Talk:Centre Party (Germany)/Archive 2

Composition
Despite my bitching, however, I am correcting this article's english composition, at the risk of communicating.


 * Don't be afraid, I won't bite you.
 * Thanks for your effort (with the exception of one paragraph here, further down.
 * I browsed through this all and have this to say.

Under "Catholic groups in the Prussian Diet" the second paragraph should refer to who -peresumably 'the group'. I put it in.


 * You mean who is "it" - it's a "general it" - like: "it became clear to all". Or do you mean the sentiment and policies? They are referring to just what they say they are. But in fact, this paragraph fits better into the following "Soest" section. I change that.

Previous section- the revolution is always referred to in English as the Revolution. This is mysterious because of the generality of the term, but refers to the German Revolution, which should have a page and a link. I put in the brackets..


 * If you wanted a link to this specific revolution, I have linked this now to the more comprehensive "revolutions of 1848" instead of linking it just to "revolution" in general.

Soest... Confessional  Sch.-  this needs "establishment", one could assume.


 * Ok, agreed, but I put "Preservation or founding of denominational schools", they were denominational school in existence.

Strengthening middle classes-financial presumably ...


 * Left over from before my overhaul. I think it refers to measures protecting the middle classes against big business, also financially by adjusting taxes etc.

fraction is not normal use in english outside of measurement, hence italics.


 * I agree, I struggled with the translation of this word between Faction, Fraction, Club and Parliamentary Party.

soest... rights for germanPoles or Polish Poles ... presume the former...


 * Poles (and other Slavs) with German citizenship are meant. (Mostly Posen and Western Prussia)

Soest...particularistic is not in use : if it refers to an emphasis of conservative then 'paticular'. Otherwise de-regulising.


 * No, it means a bent towards protecting "the Bavarian way of life" against Borussification. This is the forerunner to the latter "states' rights" bent. Note, the BVP did not just advocate the Bavarian state's right but the rights of all states of Germany. But of course, since they were a Bavarian party in practice they aimed mostly on Bavarian issues.

Kuturekampf(KK) ... did the CP gain greater support or is this the continued support.. put gained greater

KK...eg or ie are not necessary in WP


 * Why would they be unnecessary? But granted, they can be overdone.

KK...social security is better as social welfare


 * Fixed that.

KK... notable is bordering on notorius but leave notable


 * That was left over from before my overhaul. I change it to "known", if you don't mind. If you do, post something else.

KK... had even then ...defended...had. Very unclear, assume ..'during it (KK)


 * You're right.

Tower...would persuade the CP. classic english difficulty I have referred to before



Tower- for strenthened substitute re-inforced. Strength is too physical Tower... politicians and public : this is a mental difference between languages. I say that english speakers would assume public  precedes



All non-germans have difficulty with these party titles and abbreviations. historians all refer to socialists at this time as socialists. In actual vote counts and tables the the direct name is used. The english norms should be used. I therefore make an extra inch space for the hard-pressed WP.


 * I put in "social democrats" most of the time - Socialist might be ok in the 19th century, where the terms were synonyms. However, in the Weimar Republic at the very latest Social Democrat is better. The link is to a specific party with its distinct programme. It's quite different from other parties. It's ok to rank the SPD under Socialist parties even today, but here it stands on its own.

Linking left-wing, surely left wing is already explained in seating terms above, rather strangely .... this makes it  rather de trop.

weimar...The depression is not the sole cause of the economic crises, nor were repayments. It exacerbated a german crisis of economic mis-management, according to many analysts. Until their viewpoint is sufficiently represented on WP, see Edgar Ansel Mowrer. If this is considered an aggressive edit, then this is a POV article ....this is a cardinal difference between POV German and POV exterior analysis, during and ever since.

In history books, neither minister nor prime-minister not chancellor are capitalised ....

Weimar, here at the end .. the election of Kaas. This is not enough to describe the importance of the 3rd way, the papal way .here it is referred to as bishops .However Monsignor Ludwig  Kaas already was deep in  friendship and association with Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, Pacelli's own brother and he were not only full cognizant of the centralising anti-democratising of the Church, but were in fact leading proponentsd and administrators of this (the brother in Italy in a mirror image of this Pacelli's involvement through Kaas in Germany ) see Hitler's Pope. Herein begins the avoidance or glossing-over of the issue at dispute : Kaas's agency from 1928 for the vatican at the literal centre of the German democracy of Weimar. At best this is avoidance, which up until now I have been trying to prevent. It is not slander, but history....like saying Alexander invaded Persia. This is no slander because, were he alive , it would be fact. A church may not anyway be slandered, as this editor writing the article says, the relevant people are beyond a Court. However I have confirmed by this wikipedian in our discussions on Hitler's Pope discussions  ,that indeed there is automatic quasi legal sanction. The sanction emits from transgression of Romans 3,8 and in short, enforces excommunication from the moment that these vatican figures actuated their pro-Hitler policy through the Centre Party, and with-out ,through lesser and , in the case of the Industrial-Magnates, greater forces of interest in Germany.


 * Oh dear. There is nothing in there about a third way or papal way.
 * This is your conspiracy for which you have not given real evidence
 * There is no proof that Kaas was acting as the Vatican's agent, his friendship with Pacelli notwithstanding (and I don't know about deep - given that Pacelli was a very reserved man - but maybe it was as deep as Pacelli would go. I don't know.)
 * The comparison is hunching, to say the least. That Alexander invaded and conquered Persia is a well known fact, even one of the major facts of world history, like let's say Columbus discovered America. But what you demand, is in comparison a detail and thus far real evidence has not been produced.
 * As for your "Question of the Law", I reiterated my point. The people in question might have done moral wrong (note that your reasoning (derived from Romans 3, Humana Vitae and Ratzinger) is based on them having been in "Formal cooperation with evil" not just a "material cooperation" - the best you could do was arguing for the latter). Even if they did commit a moral wrong, they are now dead and beyond any human court, they are facing God's judgement not ours. There is the theoretical possibility of declaring that someone had incurred excommunication while alive, but a) in dubio pro reo!, b) what good would it do? And since Pius XII has been declared venerable (after great scrutiny), I doubt that he is guilty of what you accuse him of.
 * History's task is not to judge people morally (though any person may do that as a pasttime and even write books about it), but to relate "what actually happened" (Ranke).

Also missing from this article is any reference from 1925 onwards of papal interference via Bruning towards an authoritative return of a Kaiser or monarch.


 * Never heard of this. Only that Brüning in his memoirs says he intended to restore the monarchy. But these memoirs are often disputed, for reason I do no know.

In english plural of junker is junkers. Or prussians or foxes.

Added Weimar to Bruning section title -Weimar continued ...


 * of course Weimar continued, but this section is about the Brüning government in particular. If anyone can add more to the Marx government or the Wirth government or ..., it might become a distinct section too.

Bruning...-say crises, there were several , some caused by German mismanagement in and out of the treaty revision negotiations .....

Explain article 48 -I did before, more clearly ....


 * I think presidential decree is pretty straightforward.


 * Other things I changed:


 * I reverted "Zentrum(s)" to "Zentrum" - the party never was known as "Zentrums" - the "s" is only a grammatical link between "Zentrum" and "partei". BTW: Are You German? Sometimes I think You are, but sometimes I don't. Could You please clarify. Don't be ashamed. You needn't be!
 * "emergeding" does not exist > "emerging"
 * "and the later demise ..." > ". The later demise ..." - a new thought begins there.
 * "urgently needed. This aimed for the protection" > "urgently need in order to protect" - needed for what? This belongs together.
 * It is spelled "Hannover"
 * "if the Vatican would persuade" - don't put "would" into an if-clause
 * I changed my own "confessional" into "denominational" - in English denomination is the correct term for a branch of a religion. Also "confessional party" is ambigious (Beichtstuhlpartei?)
 * Str1977 16:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lord of all the wikis help me! Hanoverians in english -will you please stop trying to change what is english into what is not. And that goes for everything ..... I cannot be like a teacher and discipline you - but I can tell you that you make yourself foolish by arguing about english usage. If the wikipedia is to become so influenced, that is not my major concern. Particularistic means nought, nowt, nuffink, nummat , nil. For wiki's sakes get real. We know the real battle is elsewhere .And, ask a friend if you cannot recognise the origin of my language : are you a lay catholic(under canonical duty anyway) or are you of clerical connection, or are you like myself, under-cover? Do you get your expenses paid ? I do not insult you, this time, but I see consitent defence of the Holy See for months now, down to tiny edits. All right now I'll go further and ask -do you receive money / Why do you betray your countrymen, your morals ? I challenge you because we must not repeat these mistakes, as we are plainly in danger of doing. Instead of Panzer tanks the weapons will be nearly virtual- like wikipedia /internet freedom control, brain-washing. I am really trying not to insult you but you are un-remitting in this fight, and  it is of moral proportions, and  bigger than the wikipedia.

Are we back to the argument? Yes we are. How can there be good faith when one party is deaf to the cited works ? If you have good faith you will, quite simply ,allow me that which I know from historians, needs to be said. Then we can remove to the next encounter, and you can fight against the apparent-because-reported facts all over again. Why is my good faith impugned, why is a contemporary correspondent's recording a witness to the 1932 intruction by the Pope , impugned ? Why Klemperer impugned by association with myself, why  do you impugn Guenter Lewy and  then Tollett ? Why do you ? and by what right? This is quite extra-ordinary and completely un-acceptable. You leave no alternative, still, to simple disputed.

I was correcting your english composition, not accepting your un-acceptible gloss. The length to which you have gone suggests that you have not only been taking lessons from myself in verbosity, but wish to hide the lack of reality in a show of fulness. It may fool others but not me. If you did not have an axe to grind, you wouldn't be here , and if you had no reason to , you would accept what kenny accepted. I can't go on repeating myself on this - I will have to call you to account as I may perhaps be allowed. Why don't you make it easy on youreslf, and come peacefully into the accepted history ? Surely this is more than a simple national feeling or such-like that motivates you. History is not so split from within and without and this is too rigid of you, too specific in the disallowal. You force me towards my complaints. Please accept the corrections and don't waste one's time, and really, I will not withdraw , cannot .... Only suspect you more as you dig yourself deeper into your trench. Again, you serve the world well. Now- please explain exactly why the historians who Kenny quoted, whom the humanitas foundation quote, whom I quote are all censored by you. Is there a big blinker upon the german history -horse, do tell...

After posting a message to SamSpade I have become Famekeeper I requested arbitration, I'm sorry to say. Or seeing that page, perhaps not. Mediation, well Sam plainly says he can't do it. Will you finally accept a proper balance in the editing, and let us avoid it growing even more serious ?Famekeeper 21:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recantation
A curious fact is that Pope Pius XI had to recant in a manner suggested by  Edgar Mowrer himself following his accession. he had said that he had not sopoken about the silesian/polish question after his words to Mowrer had been  reported. Mowrer suggested he get out of that erroneous denial by saying that only as Cardinal had he spoken to journalists.

Disputed, again
I protest most strongly that this article is not allowed to include true references to the Papal intervention, nor the Pacelli -Kaas axis. I say that the effect is revisionist. I post that it is disputed and I have already cited all relevant sources, to add to John Kenny's confirming source. Put in requests for arbitration, ye who will remove the disputed.

Dear FK,

I cannot agree with what you wrote about my or your past editing, but I am willing to let the past be past so I will not comment on it. Let me just state, that I'm not receiving money from anyone and doing all my editing completely on my own. Please refrain from accusing (and in our circumstances this cannot be done civilly) other editors (not only me, also others) from being part of some conspiracy.

I never questioned that you honestly believe that what you post is the historical truth and hence your intention is not to slander. But your interpretation is not beyond reproach and must be debatable (including a conclusion and not a perpetual debate).

As far as I see it, our arguments can be classified into several fields:


 * 1) the facts of historical events - eventually there cannot be disagreement (or balance) about that
 * 2) the historical interpretation of these events, of the motivation of agents etc - this is open to disagreeing views (though they should not be original research, according to wiki rules)
 * 3) a moral assessment of the events - that must always be based on points 1 and 2
 * 4) an assessment in regard to Christian morality in particular, to Scripture and to canon law (including conclusions for today's Church) - this must be based on points 1 and 2 and on the actual Christian morality and actual canon law (and not mere inferences from these)

Now, points 3 and 4 are valid in their own right, but not really relevant to the scope of Wikipedia. You might dislike it, but Wiki is an encyclopedia. (Though I have repeatedly pointed out to you, why your "Question of the Law" reasoning is wrong, and can do it again, one final time.)

Points 1 and 2 is what we should discuss, since these are relevant to the entries here on Wiki and this is what I propose to do.

You mentioned several sources in support of your point and I am willing to check these, if you will provide exact references (page numbers, if you are using German editions, or the respective chapters). That goes for works of historigraphy, not for drama.

John Kenney has clarified that his book does not specifically supports your interpretation.

I have looked into Günther Lewy, but have found no support for your interpretation either (but you may point out some specific passages for re-reading)

Also, your quotes from Klemperer and even Mowrer didn't seem to necessarily support your interpretation.

If you will point me to the passages, I will look into Klemperer (German resistance against Hitler) or Mowrer (Germany puts back the clock) as well.

Any other books, I must first find out whether I have them accessible at the library. Sorry, if I can't read all your books cover to cover, but I am quite busy with other things (and as I said I'm not getting paid for this).

Another point (point 5, if you will) is your "Vatican exchange" section - it needs clarification and editing. This is a really interesting and much more rewarding field for contributing to wiki.

Please don't shout at me, if I say that I don't completely understand all passages, as I have written above. If you are German or have translated this from German, I am more than willing to have a look at the German wording and try to help in translating it into English. Also, if your German or German-speaking, I am quite open to a discussion in German, if that helps you.

Str1977 30 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)


 * I am most relieved to hear it and can therefore only assume that out of some strange  adherence to good taste it is that you xcise so minutely everything connecting the vatican to the politics . May I point you to the exact references in the archives which you so expertly constructed, there to fingd the Mowrer and Klemperer and indeed other pages .  It is unlikely that given research rules that we two will uncover a confirmation of Mowrer who is explosive  . May 1932, an instruction  relayed in writing to a meeting of the Zentrumspartei  by Pacelli and emanating from Pius XI . This has been in the public domain since 1968 .  The testimony is exceedingly clear , coming from the mouth of Otto Brok, who was present  and  who says he heard Kaas read it to the assembled party big-wigs . Please refer to the citations. Guenter Levy is cited by the humanaitas timeline  for March and April Concordat  journeys . I hesitate to mention the other editor by name anymore but you remember, he quoted his conclusion as to the corectness of the quid pro quo theory , but seems yet to qualify the import.


 * I do not wish to give this cyclopean impression, but the mysteries of how the middle-class voted for tyranny needs the full story and whilst there are other factors , I have focused on Kaas and the Holy See - I hope to add  to the generality  by way of being a reading  observer . There is a clear political mystery  and it is deeply contemporary .  I still have to say that I have found your editing quite extraordinarily defensive . I hope you by now respect that the collection of  burgeoning  accusations  you collect  were made as to a church rep- and nothing personal . I thought that was  implicit , but you evidently do not  . As I have said , my conscience does not let me walk away , and this appears to be something we at least share.


 * The canonical laws were pretty exhaustively lifted by me from their internet home, I tagged them, maybe inefficiently , and they are in the archive . I see that pacelli himself wrote a good deal in their up-grade . Really we went through these laws/edicts and all you have to do is dig up the archive  . What say since we are going to put all this in the open  that you put all the archives out  together somewhere under 'accusations of anti-semitic papal collaboration' - Hitler's Pope  should connect-perhaps you would see to these connections if you are not concerned with their being 'lost' , that old Kaas gets to google in wiki. I notice that some things just don't link and I do not quite see why not. You will see that Cornwell is not the sole published critc  of Hitler's Pope , there are several others ,with  equally shocked reactions  . I do not claim to have read any of them  - all I read is quite staid , but smells of a mystery .  Mowrer himself who rubbed shoulders throughout his career in both Rome and Berlin , didn't get it at the time( he was removed, pressured out of Germany ) so was cut off from his sources . We shall indeed  see-and  we shall not need to research but take account.
 * Famekeeper 30 June 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Dear FK,

I don't have to dig up the canon law in the archive, because I think, we have sufficently debated them. I think I have repeatedly stated why your reasoning does not work. Actually I'm more interested in discussing facts and interpretation (points 1 and 2) - and I also would like you to finish the "Vatican exchange section" you have started. I don't know how to handle it edit-wise in its current state.

As for your books:

Sorry to say, but what I read in Lewy does not support your interpretation and Lewy is very critical of the Church.

What you cited from Klemperer does not support your interpretation.

Even what you quoted from Mowrer does not necessarily support your interpretation.

I want to look up your quotes from Klemperer and Mowrer too, so please provide page numbers (no German edition needed, I can access the English one).

And please stop using John Kenney again and again. He only stated that his book referred to a quid-pro-quo in the Concordat dealings, namely trade concordat for centre party. No one here ever disputed that. Even I, in my very first post directed to you, accepted that (my "sell the car to the robber" analogy). John's book however does not support any larger quid-pro-quo.

The thing I'm concerned about is your constant claim, that the Pope put Hitler in power, when he didn't. Neither did Pacelli. The German people, yes the middle classes and some reactionary and business circles, put him into power. Kaas also bears some blame, but he didn't have the purpose of making Hitler tyrant. His coalition negotiations were quite stupid and quite useful for Hitler. I think I included this into the Centre article (section: Between ...), and in a much broader way than it was there before. Str1977 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)

If Lewy does not back up the timeline of Kaas movements back and forth to Rome, it doesn't. 'Humanitas  Foundation' will have to account for it. I did not say he backed any thesis, just that he is the source cited for the actual journeying on specific days.


 * This foundations's quoting of Lewy, as far as I have checked it, is correct. My concern was not about actual events but about the interpretation of these. The timeline at points is a bit muddled, but the events (at least those taken from Lewy) are correct. Since you say you used Lewy only as a reference for Kaas's journeys and I myself will include them into the Kaas entry (where they belong, for the Centre party entry they'd be too much detail and slightly off-topic), we can stop quarrelling about Lewy.

Klemperer states what he states, quite clearly and I have already quoted in full with pp nos.


 * Sorry, maybe I am blind, but I can't find these page numbers. Anyway, Klemperer states what he states and what you quoted (I guess), but that quote does not support the interpretation you give immediately after your quote ("ghost writer" etc).

Mowrer I gave pp nos for, endlessly- why argue.


 * Again, I can't find them, but maybe I'm blind. It would be very kind of you, if you just posted them again.

You are correct that it becomes the accusation, that the Pope indeed did put Hitler into power by instructing Kaas and the whole Zentrumspartei leadership from 32 , to accede to Hitler in every way.


 * No, that's more than even Mowrer (in your quotes) said. There was nothing about "in every way".
 * Does Mowrer quote Pacelli's letter. It like to know what it actually said.
 * Thus far we have only Mowrer stating (in 1968) that Brok (in 1933) told him that Kaas had read out a letter from Pacelli in which Pacelli stated (according to your quote) "that the Pope was worried about the rise of communism in Germany and advised our Party to help make Hitler chancellor".
 * Whithout the letter we don't know with what qualifications these statements were made.
 * Such an advice would fit into the Centre party's preference (after Brüning's resignation) a stable government over Papen's presidial government. (This policy is dealt with at lenght in the "Between section"). Of course this was playing with fire, but it does not necessarily support your interpretation.
 * Also, I'd like to know the exact date of the Brok-Mowrer account.

Indeed it should worry you and everyone-this is the most serious accusation that could be made and is made by Mowrer.
 * Yes, that's your accusation and appearently Mowrer's and it were most serious, if it were true. But it isn't necessarily. Where are historians (and Mowrer isn't one) corroborating his take.

But I repeat, it becomes worse. It becomes the final solution- the active street quote all through is perish the jew ..... the change in the hierarchy, the abandonment of all the critical priestly testimony,  abandonment of the morality of the faithful, the dignity and morality of mankind itself, all was bartered   to defeat atheistic  communism. I repeat, I ask out of duty , whether the 80-100 million violent deaths  were the result of anti-semitic collaboration  ?


 * The heaps of corpses (and please check your numbers, if you want to be taken seriously - not that numbers in these dimension matter much, but still) are the result of Hitler's policy. Various people in various ways contributed to his coming to power and must bear their share of the blame (including Kaas) and all kinds of different lessons can be learnt from the development back then. But it was not the Church that did the "final solution" or waged the war (that didn't start as an anti-communist war, but rather in cooperation with Stalin), neither Pius XI, nor Pius XII/Pacelli and not even Kaas.
 * On the contrary, the Church and Pius XII himself did many things to save Jews. Read Pinchas Lapide, for example.
 * If you are German (I still don't know for sure), such a shifting of the blame from your (and my) own nation to foreigners, is disgraceful. (That's what I detest, among other things, in Hochhuth).
 * If you are not German, it is at least mistaken.

I am not going to go away- I also repeat that it is high time the factor was taken into account to share the opprobrium which otherwise falls so confusedly and mysteriously upon the entire  country of Germany.


 * So you want to share the blame with others - how generous of you. Does that explain your rage and your focus on "those Römlings"?

Editor, this is not over, and you are most definitely by bolstering pope Pius XII , not on the side of the angels , but of the excommunicated.


 * Whether I'm on their side we will find out later, however Pius, Pacelli (and I might add now: Kaas) are not excommunicated, regardless of what you claim. Pius XII/Pacelli is even declared venerable - he has passed thus far in the rigid process of beatification and I'd be very surprised to have excommunicant beatified.

I hear you deny this, and I am very loathe to have to personally call for your recantation, ...


 * Call all your want, you won't get it. If I'm not overcome by clear historical evidence, because FK alone I do not believe, since he has often erred, I cannot and I will not recant. Here I Stand. I can do no more. God help me, Amen!"

... a one such as was indeed given by kenny, quite clearly for all to see and which he needn't have said but evidently carefully composed  - so sorry ,  it is now contradicted , un-usefully .Famekeeper 30 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is unuseful for your point if John states that you have read into his statement, quoting Tallet. He does not contradict his earlier statement (if you read the whole statement: "I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat") Granted, John says that the "basic substance" of your accusation "seems to be supported", but he clarifies that as the Pope's and Pacelli's quid pro quo, trading in Centre Party (doomed anyway, in their and my opinion) "in return for the concordat". The quote is referring to the concordat dealings, beginning with Papen's offer in Rome. All the rest is conjecture, your conjecture, unsupported by Tallet, John, all other sources quoted thus far and thus labeled accordingly, last and least, by yours truly.


 * Ah, and let me add some "advice to the wise": It is disrespectful to constantly mistype someone's name (especially if it is a real name and not a nick). And is also not very polite to address someone as "user" (or even "editor"). Call me by my name or just say "you", but stop using "user" or "editor" all the time.
 * Str1977 1 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

Just to illustrate my last point, FK, please have a look Kenny and compare with Kenney. Str1977 1 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)

POV/NPOV
I have removed my pov tagging on this article and inserted reference to the more or less alleged influence of Pope Pius XI on the party  prior to the Enabling Act vote. I still think the tone otherwise would remove any of the justifiable suspicion  and be, in  the absence of any such references , pov/dubious.

"Soul"
I find it extraordinary to note ,Str1977( if it is yourself who included them),  that we have  here now  in the article   Monsignor Kaas' own words concerning the Enabling Act : "On the one hand we must [oppose] to preserve our soul..." . These words relate to my legal canonical accusations. I believe this is defined as  contumacy .I believe these words absolutely incriminate  by expressing the contumacy. 'Soul' is the word used and is the word that relates to the breaking of the magisterial Divine Law claimed  as being upheld by the Roman Catholic Church. Whatever the meaning of the word "we", whether referring to the party as conscious moral (christian) individuals or whether exclusively to the 'we' of a political party , it is undoubted that Monsignor Kaas was extrememy close by all standards  of church history , to Eugenio Pacelli ; that Pacelli and Pius XI  could have been in no doubt that they authorised in every way all the actions and words of Monsignor Kaas ; and that all three of them were in league in contravening the injunctions of the church or were justifiably acting  under the  conditionality of better the lesser evil.

That they were arguably politically and historically wrong, is something that has contributed vastly to the world as we now see it ( and to the very forces of rebellion against world stability apparent). Being in the wrong is not a crime against humanity, but consciously to support Hitler at this period was as Kaas says, to abandon the preservation of the soul and is the most serious charge in present western civilisation , only exceeding the charges of corruption one-day to be levelled at the forces of capital in this same civilisation. Although you have removed the dates of the many interactions linking Hitler directly through Kaas to Pacelli and Pius XI, they remain on the Pius XII article and you yourself confirmed them to indeed emanate from  historian  Guenter Lewy. I do not think we have an argument about their actuality -though the secrecy attempt of Kaas and Papen on 7 April in Munich en route to Rome is something you could also confirm from Lewy. The Italian press  (quoted previously by me)  publicly revealed  at the time, some of the secrecy.

In general I still object to the sanitised slant of your apparently more centre effort than vatican effort  and I still think the centre article lacks  a reasonable suspicion of the quid pro quo. I therefore have added  in  the controversy. If you are prepared to accept that paragraph, we may be able to move on to the real issue here, one which still touches all our lives and influences our futures materially , politically and spiritually. Famekeeper 09:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Quid Pro Quo Revert
This reduction by Str1977 ignores very full citation of sources as to the whole context and he placed these in the archives, having accepted them as they are checkable. I used the word alleged and made it clear, so that is not enough reason to ignore all the historians. please do not ignore these sources editor STr1977. Accept the course of the discussions as otherwise they are entirely pointless.


 * I didn't delete the substance of your section, but integrated it into the narrative, there where it belongs. You also should have an eye on the dimensions in this article.


 * WP has to have the dimensions of truth ..


 * It has, it has.

Please don't talk about "all the historians" when you base this claim solely on Mowrer's remark, which I now have read in the original book. The date (May 1932) is wrong, it refers to the Prussian elections a few lines above. The event occured at some time after May, and I guess after Brüning's resignation. Also didn't have "assist Hitler to power", but "help make Hitler chancellor" and nothing about "in every way necessary". If you can't provide sources for these bolder assertion than leave them out. You also have not substantiated in any way any connection to the Enabling Act, which happened in a different stage, when the Centre Party's strategy of 1932 had failed. There is no continuity from the talks of 1932 and those of 1933.


 * Mowrer -"And see we did. from that day forward the center regularly supported Hitler." . The claim regarding May 1932 you yourself have said to be most serious if true. I suggest you put yourself  on the trail of Otto brok who witnessed the   (as stated  in Brok's words p 209 )

"advised our party to make Hitler chancellor . The zentrums leaders approved."


 * I referred to the date issue just to inform you. Mowrer gives no exact date for this event. We only know from Mowrer's narrative that it happened between May and November.
 * "from that day forward the center regularly supported Hitler", is Mowrer's take on the subsequent events. The actual events do not support this statement, at least not in the universal way that Mowrer makes it. We have to be careful that he uses a broad brush.

"Accept the course of the discussions as otherwise they are entirely pointless". I guess I'd better not comment on your style of discussing things. Just this: Anyone who disagrees is part of some conspiracy and/or paid by the Vatican. A shaky argument is called "case proved", a claim is a proof, and if someone clarifies an earlier post you yell "No, you did mean it as I took it." You have so far shown an enormous propensity of misinterpreting sentences, be it sources or other posts. It might sound harsh, but if you're not up to the task, ...

PS. I will reply to your "soul" post in time. Str1977 23:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Otto Brok and all the  Zentrums leadership are cited. There must be some references to this letter from that leadership who attended that meeting. I'd say zentrums(partei) is specified exactly  due to the wider connotation  than 'center', as Mowrer also uses. You seem to be able to  relate theology perfectly, which is necessary , so can this knowledge extend to un-covering the vatican end ? First question I'd ask you is whether, in the case of a letter arriving into Kaas' hands from Pacelli  , there would be a record kept of such a letter by the Secretary of States'  office ?


 * Yes, it should be noted in the records. And I would like to read it, since right now we have only Mowrer's narration (in 1968 and in a cursory style - not a criticism, just a fact) of what Brok told him in 1932. Since Kaas read out the letter, according to Brok, I think those present had the text, but whether Brok related it to Mowrer in all breadth and detail is questionable and the same goes for Mowrer 30 years later. We just don't know enough.
 * No, I cannot "un-cover the vatican end", since, even if you don't believe it, don't work for the Vatican and have actually been there only once, 6 years ago.

I have quoted citations as to the capacity for complete avoidance of trailing evidence inside the vatican at other times, and as I say, we cannot argue the same things over  when dealing with citations. Until the citations we can differ, after the citations we can show related evidence to discredit the citations. I will fully accept any proofs you supply for anything, and my unexotic memory will at least try to retain such developemnt into the argument. Please leave off your reverts and we shall  bi-laterally amend. I helped you with this initially completely unsatisfactory article and am responsible for its initial growth. Do not edit that section as it is considerably important that it stand alone.

Well, this is were we disagree. I don't think it was a "completely unsatisfactory article". There is always room for improvement.

You helped in so far as you drove me towards these pages and to overhauling them. Especially the Kaas page was badly in need of that and I think it is now up to standard. And part of that credit belongs to you (though that wasn't necessarily your intention).

Str1977 09:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)