Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 17

Dilectissima Nobis, Pius XI and Hitler
The megamemex Timeline uses the words 'pope ...saw no difficulty in relation to a Christian Dictatorship', which is their shorthand, or out of the earlier humanitas Timeline, wording for the quote here. In #3 of the Encyclical Dilectissima Nobis there is a clear reference to the Reichskonkordat which makes of it some relevance. The encyclical exited in June 1933, the Reichskonkordat was formally indicated to the world by Pius XI on April 10 1933.


 * "Nor can it be believed that Our words are inspired by sentiments of aversion to the new form of government or other purely political changes which recently have transpired in Spain. Universally known is the fact that the Catholic Church is never bound to one form of government more than to another, provided the Divine rights of God and of Christian consciences are safe. She does not find any difficulty in adapting herself to various civil institutions, be they monarchic or republican, aristocratic or democratic. Speaking only of recent facts, evident proof of this lies in the numerous Concordats and agreements concluded in later years, and in the diplomatic relations the Holy See has established with different States in which, following the Great War, monarchic governments were succeeded by republican forms. Nor have these new republics ever had to suffer in their institutions and just aspirations toward national grandeur and welfare through their friendly relations with the Holy See, or through their disposition, in a spirit of reciprocal confidence, to conclude conventions on subjects relating to Church and State, in conformity with changed conditions and times. Nay, We can with certainty affirm that from these trustful understandings with the Church the States themselves have derived remarkable advantages, since it is known no more effective dyke can be opposed to an inundation of social disorders than the Church, which is the greatest educator of the people and always knows how to unite, in fecund agreement, the principle of legitimate liberty with that of authority, the exigencies of justice with welfare and peace."

Str1977 challenges the abbreviation made of the sense, even though there is no contradiction, of course, and would limit the relevance of this Encyclical to Spain and to republicanism, as if it shewed the modern open lenient-to-democracy advanced Mother Church, whereas Pius XI clearly refers to recent diplomatic relations made to ,well, Hitler in April as well as Napoleon. Every source will tell you that Hitler ruled Germany absolutely from late on the day of 23 March 1933. The absolute dictatorship is according to William L. Shirer as to no doubt from thenceforth. That Pius XI and his advisors the Prelate Ludwig Kaas and Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli seemed not to see even by June 1933 that there was any trouble with the justice of this Dictatorship, is interesting in this above confirmation. In itself this statement would have given internal German catholicism some cause for thought. This is as clear as the papacy wished to be, and it is abundantly clear even though it suggests tolerance of empowered Spanish Republicanism, that it does not openly speak of the virtual reverse into a monarchical authority, that of a Dictator. Given who Kaas and Pacelli were in German terms, and the editorial denialism inside WP as to the great loathing of Hitler by the Church, it does bear attention, as confirmation of sources which suggest generalised papal approbation of Hitlerism as a method. That this itself contradicts all social teaching from Pius XI elsewhere, makes it hard to close the above allowance for a tempering of the principle of legitimate liberty with that of authority, or the exigencies of justice with welfare and peace with christian custom. The words are a clear warrant for legitimate freedoms to be trampled, for peace to be shattered for authority. This is your ultimate source here. This is the power, and it claims the church as the educator and uniter to temper legitimate liberty and peace by alliance of diplomacy towards  justice and authority.

Were these words simply referring to the Church itself as authority, one could have had hope, but this refers to the Church disinterest as to the temporal degree of Liberty, whether democratic or "aristocratic" or monarchic. "Recent times" to this Pope and Church would run to decades, but there could have been no doubt as to the relevance of "Diplomatic Relations" instituted to Hitler's Reich in April- a papal objective for hundreds of years. The world was also filled with no doubt as to the degree of liberty instituted by the papally approved authority after the April 1 Jewish Boycotts. In respect of Spain, there are further issues, but the user:Str1977's continued suggestion that I (and the Megamemex Timeline's quote of historian Guenter Lewy) misinterprets the relevance of this Encyclical we can see now in its glory. This quote comes straight from the vatican, off the Pope Pius XI Wikipedia glorification. The entire #3 is relevant to German History via this Pope and his advisors, and, of course, here to Adolf Hitler. Why- because of German acceptance of that which the pope accepted. EffK 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, EffK, I am still insisting: You are misreading the encyclica. I guess that you have read it only after you read about it on your cherished timeline. The editors of that timeline definitely misinterpreted it and you are merely copying them. For those interested in what Dilectissima Nobis really said, go to Str1977 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I answer this easily thrown accusation.
 * The exclusions of these events, especially considering my sourced presentation of Pope Pius' approbation to Hermann Goering on 10 April, my sourcing of Ludwig Kaas' Vatican approbation combine to re-inforce these words.  For readers who are confused the quickest is to paraphrase them. Pius said how pleased he was that germany at last has a strong leader "uncompromisingly opposed to atheistic nihilist Communism", whilst Kaas said he'd met with Hitler many times and viewed him as possessing noble plans and motives.


 * I am quite happy for Str1977 to interpret whatever he wants, but I believe that readers should note these words to judge how far the Timelines 'stink' intellectually! At least they report that which is so absent and denied entry here in Wikipedia. I note the User does not answer any of my points other than by asserting that I have an interpretation, and that it is wrong. I consider that all these statements are relevant to the history and that their exclusion is entirely ill-balanced . I have a lengthy history with this User, and largely it consists of elucidation as to exactly why any inclusion of these are forbidden, necessitated by his step by step denial of fact. I cause 'trouble' by noting that any questioning, however sourced from the most standard histories, is forbidden because it strikes at the very heart of the Vatican. The words of Pope Pius XI at this time undoubtedly were affected by the advice of Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who later as pontiff claimed  Infallibility. Thus any criticism is anathema to the Church as endangering this principal, amongst other core values. None of my questions at Pope Pius XII discussion at this time are answered, and most of them seek to challenge this extraordinary editor's categorisation of himself as historian. These are necessary as he has consistently, as here, availed of near zero counter-source of statements or excerpt which can balance the clear historical(sourced) qualification of Vatican involvement.


 * I am almost immune to his categorisation of me as a POV pusher, and have become a Wikpedia provider myself as I alone have some knowledge of this particular denialism in Wkipedia. I rather think it is time that I itemised and recorded where the exact discussions of graduated denialism  deal with exactly what facet of the 1933 picture. Then readers/editors could be spared wading through the acres of reasoned indignation which the denialism precipitated.


 * I have attempted at talk Vatican Bank, an Article in dire need of attention yet not as much as this Hitler series needs it, to estimate the possibility of including sufficient apologist/denialist attitude into Wikipedia articles. This has been rapidly followed by the discussion at Pius XII concerning the impossibility of editing here such an Article as includes proper balance. I am out-right insulted by four self-confessed catholic editors as being purely a POV pusher. All of them itch to see me and, if it were to be, my ilk, banned from Wikipedia. The fact that I have fought tooth and nail through Wikipedia to gradually infuse some reality, visible now within this Hitler Article, at Weimar Republic and throughout related subjects, and that I have succeeded in revealing the actual facts, does not in any way slow this posse of abusive accusers. Only I recognise, in circular fashion, that the reason is as I state above. There is a line beyond which approved Catholic understanding will not cross. I dispute that this is pure history debate, as the User has constantly been in error beyond the norms of this level of sourceing, disputing the timelines and having to accept reversals. He claims that by including the historically sourced qualification of the kick-back scheme made between Hitler and the Vatican- undisputed by him- I am wrong to single this out from the litany of general Hilter success. I consider this a fatuous argument as the historians characterise the relationship of the one party, the  catholic Centre Party Germany quite clearly. I have never categorised other parties, for which I have not been presenting source, and certainly never tried to excise or remove any such categorisation as should or could be made.


 * I believe, guided by the rare individual(s ? ) in Wikipedia, that exclusion of facets is not the way to build a useful Wikipedia and that should this editor object to inclusion of source, he would do better to provide contrary source such that any argument be sourcedly visible information, worthy of requisite representation. I source involvement between the Vatican and Hitler concerning the Roman Catholic Centre, which consisted of itself and a Bavarian split. I have not sourced any relationship between Bavaria and the Vatican, but certainly William L.Shirer mentions that the Bavarians dissolved following removal, whatever, of their purely state control preceding the inevitability, in that region  . The user kindly provides us with a  banned/dissolved breakdown at talk Pius XII, but would have done better in my repeated opinion to allow the sourced historical comment which does single out the catholic Centre as having been the subject of bargaining, made indirectly but clearly between the Vatican and Adolf Hitler. This alone makes the report necessary and the exclusion inimical. I take it ill that that which I have  included, should be castrated despite its source because he cannot include other information. If the user were more even handed he would accept straightway that he should have qualified any such inclusion with any relevant missing information, rather than forcing me to this repetitive reasoning and sourceing. I'm sick of these questions-why deny the Kaas meeting with Hitler on his return fom the 24-31 Rome visit ?, Why disclaim the illegality of the Secret Annexe to the Reichskonkordat, why qualify the arrests as legal? the takeover as legal? why exclude Pius XI's above approbation? why exclude  that the kick-back was bargained by the Vatican itself-when he agrees it? If I say that the Communists went to bed with Pius XI, then exclude it as un-sourced falsehood, OK? Or the nationalist right DNvP. I insert no claims that are not out-there.


 * I wrote on Hitler here: In particular this self-dissolution,in the case of the large and noble Centre Party, was brought about with a classic kick-back scheme in return for Vatican achievement of the subsequent Reichskonkodat negotiations. It is not untrue nor does it make claim disputed by this user. But it is utterly excised and remains so. I object to being made to work so hard. NB in the case of. No other party had its Chairman and leader cuddling up to old friends in the un-accountable Holy See whilst chairman, or whilst not chairman. Franz von Papen had no party and is remarked as being along with Kaas, one of the two driving forces for this sordid history, because he cuddled up to everyone he could gain from.

EffK 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry to have to inform you, Effk,that any artcile written in a public forum by a vast public of contributors such as this, in which the tyranny of the majority must necessarily dominate by definition and which touches on any sensitive matter of fact with regard to the truth of the horrors perpetrated by the Christian majority is going to perpetuate the Christian point of view. Now, I don'ìt really have to go into a long discussion of the meaninglessness of the policy of so-called NPOV do I. I have never beleived that objectivity is possible in the humanities. The existence of such a thing as a neutral point of view has recently been put into strong question with regard to even the hardest of hard sciences. To ask for it as an ideal to try to reach for is something I can certainly understand. But to really beleive that one person, or even a group of people, can be unbiased in one's view of such a sensitive and extraordinaily delicate matter as this one is to be self-deluded.

The history of the Catholic Church's relations with the Nazi regime, just like the history of the Crusades, the Inquistion and other such matters, will have to be written by non-Christians and atheists over a very long period of time. It will require a great deal of struggle and persistenece to get the truth out there, but it will evenetually be exposed for all to know. It took them 400 tears to admit that Galielo was right about heliocentrism after all. You can't really expect them to fully admit that even their recent past is blotted with blood and ounds can you?

You are right, of course. But you are a Don Quixote in this case. Keep up the good fight.

As to your observations, I stand behind them about 99.8% of the way. But, more imprtantly, there are innumerable sources that sustain your points. And these are ineviatbly being suppressed by the Christian majority. It's depressing, but what can be done??--Lacatosias 15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am very sorry to inform you, Lacatosias, that the internet is unfortunately a medium were extermist activism can achieve very much. It will necessarily infect things like the WP if there aren't those around who are actively guarding a certain standard, at best those with knowledge and qualifications in the respective fields. This is what I am doing in this case. Effk is promoting a extreme theory, no doubt sincerely, but it is still extreme. The sources do not supprt the contentious points he makes (and they have nothing to say on what information should be included in what article and about linguistic problems). He's certainly not fighting the good fight, though I don't question his honest belief.

I'm sorry for you if you are shocked that the "hard science" is not unbreakable. Well, historiography is quite a hard subject in the field of humanities and we have our methodology which must be properly applied.

I am sad to see that you appearently are not well informed about historical issues, including the Gallileo case.

I am amused to see how to discount objectivity and the insurmountability of bias only to claim that history must be written only by adherents of a certain ideology. We have seen that in Soviet Russia, certainly Christians have done that too, Protestants in 19th century Germany actively bullied Catholics out of the profession, and now you want to do the same. Well, we tried and didn't like it. If atheists should have a monopoly on writing the history of the Church, then probably anti-Semites should write on the history of the Jews, and Creationists should do evolutionary biology. Brilliant, quite brilliant.

Rant over. Str1977 15:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This was posted earlier in response to STR1997's rant directed at me, but was blocked by an edit conflict:

I have no idea of your or anyone else's "expertise" or "qualifications" with regard to the topic under discussion. Your assertion of authority is therefore misplaced and unjustified, reminding me very much of a certain individual....never mind.First of all you are clearly arrogant and rude enough not to sign your comments, so that I don't even have a basis for accessing your user page to determine any kind of alleged or pretended partial background on which to formulate a judgment. Secondly, I have no basis for judging the accuracy of anyone's assertions of authority with respect to a topic on Wikipedia since anyone can obviously claim anything on the Internet.


 * You are right you don't know about my qualifications and I cannot prove them here on the internet. But I assure you, I am a historian. You also have no previous experience with EffK and his way of reading and writing.


 * Ok, I've been busy on other matters all day, so I didn't get a chance to see this almost overwheleming flood of responses, counterreponses, etc.. to my post from yesterday. It is clear to me that this is, as I said yesterady, a very very very sensitive issue and I am the first one to admit that I am not an expert on it. I want to get that out in the air right away. I don't pretend to be. Let me explain, by way of context, why I posted my original comment yesterday. Someone put out an RfC for this page which I came across and decided that perhaps I could be of some help, having read up somwhat on the topic and being, IMHO, reasonably bright and knowledgable over all as a human being. The RfC said that this is what one is supposed to do in such circumstamces: help to try to resolve conflicts between editors with strong, conflicting POVs which interfere with getting an article done as much as possible free from POV. I read through the comments from the top of the page (not the whole archive of course) and it seemed to me that there was something of a trend (in the sections on the Church's role at least) to dismiss out of hand and almost ridicule the positions of Effk. You are obviosuly right in your assertion that I know nothing of Effk's background either. But I don't see the relevance of that. Unless he has been trying to hide his background or distort it (something I disappove of), as some here are suggesting, in which case I think he should put forth his credentials, history, etc. as others have done. What I'm trying to say is, I recognize the validity of the point that STR1997 makes with respect to the need for "expertise" and "specialized" knowledge in any area. I do NOT beleive in editing anarchy or anything of that nature. On the other hand, a call was made for a request for comments and so I commented.Perhaps my comment was too pointed and dismissive of the opposite position, but that was because I had read through a huge number of comments at that point, felt that one side was dominating clearly over the other (without background info about the whole case and ALL of the arhcives mind you), got frustrated and decided that the opposite position (not neccesatiy EffK's which I'm not wholly familiar with but that of Lewy, Gary Wills and other people ) needed to be defended and heard more forcefully. So, the need for "experts" is something I admit is important, but there should be a balance of experts as much as possible. This is something I percieved, and still perceive, to be missing from this situation. I cannot fill the role because I don't (nearly) have the time to study the documents and other available information as thoroughly as necessary. This is a point that EFFK made in one of his comments and that struck me as quite serious: most people will not have the time and/or the desire to go through even all the archives, much less everything that needs to be read to engage in this debate over the long haul, rather than just dabbling. If you put out an RFC, keep two things in mind:


 * 1) most of the people who respond are not going to be professional historians of the period in question. Should their contributions just be dismissed and their comments put down as non-authoritative? This is a sincere question, not rhetorical and it touches on many aspects of the Wikpedia.
 * 2) What if professional historians do take over the history sections, philosophers control the philosophy section, etc...Does this mean there will be less disputes or more? My guess is (especially in philosophy) probably the latter is more likely to be true.


 * No, I certainly don't want to restrict editorship to historians, even if it were feasible. But once in a while some contributor comes along, thinking he has read a bit and now has found the grail and immediately wants to include it all here. And that's fine. Enthusiasm is appreciated, but our enthusiast will be confronted with different positions are there it can get nasty. Unfortunately, EffK is very insistent on his theses and though a dilligent reader not a very careful one. What I meant by background is not his whereabouts or heritage (though that was briefly an issue, as he preferred to remain mysterious while at the same being quite inquisitive about other editors, mainly Robert McClenon and me). I was referring to the story of him and me and others, which goes back for me until April 2005 and for others even into late 2004. The ArbCom gives the picture.

So, the first part of your diatribe consists in nothing more than a sustained argumentam ad verecundiam. But, aside from that, one does not have to be a historian by profession to know that there is an absolutely enormous amount of controversy regarding the topic of the Catholic Church's relations with the Nazi Party and its partial responsibility in the Holocaust. You are obviously claiming that William Shirer and Guenter Lewy, Cornwell and others are extremists and radicals. Well, perhaps they are. I am not in a position to judge what is extreme and what is not within the community of professional historians. Of course, the important point which I was trying to emphasize above is that this does not absolutely mean that they are necessarily wrong, especially in a field as subject to such hermeneutical interpretation and subjectivity as is the writing of history. Today's extremism may well be tommorow's common knowldge and vice versa. This has often happned in the past, and it is a perfectly reasonable meta-induction to suspect that the majority of historians (granting that it really is the majority of historians) will be wrong again many and many times over.


 * No, I wouldn't call Lewy, Cornwell, Shirer extremists - though I certainly don't entirely agree with them. Agreed, there is controversy and that's not a bad thing. Theses and theories need to be tried and tested. There is also a wide spectrum of thoughts on this, among we two are probably way apart, but that's legitimate. What I call extremist is EffK's reading and editing. He quotes these authors a lot but somehow he manages to see confirmation of his contentious points in there (contentious points, as there are many issues EffK cites which are in substance not disputed here at all). But it's not there (not even in Lewy). And he also indulges in original research.


 * I think I've already touched on this en passant above somewhere. I don't know exactly what are EffK's theories and all of his editing practices. I cannot make a determination one way or the other with regard to accuations of original research. I would have to go into that MMMMASSSIVE archive and read everything as well as the ArbCom evidence probably. I hope that a fair and reasonable decision is made in that regard, BTW. I don't know how that works. You must also understand that I'm relatively new here: I've only been in the 'pedia for about a month now.

As to Galileo, I know, I know, he was pardoned for his alleged SINS 400 years later, right?? It's still a sad and pathetic act that should have been completely unnecessary in the first place. The history is quite simple: he was right, Bellarmimo was a dogmatic instrumentalist and Galileo should never have been forced to comprmise with religous authoritarians in any manner.


 * The thing is: the history is not quite simple (history never is): Gallileo's "sins" were forgiven in the 17th century, the moment he recanted. What happened there is certainly an unfortunate incident, but Gallileo was not accused and found guilty of heresy, but of disobeying an earlier directive by the cardinal (whether the directive was genuine or forged is debated but it certainly was aimed at making it easy for Gallileo). Gallileo was not the brilliant genius and the Cardinals the "dogmatic instrumentalist". Gallileo had many friends and sponsors among them and it was his own tactlessness that he turned his friend Urban VIII into an enemy.
 * Gallileo was right? He turned out to be right but according to the standards of scientific work he was wrong in his day. He claimed that heliocentrism was "truth" and couldn't provide proof for that. He was asked by the Cardinals to write about it as a theory and not as established truth. But he didn't comply. We don't like what happened to him after that, but we shouldn't beatify him. To use your modern-day parallel: if Hwang's findings are found to be right by another scientist (doing real research) in a couple of years, does that make Hwang right or not?
 * As for the repeal of the verdict. I think it's an unfortunate thing too that the legend of Gallileo became so powerful that the Vatican was moved to repealing the verdict. Other judicial systems, e.g. English law courts are not asked or expected to repeal verdicts given centuries ago, even if their wrongness is completely clear. But as I said, given the scientific and judicial conditions of the time, the verdict on Gallileo was completely accurate. That the earth moves around the sun has been accepted by the Church not under JP2 but much earlier (in fact it was only fought during the Gallileo case).


 * Yes,you are exactly right in your description of the historical facts. Again here, clearly we disagree on interpretion and significance of the events. He was ordered not to state that his theory was scientific fact but that it was an hypothesis. I don't believe it is the role of religious authorities (nor any authorities for that matter) to dictate to scientists what is and is not to be considered fact!! Period. It is repugnant to me that he may actually have been burned alive if he had not recanted and said that it was just a hypothesis. Galileo had substantial evidence (not sufficient agreed) but he had evidence and powerful logical arguments which were much better than the Church's Aristotelian ones, that the earth oribited the sun. He had what is now called "the best explanation", the explanation which is closest to the truth. This is a very long discussion, but it is intersting that, in this case certainly, you are taking the side of what is generally considered an extremist position put forth by only a few Catholoc apologists. This is definitely not accepted by most historians or philosophers of science. And, yes, I do believe in objective truth (though I probably define it much differently from yourself) and Galilio was telling the truth. This was as close to epistemological certainty as he could have possibly gotten in his time. He had "partially justified true belief." String theorists have nothing close to this, yet no one dare insist that they either call their theory "a useful mathematical instrument" or burn in the fires like Giordano Bruno.


 * I obviously don't agree with my view being extremists but, hey, we can disagree here. What I am doing here is trying to see this in the light of the days it happened, adhering to Ranke. I believe in objective truth too, but I don't look at from hindsight, saying "G. said this and this turned out to be right so his opponents must have been stupid or evil". It all was unfortunate, many personal insults involved (most notably Urban VIII). Whether clerics should get involved in something they have no expertise in (though Jesuits were quite knowledgabe in these fields) is another matter, but had G. been left alone with his fellow academics, he wouldn't have come far either. It was not the clerics but the academics that refused to look through the telescope. Also, it was G. who ventured into the fields of theology, speculating about alternative exegesis of Joshua's battle. This all seems quite normal to us, but around 1600 such "private interpretation", a recent invention of Protestantism, was considered highly dangerous. (Not to mention that Luther & Co. had some nice words for Copernicus without Lutherans being asked about this in 2006). This all took a terrible turn then, but what I actually opposed (and was a bit overzealous about in my first reply) was the G. legend which turns this into the epic struggle between science and religion. The incident was rather the exception than the rule.

Lastly, I did not suggest that atheists should have monopoly control over Church history. Indeed,it might be helpfiul to have mamy Buddhists, Jainists, Hindus, Taoists, pagans, wiccans and perhaps a few Christians in there as well. My point was simply that in a society dominated by an overwheliming majority of Christians, it is inevitable that a bias toward the Chritians POV will sink in to such contrroveries as this one. Having Cristians writing their own history, as they are in fact doing in modern Western civilization, is analagous to having Communists of the party Refoundation of Communism write the histiry of Communism. That is all.--Lacatosias 17:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am happy to hear that you don't advocate religious or ideological tests on historians. Historiography has come a long way from the dark days of "englightenment historiopgraphy", which proclaimed non-partial objectivity but in fact only used this (subconciously) to spread their own bias. Everyone has a bias, has views and the way to deal with them is to face them and be conscious of them ... and to use proper methodology. Hence my "argumentam ad verecundiam".


 * Yes, that's what I have been saying all along. But I don't see the balance on the other side in this discussion, except as coming from EffK. Maybe I am wrong about EffK and he is saying something much more radical than I had understood from a few comments. But their certianly seems to be overwheleming one-sidedness, for example, on the Pius XII page.


 * If, as you see it, there is balance missing, it is a deplorable side effect of EffK's presence. He sucks up very many energies - not only mine but also other editors who see Pius in a less favourable light than I do, most notably Robert McClenon. Others have complained as well. We all have a bit of history with EffK and hence all the reactions you witnessed.


 * Finally, I see that you are from Italy and maybe Italy is a "society dominated by an overwheliming majority of Christians". I certainly don't feel like I am living in one, and I don't see that such controversies have been sunk - in fact I think they are artificially kept alive by media and interests - it is mostly a popular debate and not a scholarly one. Str1977 09:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, from what I've been reading it seems that most of the disputants in this are agreed that more will be known as more documents are released from the Vatican arhives and examined. So, it may well turn out to be much hay over nothing or it may be that the Church (getting back to the real subject here) actually could have "done more" and commited "sins of omission" for instituonal reaons, as has been alleged. If Pius XII and the others involved were to be completely vindicated from such charges, this would be a simple fact of history. If not, not. From what I can tell, the jury is still out. Of cousre, from the perspective of writing about this in the present, this leaves everyone unhappy. --Lacatosias 17:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There we see the point. EffK is about whether Pius could have done more to save Jews - a fairly common dispute - but he is claiming that Hitler's rise to power was the result of a Vatican conspiracy. And he claims to proof it from books that don't say anything like this. The closest he got was a third-hand report (30 years later) about a Vatican telegramm that leaves room for more than just one interpretation (not getting into the Original Research problem), but EffK insisted on his interpretation being included in POV language and full length. Str1977 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Lacatosias-you'd be best advised to come back with another un-traceable username. As to the essence of the argument they present-it rests entirely on the assumption by them of bad faith by others. That 'historians' build any criticism (actually it is just fact) from a will to criticise. This assumes bad faith. It reminds me of my comment that the attitude emanates from the deep despair of the catholic soul. The assumption is that all are bad, and is the perfect excuse for their intermediaryship. As to the anon (str1977) he has never so openly stated that it is his intention (one I clearly recognised) to target me and to obliterate all the extremist postings of sourced history I make. The aim is to now kill me as a user. this is done through the side-kick robert McClenon, as it would be too obvious otherwise. I recognise it all, as I recognise the hand of the various church functionaries from their statements in the real world. Now, they may succeed in removing me, and you are well aware of the entire ouside history, but I simply say that you have to use another anonymous username whether I remain or not. Apart from source, the force of your brain is all you have. If you need the source it is clearly linked into my contributions on discussions which began all 'moral and shocked' at Centre Party Germany and Hitler's Pope and onwards to Kaas and everything. Of course they have won in the articles, or at least I have had to surrender about half the facts, but apart from rapidly archiving me out of sight they cannot obliterate the discussion posting and source. They aim to, as my Arbcom trial demonstrates and perhaps the sourced discussions will become deletable after I am flattened out of here. I don't doubt that they will win, and especially that they will find it easier if I am the first and last. Quixote is charming, beats grossly impious. by the way you have a chance to include the  str1977 edit admitting his aim to silence me, as evidence at my trial-now. I cannot enter it to evidence as I have used my allotted diffs, but you can, under this present name or any name. The reality in Wikipedia is that published source  be verifiable. their argument is that even if I quote it, I misrepresent it. They know that verifiability is a law here, so they use the strawman argument against the messenger. I do not believe it is so completely obvious that I write in a POV manner (where I have edited articles) but this is their argument. My extremism is the issue, and on that basis I can perhaps be silenced. I end by telling you that this is not a distant abstract argument a la Galileo, but is at Arbcom now as ever is.


 * And I place this here so you can be in no doubt as to the attack made upon my sourced good faith.Ill post the diff too.
 * "I am very sorry to inform you, Lacatosias, that the internet is unfortunately a medium were extermist activism can achieve very much. It will necessarily infect things like the WP if there aren't those around who are actively guarding a certain standard, at best those with knowledge and qualifications in the respective fields. This is what I am doing in this case. Effk is promoting a extreme theory, no doubt sincerely, but it is still extreme. The sources do not supprt the contentious points he makes (and they have nothing to say on what information should be included in what article and about linguistic problems). He's certainly not fighting the good fight, though I don't question his honest belief."
 * EffK 10:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * EffK, could you please stop personal attacks. Thanks.
 * I never doubted your sincerity or the sincerity of others you deem "critical".
 * Also you need not advise a grown-up editor of changing his user-name (of which you have made a habit of), he stated clearly in one of his posts that he's from Italy, while you clouded your heritage for months. That's your choice, but don't claim you don't have views, biases (that is what I talked to Lacatosias about) and don't claim that there is no analysis or interpretation involved in historiography. It is not merely the stating of who did what when where. But you still don't grasp that.
 * It is not my objective to kick you out but to solve the problem caused by your edits and posts. And Robert is not my side-kick. but in fact another editor on various articles - an editor I happen to disagree with a lot on Pius XII. His is actual criticism and it's valid to include it. Your contribution however are, in the issues we disagree on, conspiracy theorising.
 * As for your citation. I can stand by all I wrote. Str1977 10:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Lacatosias, regarding your accusation that another editor is "clearly arrogant and rude enough not to sign [his] comments", please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks; they are basic principles of editing here on Wikipedia. My experience with Str1977 on other articles is that he always signs his posts except for an occasional accident, which he always goes back to correct. Looking at this page, I see his signature seven times. If you are referring to this edit from yesterday, it seems fairly obvious that he accidentally typed five tildes instead of four. When an editor does that, it expands into the date instead of the name and the date. When I make such errors, it's nice if someone simply corrects them without making accusations. EffK, sockpuppets are frowned on at Wikipedia, so it's not appropriate to make such suggestions. AnnH (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was his tone and addition of the phrase rant which made me forget to assume good faith. But your point is still well-taken and I apologize.--Lacatosias 17:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lacatosius, I do reiterate my own apology. Errare humanum est. Str1977 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I am afraid I did come across as arrogant and rude (though Ann is right on the mark re my signature - am I getting old - I am only 28 ;-) ), as I was in a rather volatile mood yesterday (and hence I called my post a "rant"). For that I want to apologize to Lacatosias. Str1977 10:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted)Bad faith-source is denied. Unproven, un-sourced claim:knowledge and qualifications. Bad faith Personal attack:promoting a extreme theory.Denialism: the sourced is exact as to requirements of balance.And, Irrational claim, that has no basis in Wikipedia guidelines, by reference to online "war" :fighting the good fight.

Meanwhile I Effk state bad faith in good faith. Str1977 is an openly denialist warrior,as per my proven and itemised experience and his language however linked to my sincerity, is clarly war-like. By the way, it is called Document war in references by those uncovering Church sex abuse cover-ups in the States. There should be a page for this term soon. And you see you are being already very closely monitored. EffK 11:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't beleive that there is an actual organized conspiracy here, or at least it has't been proven yet to my satisfaction, EffK. Even if there were, I souldn't change my username because I'm not afraid of being kicked off the Wikipedia. It would be an eye-opening and very revealing experience, but not nearly the end of my life. Document war is interetsing. I will check into that. Thank you. As to being monitored....nahhhh, I doubt it. It makes me feel important though!!--Lacatosias 18:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, there is no conspiracy and I should know since I am the chief Vatican agent (as EffK said) ... or rather we are, since we are many ... but than we are one, because all Catholics are remote-controlled robots (says EffK).
 * EffK's advise about your username is typical. I have read that you stated to be from Italy which is nothing that needs hiding. I myself never concealed that I'm German, and a Catholic. Effk cloaked himself in mystery, while he was very inquisitive about others. Suum cuique! But as for being monitored - if you ever feel like being monitored just drop me a line and I will tell my friends at the Vatican to back off ;-o
 * 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates ? Need I say more, such as: german businessmen? You are thoroughly against source or you would protect  source. Your historiography is simple excision. EffK 11:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Effk, you needn't say more. Look into the Hitler article - it's there. It may also be included into NSDAP and in articles on the respective "Magnates". On its own, I guess that was Robert's obective, it doesn't warrant an article. Str1977 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the accusation that was made against the magnates was that it was POV. Here it is not POV and there it was not POV. Are you, Str1977, supporting the categorisation of the fuller article as POV? As to Lacatosias, if he feels like openly having an identity and openly demanding that the document war be sorted, that's for him to decide. I was in no way referring to being thrown out of wikipedia- more like out of a train. I am sorry that I am assumed to be suggesting the former. Never mind, but there are murders associated with these people, at least one in the course of being investigated. I am so happy for Lacatosias that "or at least it has't been proven yet to my satisfaction," he finds me effectively to be a nutter or a troll. Great, thanks, thats a big help. However it doesnt explain the excision of 15 december of the limited quid pro quo, the non existence of the Reichskonkordat here and the continuous denial f source backed by several closely interrelated editors. But gee, thanks, Lacatosias. you put the truth in.


 * Please observe, Effk, that from the statement "I do not see eneough evidence to conclude that there is a conspiarcy going on here" it does not follow that " I think Effk is a troll or luncatic". In fact, it doesn't even follow that there is no conpsiracy theory. It's simply that I feel like I'm being sucked into something which I am in no position to judge and I don't have the time nor the knwoledg nor the desire to get so deeply involved in this thing that it takes

away from the rest of my life. Here I will say one thing: I will go and look at the artcile again and if, e.g., the Riechskonkordat is not mentioned or skimmed over in some unacceptable sense, than I will edit the article to put it back in because that is oviously extenely important, as even a non-historisn acn tell. And the same with your other accusations. What more do you want from me??--Lacatosias 10:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In November 1932, Hjalmar Schacht, with Fritz Thyssen and other leading German businessmen appealed to Hindenburg in a letter to appoint Hitler as leader of a government "independent from parliamentary parties" which could turn into a movement that would "enrapture millions of people."
 * This was the state of the reference exactly ONE week ago, 13 january 2006. I do not think I can be criticised for noting that this did not include the history of bank-rolling Hitler. I had better look further and see who it was who did us this favour.

PS it was an ex-priest using the words Document-war, concerning the Irish priests in California Scandal, tho which one I forget, and which activist I forget. EffK 09:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)