Talk:Enabling Act of 1933/Archive 3

message: Hitler pulling out of coalition with other parties, after 30 Jan, I am at a loss to understand. Hitler called the Election to receive a firmer mandate, to pressure other parties such as particularly the Centre , with whom bargaining had been long negotiated. He called elections to drive towards the EAct. No one states that he was from before the Fire planning to rig the Reichstag as he did, and at the Tribunal Goering suggests all the Fire measures were brought forward too soon. I have to disagree therefore with this description but  I approve of JonRoma re-writing re :Arrests. 
I have to note that ... following the EAct... other parties were suppressed or banned. I think we know a little more about the Centre Party than that. We know it was effectively suppressed by violent action, but we also know it was politically suppressed, and that the news of its choice to dissolve, or at any rate the date of this, emanates from the vatican via the British  Ambassador-do we not? . This may be a quirk of telefonic fate, perhaps Kaas had been told  by fone, etc. I do not think the rolling events can be allowed to pass proper notice as the Centre was so crucial. Kaas must be remarked for what he is , a friend and sub-ordinate to Pacelli, and therefore his involvement with Hitler is not limited to his action on 6 or  23 or to the working committees before and after . Most history  points to a quid pro quo between the Reichskonkordat and the auto-dissolution, 6b , with all the reasons for that and results of that.In fact the 15 cabinet was notthe first, but appears was the first to list the EAct /centre subversion as priority. Some of this is off-Article, but by no means all. Suppression by itself does nothing to clarify the political alliances nor their evolution. I believe I have sourced enough to warrant a normal full treatment of the involvement of the RC Church, which is still absent. There is no mention even of the Hitler 'u-turn' pro Holy See Speech reference, no mention of the long-standing choice of the Pope for Hitler empowerment . I am sure JonRoma, that you will understand  and that your ability to source will confirm or accept this. The only text that appears to be little known is the Mowrer reference of 1932, and  certainly K v Klemperer exemplifies abundantly clear linkage between these forces made also by even the most standard histories . I would therefore hope that you can put a section into this where it is relevant detailing the entire connection and showing its position in the overrall . Other-wise links towards the unfinished scandal and H Pope should exist.  EffK 10:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the article Enabling Act is unreadable, or that the above talk page post is unreadable?  If it is the article, please state which paragraphs need cleaning up.  If it is the above talk page post, then refactoring of other people's talk page posts is generally disapproved of, but they can always be ignored.  Robert McClenon 16:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StudentSteve, could you please remember to sign your posts?  Thank you for improving the wording.  Robert McClenon 12:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suppression of other Parties etc

message: JonRoma raises the question of whether there should be one main article, and whether the large number of separate articles are partly duplicative. I agree that there is considerable duplication.  Some of the articles are POV forks.  There should be an overall article.  However, it would be too long if it included all of the details on all of the aspects of the Nazi accession.  It appears that the article on Hitler's rise to power was created within the past week by Cberlet and could be used as a structure to point to the other articles. Robert McClenon 12:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: One Main Article?