The few Jews he "saved" were Italian Jews, most of whom had converted to Catholicism.
European Jews were left to fend for themselves. And six million of them didn't do so great.
The interesting parts of "La Popessa" were not the same old empty defenses of Pacelli's complicity in WWII, but in its depiction of the very bizarre relationship he had with his German "secretary" and housekeeper of over 50 years.
Read the book yourself and see if you think it is a postive assessment of the man and his life. Or if it instead, inadvertently no doubt, asks more questions about his character, his intenions and his actions (and lack of action.)
After all, most of us Republicans are questioning Hillary's close relationship with her "assistant," a possible Saudi Arabian, muslim spy. It's a fair question to ask of Pacelli, too, given the circumstances and the outcome.
You wrote:
“And for the third time I’ll respond to you by saying “La Popessa” offers a lot of the same old defenses for Pacelli’s inactions during WWII. I read those with the same ton of salt I read any book which foolishly contends it would have been worse for the Jews if Pacelli had spoken out.”
No, you asked this earlier: “So which is it? A great book that vindicates Pacelli or another book that slanders him and his “secretary.”” (#736)
Then in response, in #768, I wrote: “But does the book say what the reviwer I quote said it says? Does it? I have no idea. Why don’t you tell us?”
And then you started refusing to answer questions.
In post #844 I tried again: “I am asking you to look up something in the book YOU CLAIM TO HAVE. Why is that strange when you were offering to send me a snapshot of yourself with the book? Do you have the book or not? Can you actually open it and read it or not?”
“What does it say about Pius XII saving numerous lives? That’s what I am asking about.”
You still refused to answer: [post #862 ] “What is fascinating about the book is not the same old empty chestnuts that Pacelli actually saved Jews by not speaking out and that his hands were tied and that he really really wanted to help.”
In the meantime I went to the library and checked out the book. Lo! and Behold! The book vindicates Pius XII - and that’s exactly why Dr. Eckleburg refused to answer my simple questions. I asked very specific questions - remember Dr. E. claims to have the book - and Dr. E. refused to answer a single one of them even when I provided the page numbers!!!
And now we get these notable erroneous statements:
“The few Jews he “saved” were Italian Jews, most of whom had converted to Catholicism.”
Wrong. He saved - according to the book you’re now studiously ignoring after touting it for two days - 400,000 Jews, while other books (written by Jews in many cases) say that the number was 800,000 Jews. No matter if the number was 400,000 or 800,000 those were not all Italian Jews. After all, according to Italian scholar Risa Sodi there were only 40,000 Jews in all of Italy in August 1943 about when the Nazis took control of the country. Thus, somewhere between 360,000 and 760,000 of the Jews Pius saved were not Italian. You can find Sodi’s article in the Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 1999 13(2):272-282.
“European Jews were left to fend for themselves. And six million of them didn’t do so great.”
Italy is part of Europe in case you didn’t know. And remember, your favorite book says he saved 400,000 Jews.
“The interesting parts of “La Popessa” were not the same old empty defenses of Pacelli’s complicity in WWII, but in its depiction of the very bizarre relationship he had with his German “secretary” and housekeeper of over 50 years.”
To you. It seems, however, that that is merely your predilection. In a thread that devolved into accusations over anti-semitism the most important part of La Popessa - a book you touted for a day or two - was exactly that which contradicted your earlier claims and which you refused to discuss for exactly that reason. Your claim that the relationship between Pius and Sr. Pascalina was the more interesting part seems dishonest at best given that that relationship often showed itself most clearly when dealing with aiding Jews, refugees and others in the war.
“Read the book yourself and see if you think it is a postive assessment of the man and his life.”
The book says Pius XII saved 400,000 Jews. That is a positive assessment of the man and his life. What these modern authors think about him otherwise would clearly be immaterial. His actions and beliefs matter, not his life long friendship with a nun.
“Or if it instead, inadvertently no doubt, asks more questions about his character, his intenions and his actions (and lack of action.)”
Saving 400,000 Jews is action. It is also a positive expression of good character. Can that be doubted when the man saved at least 400,000 Jews according to the very book you tout?
“After all, most of us Republicans are questioning Hillary’s close relationship with her “assistant,” a possible Saudi Arabian, muslim spy.”
Uh, actually most Republicans are NOT questioning that relationship. Most Republicans do not assume she is a Muslim spy. And the almost overwhelming silence over that relationship even in the Republican media means even most die-hard Republicans doubt there is a lesbian romance going on there. If Republicans believed there was something there of any real import then it would be like Spitzer all over again.
“It’s a fair question to ask of Pacelli, too, given the circumstances and the outcome.”
No, actually it isn’t. And the outcome seems to be that Pius XII saved 400,000 Jewish lives according to your own touted book selection.
You are still sticking with this lie? Pius XII saved hundereds of thousands, as testified to by ... Jews. To put this number in perspective, please tell us how many Jews were saved by the leaders of your particular denomination.
most of whom had converted to Catholicism.
A blatant lie with no supporting evidence.
European Jews were left to fend for themselves.
How convenient to ignore what was done to help them, even if it was not enough.
very bizarre relationship he had with his German "secretary" and housekeeper of over 50 years.
Innuendo is a sin. She was his secretary and that is a fact whether you put quotes around it or not. Just because she was German does not mean she was evil. Bizarre is what all these unfounded accusations are. Have you read her autobiography or just tales written by those with an axe to grind?