Posts Tagged ‘Rome’

Madonna Explains Swastika Appearance on ‘MDNA’ Tour

Thursday, July 26th, 2012

broke her silence on why she incorporated the swastika in a segment of her “MDNA” tour. During an interview on Brazilian television, the singer reasoned out that there was a purpose for the appearance of the symbol.

“That film that was created is about the intolerance that we human beings have for one another and how much we judge people before knowing them,” she said. “There seems to be a growing intolerance around the world. In Greece, France, everywhere people are trying to kick out all the immigrants, make people cover up and not show what their religious affiliation is.”

The film she spoke of served as the backdrop of the pop superstar’s performance of the song, “Nobody Knows Me.” The video backdrop also showed the swastika on the forehead of French National Front leader Marine Le Pen.

Le Pen took notice of the image after the tour’s stop in Tel Aviv, Israel and threatened the queen of pop with a lawsuit if she showed the same image in France. Madonna refused to edit the video and used it during her concert in Paris. She is reportedly going to be sued by the French National Front party.

“Art is there to track what’s going on in the world, to make social commentary,” she explained. “I think you’re not an artist if you’re not dissecting and deconstructing ideas.”

Her usage of the symbol that has long been recognized as the Nazi symbol and used by white supremacists is not the only thing that kept Madge’s tour in the headlines. Just recently, on Saturday, July 21, Madonna held a gun onstage in Edinburgh despite being warned against it. She also exposed her breast at a show in Istanbul and her rear end at a show in Rome.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The Visigoths

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

The first Germanic people to penetrate the frontiers of the empire were the West Goths , or Visigoths. The Goths had originally lived in southern Scandinavia and around the Baltic. But moving south in the second century they had split into two groups, the East Goths, or Ostrogoths, who had remained in southern Russia to live off the land as an army of conquerors, and the West Goths, or Visigoths, who drove the Romans out of Dacia (modern Rumania). The Goths were receptive to Roman ways of life, developed a taste for Roman luxuries, and adopted the Arian form of Christianity. Many were recruited into the Roman army, and even took offices of state in Constantinople itself. Thus, when the westward drive of a Mongolian people called the Huns from the steppes of Russia overwhelmed the Ostrogoths, the emperor Valens of Constantinople was not unwilling to permit the Visigoths to move into the empire in 376 to defend its Danubefrontier. Apparently outraged at the treatment they had received from imperial officials, the Visigoths took up arms against the emperor, who was defeated and killed at the battle of Adrianople in 378. His successor Theodosius I placated the Visigoths with gifts of land and payment of tribute, and they in return furnished recruits to the imperial army. Relations with the Visigoths deteriorated after the death of Theodosius I in 395, when the empire was divided again between his two sons, Arcadius (reigned 395-408) who inherited the Eastern Roman Empire and Honorius (reigned 395-423) who inherited the Western Roman Empire. Furious at the conditions of military service imposed on his people, Alaric, the leader of the Visigoths, led his troops against Constantinople in 395, but was persuaded to divert his army into Greece, capturing Athens. Alaric, after declaring himself king of the Visigoths, led them north into Illyricum ( Yugoslavia ). InItaly , Honorius sought seclusion and luxury in the city of Ravenna , which was well protected by broad marshes, leaving his regent, the Vandal soldier Stilicho, to deal with Alaric’s invasion of Italy after 403. Stilicho used strategic cunning as well as bribery to keep the Visigoths away from Rome; but, after Stilicho was unjustly executed on charges of treason, Alaric was able to besiege and finally in August 410 to capture and sack Rome. It was eight hundred years since a foreign invader had broken through the walls of Rome . “The world sinks into ruin,” wrote St. Jerome . “Yes! but shameful to say our sins still live and flourish. The renowned city, the capital of the Ro- man Empire, is swallowed up in one tremendous fire; and there is no part of the earth where Romans are not in exile.” Fortunately, Jerome was exaggerating. Few people were killed; the houses of nobles were plundered. The Forum was set ablaze, but all the churches were spared. Alaric even organized a fine procession to Saint Peter’s to present the treasures he had saved for the pope. Alaric died shortly afterwards, and a river was temporarily diverted to provide a secure grave for him in its bed. The Visigoths then moved on to southern France and Spain , where they finally settled. Al- though they were tolerant of the Catholic worship in the areas they con- trolled, they were isolated from the Latin population for almost two centuries by their refusal to give up Arianism. They were finally converted toward the end of the sixth century.  

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The Postclassical West And Its Heritage

Saturday, April 14th, 2012

The term Middle Ages long suggested a rather unpleasant, backward period

in Western history between the glories of classical Greece and Rome and the

return of vigorous civilization in the 15th century. In this view, the Middle

Ages might be regarded as an unfortunate interlude in which Westerners were

dominated by poverty and superstition, pulled away from mainstream Western

values. Western leaders might be given credit for keeping a few classical

ideals alive, copying documents and venerating the glories of the past.

Western leaders, however, should be given credit for little else.

 

     The harsh view of the Middle Ages is not entirely wrong, though it

neglects the extent to which much activity centered in parts of Europe that

had never before been integrated into a major civilization and therefore were

building appropriate institutions and culture for the first time.

Postclassical Europe was backward in some respects, even at its height. It did

not participate in world contacts as an equal to the great Asian societies.

The Middle Ages was not simply an awkward interlude in Western history,

however. It had a formative force of its own.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The Roman Monarchy, 753-509 B.C.

Friday, April 13th, 2012

Rome‘s political growth followed a line of development similar to that of
the Greek city-states: limited monarchy of the sort described by Homer,
oligarchy, democracy, and, finally, the permanent dictatorship of the Roman
emperors. We shall see that in moving from oligarchy to democracy, the Romans,
unlike the Greeks, succeeded in avoiding the intermediate stage of tyranny.

According to tradition, early Rome was ruled by kings elected by the
people. After the Etruscan conquest, this elective system continued, although
the last three of Rome’s seven kings were Etruscan. The king’s executive
power, both civil and military, was called the imperium, which was symbolized
by an ax bound in a bundle of rods (fasces). In the 1920s the fasces provided
both the symbol and name for Mussolini’s political creed of fascism.

Although the imperium was conferred by a popular assembly made up of all
arms-bearing citizens, the king turned for advice to a council of nobles
called the Senate. Senators had lifelong tenure, and they and their families
belonged to the patrician class. The other class of Romans, the plebeians, or
commoners, included small farmers, artisans, and many clients, or dependents,
of patrician landowners. In return for a livelihood, the clients gave their
patrician patrons political support in the assembly.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Rome’s Origins

Friday, April 13th, 2012

According to ancient legend, Rome was founded in 753 B.C. by the twin
brothers Romulus and Remus, who were saved from death in their infancy by a
she-wolf who sheltered and suckled them. According to Virgil’s Aeneid
Romulus’ ancestor was Aeneas, a Trojan who after the fall of Troy founded a
settlement in Latium. The Aeneas story, invented by Greek mythmakers, pleased
the Romans because it linked their history with that of the Greeks.

Turning from fable to fact, modern scholars believe that in the eighth
century B.C. the inhabitants of some small Latin settlements on hills in the
Tiber valley united and established a common meeting place, the Forum, around
which the city of Rome grew. Situated at a convenient place for fording the
river and protected from invaders by the hills and marshes, Rome was
strategically located. Nevertheless, the expanding Etruscans conquered Rome
about 625 B.C., and under their tutelage Rome first became an important
city-state.

Some aspects of Etruscan culture were borrowed from the Greek colonies in
southern Italy, and much of this, including the alphabet, was passed on to the
conquered Romans. (Etruscan writing can be read phonetically but not
understood.) From their Etruscan overlords, the Romans acquired some of their
gods and the practice of prophesying by examining animal entrails and the
flight of birds. From the conquerors, too, the conquered learned the art of
building (especially the arch), the practice of making statues of their gods,
and the staging of gladiatorial combats. Even the name Roma appears to
be an Etruscan word.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Rome To 509 B.C.

Friday, April 13th, 2012

The history of Rome extends from 753 B.C., the traditional date for the
founding of the city by Romulus, Rome’s legendary first king, to A.D. 476 when
another Romulus, Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman emperor in the West, was
deposed. The first period in this span of more than a thousand years ended in
509 B.C. with the expulsion of the seventh and last of Rome’s kings, Tarquin
the Proud, and the establishment of a republic.

Geography And Early Settlers Of Italy

Geography did much to shape the course of events in Italy. The Italian
peninsula is 600 miles long and about four times the size of Greece and
two-thirds that of California. A great mountainous backbone, the Apennines,
runs down almost the entire peninsula. But the land is not so rugged as
Greece, and the mountains do not constitute a barrier to political
unification. Unlike in Greece, a network of roads could be built to link the
regions. Furthermore, the plain of Latium and its city, Rome, occupied a
strategic position. It was easy to defend, and once the Romans had begun a
career of conquest, they occupied a central position which made it difficult
for their enemies to unite successfully against them. The strategic position
of Rome was repeated on a larger scale by Italy itself. Italy juts into the
Mediterranean almost in the center of that great sea. Once Italy was unified,
its commanding position invited it to unify the entire Mediterranean world.

Italy’s best valleys and harbors are on the western slopes of the
Apennines. The Italian peninsula faced west, not east. For a long time,
therefore, culture in Italy lagged behind that of Greece because cultural
contact was long delayed.

Both Greeks and Romans were offshoots of a common Indo-European stock,
and settlement of the Greek and Italian peninsulas followed broadly parallel
stages. Between 2000 and 1000 B.C., when Indo-European peoples invaded the
Aegean world, a western wing of this nomadic migration filtered into the
Italian peninsula, then inhabited by indigenous Neolithic tribes. The first
invaders, skilled in the use of copper and bronze, settled in the Po valley.
Another wave of Indo-Europeans, equipped with iron weapons and tools,
followed; in time the newer and older settlers intermingled and spread
throughout the peninsula. One group, the Latins, settled in the plain of
Latium, in the lower valley of the Tiber River.

For ages history had bypassed the western Mediterranean, but it was soon
to become an increasingly significant area. During the ninth century B.C. the
Etruscans, a non-Indo-European people who probably came from Asia Minor,
brought the first city-state civilization to Italy. Expanding from the west
coast up to the Po valley and south to the Bay of Naples, the Etruscans
organized the backward Italic peoples into a loose confederation of
Etruscan-dominated city-states. After 750 B.C. Greek colonists migrated to
southern Italy and Sicily, where they served as a protective buffer against
powerful and prosperous Carthage, a Phoenician colony established in North
Africa about 800 B.C. Yet the future was not to belong to these various
invaders but to an insignificant village on the Tiber River, then in the
shadow of Etruscan expansion. This was Rome, destined to be ruler of the
ancient world.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Roman

Friday, April 13th, 2012

As the Athenians saw the symbol of their city-state’s democracy and culture in the rock-jutting Acropolis, so the Romans viewed the Forum as the symbol of imperial grandeur. Temples were to be found there, but in contrast to the Acropolis, the Forum was dominated by secular buildings – basilicas used for judicial and other public business; the nearby Coliseum, used for gladiatorial shows; and the great palaces of the emperors rising on the
neighboring Palatine Hill. While the Acropolis was crowned with statues to Athena, the Forum gloried in triumphal arches and columns commemorating military conquests. Rome was the capital of a world-state, extending from Britain to the Euphrates, and its citizens were proud of their imperial mission.

Although the buildings in the Forum appear fundamentally Greek in style, they are more monumental and sumptuous. Here, then, are two clues to an understanding of the Romans: they borrowed much from the Greeks and others, and they modified what they took.

Rome was the great intermediary – the bridge over which passed the rich contributions of the ancient Near East and especially Greece, to form the
basis of modern Western civilization. The Romans replaced the anarchy of the
Hellenistic Age with law and order and embraced the intellectual and artistic
legacy of the conquered Greeks. As Rome’s empire expanded, this legacy was
spread westward throughout most of Europe.

Yet Rome was more than an intermediary, for it made many important and
original contributions to our Western culture. Throughout a history that led
from a simple farming community in the plain of Latium to a strong state that
became the master of the Mediterranean world as well as Gaul, Britain, and
part of Germany, the Romans met one challenge after another with practicality
and efficiency. In the shadows of its marching legions went engineers and
architects, so that today, scattered throughout the lands that once were part
of the Roman world, the remains of roads, walls, baths, basilicas,
amphitheaters, and aqueducts offer convincing evidence of the Romans’
practical skills. Most lasting and far-reaching of all were Roman law and
administration – for example, the separation of powers (magistrates, Senate,
and assembly) and checks and balances in Rome’s republican constitution were
models for the U.S. Constitution.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Art

Thursday, April 12th, 2012

About 1400 a great change took place in society and culture in Italy. As it evolved it came to be called the Renaissance, the “rebirth,” because of the rediscovery of ancient Roman literature and art in the period. This was, however, only one of its aspects, and many would say only a minor one. First of all, it was the moment of the discovery of individuality, of people able to think and act for themselves. The medieval worker had been an anonymous toiler for the glory of God. On the medieval facade of the church of St. Hubert in Troyes, one reads non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam–”Not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name be glory.” But one reads across the front of the Renaissance church of San Francesco in Rimini simply the name of the ruler who built it, Sigismondo Malatesta, and the date. The building came to be called Tempio Malatestiano, the Temple of Malatesta.

The Renaissance individual, freed from medieval superstition, cynically experimented in politics (as can be seen in Machiavelli’s book ‘Il Principe’ [The Prince] of 1513), explored new areas of science and nature (as did Galileo), conceived a new philosophy–Neoplatonism–that combined Christian and ancient thought, reintroduced realism into painting and sculpture, and created a new style in architecture. The Renaissance architect was a new and different sort. In place of the medieval craftsman-architect, there were now men skilled in all artistic media, men who understood theory as well as practice and who pretended to personal worth and even genius. Among the leading architects of the period were two sculptors–Filippo Brunelleschi and Michelangelo–and three painters–Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and Giulio Romano. Leonardo was a scientist, Michelangelo a philosopher and poet. Leon Battista Alberti and Andrea Palladio wrote treatises on architecture. To these men architecture was not a mechanical art pursued by traditional craft rules but a liberal art controlled by abstract intellectual speculation.

Alberti. The new state of architecture can be seen most clearly in the person of Alberti. Medieval architects had risen from the anonymity of stonemasons, but Alberti was a gentleman and sportsman who practiced painting and music and who applied his general theorizing to architecture. In 1452 he wrote ‘De re aedificatoria’ (Ten Books on Architecture), which was the first theoretical essay on building. Here he sought to rewrite the ancient Roman architectural book ‘De architectura’ (On Architecture) by Vitruvius to clarify and Christianize it as his philosopher friends in Florence were then rewriting and Christianizing the philosophy of Plato. Alberti conceived of architecture in terms of simple geometric volumes and numerical proportions, combining Plato’s belief that beauty lies in numbers and Vitruvius’ assertions that the orders were fixed in proportion. Alberti described an ideal city with all its streets laid out geometrically, centering on a cylindrical domed church set on a high base, with its windows placed far up the walls so that only the sky could be seen from inside. The church’s decoration was to be very simple and its ornament to be faithfully copied from ancient Roman buildings.

 

Brunelleschi. Alberti’s vision was a startlingly new one and a difficult one to realize. Alberti’s young friend Filippo Brunelleschi had made the first attempt in his design for the church of San Lorenzo in Florence, begun in 1421. The plan is not centralized, but the dark stained glass and tall proportions of the Gothic style have been replaced by light, open regular spaces in the proportion of one to two. Greek columns and entablatures in dark gray stone define the spaces and measure the white stucco walls. Alberti had not yet written ‘De re aedificatoria’ in 1421, but he was working on a treatise on perspective in painting, which was dedicated to Brunelleschi, and San Lorenzo seems to reflect Alberti’s interest in the precise definition of space

Alberti himself, beginning about the time of Brunelleschi’s death in 1446, designed a number of buildings. Some were only exteriors added to existing structures, like the Tempio Malatestiano or the Rucellai Palace in Florence. He made the church facade in the form of a three-part Roman triumphal arch, intending that the tombs of Sigismondo Malatesta and his wife should be set on each side of the entrance opening. Alberti decorated the palace facade with a grid of Roman pilasters, setting up a proportional system followed also in the windows and doors. Two churches he later built in their entirety, those of San Andrea and San Sebastiano, were given pediments and pilasters surmounting broad flights of stairs like ancient Roman temples.

Bramante. Alberti moved from Florence to Rome about 1450. The power and the wealth of the pope at Rome were increasing, and about this time the center of the Renaissance moved there. The years from 1503 to 1513 marked the glorious papacy of Julius II. He brought Michelangelo and Raphael to work for him in Rome, and in 1506 he commenced the huge project of rebuilding St. Peter’s. The man he employed to replace the venerable but dilapidated basilica (built by the emperor Constantine) was Donato Bramante. He was about 60 when he went to Rome from Milan, and he is supposed to have been trained as a painter by Piero della Francesco and Andrea Mantegna. While working as an architect in Milan, he would have known Leonardo, who was there at the time working out a series of geometric solutions for an ideal centralized church on Alberti’s lines. From 1506 until his death in 1514, Bramante worked to design and begin construction of the first full expression of the new Renaissance church.

Only the four central piers and the four arches linking them to support the central dome were completed before Bramante died, and he seems to have still been changing his design. It was a composition of spaces defined by piers, vaults, and domes like the great Roman ruins nearby. It was principally, if not completely, centralized with a huge central dome at the meeting of four vaulted arms. This form was repeated in the cross-shaped, domed spaces set in the corners. From the exterior it would have made a unified composition of simple geometric forms, building step by step to a hemispheric dome supported on a ring of Roman columns.

Michelangelo. Delay and confusion followed Julius’ and Bramante’s deaths within a year of each other, but in 1546 work was recommenced by a worthy successor, Michelangelo. He was 70 but had been executing architectural projects in Florence since the 1520s. His Medici Chapel in the church of San Lorenzo of 1520-34 and his Laurentian Library of 1523-59 were extraordinary for the expressive distortions of their details. Michelangelo extended these to his new design for St. Peter’s. He simplified Bramante’s composition, strengthened the proportions, and designed details as huge and powerful as the construction itself. He made the exterior wall to ripple in response to the intricate interior spaces as though they were pushing against an elastic membrane. He made its thickness palpable with deeply cut windows and niches and then held it together with a row of massive pilasters.

Giulio Romano. Bramante had realized Alberti’s Neoplatonic ideal. Michelangelo’s architecture shows an elaboration and expressiveness that might seem excessive and that has been called Mannerist. The painter Raphael lived to 1520, and, in his last works as well as in architectural designs done at the end of his life, he displayed similar Mannerist tendencies. In the hands of Raphael’s student Giulio Romano, Mannerism received its most dramatic expression. In the Palazzo del Te in Mantua (erected and decorated from 1524 to 1535), Giulio Romano made the most adventurous distortions: keystones that seem to be falling from arches and painted ceilings that appear to be collapsing.

Palladio. While Mannerism dominated Rome and central Italy, the rich island city of Venice and its region experienced in the work of Andrea Palladio the extension and final perfection of the balanced Neoplatonic architecture of Alberti and Bramante. Palladio had begun as a stonemason, but beginning about 1535 he was educated as a scholar by the literary reformer Giangiorgio Trissino. He later became a close friend of other scholars, most particularly the editor of Vitruvius, Daniele Barbaro, and in 1555 Palladio became a founding member of the Accademia Olympica in Vicenza. In 1570 Palladio published his highly respected treatise, ‘I Quattro Libri dell’architettura’ (Four Books on Architecture). His work is remarkable for applying geometry and proportion as well as simplicity and correctness of precedent to all genres of architecture. He coordinated the proportions of every room in designs such as that for the Villa Rotonda near Vicenza of 1550. He also tried to apply the simple forms of the Roman temple–the evenly spaced rows of columns and the pediment–to both villas and churches, developing a uniquely satisfying type of church facade in San Giorgio Magno and Il Redentore in Venice. His buildings, especially as illustrated and described in his book, were to become the principal models of imitation as the Renaissance spread outward from Italy around 1600.


Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The Batavians

Sunday, April 8th, 2012

The German Tribe
Coming out of North Hessen, the Batavians originally were a part of the tribe of the Chatti. In 50 BCE the Batavians came to what is now know as The Netherlands. In those days it was a part of Germania. The Batavians followede the Rhine and settled in the area now called ‘Betuwe’, they used to refer to it as “The Island”, as it was the piece of land between the Rhine and the Waal.
The Batavians ‘capital’ was Noviomagus Batavodurum (present day Nijmegen).
According to the not so trustful, but ever amusing historian Tacitus the Batavians were the bravest and most feared tribe of alle the German tribes when he wrote: “They are like weapons and armour – only to be used in war’.

Their Gods
Donar was the chief of the Batavians Gods, his Scandinavic counterpart was Thor. The centre of the Batavian cultus was near present-day Nijmegen, where two temples dedicated to Donar were found. Another temple was found near Elst, in the center of the Betuwe. The Batavians used to sing their warsongs in his name, and he was worshipped open temples. These temples were more like open places with just a small fence; the Batavians did not believe it was appropriate to limit their gods by using walls and ceilings.
The Romans named the Batavian chief god Hercules Magusanus. He resembled their mythological hero Hercule, who was, just as Donar, a protector of the people. The name Magusanus means ‘the wealthy’ and some even think that the name Novio Magus was taken from this addjective. This, however, is not true.
The name Hercules Magusanus is found on braclets, coins and althars such as in Houten Tiellandt and Ubbergen have been found. Inscriptions with this name were found by Ruimel, where St. Willibrord destroyed a temple which was dedicated to Hercules Magusanus to put a church on the very same spot. They are also found in Westkappelle as well as in Rome, Vetera, Bonn and as far north as Hadrians Wall.
The reason why his name travelled this far is because a lot of Batavians had entered the Roman service and spread it allover the Empire. And because Donar was a god of battle, he was particularly populair with the Batavian warriors. In Empel an inscription was found of a former Batavian legionair, which says: “For Hercules Magusanus. By Julius Genialis, veteran of the Tenth Legion, also known as the Double, the Just and the Faithfull, has pleasantly and with reason payed a debt.
The Batavians also worshipped Wodan, his Latin name would be Mercurius Friausius (of Eriasus). Friausius can be explained as ‘free, loveable’ and seems more applicable to Wodan’s wife Frigga. In Ubbergen an althar dedicated to Wodan was found. In Nijmegen the name Mercurius Rex (=king) has been found.

Triple Goddess
The Batavians had a lot of goddesses. In the Rhine area between Nijmegen and Cologne the so calles ‘Matrones’ were worshipped. This was a group of three goddesses, who function were variable such as healing, justice and war. They can be compared to the Nornen (Germanic fate goddesses) as well as The Morrigan (the Celtic triple goddess).
The cultus of the Matrones was extremely popular and were introduces into the Roman Empire by Germanic soldiers. The three goddesses were later replaced by three gods, among which Donar and Wodan. The third is not known for sure.
By the time the former German tribes had become christians, the believe in the triple gods/goddesses was so deep that they could not simply be discharged. That’s why today we know several ‘christian’ believes such as ‘the father, the son and the holy ghost’ as well as ‘Faith, Hope & Love’.
The most well-known Batavian goddess would have been Hel, the goddess of the Underworld. Her name even refers to the name of present Elst, where several temples were found, as we saw above.

Other parts of the cultus
Apart from the goddesses, female seers had high places. The one most known is Veleda, she had a great part in the revolt of Julius Civilis. The Batavians used to worship her as a goddess. In 77 CE she was taken prisoner by the Romans, taken to Rome and never heard from again.
The Batavians had great respect for nature, both flora and fauna. They had sacred groves, sacres stones, sacres hills and so fort, but also anmimals had their own spirituality.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

A Classic Example by Joseph Goebbels

Sunday, March 18th, 2012

It attracted some notice when the author of these lines failed to provide his usual weekly lead article on the Friday following 25 July. Some unfriendly souls even believed that the events surrounding the fall of the Duce and the establishment of the Badoglio regime in Rome rather took his breath away. The falsity of that belief needs no proof today. It would naturally have been possible to speak during the week in question just as it is in any other week, and the situation was such that there would have been more to say than usual about the war and international affairs. However, regard for our national interest kept us silent. We did not want to say what we could say, and we could not say what we wanted to say.

We do not need to say that the treason of the Badoglio clique, which first became evident when Mussolini was deposed, was recognized immediately by the German military leadership. It nonetheless had to put a good face on things while they developed. Just as the traitors worked in secret, so did we. To paraphrase Machiavelli, it was a point when it was a sign of great wisdom to look the fool. Only thus could the disgraceful plans of the traitors in Rome be resisted and ruined.

It was a classic example of the necessity of silence during war. We were not willing to say anything that conflicted with our knowledge and beliefs, and that we knew would be contradicted by the facts within a few weeks. But we could not discuss the true situation without revealing the plans and intentions of the German war leadership. And in the middle of one of the most dramatic moments in the war, we did not want to take up some peripheral issue, leaving us open to the charge of dodging the issue. We had no alternative but to remain silent. We were firmly convinced that developments would soon reveal the reason for our silence.

This happened more rapidly and dramatically than even we could have expected. The German military leadership assumed after the Duce was imprisoned that the Badoglio regime intended to take Italy out of the war as quickly as possible. All the protestations by the reactionary clique of traitors in Rome about their loyalty and dependability were not able to convince us of the contrary. One does not replace a strong man with a weak one in order to wage war more energetically, as the lying Badoglio clique told us. The actions of the clique in Rome proved that they were committing treason on a large scale. There goal was not only to deceive us, but also to give our soldiers in the south over to the enemy. This treacherous betrayal was to be the payment for a better armistice agreement.

The Badoglio regime did not want to leave the war in an honorable way, but rather at the cost of the Axis partner that Italy owes so much to since 1940. The king made the most pompous calls to continue the war and hold to Italy’s obligations, while military and political actions demonstrated treason of the most disgraceful and degrading sort. Spare us the necessity of going through the Badoglio regime’s treachery. Even thinking about it sickens us. There has never been a greater example of treachery in all of history. But it was a treachery that backfired, as the proverb has it.

The German leadership naturally drew cold and rational conclusions at the beginning of developments. The failure of the Badoglio regime’s treachery resulted from the German leadership’s countermeasures. Had it succeeded, the Reich would have faced the greatest danger of the war. Speaking from direct knowledge, we can say that only the Führer’s clear vision and wisdom is to thank for overcoming the danger. Despite all the hypocritical assurances of a treacherous king and his cowardly marshals, who even gave their word of honor as soldiers, measure were taken to defend German interests, despite scandalous disloyalty.

The public knows the outrageous nature of these treacherous events. Not only did they conceal their measures from their loyal, reliable and generous ally, they continued to do so even in the midst of their activities. They made military demands of us that, had we fulfilled them, would have led to the worst possible disaster for our troops in Italy.

One can understand why the Führer was not able to speak to the German people in the midst of these breath-taking events, despite the widespread wishes of the public. The resulting uncertainty had to be accepted as events continued to develop. We presumed that the traitorous clique in Rome would continue their activities, displaying more stupidity than lack of character. That was our plan. We had to play dumb in order to act intelligently.

The German people read with horror the account of the deposing and imprisoning of the Duce. We knew this earlier, without being able to reveal it to the public. If one can make any reproach against Fascism, it is that it believed in a king’s loyalty. His throne was rescued in 1922 by the march on Rome, and like most modern kings, he repaid the strong policies of his most loyal servant by deserting him in the hour of danger by running to those who opposed and hated him. Kings generally are not characterized by thankfulness. Wilhelm I, whose loyalty to Bismarck is an exception, earned the title “the Great.” The Duce was good enough in 1922 to protect the corrupt court in Rome from execution by the Bolshevists. They deposed him in 1943 because they blindly thought they could get along without him. Recent events have shown how wrong they were. The violent removal of a strong man leads to anarchy. The Italian royal house quickly learned the result of replacing a personality of historic stature with a cowardly, treacherous marshal, one who held breaking his word of honor as a soldier to be the height of political wisdom.

One can only pity the Italian people, who were the victims of these revolting developments. Just as a nation benefits from the deeds and accomplishments of strong governments, so too they suffer from the mistakes and failures of weak, amateurish and disloyal governments. It was unavoidable that the Italian people had to suffer at the beginning of the darkest chapter of their history. They have the peace-hungry cowardly elements of Roman society to thank. The thirteen points of the capitulation treaty will have given them a foretaste of what was coming. World history is the world court. Italy’s citizens can learn from the international press what friends and enemies think about the treachery of the king and his clique of generals. Even the English and Americans gag. Their motto at the moment is: “Love treason, hate the traitor.” One does not need to wonder about the judgment of history on the royal house and those around it. That is already clear.

London and Washington are amazed at the German reaction to the Badoglio regime’s treachery. They expected things to turn out differently. The German troops in the south of Italy were to be cut off and destroyed. We would not be prepared to deal with Churchill’s amphibious landing. Air terror would increase. The German people would be so depressed that on 9 November a repetition of the tragedy of 1918 would be possible, even likely. Nothing like happened, or will happen. The English and the Americans have a long way to go to get to Rome, not to mention Berlin. The German army is master of events in Italy. And as for German morale, it has never been stronger than it is today.

The Italian example is not encouraging for we Germans, but rather a warning. We see it as a classic example of what not to do. No one here wants to follow in the footsteps of the Badoglio clique. To the contrary, the consequences that followed the royal house’s betrayal of the nation’s great leader and his powerful friends is a lesson for every German. It has opened the eyes of even the dumbest among us. A flood of letters has reached us recently. In some, the writers regret that this or that annoyance of the war had put them in a bad mood. In the face of what has happened in Italy, they regret it. A university professor writes that he is normally a peaceful man, but after reading the capitulation demands on the Italian people, he is firmly resolved to punish anyone who in his hearing even hints at opposing the war or doubts victory. Everyone in Germany thinks the same way. The threat has not robbed us of courage, but brought us closer together.

None of the English-American hopes have been realized. They shot a poisoned arrow at us, but it boomeranged off the wisdom of our leadership and the firm morale of our people. A danger that first seemed deadly has been averted, and a national misfortune has been turned to our good. How can we doubt final victory in the face of such a wonderful and improbable turn of events? The war brings so many surprises that one cannot predict its course. One must hold to the virtues with which its dangers and difficulties are mastered.

Courage, steadfastness, and confidence in a just fate are always with the brave in the end. Their loyalty is unshakable, they stand by their friends and allies. The treacherous Badoglio clique sinned shamefully against all of these virtues, and they have their reward. A band of treacherous cowards misused their high offices, forgot their honor, and followed a false wisdom that wants to escape danger, but falls victim to it. Their names are covered with shame and disgrace in the book of history.

We bow in admiration before that great personality, the Duce. He neither caused, nor could he hinder, the misfortune that came upon the Italian people, but now has even greater claim on our admiration. The whole German nation admires him. It found spontaneous expression when news of his rescue reached us. We are happy that our people think this way. It has a natural feeling for thankfulness and loyalty, and will stand even more fanatically by a man whose lifework is threatened. No one knows what the future of the Italian people may be. Perhaps it is undergoing a hard and painful process that will bring new life. Italy will have to decide for itself. We made a clear choice after 1918: it was for struggle, sacrifice, devotion and hard work. That led us upward. Each nation is responsible for itself.

We Germans in recent weeks walked a narrow path along the abyss. Not everyone saw the abyss, but we all followed the Führer, who even in his silence showed us the way. More than ever, we sense the blessing of his great personality that watches over the life and future of the nation. Giving to him our full confidence is not only our national duty, but also our proud right. We want to be hard and strong, to fight bravely, to work untiringly, to believe and trust unshakably, until the hour of victory comes.

All of us will then be able to say that have not gained victory unworthily, but rather that it is the reward for struggle, work, and loyalty.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share