Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 4

Complaints
I changed the sentence next to

Between the German Concordat's signing in 1933 and 1939, Pope Pius XI made three dozen formal complaints to the Nazi government, all of which in reality drafted by Pacelli.

change: In Duffy's words, their tone was 'anything but cordial.' with: The strongest condemnetion of Hitler's ideology and ecclesiastical policy was the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, issued in 1937 because the text of the Encyclical (much more than a diplomatic complain: it was read in all parishes of Germany) proves that the complains were not cordial at all. The complete text of the Encyclical is strongly against Hitler policy.

Repair for Article (Famekeeper)
Uh Have uh repaired the article. uh sourced uh this earlier (see uh posts). If you uh want more Ill put in my summary here uh? Famekeeper 10:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the edits have been useful, but some of them have introduced POV. I have added an NPOV tag to the section in question until I can remove unsourced allegations and put sourced allegations as POV. Robert McClenon 23:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The following have been removed from the article. Robert McClenon 01:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A year prior to the Reichskonkordat Cardinal Pacelli had been transmitting  the wish of the pontiff for Adolf  Hitler to assume control of Germany, as bulwark against atheistic Communism.

The notorious up-ending of the Liberal Weimar Republic constitution is the single example of a parliamentary Democracy voting for its own demise. It is also an example of the conflicts of interest between Ecclesiastical and civil power, personified  here by the Ecclesiastic Party Leader, Monsignor Kaas

The terms of the Enabling Act themselves forbad the earlier interference with the Institution of the Reicshstag  which these arrests  achieved.

It can be argued that Pius XI had to make the best of the situation, in order to ensure some amount of protection for the Church in Germany, but of his early approbation for Hitler, and his  attitude against Communism , there is no  doubt.

The Catholic Church has yet to release documents for the relevant period, but the accusation is that the Centre vote elevated Hitler to power much more quickly than Hitler's preferred "legal" entry to power might have otherwise required. Ludwig Kaas is remembered as the conduit for Pacelli's and Pope Pius XI's favour towards Hitler. Reports of complicity towards restoration of the German monarchy in 1925 suggest great care by the Vatican to avoid evidential remains in delicate political negotiations. The war-time vatican channel between the German Widerstand and the Allies in 1940 and 1943 even more naturally, for fears of the Gestapo implicating the Holy See , were purely verbal.

There is accusation that the German concordat (see Reichskonkordat ) which remains in force to this day - allowed for the induction of Catholic priests into the armed forces during hostilities. Article 27 of the concordat states, in part, "The Church will accord provision to the German army for the spiritual guidance of its Catholic officers, personnel and other officials, as well as for the families of the same...The ecclesiastical appointment of military chaplains and other military clergy will be made after previous consultations with the appropriate authorities of the Reich by the army bishop." The clear reference here is the drafting of priests not as soldiers, but as chaplains.

It nevertheless did not mention anti-semitism nor the Jews by name despite the obvious  need  for this, and , Pacelli's own pontificate  did not do so either during the whole of the World War II and the Holocaust.

Critics cite the danger of the destabilisation of a democracy by a church, relevant even in today's politics.

The quid pro quo with Adolf Hitler lives in histories relating to this descent of Europe into barbarity and war. In terms of the Holocaust itself  Pius not having spoken out for the Jews  publicly by name , nor in strong  and explicit condemnation  of Nazism is noted .It is recently argued (see Hitler's Pope that Pacelli  himself  was a lifelong anti-semite who otherwise   could have seriously undermined Hitler and Nazism among Germany's many catholics. While the world was divided politically and geographically, many catholics were united behind their Pope, and followed his lead into their own personal accomodations with  Hitlerism.

Had Pope Pius XII denounced Nazism in the strongest possible terms, it is possible that it could have not only caused unrest amongst catholics in the German army, but it could have also caused catholics working in German war factories to undermine German army support and logistics systems. This would have dealt a serious blow to the German war effort. Conversely, such action probably would have caused heavy suppression of Catholics, given that Nazism was more focused on Protestantism in the first place.

Such speculation does not form any part of the German Resistance ( Widerstand ) studies.

Although an individual of self-less habit, he was a believer of the absolute leadership priciple. he more than anyone promoted the concept of absolute papal rule, diminuishing the earlier collegiality of the  church councils. Modesty of appearance belied great subtlety and cunning as he inherited his forbears desire for the papacy to once again exert   all  powerful  control over the church through ecclesiastical and international law.

The historic autonomy of the Germanic Catholic Church stood in contrast to  these developements  so  ...

The following statement on my talk page should probably appear here also:


 * No, I'm afraisd to say that I do not accept your ediing of this article at all . Since you would simply make me repeat all my sourcing, I take this ill as the editing  you have done is clearly POV because  it does not accept the sources . I am blocked , by you McC .Famekeeper 09:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

All of the material that I considered either speculative or POv has been moved to this talk page and is available for any Wikipedian to review and re-edit.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has been "blocked". Blocking is an administrative function that can be used on a short-term basis to deal with abuse, typically 3RR violations or vandalism. I am not an admin and do not have (or want) the power to block anyone. Rather than complaining that editing is blocking him,Famekeeper would do better to request a third opinion or mediation. Robert McClenon 11:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link  []  to the source from Vanity Fair Magazine  of an abbreviation of John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope. If the Wikipedia rules according to its rules, then a source is a source. This is the most complete up to date scholarly source. By all means add more recent source. Full acknowledgement to both John Cornwell  and Vanity Fair- I have lagely substituted  as many simple parallel terms as appropriate. Any more adherence to the Vanity  Fair text is by  regard for  fair educational use. Something especially urgent here on WP. Famekeeper 16:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

At Famekeeper 16:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC) I note disappearance of John Cornwell's explanations. I note no discussion here by Str1977, who is editing under  the impressions Cornwell is POV  and or mistranslating. I see no proofs nor any sign of well, lets not go into that. I refer editors to thr Rfc re:Famekeeper, linked from my name page. I can only think that this is not my argument any more, and that Str can do as he wishes. What anybody else might judge is up to them. I see messages but they should be here. This article page needs careful consideration by some authority  of Wkipdia rules and regulations  who can decide when a historian is not a source  and  consider a protection. It is not for me to say, not to hang around more in hand to hand. Famekeeper

I reverted, not because I oppose including your information (see my post at your talk page), but because the whole edit was infused with a anti-Pacelli POV (which might come from Cornwell) studded with factual inaccuracies (rewrote concordats), debunked claims (anti-semitic letter) or off-topic remarks (Martin Luther burned canons etc).

I also removed one of the links linking (sorry the redundancy) to Vanity Fair's excerpt of Cornwell's book. This is why I put them side by side first so that everyone could see that I removed only a doublette.

Str1977 16:58, 9
 * I really don't mind what you do as it is your own choice to intervene in this way . I do think you will be the subject of scrutiny, but I have played my part . It is not for me to fight : You are rv'ing source ., and  it's up to you . Personally I believe this takes us right back to the beginning- you are a fantastic terrier for the cause of Pacelli , and it really isn't any of it to do with my POV . I sourced everything  I ever did on articles , the rest were  my attempts to  cure you of this craziness .  The WP is being made a mockery  , and there is an ongoing  resultant responsibility . The page will need to return to my last edit , or sources are not part of WP .  As ever  this goes in tandem with Kaas , attacked by McC . It's not my problem ,see? It's yours  and his and the WP's . You are certainly not within the guidelines  now, but it is not news to me , as you never were .  Bye  August 2005 (UTC)


 * Your insertions were reverted because they were not presented as Cornwell's POV, but as fact. It is fact and NPOV that Cornwell says that Pacelli believed in centralized power and was working toward that objective.  It is POV to simply say that.  You did not present them as Cornwell's statements, but as fact.


 * I am still agreeable to mediation or arbitration. I am not trying to block or censor any view.  I am only trying to remove unattributed POV to the talk page.  If you can present it as POV, then it can be presented.  You did not attribute it.  I suggest that you move all of the questioned material to Hitler's Pope, which is a summary of what Cornwell wrote.  There is an NPOV flag on that article because I questioned whether you had accurately summarized what Cornwell wrote.  If you can accurately esummarize what he wrote, then I will remove the NPOV tag.  I do suggest not relying on a summary of Cornwell's book.  I do suggest using the book itself.


 * If you think that the Wikipedia is being made a mockery of, please post another RfC or RfM or even RfAR. I am looking for truth, but truth is not found by shouting.  Robert McClenon 01:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No contrary source added. No substantiated claim. Famekeeper 01:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, FK, but no. Your last edited might be taken out of Cornwell word for word, but this is about Pacelli/Pius the man as he was - not as Cornwell portrays him. Cornwell is just one book about him. I didn't want to revert alltogether - I started removing certain bits that were clearly unsuitable but it turned that the anti-Pacelli bias (even Pacelli-hate) permeated through the whole text (I guess you took that directly from Cornwell). As it were it cannot stand - not as fact - only as POV, Cornwell's POV and, there I agree with Robert would be best placed at the Hitler's Pope page - there Cornwell's book and his description of Pius is the basis of the article. Str1977 08:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What-say-you to this: You get your  strictly ecclesiastical article. We remove controversy out of it  completely - but both ways. All Cornwell?Mowrer?Centre whatever OUT.

We remove all defence as exists OUT.

We leave it as strict biographical listing  of his life, so it looks like any other Pope. All Concordat politics becomes  only v briefest references, with no conclusions whatever either way  political. Leaver it Only to cover canon law and that which the Reichskonkordat covered. No refs to Hitler controversy nor Kaas  nor no one. No letters of accusation, no defence.

Then we agree between you and me, that you have a [See also: whatever defence page u title it.....

Equally I put a [see also:Hitler's Pope ] link.

Both to be prominently included at the point where the Concordat story is briefly touched upon. Pius X! will need however to have equal see also .How about that ?


 * No uptake on the reasonable suggestion as to a solution . While it is further considered, we can return to the published source  basis .Famekeeper 20:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't get it - you have upset my apple cart . i was being frank with you, and I was not being frivolous. This is not at  all the way it should have to be that I am to tell you what you hould do . I can only tell you what you are already absolutely aware of : this is pure Cornwell that now even you , have reverted . What am I supposed to say is really not the point . The point is on what basis is Cornwell not allowed entry ?


 * No sourced argument was provided to justify revision of my last text expansion .Your revert like that now puts you as you yourself see under the responsibilility to justify the action against topical published source . This has to be dealt with of and in itself . I was entirely  aware that you had and were suggesting  reasons and  movement . This  rv however  has  simply a quality of denial, of going against a  very simple wikipedianess .  Would you kndly justify your rv of source , as much as Str1977 would have to justify should he have done it ? Famekeeper 23:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If source is denied, then the balance is denied. Currently therefore the POV tag is required. Sad unacceptance .The woman who survived Auschwitz- she's  Po v removable -justlike that, uh Wyss  Str1977McClenon who don't answer.... Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Mr Famekeeper,

... as for your proposal:

1) I cannot do anything for you in regard to the RfC. I didn't start and I won't stop it. If Robert, who started it is content with your behaviour he will do so himself. And I guess I would acquiesce in this too.

2) I unfortunately cannot accept your proposal. We cannot create one article for your "accusations" and one for my "counter-point" - this would go against all Wiki principles I know: balance, NPOV. Two wrongs (in the sense that they are POV) don't make it right. Accusations should be included in the main article in a depov'ed language and counter-criticism should be next to it. (The same goes for a "Hitler's Pope" page - it covers the book and its accusations pluse a critical treatment of it - to make it NPOV). Apart from the fact that there probably is no fitting name for such a accusation page (Hitler's Pope is about the book, Pope's Hitler is -sorry to say it- nonsense and even "Catholic Holocaust complicity" doesn't actually say what the title suggests - our debate has never been about the Shoa (as I prefer to call it)). And I don't want to have to think of a catchy name for a defense page. Anyway, the main problem is that it'd violate NPOV.

I agree with you that the concordat should be included in Pius XI too (and Dilectissima certainly belong there - but in proper context). After all it was his concordat (like the others), though Pacelli did some negotiating. I though about this for some time. However, let us first settle the dispute on the other pages.

So, I'm afraid I have to say: no.

Str1977 12:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

outside view
Looking at the rival edits, I have to say that Flamekeeper's fail NPOV by a mile. The language is biased and POV-loaded to a serious degree. It states as fact John Cornwell's analysis, must of which, as with any historian's text about events he personally did not witness, is by definition supposition. All historical writing is always treated with caution and critical analysis. (I'm a historian myself BTW). John's allegations need to be covered professionally in this article. Flamekeeper's version fails to deliver that.

Specifically

''Although an individual of self-less habit, he was a believer of the absolute leadership priciple. he more than anyone promoted the concept of absolute papal rule, diminuishing the earlier collegiality of the church councils. Modesty of appearance belied great subtlety and cunning as he inherited his forbears desire for the papacy to once again exert all powerful control over the church through ecclesiastical and international law .'' &mdash; all unsourced opinion.

It would also allow for imposition of the new Canon Law in the land of Martin Luther who had nearly 400 years previously publicly burnt a copy the canon law in act od defiance of centralised papal control . &mdash; irrelevant and pointless hyperbole.

.Pacelli noticed the repulsiveness of the Jewish leader Eugen Levine and of his followers and thence grew a suspicion and contempt of Jews for political reason &mdash; chronic and franky laughable mispresentation of what Cornwell wrote.


 * And what Cornwell wrote already was a misrepresentation/mistranslation of what Pacelli wrote in his letter.

Pacelli also campaigned for Allied troops to not include colored soldiery in the occupied Rhineland, and in the aftermath of World War II repeated this demand of the Americans entering Rome &mdash; breaks cardinal rule of historiographical writing &mdash; never single out as remarkable attitudes of someone if they were reflective of contemporary attitudes. Pacelli's attitude were, unfortunately all too typical of the attitudes of most white people of his generation. If a pope today held those views when society doesn't it would be newsworthy. But all he was doing was reflecting contemporary attitudes.

Pacelli spent in all 13 years trying to re-write the German State Concordats one by one &mdash; deliberate mispresentation of fact out of context. The Vatican decided to rewrite the concordats. Pacelli was given the job. That misleading sentence implies he personally did it off his own bat.


 * And "rewriting" was needed since even where concordat existed, they were with the monarchies. The revolution overturned the whole situtation and hence new concordats were needed.

''He routinely involved himself in complicated territorial disputes following WWI ,trading Vatican support for German control under terms advantageous to the vatican Concordats. However the overall Reichskonkordat eluded him because both the catholic and the protestant population resisted this new authoritarian papal control . &mdash; POV mispresentation of what Cornwell and other historians actually'' say.


 * And certainly, Catholics did not oppose a concordat. Quite the contrary.

''Pacelli's long-standing house-keeper, Sister Pasquilina Lehnert , stated after Pacelli's death that Kaas regularly holidayed with him and was linked to him in "adoration , honest love and unconditional loyalty ." The slightly younger Kaas became an intimate collaborator in every aspect of Pacelli's vatican diplomacy in Germamy. Kaas served as secretary from 1925 and then with Pacelli's encouragement took the chairmanship of the influential catholoc Centre party Germany in 1928. Officially Kaas, also a specialist in canon law , was the representative of democratic civil party , but one who was so attached to Pacelli that he became vitually his alter ego'' &mdash; Innuendo-filled mispresentation of what Cornwell actually wrote.

''In the memoirs of the Chicago Daily News bureau chief for Berlin reference is made to an actual letter in 1932, from Pacelli enjoining the Centre leadership to the papal wish for the success of Adolf Hitler. The letter which not been found, confirms essentially the Bruning meeting '' &mdash; if the letter can't be found then the charge cannot be made as there is no substantiation to prove it. History requires evidence.


 * the letter is only mentioned by the journalist in question in his memoirs. But even he has not seen it. A Centre Party friend told him about it. And what he told him actually does not necessarily warrant what is in the above paragraph.

The spring of 1933 brought a thaw of approbation towards Hitler from the Vatican and from the German Hierarchy. &mdash; Without explaining the context of German politics in 1933 that sentence out of context constructs a false impression.

All was conducted in secret and over the heads of the German Bishops and faithful by Kaas, Pacelli and Hitler's catholic associate ex-Centre Foreign Minister ,Franz von Papen &mdash; misrepresentation of what Cornwell says.

Pacelli demanded the imposition of the new Canon Code of Law upon all catholics, as well as various educational measures  &mdash; The Canon Law code was binding on all Catholics since 1917!!!

I could go on with the other mistakes. Many are mispresentations of claims by Cornwell and others. Many are distortions. Many suggest that Flamekeeper is, to put it politely, inexperienced in how to wrote in an NPOV manner and how to write history. In addition the standard of English in the edit is appalling. Links are all wrong. Context is wrong. The understanding of Catholicism is all wrong. The grasp of what a diplomat does (and for much of the time Pacelli was a diplomat) is all wrong. The understanding of the context of the 1930s is non-existent. Historians follow a basic rule &mdash; analyse events in a time period taking into account the nature of the time period, eg, don't make a big issue of someone in the 1920s holding rascist, homophobic or sexist views; they were the norm then. But they would be a big issue in the 1970s or 1980s, when they were not the norm. Don't demand that someone possess an insight that we only have by knowing the outcome of events. Use the knowledge of what happened later to judge the wisdom of past decision, but don't demand that people who did not know what the future would bring that they act as though they know the future.

Quite frankly, Flamekeeper's edits are so POV-driven, so heavy-handed and on occasions so OTT as to be appalling. An article with so much conjecture, inaccuracy, POV and misdirected analysis could not possibly be let stand in an encyclop�dia. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So the situtation is worse than I imagined - worse for FK, that is, and slightly better for Cornwell. Still, even if Cornwell had said all this (and appearently he doesn't), it cannot be simply stated as fact. Str1977 21:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, better for Cornwell. I have not re-read Cornwell within the past few months, but my recollection of what I did read is that much of what FK attributes to Cornwell is not what Cornwell wrote.  Cornwell, for instance, does take into account the basic historian's rule as stated above, of noting that anti-Jewish sentiments were common among both German Catholics and Italian Catholics, and places Pacelli's thinking in that context.  Cornwell, while very critical of Pacelli, presents a much more nuanced view than FK quotes him as presenting.  Robert McClenon 23:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * FK's turgid and detail-heavy writing tends to overstate Cornwell IMO. There was accomodation between the church and the Nazis in 1933 but this steadily degenerated. Wyss 22:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Lock this page now Permanently
I ask Michael Hardy to please lock this page permanently, and do whatever has to be done to achieve this. Anything further to be said can fight it out on Hitler's Pope and the future battleground of Pope Pius XI's article .Famekeeper 15:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

WP doesn't lock pages permanently, and most admins are wary of locking them at all. Stability is reached by consensus and helpful writing using reliable secondary sources. This article will stabilize eventually, please be patient. Wyss 15:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Please unprotect this page
Can someone please unprotect this page after taking appropriate action to block the vandals against whom it was being protected? Robert McClenon 16:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism hasn't been that heavy anyway. Could we please unlock this page? Thanks. Wyss 17:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Wolff and the Kidnapping Plot
There's no justification to cast doubt on the report of a kidnapping plot. These were German documents discovered in January 2005 and therefore not accessible in the Vatican prior to then.

There's been no report casting doubt on the authenticity of the original story of 'Operation Rabat' since it was first reported, so it doesn't need to be created here in the Wikipedia. patsw 03:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Some suggestions
"A debate among historians intensified with the publication of Hitler's Pope in 1999 regarding his actions before, during, and after the Holocaust. The book detailed research by author John Cornwell who was granted access to the Vatican archives with the objective of exculpating Pope Pius XII. Instead Cornwell concluded the opposite, that the Pope was guilty of moral failures." Of course, it's true, that the debate intensified with Cornwells Book. But Cornwells Book was just one book in a long line. I think it would be better to mention Rolf Hochhuth "Der Stellvertreter" ("The Deuputy") because it was this theater play that started the big controverse.

The Christmas Message was too careful. The Germans tried to keep their Deathcamps secret. So just talking of some people dying, while Millions people were dying ist just not enough. But remember the "Bromberger Blutsonntag" oder the massacre of Katyn. In Bromberg the polish majority killed the german minority, in Katyn many polish officers were shot by soviet Army. These and many other incidents were abused by the german Propaganda. So a german catholic could guess, that the Pope condemned the crimes of the Soviet Union.

Pius said that Hitlers and his Nazis were infinetly worse. But to whom he said? To the british Ambassador. And so this argument is pointless. When Hitler survived the attempt to kill him in the "Burgbräu Keller" the pope sent his congratulations to him that he survived. Pius said many things. But its not important what he said, but who heard it. Only a public word can be used as an argument.

Well the Dutch Problem. This will be difficult. The protest of the dutch bishops saved many lives. You have to read the war-criminal trial of the nazis who killed the dutch jews. But the trial is german and even if you could understand german it would be not easy to get this book when you're not in Germany. But let me explain.

In the Netherlands there were 694 catholic baptized Jews. There were about 1600 protestant baptized Jews. Hopefully noone doubts these figures. about 2300 baptized Jews among 120.000 other Jews in the Netherlands is realistic. The ratio of Protestand and Catholic Dutchmen was 2:1 too. After the Bishops protested, catholic Jews were beeing deported. But not all of them. Just 92 Jews. You'll find this figure in Cornwells Book. Its based on the documentary-movie by Lewis. And this is realisitc too, because the catholic church tried to save as many baptized Jews as they could. It's possible to hide 600 Persons. alltogether 15.000 Jews were hiding in the Netherlands. But none of the protesting Bishops was killed.

So we have 92 victims. But how many Jews were saved? By accusing the Germans, many Dutch people tried to hide Jews. Some dutch men would have thought twice if the would join the Waffen-SS and fight for the germans. The protests of the Bishops were a help for those Dutch workers who didnt want to work in factories to produce goods für the Germans.

But we dont have 92 victims.

The Top-Nazi in the Netherlands was Arthur Seyß-Inquart. Catholic Bihops found out, that the Nazis wanted to deport all the Jews to land in the east (they didnt know about the extermination and deathcamps). They went to Seyß-Inquart and said that they were against the nazi-treatment of the Jews. They threatend the Nazis, that they would protest if the deportations would start. To avoid this protest, Seyß-Inquart suggested a deal. If the Bishops would remain silent, catholic Jews would be saved. If the Bishops would have remained silent from the beginning, the catholic Jews would be deported. There was exact the same deal with the protestand Churches. They remained silent, BUT more than a year later protestant baptized Jews were deported. When talking to his Nazi-Partners, Seyß-Inquart said, that he lied to the catholic church from the beginnig. He would even killed the Jews if the catholic Bishops would have remaindes silent.

And then it would be a good idea to mention the Protest of the danish Bishops. They protested against the deportations of the Jews. The biggest part of the danish Jesw survived. None of the danish Bishops was killed.

Why is it important to mention some Jews who defended the pope? None of these Jews was able to tell "exactly" what Pius did to save Jews.

When a person is accused of murder, its not enough, that a witness says, that the suspect was alwasy a very kind person. The witness must confirm an alibi. And not every jew defends the pope. If you know the literature you'll find many jewish authors accusing the church. Just to mention a few: Daniel Goldhagen, Saul Friedländer, Günter Lewy, Moshe Herczl, Frank Baron, Sandor Szenes, Menachem Shelah... --87.122.91.110 08:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a place to discuss the editing of the article, not a discussion board for pro- and anti-Pius XII points of view. Please sign what you add to talk page with four tildes. patsw 00:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Apart from the fact that 87..'s calculations are beside the point. The Dutch question is relevant to Pius because he included this event into his reflection on when and how to speak up. He based it on what he knew - that Seyß-Inquart lied is beside the point. Even if Pius' reasoning was based on faulty information and even if you or someone else could imagine different courses he could have taken, that's not enough to condemn Pius for what he has done. He has done what he has because he though it the right thing to do and his reasoning is comprehensible.
 * Patsw is right that this is about editing the article, so I won't comment on your other points, except to say that, sorry, Goldhagen is really not to be taken seriously for what he says (only for what he sows).
 * Str1977 08:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * (Please do not interpret the following remark as incendiary, or as an inference that Hitler and Pacelli were morally equivalent) Sadly, Hitler thought he was doing the right thing too. Intentions can be morally flawed, well-meaning actions based on them can be morally flawed, etc. Wyss 09:13, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Nono, Wyss, I know what you mean.
 * But this is why I wrote "... and his reasoning is comprehensible", I meant comprehensible and justifiable today. Whereas Hitler's reasoning and intentions are not justifiable today or back then. When we condemn Hitler we don't do it because of something we have found out only later, from hindsight. E.g. we don't say "Hitler's attack on Russia was immoral because Russia could not be conquered like this", a thing that Hitler might have been unaware of. We say it was immoral because of his intentions to enslave Russia and because of his methods of mass killings etc.
 * What I try to say in regard to Pius is: he acted as he did, chosing from different alternatives the one he considered to be the best. In order to save as many as possible, he chose the "low-key" road. One might disagree with his assessment, but that doesn't make his decisions immoral.
 * I hope you understand my point.
 * Str1977 09:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I do, and largely agree with it. Critics suggest that his "low-key" road was morally unacceptable because he was aware that Jews were being marginalized (often brutally) from Germany society at the outset of Nazi rule, yet signed the concordat with them etc. So long as the article contains references to documented crits along those lines, it'll be accordingly NPoV IMO. Wyss 10:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I still say the secret annexe to the Reichskonkordat proves papal complicity in war ( the bad side of Double Effect defence), and that the contumacy( upwards through to the pontiff, of course ) is proved by Kaas in his speech of  23 March to the Centre gathering .There is certainly no moral defence of these collaborators, as that is what they were, and worse. The Hierarchy was squashed and that is  terrible contumacy .yes, ant-semitism IN EFFECT (Hitler was open in threatening murder or "perish") . Whole thing stinks, and I  again warn all editors to mind , this time, their very souls , if they believe-you'll go to hell, lads if you are contumate yourselves in protecting wrong.............10:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Famekeeper 10:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Following WP policy, a reliable secondary source supporting your assertion would be more helpful than speculation as to the fate of editors' souls :) Wyss 11:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If not discuss it here, where then? The name of this page IS discussion.

I don't want to edit the article, because i think, that my english is not good enough, so I'll explain some things here and hopefully someone will get the clue. I don't know what Pius XII really thought about the protest of the dutch bishops. But its fact, that nothing got worse with the protest of the bishops. But in the article you can still read that things got worse.

And there are a few things that one should think of. In a letter to Pius XII Archbishop Johannes de Jong of Utrecht wrote about catholic victims, but explained that there weren't many. Also Pius knew, that the church was able to threaten the Nazis. And that Sey-Inquart lied became obvious when he broke his deal with the protestant bishops. In November 1943 he gave order to deport the evangelical jews. And catholic jews in other countries were beeing deported without bishops protest.--87.122.71.14 01:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Anon writes Nothing got worse with the protest of the (Dutch Catholic) bishops: Which statements from the following are false?
 * The protest made by Catholic bishops in Holland was greater than in any other country in the West.
 * Some 100,000, or 80% of the entire Jewish population of Holland were killed by the Nazis, the greatest percentage of any country in the West.
 * In Holland, Catholics of Jewish ancestry were included in the deportations while Protestants of Jewish ancestry were not. patsw 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

1. We have an equal protest in Denmark in 1943. But 1 is okay. 2. Is correct, but this is not important for the question. Without protests there would have been more than 80% jewish victims. 3. Is wrong. Protestant Jews were also included in the deportations. If you can read german look here :

April 1943: http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/Excerpts/6451405.htm 1.600 Juden evangelischer Konfession (die lt. Absprache des Herrn Reichskommissars mit der Kirche zunächst nicht abgeschoben werden)

1.600 Jews of evangelical confession(protestant) (which are not yet beeing deported, like the "Reichskommissar"(highest Nazi in the Netherlands) agreed with the chruch.

What not yet meant - here: November 1943 http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/Excerpts/6451407.htm i) Als letzte Kategorie sollen die evangelischen und Protektionsjuden aus dem Lager Westerbork abgeschoben werden,

And at last, the evangelical Jews and Protecction Jews will be deportet from the camp Westerbork.

And here you can read, that the Nazis meant, that the protest of the chruch made it more complicated to deport all the Jews http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/Excerpts/6451409.htm

87.122.80.221 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

About the 80% jewish victims in the Netherlands. This argument is just silly. There is no historical complex that can be explained by only one factor. In Denmark there was an protest equal to those in dutch. If you look carefully, you 'll see, that the protest was much bigger. In the Netherlads, only a small part of the chruches protested against the deportations, in Denmark the state-church that represented nearly everybody Danishmen protested agaist the deportations. And there we find less than 10% victims. And why? Because so many Jews were living in Cobenhavn. From there its just a few kilometers per boat to get to neutral sweden. And its easier to save 5000 danish Jews than 100.000 dutch jews. In France we have less protest and more survivors. While 80% of the dutch jews died 80% of the rech jews survived. And here we have many factors. In France and the Netherlands deportations began about in mid 1942. But in the netherlands deportations could start from all over the country, while only in occupied France the deportations started. In Vichy-France Jews were safe for a bit longer time. In November 1942 German and italian Troops occupied Vichy-France. But this doen not mean, that deportations could start from that point, because the system for the deportations had to be planned and established. And there was still the italian-occupied zone of France with no deportations. When Germany surrenderd german tropps were still controlling about one third of the Netherlands. France was reconquered in mid 1944. With Operation Overlord and Typhoon allied troops invaded from north and south trying to "cut" trough the german troops. Germany realized this plan and began to pull troops from south-western France to north-eastern France to build one strong line od defense. With this big operations Deportations became more difficult. In the Netherlands about 70% of the Jews were living in Amsterdam, while in France the Jews were spread all over the country. And France is times bigger than the netherlands. And it was much more easier for the French Jews to escape. From occupied France the could flee to Vichy-France. from there to neutral Switzerland, neutral Spain and the italian occupied zone. For the dutch jews it was much more difficult. Because of the war between Germany and England it was hard to escape by boat.

And so its clear, that there are much more victims in the Netherlands than in France, wheter the church protested or not --87.122.72.159 11:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Why go to such lengths as you do - only to be able to retain your prejudice. Str1977 11:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Prove that Im wrong to show me that my oppinion is a prejudice. --87.122.72.159 17:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

A Long Series of Edits Reverted
An anonymous editor made a long series of edits to this article. The edits did have the effect of deleting considerable material. Noitall then reverted the edits with the summary of 'rv blanking vandalism'. I do not think that the edits were vandalism. They did appear to be good-faith if reckless and poorly summarized efforts to remove material that the editor in question thought was out of place. I don't think that it was vandalism. On the other hand, it does appear to have been reckless editing. Can we try again? Robert McClenon 11:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Pius XII as Good Shepherd
I don't know whether to say that I am glad to see Famekeeper post something positive about Pope Pius XII. This paragraph leaves me with very mixed feelings. It is largely a POV favorable to Pius XII. As such, it should be stated as a POV. I will not edit it at this time without discussion because I do not Famekeeper to claim (again) that I am engaging in censorship. NPOV goes both ways. A puff paragraph on him is POV just as much as a critical paragraph is. Robert McClenon 15:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's poorly written. It is quasi-devotional rather than biographical.  It presents an personal view that he was good, pious, etc. which are peacock words not tied to a specific action or aggregate of actions of the Pope.  I don't see what it adds to our understanding of the subject or what's verifiable about it.  It is deleteable as unsourced POV. patsw 16:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I added this to stimulate those who are inteested in reporting the  relevant devotional side of Pius XII. I am not particularly knowledgeble about this, having simply see the various websties devoted to his piety.


 * Certainly the article as written presently is at one point just crashingly badly edited, quite stunningly so . I do  know who has or has not a way with English, but  well, that is a  tedious  entry by patsw and  the comment on revert by Wyssie is  borderline  offensive too. None of you particular editors seem to shine particularly well, anyway, you are all incorrect as this is the other side of the historical personality , deserving of report . His single-mindedness is very much part of his reactions and lack of them and this part of the story should be developed. But have it your way and return to the ugly version . I don't mind either way, and I dont have to take the editors'  (or  observers' ) reactions, so , ta ra . I believe  my limited offer will encourage Str to provide balance . Famekeeper 18:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Crashingly Bad Editing
Famekeeper writes "Certainly the article as written presently is at one point just crashingly badly edited, quite stunningly so." Would he please identify the portions that he thinks are badly edited?

I will not respond to the remainder of the diatribe, but I would appreciate a response as to what portions are badly edited. Robert McClenon 18:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

FK posted this at 20:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Str1977 forbad this at 20.06 September 3 2005]] Famekeeper

Let me just state that I don't have authority over FK and hence am not in the position to forbid him anything. If he says, he's not telling the truth. I don't know what keeps him from responding. But there's no reason to slander me.

Str1977 21:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any post by [User:Str1977|Str1977]] at 20:06, 3 September 2005, GMT, anyway. Please show it or admit that that claim was not only silly but mistaken.  Robert McClenon 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Some edits
I have done some rewording on the Pacelli as Nuncio passage. Mere wording issues. Most notably, "2nd Reich" does not refer to the Republic but to the Wilhelminian state (1871-1918), the 1st Reich was seen in the Holy Roman Empire. That's bullocks of course, but that was the reasoning of those hoping for a 3rd Reich. These guys didn't exactly like the republic, though of course officially the state's name was "Deutsches Reich" (German Reich) from 1871 to 1945.


 * Legally it was the German Empire, so I don't see the logic .But if that were the limit to your actions, well, OK . it is not at all so .Famekeeper

Faulhaber became a cardinal in 1921. If you could specify when this condemnation occured, we can reinsert it. I removed the following, as it relates only to Faulhaber and not to Pacelli.


 * This same Faulhaber, a leading and forceful member of the German Hierarchy was later  prevailed upon ,in 1933, to provide public approbation  towards  the Führer preceding the plebiscite for Germany's withdrawal   from the League of Nations.

However, even this is not completely well worded. Faulhaber approved of the plebiscite and of the withdrawal, but only indirectly of Hitler.


 * outrageous whitewashing, as usual.Famekeeper

I removed Austria for the moment. Did that attempt succeed? Was it Pacelli? Please more info.


 * probably deflection from this last whitewashFamekeeper

I removed the cardinal stuff from this section. It belongs and is covered elsewhere. Str1977 19:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't work out:


 * The questions arising from the concordat have re-surfaced of late because of the moves toward canonisation for Pope Pius XII, and recent reference to the Enabling Act in the book Memory and Identity by Pope John Paul II, who cites it as an example of the dangers present even in a democracy.

The first part may be ok, but there is no reference to the concordat (at least not in this passage) of the concordat (as "it" and the placement here suggest). JP2 was speaking of the self-destruction of the Weimar Republic, most notably the Enabling Act. However, there is no clear connection to the concordat. I know, that's FK's thesis but it is at least not clear (and I think untrue) and hence the logical sequence makes leaps here. Str1977 19:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * FK is a "liar", then ?Famekeeper
 * irrelevant bureaucratic cover for whitewash .Famekeeper

I say just once that the editing out of relevant history from Pope Pius XII as of 20.06 3 September is unjustifiable interference in history which is inexplicable in good-faith. I say that that removed material should therefore be imported wholesale into an expansion of Hitler's Pope article. The whole story of my attempt to limit the damage done by this editor is highly documented, and the reasons for my consistent protest and analysis of  his motives have  not retreated in nearly a whole year . I protest , yet again , but with no hope of sanity  prevailing .I leave unfortunates at this  carcass of history , always.Famekeeper 20:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC) Do not Archive my protest.

Don't overreact. Note that I didn't remove it. I wanted to discuss it first as it has been up for some time. My point was this:

JPII speaks in his book about the "self-destruction of the Weimar Republic, most notably the Enabling Act." The text says that "questions arising from the concordat have re-surfaced" not only "because of the moves towards canonisation" (which might be so) but also because of "recent reference to the Enabling Act in the book". This requires the assumption that there is a link between the EA and the concordat (otherwise it'd be 'Questions arising from the EA' and not "from the concordat") You argue for such a link relentlessly, but you have established it indisputably, neither has any historian (if any tried so in a published text - Lewy says there is no evidence). You cannot make your own arguement on the very same page the basis for such a sentence. Except if the book reference did cause resurfacing of concordat questions despite the logical gap in the real world. You know, sometimes people don't react rationally, logically and sometimes they are misinformed. If so, such a reaction binding together two different things would be possible, but then you should be able to provide proof of this reaction (as you did in the synagoge thing on B16), proof for such a reaction apart from your own. Otherwise, I'm afraid it's original research.

As for your protest, it will stay on the talk page until the next archive. Then it will be archived. Why should you get special treatment. I know you demanded that before but it's still not right. Str1977 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Questions arise is nonfactual, vague, and expresses a point of view -- it is POV from nowhere in particular. If there is a question, then the question should be explicit and the article should include by whom, where, and when the question arose and be properly cited. patsw 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
This is a Wikipedia guideline. Don't add or edit sections of this article to test the reaction of myself or other editors. That demonstrates bad fath. Do not add a section which you later acknowledge not to be neutrally worded to stimulate some other editor. patsw 21:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And I warn you that avoidance of truth is in itself morally and intellectually disgusting and is of itself bad faith .Famekeeper


 * Famekeeper, are you putting your comments in wikilink brackets only because it makes them red and stand out more? If so, please don't. It's distracting (and makes you seem strident IMHO). Wyss 02:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper Protest
I protest in good faith and denounce bad faith editors and I am truly shocked at these closed minds circulating my requirance of clear ,linked and explained wikitruth.Get behind me


 * I see no linked and explained wikitruth, only a big empty link. Robert McClenon 01:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If Famekeeper thinks that Wikipedia consists of a community of closed minds who are rejecting his presentation of truth, he should do one of four things:


 * Summarize his proof of the truth, which is the evil intention of the Catholic Church to cause the Holocaust, or whatever the evil truth is.
 * Request a mentor or advocate to assist him in summarizing his proof of truth, since he has difficulty in summarizing because he is angry.
 * Give up on Wikipedia. If he really thinks that we are all stupid or thickheaded or closed minds, then he should find a community of open minds somewhere else on the Web.
 * Post a Request for Arbitration, since he has long been saying that arbitration would be necessary. If he can prove to the ArbCom that 1977 is "very naughty" or that I am "untrustworthy" and a "bully", then perhaps the Arbcom will ban us and vindicate him.  If the ArbCom rules against him, he can always appeal to Jimbo Wales.  Robert McClenon 01:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)