More on "The Myth of Hitler's Pope".

Thanks to Human Events Online for what shall serve as a followup to two of my earlier posts. (Here, and here.)

This book should put the slander against The Church and Pope Pius XII for good. Except, of course, in the fever swamps of the God-haters.

Conservative Booknotes Interviews Rabbi Dalin on The Myth of Hitler's Pope

Rabbi David Dalin answers our questions about his new book, The Myth of Hitler's Pope:

Do you remember how you first became interested in the controversy about Pius XII's actions during World War II?

I'd always heard about Pius XII, but in 2000 . . . I was asked to write a book review for The Weekly Standard. . . . At the time I knew relatively little about the subject. . . .this was shortly after the book by John Cornwell, Hitler's Pope, had been published. I thought I would write a short book review, and I spent that summer just immersed in this. I came to the conclusion that really there had been a terrible historical injustice against Pius XII, and I wanted to make a small contribution in the book review to set the historical record straight.

And I want to come back to that, because I basically came first in that book review and then in this book to the exact opposite conclusion from John Cornwell the British journalist that Pius XII not only was not Hitler's pope, but he was a great friend of the Jewish people at a moment in history when it really mattered quite a bit: World War II during the Holocaust years. So what started out as just a small book review ended up being quite a significant review essay . . . and that really motivated me -- I got a terrific response; nothing I've ever written before has gotten as much attention-to try to write a book that would in some way also help to correct the historical injustice against Pius XII. The motivation was to set the historical record straight.

Can you give maybe just one example of evidence that you came across that's really ignored by the folks who believe in Hitler's pope?

Can I give you more than one-two or three? You can tell me when to stop...
Oh, please go ahead.

Let me give you a few quick examples. During World War II, during the Holocaust, it's estimated that close to 80% of the Jews of Nazi-occupied Europe were killed, were exterminated by the Nazis. In Italy itself, and in Rome, over 80%, close to 85% of the Jews survived. Now what I argue and document in my book is that this was more than a coincidence-that, contrary to those who say that the high rate of Jewish survival in Italy was because of mere luck or chance or coincidence, or that the rescue efforts for the Jews were carried out spontaneously by individual Catholics unconnected to the pope, I show that this had a lot to do with the pope's direct intervention in the rescue efforts, that he was directly involved in the rescue efforts, and therefore became a leader of the anti-Nazi resistance in Italy.

Now let me give you a couple of examples of this. There were certainly individual Catholics, a lot of individual Catholics who rescued Jews, but most of this took place on the instructions and through the involvement of the pope. Now, in Castel Gandolfo, which is the pope's summer residence outside of Rome, it's estimated that close to 3,000 Jews were sheltered and hidden in Castel Gandolfo throughout the years of the Holocaust.

That's a very large number. How does that compare with [numbers of Jews helped by] other rescuers?

Well, that's just what I was going to say. I argue in my book, in no-it's an estimate; it may have been less than 3,000 . . . we have no precise figure, but let's say for the sake of argument it's even closer to 2,000 than to 3,000-in no other location in all of Nazi-occupied Europe were as many Jews sheltered and hidden for as long a period of time as at Castel Gandolfo. And this absolutely, definitively could not have happened without the intervention, the involvement and the go-ahead of the pope because this Castel Gandolfo was essentially part of the Vatican. It was the pope's summer residence. And by the way, parenthetically, it's interesting to note, during the time in which they were hidden there, the Jews at Castel Gandolfo were even provided with kosher food, which is amazing, which is a tremendous kind of footnote to all of this. Also related to this, during the time of the Nazi occupation, in 155 monasteries, churches, and convents in Rome, as well as in buildings of the Vatican itself, Jews were also sheltered and hidden.

Now, once again, this could not have happened without the direct intervention of the pope, this could not have happened independent of the pope. Can I give you two other quick examples? John Cornwell who coined the phrase "Hitler's Pope"-and I want to come back to that term, by the way, which is so historically misleading-but he and other papal critics alleged that Pius XII even before he became pope did little in the 1930s to oppose Hitler and Nazism. And nothing could be further from the truth. In fact I've come up with over 40 statements by the pope . . .especially in the1930s, from the late 1920s, once Hitler takes office, and even before, opposing Nazism, then the Hitler regime, and Nazi anti-Semitism. . . . Pius XII's contemporaries knew that indeed he was a friend of the Jewish people. . . . The Nazis themselves realized this because the Nazis for example opposed strongly his selection as pope in 1939. Already in the 1930s Nazi documents were referring to Pius XII as the Jew-loving cardinal in Rome. He was then the cardinal Secretary of State. A Nazi document . . . later refers to Pius XII as the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals. So the Nazis themselves considered him an outspoken opponent of the Hitler regime and of anti-Semitism and as a defender of the Jews.

And one last example: In 1938 Hitler makes his famous state visit to Rome, to Italy at the invitation of Mussolini. Eugenio Pacelli-who's the Vatican Secretary of State, the future Pius XII, who becomes pope the following year -- he publicly snubs Hitler. He leaves Rome for Castel Gandolfo, refuses to meet with Hitler, to even shake his hand. Besides being what I would argue are tremendous courageous acts, it was risky as well. We now know that the Nazis had plans to kidnap Pius XII, to attack the Vatican and kidnap him, and there was historical precedent for this. In 1809 Napoleon Bonaparte had sent his troops to Rome and had kidnapped the pope of that era and taken him as a prisoner to Paris. . . . In the 1930s Pius XII I would argue was a lonely voice in the wilderness of opposition to Hitler. One might compare him in that respect to Winston Churchill who was lonely voice in opposing Hitler during the same time period. . . .

What do you say to critics who say, well, Pius XII should have taken any risk in order to save as many Jews as possible, in order to take an even firmer stand. Why didn't he do even more?

Well, okay, that's an argument that his critics have made. . . . One thing he might have done which many critics . . . say . . . maybe he should have tried to do this was to excommunicate those Nazi leaders who were baptized Catholics, and that included Hitler and several other top Nazi leaders. Now that having been said, this would have been a moral statement . . . it's arguable that maybe that would have been an important statement for the pope to have made. The answer to that of course is that . . . the fact is, it wouldn't have helped. The Nazis were oblivious to public opinion. And, on the contrary, it might have invited more reprisals against both Jews and Catholics. And let me give you another example similar to that. . . . One of the arguments of papal critics is that the bishops of Germany, at the instruction of Pius XII, should have published and read out loud in every German church a pastoral letter publicly opposing Hitler, opposing the Nazi regime, and opposing anti-Semitism. Now that was never done in Germany, one of the reasons being, and I think it's a good assumption that the reason is wasn't done [was] that Pius XII was a diplomat, he was a papal diplomat for years, and he realized he didn't -- he was concerned about inviting more reprisals against both Catholics and Jews if his actions would be, you know, would outrage so to speak the Nazis. Now, if I were to make [this] statement his critics would say, Oh, come on . . . he should have done this; this was an example of his cowardice. But the perfect answer to that is . . .just what his critics have asked for here . . . did take place in Holland. In 1942 the Dutch bishops at the instruction of Pius XII . . . read a pastoral letter at every Catholic church in Holland on the same Sunday . . . opposing, attacking Hitler, the Hitler regime, and Nazi anti-Semitism. This is just what his critics said should have been done in every country of Nazi-occupied Europe. Well, the reprisals were catastrophic and devastating, and they've led even some of his critics to pause for a moment. The reprisals were so strong that in no other country in all of Nazi-occupied Europe were as large a percentage of Jews deported to Nazi death camps and killed as in Holland. The percentage was higher than in any other country of Nazi-occupied Europe. And also tens of thousands more Catholics were killed in Holland in reprisal for the statements of the Dutch bishops. So one can say, Yes, he should have done, but I think an argument is that he recognized -- Pius XII was an ordained priest, but he wasn't a pastor in a church so to speak; his career was, almost from the time of his ordination he was a diplomat, he worked in the Vatican Secretariat of State; so in other words he wasn't so much a pastoral priest and clergyman as a trained diplomat; and this is important because that's one of the reasons, by the way, when he was selected as pope in 1939 it was on the eve of World War II and one of the credentials that he had, it was felt that he should be named pope because he had tremendous credentials as a diplomat. Now it was his very experiences as a diplomat that led him to be cautious and pragmatic in an instance like this. Now his critcs will say, No, that wasn't being cautious and pragmatic, that was being fearful and you know, and just not ready to -- he was silent. But his silence may actually have saved a lot of lives. And one last thing on this. I'm often asked as a rabbi, What possibly could be worse than the mass murder, the extermination of 6 million Jews? And my answer is the mass murder extermination of hundreds of thousands more. . . . Not to mention hundreds of thousands of more Catholics as well. The threat of Nazi reprisals to actions on the part of the papacy were very real, I think.

If the evidence is this overwhelming, what's driving the myth of Hitler's pope? Who wants to believe, or wants other people to believe, that Pius XII was an anti-Semite, or a coward?

It's a good question. First of all, the myth goes back to a play. It goes back -- the term is John Cornwell's, from his book in 1999 -- the myth goes back actually to the play The Deputy in 1959 -- 63, rather -- by a West German playwright, a secular Protestant by the name of Rolf Hochhuth, which portrays Pius XII for the first time -- this was five years after his death -- as a collaborator with Nazi Germany and as an anti-Semite. Parenthetically, we now know that Rolf Hochhuth was among other things a member of the Hitler Youth as a child, as a youngster. But the point is that . . . until that time, Pius XII had an [enviable] reputation among Catholics and Jews alike. . . . I've documented in my book that no pope has had such gratitude and praise from Jewish leaders throughout the world during his lifetime as had Pius XII, until then. . . . If Pius XII truly were Hitler's pope, one would expect the most devastating attacks and critiques to come from Jewish scholars and journalists. But, on the contrary, the most devastating have not been, in fact some of the best defenses have come from Jewish scholars, some much more prominent than myself. I'll give you a good example, Sir Morton Gilbert of England, who's Churchill's official biographer and one of the great historians of the Holocaust of this generation, also one of the greatest historians of the past 50 years. He's the author of well over 70 books. Now, he -- he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth; he's a very prominent leader of the Jewish community in London; he has a home in Israel as well -- he's been one of the great defenders of Pius XII. In fact, in an interview in Inside the Vatican, published in Rome, he spoke about, in praise of Pius XII. And there are others as well. What surprised me was that the most vicious critics of Pius XII have been Catholic writers, for the most part liberal or lapsed Catholics, who kind of have a problem with and a political agenda against the church. You know, John Cornwell . . .is a former Jesuit Jesuit seminarian, Gary Wills, who wrote the book Papal Sin, is a former Jesuit seminarian, and James Carroll, another critic, a papal critic in this respect is a former priest. Why did they write these books?

My argument is -- and this has generated a lot of discussion when I wrote this in The Weekly Standard, and I develop it in this book -- is that they had a political agenda with the pontificate of the late pope, Pope John Paul II, which for them was anathema. John Paul II was far too conservative for them, and I think they hoped if they could undermine the papal credibility and say that one pope was morally fallible, who was also, now, Pius XII was an orthodox Catholic, in many ways similar in his theology and orthodoxy to John Paul II, and I think if they could try to prove, to argue that one pope was morally fallible and to question his credibility as a moral leader then they could insult or undermine the moral credibility of the modern papacy, especially of John Paul II. And it's interesting in each of the books written, each of these books, and subsequent books by Cornwell and Wills, they have even more about their attack on John Paul II. And I think this is really their political agenda.

And the other thing is, Why did these books emerge, and there were several almost at the same time. . . . Part of that, there was another agenda. Your readers may remember, there was a momentum during the 1990s from John Paul II to canonize Pius XII. And my sense is . . . these books are coming from ultra-liberal Catholics, for the most part not from Jews, and it's to forestall the movement for the canonization of Pius XII, to curtail the momentum . . . I think it's been put on hold for quite a while. You talk about the underlying motivation -- my sense is that the timing is more than coincidence. . . .

Very interesting.

By the way, can I mention one thing about the title Hitler's Pope? When the book came out, it was historically misleading in so many ways. . . . Eugenio Pacelli, the future Pius XII, never met Adolf Hitler. He was the papal nuncio, diplomat in Germany in the 1920s, but he left Germany in 1929 to return to Rome become the Vatican Secretary of State. He never returned to Germany. So he never met with Adolf Hitler. And as I mentioned before when Hitler visited Rome on a state visit in 1938 he publicly snubbed Hitler; he refused to meet with him. Now here's the dishonest thing about the book. In the British edition of John Cornwell's book, the malicious title, Hitler's Pope, is reinforced by the book's misleading jacket and picture, which has a picture of Eugenio Pacelli, who was then the papal nuncio in Berlin, leaving a reception given for the constitutionally elected president of Germany, Paul von Hindenburg, in 1927. . . . In the background are two uniformed German soliders, [of] which the implication is -- well, the caption of this jacket says that this meeting took place in 1939 -- not 1927. So the implication is that he's just come out of a meeting with Adolf Hitler, and that the soldiers in the background are Nazi soldiers. Well, the fact is, nothing could be further from the truth. The picture, which later was-the publishers admitted was -- from 1927, these were soldiers of the democratic Weimar Republic. But you know, the use of this photograph, is something that is a favorite of those who wish to portray Pius XII in an unfavorable light. And it's just completely dishonest, you know. In fact, as one historian has said that-he's said in criticizing this, he says: Perhaps photographs do not lie (I can give you his name if you want), but this particular book cover, offered in the context it was, and under the title Hitler's Pope, comes close. By the way, in the caption reads, "Cover photograph shows Cardinal Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII, leaving the presidential palace in Berlin in 1939" -- which is patently false. So, the whole term, and I would think in the popular culture and imagination, people almost equate automatically Pius XII equals Hitler's Pope. You know, it was a bestselling title, I'm afraid. It must've made Cornwell a fortune. It was on the bestseller list for quite a while.