Still all quiet on the Pius front 2013-2016

For all sorts of reasons I have not been able to post for the last couple of months.  My school is preparing for its Sesquicentenary next year and I am involved on various committees and projects that seem to take up more and more time.  Many have the moments been when I have thought I should sit down and write something, but more often than not, it has been a case of "tomorrow", the end of today has left me yearning only for the sofa!  

Now, back to it!

I have commented before that under Pope Francis there has been a serious "slow down" on talk and action on the possible canonisation of Pius XII.  It has not changed in the three years since I last wrote on this topic.  It is almost as though the academic world has adopted a "wait and see" approach, an approach I can well understand.  

Over the last ten or so years, after the high-water mark of the revisionist and apologists attempt to re-configure historical debate on Pius along non-historical lines, mainstream academia has, it would appear, reached the point where there is nothing more to be said at present.  Research continues, but, as in my case, I suspect it is moving into other related areas.  My own study has taken more and more into ADSS, and the "usual" work of historians, namely the little discoveries and nuances that help add a highlight on this point or a shadow on that point.  There have several major works published by serious historians - Coppa, Fattorini, Kertzer, Kornberg, Madigan, Ventresca, Wolf, to name some - that have, in their own field, added to our collective knowledge.

The "elephant in the room" has been and remains, the closed archives of Pope Pius XII contained in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano.  We have waited for years, and, I suspect, we will continue to wait.  2003, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2013 ... Whatever the reasons for the delays, most of us believe that there will be no major change in the general direction research has headed over the last half century.  This direction was confirmed when the archives for Pope Pius XI were opened between 2003 and 2006.

I will continue to post my reading of ADSS if only because I remain convinced that the published documents still contain many nuggets that shed light on the reasoning behind the many different layers of the Vatican diplomatic efforts firstly, to prevent a war, and secondly to contain it once it started.

Over and over again, the documents reveal patterns of diplomacy, negotiation and responsibility, that did not change over the course of the war years.  If I have reached only one conclusion from the ADSS, it is that Pope Pius XII while not knowing everything, was arguably the best informed person in Europe.  However, that knowledge grew incrementally, and in a non-consistent manner - he became aware of events from across Europe as they arrived in Rome, and often not in chronological order and often seemingly unrelated.  It was the responsibility of the Secretariat of State to attempt to create meaning and patterns out of the material that arrived, and that could often be devilishly difficult to do.  Only in one area did the Pope have as clear and consistent a picture of German intention as was possible.  That area was the evolution of German policy towards the Jews.

From a research point of view I have to thank so many people who have posted and maintained entire libraries of online resources.  My study of ADSS would simply not be possible without access to the mostly gratis resources that have been made available.  For that I am most grateful and offer my deepest thanks.

ADSS 10.408 Rotta to Tardini - request by neutral powers to end persecution

10.408 Angelo Rotta, Hungary to Domenico Tardini

Reference: Report nr 2611/44 (N Pr 972) (AES 1157/45)

Location and date: Budapest, 27.11.1944

Summary statement: Joint request by the neutral powers to end the persecution is not hopeful. (Attached)  Nuncio has issued 13,000 letters of protection.  Fanaticism of Arrow Cross fascists.

Language: Italian and French

Text:

I think it appropriate to send a copy of the Memorandum presented on 17.11.1944 to the Head of State, Mr Szalasi, so that there is a record should the archive of the Nunciature be destroyed. (1)

The aforementioned Memorandum, mentioned in my telegram number 324 (2) was presented by the Swedish Minister (3) and I, in the name of the Representatives of the Neutral Nations who had met at the Nunciature twice to discuss the matter.  In summary it is a description of the real state of affairs rather than an exaggeration.  There is no hope for a practical result given the material mentality of religious ignorance and the fanatical hatred against the Jews by the Arrow Cross (4), which in the execution of the orders issued

to them were enacted with a really incredible brutality.  It  [the memorandum] was decided upon to make an act propelled by civil and Christian conscience.

Notes:

(1) See Appendix.

(2) ADSS 10.407.

(3) Carl Ivan Danielsson (1880-1963), Swedish Minister in Budapest 1942-45.  Danielsson was named “Righteous Among the Nations” in 1982.

(4) See ADSS 10.265 n3.

(5) Ibid n8.

(6)

Appendix: (French)

From the Nunciature to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Budapest, 17.11.1944.

The Representatives of the Neutral Powers accredited in Budapest (7) have the honour to address the Royal Government of Hungary with the following:

When, in August, roughly half a million Jews had already been deported outside of Hungary and the governments of the Neutral Countries had positive information on what the deportations really meant, the Representatives of the aforementioned Powers made a collective approach to the Royal Hungarian Government to prevent the resumption of deportation.  The approach was then welcomed, and hundreds of thousands of lives were saved.

In the aftermath of 15 October the new Hungarian Government and His Excellency, Mr Szalasi himself, made categorical and solemn declarations that there would be no deportation or annihilation of the Jews.  Despite this the representatives of the Neutral Powers learned from absolutely reliable sources that the deportation of all Jews was again determined and it is pushed with a fierce energy, while the whole world is witness to the brutalities that accompany its execution (small children are torn from their mothers, the elderly and sick forced to sleep in the rain or in adequate shelter, men and women left for days without food, tens of thousands of people crammed into a single workshops, women violated, shootings etc)

Now, as was the case in summer, it is said that it is no deportation, but compulsory labour abroad.  The Representatives of the Neutral Powers know very well the horrible reality that lies for these unfortunate people and that hides under this name.   Moreover, all it would take would be to see that even small children, the elderly and the sick are also taken, to be convinced that it [“forced labour] is not working, while the atrocities, which accompany the transport well, predict the ending of this tragic exodus.

Faced with the enormities, the Representatives of the Neutral Powers can not evade the duty imposed on the by a sense of humanity and Christian charity, to express their deepest regret with to the Royal Hungarian Government and ask:

1. that the decision to deport the Jews be revoked and that measures be taken to execute an immediate suspension, so that the unfortunate people who have taken far from their homes can return as soon as possible;

2. only people for reasons of employment should be required to reside in concentration camps with suitable and humane treatment (food and adequate shelter, health and religious assistance, respect for their lives etc);

3. full and genuine implementation of the provisions dictated by the Royal Hungarian Government in favour of the Jews who under the protection of the Legations accredited to Budapest. (8) In fact, incidents of violations are increasing, and it is really surprising to see the contempt that junior employees show towards the orders given by higher authorities.

The Representatives of the Neutral Powers hope that the Royal Hungarian Government will understand this approach and return to the declarations and promises of His Excellency Mr Szalasi.  This approach is not only inspired by a sense of compassion for the persecuted Jews, but also by a sentiment of profound commitment to Hungary, that we would like see free from an action that would defile its glorious history forever.  And the government that now bears the heavy responsibility of the people’s future may wish to spare them the calamities to which they would be exposed to reprisals which the Powers at war with Hungary have threatened should the deportation or annihilation of the Jews continue (without saying that the eventual occupiers of Hungary might apply the same methods to the people of Hungary).

For their part, the Representatives of the neutral Powers, have no other purpose than to help relieve human suffering and intensify their efforts to assist victims of the war.  However the response that the Hungarian Government makes to this approach is bound to have great influence on their policies with regard to the Hungarian people; and if they respond favourably it will be a stimulus that will push them to work with greater effort and for the good of the Hungarian people, especially in the painful case of the expansion of foreign occupation.

The Representatives of the Neutral Powers are confident that the noble Hungarian Nation, resuming their ancient Christian traditions, will want, even in this difficult time, to be faithful to the principles and methods that have made Hungary a civilised country, admired by the whole world.

Note of Tardini:

26.02.1945 Seen by the Holy Father.

01.03.1945. Bravo Monsignor Rotta!  Will we share this document with Osborne and Mr Taylor?  What do they say?

Notes:

(7) The copy of this aide-memoire does not have signatures.
(8) The journal “Uj Magyarsag” on 12.11.1944 published the following:

“In conformity with an agreement concluded by the Government (Hungarian) with the Neutral States, those Jews who are under the protection of the neutral Legations and who can prove this by showing a temporary passport, a letter of protection or a protection passport with a photograph, with the Legation seal, and an authentic signature, are permitted to enter a house marked with the Yellow Star reserved for them, before 15 November.  The Jews protected by the foreign Legations can contact the Association of Hungarian Jews for information about the residences reserved for them.  The authorities do not expect these Jews to move to new residences.  All Jews interested in the residences, can freely chose whether or not they wish to move into the new residences. However, those Jews who do not want to go into the Jewish homes before 15 November, will permanently lose the protections of the neutral Legations, and, consequently, will be subject to the strict measures applied against them by the Government.”

(Communicated to Amleto Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate USA by Kurt R Grossmann (1897-1972), Assistant of the “Rescue Department” of the World Jewish Congress.) 

Grossman added “The report proves that the protection documents granted by the neutral governments have lapsed, at least outwardly, but may have benefited the Hungarian Jews.  I share this news with your Excellency in the hope that the Holy See will continue with its commendable efforts on behalf of the Jews. 

Cicognani in turn sent the text to Tardini on 12.01.1945. (Nr 125/45, AES 1064/45). 

A separate document has a note by Montini:

“12.01.1945. Certificates of protection issued by the Budapest nunciature for the Jews (16,000).  Is this true?  Mons. Verolino?” 

Gennaro Verolino (1906-2005), who had been attaché to the Budapest Nunciature confirmed: “08.12.1945: The Hungarian government had granted the exemptions and facilities to the Jews who held passports or other documents of protection issued by the Foreign Legations.  On the basis of this concession, the Apostolic Nunciature granted over 15,000 letters of protection during the Szalasi regime.” (AES Comm. Socc)

Hungary November 1944 - January 1945

In our survey of ADSS with regard to the response of the Pope, the Vatican and the Nuncio to the crisis confronting Hungarian Jewry in the last months of the war there is a discernible increase in efforts to try and save as many people as possible, especially children.  Pius XII was kept informed of the activities of Angelo Rotta (1872-1965) and gave his blessing to the nuncio's work.  It appears that despite some statements praising cooperation between the nunciature and the Hungarian bishops, most of the work was done by Rotta and, through his connections, the ministers of the Neutral States who had missions in Budapest.  Contact with Hungarian government officials continued and the language of diplomacy was retained, although there are moments when one can read frustration and possibly anger in some of Rotta's remarks to the Arrow Cross fascists.  


The Red Army began its offensive against Budapest at the end of October, and by November 1944 it was clear that a Soviet-occupation of most, if not all the country was imminent.  Most government ministries and offices fled the capital in December, leaving the civilian population under the "protection" of Hungarian and German troops.  Angelo Rotta and the nunciature staff remained in the city to do whatever they could for the citizens of Budapest.  By any standard this was an heroic act.  On Christmas Eve 1944 the Red Army had encircled the city and begun a siege that would drag on until February 1945.  

Rotta's last communication with the Vatican recorded in ADSS was on 23 December 1944.  In early January 1945 the Vatican informed the nuncio in Germany, Cesare Orsenigo, and the Apostolic Delegate in the USA, Amleto Cicognani, that there was no longer any communication with Budapest.

For the Jews of Hungary the last months of the war were nothing less than hellish.  In the first week of November 25,000 Jews were forced march from Budapest towards KL Mauthausen with another 50,000 following soon after.  Liberation was tantalisingly close.  By the end of the first week of that month, Soviet troops were twenty kilometres from the city centre. However the Soviet advance slowed enough for the defenders to mount a stubborn defence and the remnant government in Budapest made the decision to create two ghettos in Budapest on 17 November.  Ironically this was followed by a halt to the forced marches on 21 November.  Life for the remainder of Hungarian Jewry was bleak but there were glimmers of hope as the Arrow Cross agreed to recognise foreign passports, letters of protection and passes issued by the nuncio.  It was estimated that Angelo Rotta and his assistant, Gennaro Verolino (1906-2005) issued between 15 to 16,000 safe conduct letters and passes.

Liberation for the Jews of Budapest who had survived the eleven months of German and Arrow Cross rule came on 16 January for Pest and 13 February for Buda.  In total some 80 to 90,000 Jews remained alive.  Many of them owed their lives to the actions of the nuncio along with the neutral diplomats who often risked their own lives.

Yad Vashem recognised Angelo Rotta and Gennaro Verolino as "Righteous Among the Nations" in 1997 and 2007.

Angelo Rotta, Apostolic Nuncio to Hungary        Gennaro Verolino, attache to Budapest                                                                                                        Nunciature                                                

What follows over the next series of posts are the relevant documents from ADSS.  It is an insightful task that sheds light on the intricate diplomatic messages as well as the internal Vatican positions communicated in sensitive language, indicative of the reality that third parties could "listen in".

ADSS 10.318 Angelo Rotta to Secretariat of State: changing political situation in Hungary

Angelo Rotta, Hungary to Secretariat of State

Reference: Telegram 264 (AES 5962/44)

Location and date: Budapest, 05.09.1944 @ 16.06 (arrived Rome 06.09.1944 @ 17.00)

Summary statement: Information on the political situation in Hungary.

Language: Italian

Text:

The situation in Hungary has come to a head in recent weeks … authorising a change in direction. (1) The new ministry (2), has not been seen, has a Protestant majority, but it is better than the previous Ministry, the members were Germanophiles.  The Prime Minister is a Catholic, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (3) is a Protestant, and both have the confidence of the Regent.  They have made a very deferential visit to the apostolic nunciature; they did not hide the gravity of the situation, pointing to their main concern to defend the border and maintaining public order and a more moderate approach to the Jewish question, no deportation will take place.  The Jews are fearful but quiet.

Notes:

(1) The pro-German government of Döme Szótjay was dismissed by order of the Regent, Admiral Horthy, on 29.08.1944 and a new government installed under General Géza Lakatos.  Lakatos’ government lasted six weeks until the Arrow Cross seized control on 15.10.1944.

(2) Nicholas Bonczos (1897-1971) remained as Minister of the Interior.

(3) Gustáv Hennyey (1888-1977). 

Generalplan Ost - what the Pope could not have known

What the pope could not know and did not know.

The General Plan for the East

As the German-led war “in the east” unfolded with ever-increasing severity and brutality the position of the church in north-central and northeastern Europe grew more and more precarious.  We have seen through ADSS volumes 3.1 and 3.2 how the German occupation imposed varying degrees of terror and insecurity on local populations based on the National Socialist bio-political worldview.  Throughout the war years the response of the Catholic Church through its bishops and other religious leasers also varied in response to the level of local terror.  And these responses formed the basis of much of the information that was sent to Rome. 

For many of the persecuted the realities of daily survival precluded the luxury of rationalizing the “why” of Nazi terror.  In fact most of the leaders of the Catholic Church in Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States were at a loss to understand the murderous hostility shown to the church, even if their religious-cultural histories allowed a measure of “understanding” of German actions against the Jews.

Pope Pius XII was certainly not the only one who did not grasp the extent of the murderous intent of the German plans for Eastern Europe and European Russia.  It was not until after the war that the first information of a systematic plan to reshape Eastern Europe was revealed; firstly at the Nuremburg Trial in the testimony of former SS Standartenführer Hans Elich (1901-1991), one of the planners of what was known as Generalplan Ost (Master Plan for the East).

Generalplan Ost (GPO) grew out of the Nazi concept of lebensraum (living space) an idea that Hitler had spoken of regularly since the 1920s.  In its simplest form, lebensraum was the belief that Germany’s growing population needed more living space.  That “living space” would come from “the East” in general, and Poland and European Russia in particular.  Since in the Nazi Weltanschauung most of the peoples of Eastern Europe were one or other members of different untermenschen (sub-human races) they had no permanent place in the New Order.  Their fate was either a form of servitude for the Germans who would in course settle the new lebensraum or they would be expelled.

Planning the GPO began around January 1940 and continued through a number of revisions until late 1942 when the emerging crisis at Stalingrad brought the planning to an abrupt halt.

The GPO was executed under the supervision of the Reichsministerium für die besetzten Ostgebiete (Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories) and the RSHA (Reich Main Security Office) with constant reference to the Reichsführer SS, Heinrich Himmler.  A government planning team of this nature would not have met without the explicit approval of Hitler. 

GPO was supposed to work on two actions; movement of desirable people in, and movement of undesirable people out.  Himmler envisioned GPO would take about 30 years to implement but shortly afterwards insisted that the program be completed in 20 years.  It was his hope that by the end of that period the Greater German Reich would not only be territorially huge, but it would be populated by a majority of Aryan Germans and tiny minorities of non-Aryan groups would serve the Herrenvolk (Master Race) with unquestioning obedience.  GPO statistics suggested that an estimated 4.5 million ethnic Germans would be settled in the conquered territories over the lifespan of the plan.

Part one of the GPO was the expulsion of racial undesirables in the newly conquered land (1939-1941) and the settlement of ethnic Germans in their place.  Over the three years the GPO was in operation about 850,000 Germans were settled “in the East”, mostly in Poland and the Baltic States, but some in Ukraine and Crimea.  Ultimately the GPO forecast a future population of about 23 million of which 5.3 million were existing Germans, a residual German population of 5.4 million and 12.4 million German immigrants from the Reich.

The second part of the GPO was the removal of “alien races”.  Czeslaw Madajczyk’s study of GPO, General Plan East: Hitler’s Master Plan for Expansion (1962) sets out the percentages of local populations slated for removal and / or destruction.  The welfare of populations targeted for “resettlement” were not a concern of the architects of the New Order.

An estimated 45 million people were to be removed from Eastern Europe and European Russia:

Jews – 100%

Latgalians (indigenous Latvians) – 100%

Poles – 80-85%

Lithuanians – 85%

Russians – 75%

White Russians – 75%

Ukrainians – 65%

Latvians, Estonians, Czechs – 50%

The remaining 14 million people were to be judged for racial suitability and Germanisation or kept for slave labour for the German settlers.

GPO planners were under no illusions that the scale of expulsions would result in deaths on a previously unimagined scale but incorporated this into their planning. 

Deliberate murder of a population was only used against the Jews after the summer of 1941 and, in that regard, was the only part of the GPO that approached its target goal.  Originally Jews were, like other undesirables, to be expelled into Siberia.

The implementation of the plan stalled in February 1943 after the loss of Stalingrad and the call for Total War before it was “shelved” as Germany faced defeat.  However, if “success” was to be judged by the number of non-German dead in the area proposed for the GPO, then the plan attained some of the goals its authors intended. The total number of deaths in Eastern Europe and European Russia exceeded over 30 million men, women and children.

Anna Foa's article on Giovanni Palatucci from Osservatore Romano

For the sake of presenting both sides to the argument I have posted Anna Foa's article from L'Osservatore Romano.  Foa is an Italian historian who has specialised in Italian and European Jewish history.  Her position is worthy of consideration.  I look forward to reading more on the historical process undertaken by Primo Levi Center.  Without in any way wishing to trivialise the issue at stake here, the academic debate over Palatucci is a model for other historical debates and arguments.  People are not attacked or belittled; issues are addressed.  This is how we learn.

Testimonies silenced and documents gone missing

Meant to mar the Church of Pius XII

Giovanni Palatucci, police superintendent of Fiume in 1944, was arrested by the Germans and died in Dachau in February 1945. Declared Righteous Among the Nations In 1990 for helping Jews during his work at the police headquarters in Fiume, and recognized as a Servant of God by the Church, all of a sudden he was turned into a persecutor of Jews who zealously carried out the orders of the Salò [Italian Social Republic] and of the Nazis. At the origin of this shift was research sponsored by the Centro Primo Levi, New York, undertaken by an international committee of historians who analysed the existing documentation in both the Italian and Croatian archives.

I hope that the Washington Museum, which immediately deleted Palatucci’s name from its sites and exhibitions, has access to the documentation and not only to the lengthy analysis of it drafted by the Centro Primo Levi. On careful reading, this can at most downsize the number of Jews saved by Palatucci, reducing them from the 5,000 originally attributed to him to several dozen, and recasting the role he played in certain episodes. It can certainly not, however, transform him from a saviour of the Jews into a persecutor. I also hope it will be possible shortly to have access to the sources, just as the Centro’s action has made access available to their interpretation.

While waiting to be able to check the full reality of the events in the documents, I would like to mention certain elements of the issue as they emerge from the Primo Levi dossier. The dossier — on the basis of the numbers of Jews living in Fiume and the number of those from Fiume effectively interned by Fiume in the Camp of Campagna, where Palatucci’s uncle was bishop — essentially dismantles the thesis that the police officer was responsible for the mass rescue of the Jews of Fiume, that was pulled off in cooperation between Fiume and Campagna. Here too, in order to express a well-grounded opinion, we await further information, for example, on the actual routes of those Jews transferred from Fiume to Campagna.

Nevertheless the dossier tells us nothing about the individual rescues attested by those very Jews who were saved by Palatucci in the years subsequent to 1940 and during the years of the Nazi occupation. It is likewise silent about the witnesses who documented them. The dossier further informs us that the Bishop of Campagna did his utmost to improve the situation of those interned in the camp but emphasizes, as if thereby to detract from them, his proselytistic intentions; in other words the bishop would have liked to convert his prisoners. Yet let us not forget that we are speaking of a Church, especially the local Church – at that time still heavily marked by anti-Judaism – which was actively encouraging the conversion of Jews. To expect anything else would be utopian. I remember having spoken of this in these same terms to the late Fr Piersandro Vanzan, author of a biography of Palatucci (Giovanni Palatucci. Il questore giusto, Rome, Edizioni Pro Sanctitate, 2009) and a diligent propagator of Palatucci's story.

Furthermore, the dossier underscores the adherence to the Republic of Salò of the police officer Giovanni Palatucci, but tells us nothing about the possibility, supported by at least one source, that he may have acted as a member of the Committee for National Liberation under the false name of Danieli, which is another element to be evaluated or at least mentioned. We are told that the documents on his arrest do not mention the rescue of Jews but only his activities on behalf “of the enemy”, that is, the fact that he had contacts with the Allies concerning a plan to make the Fiume area autonomous. Yet I would like to know whether in Italy at the time the saving of Jews was explicitly mentioned or whether it was implicitly understood as being among the activities on behalf of the enemy.

We are basically facing the problem of the lack of documentation. Yet we find the same lack of documentation in the mass rescues of Jews that that were carried out in the convents of Rome. Do we wish to deny these on the basis of the lack of written documents to prove them? Like all such activities, Palatucci's too could only have been carried out in secret. Might he have pursued them on his own initiative, independently of the Delegation for the Assistance of Jewish Emigrants? This is an answer we are waiting for from the documents, from the comparison with other situations, but not from interpretations.

One last issue: the so-called denunciation by Palatucci of a group of Jews from Fiume. The documentation that the dossier mentions proves nothing other than that Palatucci responded to a request for information made to him by the Police Headquarters in Ravenna (would it have been possible for him not to have replied?), providing the names of these Jews but saying that he did not know where they were to be found. In other words they were already as free as birds. It is obvious that this too should be assessed on the basis of individual events, but as we read it here it is proof of nothing. Michele Sarfatti, Director of the Center for Contemporary Jewish Documentation and one of the historians said to have taken part in the research organized by the Centro Primo Levi, “I am perplexed about a sentence written by a New York Times journalist who claims that Palatucci ‘helped the Germans to identify Jews to be rounded up’. This sentence is attributed to ‘researchers’ without specifying who; but no proof of this exists”. What then explains the glaring headlines in the press about the policeman who persecuted Jews?

To conclude: the Primo Levi initiative affirms that its intention was to demolish the myth of the “good Italian”, of which the Palatucci case was an expression. But why so? If anything, the Palatucci case speaks of a “good Palatucci”, and not of “good Italians”. The myth of the good Italian had already been blown up, at least at the historiographical level, by many studies and first and foremost by Sarfatti's research. All this leaves no room for doubt that with the regulations introduced in November 1943 the Republic of Salò assumed the duty of tracking down Jews in the first person. The Nazis, after October that year, were unable to take on this task since they were occupied on the military front and in the war against the Resistance.

The impression is in fact that a different issue was involved: the Church of Pius XII; and that, in targeting Palatucci, the intention was essentially to hit a Catholic involved in rescuing Jews, a champion of the idea that the Church spared no effort to help the Jews – a well-known figure whose cause of beatification was under way. But this is ideology and not history.

It is true that first-hand historical research into the Palatucci case is scarce and that facts and figures have been subjected to hagiographic interpretations. It is moreover probable that subsequent to the research under way, the figures may change and certain events be reinterpreted. Yet at the moment, in the presence of such definitive unfounded condemnation, what is fundamental is to answer through the documentation these simple questions. Did or did not Palatucci save Jews? Did or did not Palatucci denounce Jews? We are waiting for the documents alone to provide an answer to these questions. Everything else is commentary.

23 June 2013

Anna Foa