History questions not worth their own thread IV

[say1988]

Despit his personal (and often public) dislike for the Catholic Church he did work with it to appease the heavily Catholic populace.

He had his children baptized into the Church and held a religious marrige ceremony (a decade after his civil marriage). An you obviously have the Lateran Pact.

In the thirties he and the Pope publicly reconciled and said nice things about each other (I believe the Pope said something to the extent that Mussolini was sent by God).

I am sure someone else can give more details, but he essentially tolerated and worked with the Church when necessary in order to ensure he gained and maintained power in the heavily Roman Catholic country.

 

[LightSpectra]

Mussolini and Pius XI were never on good terms, really. In the '30s, the Fascists were trying to legally absorb Catholic youth groups, which was the context in which Non Abbiamo Bisogno was published.

Ironically the animosity between the two was one of the catalysts for World War II. It's a little known fact that Mussolini was an opponent of the Nazis prior to 1936, when the Entente diplomatically isolated Italy (who in turn allied with Germany). Before that, Mussolini had requested that Pius XI excommunicate Hitler in order to strengthen Engelbert Dollfuß's opposition to German annexation of Austria; Pius XI refused on the grounds that he didn't want to do it on Mussolini's terms, despite the fact that it was a mutually beneficial move, and a moral one.

 

[say1988]

Mussolini and Pius XI were never on good terms, really. In the '30s, the Fascists were trying to legally absorb Catholic youth groups, which was the context in which Non Abbiamo Bisogno was published.

Publically they acted as it they were on good terms or attempted to do so. It was politics on both sides. I guess my previous post was not clear in that regard.

 

[Masada]

It was politics on both sides.

In fairness to Piux XI it was survival politics; there wasn't much else, given the position of the Holy See inside Italy and the Church's complete lack of any means of formal resistance, he or anyone could have done. Concorde was a reasonable response.

 

[Dachs]

In fairness to Piux XI it was survival politics; there wasn't much else, given the position of the Holy See inside Italy and the Church's complete lack of any means of formal resistance, he or anyone could have done. Concorde was a reasonable response.

Especially given Pius' political outlook, which was quasi-authoritarian anyway. I think there's no way to describe the Church's interactions with the Fascists and vice versa other than "extremely complex"; it'd be a joke to call them antagonists, but at the same time there was considerable tension over several issues, some of which were simultaneously areas of cooperation.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Related question: Was there any real separation between anti-Catholic Worshipper and being anti-Catholic Church? Italy was heavily Catholic and it seems odd that bitterly anti-Catholic Mussolini could have garned even a modicum of support if he was constantly bashing Catholics in general.

It really wasn't that unusual for an Italian at the time. The unification of Italy had made the Catholic Church a bitterly political issue. There were plenty of Mangia Praeti at the time.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Mussolini was bitterly anti-Catholic and ruminated on the day when he could enter the Vatican and throw the Pope in the river. When Pius XI continued to criticize the Fascist Party after the conquest of Ethiopia, he was recorded to have remarked that the Papacy is "a malignant tumor in the body of Italy and must 'be rooted out once and for all', because there was no room in Rome for both the Pope and [himself]." (Mussolini: A biography, Denis Mack Smith, Borzoi Book published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1982, pp. 222–223.)

Fascinating. So did he regard Victor Emmanuel II's recognition of Vatican City as a failure in the quest of Italian unification, or simply see the present Papacy as something less than useful to the Fascist cause, which I can only assume was absolute national unity?

Action Française is just like the Nazis and Fascists in that regard. They publicly deployed Catholic imagery but the main movers of the party were themselves anti-Catholic. They never had significant support from the Catholic Church, though it is a sad mark on its history that the French Catholic episcopacy didn't do more to condemn them.

Oh, my understanding was that their relationship to the Church was more akin to Franco's than Mussolini's. I wonder if maybe the French Episcopate refrained from condemning them because they were outright pre-republican reactionaries? Or was all that just a ploy to harness general anti-liberal sentiment in France towards their personal dictatorial ends?

 

[innonimatu]

The french episcopate liked them, it's as simple as that. So did the Vatican, as in "the church's hierarchy right to the top". Something the church doesn't like to admit now, naturally.

The Catholic Church initially reacted to the rise of the secular state in the late 19th century as it had reacted to protestantism: a conservative "counter-reformation" of sorts, crack down on the heretics wherever the church and its allies had the power to do so. The fight lasted a few decades (one can say that it began proper with the French Revolution) but this one they lost everywhere, and that defeat became undeniable even to the gerontocracy in charge when their big self-congratulatory party was crashed in Rome itself in 1870 by the new italian army.

The church hierarchy under Pious IX then entered a period of passive denial which lasted until Pious X decided to bet on a new approach. Since the traditional political allies of the church had fallen, and the tools of repression controlled directly by the Church had been dismantled, a Catholic Church still bent on controlling political power had no choice but to try to defeat the new secular democracies on their own terms: get the "national branches" of the church to enter party politics. The groundwork for the policies of the future Pius XI were set under Pious X. The other strategy which the Church invested heavily into then (but went relatively unnoticed) was a bet on capturing more women as faithful: canonization of women as saints and whole marian thing were given high priority for political reasons.

The venture into secular politics by the church initially seemed to produce satisfactory results, up to and beyond the World War, but the economic consequences of the war would soon undermine the credibility of the conservative governments of which the church parties were part. Enter (the future) Pious XI and a new strategy: ally with the anti-socialists everywhere, at any price. If the Church cannot rule, it can at least pick the new kings. He certainly didn't like Mussolini or Hitler, he would have liked much better to have the Church's political branches in power. But unable to achieve that he fully committed to a strategy of alliance with these creatures, the extent of that commitment visible in the orders from the Vatican to not simply not oppose but actively aid in the the suppression of elections and political rights and the establishment of dictatorships by the fascists and nazis... the issue of what could have happened in Germany may be in doubt, but not so for Italy (which also supplied a model of sorts for Germany).

 

[Glassfan]

I read this article and almost fell out of my chair...

Britain has invaded over 90% of the world!

 

[Lone Wolf]

To us patriotic Russians, who understand the perfidy of Anglo-Saxon bloodthirsty imperialism, the Brutish Empire's adventures are no surprise

 

[LightSpectra]

When have British troops assaulted South American countries, or Mongolia?

 

[ace99]

For South America they're probably counting the blockades and assorted imperialist nonsense.

 

[LightSpectra]

I don't see how a blockade counts as a military invasion. It's a breach of national sovereignty, indeed, but that's not quite the same thing.

Which South American countries have the British blockaded ever, anyway?

 

[say1988]

When have British troops assaulted South American countries, or Mongolia?

Well, keep in mind that they just imposed modern borders over events occurring over a long period of time, so South America examples will date from the colonial period.

The British attempted to invade Argentina a number of times during the Napoleonic Wars. "State sanctioned" privateers and naval raids are counted for countries along the Caribbean and I assume the rest of coastal South America (Paraguay and Bolivia are two that did nt make the list).

Mongolia is one listed that there is no evidence of, though they came close (within 50 miles of the border) during the Russian Civil War.

This article is probably a bit better as it gives a few details and a simple list of the 22 exceptions.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do they have any statistics for other major imperial or colonial powers? Taken in isolation, we don't really know if "90%" is supposed to be particularly high for a country like Britain.

 

[Flying Pig]

Apparently France was next on the list - I imagine theirs is broadly similar, but below that I should think they drop off precipitously.

 

[say1988]

I would guess that Spain is quite high as well and the US should be up there.

But it isn't like there have been many countries in the same league as Britain to compare them to.

And I do believe this is more a piece of [potentially] interesting trivia than anything to say is "good" of "bad".

 

[Leoreth]

When have British troops assaulted South American countries, or Mongolia?

Las Malvinas? *ducks*

 

[Flying Pig]

Mongolia's a notable exception, although I queried whether British troops might have entered it during the Russian Civil War. Leoreth is, I suppose, correct.

 

[say1988]

Leoreth is, I suppose, correct.

I doubt a British man creating this is going by notion. But it doesn't matter.

In 1806-1807 the British invaded what is now Argentina and Uraguay a couple times (including occupying each of Buenos Aires and Montevideo for a period).

Mongolia's a notable exception, although I queried whether British troops might have entered it during the Russian Civil War.

The author actually makes that argument. But says the closest he could find records of was 50 miles from the border.
I also wouldn't be surprised of Luxembourg doesn't fall into the same boat. The British have had plenty of armies moving through that general area at one time or another.