Talk:Reichskonkordat

• Archive1 Str1977 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Disturbing

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

Since there was no reply I remove the sentence in question, It is an unqualified pov utterances anyway. Str1977 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

Ermächtigungsgesetz

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)

Dear Pjacobi,

it is questionable whether this belongs here or is off topic. But I'm willing to let it stand if worded properly.

No, "most parties" is not misleading (let alone most), but fact. All parties voted for the Act except for the SPD (and the already "purged" Communists). The only "government parties" were DNVP and NSDAP. Neither the two liberal parties, nor the smaller parties were part of the government and they all voted in favour of the act. The Centre vote was crucial since it helped the act "over the hurdle" but so did the others as well. The party can be mentioned explictely because of its Catholic nature (which related to the topic), but I will not accept creating a spring board for the reinsertion of conspiracy theories (not by you, I guess, but someone else).

The phrase "his government was given legislative powers" is as accurate as possible. One might elaborate on this but such an elaboration rather belongs to the EA article (which is wikilinked). I also ask how your version helps understanding this current article. It doesn't. "Legislative powers" help explain why there was a majority now, while in 1932 parties could not agree on anything. Answer: Legislative powers of the government. That Hitler (as a person) used the provisions of the EA to wield dictatorial powers (though still not unlimited before Hindenburg's death) is true but another matter.

Str1977 10:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll live with your version until new input from other editors is received. But I'm nevertheless disturbed by your efforts to clean this article. --Pjacobi 11:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My effort to "clean" the article are only efforts to keep it "clean" in the actual meaning of the word: clean from conspiracy theories, clean from POV parading as fact, clean from pseudo-scholarship. You might not have witnessed what has gone here (or elsewhere) before. It is far from my intentions to hide the role of the Centre Party. Not in the least. In fact, I have written large sections on this on the Centre Party page, giving detailed accounts of Kaas' politics. Str1977 11:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversy Vector (into contemporary German politics)

The interweaving of denial and avoidant reaction parallel but outside of the RKKt controversy is shown here :[[1]] , 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)

Oversight to this Reichskonkordat article

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)

Hello

I began to read the article, and was startled by the 2nd sentance:

The Reichskonkordat is the concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich, signed in 1933. It is still valid today in Germany.

This is still valid today? Sam Spade 23:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is still valid. It was a treaty between the Holy See and the German Reich, whose successor is the Federal Republic of Germany. International treaties are supposed to remain intact. Only one issue has been rendered invalid (schools), since schools under the Grundgesetz are under the jurisidiction of the individual states and not the national government. Str1977 00:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The section 2, if I remember rightly(but its in WP, stte that the Chancellor/cabinet/Government were enabled to conduct and conclude treaties with foreign powers on behalf of the people of Germany . They were in section 4 prohibited from interference with te institutions of the Reichstag . They arrested Commmunist deputies and prevented their voting for the Enabling Act as a conspiracy against the Reichstag institution. Therefore the Government existed purely through a transgression of the Enabling Act, which was illegal .

Coup d'etat is the takeover of a government from within by force of coercion . The co-ercion was supplied by von Papen on behalf of the Industrial Magnates, as well as for the church , groundswell in the army and for the landed classes. I read this , it being a coup d'etat ,within a short while, and will supply it by source . From hereon I shall be punctilious in this respect. Perhaps it was at Nuremburg itself - I remembered it being very frank , and concise for the papen strokes/coup de main . The modern controversy I linked explains the sensitivities of a nation that denies too much to itself , even now. Str in this respect is fairly un-exceptional . If bad faith in me removes coup d'etat now. and it appears in Nuremburg trials, I will be doubly vindicated.

Content added

On 30 January, 1933 Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor in a coup d'etat.Further elections called by Hitler to provide him with a clear majority failed to do so , as Catholic , Communist and Socialist votes held firm on 5 March and left the Nazi alliance with the ultra-right Nationalists in slimmest majority . From this time Hitler contrived towards obtention of a two-thirds majority imposed Rule by chancellery Decree under the so called Enabling Act . This Act was a Hitler priority from 12 March . Meetings with Centre politicians towards accomodation were held through March , culminating 20- 22 March with agreement concerning retention of protections and rights for Catholic civil servants . At his cabinet meeting resolving to achieve this Act on 15 march , Hitler is recorded as being certain of Centre approval , such that he breezily declined suggestion towards further increased arrests, this time of socialist deputies .

Social-Democrats refused and the Communists were subject to un-constitutional arrest , their numbers therefore unable to check this 2/3 stipulation as envisioned under the Weimar legislation allowing for such short-term draconian rule . Hitler exhbited sufficient softening of his Party's anti- christian line during a studied speech ,assuring Germans of his estimation of Christianity at the heart of the German folk . At the same period the hitherto strongly anti-Nazi posture of the German Catholic Hierarchy or Bishops ,was softened through Vatican change in policy favouring Hitlerism as bulwark against a possibly threatening leftist creeping Germany .

Some lack of clarity surrounds the position of the Centre chairman Ludwig Kaas( a position held since 1928 and the right-ward turn in the centre party . Since the 1940's comment has focused on this Monsignor or Prelate of the Catholic Church . Kaas either did or did not act as co-chairman with Adolf Hitler of daily meetings aimed towards a voting resolution in the Reichstag , held between 17 March and 22 March 1933 . Kaas is alleged to have had direct input into the Hitler speeches accomodating the Holy See at the 23 March Enabling Act vote . Kaas is alleged by Avro Manhattan and others to have played the significant role along with von Papen in the arrangements towards the Reichskonkordat . On the 24 March Kaas travelled to rome and was then hurriedly recalled on 31 March for a remarkable private meeting with Adolf Hitler of 2 April . On the 7 April Kaas met in Munich with von Papen . Papen it is known travelled to Rome under the subterfuge of a Sking holiday( but was un-masked by the Roman press) .

Von Papen had close relations with the vatican structures, with the Rhenisch-Westphalian Industrial Magnates who were bank-rolling Adolf Hitler ,and with Paul von Hindenburg , the increasingly senile WWI General now President . Ludwig Kaas was immediately deputed by the Holy See to actually undertake the drafting of the text and conditions of the Reichskonkordat , and continued to thereby play a crucial role in the proceedings towards its signature on 5 July . Kaas never again returned to Germany and , retained within the sovereign jurisdiction of the vatican , was un-available for interview at post-war trial, unlike Papen , who there spoke of him in connection with the Concordat .

---

• Apparently some of the above may need cited, NPOV'ed, and/or merged elsewhere. Sam Spade 00:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me elaborate, Sam.

FK added many things about the Enabling Act (again), but this article is about the Reichskonkordat. The Enabling Act is already accurately covered in Centre Party and Ludwig Kaas. The rest included here is either one-sided or inaccurate or awkwardly worded or misleading (so only right wing parties voted for the EA, right?)

Also, the claim that Hitler became Chancellor in a coup is wrong. It was an intrigue leading to a legal appointment. Sad but true.

"At the Nuremburg Trials the prosecution adopted the view that the Concordat with (Nazi) Germany was a maneuver intended to deceive ."

To me, it's not clear what this is supposed to say. Who deceived whom? Who said that and in what context?

"short lived leftist revolution of 1918" shows FK's own sympathies, but in what sense can a revolution be called short-lived? Yes, there were also Communist uprisings and attempted coups, which fortunately (IMHO) were thwarted, though not only by the nicest of means. But the revolution that is relevant in this context is the one that swept away the monarchies and the state churches with it. This is the only revolution relevant here and its effect lasted at least until 1933, in a broader sense until today. If it had failed, this article would not be in existence as no one would have asked about new concordats.

Str1977 00:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Von Papen -17 june 1946 -" I reiterate that I wanted to secure a christian basis for the Reich at all costs . For that reason I suggested to Hitler in April 1933 that the rights of the Church should be firmly laid down in a Concordat , and that this Concordat should be followed with an agreement with the Evangelical Church . Hitler agreed , although there was strong opposition in the Party, thus the Concordat was concluded, The prosecution has adopted the view that this Concordat was a maneuver intended to deceive. perhaps I may in this connection point to the fact that the gentlemen with whol=m 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 had been willing to conclude a Concordat, then one can surely not maintain that this was a maneuver intended to deceive. Nuremburg trials .

I reject the criticism of my prose by a non native . I write in the shortest clearest manner demanded by the evidence to be linked .

Shirer

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?

Von Klemperer

Klemens von Klemperer, German Resistance Against Hitler ,Oxford University Press , 1992 ISBN o198219407 page 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 .

• 1) This justifies my description that rightist parties voted for the E Act . It also vindicates the Avro Manhattan analysis I provided by link as another source .

• 2)KvK use of seizure twice so close together leaves one in no doubt that the Nazis did not gain or ascend or win power as suggested on Hitler, and disputed against by me as erroneous , repeatedly -against Str1977 . Seizure is as close to coup'd'etat' as makes no difference, but I shall return to coup d'etat'.

• 3)Treacherous was also contemporarily used by Brüning , and this Str1977 fought against elsewhere repeatedly . Such leads to my challenge against his good faith . I sourced all this on Centre Party and Kaas .

• 4) My proof from within the laws of the Church ( the canons) upon Pope Pius XII discussions, elucidated the exact meaning of this reference, and solely led to accusations of my 'gross impiety' . This strikes at the heart of apologist denial .

• 5) There is no doubt whatever as to the central importance of Kaas and Papen as catholics . Whatever about Papen's exact relations with the vatican , they are remarked upon historically , and Nuremburg doubtless suggested the 'maneuver to deceive' in the knowledge of these close ties . Kaas is alleged from 1949 (Avro Manhattan ) up until now with Cornwell and I imagine Ian Kershaw to be the mouthpiece of Pacelli . I sourced a different commentator, Edgar Ansel Mowrer's confirming reference. I believe this to be therefore entirely non POV , and its opposite to in fact be POV . KvK confirms that kaas was acting in the interests of the vatican from before April, before the E Act . It is not my POV , but my source.

Source, POV etc

As to the charge that there is anything off-topic in my repair to the Rkkdt article , this is a maneuver in itself . I do not artificially position Ludwig Kaas into his concurrent positions as representative for vatican interests AND Centre Party chairman . There can be no question of off-topic whilst these historical connections are so real . In fact the very limitation in this maneuver reveals the POV in the charge . The position of the Centre Party in the E Act vote relates precisely to the speech by Hitler at that vote , and that relates in the sources to the Reichskonkordat , just as do these comments regarding the episcopate . It is in fact POV to deny these connections.

At the minute , I emphasise that the reversion and now disputation tag without recourse to any sourced or warranted reasoning taken with the effective attempt at deletion of the Nuremburg Trials prosecutory allegation reveals complete bad faith . I believe that this tag should be withdrawn ASAP as being a statement of POV . there is no counter source or attested argument from source in its defence. This is an artificial maneuver , and those defending it on this day of all days (Armistice) should hang their heads and retract their misguided support .

I charge that there are at least two motives for this behaviour. One is obviuousluy to protect the vatican , and therefore relates today to the issue raised (and deleted) directly to the present pontiff (small p is correct use) by Abraham Lehrer . his demand that the Vatican reveal the full record , is effective source too. it is a fact that these issues would be better confirmed or denied if the Archive were to be opened . Not WWII, but 1925-33 . Not to do with with arguments as to how many people Pius XII saved or fed or hid, but to do with the engineering of the Reichskonkordat and the Hitler regime . To say that anything elucidatory is off-topic is really denial .

The second clear motive is revealed by the link or VECTOR above, which clearly demonstates the contemporary motives for denial and consternation . I added that not because it does or does not represent any opinion , but simply to represent the ongoing heat of the great scandal in so far as it affects present voting blocs/german popular understanding . Str reaction suggests fear , and I noticed his determination from the earliest (Centre Party) disputes on WP , and realise that he may have not only the first motive , but also this second motive . Inside Germany this history is more than distant history , as the link reveals . Again, none of this is my POV . I chastise those who remain blind to this reality ( such as Pjacobi or Kenney), and urge thenm to reason . Str would appear to have german CDU p[arty interests, so I do not expect voluntary acceptance of reason from him. I charge him with having these two motives together ., and thereby being a danger to free information . sorry str1977, but you bring it upon yourself .

Havoc : Tracking back from the un-justified Kenney revert today , I see that Str 1977 accuses me of creating "havoc here now on Wikipedia . I ask him to state what havoc I create , and warrant that charge which is entirely against the vaunted spirit and policy of Wikipedia (assume good faith) . In reaction I note his charge and refer all parties to it as example of real culpability in my accusations and call for his dismissal . Sorry sam, but thats nice, right now. EffK 16:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)