Sunday, February 14, 2021

Lost Opportunity to Stop the Holocaust?

Michael Streich

Pope Pious XI died in February 1939, leaving unfinished a final encyclical that his successor, Pious XII, chose not to promulgate. Historians and theologians have long suggested that Humani Generis Unitas may have represented a significant statement of justice that might have postponed or even prevented the Holocaust much like the earlier encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge, lessened state interference with Catholic doctrine. Connor O’Brien, writing in the April 27^th, 1989 New York Review of Books, refers to the 1939 encyclical as a possible “lost chance to save the Jews.”

Two Concurrent Goals

Both National Socialism and the Catholic hierarchy feared Communism. It was this mutual hatred that initially led prominent prelates to support the Hitler regime. According to Cardinal Faulhaber, Pope Pious XI praised Adolph Hitler, “for his stand…against Communism.” Guenter Lewy, in his book The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, states that both Pious XI and Pious XII, “were preoccupied with the threat of Communism and therefore showed considerable benevolence to both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.” These attitudes would change as the Hitler regime began its systematic racial persecutions that culminated in the Final Solution.

Voices of Opposition

What was perceived as growing neopaganism in the German Reich was addressed in 1937 through Pious XI’s encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (“With Burning Concern”). The papal letter was smuggled into Germany and read in every church, incurring the wrath of the Nazis. Although addressing issues of religious freedom, it marked a turning point in the relationship between Berlin and the Vatican.

By early 1939 Humani Generis Unitas (“On the Unity of Humanity”) was prepared for Pious XI’s review. Sub-section 132 addresses “the present persecution of the Jews” and carries a strong message decrying anti-Semitism. Sub-section 152, a summary conclusion titled “Doing the Truth,” urges for “a vigorous condemnation of anti-Semitism and racism” and relates this to “the cause of justice and charity.” Prepared as a draft by two Jesuits, the pope may never have even seen it before his death. Pope Pious XII was elected in March 1939 and refused to publish it. According to Michael Phayer in his book, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust:1930-1965, “diplomacy would now take precedence over justice.”

Speculation and Confrontation

Could Humani Generis Unitas have slowed the persecution of Jews or even averted the Holocaust? Conor O’Brien believes it could have and writes that, “the failure to publish…was one of the greatest and most tragic missed opportunities in history.” To what extent might the November 1938 horrors of Kristallnacht have influenced Pious XI had he lived beyond March 1939?

In 1941, Clement von Galen, bishop of Muenster, delivered a sermon that Sociologist Gordon Zahn calls, “the single most stirring statement of Episcopal opposition to the Nazi rule.” Galen, elevated to the Cardinalate after the war, slowed state euthanasia policies. The argument can be made that if the Nazis “backed down” in 1941, might they have moderated their treatment of Jews in 1939 had this unpublished encyclical been promulgated?

How Hitler might have reacted is, of course, speculation. The Nazis dealt with Catholic opposition ruthlessly. Maximillian Kolbe and Edith Stein died in Auschwitz. Both were canonized by Pope John Paul II. In matters of social justice, Bishop Galen said it best: “it is better to die than to sin.”

Sources:

Humani Generis Unitas

Lewy, Guenter, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (New York: McGraw Hill, 1964)

O’Brien, Conor Cruise, “A Lost Chance to Save the Jews?” The New York Review of Books, Vol. 36, No. 7, April 27, 1989

Phayer, Michael, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust 1930-1965 (Indiana University Press, 2000)

Zahn, Gordon, German Catholics and Hitler’s Wars (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1962)

Copyright owned by Michael Streich. Any republishing of any kind requires written permission. First published in Suite101

Saturday, February 13, 2021

The Endurance of Luther's 1517 Reformation

Political and Secular Considerations Enabled Successful Reform

Nov 23, 2008

By 1517 German princes were ready to embrace a local movement that, while begun as a debate on Church practices and beliefs, encompassed elements of political reform.

The start of the Protestant Reformation is usually dated to October 1517 when the Augustinian monk, Martin Luther, published his Ninety-Five Theses, a series of statements meant for debate and prompted by the sale of indulgences. Luther, a professor of Scripture at Wittenberg University, had become increasingly uneasy with the wholesaling of indulgences, notably by the Dominican Johaan Tetzel. Unlike past attempts at church reform under Jan Huss and John Wycliffe, Luther’s Reformation established a permanent movement, splitting Christendom in half, and was supported by secular authority.

Of Politics and Piety

North German nobility in the early Sixteen Century were beginning to explore greater means of territorial autonomy both from Church and Emperor. Luther’s hearing at the 1521 Diet of Worms coincided with a more general meeting attended by various ambassadors addressing taxation issues. Luther’s own patron, Saxony’s Frederick the Wise, protected him as public opinion swelled in support of Luther’s refusal to recant. Excommunicated in early 1521, Luther had already written several documents further identifying crucial issues of Reform, including The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Christian Liberty, and An Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of Christendom.

Although Luther’s message of reform was theological (his first Theses point had stated, “when Christ our Lord says ‘repent’, He means that the entire life of believers should be one of repentance.”), many saw the growing movement in secular terms and sought to incorporate everyday grievances. The 1524 Peasant Revolt was caused, at least in part, by a misunderstanding of Luther’s message. Luther rejected the goals of the revolt and supported the nobility. In his Commentary on Romans, Luther writes that, “The Apostle therefore commands that Christians should honor the power of governments and not use their liberty of grace as a cloak for their maliciousness.” (Chapter 13) Luther rendered unto Caesar those things that were Caesar’s and rendered unto God those things that were His, although he viewed God’s omnipotence as a totality that included human government.

An Enduring Movement

By the time Luther died in 1546, the Council of Trent had begun the task of reclaiming lapsed Catholicism but the Reformation was solidly entrenched. Leaders after Luther such as John Calvin would further the movement and in England an unhappily married Tudor king would divorce Catholicism from his realm purely for personal, political reasons. Far from promoting authentic Christianity, the Reformation would spawn bloody wars of religion, notably in France, and culminate in the hellish Thirty Years’ War. From those turmoils new Christian groups would emerge, espousing many of the reforms Luther had advocated, chief among which may have been access to a vernacular Bible. Reformation beliefs may have enabled the evolution of secular considerations of governmental reform such as Resistance Theory that ultimately contributed to early notions of constitutionalism.

One long term legacy of 1517 was the freedom to think and to discourse, whether on religious or secular themes. Carlo Ginzburg’s unfortunate miller never had this opportunity (The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller). In this, Luther freed people from rigidly strident Christianity and began a process that would eventually separate church and state. The Reformation as an enduring movement proved beneficial to both.

The copyright of the article The Endurance of Luther's 1517 Reformation in German History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish The Endurance of Luther's 1517 Reformation in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Martin Luther's Peasant Background Examined

Archaeological and Literary Evidence Suggests a Well-to-do Family

Dec 18, 2008

Recent excavations in Mansfeld and Wittenberg confirm the literary sources that point to a social status above the norms of general peasant life in 16th Century Germany.

New evidence in the life of Reformer Martin Luther suggests that his upbringing did not reflect the lifestyle of typical peasantry. Luther scholar Roland Bainton’s assessment that “Luther was not brought up in grinding poverty,” [1] is corroborated by artifacts currently displayed in Halle at the State Museum of Prehistory. According to the Atlantic Times, the evidence demonstrates that Luther’s family “led an extravagant lifestyle…” [2] Although studies of Luther’s early life confirm that his father, Hans, was a man of means, the new discoveries give a more detailed picture of the family’s prosperity.

Literary Evidence of the Luther Family Lifestyle

Luther’s family had settled in Mansfeld the year after he was born in Eisleben. Bainton states that Luther’s mother came from a “well established burgher family,” [3] and that her social status was higher than that of her husband. Some scholars speculate that it was financial help from her family that enabled Hans to lease a copper mine in partnership with a friend.

This enterprise allowed Hans to eventually own shares in eight copper and silver mines and three foundries. Although by no means rich, the income derived from these enterprises permitted him to afford a university education for his son Martin. According to Luther, recollecting in later years, his father paid “bitter sweat and toil.”

When Martin obtained the Master of Arts degree, his father presented him with a copy of the Corpus Juris. Such books were not inexpensive. Later, on the occasion of Luther’s first Mass, Hans presented the Augustinian Order with a gift of twenty florins. The Italian florin, in use throughout Europe at the time, was a gold coin containing 3.5 grams of gold. Such examples indicate that Luther’s family had risen from the days when, as Luther later recalled, his mother carried all her firewood home on her back.

Evidence from the Artifacts

According to the Atlantic Times, in Mansfeld, the Luther family owned, “not only a house but three interconnected buildings as well.” Behind the structures, archaeologists found a garbage dump dated to the time the family lived there. According to findings, numerous articles were quickly buried here. The scientists speculate that this may have been done to avoid contamination after two of Luther’s brothers died in 1505.

Archaeologists found “300 silver coins, pieces of jewelry, cookware, and children’s toys.” Additionally, the dump contained the bones of pigs and poultry. This would indicate that the Luther family ate substantially better than most families, particularly since meat was seldom found in a peasant diet.

The article concludes with a brief list of artifacts found from Luther’s own Wittenberg house, dumped after his death. These include “exotic dishes from Venice” as well as dinnerware and other personal objects. While these findings do not impact Luther’s early life, they may shed light on Luther’s taste’s which would have been formed as a young adult.

Notes and Sources:

[1] Roland H. Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1950) p. 24.

[2] “Martin Luther Revisited: An exhibition shows that the reformer was not from a poor background,” Atlantic Times, Vol. 5, No. 12, December 2008, p.20.

[3] Bainton, p. 24.

Thursday, February 11, 2021

Sadly, Ancient Democracies are best viewed in the graveyards of Greece, Rome, and the Ancient Middle East. This tomb is in Turkey along the western coast.

The Rise and Fall of Democracy: Can it Happen in the United States?

Michael Streich

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence begins with the ringing words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal…” Thomas Jefferson’s words go on to highlight the “unalienable” rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But, as students of American history have long pointed out, this would not become reality for over two hundred years. The development of a democratic society in which all members share both political and social rights, took a very long time in American history.

The Early Republic

Framers of the United States Constitution were cautious and followed the precepts known to them regarding representation. Only white males that owned property (land) could participate politically. The Constitution, as it was originally ratified, only allowed for the House of Representatives to be elected by direct popular vote. The President, ultimately, was elected by an Electoral College and Senators serving in the national legislature were appointed by state legislatures.

By the 1820s states began to change voting qualifications to open the franchise to all white males whether they owned property or not. Historians estimate that between 1824 and 1828, nearly one million new voters were eligible to participate in the political life of the fledgling nation.

By the 1840s, groups of women began to actively advocate for the right to vote. The 1848 Seneca Falls Convention publicized the Declaration of Sentiments, written by early Feminist leaders Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. The early Women’s Movement would join forces with a growing Abolitionist Movement, hopeful that their political emancipation would come with the emancipation of slaves. The 15^th Amendment proved them wrong.

The Post Civil War Years

The Fifteenth Amendment, adopted in 1870, upheld the right to vote by all citizens regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” On the heels of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing “equal protection of the laws” and “due process,” the Fifteenth Amendment enabled African Americans the opportunity to participate politically.

But even as Southern states sought to circumvent Reconstruction legislation designed to mainstream freedman into the political system, social equality was not addressed. Additionally, the clamor to include women in the political process met with deaf ears.

The “separate but equal” doctrine, affirmed by the 1896 Supreme Court case Plessy v Ferguson, denied blacks social equality while prohibitive policies geared toward political participation kept blacks from exercising the vote. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other local devices in the South stifled the notion that “all men are created equal.”

Women finally achieved the right to vote in 1920 with the adoption of the Twentieth Amendment, although some territorial jurisdictions had already allowed women to vote in that last 1800s. It was not until 1964 that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment did away with the “poll tax” as a requirement to vote in a national election. By 1971, citizens attaining the age of 18 were given the right to vote.

Social Equality in the United States

Enough evidence exists from the lives of post Civil War Radical Republicans that social equality between races was not a part of the political equality enshrined in federal law and Constitutional amendments. Social equality began with Brown v. Board of Education when the Warren Court ruled that separate but equal was “inherently unequal.” The inability of African American students to obtain an equal education directly impacted their ability to be successful in society.

Ultimately, the Civil Rights movement and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s legislative initiatives would pave the road toward social equality for all citizens. Over two hundred years after Jefferson’s Declaration, the nation would truly become the world’s greatest democracy.

Sources:

Alfred H. Kelly and Winfred A. Harbison, The American Constitution: Its Origins & Development

Addendum February 12, 2021

Can democracies survive? Venezuela, once a wealthy nation due to vast oil reserves, is led by a dictator, Nicholas Maduro, who is supported by Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Turkey, under Tayyip Erdogan, has grown closer to the Kremlin as any aspects of democratic government in Ankara have been weakened. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, whom former President Trump calls his “favorite dictator” presides over an ever tightening government with fee personal freedoms.

In many so-called democracies elected leaders are being replaced by military groups as in Myanmar (Burma) where Aung San Suu Kyi was ousted February 1, 2021 by a military coup. Even India, in recent history a strong democracy, is showing movements weakening freedoms and parliamentary rule. As to the ten-year-old “Arab spring,” this turned out to be a media myth and wishful thinking on the part of western democracies.

There is also the fear that the Covid pandemic may bring out the weaknesses in some democracies as vaccination inequalities become apparent throughout the world.

In the United States, over 250 years of democratic tradition, albeit with many historical obstacles to overcome, may be in dire jeopardy with the growing divide between Republicans, Democrats, and “patriot-populists” tied only to Donald Trump and who will stop at nothing to appease their man. During one “rally,” they cheered "twelve more years" and the press have quoted individual MAGA followers proudly stating that Mr. Trump was their dictator.

Perhaps the fault lies in the American classroom where standards in American History have been obliterated for several decades. Additionally, American education has split decisively between non-public and public schools over the last few years with Trump’s Secretary of Education. Little wonder most Americans do not know their own history and can easily be exploited.

This can be seen in the formulation of policies favoring the private schools and weakening restrictions and regulations designed to bring education equity in all aspects of the classroom.

There is much to be done to rebuild a strong democracy with leaders of integrity that the citizens can look up to. There is much to be done to ensure that EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS, indeed to government itself, reads and knows the Constitution.

{First part of Article originally published in 2009 in Suite 101. Copyright of entire article belongs to Michael Streich. Any reprints require written permission.]

Kronstadt Uprising: Revolt Against the Bolshevik's Revolutionary System in Russia

Michael Streich

October 3, 2009

In March 1921 the sailors at Russia’s Kronstadt naval base rose in revolt against the Bolshevik-led government of V. I. Lenin. Kronstadt sailors had played a significant role in the October 1917 revolution and one historian characterized them as Lenin’s “praetorian guard.” Yet by early 1921, conditions in Russia had deteriorated, notably in the rural areas where many of the new recruits were from.

They felt betrayed by the revolution and attempted to return to the original ideals of the 1917 revolution which included “all power to the Soviets.” Historian Paul Avrich writes that the Kronstadt Revolt was the “proletariat rising up against the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Causes of the Kronstadt Uprising

Lenin’s policy of War Communism was felt keenly in the cities and the countryside as requisition squads removed foodstuffs into the cities to keep the factories running. Although the Whites were becoming less of a threat to the Communist government, the on-going effects of the Civil War were everywhere. In Petrograd, severe food shortages as well as the dwindling supply of heating fuel posed serious problems.

The Kronstadt garrison reacted to these events with threats of militancy, forming committees to draft demands that included freedom of speech and the press. The sailors represented a variety of political ideologies but none of these were remotely in sympathy with the Whites or royalist tendencies. Despite this, Lenin branded them the tools of the “White Guard generals” and labeled their movement as “petty-bougeois counterrevolution…”

Response of the Bolsheviks

Tensions escalated as both sides refused compromise. Prominent leaders of the revolution and the government, men like Kalinin and Zinoviev, went to Kotlin Island to speak to the dissidents, only to be drowned in criticism and threats. The men once referred to as “the pride and glory of the revolution” by Trotsky, became the greatest single threat to Communist rule.

Under the leadership of S. M. Petrichenko, the revolting garrison was confident that their movement would spread beyond the walls of Kronstadt. This “expectation,” as stated by Leonard Shapiro, was sparked by the harsh treatment of the people of Petrograd where factories were bring forcibly closed, worker strikes and demonstrations responded to violently, and steep increases in food costs that left most inhabitants on the threshold of starvation.

The winter ice still shielded Petrograd from the heavy guns of the Baltic Fleet, notably the Petropavlovsk and the Sevastapol. Kronstadt was surrounded by smaller fortresses and initial attempts to take them had not been successful. The Bolsheviks brought in forces from other cities, hard-core supporters who would have no empathy with the Kronstadt defenders. The strategy worked, despite adverse weather conditions, and the naval base fell. Those that were not shot were sent to penal camps. Petrichenko, along with a few fortunate survivors, fled to Finland.

Results of the Kronstadt Revolt

Some revolutionaries like Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman who were in Petrograd in March 1921 and left an account of events, were genuinely shaken. The Bolshevik leadership characterized the uprising as inspired by help from the West and by forces seeking to undo their power.

Without a doubt the uprising represented a serious threat and Lenin was forced to deal with it in the harshest possible way. Portraying the dissidents as counterrevolutionaries and White Guard tools mollified the average Russian. At the same time, Lenin phased out War Communism in favor of his New Economic Policy. The Kronstadt Revolt was soon to lose the very reasons for its inception.

Sources:

Paul Avrich, Kronstadt 1921 (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974)

George F. Kennan, Russia and the West (New York: New American Library, 1961)

W. Bruce Lincoln, Red Victory: A History of the Russian Civil War (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989)

Leonard Shapiro, The Russian Revolutions of 1917 (New York: Basic Books, 1984)

Adam Ulam, The Unfinished Revolution (New York: Random House, 1984)

[Copyright owned by Michael Streich; any republishing requires written permission. Article first published in Suite101]

Isolationists and American Foreign Policy:

Pearl Harbor Forever Ends a Failed Ideology

Michael Streich

November 11, 2011

On Monday, December 8, 1941, every U.S. Senator and representative except one, voted to go to war with the empire of Japan. Only Montana Representative Jeanette Rankin, a life-long pacifist, demurred. The Pearl Harbor attack united Americans and instantly converted the isolationists in Congress. Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg recalled his own immediate change after receiving a telephone call about the attack Sunday at four o’clock in the afternoon: “That day ended isolationism for any realist.”

Isolationism before the Pearl Harbor Attack

Isolationism is still used to describe the ideology of those not willing to intervene in foreign matters if the impact of such affairs affects U.S. security interests. In the years before Pearl Harbor, isolationists believed that the Pacific and Atlantic oceans were natural barriers, protecting the United States from the anti-democratic regimes creating havoc in Europe and Asia.

Extreme isolationists believed that any U.S. assistance either directly or indirectly would result in foreign entanglements inconsistent with Constitutional prerogatives. They pointed to World War I and deplored the prospect of sending American boys to fight in foreign wars.

Isolationists Represented Liberal and Conservative Views

Pearl Harbor and World War II changed the meaning of isolationism. Pre-war isolationists that criticized Franklin Roosevelt’s handling of the war were, often ironically, dubbed reactionaries and anti-interventionists despite their life-long liberal pedigrees. This included Democrat Burton Wheeler and Jeanette Rankin. Wheeler, in his memoirs, comments that, “Never before had the question of whether one was a liberal or conservative turned on his view of foreign policy.”

Isolationists like Vandenberg hated Communism and fascism as much as those eager to commit to war. On September 15, 1939 Vandenberg wrote in his diary, “…I decline to embrace the opportunistic idea…that we can stop these things in Europe without entering the conflict.” Isolationists viewed every White House attempt to assist Britain and France as a potential door through which the United States would step into a long and bloody conflict much like World War I.

Senator Gerald P. Nye’s committee hearings on World War I, culminating in a controversial report in 1936, provided some ammunition for isolationists and Americans favoring neutrality. Historian Wayne Cole states that, “It is significant that the particular controversy that ended the investigation in 1936 involved President Woodrow Wilson’s role in World War I – not the activities of munitions makers.” Like Wilson, FDR appeared to be maneuvering the nation into war, a perception that led to later conspiracy theories linking Roosevelt to the Pearl Harbor attack. Senator Tom Connally writes in his memoirs that, “…the most effective medium for channeling American public opinion into isolationism during this period was the Nye Committee investigation…”

Connally blamed Gerald Nye and “his cohort” Arthur Vandenberg for using the committee hearings to publish “half-truths” in order to further their isolationist agenda. According to Connally, this included a blistering indictment of Wall Street and U.S. bankers that “duped” the government “…into shedding American blood” in 1917. Connally also identified different “schools” of isolationism, equating, for example, Burton Wheeler with anti-British sentiments. Another isolationist viewpoint was attributed to William Borah who believed in the two-ocean defense idea and had been one of the chief opponents of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations.

Japanese Action Unites Americans

1941 was a crucial year for Britain as it struggled against what was perceived as an imminent invasion by Nazi Germany. In January 1941, as the issue of Lend-Lease was being debated in Congress, the New York Times stated that, given the scope of European affairs, the ideology separating isolationists from “interventionists” had become academic. According to the Times, “The Roosevelt Administration opposed ironclad isolation, insisting that a great nation must lift its voice against treaty violations and infringements of international law…”

Pearl Harbor ended the debate. A New York Times editorial, referring to the years of “Hamletlike irresolution,” concluded that the declarations of war “instantly united us” and brought a sense of relief to all Americans: “Their spirit was no longer troubled; their soul was no longer divided; they knew at last what they must do.”

The same sentiment had been expressed in Congress on December 8^th where one representative referred to the “war mad Japanese devils…” American hero Charles A. Lindbergh, a leader in the isolationist movement, volunteered to serve with the Army Air Corps. His acceptance was hailed as “a symbol of…newfound unity.”

Burton Wheeler’s early 1941 predictions that the “New Deal Triple A foreign policy [would] plow under every fourth American boy…” were not unfounded, but other observers compared the United States to 1917 when a declaration of war was almost too late. The Pearl Harbor attack, defended by General Tojo at his trial in 1947, forever ended isolationism.

The subsequent Cold War imposed an on-going interventionist policy supported by former isolationists like Arthur Vandenberg. The defense of democracy became a global imperative not by design but from the lessons of history and the impossibility of avoiding foreign entanglements.

References:

“America’s Role: A National Debate,” New York Times, January 19, 1941

Wayne S. Cole, Senator Gerald P. Nye and American Foreign Relations (The University of Minnesota Press, 1962)

Tom Connally, My Name Is Tom Connally (Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1954)

“The Lone War Dissenter,” NPR, December 7, 2001

Arthur H. Vandenberg, Jr., The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952)

Burton K. Wheeler, Yankee from the West (Doubleday & Company, 1962)

[First published in Suitew101; copyright owned by Michael Streich. Reprints require written permission]