Talk:Reichskonkordat/Archive 1

message: If there was not a sub#decree ,undermining Part 2  of the Act , then according to the translation done by Djmutex , to whom thanks , part2  EAct states that nothing will be lawful if done against the Reichstag (" O..prOvisions as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag". (note plural)
Part 4 EAct speaks of contracts with foreign States  and that.... no need  of  reference to the German legislature shall be required . 
The on-topicality.... ( and by the way to achieve  that which here seems your intention in your edit, use  dissolution , )... topicality of the Enabling Act to the Reichskonkordat /Concordat IS that I read from Part2 Enabling Act ...... there was no legality to the meeting of the Reichstag on 21 March Ceremonial . Nor on 23March actual  'Sitting' of/for  the  Enabling Act . 
If it was not legal to interfere with the Reichstag , then it was illegal to arrest and detain Communist Deputies , surely ? 
Please , you check as you can . Is a Reichstag Deputy a part of the Reichstag, does a Reichstag(parliament) exist  separate from a body of deputies  who parlent? I would see it as logically not existing , therefore  attacked and  already illegal on those  sole occasions of its  assembly . Illegal assembly , because not the actual real  body of the Reichstag in its living flesh .
The Third Reich hence would  not have  come to power with any  legality whatsoever on the 23 March  , as history seeks to allow . The entry on  1933 , I bet on WP  says Nazis seized or ascended to power , both wrong , on 23 March (if it says even that)  .They seized power when they arrested Reichstag Deputies illegally  before the Reichstag Fire , in mid-late Febuary . Of course there's the problem of the intervening  real election of 5 march , and the continuance of illegal detention , presumably  re-election of men in prison at the date .  Is this what you were trying to tell me   all along ? But why should you tell me when even the WP is wrong , and all the world says Hitler was voted in  ,in the Reichstag on 23 March ? All the historians I see have missed this vital  point . I would love to see more , but anyway I have heard or seen no reference to the illegality of those two meetings .All record  the claims of legality made by Hitler , following in to the legal Reichskonkordat . The very Elections , what are they , legal  or not legal ? It would appear not , the Reichstag was  already  attacked illegally by the detention.  More change to history needed , or not . If there was no other decree signed by President Paul von Hindenburg  between  28 march and the 5 march  General Election . [There was not] 
I have to claim that this is not  research we are into ( or I ) , but comes under  NPOV accuracy rules and balance  , in this case with the whole of WP  and of  history . The fact that it is published as an interpretation , or not , does not affect our interpretation of the German words   translated into  Parts 1 to 5 of the Act . That the legality is as I see it , or  is not ... is the first question . The Tam Sat Asi / It is as it is /Es asi/ C'est ca -rules ,surely ? WP believes in explaining , this is explanation , is it not ? No ad hominem  here .
Second question- IF it is plainly visible as illegal ...... then there is no legality to the siezure of power  under the Act  , as the very vote for the Act contravened the Act ? 
Third question, presumably  the Concordat is illegal at this minute , as it's  claiming an illegal present existence (there's rather a lot of  money involved  , is it some actual %age of GNP ?). I fear old  fellow , that this gives me  -a reason to see the legal answer to  this emanating from the parties( the vatican being one , germany , now,  the other ).  If you are willing to discuss and search through for  the confirmation before I ask the church ,and  whoever legally represents Germany in the real world , I would  be happy to so do with you . 
Fourth question .We had such a hard time earlier , and for what ?  The  question of a Secret Annexe . Hard. I accepted what you edited on that .
Question five  A Nazi Concordat  or a Germany(y)  Concordat ? I see Part5 EAct as clearly showing it was a Concordat made with the Government . For the people  ..just OK , but with the people , how?  The entire was without live legal reference to any German people (Germany ) as there was no legislature - viz    "...shall not require the approval of the bodies concerned with legislation." 
That's to say  Germans  who have a country or some such generic entity , of which they are a live  part ,and in which the quality of approval is a factor of reality ( says so in the Act) - that the Concordat was with German (Germans, or Germany)... as a fact ) .   
It appears suddenly blindingly obvious  that- there was no lawful German Head of State ? None , and certainly not empowered by the Enabling Act .   Nor a  Germany : no law for Germans and no law in Germany . No legal basis beneath Hitler's trumpeted claims for such . No State legally able to approve the concordat , a false legal document , subject to immediate  reclamation  I would logically  think .
I'm going to  leave out the little inconsistancies that came between us  at such length. I look forward to your leaving some stuff out ,and all (meaning ,as well) .... I do you the credit of asking you these questions, but I have posed them to others , and they are the basis for the future editing , and everything ....aren't they ?
Three last points : a) that you edit  here with 'dissolvement' and I guess grammatically  it could be seen in the light of say enfranchisement  ,but these v's as in v make it rather  difficult to put  in the ear. I suggest 'dissolution' is neutral  . Dissolved  no  as it can , but  not necessarily  ,as I have previously argued, be qualified by a reflexive -( was dissolved means something done to so say ) . Dissolution would perfectly achieve the balance you were after, and leave open the  possibility of a more or less dissolved entity , and more or less  implied reflexivity  upon  the verb . Of course  it becomes  dependently illegal everything   anyway months before . We are only speculating on the  picture of a facade crumbling  . All is relevant , like a novel can be  the same sort of reflection of spirit in time surely as  a  crumbling  party , can express the same crumbling  . I digress,. 
b) Is altogether more serious (: I attest that you here have tried to be NPOV , or been NPOV , roughly at a glance  .) I FK, do not  want to tie all this up with a specification that the dissolution and the concordat were ,  with their  relation to Kaas' vote , all solely and  alone   the result ,100 %, of a papal push . I am sure that you are and have all along been partly correct to say that it shouldn't be so presented: that there are , were other even equal factors. I can't say that I have yet been persuaded by anything within the  wider social history of the Centre party , but  I am interested and need to know everything , simply to still my own doubts of myself , of all I do claim.  
I don't claim that the papacy wanted the 'perish the Jew'  more than they  wanted  the  'perish the Bolshies, atheistic Russian Nihilism or less . I think it was  that they wanted both  ,and Hitler offered both (it was perfectly public his offering ) . 
Nor do I  see  that the Centre as a block decided to allow the vote by Kaas , nor that they understood the  true motives of Kaas  . I relate that  Edgar Ansel Mowrer on p 209 of his Personal History ) gave reason to believe that the papal wish  was a serious factor in the civil party . 
I see little to negate the  fact  and coherence of the papal wish  , and nothing to negate  Mowrer's  report that their wish was clearly stated ,10 months prior to the Enabling Act . You managed to  find the minutes of the Centre Party Germany's last  Enabling Act  meeting - where's the rest ? 
I don't negate the  nature of the working party  from the 15 th March  , I agree it looked pukka or above-board , to a point even  was so  , but, I don't  diminuish the fact of Kaas' private  meeting (unheard of by then) with Hitler on his return from the papacy  ,  at the end of March,  before Papen crawled in there to St Peters  ,in the return visit to Rome of both  .Ludwig  Kaas went to Rome immediately after the Enabling Act day . I  pulled all that out and  you saw it, the  MegaMemex timeline ,they quoted Lewy , I said , for the dates . 
Anyone should  answer any of these questions , then the entry for 1933 can be corrected  on WP  first .Famekeeper 22:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Situation at law