Talk:Ludwig Kaas/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: What Does This Say?

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed Resolution of Dispute

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually, this article most certainly does link to Adolf Hitler.  See here. john k 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pontifical Subversion of Germany,and Wikipedia

message: 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)
thread_title: Revisionist POV Ludwig Kaas Massage and updates thereof

message: 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) ,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,[] 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Archival of salient pointers to the massage of this article