Talk:Hitler and the Church/Archive 1

Hitler and the( Christian ) Church
Read the discussion at Talk: Adolf Hitler but disagree that this is works as a standalone article. It seems like good information to have there under a subheading and does not merit his own article... If we are to have Hitler and the church, we should also have Mussolini and the Church, Stalin and the Church, Hitler and the press, George Bush and the press, Hitler and propaganda etc etc. Halidecyphon 05:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this does not work as a stand alone article. Who's going to look for seperate article on "Hitler and the chruch"? The only people who read this are those who read the Hitler article, noticed this section was missing, and followed the link here the read it. It isn't very long, it does not stand on its own, and it is relevant to the Hitler article. So I don't see any reason not to put it back in that article.--198.93.113.49 18:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

If this is to be a standalone article (I do feel that as it is, it reads too much like OR), I think it should be moved to "Christianity in the Third Reich", or something to that extent. Aecis 16:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I found it interesting, but not detailed enough, contrary to some of the other comments. It seems like a topic of research mostly because there is so much conflicting information, citing Nazis as neo-pagans, or seeking a new Holy Roman Empire, or, as one of Vonnegut's characters suggestes, a Chritian army bearing crosses and arms. 07 November 2005

I agree that it's not detailed enough. When I find my copy of Guderian's PANZER book, I'll quote his mention of Hitler at a funeral, saying that so-and-so had entered Valhalla. I don't think that the Nazi movement could be called "neo-pagan," since that term already has a different meaning. They did try to supplant Christianity with rituals and beliefs borrowed from many sources. (e.g. _popularized_ versions of myths as told by Wagner & other 19th cen. romantics.) Would a list of Nazi rituals (blood flags, ehre daggers, etc.) be useful here? 02 December 2005

Whilst perhaps not detailed enough, it certainly does deserve to stand alone as an article due to the opposition to Hitler that the Church posed. Although more detail should be added, it does deserve to stand alone as an example of opposition to the Reich

I would like some direction from the other wikipedians here. I will be happy to flush this out with more documentation w.r.t the "neo-pagan" attributes. I could also fold it back in to the original article easily enough (it was suggested that it be pulled out on the talk page there once upon a time). Jprismon 22:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Amplify to the full extent of the knowledge, which is today only constrained by continuing Vatican Archive 'problems' . As far as I can tell, there seems to be some wierd enciclo reasoning which limits explanation, and which is a great reason to reduce un-acceptible truths. I see no reason why this article should not in fact not only stand alone but serve as recepticle for the two problematical articles I have created. Continue, and base it on Cornwell's Vanity Fair abbreviation, and all that is relevant , including Protestantism, by careful reference to the actual effects and the sources .Then firmly root it in the briefer section lacking at Adolf Htler as of now.
 * EffK 11:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in need of an article that addresses Germany's Protestant clergy in relationship to Hitler. This article needs work but it's a start. The problem this article can address fairly is that popular attention has singled out Catholics and the Pope for scrutiny while ignoring Germany's Lutherans. Durova 13:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't get to help you on that problem, as I am all bogged with the other being still kept outt. But I refer you to my agreement to your saying a similar thing at Pius XII. I think this is the only non-denominational dsitination available.EffK 03:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church
Preparatory for further presentation of sources I bring the collection of relevant and related source EffK

The Nuremberg Trials precedence for this Article

 * I bring from my user page a source I consider apposite to all efforts I and other editors have made or will make to complete the Wikipedia History of this Article's subject. The source is Franz von Papen pleading for his innocence, and his Defence pleading for him. It relates to the accusation made against myself EffK


 * From The Yale Avalon Project we are brought {Fair use/Educational/Public} such as this Franz von Papen disculpation and inculpation:

DR. KUBUSCHOK(The Defence for Papen): The Prosecution charges that, as a prominent lay member of the Catholic Church, you were particularly able to consolidate the Nazi regime in the field of the churches. We must therefore discuss your attitude regarding the Church Will you give an account of the situation of the German Church at that time?

VON PAPEN: This charge, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, is for me the most serious of the entire Indictment-the charge that I, as a Catholic, contributed to this conspiracy against world peace. May I be permitted, therefore, to discuss my attitude in the Church question quite briefly.


 * {disculpations follow)

DR.Kubuschok.[Turning to the defendant.] What were the events leading up to the Concordat?

VON PAPEN: I reiterate that I wanted to secure a Christian basis for the Reich at all costs. For that reason, I suggested to Hitler in April 1933 that the rights of the Church should be firmly laid down in a Concordat, and that this Concordat should be followed by an agreement with the Evangelical Church. Hitler agreed, although there was strong opposition in the Party; and thus the Concordat was concluded. The Prosecution has adopted the view that this Concordat was a maneuver intended to deceive. Perhaps I may in this connection point to the facts that the gentlemen with whom I signed this Concordat were Secretary of State Pacelli, the present Pope, who had known Germany personally for 13 years, and Monsignor Kaas, who for years had been the Chairman of the Center Party, and that if these two men were willing to conclude a Concordat, then one can surely not maintain that this was a maneuver intended to deceive.

The Catholics in Germany had organized themselves in the Center Party. Before 1918 the Center Party, as a moderate party, had always endeavored to establish a balance between the left and the right political wings. After the war that picture was altered entirely.

We then find the Center Party mostly in coalition with the left. In Prussia, this coalition was maintained during all the years from 1918 until 1932. Undeniably the Center Party deserves much credit for the maintenance of the life of the State during the years after the collapse; but the coalition with the Social Democrats made co-operation of the Center Party with the right impossible, particularly with regard to Church policy. In political questions and matters of internal party policy the Center Party, therefore, followed a line of compromise which was the result obtained through the concessions of others in the field of Church policy. That this state of affairs...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, to what is this all relevant? DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Prosecution has said:

"Papen used his position of a prominent Catholic to consolidate the Nazi regime. He was double-faced, and that characteristic is especially obvious in this connection and throws light on his personality."


 * (there follows disculpation of charge that Papen himself undermined the Reichskonkordat )

[Turning to the defendant.] In the summer of 1934 it became obvious that the Party was sabotaging the Concordat, and that Hitler's assurances were not being kept. How do you explain Hitler's behavior in this respect?

283

17 June 46

VON PAPEN: I believe that in those days Hitler himself had been entirely willing to keep peace with the Church, but that the radical elements in his Party did not wish it............Besides, if the Prosecution assumes that on account of the certainly quite justified Encyclical of the Pope I should have left my post, then I must ask what did the Church do? The Church did not recall the Papal Nuncio from Berlin, and Bishop Berning did not leave the State Council in which he represented Catholic interests. No doubt all this was quite justified, because all of us at that time still hoped for inner changes................................. .


 * (After particular disculpations and in more general disculpation, von Papen justifies all whom the Prosecution considered to have conspired towards elevation of Hitler, through reference to this Bishop and inculpation towards an un-named high authority of some 3 years after that elevation .)

Von Papen: It appeared to me necessary, since the Catholic press had been completely muzzled, to do something to continue public discussion of the struggle against tendencies inimical to the Church. I very often talked about this question with Bishop Hudal, an outstanding churchman in Rome, whose book written in 1936 will be submitted to the Tribunal by my counsel. This book contains my severe criticism of the anti-religious tendencies and contains also an objective appreciation of the positive social ideas of National Socialism; it is all the more notable because a high authority of the Church was then, in 1936, making yet another attempt to create a synthesis between Christian ideas and the healthy doctrines of National Socialism.


 * I should say Papen and Kubuschok should be taken as pointing the nature of the relationship . I should say NPOV requires to include any further sources, and that the writings of Hudal as much as the inculpation of a high authority require NPOV attention. I give the link to the full extent of von Papen's disculpation, as is required by NPOV . I believe that NPOV will require a firm positioning of two views, and that apart from the curious inculpation of the Vatican, these are, originally, the defence and the prosecution. All Articles will need to allow primacy of the source. I do not believe that the verdict was given but that rather the prosecutary law did not extend to the fullest necessity required, and that NPOV would equally take account of that.


 * I ask any user to name the high authority? EffK 18:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hint:it cannot be Pius XI, as he was the highest authority. Hudal was close to Pacelli, according to the Googlethera, so- who is equal highest with him, who competes in our mind? So..., question, is... who other than Pacelli is referred to....-name the person- ...Quote a source. Or if you will not not do so, explain why ? Have you no source? Can you overide the logic of the source as presented ?EffK 01:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources mentioned or quoted, and discourse
Highlighting relevances.All quotation by User:EffK from Wikipedia as per fair use/educational/acknowledged .All marked EffK signs in one go as EffK 13:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The history cannot be focused simply on the RCC/Vatican, so sources relate to the events. I send these to give you background. EffK

Shirer
The William L. Shirer you have what he says about the Church/Centre at pope PIus XII archived 18(?),and it is unequivocal however short.Another  reference is this. He States the 15 March cabinet discussions re E.Act are recorded at Nuremburg trial, p 244 he writes of a breezily confident Hitler and that -:There was some question about the Catholic Centre, which was demanding guarantees, but the Chancellor was certain that this party would go along with him. It has been massively in print since early 50's, and he's the benchmark for the Nazis. The relevance is great, and it comes fom Nuremberg testimony/admissions, which is what Shirer followed.EffK

Guenter Lewy for dates, statements
see Megamemex http://www.fair-trade-usa.com/cgi-bin/megamemex.pl?MOREPAGE=0&KEYWORDS=1933&qry=SEARCH,[]EffK

Proposed counter Sources quoted
followed byMain theory...of course, without the Vatican. All we can do is register the extreme proximity of the times of the meetings coupled with the telegrams( Yes-Im wrong, it was of course only Kaas himself who telegrammed congrats to Hitler's 1933 Birthday from the vatican , but it was official and disseminated widely-presumably for some reason . What reason ?) you chucked out all the times and now no-one can see them cept in the parallel bucket above under 'history of edits'.User_talk :Flamekeeper 18:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) and And if a world class historian publishes his belief that Papen and Kaas are the two central figures of the moment, then it begs the question of why don't we know more about Kaas?EffK .... Klemens von Klemperer - in the Widerstand field. User_talk .Flamekeeper 18:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) ......
 * I'm unable to remember/find(it may have been deleted) where Str1977 placed his one english language quote for the vote. it is a record of the Kaas to the centre caucus at 11:30 am on 23 March 1933, and no wonder I get little counter source, as this one shows that Kaas knew that all in the party risked their soul if they voted yes. str1977 says it just mansds the party, but it comes from a priest, therefore is rather more 'technical'.EffK
 * At centre Discussions "Mommsen (The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy), as I recall, is very critical of both Kaas and Brüning, but he certainly doesn't accuse them of having a conspiracy to bring the Nazis to power, or whatever. I haven't checked out Richard Evans's new book yet, but that would be another good place to look. There's probably also been more specific studies of the Centre Party itself, too. john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)" EffK[]
 * Which historian is this? john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Guenter Lewy The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany is the source for Kaas movements etc. Flamekeeper 07:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) note to B.: see qv/Google "Megamemex" and /or "Humanitasinternational"for March 1933, they cite Lewy for dates.EffK


 * "Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, published by Oxford University Press in 2003.(User:Jkenny)" ''all above same early Archive at Centre,qv thru google meaning I possess no access to Mommsen nor this last 2003 OUP. This last is the most recent work cited


 * 25 The conjecture I will add here is that Pacelli, indeed in banal fashion, protecting assets he had placed in german Heavy Industry , knowing then of the conspiracy between the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates suckered himself in wishful parallel thinking, to further this old-school-boy type network conspiracy, to bolster his own selfish vatican reputation as financial descendant from his vatican influential Grandfather, allowed himself to co-ordinate it with the pontiffs natural and rabid anti-Communist Fatima-bolstered policy . Here christian schism meets marianism meets high finance meets anti-semitism meets totalitarianism and re-conquest of russia meets international banking meets multi-nationals meets Wall St. I conjecture that Pacelli was dis-abused of this wishful thinking within 4 months of the pontiff receiving Goering on 10 April, and that is why we see a statement from him retreating backwards. This retreat has continued up until this very day, and is still active on WP, as I write (marianism as in conversion of Russia to RCism)[]EffK

Bush-Kerry

 * It is very difficult to focus the apparent controversies concerning the Episcopal failure in America in 2004 to follow the CDF Ratzinger line when the Theology page is separated from the subjects main page . However there is much remark that there was an episcopal rebellion in 2004 in the U.S. against Cardinal Ratzinger's hardline CDF policy, including Avery Cardinal Dulles' assertion that the Church would risk opening itself to accusation that it was interfering in political affairs . The Ratzinger instruction or guideline for the U.S.Bishops is available on-line as is the entire history and everything except Ratzinger's own covering personal guidance to Cardinal McCarrick which he desired to remain entirely confidential and secret . There is in this subject ,known in the U.S as the communion controversy a revealing theological evolution , the suggestion that in Rome juridical disquiet existed at the application of a 2002 text concerning divorced and re-married Catholics and communion , to the issue of grave sin arising in the policies of the Democratic candidate Kerry. This is apart from the controversy concerning the effect on the actual vote, which is considered factually as having been advantageous to the Republican Party . The theological differences are nuanced and revolve upon the difference between public un-worthiness because of 'private' sin (as in marriage or abortion) and un-worthiness on the part of a public figure , such as the otherwise devout John Kerry . In other words it returns to the Question of the Law (from Humanae Vitae) that I raised , to that which Cardinal Dulles feared and that which is of such perfectly scandalous historical record (see Pope Pius XII etcetera ) that I foresee the above questions of Latae Sententiae needing equal inclusion with all the aforesaid . Flamekeeper 21:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Mowrer
In 1968 Edgar Ansel Mowrer wrote, copyrighted and published Triumph and Turmoil-A Personal History of our Time SBN 04 920026 .The London Publishers , George Allen & Unwin Ltd foresaw reproduction without permission for the purposes of study , research ,criticism or review. Mowrer was the correspondent in Berlin from 1923-1933 for The Chicago Daily News and was authorised to employ two assistants, the second of whom was Otto Brok ,a " doctor of political sciences and a respected member of the (Catholic ) Centre Party. Mowrer mentions Brok a number of times in relation to the Centre Party, metaphysical discussion of German philosophers and news sources but the central purpose of including Brok would appear to be for this his link into the Catholic (centre) party . ......"Following the May 1932 elections Brok one morning rushed into the office in tears and shouting "It is all over , it is all over ". On Mowrer's asking for the cause of this distress ,Brok is reported as saying

"Last night at a meeting of the Centre Party, which I attended, our Party leader, Monsignor Kaas , read a letter from the Secretary of State at Rome , Cardinal Pacelli, whom you knew in Munich as nuncio." "The Cardinal wrote that the Pope was worried about the rise of communism in Germany and advised our Party to help make Hitler chancellor . The Zentrums [Centre Party] leaders agreed ," he sobbed "Yes, go on" I said. "But, Edgar, that means HItler in power! Hitler wants a new war and he will get it." Once more he broke into tears. "Otto, may I report the cardinal's message and the Party's decision to cooperate with the Nazis?" " 'Nein. It was a secret meeting . But you will see." Mowrer's text having referred to this previously as a betrayal of the Catholics, continues from this Brok testimony :

And see we did. From that day the Centre regularly supported Hitler. In November, the Party urged Hindenburg to take Hitler as chancellor. Even when in Febuary, 1933, the Catholics realised it was too late to hold him to the Constitution , they voted an Enabling act doing away with personal freedom , democracy and law in Germany. This they called clarifying the situation. ....." EffK

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope/Archive1"

Sebastian Haffner
This thesis about Hitler's anti-semitic 'calm' comes from Sebastian Haffner's The Meaning of Hitler, 1979, ISBN0297775723 Famekeeper 01:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC) refers to Hitler's realisation he'd lort the war at Stalingrad, and thereafter solely cared for Jewish extermination/murder. Relates to quote by him in April 33 to two of the German Hierarchy,Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann below(" reduces to :I'll only do what you failed to achieve in 2,000 years") EffK

John Toland
Franz von Papen is on record relating the words of this Pope, whom I placed in this article. On page 315 of John Toland's 1976 Adolf Hitler (Doubleday) appears the following relation of Papen's April visit to the vatican ( the same one I cited before -this is repetition) EffK

"His Holiness welcomed Hitler's representative, Franz von Papen , " most graciously and remarked how pleased he was that that the German government now had at its head a man uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms." Indeed .Through Pacelli and through the Hierarchy , Pope Pius XI knew much more , and undoubtedly was aware of the exterminating anti-semitic nature of Hitlerism , as Hitler was braggardly in claiming that (Toland writes) "He was only going to do more effectively what the Church of Rome had been attempting for so many centuries ". Earlier in April Hitler had defended his legislation , the Law Against Overcrowding of German Schools , in a talk with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann saying "the Jews were nothing but pernicious enemies of the State and Church ".

Whilst this was aimed at driving Jews out of academic life and the public professions, there were many Hitlerian explicit references to Jews perishing and being eradicated out of Europe.EffK


 * Inmanuel Kant==

EffK paraphrases Inmanuel Kant :I remind you that good action must not only conform to moral law, but be done for the sake of moral law. That good will is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition, and that the function of reason is to produce a will good in itself , for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination. Robert McClenon I urge you to reconsider your position regarding the necessity for this article to relate not to Cornwell, but to the history. Necessarily, the failure of good action and good will must be reported and the legalities enumerated. I am angered by the continuous absence of good will and the suffocation of reason. Famekeeper 00:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"In the succeeding months to the July Rechskonkordat, in which Hitler found approbation and recognition from the Holy See, the princes of the Church curried Hitler's favour (John Toland Adolf Hitler 1977 p 315 ). Monsignor Ludwig Kaas himself announced that Hitler knows how to guide the ship . Even before he became Chancellor I met him frequently and was greatly impressed by his clear thinking , by his way of facing realities while upholding his ideals , which are noble....it matters little who rules , so long as order is maintained ". And on the 10 April Pope Pius XI had himself welcomed Hitler's representatives most graciously and remarked how pleased he was that the German Government now had at it's head a man uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms" [von Papen ,in Toland p 315 ]. The vatican was so appreciative of being recognised as a full partner that it asked God to bless the Reich . On a more practical level, it ordered German Bishops to swear allegiance to the National Socialist regime . The new oath concluded with these significant words : "In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interest of the German Reich , I will endeavour to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it'. [ibid ,p 316].
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enabling_Act/Archive1,quotes Toland

( called in reaction 'off-topic and pet issue pushing, all along filled with POV language') EffK

Canonical relevance
'''Can. 287 §1.''' Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people [] EffK


 * 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-? from ditto (Megamemex itemises) EffK


 * Str1977: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."

Str1977 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.

Str1977you overlook that there was nothing in the Concordat itself immoral, or going against faith and morals. .....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.[see also sourced c's at[]

Pius and the Widerstand

 * str1977: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. Str1977 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC []


 * 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. (Str1977)

You ,Sir, would not say so if you realised that therein lies a second clear reference to papal secrecy, following the Bruning/Monarchy story. Herein is shown that tendency to evade a paper trail in order to protect the pope from his own actions. The vatican episode does indeed repeat [in 1942/3], and I shall revisit it, but really apart from revealing papal secrecy practice , it is more shocking for revealing widerstand attitudes and British 'appeaser' attitudes with the papal vision of a Germany allowed to remain without repentance or ,in fact, democracy. The Pope was no less wrong at this time than the remaining british appeasers, but more wrong because he knew of the Hitlerian anti-semitic reality. EffK


 * I have to admit that I was setting a fence up with my inclusion of this the Vatican Exchanges - later episode, in Kaas' life . Now we return to the question of Abraham Lehrer, of the Cologne Synagogue and the Pope Benedict XVI Apostolic Visit , discussed and ,naturally removed, from the BXVI article towards the Pius XII article ( and , illogically removed , as the impertinent Lehrer "question" in fact just as much applies to the Pope Pius XI era ) .EffK

Hitler's Pawn/Pope's Pawn(was Hitler)?
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(deleted) 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 ) .EffK

Avro Manhattan
http://www.geocities.com/visplace/vatican10p2.htm[] not allowed, but appeared in 50 editions from 1949 onwards, Manhattan had sources from within the Vatican, so that makes him a Primary.from EffK 02:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

also it is necessary to ban me, as the attempt is being made, because I bring rather different source which begins in, dangerously, May 1932 (folow my refs on Centre pages to Edgar Ansel Mowrer quote ,or Archive 1 here and then clarify with my sourced Margaret Lambert 1934 Faber and Faber The Saar, then 1936 Arthur Rosenburg's cardinal History of the German Republic , Wheeler-Bennetts Hindenburg the Wooden Titan, (I hardly touch Avro Manhattan's 1949 reference to the 'Nazi Pope') but included in future should be lately sourced references by Franz von Papen which confirm, confirm a high Vatican policy of synthesis with the NDSDAP/Nazis as late as 1936 . Go then,cruising more easily with the post Nuremburg Trials historians Shirer and Toland .Above all for the apologia there is a problem in the clear statement by the Widerstand expert, Klemens von Klemperer , that Kaas and Papen were the most important figures of all , and that the quid quo pro ,indeed as Shirer and Toland hint, depended on not just political Centre bargaining for favours at the Enabling Act , but states as that Kaas "had a hand" in Hitler's speech at the opening seesion of the Reichstag of that 23 March .This is an OUP source, and must be denied or contorted or minimised .Look at the number of times I have sourced. .EffK

You will find much assent after 8/9 April, but you will find constant dispute that Pacelli's representative Ludwig Kaas was his representative ever in Germany, or was such on April 2 for his effectively secret meeting, ie unrecorded and private , with Hitler of April 2 1933 , let alone that the words of Kaas recorded for some 40 years by Toland, alluded to by Shirer , relate to the period before 8/9. I leave you and warn you, this is an active problem. I suggest you simply re-write the Vanity Fair abbreviation as you can, whereby you will over-come the copy vio. I am off to my trial. I am sorry that the importance of this subject makes me have to open my fingers at such length. EffK 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Klemperer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ludwig_Kaas#Dispute,[] EffK

Klemens von Klemperer's 1992 Oxford University Press German Resistance Against Hitler (The Search for Alies Abroad 1938 -19450) ISBN 0198219407,p 38 :

"The German Catholics, the once much maligned 'enemies of the Reich' partly in compensation , were preoccupied during the second reich with proving their 'national' reliability , and while after 1918 their Centre Party did become one of the pillars of the 'Weimar coalition' , it clearly veered in the last years of the Republic towards the Right .(1). Franz von Papen , one of the last chancellors bfore Hitler , belonged to an increasingly influential right wing of the Centre Party and became a decisive force in enbgineering Hitler's siezure of power . The leader of the Centre Party , Prelate Ludwig Kaas , was no less instrumental in advocating co-operation with the Nazis , and after their seizure of power(2) , negotiating the treacherous (3)Enabling act (23 March 19330 . , and subsequently the Concordat with the Vatican (20 July 1933) . as for the German episcopate , it did not see fit , despite its obvious fundamental differences with Nazi ideology , to assume a clear cut postion against the movement. General considerations of expediency, as well as a fear of a Communist dictatorship, prevailed upon it to equivocate. Early in 1930 it went as far as warning against national Socialism since it was ideologically ' not compatible' with the teachings of the Church(4), and even forbade its priests to co-operate with the movement. It retracted this position, however , once Hitler in his governmental declaration of 23 March - in the formulation of which Prelate Kaas had a hand - assured both Christian denominations that the 'National Government' considered them 'the most important factors' for the maintainencance of the people's well-being and promised to respect their rights .(5). With the Concordat the Church finally conferred internaional rspectability on the Nazi regime ." EffK

Centre earlier destabilisation
Arthur Rosenberg's A History of the German Republic 1936, Methuen and Co , at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29/Archive2#Centre__Party_.2C_Stresemann__.26_Loss_of_the_Middle_Class_Block[], reveals that Centre was tricky,as Manhattan et al noted more strongly EffK

The 'Postulator' for the Beatification
Maybe he just meant that Kaas had worked with Pacelli. When I say Russian dolls I refer to Cardinal Roncallo (?) and the apparent Russian language-in-Catholic-services reason for his being vetoed as Papabile by the Emperor of Austria, his connection thru to JPII , that being a saner reason than that it was because he was a freemason, but that he , Roncallo is necessary to understand the Pacelli , the banking , the Lateran investments , Pius and pacelli. That even if Pius wasn't a rabid anti-semite, maybe he justifies the adage that my enemies' enemy must be my friend. I was really looking for the Edgar Ansel Mowrer quote, not under his name , must be at Centre party archives. Ill be back. PS, those dormancy questions still get me. EffK
 * The Postulator for Pius XII, Dr. Peter Gumpel SJ wrote in 1999 that John Cornwell was blinded by the writings of Heinrich Bruning, accepting Bruning's hatred of Papal Prelate Kaas and extending this to Pacelli since "Kaas worked with Pacelli".


 * Mariano Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro was the benefactor etc for the young Pacelli . He was vetoed in 1903 by the Austrian Eperor for two reasons. One, the mor reasonable , was for promoting russian language in catholic services in eastern poland. other , was that he had a sleuth put on him to dig up his frremasonry connections. EffK