Talk:Reichskonkordat/Archive3

Added links

Thanks, EffK, for adding links, Unfortunately, not all belong here.

• Avro Manhattan basically consitutes hate literature. Would you put the sages of Zion on the Jews article.
• The shrill ... is identical to the previous link.
• Jewishvirtuallibrary resource - good, but not about the concordat as such but about Pius and holocaust. One paragraph metions the RKK, but adds nothing substantive - move to Pius XII.
• CDF link - irrelevat to this.
• Píus war - doesn't mention the RKK at all - move to Pius XII.
• PIUS DEFENDERS again touches RKK only tangibly - move to Pius XII.
• Papen mentions concordat, but is focused on Papen - sould be moved to Papen.
• Gregory S. Paul borderin on calumny.
• LaRouche not quite credile source.

Anyway, tanks for your contribution. Str1977 20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice live edit war . glad we are in the chummy phase, sharing our smokes across no man's land, why do we fight . Ill restore some. Avro because it is a source of relevance , ie published .

Ill cut out what i can , but I did add balancing defensive links, I didn't shoot him in the back, like... Following that , well other ammo like Dubious eh? EffK 20:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that is appreciated but not all links were much help to this article (hence I moved them to were I think they are of more use. I cannot, however, accept the link to A Manhatta. As his WP article suggests, he's anti-Catholic propagandist, his book is hate literature along the lines of Mr Chick (who unfortunately now owns Garfield). The date of his book, in the late forties also suggest, that we are not dealing with a scholarly work. And it's not a source (in the narrower sense). He was not a wittness of Vatica diplomacy, or was he? Sorry, but no. Str1977 20:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. And yes looks like maybe Avro was a witness, he was there in Rome all thru til 47 I think . I check the chick , but that another issue . And, read Klemperer , youd looove him. EffK 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreement at last re Article, Nov 16 2005

I can report that the bones of the sourceable history is now reflected. Thankyou Str1977 for what appears to be assent between us . The article now reflects in NPOV manner that which is reflected in the extensive links removed . do you know this english (scots probably ) God's streuth ! Means what an exasperation , ...this has been . Thanks Str! Not much more to disagree about . Perhaps in our third year together well get to the evangelical church collusions ? Mowrer's always a good place to start. EffK 20:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Str1977 22:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please restate this? I have no idea what it says. Robert McClenon 22:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea, Robert, what agreement FK is referring to. Or his "third years" - this only began in April or May. Str1977 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeh-maybe you're both right, as all that changes is cleanliness, fellahs. I don't like it cos its not with it. I see this here though, and dig Papen's close personal with the highest:

But quite apart from these deliberations the attitude of the defendant towards religious matters does not admit of the slightest doubt about the sincerity of his intentions. In the hearing of the evidence, it was set forth that not only his closest personal advisers in Church affairs, but also the highest dignitaries of the Church who were in closest personal as well as professional contact with the defendant in these matters, emphasized that his attitude as a Catholic was absolutely irreproachable at all times.

Fair-Use/Educational/Public ,from http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-19/tgmwc-19-183-11.shtml

McClenon "POV". edits and dissolution

Robert McCelon, I presume you are trying to say something to someone by characterising that which you remove as POV. I may or may not source that which I explained. I don't relish a source feast with you over this, as you don't wish it either. However let us not your presence ignore. You diminuish rather than add, yet again. Your assertions of POV are your way of doing things. I will say that I am amused by your reversal of dissolvement back to dissolution. If you look back in time, you will find yoursel reversing my dissolution back to Str's dissolvement. I gave up pissing about over that but.. What a scream! EffK 00:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Re:McClenon claim of POV:it's nonsense as this shows, from the first link off the Article.

Catholic clerics who hold an ecclesiastical office in Germany or who exercise pastoral or educational functions must:

(a) Be German citizens. (b) Have matriculated from a German secondary school. (c) Have studied philosophy and theology for at least three years at a German State University, a German ecclesiastical college, or a papal college in Rome.

And

Religious Superiors whose headquarters are within Germany must be German citizens.

And

Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of fealty either to the Reich Representative of the State concerned, or to the President of the Reich, according to the following formula: "Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State of . . . I swear and promise to honor the legally constituted Government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it. In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interests of the German Reich, I will endeavor to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it". from :http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm by fair-use/educational/public.

I protest this particular editor's misrepresentation of the above as [my] POV . I do wonder why I have to suffer this editor's continual provocation and blatant harrassment...... meaning I know why he makes it , but I do not know when some community sense of rationality may intervene? I am not alone in thinking McClenon is problematical for the WP. This is a case of obstruction, one of very many concerted efforts at what I call denialism.

EffK 22:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Pan-germanic

Great you accept what McC calls POV. He is best on Arbcom stuff really . I see that Ill have to source pan germanic for you. Is Hitler's Book legal there in Germany, do you have a copy to read? I suppose you may not. He is on-line of course. This will be great , digging up bones here . I have a few books .EffK 02:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Volk is per se pan-germanic. People is used in expansionist Third Reich Policy terms and is interchangeable to them, I believe in Gfaith.

• In the 150-year Wars of Religion we were, as a Reich and Volk, almost destroyed. Today we stand in a bitter struggle for existence against Bolshevism. I appeal to the Christian churches of both confessions to join with us against this enemy in defense of their living values of belief and morality. -Bernhard Rust, Volkischer Beobachter, 9 Feb. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

• The party stands for positive Christianity. The National Socialist state is absolutely ready to work with the Christian churches, but the solidarity of the churches to the Volk must be a matter of course; that means that the churches must feel bound to the Volk and may never come into opposition to the National Socialist leadership of the state. -Wilhelm Frick, Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 2 June 1935, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Galls The Holy Reich]

• If anyone can lay claim to God's help, then it is Hitler, for without God's benevolent fatherly hand, without his blessing, the nation would not be where it stands today. It is an unbelievable miracle that God has bestowed on our people. -Bernhard Rust, in a speech to a mass meeting of German Chrisitans on June 29, 1933 [Helmreich]

• We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God, including all classes, professions and creeds, where the Fuhrer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty. -Joseph Goebbels, in a broadcast, 19 April 1936

• You take an oath to a man whom you know follows the laws of providence, which he obeys independently of the influence of earthly powers, who leads the German people rightly, and who will guide Germany's fate. Through your oath you bind yourselves to a man who--that is our faith--was sent to us by higher powers. Do not seek Adolf Hitler with your mind. You will find him through he strength of your hearts!-Rudolf Hess, in his speech, "The Oath to Adolf Hitler," 1934

• Through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun. -Hans Hinkel, [from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

• The Fuhrer wants to protect positive Christianity; this must be maintained. It is necessary, therefore, to seize upon the power of the Christian confessions which affirm the state and National Socialism, and to maintain church life. -Hanns Kerrl, Dokumente zur Kirchenpolitik, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

• [Steigmann-Gall] In a meeting in 1940 to resolve the issue of Rosenberg's appointment, Kerrl noted that:The Third Reich needs Christianity and the churches because it has nothing to replace the Christian religion and Christian morality.... His appointment will result in marked unrest among the Volk, which is precisely what we must avoid during the war under all circumstances.

• Precisely because we affirm it, because we are convinced that Christianity and Germanhood have come together in so infinitely many respects that they cannot be separated.... We have confidence in the German state, that its politics are not opposed to Christian interests and Christian sensibilities, but rather that it will look after these interests in all circumstances. -Wilhelm Kube, cofounder of the German Christians party (Deutsche Christen, or DC), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

• We have not fought to build a paganistic temple, but to unite the German Volk for all eternity. We do not build temples against the Christian church, we do not want Valhalla as a substitute for a Christian heaven. -Bernhard Rust, Das Evangelische Deutschland, 1 July 1934, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

• Neither the Reformation nor the Counter-Reformation fully conquered all of Germany, nor did either create a Christian state religion. The National Socialist program commits itself to positive Christianity. However, the German Volk, split into two religions, cannot express one confession to Christian dogma, but only to practical Christianity. The two confessions can find each other in Christian ethics, whereas in dogma the Volk breaks in two. -Bernhard Rust, Deutsche Allgmeine Zeitung, 23 March 1935, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

I think you should reverse your edit of pan-german , and not as User: Flamekeeper foresaw, lightly call forth copyright etc. All of the above come from http://www.nobeliefs.com/henchmen.htm[[1]], cited as they say, and I place them under fair-use/educational.

If you want a direct Hitler quote, I shall have to return to this but I protest your assumption of bad faith forcing me to do this. EffK 13:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK, too much effort. It is clear as sunshine that Hitler had pan-germanic objectives. I don't need any quotes for this. But in the context you put it it was out of place and loaded with POV (or rather implication of wrong data: that this pan-Germanic thing was on the line here). Str1977 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense(irrational-anti-intellect to your denial of pan-germanic christian objectives.EffK 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be an answer? Well, let it rest. Str1977 11:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Supposed Censorship this article and this discussion

I removed your reposting of an old discussion. You can talk about Dilectissims Nobis is you like but only about its real contents. I must ask you again whether you have read the document? Your claimed wording (CD) is not in there. Str1977 20:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, EffK, but I have to remove it again. What you are saying (even if church-hating "humanists" agree with you) is a misrepresentation of a document as big as saying the 1776 Declaration of Independence boils down to "God save the King!" Str1977 00:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Str, you seem to believe you have gained the right to censor discussions already. Funny you should do so in your own interst. If this is going to happen everywhere, I think you are arrogating to yourself the decision making process of others. I believe I am entirely justified in having written that which I did, and I can only suggest that users who do not understand your actions look in the history . I am flagrantly prevented from good faith editing of both the article and of the discussion. EffK 08:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the right to censor discussions and I am not aiming to. However, it is appropriate for you to needlessly (as it has now bearing on current questions) repost an old discussion, especially since it carries an example of utter misrepresentation of a document. Go ahead, post over at Adolf Hilter that "Mein Kampf" talked about his love of the Jews. And six months after you have been contradicted, repost your claims. IMHO my reaction was rather mild. Str1977 11:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Reichskonkordat, Ludwig Kaas and 'legality' problems

This relates to Archive 2 (and 1) at Ludwig Kaas. The related legal questions and definitions were wrongly Archived, in both Archives. I have to ask that whoever, maybe the same user, not remove this post until people have had time to read it openly, as that is a disruption of Wikipedia. Whatever about the modern Federal German court case concerning the Legality of this the Reichskonkordat, I find that I finally have to post to the author of the Concordat, ludwig Kaas, the relevant Indictments of the Nuremberg trials. And whatever about that Federal case and its legal approval of the Concordat, the fact remains that it was illegal in its secret clause, and thereby if for no more, comes under the remit of the Nuremberg Indictment. In fact it represented one side of a diabolical pact to Institute Totalitarian Government, and it would appear that purely the statement of Franz von Papen visible at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EffK#The_Nuremberg_Trial_precedence_and_the_Wikipedia_Charge_against_User:EffK, [[2]] that:-

The Prosecution has adopted the view that this Concordat was a maneuver intended to deceive. Perhaps I may in this connection point to the facts that the gentlemen with whom I signed this Concordat were Secretary of State Pacelli, the present Pope, who had known Germany personally for 13 years, and Monsignor Kaas, who for years had been the Chairman of the Center Party, and that if these two men were willing to conclude a Concordat, then one can surely not maintain that this was a maneuver intended to deceive.

...was what prevented the Tribunal from full investigation of the role of Ludwig Kaas and the signatory Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli( Later Pope Pius XII I for one do not yet know but it appears to be purely Papen's 'surely not'. This is therefore a very troubling un-resolved issue. The Secret Clause of this Concordat's breaking the Versailles Treaty were precisely the manner of Hitlerian illegality adjudged at Nuremberg. Naturally it is not in the moral or ethical interests of the signatory, the Holy See, for contemporary questioning to re-open the diabolism of the pact made. War in all its worst and criminal nature was the Indictment to which the Concordat and it's draftee are eternally linked, and the ethical considerations internal to the Holy See also remain eternal. it should be noted with care that Papen furthermore implicated the Holy See in on-going attempt even as late as 1936, towards a synthesis between the Holy See and the healthy aspects of National Socialism, specifying that this could be traced to a high authority in the vatican. This staement seriously under-mines all attempts to claim that the Holy See in any way immediately regretted its Concordat, or that it was essentially critical of National Socialism. it should also be remembered that the socially advanced Pope Pius XI is alleged by a witness, to have been hastened to death, clutching in his last night, the very speech he never delivered, but which would have put an end to the diabolical collusion policy Papen refers to. I regret to have to relay this but consider that the Article, which I have never edited, perhaps could broaden to include its true full consequences, the (voluntary) subjugation of the Catholic Church, and its German adherents, to the Nazi Conspiracy to wage Unjust and Inhuman War.EffK 23:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain, in 500 words or less, what change you are proposing be made to the article. This is an article talk page, not a soapbox. Any answer that is more than 500 words long will be archived. Robert McClenon 01:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New text for substitution under 'History'

"....despite talks even in the winter of 1932."

"On 30 January 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor. On 23 March 1933 his government possessed themselves of legislative powers through the Enabling Act. The Reichstag passed this act with the votes of several numerically minor parties, and with the condonation of the large Centre Party bloc 9( which included the Bavarian People's Party).It is recognised by historians since the Nuremberg Tribunals that the disastrous abdication of parliamentary democracy at the 23 March 1933 Enabling Act is linked to the subsequent accomodations between Hitler and the Holy see in the Reichskonkordat. This abdication or reduction of the Reichstag was achieved by the illegal arrest of more than a fifth of the deputies in the preceding weeks, and, after open negotiation of accomodations to various Centre specifically catholic interests, the promise to the Catholic Centre Party Germany Chairman, Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, of a written Letter of Constitutional Guarantee. The circumstances of this Party's voting for the two-thirds majority required for the Enabling Act are linked to this guarantee and to the speech made by Hitler in that Reichstag, promising improved relations with the Holy See. Journalistic source confirms historical qualification that the reference to the improved relations refers to the following Reichskonkordat, and remembers the Chairman Kaas as having had a hand in that persuasive final Hitler speech to the Reichstag. The NSDAP/ nationalist DNvP co-alition by means also of a change in procedural rules, qualified arrested Communist and Social Democrat deputies as voluntarily absent and thereby excludable, which forced the rump of the Social Democrats to attend the sitting despite protest."

"The figure of Ludwig Kaas is considered central to this dictatorial take-over of Germany, and Kaas figures in all timelines which note that rolling accomodation by the Holy See which is characterisd by the reversal of the German Hierarchy's anti-Nazi policy ,at the subsequent 28 March German Bishops Conference at Fulda. Kaas, who alone had arranged the final persuasion of his party had a subsequent April 2 private and hence rare and mysterious conference with Adolf Hitler. On April 8 Hitler sent his vice chancellor Franz von Papen, a Catholic nobleman,former member of the Centre Party and prinipal architect for the Hitlerian Chancellorship, to Rome. Franz von Papen and Ludwig Kaas journeyed together in secret, but the Papen mission to open Hitler's negotiations was revealed by the Italian Press. At their arrival Kaas was first to report to his old and close friend, Secretary of State and ex-German papal Nuncio, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli{later Pope Pius XII, and was deputed with drafting the terms of the Reichskonkordat( at the time he remained the Chairman of the Centre Party). There is general historical agreement that a further de-stabilisation of politics in Germany came in the negotiation from within the Vatican itself, for the voluntary dissolution of the long established and influential republican Centre Party. This,with papal diplomatic approbation of the new un-compromisingly anti-Communist leadership in Germany, together with widely publicised statements of support by Ludwig Kaas, with the Hierarchy's remoovals of proscriptions upon Nazi membership, immediate reversal of attitudes in the German catholic Press and, tangentially, the encyclical Dilectissima Nobis,all led to the wholescale drift of Germany's catholic voters into Hitlerism (the NSDAP ) at the following November final, one-party, election."

In the Concordat, the German government........"-remove "The negotiation effected the dissolution of the long-standing and constitutionally inclined Centre Party."

Thankyou for please , Robert McClenon,.... but please yourself do not archive necessary information for gratuitous reason...., Please, also, do not object to concise complicated writing and at the same time preremptarily demand limitations as to word count....You are aware as to the sources, and thus will hardly demand the filling here of many inches with their repetition. They are, Mowrer, Nuremberg, Shirer, Toland, Lewy and Klemperer.....

This new txt should be substituted in good faith by youraelf( I will not do so until the verifiability issues are dealt with concerning my EffK editing, at Arbcom, as it was a demand of your own, Robert McCleonon, that I be not so allowed and I, rather, protest your constant bad-faith in all you touch or comment upon.) EffK 10:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Summary

The purpose of Wikipedia article talk pages is to discuss article content. Please summarize what changes you want made to the content of this article. If you do not summarize what this has to do with article content, your posts will be archived as tangential. Robert McClenon 16:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

adding some info

I have added some more detail on the run-up to concordat from the Pope Pius XII page. (Some of it had been trimmed from the Pius page which has undergone much needed pruning, but I think is entirely appropriate here.)

Also created separate section for views on the meaning of the concordat.Bengalski 21:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)