Talk:Reichskonkordat/Archive 2

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ermächtigungsgesetz 

message: 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)
thread_title: Controversy Vector (into contemporary German politics)

message: 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)
thread_title: Oversight to this  Reichskonkordat article

message: ::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)
thread_title: Shirer

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Kenney revert

message: 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)
thread_title: Catholic Church and Nazism (Nuremburg Trials extract)

message: 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)
thread_title: Str1977 de-linkage