Talk:Hitler's Pope/Archive 3

Traceability of discourse
If you insert statements into a signed statement that I made asking questions, please sign them. I find the unsigned commentary in my statements and questions to be unreadable. Robert McClenon 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Summary
I think that I now understand. It appears that Famekeeper is saying that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and Ludwig Kaas made moral errors in allowing evil to be done so that good could prevail, and therefore violated Catholic teaching on double action. I said the same thing about Pope Pius XII and Ludwig Kaas. All living and recently dead humans have made moral errors. We disagree as to the extent of the moral errors. And there is no point in discussing this at more length. Robert McClenon 14:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Would mediation be acceptable? - Is it time to request mediation?
Famekeeper wrote, responding to Robert McClenon:


 * "I suggest you take cognizance of str1977 rv, and edits following my additions. Its a drag because they are too often marked minor when they are long or strong edits : perhaps you don't have the time or regret being involved -I'll go for calling arbitration if you prefer"

The policies of Wikipedia are that arbitration is a last resort, when all other remedies have failed. We have not yet tried mediation. I am not ready to request arbitration until mediation has been tried. I am ready to request mediation, but all parties must agree to that. Shall I, as the third opinion, request mediation?

If not, shall I be bold and edit this article to be only a discussion of the Cornwell book, and to move all discussion of Pius XII to his own page and to move all discussion of the Centre Party to its page? Robert McClenon 06:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't agree to that . I put up this page because I asked my oldest cousin, what did he think about this scandal, and he replied_"but it's nothing new-we all knew he was Hitler's Pope "......... Can I ask you ,Robert McClenon what your previous useranme was on the WP, as I wished to check out your specialities, and the User Contributions only seem to start on 12 July this month ? Thankyou .Famekeeper 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean that you cannot agree to mediation, or do you mean that you cannot agree to have me edit the article? Do you want me to request mediation? Are you requesting mediation?


 * I think the article should reflect the history and  analysis of the interlinked factors behind the vatican's choice of Hitler, not the reverse . I suppose this is where users  think it is two articles, because of course both Cornwell's use of the term Hitler's pope and mine , relate to the same concept of collaboration . Note that I do not claim that Pacelli or Pius or Kaas retained their belief in the usefulness  of Hitler, only will I say now that they helped create a monster . I say that the peace making by Pacelli /Pius XII (and Kaas)in 1940 and 43  reveals a continuing ability to contemplate a non-democratic government in germany , under  racial dimensions , despite their experience of the Nazis   A genuine article would need to expand immensely upon this and upon the anti-semitism (see  discussion page BXVI ).

Robert McClenon 21:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The statement that Pope Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" is a POV. Even Cornwell never states that he was intentionally acting as Hitler's Pope. As an article name, the phrase "Hitler's Pope" is non-NPOV unless it refers only to the book. Robert McClenon 21:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I come from the published memoirs of Edgar Ansel Mowrer in the first instance who clearly accuses the church of  promoting Hitler from 1932 not 1933 through  the  Centre Party. I am not entirely concerned as to whether this suceeded before  March 1933 or whether it succeeded at all, it is enough that this was  attempted  for it to risk   automatic excommunication at that time. I believe the general consensus is that there was in fact a quid pro quo instituting an inhuman dictatorship against peace and harmony and the moral order of man. I do not come from Cornwell 's book and it is not my concern whether he has or has not made these accusations. Edgar Ansel Mowrer stands in his own right as a Chicago Daily Tribune pulitzer prize-winner. This nonsense prevents me from finishing his page. Famekeeper, who has not signed his post properly 14:12, 19 July 2005

Dear Robert,

I'd agree to your "edit(ing) this article to be only a discussion of the Cornwell book". However, I don't think moving discussions is necessary since there are posted there already anyway.

Dear FK,


 * Are you saying  you are against moving this all on to Pope Pius XII links ?

it's true that I used the minor function too frequently when I was a newbie but I hope I have bettered. Again, now that I checked EAM's book I don't object to his rendition being included in the Centre party page, but the proper dimension of the article and qualifications of this source have to be maintained and I can only accept what he actually says, no more no less.

Any other sources you have cited so far (Klemperer, Lewy, Kenney's book) have not provided what you claimed they did - what they supported is already in the article.

Str1977 17:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * When one has time for this, you are great fun, but really . ....I know this , every inch has to be won , and then re-fought . I have already fought your editing using these authors and several  more . You deny  , but of course not one of them makes the entire report - they all piece together . What is needed is more not less . I don't claim that, say ,Klemperer's earnest  tome about the widerstand  in any way centers upon the catholic church in this regard. I simply quoted what he does say . And ,it names  Kaas along with von Papen( accused at Nuremberg and let off  as we agreed , for lack of the requisite law( strangely enough  one like in romans) of being cardinal  in the process for abandonment through the Enabling Act , of the parliamentary power.

Wikipedia and Hitler Issues Concerning the Catholic Church
I was the person to suggest mediation-but I have also suggested that these may need arbitration. I have constantly warned that the value of the WP is prejudiced  by faith-based editing, I do not think I am alone  in estimating it so.

I am not particularly concerned about Cornwell - I associate the direct historical analyses  of the vatican policy towards  Nazism , which I have cited  and  I  reported  as I can or , it seems , cannot. I have managed to provide balance to the Pius XII  article  and I repeat that that which is on his page  contradicts  complaint  here on this article. That fell on deaf ears, and remains a contradiction.

I asked Str1977 whether he would tell us his deutsch WP user name  and I have asked you  a similar question concerning  your editing  history. I repeat that your user history started last week, or says so , and wonder how you come to this position as potential mediator  with no history ? Surely this a fair question, as it was to Str1977 ? You have also written that you neither  have the time  or wish to follow  the editing battles in the archives , and that nor do you have any particular knowledge  of the history. It therefore might be difficult to sort a POV from a historical  analysis.

I am afraid that that there are sufficient reasons to think that  Pius XI  and the future Piuz XII were as one in the quid pro quo for the concordat, and that Monsignor Kaas  was their tool. In so far as historians analyse this ,  there may well have been regret by all of them , though history in fact  suggests that even by 1940 and then  by 1943, that Pius XII was still blind to the  true Nazi iniquity , and contemplated and furthered a  negotiation and sttlement of the  war  which would have  left Germany  still without democracy or the rule of an acceptible law. This is a scandal referred to and diplomatically passed  upon, and was considered a great danger  to the war effort. Certainly it shows that Kaas, who was involved on both  wartime  occasions , and Pacelli who was in charge , remained important relevant figures   to Germany.

Discussion as to whether or not Pacelli was Hitler's pope has not entered the Pius XII article, which is still claiming that from 1933 there were anti-Nazi complaints from the vatican : this is nonsense and POV. There were no complaints from the Vatican but rather the reverse, there was public approbation  of Hitler as  beneficial leader, there were blessings called down upon his head by  the leading German Cardinal (who mysteriously changed  from critcism to approbation) and all in all there ws a massive organised conspiracy to wean sufficient of the german catholic populace away from their  doubts and dislike of Nazism towards  joining it. This can be said to emanate from the vatican, and to have been over-seen by the future Pius XII as secretary of State. vast number s of catholics  were encouraged by this vatican approbation, including the concordat , to join with th Nazis. The concordat is well known to have been Hitler's crown of respecability. POV-?

So, no. You are not showing signs of understanding, nor the desire to understand , but you are already claiming what is or is not POV. This is not therefore acceptable. Please answer the question about your user history, and I may feel that I am wrong on this your capacity .....Famekeeper 08:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Some things

you complain about "faith-based editing". Though I am a practising Catholic and try to life according to the faith (though I fail quite often), my editing is no more faith-based than any other's. I'm a Catholic (and still don't work for the Vatican), but I'm also a historian and am mainly interested in factual accuracy of historical topics, like this one. However, what kind of epithet should we give to your editing, considering that you hardly ever contributed anything else than the same accusations all over again and again and again.


 * Monocausal you wrote about my editing, inter-linking is required because of the history : I begin conclude that you are  such a  nice guy, that your sense of taste and justice and propriety , leads you in this . One could  easily believe , if one didn't have respect for such as Mowrer , who were there and who saw with their own eyes , heard with their own ears . I do not believe that Mowrer invented this damning letter, and i think it high time that soem historian  revealed more, or we find where they have . Again , I proved  vatican secrecy- and it is surprising you didnt know about the vatican episode ( peace making 41 amd 43) which have been reported  to lesser analysis than KvKlemperer  for decades . So , no , it wouldn't actually prove anything if it didn'ty showe up in their records : Bruning surely mentioned it . either way , that relates to may 1932 , the  historians who reference  quid pro quo certainly don't see it as actively imposed until early 1933.

You're saying: "I am afraid that that there are sufficient reasons to think that Pius XI and the future Piuz XII were as one in the quid pro quo for the concordat, and that Monsignor Kaas was their tool."

This is right insofar the actual Concordat negotiations starting with Papen's arrival in Rome. The Centre party's existence was on the bargaining table. Pius and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce into the party's demise in return for the concordat. The party's demise was not their intention and it is obvious that the party was a dead man at that point.


 * I fear that that is a literal view of the negotiations, and reminds me that you deny a great deal when it suits yopur propriety, such as the general view that kaas stayed repeatedly with pacelli in the vatican, they'd known each other well for years and years, etc  ... whatever leads you. I will continue with this , as you need , post-haste .  Analysis of the widerstand  , good .  Thankyou . Famekeeper 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that were no complaints from the Vatican after 1933 is totally incorrect. There were complaints, based on the terms of the concordat and your calling it "nonsense and POV" is excactly that: (your) nonsense and POV. That's the Vatican's reason why the concordat was concluded: to have at least minimal protection from the regime. They could base their complaints. The alternative was "Konkordat oder Kirchenkampf". You might have preferred Kirchenkampf, but
 * a) you're no Catholic and it is not very noble to expect others to suffer for you
 * b) you're neither Pope nor Bishop and don't have responsibility of protecting your flock as best as possible
 * b) you overlook that there was nothing in the Concordat itself immoral, or going against faith and morals. (Yes, I know the partner was Hitler, well, no, actually the partner was the German Reich and no one knew how long Hitler would actually last. Even if he did last, than the concordat was needed even more urgently (see above)).

All your insinuations about conspiracy are your interpretations at best, wild phantasies at worst.

There were no blessings of Hitler, except for diplomatic formulae. The bishops' declaration no one disputed and it is controversial and I don't like it either (though that is of no importance) but note that it also retained the condemnation of Nazism.

"history in fact suggests that even by 1940 and then  by 1943, that Pius XII was still blind to the  true Nazi iniquity, and contemplated and furthered a  negotiation and sttlement of the  war  which would have  left Germany  still without democracy or the rule of an acceptible law  ."

First note, that this is all your interpretation (or some historian's that you accepted, don't claim you don't do interpretation). Secondly, so now trying to mediate between parties of the war is wrong, especially when it involves resistance circles as you posted with the, though sadly unfinished and sometimes incomprehensible, Vatican exchange section? Please consider, that any settlement, especially if it had involved Hitler's deposing/death, anything that would have stopped the war would have saved millions of lives. Consider that, had Stauffenberg's coup succeeded and stopped the war, the death toll of the war would have been half as big. And even less, if something had happened in 1940.

You complain that "still without democracy or the rule of an acceptible law" - well, we don't know what the government would have looked like after a successful coup. Granted, the military types were not exactly democrats, but there was also the Kreisau circle. However all resisters (save maybe the Communists, but maybe even these) wanted to restore the rule of law, the mere fundamental basics of humanity and civility. Especially the right-wingers among the resisters didn't oppose Hitler out of mere political reasons, not because they considered him a "Fascist" or a "tool of the reaction". But maybe you think that democracy is so great and indispensible in itself (note, I'm not detracting it) that some millions are a price worth paying. Please at least consider this.

Str1977 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Restatement of the question as to mediation
Famekeeper wrote: "I was the person to suggest mediation-but I have also suggested that these may need arbitration." Famekeeper then wrote: " I repeat that your user history started last week, or says so , and wonder how you come to this position as potential mediator with no history ? Surely this a fair question , as it was to Str1977 ? You have also written that you neither have the time or wish to follow the editing battles in the archives , and that nor do you have any particular knowledge of the history . It therefore might be difficult to sort a POV from a historical analysis "

Perhaps I was not clear. I was not proposing to mediate. I am not a member of the Mediation Committee. Famekeeper had written that arbitration might be necessary. Wikipedia has a well-defined dispute resolution process, in which arbitration is the last step, undertaken only as a last resort when other processes have failed or would be futile. The first step is discussion to reach consensus. That has been tried, and has not succeeded. It is difficult to reach consensus on controversial issues, or on how to present controversial issues with a neutral point of view. Another step in the dispute resolution process is a Request for Comments. Someone posted a Request for Comments (RfC). I do not know or care whether it was Famekeeper, Str1977, or someone else. I read the Request for Comments page and followed the links. That is why I have no previous history in these pages before 12 July 2005.

The next step in the dispute resolution process can be mediation. That is done by a member of the Mediation Committee, after a Request for Mediation is posted. I was not offering to mediate. I was offering to post a Request for Mediation. However, mediation is only useful if all parties agree to mediation. That is why I was asking Famekeeper whether he would agree to mediation. I am also asking Str1977 whether he will agree to mediation.

I do know that a mediator is expected to come into a dispute with no previous involvement. I also know that, although mediators and arbitrators do read through the long history of a dispute, they also request a short summary. If Famekeeper is serious about wanting arbitration, he should respond to my requests for short summaries with short summaries.

There is no reason to go to arbitration unless someone refuses mediation or unless mediation fails.

I did read one of the talk page archives. It does not enlighten me. It merely shows that there has been an editing battle. As I said, I am not a mediator or an arbitrator. I do know that if I were a mediator or an arbitrator, and there was a dispute over article content that could not be resolved, I would ask each principal to write their own version of what they thought was an accurate NPOV article, rather than attempting to read all of the diffs.

Famekeeper: Would you agree to try mediation? Str1977: Would you agree to try mediation? Robert McClenon 17:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I myself called for mediation and placed the Ffc's for the interlinked articles, not just this one  but Ludwig Kaas and  the Centre Party Germany .   I don't understand  the user history at all, sorry . Are you saying that you happened to  create a new user name, just prior to this , used it for various un-related articles  shown , and then plunged in here  using the new name .? I don't wish to be offensive  but you come in to a very strident battle  , and immediately start asking me questions about grave sin and more . You  also claim that something is POV , before reading the relevant  sections of justification . Apart from that I am happy to see another human hand  here.

As to the rest, I tried uploading the summaries you required earlier but lost them all in process. I shall have to restate them now.


 * My position on this dispute is not as Str 1977 states on your discussion page, I'm afraid to say . This is not a POV by me nor limited to Mowrer , nor Tollett  nor Wheeler-Bennett , nor Klemens von Klemperor  , nor Shirer , nor Toland , all of whom I cited for Str19977 and John Kenny (well Kenny actually cited Tollet and Atkins (?) for me ) . Certainly there are another  three  writers  presently in print  with  similar  or parallel attacks  such as   Cornwell  has made , none of which I am familiar with , but the American reading public would have seen in their reviews.


 * I categorically tell you that I have cited sufficiently from the other named authors to quote Hitler, Pius XI, Kaas ; to portray the fact that history , not I , suggests a shameful quid pro quo  involving Cardinal Pacelli as principal  actor  ; that  this explains the  German   Hierarchy's  papally obliged volte face in approbation of Hitler  ; that this describes , along with the Humanitas Foundation's  holocaust timeline  the key personalities in a close dance of interaction  in the spring of 1933 , which i repeat , are not the subject of dispute  despite a complete  contradiction with Str1977 defence of the church -which I could quote , if required.


 * As I understood it, the citation of sources was a main plank of the WP . I tell you that a mediator would find these citations where they were relevant , and if necessary I shall dig them up and repeat them , one of which as I say was provided by John Kenny  about the quid pro quo between the Concordat and the  Enabling Act 'democratic suicide' . I tell you that the Enabling Act is  studied in higher education , because of its importance  , and if the sources link the two together , which to a greater or lesser extent , they picture , then it is fair to ask the WP to allow a representation  of this .  I have quoted at you the very words of Pope Pius  XI in 1933  but you seem prepared to make limiting conclusions  even so , which is a tad worrying.


 * I do agree that it appears to be a POV/NPOV set of issues and of course it is difficult, because of the wide spread of actors  .  I do not report  that the vatican was a pawn  of Hitler's  , indeed I do not report  that Pius XII was Hitler's Pope , I report  towards the reverse , that the vatican consciously chose Hitler  as their pawn :  they were not the only to try and so do  , as the  Rhenish Westphalian Industrial Magnates certainly  chose him , as I included  in WP ,and  that  the Army   chose him  but not as a  pawn  , and that Franz von Papen represented forces that also chose to use him as pawn  , but that is apart  ) .  I have not mentioned the Protestant faith, and I have not been left the time to do so by this constant battle against sources , and the need to  actually determine the church norms  - which I now will interpose between your questions above  by way of summary.


 * In fact all I claim is that I am battling faith-bsed editing, which breaks wikipedia policy , and makes it next to impossiible to carry on in reason  and  under good will . No one els has taken on this battle , and in consequence I am  the subject of suspicion and innuendo . I clearly recognise the position of the editor Str1977, and I object as strenuously as the moral context requires. When he estimates the minds of great men , including Adolf Hitler , I react with the required indignation , due to an enlightened age . I reacted to equanimity expressed towards  dictatorship , and the result is I have you here  rather alluding to this as if this were a disgraceful little editing war : it is not . It is a giant pullulating morass of wikedness which hurt real people and which to this day , conditions people  and causes more war  and hurt . Thus I warn you to be careful , to uphold the enlightened , to defend the norms of decency , and  to realise the nature of the problem left by the  history of men's actions . This is not a Famekeeper issue : it is a  roman church issue , a german issue , a capitalist issue , a widerstand  conscience issue, an issue for  german protestantism , for  appeasers  , a democracy issue  and at its heart yes , it is a moral issue.


 * I therefore object most strongly to any tone of condemnation . I think that since I hastily ill-remembered the Trieste as opposed to Bavarian birthplace of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, Pacelli's tool inside Democracy , that no one  including Str1977 has faulted anything  I wrote or discussed , only denied  such as POV in order to remove the accusations history has proposed .  In fact this is not true, I removed from the  Cornwell thesis , his supposed(from a website condensation ) analysis concerning Pacelli's brother destabilising the Italian catholic Party similarly :Str1977 objected , so I removed it  citing the source , as report , immediately . But  if this is the wikpedia way , well , I have warned throughout that the mirroring of half-truth was filling the world with trash  . As you will have seen from the Adam von Trott su Solz article , one word is enough to distort  history completely  . I think in that case it was not even intended, but that is even more frightening.


 * I am insulted for my writing, as verbose and a ranter, because the subjects are deep and cut down  to the  very nature of society and human developement . I am not well pleased at this treatment , but then I give as good as I get .  Just by way of one example of that to which I allude , read a version of Pope  Pius XII before I joined in , and you will find  the standard whitewash : the critics are coralled into a separate  period, that of his papal era , as the church apologists have continuously aimed to do for years. This way there is some hope of defence for him . Nothing  was ever said about the  extra-ordinary variation of church policy co-eval with the Concordat.


 * If arbitration can only be achieved by persons who come to the subject a new, well ,the WP suffers . This is not serious , if it is the case , and it is not what I a have alluded to in calls for arbitration  . So be it, but if the  persons do not take account of the course of the history (not editing) war , then it will prove the Wikipedia to be more a tool of danger than of benefot, and I , for one , am prepared to vary the attack  completely and take aim at the WP for becoming a pawn of the vatican.Famekeeper 00:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please try to Be Concise
Famekeeper writes: "I am insulted for my writing, as verbose and a ranter, because the subjects are deep and cut down to the very nature of society and human developement." No. It is true that the subjects are deep and present difficult moral issues. However, the real reason why your writing is criticized is simply that you are verbose. the most likely reasons for that are that: first, that you are angry, and this causes you to be repetitive; second, you have not learned how to summarize what you are saying. Please try to learn to summarize your case when you are asked for a summary. Robert McClenon 22:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Solution of Question as to Mediation
I feel, if not experience , that there should be a straightforward  resolution of the FK/Str editorial conflicts. That it is not a question of recantation, but of reason. I will go so far as to say I was wrong to impugn the  motives  of Str1977, and hope this to be correct.

However this can only be done on the basis of adhering to the WP rules about citations and published sources. From the experience of Str1977's assiduity, I recommend him entirely , under these forces of reason. It appears to me that, au fond ,Str1977 (Str ?) is acting partly because that which his vision hitherto  wishes to have been the accepted case ,is  the vision of history un-tainted by this severe questioning. I do deny, however , that  this  re-building  of vision  is research : I am referring to published sources. Public sources.

Under the guidance of reason, we should be able to inhabit the same world , even this virtual WP reflection of it. If, for example, my fairly un-exotic memory remembers  seeing  direct evidential  contradiction with the statement that there was  no  public "blessing"  or such of Hitler from  an ecclesiatical source , and if I take the effort to sift back to produce this, then reason dictates. The argument should then be the merits of the writer sourced, the validity of the report in truth and  perhaps proven to the contrary -by another source.

There is no carte blanche, there is only reason and good will. If I point to a contradiction in law, whomsoever's law , based on evidence sourced reasonably , I should expect , as seems to emanate from McClenon , a reasonable variation in reaction to one un-coloured by this information. At a few times, Str and I found this , but I think the gravity and explosive nature of the reports made the connection between will and reason  difficult. One can wish as a will, but it is not helpful. I really believe that reconciliation -I mean within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church and within the body of its adherents who are the church - is both possible and necessary.

As I might answer these most interesting questions arising from the widerstand, for they relate to this reconciliation, I will , equally , bear fully in mind the willed criticisms  that I harshly judge and harshly & judgementally act , and that this alone proves me to be less than those who act  acted  then in defence of this will. I believe that the ecclesiastics acted through will, possibly (though I think I have pretty much cast this in doubt), possibly goodwill. This gets back to my harsh criticisms, that 'you' should 'be controlled'.The fact is that the world has no more geo-political  space  left for this action through will. Nowhere is this beneficial : reason alone, as I have specified , is bound to goodness whereas will alone has no authority. Whichever body of men claim to act by will alone become a danger : the will that would say this is so because we will it so can have no place  in reason or good  governance. This is one of the central issues of our day, and all things are inter-connected , like the hairs on our heads or the birds in a field. The relevance of this article is total : it defines the present as much or more than anything else in the world.

As to mediation, it is quite plain from what Robert McClenon reports, that no one better than  ourselves can be expected to face up to these issues. We should publicly declare to adhere to reported sources, and when they contradict , then the contradictions should be asserted , there , together in the articles. We two should take the lead in defining this in so far as it seems this is an un-tested area of  the WP nature. McClenon refers to this, and I suppose it must pop up a thousand times a week.

Nevertheless, my reason forces me to persist in nailing the  reports and the analyses to the relevant 'door'. I would very much like Str to help me, or I help him -because if we were to combine , much more good could be reasoned. I think I have offered this before, but mutual suspicion - he of my sources or attitude, myself disputing the origin of his  will , fell asunder into a pitiless  edit war. I fear that the interpretations which will soon follow as to the exact nature of german widerstand 'thought' behind  that  door, will also prove  uncomfortable and inflammatory. Could we not agree to paraphrase  sources, and expand them under fair use  in parallel temporarily upon the discussion pages ?

This is the mediation, I can accept no other, as effectively there is no other. The only remaining question beyond this I see, is the fascinating one as to whether in fact the wikipedia is controllable  ? Meaning whether in fact a user can be banned. I gather from an IT type that this is impossible. I see no benefit in driving religious will from the WP, but I only accept it under that definition and qualification of control .Famekeeper 11:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)