Yad Vashem ammorbidisce la posizione di Pio XII sulla Shoah: cala il sipario sulla leggenda nera

Considerato il significato storico dell’evento, ho ritenuto doveroso riportare qui di seguito la dichiarazione  espressa dallo Yad Vashem, il museo dedicato alla storia della shoah, in merito al recente aggiornamento della didascalia collocata sotto la foto di Pio XII. Finora il suo comportamento rispetto allo sterminio degli ebrei era considerando quanto meno «ambiguo», mentre adesso, come annunciato nel comunicato ufficiale diramato proprio nella giornata di ieri 1° luglio dall’Istituto internazionale per la ricerca sull’Olocausto dello Yad Vashem, grazie alle «ricerche compiute negli ultimi anni», è stato modificato il titolo del pannello che d’ora in poi non si chiamerà più «Pio XII e l’Olocausto» ma emblematicamente «Il Vaticano e l’Olocausto», sottolineando in modo più equilibrato che «la reazione di Pio XII, Eugenio Pacelli, all’assassinio degli ebrei durante l’Olocausto è oggetto di controversia tra gli studiosi» sebbene si attribuisce ancora al pontefice una certa «mancanza morale». Dalle prime righe nella nuova didascalia scompare, infatti, una frase significativa, relativa al concordato stipulato nel 1933 tra la Santa Sede e la Germania hitleriana, che affermava: «Significò riconoscere il regime razzista nazista».

Nel nuovo testo, inoltre, viene chiaramente riconosciuto il valore delle parole espresse nel radiomessaggio natalizio del 1942, allorché Pio XII fece espressamente riferimento alle «centinaia di migliaia di persone, le quali, senza veruna colpa propria, talora solo per ragione di nazionalità o di stirpe, sono destinate alla morte o ad un progressivo deperimento».

Anche se in questa nuova versione il giudizio sull’operato di Papa Pacelli sembra sostanzialmente ridimensionato, tratteggiando un ritratto più complesso, permane ancora – secondo il quotidiano israeliano Haaretz – la critica alla Chiesa, verso la quale sono state avanzare «velate critiche» per non aver ancora aperto agli storici gli archivi sulle azioni intraprese dal Vaticano durante la guerra.

* * *

Yad Vashem Statement regarding updated text on the panel about the Vatican

1 July 2012

In 2005, Yad Vashem opened its new Holocaust History Museum after more than a decade of work. The texts in the museum were written based on the research available in the early years of the 2000’s.

Recently, following the recommendation of the Yad Vashem International Institute for Holocaust Research, the panel regarding the wartime activities of the Vatican and Pope Pius XII has been updated. This is an update to reflect research that has been done in the recent years, and presents a more complex picture than previously presented. Contrary to what has been reported, this change is not a result of Vatican pressure.

Over the past few years, new research, in part based on the opening of archival collections such as the Pius XI archive (up until 1939) and on other information, including that which was presented at an international academic workshop “Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust – Current State of Research” held at Yad Vashem in 2009, has clarified certain issues, while still leaving many questions open. Only when all material is available, will a clearer picture emerge. That workshop was initiated by the late Prof. David Bankier, then head of Yad Vashem’s International Institute for Holocaust Research. The book that emerged from the academic workshop on the subject will soon be published (in English) by Yad Vashem.

Prof. Bankier offered a draft for an updated text for the Museum panel, and since he passed away, this text has been finalized by researchers of the Institute, led by the current head of the Institute, Prof. Dan Michman.

Yad Vashem looks forward to the day when the Vatican archives will be open to researchers so that a clearer understanding of the events can be arrived at.

The panel noted that the reaction of Pope Pius XII is a matter of controversy. Some visitors to the Museum did not understand the controversy. The panel now presents this controversy in more detail. Of course, no panel in a museum can ever fully explore any topic, and for those interested in learning more, the library and archives at Yad Vashem have a plethora of material.

Yad Vashem researchers and historians continue to research many aspects of Holocaust history. Over the past years, a number of corrections have been made throughout the Museum. Should any other updates be necessary in the Museums, these will take place as well.

Following is the new text:

The Vatican

The Vatican, under Pius XI, Achille Ratti, and represented by the Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli, signed a concordat with Nazi Germany in July 1933, in order to preserve the rights of the Catholic Church in Germany.

The reaction of Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, to the murder of the Jews during the Holocaust is a matter of controversy among scholars. From the onset of World War II, the Vatican maintained a policy of neutrality. The Pontiff abstained from signing the Allies’ declaration of December 17, 1942 condemning the extermination of the Jews. Yet, in his Christmas radio address of December 24, 1942 he referred to “the hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or ethnic origin (stirpe), have been consigned to death or to a slow decline.” Jews were not explicitly mentioned. When Jews were deported from Rome to Auschwitz, the Pontiff did not publicly protest. The Holy See appealed separately to the rulers of Slovakia and Hungary on behalf of the Jews. The Pope’s critics claim that his decision to abstain from condemning the murder of the Jews by Nazi Germany constitutes a moral failure: the lack of clear guidance left room for many to collaborate with Nazi Germany, reassured by the thought that this did not contradict the Church’s moral teachings. It also left the initiative to rescue Jews to individual clerics and laymen. His defenders maintain that this neutrality prevented harsher measures against the Vatican and the Church’s institutions throughout Europe, thus enabling a considerable number of secret rescue activities to take place at different levels of the Church. Moreover, they point to cases in which the Pontiff offered encouragement to activities in which Jews were rescued. Until all relevant material is available to scholars, this topic will remain open to further inquiry.

* * *

Qui di seguito riporto la vecchia didascalia elaborata nel 2005 e, successivamente, quella aggiornata:

Pius XII

In 1933, when he was Secretary of the Vatican State, he was active in obtaining a Concordat with the German regime to preserve the Church’s rights in Germany, even if this meant recognizing the Nazi racist regime. When he was elected Pope in 1939, he shelved a letter against racism and anti-Semitism that his predecessor had prepared. Even when reports about the murder of Jews reached the Vatican, the Pope did not protest either verbally or in writing. In December 1942, he abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of the Jews. When Jews were deported from Rome to Auschwitz, the Pope did not intervene. The Pope maintained his neutral position throughout the war, with the exception of appeals to the rulers of Hungary and Slovakia towards its end. His silence and the absence of guidelines obliged Churchmen throughout Europe to decide on their own how to react.

The Vatican

The Vatican, under Pius XI, Achille Ratti, and represented by the Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli, signed a concordat with Nazi Germany in July 1933, in order to preserve the rights of the Catholic Church in Germany.
The reaction of Pius XII, Eugenio Pacelli, to the murder of the Jews during the Holocaust is a matter of controversy among scholars. From the onset of World War II, the Vatican maintained a policy of neutrality. The Pontiff abstained from signing the Allies’ declaration of December 17, 1942 condemning the extermination of the Jews. Yet, in his Christmas radio address of December 24, 1942 he referred to “the hundreds of thousands of persons who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or ethnic origin (stirpe), have been consigned to death or to a slow decline.” Jews were not explicitly mentioned.
When Jews were deported from Rome to Auschwitz, the Pontiff did not publicly protest. The Holy See appealed separately to the rulers of Slovakia and Hungary on behalf of the Jews. The Pope’s critics claim that his decision to abstain from condemning the murder of the Jews by Nazi Germany constitutes a moral failure: the lack of clear guidance left room for many to collaborate with Nazi Germany, reassured by the thought that this did not contradict the Church’s moral teachings. It also left the initiative to rescue Jews to individual clerics and laymen. His defenders maintain that this neutrality prevented harsher measures against the Vatican and the Church’s institutions throughout Europe, thus enabling a considerable number of secret rescue activities to take place at different levels of the Church. Moreover, they point to cases in which the Pontiff offered encouragement to activities in which Jews were rescued. Until all relevant material is available to scholars, this topic will remain open to further inquiry.

* * *

Pius’ role in the Holocaust deserves more scrutiny

The new captions at Yad Vashem send a clear message to the incumbent pope: Do not glamorize Pius XII before the Vatican reviews and publishes all documents concerning his activities during the Holocaust.

By Tom Segev

From the beginning, the Yad Vashem Museum was created to reflect Israel’s official concept regarding the Holocaust, and obviously it serves as a justification of Zionist ideology and of the need to establish the State of Israel and guarantee its security. Almost sixty years later, the new museum, which opened in 2005 and was inspired by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, presents the original political foundations in a new style: less indoctrination and more room for various points of view regarding numerous subjects, some of them sensitive and controversial.

At the entrance the visitor is greeted by an old clip of Jewish children in the Ukraine singing “Hatikva,” the national anthem. The visit ends with the establishment of the State of Israel. Still, one notable difference is that the Arabs are no longer presented as Nazis: the placing of the 1941 photo of Hitler meeting the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is no longer as accentuated as before. The museum has also adopted a neutral stance concerning the Nazi-established “Jewish Councils,” otherwise known as Judenrat. The visitors can now draw up their judgment of the councils based on their activities in both the Warsaw and Lodz ghettos. The impression now is that the Judenrat leaders too, were victims of the Holocaust. Formerly, they were all considered villains.

One of the striking differences concerns the museum’s depiction of Rejso, Israel Kestner, one the leaders of Hungarian Jewry. In 1955, an Israeli court ruled that Kestner had “sold his soul to the devil” after he was accused of being a Nazi collaborator. He was murdered two years later in Tel Aviv. Now, Kestner’s contacts with the Nazis are depicted as praiseworthy actions that saved Jews. The change is due, partially, to the fact that Kestner’s friend, Yosef “Tommy” Lapid, served as Yad Vashem’s chairman. The wording under Kestner’s photograph – as in all other captions in the museum – is formulated in an extremely cautious manner, weighing the meaning of every single word. The English version is slightly more positive than the Hebrew.

Many captions were dictated by diplomatic sensitivity, so as not to cause tension with foreign states. The lines dealing with the question of why the allies didn’t bomb Auschwitz are more restrained than the more explicit criticism of the same issue in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The new captions dealing with Pope Pius XII, are ‘cleaner,’ and reflect a measure of openness and recognition of different opinions. Pius XII now receives a parcel of textual ‘discounts’: the new wording stresses the fact that the Reichskonkordat with Germany was signed before he was appointed, and deletes the former declaration that the accord was signed “even at the price of recognizing the Nazi regime.” It does not mention that Pius XII shelved the prepared draft of an encyclical condemning racism, colonialism and anti-Semitism, drafted for Pius XI. If the Pope actually shelved such an encyclical, there’s no reason to ignore it. The mention of his 1942 Christmas address and his appeals to the leaders of Hungary and Slovakia are relevant. Pius XII actually gains some points due to the detailed controversy surrounding his term.

Still, he isn’t portrayed as a righteous man, but the issue calls for more study. Politically, the new captions send a clear Jewish and Israeli message to the incumbent pope, German-born Benedict XVI: Do not glamorize Pius XII before the Vatican reviews and publishes all documents concerning his activities during the Holocaust.

About these ads