Talk:Reichskonkordat/Archive 2

Disturbing
Which historian terms the secret annex as "the most particularly disturbing aspect" of the konkordat? Robert McClenon 19:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Since there was no reply I remove the sentence in question, It is an unqualified pov utterances anyway. Str1977 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I had put it in assuming that the source would be provided. Without the source, I agree that it should be deleted.  Robert McClenon 20:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ermächtigungsgesetz
Str1977, your edits here are most disturbing. Today you tried to delete the connections to Enabling act, and if I read the article history correctly, it's already the third attempt to do so (first in July, second in August).

Also your wording "most parties" is most misleading, as the Zentrumspartei was the only relevant opposition party voting for Hitler. Their vote was crucially required to let everything occur within the limits of the Weimar constitution.

In addition you prefer "his government was given legislative powers" in contrast to "he was given effective dictatorial power". Whereas your versions match the letters of the act, my versions matches the effect and much better describes its historical importance.

Pjacobi 10:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Pjacobi,

it is questionable whether this belongs here or is off topic. But I'm willing to let it stand if worded properly.

No, "most parties" is not misleading (let alone most), but fact. All parties voted for the Act except for the SPD (and the already "purged" Communists). The only "government parties" were DNVP and NSDAP. Neither the two liberal parties, nor the smaller parties were part of the government and they all voted in favour of the act. The Centre vote was crucial since it helped the act "over the hurdle" but so did the others as well. The party can be mentioned explictely because of its Catholic nature (which related to the topic), but I will not accept creating a spring board for the reinsertion of conspiracy theories (not by you, I guess, but someone else).

The phrase "his government was given legislative powers" is as accurate as possible. One might elaborate on this but such an elaboration rather belongs to the EA article (which is wikilinked). I also ask how your version helps understanding this current article. It doesn't. "Legislative powers" help explain why there was a majority now, while in 1932 parties could not agree on anything. Answer: Legislative powers of the government. That Hitler (as a person) used the provisions of the EA to wield dictatorial powers (though still not unlimited before Hindenburg's death) is true but another matter.

Str1977 10:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll live with your version until new input from other editors is received. But I'm nevertheless disturbed by your efforts to clean this article. --Pjacobi 11:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My effort to "clean" the article are only efforts to keep it "clean" in the actual meaning of the word: clean from conspiracy theories, clean from POV parading as fact, clean from pseudo-scholarship. You might not have witnessed what has gone here (or elsewhere) before. It is far from my intentions to hide the role of the Centre Party. Not in the least. In fact, I have written large sections on this on the Centre Party page, giving detailed accounts of Kaas' politics. Str1977 11:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy Vector (into contemporary German politics)
The interweaving of denial and avoidant reaction parallel but outside of the RKKt controversy  is shown here :[],  in relation to  such as  Merkel or  Schroder , and modern Germany as a whole. I insert this to assist editors in their view of the relative importance of the controversies surrounding the  implementation of the Nazi coup'd'etat of 30 Jan 1933 by 23 mar 1933. The controversies do not start on WP, nor end on WP.

At Nuremburg, von Papen closed down the Prosecution's allegation that the RKKt was  a maneuver  intended to deceive  by countering that perhaps I may in this connection point to the fact that the Gentlemen with whom I signed the 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 Centre Party , and that if these two men were willing to conclude a Concordat , then one can surely not maintain that there was a maneuver intended to deceive .  The link shows however that there has been no close to this day , and  that little has changed since Weimar. The link also explains some of the activity upon these pages, and provided extra motive. I reserve it as necessary for modern minds, in the absence of glasnost  for the  RKKt Archives  , to enable  interior arbitration. One doubts whether WP, even with its prominence, will stimulate this glasnost , so conclusions will remain  un-interrupted by  further testimony  .The opening of the Archive might conceivably assist the denial , but the closure cannot. Meanwhile it is  clear  that the WP is being massaged , rather ably ! The subject of this link  may be worthy of its own article, and certainly a wider notice. Users will soon find that even the german 'social democrats' abdicated their  honour to Hitler, so there is no  socialist advantage , in fact, to the link. EffK 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Oversight to this Reichskonkordat article
I have alerted User:Pjacobi to the reversion of the additional historical clarifications undertaken just now, and unhappily foresee that this over-sight will be preparatory to  more formal  over-sight. I reject the actions of this editor in reverting now, and throughout my  over-taxed  involvemnent with Wikipedia. I will   be forced to require that this editor himself become  a focus of  Wikipedia over-sight. EffK 22:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello
I began to read the article, and was startled by the 2nd sentance:


 * The Reichskonkordat is the concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich, signed in 1933. It is still valid today in Germany.

This is still valid today? Sam Spade 23:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is still valid. It was a treaty between the Holy See and the German Reich, whose successor is the Federal Republic of Germany. International treaties are supposed to remain intact. Only one issue has been rendered invalid (schools), since schools under the Grundgesetz are under the jurisidiction of the individual states and not the national government. Str1977 00:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The section 2, if  I remember rightly(but its in WP, stte that the Chancellor/cabinet/Government were enabled to conduct and conclude treaties with foreign powers  on behalf of the people of Germany . They were in section 4 prohibited from interference with te institutions of the Reichstag . They arrested  Commmunist deputies and prevented their voting  for the Enabling Act as a conspiracy against the Reichstag institution. Therefore the Government existed purely through a transgression of the Enabling Act, which was illegal.


 * Though your reply does not address Sam's question and though I have explained this to you before. The act says:


 * "Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed."

That means that the government could pass laws not in line (and therefore effectively changing) the constitution. Excepted were the two institutions. So the government could not do away with the Reichstag or the Reichsrat. The latter body was quite useless after the Gleichschaltung of the states, but it remained in existence. This does not ban the exclusion of the Communists (the legality of that exclusion can be disputed, but not based on the EAct), and anyway this was before the EAct was passed anyway. Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Coup d'etat is the takeover of a government from within by force of coercion . The co-ercion was supplied by von Papen on behalf of the Industrial Magnates, as well as for the church, groundswell in the army  and for the landed classes.  I read this  , it being a coup d'etat ,within a short while, and will supply it by source . From hereon I shall be punctilious  in this respect. Perhaps it was at Nuremburg itself - I remembered it being very frank , and  concise  for the papen strokes/coup de main . The  modern controversy I linked explains the sensitivities of a nation that  denies too much to itself , even now. Str in this respect is fairly un-exceptional  . If bad faith in me removes coup d'etat'' now. and it appears in Nuremburg trials, I will be doubly vindicated. User: Effk


 * The Wiki article on coup d'etat says: "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." You might have a point that the whole process of Hitler coming to power starting January 1933 and ending in his becoming head of state and supreme commander in 1934 could be described as a long-term coup. But his appointment as chancellor hardly serves as a coup. You talk about coercion, but there was no coercion in this act. Intrigue: yes, but no coercion. Whether the Nuremberg trials call it (what?) a coup is not exactly the same as a confirmation that it was one. There is a definition for coup and IMHO this act alone doesn't meet it. Quite apart from that, it is irrelevant to the issue of the Reichskonkordat. Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Content added
On 30 January, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor in a coup d'etat.Further elections called by Hitler to provide him with a clear majority failed to do so, as Catholic , Communist and Socialist votes held firm on 5 March and left the Nazi alliance with the ultra-right Nationalists in slimmest majority. From this time Hitler contrived towards obtention of a two-thirds majority imposed Rule by chancellery Decree under the so called Enabling Act. This Act was a Hitler priority from 12 March. Meetings with Centre politicians towards accomodation were held through March, culminating 20- 22 March with agreement concerning retention of protections and rights for Catholic civil servants. At his cabinet meeting resolving to achieve this Act on 15 march, Hitler is recorded as being certain of Centre approval , such that he breezily declined suggestion towards further increased arrests, this time of socialist deputies.

Social-Democrats refused and the Communists were subject to un-constitutional arrest, their numbers therefore unable to check this 2/3 stipulation as envisioned under the Weimar legislation allowing for such short-term draconian rule. Hitler exhbited sufficient softening of his Party's anti- christian line during a studied speech ,assuring Germans of his estimation of Christianity at the heart of the German folk. At the same period the hitherto strongly anti-Nazi posture of the German Catholic Hierarchy or Bishops ,was softened through Vatican change in policy favouring Hitlerism as bulwark against a possibly threatening leftist creeping Germany.

Some lack of clarity surrounds the position of the Centre chairman Ludwig Kaas( a position held since 1928 and the right-ward turn in the centre party . Since the 1940's comment has focused on this Monsignor or Prelate of the Catholic Church . Kaas either did or did not act as co-chairman with Adolf Hitler of daily meetings aimed towards a voting resolution in the Reichstag, held between 17 March and 22 March 1933 . Kaas is alleged to have had direct input into the Hitler speeches accomodating the Holy See at the 23 March Enabling Act vote . Kaas is alleged by Avro Manhattan and others to have played the significant role along with von Papen in the arrangements towards the Reichskonkordat . On the 24 March Kaas travelled to rome and was then hurriedly recalled on 31 March for a remarkable private  meeting with Adolf Hitler of 2 April . On the 7 April Kaas met in Munich with von Papen. Papen it is known travelled to Rome under the subterfuge of a  Sking holiday( but was un-masked by the Roman press).

Von Papen had close relations with the vatican structures, with the Rhenisch-Westphalian Industrial Magnates who were bank-rolling Adolf Hitler ,and with Paul von Hindenburg, the increasingly senile WWI General now President. Ludwig Kaas was immediately deputed by the Holy See to actually undertake the drafting of the text and conditions of the Reichskonkordat, and continued to thereby play a crucial role in the proceedings towards its signature on 5 July. Kaas never again returned to Germany and, retained within the sovereign jurisdiction of the vatican , was un-available for interview at post-war trial, unlike Papen , who there spoke of him in connection with the Concordat.


 * Apparently some of the above may need cited, NPOV'ed, and/or merged elsewhere. Sam Spade 00:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me elaborate, Sam.
 * FK added many things about the Enabling Act (again), but this article is about the Reichskonkordat. The Enabling Act is already accurately covered in Centre Party and Ludwig Kaas. The rest included here is either one-sided or inaccurate or awkwardly worded or misleading (so only right wing parties voted for the EA, right?)
 * Also, the claim that Hitler became Chancellor in a coup is wrong. It was an intrigue leading to a legal appointment. Sad but true.
 * "At the Nuremburg Trials the prosecution adopted the view that the Concordat with (Nazi) Germany was a maneuver intended to deceive ."
 * To me, it's not clear what this is supposed to say. Who deceived whom? Who said that and in what context?
 * "short lived leftist revolution of 1918" shows FK's own sympathies, but in what sense can a revolution be called short-lived? Yes, there were also Communist uprisings and attempted coups, which fortunately (IMHO) were thwarted, though not only by the nicest of means. But the revolution that is relevant in this context is the one that swept away the monarchies and the state churches with it. This is the only revolution relevant here and its effect lasted at least until 1933, in a broader sense until today. If it had failed, this article would not be in existence as no one would have asked about new concordats.
 * Str1977 00:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would assume that the prosecution at Nuremberg meant that the Konkordat was a maneuver by Nazi Germany intended to deceive both outsiders and the Catholic Church. Robert McClenon 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Von Papen -17 june 1946 -" 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 with an agreement with the Evangelical Church . Hitler agreed , although there was strong opposition in the Party, 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 fact that the gentlemen with whol=m I signed the 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 Centre party , and that if these two men had been willing to conclude a Concordat, then one can surely not maintain that this was a maneuver intended to deceive.  Nuremburg trials . User: Effk


 * So, this is what Papen says in Nuremberg. That the concordat was no "maneuver intended to deceive" - isn't it one-sided to exclude this from the article while including the infered claim of the prosecution that it was "intended to deceive". Also, you have not cited anything for that claim and we have no context for what it means (who deceived whom and how and why and when and where etc). Also, the claim of a prosecutor can hardly be NPOV when standing on its own, unless vindicated by the verdict. Tell me please what penalty Papen received? Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I reject the criticism of my prose by a non native . I write in the shortest clearest manner demanded by the evidence to be linked . User: Effk


 * I will not comment on this. Any reader may judge for himself. Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Str1977 is not a native writer of English, but his criticisms of the quality of the writing of EffK are on the mark. Robert McClenon 22:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Shirer

 * 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 Chanellor was certain that this party would go along with him .


 * I shall take my time over this Sam, as it is a real head-ache inducing necessity this confrontation. I have been through all this with Str before , many times so I do it all under greatest objection. My aim is now to see str off this  organ . We shall work on this page alone though , if possible , and then move to the next . I would prefer that a real historian consider this . I have very precisely sourced Klemperer's  1997  assurance that the speech of 23  March was part of the qui pro quo , that Kaas had a 'direct hand in' it, and thus Str's  saving contention that the Rkkt negotiations began with Papen on 8 April is false . This is a line that Papen presumably adhered to at the Trials, but the modern historian KvK is as I recently and at least 4 times have quoted. I refer readers to that sourcing made .A wikisearch will reveal it . no? User: Effk

Yes, but what quid-pro-quo? It was the one between the Centre/Kaas and the government/Hitler. Hitler's speech was aimed at soothing any fears the Centre might have and to give general promises of respecting their concerns, without binding himself by a written statement (the letter, that never came). Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Von Klemperer
Klemens von Klemperer, German Resistance Against Hitler ,Oxford University Press, 1992 ISBN o198219407 page 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 .''


 * This is Klemperer's analysis and with some I do agree. But it's only one voice and this passage is also full of epithets unfit for an encyclopedia. And it is only relevant as far as it concerns the Concordat. Not all of this does. Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) This justifies my description  that rightist parties voted for the E Act . It also  vindicates the Avro Manhattan analysis I provided by link  as another source.


 * I never said rightist parties did not vote in favour. But you neglect the two Liberal parties, the smaller parties (some of which can be termed rightist). As for the Centre, it moved to the right when compared to Joseph Wirth. Papen was from the right wing, but he wasn't the dominant man and became the Ephialtes of the Centre. Kaas was not from the right wing but from the Centre's centre. He lead the party throughout the grand coalition, which included the SPD. After the break up of the coalitio nthere was some move to the right, but that doesn't make the Centre a rightist party. Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 2)KvK use  of seizure twice so close together leaves one in no doubt that the Nazis did not  gain or ascend or win  power as suggested on Hitler,  and disputed  against by me  as erroneous, repeatedly -against Str1977  . Seizure is as close to coup'd'etat' as  makes no difference, but I shall  return to coup d'etat'.


 * The most common term for Hitler's coming to power is "Machtergreifung" (seizure of power). This was a Nazi propaganda term suggesting that they seized the power (another term they used was "Nationale Revolution" or "Nationale Erhebung" (national uprising)). The "Machtergreifung" became common and can therefore be found in historical literature, but it's no accurate description of the event. Later, historians have coined the term "Machterschleichung" (sneaking unto power or worming onself unto power). Though the latter is more accurate, the former one is still very much used (but you cannot base your analysis on this term). But in fact "seizure" is much more acceptable than "coup" - yes, it's inaccurate but it's also a set phrase. Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 3)Treacherous was also contemporarily used by Brüning, and this Str1977 fought against elsewhere repeatedly . Such leads to my challenge against his good faith . I sourced all this on Centre Party  and Kaas.


 * Brüning calls Kaas' acts treachery in his memoirs which he wrote in his exile. The memoirs are known to be inaccurate for the period in question. Also, Brüning did never complain about treason in 1933. But anyway, the word treacherous in POV and unencyclopedic, even if it were accurate. Also it is misleading: treacherous here suggests treason to a country, but it was used by Brüning in a more colloquial meaning.


 * 4) My proof from within the laws of the Church ( the canons) upon Pope Pius XII discussions, elucidated the exact meaning of this reference, and solely led to accusations of my 'gross impiety' . This strikes at the heart of apologist denial.


 * Oh Lord, I accused you of "gross impiety" when you demanded to dig up corpses from graves. Nothing more, nothing less. Let the dead rest.
 * The rest of your point I don't understand as I never denied this volte-face by the Bishops. Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 5) There is no doubt whatever as to the central importance of Kaas and Papen as catholics . Whatever about Papen's exact relations with the vatican, they are remarked upon historically , and Nuremburg doubtless suggested the 'maneuver to deceive' in the knowledge of these close ties . Kaas is alleged  from 1949 (Avro Manhattan ) up until now with Cornwell and I imagine  Ian Kershaw to be  the mouthpiece of Pacelli . I sourced a different commentator, Edgar Ansel Mowrer's confirming reference. I believe this to be  therefore entirely non POV , and its opposite to in fact be POV . KvK confirms that kaas was acting in the interests of  the vatican from before April, before the E Act . It is not my POV , but my source. User: Effk


 * For Nuremberg, see above.
 * No one denies that Papen and Kaas were Catholics. But what exactly is a "high Catholic"?
 * Kaas and Pacelli were close, that's for sure, and Kaas had Church interests in mind, yes, but you claim that Pacelli knew about everything and Kaas basically was a puppet. And that's POV. You haven't quoted anything that would substantiate your claims. Even Mowrer gives only indirect evidence. Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Source, POV etc
As to the charge that there is anything off-topic in my repair to the Rkkdt article,  this is a maneuver in itself. I do not artificially position Ludwig Kaas into his concurrent positions as representative for vatican interests AND Centre Party chairman. There can be no question of off-topic whilst these historical connections are so real. In fact the very limitation in this maneuver reveals  the POV in the charge. The position of the Centre Party in the E Act vote  relates precisely to the speech  by Hitler at that vote, and that relates in the sources to the Reichskonkordat , just as do these comments regarding the episcopate. It is in fact POV to deny these connections.

At the minute, I emphasise that the reversion and now disputation tag without recourse to any sourced or warranted  reasoning  taken with the  effective attempt at deletion of the Nuremburg Trials prosecutory allegation reveals complete bad faith. I believe that this tag should be withdrawn ASAP as being a statement of POV. there is no counter source or attested argument from source in its defence. This is an artificial maneuver, and those defending it on this day of all days (Armistice) should  hang their heads and retract  their misguided support.

I charge that there are at least two motives for this behaviour. One is obviuousluy to protect the vatican, and therefore relates today to the issue raised (and deleted) directly to the present pontiff (small p is correct use) by Abraham Lehrer. his demand that the Vatican reveal  the full record, is effective source too. it is a fact that these issues would be better confirmed or denied if the Archive were to be opened. Not WWII, but 1925-33. Not to do with with arguments as to how many people Pius XII saved or fed or hid, but to do with the engineering of the Reichskonkordat and the Hitler regime. To say that anything elucidatory is off-topic is really denial.

The second clear motive is revealed by the link or VECTOR above, which clearly demonstates the  contemporary motives for denial and consternation. I added that not because it does or does not represent  any opinion, but simply to represent the ongoing heat of the  great scandal in so far as it affects  present voting blocs/german popular understanding. Str reaction suggests fear, and I noticed his determination from the earliest (Centre Party) disputes on WP , and realise that he may have not only the first motive , but also this second motive. Inside Germany this history is more than distant history, as the link reveals. Again, none of this is my POV. I chastise those who remain blind to this reality ( such as Pjacobi or Kenney), and urge thenm to reason. Str would appear to have german CDU p[arty  interests, so I do not expect voluntary acceptance of reason from him. I charge him with having these two motives together ., and thereby being a danger to free information. sorry str1977, but you bring it upon yourself.

Havoc : Tracking back from the un-justified Kenney revert today, I see that Str 1977 accuses me of creating "havoc'' here now on Wikipedia . I ask him to state what  havoc I create , and warrant  that charge  which is entirely against the vaunted spirit and policy of Wikipedia (assume good faith)  .  In reaction I note his charge and refer all parties to it as example of  real culpability in  my accusations  and call for his dismissal . Sorry sam, but thats nice, right now. EffK 16:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You, EffK, are taking up informative, readable and complete articles and turn them into unreadable, POV'ed up and inaccurate conspiracy theories. In fact, if you had your way, Wiki would turn into one big article comprised of all your stuff, only posted on different articles. In fact, this is one of the major problems: you seem not to be able to distinguish article boundaries. Not all accurate information (and not all of your info is accurate) is included in every article. This article is about the Concordat and most of what you post is not about the Concordat. Papen's shoe size certainly is off-topic here. That is what Pjacobi was trying to get across to you.
 * As for your speculations about motives and political affilitions (which are completely incorrect), they are merely pointing out your "assumption of bad faith" that I (and many others) have encountered from you from day 1. Str1977 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Kenney revert
I do not see how it is in bad faith to revert an edit which is completely POV and unproductive. john k 16:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is bad faith because you do not address the issues of being off-topic, POV, badly written or indeed anything . I suggest you read my sourced argument and relent from putting yourself so in the wrong.If you placed the dispute, or even if you did not, I strongly suggest that you immediately remove  it as demonstration of your good faith- or that you prove your charges thru reason and source . EffK 16:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Papen and the Reichskonkordat
In reference to Papen's part in the Rkkdt and its' negotiation I add these passages relevant. Papen stated at Nuremburg:


 * " In political questions and matters of internal Party policy the Centre Party therefore followed a line of compromise which was the result obtained through the concessions of others in the field of Church policy .

Papen explained that a catholic could not be considered a good catholic if he were not a Centre Party catholic.

The Nuremburg trials prosecutions said :


 * Papen used his position as a prominent Catholic (1) to consolidate the Nazi regime . He was double-faced, and that characteristic is especially obvious in this connection & throws light on his personality.


 * 1) proves my emphasis, rejected as POV , that he was a prominent  catholic .This is well known and used to explain both his relations with Hindenburg as well as with Pacelli and the vatican . I do not therefore accept that any FK POV exists in this regard, and of course request re-consideration by the free  towards the effective  NOPOV truth.

Catholic Church and Nazism (Nuremburg Trials extract)
In regard to resulting consequences and conclusions  thereupon, I add that von Papen  referred in his self-defence  to the above prosecutory charges  by means firstly of a speech he delivered in Munich on 1 March 1933.


 * I asked Hitler to make a clear cut statement on this question, and he did so in a positive manner . in the foreword to my speech made at this time , there is the observation that it is the first & most important task to revise the nazi programmes with reference to the religious problem , since such a revision is a pre-requisite for a united front of the christian confessions in that coalition. secondly I attempted to protect Church policy by giving it, after the conclusion of the Concordat , a certain foreign political context .

This also arises at a speech in Dortmund in Febuary 1933 ( Trials  "Document 37", p119).

What is highly relevant to an understanding of the extent of vatican "complicity" is the following statement recorded on  the same day 17 June 1946 at his Trial   in reference to the book  by  a Cardinal Hundal  whose book is :


 * "all the more noteable 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."

IE :there was an attempt earlier to make such synthesis, and it would not be POV to refer to this and to allow that this refers to the quid pro quo at the heart of all this history in Weimar ,Adolf Hitler, Nazism, Enabling Act and here at Reichskokordat.

This is a serious charge and Hundal whether bishop or cardinal, may be , but, it seems is not the stated "high authority of the Church". We are left to ponder whether this is a reference to Pacelli, and to ,in non POV manner assume it was, for the obvious reason that Pacelli was a high authority (no 2/3) and was the Germany specialist.

I charge that the denials and reverts are thus highly dangerous POV, and that any havoc being caused was caused by Pacelli. I believe this shows that the Vatican's  Reich Concordat policy  was only a part of a greater policy, which was a total form of collusion with Hitlerism. I deny all efforts to paint this as FK conspiracy theory, and see no substance provided to back that charge. Here I provide the source which disproves that bad-faith accusation against me. EffK 07:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

See The Great Scandal, if you will .EffK 14:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 de-linkage
Not I alone notice your de-linkage efforts, old fellow. it is really a form of vandalism, in purely technical speak. I shall not revert your many de-linkages but for now leave them for all to see, almost grateful. I know that your central and minimum denial remains at the Rkkdt. Beyond 8 April (well 2 April fortunately has no records as Hitler  killed himself, and Kaas had  immunity  and did not put himself near Allied jurisdiction ). As long as the Vatican Archives remain closed, as they conveniently are, you will hold the vatican's line at this the point  preventing  absolute (apparent) danger. I tried to warn your friends through you, that only a repair to the scandal , the great scandal , would ensure the future safety of the Church. I try to help you over this hurdle, in fact , towards repair. These bloggy denials you make  ,and these apparently petty , but ,in fact , highly important actions of yours , bespeak  continued fear. Google result at no =4 for the Great Scandal  shows the  inability to  shake off the questions necessitating vatican  disclosure. But, well done, you are a fine soldier of cyberspace , but care  that you do not prove my point. EffK 16:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK, I'm not afraid of anyone seeing it. It's not vandalism since I have a reason for it. Your new article "The Great scandal" has IMHO no place in Wikipedia. What's "Great Scandal" supposed to be? "Reichskonkordat", "Pius XI", "tomato" are all clear in their meaning, but what is "Great Scandal"? It is once more a ploy to create a parallel article for your pleasure, to fill with all your half-baked conspiracy theories, just as "Pope's Hitler" and "Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy" (created for you by Robert McClenon, the man you so unjustifiedly eye with burning hate) were before, in fact just like "Hitler's Pope" as you intented it to be. P's H and CHC have received their deserved fate and H's P has stayed only because it is a book which deserved to have an article, which however was not exactly what you intended by creating it. Hence, IMHO "Great Scandal" has no reason to exist. Already the first line of the article is untrue, or in Wiki-speak original research. As for your objective that over there everything is on-topic - that doesn't work out. What is off topic here on RKK might be on-topic on "Enabling Act" and vice versa. That's how an encyclopedia works. You cannot rightfully create an umbrella article just like that. Str1977 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

PS. If you wiki-stalk me (to which I'm not objecting now), do it with open eyes. I did not suggest, intend or wish for Hitler's Pope to be deleted. If you look up the AfD for that article, you'll see that I voted in favour of keepíng it. Str1977 20:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Prove One Factual Error From FK
Str 1977 ,I saw the last paragraph of your post at talk on The Great Scandal. I wrote to you searching towards peace. As to now the first paragraph, I'm sorry , this is simply ad hominem attack, which you have undertaken for several months, actually throughout. The Great Scandal googles accurately at number 4 result, so WP will simply be a way of in fact restoring more rather than less balance. I did not invent the term, nor do I invent anything at all. All along I have simply reported in utter amazement at the surrounding silence, and your fear-fed denials. I am no slanderer, nor impious, , I adhere to your law as just , and receive only your mud  in exchange. So be it. But- I challenge you  - Point to one thing I invented in the last thousand pages of trying to justify myself to you ? One thing since that world shattering Kaas' birthplace error ? One actual proveable error of any worth which disputes the  political truth in the  great scandal, not by  your opinion, but by source and fact .EffK 01:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A personal interjection whist I await this: I feel personally robbed by you . I was a rather politically smug and complacent individual before I came to this organ and discovered  that the war is not over but in full swing . Now, I cannot in all conscience comfort myself  at all . I used to allow that at heart  I retained enough christian belief as to mentally join  within the Lord's Prayer . Now I have not only lost my smug belief in all modern democracy( because of the industrial magnates continuing scandal-which I have been prevented time-wise by you from reporting sufficiently) SO, Georgy washington speak, goes out the window. the third world view of his planet is in fact more accurate. The repairs needed dive to the roots of civilization (ours) and reconciliation in the world requires complete un-earthing of the truth of all this  scandal . Germanism  is but a little branch  in the overall scheming  illegality of our civilisation.
 * IT, the supposed civilisation, is all gone , as I myself am robbed such that I cannot follow any longer the first line of the Lord's Prayer, at which fence my being rebels . So , I await your answer coldly , there is no memorial service because there is no end , and the blood spilt on the lines of Europe, draws a great arrow to follow . I speak not of the church, nor of germans, both dupes . I speak of the magnates . Your law is insufficient , the Trials prove that . Your civilisation insufficient . I reject the entirety  as there is no human benefit , only domination through dupes .If christianity does not free itslf from the shackle of doubt, I , along with you know who out there,will work to erase it utterly , in the defence of man .New better law must come , which will take all the good from you and chuck all the bad.

EffK 11:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of the encyclica Dilectissima Nobis, your of Klemperer's book on Hitler's speech, your misrepresentation of the "soul quote". Str1977 20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nonsense to ths above last . Jayzo to your reverts str - WP is not, I don't think , technically interested in your  opinions  , but in your  insertion of fact that is sourced . If your opinions base in source they are  the promulgation of source. like the vatican you can produce nothing early nor comforting.


 * I sourced and showed Str1977 the exact references made within this enciclical and to the historians reference to a christian dictatorship drived therefrom . It is a long time ago, a circular argument back to Pius XII, Pius XI, the whole quid pro quo.Interesting and damning nevertheless . If and when a third and neutral party requires it, I shall repeat with the diffs or should I not do so now? it would do some considerable good to relate it to its shared relationship to Spain and the Spanish Revolution. Unsuccessful revolution. EffK 12:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I dispute your POV grounds  for limiting the world's greater understanding through  removal of such sources. Avro is  published, is source, and an NPOV assessment is all we  are allowed  to give  is opinion  as to  the  nature  of the source   , pro anti, defensive shrill, long   etc . It is not for you to say no good-&  must  be excluded . We don't like Adolf , but that doesnt mean we  brush Him under the carpet . We state the  reality as sourced .Considering that what  I see is  a reflexion of precisely that which I have touched on , from the Bruning  restore the kaiserdom  connivance with Pacelli /Pius XI of  1928 onwards, I think you are acting out of your irrational side here. All these guys are  confirming, supplying links through to or are themselves , actual source . You are not allowed to exclude K Von klemperer or Mowrer or anybody .And dilectissima is thus represented by his very words . fact , you can say that it is so , but not exclude that this is the/a interpretation. Please report yourself in  for WP  re-education , make it easy for yourself , I'm  so sorry.


 * That last demand that Str1977 report himself in for WP re-education (whatever that means) is at its best a breach of civility and could be construed as a personal attack. Robert McClenon 22:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ill try and find time to read yours, though . By the way where's your proof as in the Section Title? I'm going to track down that dormancy procedural chaange , and when I find it I'll ask you to translate it.

EffK 00:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)