Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 14

Quid pro Quo Allegations
I see that Str1977 has deleted the allegation of the quid pro quo as unsourced. I disagree. It should instead be left in, tagged as to needing a source. If it is not sourced within three weeks, then it should be deleted. The allegation of the quid pro quo has been repeated by enough reputable and disreputable sources that it deserves a mention. Even if all of the sources are found to be questionable, in this case I would say that it deserves to be mentioned even if only to be discarded. In this case, just because EffK was insisting on its insertion does not mean that it should not be included; other editors also wanted it mentioned. If there is no mention of the quid pro quo allegations, then I would argue that the NPOV tag is still needed. Robert McClenon 17:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What are these "reputable and disreputable sources"? - Mowrer is not one of them. EffK is no source. Str1977 17:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is true that EffK is no primary or secondary source, and that his arguments are largely "original research". Are you saying that EffK is misinterpreting what Mowrer wrote?  Doesn't Gregory S. Paul make the same argument?  Would you discount him as a secondary source?  Robert McClenon 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am willing to leave the quid pro quo out for the time being provided that we agree that we need to determine whether there are any reputable sources. I don't know if Bengalski will agree with that.  Robert McClenon 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The disreputable sources of course include Avro Manhattan, and I agree that he should be left out of any article except about himself. Robert McClenon 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To the text I'd say. Remove some maintain and insert "Historians maintain" as there's no some about William L Shirer. I substantiate everything I ever say. The removal is clerical revisionist denialism in reality and is whetever WP wishes to uphold. I suggest Bengalski, that you are not going to put up with this for long. I did for 9 months, to be faced with 15 december Str1977's AHitler action.
 * 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."


 * 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.

The revert [] was of the partial QpQ "In particular this self-dissolution,in the case of the large and noble Centre Party, was brought about with a classic kick-back scheme in return for Vatican achievement of the subsequent Reichskonkodat" negotiations.

"Looking at it, 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, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent." source given by user JKenenney [].

This relates to the even partial quid pro quo and is thus illstrative, but here we are either maintaining  substantiated the historians and the cleear linkage or quid pro quo or not. I gave furhter source, and the conclusions of Mr. Paul are not required, nor of Cornwell, nor Kershaw, nor Toland.Manhattan is a Primary Source, as well as one of 50 editions, thus cannot be ignored on two counts. However he does not particularly add anything. The other sources I have given. This is a offensive to treat me like this with such repetitive bad faith.


 * Well, there is a QpQ that is accepted by historians, namely that the dissolution of the Centre Party was on the bargaining table (as an objective of the German government) and that without it there would have been no concordat (the objective of the Holy See). I never disputed that, John K has given reference for that, and even the concordat's text points to that. I have no objection to including a passage on this QpQ.


 * There is no evidence for any involvement of Pacelli or the Holy See in the negotiations prior to the Enabling Act. Any claims about such a QpQ are unsourced, bogus and should not be included in our article.


 * EffK, there are just as many editions of the "Sages of Zion" - a "primary source", an "eyewitness account" - but I wouldn't suggest including them. Str1977 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is spurious counter argument. There is clear exegesis of Shirer and Mowrer now in the Archive made by EffK, although clearly it should be here. The substantiation from history is secure. The reactions against it are obsessional.EffK 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have heard that before. Str1977 18:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That source given by John Kenney, which he seems to be saying claims not just that the Germans had dissolution as an objective but that Pacelli 'acquiesced', is Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, Oxford University Press 2003. I don't have any way to check for myself exactly what it says - will someone else do so and maybe quote the relevant passage? Or are people here happy to trust John Kenney and include it as a source in the article? Str1977 do you have concerns about Atkin and Tallett as reputable sources?Bengalski 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Having queried John K about it, I do not doubt his sincerity and no reason to question the books validity (though I haven't positively seen it). It does claim what I know to be accepted by historiography, that as part of the Concordat negotiations Pius XI through Pacelli through Kass acquiesced into the dissolution of the party - not because that's what they wanted but because that was what they needed to do to get what they wanted.

The first mentioning of the book in question by John can be found here, this posting as well as this also confirm that John was not referring to a general Enabling Act à la EffK, but to the actual concordat dealings. EffK of course then as now negated that John contradicted his conclusions and posted John as confirming him anyway. Str1977 18:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So, if I've got this right, there are two separate 'qpq' claims:


 * 1) the German government requested the dissolution of the centre party in return for the concordat, and Pacelli (and Kaas and Pius XI) acquiesced to this;


 * 2) the German government requested that the Vatican influence centre party support for the enabling act in return for the concordat, and Pacelli (and Kaas and Pius XI) acquiesced to this.


 * You believe that respectable historians agree with point (1), or at least consider it a serious possibility, and therefore you agree it could go in the article. But you think only anti-catholic hate propagandists believe (2), and therefore it shouldn't go in the article unless we can find a reputable source saying it. Have I got this right?Bengalski 18:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you got it right.
 * 1) the first QpQ is virtually universally accepted among historians and quite certain - that the Holy See acquiesced into the dissolution of the Centre Party (which could be considered doomed anyway) to attain the Concordat. The Concordat specifically restricted Catholic organisations to the religious and charitable field, leaving no room for Political Catholicism as represented by the Centre Party.
 * 2) the second QpQ claim is not only made by vicious anti-Catholics but by authors who are somewhat unfriendly terms with the church. Some of these are scholars and honest enough to voice such a speculation and than add that there is no evidence for this, e.g. Günther Lewy (otherwise claimed as an authority by EffK) - anti-Catholics don't bother about evidence, they just claim. This claim is not so much that the German government requested this, but that the Holy See wanted to install Hitler to get the Concordat (that's the EffK claim.
 * Str1977 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK, sorry what is the Shirer source? I can't see it on the reference list on The Great Scandal page or in this archive. Can you quote me the relevant passage?Bengalski 18:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a book by a historian called Shirer. EffK quoted extensively from it, though I never could see how any of Shirer confirmed any of the points of contention, namely the "QpQ-EffK Style". Str1977 18:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Shirer source would be either of two works by William Shirer, either Berlin Diary or The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I infer that Str1977 is saying that EffK is misinterpreting Shirer, just as he is misinterpreting Mowrer.  EffK has always maintained that there are two versions of the QpQ argument, the "partial quid pro quo" and the "complete quid pro quo".  I have never been entirely sure what the difference is.  I think that there is agreement that the dissolution of the Centre Party was a quid pro quo in exchange for the Konkordat.  Perhaps the "complete quid pro quo" is the claim that Centre Party assent to the Enabling Act was a necessary price for the Konkordat.  Robert McClenon 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The book was "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Str1977 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That leaves the two questions of who considers Gregory Paul as a reliable source, and of whether any other historian has advanced a claim of a QpQ of the Konkordat and the Enabling Act. Robert McClenon 18:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Robert - not so much that he is misrepresenting him. He just quotes him ... a lot ... and then says: "Look, Shirer confirms what I am saying!" or the like. That is true - Shirer confirms a lot of what EffK says but nothing that is of real contention. The connection is simply not there. I remember him quoting Shirer on to the effect that while other cabinet members were uneasy about the Centre assenting to the EA, Hitler was confidentto succeed. True, but of no consequence to our dispute. Str1977 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC


 * I assume that you mean that he quotes Shirer as agreeing with him on points that are not in contention, and uses that as a basis to claim that Shirer confirms the points in dispute. I am aware that there is a name from classical logic for that fallacy, but I forget what its name is.  Robert McClenon 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, Robert. If there was contention about anything mentioned in Shirer the contention was not about the actual events but about their topicality within a certain article or the merit of including details - both requently were issues with EffK. Str1977 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Answer to Bengalski was posted yesterday to Bengalski as referenced to his user talk page but was subsequently wrongly Archived to A 18, within reckless disregard, by User:Str1977. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pius_XII/Archive12#Reckless_disregard_of_the_Falsity_re_Pope_Pius_XII, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pius_XII/Archive12 You may have to indeed bring it back where we can work from it, I suggest. If there are any more questions please ask, and I may feel the over-powering need of good faith to provide yet further detailed exegesis of those or other texts. I caution everyone here that this is the most serious "Issue", and that I take reckless disregard of falsity in the historical particular as now inextricably being bound to my EffK pseudonymous person. We shall as you wish further study this, Bengalski, and you are now following the right track. I will help in every way that you ask with a complete assumption of your rational good faith. You may need to have several prior posts sign-posted such that you can read the entire relevant source. You will see that between Shirer, the standard history, and Mowrer, the standard Witness, that the substantiation of vatican complicity is not only historical but un-exonerable by counter source. I am happy to resolve with you, Str1977 and the very pope himself, all the resulting necessities, in good faith.I can achieve this from discussions placed by me in good faith where and as they are relevant. I am not prepared to tolerate further reckless disregard from any person upon me as representative of that which I claim by regard to verifiability. ( ps The above reactions and the following anon is illustrative of that which I have had to lengthily categorise as 'un-acceptable truth'.) EffK 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't equate the QpQ comment with the "assertion" that he had a stamp collection. LOL! Do you think they are they same type of "assertion?" "Gee, they can't find a source for the assertion that Pius was a good swimmer, so I'll just insert an accusation that he schemed with the Nazi's even though there is no evidence. The two things are equal in their gravity after all." Talk about Quid pro quo! A good faith gesture would be to find a reputable source for such a comment and then put it in. Until then, it ought to stay out. Respectfully removing it.(Unsigned:Please Sign or Log in this User).


 * In fact I have now sourced his swimming prowess etc. to Sr. Marchione. But there are many, rather more serious, claims still unsourced in the article. I suggest you help work on bringing these up to scratch rather than deleting just the things you don't like. (I agree with Robert McClenon that we should give unsourced claims say 3 weeks and then delete. But I also note again that unlike many claims here the qpq para already has at least one source, Gregory Paul, and I still haven't seen an argument as to why he's unacceptable.) It looked to me yesterday as if most of us were moving towards some consensus on how to proceed, and were engaging in potentially fruitful discussion. I'd welcome it if you (70...) took part in this rather than, actually rather disrespectfully, just removing other peoples' contributions.Bengalski 10:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing sourced material from Wikipedia is sometimes considered vandalism. Since it ws discussed on the talk page in this case, I will agree that it was not vandalism, but only a reckless edit.  Please don't do that again.  If this continues, I will have to ask an admin to semi-protect the article.  Robert McClenon 12:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I want this removed as well, I agree with Robert that editors should rather take part in discussions than merely revert. Str1977 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

.

The adjacent caption is my comment. A little humor which just has to laugh at the illogic and incongruity of holding stamp collections on equal par with someone's speculation of "what really happened." But if everyone is happy with this paradigm, so be it. I would barely expect such foolishness on the Wikipeda article on UFO's or Big Foot and in fact those articles even keep the wild speculation of weirdos, wackos and paranoid ingrates in check better than this article (hmmmm, maybe I should edit the Big Foot article to say, "Some say Big Foot is responsible for the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa" but since there are no records...nah waste of time). Anyway, every intelligent and fair minded person will just have to sit back and have a chuckle with Porky (Nota bene: for those of you not familiar with him, Porky had a stuttering problem. If you read the caption and stutter a little, it's really funny. That's why the caption is written that way). BTW, before anyone assails this form of commentary, which I admit is atypical, simply look to the verbose nonsense written by a certain EffK who is either not a native speaker of English or has mental problems (or both). That's all folks! unsigned post by User:70.21.179.70


 * Is the cartoon available under GPL, or is it copyright by Warner Brothers? If it is copyright by Warner Brothers, then its use in article namespace in the English Wikipedia is considered "fair use", but its use on talk pages is considered copyvio.  Also, please sign your posts, at a minimum with an IP address, and preferably by signing in.  Also, please be careful in editing.  You blanked this entire talk page a few minutes ago.  If that was an accident, then your apology is accepted in advance.  If you did it on purpose, then it is vandalism or at least WP:POINT.  Also, before you use EffK's posts as a standard or a justification for what you admit is atypical commentary, please look at WP:RfAr.  Robert McClenon 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is progress. Something like this:
 * As often in diplomatic negotiations, there are no published minutes or records of the concordat negotiations, so historians have attempted to infer what was discussed. Mowrer and Paul  say that Pacelli agreed, as a quid pro quo for Germany's agreement to the concordat, to influence the German Centre Party's support of the Enabling Act, passed on March 23rd. This gave Hitler dictatorial powers, and lead to the Centre Party's self-dissolution on 6th July.

while useful, presented by itself gives too much prominence to a minority view. If it is to remain, it needs to be balanced, and soon, by what other historians have inferred about what happened during the meeting. Tom Harrison Talk 16:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this:


 * As often in diplomatic negotiations, there are no published minutes or records of the concordat negotiations, so historians have attempted to infer what was discussed. It is widely accepted (eg. sources ...) that Pacelli agreed to the dissolution of the Centre Party, which took place on 6th July, as a quid pro quo for Germany's agreement to the concordat, although some argue (sources...) that the party was already doomed in any case. Some (eg. Paul, Mowrer?, Lewy?, Shirer, Scholder?...) further maintain that Pacelli also agreed to influence the Centre Party's support for the Enabling Act, passed on March 23rd, which gave Hitler dictatorial powers. However this claim is disputed by other historians (sources ...). Bengalski 16:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The key point is "(eg. sources ...)." Are there sources to support the claim that "It is widely accepted..."? Are there any other historians at all who make inferences about what happened in the meeting? And what is the basis for their inferences? What is the basis for Mowrer's and Paul's inferences, for that matter? Tom Harrison Talk 16:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need the introductory sentence "As often in diplomatic negotiations ...", as this would only be relevant for the concordat negotiations and QpQ type 1, which is anyway generally accepted. Also, the introduction contributes to the undue weight to a minority view (though in this case, QpQ 2 is not even a minority view among authorities). Neither is there a dispute about it, since no serious historian makes such a claim (QpQ 2). Also, the pragraph, if included, is misplaced at the beginning of the section (but we can deal with that when everything else is solved).
 * And there were sources for the concordat negotiations - I can't remember right now of which kind and by whom, I have returned the relevant book (L. Volk), I guess these were reports by the German diplomats and also by Vatican people, possibly the Kaas diary. I will have another look into Volk.
 * Str1977 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)




 * Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't there quite often records of treaty negotiations - if only accounts from the particular participants. I know the Vatican isn't very forthcoming on diplomatic documents even this far in the past, but wouldn't there be some notes on the German side, or have these been lost?Bengalski 17:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will inform you on the nature of these sources once I get my hands on Volk again.
 * The Vatican isn't forthcoming with their files because it has regulations for the protection of living people. It wasn't that long ago and I don't think the Vatican is any more seclusive than any other government. Str1977 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm enjoying the contributions of the anonymous cartoonist. As well as (I hope) lightening the mood, he raises a fair point about some elements of these allegations. Tom Harrison Talk 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I guess if Sylvester says it's so ... who could ask for any better proof? You've got me there, what can I have been thinking. Anything that casts Pius XII in a negative light, or contends that a near-saint might have indulged in diplomatic realpolitik, has just got to be a conspiracy theory.Bengalski 17:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on, Ben, let's stay reasonable. This article has never portrayed Pius as a saint and certainly it hasn't moved in that direction in the last few days. But in this case, conspiracy theory is right. Unfortunately.
 * I agree with 70's call that the stamp collection and the QpQ are not of the same gravity and that one cannot place them in one boat. Not that one couldn't demand a source for the stamp collection, but one could also do with out. One cannot do without (actual, serious, scholarly) source for allegations of the gravity as the QpQ, regardless which version.
 * Str1977 17:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As for 70...'s latest addition:
 * But, in addition to other trustworthy sources, an article by Professor Robert Leiber, the closest collaborator of Pacelli for decades, demonstrates that Pacelli never exercised any influence on the Center Party and was seriously annoyed that it had dissolved itself. (see Rychlak)
 * 70.., there is no contradiction between the actual QpQ (type 1) and what you are saying. Pius never wished for the demise of the Centre and if he could he would have kept it. But under the circumstance he was willing to trade in this doomed party. Still, he was annoyed when the party dissolved itself before the negotiations were concluded. That's what Leiber witnessed to. Str1977 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Leiber was Pacelli's Confessor, and spy contact with the German resistance intermediary muller. he would say that-he us a source, of apologia, as he has evident reason for Bias. He was forbiden from revealing the truth of a confession-wasnt he.....EffK 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But, EffK, that doesn't make him a liar. Lying is a sin, you know? And he wasn't bound to secrecy to anything outside of the confessional. (Again, this is an argument-from-prejudice, saying that "these Catholic-robots can't be trusted!")
 * And, EffK, you didn't hesitate to bring Leiber as a source in to the fold when talking about Josef Müller and the Vatican Exchanges. But that was when you used him as evidence for something you, in a strange twist of morality, considered evil. Strange but telling, since it showed your utter disregard to the actual vicitims of this war and this genocide - any move towards ending the war is a good thing in my book. May I remind you of the fact that more people were killed after 20 July 1944 than before that date?
 * Str1977 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Conscious disruption and the True Scandal, Great Scandal
Extreme bad taste and low standard responses creeping in there, I protest.

Shirer is specific enough-the votes were received, after the mention of the Holy See.But we cannot say that this was an arrangement with the Party Leadership in plural, as it is only Mowrer as primary source. We can say there is a long history of papal influence on internal politics through the Centre party(Avro Manhattan/G Paul/Cornwell Kershaw). We can say that the trickery which was a characteristic of the takeover included a purely Kaas negotiation, and that he persuaded the Party to accede to the vote as a whole, rather than split at the vote, because Kaas ran a solo negotiation with Hitler. We can say that serious historians consider, as do Shirer, and Toland, and Klemperer, that there was a bargain struck between Hitler and the Holy See as represented by sec of State Pacelli, whose tool was Kaas ( and had been since 1928 as Chairman of the Centre Party). For this there are two primary sources, Manhattan and Mowrer, several secondary and many tertiary. It is a spurious argument to call Manhattan hate literature, Chick publishing him is off-topic. We can see no source provided to negate the Shirer straightforward information nor its echo in John Toland and Klemperer and Atkin and Tallet(who may only, or not accept or mention the 2 QpQ). There needs to be contrary source to allow that it is some, as there are no others presented over the year here so exonerating. There are Pacelli comments prior and post. However I am not going to say that this job is anywhere near done unless the rolling QpQ includes what Toland and Shirer, I believe, say concerning the QpQ including the Vatican prevailing upon the whole hierarchy in Germany, with the votle face as I have relayed. There was a complete abandonment of Germany to Evil, the which relates entirely to the political tolerance of Dictatorship within the early June Encyclical Dilectissima Nobis. It is not enough to corral such overwhelming and uncontested -by-exoneration source because someone feels it is a scandal and blasphemy. Therefore no, it is not good enough. The man Pacelli needs the full treatment that source can provide, and the Hierarchy volte face at the 28 March Fulda Conference reveals that the subjugation of the well-aware and critical German Hierarchy is vital.

I get the feeling that you still do not read the words of Shirer-Bengalski.....

The abandonemnt of German catholics was chartacterised by the terms of the Reichskonkordat which involved a crucial loss of autonomy by the Holy See, this was no normal Concordat and remains a stain for that loss of autonomy and for the blackguardley and actually illegal in intertnational treaty terms, secret clause to the Rkkdt. This illegality is by no means the chief blackguardliness, the even worse scandal was the secret clause as it proves the conscious complicity with Evil(the war intentions) and coupled with the Pius XI approbation of 10 April to Goering, shows the Canonical scandal. This may not be includable as a canonical scandal, as no one outside the church would even attempt to do so. However now perhaps Bengalski you will see that we are by no means talking a little paragraph here. We are talking a complete political conspiracy to make illegal territorial war, and murder of political opponents. This resulted in WWII and the casualties and Shoah, we are aware of. Pius XI went for a strong uncompromising man at the time that that man was murdering, had murdered, political opponents. Hitler had a clear agrandizing program(equally displaced within WP) and the Hierarchy by virtue of the previous ban on Nazis in their Church, shows that they were well aware hitherto of the nature of the beast.

Try getting that stated for what it is as sourced, but not counter-sourced. and then add it to the ongoing separate conclusions and scandal of the vatican action thereafter, unto the Holocaust. And get real, kids. EffK 17:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Get unreal. Robert McClenon 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Question
Are the cartoons copyright by Warner Brothers, or have they been released under a GPL, or are they the work of 70? If they are copyright by Warner Brothers, they are not appropriate in article talk namespace. The principle of "fair use" only applies in article namespace, and then only when the cartoons or other images are used to illustrate the subject of the article. We may enjoy them, but we must take copyright seriously. I will take them down unless I get an answer. Robert McClenon 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)