Talk:Ludwig Kaas/Archive 5

What Does This Say?

I have difficulty understanding what is being said above. Perhaps the failure to sign and indent posts is part of the problem.

Also, I assume that Str1977 assumed that Famekeeper was a native speaker of Spanish because it appears that he has a lack of mastery of English, as well as an ignorance of standard English rules of capitalization and punctuation. Other editors, including Wyss have assumed a language problem. Famekeeper: If you are a native speaker and writer of English, please follow the rules that you were taught in secondary school. In any case, please do not invent your own rules. Robert McClenon 11:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

HAaarh Ha! This from the guy(?) who when I catch him in disingeuous action (otherwise for us poor graders = dishonest action) weakly bleats that he "made a mistake" . I posted the irrefutable truth on his Rfc for being a bully , hence the stalking in here to ad hominem me to bits. Get Behind ! or concentrate on history or whatever, instead of patrolling the school corridors . I do not have to pretend to like your failings , but mine are not designed to do other than report . I recognised you straight-away, and you created your own irrefutable history .Famekeeper

Memo to FK: "irrefutability" does not mean "unwillingness to recognize contradiction". "Ad hominem" means attacking a person instead of his argument(s). Which I have never seen from Robert so far. Also, please stop the pseudo-messiac reference. Good night. Str1977 00:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I still do not understand what the above is trying to say, and I do not see any proof. Robert McClenon 00:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have seen no case of dishonest action. I had posted one article Request for Comments. The Wikipedia guidelines say that if you post an RfC, try to look into at least one other RfC. I did. I looked into several RfCs. I saw an RfC about all of the pages involving the Catholic Church and Adolf Hitler. I tried to reason with both Famekeeper and Str1977. I thought that Famekeeper was more right than wrong on the facts of whether Pope Pius XII had been guilty of moral error. I did not try to mediate, but I did try to provide a third opinion. I then requested various summaries, and instead got long tedious posts about excommunication. I also saw personal attacks, and accusations of bad faith. Finally I did post a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper, and that was not a mistake. I have made minor mistakes, as we all have. I did not make a mistake in filing the RfC, and I was only trying to follow the Wikipedia way. Robert McClenon 00:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

McC is quite simply un-trustworthy , always was since he denied he was a new user, and instead claimed other-wise. I'd better look that up , but I asked him at the time . I report his untrust-worthiness , I do not accuse, I report . it is there on the discussion page for the McClenon Rfc. McC is very much a bully , whereas you and I Str tried reasoning from sources. I am not going to be bullied into repeating sources that have been presented to you and are either on the open page or above in the archives . By the way would you kindly refer yourself to your reasoning re the "Secret Annexe" which is relevant to to this page and many others,such that that particular point is dealt with . Or do you accept the analysis as presented on the Reichskonkordat ? Str, no one else has come anywhere near our revealing discourse, either source -wise, intelligence -wise, nor , actually , human- wise. we are not finished , because of the annexe . The contradiction-and I in no way accuse you-has to be rectified, and if your earlier analysis is correct beyond the point about Versailles, then it should lead to correction. By the way my inclusion of a section re:Pius as Good Shepherd, needs to be expanded to provide balance and perceived truth. this whole POV type qualification is bureacratic meddling . I certainly see that Pacelli's deepest religious levels and their governance of his position as pontiff are history . However I am not prepared to write it . Famekeeper 18:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper is misstating the facts as to what I have and have not said. I never denied being a newcomer of Wikipedia. I denied having had a previous user ID. I also said that I was not a newcomer to electronic communities. I also said that I was not going to answer questions about who I was (when I was posting in true name). There was no reason to answer personal questions. The reason that I repeatedly ask him for summaries is that he does not provide them. The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss articles and how to improve them. An encyclopedia is a summary of knowledge. I see no reason why I should read through thousands of kilobytes to extract my own summary of lengthy discourse that is not relevant to presenting an encyclopedic summary. If Famekeeper thinks that I am being a bully, will he please provide a definition of what he considers to be bullying? Robert McClenon 19:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You flatter me, FK. But still, please don't call Robert a bully. He hasn't behaved like a bully to you.

Regarding the annex: your question might be valid but not on the Kaas page. We don't include other details about the concordat here, and for good reason, and so this needn't be included here as well. I said here, the Rkonkordat page of course is open for that. Though, as you might expect, I still disagree with your conclusions from the annex and especially with your moral considerations. Str1977 19:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Intractable Dispute

FK in red mourning for user's intellectual dishonesty here proved

First Proof, bullying Proved at section McClenon/Famekeeper Relevant Eaxample at [[1]]

Second proof The subject of this page is relevant to the reichskonkordat as the subject wrote it. Only unproved is whether the secret annexe was the outcome of the 2 April private meeting with Hitler following subjects return from the Vatican,

This above is irrefutable need for topic inclusion and irrefutable proof of bad faith .

The wikipedia is attacked by user dishonesty and I am the brunt of defence, I retire to watch intellectual dishonesty in disgust Famekeeper 09:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I quote from my reply to your post on my talk page:

As for the annex question: of course you could argue that anything about the concordat should be included in the Kaas article as he had a hand in it (though not he alone) but that means including the entire concordat article into Kaas. Encyclopediae don't work that way. This is why there are links. I never disputed that the secret annex belonged into the concordat article - I only countered your analysis which I see to be onesided. I will certainly not removed it from there and if someone else does will even restore it.

Str1977 09:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 has, perhaps accidentally, explained why Famekeeper views necessary editing as censorship. He seems to think that every article, at least every article that he thinks reflects on responsibility for the Holocaust and for the failure of the Weimar Republic, must be a complete statement of all of the marginally relevant events. That also explains why he views the deletion of any portion of the biography of Pope Pius XII from Hitler's Pope as censorship. As Str1977, that is not the way that an encyclopedia is organized. Instead, it has links.

As long as he does not recognize the need to put facts and opinions in their proper places, everything will be "intractable." Robert McClenon 14:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution of Dispute

I have read the edit summaries of the Reichskonkordat article. Famekeeper has never edited that article and so has never attempted to put discussion of the secret annex in that article, where it belongs. If he puts any discussion of the secret annex in that article, I will either leave it in as is, or more likely heavily copy-edit it to make its content more intelligible. Even if it is completely unsourced and speculative, I will not remove it, but will only tag the article as having its factual accuracy disputed. I think that should resolve any dispute as to whether he is being censored. He is not.

If I expected Famekeeper to be reasonable, I would then tell him that in exchange, he should stop flooding talk pages. I have already told him that, and I no longer expect him to stop.

I do have one request of him. By putting whole sections of text in brackets, which he intends to highlight them, as a way of shouting at us, he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, because brackets are used in Wikipedia to provide a link. I would much prefer that he stop shouting by using so much highlighting, but if he insists on continuing to shout, could he please at least do it in bold face, which does not disrupt Wikipedia, but only annoys the editors? Robert McClenon 14:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Private Kaas/Hitler meeting Accepted by User:Str1977

I congratulate you, Str1977 ,on finally accepting my requirement for the inclusion of this meeting. I still reject entirely the manner in which you massage this page so brazenly . I could easily , and well may , look up precisely when you first reverted this little mystery between Kaas and Hitler of 2 April 1933. Bitter experience with your editing has taught me that an advance into a shared position of even slight NPOV overlap with you , can be subsequently followed by your creeping reversal . Either way you final allowance of that which previously so assiduously reverted , sadly does not persuade me that you have accepted my earlier good faith , so congratulation is rather limited, as to a child who has wilfully refused to learn .

The massage is possibly how Kaas appears in Germany , but in terms of English language histories, this is unrecognisable and entirely POV. And, separately , as I previously pointed out, one of these two towns was so German, as you say, as to have over the centuries, preferred to converse and conduct its business in French throughout . As someone said on WP I think today , the WP does not exist for German editors to repair a history that does not gratify them . You ,particularly , have been placing your mental beach towel just that little bit too regularly . I would really advise you to finally have a change of heaart and accept all the sources I always provided . EffK 00:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK, whom I still cannot address directly, has posted a strange thing - the private meeting has been included in the text since August and now celebrates. Well, never mind. I still am not sure about this meeting, as I have found nothing on this and suspect that it might be one of the Working commitee meetings in another wording. But for the moment, I am content to trust EffK's source. In his second paragraph, he again indulges in futile speculation, in rehashing disputes we never had, and in giving evidence for his wiki-stalking. Str1977 09:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You both say you are catholics, catholics are only catholics because they are of the RC church, the RC church constrains by law its members to submit to the RC rules/canons , therefore it is pure logic to remind the WP that such editors are vatcian agents. it is you guys who adhere to these laws ,not I . I simply report them in good faith .

I have sourced the negotiations with Stegerwald and Kaas , but you Str have never sourced your constant reference to a working committee in April . The megamemex resource lists the private meeting . Please source that to which I find no reference. I still accuse Str of massage , and am noting the massage is not confined to this user nor this article , but that it is very widespread , thus proving my assertion that the WP is under concerted attack , and therefore providing justification for my salvaging attempts, however and wherever needed. I congatulate Str , but not as a wikipedian , but as an anti-wikipedian .You are a good canonical catholic , but re: romans 3, 8, against the law of Christ ( by apologetic whitewash). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EffK (talk • contribs) 11:49, November 25, 2005.

For the benefit of EffK, who should stop his discriminatory accusations and conspiracy theories, now about me and other Catholic editors - for the benefit of him, I'll give the source of the exact dates of the working commitee. In can be found in various books, but not in many since, as the article says, it had no real impact. I got the dates from

Ludwig Volk Das Reichskonkordat von 20. Juli 1933. Von den Ansätzen in der Weimarer Republik bis zur Ratifizierung am 10. September, page 87 - footnote 147.

As I said, at the moment I am willing to believe that there was a separate private meeting, but I want to add that there might be a confusion (as explained above) and the "Megamemex" timeline, EffK is so proud about, is not a scholarly source but only a internet page. If it bases its dates on scholarly works and reference accordingly it's a different matter, but purely by itself it is not a scholarly source.

Willing now , but endlessly fought over and reverted before.As you were sourced by me , magamemex give Lewy pages concerning Catholicism . Disingenuous response , as we have been thru this before. You are dishonest in continuing to personalise this when it appears in sources . There is no conspiracy theory , there is the discovery of the conspiracy by established published writers, scholars and historians. This a bad faith response , and denialism by means of ad hominem .

As for my edits (apart from the horrid wording):

• Rm the "see also", as it's not "see again"

Denialism , if its POV why is it not deleted. Why do you refuse to answer my question:"Why do you personalise within my username the widespread historical reports?" . Pure bad faith , so far.

• Rm "revealed by the Rome Press was the offer for ..."

- that might be on topic for Papen, as he clouded his trip as a holiday, but it is completely irrelevant for the Condordat, let alone Kaas.

You would like it to be so , but it is not as it shows exactly how un-official the presentation and planning was. In fact it reveals a shameful contumacy . Denialism .

• Rv "It is on record from 10 April 1933" to "it is alleged"

- another attempt to paint his POV, which is already include included, as a fact.

Relevant to Kaas and his negotiations. Pure denialism , as this is recorded history , related by Papen . My only POV would be to suggest that Papen shows several signs of distancing himself from the blame and shifting it clearly towards the papacy . This is an edit of pure denialism .

• Rm "Allegations exist relating to actual papal political interference from May 1932 , when Hitler had attracted 18% of the Electorate"

- it is basically a repitition of his allegation, only supplemented by the inclusion of a wrong election result (18% was the NS vote in 1930, in 1932 it was 37 and 33 respectively) - granted in May, before the elections, the NS commanded 18 % of seats, but his May date is based on a sloppy reading of what Mowrer wrote, again jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

I have many times posted the entire Mowrer passage. You are intellectually dishonest on two counts here. You try to make this an interpretation by me, and you deny the original . 18 % has nothing to do with Mowrer here .Extreme culpable denialism . I misread Bullocks big chart , p 1066 Hitler & Stalin

• Rm "but , also , that these strengthened only in 1937"

- again unwarranted and barelaying his prejudices.

I fear not . What is incorrect massage is your passage suggesting considerable Church criticism . All source remarks the volte face of reduced criticism accompanying the papal approbation . All source remarks the damage done to Germany and to its' Catholics by the u-turn allowing catholics Nazi membership, the Bishops accepting the Pacelli/Pius XI line. You are out of balance at the least , and in denial in considering this personal to me. This is the user's ad homininem weakness , and is bad faith (nothing new) and against good WP practice . I have sourced all this for you before , and can so prove .

• Rm "The subject does not recede from History and is referred to by Father Gumpel , the cleric charged with qualifying Pope Pius XII for sainthood. Gumpel claims that Brüning artifically accuses Kaas " because he worked with [Pius XII]/Pacelli ". The vatican positions that Kaas was accorded tally with his close friendship with Cardinal Pacelli , and he was given free access (keys) to all areas except the actual papal apartment, the which facilitated political intrigue in his later 1939/1943 Widerstand involvements ."

- especially horrid wording and providing no real additional information. I will move a sentence over from Brüning to qualify his memoirs, the reference for this is again Volk, page 81, footnote 115.

Nevertheless facts I sourced and you denied before too . Denialism , whatever the quality of the writing .

Str1977 14:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You are right on one thing, I misread the Bullock graph and yes 18 % was Sept 1930 .You should remember that this is the en.wp , so please translate sources, presumably short from their page -as I have bothered to do . Apart from this I see your standard responses , pure denialism . I congratulate you in persistence , and recognise this all for what it is . I post POV to yr work, then , and dubious.

Pontifical Subversion of Germany,and Wikipedia

I find it more interesting to witness this cyberspace clerical denialism than I do the actual original history , which is actually rather more clear . Your edits here are useful in this witness , and I shall add them to the endless previous examples. It will not be the end of the world if you and your ilk succeed in subverting the Wikipedia , and it shall very likely provide spur to the world towards a reckoning with this cance lying at the heart of you secret and unaccountable organisation, whose leaders during the period 1932 to the death of Pacelli /Pius XII were criminals by the organisations own supposedly divine law.

One sees the very same defence of criminality at all turns now in the Church , and I do your laws and faith a great service by alluding to the scandal in need of repair . McClenon demanded the canons - I gave them to him , then he claimed the doing so was soap-box flooding. He is as intellectually suspect as are you in the absence of your clear answer to the above highlighted question . I regret your attitudes , and since it is so persistent, dny that it is the result of mistake but is rather the same concerted attempt to prevent discovery so apparent in the Church sex abuse scandals . Wikipedia is infected with a toxin , and it amounts to clerical fascism or the apologia for clerical fascism . Answer the question as I am not kershaw nor Cornwell nor any of the plethora of writers who have written this all up much better. (readers are referred to links at The Great Scandal ) . Str1977 is a denialist of source. I suspect he edits in concert , as he has admitted to belonging to a secret unaccountable anti-democratic body , which TV in europe has reported as planning to target on-line resources . What you see here is the actual targetting. What the solution could possibly be , is unknown . the results of catholic conspiracy are widely reported now , but little understood. This user hopes by his daily actions to hold a particular corner. other members hold different corners . Readers should understand that roman catholicism abjures as one of its principal laws the complete obedience of the pontiff, and the complete defence of the pontiff. the foremer it was to which my removed edit referred-the Edgar Ansel Mowrer quote shows papal order to germany's catholics(small c-the flock) to invest Hitler ASAP in 1932 . Hence the extreme battle with me, hence the need to destroy my reputation , and the attempt to remove me from Wikipedia. Str1977 appeared in name precisely to achieve these ends , as is logical given the TV report . What is interesting is now to see the extent to which this subversion of the open world will succeed in destroying the Wikpedia . I go to defend another page under attack , knowing that it will be . I tell the newcomer that as I defend the WP , I also in effect defend Christianity , as all that I specify as illegal is illegal subversion of christianity itself , which the present pontiff will repair , or which will further erode the purely hierarchical aspect of christianity .EffK 23:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, its mad and hard to spot, but it's happening. Kaas doesn't link to Hitler.etc EffK 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this article most certainly does link to Adolf Hitler. See here. john k 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually this article most certainly doesn't link from Hitler to Kaas, and I have said this for some time. Kaas is mentioned twice at least, but no link. There is none for subversive reason . This last comment is incorrect and assumption of bad faith. Go here and highlight Kaas in your good will, JKenney , and while I have you -no I did not traduce your Atkins and Tallet statement , removed immediately from Hitler, in systemic anti-verifiability bias. Look again and you'll see that I did not, so please retract the evidence suggestion that it is incorrect. I object to your assumption of my bad faith. Correct these two things in the good faith required. The section title still stands as evident subversion, and you are, pehaps un-wittingly, assisting this if you do neither of these corrections yet knowing them to be correct..EffK 12:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist POV Ludwig Kaas Massage and updates thereof

Well actually venerate is venerate, L. I enter again because there is no specificity to the Kaas solo run towards settlement of 6 th March and the entire has always been massaged. In fact this article should be at least as informative as Nazi Germany, is it, and Weimar Republic. I am glad you were here L, and I still have these issues as to the POV massage. You can call it what you will, as you haven't suffered it.

• It would seem likely(this is an aside) that Kaas would have known Pacelli in 1916 as they were both in the canon law business. Pacelli was sent to Germany in 1917 and was groomed for it, so kaas would have been a part of the picture. I wonder when that wil be sourceable.
• The secretary ship is not well described with an and in 1925. Hardly academic either, and once thoroughly disputed by str1977 anyway.
• Politically distressed by the revolution presumably
• Decided to enter politics and joined.. massage-no mention of the Centre as a Catholic, vatican approved party. Separation of two things here is attempt to dissimulate and stinks.
• Avro Manhattan speaks of the Rhenian adventurism I think, and it is very important.I think the text is 180 degree wrong, but it needs checking , as I thought he was for the separation.
• His special interest in Concordats was part of his religious career, not his political career. He was a monsignor or was he then? as str1977 asked once, what kind of Monsignor- a papal one? as opposed to what? Of special interest to the vatican is more correct, ie massage.

• Basic factors in Kaas' life and basic factors in the politics of germany.Widely accepted as being the Pacelli/vatican mouthpiece is what some writers say. Sock-Puppet, we call them.
• RKKdt was desired always, did not get abandoned by coming to nothing, and anyway the poitical career is to do with the 1919-1925-1928 realities of the Centre Party, the intervention by the papacy backing re-implementation of the German Monarchy
• Strengthen mdiation, nonsense, ties with Bishops, nonsense or un-sourced. Massage-rightward shift of the party, further leaning towards drection by the vatican, not the bishops. Or source to proveit. I sourced already the opposite.
• loyally, massage his dog-what?
• Papen a renegade Centre Aristocratic catholic with high connections
• Pius supported, nonsense,Intentinal error, Pius instructed via Pacelli, not supported, therefore massage
• Ecclesiastic wrongly spelled
• Became chancellor- that's massage even. Felt betrayed at 30 January AH appointment, un-sourced and as emotive as the rest of these sort of loyal words. Ignores the dirtiness/conspiracy, I am glad to say accepted in part in Wikipedia, of this actually having been a conspiracy, as said at the trials, a seizure no less, a coup d'etat.
• Later that month is massage and intentional error, solo run on 6th march was not alone an end to old animosities because of Hitler's breezy confidence of 15 march that centre would fold for him. Massage which could be balanced , as all of this, in proper NPOV variations, even doubling viewpoints. the denialists could have they're choice too, such that it could be really seen .
• There were two sets ofguarantees and this is massaged out. ther wer the school guarantees ot what they were that coupled in the working Committee negotiations of 20-22 march and which coupled with the guarantees for the catholic civil servant. then there is another solely kaas negotiated further complete Constitutional guarantee. This is gross and very central massage.
• Doubtful, massage. the guy knew it was wrong , knew hitler was a crook, knew the Pope wanted his vilolence against the commies, proposed the guarantee, won his party's assent on the basis of the guarantee, knowing this would endanger the soul of the party (he should know what soul refers to) and still assented the vote. What's so with his doubtful? Massage dishonesty of revisionism is herewith attempted. The word sureties is specified just below after all- and they were only in Kaas' knowledge of a promise.It is a fact that he was a vatican agent, a fact that orders were primary sourced from Mowrer, a fact that manhattan recognised, that others repeat, and above all it is a fact that the centre condoned hitlerism at kaas' hand here exactly .
• Hitler's speech is also known and sourced as aimed at the Holy See, and saying it as the Centre alone is massage.Grievous massage.Kaas had a hand in this speech, everyone says it was directed towards the future Reichskonkordat, hence the quid pro quo of history.
• Bruning has been stated as acceding to kaas' proposal, so his notebale silence is massage.
• Sometimes alleged ,is massage, and there was one letter of Constitutional Guarantee, not guarantees fuzzed over with the previous Centre interests . This is revisionist massage["actively guarding" by Str1977]. It is primaary source from at least two writers and confirms through all but the apologia writings now thrown up in defence.
• Mowrer and Manhattan are primary source saying the Holy See was actively involved, and with their Document War refusal to allow the Archive opened, is what causes the no evidence , therefore this is massage to 'so there is no evidence'. There is a great deal of source, not least the Nuremberg conspiracy and the maneuver to deceive to show that neither Mowrer nor manhattan were in any way inventing anything. Tt is POV massage.
• Private meeting . also is massage-correct is to say that this was a remarkably rare event at this juncture in the Fuhhrer's norms. hardly an aslo. equally ther has been in english understandable to me , no source for these dates being the working Committee. I believe this is also used to minimise the papal damage here, hence massage.
• Once more left Berlin for Rome is massage- he was emigrating (and into the safety of a cushy post in the bosom of St Peter's( never to set foot in Germany again, ever. Massage. aligned with it turns out. I'll accpet this if the contrary view of an even kaas-alone quid pro quo is mentioned. His position at the vatican is reported as consequent upon his position at the Centre.
• It is known that Papen' attempted secrecy(blown as he exited the vatican and therefore secretly met with Kaas in Munich and they travelled together in secrecy, therefore gross massage in ignoring this. Typical revisionism.
• German govt[sic} pressure to resign is un-sourced massaging claim. (Nazi govt) conspired totalitarian Government, ie massage.
• Section head Further Stay in Rome is meaningless
• Homesickness , massage the dog too, he was in clover. Rejection-poor Kaasie -what?
• Links massaged , no Hitler's Pope, no The Great Scandal.
• The Centre Party Germany-well read Avro and then you'll see how massaged the twenties and before is , let alone the points I , because I could, made there.

I find this an objectionable exercise, cleaning up mental excreta emanating from german clerical denialist revisionism, which deserves a page. I tell you that the Wikipedia is being colonised by the vatican, and if I cannot prevent it, I will remark it. EffK 13:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Archival of salient pointers to the massage of this article

Unfortunately( and protest is futile) the relevant pointers showing the exact massage were Archived by the above User, but they are there above still, so can serve as guide to good faith re-editing of this particularly important Article. The Prelate, Monsignor Kaas was the Chairman of the zentrumspartei or Centre Party Germany , and negotiated alone the mysterious and un-received Hitler 'letter of Constitutional Guarantee' as clincher for the Centre bloc supporting the Enabling Act of 23 March. Since this gave Hitler dictatorial powers, the political importance of Kaas is unequivocal, as in these texts here:

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

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

And http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=37374131#Shortcut_to_the_brain_Re:_EffK.2FArbcom,[[2]] contains the definitive World class historian William l Shirer's p 292 statement regarding Ludwig Kaas:-

In his speech of March 23, 1933, to the Reichstag when the legislative body of Germany abandoned its functions to the dictator, Hitler paid tribute to the Christian faiths as essential elements for safeguarding the soul of the German people, promised to rspect their right, declared that his "government's ambition is a peaceful accord between Church and State" and added- with an eye to the votes of the Catholic Centre Party, which he received- that "we hope to improve our friendly relations with the Holy See". {William L. Shirer The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, first published 1960, Secker and Warburg, fair Use/Educational.

Shirer categorically states that Hitler reeived the (vital) Centre support in some un-specified manner concerning his speech's promise for improved relations with the Holy See.

Shirer p 250 also quotes Alan Bullock in re-inforceing the result of the mysterious Kaas handing of the bloc vote, without the written guarantee and the consequence:-

The street gangs, in these words of Alan Bullock,, had seized control of the resources of a great modern State, the gutter had come to power. But as Hitler never ceased to boast- 'legally', by an over-whelming vote of Parliament. The Germans had no one to blame but themselves.

Exactly. In other words, Shirer is saying that there is no point in blaming any Italians. Robert McClenon 22:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shirer on page 249, qualifies the entire historical crux in the light of the findings of the Nuremberg Trials:

"except for the arrests of the Communists and some of the Social democratic deputies, it was all done quite legally, though accompanied by terror."

EffK 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)