Talk:Reichskonkordat

message: *Archive1 Str1977 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Enabling Act could not have been passed with the votes of the Deutschnationale Partei, the Nazis and the Center Party alone. Decisive were two more circumstances: Herman Göring was Secretary of State of Prussia, thus he was commander in chief for the police. The other fact was that there was yet no immunity for parliament representatives. So, Hermann Göring assisted the passing of the enabling act by suddenly imprisoning almost all representatives of the Social Democratic Party (for whatever reasons) shortly before the Enabling Act was brought in. As two thirds of the representatives attending were necessary, the Act could then be passed. I do not have a source for this, this belongs to common knowledge. 
So, if the article tells about the Enabling Act putting up the (adventurous) theory that the vatican helped the Enabling Act in turn for the Reichskonkordat, it should as well mention these facts above, which brings the true circumstances, especially the limited powers of the Center Party, back closer to true relations. UAltmann 08:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I am mistaken! What are we going to do about this? I did not say that Göring dit it alone, it was just a helpful fact that he was a minister in Prussia. There was no factual immunity, this was just a theoretic term. The Enabling Act could not have been passed without this move of Göring and the nazis. So, it is wrong to suggest (like the article does) that the support of the Center Party was the major cause for the enabling act to have been passed and that it was done in turn for the Konkordat. Now, honestly, you can feel free to change the wording, but I see no sense of removing a whole paragraph. Change the wording in your sense, but I think there should be also one little hint to the Kulturkampf. One cannot fully understand the relationship of the Vatican to Germany as the country of the reformation without the kulturkampf. And the latter was a real motive for the Vatican to push for a Konkordat. The restructuring of the states after ww I was not the only reason. The Lateran Treaties deserve being mentioned as well. --UAltmann 10:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The passing of the Enabling Act

message: Why has the section about the Kulturkampf been removed? The consequences of the Kulturkampf were the main motives of the Vatican for a Konkordat with Germany. --UAltmann 07:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Kulturkampf was by far not only a german matter since the reasons for the Kulturkampf were not only German matters, and Pacelli wanted the Konkordat especially with Germany because of the Kulturkampf. The Kulturkampf was by far more than just the Kanzelparagraph and by far more than just a psychological setting in the minds of various clerics. The wish for a Konkordat ruling the freedom of religion cannot be traced back to the 15 th century, this is wrong, because religious freedom was not an issue in the 15 th century. In the middle ages there was the dispute about the appointment of the bishops (Investiturstreit) and the Church wanted an agreement about this, but this may not be messed up with the issue of the Konkordat. For Hitler, the Konkordat was an attempt to make not only the priest, but also the whole church be silent on political matters. If you say that one of my sentences is correct, why not leave it there? The reasons for the Konkordat of course belong to the top of the article. --UAltmann 10:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last removals

message: Str1977, I see you have great interest for this article. But saying that "Nazi Germany was not a state" is misleading and hides the historical relevance of the Reichskonkordat. Obviously, the major historical and encyclopedical interest of this Concordat is much more related to the players involved than the Concordat itself --otherwise, it would just be "one more". I suggest to modify the header in order not to fool the reader with an apparently "irrelevant" bias for one of the most polemic documents in contemporary history. Best regards, --MaeseLeon (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Germany not a state? 

message: There was apparently an additional concordat with Austria and its ruler Dollfuss at around the same period, on July 5 1933. There should probably be additional information on this concordat in one of our articles.  ADM (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Concordat with Austria

message: At the end of the first paragraph, there was a diffamating section that was just wrong. If the leadership of the NSDAP was overwhelmingly Catholic, that does seemingly not include Göring, Frick, Rosenberg, Heß, Ley. Moreover, the association that the Catholic Church was near in its teaching to the NSDAP comes rather odd if we take into account the fact that prior to the Reichskonkordat, the NSDAP members were most of the time debarred from the sacraments, that Cardinal Faulhaber did not restrict himself to call National Socialism "a heresy incompatible with Christian belief", and a Cardinal is not expected to use such terms lightly, or that neither the Catholic Hitler as Chancellor, nor the Protestants von Neurath (Foreign Office) and Frick (Interior Ministry), as competent ressort ministers, were allowed to sign the Concordat we are just speaking of, but that this had to be left to Vice Chancellor von Papen who was a Catholic non-nazi. The Catholics at the time had exactly one party, as such supported one party, were organised in one party, and that is the Zentrum. (Except in Bavaria, where the former Zentrum section became, need I say it: not the NSDAP, but the Bavarian People's Party.) --77.4.59.69 (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: My edit of November 8th 2010

message: I am translating this article (older revision) to Polish, and I noticed that the section "After World War II" lacks sources (except first paragraph). Could someone fix this, please? Any hints on sources? BartłomiejB (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I added source about the ruling to the article (credits goes to user:Lupo). BartłomiejB (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Regarding criticism and church-state separation: I added reference to one of the articles on concordatwatch.eu. It is not ideal, but I guess it is better than nothing. BartłomiejB (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of sources in "After World War II" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reichskonkordat. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131101185416/http://nationalreview.com/articles/220212/antidotal-history/john-jay-hughes to http://nationalreview.com/articles/220212/antidotal-history/john-jay-hughes
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :
Several questions come to mind.  Is it ever called "Reich Concordat"?  In en.wp, is there a need to specify that a translation of a foreign phrase is into English?  (Should we give Italian and/or Latin translations as well?)  Given that Reich is not an English word, how English is the phrase anyway? —Tamfang (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppiied a reference from the official Vatican website, which may or may not have any wider currency. I agree that "Reich Concordat" doesn't sound like English, but if it can be shown to be used in more reliable sources… Sparafucil (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  when is a translation not a translation? 

message: Under negotiations, there's a bit of text about a written letter by the pope, and instead of quoting the letter, the only thing that is said is "The text of the letter is easily accessible on the internet." Unablethink (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing quote 

message: Nowhere does this page say what concessions the Church was granted (and therefore why they wanted to keep it after the war). 84.203.50.190 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms???