeburg, will be preserved there. Italian original Nov. 11, 1938 Völkischer Beobachter, page one: “World Echo of the Jewish Assassination: Sympathy for the Victim, Indignation over the Bloody Deed” Proclamation of Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels to the Population New Legal Regulation of the Jewish Question Announced Dateline: Berlin, Nov. 10 Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels proclaims: “The justifiable and understandable indignation of the German Volk over the cowardly Jewish assassination of a German diplomat in Paris took off in a major way during the past night. In numerous cities and places of the Reich, reprisal actions were undertaken against Jewish buildings and businesses. “It is hereby proclaimed that the entire population is strongly exhorted to refrain at once from all further demonstrations and reprisals of all sorts. The final answer to the Jewish attack in Paris will be imparted to Jewry by means of legislation and decree.” The cowardly murder by the Jew Grünspan has provoked in the entire German Volk an only too understandable indignation, which has been expressed in anti-Jewish announcements, especially in view of the unprecedented vileness of this deed and the unabashed insolence with which it was perpetrated. If thereby, despite the so justified rage of all Germans, no Jew’s hair was so much as ruffled, then that may go down in all the world to the disciplined nature of the German Volk. In any case there should be no delay in stating emphatically that in any further provocation by world Jewry, the German Volk will hardly reckon so gently with the criminals. The assassination in Paris occasioned in Jewry, and especially its heavily influenced international Jewish rabble-rousing press, the recognition that a further piece has been made to ripen, that indeed beyond the German borders a general defensive action against the burdensome parasitic people has begun to be instituted. The proclamation of Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels is proof of Germany’s intention not to make any Jewish martyrs. The announcement of further legislative regulation of the Jewish question will be received by the whole German Volk with satisfaction. German original Nov. 11, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Death of von Rath” Dateline Paris, Nov. 10 The Secretary of the German Embassy, von Rath, victim of the assassination attempt committed this past Monday against him by the young Jew Grynszpan, died yesterday afternoon as a result of the wounds he received. The French Chargé d’Affaires in Berlin went yesterday to the Foreign Ministry to express to Undersecretary Weiszacker, in the name of the French Government, his condolences over the death of the young diplomat accredited to the Government in Paris. The President of the Republic, the Presiding Minister of the Council, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and all the Diplomatic Corps sent their condolences. “Burnings of Synagogues in Berlin and in Other German Cities” Dateline Paris, Nov. 10 The Havas news agency reports from Berlin that of the twelve synagogues in the German capital, nine were in flames, while the main temple of the Israelite Community, in the Orientburg Street, opposite the central telephone office, has not been touched. There the doors are wide open and two agents are standing guard. In front of all the burning synagogues there are numerous squads of firemen trying to keep the flames localized, while the surrounding areas are being kept clear by the police. The office of the Israelite cultural and theater organization is closed, as are eight Jewish schools. As yet no official statement has been published in Berlin about the burning of the Israelite temples. It is reported that in Vienna two more synagogues have been sacked. Numerous Israelites have been arrested by the police, who have also begun to take action to collect weapons in the possession of the Jews. Also in Lomberg Bayreuth it is reported that some synagogues are in flames. In Munich, the only remaining synagogue, after the demolitions effected in the last month, was set on fire. In the Jewish quarter the police have executed mass arrests. The men have been taken into camps. In most of the cities of Germany last night, organized processions [cortei] have gone through the streets,systematically attacking Jewish shops. Immediately following: “Deplorings in Poland” Dateline Warsaw, Nov. 10 All the Israelite press is deploring the murder by Grynspan, fearing the consequences. The Nasz Pruglad asserts that it is a matter of an individual act, not premeditated, and that it is impossible to hold responsible any group of the Jewish population. The Polks Cajtung asserts that it is easy to imagine the wave of reaction that this act will provoke. The Moment reports that in France voices have already been heard against the Jews as wanderers and sowers of disorder. Contrary to reports published abroad, it is not true that the German-Polish negotiations on the problem of Polish Jews residing in Germany have been interrupted. The talks continue, but they are laborious. On the other hand, the assassination of von Rath has not helped facilitate the negotiations. Adjacent article: “The British Government Abandons Its Plan to Partition Palestine” Dateline London, Nov. 10 As announced, the Government published yesterday, under the form of a “White Paper,” the report of the Commission for Palestine, consisting of Sir John Woodhead, Sir Alison Russel, Sir John Waterfield and Mr. Reid. The publication caused notable surprise in that it signifies a complete abandonment of all proposals for partition that have been presented for the examination of the Commission, none of them having received its approval. The British Government, writes the “White Paper,” after attentively examining the Commission’s report, has come to the conclusion that the political, administrative, and financial difficulties in creating an Arab State and an independent Jewish State are so great that the solution of this problem is impossible. The British Government will continue, therefore, to be responsible for the domestic government of Palestine... Italian original Nov. 12, 1938 Völkischer Beobachter, page one: “The Grünspan Case” On November 7th in Paris, a 17 year old Polish Jewish youth made his way into the German Embassy and asked to speak with one of the gentlemen in authority. As he was led to Legation Secretary vom Rath, he drew his pistol and fired off several shots without any word of exchange or dispute having occurred. At his subsequent interrogation he declared that he did not know Legation Secretary vom Rath personally at all. It was indeed a matter of indifference to him, whom he shot. He only wanted to take revenge for his Jewish brothers in Germany. Investigations in Paris determined that Grünspan had been expelled from France three months earlier. Concerning his stay up to the day of the murder, he has maintained silence up to the present day. He was in possession of a false passport. There arise here then the questions: Where was Grünspan in the past three months? Who took care of supporting him? Who arranged the false passport for him? Who taught him pistol shooting? There can remain no doubt that he was hidden by a Jewish organization and systematically prepared for this cynical act of murder. Legation Secretary vom Rath died after torturous sufferings a few days later. The parallels with the Gustloff case are ready at hand. Just as then, a young man was sought out as the assassin by the Jewish men-behind-the-scenes, in order to conceal the responsibility. The interrogations of both Jewish youths showed a precise concurrence in the defensive rationale and the tactics. It also came out through the trial proceedings against Frankfurter that the desire was to strike not the individual man, but rather National Socialist Germany. Also shown in both cases is the well-prepared exculpatory efforts of the entire Jewish world press. Where are these men-behind-the-scenes to be found? For weeks and months there has been incitement to war against Germany as a nation, and incitement to murder against individual prominent representatives of National Socialist Germany, in the great Jewish world newspapers. Especially prominent in this have been the Jews Georg Bernhard and Emil Ludwig Cohn. In these circles, therefore, are the intellectual instigators of the attack undoubtedly to be found. These are the same circles that are unleashing for the murderer throughout the world an unprecedented propaganda to win public opinion. The reasons for the murder are ready at hand. World Jewry , after fevered incitements to war during the summer months of this year, suffered a frightful rebuff. The Munich accord caused its annihilation plan toward Germany to founder. It had raised the hope of bringing Germany to its knees by a world war brought on by infamous rabble-rousing, and of being able to cause the hated Nazi regime to collapse. After this plan was brought to shipwreck in Munich, they wanted to use a drastic and frivolous action to stop the peace efforts of the great powers of Europe and then stage a new incitement against Germany. The murder of Embassy Councillor vom Rath was to be a signal for all of Jewry to fight against Germany... German original Nov. 12, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “After the Antisemitic Demonstrations in Germany: A Statement by Goebbels” Dateline Berlin, Nov. 11 Yesterday afternoon Minister of Propaganda Goebbels exhorted the population over the radio to cease from further demonstrations. “The entire population,” he said, “is emphatically called upon to desist from further antisemitic demonstrations or actions of any kind. The definitive response to the assassination in Paris will be given to Judaism by lawful means.” “Foreign Repercussions” Dateline Paris, Nov. 11 The Havas agency reports from Berlin that calm has returned. Jewish merchants have posted signs on their shops saying “Shop for rent immediately” or “shop already sold to an Aryan.” Goebbels’ order to desist from demonstrations was punctually followed. The press, while justifying yesterday’s excesses in terms of the indignation of the people, is emphasizing that no Jew was hurt, and is declaring that the world must take account of the discipline the German people have shown. The Völkisch Observer warns: “If new provocations were to occur on the part of international Jewry, the German people would not settle accounts with the criminals with such mildness.” Nonetheless the same agency points out how the French, English and American press are severely judging yesterday’s antisemitic incidents in Germany. For example, in Paris, the Petit Parisien writes: “The world is stupified with indignation that a single person’s crime can provoke such terrible reprisals against victims who had no connection, except racial, with the murderer.” The Times points out that millions of Germans must bear in mind the damage that is being inflicted on their Country. In its turn, the News Chronicle highlights the gravity of the episodes. “It is not on the basis of these actions,” it writes, “that we can hope to see an accord between the German leaders and the English people.” The New York Tribune, for its part, observes: “It is incomprehensible how the current leaders of Germany could imagine that permitting these acts would do anything but provoke the disapprobation of civilized men.” According to the Times, quoting from Reuters, no foreign propagandist wanting to attack Germany could do better than recount the arsons and assaults against innocent defenseless citizens that occurred yesterday in Germany. Either the German authorities tolerated these attacks, or their power to maintain public order over a minority of hotheads is not what it is asserted to be. Article alongside: “The Imminent Meeting in London of the Conference for Palestine” Dateline London, Nov. 11 ... “The Arabs’ Demands” Dateline London, Nov. 11 Yesterday evening the Arab Center of London sent a signed declaration from Mr. Allonba, head of the delegation that came to London to communicate to the British Government the decisions of the recent Arab-Muslim Congress meeting in Cairo. The declaration says, among other things, that the Arabs are ready to negotiate, on the condition that there will be a recognition of their natural right to choose their own form of Governemnt and that they will be allowed freedom to choose their own representatives to the conference for the pacification of Palestine that has been proposed by the British Government. Additional article on page one: “The Arrival of the First Diplomatic Representative of the Reich to Manchukuo” Dr. W. Wagner, First Minister Plenipotentiary of the Reich to Manchukuo, arriving in Hsinking, was received at the station by representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by members of the German Legation and by the principal city authorities. He will be received by Emperor Kang-The on Saturday morning for the presentation of his credentials. Nov. 13, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “After the Antisemitic Demonstrations in Germany – Statements by Goebbels – Further News and Commentary” Dateline Berlin, Nov. 12 Minister Goebbels received representatives of the foreign press to whom he has made some statements about the reprisals against the Jews that have made such a deep impression upon world public opinion. He said that National Socialism and antisemitism are identified with each other, and that the Jewish problem will be resolved by means of law, in which the government will only follow popular opinion. Between the Jewish and German people, he said, there is an abyss. The Minister then spoke of malicious insinuations, especially protesting against the American press and what was said abroad about the organized nature of the violence employed against the Jews, maintaining that in such a case things would have been much different; it was only the remarkable number of incidents that rendered police action ineffective to prevent looting. The Government has already ordered the cessation of all reprisals, repeating that the question will be addressed in an orderly manner by the competent authorities: and in this regard, he added that Germany denies it is an international issue that is considered appropriate for resolution by international agreements. However, the spirit of the Reich in this regard would depend on the attitude of the Jews in various countries. Newspapers reported from Munich that an antisemitic demonstration took place yesterday evening amidst serious public agitation, as people crowded into the arena of the Krone Circus. It is estimated that no fewer than 40,000 people heard a speech by Minister Wagner which was characterized by the most imperious protests against the Jews. Newspapers note that it appears from Wagner’s words that among the detainees in prisons are large numbers of Jews. The speaker said they will respond to international Jewish propaganda against Germany. According to the same source, the speaker then said that “in Munich all the Jews’ businesses, shops, lawyers’ offices and medical offices will be taken over. At the top we will see the confiscation of all the objects of art they possess. The fight against the Jews will proceed to their complete extermination [sterminio completo].” “The rumor appears to be confirmed,” adds this source, “that there have been serious injuries to Jews, especially in cases where they resisted.” Le Temps publishes some details about Thursday’s fires in Berlin and reports that nine out of twelve synagogues were destroyed. The main synagogue has not been touched. In front of the burning synagogues, the fire engines have localized the fires to prevent them from spreading to neighboring buildings, leaving slowly burning Israelite temples. According to a statement from the German News Bureau, reported in the same newspaper, the windows of Jewish stores in almost all cities of the Reich were destroyed. In some cases there are reports of fires in Jewish stores with the merchandise destroyed. On the Kurfürstendamm, the main street of Berlin, as well as other neighborhoods of the capital, Jewish stores were demolished. In some cases owners have been arrested by the police to ensure their safety. The Angriff, Minister Goebbels’s newspaper, announced today that in Renpe, a poor district of Berlin, no Jewish warehouse was spared and said that a “good job” was done in the Jewish neighborhoods of the capital. The newspaper adds that the Jews themselves were later forced to remove the traces of the nighttime devastation. According to Reuters, Frankfurt police made a mass arrest of all Jewish men ages 18 to 60 who are German nationals and sent them to a concentration camp. The Jews will have to pay the costs of food and lodging, and the Jewish community will have to pay for co-religionists who are without means so that they will not be a burden on German taxpayers. While all the Jewish places in Berlin remain closed, it will be forbidden for the Jews to attend theaters or any other places. The Havas news agency also announced that a heavy fine will be imposed on all German Jews in compensation for the murder of von Rath. On same page: “An English Step” Dateline London, Nov. 12 According to the Times, a diplomatic note was referred yesterday by the counselor of the British Embassy in Berlin, Sir Olgivie Forbes, to the Wilhemstrasse. The note draws the attention of the German Government to the fact that the British Chargé d’Affaires has received complaints to the effect that British goods have suffered as a result of events on Thursday. The note of the British Government reserves the right to claim indemnities and expresses the hope that measures will be taken to protect British subjects. The emotion aroused by the antisemitic demonstrations in Germany continues in the English press. The News Chronicle, referring to statements by Minister Goebbels, observes that “the fact that the propaganda minister has summoned journalists to give them his version of the ‘pogroms’ clearly indicates that the echo of the worldwide protest has been heard.” The Labour paper Daily Herald writes that “the violence this week and the malicious attacks against politicians currently make it difficult to undertake any new efforts toward an Anglo-German agreement.” Nov. 15, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, November 14-15, 1938, page one: “Concerning the New Italian Racial Laws” ... Also on page one: “Christian Renaissance in Czechoslovakia” Dateline Prague, Nov. 14 The economic organizations of the Christian labor movement of Czechoslovakia, formed under the name of “Economic Council of the Christian Movement,” a central committee that will participate in the reconstruction of the state according to the spirit of the Papal Encyclicals. Meanwhile, the Catholic newspaper of Prague, “Lidove Listy,” is campaigning for reforms to teaching in Czechoslovakia, according to the Christian spirit, and points to the example of Slovakia. “The time of internationalism and irreligion has passed,” writes the newspaper. “The Christian spirit of the nation has awakened and claimed its rights. It requests that the crucifix reign in the local schools, because it sees in the Cross the most effective means of protection against destructive currents.” The same can be said also of religious education. Incessantly there is talk about the importance of religion for the moral renewal of the nation, but then the teaching of religion in schools is given a place inferior to that which is given to gymnastics. There should be a State decree requiring all children to take courses in religion. Nov. 15, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, November 14-15, 1938, page 6: “Repercussions of the Antisemitic Demonstrations in Germany – The Measures in Germany” Newspapers have reported from Berlin that the legal measures announced by Minister Goebbels, which were reported Saturday, consist first of all in a collective fine amounting to one billion marks, so that, as the Minister himself said in a speech to the winter relief conference, “the property of the Jews will pass into German hands in a very short time.” Second, it will be a prohibition on Jews practicing a trade or line of business, whether wholesale or retail, owning, managing, directing, or representing commercial companies, as well as the injunction to pay indemnities received by the Jews themselves, while the corresponding sums that are due from insurance will be donated to the State. A certain number of Israelite personalities in Berlin were invited by the president of their community to deliberate on this matter. They have received a notification specifying the amount of damages for which payment will be required. It is not known what total figure will be imposed. It is known only that a Jewish widow, who owned a certain amount of goods, has been called upon to pay 50,000 marks and an industrialist 10,000 marks. For the payment of these sums no interested party will be exempt from contributing to the billion marks for the collective fine. The Propaganda Minister has ordered that the Israelites will be excluded from cinemas, theaters, concerts, exhibitions, and all recreational and cultural events, being obligated, says the Minister, to be excluded as Jews from German culture and to provide for their own. Arrests were made everywhere, universally justified as a protective measure. Minister Goebbels, in his remarks, denounced the foreign press campaign as characterized by exaggerations out of hatred toward Germany; he called on the people not to resort to new reprisals, because with Jewish property becoming the patrimony of the nation, it is not the Jews who will be affected; all the more reason for the Government to be vigilant and respond to whatever “provocations” may come from whatever quarter. The Berliner Tageblatt expressed, in any case, the hope “that the new legislation consecrates the right to just reprisals.” To illustrate the state of mind and the resulting situation, Rome newspapers are speaking of a judicial sentence they call “interesting” and “extremely significant,” reported by Lunemburg, which “emphasizes a spirit free from all compromise and from any transaction that substantially at the same time inspires and interprets all the legislation of the National Socialist State against the Jewish element.” The sentence was handed down by the Court of Jurors, for a crime against the pregnancy of a Jewish woman under Article 218 of the German Penal Code which sets out the prohibition and punishment. The court made a factual finding for the reality and the fullness of the prosecution, but acquitted the accused “because” in the spirit of the national syndicalist revolution Article 218 of the Criminal Code has the character of a racial protection for the progeny of the German Aryan race so that the provisions and legal intent of this article cannot be applied to protect the progeny of a race that is in opposition to the German people. The application of Article 218 in this case, according to the rationale of the judgment, would have an effect precisely opposite to the purpose of protecting the German race as set forth in this article of the law. The German people find themselves in a defensive struggle against the Jewish race, and laws enacted in favor of the German people cannot, as a result, be applied in defense and in favor of the Jewish race. The German News Bureau adds that other rigorous measures to eliminate Judaism from the German economy and to put an end to a provocative situation will be taken within a very short time. According to the news agency Havas, details from Munich about the National Socialist demonstrations include Minister Wagner and leaders of Upper Bavaria attacking “international Judaism and its red and black protectors.” Wagner stated that the indignation of Nazi ex-combatants over the news of the death of von Rath was overwhelming. He added that Jewish shops are and will be closed; and he accused the Catholic Church of taking up the defense of the Jews. Finally, the Minister of Education, Rust, sent a telegram to the Rectors of German Universities stating that Jews are prohibited from taking university courses and from entering academic buildings. A law is being prepared that will ban the Jews from access to German universities and colleges. Jews have also been temporarily prohibited from working in the German stock exchanges. The purpose of the decree is to prevent a collapse that could occur via a sale of securities by Jews to pay the one billion mark fine. The German News Bureau also announced that the head of the Reich motorist association, Huenlein, has ordered the immediate dissolution of the “Jewish Automobile Club.” “English Impressions” Dateline London, Nov. 14 ... “French Comments” Dateline Paris, Nov. 14 ... “Protests in America” Dateline New York, Nov. 14 ... Nov. 16, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “English Catholics for the Church in Germany” Dateline London, Nov. 14 The Catholic periodical The Universe has begun a petition to show the fraternal solidarity of English Catholics with the grievous present condition of the Catholic Church in Germany. The first signatory is His Eminence Arthur Cardinal Hinsley, Archbishop of Westminster. After collecting all the signatures of English Catholics who join in the protest, the document will be delivered to the Reich Chancellor. Nov. 16, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “The Fate of the Jews in Germany” Dateline London, Nov. 15 In an interview granted to Reuters after the announcement of the measures taken against the Jews in Germany, the Minister of Propaganda, Dr. Goebbels, after having announced that new measures are expected in a near future, said: “Overall, they are economic in nature and consistent with our goal, which is to eliminate the Jews from the ‘visible’ economic life of the country, so that there will be no more clashes like those that occurred in past weeks. It is impossible that in a National Socialist State, whose conception is anti-Jewish, entire streets are occupied by Jewish shops. These stores will be progressively taken over by Aryans.” The minister added that Jewish culture was not affected, which is why the Jewish theater and concert halls were reopened after being closed following the incidents on Thursday. “In other words, what we want,” continued Goebels, “is a clear-cut division between Germans and Jews.” Nov. 17, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “After the German Antisemitic Demonstrations” Dateline Paris, Nov. 16 The worldwide repercussions of the antisemitic measures taken by Germany are provoking a strong reaction in the German press, directed particularly against the United States and against England. The National Zeitung of Essen, Göring’s newspaper, is attacking the Secretary of the Interior, Ickes, claiming he represents Jewish capitalism in the United States and stating that Washington is acting by orders of the Jews. “Roosevelt’s Statements” Blame is being leveled then, and especially against the exaggerations published by the American press on the incidents, culminating in the conjectures that have accompanied the recalling to Washington of Ambassador Wilson. It is being noted in the German newspapers that the Ambassador would have had to leave within days for a holiday period, and thus nothing abnormal should be seen in the predictable request by the State Department that he take a vacation. Moreover the Nachtausgabe [Night Edition] writes taht all the combined sensationalism formulated in this regard leave Germany perfectly indifferent toward them, because the report the Ambassador will give the White House can only serve to refute the statements in the American press. All of this does not comport, however, with more authoritative indicia of the American reaction, such that the news of the statements made yesterday by Roosevelt to the press in one of his regular press conferences were not carried in the German press. Roosevelt condemned that German antisemitic policy, stating that “the news arriving from Germany in recent days has profoundly shocked public opinion in the United States. Such news, from whatever part of the world it may originate, would inevitably produce the identical profound reaction among the American people, in any part of the nation. I myself can hardly believe that such things could really happen in the 20th century of civilization.” The President, when invited to specify his views on the situation of the Jews in Germany and on the Jewish problem in general, said that his statement does not need further explanation. The Herald Tribune in New York, commenting on these statements, writes that “the denunciation was made in terms ill suited for the President against the orientation of a foreign government with which the United States is in amicable diplomatic relations.” “The Counter-Attack in England” Another tone, yet more violent, is taken by the German reaction in confrontations with England. The discussion the day before yesterday in the House of Commons and remarks made by various speakers about the antisemitic campaign, greatly irritated German circles, to the point of making a sort of challenge to England: the Deutscher Dienst [German Service] proposed indeed an extraordinary convening of the Reichstag for a public discussion about the “cruelty” of England in Palestine. This was a way of responding to what is considered as “an unwarranted interference” in the internal affairs of another Stte, and as the sentimental “hypocrisy” of humanitarianism of the English population. The newspapers openly defended in their articles the campaign that the Arabs are conducting in Palestine and accused England of being in accord with the Jews in the campaign of repressing terrorism that has been developing in the territory under the Mandate, also affirming that England wants to take advantage of the current disorders to reinforce Palestine militarily, where it wants to make a base in the Middle East. As an indication of the violence of the press campaign that the discussion in the House of Commons aroused, it is sufficient to quote an aritcle published in the Nachtausgabe that speaks of a political campaign against the Reich paid for by Jewish gold. This is explainable in the United States by “the fact that the economic policy of the Reich is disturbing in some ways the monopolistic plans of the American Republic,” the campaign is led in part by England where they should have “known the reasons that led Germany to act severely against the Jews.” And the newspaper continues ... “For a Solution?” For this, it would seem, a concrete example needs to be demonstrated. Despite the violent attacks in the German press, there is a strong interest in England for a resolution. It is confirmed by the morning newspapers that, by request of the Dutch Prime Minister, Colign, discussions have commenced among six European powers and the United States to resolve the question. England has already conferred with the United States, France and Holland, and Prime Minister Chamberlain and Lord Halifax have both discussed the situation with diplomatic representatives of three powers. The fact that the American Ambassador to London, Joseph Kennedy, had a long discussion with the Minister of the Dominions is considered an idication that there are detailed plans for admitting German Jews into the British Empire... The problem also was a subject today’s meeting of the Cabinet Council in which the possibility was to be examined of giving asylum to the majority of Jewish refugees in the British Empire or in other countries disposed to receive them. “The Protests of a German-American Newspaper” The Staatszeitung [States Newspaper], the principal newspaper in the German language that is published in the United States, criticizes the demonstratinos that took place in the Reich as antisemitic excesses... “Against the Israelites of Danzig” Italian original Nov. 18, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “The Antisemitic Question in Germany” In some circles it is pointed out that the antisemitic campaign in Germany has reached its definitive character. From the ideological aspect the matter has passed to the economic aspect. That is, to the part of German wealth that is in the hands of the Jews, which is sought to be “Arianized.” Essentially, in fact, the reprisals for the assassination of von Rath have ended up consisting in an economic vendetta: systematic sacking of Jewish shops; reparations for damages sustained ... The wealth of the Israelites amounts to approximately seven billion Marks. Already approximately two billion have passed into German ownership. But further measures will exclude the Jews from German economic life and thus together will determine ... in Vienna ... the arrests of Jews, demonstrators and committers of violence have developed such that the Gauleiter himself for Austria, Bürkel, intervened in a speech he gave yesterday. “In accord with Marshal Göring,” said Bürkel, “I declare as follows: those who dare to damage, by pillage or in any other manner, what will be considered national patrimony, must take account that they could end up condemned to death.” “The Meeting of the International Committee for Refugees” ... probability of a further meeting of the “Committees of Vice Presidents” of the Evian Conference... It has been officially communicated taht the representatives of the Polish Government in London, the Hague, and Brussels have received instructions to follow attentively the development of activities to come to the help of Jewish emigrants. Their instructions are to be especially vigilant because discussions have considered the needs for immigration of Jews into Poland. Also it is announced that Potoki, the Polish Ambassador to Washington, have various discussions with representatives of the American Government in which he insisted on the necessity of taking into consideration the problem of immigration of masses of Jews into Poland. “The Repercussions in America” The President of the German-American group that participates in the National League of American Citizens of Foreign Origin has sent an appeal to more than 400 German-American societies in the United States requesting them to join in opposition to the attacks of the National Socialists against minorities. Thirty-five American writers, among them Mrs. Pearl Buck, the recent Nobel Prize winner, have telegraphed President Roosevelt requesting that the American Government protest in the name of humanity and that an embargo of German products be decreed. Three thousand students at Columbia University in New York have sent a letter to Roosevelt asking him to follow the precedent set by the late President Theodore Roosevelt, who protested against Jewish persecutions in Russia, and to break off commercial relations with Germany. Also the Methodists have been spoken out severely in this regard. Article alongside the former: “The Arabs and the London Conference” Subheads: “The Arabs’ Reception of New British Proposals - A Reservation by the English Is Not Accepted by the Arabs - The Specification by Minister MacDonald - The Jewish Agency Places Conditions on its Acceptance” Commentary in italics: After the publication of the White Paper, controversies concerning Palestine have become polarized over the prospects of the London Conference proposal of the White Paper. As reported, the British Government, at the same time that it announced its rejection of the plan of tri-partition, proposed a conference of the interested parties to discuss again the Palestine problem ... According to what the White Paper provided, there would be invited to the prospective conference not only representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and representatives of the Jewish Agency, but also representatives of the States that border Palestine. In this regard it is necessary to note, however, that in what concerns the Arab representation, the British Government has reserved the right to refuse those leaders whom London considers responsible for the current terrorism campaign. This has to do with elements that have gone abroad and that are directing the insurrectionist movement from abroad. This reservation is the object of criticism by the Arab press against London’s new proposals. The Arabs want absolute freedom of representation and, in case that freedom is not recognized, there is a threat they will abstain from the conference... L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 18, 1938, page one: “The Demonstrations Against the Archbishop of Munich” Dateline Freiburg, Nov. 15 Various inaccurate reports have circulated today about the hostile demonstrations taking place in front of the Archbishop’s residence in Munich. From a well-informed colleague we have been to receive the following details. Friday, November 11, 1938, an appeal was published in all the daily papers about Munich and its enormous demonstrations: “Everyone! ... Against world Judaism and against its Black and Red allies...” During the course of the same day, the Archdiocesan Curia was alerted from various parts that in the evening a demonstration would be organized against the Cardinal ... It is also known that towards evening, when the news became more alarming, the Cardinal was asked to pass the night away from the Archepiscopal residence. The Cardinal refused to go... Italian original Nov. 19, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “For the Solution of the Jewish Question” Dateline London, Nov. 18 There is continuing interest among the “Seven Powers” in a resolution of the Jewish problem and in accommodating the eventual refugees from Germany. Yesterday the subject came up during debate in the House of Commons. Prime Minister Chamberlain announced that he hopes to make a definite statement in the next week. Meanwhile, talks continue between British political figures and representatives of the other powers. Lord Halifax met with the Ambassador of the United States, and then received the president of the committee set up following the Evian Conference on Refugees, Rubblee. There is a possibility that Mr. Rubblee will soon make a visit to Berlin. Also, from the United States we learn that the Secretary of Labor, Miss Perkins, has announced that the State Department is looking into the possibility of admitting 81,000 German Jews into the country within the next year. It should be noted that this figure is not greater than the number already allowed for German immigration, so that this help for the Jews would affect temporarily the possibility of Germans coming into the United States, by using up the established quota for a period of three years. The Brussels Government has also decided to view more favorably the current provision that prevent the admission of German Jews into Belgium, and to suspend temporarily the expulsion of Jews who have clandestinely entered the country. Concerning the possibility of successful talks among the representatives of the six European Powers and the United States, the Times notes that two conditions must be met. The first is the full and friendly cooperation among the various foreign ministers and with the private committees authorized to deal with the problem. The second is that English dipomacy do everything possible to persuade the German authorities to allow the Jews to leave the Reich with at least a portion of their capital. Even half of it would be enough to solve a problem that is becoming increasingly serious from day to day. It is reported from Paris that the Temps has published an article on the initiative of the Dutch Prime Minister, Colign, observing that it is certainly interesting from a political and humanitarian point of view. A meeting of the Seven Powers dfor the purpose of examining a solution to the Jewish problem with a generous spirit would not be useless, but every effort in that direction will be severely limited in its possibilities. It is a matter of an immensely complex problem that needs to be closely examined as to all its aspects, and that needs to be handled with a realistic spirit while taking account of the imperative of human obligation. The attacks of the German press against England and its colonial policy are continuing in the morning papers, which are stating that the censorship of news in Palestine and Transjordan would be “proof that England is conscious of its own guilt and feels insecure.” The official Nazi newspaper, as well as the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, state that “because of censorship it is impossible to get objective correspondence from Palestine.” In these political circles it is observed that the reports concern, on the one hand, a country under a Mandate system, in a state of ferment if not rebellion, and on the other hand, the Reich itself could be seen as the object of similar censure. News from Germany gives assurance that it is providing for the appointment of Commissioners of the Party for the liquidation of Jewish investments in various shares of stock and properties. For this purpose an office is operating in the Palatinate. The noted Aufhäuser Bank in Bavaria, which had been placed under the control of a Nazi commissioner, has been “Aryanized” and from now on will be called “Seiter and Co.” It has been announced from Berlin an ordinance is being prepared that remove legal protection for Jews as to home and rentals. In this manner Berlin will have eight thousand houses available to rent to Aryans. Nov. 19, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Further Incidents in Palestine” Jerusalem, Nov. 18 Incidents continue, albeit to a lesser extent, in all of Palestine. Yesterday one of the greatest figures of the Arab defense party, Abdul El Khatib, was attacked with a revolver and seriously wounded by an Arab, who then succeeded in getting away. In addition, a British soldier was killed when a group of Arabs ambushed a military patrol north of Nablus. In Gaza numerous gunshots were fired during the night at police officers and military installations. On the road between Nablus and Tulkarem, a police armored car was attacked and overturned by a group of Arab nationalists, and two police officers and the driver were injured. Nov. 20, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Developments Concerning the Jewish Question after the Antisemitic Demonstrations in the Reich - The recall of the German Ambassador to Washington - Lively comments and discussion - The extent of the antisemitic demonstrations – International involvement in the Jewish problem” There are reports that the Reich Government has recalled its ambassador in Washington to Berlin for consultations. This step, which follows a few days after the United States summoned its Ambassador, Wilson, has an obvious significance, if not exactly corresponding to the explanations given in Germany for the recall to Washington of Mr. Wilson. That was said to be in anticipation of the holidays. The German political milieu did not comment in the same way upon the report by the German News Bureau. They did not comment at all. They only stated that the scope and motives of this recall are clearly defined by the official notice. But they emphasized that it is absolutely not a definitive recall. In these circles it is observed, however, that the Berlin Government probably did not want its ambassador to Washington to remain at his post while the ambassador of the United States was in Washington for consultations about the recent events. They desired, as a reciprocal measure, to be informed by their ambassador about the state of American opinion. Commenting on the Berlin Government’s action, the New York Herald Tribune writes: “Returning to Berlin, Diecknoff will be able to describe the American reaction to the treatment in the Jews in the Reich more clearly than he could by telegram. The American people do not have the slightest desire to enter into conflict with the Reich and would hesitate a long time before launching into economic reprisals, but they are also animated by the desire to minimize their possible connections with those who are inspired to such a course of conduct. If the National Socialists do not understand the American attitude, the United States also cannot understand the attitude of the National Socialists. The departure of the two ambassadors is a symbol that well defines the situation.” The German press continues its reaction against the United States and England for an attitude that manifests only a political and economic side that would exclude any motive of humanity and justice. A particular object of criticism is the English proposal to transport the Jews to Tanganyika. The newspapers say that “England tries in this way to connect the Jewish question in the colonial question, because Tanganyika is a German colony that belonged to the Reich until 1918 and that the Reich has always continued to claim. “We note,” writes the Nightly Edition [Nachtausgabe], “that the campaign of unrestrained hatred and venom against Germany in a democratic country, with a certain complicity of the responsible officials, has above all a hegemonic and economic purpose, not the purpose of helping the Jews. The proposal of Jewish colonization of former German East Africa represents the height of perfidy among all the harms to Germany.” Concerning the campaign of accusations against British colonial policy, the Times observes in an editorial that even if the facts reported by the German press were true, it would not follow that the persecution of the Jews in Germany is any the less a crime. The newspaper observes that, instead of making a press campaign against two nations, it would be better for the German authorities to report accurately on the sincere and spontaneous reactions that events have provoked around the world. In fact, the news that is spreading more and more about the nature and extent of antisemitic violence reveals that it was not limited to fire and looting. The aggression did not lack for bloodshed. It should be noted that in Innsbruck, for example, a Graunbert and a Dr. Bauer, a pediatrician, have been stabbed, also a Steiner was injured and in serious condition though he is now improved. It is easily understood from these facts, which are beginning to emerge through letters to relatives abroad or verbally from people who have come from Germany, what is the truth of the matter in other urban centers. This also gives assurance of the non-participation of the German people in these extreme actions that are always perpetrated by organized groups and individuals in public office and dependent on the Party. The party itself continues to protest that the excesses were due to unruly outbursts of indignation, immediately suppressed because his orders to cease was promptly obeyed, but did not fail to observe, precisely for this reason that if the first news of the Paris , we were given orders timely because the indignation tralignasse not so serious it would, therefore, first, to the obedience obtained then saved to Germany painful events. Meanwhile international actions to solve the Jewish problem continue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Simon, in his speech in Rhyl in Wales, mentioned, among other problems, the Jewish one. “There is no doubt,” the Minister said, “that the insane crime committed by a Jew in Paris against a German diplomat has met with outrage around the world, but the German retaliatory measures against the Jews affect hundreds of thousands of people who cannot be blamed for the least complicity in this deplorable crime. The British Government, like other governments, is not merely taking note of the reaction aroused among the masses of the public to what happened in Germany, and therefore, as was announced by Mr. Chamberlain, we are studying the possibility of offering asylum, to the extent possible, to a number of Jewish refugees from Germany. In any event, the issue is being discussed in the House of Commons, and we will convey further information as soon as possible.” In Paris, the Foreign Minister, in a colloquy with Senator Berenger, President of the International Committee appointed by the Evian Conference for the rescue of Jewish emigrants, examined the possibility of French participation in an initiative in African colonial territory to give asylum to Jews. In Brussels, Prime Minister Spaak received the Minister of the Netherlands, with whom he conferred on the issue of refugees. The Prime Minister stated what Belgium has done in this field, suggesting that if other countries will agree to make an additional gesture, Belgium will not fail to join it. A decree published in the Official Gazette sets forth the rights and prohibitions for Israelites who had been members of the former or new German Army, the Austro-Hungarian Army and the Austrian Federal Army, to wear uniforms. Nov. 22, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, November 21-22, 1938, page 6: “Against the Israelites of Danzig” Dateline Geneva, Nov. 21 The Journal of Geneva reports from Danzig [Gdansk] that incidents and persecutions against Israelites residing in the Free City continue to be confirmed. The aforementioned newspaper is informed that recently two hundred Jews of Polish nationality, who were awaiting the opening of the offices of the Commissioner General of Police in order to submit their passports for regulatory control, were suddenly arrested by several Danzig police officers, and despite their protests, were led off in the direction of the Free City police station. It also reports that many homeowners were forced to give eviction notices to their Israelite tenants for December 1st. Danzig authorities have seized the assets of a Swiss citizen, Dr. Madeu, director and owner of a major trading house. During a search of a Masonic lodge, the police seized a million florins. Nov. 23, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “In the House of Commons – Chamberlain’s Response to Questioning About the Discussion in Paris, Relations with Romania and the Zionist Problem” Dateline London, Nov. 22 ... As for Palestine, the Prime Minister said that, as everyone recognizes, it is impossible for now to seek in that land a solution for the problem of Jewish refugees. The Prime Minister concluded by noting that in any event England, by itself, can certainly not offer the means to resolve such a vast problem, and he added that in order to admit refugees into a colonial territory, there would have to be, in all events, sufficient means provided to maintain proper dignity... Immediately below: “Developments in the Jewish Question – The Arianization of Property – For a Rapid Emigration – International Developments – What England Can Do – Chamberlain’s Statements and Comment of the Press – The American Reaction Continues” Dateline London, Nov. 22 The Jewish question is being reported in the forefront of international politics and continually the object of interest in solving it. In it, however, we must distinguish two aspects: the domestic German aspect, and the international aspect. In the first, the solution appears close, in the sense that the process of “Arianization” of Germany is favored by governing law. Government action is diligent and systematic, because in addition to the appraisal of Jewish property, there will tend to be a selection of shops and businesses that should contine to survive with a change of signage, ownership and management. Not all the shops that have been Jewish property up to now will be maintained in fact, but many will disappear to give place to other enterprises that are Aryan. It having been ascertained, moreover, according to reports from Berlin, that all the Jews in Germany do not possess enough liquid capital to arrive at the indemnity of one billion imposed by the government, it has been decided to have them contribute their real estate to attain the figure. Therefore the Jews have been warned against selling or alienating in any way what they own. There were rumors flying about that the indemnity would be increased, but that has been recently denied by the German News Bureau. This Aryanization of real estate, a necessary consequence of the principle the German leaders are following, has had certain concrete manifestations. Jewish owners of real estate in Nuremberg were summoned by the Labor Front and asked to sign a document to transfer their real estate to the Labor Front. Also in Berlin, Jewish property owners were aked, under penalty of immediate incarceratino, to sign a document tranferring the administration of their real estate to the Labor Front. In this way the transition of landed property into German hands is being accomplished rapidly, nor will much time pass before the greater part of Jewish real estate will be “Aryanized.” Meanwhile a Central Committee for Jewish emigration has been formed, called “Zefja.” Accroding to the ,em> national Zeitung of Essen, the Central Committee located in Vienna will be concerned with the systematic emigration of Jews located in the Reich. Each day 60 requests for emigration will be paid for. In Vienna along the number of requests, according to this newspaper, could amount to 135,000. It is interesting to note how the same newspaper adds, after observing the great demand is not able to be met, that this fact is due exclusively to the refusal of other Countries to accept German refugees. Any Jew, nonetheless, who presents an immigration permit from another Country, will have a passport within a week. And the National Zeitung adds that these are facts, while the democracies just chitchat. However that may be, all this should facilitate the efforts of the Powers for an international solution to the problem. The difficulties that stand in the way of a solution are not just a few, and they were restated by the British Prime Minister, Chamberlain, in statements he made yesterday in the House of Commons; in substance Chamberlain stated that an emigration in mass cannot be contemplated, but that it will be possible to provide territories (and even these are limited) in for a minimum number of Jews, who must have proper means for a decent maintenance in the lands of colonization. Chamberlain spoke of Tanganyika, Kenya, Nyassaland, northern Rhodesia and British Guyana as possible zones where Jewish emigration could be directed. Chamberlain did not indicate the number of Jews that would be admitted into these zones: he only gave two figures in his speech: 200 Jewish families in Kenya and 2,000 hectares of land in Tanganyika. It should also be kept in mind that these territories will not be ceded to the emigrants, but offered to them indirectly via international Israelite organizations. In all events Chamberlain has ruled out directing the flow of Jewish emigration into Palestine. The Prime Minister pointed out, in conclusion, that the solution of the problem does not depend exclusively on Britain, but must be sought in accord with the other Powers. Chamberlain’s statements have been generally well received by the newspapers of all the parties. The opposition newspapers deplore only that the proposed measures are not more extensive. The Times says there is no need to despair of finding a vast territory for the refugees. “Indeed the Governors of Tanganyika and British Guyana have made it know that in these two regions there are lands that could eventually be used for this purpose. It is certain that no State could solve this problem on its own. The Prime Minister expressed the hope that other State representatives at the Evian Conference will bring their contribution. The best countries for this purpose are certainly those of South America and especially Brazil.” The Daily Telegraph observes: “The British Empire shows it is ready to make its contribution, but the problem can only be resolved with international cooperation.” The News Chronicle, while admitted the need for cooperation by the great Powers, deplores that a “large plan of Immigration” has not been elaborated. Concerning the proposal relative to Tanganyika, the newspaper observes that if this former German colony is returned to Germany, “the Jews who would go there as refugees would run the risk of being driven out another time.” The Labour Daily Herald is pleased that something is being done and hopes that the Government will make further plans in cooperation with other governments. the need for cooperation has been recognized also by the American Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, who, speaking tot he press about the need for a solution to the problem of political refugees, said that it cannot occur without the active cooperation of all governments. A wave of condemnation continues in the United States against the antisemitic measures in Germany. Sunday in New York in a multi-denominational church, prayers were said for the Jewish refugees. There have also been meetings of religious or political groups, in which motions have been approved for an embargo of German products. Nov. 24, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “Towards the ‘Expulsion of the Semites’ from Germany – Intensification and Expedition of the Antisemitic Measures – The Attitude of Germans Overseas – Statements by Goebbels – For the payment of one billion of indemnity – Denials and Corrections in the Diplomatic Field” Dateline London, Nov. 23 News has arrived from Germany that the result among Nazi authorities is to carry out and intensify their current intentions towards the Jews. ... [citing three Nazi newpapers including the Angriff] ... It is being pointed out that this last hint of criticism that exists in Germany itself against the antisemitic measures is reflecting a state of mind that finds an echo in German language newspapers abroad, especially in the United States. Indeed the New York Staatszeitung, the newspaper of the German community in the United States, on the occasion of the departure of German Ambassador Dieckhoff for Berlin, did not omitting some severe remarks, wrote among other things: “The news from Berlin indicates there is unwillingness to believe the grim description of the reaction of public opinion in the United States that the Ambassador reported. We hope he will succeed in convincing the Wilhelmstrasse and the leaders of the Nazi Party of the gravity of the situation. Germany must not be led to expect that this storm of outrage will just blow over.” But the hopes of the German language newspaper appear to be completely disappointed by the above-cited statements of the two accredited Nazi journalists. No better food for thought could be found than in statements made by the Minister of Propaganda, Goebbels, in Reichenberg during a demonstratino at the beginning of the electoral campaign for German delegates to the Reichstag from the Sudetenland. “We do not want to export antisemitism abroad, on the contrary, we want to export the Semites. If, for instance, the whole world were antisemitic, how could we get rid of our Jews? On the contrary, we would like the rest of the world to be so benevolent to the Jews taht they will take our German Jews.” Such being the intention in official German circles, and the Minister of Propaganda having taken special occasion to express official opinion on this issue, it is more easy to understand the celerity with which measures are being taken to Aryanize the economy. The “Official Gazzette” is publishing meanwhile the regulations for the payment of indemnity of one billion imposed on the Jews of Germany. This sum will require a levy of 20 percent upon the capital owned by Jews without nationality living in Germany. The payment shall be made in four installments. In addition, payments on accounts of insurance policies must be paid immediately to the responsible finance office, in conformity with the ordinance of November 12th. These payments will be counted in the contribution by the Jews. But if the amount of insurance payments exceeds the required contribution amount, the surplus will become the property of the State. Excluded from the payment of the indemnity are Jews whose assets, net of all debts, do not exceed one thousand Marks. The reaction tht the antisemitic measures have caused around the world, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world, and the repercussions that have resulted between these nations and Germany, have given rise to a rumor of a possible recall, for consultations, of the Reich’s Ambassador to London, von Dircksen. These rumors have amazed the responsible German officials, who declare they know nothing about the matter. The same officials point out that absence of the English Ambassador to Berlin, who returned to England three weeks ago to undergo an operation, has not given rise so far to deductions about the attitude of England, although it has been strongly attacked in the German press in the wake of the antisemitic incidents. According to the same officials, there is no intend to give Berlin a political signal by the prolonged absence of Sir Neville Henderson. “Cooperation and Assistance” Dateline Brussels, Nov. 23 From Brussels it is learned that yesterday the Minister of Justice spoke to the parliament about the Jewish problem and stated that Belgium is ready to cooperate in all international measures that will be taken to solve the problem, and is disposed to open its colonies to Jewish immigration. International action to help Jewish refugees is continuing and developing. Eight hundred German Jews have arrived on Dutch territory from Germany. Although they were not provided supporting documentation, they were received and are currently concentrated near the border. A significant contingent of German Jews disembarked recently in Argentina, where, moreover, from the start of the year, it is estimated there are 1,883 Jewish refugees who had to leave German territory. Nov. 27, 1938 L’Osservatore Romano, page 6: “New Measures Against the Jews in Germany” Dateline Berlin, Nov. 26 An ordinance of the Minister of Economics and Justice about the elimination of the Jews from economic life requires that Jewish shares of ownership must be dissolved and liquidated. Their transfer into “Aryan” hands is allowed only in special cases to “ensure the provisioning of the population.” As is well known, according to information from the Nazi leaders, only a third of the Jewish firms should survive the Arianization. Jewish craftsmen must be stricken from the list of craftsmen before this coming January 1st. It also reported that the first installment of the contribution of one billion imposed on the Jews will have to be paid in cash by December 1. In order to allow payment on the part of the Jews, a central office has been set up in Berlin for the purchase of jewelry or art objects that are in their possession and that can be appraised by experts. Nov. 20, 1938 Excerpts from Father Charles Coughlin's first of many radio addresses on the Jewish-Communist world conspiracy: ... Communism itself was regarded by the rising generation of Germans as a product not of Russia, but of a group of Jews who dominated the destinies of Russia. Were there facts to substantiate this belief in the minds of the Nazi Party, I ask? ... the 1917 list of those who, with Lenin, ruled many of the activities of the Soviet Republic, disclosed that of the 25 quasi-cabinet members, 24 of them were atheistics Jews, whose names I have before me. The list, published by Nazis and distributed throughout Germany, is as follows: [here follows a list of 25 names and assumed names, all identified as Jewish except Lenin; every name is in the Catholic Documentation article of 1920, with many differences in spelling] Throughout Germany antipathy towards all Jews, however, grew rapidly. It was increased year by year - and particularly in 1935 when the official disclosure was made manifest that the central committee of the Communist Party operating in Russia consisted of 59 members, among whom were 56 Jews; and that the three remaining non-Jews were married to Jewesses! The list of their names published by the Nazis follows: ... I speak these words, holding no brief for Germany or for Nazism... Therefore, I say to the good Jews of America, be not indulgent with the irreligious, atheistic Jews and gentiles who promote the cause of persecution in the land of the Communists; the same ones who promote the cause of atheism in America. Yes, be not lenient with your high financiers, and politicians who assisted at the birth of the only political, social and economic system in all civilization that adopted atheism as its religion, internationalism as its patriotism and slavery as its liberty... ... Father Fahey's book ... and his references to the American Intelligence Report U.S. Army No. 2 which he calls the American Secret Service ... Critics have denied the existence of this testimony. But the "Documentation Catholique" of March 6th, 1920, together with other documents which the photostats reveal guarantee it. This official paper prints the names of the Jewish bankers, Kuhn, Loeb and Company of New York City, among those who helped to finance the Russian Revolution... However, it is my opinion that Nazism, the effect of Communism, cannot be liquidated in its persecution complex until the religious Jews in high places - in synagogue, in finance, in radio and in press - attack the cause, attack forthright the errors and the spread of Communism, together with their co-nationals who support it... Source: Radio Address, Sunday, Nov. 20, 1938, "Persecution - Jewish and Christian," reprinted in Rev. Chas. E. Coughlin, "Am I an Anti-Semite?" (1939), pp. 34-46. Nov. 28, 1938 Social Justice, Father Coughlin's weekly newspaper, publishes an article over Coughlin's signature, with propaganda against allowing immigration of Jews from Germany. Allowing such immigration was under active consideration by Great Britain, the United States, and other countries in the wake of Kristallnacht. Excerpts of Coughlin's article: This page seems fated to talk about immigration quotas and the amalgams in American's Melting Pot. The quota subject is to the fore again in connection with this country's desire to do something about the persecuted minorities of Europe - particularly the Jews from Germany. It is proposed, for example, that Germany's quota to this country be “mortgaged” for the next three years and be filled entirely with refugee Jews ... As a suggestion toward starting discussion, or as a gesture to indicate how badly Americans feel about these poor Jews, the proposal is understandable, but, of course, it cannot be entertained seriously... Meantime, there is almost universal discussion as to what other nations can do for the poor Jews from Germany ... But it is reliably reported that comparatively few of the Jewish refugees are agriculturalists... These newcomers, therefore, would not seek colonies in the rural areas but hope to concentrate in our already crowded cities; and since many of them are already penniless, would go on the relief rolls almost upon their arrival... Father Coughlin Source: Social Justice, Nov. 28, 1938, pp. 9-11. Dec. 5, 1938 Documentation Catholique, vol. 39, pp. 1459-1462 (two articles): “Concerning Antisemitism: Pilgrimage of Belgian Catholic Radio” Various organs of the Belgian and French press have echoed a statement of His Holiness Pius XI to a group of pilgrims from Belgian Catholic Radio. We are giving herewith the precise words published by La Libre Belgique, Sept. 14, 1938, words from the pen of Mgr. Picard, President of Belgian Catholic Radio. On September 6, 1938, His Holiness received in private audience the President, Vice President and Secretary of Belgian Catholic Radio; then, in public audience, 120 pilgrims who had come as a delegation to present to the Pope of Catholic Action the homage of our Belgian Catholic association of radio broadcasting. At the beginning of the public audience, the Holy Father charged those whom he had just received in private audience to recount to all what he had specially confided to them. (footnote: L’Osservatore Romano, Sept. 9, 1938, giving an account of this audience, did not report any word of the Pope on the Jewish question and made absolutely no allusion to the semite problem.) It is in response to this desire of the Holy Father that we make public the statements he made to us in his private office. Private Audience. His Holiness deigned to meet with us at length. The first sentiment one may experience is confusion about taking up the time of the Head of the Church. But the Pope’s attitude responds to you, that he attaches great importance to your apostolate. This interest of the Vicar of Jesus Christ for Belgian Catholic Radio was profoundly moving for us and confirmed us in our conviction of the importance of a Catholic Action over the radio, and in our decision to consecrate the best of our being to it. We would not have made this public if the Holy Father himself had not invited us to do so. We must add that we took extreme care not to write a single syllable that was not truly pronounced by His Holiness. [Here, the Pope congratulated Catholic Radio on its activity, the important results it has achieved and broached the financial aspect ...] (brackets and ellipsis in original) Then we presented to His Holiness the missal offered by the pilgrimage of Catholic Radio. This gift is precious to Us, His Holiness deigned to tell us. It is precious to us because it comes from you and from Belgian Catholic Radio. But your gift is dear to Us above all because it is a missal. The missal is one of the most beautiful books in existence. One finds great lights there, even on events of the day. And His Holiness began to leaf through the missal. He stopped on the words following the Canon, whose Latin, the Pope said, is so transparent, so suggestive! “Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our patriarch, and the bread and wine offered by your servant Melchizedek, the holy sacrifice, the immaculate offering.” The Holy Father commented on this text with a voice that progressively changed with emotion. This prayer, we say it at the most solemn moment of the mass, after the Consecration, as the divine Victim is actually offered. The sacrifice of Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, the sacrifice of Melchizedek. In three strokes, in three lines, in three steps, the entire religious history of humanity. The sacrifice of Abel: the epoch of Adam. The sacrifice of Abraham: the epoch of the religion and prodigious history of Israel. The sacrifice of Melchizedek: the proclamation of the Christian religion and epoch. A grandiose text. Each time We read it, We are seized by an irresistible emotion. “The sacrifice of Our Patriarch Abraham.” Notice that Abraham is called our Patriarch, our Ancestor. Antisemitism is not compatible with the sublime thought and reality that are expressed in this text. It is a disagreeable movement in which we cannot, we Christians, have any part. Here, the Pope could no longer contain his emotion. He did not want to let himself be overcome by this emotion. But he could not help it. And it was in tears that he quoted the passages of St. Paul bringing to light our spiritual descent from Abraham. The promise was made to Abraham and to his descendants. The text does not say, St. Paul remarks, his seed in the plural, but his seed in the singular, which is Christ. The promise is fulfilled in the Christ and by the Christ, in us who are the members of his Mystical Body. By the Christ and in the Christ, we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham. No, it is not possible for Christians to participate in antisemitism. We recognize for everyone the right of self-defense, to take up measures to protect themselves against all who threaten their legitimate interests. But antisemitism is inadmissible. We are spiritually semites. Article immediately following: “The Distribution of the Jewish Population on the Five Continents of the World” From M.R. de B. in L’Illustration, September 17, 1938: At a time when “racism” plays such a role in the preoccupations of the world and in the domestic politics of States, it is not without interest to find out what place the Jewish race occupies in the world and how it is distributed there. This is what the German review Wirtschaft und Statistik [Economics and Statistics] has just done, in a manner that it affirms is strictly objective. In the absence of any other complete study of this genre, and leaving to the German review the responsibility for the figures it cites, it seemed useful to us to recount here the most characteristic figures. According to Wirtschaft und Statistik, the number of Jews existing today in the world is 17 million, that being 0.8 percent of the earth's population. Of these 17 million individuals, 10 million reside in Europe, 5 million in America, 1 million in Asia, 870,000 in Africa and 30,000 in Oceania. This geographic distribution, moreover, has varied considerably over the past 60 years. An extremely significant phenomenon has been produced: Jewish emigration toward the New World. The following table brings this to light: [showing percentages of the world's Jewish population living on each continent as of the years 1880, 1900 and 1937] Europe: 88.4 in 1880, 82.1 in 1900, 60.4 in 1937 America: 3.3 in 1880, 11 in 1900, 30 in 1937 Africa: 4.5 in 1880, 3.9 in 1900, 5.5 in 1937 Asia: 3.6 in 1880, 2.8 in 1900, 3.9 in 1937 Oceania: 0.2 in 1880, 0.2 in 1900, 0.2 in 1937 If the differences were negligible in Asia and Africa, and non-existent in Oceania, that is not the case for Europe and America. In 1880, nearly all the Jews of the globe - about nine-tenths - were massed in Europe, while America accounted for barely more than 3 percent. Already by 1900, no more than 82 percent of the Jews were in Europe, and 11 percent were in America. Today, 30 percent of Jews live in the New World, and the European contingent has fallen to approximately 60 percent. Taking account of the global population figures, the density of the Jewish colony has become roughly equivalent in the two worlds: 1.95 percent in Europe and 1.92 percent in America. On the other continents, it is much less: 0.44 percent in Africa, 0.22 percent in Oceania, and 0.08 percent in Asia. What accounts for this exodus of Jews towards America? Political reasons are evidently some of it, especially in recent years, but it must not be forgotten that the laws regulating immigration have become increasingly strict, putting the brakes on this movement. Economic reasons are preponderant: America, a new land, offers a field of activity to a race that is naturally enterprising and hardworking, whose conditions of life were too often miserable in the European countries, where they were ... Still, nonetheless, in central and eastern Europe the Jewish population is the most abundant, especially in the former border districts of Austria-Hungary and Russia. From the Baltic to the Black Sea, in a quadrilateral defined by the cities of Leningrad, Riga, Vienna and Rostov on the Don, there are more than 8 million Jews, that being half the Jewish population of the earth. There are 3,300,000 Jews in Poland, or 9.64 percent of the population; in Lithuania, 175,000, or 7.37 percent; in Hungary, 450,000, or 5.01 percent; in Czechoslovakia, 385,000, or 2.54 percent; in Romania, 1,050,000, or 5.41 percent; in the U.S.S.R., 2,950,000, or 2.22 percent. Another zone is defined by a line going out from England and ending at Switzerland, passing through the course of the Rhine and the French-German border; it includes the important centers of London, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Frankfurt, Nuremberg and Zurich. Finally, in the Mediterranean basin, there are a certain number of Jewish colonies of very ancient origin, in certain cities like Alexandria, Cairo, Tripoli, Tunis, Gibraltar, Marseille, Thessalonica, Constantinople. Palestine contains 404,000 Jews, that being a third of the population, and Morocco close to 200,000. In France, still according to the same source, there were 280,000 Jews in 1937. Italy counts only 52,000 of them. Great Britain has more of them: 340,000. In Germany, before the Anschluss, there were 420,000, but in 1933, there were more than 502,000. Thus National Socialism has made about 80,000 of them leave. In Austria, there were 200,000 in 1937, who are incorporated today into the Reich, whose Jewish population thus surpasses 600,000 individuals. It is in the New World that the countries are found with the highest population of Jews: the United States, with 4,500,000, that being 3.5 percent of the total population, compared to just 530,000 at the start of the century. There were a little less than 200,000 Jews in Canada, 275,000 in Argentina, and fewer than 150,000 in the rest of Latin America. Another characteristic trait is the predilection the Jews manifest for the large cities: More than half of them reside there. In the lead come: New York and its suburbs, with two and a half million Jews; then Warsaw, with 363,000; Chicago with 325,000; Philadelphia with 275,000; London and its suburbs, with 234,000; Budapest with 232,000; Lodz with 202,000; Vienna with 178,000; Paris with 175,000; and Berlin with 161,000. These are the global figures. In percentages, the following table indicates their respective density in these ten cities: Lodz: 33.5 Warsaw: 29.9 New York: 22.9 Budapest: 16.3 Philadelphia: 14.1 Chicago: 9.5 Vienna: 9.5 Paris: 6.2 Berlin: 3.8 London: 2.1 One can remark in conclusion that, in many countries, the Jews tend to be concentrated in the capital. Thus in Copenhagen are found 92 percent of the Danish Jews; in Vienna, 91.9 percent of the Austrian Jews; in London, 68.8 percent of the English Jews, etc. 1939 Jan. 30, 1939 Hitler’s speech to the first convening of the Greater German Reichstag, which includes representatives from German-speaking areas added to the Reich in 1935-1938: Saarland, Austria, and Czech Sudetenland. In a lengthy section on the Jews, after referring to “the Jewish world enemy” and saying that “international Jewry may hope above all to satisfy its desires for revenge and profit,” Hitler mocked the democratic powers of the world for their refusal to take any of Germany’s Jews, and then proclaimed that “Europe can experience no more peace until the Jewish question is cleared away,” continuing as follows: The world has room enough for people to settle, but it must finally make a break with the opinion that the Jewish people are so destined by the dear Lord to be profiteers off the body public and the productive labor of other peoples. Jewry will absolutely have to accustom itself to solid productive activity, just as other peoples do; or it will sooner or later die in a crisis of unimaginable proportions. At the time of my struggle for power, it was first and foremost the Jewish people who gave only laughter in response to my prophecies that I would one day take over the leadership of the German government and thereby of the entire Volk and then bring the Jewish problem, among many others, to a solution. I believe that this laughter that so resounded then is really now stuck in their throats. I want to be a prophet once again: If international finance Jewry within and beyond Europe should succeed in plunging the nations yet once again into a world war, then the result will be not the Bolshevizing of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe! For the time of defenselessness of the non-Jewish peoples in the propaganda war has ended. National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy possess those institutions that enable them, whenever necessary, to enlighten the world about the essence of an issue that is known instinctively to many peoples and is unclear to them only in the factual details. Jewry may for the moment carry on its incitements in certain countries where they control and are protected by the press, films, radio propaganda, theater, literature, etc. But if this people should ever again succeed in inciting the masses of peoples by the millions into a war that is entirely senseless for them and only serves Jewish interests, then will be seen the impact of an enlightenment by which Jewry has already been completely laid low in Germany. The peoples no longer want to die on the battlefields so that this rootless international race will profit in the war industries and satisfy its Old Testament vengefulness... German original, 5 pages long in the Völkischer Beobachter, Feb. 1, 1939: page 1 - page 2 - page 3 - page 4 - page 5 1941 June 20, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “A Treaty of Friendship Between the Reich and Turkey” [summary] The article states that on the previous evening at 9:00 p.m., German Ambassador von Papen signed a treaty on behalf of the Reich Government with the nation of Turkey. The Vatican published the articles of the treaty of the front page of its newspaper, including the following joint German-Turkish statement appended to the treaty: “In relation to the felicitous conclusion of the treaty, the plenipotentiaries of the two parties express their desire that the press of the two countries as well as radio of the two parties, in their publications and broadcasts, always take into account the spirit of friendship and of reciprocal trust that characterizes German-Turkish relations.” June 21, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “New Italian-German Agreements” [summary]: Reporting that a series of agreements had been negotiated between Germany and Italy from the 3rd to the 19th of June. Additional headlines on page one: “Exchange of Telegrams between Hitler and [Turkish President Ineunu]” “Cultivation of the Steppe in the U.S.S.R.” “The Situation in Finland” “The Visit of [Italian Education] Minister Bottai to Hungary” “The Industrial Exchanges Between Germany and Romania” “King Boris in Bratislava” June 22, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Significant Homages in the Antilles to the Activity of Holy Father Pius XII”... “The Ambassador of the U.S.S.R. Received by von Ribbentrop”... “Return of Belgian Internees”... “Colloquy of [Spanish Foreign Minister] Serrano Suner [with the British and German Ambassadors]”... “A Speech by the Bulgarian Minister of War”... Page 2 – “The Adhesion of Croatia to the Tripartite Pact” [with Italy, Germany and Japan] – the article published the text of the articles of the Croatian agreement with the three Axis powers. June 22, 1941 Hitler’s Proclamation upon the German invasion of the Soviet Union: “The Führer to the German Volk and the Soldiers on the Eastern Front” The Führer issued the following proclamation to the German Volk: German Volk! National Socialists! ... Never has the German Volk harbored hostile feelings toward the peoples of Russia. It is only the Jewish-Bolshevik powers-that-be who for more than two decades have endeavored from Moscow to put not only Germany but all of Europe to the torch. Germany has never tried to take the National Socialist ideology to Russia, rather the Jewish-Bolshevik rulers in Moscow have continually undertaken to impose their rule upon us and the other European peoples, and not only ideologically, but above all by military might... Source: Völkischer Beobachter, June 23, 1941, p.3. L’Osservatore Romano, June 23-24, 1941, page one: “The War Against Russia” – “Hitler’s Proclamation” ...“I have taken the stance that, as the leader responsible for the German Reich and as the conscientious representative of European civilization, I am obligated to take.” June 28, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Precise German Statements” The Stefani Agency reports from Berlin, June 26: “Knowledgeable sources repeat today that the Reich is not conducting the war against the people of the Soviet Union, but rather solely against Bolshevism and its responsible exponents.” June 29, 1941 L’Osservatore Romano, page one: “Spain and the War Against Russia” The new agency Stefani reports from Madrid that the spokesman for the Government has taken note that letters and telegrams from innumerable Spaniards are arriving constantly at various Ministries and the Political Council, requesting the honor of fighting in the front ranks against the Russian Soviets. The statements of the press secretary add that the Government confirms with full satisfaction that the entire Country is conscious of the necessity of this anti-Bolshevik crusade ... Oct. 2, 1941 Hitler’s proclamation to the German troops on the Eastern Front: “Soldiers on the Eastern Front!” Filled with the deepest anxiety for the existence and the future of our Volk, I decided on June 22nd to direct an appeal to you, to move out in anticipation of the imminently threatening attack of an adversary. It was the intent of the powers-that-be in the Kremlin, as we now know, to annihilate not only Germany but all of Europe. Since then, Comrades, you will have gained understanding of two things: 1. This adversary had prepared militarily for its attack in such enormous measure that even our greatest fears have been exceeded. 2. God have mercy on our Volk and the whole European world if this barbaric enemy had put its tens of thousands of tanks into motion before we acted. All Europe would have been lost. For this enemy consists not primarily of soldiers, but of beasts. Now, my comrades, you yourselves have come to know with your own eyes the “paradise of workers and farmers.” In a land so extensive and fertile that it could have fed the whole world, there reigns a poverty unimaginable for us Germans. This is the result of nearly 25 years of Jewish rule, which in the form of Bolshevism is merely the same as the lowest form of capitalism. The pillars of this system, however, in both its forms, are exactly the same: Jews and only Jews. Go to Overview-Contents Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License by Stephen H. Galebach. Non-commercial reproduction, use and sharing of the Timeline and linked Translations and Notes are permitted, provided attribution is given to the author and a hyperlink is made to the Timeline. Creative Commons License Timeline with Translations and Notes by Stephen H. Galebach is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.galebachlaw.com. Bibliography Archives and Libraries: Archdiocese of Munich and Freising Archive, Munich, Germany Argentine National Library, Buenos Aires, Argentina Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv [Bavarian Main State Archive], Munich, Germany Bayerische Staatsbibliothek [Bavarian State Library], Munich, Germany Berlin City Library, Berlin, Germany Dokumentation Obersalzberg, Berchtesgaden, Germany German Foreign Office, Political Archive, Berlin, Germany Harvard Divinity School Library, Cambridge, Massachusetts Harvard Law School Library, Cambridge, Massachusetts Institut für Zeitgeschichte [Institute for Contemporary History], Munich, Germany National Archives Records Administration, College Park, Maryland U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC U.S. Library of Congress, Washington, DC Widener Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Yad Vashem, Holocaust History Museum, Library and Archive, Jerusalem, Israel Newspapers, Journals, Periodicals, Encyclopedias: Acta Apostolicae Sedis [Acts of the Apostolic See] (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana), Rome Allgemeine Rundschau [General Review], Munich, Germany American Jewish Year Book, vol. 22 (1920) Amtsblatt, Archdiocese of Munich, Germany Auf Gut Deutsch [In Plain German], Munich, Germany Bayerischer Kurier [Bavarian Courier], Munich, Germany Caras y Caretas, Argentina La Civiltà Cattolica [Catholic Civilization], Rome Criterio, Argentina La Documentation Catholique [Catholic Documentation], Paris, France Germania, Berlin, Germany Historisch-Politische Blätter für das Katholische Deutschland [Historical-Political Papers for Catholic Germany], Munich, Germany Ingolstadt Freie Presse [Free Press], Ingolstadt, Germany Miesbacher Anzeiger [Miesbach Bulletin], Miesbach, Germany Münchener Katholische Kirchenzeitung [Munich Catholic Church Newspaper], Munich, Germany Münchner Neueste Nachrichten [Munich Latest News], Munich, Germany Münchener Post, Munich, Germany Münchener Zeitung, Munich, Germany La Nacion [The Nation], Buenos Aires, Argentina New York Times, United States L’Osservatore Romano [The Roman Observer], Vatican City, Rome La Prensa [The Press], Buenos Aires, Argentina El Pueblo [The People], Buenos Aires, Argentina Der Stürmer [The Stormer], Nuremberg, Germany Time, United States Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte [Contemporary History Quarterly], Munich, Germany Völkischer Beobachter [Völkisch Observer], Munich, Germany Works without a named author or editor: Bayerns Gesetze und Gesetzbücher [Bavaria’s Laws and Statute Books] Bible Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1907-1912) Catholics Remember the Holocaust (Washington: US Catholic Conference, 1998) XXXII Congreso Eucaristico Internacional [32nd International Eucharistic Congress] (Buenos Aires: Comité Ejecutivo, 1935) Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels [The Diaries of Joseph Goebbels] (Munich: K.G. Saur, 2001) Documents of British Foreign Policy, Series II, vols. 5-6 (1956-1957) Documents on German Foreign Policy (Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1959), Series C, vol. 3 Encyclopedia Judaica (2nd ed., Jerusalem: Keter, 2007) Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem and New York: Macmillan, 1990) Historisches Lexikon Bayerns, online http://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de Jahres- und Tagungsbericht [Annual and Congress Report] (Görres Gesellschaft, 1934-1935) Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche [Encyclopedia for Theology and Church] (1933) The Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich: Facts and Documents Translated from the German (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1940) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, multiple editions, including: Die Geheimnisse der Weisen von Sion, ed. Gottfried zur Beek [pseud. of Ludwig von Müller] (Charlottenburg: Verlag Auf Vorposten, 1919) The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion (New York: Beckwith, 1920) Die Reden gehalten in den öffentlichen und geschlossenen Versammlungen der 62. General-Versammlung der Katholiken Deutschlands zu München 27. bis 30. August 1922 [Speeches Given in the Public and Closed Sessions of the 62nd General Session of the Catholics of Germany at Munich, August 27-30, 1922] (Würzburg: Frankische Gesellschafts-Druckerei, 1923) Roman Ritual: Book of Blessings (New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1989) Sophie Scholl: Die Letzten Tagen [Sophie Scholl: The Final Days] (2005) (film) Staatslexikon der Görresgesellschaft (5th ed., 1926) Triumph des Willens [Triumph of the Will] (1935) (film) We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah (Rome: Vatican, 1998)   Books: Ahern, Patrick, Maurice and Therese: The Story of a Love (New York: Doubleday, 1998) Albrecht, Dieter, ed., Der Notenwechsel Zwischen dem Heiligen Stuhl und der Deutschen Reichsregierung, [The Note Exchange Between the Holy See and the German Reich Government] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald, 1965-1980) Altermatt, Urs, Katholizismus und Antisemitismus: Zur Kulturgeschichte der Schweiz 2018-1945 (Frauenfeld: Huber, 1999) Altmann, Wolfgang, Die Judenfrage in Ev. und Kath. Zeitschriften Zwischen 1918 und 1933 [The Jewish Question in Protestant and Catholic Journals between 1918 and 1933] (Munich: Univ. of Munich dissertation, 1971) Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1973) Aronson, Shlomo, Hitler, the Allies, and the Jews (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004) Arpaia, Paul, “Luigi Federzoni and the Converging and Diverging Parallels of Fascism and Catholicism,” in Nelis, Morelli and Praet, eds., Catholicism and Fascism in Europe 1918-1945 (Hildesheim: Olms, 2015) Auerbach, Helmuth, “Hitlers Politische Lehrjahre und die Münchener Gesellschaft 1919-1923” [Hitler’s Political Apprenticeship Years and Munich Society], Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte (1977), vol. 25, pp. 1-45. Bacharach, Walter, Anti-Jewish Prejudices in German-Catholic Sermons, trans. C. Galai (Lampeter, Wales: Edwin Mellen, 1993) Bacharach, Walter, “The Catholic Anti-Jewish Prejudice, Hitler and the Jews,” in David Bankier, ed., Probing the Depths of German Antisemitism (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2000) Bajohr, Frank and Michael Wildt, eds., Volksgemeinschaft: Neue Forschungen zur Gesellschaft des Nationalsozialismus [Volk Community: New Research on the Society of National Socialism] (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 2009) Baldwin, Neil, Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate (New York: Public Affairs, 2001) Bang, Paul, pseud. Wilhelm Meister, Judas Schuldbuch [The Jews’ Guilt-Book] (Munich: Deutscher Volks-Verlag, 1919) Banki, Judith, and John Pawlikowski, O.S.M., eds., Ethics in the Shadow of the Holocaust (Chicago: Sheed & Ward, 2001) Barnett, Victoria, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1992) Baron, Salo, The Russian Jew under Tsars and Soviets (New York: Macmillan, 1976) Bataille, Docteur (pseud. of Jogand-Pagès), Le Diable au XIXe Siècle [The Devil in the 19th Century], vol. 2 (Paris: Delhomme et Briguet, 1894) Baudrillart, Alfred, Les Carnets du Cardinal Baudrillart [The Notebooks of Cardinal Baudrillart] (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1994-2003) Bauer, Yehuda, The Holocaust in Historical Perspective (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 1978). Baumgart, Winfried, “Die militärpolitischen Berichte des Freiherrn von Keyserlingk aus Petersburg Januar-Februar 1918,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, vol. 15, no. 1 (1967) Becker, Manuel & Bongartz, Stephanie, eds., Die weltanschaulichen Grundlagen des NS-Regimes [The Ideological Foundations of the Nazi Regime] (Berlin: Hopf, 2011) Bendersky, Joseph, The “Jewish Threat” (New York: Basic Books, 2000) Ben-Dror, Graciela, Católicos, Nazis y Judios [Catholics, Nazis and Jews] (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Lumiere, 2003) Ben-Dror, Graciela, The Catholic Church and the Jews: Argentina, 1933-1945 (Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press, 2008) Ben-Dror, Graciela, La Iglesia Catolica ante el Holocausto: Espana y América Latina, 1933-1945 [The Catholic Church Before the Holocaust: Spain and Latin America] (Madrid: Alianza Editorial, 2003) Benz, Wolfgang, Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion: Die Legende von der jüdischen Weltverschwörung (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2007) Bergien, Rüdiger, Die bellizistische Republik: Wehrkonsens und “Wehrhaftmachung” in Deutschland 1918-1933 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2012) Bernstein, Herman, The Truth about the Protocols of Zion (New York, 1935) Besier, Gerhard and Francesca Piombo, The Holy See and Hitler’s Germany, trans. W.R. Ward (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007) Bieberstein, Johannes Rogalla von, “Jüdischer Bolschevismus”: Mythos & Realität [“Jewish Bolshevism”: Myth and Reality] (Graz: Ares, 2010) Blanksten, George, Peron's Argentina (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press 1953) Blaschke, Olaf, Katholizismus und Antisemitismus im Deutschen Kaiserreich [Catholicism and Antisemitism in the German Kaiser Reich] (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1997) Blau, Bruno, Das Ausnahmerecht für den Juden in Deutschland, 1933-1945 [Exceptional Laws for the Jews in Germany] (Düsseldorf : Verlag Allgemeine Wochenzeitung, 1965) Blet, Pierre, S.J., et al., eds., Actes et Documents du Saint Siège Relatifs à la Second Guerre Mondiale [Acts and Documents of the Holy See Concerning the Second World War] (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1965-1981) Blet, Pierre, S.J., Pie XII et la Seconde Guerre Mondiale d’après les Archives du Vatican [Pius XII and the Second World War According to the Vatican Archives] (Paris: Perrin, 1997) Bollmus, Reinhard, Das Amt Rosenberg und seine Gegner [The Rosenberg Office and its Adversaries] (Stuttgart: Institut für Zeitgeschichte and Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1970) Bottum, Joseph and David Dalin, eds., The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII (Lanham MD: Lexington Books, 2004) Brandmüller, Walter, ed., Handbuch der Bayerischen Kirchengeschichte [Handbook of Bavarian Church History] (St. Ottilien: Verlag Erzabtei St. Ottilien, 1991), vol. 3 Brasol, Boris, Socialism vs. Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920) Brechenmacher, Thomas, Der Vatikan und die Juden [The Vatican and the Jews] (Munich: Beck, 2005) Brechenmacher, Thomas, “Pope Pius XI, Eugenio Pacelli, and the Persecution of the Jews in Nazi Germany, 1933-1939,” German Historical Institute London Bulletin (Nov. 2005) Brechenmacher, Thomas, “Die Kirche und die Juden,” in Hummel, Karl-Joseph and Michael Kissener, eds. Die Katholiken und das Dritte Reich [Catholics and the Third Reich] (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2009) Brown-Fleming, Suzanne, The Holocaust and Catholic Conscience (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 2006) Brüning, Heinrich, Memoiren 1918-1934 [Memoirs 1918-1934] (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1970) Bullock, Alan, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (New York: Harper, 1971) Burdick, Michael, For God and Fatherland (Albany: SUNY Press, 1995) Burkard, Dominik, “Bischof Alois Hudal: Ein “Anti-Pacelli”?, Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte [Journal for Religious- and Intellectual-History] (Jan. 2007) Burkard, Dominik, Häresie und Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts [Heresy and the Myth of the 20th Century] (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2005) Burleigh, Michael, The Third Reich: A New History (New York: Hill and Wang, 2000) Bytwerk, Randall, Julius Streicher (New York: Stein and Day, 1983) Cannistraro, Philip & Brian Sullivan, Il Duce’s Other Woman (New York: William Morrow, 1993) Carroll, James, Constantine’s Sword (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001) Chabauty, E.H., Franc-Maçons et Juifs, Sixième Age de l’Eglise d’Après l’Apocalypse [Freemasons and Jews, the Sixth Age of the Church According to the Book of Revelation] (Paris: Société Générale de Librairie Catholique, 1880) Chadwick, Owen, Britain and the Vatican During the Second World War (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1986) Chenaux, Philippe, Pie XII: Diplomate et Pasteur [Pius XII: Diplomat and Pastor] (Paris: Cerf, 2003) Chenaux, Philippe, L’Eglise Catholique et le Communisme en Europe [The Catholic Church and Communism in Europe] (Paris: Cerf, 2009) Chenaux, Philippe, “Pacelli, Hudal et la Question du Nazisme (1933-1938),” Revista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, vol. 57 (2003), pp. 133-154 Chiron, Yves, Pie XI [Pius XI] (France: Perrin, 2004) Christophe, Paul, ed., Les Carnets du Cardinal Alfred Baudrillart, 1928-1932 (Paris: Cerf, 2003) Ciria, Alberto, Parties and Power in Argentina (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1974) Cohen, Susan, ed., Antisemitism: An Annotated Bibliography (Munich: Saur, 1998) Cohn, Norman, Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (London: Serif, 1996) Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, Understanding the Holocaust (London: Cassell, 1999) Confalonieri, Carlo, Pio XI Visto da Vicino (1957; 3d ed., Milan: Edizioni Paoline, 1993) Confalonieri, Carlo, Pius XI – A Close-Up (Altadena: Benzinger, Sisters Press 1975) Connelly, John, From Enemy to Brother: The Revolution in Catholic Teaching on the Jews, 1933-1965 (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 2012) Conway, John, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945 (New York: Basic Books, 1968) Conway, John, “The Vatican, Germany, and the Holocaust,” in Peter Kent and J.F. Pollard, eds., Papal Diplomacy in the Modern Age (Westport: Praeger, 1994). Coppa, Frank, The Modern Papacy Since 1789 (London: Longman, 1998) Coppa, Frank, The Papacy, the Jews, and the Holocaust (Washington: Catholic Univ. Press, 2006) Coppa, Frank, Controversial Concordats (Washington: Catholic Univ. Press, 1999) Coppa, Frank, The Modern Papacy since 1789 (London: Longman, 1998) Coppa, Frank, The Papacy, the Jews, and the Holocaust (Washington: Catholic Univ. of America Press, 2006) Cornwell, John, Hitler’s Pope (New York: Viking, 1999) Coughlin, Charles, “Am I an Anti-Semite?” (Detroit: Condon Printing Co., 1939) Coughlin, Charles, Radio Addresses (Detroit: Radio League of the Little Flower, 1936) Dahl, José David Lebovitch, “The Role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Formation of Modern Anti-Semitism: La Civiltà Cattolica, 1850-1879,” Modern Judaism, vol. 23, no. 2 (May 2003), pp. 180-197. Dalberg, John (Lord Acton), Historical Essays and Studies (London: Macmillan, 1907) Dalin, David, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2005) Davis, Brian and Malcolm McGregor, Flags of the Third Reich (London: Osprey, 1994) De Cesaris, Valerio, Vaticano, Fascismo e Questione Razziale [The Vatican, Fascism and the Racial Question] (Milan: Edizioni Anglo Guerini, 2010) Defries, Harry, Conservative Party Attitudes to Jews, 1900-1950 (London: Cass, 2001) DeRosa, Giuseppe, La Civiltà Cattolica: 150 Anni al Servizio della Chiesa 1850-1999 [The Civiltà Cattolica: 150 Years in the Service of the Church] (Rome: La Civiltà Cattolica, 1999) Deschner, Karlheinz, Mit Gott und dem Führer [With God and the Führer] (Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1988). Deuerlein, Ernst, Der Aufstieg der NSDAP in Augenzeugenberichten [The Rise of the Nazi Party in Reports of Eyewitnesses] (Düsseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag, 1968) Deuerlein, Ernst, Der Hitlerputsch (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1962) Deuerlein, Ernst, Hitler: Eine Politische Biographie (Munich: List, 1969) D’Harcourt, Robert, The German Catholics, trans. R. Dingle (London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, Ltd., 1939) Diederich, Georg, Chronik der Katholischen Gemeinden in Mecklenburg 1709 bis 1961 [Chronicle of the Catholic Communities in Mecklenburg 1709 to 1961] (Schwerin: Heinrich-Theissing-Institut, 2006) Dietrich, Donald, Catholic Citizens in the Third Reich (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1988) Dietrich, Donald, ed., Christian Responses to the Holocaust (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2003) Domarus, Max, ed., Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations 1932-1945, trans. Wilcox and Gilbert (Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1992) D'Orazi, Lucio, Il Coraggio della Verita: Vita di Pio XI [The Courage of Truth: The Life of Pius XI] (Rome: Edizioni Logos, 1989) Dornberg, John, Munich 1923 (New York: Harper & Row, 1982) Dowe, Christopher, Matthias Erzberger: ein Leben für die Demokratie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011) Duchhardt-Bösken, Sigrid, ed., Das Bischöfliche Ordinariat Mainz und der Nationalsozialismus bis 1933: Eine Dokumentation [The Mainz Diocesan Ordinariate and National Socialism up to 1933: A Documentation] (Eltville am Rhein: G.A. Walter, 1983) Eisner, Peter, The Pope’s Last Crusade: How an American Jesuit Helped Pope Pius XI’s Campaign to Stop Hitler (New York: William Morrow, 2013) Epstein, Klaus, Matthias Erzberger and the Dilemma of German Democracy (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1959) Ericksen, Robert, Complicity in the Holocaust (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012) Erzberger, Matthias, Erlebnisse im Weltkrieg [Experiences in the World War] (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1920) Falconi, Carlo, The Popes of the Twentieth Century, trans. M. Grindrod (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1967) Fattorini, Emma, Germania e Santa Sede [Germany and the Holy See] (Bologna: Società Editrice il Mulino, 1992) Fattorini, Emma, Hitler, Mussolini and the Vatican (Cambridge UK: Polity, 2011) Faulhaber, Michael von, Deutsches Ehrgefühl und Katholisches Gewissen [The German Sense of Honor and the Catholic Conscience] (Munich: Pfeiffer, 1925) Faulhaber, Michael von, Judaism, Christianity and Germany (New York: Macmillan, 1934) Faulhaber, Michael von, Judentum Christentum Germanentum [Judaism Christianity German-ness] (Munich: Huber, 1934) Feldkamp, Michael, Pius XII und Deutschland [Pius XII and Germany] (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2000) Fenske, Hans, Konservativismus und Rechtsradikalismus in Bayern nach 1918 [Conservatism and Rightwing Radicalism in Bavaria After 1918] (Berlin: Verlag Gehlen, 1969) Fest, Joachim, Hitler, trans. R. and C. Winston (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974) Flannery, Edward, The Anguish of the Jews (New York: Paulist Press, 1985) Flood, Charles, Hitler: The Path to Power (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989) Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster, Weltpolitik und Weltgewissen (Munich, 1919) Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster, Mein Kampf gegen das militaristische und nationalistische Deutschland: Gesichtspunkte zur deutschen Selbsterkenntnis und zum Aufbau eines neuen Deutschland [My Struggle Against the Militaristic and Nationalistic Germany: Perspectives on German Self-Understanding and on the Reconstruction of a New Germany] (Zurich, 1920) Ford, Henry, The International Jew (Dearborn, MI: Dearborn Publishing Co., 1920) Frankel, Jonathan, The Jews and the European Crisis 1914-1921 (New York: Oxford, 1988) Franz-Willing, Georg, Die Bayerische Vatikangesandtschaft [The Vatican Embassy in Bavaria] (Munich: Ehrenwirth, 1965) Franz-Willing, Georg, Krisenjahr der Hitlerbewegung, 1923 [Crisis Year of the Hitler Movement] (Oldendorf, Schütz, 1975) Franz-Willing, Georg, Nationalsozialismus [National Socialism] (Rosenheim: Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1993) Franz-Willing, Georg, Ursprung der Hitlerbewegung 1919-1922 [Origin of the Hitler Movement] (Oldendorf: Schütz, 1974) Frei, Norbert and Johannes Schmitz, Journalismus im Dritten Reich [Journalism in the Third Reich] (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1989) Friedländer, Saul, “Die politischen Veränderungen der Kriegszeit und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Judenfrage,” in Werner Mosse, ed., Deutsches Judentum in Krieg und Revolution 1916-1923 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1971) Friedländer, Saul, Nazi Germany and the Jews, Volume I: The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939 (New York: Harper Collins, 1997) Friedländer, Saul, The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945 (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007) Friedländer, Saul, Pius XII and the Third Reich, trans. C. Fullman (New York: Knopf, 1966) Fritsch, Theodor, Handbuch der Judenfrage [Handbook of the Jewish Question] (1st ed. 1887, 1930s editions Leipzig: Hammer-Verlag) Funder, Friedrich, Vom Gestern ins Heute [From the Past to the Present] (Vienna: Verlag Herold, 1952) Gallagher, Charles, Vatican Secret Diplomacy (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2008) Gerlich, Fritz, Der Kommunismus als Lehre vom Tausendjährigen Reich [Communism as the Teaching of a Thousand Year Kingdom] (Munich: Verlag Hugo Bruckmann, 1920) Gerlich, Fritz, Der Kommunismus in der Praxis [Communism in Practice] (Munich: Süddeutschen Monatshefte G.m.b.H., 1919) Gitelman, Zvi, Jewish Nationality and Soviet Politics (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1972) Godman, Peter, Hitler and the Vatican (New York: Free Press, 2004) Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah, Hitler’s Willing Executioners (New York: Knopf, 1996) Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah, A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair (New York: Knopf, 2002) Goni, Uki, The Real Odessa: How Peron Brought the Nazi War Criminals to Argentina (London: Granta, 2002) Gordon, Harold, Jr., Hitler and the Beer Hall Putsch (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1972) Gordon, Thomas, The Pope’s Jews: The Vatican’s Secret Plan to Save Jews from the Nazis (New York: Thomas Dunne, 2012) Got, Ambroise, La Terreur en Bavière [The Terror in Bavaria] (Paris: Perrin, 1922) Gougenot des Mousseaux, Henri Roger, Le Juif, le Judaïsme et la Judaïsation des Peuples Chrétiens, [The Jew, Judaism and the Judaizing of Christian Peoples] (Paris: H. Plon, 1869) Grelka, Frank, “Jüdischer Bolschewismus,” in G. Kronenbitter, ed., Besatzung: Funktion und Gestalt militärischer Fremdherrschaft von der Antike bis zum 20. Jahrhundert (Paderborn, 2006) Griech-Polelle, Beth, “The Catholic Episcopacy and the National Socialist State,” in J. Nelis et al. (eds.), Catholicism and Fascism in Europe 1918-1945 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2015) Gross, Alexander, Gehorsame Kirche – Ungehorsame Christen im Nationalsozialismus [Obedient Church – Disobedient Christians in the Nazi Era] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 2000) Hahlweg, Werner, “Lenins Reise durch Deutschland” [Lenin’s Trip through Germany], Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte (1957), vol. 5, no. 4, p.307. Halecki, Oscar, Eugenio Pacelli: Pope of Peace (New York: Creative Age, 1951) Hamann, Brigitte, Hitler’s Vienna: A Dictator’s Apprenticeship, trans. T. Thornton (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999) Hanebrink, Paul, In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism, and Antisemitism, 1890-1944 (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 2006) Hanebrink, Paul, A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism (Cambridge: Belknap Harvard Univ. Press, 2018) Hanfstaengl, Ernst, Hitler: The Missing Years (New York: Arcade, 1994) Hartston, Barnet, Sensationalizing the Jewish Question (Leiden: Brill, 2005) Hastings, Derek, Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism (Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 2010) Hatch, Alden and Seamus Walshe, Crown of Glory: The Life of Pope Pius XII (New York: Hawthorn, 1957) Haus der Geschichte, Matthias Erzberger: Ein Wegbereiter der deutschen Demokratie [A Pioneer of German Democracy] (Baden-Württemberg, 2011) Hausberger, Karl, Franz Xaver Kiefl (1869-1928): Schellverteidiger, Antimodernist und Rechtskatholik [Schell-Defender, Anti-Modernist and Rightwing Catholic] (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 2003) Hay, Malcolm, The Foot of Pride (Boston: Beacon Press, 1950) Hebblethwaite, Paul VI (New York: Paulist Press, 1993) Hecht, Cornelia, Deutsche Juden und Antisemitismus in der Weimarer Republik (Bonn: Dietz, 2003) Helmreich, Ernst, The German Churches Under Hitler (Detroit: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979) Herbeck, Ulrich, Das Feindbild vom “jüdischen Bolschewiken” (Berlin: Metropol, 2009) Herf, Jeffrey, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Cambridge: Belknap. Harvard Univ. Press, 2006) Herczl, Moshe, Christianity and the Holocaust of Hungarian Jewry (New York, NYU Press, 1993) Herzl, Theodor, Der Judenstaat (1896) Hesemann, Michael, Der Papst, der Hitler Trotzte: Die Wahrheit über Pius XII [The Pope Who Defied Hitler: The Truth about Pius XII] (Augsburg: Sankt Ulrich Verlag, 2008) Hildebrand, Alice von, The Soul of a Lion: Dietrich von Hildebrand (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000) Hildebrand, Dietrich von, Memoiren und Aufsätze gegen den Nationalsozialismus [Memoirs and Essays against National Socialism] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1994) Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, trans. R. Manheim (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1943; London: Pimlico, 1992) Hochhuth, Rolf, Der Stellvertreter [The Deputy or The Vicar] (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1963) Höller, Ralf, Das Wintermärchen: Schriftsteller erzählen die bayerische Revolution und die Münchner Räterepublik 1918/1919 (Berlin: TIAMAT, 2017) Hofer, Walther, Der Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente 1933-1945 [National Socialism: Documents], (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1957) Huber, Ernst and Wolfgang, Staat und Kirche im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: Dokumente zur Geschichte des deutschen Staatskirchenrechts [State and Church in the 19th and 20th Centuries: Documents on the History of German State-Church Law] (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1973-1988), 4 vols. Hübner, Christoph, Die Rechtskatholiken, die Zentrumspartei und die katholische Kirche in Deutschland bis zum Reichskonkordat von 1933 [The Rightwing Catholics, the Center Party and the Catholic Church in Germany up to the Reich Concordat of 1933] (Münster: Beiträge zur Theologie, Kirche und Gesellschaft, vol. 24, 2014) Hudal, Alois, Deutsche Kulturarbeit in Italien [German Cultural Activity in Italy] (Münster: Aschendorff, 1934) Hudal, Alois, Deutsches Volk und Christliches Abendland [The German Volk and the Christian West] (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1935) Hudal, Alois, Die Grundlagen des Nationalsozialismus [The Foundations of National Socialism] (Leipzig: Gunther, 1937, 5th ed.) Hudal, Alois, Katholizismus in Oesterreich [Catholicism in Austria] (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1931) Hudal, Alois, Die Religiösen und Sittlichen Ideen des Spruchbuches (Rome: Papal Biblical Institute Press, 1914) Hudal, Alois, Rom, Christentum und Deutsches Volk [Rome, Christianity and the German Volk] (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1934) Hudal, Alois, Römische Tagebücher: Lebensbeichte eines Alten Bischofs [Roman Diaries: The General Confession of an Old Bishop] (Graz: Stocker, 1976) Hudal, Alois, Die Serbisch-Orthodoxe Nationalkirche [The Serbian Orthodox National Church] (Graz: Moser, 1922) Hudal, Alois, Der Vatikan und die Modernen Staaten [The Vatican and Modern States] (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1935) Hudal, Alois, Vom Deutschen Schaffen in Rom [Of German Work in Rome] (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1933) Hummel, Karl-Joseph and Michael Kissener, eds., Die Katholiken und das Dritte Reich [Catholics and the Third Reich] (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2009) Hürten, Heinz, Deutsche Katholiken, 1918-1945 [German Catholics] (Paderborn: F. Schöningh, 1992) Hurwitz, Ariel, Jews Without Power: American Jewry During the Holocaust (New Rochelle: MultiEducator, 2011) Hurwitz, Cipora, Forbidden Strawberries, trans. G. Forman (New Rochelle: MultiEducator, 2010) Ivereigh, Austen, Catholicism and Politics in Argentina, 1810-1960 (Oxford: St. Martin’s, 1995) Jäckel, Eberhard, and Axel Kuhn, eds., Hitler: Sämtliche Aufzeichnungen, 1905-1924 [Hitler: Collected Writings] (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1980) Jacobs, Steven, Contemporary Christian Religious Responses to the Shoah (Lanham MD: University Press of America, 1993) Jogand-Pagès, Gabriel (pseudonym Docteur Bataille), Le Diable au XIXe Siècle [The Devil in the 19th Century], vol. 2 (Paris: Delhomme et Briguet, 1894) Jones, Larry, “The Limits of Collaboration: Edgar Jung, Herbert von Bose, and the Origins of the Conservative Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1934,” in L. Jones and James Retallack, eds., Between Reform, Reaction, and Resistance (Providence: Berg, 1993). Jones, Nigel, The Birth of the Nazis (New York: Carroll & Graf, 2004) Josephs, Ray, Argentine Diary (New York: Random House, 1944) Josephus, Flavius, Judean War, trans. S. Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2008) Kaas, Ludwig, “Der Konkordatstyp des Faschistischen Italien” [The Concordat Model of Fascist Italy], Max-Planck-Institut für Ausländisches Oeffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht [Max Planck Institute for International Private Law and Public Law] (1933) Kadish, Sharman, Bolsheviks and British Jews: The Anglo-Jewish Community, Britain and the Russian Revolution (London: Frank Cass, 1992) Kanzler, Rudolf, Bayerns Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus: Geschichte der bayerischen Einwohnerwehren [Bavaria’s Struggle Against Bolshevism: The History of the Bavarian Paramilitary Forces (Munich: Parcus, 1931) Katz, Jacob, “Christian-Jewish Antagonism on the Eve of the Modern Era,” in Otto Dov Kulka and Paul Mendes-Flohr, eds., Judaism and Christianity under the Impact of National Socialism (Jerusalem: Historical Society of Israel, 1987) Katz, Jacob, From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism, 1700-1933 (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1997) Katz, Jacob, Jews and Freemasons in Europe, trans. L. Oschry (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1970) Hungary and the Jews (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Univ. Press, 1981) Kauders, Anthony, German Politics and the Jews: Düsseldorf and Nuremberg, 1910-1933 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) Kellogg, Michael, The Russian Roots of Nazism (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008) Kennedy, John J., Catholicism, Nationalism, and Democracy in Argentina (South Bend: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1958) Kent, Peter, and J.F. Pollard, eds., Papal Diplomacy in the Modern Age (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994) Kershaw, Ian, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich: Bavaria 1933-1945 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1983) Kershaw, Ian, Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris (London: Allen Lane, 1998) Kertzer, David, The Pope and Mussolini (New York: Random House, 2014) Kertzer, David, The Popes against the Jews (New York: Knopf, 2001) Richard Kessler, Heinrich Held als Parlamentarier [Heinrich Held as Parliamentarian](Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1971) Klein, Charlotte, “Vatican and Zionism 1897-1967,” Christian Attitudes on Jews and Judaism, (June-August 1974), no. 36-37, p.11 Korzec, Pawel, Juifs en Pologne (Paris: Presses Fondation Sciences Po, 1980) Krieg, Robert, Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany (New York: Continuum, 2004) Krumeich, Gerd (ed.), Nationalsozialismus und Erster Weltkrieg [National Socialism and the First World War] (Essen: Klartext, 2010) Kulka, Otto Dov and Eberhard Jäckel, The Jews in the Secret Nazi Reports on Popular Opinion in Germany, 1933-1945, trans. W. Templer (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2010) Kulka, Otto Dov and Paul Mendes-Flohr, Judaism and Christianity under the Impact of National Socialism (Jerusalem: Historical Society of Israel, 1987) Lacroix-Riz, Annie, Le Vatican, l’Europe et le Reich del la Première Guerre Mondiale à la Guerre Froide [The Vatican, Europe and the Reich from the First World War to the Cold War] (Paris: Armand Colin, 1996) Lamm, Hans, ed., Von Juden in München: Ein Gedenkbuch [On the Jews of Munich: A Book of Remembrance] (Munich: Ner-Tamid-Verlag, 1958) Lapide, Pinchas, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn, 1967) Large, David, Where Ghosts Walked: Munich’s Road to the Third Reich (New York: Norton, 1997) Larson, Erik, In the Garden of Beasts (New York: Crown, 2011) Lawler, Justus George, Were the Popes Against the Jews? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) Lehnert, Pascalina, Ich Durfte Ihm Dienen [I Was Allowed to Serve Him] (Würzburg: Naumann, 1982) Leibholz-Bonhoeffer, Sabine, The Bonhoeffers: Portrait of a Family (New York: St. Martin’s, 1971) Levin, Nora, The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917 (New York: NYU Press, 1988) Levy, Richard S., ed., Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution (Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2005) Lewis, Bernard, Semites & Anti-Semites (London: Phoenix, 1997) Lewy, Guenter, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964) Lichten, Joseph, A Question of Judgment: Pius XII and the Jews (Washington, NCWC, 1963) Lill, Rudolf, “Der Heilige Stuhl und die Juden,” in Karl Rengstorf & Siegfried von Kortzfleisch, eds., Kirche und Synagoge: Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden, Vol. II (Stuttgart: Klett, 1970) Ludendorff, General [Erich], Auf dem Weg zur Feldherrnhalle [On the Way to the Feldherrnhalle] (Munich: Ludendorffs Verlag, 1938) Lutz, Heinrich, Demokratie im Zwielicht: Der Weg der deutschen Katholiken aus dem Kaiserreich in die Republik 1914-1925 [Democracy in Twilight: The Path of German Catholics from the Kaiser Reich to the Republic] (Munich: Kösel, 1963) Lyttelton, Adrian, The Seizure of Power (London: Routledge, 2004) Marchione, Margherita, Pius XII: Architect for Peace (Mahwah NJ: Paulist, 2000) Marrus, Michael, The Holocaust in History (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1987) Maser, Werner, Die Frühgeschichte der NSDAP [The Early History of the Nazi Party] (Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum-Verlag, 1965) Matthäus, Jürgen et al. (ed.), Ausbildungsziel Judenmord? “Weltanschauliche Erziehung” von SS, Polizei und Waffen-SS im Rahmen der “Endlösung” (Frankfurt am Main, 2003) Mazzini, Elena, “Da cultura ammessa a retaggio discorsivo: l’antiebraismo e la ‘Civiltà Cattolica’ nel primo quindicennio del secondo dopoguerra,” Storia e Problemi Contemporanei (2009), no. 50, p.83. McInerny, Ralph, The Defamation of Pope Pius XII (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2001) Méndez, Jesús, “Church-State Relations in Argentina in the Twentieth Century: A Case Study of the Thirty-Second International Eucharistic Congress,” Journal of Church and State, vol. 27 (1985) Merz, Kai-Uwe, Das Schreckbild: Deutschland und der Bolschevismus, 1917 bis 1921 [The Terror-Image: Germany and Bolshevism, 1917 to 1921] (Frankfurt am Main: Propyläen, 1995). Metaxas, Eric, Bonhoeffer (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010) Miccoli, Giovanni, Les Dilemmes et Silences de Pie XII [The Dilemmas and Silences of Pius XII], trans. A. Vignaux (Milan: Editions Complexes, 2000) Michael, Robert, A History of Catholic Antisemitism: The Dark Side of the Church (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008) Micklem, Nathaniel, National Socialism and the Roman Catholic Church (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1939) Minerbi, Sergio, The Vatican and Zionism, trans. A. Schwarz (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1990) Mitchell, Allan, Revolution in Bavaria 1918-1919: The Eisner Regime and the Soviet Republic (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1965) Molony, John, The Emergence of Political Catholicism in Italy: Partito Popolare, 1919-1926 (London: C. Helm, 1977) Montini, G.B. (Venerable Pope Paul VI), “The Difficulties of ‘L’Osservatore Romano,’” (1961) in G. B. Montini, Discorsi e Scritti Milanesi 1954-1963 [Speeches and Writings in Milan, 1954-1963], (Brescia: Istituto Paolo VI), republished online at http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/169841?eng=y Morley, John F., Vatican Diplomacy and the Jews during the Holocaust, 1939-1943 (New York: New York: Ktav, 1980) Morsey, Rudolf, and Karsten Ruppert, Die Protokolle der Reichstagsfraktion der Deutschen Zentrumspartei [Minutes of the Parliamentary Delegation of the German Center Party] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1981) Morsey, Rudolf, Fritz Gerlich: Ein früher Gegner Hitlers und des Nationalsozialismus [An Early Adversary of Hitler and National Socialism] (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2016) Mosse, Werner, ed., Deutsches Judentum in Krieg und Revolution 1916-1923 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971) Müller, Hans, Katholische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus: Dokumente 1930-1935 [Catholic Church and National Socialism: Documents 1930-1935] (Munich: Nymphenburger Verlagshandlung, 1963) Müller, Jürgen, Nationalsozialismus in Lateinamerika: Die Auslandsorganisation der NSDAP in Argentinien, Brasilien, Chile und Mexiko, 1931-1945 [National Socialism in Latin America: The Overseas Organization of the Nazi Party in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico] (Stuttgart: Heinz, 1997) Murphy, Paul, La Popessa (New York: Warner, 1983) Murphy, Robert, Diplomat Among Warriors (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964) Napolitano, Matteo and Andrea Tornielli, Il Papa Che Salvò gli Ebrei: Dagli Archivi del Vaticano Tutta la Verità su Pio XII [The Pope Who Saved the Jews: From the Vatican Archives All the Truth about Pius XII] (Casale Monferrato: Piemme, 2004) Nelis, J. and A. Morelli and D. Praet (eds.), Catholicism and Fascism in Europe 1918-1945 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 2015) Newton, Ronald, The “Nazi Menace” in Argentina, 1931-1947 (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1992) Nicholls, Anthony and Erich Matthias, eds., German Democracy and the Triumph of Hitler (New York: St. Martin’s, 1971) Nicholls, Anthony J., Weimar and the Rise of Hitler (New York: St. Martin’s, 2000) Noakes, Jeremy and G. Pridham, Nazism 1919-1945 (Exeter: Univ. of Exeter Press, 1983, 1998), vol. 1 Noel, Gerard, Pius XII: The Hound of Hitler (London: Continuum, 2008) Nolte, Ernst, Die Weimarer Republik [The Weimar Republic] (Munich: F.A. Herbig, 2006) O’Carroll, Michael, Pius XII: Greatness Dishonored (Dublin: Laetare, 1980) O’Shea, A Cross Too Heavy: Pope Pius XII and the Jews of Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011) Pacelli, Eugenio, Discorsi e Panegirici (1931-1938) [Speeches and Panegyrics] (Vatican City: 1956) Pamlenyi, Ervin, A Hatarban a Halal Kaszal: Pronay Naploja [Pal Pronay’s Diary] (Budapest, 1963) Papen, Franz, Der Wahrheit Eine Gasse (Munich: P. List, 1952); English trans. entitled Memoirs, trans. B. Connell (London: A. Deutsch, 1952) Patai, Raphael, ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, trans. H. Zohn (New York: Herzl Press, 1960), vol. IV Pfahl-Traughber, Armin, Der Antisemitisch-Antifreimaurerische Verschwörungsmythos in der Weimarer Republik und im NS-Staat [The Antisemitic-Anti-Freemasonic Conspiracy Myth in the Weimar Republic and in the Nazi State] (Vienna: Braumüller, 1993). Phayer, J. Michael, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965 (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 2000) Phayer, Michael, “The German Catholic Church After the Holocaust,” Holocaust and Genocide Studies (Fall 1996), p.151 Phayer, Michael, Pius XII, the Holocaust, and the Cold War (Bloomington: Indiana Univ Press, 2008) Pinkus, Benjamin, Jews of the Soviet Union (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988) Plöckinger, Othmar, Unter Soldaten und Agitatoren: Hitlers prägende Jahre im deutschen Militär 1918-1920 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2013) Poliakov, Léon, The History of Anti-Semitism, trans. R. Howard (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2003) Pollard, John, The Papacy in the Age of Totalitarianism, 1914-1958 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2014) Prittie, Terence, Germans Against Hitler (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964) Recker, Klemens-August, “Wem Wollt Ihr Glauben?”: Bischof Berning im Dritten Reich [“Who Do You Want to Believe?”: Bishop Berning in the Third Reich] (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1998) Reichold, P. Anselm, OSB, Die Deutsche Katholische Kirche zur Zeit des Nationalsozialismus (1933-1945) [The German Catholic Church in the Era of National Socialism (St. Ottilien: Erzabtei Verlag, 1992) Reiser, Rudolf, Kardinal Michael von Faulhaber – Des Kaisers und des Führers Schutzpatron [Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber – The Kaiser’s and the Führer’s Patron Saint] (Munich: Buchendorfer, 2000), p.41. Repgen, Konrad and Klaus Gotto, eds., Kirche, Katholiken und Nationalsozialismus [The Church, Catholics and Nazism] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1980) Reuth, Ralf, Hitlers Judenhass (Munich: Piper, 1996) Rhodes, Anthony, The Vatican in the Age of the Cold War, 1945-1980 (Norwich UK: Russell, 1992) Rhodes, Anthony, The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators, 1922-1945 (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974) Rhonheimer, Martin, “The Holocaust: What Was Not Said,” First Things (Nov. 2003) Rigby, T.H., Communist Party Membership in the USSR, 1917-1967 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1968) Rittner, Carol and John Roth, Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust (London: Leicester Univ. Press, 2002) Romero, Luis, A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century, trans. J. Brennan (University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 2002) Rosenberg, Alfred, Der Mythos des 20. Jahrhunderts [The Myth of the 20th Century] (Munich: Hoheneichen-Verlag, 200th ed., 1943) Rosenberg, Alfred, Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und die Jüdische Weltpolitik [The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Jewish World Politics] (Munich: Deutscher Volksverlag, 1923) Rosenberg, William, ed., Bolshevik Visions: First Phase of the Cultural Revolution in Soviet Russia (Ann Arbor: Ardis, 1984) Ryback, Timothy, Hitler’s Private Library (New York: Knopf, 2008) Rychlak, Ronald, Hitler, the War, and the Pope (1st ed., Columbus, MS: Genesis Press, 2000; 2d ed., Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2010) Rychlak, Ronald, Righteous Gentiles: How Pius XII and the Catholic Church Saved Half a Million Jews from the Nazis (Dallas: Spence, 2005 ) Sale, Giovanni, Fascismo e Vaticano prima della Conciliazione [Fascism and the Vatican before the Conciliation of 1929] (Milan: Jaca Book, 2007) Sale, Giovanni, Hitler, la Santa Sede e gli Ebrei [Hitler, the Holy See and the Jews] (Milan: Jaca Book, 2004) Samuel, Herbert, Memoirs (London: Cresset, 1945) Sánchez, José, Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust: Understanding the Controversy (Washington: Catholic Univ. of America Press, 2002) Sandmann, Fritz, Die Haltung des Vatikans zum Nationalsozialismus im Spiegel des “Osservatore Romano” [The Vatican’s Stance on Nazism as Reflected in “L’Osservatore Romano”] (Mainz: Lokay, 1965) Sandmann, Fritz, “L’Osservatore Romano” e il Nazionalsocialismo 1929-1939 [“The Roman Observer” and National Socialism], Italian trans. from German by A. Cervone (Rome: Cinque Lune, 1976) Schirach, Baldur von, Die Hitler-Jugend [The Hitler Youth] (Berlin: Zeitgeschichte Verlag, 1934) Schlund, Erhard, Der Bolschewismus (Munich: Jos. Hubers Verlag, 1919) Schmidlin, Josef, Papstgeschichte der Neuesten Zeit [Papal History of Recent Times] (Munich: Kösel & Pustet, 1939) Schmidt, D., M. Sturm & M. Livi, eds., Wegbereiter des Nationalsozialismus [Pavers of the Way for Nazism] (Essen: Klartext, 2015) Schmidt, Lydia, Kultusminister Franz Matt (1920-1926): Schul-, Kirchen- und Kunstpolitik in Bayern nach der Umbruch von 1918 [Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs Franz Matt: The Politics of Education, Religion and the Arts in Bavaria Following the Revolution of 1918] (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2000) Scholder, Klaus, The Churches and the Third Reich, trans. J. Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) Schröder, Joachim, “Der Erste Weltkrieg und der 'jüdische Bolschewismus’,” in Gerd Krumeich (ed.), Nationalsozialismus und Erster Weltkrieg [Nazism and the First World War] (Essen: Klartext Verlag, 2010), pp. 77, 78 Schrönghamer-Heimdal, Franz, Das Kommende Reich (Augsburg: Haas & Grabherr, 1918) Schrönghamer-Heimdal, Franz, Dem Deutschen Volke. Deutsche Kriegsworte für das Deutsche Friedenswerk [To the German People: German War-Words for German Peace-Work] (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1917) Schrönghamer-Heimdal, Franz, Vom Ende der Zeiten. Das Wissen vom Weltende nach Edda, Wissenschaft und Offenbarung [The End of Days: Knowledge of the End of the World According to the Edda, Science and Revelation] (Augsburg: Haas & Grabherr, 1918) Schulze, Thies, “Antikommunismus als politischer Leitfaden des Vatikans?: Affinitäten und Konflikte zwischen Heiligen Stuhl und NS-Regime Jahr 1933” [Anti-Communism as the Vatican’s Guiding Thread?: Affinities and Conflicts between the Holy See and the Nazi Regime in 1933], in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, vol. 60, no. 7 (2012), pp. 353-79 Senor, Dan, Start-up Nation (New York: Twelve, 2009) Sereny, Gitta, The German Experience (London: Allen Lane, 2000) Sereny, Gitta, Into that Darkness (New York: Vintage, 1983) Shirer, William, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960) Singerman, Robert, “The American Career of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” American Jewish History, vol. 71, no. 1 (Sept. 1981), p.48 Spadolini, Giovanni, Il Cardinale Gasparri e la Questione Romana [Cardinal Gasparri and the Roman Question] (Florence: Felice le Monnier, 1972) Spicer, Kevin, ed., Antisemitism, Christian Ambivalence, and the Holocaust (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 2007) Spicer, Kevin, Hitler’s Priests (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 2008) Spicer, Kevin, Resisting the Third Reich: The Catholic Clergy in Hitler’s Berlin (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois Univ. Press, 2004) Stackelberg, Roderick, and Sally Winkle, eds., The Nazi Germany Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 2002) Stasiewski, Bernhard, ed., Akten Deutscher Bischöfe über die Lage der Kirche, 1933-1945 [Papers of the German Bishops about the Situation of the Church] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1968-1979) Staudinger, Barbara, The Jewish World and the Wittelsbach Dynasty (Die Jüdische Welt und die Wittelsbacher) (Munich: Jewish Museum, 2007) (published in side-by-side English-German) Stehkämper, Hugo, Konrad Adenauer als Katholikentagspräsident 1922 [Konrad Adenauer as Catholic Congress President] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1977) Stehle, Hansjakob, Geheimdiplomatie im Vatikan: Die Päpste und die Kommunisten [Secret Diplomacy in the Vatican: The Popes and the Communists] (Zurich: Benziger, 1993) Stehlin, Stewart A., Weimar and the Vatican, 1919-1933 (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1983) Steigmann-Gall, Richard, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003) Steinacher, Gerald, Nazis on the Run (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011) Stewart, Ralph, Pius XII and the Jews (New Hope KY: St. Martin de Porres, 1990) Sutton, Anthony, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1974) Sutton, Anthony, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development 1917 to 1930 (Stanford: Hoover Institution, 1968) Taguieff, Pierre-André, Les Protocoles des Sages de Sion [The Protocols of the Elders of Zion] (Paris: Berg International-Fayard, 2004) Taradel, Ruggero and Barbara Raggi, La Segregazione Amichevole: “La Civiltà Cattolica” e la Questione Ebraica 1850-1945 [Amicable Segregation: The “Civiltà Cattolica” and the Jewish Question 1850-1945] (Rome: Editori Riuniti, 2000) Taylor, Blaine, Hitler’s Headquarters (Washington: Potomac Books, 2007) Thomas, Gordon, The Pope’s Jews (New York: St. Martin’s, 2012) Tittman, Harold H., Jr., Inside the Vatican of Pius XII (New York: Doubleday Image, 2004) Toland, John, Adolf Hitler (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976) Tornielli, Andrea, Pio XII: Il Papa Degli Ebrei [The Pope of the Jews] (Casale Monferrato: Piemme, 2001) Tornielli, Andrea, Pio XII: Eugenio Pacelli, Un Uomo sul Trono di Pietro [Pius XII: Eugenio Pacelli, A Man on the Throne of Peter] (Milan: Mondadori, 2007) Tuchman, Barbara, The Zimmermann Telegram (New York: Viking, 1958) Turner, Michael, Historical Dictionary of United States Intelligence (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2006) Tyrell, Albrecht, Vom “Trommler” zum “Führer” [From the “Drummer” to the “Fuhrer”] (Munich: Fink, 1975) Ulam, Adam, Stalin: The Man and His Era (London: Allen Lane, 1973) Valbousquet, Nina, Les réseaux transnationaux de l’antisémitisme catholique [International Networks of Catholic Antisemitism]: France, Italie, 1914-1934, Doctoral Thesis (Paris: Sciences Po, 2016) Valente, Massimiliano, ed., Santa Sede ed Europa Centro-orientale tra le due Guerre Mondiali: La Questione Cattolica in Jugoslavia e in Cecoslovacchia [The Holy See and Central-Eastern Europe Between the Two World Wars: The Catholic Question in Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia] (Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore, 2011) Ventresca, Robert, Soldier of Christ: The Life of Pope Pius XII (Cambridge: Belknap, Harvard Univ. Press, 2013) Vidmar, John, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (New York: Paulist Press, 2005) Voegelin, Eric, Hitler and the Germans, trans. D. Clemens and B. Purcell (Columbia: Univ. of Missouri Press, 1999) (lectures given in 1964 in Munich) Volk, Ludwig, ed., Akten Kardinal Michael von Faulhabers, 1917-1945 [Papers of Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1975) Volk, Ludwig, S.J., “Kardinal Faulhabers Stellung zur Weimarer Republik und zum NS-Staat” [Cardinal Faulhaber's Stance toward the Weimar Republic and the Nazi State], Stimmen der Zeit [Voices of the Day], March 1966, vol. 177, p.173. Volk, Ludwig, Katholische Kirche und Nationalsozialismus [The Catholic Church and National Socialism] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1987) Volk, Ludwig, Das Reichskonkordat vom 20. Juli 1933 [The Reich Concordat of July 20, 1933] (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1972) Volsansky, Gabriele, [Timely Pact: The Germany-Austrian July-Agreement 1936] (Vienna: Bóhlau, 2001) Waddington, Lorna, Hitler’s Crusade: Bolshevism and the Myth of the International Jewish Conspiracy (London: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007) Wast, Hugo [pseud. of Gustavo Martínez Zuviría], El Kahal (1935) Wast, Hugo, Oro (1935) Wast, Hugo, Todas Las Novellas de Hugo Wast [All the Novels of Hugo Wast] (Madrid: Ediciones Fax, 1942) Weber, Thomas, Hitler's First War (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011) Weber, Thomas, Metamorphose: Wie Adolf Hitler zum Nazi wurde (Berlin: Propyläen, 2016), English edition, Becoming Hitler (New York: Basic Books, 2017) Webman, Esther, ed., The Global Impact of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (London: Routledge, 2011) Weinzierl, Erika, Ecclesia Semper Reformanda [The Church Always Being Reformed] (Vienna: Geyer, 1985) Weisbrot, Robert and Robert Murciano, Jews of Argentina: From the Inquisition to Peron (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979) West, Nigel, Historical Dictionary of International Intelligence (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2006) Wheeler-Bennett, John, The Nemesis of Power (New York: St. Martin’s, 1954) Wichtl, Friedrich, Weltfreimaurerei, Weltrevolution, Weltrepublik [World Freemasonry, World Revolution, World Republic] (Munich: Lehmann, 1920) Wiesel, Elie, Night (New York: Bantam Books, 1964) Wilson, A.N., Hitler: A Short Biography (London: HarperPress, 2012) Wolf, Hubert, Papst und Teufel, trans. K. Kronenberg [English title: Pope and Devil] (Munich: Beck, 2008; English version Cambridge: Belknap, Harvard Univ. Press, 2010) Wolf, Hubert, and Klaus Unterburger, eds., Eugenio Pacelli: Die Lage der Kirche in Deutschland, 1929 [The Situation of the Church in Germany, 1929] (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2006) Zahn, Gordon, German Catholics and Hitler’s Wars (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1962) Zuber, Brigitte, “Im Netz bayerischer Eliten” [In the Network of Bavarian Elites], in D. Schmidt, M. Sturm & M. Livi, eds., Wegbereiter des Nationalsozialismus [Pavers of the Way for Nazism] (Essen: Klartext, 2015) Zuccotti, Susan, Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2000) Papal Encyclicals and Documents: Acerbi Animi, Sept. 29, 1932 (On Persecution of the Church in Mexico) Apostolic Constitution Officiorum, Jan. 25, 1897 Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937 (On Atheistic Communism) Humani Generis Redemptionem, June 15, 1917 (On Preaching the Word of God) Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884 (On Freemasonry) Mit Brennender Sorge, March 14, 1937 (On the Church and the German Reich) Non Abbiamo Bisogno, June 29, 1931 (On Catholic Action in Italy) Pascendi Domenici Gregis, Sept. 8, 1907 (On the Doctrines of the Modernists) Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931 (On Reconstruction of the Social Order) Quas Primas, Dec. 11, 1925 (On the Feast of Christ the King) Summi Pontificatus, Oct. 20, 1939 (Supreme Pontificate) Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, Dec. 23, 1922 (On the Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ) Notes to Timeline Thread 1: The Jewish-Communist myth as rationale for the Holocaust and Germany’s 1941 invasion of Soviet Russia is well described by Prof. Jeffrey Herf, The Jewish Enemy: Nazi Propaganda During World War II and the Holocaust (Cambridge: Belknap, Harvard Univ. Press, 2006). The myth enabled the Nazi regime to justify genocide and aggressive war as acts of German self-defense. For example, Hitler’s main henchman in carrying out the Holocaust, Heinrich Himmler, considered himself morally upright while mass murdering Jews in “self-defense,” as appears in Himmler’s private correspondence recently brought to light in the documentary Der Anständiger (English title: The Decent One)(2014). Thread 3: Historians have assumed that the combination of nearly universal pre-existing antisemitism in Bavaria, and the prominent involvement of Jews in the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Munich revolutions of November 1918 and April 1919 fully explain the widespread acceptance of the Jewish-Communist conspiracy theory in Munich and its centrality to Nazi ideology. E.g., Ian Kershaw, Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris (London: Allen Lane, 1998), pp. 124-25 (Hitler, in his “ferocious attacks on the Jews” beginning in the second half of 1919, was “doing no more than reflect sentiments which were widespread at the time among the people of Munich”); Robert Ventresca, Soldier of Christ: The Life of Pope Pius XII (Cambridge: Belknap, Harvard Univ. Press, 2013), pp. 54-55 (because of Munich’s experience with Jewish radical political figures after World War One, “it was a logical step to view Bolsheviks and Jews as indistinguishable.”); Paul Hanebrink, A Specter Haunting Europe: The Myth of Judeo-Bolshevism (Cambridge: Belknap, Harvard Univ. Press, 2018), p.13 (Bavaria’s Catholics “shared the belief that Bolshevism was caused or led by Jews.”) Thread 8: It has long been known that some passages in the Protocols were plagiarized from Maurice Joly, Le Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (1864), and that some of the plot was taken from the chapter “At the Jewish Cemetery in Prague” in Herrmann Goedsche’s Biarritz (1868). E.g., Cohn (1996); Katz (1997). But the role of French scandal author Gabriel Jogand-Pagès, a/k/a Leo Taxil, in popularizing the Jewish-Masonic myth in the 1890s under the pseudonym “Docteur Bataille,” has long escaped historians, being covered instead by a novelist, Umberto Eco, in The Prague Cemetery (2011). The Protocols appeared in the decade after Pagès-Bataille’s work, with pervasive references to “the Jews” controlling the Masonic movement in a worldwide Jewish-Masonic conspiracy to destroy and dominate Western Civilization. Vatican supervision of Civiltà Cattolica: Consistently from its formation in 1850 to the present, as a semi-monthly journal published by a select community of Jesuit priests, Civiltà Cattolica has been closely supervised by the Vatican in a formal process described by a long-time member of that community, DeRosa (1999): All material written for the journal is submitted in advance to the Vatican Secretariat of State; and the head of the community meets with the Secretary of State or the Pope to receive instructions giving approval, disapproval, or instructions for changes, prior to publication. According to DeRosa, the longstanding practice of the Vatican has been to review the content of Civiltà Cattolica for consistency with Catholic doctrine, with Vatican policy in regard to international affairs, and with prudential judgment as to opportuneness.