Das Ritter Telegramm

The following post is a fuller translation of “The Ritter Telegram” from Bavarian Documents to the Outbreak of War and the Versailles Verdict, on behalf of the Bavarian State Parliament, ed. by Dr. P. Dirr; from the 1924 edition (p. 206).

“Das Ritter Telegramm”

“Der bayerische Gesandte beim Vatikan, Herr von Ritter, sandte am 24. Juli 1914 folgende Chiffredepesche an die Münchener Regierung:

Telegramm Nr. 216. Rom, den 24. Juli 1914, 18 Uhr 35 Min.

Papst billigt scharfes Vorgehen Österreichs gegen Serbien und schätzt im Kriegsfalle mit Rußland russische und französische Armee nicht hoch ein. Kardinalsekretär hofft ebenfalls, daß Österreich diesmal durchhält und wüßte nicht, wan es sonst noch Krieg führen wollte, wenn es nicht einmal eine ausländische Agitation, die zum Morde Thronfolgers geführt hat und außerdem bei jetziger Konstellation Österreichs Existenz gefährdet, entschlossen ist, mit den Waffen zurückzuweisen. Daraus spricht auch die große Angst der Kurie vor dem Panslavismus.

Ritter.”

{The Pope} {approves} {sharp/harsh} {proceedings/action/approach} {Austria} {against} {Serbia} {and} {estimates} {in the} {event of war} {with} {Russia} {Russian} {and} {French} {army} {not} {high} {one}. {Cardinal Secretary} {hopes} {likewise}, {that} {Austria} {this time}

{holds out/perseveres} {and} {intuited} {not}, {when} {it} {at other time} {still} {war} {conduct} {want/desire} {if} {it} {not} {once} {a} {foreign} {agitation}, {the} {to} {murder} {heir apparent/Archduke} {led} {has} {and} {in addition/as well} {at} {of present}

{political situation} {Austria’s} {existence} {endangered/threatened} {determined} {is}, {with} {the} {arms/weapons}

{must reject/point back to/repel}. {From this} {speaks} {also} {the} {great} {fear} {the} {curia} {before} {the} {Pan-Slavism}.

{Ritter}.

FULL TRANSLATION:

The Bavarian Envoy to the Vatican, Herr von Ritter, sent the following encrypted telegram to the Munich Government on 24 July 1914:

Telegram No. 216, Rome, 24 July 1914, 18 H 35 min.

The Pope approves of Austria’s harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of war. The Cardinal Secretary of State hopes likewise that this time Austria will hold firm; and intuited that he could not see a more desirable time for Austria to make war if she does not do so now in the face of such foreign agitation, which has led to the murder of the Archduke and also to the present political situation which threatens Austria’s very existence - unless she determines to repel this threat by force of arms. Also, from my discussions: it is evident that the great fear amongst the Roman Curia is that of Pan-Slavism.

Ritter.

Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War

Das Ritter Telegramm

“Der bayerische Gesandte beim Vatikan, Herr von Ritter, sandte am 24. Juli 1914 folgende Chiffredepesche an die Münchener Regierung:

Telegramm Nr. 216. Rom, den 24. Juli 1914, 18 Uhr 35 Min.

Papst billigt scharfes Vorgehen Österreichs gegen Serbien und schätzt im Kriegsfalle mit Rußland russische und französische Armee nicht hoch ein. Kardinalsekretär hofft ebenfalls, daß Österreich diesmal durchhält und wüßte nicht, wan es sonst noch Krieg führen wollte, wenn es nicht einmal eine ausländische Agitation, die zum Morde Thronfolgers geführt hat und außerdem bei jetziger Konstellation Österreichs Existenz gefährdet, entschlossen ist, mit den Waffen zurückzuweisen. Daraus spricht auch die große Angst der Kurie vor dem Panslavismus.

Ritter.”

(From: Bavarian Documents to the Outbreak of War and the Versailles Verdict, on behalf of the Bavarian State Parliament, ed. by Dr. P. Dirr; 1925 edition, p. 206)

Partial translation of the above as it appears in The Vatican Against Europe:

“The Pope [Pius X] approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State [Cardinal Merry del Val] does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.”

[Author's Note: This despatch from Baron Ritter appears in, Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch, III, p. 206.]

Unholy Smoke & Fire: Austria v Italy

SMOKE

BEGINNING WITH CARDINAL MANNING'S PRONOUNCEMENT ON THE 'ONE SOLUTION' TO THE 'DIFFICULTY' OF THE POPE'S LOSS OF HIS TEMPORAL POWER:

'There is only one solution of the difficulty, a solution, I fear impending, and that is, the terrible scourge of Continental war, a war which will exceed the horrors of any of the wars of the first Empire. And it is my firm conviction that, in spite of all obstacles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ will be put again in his own rightful place. But that day will not be until his adversaries will have crushed each other with mutual destruction.' (The Tablet, January 24, 1874).

Later the same year of Manning's pronouncement, W. E. Gladstone wrote the following in Appendix C to his Vatican Decrees:

'Compare the recent and ominous forecasting of the future European policy of the British Crown in an Article from a Romish Periodical for the current month, which has direct relation to these matters, and which has every appearance of proceeding from authority.

'“Surely in any European complication, such as may any day arise, nay, such as must ere long arise, from the natural gravitation of the forces, which are for the moment kept in check and truce by the necessity of preparation for their inevitable collision, it may very well be that the future prosperity of England may be staked in the struggle, and that the side which she may take may be determined, not either by justice or interest, but by a passionate resolve to keep up the Italian Kingdom at any hazard.” - The 'Month' for November, 1874: 'Mr. Gladstone's Durham Letter,' p. 265.'

(From: The Vatican Decrees In Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance: A Political Expostulation, by the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.; published London: John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1874; p. 32).

Some years later, reflecting on Cardinal Manning's pronouncement, the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, Editor of the Methodist Times, gave the following insight into his utterance - in the issue of August 6th, 1896, he wrote:

'I was simply horrified at the calmness with which he declared that he would be willing to deluge the whole of Europe with blood in order to destroy the unity of Italy and recover the temporal power of the Pope. He also expressed a conviction that the German Empire was very insecure, and would probably be shattered in the course of the great war which he prophesied would destroy both the unity of Germany and the unity of Italy, in order to restore the Pope to the throne of Rome.'

(As cited in the Protestant Truth Society publication: Is Rome behind the War? by J. A. Kensit, 1918; p. 13).

And in his The Papal Conquest (1909) the Rev. Alexander Robertson, D.D., recounted the following:

'Some few years ago, here in Venice, I had much pleasant intercourse with Dr. Andrew D. White of Cornell University, and late Ambassador at Berlin of the United States of America. Speaking together one day of the Hague Conference of 1899, at which he sat as President of the American Delegation, he told me the following incident. The Conference had finished its work, and he was bidding farewell to the “House in the Wood,” when he found at its door, in a towering passion, a leading Roman Catholic diplomat who represented one of the great Catholic Powers. Dr. White said to him : “Step into my carriage, and drive home with me to dinner and unburden your mind.” He did so. The cause of his wrath was as follows :–

'When the Conference was being arranged for, the Pope claimed, as the world knows, to be represented at it, not only as a temporal sovereign, but as the world's great peace-maker, the representative on earth of the Prince of Peace. He moved heaven and earth to enforce his claim; but of course it was rejected without discussion, as the very idea of such a thing was out of the question. Had it been entertained, Italy would have refused to enter the Conference, and England, and probably other powers, would have done the same; hence the Conference would necessarily have been given up. However, at the closing meeting of the Conference, as Dr. White said, “to the amazement of all, and almost to the stupefaction of many,” M. de Staal, the representative of the Netherlands, handed a paper to the Secretary to read. It turned out to be a letter from his Queen to the Pope, in which she indicated that it was not the fault of her Government that he was not represented at the Conference. The paper also contained the Pope's reply, in which he magnified his office as the world's peace-maker, and reiterated his incontestable right as such to be represented. It was the Pope's letter with its mendacious statements and preposterous claims that roused the anger of this Roman Catholic Delegate, who, once seated in the carriage, delivered himself as follows (and now I am quoting, not from memory, but from Dr. White's Autobiography which he has just sent me) :–

'“The Vatican has always been, and is to-day, a storm-centre. The Pope and his advisers have never hesitated to urge on war, no matter how bloody, when the slightest of their ordinary worldly purposes could be served by it. The great religious wars of Europe were entirely stirred up and egged on by them; and, as everybody knows, the Pope did everything to prevent the signing of the treaty of Münster, which put an end to the dreadful Thirty Years' War, even going so far as to declare the oaths taken by the plenipotentiaries at that Congress of no effect. All through the Middle Ages and at the Renaissance period the Popes kept Italy in turmoil and bloodshed for their own family and territorial advantages, and they kept all Europe in turmoil, for two centuries after the Reformation—in fact, just as long as they could—in the wars of religion. They did everything they could to stir up the war between Austria and Prussia in 1866, thinking that Austria, a Catholic power, was sure to win; and then everything possible to stir up the war of France against Prussia in 1870, in order to accomplish the same purpose of checking German Protestantism; and now they are doing all they can to arouse hatred, even to deluge Italy in blood, in the vain attempt to recover the Temporal Power, though they must know that they could not hold it for any length of time even if they should obtain it. . . . Their whole policy is based on stirring up hatred and promoting conflicts from which they hope to draw worldly advantage. In view of all this, one stands amazed at the cool statements of the Vatican letter.”' [Autobiography of Dr. D. White, vol. ii. pp. 349-351 (The Papal Conquest, pp. 313-316).]

FIRE

CONCLUDING WITH COUNT CARLO SFORZA'S TESTIMONY AS TO THE REALITY OF THE INTRIGUE:

'Leo XIII . . . dreamed of the destruction of Italian unity which, he thought, should be dissolved into a federation of little Italian republics under the presidency of the Pope. He dreamed of a departure from Rome [and establishing himself in his “cara Salisburgo” – his dear Salzburg – awaiting the crusade of the Catholic powers] followed by a triumphal return after a victorious war waged by Austria-Hungary against Italy – an idea that Francis Joseph had the good sense to reject. . . .

'Italy and the world remained long in ignorance of these intrigues; in fact, they became known only in 1919 when, through an initiative that I myself undertook [whilst Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs], republican Austria consented to open to us the archives of the Empire for all sorts of historical researches.'

(From: Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins; Count Carlo Sforza; Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 69).

* * * * * *

The following is from Chapter XV of the same work, where Count Sforza recounts the realities of Italy's 'FOREIGN POLICY':

'Italy being engaged in a war with Turkey in 1911, Conrad, the Austro-Hungarian Chief of Staff, put all his influence in Vienna to work in order to gain the old Emperor's consent for a “preventive war” against Italy. Aerenthal did not hesitate to define Conrad's projects “a policy of brigandage,” and Francis Joseph sided with his Minister of Foreign Affairs. Conrad resigned, but continued to preach his great plan among his close friends.

'In the course of his recriminations, Conrad added that Austria should have seized a former opportunity that chance had offered her against Italy, that is, the tragic days of the Messina earthquake. Conrad's intimates and his protector, Archduke Francis Ferdinand, have on several occasions admitted it.

'Conrad's ideas must have appeared to the initiated not far from realization, since the German Ambassador at Rome at that time dared send the Consulta this communication: that it was well understood that in the event of an Austro-Hungarian war with Italy, Germany would remain neutral, the treaty of the Triple Alliance being mute on that hypothesis!

'Proof of the hardiness of myths agreeable to a nation's vanity, these facts, historically certain, have not prevented and will not prevent sentimental German writers from continuing to cast doubts on Italy's loyalty during the period of the Triple Alliance. The truth is that the meticulous study of the diplomatic documents of the period will only demonstrate that if in that mariage de raison which was the Triple Alliance there were thoughts and acts of dubious fidelity, they were chiefly on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The fact is explicable when one recalls that, as regards Italy, the treaty had no positive aims but was entered into for negative reasons. Italy understood that she could not live under the constant menace of a neighbour who detested her by tradition and necessity. (Did we not represent that principle of nationality so hated in Vienna?) Italy felt in her very flesh the spear point of the Trentino, the menace of that powerful and malevolent neighbour; she knew she could expect no protection of law in the anarchic Europe of the post-1878 period; she could only accept an alliance. At least she gained by it the neutralization of any eventual temporal plot of the Vatican which might become dangerous in case of a return to power of the French Right parties.' (ibid. p. 86).

* * * * * * *

ENVOI:

From The Papal Conquest (1909):

'Austria, like the Roman Catholic Church, is Italy's “Eternal Enemy.” ... Her whole policy, especially during recent years, has been one of provocation, and almost of unconcealed hostility. She has made military roads, built forts, and mined bridges, wherever her frontier is contiguous with that of Italy. When Italy was prostrated by the great earthquake disasters in Sicily and Calabria, and every civilized nation in the world was tendering sympathy and help, the Vienna papers said : “See how generous we are not to profit by this opportunity to make war”; and they boasted that the Emperor was with them in entertaining the idea. I have another cartoon, which represents the Pope and the Emperor Francis Joseph rubbing their hands over the catastrophe, the Pope saying : “Serves Italy right, she took from you Lombardy and Venetia,” and the Emperor replying : “Serves Italy right, she took from you the Temporal Power.” Pasolini never spake truer words than when he said that “Italy will always side with the enemies of Austria,” and that “the alliance of France, England, and Italy is the strongest guarantee for civilization, and the freedom of the world.” [Guiseppe Pasolini Memorie Racolte da suo Figlio, pp. 328, 332.] The Vatican looks to the Government of Austria, its bond-servant, to restore the Temporal Power; but, as we have already said, England blocks the way. Austria cannot move in the matter, either to regain Venetia and Lombardy, or to help the Pope to the Temporal Power, until England is humiliated. The Pope and the Church must first find a power to attempt this, find a power that will dare to make war upon England. And a serious war it will be. The Roman Catholic writer in The Month knew that when he said : “It may very well be that the future prosperity of England may be staked in the struggle.”

'Well the world knows – it has again and again been declared – that the Pope and the Church have found such a power in Germany, and that in the person of the Kaiser they have found the very man to inspire and lead the nation in this enterprise. Amongst his [the Kaiser's] great and varied talents, his boundless ambition and self-confidence which would lead him to undertake almost anything, he possesses, in quite a phenomenal degree, these two qualifications for the task – hatred of England and love of the Pope. I believe he stands unique amongst the rulers of the world in this respect; and it is the more strange it should be so, seeing he [the Kaiser] professes to be a Christian and a Protestant. Yet that he possesses, or rather, is possessed by, these two passions [hatred of England and love of the Pope], there can, I think, be no doubt.

'The Pope, as I have already had occasion to say, feels very much at home in the company of Venetians, and talks freely to them on most subjects. In this way the Kaiser and his strange doings form not infrequently a topic of conversation, or at least a subject of passing remark. Indeed, this can hardly be avoided, for his portrait is a prominent object in the Pope's rooms. Here it is on a table, there it hangs on a wall, yonder it is in an album; whilst on his breast, suspended on a massive gold chain, sparkles a magnificent cross, composed entirely of emeralds, a gift of the Kaiser to Leo XIII. When anyone noticing these things calls the Pope's attention to them, a smile of amusement lights up his face as he comes out with his favourite joke about the Kaiser, “Why, he is my best European friend!” The statement is a joke, and yet it is a literal truth. No Catholic fanatic in the world is more punctilious than he is in sending his homage and congratulations, and flattering speeches and presents to the Pope on his ever-recurring personal festivities, such as the anniversaries, the semi-jubilees and jubilees, actual or prospective, of the day on which he was born, or was christened, or became a priest, or began to climb the ecclesiastical ladder, or reached its summit and vaulted into the chair of St. Peter. . . . (pp. 322-324).

'The result of this unholy alliance, of this union in mutual love of each other and detestation of England, is that the Kaiser has become the willing instrument of the Pope and the Vatican for the humiliation of England, in order to [facilitate] the ultimate restoration of the Temporal Power. What Richard Bagot, the Roman Catholic novelist, wrote during the Boer War, in the number of the National Review for May 1900, holds equally true to-day, that “the whole campaign against England was due to the intrigues of the Vatican, which is working, as it has ever worked and ever will work, to promote and encompass the humiliation of England.” [The National Review, May, 1900.]

'Italy has long known that the Vatican has been egging on the German Emperor to invade England, and has for years warned us of our peril. She has done this with all the greater earnestness and persistency that she knows that her own turn will come next. She has told us that just as the naval and military preparations of Germany, carried on with such mad haste and to such an abnormal extent, are, in her opinion, directed against England : so the similar preparations carried on in the same spirit by Austria, are directed against herself ; and that, in the event of England's humiliation, Austria will at once, backed by Germany, attempt to recover Venetia and Lombardy; and then, as Dr. White's eminent Roman Catholic diplomat at the Hague said, Italy will be deluged in blood, in the attempt to restore the Temporal Power.

'I think that Great Britain is pretty well alive now to this peril against which Italy has warned us; and it would be an easy task for me to marshal facts in its support, to show, indeed, that the peril is very great and very near . . . Indeed, I have already written out these facts, but at the last moment I withhold them from a sense of the grave responsibility of publishing anything that might be construed as inciting to war. At the same time, there is less need that I should recount them, as many of them are now widely known, having been discussed in the British Parliament and in the public Press; and as Italy's interpretation of Germany's objective is very generally accepted by men of political complexions as the correct one.

'It has long been known in Italy, and Italy has warned England of the fact, that the original date fixed upon by the Pope and the Kaiser for the carrying out of their nefarious enterprise was 1911-1912. This date has been mentioned also several times in the British Parliament and in the Press. I am in possession of the reasons that led to the selection of this date. They are many and various, some touching Germany, others England, and Italy, and not a few having reference to the disaffected state of Ireland at our own doors, and of Ireland across the ocean. However, I do not intend here to enter further into them, all the more that the partial awakening of England to the danger of the situation has probably spoilt the project for so early a date as the one indicated.' (pp. 327-329).

* * * * * * *

A larger excerpt from The Papal Conquest can be found in the Archive for January 2010 on the World War Armageddon blog.

War 1914: Punishing the Serbs

Excerpts from official papers : –

'M.N. Pashitch, [Serbian] Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, to all the Royal Serbian Legations abroad.

Belgrade, June 18/July 1, 1914.

'The Austrian and Hungarian press are blaming Serbia more and more for the Sarajevo outrage. Their aim is transparent, viz., to destroy that high moral reputation which Serbia now enjoys in Europe, and to take the fullest advantage politically against Serbia of the act of a young and ill-balanced fanatic. But, in Serbia itself, the Sarajevo outrage has been most severely condemned in all circles of society, inasmuch as all, official as well as unofficial, immediately recognised that this outrage would be most prejudicial not only to our good neighbourly relations with Austria-Hungary but also to our co-nationalists in that country, as recent occurrences have proved. At a moment when Serbia is doing everything in her power to improve her relations with the neighbouring Monarchy, it is absurd to think that Serbia could have directly or indirectly inspired acts of this kind. On the contrary, it was of the greatest interest to Serbia to prevent the perpetration of this outrage. Unfortunately this did not lie within Serbia's power, as both assassins are Austrian subjects. Hitherto Serbia has been careful to suppress anarchic elements, and after recent events she will redouble her vigilance, and in the event of such elements existing within her borders will take the severest measures against them....'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir M. de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna.

Foreign Office, July 23, 1914.

' ... I could not help dwelling upon the awful consequences involved in the situation.... [I]t would be very desirable that those who had influence in St. Petersburgh should use it on behalf of patience and moderation.... [T]he amount of influence that could be used... would depend upon how reasonable were the Austrian demands and how strong the justification that Austria might have discovered for making her demands. The possible consequences of the present situation were terrible. If as many as four Great Powers of Europe – let us say, Austria, France, Russia, and Germany – were engaged in war, it seemed to me that it must involve the expenditure of so vast a sum of money, and such an interference with trade, that a war would be accompanied or followed by a complete collapse of European credit and industry. In these days, in great industrial States, this would mean a state of things worse than that of 1848, and, irrespective of who were victors in the war, many things might be completely swept away....'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir M. de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna.

(Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, July 24, 1914.

'Note addressed to Serbia, together with an explanation of the reasons leading up to it, has been communicated to me by [the Austro-Hungarian Ambassador] Count Mensdorff.

'In the ensuing conversation with his Excellency, I remarked that it seemed to me a matter for great regret that a time limit, and such a short one at that, had been insisted upon at this stage of the proceedings. The murder of the Archduke and some of the circumstances respecting Serbia quoted in the note aroused sympathy with Austria, as was natural, but at the same time I had never before seen one State address to another independent State a document of so formidable a character. Demand No. 5 would be hardly consistent with the maintenance of Serbia's independent sovereignty if it were to mean, as it seemed that it might, that Austria-Hungary was to be invested with a right to appoint officials who would have authority within the frontiers of Serbia....'

*******

'Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 24.)

(Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, July 24, 1914.

' ... I said that I would telegraph a full report to you of what their Excellencies had just said to me. I could not, of course, speak in the name of His Majesty's Government, but personally I saw no reason to expect any declaration of solidarity from His Majesty's Government that would entail an unconditional engagement on their part to support Russia and France by force of arms. Direct British interests in Serbia were nil, and a war on behalf of that country would never be sanctioned by British public opinion....

'French Ambassador and M. Sazonof [Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs] both continued to press me for a declaration of complete solidarity of His Majesty's Government with French and Russian Governments, and I therefore said that it seemed to me possible that you might perhaps be willing to make strong representations to both German and Austrian Governments, urging upon them that an attack by Austria upon Serbia would endanger the whole peace of Europe. Perhaps you might see your way to saying to them that such action on the part of Austria would probably mean Russian intervention, which would involve France and Germany, and that it would be difficult for Great Britain to keep out if the war were to become general. M. Sazonof answered that we would sooner or later be dragged into war if it did break out...'

*******

'Mr. Crackanthorpe, British Chargé d' Affaires at Belgrade, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 24.)

(Telegraphic.) Belgrade, July 24, 1914.

'Austrian demands are considered absolutely unacceptable by Serbian Government, who earnestly trust that His Majesty's Government may see their way to induce Austrian Government to moderate them.

'This request was conveyed to me by Serbian Prime Minister, who returned early this morning to Belgrade. His Excellency is dejected, and is clearly very anxious as to developments that may arise.'

*******

'Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 25.)

(Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, July 25, 1914.

' ... On my expressing the earnest hope that Russia would not precipitate war by mobilising until you had had time to use your influence in favour of peace, his Excellency assured me that Russia had no aggressive intentions, and she would take no actions until it was forced upon her. Austria's action was in reality directed against Russia. She aimed at overthrowing the present status quo in the Balkans, and establishing her own hegemony there. He did not believe that Germany really wanted war, but her attitude was decided by ours. If we took our stand firmly with France and Russia there would be no war. If we failed them now, rivers of blood would flow, and we would in the end be dragged into war....'

*******

'Mr. Crackanthorpe, British Chargé d' Affaires at Belgrade, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 25.)

(Telegraphic.) Belgrade, July 25, 1914.

'The Council of Ministers is now drawing up their reply to the Austrian note. I am informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it will be most conciliatory and will meet the Austrian demands in as large a measure as is possible.

'The following is a brief summary of the projected reply:–

'The Serbian Government consent to the publication of a declaration in the “Official Gazette.” The ten points are accepted with reservations. Serbian Government declare themselves ready to agree to a mixed commission of enquiry so long as the appointment of the commission can be shown to be in accordance with international usage. They consent to dismiss and prosecute those officers who can be clearly proved to be guilty, and they have already arrested the officer referred to in the Austrian note. They are prepared to suppress the Narodna Odbrana ['Defence of the People': a Serbian nationalist group].

'The Serbian Government consider that, unless the Austrian Government want war at any cost, they cannot but be content with the full satisfaction offered in the Serbian reply.'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh.

(Telegraphic.) Foreign Office, July 25, 1914.

' ... The sudden, brusque, and peremptory character of the Austrian démarche makes it almost inevitable that in a very short time both Russia and Austria will have mobilised against each other. In this event, the only chance of peace, in my opinion, is for the other four Powers to join in asking the Austrian and Russian Governments not to cross the frontier, and to give time for the four Powers acting at Vienna and St. Petersburgh to try and arrange matters. If Germany will adopt this view, I feel strongly that France and ourselves should act upon it. Italy would no doubt gladly co-operate....'

*******

'Reply of Serbian Government to Austro-Hungarian Note. – (Communicated by Serbian Minister, July 27.)

(Translation.)

' ... The Royal Government [of Serbia] also agree to remove from military service all such persons as the judicial enquiry may have proved to be guilty of acts directed against the integrity of the territory of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and they expect the Imperial and Royal Government to communicate to them at a later date the names and the acts of these officers and officials for the purposes of the proceedings which are to be taken against them.

'The Royal Government [of Serbia] must confess that they do not clearly grasp the meaning or the scope of the demand made by the Imperial and Royal Government that Serbia shall undertake to accept the collaboration of the organs of the Imperial and Royal Government upon their territory, but they declare that they will admit such collaboration as agrees with the principle of international law, with criminal procedure, and with good neighbourly relations....'

*******

'Sir M. de Bunsen, British Ambassador at Vienna, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received July 27.)

(Telegraphic.) Vienna, July 27, 1914.

'I have had conversations with all my colleagues representing the Great Powers. The impression left on my mind is that the Austro-Hungarian note was so drawn up as to make war inevitable; that the Austro-Hungarian Government are fully resolved to have war with Serbia...'

*******

'Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs] to Sir E. Goschen, British Ambassador at Berlin.

Foreign Office, July 29, 1914.

' ... The German Ambassador said the view of the German Government was that Austria could not by force be humiliated, and could not abdicate her position as a Great Power. I said I entirely agreed, but it was not a question of humiliating Austria, it was a question of how far Austria meant to push the humiliation of others....'

*******

'Sir G. Buchanan, British Ambassador at St. Petersburgh, to Sir Edward Grey [British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs]. – (Received August 2.)

(Telegraphic.) St. Petersburgh, August 1, 1914.

' ... In the evening M. Sazonof [Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs] had an interview with the Austrian Ambassador who, not being definitely instructed by his Government, did his best to deflect the conversation towards a general discussion of the relations between Austria-Hungary and Russia instead of keeping to the question of Serbia. In reply the Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed his desire that these relations should remain friendly, and said that, taken in general, they were perfectly satisfactory; but the real question which they had to solve at this moment was whether Austria was to crush Serbia and to reduce her to the status of a vassal, or whether she was to leave Serbia a free and independent State....'

The Vatican-Serbian Concordat, June 1914 (Part I)

(The above details of the Vatican-Serbian Concordat are taken from the Protestant Truth Society publication of 1918 entitled, Was Rome behind the War? [see the post on this blog from 28 November 2010 for excerpts from this work]. I haven't been able to find the details of this Concordat online - so by clicking on the above image to open it [and then by clicking on it again once opened with the magnifying glass cursor to enlarge it] I hope that a readable version is now available [Parts II & III can be found in posts below this one]).

Back in March 2010 on the World War Armageddon blog thread 'ARMAGEDDON: The Vatican Against Europe' I quoted the following from John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII :

'When Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife were gunned down by a pan-Serbian agitator in Sarajevo on June 28, [1914] the emotions prompted by the Serbian Concordat [signed between the Vatican and Serbia a few days earlier on June 24, 1914] became part of the general groundswell of anti-Serbian anger. The concordant nevertheless represented a contribution to the tensions that led the Austrian government to overplay its hand by delivering a humiliating ultimatum to Serbia. There is no indication that Pope Pius X grasped the role of the Holy See in adding to the pressures that brought the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Serbia to the brink. The declaration of war, it is said, threw him into a profound depression from which he never recovered. He died on August 20, 1914 – of a broken heart, it was said.'

(Hitler's Pope; American paperback edition – Penguin Books, 1999, 2000; pp. 57-58).

And I then went on to quote Count Carlo Sforza (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Italy) from a chapter on 'The Origins of the [First World] War', from his work Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins (see the post 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914' from November 2010 on this blog, for the relevant portion from Count Sforza's work) in which he called the rumour of Pope Pius X succumbing to grief at his 'impotence to advert the disaster' of the war as: 'A legend more tenacious than history'; and then to, 'establish the truth as to that legend', he quoted extensively from one of the official letters (the dispatch of July 29, 1914 from Count Palffy, the Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican to Count Berchtold) held within the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that Count Sforza himself had seen.

On 24 June 1914, it was Cardinal Merry del Val (the “Cardinal Secretary of State” at the Vatican) who signed the Concordat with Serbia on behalf of the Pope which gave the Holy See legal powers within the Kingdom of Serbia; the quote (from Count Sforza's work) below from the aforementioned dispatch from Count Palffy to Count Berchtold - from only one month after the signing of the Concordat - reveals Merry del Val's (and Pope “Saint” Pius X's) true sentiments concerning Serbia and the “war spirit” :

'“During the conversation I had two days ago with the Cardinal Secretary of State he spoke spontaneously of the great problems and questions now agitating Europe. It would be impossible to detect in His Eminence's words any spirit whatever of indulgence and conciliation. It is true he characterized the note to Serbia as very harsh, but he nevertheless approved it without any reservation and at the same time expressed, in an indirect way, the hope that the Monarchy would go to the limit. Certainly, added the Cardinal, it was too bad that Serbia had not been humiliated very much sooner, for then it might have been done without putting into play, as today, such immense possibilities. This declaration also corresponds to the Pope's way of thinking, for, in the course of recent years His Holiness has often expressed regret that Austro-Hungary has failed to 'chastise' her dangerous Danubian neighbour.

'“One might wonder for what motive the Catholic Church evinces herself so bellicose at an epoch when she is governed by a chief who is truly a saint, imbued with veritably apostolic ideas. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia the ravaging malady that little by little penetrated the Monarchy to the marrow, and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it.

'“Despite all the other experiments attempted by the Curia in the course of the last decade, Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic State par excellence, the strongest rampart of the Faith which stands in our day for the Church of Christ. The fall of this rampart would signify for the Church the loss of its solidest prop; in the conflicts with the Orthodox Church she would see her most powerful champion struck down.

'“Hence, just as for Austria-Hungary there is an immediate necessity of self-preservation to expel from its organism, even by force if need be, the dissolving malady, there is also for the Catholic Church an indirect necessity of doing or approving everything that would serve to attain that end.

'“In this light, a harmony between the apostolic sentiment and the war spirit can easily be confirmed.”'

(ibid. Count Sforza; British edition, Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946; p. 154).

The Vatican-Serbian Concordat, June 1914 (Part II)

(The above details of the Vatican-Serbian Concordat are taken from the Protestant Truth Society publication of 1918 entitled, Was Rome behind the War? [see the post on this blog from 28 November 2010 for excerpts from this work]. I haven't been able to find the details of this Concordat online - so by clicking on the above image to open it [and then by clicking on it again once opened with the magnifying glass cursor to enlarge it] I hope that a readable version is now available [Part I can be found in a post above this; and Part III in a post below this one]).

The Vatican-Serbian Concordat, June 1914 (Part III)

(The above details of the Vatican-Serbian Concordat are taken from the Protestant Truth Society publication of 1918 entitled, Was Rome behind the War? [see the post on this blog from 28 November 2010 for excerpts from this work]. I haven't been able to find the details of this Concordat online - so by clicking on the above image to open it [and then by clicking on it again once opened with the magnifying glass cursor to enlarge it] I hope that a readable version is now available [Parts I & II can be found in posts above this one]).

“Is Rome behind the War?” (1918)

(Above: cover of the booklet by J. A. Kensit, published by the Protestant Truth Society, 3 & 4 St. Paul's Churchyard, London, E.C.4)

'Lord Robert Montagu's statement [below] as to the political organisation of the Vatican should help Britons to realise the power arrayed against them. The following is the language of a statesman who had had long experience of Vatican diplomacy from within :–

“The Curia is a Cabinet of long standing and knowledge of affairs. It never 'goes out' by the action of an adverse majority in a representative Chamber. All have been carefully trained for their work; while from reports derived from priestly confessors all over the world, the best and most detailed knowledge of the characters and intentions of statesmen, and the passions of the people, are ready to their hand. The Vatican is the centre of all the information of the world; and every bishop has periodically to visit Rome in order that his inmost soul may be probed, and his continual reports may be tested. Such is the Cabinet with which Protestant statesmen hope on equal terms to cope.” – Recent Events, Section V.

'It was only when the noble Lord realised the tremendous anti-national plans of the Papacy that he severed his connection with the Roman Church, and he declared his conviction back in the year 1886 that there existed a well-laid plot whereby Britain should be “crushed under the Pope's feet.” Slowly and silently the Papal hopes have been maturing. Her tread has been cautious, for it has been well said –

“Rome is in adversity a lamb, on an equality a fox, and in supremacy a tiger.”

ROME'S ARMY IN BRITAIN.

'It is surely wise to guard ourselves against her claws. . . . As to the the purposes of Rome's religious army in England, the words of Cardinal Manning addressed to the Romish priesthood are explicit :–

“It is good to be here in England. It is yours, right reverend fathers, to subjugate and subdue, to bend and to break the will of an Imperial race. You have a good commission to fulfil and great is the prize for which you strive. England is the head of Protestantism, the centre of its movements, the stronghold of its powers. Weakened in England, it is paralysed everywhere; conquered in England, it is conquered throughout the world. Once overthrown here, it is but a war of detail. All the roads of the world meet in one point, and this point reached, the whole world is open to the Church's will.”–Sermons on Ecclesiæstical Subjects, Vol. I. pp.166-7.

'Such sentences force upon us the fact that we are faced not simply with the danger of “Deutschland über Alles,” but –“Rome over all.” In other words, the Papacy has not surrendered its mediæval claims.' (pp. 7-9)

* * * * * *

POPE HANKERING FOR A REBUILT THRONE.

'Manning in 1874 declared :–

“There is only one solution of the difficulty, a solution, I fear, impending, and that is the terrible scourge of Continental war, a war which will exceed the horrors of any of the wars of the First Empire. And it is my firm conviction that, in spite of all obstacles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ will be put again in his own rightful place. But that day will not be until his adversaries have crushed each other with mutual destruction.”–Thus spake Cardinal Manning in 1874 (vide Tablet, January 24th, 1874).

REMINISCENCES OF CARDINAL MANNING.

'So the Papacy would not wince even before the horrors of a Continent deluged in blood if thereby the Pope might regain his lost prestige and power. In confirmation of Manning's words, quoted above, we may set the following striking statement from the late Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, who as Editor of the Methodist Times, gave some [insight into them.]

'In the issue of August 6th, 1896, he says :–

“I was simply horrified at the calmness with which he declared that he would be willing to deluge the whole of Europe with blood in order to destroy the unity of Italy and recover the temporal power of the Pope. He also expressed a conviction that the German Empire was very insecure, and would probably be shattered in the course of the great war which he prophesied would destroy both the unity of Germany and the unity of Italy, in order to restore the Pope to the throne of Rome.”

'To realise the Papal workings on the continent a contrast as to the happenings in France and Germany should be of help. . . . [Whilst] France has receded from political Romanism . . . Germany has more and more come under its thumb.' (pp. 12-15)

THE LATE W. E. GLADSTONE AS WITNESS.

'Mr. Gladstone warned us that Rome would involve the Continent in terrible strife to accomplish her nefarious designs. In his Vatican Decrees – which all our statesmen should re-read and study–he says :–

“There is a fixed purpose among the secret inspires of Roman policy to pursue, by the road of force, upon the arrival of any favourable opportunity, the favourite project of re-erecting the terrestrial throne of the Popedom. . . . The existence at this day of the policy, even in bare idea, is itself a portentous evil. I do not hesitate to say that it is an incentive to general disturbance, a premium upon European wars.” –Vatican Decrees, p.50.

'Again he says :–

“I laid stress upon the charge of an intention on the part of Vaticanism to promote the restoration of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Pope on the first favourable opportunity by foreign arms.”–Rome: Newest Fashions in Religion, p. 118.

'In Vaticanism at p. 117 he adds :–

“I warn my countrymen against the velvet paw, and smooth and soft exterior of a system which is dangerous to the foundations of civil order.”

THE CONTINENT WATCHES THE PLOT MATURE.

'England, however, slumbered on whilst the Continent watched the plot being hatched. The Spanish journal, El Motin, published a cartoon on November 17th, 1910, depicting the triumph of the Pope's claim by a formidable procession of priests with swords bayonets – the armed force of which Mr. Gladstone had spoken.

'In keeping with this, Dr. Robertson wrote in his Papal Conquest – published in 1909 – five years before the war [see the post concerning this publication in the archive for January 12th 2010 on this blog] [that] :–

“Italy has long known that the Vatican has been egging on the German Emperor to invade England.”

'Dr. Robertson reproduced a cartoon from a newspaper published in Rome on February 7th, 1909, representing the Pope welcoming the Emperor of Austria and his army with the words, “Come on, come on, my sons, for thirty-nine years we have waited for you in Rome,” i.e., from 1870 to 1909, the date of the published cartoon.

'So Austria was to invade Italy, while Italy's oldest friend (and in 1849, when her first strivings for her present national unity began, her only friend) was to be beaten hip and thigh by Austria's partner, Germany. That was the campaign as seen in both Madrid and Rome five years before hostilities broke out !

[In light of the above, the following quote is taken from the historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay's work, Before Sarajevo: The Origins of the [First] World War , Vol 1, 1928:

'The most valuable to the historian of all the Austro-Hungarian memoirs is the voluminous work of the Austrian Chief of Staff, Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorf (entitled, Aus meiner Dienstzeit [My Years of Service], 5 vols.; published Vienna, 1921-25). It consists in large part of an undigested mass of important documents of all sorts, copies of which he evidently took from the official files and published in chronological order, with a commentary of his own. It also includes conversations in dialogue form which appear to be taken from a diary kept from day to day. With extraordinary frankness, he recounts the repeated efforts he made to have Austria make war on Italy [her supposed 'ally' in the Triple Alliance] or Serbia on what he regarded as numerous favourable occasions between 1906 and 1914.]

'But the warning fell on deaf ears ! John Bull would continue to sleep on – as L'Asino of 4th October, 1908, said –“in an illusion of strength.”

'Moreover, it is clear that Italy has been fighting in this war with one arm all but paralysed by Vatican influence. Mr. Bagot, himself a Roman Catholic, three years ago bore this witness as to the Curia :–

“There are but very few – I believe not half a dozen – of the Cardinals of the Curia who are not entirely pro-German and anti-British. The vast majority of the monsignori and the lay officials of the Papal Court are heart and soul with the cause of the Kaiser, and remarkable for their venom against both France and England.”–Fortnightly Review, May, 1915.' (pp. 15-17)

THE POPE'S LOST OPPORTUNITY

'But what concerns us most is the fact that [before the outbreak of the War] the Vatican never raised a little finger during those critical days [of the war crisis] in the interests of peace. At that moment the Papacy had its opportunity, for no one will dispute that the Emperor of Austria had always been the faithful ally of the Vatican. The Pope as a supposed apostle of peace had his opportunity and failed. The failure was doubtless intentional. At least here is the calm verdict of the Italian [publication] Secolo given in August, 1917 :–

“And if the Pope, who knew even before the world learnt it the horrible beginnings of this new history, had left the torpid cloisters of the Vatican and, trembling with indignation like Hildebrand, had gone to Vienna to stop or cut short the mad folly of Francis Joseph, to-day perhaps we should not be discussing the value of an uncertain proposal of peace. But the Vatican kept silent.”

'The days following the Sarajevo murders were occupied by all friends of peace in seeking to confine the discussion within the narrowest borders. No one can question that Sir Edward Grey did his part as the trusted representative of British policy. Prince Lichnowsky, German Ambassador in London, bears this testimony :–

“I hoped for salvation from an English mediation, because I knew that Sir Edward Grey's influence in Petrograd could be turned to use in favour of peace.”

'Our hands were clean. Britain never desired war. The Papal hands could not be raised, for they were not clean, and future historians will plainly see it.' (pp. 20-21)

[See the posting on this blog for November 6th 2010, 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914'; and also that for the 2nd of March 2010, entitled 'ARMAGEDDON: The Vatican Against Europe' for the - since revealed - true opinions of the Vatican in the events leading up to the outbreak of the First World War.]

* * * * * *

POPE versus BRITAIN.

'Rome's desire to crush Britain as a leading world Power has dominated her ambitions for many years. The Rt. Hon. Lord Robert Montagu, Privy Councillor and ex-Romanist, said :–

“It is the aim of the Papacy to weaken and to humble England; to dismember the Empire; to render her the prey to her enemies in a great Continental War.”–Recent Events. Published 1886.

'Cardinal Manning, as far back as 1859, made this utterance :–

“I shall not say too much if I say that we have to subjugate and subdue, to conquer and to rule an Imperial race, we have to do with a will which reigns throughout the world as the will of old Rome reigned once; we have to bend or break that will which Nations and Kingdoms have found invincible and inflexible.” –Tablet, August 6th, 1859.' (pp. 33-34)

Post Bellum

Pope “Saint” Pius X

The posts that are transcribed below (with a few corrections in spellings, etc.) were originally submitted on the Mail on Sunday's journalist Peter Hitchens's blog and formed a brief correspondence between myself and another contributor on that site.

The title of the Peter Hitchens's thread on which these post appeared under was 'Wednesday Night's Debate' (posted at 1:58 PM on [Thursday] 04 November 2010); the title was in reference to the 'Intelligence Squared' Debate that took place in London the previous evening at which Mr Hitchens (along with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury) debated for the proposition that 'Britain is becoming an anti-Christian country'.

In the course of the speech which he gave (and later transcribed to his blog) Mr Hitchens remarks that the prime cause in the decline of the Christian faith in Western Europe, was in his opinion, mainly caused by all the horrors of 'the First World War, [which was] foolishly and wrongly supported by the churches of Europe.'

To which statement the poster below replied (by first quoting Mr Hitchens) with the following:

"This was caused mainly, in my view, by the First World War, foolishly and wrongly supported by the churches of Europe."

Mr Hitchens, I'm not sure which "churches of Europe" you have in mind, but I wonder if this remark is entirely fair.

Nobody did more to try to prevent the Great War from happening than Pope St. Pius X, who died in 1914 - many believe that the effort (combined with the sadness for what he saw unfolding, almost inevitably, before him) brought about his early death.

Pope Benedict XV tried twice to be the intermediary for peace and bring about a speedy end to the war, in 1916 and again in 1917.

The Catholic Church was told by all sides to be quiet and keep out of it, especially in 1917 by 'establishment' (Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson...) to mind its own business, stick to 'spiritual stuff', and not be concerned with politics - an idea that is particularly interesting when one considers the same type of people later complaining loudly and unreasonably that Pope Pius XII did not do enough in the Second World War to fight the Nazis...

Posted by: G. Sarto 04 November 2010 at 10:56 PM

* * * * * *

To which I began with the following reply:

G. Sarto 04 November 2010 at 10:56 PM, writes:

“Nobody did more to try to prevent the Great War from happening than Pope St. Pius X, who died in 1914 - many believe that the effort (combined with the sadness for what he saw unfolding, almost inevitably, before him) brought about his early death.”

Concerning the claim that Pius X died of 'a broken heart' soon after the outbreak of war:

That this is the official 'version' can be adduced from the following, which is written in the Concise Holy History used in parochial catechisms:

“Pius X did all he could to prevent the war of 1914 and died of grief when he foresaw the evils it was about to unleash.”

The Italian diplomat and anti-Fascist politician Count Carlo Sforza (1872-1952), the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Italy, in a chapter on “The Origins of the [First World] War”, in his Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins (published USA 1944/GB 1946) calls the rumour of Pius X succumbing to grief at his “impotence to advert the disaster” of the war, as: “A legend more tenacious than history”. And then to, “establish the truth as to that legend”, he quotes extensively from one of the many official letters deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen.

As he writes concerning these correspondences: “They reveal that the Vatican saw with satisfaction, at least at the outset, an undertaking in which the crushing of Serbia would entail a diminution of the influence of Russia. . . . In these conversations the Secretary of State [Cardinal Merry del Val] spoke expressly in the name of the Pope . . .”

The relevant portion of Count Sforza's chapter – which quotes at length from a dipatch of July 29 1914 from Count Palffy, the Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican to Count Berchtold – can be found by clicking on my name below [which linked to my previous posting on the World War Armageddon blog entitled, 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914'].

The quote below is from another diplomatic dispatch – this one being that from Baron von Ritter, the Chargé d' Affaires of Bavaria at the Holy See – and was written to his Government on 26 July 1914:

“The Pope [Pius X] approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.”

(Source: Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch [Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War] III, p. 206; as cited in The Vatican Against Europe, by Edmond Paris; The Wickliffe Press [Protestant Truth Society] edition, 1993; p. 47).

Posted by: B Hughes 06 November 2010 at 03:45 AM

* * * * * *

Mr Hughes,

You can quote "anti-fascist" authors all you wish. The fact remains that Pope St. Pius X did everything he could to avert war in the run-up to 1914.

Similarly the fact remains that Benedict XV twice offered to be an intermediary for peace, and was turned down by the allies.

That is a matter of historical record.

Nor was Pope St. Pius X partisan, and quoting a Bavarian Count, cited in a 'Protestant Truth Society' pamphlet, proves nothing.

The normal thing would have been for the Pope to give his blessing to the Austrian armies going off to war - they were,after all, the Holy Roman Empire, so to speak. The fact that the Pope refused to do so (and was very forceful in telling them why!) ought to speak for itself.

Posted by: G. Sarto 06 November 2010 at 05:20 PM

* * * * * *

From G. Sarto's post of 06 November 2010 at 05:20 PM:

'Mr Hughes, You can quote “anti-fascist” authors all you wish.'

The “anti-fascist” author in question was Count Carlo Sforza; to quote him further from the same work – he writes:

'While all diplomatic Europe kept on repeating, “This Lenin cannot last”, the Pope asked me through [Baron] Monti – but under the seal of secrecy – would I if necessary, be able to facilitate the trip of some Catholic priests to Russia. Seeing my surprise, Monti explained (and it was evident that he was repeating the very words of the Pope) : “His Holiness thinks that even these crimes and this blood will one day be of service if it is going to be possible, when the wave of irreligion has passed, to attempt a Catholic evangelization in Russia. Orthodoxy no longer has any deep-rooted life; its end as the official religion offers possibilities which would never have existed so long as a Tsar, 'Protector of the Church', continued to reign.” It was simple and it was true; but courage was required to express it at the Vatican in 1920. I promised my support in whatever form it might be able to take ...' (p. 169).

And Count Sforza writes that while he had been High Commissioner in Turkey (before his return to Rome – after accepting the post of Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) that he had had:

'[C]onversations ... at Constantinople with Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, [on the “Roman question”, which] had prepared me to suppose that the problem was almost on the point of being considered. Having arrived at Constantinople on his way from Jerusalem, the Cardinal had been kind enough to visit me at the Italian Embassy and to thank me for the courtesy with which the Italian Government agents had facilitated his sojourn in the Holy Land. Speaking of his pleasure at observing the excellent relations existing everywhere between Italian agents and the Franciscan missions, he told me that he saw in them the proof that the time was ripe for a conciliation [between the Vatican and the Italian Government]. [And in this matter] I could not but agree with him ...' (pp. 276-277).

It is obvious from the above that though Count Sforza was an “anti-Fascist”; he was not necessarily “anti-Catholic”. By all means, if you wish, discount Baron von Ritter's dispatch from the Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch (as cited in the work later published by the Protestant Truth Society). But can you discount Count Sforza's testimony – in which he cites from official documents held within the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen?

If you have not already done so, I suggest that you read Count Sforza's testimony as to the true opinion of Pope “Saint” Pius X – by clicking on my name below. If you do not wish to reappraise what you've undoubtedly been taught – then that is up to you ...

Posted by: B Hughes 07 November 2010 at 06:10 PM

* * * * * *

Envoi

Pope Pius X was undoubtedly a 'pretended' friend of peace. . . But was he also a pretended friend of Christ . . . ? Or much more besides . . . ? In the words of the Rev. Alexander Robertson, D.D.; words he wrote five years before the outbreak of the War:

'[O]ne feels that it is impiety or culpable ignorance to talk, as so many do, of the Pope being the Vicar of the Prince of Peace, and of the Roman Catholic Church as having a mission of peace and of goodwill to mankind. He [the Pope] is, on the contrary, the Vicar of Christ's Adversary [Satan], [who is] “The Prince of this World”; [John xii. 31, xiv. 30.] he [the Pope] is the “Beast” of the Revelation, to whom the “Dragon” [Satan] gave “his power, and his seat, and great authority . . . to make war with the saints.” [Rev. xiii. 2, 7.]'

The Papal Conquest (1909), p. 316.

Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914

(Above: cover of first British edition, translated from the French by Drake and Denise de kay and published by Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946)

THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR

'A legend more tenacious than history was formed in 1914 and afterward regarding Pope Pius X's attitude toward the Hapsburg aggression toward Serbia. This legend shows us Pius X praying and fighting against the outbreak of the war, horrified to see Christianity divided into two enemy camps, and dying of grief at the invasion of Belgium and all the horrors of war unchained. The truth is quite otherwise.

'During the war of 1914-18 the religious question had only a minor importance; both camps included Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox members and Mohammedans. Catholic unity did not prevail any more than Mohammedan unity, which seemed so sure of its jihad (the Holy War proclaimed by the Sultan-Caliph, which neither Arab nor Hindu [Indian?] Moslem obeyed). The clergy of the different countries could all invoke Allah or the old God of Armies with opposite hopes.

'One fact, however, during the tragic weeks of July and August, 1914, scandalized European opinion: that the war should have been provoked in the name of God by a powerful and decrepit sovereign, Francis Joseph, Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary, the most Catholic of all the sovereigns and the most important of all Catholic sovereigns. When this Prince declared that he made war to chastise Serbia, millions of timorous souls imagined that the Pope would intervene to prevent the catastrophe. This hope gave birth to the legend. It was said at the time that Pius X, the moment he knew of the ultimatum to Serbia, had enjoined his Nuncio at Vienna to admonish the old Emperor and King in the name of the Almighty. Then, since the war happened just the same, it was explained that the Ballplatz diplomats and military men of the imperial entourage had prevented Pius X's messenger from talking with the Emperor. And here is the last act of the legend: The Pope having died suddenly on August 20, 1914, it was affirmed that the good Pius had succumbed to grief, having realized his impotence to avert the disaster.

'It is time to establish the truth as to that legend, and here it is:

'As soon as the danger of war became evident, Count Palffy, Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican, several times informed Pius X's Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val, of the intentions and the “duties” of the Dual Monarchy. The Cardinal's replies were deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy, correspondence that I have seen. They reveal that the Vatican saw with satisfaction, at least at the outset, an undertaking in which the crushing of Serbia would entail a diminution of the influence of Russia. The latter's prestige was detested by the Roman Church, which viewed it as the principal obstacle to a reconciliation of the Oriental churches with the See of Rome. In these conversations the Secretary of State spoke expressly in the name of the Pope who, he declared to the Austrian representative, deplored that Austria had not earlier inflicted on the Serbs the chastisement they deserved. It is sufficient to quote the following passage from a dispatch of Count Palffy to Count Berchtold on July 29:

'“During the conversation I had two days ago with the Cardinal Secretary of State he spoke spontaneously of the great problems and questions now agitating Europe. It would be impossible to detect in His Eminence's words any spirit whatever of indulgence and conciliation. It is true he characterized the note to Serbia as very harsh, but he nevertheless approved it without any reservation and at the same time expressed, in an indirect way, the hope that the Monarchy would go to the limit. Certainly, added the Cardinal, it was too bad that Serbia had not been humiliated very much sooner, for then it might have been done without putting into play, as today, such immense possibilities. This declaration also corresponds to the Pope's way of thinking, for, in the course of recent years His Holiness has often expressed regret that Austro-Hungary has failed to 'chastise' her dangerous Danubian neighbour.

'“One might wonder for what motive the Catholic Church evinces herself so bellicose at an epoch when she is governed by a chief who is truly a saint, imbued with veritably apostolic ideas. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia the ravaging malady that little by little penetrated the Monarchy to the marrow, and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it.

'“Despite all the other experiments attempted by the Curia in the course of the last decade, Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic State par excellence, the strongest rampart of the Faith which stands in our day for the Church of Christ. The fall of this rampart would signify for the Church the loss of its solidest prop; in the conflicts with the Orthodox Church she would see her most powerful champion struck down.

'“Hence, just as for Austria-Hungary there is an immediate necessity of self-preservation to expel from its organism, even by force if need be, the dissolving malady, there is also for the Catholic Church an indirect necessity of doing or approving everything that would serve to attain that end.

'“In this light, a harmony between the apostolic sentiment and the war spirit can easily be confirmed.”

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European changed probably the Pope's frame of mind. But at least in the very first days of the war he considered the march of the German army nach Paris as a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (pp. 153-155).

[The above paragraph in the American edition published by E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1944 (by the same translators: Drake and Denise de Kay) reads slightly differently; as here follows:

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European did not do much to change the Pope's frame of mind. In his honest but narrow mind the march of the German army nach Paris assumed the form of a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (p. 189).]

'We have seen that the proceeding of the Nuncio at Vienna is a legend. That Pius X died of grief is still another. I have it from his doctor, my colleague in the Italian Senate, that the malady of which the Pope died had for long months wasted the old man by slow degrees, and that the overwork of the last few weeks could, at most, but have hastened the end that he, Marchiafava, had already declared inevitable and due to occur very shortly.' (p. 155)

“Daniel and The Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and our Place in it” (1898)

'Our present position :– [is] near the close of the Sixth Vial period. (Revelation xvi. 15.)'

'When we read in Revelation xvi. 13, 14, of the Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet, as the prime agents in bringing about the final war of Armageddon, we cannot imagine three visible corporeal beings on earth, working to stir up the war by breathing frog-like spirits out of their mouths; but, consistently with the Historical method which we have followed, assigning a symbolical meaning to these strange symbolic figures which St. John saw again and again in his visions, we must understand that Satan, together with the Papal Power, and the body of the Romish Priesthood, the most complete organization in the world, will work by all the dark means which may then be at their disposal, in order to embroil the nations, as they have often done before, and as in our time they have endeavoured to stir up mischief in Ireland.' (ibid. p. 206-207).

'Some interesting information concerning the scheming ambition of the Papacy in the present [1898], and its power to embroil the nations in the future, is given in a remarkable article contributed to McClure's Magazine by M. de Blowitz, who from his experience and political insight is admitted to be an authority on such a matter. He Says : “To the Vatican flow innumerable missives from every corner of the world, and could I only tell some of them, it would seem how long still is the arm extending from the shadow of St. Peter's: how dreadful still are the lips that speak in the shade of the Vatican. I should show the Holy Father and his cardinals writing to the Emperor of Austria, directing him by counsel and advice, and sometimes almost by orders.”' (ibid. p. 215).

'[W]e read in Revelation xix. 19, where the coming of Christ to overthrow His enemies at this same crisis is described, “And I saw the beast, and the Kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat upon the horse and against his army,” we must not, of course, fall into the error of Futurist literalism, or imagine that this passage of Scripture means that one day Christ will be seen descending from the “heaven opened” sitting upon a white horse, with myriads of saints and angels also on white horses, and that two supernatural individuals, Antichrist or the Beast, and a False Prophet, are to lead an army with an array of modern artillery, and breech-loading rifles, and smokeless powder, in order to shoot down Christ and His heavenly followers. It must be obvious to a sober judgment that this passage is simply the record of a vision which St. John saw at Patmos; and a “mind that hath wisdom,” which is mentioned in the Revelation as a needful qualification for understanding these mysterious predictions, should seek to discern the prophetic meaning of the figures which St. John saw. We trust that the explanation which has been given is a consistent and reasonable interpretation. It shows us that this vision of Revelation xix. 19, etc., in which St. John beheld the symbolic figures of the Beast and the False Prophet leading kings and armies against Christ and His armies, was a symbolic prediction of the final crises of that GENERAL WAR OF NATIONS at the close of this dispensation. . . . It shows that the Powers symbolised by the Beast and the False Prophet, namely, the Papal Imperial Power and that body of the Romish Priesthood, will be chief agents in bringing about that war . . .' (ibid. p. 216-217; emphasis added).

'[T]he era of the sixth Vial, under which we are now living, does not simply include the judgment upon the Turkish Power, which is a lengthy preliminary, [from footnote: 'Mr. Gladstone, in a reply to an Armenian deputation, recently said : “I have lived to see the Empire of Turkey in Europe reduced to less than half of what it was when I was born, and why? Simply because of its misdeeds – a great record written against it by the hand of Almighty God.”] but it also includes that tremendous outpouring of judgment upon the world which will result from the disastrous agency of the “three unclean spirits” whose going forth under this Vial is next described.' (ibid. p. 365).

'We know that the Dragon means Satan; and we have shown . . . that the Beast, in accordance with the meaning of that symbol in Daniel signifies the Roman world-empire in its last form, the Papal form, as represented by the person of the Pope at the head of it; whilst the False Prophet, or second Beast of Revelation xiii., symbolises the corporate body of the Romish priesthood, the typical example of false and anti-Christian teaching, whose subserviency to the interests of the first Beast is mentioned as one of its chief characteristics.

'In accordance with the meaning of the sources from which the three unclean spirits or evil agencies go forth over the word, we cannot be far wrong in regarding the agencies themselves as – (1) the spirit of infidelity, that special weapon of Satan, with all that follows in its train, agnosticism, socialism, spiritualism, anarchy, etc.; (2) the spirit of Papal imperial and political ambition, which, in spite of the fall of the Temporal Power, will be active up to the very end, and allied, perhaps, with the revolutionary powers of socialism, will yet embroil the world; (3) the spirit of the superstitious teachings and influence of the Romish clergy – more especially of the Jesuit Order, “the power behind the Pope” – in support of priestcraft and Papal aims. These three agencies are quite sufficient to bring about that period of confusion, tribulation and judgment, that has yet to burst forth during the era of the sixth Vial, of which they are here said to be the chief instigators . . .

'Here let us ask whether the signs of the times in which we are now living do not corroborate this Historical interpretation, and whether they do not indicate to us just that point in the era of the sixth Vial which has already been reached at the present date. No one will deny that the pernicious spirit of infidelity has gone forth with alarming activity and subtlety in this latter half of the nineteenth century, and especially during the last ten years. Perverted intellectual power is Satan's strongest lever for overturning the foundations of faith, and for loosening the bonds of truth and morality by which society is held together. Attacks on the inspiration of the Bible, on the sanctity of the Sabbath, and on the most essential points of Christian belief, are openly made in the newspapers and magazines, in novels, and, more insidiously, even in the pages of professedly religious literature.

'Nor are the other two agencies less bold and active. Both on their political and ecclesiastical side, the schemes of the Papacy are being pushed forward with a marvellous degree of astuteness and audacity. The persistent aim of the Pope, fostered by the Jesuits, and backed up by his clergy all over the world, is the restoration of the Temporal Power, and of Papal supremacy. There is no saying how soon the prosecution of these schemes may bring about an embroilment of the nations. Thus all three of the evil agencies are abroad. The seed is being sown, and in due time the crop will appear.' (ibid. p. 368-369).

'Let us now review our position, and see how we stand with regard to the events which we have shown to be foretold as destined to take place during the era of the sixth Vial in which we are now living. The drying up of the Euphrates has long been going on: the power of Turkey has long been declining. Our statesmen tell us “The Sick Man is sicker than ever.” In our daily papers we read: “The Ottoman Empire exhibits all the signs of a state in dissolution.”. . . Those evil agencies symbolised by the three frog-like spirits, which are yet to embroil the world, have began to show signs of increased activity. No one can deny that there is in the minds of thinking men, whose eyes are open to see the signs of the times, a presentiment that a great crises is approaching in the history of our world. There ever lingers on the horizon the dark storm-cloud of the Eastern Question. Now and again it seems gathering to a head, and threatening to burst. But, as often happens in thundery weather, the storm is averted for a while. Yet there the cloud is still, waiting for the time fixed by God's eternal decree, and when that time comes the cloud of the Eastern Question will once more gather and come down, involving the nations in widespread calamity and destruction. There can be little doubt that in the crises of the end of this dispensation the Eastern Question will play its part.

'We have before given examples of the coincidence of political forecasts with the anticipations of prophetical students. It may be interesting here, in connection with the Historical interpretation of the events of the sixth Vial which we have placed before our readers, to give the following extract from a leading article in one of our chief daily papers. Which is only a sample of the political anticipations that are constantly appearing in the public prints. Referring to the question of active measures being taken by the Powers in order to check Turkey in her infamous course of exterminating Armenian Christians, this article says, in words that read like a commentary on this passage of the Revelation: “With the firing of the first shot the whole of the Eastern Question, the bugbear of the diplomatist, the terror of the politician, the insoluble problem of statesmanship, would be reopened with all its intricacy and its perils. Austria with her reversionary interests on the shores of the Black Sea and the Golden Horn; Greece with her perpetual hankering after Macedonia; Bulgaria, Servia [Serbia], and Roumania, with all the rash intolerance of young and treaty-made states; Russia with her naval ambitions at the Dardanelles; France with her desire to rival Great Britain as a Mediterranean Power; and England herself,with her one predominant aim of keeping the route open to her Indian possessions [a policy affecting the occupation of Egypt and Palestine] – such would be the elements of rivalry and animosity let loose over the prostrate body of 'the Sick Man of Europe.' It is terrible to contemplate such a turmoil even in imagination.”

'Here, therefore, we may recognise our present position in the sixth Vial. We see the storm-cloud on the Eastern horizon, and we know that it will one day gather overhead, and the drops will begin to fall. That day may be near at hand or it may be years hence, for diplomacy is doing its utmost to avert it. But diplomatists know full well that it must come sooner or later. No diplomacy can prevent that which is decreed in the counsels of Providence, and marked down in the chart of God's prophetic Word. We do not know what time will be occupied by the train of events that will then be set in motion. But the full consequences of this great storm that is brewing will not reach their climax till the final crisis of the seventh Vial . . .' (ibid. p. 370-371).