|
Post by humphreyclarke on Sept 19, 2008 20:32:45 GMT
In the light of the historical revisionism thread I thought I might start a discussion on whether the 'Hitler' Pope' interpretation of Pius XII is in any way tenable. It is funny that Hitchens in his chapter on Hitler's relations with Pius XII left out a few things. Well quite a few things actually, lets restrict ourselves to one year, 1940.
On 12th of January, Pius XII informed the British ambassador to the Vatican that he had met a representative from various german generals (including his friend Ludwig Beck) who were preparing to overthrow Hitler. Pius was well informed of the conspiritors intentions and offered to act as an intermeadiary. Unfortunatly the British equivocated and the oppotunity passed.
In March 1940 'Hitler's Pope' was informed by his contacts of the date for the German's may offensive and immeadiatly passed the information in encrypted form to London and Paris. Again, a bit of an odd action for one depicted as Hitler's poodle.
(Burleigh, Sacred Causes, p225-226)
Later on he was personally responsible for saving 5 thousand jews in Rome including 500 housed in the papal summer residence. Other Vatican rescue efforts involved the rescue of tens of thousands of others.
Certainly one can point to the 1930 Concordat with the Nazis but I don't see what other choice the church had in the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Sept 19, 2008 21:41:43 GMT
To put it rather simply: Pius was both misunderstood and maligned, however he was not sufficiently wise to make the right symbolic statements between 1941 and 1945.
Prior to that he seems to have had the courage, after 1940 he seems to have become too much of a realpolitiker.
The 1930's dealings are understandable as an attempt to improve the situation, the 1940's dealings are - objectively - more mixed.
Pius worked hard to save people, but lived under impossible circumstances.
|
|