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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:


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.


(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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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, 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:


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):


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:, 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:, 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:, 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 [, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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, 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;


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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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.


Source:, 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:, 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:, 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, Document No. 1042.

Additional documents related to the breach between Pacelli and Erzberger appearing in 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.


[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:, 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:, 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:, 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.


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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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.


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:, 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.


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


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:, 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, 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:, 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).


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, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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.


Source:, 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:, 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:, Dokt. No. 329. Italian original and German summary can be accessed at the, 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,


Source: Italian original and German summary at, 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,


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.


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:, 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.


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:, 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:, 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:, 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,


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:, 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 GuerreReal NameNationality
GlasounoffVon Schultke"

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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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


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.


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, 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:, 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:, 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.


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:, 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:, 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, 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:, 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:, 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:, 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 f