Search the Archives

Monday, July 28, 2014

Caesar Alloquitur: The Poor, Poor Pentecostals

"I'm so Persecuted With my Money and Legal Rights Because I'm Surrounded by Catholicism in Italy!"

Castel Sant'Angelo in Rome, with Michael's statue atop. How oppressive must it be for a Protestant to live in the shadow of an architectural marvel which is a monument to the Papacy's refusal to be crushed?
I just have a couple of questions concerning all of this.

War Flag of the Italian Social Republic. Fascists, like their Communist adversaries, had a talent for naming horrible things in such a way you'd think they were the grandest thing.

 While I understand reconciliation is necessary in any event, I have to ask a question that I want a serious answer to: when has the Catholic Church persecuted Pentecostals? It’s curious. I use pretty much every search engine I know to find out, and I find nothing. In fact, the only reference to persecution of Pentecostals comes from more news articles reporting on the events in the other link. The only thing I can find is in these articles glib mention of religious persecution of Pentecostals by Mussolini in the 20s and 30s. There’s also minor mention of it in various (reputable) sources speaking on Fascist Italy.

I’m not about to start white-washing Fascist regimes or anything, but how is this our fault? The Catholic Church was as much a prisoner in Fascist Italy and in the subsequent satellite state controlled by the Nazis as anyone else was. Like with most fascist regimes, the state religion was usually picked based on the preference of those in power and the cultural background of the nation. It had nearly nothing to do with any real respect for the religion or any desire to follow it. To be fair, we were lucky to get the concordats we did or that the Lateran treaty remained in force.
Historically speaking, Pentecostalism has its roots in the big tent revivals of the early 20th century and the mysticism which grew out of that. Anyone who thought the Catholic Church had any temporal power by that point should’ve been laughed off his soap box. Even with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, edicts of past emperors had restricted Papal influence in the last bastion of the Holy Roman Emperors. While it is likely most of these were rescinded under later monarchs, it’s unclear if they were.

Portrait of Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor. One of those Emperors who began the trend of writing policy limiting the power of the Church.

So the head of Catholicism basically had no say or control over anything and was at the mercy of
Maria Theresa, Another Hapsburg who advocated such policies as Joseph II's.
those who should’ve been his greatest benefactors. It’s been established that the Great War Popes were playing a game close to their chest, with the goal being to protect what was left of the Church because for the first time in nearly a thousand years there was no one to protect it. They were not callous toward the plight of persecuted minorities, as the smuggling efforts carried out by the Roman Pontiffs attests. But anyone who expected the Pope to pull a Julius II and ride out with an army in the full panoply of war and suddenly fix everything or die trying is an idiot with absolutely zero understanding of realpolitik or any foresight. Quite frankly I’m glad the Popes didn’t do that, because if they had, suddenly the dominant powers in Europe would’ve enacted a pogrom against Catholics. Cathedrals and Churches would’ve been looted, smashed, and destroyed, or Antipopes would’ve been set up in the various countries, all with their own Catholicism suitable to their Fascist ideas, and we would’ve had another Great Western Schism on our hands. Quite frankly, we barely survived the last one. There’s no way we would make it out of a second one.


Pope Julius, Warrior-Pope. As much as I admire his approach, one must admit there is a time for war and a time for peace.

More on point, Mussolini was never quiet about his true opinions of Catholicism. He hated it, and himself was raised by anti-clerical parents. He proclaimed himself an atheist and was downright blasphemous in his statements and remarks about Catholicism, even going so far as to introduce the idea that Christ and the Blessed Mother had an incestuous affair. He even early on in his tenure in the Socialist party suggested a policy of expelling Christian members or those who accepted religious marriage as valid.

Benito Mussolini at a Fascist Rally in Rome

Signing of the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini
Mussolini’s own wife admits that any time during his relations with the Pope, he was still irreligious and refused to allow any photographs of him with the Pope in which he was in any way seen as submitting to him. He wanted to create the idea that Fascism was Catholicism and Catholicism was Fascism, but he personally still had no use for clergyman or the sacraments.
In fact, Mussolini built himself up as a God. Pronouns in official documents referring to him were to be capitalized. In art and in public appearance he tried to give himself an apotheosis and make himself a Christ-figure to the Italian people.

Even more damning, is that by the late 1930s Mussolini was calling for the outright removal of the Papacy and called it a, “malignant tumor” on his otherwise perfect Italy. He thought Rome wasn’t big enough for the two of them.

What’s puzzling is that even in spite of all this, Mussolini was given a Catholic funeral in 1957, after being hung by a mob after Italy collapsed with the American invasion.

So can we please put to rest the idea that Catholicism and Fascism are somehow compatible? Can we mature just a little bit, open our eyes to the larger political picture of the 20th century, and realize that we probably would’ve done the same thing as the Roman Pontiffs? That we had no more ability to avert history than they themselves did? It’s very easy, if you try. Now all I need is for my fellow Catholics to also drop fascism.

I’m looking at most of the, “Rad Trads” in the room.

Tomb of Marshal Petain, leader of Vichy France and collaborator with the Nazis. Former French Hero from World War II. This is is grave after a pilgrimage by the SSPX, celebrating him as a hero of Catholicism in spite of his crimes committed with the Nazis and in Vichy France. Video footage exists of the pilgrimages. Fliers distributed in French SSPX parishes for the pilgrimages exists. Though they've tried to hide the evidence, it's as plain as day that the vast majority of the SSPX - for whatever ungodly reason - supports Fascism. As far as I'm concerned, before any other unity talks, they need to clean their own house before asking us to clean ours.

We’ve established now that Mussolini simply doesn’t stack up to other Catholic leaders of the past. Philip II of Spain, Charles V (HRE), Charlemagne, Otto the Great (HRE), Jan III Sobieski of Poland, Saint Louis IX of France, Godfrey of Bouillon, Sigurd the Crusader-King of Norway, Saint Ferdinand III of Castile, Charles I of Naples, Leopold I (HRE), King Edward the Confessor of England, Albert the Great of England, and a hundred others I could list off to you. So acting like this is all somehow something that went on with a complete Catholic stamp of approval is ridiculous.

Tho as evidenced by this piece of propaganda, the Fascists sure did try and play themselves up as religious zealots, completely independent of the facts.

 I can’t help but look at the irony of the situation. The fact is these same people who criticize us for not doing enough are the ideological successors to the people who deprived us of all our power. The fact is we would’ve stopped a lot of bad things we had to stand by and watch, but the world literally removed from us the ability to do anything. But now that we don’t have control anymore they treat us like we still do and hold us to the same standard as if Christendom was still a political reality.
What I’m saying is this: if the world wants us to have the influence to fix these problems, they should give us back what is rightfully ours. Protestant squatters in stolen Catholic churches should vacate the premises. The Crowned Heads of Christendom and/or their successors should reaffirm their loyalty to the Vicar of Christ and those who are deprived of their thrones should have them restored. Give Catholics the same legions of lawyers, armed zealots, and UN fandoms that every other religion seems to get. Let us re-established an international Roman Inquisition with regional officers and 100% insight into our dioceses and religious communities. Let us tell our children it is OK to love your culture and your religion. I can promise you, work will get done.


Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms Before Charles V. It's said that had Kaiser Karl not promised Martin Luther save passage to Worms to get him to come speak in the first place, he would've had him killed on the spot.

You wouldn’t ask a plumber to come fix your pipes and then steal all his tools from him and then still demand he do the job with the same efficiency and capability. Don’t do the same to the Roman Catholic Church. That’s all I’m asking. If no one else will put those powers and resources to work for the greater good, I will.

But I haven’t really labored on the most interesting part of this whole thing. What initially had everyone on pins and needles about this whole event was what was said by the Protestant representatives at this meeting the Pope had. They claimed that, quote, “the Catholic Church, with its imposing presence, acts too much as an obstacle to the growth and witness of these [Pentecostal] communities.”

The Spanish Steps, Rome, Italy. I'm so sorry all the beauty we've created in the centuries we've held up Western Civilization hurts your feelings. Are you sure that's not envy you feel, instead of oppression?

There was not a single mention of the persecutions in Fascist Italy. They didn’t ask for an apology for that. Some elderly gentleman who’s family was executed by Italian Firing-Squads or who’s wife was beaten and raped by a gang of Black-Shirts didn’t walk up to the Pope and with what strength he had left stand tall and demand an apology for the wrongs done to him and his family.
No, a proponent of the Prosperity Gospel walked straight up to the Pontifex Maximus, in his own
city, in his own home, in the heart of Christendom on earth and said, “Gee wizz, Franky; all this Catholicism sure makes it tough for me to get these Italians to make donations and come to my Sunday Meetings! Could ya maybe tone it down a bit? Thanks, ol’ buddy ol’ pal ol’ friend! High five, up top!”

Yes, this happened.
All with a shit-eating grin only a con man could muster. Frankly, this is probably why I’m not the Pope, nor is anyone else in my circle of companions. I would’ve ordered the Swiss Guard to behead him before me. Or maybe I would’ve turned him away with a smart, “That’s a brave request, sir! Perhaps you should take your private jet to Iraq and speak with the Caliph and ask him to tone down on all the Islam so you can start milking Iraqis for money! I look forward to seeing you on the news.”
But I really have to give it to Pope Francis on this one. He gave the Pentecostals an apology, all right. For something that was done wrong to them, which he of all people - an Argentinian - has absolutely zero connection with, over something even they didn’t remember it seems. Of course everyone acted like they got an apology for the mere existence of Catholicism, but the reality is that’s not what he apologized for.

The Battle of Ostia by Raphael. In which Muslim Pirates raiding Rome were confounded by Papal forces.

So in a move showing a deftness and wit I knew this Pontiff possessed, he carefully satisfied all parties - from those who would be outraged at an apology to the Evangelicals who demanded one from the Coryphaeus, the Ruler of the Whole World, who days later issued a document at one of their “councils” speaking of how they hated the “Imperial Roman Church” and wanted no part of it.

Aren’t they nice?
Well, he didn't stick a knife in the Holy Father. That already puts him a step above most of the Protestant Reformers.

16 comments:

  1. Kaiser Louis-Philip,
    This is a good article on Fascism, and the real limits of the temporal power of the Catholic Church. However, I have a problem with your equating of Joseph II with Maria Theresa, of whom the great Chesterton wrote: "Among all the monarchs of that faithless age, the nearest to a man was a woman. Maria Theresa of Austria was a German of the more generous sort, limited in a domestic rather than a national sense, firm in the ancient faith at which all her own courtiers were sneering, and as brave as a young lioness."
    Sincerely,
    A Hapsburg Restorationist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It hurts me to see Chesterton write that, because he's horribly in the wrong. Maria Theresa limited the powers of the Church and even suppressed religious orders. That's hardly something a faithful monarch does. I won't deny her temporal merits, and I would even call her pious (after a sense), but faithfully Catholic? No, I am sorry.

      Delete
  2. I'm afraid I (and the old Catholic encyclopedia) must simply disagree with you:
    "In her dealings with Catholicism the empress adopted the principle "cujus regio, ejus religio", and defended unity of faith in the State not only for Christian and religious, but also for political, reasons... She was the last and beyond doubt the greatest of the Hapsburgs.(http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Maria_Theresa)"
    Even the worst Hapsburg(Lorraine) emperor Joseph II attended Mass every day of his life. Would you have me join with the heretics and atheists of the rest of the world or the rightful emperors prophesied by a priest of the Church?
    I stand with the IMPERIUM and the Prophecy of the Six Crowns of the most Faithful house of Hapsburg. Christendom is dead until the Emperor is crowned again.
    Sincerely,
    The Hapsburg Restorationist

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Maria Theresa limited the powers of the Church and even suppressed religious orders."
    Which religious orders did she suppress? When her son suppressed the Jesuits, she saved the order by allowing them to continue in her lands. And how did she limit the powers of the Church? It pains me to see that you would believe this kind of ahistorical nonsense about one of the greatest women who ever lived and ruled in Christendom.
    Sincerely,
    The Hapsburg Restorationist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm replying to this one as it's your last comment, but I'll address both comments.

      I don't doubt Maria Theresa's temporal accomplishments, and I don't even doubt her personal piety. However, it's an undeniable fact that she quarreled with the Papacy. You can make a Catholic State and still be at odds with Rome; many of the Hohenstaufen Emperors did just that. Let's not try and equivalate the present situation to the one of Maria Theresa's times. Her reasons for opposing the Papacy in her own subtle way are because she did not want any other crown to rule over Austria. Her personal writings also show her to be something of a Jansenist.

      So what if Joseph II went to Mass every day? That's no guarantee he was a true Catholic at heart. Lots of people who we don't consider good Catholics go to Mass every day - in fact we can both think of several American Politicians who do just that. Loyalty doesn't mean being a fool or willfully ignoring injustice.

      I looked up the "Prophecy of the Seven Crowns" and found nothing. You'll have to explain it to me.

      She suppressed the Jesuits after she came to the throne. She removed them from most functions of the Royal Government and forbade the publication of Pope Clement XIII's bull "Apostolicum Pascendi Minis." When Pope Clement XIV suppressed the order, Her Imperial-Royal Majesty was confiscating Jesuit property before the ink was even dry on "Dominus ac Redemptor."

      Ignoring all this she pursued a policy of subverting Papal Power in favor of Royal Power; that's straight Erastianism and it's been a no-no since the Investiture Controversy.

      This can all be found in Alexander Mahan's biography of the Empress and in Robert Kann's "A History of the Hapsburg Empire," should you care to read it.

      It's never with any ease that I disavow a baptized Catholic, particularly one who is as much a giant as Maria Theresa or who has as much fine art made of her. Our present situation aside (it doesn't even compare) I can't abide in a political order in which the Catholic Church, Christendom's moral and spiritual check, is subverted by Royal Power.

      Delete
    2. 1."However, it's an undeniable fact that she quarreled with the Papacy."
      This seems to me to be a hypocritical remark on your part, for yourself quarrel with the current Pontiff. That being said, she never dispute a point of doctrine as you yourself are doing.
      2. "So what if Joseph II went to Mass every day?"
      It means nothing in itself, save that the grace of the Mass may have kept him from schism, and in any case, the worst was still the worst of the Best. All I can say of him is what he said of himself: "Here lies Joseph II, who failed in all he undertook."
      3."Her personal writings also show her to be something of a Jansenist."
      Yet she was not a Jansenist but a Catholic with unfortunate Jansenist tendencies from the influence of her councilors. You are not a Catholic, but a Sedevacantist heretic.
      4. "I looked up the "Prophecy of the Seven Crowns" and found nothing."
      It is the Prophecy of the Six Crowns. HRE Rudolf I when he was still Graf Von Hapsburg, gave his horse to a priest carrying the Eucharist to a dying man, led the horse across a swollen river, and defended the priest from the brigands of the region. For this the priest blessed him and prophesied that the Count and his descendents would receive the Imperium and six crowns.
      5."She suppressed the Jesuits after she came to the throne."
      She did not suppress the Jesuits, but she did remove them from the government, because her councilors, like every other ruler in Christendom (including the Pope) regarded them as threat. She used the Jesuits' property to pension them and when the Pope finally suppressed the order, she allowed them to continue on her lands.
      "Ignoring all this she pursued a policy of subverting Papal Power in favor of Royal Power; that's straight Erastianism and it's been a no-no since the Investiture Controversy."
      Save in the case of the Jesuits, this is simply not true.

      I can see that your ideals and vision are good, and I am sure your motives are pure. However, is much as I see this I cannot join your NSIR. Please do not take this the wrong way, but your alleged Imperium is illegitimate, and you are in a state of heresy. As I said before: "Christendom is dead until the (true) Emperor is crowned again."
      Please pray for me as I will pray for you.
      Sincerely,
      The Hapsburg Restorationist

      Delete
    3. I told you already that our present situation didn't compare to Maria Theresa's time; we didn't have Popes who outright shamed and attacked the faith or used their ordinary magisterium to enforce heresy and potentially illegitimate sacraments on the people. The Popes of Maria Theresa's time were not dangers to people's souls, and even then that wasn't why she opposed them. She defied a political order of Christendom that every single one of her ancestors fought to defend.

      He failed in everything except setting precedent for illegitimate policies that suppressed the Church and a rightwise Papacy.

      "Sedevacantist Heretic?" Strong words. I don't think you read my page often; I am "Recognize and Resist" and I see the merits in Sedevacantism's position given the present crises. I don't adhere to it fully as it also creates a question for every answer it gives. I don't see how doubting the legitimacy of the Pope based on Canon Law or Papal Bulls makes me a heretic. We have a Pope who disavows apologetics. I daresay that makes me more Catholic that Jorge Bergoglio.

      That's a wonderful story. Unfortunately save some obscure pieces of art I can't find a source to verify it; could you perhaps grant me a source from which you heard the story?

      If someone removed Catholics from government, would you not say they were suppressing Catholic influence? I certainly would. If the Pope considered them a threat, why would he write a bull protecting them? The following Pope who suppressed the Jesuits did so because he feared an imminent crisis on the subject. Hence why the Bull suppresses the order, "In the name of the Peace of Christendom." It wasn't something he liked doing, he thought he was doing it for the right reasons, and it backfired. Much the same occurred with the Templars.

      You provide absolutely no sources and your response amounts to, "It's not true." That's not good enough in a historical discussion; you must provide counter-examples and sources, or I'm forced to not take you seriously. Her policies aimed at nationalizing the Church without initiating a full break with Rome, like how the Hohenstaufens wanted to do. But it makes it no less a sin.

      I have never claimed to be an "Imperium" in anything but a figurative sense. Perhaps if you'd read the blog's earlier articles on the subject you would know this. I am fully for the restoration of the Hapsburgs, but you must realize the reality: Karl is an advocate for the EU and Ferdinand seems interested in little else but racing. In fact on his Facebook he said recently his motto is "Fast and Furious" or something of that nature, related to his racing escapades. The boy shows no interest as of yet in the ruling of Christendom, and neither does Karl. I respect them and protect them for what they represent, but if they walked up to me tomorrow and asked me for my opinion on what they should do I'd shake their hands firmly like men and correct them like they were my sons, because quite frankly any other attitude will lead me to saying things I will regret for the rest of my life.

      I'm totally open to accepting Maria Theresa as a symbol for the Imperium, but I will -not- do so based on flights of fancy and nonfactual assertions. Bring me evidence and proof, and I will remove her name from this blog and she will be honored by all Imperialists - but not before you successfully present your case. But ask yourself: if you end up wrong, will -you- accept that you are wrong?

      We've been accused often of adhering to a "Fantasy Catholicism." I will do everything possible to rebuff this charge. You strike me as a well-meaning patriot for Christendom and a smart man; it would be a tragedy for you to leave us over something so minor.

      Delete
  4. First let me thank you for your kind words and for taking time to respond instead of dismissing me outright. IF I am wrong, then it so.
    That being said:
    Your unsupported claims about Our Holy Father seem to me to be sedevacantist, and thus heretical.
    "You provide absolutely no sources"
    In my first post I provided you with one of my sources (Catholic Encyclopedia). I have the read relevant parts both of your sources and save in the case of the Jesuits they don't even support your claims. Try Edward Crankshaw's Maria Theresa. Oh, and Alexander Mahan's book as well ("I cannot express the pain and regret with which I give this order").
    The only ruler in Europe who did not suppress the Jesuits was the unscrupulous Tzarina Catherine. The suppression was unfortunate, but nevertheless hardly heresy.

    "I have never claimed to be an 'Imperium' in anything but a figurative sense. Perhaps if you'd read the blog's earlier articles on the subject you would know this."
    I have read your earlier articles, but it seems I have failed to grasp this from your writings. Thank you for making it clear. However, I do mean Imperium in the literal sense, and Maria Theresa and Joseph II both were given it with the approval of the Church (though the later misused it), and the Holy Roman Empress, in an age when every other ruler (save the Pope) had turned from the Faith and her own councilors and ministers of Government were against her, she did her duty and did it well. I am certain she would be the first to admit her faults and failings and say "I am Maria Theresa, a poor mortal and a sinner," and may God grant her mercy.

    Believe what you will; I am only trying to defend my lady's honor (and I am certain it is worth defending). In all honesty it is a minor matter. Your attacks (pardon the strong terms; I am hard pressed to find other words to express this) on the Holy Father seem to me far more disturbing.
    Sincerely,
    The Hapsburg Restorationist

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is a list of sources for the Prophecy of Six Crowns:

    Chronik des Schweizer Minoriten Johann von Wintertür (1340; drawing on earlier sources)
    Chronik des Abtes Johann von Viktring in Kärnten
    Chronik des Klosters Königsfelden in der Schweiz (c.1370)
    Schweizer Chronik des Ägydius Tschudi (Chronicon Helveticum-Aegidius Tschudi 1550)
    Sincerely,
    The Hapsburg Restorationist

    ReplyDelete
  6. Addendum to comment at 4:08 pm March 23 2015

    "She [Maria Theresa] was a believing Catholic of the most pious kind... Her Catholic ideas were deeply ingrained in her... Maria Theresa, fundamentally a devout Catholic, found repose and peace of soul in her religion." Maria Theresa: The Last Conservative, Constance Lily Morris
    "She never, until the end, doubted the absolute Truth of Roman Catholicism. She was a profoundly religious child, and though she lived in the age of cynicism, she always remained a sincere believer,who carried out the forms prescribed by her Church because they meant something to her, and not because these devotional exercises were the proper and expected gestures.she sincerely and passionately loved her God..." Maria Theresa of Austria, Margaret Goldsmith (who takes a dim view of the whole house of Hapsburg and the Catholic Faith).
    Even the protestant historian William Coxe (in His History of the House of Austria) says of Maria Theresa, "From a spirit of unlimited devotion to the Roman Catholic Faith, she was superstitiously minute in her religious exercises." And when he writes about the Jesuits he says "[she] did not imitate the unjust and cruel measures adopted in Spain and Portugal, and softened the rigour of their lot by every alleviation which circumstances would permit."

    Far from absolutely no sources, I have now presented you with six unbiased sources.

    Sincerely,
    The Hapsburg Restorationist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do still question the views of these historians; then again perhaps for me a "Catholic" Monarch is not simply one who undertakes religious devotion, but who respects the Church. Her policies reflect something I personally consider undesirable; that is, control of the Church within the State by the State. Personally I have no other qualms with her, and I would not consider her as bad as Joseph.

      I take for you it's all about one dynasty; I disagree with that stance. There are many in Christendom who have done well. Though I do agree with the Primacy of the Empire.

      I will, reluctantly - and with disclaimer - add her to our pantheon. Perhaps at some point I will find definitive proof her policy was not one of suzerainty over the Church, in which case I will be happy. Now if only Franz Josef could be cleared of his actions regarding his lies to the Papacy regarding his intentions in the Balkans and his licensing of the actions of the Schutzkorp.

      Delete
  7. Thank you for your consideration. I'm glad I was able to present some evidence on her imperial and royal majesty's behalf, and that I was mistaken when I wrote that you equated Maria Theresa with Joseph II .
    I consider the restoration of the Hapsburg the starting point for the resurrection of Christendom, but of course I would be glad to see any Catholic Monarchy restored.
    Regarding Franz Joseph, could kindly point out to me what your talking about?
    Sincerely as always,
    The Hapsburg Restorationist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I simply pointed out she had similar policies.

      I think if not the Hapsburgs we need new dynasties guided by the principles of the old, if the more venerable houses will not lay claim to their heritage.

      Specifically his policies in the Balkans. He lied to the Pope to get his support for the annexation of the Balkans (the Ottomans ceded them to the K.u.K. in a treaty) by saying he would not assert state authority over the Church within these regions (he did so anyway). Then he established the Schutzkorp, a Bosnian Muslim regiment of the K.u.K. Royal-Imperial Army who's on paper purpose was the suppression of Serbian Insurrectionists. What they actually did was go around to Serbian villages and en masse slaughter the inhabitants and sing Anti-Christian songs all the while.

      Delete
  8. You did say Maria Theresa not a faithful Catholic.

    I attempted to research the alleged lies, but found nothing (nor was I surprised, as one of his contemporaries said of him that he had "a profound abhorrence of every lie"). As to the Schutzkorps, the Serbian officers (see The National Question in Yugoslavia: Origins, History, Politics by Ivo Banac) in that particular regiment did as much as their Muslim counterparts and were repaid by the terrorism of the Black-Hand. That being said, I'm sure your sources will be enlightening.

    New dynasties are all very well, but Austria is not a country, it is a family. Only those of the that family can claim their heritage while the blood of Clovis and Charlemagne still flows in their veins. And I'd rather not go through the trouble of Anti-Kings and legitimacy. Then there are still the prophecies.

    A blessed Easter to you and your NSIR!

    Sincerely as always,
    The Hapsburg Restorationist

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Serbian Officers? It was an Ethnic Bosnian Regiment. There were no Serbian officers. You do know how the K.u.K. Army functioned, right? To solve the problem of multiple languages, regiments were structured based on langue and ethnicity. Sort of like the Knights of Saint John, now that I think about it.

      I would expect the Serbians to react to such atrocities. It's not in the majority of humanity's nature to simply lie down in the face of repression. It was a pain to find the original articles, but here you go:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_rule_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Serb_riots_in_Sarajevo

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzkorps

      I'm all for ripping out the Black Hand, Root and Stem. Hang them in the public square and leave them to rot for all who see. But treating the entire Serbian people as though they are culpable? Not only is that wrong but it's a recipe for disaster in the long-run.

      Delete
  9. *I might also add that Kaiser Franz Josef (May he rest in peace) is only responsible for the orders he issued, and that Austria-Hungary was in a state of war against Serbia. Regarding your recent remarks about Chancellor Dollfuss, I suggest that you read G.K. Chesterton's "Austria" (http://freeread.com.au/@RGLibrary/GKChesterton/Essays/TheWellAndTheShallows.html#ch30)

    ReplyDelete