Talk:Catholic Church and Nazi Germany/Archive 3

Greengrounds
Just to note, Greengrounds (also editing as 96.52.180.114) is indefinitely blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing the Lead
Dear Editors. This "Battle over the Lead" has gotten out of hand, gone on long enough and needs to "wrap-up". A lead is critical to an Article as a whole. We're not to unilaterally edit w/o first discussing a significant edit on the Talk page. And, to simply 'slap-on' a citation request and wait w/o offering an effort to produce a citation to support the information is disingenuous, nor is it the spirit of the idea. They (a request for citation) are not to "challenge" or question a fellow editors work, but rather, are designed as a request for collaboration. I did respond to Sayerselle's request but I sincerely questioned motivation given its superficial nature.

Sayerselle? The notion of a citation request over a single WORD is w/o merit and wholly questionable as to motivation and comes across as pettiness, very disruptive and lacking of credibility. This form of "editing" has no value and is disruptive while serving no meaningful purpose. The lead up to this week was perfectly sound, balanced and reached by consensus. No legitimate editor has the time to 'baby sit' a lead 24/7/365, or waste hours addressing such trivial things.

Ozhistory has impressed me as a sincere editor who has offered a considerable amount of legitimate work who has reached the end of a rope. Sayerselle? I want to believe the same of you, and often your work is legit, but this ceaseless pettiness over minute points of the Lead is very much becoming progressively w/o validity and just plain disruptive. I'm asking you now to stop this and commit to actual collaboration .Integrityandhonesty (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I started a comment here, and then got side tracked. I apologise for not explaining the recent reduction of the lead. As said previously, I've been trying to keep the lead brief. This is a relative term of course, as this is a complex and multifaceted article, which quite simply needs a relatively long intro. That said, my feeling was/is that Sayerslle's insistence on tendentious editing of the section on the Nazi takeover to meet his stated POV that "a simple portrait, [the Catholics] are rather conniving at Hitlers rise". This explains the nature of his edits to the section - deletion or disruption of any facts he senses might endanger this judgement from being the salient impression given by the lead - to the point where he disputes that the Centre Party/BVP were faced with any intimidation at the time of the Enabling Act vote in March, and the months leading up to their dissolution in July. Needless to say, it is nonsense to suggest that they faced no intimidation. The fact that one must rely on nonsense in order to maintain one's POV should ring alarm bells for the holder. Meanwhile, Integrity has assiduously answered Sayerslle's tendentiouness in this section with accurate detail. He is quite right to point out that the powers Hitler assumed via the Enabling Act were not all encompassing, and that the Govt was still a Coalition with a President. But imo, if we do too much of this, we have a top heavy summary. I've mentioned the Nazi paramilitary surrounding Parliament, as otherwise a casual reader will assume that the Enabling vote was like any other parliamentary vote. But even this level of detail starts to bog us down, and doesn't give the full picture (Hitler threatening civil war etc). Hence my original preference to simply state that "the vote took place in an intimidatory atmosphere", or "Hitler, through a combination of threats and promises of moderation, secured the vote of Zentrum etc"... or something similar. My general point is: I think the detail for this important, but brief period, is best delivered in the main body, under the relevant section, where Sayerslle's POV can find its place, but sit in its proper and detailed context. Ozhistory (talk) 02:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you OZ for offering your thoughts and agreed. A Lead is meant to be a concise overview - not a moment by moment long winded road of history loaded with citations for every sentence or thought - let alone - a single word. It is intended to be created by consensus free of 'noise' and fluff. This particular history - especially - how the Nazis and Hitler came to power from Jan of '33 through August '34 is not only complex, but a fast paced spiraling collapse of the Weimar Republic which took the German people and the world on a breathtaking ride of how a dictator can arise in a democratic constitutional government.

Sayerselle? Why is it you can not - or desire not to acknowledge - Hitler had not  achieved an authentic dictatorship until after the death of Hindenburg and the national referendum in August of '34 to consolidate the offices and powers of both the Chancellory and the President to establish himself as Fürher? The highly respected wiki Article: Nazi Germany takes this position. Why can't we here? This seems wise and prudent. Their consensus has been well vetted and survived years of scrutiny.

This hard nosed insistence that the Enabling Act was the source of Hitler's "dictatorial power" seems objectively unbalanced. Though a stepping stone to his establishing his dictatorship in August 1934, this law was used by numerous leaders in the history of the Republic as recently as months previous to his appointment and was intended to be temporary in status until the German government became stable. Indeed, that was one of his 'talking points' to justify it. The Reichstag Fire decree of Feb. '33 - in fact - was more damaging to civil liberties and played a pivotal role in his grasping for power leading up to the election of March '33 than the Enabling Act in a substantial way. Even with this (the dubious "Fire Decree") in their pocket the election was a disappointment for the Nazis in that they did not achieve a majority, which was their objective.

And, how does one get to the understanding that from November 1932 through August 1934 the Nazis were not intimidating Catholic leaders, (Clergy and Lay) and average Catholics when they were arrested, beaten, murdered and 'layed-off' from their jobs from Feb. '33 on? And, deny this with sincerity? It seems to defy reason itself. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * intimidation - doesn't mean they had no choice. like the communists - banned - sent to dachau - the socialists - voted against - the centre party? - and there is the question of pacellis  'line' - of hatred of social democracy, distrust of even moderates like  Bruning - and the  role of the catholic dilettante-ish von papen who as I understand it, threw hitler a lifeline when his fortunes following disappointing election results were at a low ebb - I have much reading  to do, I admit my hold on much of this material is shaky - I dispute the fact that asking for RS refs for claims made in the lead is merely disruptive - ozhistory imo  slurs over  details when it suits, to create a blurry portrait that suits their own pov -  as for how you regard me integrity and honesty I coudnt care in the slightest - I regard youa s asingle purpose account, whose 'ultimatums' are absurd -and  who reported me to oz as a problematic sort who might delete whole articles on a whim! -wipe out months of work - but you cant really do that on wp, its in  the edit history and can all be restored in a twinkling, - and your ridiculous preciousness about declaring ones allegiances - like telling me off for asking if oz was a croyant catholic? -  in a limited way we wp writers are writers and when you get a book you are able to read a little of the writer aren't you  - his allegiances, interests etc - I think you shuld stop threatening good faith editors and edit some bloody articles - not just pontificate on the talk page of one article - and just an afterthought , the  'encompassing'  detail - hitler and the Nazis had a few posts, but one was POlice, and Goring was in charge - they had their hands  on what they needed kind of thing -  some opposed  whatever the cost, some, like papen  and the centre party,  did not -Joachim Fest : " the enabling law passed two days later, the conservative partners  had largely fulfilled their function - namely to cover up the break that marked the transition from the constitutional to the illegal state and at the same time to foster in the mass of people the misconception of the common cause of all gemans under the Chancellor of Unity adolf Hitler  - so the idea that the centre party connived at hitlers rise is not my personal hang-up Ozhistory , but appears to be what fest is arguing here - and 'integrityandhonesty' , you seeking to shout 'enough! no more discussion' - that will never happen  if Wikipedia s model is stuck to - there is no deadline -  Sayerslle (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sayerselle - It's becoming very close to circular here. And, the attitude of "I could not care less' - speaks for itself.  I'll write that off as "in the moment" and offer you grace.

The past issue of your reducing the Article to a 'stub' was not in reference to the entire Article - but the work of Oz, myself and others. Let's be forthright. At that time you had a history (habit) of deleting swaths then replacing what was once there with substantial unilateral editing of the Article. Not that your alone in this - I get it. Or, created whole sections - become defensive if anyone pushed back; then battle over every blessed word even when they offered an RS. And, Sayerselle, candidly- you were creating Articles to reference your own work. Is this biased? Most would say - yes. And, yes, I find no merit to demand a person proclaim their faith. As if this were a litmus test to qualify as a legitimate editor here. Sorry.

And, at that time- early this year- over 40% of the word count of the Article was your work alone. Do you find that balanced? It was an observation of nearly two years of your editing. Just called it as I saw it. If you found that off-putting? I get it. Look - we all have a POV. I do not see that as negative. The point is that an Article be balanced. And, the Lead was balanced while answering many complex FAQ on this topic in short order.

You're not going to garner sympathy from me for the Communists of that era. They had no issue with the use of force to achieve their goal. Their participation in the Republic was a sham of sham. They were buying time and 'grandstanding" using the system as a paltform until they had the ability to take over by force. They - and their Soviet backers - made that clear enough. Who were fighting in the streets of Germany like common thugs? Oh, yes, the Communist and Nazis. And, had they had 'critical mass' they would have used force at the drop of a hat to take power - democracy be damned - in their way of thinking. Two thugs killing one another in the streets while lying they are 'democratic and for the people" to run my life is not a choice - its a nightmare. So, no tears here for them other than for their humanity. Had they had the chance? There would have been blood in the streets until they had power - period. And, they would had their own 'spin' on who belonged in a concentration camp. Who invaded Poland in 1939 again? The Soviets and the Nazis. Welcome to WW II. So, no -

As for the Socialist? Yes, that was tragic and noble. My hats off to them. You seem to overlook the Center Party and they often collaborated. As for Pius XII ? Your correct. But, read up. The Catholic Church had a very definite understanding of a social order and it did not embrace Communism - for obvious reasons - or Capitalism - while Socialism was close, they had other concerns regarding its utilitarian view of the human person. The social order they espoused is called Corporatism. There is nothing wrong with this. Like the Socialist - in the main - but yet very different in that the individual and family are at the center of socialization and associations outside them are fully voluntary - not compulsory. Similar- but also very different. Nor, did they promote this at the point of a gun.

Can we just get on with this and reach a consensus already for the Lead ? BTW - I have offered edits in numerous Articles and none are as difficult as this. Not even remotely. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * as I understand it, we are here to represent what RS have written about these times, not provide our own pov and tendentious up-sum, summary-- - how do you interpret what Joachim Fest is saying -here anyhow?-the enabling law passed two days later, the conservative partners  had largely fulfilled their function - namely to cover up the break that marked the transition from the constitutional to the illegal state and at the same time to foster in the mass of people the misconception of the common cause of all germans under the Chancellor of Unity adolf Hitler  - when the article has stabilized, -it appears to be growing like topsy - at the moment  -I think we should bring our arguments here again - btw ,reading what you've written above I would say that 'Who were fighting in the streets of Germany like common thugs? Oh, yes, the Communist and Nazis.' that you wrote - is not sufficient - it was the police too, conniving with the Nazis to create chaos  - I simply believe there were not enough people, not enough catholics, not enough Centrists, not enough police too prepared to fight for democratic order - what if the Centre party, the Catholic Church, the police etc had stepped into the fray, not pro-Nazi like the Police, not seeking to make their own  self-interested deals like the church, but to really stand up and speak out for 'decency' - to use an Orwellian term? - anyway, much reading to do. Sayerslle (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you're human? You have a POV. Even the process of offering an "interpretation" of an RS brings in subjectivity, that is, a personal opinion that will taint the outcome; because of this - balance is the path to a NPOV of an Article; particularly, when engaging a complex and contentious subject such as this one. In the introduction of William Shirer's book, The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany, he states this vexing paradox of reporting history - free of opinion - is a weakness of every historian, including himself, even with an overt effort. This 'self-awareness' is key. We all have some degree of a 'world view' we bring to the table. It's unavoidable.

As for Joachim Fest? He was Catholic - as was his father. His father lost his job as a teacher because of his anti-Nazi stance in 1933. Yet, another example of 'intimidation'. To be fired from your job in the midst of the Great Depression is, by definition - intimidation. Joachim, btw, volunteered to serve in the Nazi Army on the pretext of avoiding conscription. Beyond that, he is one of hundreds of historians on this topic. Why focus on him vs others? Was the government 'illegal' after the Enabling Act? Well, I suppose this could be argued. But, if we take that position? We would also have to say that was true of the numerous times the Enabling Act clause of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution was utilized. The Social Democrats - and others- voted 10 times in favor of the using the Enabling Act from 1919 - 1927. Was that 'illegal" government? From 1930-32 similar actions were taken. Numerous 'Emergency Decrees" where used by the office of the Chancellor and President in '30-'32.

If we were to label the German government as 'illegal' post the Enabling Act of 1933 my view would be that it was not the Act itself - or voting for it, but rather, the means by which it was achieved: violence, intimidation and threat of Civil War. In short, coercion. No legal document is legitimately enforceable in a court of law if it is agreed to under duress. In this case, at the point of a gun, the bayonet and people losing their jobs i,e., all but literally taking food from their mouths. If by this we mean 'illegal' - yes, I agree. And, the manner in which Hitler abused this power entrusted to his Cabinet subsequently. Prior to this, unfortunately, Hitler was appointed as Chancellor within the context of the Constitution. His Party had the most seats of any one Party in the Reichstag following the November 1932 election. Who is at fault for this? The German people who voted for his Party. Yes? Not the Catholic Church. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Too much detail on nazi takeover being added to lead which is not directly relevant
The intro is not the place for so much detail on the few weeks/months when the Nazis took over. Papen, for example, in no way represented the Catholic Church in his dealings with Hitler. He was not a cleric and wasn't even in the Centre Party. Why the fascination? Bruning at least was in the Centre Party, but he was actively working in the other direction. He doesn't get three or four lines - nor should he. Too many specifics, where a summary will do! Ozhistory (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Judith Kerr said..
watching an excellent edition of 'Imagine' on BBC last night but one, about Judith Kerr, who wrote The Tiger Who Came to Tea - and she was at Berlin-Grunewald station ,- and reading the places Jews leaving the station were sent to - sachsenhausen, Aushwitz, Theresenstadt, Ravensbruck, and she looked at the memorial sculpture - and she said "what they would feel...looking at this. It's all very well, but nobody did anything " (1:01:40-1:01:51) - I thought about this page where it seems the story is intended to be the Church moved heaven and earth to help fight the power of the Nazis - well, Judith Kerr is ignorant then, - and it reminded me of reading about Bishop von galen - and what he said to Josef Pieper when he went to say farewell to the bishop, having been drafted into the German army in 1943. "And now go and serve your fatherland". - maybe a coda to the  article could look at perceptions since the end of the Nazi era - looking at this feeling that the Church didn't do anything really, mainly went along with the tide -  and in Judith Kerrs remark this is given voice by someone who lived through that time, and her family fled Germany ( I mean I know she  is talking generally, but she certainly doesn't say  something like yes, they were deported to extermination camps, but at least some, the Catholic Church for example, had moved heaven and earth to prevent this and mobilized the Catholics of Germany - ) - also look at the  role of pro-Church writers to highlight every possible scrap that can counter the  Judith Kerr type sentiment. Sayerslle (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * a) "It seems the story is intended to be the Church moved heaven and earth to help fight the power of the Nazis." b) Feeling that the Church did not do anything really"  c) "I mean I know she is talking generally ...." d) "also look at pro-Church writers to highlight every possible scrap that can counter [this sentiment]. In sum, "seems, feeling, sentiment and generally" are not facts. They are otherwise, that may or may not be true, or correct. This Article is balanced on the whole, but like any Article, the goal is to improve over time with facts.

All major Western institutions and governments of the Era in question failed to keep Nazism in check until it was much too late. Does this mean they were in approval or materially co-operating? And, clearly the average lay person in Germany (of all faith traditions) felt powerless, were suffering and preoccupied by the Great Depression, while many were complacent and obviously discarded repeated warnings against Nazism by the Church for years before the Nazis came to power.

Once the Nazis had attained power (1933-34)? The fate of all was sealed. It is beyond tragic - but all too true - that the Nazis attained a position of powerful leverage via the Elections of 1932 securing the largest block of votes of any one party. This is the primary objective historical reality that is irrefutable as to why this all happened in the first instance. Also, a fact, - if every Catholic in Germany did as the Church warned it would have had an impact to be sure, but they constituted only about a third of the voting population of Germany. It may still not have prevented the Nazis achieving power. It is a quantum assumption they would have not given this fact, and the Nazis willingness to engage lawless brute force to achieve their political objectives combined with this voting support made for a lethal formulae.

This has little do with any religion or a religious institution per se. But, has everything to do with too many of the German people choosing - of their own free will - to place Nazism and Hitler in this position in 1932 despite repeating warnings. With that, the Article points out - a number of times - some  Catholic clergy were collaborating with the Nazis and members committed war crimes. Not sure what expectations are here in your sharing. But, my take is, you see this (collaboration) not being properly addressed here.

"the Church did not do anything really." Not sure what "really" means. This institution had no command of a military to counter the industrialized mass military might of Nazi Germany. What realistic practical counter could have been offered given repeated warnings, offering aid to war victims and assisting the Allies when possible? It is easy for us here in the 21st century, especially in America, to be "Monday morning quarterbacks" - if you will - assuming we have all the answers because we read a few dozen books and "researched" the subject in depth with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Our goal s/b to offer a balanced fact based Article not sentiment, feelings and assumptions. Where the Catholic Church objectively failed should be brought to light to be sure. And, where its members committed crimes? Without doubt. This is only proper and correct. Integrityandhonsety. Sorry, forgot to sign in 107.210.249.132 (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Reduction in size of article
At 367 kb, this article is #15 in the list of the longest Wikipedia articles. It ballooned recently in the hands of some expansionist editors. I think WP:SUMMARY should be brought to bear on the article so that it can be split into sub-articles and reduced in size. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and agreed. An obvious break could be to make this article specific to Germany (including the places it annexed such as Austria, Sudetenland, parts of Poland etc). Anything to do with relations with the Holy See will still be relevant here, but those sections pertaining to national situations in other countries within the Nazi Empire can either become the subject of articles on the individual national situations (eg. "Catholic Church in Poland during the Nazi occupation" etc), or be shifted altogether into a new article entitled, "Catholic Church in the Nazi Empire". I have been meaning to suggest this for some time. I'd say both options are worth setting up. A greatly reduced section on "Catholic Church in the Nazi Empire can be retained here too. There are other sections which make sense as individual topics. Some have already become so. Ozhistory (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I see a couple of places as low-hanging fruit: Sections that refer to a main article should be reduced here to just a summary, with the removed text and references brought to the main article. The main articles of this sort are Catholic resistance to Nazi Germany, Nazi euthanasia and the Catholic Church, Mit brennender Sorge, Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp, German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Poland, and the various Pius XII articles such as Pope Pius XII and Poland, Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust, and Pius XII and the German Resistance.
 * The section on ratlines is a good example of a three- or four-paragraph summary of the main article. This is the kind of summary we should be aiming for.
 * The more difficult task would be to create a few new articles, for instance on Nazi views of Catholicism, German Catholics in the Resistance, and on German persecution of Catholics. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've made a start on just that sort of thing... and bumped it down the longest article list to be... 17. So some way to go. Ozhistory (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

My input is to exercise caution. It is not a "violation" of Wiki guidelines if an Article is "lengthy". It states it is to be determined by the editors by consensus and their prudent judgement. As pointed out, there exists 14 other Articles that are larger.

This is a uniquely complex subject that warrants clarity on multiple levels concerning a very complex history. In particular, the fast paced and multiple action from late 1932 -1939 that is integral to grasping the historical facts and background. As to the "low hanging fruit" highlighted? Perhaps some pruning is a sound proposal to move to a summary format as opposed to in- depth detail with a link to a Main Article. With that, however, most of what exists here is germane to the subject. My concern is selective changes which may morph into a form of censorship, intentional or otherwise, thereby, the Article's hard earned NPOV status is compromised, and - once more  - the Article is subject to a series of "edit wars" that have plagued this Article for several years up until recent months. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a danger of that. But succinctity is a virtue, and we have been helped by the permanent banning of one of the potentially worst edit warriors. Ozhistory (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Oz, understood. This form of editing - the guidelines suggest - is to be exercised methodically and with caution to avoid "POV Forking", unwarranted dilution, or diluting an Article to the point that it lacks clarity, or becomes disjointed. In sum, move slowly, with consensus, fair notice of an intended edit on Talk and clear edit summaries, as opposed edit summaries like "changing this bit".  Good form requires an editor to clearly state what was changed and why.  In no fashion should unilateral "en masse broad stroke/roll-backs", or un-vetted edits take place, particularly, in this form of editing. Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your plea does not square with WP:BRD which allows an editor to change the article, even drastically, and then stand back to see how the change is received, including to discuss the change if it is disputed. Your wish to pre-approve the changes remains a personal preference, not a guideline or policy of Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's engage and promote civil discourse. Who is pleading? Or, demanding/commanding submission for "pre-approval" of an edit. What was suggested is simple common courtesy and consideration that is normative and encouraged in Wikipedia. We're sharing thoughts to improve the Article. Each is entitled to do as they view as proper and correct. We're all subject to being measured against what is required and expected. As stated in the reference to WP:BRD it is to be used selectively with caution, consideration and to end a deadlock to encourage discussion. This seems currently not applicable here. It is not a tool to rid an Article of that which one disagrees with. So, we contribute, discuss, and go from here to there.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

 Support size splits  - Article is long and should be split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead (Lede) problems, yet again!
On 12/8/13, an editor deleted from the first paragraph of the lede (lead) significant material - with RS supported facts - following, "After the Nov '32 elections ....." up to, "A protracted Church struggle ....", and substituted unsupported subjective material that created disjointed "noise"; subsequently, I removed this edit, until this is resolved. This, unfortunately, after eight plus months of earnest effort by several editors to reach a fact based objective consensus regarding the lead. So, I submit the lead (lede) be restored to what was there on 12/7/13. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To get a fact based lead you remove sourced facts? The Banner talk 16:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Banner. Unfortunately, all that was existent prior between the sentences stated above are now MIA, if you will. Hopefully, this can be sorted out in short order. But, I will state this for historical accuracy. Yes, it is true Papen "helped" Hitler to attain the Chancellorship in Jan. '33. Yes, he was Catholic. Yet, he did not act alone. The final decision, and more importantly, the power to appoint him to that position was solely in the hands of President Hindenburg. President Hindenburg was a Protestant. Placing blame? No, its simply a fact. He had that power to appoint Hitler under the Weimar Constitution as President.

Another fact: The free and open November 1932 elections left the Nazis with the greatest number of seats of any one party in a very fractured Reichstag where no one party had more than 18% of the seats, save the Nazis with over 30%. This was a result of the German people voting as they did. Not any religion, or faith tradition. It is because of this fact that Hitler pressed for the appointment. Under the Constitution it was what normally transpired. It was up to Hindenburg in the end. He was pressured by various special interests - not simply a lone Catholic politician. Nor, was he a supporter of Hitler, in fact, he detested him, but the law is the law at the bottom of it. Plus, there was an atmosphere of hysteria regarding the Communists among the business elite and land owners 'chiming in" to pressure Hindenberg. It is a life lesson that even in a democratic republic a nightmare can become real given certain outcomes. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This lead, like just about everything else in the article, suffered from an overwhelming amount of detail and names. And in all of its 300+ kB, this article doesn't do its topic justice--after all, one of the most important issues is not so much what all was done and not done by the Church and others, but how it is to be weighted in terms of intent, effort, and efficacy. The article manages to barely suggest the existence the incredibly serious problems of historiography (exemplified by, for instance, the controversial status of Lewy's 1964 book), and if I had to sniff out a POV, I'd say this article is a bit skewed toward the Catholic side, esp. since there is so little of the legitimate and well-sourced criticism published in the last four decades. But that's by the by, for now. The first job, at least the way I see it, is to trim this whale down to below 250,000 kB, and to clean up the references and wikilinks. For now, I urge editors to focus on economy, by for instance judiciously editing material that doesn't directly pertain and/or is covered in detail in main articles. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There is work to be done to be sure. And, yes, the Article is overly complex - agreed. This is why I was purging the Article of excessive use of " and's the's had's" etc. in an attempt to reduce its size. Yet, we do not toss the truth to the wind. Just as an example, the recent edit by Sayerselle in the lead. What does "many" Catholics in Munich" mean - exactly and objectively? The language implies a majority when, in fact, less than 20% of registered Catholics voted Nazi in Bavaria recorded in German federal records from 1930-33. Before that, an editor stated Papen was a member of the Centre Party at the time of Hitler's appointment. This is incorrect.

As for POV? Been down this road a number of times regarding this highly contentious Article. Wiki standards require balance. We all have a POV. If we're a breathing? We have a world view, hence a POV. The authentic concern is factual balance. Is the Article factually true and correct and balanced? Well, of late, perhaps it can be argued it leans slightly "sympathetic" to the Catholic Church and members, etc. This is easily addressed. And, there is a certain thread of biases - either way - that needs to be checked. I do not have an axe to grind either way, it's pointing out a certain "blindness" willful, or otherwise, that depletes objectivity. As to legit, or dated sources? There are a multitude here, both recent and dated. There are hundreds of scholarly works on this topic. Lewy vs Shirer, etc., dated or not, is not my concern. The concern is that whatever RS is referenced is not manipulated selectively, out of context, or depleted to "spin" in support of a false representation.

Religion mixed with politics and genocide is a formula for a difficult exchange. Let's try to remain open and fair minded and honor both "parties" good faith.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 04:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not impugning anyone's good faith. I'm merely noting that the historiography on the topic is itself contentious and should, at some point, be noted in the article. Otherwise we have little more than an extended list of historical snapshots, a long account of individual events, without any sense of the complications--it's not even remarked on in the lead that the very topic has gone through six or seven decades of debate, with the pendulum swinging in different directions at different times. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If its not bad for being plagiaristic I should tell integrityandhonesty that I took this sentence from  Robert P.Ericksens 'Complicity in the HOlocaust', p.49 "tHe NAzi party developed, after all, in heavily catholic Munich and hastings describes many Munich catholics, lay and clerical, giving their enthusiastic support.' so, if readers want to understand what the 'many' means they can read hastings book - as it is , I have added a sentence, with a clear reference, to a book published by oxford University press - imo it is your 'side' that seeks cover in airy generalisations and unclear statements -  and useful elisions  -part of the problem as Drmies suggests is that instead of some 'mind' over the article there is a series of  (pro-Catholic 'photogenic' very often) snapshots and then inappropriately lengthy digressions, for pov reasons again probably - maybe Wikipedia just isn't the right  way to address this contentious history - personally unless I am topic banned I will always find myself  compelled to counter what I see as a very definite agenda from Ozhistory .Sayerslle (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Sayerselle. Sure, they can read the book, but how many actually will? A fraction. This is reality. We have a duty to offer a fact based balance because of this.Though you were loyal to the quote cited - you failed to point out he prefaced this sub-chapter stating, "The hostility between the Nazi Party and the Catholic Church was real." p. 47. We do not suspend reason on the "authority" of a single scholar - or even a hand full based on their view of events. Even they are prone to a POV. It's about striking balance achieved through numerous sources with varying POV's as objectively as we can muster. Not assume a Wikian or casual reader is going to read any book.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Drmies for your hard slog reducing those repeated citations. But to Sayerslle - again saying things like "personally unless I am topic banned I will always find myself  compelled to counter what I see as a very definite agenda from Ozhistory" is intensely personal and revealing of a battleground mentality, putting you again in breach of at least 2 requirements of wikipedia. Give it a rest, please. If I have a definite agenda, it is to bring this article towards something like a respectable and reliable history of the period. Meanwhile, in your typical haste, you deleted all reference to the Reich Concordat from the lead. I have restored it and once again provided you with multiple references from eminent sources such as Evans, Shirer, Kershaw et al in response to your bizarre request for a citation to evidence that the Nazis breached the Concordat and struggled with the Church. I notice that Integrityandhonesty has once again picked you up for leaving out a salient point on an author's summary of relations (ie you dropped the line that acknowledged hostility between the Church and Nazis) confirming again that it is not that you are not coming across this material in your reading, it's that you are ignoring it. I can't stop you in your personal crusade again me, but I can ask that you take a little more care in your edits than these examples. Ozhistory (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * When I edited the article, the Concordat was in the second paragraph, and I only added a sentence to the lead  first paragraph I think and questioned a hopeless sentence I think - I was only looking at the first paragraph  and didn't notice that you, not me, had removed the Concordat from the second paragraph, and bolted it onto a first paragraph that you were in process of making your pov, prolix, signature work, I was assuming the Concordat wa still in the second paragraph- I should have noticed and will  try and be aware that any edit I seek to make will be  smothered with your prolix pov, 'balancing'  verbiage , and will have to force myself to read every last word andassume the whole layout of  succeeding paragraphs will be altered if I add a sentence-  as for the kirchenkampf I only  wanted an RS ref that referred to the struggle specifically with the church in these terms, 1933-45, - why don't you just provide RS - if you write that years of intense struggle followed with the Church as part of the Kirchenkampf, and a RS ref is asked for, just provide it, and move on -  Ericksens book, whch I am reading, 'Complicity in the Holocaust'  is more about 'how a critical mass of churchmen in Germany embraced the Nazi regime and Catholics had many reasons to like Hitler - and as I've been struck by before the 'patriotism' of a von galen, at a time when patriotism was perhaps dangerous for a Christian? - meant catholics were not just 'struggling' with the Nazi aims all the time - anyway - I promise to read every word of every paragraph in future to avoid the  bad of removing the Concordat. Sayerslle (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oz and Sayerselle? Let's make peace. We're never going to agree on every nuance of a highly complex narrative. What, without doubt, has been absent in our dialogue theses past months is a willingness - including myself at times - to refrain from reverts and so on that deprive the Article of well thought out work and RS's that were of high quality and offered in good faith. Sometimes in error. And, it's a shame. Hours upon hours of effort swept away, lost to the dark caverns of a computer server, who knows where, by a highlight, click and enter, or undo.

Can we agree to communicate before we act? The editor activity of this Article indicates we three are the primary editors here. And, have been for some time. Frankly? It's exhausting to be constantly bickering over issues that are not -in fact - issues. This underlying "Agenda/POV" accusation is wholly circular and fruitless. Everyone has a POV, and yes, - an agenda - including I. This is objective reality. To "accuse" one of an agenda/pov is like pointing out one has a nose. If we start from here we can offer one another due respect and credit, and stop loosing good work intentionally, or otherwise. The goal is a NPOV - i.e. a balance of POV's that are actual verifiable facts.

Sayerselle? Are you at all serious about challenging that the Nazi government violated the Concordat? If an RS for the clearly obvious is something you desire? You're free to seek it out and provide one. It is not at all the "rule of law" that we demand of an editor an RS for that which is commonly accepted by nearly everyone as a fact. Anyway, can we maintain at least some level of accepted common knowledge? Or, can I demand an RS proving which Munich are you referencing, and prove it even exists with a series of RS's? I could - I suppose -but is it genuine? I could ask for clarity- I could ask for balance, or expansion. So. . ..

As for the size of this Article? My take is it may be reduced by perhaps 10-20%. It's never going to be less is than that is my take because of the nature of the beast. Anyhow, the Section on Slovakia is the next largest Section that perhaps can be trimmed down w/o losing meaningful content. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it wasnt the concordat I was asking for a ref for it was this sentence that bothered me "A protracted struggle between church and state followed" - its kind of very grand, very all-encompassing, it evokes a grand struggle, it is unreffed, it has a kind of pov lurking if you ask me - and the struggle between church and state bit links to an article that is not specifically about 1933-1945 at all - which it bloody well should be in my opinion , - it serves a polemic point  is what I'm thinking - but if that sentence is RS reffed , fine - if its an improvised generalising 'feeling' then its not o.k - was it just a story of struggle 1933-1945? no, not really - there were shades  of happenings -and a character like orsenigo was pretty amenable etc - one thing  Oz says is true, - I should read Kershaw , and Evans - its not bloody-mindedness I haven't - its getting time and organized to set down to it - next year I intend to focus on just 2 or 3 areas in wp- this will be one of them,- I have personal reasons for pursuing this history, an argument with a priest at school, and will remain interested in this area, so yes, 'lets make peace' as you put it , no-one wants just a scarred article of competing 'emphases' and endless edit wars Sayerslle (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Great news! And, thank you for offering insight to your inspiration; hopefully, it will offer others the same. Sure, I get that regarding the Kirchenkampf. It is a catch all concept with varying application, but it does have application here as well that requires clarification w/specificity and RS back-up. Got it, and agreed. In a very general sense, I think we can agree there was conflict, hostility and a protracted period of struggle between Nazism and authentic Christianity - not just Catholic. How this is communicated? Well, that requires RS backed facts.

The full tragic truth, in many respects, is what happened in Germany during this era is a living testimony that too many who made claim they were Christian (Catholic or Protestant, etc.) were anything but. If so, none of this would have happened at all. How does a nation that proclaims to be Christian find itself offering 50% plus of their sacred votes to the Nazis and atheistic Communists in the 1932 elections? Clearly, - to me - this is truly where the mystery lies. And, we may never find a resolution to it. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 02:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

encyclopedia should be objective and not have any bias
I think the article presents a strong catholic vs. nazi dualism with ample examples of what catholics/pope did vs what the nazi's did. Because there is no objective data included from court cases like Nuremberg the article becomes very immoral prose which doesn't belong on wikipedia. It shows actions of the pope (of a church that supported the murderers at Jasenovac concentration camp and according to this article helped nazi's escape!) for example working with resistance and allied powers.. This suggest the subjectivity of being a good thing.. but this encyclopedia should show objective facts.. this article doesn't work like this. It think it should be edited by a professional historian or deleted. The crimes of ww2 where much better understood by people who actually experienced it and knew that both parties in this article committed deep sins and mass murder. This article has the ethic as if both two mainstream groups where the standard of this time, while not objectively portraying any individual of the normal people. Thus it is a very subjective prose about the ruling elite class. And has no objective authority at all.

The data/historical facts provided here are well vetted by high quality experinced editors over several years. In fact, all data is sourced from both Reliable Sources, widely recongnized Historians and their wrttings. To suggest this Article is immoral is very strong language that palces the imputus on the accuser to provide explict provable substance and references- not general gloss overs. The Articel is also very specific. This "duality" you speak of is sourced in the subject itself. "The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany". Therefore, the content reflects its limited context. Agreed. Not just one historian but several bona fide historians should be invited into the coversation. 159.45.71.11 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Not certain what this "Talk" issue of alleged lack of objectivity and bias is about, but it is true several veteran editors have hashed out the RS content over a period of years and have used well known historians in their citations. Also, I agree with anonymous IP 159.45.71.11 that to label the article as "immoral" is a serious accusation that requires more than a simple statement lacking credible counter evidence using RS's  and widely accepted historical work. And, the article is strictly about the dynamic between the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany. To go forward will require more than a very generalized statement.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Nazi SA Intimidation of All Non-Nazi Political Parties 1932-34
Some seem to have been led to believe the Catholic Center Party was somehow magically immune to Nazi intimidation via the SA during its rise to power [1932-34]. Authentic history states otherwise. Numerous mainstream credible historians have stated this. Indeed, the historical facts speak for themselves. First and foremost, the Nazi philosophy - from inception - was a vision of a One Party State. It did not envision a multi-party State in the least. All Non-Nazi Parties were the enemy. To state otherwise is either innocent ignorance, a falsehood and/or a straw man built up to support a political agenda, not objective history.

To quote William Shirer, [who was not Catholic] and was literally making a living as a journalist in Germany at the time, speaking of the period between Hitler's appointment in 1/33, the Parliamentary Elections and the passage of the Enabling Act in 3/33 states, "Even the Catholic Center Party did not escape the Nazi terror. Stegerwald, the leader of the Catholic Trade Unions was beaten by Brownshirts when he attempted to address a meeting, and Bruening [lay leader of the Catholic Center Party] was obliged to seek police protection at another rally [of the Catholic Center Party] after SA troopers had wounded a number of his followers." The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 190. This from the mouth of living history not mere scrutiny of yellowed documents decades after the fact through the prism of a presupposed world view. We can go on to other examples. This statement, however, is irrefutable coming from someone who lived the history - no axe to grind with the Catholic Church, harbored no desire to support it, nor a vested interest in the Catholic Church, or its faith tradition.

To quote Robert P. Eriksen as the sole authority in the lead on this matter from his book, "Complicity in the Holocaust", is less than a fully objective point of view. He is a Lutheran professor at a Lutheran university. His take is predisposed to a certain bias, therefore, should be subject to the same critical eye as a Catholic professor would be. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ericksen, Guenter Lewy - (but you discounted Lewy also didn't you, which professors are ok with you) - so in the early months of 1933 you have nothing to back up your sleight of wording in the lead basically. Historians write the opposite in a way - the Reichstag talk of March 23 for example when Hitler 'smooth talked' the Christian sentiment. its OR - basically imo - to seek to distract from the central fact of this moment - the centre party  voted for dictatorship -  its your agenda  that is seeking to cloak in  verbiage and non specific vagueness - this central fact - Sayerslle (talk) 11:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Good to see you in the Talk page. All historians - like all of us- have a POV. And, in some cases, an audience they pander to put bread on the table. Selective sourcing in not fully objective - most would agree. Not discounting wholly the writers you speak of; simply, considering the source and their respective world view. Lewy was an agnostic who had a distaste for organized religion. There is nothing good or ill in this on the surface, but simply a reality. Wikipedia is a place where objective fact should reign. This is our responsibility as editors.

Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * can't spend all day doing this - if 'intimidation' was influential at this moment - it is not reflected in RS that I have read - imo you are spinning this by giving huge significance in the taking of this decision to a few incidents recounted in Shirer. does shirer say these incidents serve as an explanation for the vote of the center party for the enabling act. the RS consensus  indicates the center party gave their vote willingly - basically that's the RS opinion I gather. and they directly link assurances given by Hitler to calm fears, with the center partys decisions. do your sources directly link violence directed against center party figures and the voting for the enabling act. it seems you are engaging in a kind of OR - saying 'this must have influenced this - it doesn't directly say so, but it is so obvious when you think about living history and aren't tied to the words of professors.' - but wp should be tied to those professors. if professors , or journalists of repute, link violence against center party and  subsequent center party vote for the enabling act - fine - I don't see that - this is the objective fact I don't think is established in RS - violence against center party and their voting for dictatorship - ( selective sourcing - that's a laugh - you read an incident in shirer and OR that into  explaining center party voting for enabling act. )- ( just thinking aloud - I mean obviously the whole Nazi era was 'intimidating' - the point is ,in early 1933 was it turned on to a significant degree against the center aprty - the RS suggest the opposite - after  the REichsatg  fire and the desire to break the Commnists, then just failing to get the majority vote he needed to dominate , Hitler needed the center Party - hence, the smooth talk,- and the Catholic CEnter Party  voted for dicattaorship) Sayerslle (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have an agenda. Keeping this Article as objective as possible. You're supposing that because you did not read a source [apparently] it is suspect and the ones you have are the "holy grail" on this topic. All sources have value. It's what is of value that matters and a balance. Not selective sourcing that pleases our ear and mindset. Are you stating then Shirer [who is an actual eyewitness] fabricated his facts regarding the Catholic Center Party had suffered terrorism at the hands of the SA prior to and after to the Election and the Enabling Act vote? Are we stating then the Act was not passed under great duress and built on the false commitments and promises of Hitler? Are we stating the coalition of the Nazi Party and Papen's DNVP had no role in its passage? If so, then we're creating a suspect history.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * am i saying the coalition of the Nazis and the  DNVP had no role?  - no - the point of the center party role is that the act  'could not be passed by the Nazi and DNV coalition by itself' - hence the Center Party delegates crucial-ness . - ( I thought that was what should be put into plain words in the lead - but you want to drag in a load of distraction -  the DNVP were a given, the Center party was not, as I understand it-  that's your 'objectivity' - distract with verbiage and irrelevancies so that  catholic church emerges peachy-creamy   - this is  English historian Bullock btw - voting for the enabling act ,  a step he calls ' a fitting close to the shabby policy of compromise with the Nazis which the Center party had followed since the summer of 1932 - is he wrong to write like that - why doesn't he say ' an inevitable result of the appaling violent Nazi intimidation of  the centre party' ? you are writing your own history too much imo.Sayerslle (talk) 13:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * obviously the first months of 1933 are crucial, febrile, intimidating, etc - perhaps wording that suggests something of this can be found and allude to different observers, journalists and hsitorians, their different emphases for explaining what happened, and why the center party acted as they did. two succinct, focused sentences kind of thing -for eg.  not 'the monarchist DNVP blah blah,' who are not as important to bring up in the lead at this moment as the centre party - Sayerslle (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It also could not have passed without the DNVP, or the BVP and Hindenburg's signature. In addition, without getting lost in the woods, it [the Act] was viewed by many in Germany at the time as a temporary necessary evil to bring stability to the utter chaos that was unfolding from the Fall of 1932 through the Spring of 1933, which is why Hindenburg signed it into law. So, Hindenburg then is also culpable here. He could have refused and vetoed its passage. He did not for fear of the choas and sure violence that would follow. To hang this solely on the vote of the CP as the only path to become law is a false history and lacking legitimate background to the history of its passage,Integrityandhonesty (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC).
 * this is specifically an article about the role of catholic forces and elements is it not? - all the sources I have seen regard the role of the Center party at this moment as crucial, - and misguided ,'by voting for the Enabling act, the misguided Center Party as well as the Hugenberg-papen group relinquished the base of its existence') (Bracher) Sayerslle (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is an Article about the relationship between Nazi Germany and the Catholic Church which did not exist in some hypothetical hermetically sealed history box unto itself void of material influence of other parties. Human history is not frozen inside, or beholden to, an intellectual theory, dependent on a singular POV, or a hand full. By its nature, it's dynamic, often fast moving with layers of complex relationships. It rarely lends itself to: A+B=C. It is more a calculus, than simple Math. The notion the Enabling Act was wholly dependent on the CP to become law is a straw man to create a scapegoat if there ever was one to draw people into an agenda and place blame on a single group by dismissing others culpability and participation outside the context of the whole. This is not history- it's an attempt to single out a group to place blame solely on their shoulders. And, its morally wrong, grossly inaccurate and a disservice to history itselfIntegrityandhonesty (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * good lord ,- I quote this from something I was quoted recently - 'In 1962 The Catholic historian, and opponent of the Nazis, Friedrich Heer wrote "that Christian opposition to Hitler during the Third Reich from the beginning had the character of the unique...the undesirable...In 1945 the situation was so critical that only a gigantic attempt at concealment was regarded as able to save and restore the face of official Christianity in Germany." (p. 321) - if any attempt to cite RS content that happens to upset you is hysterically denounced as 'scapegoating' and morally wrong and god knows what else, the editing is going to be unnecessarily fraught imo - Lewy, Bracher, Bullock, Ericksen - they characterize the Centre party at this moment as 'misguided' (Bracher), 'shabby' (bullock) - 'guilty of wishful thinking' (Lewy) - 'voted for dictatorship' (Ericksen)  - those are the RS -  Sayerslle (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's remain within the context of the Catholic Church. Christianity as a whole is not the same as the Catholic Church -especially in Germany in the 1930's wherein only 1/3 were Catholic. To "toss the salad" - if you will - as Heer has and commingle all Christian denominations as a single body is a not a logical method of assessing the facts. Each denomination had a wholly unique response to Nazism. They need to be addressed on their particular stance. This should be offered to the Catholic Church as well. At the same time, it is unjust to state "Christianity" uniquely failed here; though, corporately, clearly they had as I stated a number of times. Where were Non-Christians [ex-the Jewish people] as the Nazis started publicly persecuting the Jews, and Gypsy's, implementing its insane policy of Eugenics and Euthanasia and so on long before 1939? Where were their bold and courageous public outcry and - more to the point- action of uncompromising confrontation before 1939?  In short, my point? All of civilized society failed miserably. How else could such a nightmare unfold?

Hindenburg knew well Hitler was an evil and unworthy card. He disliked Hitler to his core. He saw him for what he was: an uneducated, uncouth, power hungry, grasping, lying thug. Yet, when a clearly pivotal moment arrived with the passing of the Enabling Act in the Reichstag under the ridiculously obvious false pretenses, use of lethal duress and force? He singed it into law. Not Hitler, the DNVP, BVP, or the Center Party, - but Hindenburg is the person who held the keys to this law becoming the law of the land. He had the full power to veto this legislation. He could have tossed the matter right back to the Reichstag citing the obvious false legitimacy, forced a new vote while protecting all parties from the threat of violence as Commander of Chief of the military. Tell us. Why he did not? Explain, please, how these historically accurate facts lead to a conclusion of placing the passing and enacting of this law full square and crucially dependent upon the CP ?Integrityandhonesty (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the RS emphasise the need Hitler had for the CEnter party to go along with his ideas at this point if he was to avoid more 'problematic strategy' - 'the legislative act was very significant, establishing the legal foundation for Hitlers dictatorhip' - and then other things followed on -in march the catholic bishops rescinded their ban - existed since 1931 - on catholic membership in the Nazi  Party -many catholics did join - why you keep saying 'what about so and so, what did they do?' I don't understand - this isn't about  so and so its about catholics and catholic church- they were 40% of the population after Anschluss - hindenberg is mentioned in RS too of course but  in discussing the Enabling act the RS focus more on the  center party , that's the RS I have anyhow - you keep saying RS are wrong to write as they do - heer is tossing the salad, eRicksen  is biased, lewy is an agnostic etc - blimey , if you just want screened authors its better to write pamphlets for the catholic truth society than  articles that should draw on mainstream  academic RS , no?Sayerslle (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's inaccurate to state the Act set the legal foundation of his dictatorship. The Referendum of August 1934 is the precise moment when his dictatorship became real and legitimized. Most mainstream credible historians and scholars agree on this and is stated so in the Wiki Article Nazi Germany. The Act did not give Hitler Command of the Military and Hindebrug had the power to override any ruling of Hitler's Cabinet under the Act. Read the Act. It clearly states the powers of the office of the President are not to be infringed. In addition, his Cabinet was a coalition of the Nazi Party and the DNVP. He still had to contend with Papen. This alliance of Papen and Hindeburg was the tool they used to "keep Hitler in check". One RS is not the gospel, nor are we dependent on one RS POV for the "truth". Why are you leaning so hard on a single take? The question still stands. Why this insistence the Act crucially hung on the CP when indeed- in truth - it did not. This "what about this or that" is about seeking the truth. Why did Hindenburg not veto this legislation and use his power as Commander and Chief to enforce a re-vote, which he had the power to do? Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the - multiple, not one, RS - - I have read, if I undertsand them  at all - do indeed say the  Enabling Act hung crucially on the center party - as for its implications - heres Robert  Krieg (prof of theology uni notre dame) - 'the REichstag passed the enbling Act, thereby approving President Hindenbergs edict of February. - in other words the parliament formally set aside the Weimar Constitution and authorized a dictatorship  '- why I am leaning so hard on this is because 1933 first few months are very important are they not - and  it shouldn't be slurred over and obfuscated - the Catholic Center Party role  was not as insignificant as you are determined to say - multiple RS say different anyhow and that's what counts at wp - ( or  should count at wp) Sayerslle (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We're both becoming long winded here. The core fundamental Realpolitik of Germany from the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections of Spring 1932 through March 1933 were two primary factions contending for control of Germany's future. President Hindenburg and his coalition - and the Nazi Party. Neither of whom had a long-term interest in a democratic Parliamentary form of government.

Hindenburg was seeking a "Presidential-Cabinet" form of governance, wherein, the President would select and appoint a Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor [Cabinet] based - in part - on a general election free of a Parliament [a form of dictatorship] and the Nazis were seeking a One-Party system with a single source of authority: a Fuhrer - an absolute dictatorship. All through the Summer of 1932 to January 1933 was a 'dance' between these two factions who met secretly on numerous occasions starting in early August 1932.

For them - all this was a forgone conclusion - a fait accompli - by early Fall of 1932. It was only in the details that they squabbled back and forth in a series of closed door meetings with the backing of some wealthy Germans seeking stability and defeating Marxism. None of which were the Center Party or the Socialists privy to, or invited. The Center Party made clear in the late Summer of 1932 they had no interest in forming a coalition with either and the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor was unacceptable. As did the Socialists. If anyone is to be blamed for what happened it is Hindenburg and the Nazis. In their ambitions for control? Others, and true democracy, were "thrown under the bus." It was only when and how - at the opportune moment - that was to be worked out. The discussion of the Enabling Act between them dates back to August of 1932 - not Feb/March 1933.

This is why Hindenburg did not exercise his power to veto the Enabling Act of 3/33. It was precisely what he was seeking. He gave Hitler the Chancellory to avoid Civil War. Hindenberg was advised the military was not capable of withstanding a Civil War. His preference was for Papen to buy time in the hopes Hitler's movement would lose popularity over time. And, then make their long-term goal a reality. Papen hatched the plan to appoint Hitler as Chancellor with the backing of Hindenburg's insiders of influence if Hitler conceded certain points, which Hitler did. They also had a plan to bypass the Reichstag if the Enabling Act did not pass as far back as December 1932.

They were going to declare a state of emergency, dissolve the Reichstag and proceed as planned. My point? This process is the real history. The CP voting for the Enabling Act played a part. I never stated otherwise. Though they had their reasons which were wholly separate from the implications you put forward. However, to place blame on them fully and squarely as if all hung on their vote is misleading and too distant from the truth to carry water. To put this fully on their head is an injustice. It's like blaming the outcome of a rigged game on an honest team. No matter what they do? The outcome will be the same. All this can be found in Ian Kershaw's highly respected work, "Hitler a Biography", 1998, pp. 227-290. Thank you for your input and good work. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * i'l read it, btw, - on 'look inside' on amazon, notice this straight away, having searched the term 'Enabling act' - page 93 - Kershaw - says after the speech of march 1933 hitler made  , the Catholic bishops 'loyally endorse the new regime'. that is important and is succinct and should go in the leadSayerslle (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Enabling Act.
Sorry, I do not see that on p. 93 in, "Hitler a Biography" - Kershaw '98. That chapter discusses his early career as a "Beerhall Agitaor". So, not certain what it is we're seeing on Amazon.

Let's slow down a touch so we can reach authentic consensus regarding this pivotal moment - as we both agree - of the Enabling Act before we tackle other points. Let's keep in mind - as we go - it was the German people who placed Hitler in the powerful position to negotiate and secure Hindenburg appointing him as Chancellor by handing Hitler - of their own free will - the single largest block of seats in the Reichstag by a margin of 2.4 [Nazi] to 1 [Socialists] - the next largest voting block  - not the "Catholic Church".

It was General Von Schleicher [briefly Chancellor in late '32-Jan. '33] of the Army's political arm who had Hindenburg's ear along with Papen of the DNVP in the Summer of 1932 to use the Nazis and the Enabling Act to form eventually -in essence- a military dictatorship led by President Hindenburg and his appointed Cabinet. Hindenburg & Co. had until 1939 [the next Presidential Election] to make this work. It was they [Hindenburg & Co. and Hitler] who were the plotters of the demise of democracy in Germany who held the levers of power to make it a reality. Not the "Catholic Church". The lay political [Center Party] whose sole political leverage was a scant 12% [74] of the Reichstag seats was struggling for survival with no control of the national and state police, the military, or a 400,000 strong paramilitary of Storm Troopers - and so on - willing and armed to the teeth to be their "enforcers" along with control of 41% of the Reichstag seats, i.e., the NSDAP and DNVP combined, then enthroned with the full backing of the Office of the President.

Given this? No matter how the vote for the Act went? The "fix" was in by late '32- early '33. This was the reality of the Summer of 1932-Spring 1933. The fate of the CP - and others - was fixed when Hitler was appointed Chancellor. As far as Hindeburg and Hitler were concerned? The rest was just a noisy nuisance that had to be managed and pushed aside. Each plotting separately to their own benefit and one using the other despite their mutual dislike. As for Hindenburg & Co.? They were hoping to "tame Hitler and the Nazi Party" and eventually incorporate/inculcate them into the mainstream. In short, in all this ? The CP was an annoying fly on a gorilla's back. And, they knew it [the CP], hoping against hope they could manage to survive somehow and/or have some influence on events as the nightmare unfolded. This - to me - based on all the reading and research I have done, is my best summary assessment of what happened and why regarding the Act.

Did the CP and Bishops make a fatal error in trusting Hitler and the ability of Hindenburg & Co. to keep him in check after Hitler committed to leave the Churches [both Catholic & Protestant] in peace while also committing to leave the of Office of President untouched as well? Yes, there is no doubt. What also needs to be heard? The modern Catholic hierarchy - globally speaking - did not want its clerics actively involved in political parties, let alone Chairmen of one, or seek Office for this very reason. This is why in Italy - years prior - the Italian Christian Democratic Party/PPI, which was also led by a Catholic cleric, Don Sturzo, was dissolved at the behest of the Roman Curia. Look forward to your response. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * the Kershaw, p.94 - of the penguin edition ISBN 0141035889 - Kershaw says the bishops loyally endorse the new regime  -  I have looked at what karl dietrich bracher has written about this period 1930-1934 to try and get thing clearer n my head and relative importances of things etc - - it is enormously complicated in some ways !  basically I take from what he has written that he 'accuses' the Harzburg Front elements and a calamitous politician like the reactionary catholic Papen especially, more than the  centre party (was it catholic Papen dissolved the Reichstag 4 June 1932?  was it Papen decision to rescind the SA ban on 16 june 1932? - was it papens coup d'état 20 july 1932 etc bracher says papens actions 'certainly encouraged the more ambitious plans of the nazis)  - - but that at a time when it needed 'a militant democracy that might deny its enemies the right to destroy the republic by pseudo-legal measures' the democratic elements were paralysed and supine - and he writes of',  the enormous importance of the enabling act was rooted in this deception  [hitler proceeding to violate the limiting provisions on which the bourgeois parties thought they could rely] even more than in the concrete powers granted by it. - now the willing collaborators in the civil service and the courts [on which the Nazis were] so dependent were able to find reassuring legal provisions, given such apparently unexceptional legal foundations there was no basis for any real objections to a government, however regrettable some of its 'excesses' ' etc the enabling act, 'ended the Presidential dictatorship and marked the beginning of the one-man dictatorship' - he calls the centre party 'misguided' - if you are arguing that too much is being made of this, I don't see that exactly to be honest -  I do note that bracher writes 'the confusion of specific events and motives that paved the way for the NSDAP - is not easily unraveled even today' - perhaps its not surprising then that it is difficult to decide what event deserves to be underlined, and which actors deserve to be highlighted at which moment etc - but , this article is meant to be about the catholic Church and Catholicism and the catholic party's role does  seem to be relevant to be underscored to some degree. -  ericksens chapter on this, the point he makes is that , without the center party decision to vote for the enabling act, Hitler might have been forced into riskier policies for his ascent to dictatorial power - the Centre Party dissolved in  july  - 3 days before the signing of the concordat -this is linked to what you write here  that 'The modern Catholic hierarchy - globally speaking - did not want its clerics actively involved in political parties, let alone Chairmen of one, or seek Office for this very reason. This is why in Italy - years prior - the Italian Christian Democratic Party/PPI, which was also led by a Catholic cleric, Don Sturzo, was dissolved at the behest of the Roman Curia.' - well, if RS question whether the 'sacrifice of the political organisations of Catholicism ' was justified, and so joining Stalins Soviet Union 'in certifying the THird Reichs acceptability as a partner in negotiations'  - then criticism of that should be given room . Sayerslle (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Well thought through. Not sure what book you're citing. Not seeing it at all. I have copy of the book you cite. So, a touch confused. That chapter is about Hitler's early career. We'll tackle the "loyalty" issue soon and see where it leads. Not debating this is a point -only wish to seek clarity and review RS's.

It's this very mingling in politics - in particular - public office and party participation in the form of rank - that the Roman Curia discouraged clerics from engaging. It creates more problems than it solves. Its history is a mash of calamities, epic fails in communication and bad judgement on the part of many clerics who were often ill-suited for the task. The examples litter 20th century European history and other regions. Given the difficulties and nuance of international diplomacy? The last any institution wants to deal with is a loose canon mucking up the works. It also confuses people and institutions as to who officially represents the Roman Catholic Church. On this point? It is critically useful to know how the Roman Catholic Church sees itself in terms of governance.

Institutionally, its organized wherein only Bishops speak with binding authority and in an official capacity to the world at large. This authority, however, is restricted to their particular diocese and does not go beyond that boundary. Then, regionally/nationally, as a body with a designated Bishop as the leader. All of whom, ultimately, are beholden to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, with Bishops having certain rights the Pope must consider. Nor, does a priest, or a religious [male or female] no matter how high ranking within a religious Order [most of whom are consecrated lay persons i.e. not ordained but who made solemn vows] and certainly never a lay person, such as Papen, speak for the Catholic Church. In this light - Ludwig Kaas [who was not a Bishop] - nor any member of the CP had any authority to bind the Catholic Church to any agreement, proclamation or vote in any fashion. Nor, was the Church obligated to support them. And, as a lay Civil institution [the CP], the Catholic Church had no authority over them. This does not mean some Bishops did not encourage people to support the CP. They did, but, it did not mean the CP had any authority within the Church. So, to "connect the dots" of the CP as having any authority acting on behalf of the Church in any official binding capacity is to misunderstand how it functions.

Kaas could have given to Hitler the keys to the Cathedral of Munich, and as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, it would have meant nothing at all. A pure farce of fancy. This is why to "empower" Papen - or Kaas for that matter - with the status of, "A Rep/Proxy of the Church', is simply - incorrect. Papen was a Catholic - sure enough, but he had no authority, or official capacity to speak/act in its behalf. The acts of Papen you point to are power politics of his own making and have nothing to do with the official "Catholic Church". This is why it confuses the history to mix these things in the Article. Papen is not the "Catholic Church" and the "Catholic Church" is not Papen. If we were to restrict this Article to a purists understanding of who is the official "Catholic Church" we would only be discussing the actions and words of Bishops and the Pope, and then only as a Body i.e.,  what they did corporately, not individually. And, individual Bishop's actions and words as a background offering insight - not a conclusion.

This is why - in part - the notion the Enabling Act vote of the CP was some sort of 'deal' in exchange for the Concordat makes for a long stretch. It had no binding effect on the Church - at all. Meaning, the Bishop of Rome was not obligated to act on it. Nor, would Germany agree to treaty terms dependent on something that is not binding on the Church e.g., agreements with the CP or its vote. The official Roman Catholic Church - in the form of an independent State [the Vatican/Holy See] - already had official diplomatic relations with Germany. They did not need the CP to negotiate a Concordat. In fact, it preferred the CP did not exist at all. They only made matters more difficult from their perspective.

They [the Catholic Church} had negotiated several State level Concordats in Germany without the likes of Kaas and Papen - or others like them - 'dancing about' in the halls. Nor, was anything Kaas, the CP, or Papen - other than advice and input - could do to bind a treaty. To sum up - it was up to the Roman Curia in the form of the Secretary of State [Pacelli] and the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] as Head of State. In addition, there are no documents in existence which point to this directly, or implied, in the form of official documents, known personal notes, or recordings. None. It's pure speculation and no less. Speculation is not history. It's speculation. Until and unless these documents surface? It's far distant from a historical fact. Integrityandhonesty (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * the stuff about the calamitous Ppaen was just saying bracher considered his actions wretched kind of thing - it wasn't arguing for him being official catholic Church  representative or anything - as for what else you say - I think we should just be lead by what RS say - the academic historians - as for saying anything is 'a long stretch' - it seems to me again, if RS make the stretch, wp articles should reflect that -  pacelli wanted a concordat - he had a legalistic mindset. he prioritized that -  this is historian, beth a griech-polelle - ' Hitler proposed the idea of an agreement with rome over easter weekend in the spring of 1933, the Center party voted for the Enabling act, and a Concordat was signed by july 1933'. those are facts. facts are not speculation. Sayerslle (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed- Pacelli was legalistic. His doctorate training was in Canon Law focused on concordats; in essence, an attorney of international law in the CC. It's somewhat semantic to say it was Hitler who proposed a national Concordat. From the time Pacelli was appointed Nuncio to Bavaria [1917] he pursued a national Concordat with Germany with a certain single mindedness and consistency, and referred to this as his, "Great Goal". So, to state this concordat was Hitler's 'brainchild" in Spring 1933 is less than forthright history via scrubbing/dismissing its background and context. It's akin to explaining WWI without discussing it's source: the collapse of monarchy in Europe fostered by emerging ethnic nationalism inspired by imperial competition - not, simply, the assassination of an Archduke from Austria one summer day in 1914, which indeed [the assassination] is an historical fact, but does this fact alone express the history with full comprehension?

Anyhow, the point being made here is: there needs to be a distinction made which makes for a significant framing of the context of this history of the Enabling Act and the Concordat. To commingle what are two wholly separate lines of development: the struggle of a Civil political party [the CP] for survival amidst a plan to destroy democracy in Germany and a long-standing pursuit of an international treaty with Germany by the CC spanning over a decade prior is approaching 'spin' vs fact. Also, the reality was - the CC had no authority over the CP whose members, conversely, had no binding authority in the Church. Just as Papen is not the CC and the CC is not Papen? So too goes for the CP. This A+B=C approach is superficial and leaves much to be desired regarding comprehension.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)