Talk:Ludwig Kaas

Arbitration

Is needed on all the articles that , like this one, touch or deal with the papal policy of combating communism through promotion of fascism . Arbitration is needed across languages and into the parallel wikipedias .A quick view of the editing here will show an arbiter what is going on : I have warned from the beginning of my attempts to straighten the record, that the Holy See would not be able to permit these links. Here even the later and relatively inocuous involvement of the vatican with the army widerstand , are presently axed . I rather think the arbitration should take a hard line about this editing. Famekeeper 08:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Henceforth I will not believe discussion with such active revisionism possible.I revert the word "reluctant" as being clear POV :no proof or citation provided . But I put it back in to show the extent of the problem , This article is seriously wrong and flawed . I warn of impending dispute . I cite under fair use and the needs of historical correctitude the following text from Klemens vov Klemperer's 1992 Oxford University Press German Resistance Against Hitler (The Search for Alies Abroad 1938 -19450) ISBN 0198219407 :

The German Catholics , the once much maligned "enemies of the Reich", partly in compensation , were pre-occupied 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. Franz von Papen , one of the last chancellors before Hitler , belonged to the increasingly influential right wing of the Centre Party and became a decisive force in engineering Hitler's seizure 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 , negotiating the treachorous Enabling Act(23 March 1933) 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 position against the movement . "

That paragraph continues and will probably need fair-use to squash more POV/revisionism as KvK deals with the episcopal weakness following its reversal of policy towards the Nazis and its relationship to the Enabling Act . Below there is a reference to further damnation , given by one of the users , yet not availed of by that user in his editing , in any way .

I insert this relevant statement by user JohnK "Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, published by Oxford University Press in 2003. This can surely stand in as a relatively authoritative source. Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent."

The clearly incorrect statement that the CP was dissolved is flagged . If you dissolve me , in past tense I am dissolved . If I dissolve myself - I dissolved . The history has been proved by the German user who informed us of the official line on this ,emanating from its contemporary remains , at talk Centre Party Germany . All historians equally contradict the statement- and it was clear Nazi policy to achieve auto-dissolution , Therefore this is of the utmost revisionist importance . This is linguistic revisionism of a similar subtlety to all other such historical abuse I have encountered on pages touching the history of Papal collusion with Fascism .Fiamekeeper 08:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article as rewritten now is completely unacceptable . The Vatican details are presumably valid corrections , and presumably that is officially provided . Would the Vatican, then ,deny that a letter from Cardinal Pacelli was read out during a leadership meeting of the Centre Party as early as May 1932 ( accusation by [[Edgar Ansel Mowrer in 1968) ? That this letter was read out by Kaas? That this letter exhorted the catholic party of the Centre to support a Hitler Chancellorship thenceforward ? That the Vatican policy as delineated by John Cornwell as repeating the similar democratic destabilisation of Italy is clearly historically attested ? That all the historians cited thus far on the relevant pages who attest to a Kaas parlayed (by his mouth to Hitler from that of Pope Pius XI and the future Pope Pius XII ) quid pro quo are slanders? All the above historical evidence of negotiations prior to the Enabling Act and up until the signing of the Concordat , which carry on throughout with Kaas playing the role of designer and intermediaary , are ignored . It is not enough to interpolate the more temporal nature of the leadership's (Kaas') activities of negotiation or electioneering during the March 1933 elections , negotiations which were indeed focused on balancing and redesigning the Reichstag , with the meatier negotiations being conducted by Kaas on behalf of his true masters, The Holy See . These negotiations are attested to , the visits of Kaas between Hitler and Rome , attested , lenghthy stays with Pacelli in the vatcian attest to more than a formal relationship, as is suggested. Kaas ' own language in approbation of Hitler is attested, his determinant communications back to Germany from the vatican on Hitler's Birthday in 1933 are attested , attested as fundamental in co-ercing and spinning Catholic voters towards the changed approbation and tolerance of Nazizm along the Pius XI/Pacelli line.

Criminal Subversion

Whitewash is all over this , Cover-up. This page represents most serious revisionism about an act of criminal subversion , this subversion is known to be criminal by the moral definition of Law . This has been discussed and /or archived on Pope John Paul II , Pope Benedict XVI ,Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XII , the Centre Party Germany and Hitler's Pope . Historical scholarship & references from published sources has been removed throughout these pages in a concerted attempt to whitewash this criminality of purpose . This purpose was to use Fascist Dictatorship as a bulwark against Communism. As we all know the result has been a considerable success (apart from the civilian and military casualties of 80 millions) , and now we can all see a revived capacity for influence by a self-electing and by its own definition , criminal institution . The culpability is clear in the comments and analysis of mainstream historians for at least 50 years and the criminality remaining subsists in the denial of responsibility by this institution . Ludwig Kaas is of the utmost importance in this , the oustanding suicide of Democracy that is the Enabling Act . On behalf of all who suffered this subversion of the human order , I continue to protest most strongly .

See page 38 of German Resistance Against Hitler by Klemens von Klemperer . After stating the above and continuing that the German Hierarchy , notwithstanding its clear moral differences with Nazi ideology ,failed to take a 'clear-cut' position against them, Klemperer cites general considerations of expediency and fears of Communism , as reason. That the earlier 1930 position of declaring a warning of moral incompatibility with Church teaching , of disallowing Priests from co-operation was retracted "however , once Hitler in his governmental declaration of 23 March 1933, 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 maintenance of the people's well-being and promised to respect their rights. With the Concordat the Church finally conferred international respectability on the Nazi regime."

In other words Ludwig Kaas here wrote part of that speech . A Prelate of the Catholic Church speech-writing for Adolf on the very day he defeated democracy . Slander ? Kaas Collaboration ? Over-turning of the Bishops and their experience ? Papal interference in the civil order ? Papal collaboration ? Against the Bishops ? Against the moral order of humanity ? Against democracy in order to beat Communism? Against the Magisterium , against the Bible Book of Romans 3, 8 ).

I am Dr Corecticus and I make no slander : The Wikipedia is under assault , as is a democracy near to you , again . Flamekeeper makes no slander , but read the Excommunication there , behind Hitler's Pope : there is no slander to say that these two Popes , by Canonical law ,should be dug up and removed from the Basilica of St. Peter . Ludwig Kaas too . Fiamekeeper 00:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry FK, but what you are posting here does not warrant calling the entry "disputed".

In the first half of your post you again post general statements we have heard time and again from you and with not specific connection to Kaas. In the second half you quote Klemperer and what he says is basically correct and/or valid interpretation.

However you then draw unwarranted conclusions from it and state them as fact. The effect is slander, even if you don't mean to since you honestly hold this to be correct.

Let me explain, what Klemperer means:

Kaas negotiated with Hitler and Papen on the Centre's support for the Enabling Act and asked the government to give guarantees or assurances ("he was the main advocate for supporting the Hitler administration's Enabling Act in return for certain guarantees") and the government promised to accept these (though a written confirmation was delayed - on purpose) and Hitler also addressed the issues in his speech (I will include that fact, if you insist). In that way Klemperer is right in referring to the "governmental declaration of 23 March 1933, in the formulation of which prelate Kaas had a hand". It is however untrue to say that Kaas wrote Hitler's speech and it is much less true that he should bear the blame for Hitler breaking these promises. He already bears enough blame.

After this you again to your usual general statements, implying things that are mostly untrue and that have no bearing on this entry.

Protecting yourself against the possible accusation of slander by saying: "I am Dr Corecticus and I make no slander". Consider, Emperor, that you are human, I say.

And yes, it is not slander to say they should be dug up, it is a dispicable display of gross impiety.

The Wikipedia is under assault. But what do you care, since you consider Wiki a flawed concept anyway, as you stated somewhere. Yes, it is under assault, under assault by you, since you consider it to be your personal soapbox. Please stop this.

Str1977 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One cannot seriously read this poor English in the article . One itches to correct it , even that it would strengthen this subtle revisionism . The gulf though, just linguistically, prevents my doing so , as doubtless it would be considered an aggressive act . Am I the first person on the Wikipedia to be accused of both Slander and Impiety ? Even just Impiety ? Is this a threat  ? Am I to be burnt and made a martyr of the Aquarian Church of Jesus Christ because I point out the hypocrisy and criminality in this transgression of Ecclesiastical Law. I do not make the stipulation that these excommunicants may/ should be dug up and removed from the sanctum in question, the [Pius]] do through their law .

In regard to your linguistic criticism: "He who sits in the glass house shouldn't throw stones!" And BTW, no one else has ever complained about my prose.

I have come not to accuse, but to edit.

Did I accuse you of (intentional) slander in my post above? No, I didn't. Actually I think you are in honestly believing what you post, but not all of this is true.

Impiety? Yes, to dig someone up from his grave is impious – no matter when or where. I think Emperor Charles V in 1547 is a great example: "Peace to his ashes!"

That is even if your accusations are correct, but argument is flawed as I have stated many times. There was no formal cooperation with evil – maybe a material one, but not a formal one (Go and look up what the terms mean).

Neither of these Popes should have had any business here in German democracy . This is extremely apposite to contemporary Politics - I mean papal subversion of Democracy . Yes you were right , Sam Spade to include the magnates who equally are culpable of subversion . In fact the impiety should broaden to include those fellahs and the vatican investments made in German Heavy Industry following the sale of Church lands through Italy . This may be the subject of Hochluths Play , but that is beside the point . Monsignor Kaas and his very close lifelong friend Pacelli would have discussed these and factored them in to the more ideological side of their German efforts.

You might disagree, but it is not your job to tell a Pope or anyone else what is not his business. But in this case, there was no papal subversion of democracy. Maybe a Kaasian, but not a papal. The Pope was not involved and the Weimar Republic was already tumbling since 1930.

This entry is about Kaas, the Centre entry about the Centre. So the Magnates did not necessarily have a place in there. But I did find one in the end.

Remember, Hochhuth's work is fiction. And he has a reputation of being wrongheaded. He even advocates asassinating businessmen nowadays.

No, no . This is still not in line with the historians . Kaas is attested as drafting the Concordat , on instructing papal direction to the Centre Party from 1932. Nowhere is he called "Kaas" . Everywhere he is specifically mentioned as Monsignor , everywhere Holy See/Catholic policy is to the fore except here on the wikipedia. This is outrageous because it is knowing . A cursory glimpse into history as available can put people straight : it was clear vatican policy to do away with the Catholic temporal Parties in both Italy and Germany .

Calm down, find out when Kaas was made a Prelate and Monsignore and I will be more than happy to include this fact. But we cannot call him Monsignore Kaas every time. It is common in an ecyclopedia to use a short form of the name (usually the family name) or a pronoun to denote the subject of an entry. There is nothing sinister about that.

He at that time was no representative of the Holy See (he was in April 1933) – he was a cathedral canon of Trier, he was a politician and parliamentarian, a delegate to the League of nations, a professor.

There is no evidence for concordat talks before April, 1933. Of course, Kaas thought about concordats – that was one of his academic fields – and would have liked to negotiate, but there was no partner. Of the major parties the Nazis, the Communists, the Social Democrats and probably the Liberals (DDP) were all against it.

It was not Vatican policy, let alone a clear one, to do away with them. Though the cooperation was not always easy (see the septennat dispute I included into the Centre Party). The Italian People's Party was crushed in 1924, as far as I can remember, the Lateran treaties were in 1929. The Holy See did acquiesce into the Centre's demise – there was a "quid pro quo" – but the Centre was finished anyway and Pacelli disapproved of the Centre's "early" self-dissolution.

At first contradictory , this is best understood by following John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope. Kaas' deep connection to this Pacelli (as opposed to his brother who destroyed Italy) , and hence to the centralisation policy referred to on the Hitler's Pope page is completely ignored .

I never knew Italy was "destroyed" in 1929. The government lost some land, some buildings, some money. How was Italy destroyed. (BTW, are you from Italy?)

Kaas' involvement in the 'vatican episode' in 1940 is ignored.

Then tell us now: What is that episode?

Kaas and Papen are reported in the humanitas timeline to do with the Holocaust for good reason (from Guenter Lewy) as joining secretly (ie by subterfuge ) in Munich before travelling on to Rome . Papen didnt 'turn up ' in Rome . He was uncovered by the Italian press . No ,this is well slanted on both pages (Centre Party ) and I guess by now on others, to shift away from Monsignor Kaas any speck or whiff of culpability , such that the Holy See is protected .

According to my books, Kaas was way ahead of Papen on his way to Rome. I haven't found anything about a meeting, but I will check again, if I find the time. But even they met, what does that imply?

Papen did turn up in Rome (do you want to say he wasn't there or what?) in order to offer the concordat. He kept his mission secret, but the press found him out. So what!?

This editor calls me for slander. Does he call for slander against John Cornwell ? John Cornwell should be allowed back in to the Vatican archives . Special attention must be paid to the accusations in respect of vatican involvement with a replacement of the Monarchy in Germany , as these accusations echo the 'vatican episode' in revealing the carefully undocumented or purely verbal nature of the orders, negotiations, discussions and conspiracies emanating from Pacelli/The Holy See in various affairs . Does he call slander against Edgar Ansel Mowrer ,against Klemperer ? Against JohnKenny for reporting the further historians ? Those historians ? Against every mention of the Catholic Church and its policy for decades and more ?

So let's sum up:

Cornwell is a sloppy historian who did a hatchet job – but I guess he will be allowed back into the archives anytime – maybe this time he will make use of this license more often than last time.

I don't know anything about EAM.

I actually have concurred with the Klemperer quote more than you did.

Please, consider who you cite as supporting your point John Kenney is not. (And correct spelling of another person's name is a matter of respect.)

The apologists are clearly visible and now this editor has exceeded himself and all of them in casting cuddly Kaas , beaten down by Adolf and Cardinal Faulhaber , even bullied is it ?

I'm not here to do apologetics, but you are here, as you constantly state, to accuse – what kind of a court is this: behold on one side: the accuser … and … on the other side: nobody. Even the inquisition did better than this.

Whether you or I or anyone else feels sympathy for Kaas's "plight" in Rome is besides the point. This entry is about him and about his life and all of his life and if he had a phobia of spiders from his childhood I might still include it. This entry is about Kaas not about what you are solely concerned about.

And there is no Cardinal Faulhaber around here.

Impiety stems alone from the transgression by the Holy See of Romans 3,8 .

Which I deny to have been the case.

Str1977 16:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good ,I am pleased to be so attacked ,if Light shines from the pyre .Fiamekeeper 11:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Thanks Sam, I appreciate your edits. It's always better to have more than one person editing - not just because of typos and idiosyncracies. However, I changed some things back. The "irresponsible" is included again, though in different form, so that it's clear that this was Kaas' view. The "himself" I changed to "in person" - the point was that Hitler agreed via his substitute Papen and addressed the issues in the speech he himself held that day (this is what Klemperer referred to). The only thing I actually reverted was "convincing" into "bullying". I'm open for a better wording (say pressuring), but the government did not convince the diocesis by some fair and balanced argument, but by putting pressure on them, citing this paragraph and that etc. Str1977 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can you give some reference for this bullying, and specifics of how it occured? Its not a terribly neutral term, but could be appropriate depending on what was done. Was their violence? Sam Spade 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have returned the book to the library. But as far as I can remember, it was a series of official letters citing this law, and this decree, basing their argument about Kaas being constantly absent, and having attained Vatican posts. There was no violence involved but between the lines one could read the message: "you better do this - you better don't to be associated with this one" On the other hand, Kaas was not too popular anymore with the Bishops, so you are probably right: "bully" is too strong. Possible alternatives: pushing, pressing, making, causing. What do you think? Str1977 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about "pressuring"? Sam Spade 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Why would Hitler want vengence on Kaas, btw? That could be better explained. Sam Spade 20:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why? I'm not sure either. It's not completely rational. Maybe for messing things up? Maybe for bothering Hitler all the time with coalition negotiations (even though they very quite useful for Hitler) Maybe being a very outspoken opponent of nazism in election campaigns and in the Reichstag? Maybe even for being the leader of the one party that had the audacity to bargain (I haven't heard of any other party's attempt to get guarantees)? Again it is not clear to me at all, why, but the pressure put on the diocesis by the government is there for all to see. "Maybe because he doesn't like his nose? I don't like it either" (Capitain Renault) Str1977 21:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/f65_547/index.html

is that image fair use? We could use an image for the article. Sam Spade 21:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a picture too and this one is good. However, I have no clue about copyright issues on wikipedia. Str1977 22:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New section

Dear FK, thanks for posting a really interesting section. I hope you don't mind that I straigthened it a bit (nothin really big. There are just some question I'd like to ask:

1) this is a fascinating story, but Kaas is rather a minor character in this. Of course, it should be mentioned here, that he was part of it, but maybe the whole thing would suit better in an entry on the "Ochensepp" Josef Müller, of whom there is much more to say - his work as a lawyer and his post-war career as a politician.

2) I don't understand these sentences:

"It seems the British were keen, as power was still with Chamberlain and Halifax and the later corrected vacillation concerning German demands was evident."

"At any rate the implication is that all involved were prepared to foresee some solution based on sufficient German territorial aggrandisement to placate the German people after the "loss" of their "Adolf Hitler" during wartime."

3) I think the following sentence is too much POV. At least it should be explained what was so fortunate.

Fortunately for Europe, the British policy was to swiftly change once Winston Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain.

3) And I don't really get the last sentence either, especially after "the views ..."

Monsignor Kaas is reported as alerting the British contact, the Minister to the Holy See, Francis D'Arcy Osborne, the views of Hermann Göring in anti-communist sympathy with the opposition.

Kaas was alerting the British ambassador - about what? How is the sentence after "the views of Göring" connected. And who had anti-communist sympathy And what about the opposition

Please consider these questions. Anyway, I really appreciate this post. Str1977 21:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Come off it strasser, every time hitherto I play nice to your nice, somewhere else you are setting up a huge battering ram against me . Why should I trust you when you eradicate anything impius and problematical and just the slightest bit awkward to you know who ? If you don't understand, get someone else to translate , just don't think you can twist English , cause 'taint possible or you need better help. I mean exactly what I say - so mind , cos this is a subject that didn't start and won't end, and I don't mean the Pope in particular . I shall reveal what and wherever I can .Fiamekeeper 22:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh poor FK, Can't you accept a positive response when you get one? I don't see where I answered your niceness with a battering ram and if I did I ask your pardon. I am quite able to translate from English, but sometimes translating from one language (what is your mother tongue, BTW?) into another (English) and then back into a third language results in coherence being lost in translation. Though I don't translate it into German, but read it as it is in English. But I will ask some native speaker of English to read the sentences I don't get and ask his opinion. Mind what ...? Str1977 11:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Litmus Test

I think we very much need to assume good faith, and observe a wikipedia:truce regarding all these contentious and confusing debates. Everyone wants what is best for the article, none of us are vandals, so let us simply take things slow and calm, step by step... Sam Spade 20:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had better qualify the "agent of the vatican" as I say it here : this editor , who is a big cheese in English WP terms , and I guess maybe even bigger in Deutsch , this editor has stated he is a Catholic, he has assented himself to (my) particular extraction of Canonical Law and therein the catholic law states that it is the sacred duty of a catholic to uphold , and to defend in every way necessary ,the pontiff of the Church .

We can all admire and applaud the editor's effort and expertise-especially as he is translating into english . He is doubtless worthy therefore of his high editor ranking (though he has a propensity for the use of minor for what would appear to me to be important edits). I have no personal animosity and regret that strong words-not expletive in any way - have been taken as personal when they have been directed at his avowal of church policy . I have criticised this policy as having been and remaining extremely dangerous :this is not the same as saying the editor is extremely dangerous .

A policy which so clearly involved war ,and major war , has attracted a great deal of somewhat terse or professionally muted historical comment . Here on discussion pages, this editor and I have carried on a wide ranging analysis of the policy and of the morality or, more properly , Church law concerning the policy . I would like to think that my language was used for the same clear intent as my interlocutor used his . That neither of us are in any breach of good literary taste -we fight our corner and aimed to convince the other . Now, my assertion refers not to such discussions , which I have consistently seen as beneficial to all , but to an editing that , unlike my own on Pope Pius XII , does not include the clearly justified contrary interpretation of history . This editor is so assiduous , that I have no confidence that any further attempts to balance the history will be allowed . I call him also a very worthy servant to his faith , with no disrespect . I have indeed been trying to help his faith , by throughout promulgating the very clear part of the Magisterium (in the Book of Romans) to which the Holy See should have , but did not, adhere . Even this editor himself would I am sure recognise this, indeed stated that if I(the cited historians) were correct , then those responsible would be needful of the judgement by their own Law .

Herein lies the problem: the law cannot be denied, and therefore the policy(replacement of democracy by anti-communist dictatorship ) cannot be admitted to -or included in the wikipedia . This article ,as it is, demonstrates very subtly the historical glossing over or beneficial slanting upon the issue of the policy . In fact there would be no way of remotely understanding the policy , its effects nor the reasons for its implementation from the article . The article is essentially useless, but of a very high category of uselessness . It is positively artful .

I write this because I fear that the WP board or somebody will see me as a nasty little gadfly, upsetting the punters, of whom a great many in the world are , in this case , catholic. Obviously there would come a stage when even Jimmy Wales might regret the awkward questions and the stir of division between , well, the complacent , and the deeply worried and fearful . I have said that revisionism is a test for the WP . It is possible that I myself may be no more thasn a scrap of litmus paper in a Wikitest..................Fiamekeeper 22:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mowrer

In 1968 Edgar Ansel Mowrer wrote , copyrighted and published Triumph and Turmoil-A Personal History of our Time SBN 04 920026 .The London Publishers , George Allen & Unwin Ltd foresaw reproduction without permission for the purposes of study , research, criticism or review . Mowrer was the correspondent in Berlin from 1923-1933 for The Chicago Daily News and was authorised to employ two assistants, the second of whom was Otto Brok ,a " doctor of political sciences and a respected member of the (Catholic ) Centre Party. Mowrer mentions Brok a number of times in relation to the Centre Party , metaphysical discussion of German philosophers and news sources but the central purpose of including Brok would appear to be for this his link into the Catholic (centre) party . ......"Following the May 1932 elections Brok one morning rushed into the office in tears and shouting "It is all over , it is all over ". On Mowrer's asking for the cause of this distress ,Brok is reported as saying

"Last night at a meeting of the Centre Party, which I attended, our Party leader , Monsignor Kaas , read a letter from the Secretary of State at Rome , Cardinal Pacelli, whom you knew in Munich as nuncio." "The Cardinal wrote that the Pope was worried about the rise of communism in Germany and advised our Party to help make Hitler chancellor . The Zentrums [Centre Party] leaders agreed ," he sobbed "Yes , go on" I said. "But, Edgar , that means HItler in power! Hitler wants a new war and he will get it." Once more he broke into tears. "Otto, may I report the cardinal's message and the Party's decision to cooperate with the Nazis?" " 'Nein. It was a secret meeting . But you will see." Mowrer's text having referred to this previously as a betrayal of the Catholics, continues from this Brok testimony :

And see we did . From that day the Centre regularly supported Hitler . In November , the Party urged Hindenburg to take Hitler as chancellor . Even when in Febuary , 1933, the Catholics realised it was too late to hold him to the Constitution , they voted an Enabling act doing away with personal freedom , democracy and law in Germany . This they called clarifying the situation . ....." Fiamekeeper 06:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope"

Are you really accusing someone of being an agent of the Vatican? john k 15:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I struggle against this person for months and years almost, all my cited references are slated as rubbish and you, sir , have until now not been prepared to do anything . Your statement after reading Tallet (?) was quite clear about the church's influence , you said Kaas was not proved to have done as Mowrer accuses, yet the import of your conclusion would back Mowrer and others up totally . Why do you not stand by your earlier resolved statement - I asked you repeatedly to enter this and you choose now ? I tell you that it is canonical law that requires someone to act as an agent of the vatican , and I note from this editor that everything he does is aimed at not wiki-cleanup , but vatican image clean-up . If I may say I think you have been dilatory in referring back to that book and to your own confirmation of the general historical analysis. I presume that directly asked to do so, perhaps you might be so impartial as to do so . No bullshit -if I may quote you . You are quite an exalted wikipedian and your comment is further required . I believe you should return to this , or does my eventual un-PC questioning of the motives of the most assiduous follower I have (and the Popes ) provide you with enough of an excuse ? I have never stated that this political connivance more than tipped the balance at 1933 , but it was conscious and of deepest consequence. Argument as to whether Kaas did or did not join in is frankly facetious following your intervention . Do you help , or do you approve of the str1977 policy , which he has explained to be that of the faith ? If you are a committed catholic , then your belief at this exact moment must choose between the words of romans and the inactions of Pope John Paul II and now B16 . Are you prepared to not be an agent of the faith but be on the side of truth ? Famekeeper 20:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FK - I don't think the book I cited was at all clear as to the specific allegations you are claiming. It provided support to the idea that the Vatican agreed not to the dissolution of the Centre Party in exchange for the Concordat. Beyond that, you are imputing a lot of quid pro quo and imputing a great deal of significance to things that the book I quoted does not support. I would appreciate it if you quit using one brief quote from me on a limited subject to support your entire case. john k 22:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear FK,

I cannot agree with what you wrote about my or your past editing, but I am willing to let the past be past so I will not comment on it. Let me just state, that I'm not receiving money from anyone and doing all my editing completely on my own. Please refrain from accusing (and in our circumstances this cannot be done civilly) other editors (not only me, also others) from being part of some conspiracy.

I never questioned that you honestly believe that what you post is the historical truth and hence your intention is not to slander. But your interpretation is not beyond reproach and must be debatable (including a conclusion and not a perpetual debate).

As far as I see it, our arguments can be classified into several fields:

1) the facts of historical events - eventually there cannot be disagreement (or balance) about that

2) the historical interpretation of these events, of the motivation of agents etc - this is open to disagreeing views (though they should not be original research, according to wiki rules)

3) a moral assessment of the events - that must always be based on points 1 and 2

4) an assessment in regard to Christian morality in particular, to Scripture and to canon law (including conclusions for today's Church) - this must be based on points 1 and 2 and on the actual Christian morality and actual canon law (and not mere inferences from these)

Now, points 3 and 4 are valid in their own right, but not really relevant to the scope of Wikipedia. You might dislike it, but Wiki is an encyclopedia. (Though I have repeatedly pointed out to you, why your "Question of the Law" reasoning is wrong, and can do it again, one final time.)

Points 1 and 2 is what we should discuss, since these are relevant to the entries here on Wiki and this is what I propose to do.

You mentioned several sources in support of your point and I am willing to check these, if you will provide exact references (page numbers, if you are using German editions, or the respective chapters). That goes for works of historiography, not for drama.

John Kenney has clarified that his book does not specifically supports your interpretation.

Far from it .

I have looked into Günther Lewy, but have found no support for your interpretation either (but you may point out some specific passages for re-reading)

Disingenuous -Lewy I quoted no more than the 'humanitas' timeline. All the relevant dates of movements and meetings between nazis and Popes and intermediaries are simply listed . I never quoted any assumptions from lewy , so , far from it .

Also, your quotes from Klemperer and even Mowrer didn't seem to necessarily support your interpretation.

I have no interpretation , but you Sir , semm to have no respect for any ciation of sources . I advise the reader to see the archives and the proof . You 'Sir, already have , and you are becoming clearer in your denials -but don't blame the messenger , blame your own clerics who connived with even then bloodied hands of Hitler , self-confessed trumpeter for ant-semitism and ,in fact,the removal by murder of the jews .

If you will point me to the passages, I will look into Klemperer (German resistance against Hitler) or Mowrer (Germany puts back the clock) as well.

I did long ago , so, disingenuous . This is the finger in the collapsing di(y)ke talking-all this is designed to palliate and dilute the subject . This is bad faith .

Any other books, I must first find out whether I have them accessible at the library. Sorry, if I can't read all your books cover to cover, but I am quite busy with other things (and as I said I'm not getting paid for this).

Another point (point 5, if you will) is your "Vatican exchange" section - it needs clarification and editing. This is a really interesting and much more rewarding field for contributing to wiki.

You ,Sir, would not say so if you realised that therein lies a second clear reference to papal secrecy , following the Bruning/Monarchy story. herein is showm that tendency to evade a paper trail in order to protect the poe from his own actions. The vatican episode does indeed repeat , and I shall revisit it, but really apart from revealing papal secrecy practice , it is more shocking for revealing widerstand attitudes and British appeaser attitudes with the papal vision of a Germany allowed to remain without repentance or ,in fact, democracy . The Pope was no less wrong at this time than the remaining british appeasers , but more wrong because he knew of the Hitlerian anti-semitic reality .

Please don't shout at me, if I say that I don't completely understand all passages, as I have written above. If you are German or have translated this from German, I am more than willing to have a look at the German wording and try to help in translating it into English. Also, if your German or German-speaking, I am quite open to a discussion in German, if that helps you.

Str1977 30 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)

See canonical legality @ Archive 1 at discussion on ' Hitler's Pope ' page Famekeeper 30 June 2005 21:59 (UTC)

Dear FK,

I don't have to dig up the canon law in the archive, because I think, we have sufficently debated them. I think I have repeatedly stated why your reasoning does not work. Actually I'm more interested in discussing facts and interpretation (points 1 and 2) - and I also would like you to finish the "Vatican exchange section" you have started. I don't know how to handle it edit-wise in its current state.

As for your books:

Sorry to say, but what I read in Lewy does not support your interpretation and Lewy is very critical of the Church.

What you cited from Klemperer does not support your interpretation.

Even what you quoted from Mowrer does not necessarily support your interpretation.

I want to look up your quotes from Klemperer and Mowrer too, so please provide page numbers (no German edition needed, I can access the English one).

I believe you represent the vatican , indeed I would only expect that someone does. I may be wrong , but then it would be more surprising if you did not . I believe you represent the CDF and have access to all sorts of assistance . I may be wrong , but I would expect it . You keep asking if I am a german . I will only say that it is not my purpose to diminuish any german .

And please stop using John Kenney again and again. He only stated that his book referred to a quid-pro-quo in the Concordat dealings, namely trade concordat for centre party. No one here ever disputed that. Even I, in my very first post directed to you, accepted that (my "sell the car to the robber" analogy). John's book however does not support any larger quid-pro-quo.

The thing I'm concerned about is your constant claim, that the Pope put Hitler in power, when he didn't. Neither did Pacelli. The German people, yes the middle classes and some reactionary and business circles, put him into power. Kaas also bears some blame, but he didn't have the purpose of making Hitler tyrant. His coalition negotiations were quite stupid and quite useful for Hitler. I think I included this into the Centre article (section: Between ...), and in a much broader way than it was there before.

That is really not good enough , Sir, and I do not accept your qualifications as to depth of intrigue. You distrust me , but if you hadn't hidden all the references and citations it would be apparent that you do not need to attack me for inaccuracy or bias , but do need to face what so many historians increasingly say . I thank you for doing the world a service , again .Famekeeper 8 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Church Law Governing Ludwig Kaas' "Political career" and his Superiors

This collaboration which assisted Hitler to power is what we disagree about and now we disagree about the meaning of the historians words. Klemperer ,for one, could not be clearer and would relate to all studies previous to his own . I fear I have to say that you are misrepresenting such historical qualifications . I am repeating that historians have seen a clear involvement by the church and its papacy in German politcs ,culminating in the quid pro quo between the Concordat , the dissolution of the centre Party Germany and the Enabling Act . Church authority ignored and denied and over-ruled its own clerics within Germany in order to achieve this . As you asked ,I present the links and texts of the 1917 and 1983 Canonical codes which clearly state that only with sanction could Kaas have had a 'political career' . These two very words in the article are specious in the extreme , as is all the obfuscation and evasion. It is very obvious given these texts I quote that the political injunction existed from at least 1917 and therefore referred to all the clerics and Popes in question . These come from [[1]] the vatican and one assumes they are from the most up-dated version :

Can. 285 §1. Clerics are to refrain completely from all those things which are unbecoming to their state, according to the prescripts of particular law.

§2. Clerics are to avoid those things which, although not unbecoming, are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state.

§3. Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.

§4. Without the permission of their ordinary, they are not to take on the management of goods belonging to lay persons or secular offices which entail an obligation of rendering accounts. They are prohibited from giving surety even with their own goods without consultation with their proper ordinary. They also are to refrain from signing promissory notes, namely, those through which they assume an obligation to make payment on demand.

Can. 286 Clerics are prohibited from conducting business or trade personally or through others, for their own advantage or that of others, except with the permission of legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 287 §1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.

§2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church or the promotion of the common good requires it.

139

Herewith is canon 139 from the Pio-Benedictine 1917 Code . in French .taken from www.catho-org ,under similar fair use :[[2]]

p.1 Les clercs doivent s'abstenir des occupations qui, bien que non inconvenantes, sont cependant étrangères à l'état clérical.

p.2 Sans un indult du Saint-Siège, les clercs ne peuvent exercer ni la médecine, ni la chirurgie; ils ne peuvent être tabellions ou notaires, si ce n'est dans une curie ecclésiastique; ils ne peuvent accepter des emplois publics, comportant l'exercice d'une juridiction séculière ou d'une administration.

p.3 Sans la permission de leur Ordinaire, les clercs ne peuvent prendre sur eux l'administration de biens appartenant à des laïcs, ni accepter des offices séculiers entraînant l'obligation de rendre des comptes; ni exercer les fonctions de procureur ou d'avocat, si ce n'est dans un tribunal ecclésiastique ou même dans un tribunal civil, mais seulement quand le clerc y défend sa propre cause ou celle de son église. Les clercs ne peuvent avoir aucune participation à un jugement séculier au criminel, poursuivant l'application de graves peines personnelles; ils n'y peuvent même pas porter témoignage, sauf le cas de nécessité.

p.4 La fonction de sénateur ou de membre d'un corps législatif ne peut être sollicitée ou acceptée par les clercs sans la permission du Saint-Siège, dans les régions où une prohibition pontificale a été portée; dans les autres régions, ils ne peuvent le faire sans la permission cumulative de leur Ordinaire propre et de l'Ordinaire du lieu où l'élection aura lieu.

Part 4 says that function as an elected representative or member of a legislative body must not be sought or held by the clerical without papal permission , where there is a papal prohibition ; and in all other regions , not without "permission cumulative" from their superior or the superior of the region wherer the elections are held .

Towards a Resolution (now including the German "soul" quote in full and translation)

It was on the 9 th of June this year that Str1977 himself added the following reference to these subjects of christian and particularly here, Papal, collaboration with Hitlerism which concerns the actions and words of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas leader (chairman) of the Catholic (Centre)Party in Weimar(pre-Hitler) Germany  :

....when the Centre fraction assembled on 23 March to decide on their vote, he still advised his fellow party members to support the bill, given the "precarious state of the fraction", he described as follows: "On the one hand we must [oppose] to preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasent consequences......

Note that oppose to are not found in the actual quote. The former is FK's unwarranted insertion, the latter my typo. For more see below. (Str 1977)

which concerns the catholic Centre Party Germany vote to complete the required two thirds palrliamentary majority required to abolish democracy , in Berlin on 23 March 1933 and hand dictatorial power toAdolf Hitler and the Nazi party . I include the italicised 'oppose' for clarity and refer readers to all previous analysis /threads , but here I list the proven {church/divine/canonical/biblical/moral) injunctions :

Case proved -

Ludwig Kaas excommunicated himself at that action against his soul.

Pope Pius XI excommunicated himself from his words in May 1932, as I cited repeatedly from Mowrer and Otto Brok preferring Nazism to the possibility of Communism

Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli excommunicated himself at writing those his pontiff's words to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas , who read them at the Centre Party ledership meeeting in May 1932 fully one year prior to the enabling act democratic suicide .

This is not a POV /NPOV issue . Words have not yet been used to fully describe what this exactly has had in importance , and because the efects are remaining , viz, the Middle East , words may never finish describing the importance of this indescribable moment in history . I have limited myself as much as possible to the simple provision of the reports and of the histories assembled in the english language .

My threads everywhere elucidate the unfortunate souls . I am thinking of bringing , as it appears someone must , a simple canonical court case . I read recently , I think even here on the Wikipedia , that anyone can demand such an action , even the un-baptised. but can the un-christened ?

I am termed despicable by this valiantly opposing editor for repeating {the purely church law relevant to) the procedure soon to be imposed following a success in such a court case , but I think I can surmount that epithet . Will he however be prepared to specify the origin from whence he retrieves Kaas words , and supply them in the original tongue, and stand by his quotation of them in such a case ?

Who would like to be the advocate-or has one got to do everything around here ? How about you yourself , Str1977 ? Surely your claimed christian conscience requires you to take this case - if only to hope to save the church from the great scandal which they claim the ability to repair ? (see endless thread ) .

Answer and disprove , or recant like a christian should, or this must be nailed to the door, musn't it? The same goes for the catholic leader-(ship?)- whoever is in charge , undoubtedly the remarkably well placed and prepared Pope Benedict XVI - he the prince against darkness must help us back through into the light , surely , whatever shocking it may take ? Well done , editor Str1977!

Famekeeper 00:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well FK, no case not proved!

But first of all, I must state that Wiki is no law court and we are not advocates and this is no trial. However, if you want to see it as such, you must allow for a defence and stop complaining about apologies.

Also, I never termed you "despicable" - I guess I called some edit you did so, but that doesn't mean that you're despicable. I'm a Christian - I distinguish between people and acts.

Now, as promised, here is the German text of Kaas reference to soul.

Meeting of the Centre party's Reichstags-fraction on 23 March, 1933, 11.15.

(from Die Protokolle der Reichstagsfraktion und des Fraktionsvorstands der Deutschen Zentrumspartei 1926-1933 (edited by Rudolf Morsey), in: Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Zeitgeschichte Reihe A: Quellen, Band 9), Mainz 1969, page 630.) (also in: Rudolf Morsey (ed.): Das "Ermächtigunsgesetz" vom 24. März 1933, Göttingen 1968, page 26-27.)

"... Im Anschluß weißt Dr. Kaas auf die schwierige Stellung der Fraktion im gegenwärtigen Augenblick hin. Es gelte einerseits unsere Seele zu wahren, andererseits ergäben sich aus der Ablehnung des Ermächtigungsgesetz unangenehme Folgen für die Fraktion und die Partei. Es bliebe nur übrig, uns gegen das Schlimmste zu sichern. Käme die Zweidrittel-Majorität nicht zustande, so werde die Durchsetzung der Pläne der Reichsregierung auf anderem Wege erfolgen. Der Reichspräsident habe sich mit dem Ermächtigungsgesetz abgefunden. Auch von den Deutschnationalen her sei kein Versuch einer Entlastung der Situation. Dr. Kaas lehnte es ab, von sich aus einen Vorschlag zu machen, wie man sich entscheiden solle. ..."

For the benefit of non-German speaker, I have translated this as closely as possible (so please excuse the clumsiness of the following text:

After this, Dr. Kaas pointed out the precarious situation of the fraction in the current moment. It was important on one hand to preserve our soul and on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences for fraction and party. What was left was only to safeguard us against the worst. If the 2/3-majority were not reached, the implementation of the government's plan would occur by another way. The President has accept (or resigned to) the Enabling act. From the DNVP too no attempt of allieviating the situation is to be expected. Dr. Kaas refused to himself make a proposal how to decide.

You can read now for yourself what Kaas said (it's in the reported speech of protocol).

Your conclusions from that little quote I put in, unfortunately with a typo (superfluous "to") are unfounded. Kaas did not say "opposing" (your inclusion) is necessary to "preserve the soul". That might be your view or my view but from the quote not necessarily Kaas' view and from the context certainly not Kaas' view. He goes on to win the fraction for an unanimously vote in favour of the Act. Kaas certainly was aware that it was a problematic move, a move he didn't like (and hence my opposition to your quick jumping), especially since the "assurances" were not very reliable.

Also, even if your reasoning on the alleged excommunications were correct, you cannot base any case on a letter neither of us has read. We have only Mowrer's rendition of Brok's exlamations that night. That might be enough for some qualified inclusion into the article, which I conceded on the Centre party page, but not for any pseudo law suits (pseudo because this is no court and you're no canon lawyer or judge).

I won't complain much about that your dating of the letter is still off (and even May is not one year before the Enabling Act).

This much for your proven case. Str1977 16:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith

One of the tenets of the Wikipedia is: "Assume good faith." I remind Famekeeper of that guideline. Famekeeper has posted: "I accuse - plainly, civilly and openly - this user of being an agent of the vatican, by his actions ,which are purely designed to erase the papal connection to the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich." I respectfully disagree with Famekeeper as to whether such a plain and open allegation is civil, but I will let others decide that. It is not an assumption of good faith. Do you have any actual evidence that Str1977 is an agent of the Vatican, or are you simply claiming that approximately one billion humans are agents of the Vatican, which has aspects of a conspiracy theory?

If you lost your temper (as humans will) and made a statement that is more extreme than you intended, then I suggest that you apologize.

I agree with you more than I do with Str1977 about Cornwell and Pope Pius XII. However, you are not likely to attract support by personal attacks. You are also not likely to attract support if you cannot provide concise summaries of what your cases are.

Robert McClenon 21:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Robert, but I don't demand an apology. What I'd like to have is FK finally accepting that I don't work for the Vatican, as I have stated repeatedly, and also FK stop accusing anyone contradicting him of being part of a conspiracy. I'm only a simple Catholic and a historian meaning protect accuracy. Unfortunately (and maybe we disagree there, Robert, but never mind) Pius XII is a historical person who has to suffer much slandering (don't jump, FK, I don't mean you) and "black-washing". You certainly don't have to be a fan of him or applaud everything he ever did or like his methods or style of handling things, but doesn't deserve this. Str1977 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I feel , if not experience , that there should be a straightforward resolution of the FK/Str editorial conflicts . That it is not a question of recantation , but of reason . I will go so far as to say I was wrong to impugn the motives of Str1977 , and hope this to be correct .

However this can only be done on the basis of adhering to the WP rules about citations and published sources . From the experience of Str1977's assiduity , I recommend him entirely , under these forces of reason . It appears to me that , au fond ,Str1977 (Str ?) is acting partly because that which his vision hitherto wishes to have been the accepted case ,is the vision of history un-tainted by this severe questioning . I do deny , however , that this re-building of vision is research : I am referring to published sources . Public sources .

Under the guidance of reason , we should be able to inhabit the same world , even this virtual WP reflection of it . If, for example , my fairly un-exotic memory remembers seeing direct evidential contradiction with the statement that there was no public "blessing" or such of Hitler from an ecclesiatical source , and if I take the effort to sift back to produce this, then reason dictates. The argument should then be the merits of the writer sourced , the validity of the report in truth and perhaps proven to the contrary -by another source .

There is no carte blanche , there is only reason and good will . If I point to a contradiction in law , whomsoever's law , based on evidence sourced reasonably , I should expect , as seems to emanate from McClenon , a reasonable variation in reaction to one un-coloured by this information . At a few times , Str and I found this , but I think the gravity and explosive nature of the reports made the connection between will and reason difficult . One can wish as a will , but it is not helpful . I really believe that reconciliation -I mean within the structure of the Roman Catholic Church and within the body of its adherents who are the church - is both possible and necessary .

As I might answer these most interesting questions arising from the widerstand, for they relate to this reconciliation , I will , equally , bear fully in mind the willed criticisms that I harshly judge and harshly & judgementally act , and that this alone proves me to be less than those who act acted then in defence of this will . I believe that the ecclesiastics acted through will , possibly (though I think I have pretty much cast this in doubt), possibly goodwill . This gets back to my harsh criticisms , that 'you' should 'be controlled'.The fact is that the world has no more geo-political space left for this action through will . Nowhere is this beneficial : reason alone , as I have specified , is bound to goodness whereas will alone has no authority . Whichever body of men claim to act by will alone become a danger : the will that would say this is so because we will it so can have no place in reason or good governance . This is one of the central issues of our day , and all things are inter-connected , like the hairs on our heads or the birds in a field . The relevance of this article is total : it defines the present as much or more than anything else in the world .

As to mediation, it is quite plain from what Robert McClenon reports, that no one better than ourselves can be expected to face up to these issues . We should publicly declare to adhere to reported sources , and when they contradict , then the contradictions should be asserted , there , together in the articles . We two should take the lead in defining this in so far as it seems this is an un-tested area of the WP nature . McClenon refers to this, and I suppose it must pop up a thousand times a week .

Nevertheless , my reason forces me to persist in nailing the reports and the analyses to the relevant 'door' . I would very much like Str to help me , or I help him -because if we were to combine , much more good could be reasoned . I think I have offered this before , but mutual suspicion - he of my sources or attitude, myself disputing the origin of his will , fell asunder into a pitiless edit war . I fear that the interpretations which will soon follow as to the exact nature of german widerstand 'thought' behind that door , will also prove uncomfortable and inflammatory . Could we not agree to paraphrase sources , and expand them under fair use in parallel temporarily upon the discussion pages ?

The Catholic Church , Kaas and General Mediation (Apology)

The MegaMemex information is by no means all that has been constantly cite . I refer to these questions here as simplest , not complete.

Famekeeper 15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

We could start by using goodwill here on this page about Kaas . Now ,the MegaMemex timeline [[3]] quite clearly quotes Lewy as its source for some , but not all the movements of Kaas . I have quoted these on the Pius XII article, they seem to be in good faith and certainly show that Kaas seems to have been dancing a jig between Hitler and the vatican . Indeed they seem to show the quid pro quo evolution . You had access to Lewy and attacked me for misreading lewy. I only claimed the timeline statements . Are they wrong ? Do I need to break into the Memex and ask them ? Why should you deny(in our correspondence) that Kaas became close to Pacelli which they state in a search of MegaMemex under his name that he did become so , from 1925, when he became Secretary to Cardinal Pacelli ? I consider that there is an effective gloss at present on this article , and that your denials of close relations between Pacelli and Kaas are at variance with the facts . I note that you do not show the secretayship from 1925 . In good will I determine that you have purposely excluded this , as you have excluded the MegaMemex determination of secrecy concerning his meeting with papen in Munich . They quote that Papen tried to evade the real reason for his journey to Rome , and this seems at variance with the tone of the article as constructed . There seems to me to be an unwillingness to allude to that which in any way supports the deep suspicions in several histories concerning the quid pro quo from the Enabling Act to the Concordat . This sems to me to be willing unwillingness and to disallow reasonable balance . You will note that the approbation at the Fulda conference , included , along with Kaas' stated views of Hitler, and Pius XI stated view to Papen only a few days apart , and the birthday telegram to Hitler from Kaas - not the Pope (though there may have been one from him as Head of State) do not appear here and have been denied elsewhere , as well as here, if I remember right .

May I ask you why you Str1977 disallow these several connections -all of which serve to confirm the letter ( papal instruction to the centre Party of may 1932 ) and would you do this here under the even handed gaze of Robert McClenon ?

See my apology on Hitler's Pope . I was wiki-wrong to call you an agent of the vatican . I am human and you through your church have deeply shocked me : I am revolted that IT has got away with this and that IT still remains a force and a State in world affairs, whilst un-accountable both internally and externally . Interference in the American democratic process, in Europe , who knows where and when in history , in peoples' lives today through IT 's moral condemnation of their private actions when facing their resulting death (AIDS is all contrary to IT's own stated LAW and certainly to the hypocrisy of IT's actions (to this day in sanctifying Pacelli) . I apologise to you Str1977 for allowing myself to use language associating you personally with the culpability of IT the church . I think you provoked me and I will have to add some points in my defence , as I cannot it seems ask you directly whether or not the following applies to you - or any specific wikipedia user .

I ask anyone to answer whether or not it is a fact that the old media (such as Tv and radio) reported the conclusion of the vatican special 2005 spring conference prior to the passing of Pope John Paul II , held to study the impact etc of the new media ? Whether if the wikipedia was or was not named as a part of this new media , it is other than true that the searchable nature and mirroring of the wikipedia contributed to the Roman Catholic Church's concluding decision  : that indeed all possible efforts should be made to counter their recognition of this danger to IT ? That there was or was not an instruction to the members of IT to involve themselves as much as necessary to try and reverse the new media's downside effects on IT ? True or false-? and not off-topic , as I put the POV tag here.

Now I have agreed for mediation for my part on the pages specified for earlier RfC , I accept the terms and I finally understand Robert McClenon . I shall expect arbitration if there is not the serious acceptance of cited sources that I have referred to throughout . For my part , Robert McClenon please seek Str1977 agreement to mediation throughout . Lastly ,I did not understand your reply to my question about your user history being so brief .Famekeeper 15:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for summary

Please be specific in identiying what statements in this article are considered to be non-neutral POV. Robert McClenon 16:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

I have posted a formal Request for Mediation concerning any neutrality and POV issues about this article and related articles. Robert McClenon 17:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I posted an informal one at the top of this page a lifetime ago . Pop ups ate my summary- I did it word by word , revisionsit bog-rot it is . I'm tired and have been calling for arbitration for months . I did as you suggested Robert McClenon and wrote up a Pope Hitler Holocaust Conspiracy article page -it is vandal stuff and dis-allowed. Must be the only way you can join Hitler and Pope is like that and not Pope's Hitler . Ill try that -it wants to be short. However the allegations will still have to be part of all pages , or perhaps none whatever , like before I made this awful smell in the land of soap . If I'm wrong , mediate , arbitrate and judge me , then shoot me off the wiki , and I'll go round the side . You guys at the top table- y'all can't control a randomly operated ISP numbering , now can you ? And if you can , you can't control illicit mirrors , now can you ? Can someone answer the questions re;vatican new media Conference ?Famekeeper 23:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Advocation by FK

Before Summary advocates farewell .Well , Str1977- I think you win . The simplest worked the best -your user button , home page ammunition has worked a treat . I have only myself to blame for reacting to your highly objective politique . I recognise that the casuistry and casuistry in the most creative subtle sense , without becoming too denomination orietated , or your education simply I could say, reveals in me a clear inability to recognise good faith . Of course your un-bending and un-remitting counter action to any and evreything I wrote was too much , for me . I think I beat you on the canonicals, on the soul, I showed you up too, and today in the last writhings of my supposedly POV mind- again I won . I recognised upon my Pope's Hitler- even you could see the logic of that name -article , there I was using your quote about soul - and what do I see but that at 11.15 or so in the morning Kaas is proffering no suggestion towards any action . I forget the exact words ,and we both know to what I refer, the disparity between that in the official record/report and his handing over the Party vote in the Opera House, at whatever time, a few hours at most . You are as ever the only person with any inkling or concern in here other than myself about this subject . We both know this subject to be the single central encompassing moment of modern history . The political is obvious . The moral I have forced you to your knees on - admit that or don't , I no longer require anything .The psychological is the really interesting , as the moment of the suicide is of such an expanding nature . This fracture of the soul , referred to twice on that day as I on this day sourced ( in the speech the brave Social Democrat defying the Fuhrer) together with Kaas' option , in your opinion or necessity, but against my normal run-of -the-mill sources, option for fraction of soul over fraction of party , there is the psychological centre .

Poor STR1977 , I have and unto here given you as hard a time as I can . Oh, not the silly loose epithetical aspersions, I mean I have had you worried for your cause. For your psychological balance . Even at this second as you read this for the first time you fear not an epithet , but what does this monster of argument now lift to skewer me with - where am I weak , how does this psychological worry not risk to show even now a chasm to up-end my calm and order of acceptance and comforting assured belief . I know you will publicly bat that back as like a fly off your cuff, but I also know that you even now this second wonder just what can be up? silly flamekeeper , with his stridency and indignation , he's easy prey . Where does this psychology take us- even though you guess aright that my knowledge of psychology and estimation of character wouldn't cover the head of a pin ? It is my power of unforeseen writing, my complete lack of a recognisable education that has therefore not harnessed my brain to any recognised norms of intellectual civility and make-peacery . Where you have wondered is the allegiance , where doth this meagre monster fall ? Is he yet felled?

Can I or can I not even at this late stage discover the vital chink to rend asunder the belief ? You who have seen into this my mind so publicly and , we , yet so equally anonymously . What of this double use of soul , what of this contradiction , OH my God, what is this ?

On the one hand you began months ago , in this interesting and productive analysis of opposing discourse(edit war to the onlookers) which we both so much relish as to cover yards of space , by saying that goodness, realy I should understand the practicalities. Someone was going to rob my car and since I knew this , wouldn't I , like 'them simply logically (with reasoning) pre-empt the loss ?

But , God, what have I said , and why do I fear that I have given from the hand of my goodness, my God , my faith and true christianity some flying shard of reason to assail this my armour ? Reason I dealt you with under Immanuel Kant , In time another will as they read that know that herein you have skewered yourself . again, I spoeak giving you all the credit of your actual stated position, i assail this but only because I recognise it. The faith, the great efforts that man, that you , take to lift yourself on every level towards worth in your own requiring and elevated consciousness, this is not to attack you . I epithetically hope that you do represent the forces which I so clearly finger - and it is sadder if your are as I feel , alone , in this . I hope not , I hope that you are that billionth catholic , the one who is sent by his Lord precisely to face this battle . of course , even more romantic , would be that you represent the might of christ, or at least that CDF office of eight scribing polymaths .

I hope to think that you do not personally think of me as a ghoul that comes to rob the sanctity of the dead. I ask , though , that we reach in there to the tombs of our conscience , back to the very bones of our selves, to our forefathers and their ewnds, to where bullets and lances could no longer drive them - on every side , back to the lost gaiety of their children's childhoods , seeped out with their blood into the earth . Here in this earth to which we all have contributed this blood we two look with our vision and what do we see ? You say the reasons of expedience , and the simple defence of the blood - the population who would otherwise have suffered. These are both sound reasons . The first , in short , is the morally weak , the canonically prohibited -no, you agreed on a basis of if it were the case . But the defence of the populace as reason , wereit so, were it the populace it were so - but it is not the populace in either canonical terms or the populace in social terms . A part of the populace at the very best . You claimed no more .

Yours is not the first martyr that I come to rob . I take no pleasure in pulling down the temples of relief, whether of a family or of a nation or of a church . When the martyrship is of itself an injustice , when the martyr stoked his own bundle of combustible effects and threw himself into the fire in blindness of wilful un-reason , unreason beacuse tainted from the goodness of true reason - that martyrship has only the validity of a warm blanket upon a starving , morally dying , victim of himself . the consciousness of reason is the key to our whole being in this consciousness .

The car was going to be stolen and destroyed anyway . Why not save a fraction of the loss . This is Kaas , in his own words . Yes , one could say , if one were talking about an object 'yes. but this is not an object , which is why Kaas' fellow Bruning spoke of treacherous ACT . If it were a moveable object but this is an immovable politico-moral force , a position , a conscience to be fought and defended as it was the conscience of the populace .

Again, it is only to you that I speak as it is only you who understand , only you who carefully weigh the consequences of these words . Until the end of this communication to you who counts , I shall have to append my summary . don't worry, for that is easy enough on your article - i see no likelihood of exceeding the hitherto analysed WP formulae and norms at all .

To you however who completely understands the issues at stake before the fires of penalty , come these reasons. not reasons a mediator could seek , evidences of POV , we are beyond that and facing these fire issues of moral values. i take you at your word as representing , I believe at any rate that you are specifically informed of interior moral norms to the church-you have always responded with commendable speed and exactitude , bt anyway, I hope that you are still this moment willing and brave enough to represent your inner core values and stated beliefs. Kaas is where we started and Kaas is where I feel now that I end . I feel I have nearly done what is required of me : I come here to the centre of the chasm , where my own psychological dragon awaits me too .

The choices of Kaas were an alternative as you explained and sourced . The psychological conditions we have not agreed upon because you have hoped to evade them . Kaas wasn't an old friend, doesn't get billed with pacelli at all , really . League of Nations sounds just the job, a big show with plenty of space between them , as the article engagingly portays . The bullying is too late frankly interesting to the bone breaking FK sleuth in me but remains in my mind with the cuddly homesickness as pieces de resistance ,that sing alongside internet eulogies to Pius XII .

When I say that you win I mean only that I do not see the upgrading of even wikipedians to the broad consequences of Ludwig Kaas . The literal bites on both the sleuth bone-hunter level and on the byte level of patient consciousness , forever narrow us down to two . I do sorrow though at the loss to us both which your at times purely party type ripostes kept me , where the constant necessity was to the outside third , listening parties . The necessity to paint in such stricly primary colours of repetition and counter were as boringly political to the out-sider as any dry debate could possibly be . Its at least a temporary respite for you and all who agree with you out there (the other Billion )that I should stick to allowing a mediation of the impossible . No organisation would wish to respond to such a billion headed force. Any established figure would hesitate before the legions of the faith , and I think it might just be better to let this peter (!) out in terms of pure complaint . Hence at lat I can talk un-inhibited by the need to carry my numbers , a sleuth of the anonymous wiki nightime- like invisibility .

That which appears to me to be remarkable is that the very precise and some little barbed reference you made to one's (mine, I mean) own level of accedance to moral values and precepts in my own life , remarkably I now turn on myself . The moral argument , which is to reason that source you quote about soul and fraction , and which is your justification , very much strikes me in my own pitfalls of hypocrisy . You here are right , this is the dragon I cannot slay , introduced within my breast . the very real questioning that you have suffered unto yourself , and in which I cannot say that I have eeven joined second-hand . The reasoning for Kaas , and yet the treachery for Bruning and the Social Democrat are at any rate with Bruning , only bridged by the absent but promised and un-received letter of guarantee . In reasoning I can go only so far as the ownership of the thing that was passed away, even without that guarantee . I will come back to that now but I may say that I only now begin to feel the moral crush psychologically expanding from this suicide of democracy . The possibly equallly remarkable could be that you yourself have felt those your own arguments turn on yourself and upon your moral landscape . I perhaps at any rate figure this from what I do see , even though it should incur upon me the arguments of hypocrisy of my psychological nature .

The values in which Kaas as both politician and churchman dealt are those of indivisible reason , not as you or he , rather , claimed , divided . The nature of that which was handed to Adolf Hitler by Kaas was not something as I say moveable, it did not belong to any person , but to all those of the populace who in their hearts or in their reason claimed it . It is of the same nature in human abstraction as the terms of value that are reflected in the precepts of religion, and all the more so in this particular catholic political party . These are indivisible per se by expediency as the shared truth of their vision was common to that populace . No vote of reason for attachment to the Nazi Party was written into it's common and actual popular mandate .

For me the loss of the case resides in my growing and re-inforced indgnation at the WP , and my weakened indignation at the expediency shown in 1933 . I have become smaller myself because I lose my belief in the populace and in the popular , because of the WP expediency values now in force(see summary below) . The similarly populous expediency which you yourself seemed to recognise within this history , always was lost to me .

You may or may not weaken in your reckoning of morals against expediency -I offered the proof which you can take or leave as your conscience desires . For me the loss is the weakening of a will to advance us . Drop it ! I am told . To advance us by correction - this here in WP seems to be more a question of retaining that history which has already been written , from being popularly lost .

The good faith sunders under the inability of reason , leaving the force of the user button on minds attuned to the simplistic answer .You have been lawyerly in capturing the isolation that my indignation created for myself .

Nevertheless , the political and moral indivisibilty of the shared immovable word is and was a bond of value . The infamy referred to by Bruning before the meeting of the Assembly , the use of the word soul by Social Democracy within the Assembly , Kaas' own reflection upon soul - this indivisible compact is the compact of the word with reason .Anyone can see in the discourse that it echoes originally out from the very church itself . This is what you have in which to wrap your conscience , a bond of conscience in which you set yourself to live , the value that you offer for both youreslf and others within a populace of belief in it (the billion) .

I in my screeches for humanity , my claims , now have no more to wrap myself in than this my experience of its very muteness and silence and expedient rule ( the WP policy). The humanity I so vaunted itself desires no illumination but , I say the truth you vaunted , by expediently keeping to no true word , needs for itself no humanity . We both lose here at this my end. Thankyou .Famekeeper 11:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Open Short Summary

It appears that I am ordered to provide a spec. on the case and it to be as brief as possible .

WP-Minority view doesn't belong in WP regardless of whether it is true or not , or regardless of proof , and 'Majority viewpoint should be easy to substantiate from reference texts' . 'If only the favourable (or the unfair) facts of a point of view are shown , the article will still be neutral'

WP- 'Un-biased characterisation of disputes'. 'Explanation which encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold those beliefs and practices , but on account of how such beliefs and practices came into place' .

WP- 'we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views'. 'Fair characterisation describes but does not advocate ' . 'Belief is objective fact' . I 'describe or I imply , insinuate or subtly massage'.

That an article is accepted or removed or reverted or or not , is not a definition of its relative POV/NPOV worth . It reflects the possible perception of its (majority) editors . This article , apart from omissions that are proveable , does not err in substance nor statement but that is not to say that it does not almost indistinguishably aver to a subtlety of error .

To both myself , and I would say , to its author , this article is clear in its editorial view or aim . This aim may not however be clear to anyone else (the majority) , and the nuances of tone ( massage) , which for both us , Str1977 and Famekeeper , build a clear , if opposite , picture - will be to Robert McClenon say , completely opaque .

This is not to say that I could not choose to analyse each adjectival qualification , and reveal to the genuinely enquiring , the exact nature of the article's overall POV . I must leave it now to the editor/ reader as under the WP order , to take from it what they will , cognizant as their conscience of majority allows them to be of my engorged references and discussion .

This page signals , as so many do to me , but maybe not at all to you . I say on my user page , that when everything looks good and looks nice , that that is the greatest moment and signal of danger .Famekeeper 13:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust

Conscience intervenes me ,again, to ask Robert McClenon to visit the dubious discussion on the Holocaust's "Jews" section . Does he expect that 'all this matter should be dropped  ? Also , I see that nothing can be transferred from the Pope's Hitler Page to his suggested location for complicities . There is always arbitration , but mediation should be generally posted by now , right ?

At present the Famekeeper history is the the 'cited sources' for the multi-linked subject . I try to drop as much as I can , and if the WP is simply a majority of editors against a mjority of sources , it is clear that reader fatigue determines accuracy .

The Holocaust connection is the anti-semitism as the under-lying , but not single, motive of for the Kaas arranged quid pro quo betwwn , Pope Pius XI , his lieutenant Pope Pius XII and Hitler . I begin to wonder at the suicide of Timothy Mason, the holocaust historian .Famekeeper 12:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Reader fatigue

Famekeeper is absolutely correct that reader fatigue is a limitation to the development of the Wikipedia. However, what has actually happened is that the minority, Famekeeper, has fatigued everyone else so that no one else has the energy to discuss how to improve the pages in question, because the talk pages are being filibustered. I have repeatedly asked him to identify specific areas in the articles where sourced criticisms should be added.

I had everywhere inserted relevant historic comment , sourced on talk , and everywhere been reverted . Even today . I even 'rev' back to myself , but it gets stupid , now, doesn't it ? These are one way criticisms And I note the tone in "You asked for it. You got it. Sounds physical . I am sorry if I have so alienated you , but I am the one forced to the repetition . I could just hit the revert button .

Anyway, you did ask for such a page, and when I created it, you would not use it. Robert McClenon 00:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"You asked for it. You got it." was an advertising slogan. If Famekeeper thought that it was insulting, I regret that.

What I told Famekeeper to drop was the irrelevant soapbox discussion of excommunication.

Robert McClenon 13:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

'Explanation which encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold those beliefs and practices , but on account of how such beliefs and practices came into place' . It is motivation and far from irrelevant and is part of the explanation , given ,as required ,to Str1977 . Your interjections are effective POV , which I do not accept . Famekeeper 23:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

FK explanation

Famekeeper writes, apparently as to the self-excommunication argument: "'Explanation which encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold those beliefs and practices , but on account of how such beliefs and practices came into place'" I have tried over and over again to understand this argument, and I do not understand it. Simply stating that your argument has been made is not the Wikipedia way. Please explain in terms that I can understand, in two paragraphs, or 'drop it' (that particular argument, but not the whole issue).

I am pushed by Robert McClenon to , he wished it to be within two paragraphs , enunciate the relevance of excommunication to the events of 32-33 , but particularly to Monsignor Ludwig Kaas . I feel this should also relate to BXVI , as legal superior .

Going on the premise that the famous journalist Edgar Ansel Mowrer was no liar, there slithers from the pages of his latter-day round up of the world's affairs ( published in 1969 ) the clear report that the Catholic Church tried to engineer the ascendance of Hitler , for the same reasons that appear to surface in Writer John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope : the defeat of Communism . The horrors of communist Bolshevism to this Pope are well documented along with a less documented , John Cornwell investigation of the natural ( ie traditional) Holy See tendency towards anti-semitism , one which was shared downwards to the vatican's influential Secretary of State Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli . Mowrer report was that of an instruction ( the Holy' Fathers desire) to the influential and unusually , in Weimar Republic terms , consistent Catholic Centre Party Germany - to support making Hitler Chancellor as a bulwark against the rise of German Communism . This report stands alone as a direct accusation , whereas histories of the era simply remark that there seemed to be a clear reversal of Centre independance from Nazism . For example , earliest reference is made to this reversal in the analysis of The Saar (The Saar was a very small country existing under the League of Nations ) by Margaret Lambert, Faber 1934 p 259 . " The Catholic Centre party in the Saar had been vogourously attacking the Nazis in its paper , the landeszeitung . However on March 28th 1933 , there appeared an article strongly advocating a return to Germany . Attacks on Hitler gradually disappeard and the Saar Centre party following the example of the corresponding German party came into line with the Nazis , though disapproving of many of their actions . Although the Concordat negotiated between the Catholic Church and the National Socialists in Germany does not apply to the Saar , the fact of such an agreement had a determining influence on the Centre party's attitude there . So,here within a few months there was published notice that the Centre had been , despite its own longstanding moral disapproval , obviated politically by an agreement between the Holy See and the Nazis . Her remarks are evrywhere repeated as equally applicable to the german Centre party .This conclusion is echoed through all the history books and , being based on fact , is a majority viewpoint and undisputed . However here on the wikipedia , this fact is strangely forgotten . It appears neither in the Weimar Republic nor in Nazi Germany , and in the Nazi Timeline all that is said is that on March 23 1933 Hitler establishes dictatorial power . Thus far I am alone in considering this remarkable , however it leads me to this posting .

This quoted source from1934 is important in that it clearly raised the overall Centre (which is to say the politically catholic) moral collapse . Mowrer's report is of the direct papal wish sent down for the Centre to assist Hitler to power in every way . This wish , which for a catholic is therefore an instruction , was allegedly passed from Pacelli to the leader and chairman of the Centre in Berlin Monsignor Ludwig Kaas , who communicated it to a leadership meeting . I have sourced many histories which confirm Margaret Lambert's text and I have done this as necessary to move on to the concommittant resulting issues . In purely catholic terms I have had to give notice to the catholic code of legality which relates to this abandonment of morals , since the instructing of the party concurs with the stated opinion of welcome given by Pius XI to the Fuhrer ( quoted through German Foreign Secretary von Papen ) . In shortest possible summary , it would historically appear un-disputed that a successful destabilising anti-moral quid pro quo was organised by the Holy See . I point out that this is against the tenets of the Bible ( romans 3.8 ) the successors of the Christ , who thus successfully advised an expedient ( anti-Communist) political abandonment of moral judgement . The effects of this are known , but this origin for the power given to the Nazis , who ably represented all that was against the moral order , is less well known or understood . This may be because people naturally like to accept that those who claim to be good , and who claim to adhere through a legal code( " Divine Law in the WP's ecclesiastical canons ) to the indisputable goodness of Jesus Christ , are good . In actual fact the claim published even then , is that this was all to do with the Holy See achieving its Concordat with , not Germany , but the National Socialists (Nazis) . An acceptance of this historical reality entails the complete up-ending of wishful history . This would begin with the Catholic Church rectifying its own legal problems that arise from its part in the up-ending of the moral order . In brief , they have legal means to categorise this under automatic transgression : the transgression incurred the penalty automatically at the time etc (see discussions etc) . Canonically it is not a problem , except that the orthodoxy of the church finds it legally difficult to admit to papal error and the admission would open further internal canonical contradiction , and analysis of the direction of christianity as led by Popes . If it were you or me , we would be automatically excommunicating ourselves if we against romans choose to further an evil in order to promote a good . The church's laws are of course used to advise the adherents in such matters daily and everywhere still , and the laws are the same laws, which unfortunately , were broken in 1932 instructions and in 1933 negotiations . Aside from such internal rectification , of course there is nothing that can be done , except to learn that even the non -political self appointed powers of the Church must be watched like hawks and their political effect brought into line with their own ( hypocritcal ) actions , that morals mean something in terms of our political world , that appeasement cannot sacrifice the moral order without the greatest cost , that world history as you see it is unclear without this understanding because all regions and societies ( world war , cold war ) were affected and that there is a valuable lesson here for the establishment of future world law .Famekeeper 11:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you and I are both allowed to express POV on talk pages. But we should try to work toward NPOV. You have never yet provided me with a short summary of what the POV issues are.

I do not think that you know how to provide a short summary of issues. I suggest that you go back to the Wikipedia:Village pump and ask for a mentor or an advocate. I think that, if you want to take part in Wikipedia, you need to change your style very significantly.

If you simply want to state your viewpoint, I suggest that you create your own web site. Robert McClenon 00:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I shall redo the actual Kaas article critique , is there a mediator ?Famekeeper 11:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

One more request for a summary

Famekeeper appears to be saying that he has tried to present a solidly proven argument that the Roman Catholic Church engaged in some sort of conspiracy with Adolf Hitler to defeat communism that in turn resulted in the Holocaust, for which the Catholic Church is morally guilty. He has been saying for some time that arbitration is required about the truth. Famekeeper appears to have been saying that Str1977 has been engaging in censorship by deleting his statements of sourced fact.

If this case does go to Wikipedia arbitration, then one of the requirements of the Arbitration Committee is that each of the principals should provide a statement, not longer than 500 words, of what their case is.

I have several times asked Famekeeper for that summary, in particular with focus to facts that have been deleted, or on POV presented by sourced scholars as POV that has been deleted. I have not yet seen a summary of less than 500 words of what User:Famekeeper thinks is the substance of the censorship.

I agree that there are differing points of view as to how moral responsibility for the Holocaust should be distributed. I am asking Famekeeper to summarize, in less than 500 words, why he claims that the Catholic Church was guilty of collusion with Hitler.

I agree with Famekeeper that the arguments for moral complicity by Ludwig Kaas, the Centre Party (Germany), and Pope Pius XII should be presented as points of view held by some scholars. I disagree with any claim that there has been proof of moral complicity. A statement as to these points of view should be written. I do not think that it can be written by Famekeeper, who does not understand the difficult concept of NPOV . Can he at least present a summary of what his case is? If not, can he at least state briefly what the censorship is?

McC orders Summary from FK under Innuendo

This is one more request for a summary of less than 500 words, having to do either with how the complicity can be proved, or with other scholars who have presented cases of complicity. Robert McClenon 02:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why I should be further insulted by you McC.......I will do it , but how about a apology for this innuendo ....first? If I don't manage to do it , it will be at least as public as your innuendo . You should given your growing understanding , do as I always said and perform an open u-turn rather than this insulting half-way nonsense .Famekeeper 17:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, to be balanced .you should be demanding the opposite critique from Str1977. In fact you are trying to wriggle out of your Rfc accusations.

Explanation

Perhaps my request for an explanation was not clear, or perhaps you did not understand it. I said that if you requested arbitration, then you would have to provide a summary of your case. If you cannot provide a summary of your case, then you should not expect the mediators or arbitrators to be sympathetic.

I also said that you should not accuse anyone of being an agent of the Vatican without proof. You previously accused 1977 of being an agent of the Vatican. Then I said that you had violated the Wikipedia principle of assuming good faith, and said that you should apologize. You did apologize. However, you then again accused him of being an agent of the Vatican. If he happens to agree with the Vatican, that is his point of view, and in a pluralistic society, he is entitled to it, even if it disagrees with you. If you cannot prove the "agent" charge, then restating it again is not civil and is failure to assume good faith.

If I have been guilty of innuendo, as opposed to direct discourse, please state what I did wrong. If I did something wrong, in my frustration, I will probably apologize. I do not think that I was guilty of innuendo. I think that I stated facts. If you think that I have wronged you, please explain how.

You ask me to demand a similar critique from Str1977. I am not making that demand, because I think that I understand what he is saying. He often does state his case in less than 500 words.

When I came into this dispute with you, I was more in agreement with you than with Str1977 as to the POV of whether Pope Pius XII and the Centre Party (Germany) had been guilty of moral errors that contributed to the rise of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. I still think so, but not because of your arguments. You have claimed to make a case of willed or malicious moral error. I do not see that case.

You have said that I should read the archives. I should not have to read the archives of a long exchange between Famekeeper and Str1977 to know what Famekeeper is saying. However, I did read the archives. I can see an argument. I do not see a summary, or proof.

I also asked whether you could prove that Str1977 had engaged in censorship. You presented a list of instances of "Massage/Censorship". It appears that these are simply cases of re-editing. You, Famekeeper, have not made a case that persuades me that Str1977 has been engaged in "censorship", only in editing. If you have a different concept of censorship than I do, please explain it.

You accused me of trying to wriggle out of the accusations that I made in an RfC. I disagree. I am asking you to persuade me that you are acting civilly and in good faith. If you do that, I will be glad to delete the RfC. I never wanted to make any claims in an RfC. I would be glad to withdraw it if you could resolve the issues.

If you think that Str1977 has wronged you, please explain in less than 500 words how he has wronged you.

That was more than 500 words. I will summarize if requested. I would prefer to see this resolved quietly. Robert McClenon 04:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Article POV

20.05 22 Apr.FK opens article , Error birthplace , did not work from WP.deutsh. Uses cont. historian , no source=key figure in EAct, v short article

19.34 23 Apr. JKenney(JK)Expands . Birth place from WPde.?K now 'reluctantly' for EA , dissolved Centre in open meaning, error dates for K to Rome , rem FK key fig.

Anon 213.118,138.183 minor , sev'l JK m

12.45 11 May . JASpencer categorises m

12.46 " user JASpencer links Reichskonkordat

vandal & rv by user:Everyking to JASpencer

07.43 3 June FK rem. I POV word only :reluctantly .Sourced in disc: K von Klemperer, FK v.indignant at art.Pastes user:JKenney view from Centre art.

09.02 9 June . Str overhaul of JK . 1) K & AH committee ' no major impact'. 2) EAct 'orphaned' of K import , 3) no vote . Later in March 1933 , , 4) K twice to Rome at that time , 5) Error/ POV massage re K not travel'g with Papen , 6) POV Centre disso. & resign'n. 7) Pitiful exile POV contr. to hist. 8) Str igno's KvonK key fig treachery

1) because it had no impact - do you believe Hitler would be restricted by such a commitee, it was only a farce and met twice or three times. You obviously have not understood what this was about. Fair enough but you could have asked for an explanation instead of screaming.

2) the act is mentioned in the Kaas article, though I slimmed it down to put the main thing into the Centre article, since it's important to all the party and Kaas was merely one guy (though an important one) involved

3) don't know what "no vote" or "Later in March 1933" means

4) Kaas travelled to Rome twice during that time (first immediately after he EAct, the 2nd time was were he was joined by Papen)

5) no POV just misinterpreting my book (yes, it happens to me too but I admit it - and I don't draw gigantic conclusions from details)

6) no POV, just facts

7) again no POV, just facts - are you saying that if I say Kaas was homesick that's POV? If you're not interested, ignore it, but this article is about the man "Ludwig Kaas" - from the cradle to the grave and this is important.

8) What the Klemperer quote provided was already in the article, quite independent from him or you, what you claim he says he doesn't

16.35 11 June. Str K exits !Canon! law , polit'l career entry!

what's wrong with my edit. He did resign from his academic position to concetrate (not enter) politics

16.36 11 June . Str + K at League/Nations 1926, still Pacelli not close , = formal .

He was a delegate. But I guess this is unimportant, since: "I again say that only by reason of this Pacelli subversion does the Centre Party deserve importance and that is why the article needed the extra analysis." and "Earlier history should be expanded yes, but the importance is in the quid pro quo." Talk:Centre_Party_(Germany)/Archive1 Very profound historical thinking indeed. John K is right on the mark.

(sev'l m )

whateever that means

00.52 14 June . FK posts dispute, uses bad wpsyntax, FK talklenthy sourced & attestation of info prev. sourced to Str , FK indig'n re Church at talk:'Dispute':unsigned/undated=14/15June

16.10 14 June. Str rem. Dispute/discuss. from article . POV/NPOV = AH via Papen makes 23 Mar ref: Chistianity . V Unhist'l. Str Ign's source KvonK .Str-calls FK 'slander', FK refers :Timeline (correctly) . Str has no source but interprets ' my book'-will check etc. Cornwell sloppy hist, did 'hatchet job' . Denies JKenney quote rel'v't . FK acc's Revisionism thru-out:'Criminal Subv'n' by Canon Law .

I am busy , no finished please do not prevent this my required POV .All posts are dated, now please do not hinder me now .

I removed the tag because the post on the talk page did not actually "dispute" the contents of the article.

All the other stuff is barely comprehensible.

Str1977 21:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Have you gone , Str? please leave me to finish , or I shall be being prevented from doing what I am required to do . . I sign this: answer now or what? Famekeeper 21:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

ANSWER IF YOU WILL NOT IMPEDE/WILL IMPEDE - OR I WILL BE FORCED TO STILL WORSE ACTION  ??Famekeeper 21:38, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

R U STOPPED, Str1977 or AM I BLOCKED ??Famekeeper 21:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the first a threat? Is the second your secret hope?

I have already answered the points relating to me. What more should I say?

Str1977 21:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You are being obtuse, answer that you woill allow me to proceed ?Famekeeper 22:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Famekeeper Blocked

Arbitrators , this cannot go on . I cannot be blocked from attempting to resolve the issue as requested and insulted for not working towards an outside understanding . I consider myself blocked by Str1977 as of this minute at discussion , Ludwig Kaas . I end now , with no way to complete the task concerning my accusations . I protest this minute this block .Famekeeper 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon"

How can you be blocked if you can post this?

I experience server errors myself at the moment (this is the 5th time I'm posting this)

I only replied to what you had posted already. If you posted it in one piece things might be easier (but do as you wish!).

If you really need my permission than you've got it. Go ahead and don't scream around threats.

Str1977 22:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Str,old friend , I have enjoyed our battle . I repeat that it has served history and the Wikipedia well . Now the victims of your faith need to be served well . I therefore say to you that I have prepared my precis Arbitrator's gude and Summary as requested by McClenon . I call for arbitration and I call you for persistent bad faith . Famekeeper 08:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocking or Performance Problems

Does Famekeeper have any actual evidence of being blocked? Is he perhaps running into performance problems? If he is in fact being blocked, then there is an abuse of administrative authority. It appears to be just as likely that there are only performance problems due to Wikipedia having many users.

By the way, did you, Famekeeper, request to have the Pope Pius XII article permanently page-protected in an earlier round of edit wars? (I am not sure that I am reading the tedious archives correctly, but I think that is what I am reading.) Please do not both request blocking and complain about non-existent blocking. Robert McClenon 08:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Robert, he did request protection on two occasions. I agree that it was probably some server problem. As I have stated I myself had to make several attempts to post my reply to FK's complaint. Str1977 09:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Performance Problems

Wikipedia has performance problems at times. In my professional opinion as a system tester and performance analyst, I would guess that they are due to Wikipedia having more users than its hardware was sized for. This is a common problem with rapidly growing web-based systems. I have seen similar problems in the past month with a system that I was testing. They are not caused by deliberate administrative action. Any editor who claims that the server problems are due to admin blcoking is mistaken, either unreasonable or inexperienced.

If Famekeeper requested to have the Pope Pius XII article permanently page-protected, that was unreasonable, and suggests claiming a proprietary interest in particular articles.

Famekeeper: Please do not make accusations that you cannot substantiate, such as that Str1977 or the Vatican are blocking your edits. One of the official policies of Wikipedia is "Assume good faith". Robert McClenon 15:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration call August 2005

I reject your 'tedious' POV innuendo . I am no longer interested in discussion with you McC nor with Str. He blocked me by interjecting ripostes whilst I was listing summary of edits here. I asked him to desist so that I could complete, repeatedly , he would not answer, so I estimated I was blocked in effect . I lost relevant material and was not going to do so on his interference. I am about to post my 500 word arbitrators' summary , as I assume that that is all that is left for me to do . I wrote it for the arbitrators, and of course, you are debarred from being involved . The summary is a complete round-up (including briefest summary of the Roman Catholic internal Law- breaking) . I shall not have to have anything further to discuss with you , McC. I believe you have abused your neutrality , but so what , that's life . The only question is where I shall choose to put the summary . I think given the accusations of history it is most relevant to the page of the new Pope Benedict XVI .If you McC care to post need for arbitration , please do . Famekeeper 10:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I neither blocked you nor refused to answer. I tried to answer but the server problems prevent this time and time again until after you signed off. Your distrust and your shouting at Robert show your continuing problem with assuming good faith in principle. Str1977 11:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Response to arbitration call

Famekeeper claims that Str1977 blocked him by inserting responses while he was summarizing edits. It appears that Famekeeper was asking for temporary ownership of a talk page in order to permit him to make a long series of edits. That is not how Wikipedia is edited. If he wanted complete control of his edits while he was working on them, there was a straightforward way that he could have had it. He could have opened a Word document on his own computer.

I have already posted a Request for Mediation, which has not been answered. Arbitration was originally Famekeeper's demand, and I see no reason to demand arbitration unless the content of article pages is jeopardized.

I am not entirely sure what Famekeeper is saying is the relevance of Pope Benedict XVI to this controversy. Is he saying that he has previously been involved in a cover-up of Catholic complicity in the Holocaust? If so, any sourced statement to that effect is appropriate as POV on his article page. On the other hand, is Famekeeper simply stating the Pope Benedict XVI, as current Bishop of Rome, has a duty to seek out the truth and acknowledge any previous wrong-doings? I agree strongly with that statement. However, I do not see that it is relevant either to his article page or his talk page. He has only been Bishop of Rome for four months, and it is not useful to talk about what he has not done, or what he ought to do.

Any discussion of moral errors by Ludwig Kaas, presented as POV with sources, should be in the Ludwig Kaas article. It does have an NPOV banner, and is waiting for expansion. I think that the current article does need to be expanded to include criticisms of Kaas.

Any discussion of moral errors by the Centre Party (Germany) in its assent to the Enabling Act should be in the Centre Party article.

Any discussion of criticisms of Pope Pius XII, presented as POV with sources, should be in the Pope Pius XII article. It appears to me that the current article does present the criticisms and responses to criticisms reasonably well.

I see no relevance of any of this issue to Pope Benedict XVI at this time. If someone presents a petition to Pope Benedict XVI to conduct a moral inquiry, then the petition will become part of the history of Benedict XVI. I am not aware of that petition. Wikipedia is not a petition.

No one is preventing Famekeeper from trying to expand the Ludwig Kaas or Centre Party articles, which could benefit from addition of sourced analyses. No one, that is, except perhaps Famekeeper's anger and impatience and distrust. Robert McClenon 15:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Repair to Article

Distrust temporarily overcome. If this is rv'd , that will return . All uh sources uh same uh if wanted uh arbitration for earlier non uh acceptance ....Famekeeper 07:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear FK,

I hope we can return to a good faith basis now. I, for my part, am open to that (and I will reply to your post on my page later). Some questions/remarks about your edits:

"From 1925 onwards Kaas served ecclesiastically as secretary to Bishop Nuncio Pacelli"

Can you please source this. I never heard of this.

"and Pacelli was a great influence on his life"

Isn't that a bit POV. How would you prove this.

In regard to the Enabling Act I copied over the more detailed section from the Centre Party, as there was no accusations of treachery by Brüning at that time and you again misinterpreted the "Soul quote". I tried to keep Kaas slim and keep the whole story to Centre Party, You have convinced me to do otherwise. These paragraphs include all the quotes you were referring to and more.

I also reinserted a mentioning of the "working commitee" at the proper chronological place"

I removed "had finally achieved that which in 1932 the papacy had required- an apparently christian Dictatorship.", as you have no proof provided for that.

I also rephrased the QPP point to be more NPOV and also included the counter-argument.

I rephrased the holiday reference to include skiing in a more flent way and rephrased his real objective to "offically offer the nationwide concordat" - that's what we know for certain and hence it is NPOV, exlcuding neither your view nor mine.

I merged the "drafting" by Kaas with the negotiations, because they're referring to the same thing.

Also here I rephrased the QPP point to be more NPOV, though I doubt whether it's relevant to a Kaas page. Still, I retained it and included a counterargument. This not really relevant to Kaas here but either both stay or both leave.

Consider this.

Str1977 11:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, McC , vatican has a small v . I note that all I required from the beginning here is now allowed . How come ? Because I made it public.Famekeeper 08:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Though you address Robert, may I post a short reply:

Please no argument about capitalization.

How come? I think you mistake my edits. Some of the things I removed and which you complained about (train, who talk when to whom, the whole EA story as it was on the Centre page etc) was not so much disputed facts but rather wether they should be included here. There we may have different opinions but I am able to compromise here. My main concern was a onesided depiction of one (your) interpretation. Unfortunately this all got lost in the "heat of the battle" since my overhaul.

Str1977 10:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Speculation moved here from article

According to one report, Pope Pius XI and Cardinal Pacelli supported this policy through a letter, estimating Hitler as a bulwark against the Communists. This however is not corroborated by any other source and as long as neither the exact wording nor any qualifications in this letter are known, interpretations will remain speculative.

Dear Robert, though I don't agree with FK's interpretation I think this sufficently sourced to be included in the de-pov'ed shape I have given it. Str1977 16:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

McC , I say I reject all your and Str's edits as further trying to deny sources . The WP is being made a mockery of , not alone myself . I leave it entirely up to you both to do as you wish , but I call for responsibility within the guidelines of this organ the WP . There you go , lads . And please do not insult my intelligence further . I stick by all the sources I ever used , and you don't produce either of you nothing , except it confirms mine . Jimbo Wales - this is your problem , not mine . Famekeeper 18:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

August Solution re: Kaas/Pacelli

Today Im suggesting to good ol' Str that we can rsolve all inter-related issues re Kaas(Pacelli , Hitler) thru Hitler's Pope receiving all the controversy re :the quid pro quo arranged . The these ecclesiastics look a bit better . Trade off is , a seelaso:link from these clean pages , to the accusations under Hitler's Pope . That's gotta be reasonable ?Famekeeper 10:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable POV error

This article is still un-acceptable as diminuishing the historians clear linkage of interests to the Holy See . The denial of sources ,by Str1977 and Robert McClenon ,is perverse and contrary to WP policy . Do not believe the article is the history , for Kaas was the link betwen Hitler and the vatican in the series of trade -offs that allowed Europe to slide towards inevitable conflict and inevitable ( Nazi policy for ) anti-semitic genocide . The policy of these editors is to break this link as far as is possible , and since it is not sourced , whereas the link is , it is purely a reflection of POV whitewash . Read the sources as you can , peruse the desperate posting which gets no further than revert war . User:Famekeeper

FK, I have included your POV as POV far as it was reasonable. There is not "the historian's clear linkage" you claim there is. I've got nothing more to say on your post. Sign your posts. Str1977 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry , forgot to sign(again). I know you are tired , so I won't give you a hard time today . I wish you wouldn't assume my adherence to Canon Law made me an anti-catholic. I believe the Magisterium and Jesus has more than a great deal to offer this world , I just tend toward the Thomasine and away from the Empire tradition . We understand each other very well , and my note above is no more than I can achieve given your great assiduity . Of course I reject this appparently pleasant reference to my POV . You are a paragon of defence , which will bring us head to head again . Probably when I start developing a Germanity article in analysis of the philosophical roots of National Socialism . Perhaps you will do me the goodness to allow me to write a good bit before you take out your sword of defence . I shall be basing the article upon Rohan D'O. Butler and Edmond Vermeil (see Holocaust talk) . One way and another you force me into an education. As you also well know , your use of the sword allows me greater room for maniobra . I'm glad if you liked the profanity page so much ! Take care to sleep . Famekeeper 20:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Working Committee of 31 March is wrong

The reference to the working committee should be for c 15-21 March . He is simply reported as having been recalled hurriedly to the private Hitler meeting This will need changing on both counts. I link by highlighting to Pope Pius XII .Famekeeper 21:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The Explosive Secret Annexe to the Concordat

I have to deal with you on this Str1977 because you earlier managed tyo remove this . however there on the reichskonkordat it is clearly claimed , and claimed as contravening the versailles treaty . I would expect you to negotiate any alteration to this explosive fact there upon that page beyond furhter dispute, or without further dispute . I ask this in good faith , knowing you are well aware of both what I interpolated here independantly many months ago, and what I have since seen as accepted fact under the Treaty on Reichskonkordat . I simply report that this is considered an explosive fact, and explosive for the contumacy it represents , written within the walls of the vatican, and thus , of course , centrally relevant to all that you inaccurately term as Famekeeper conspiracy theory . I therefore expect to see you do this over at that article , if you do intend to. Famekeeper 00:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, Fk, what this annex has to do with Kaas. It's an Concordat issue and should be discussed there. However, I cannot recall ever removing this annex and, quite frankly, I don't think it really explosive or shocking. It was clear that Hitler wanted to reverse the Versailles treaty - but so wanted every other party and every other government in Germany since the ink had dried up. (Communists excepted, but they strove for a more "global" reversal). Hitler is special not because he wanted to reverse Versailles but because he wanted much more than this. And many realized this only as it was too late.

Now if it became clear - either during or before the negotiations - that Hitler wanted to return to a conscripted army, it was only logical and prudent to deal with such a possible development and to include safeguards for that too. And of course Hitler wanted to have it kept secret.

I can't see what the big fuzz is, since I don't think anyone could claim that the secret annex helped Hitler in implementing his policies. He could have done it without a concordat to be sure and the other powers didn't need to be informed on rearmament intentions by the Vatican. They knew enough but they couldn't decide on action. The western powers didn't wanted to follow Pilsudski's demands for a "preemptive strike" and the isolation policy in alliance with Mussolini later collapsed also.

As for the "controversy" section might be valid, but it still needs a lot of reworking.

I leave margin of one : for you to expand your physical text . Last first:please do not remove stuff just as you wish . Add as you desire , but remove is another matter and subject for honest discussion.

The big fuss will become intelligable to you , and if it really has not already I specify it at the base RKKK't discussions .OK discussion is me , because no one answers honest questions much . Which does not mean that logic should go to sleep .

You did remove it and provided some close, meaning , fine reasoning . I withdrew because , despite all accusation , I am of good faith . (Some of the time you act as if I am , which is heartening . Hopefull y it will be more so rather than less, and hopefully you will not descend to the other levels of abuse I receive daily ). I don't want to think it bad faith that you did so , so we shall peruse that reasoning again , wherever it is . Pius XII archives ,I think . I shall take it there to RKK't and we must honestly test it. For all I know you are right .

I am not able to base editing or even thinking on generalised political interpretations of the Weimar, Hitler or any other motivation except in so far as I see it relating to close fact . Unless closely following published source . if you would follow so, then I would probably accept that form of interpretation . I am interested in facts, their legality and their categorisation . Kaas' private meeting was fact , and seemed to be excluded and trans-whatever for a long time . it is also fact that Kaas is published as intermediary because of such meeting and its vert privacy . Lastly I hope you didn't get flooded , and I repeat that I make no apologies for asking questions based in reality , even canonical reality at whatever length necessary . Famekeeper 14:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 13:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Present (Aug 30 ) Editing

As you once said, other people need the CP .

Mr FK, I may be a bit stupid for not knowing but can you please explain to me what a CP is?

I thought I was asking you in good faith.

I'm not aware I broke that (your post above was after I did my edits, at least after I did them for the first time when they got lost in some computer problem). But for your benefit I will explain my edits one by one, so that you can understand.

Now I have to one by one confirm and deny these as appropriate .

14.27 good faith should let you believe this a correct version of the reality. I can, if not, have sourced , and I find it abrasive if I am asked to fight every inch , when u negatively restrict gd fth editing : this is not in line. Mine is in line that particularly as I state the Concordat failed because of the very distrust felt toward Pacelli and the Vatican in the matter throughout the 20's and even in the Centre Party. So I beg to seriously differ and request revert to mine.

IMHO that is unfairly putting the "blame" (blame only if you think a concordat to be something worth working for, for laicist and atheists it should probably be the opposite) solely on supposedly high demands by Pacelli and/or the Holy See. There were many factors involved - the Holy See's demand, disagreements between Pope and Bishops and the MoD on the status of military chaplains (the Minister wanted a military bishop overseeing all military chaplains, while the Bishops wanted to put them under the supervision of the regional bishop, Pacelli was increasingly siding with the government's view - which prevailed in the end and until now), the instability of Weimar governments, opposition of various parties to various topics (schools, military, marriage issues) - especially the SPD and the Liberals were more anti-concordat and the DNVP also was "not very enthusiastic". The only party that always wanted a concordat was of course the Centre.

14.33large section removed :Looks like : 15 march onwards 19333 'working committee" chaired with Hitler removed ! Stegerwald etc negotiations 20-22 removed ! Nazi promise 23 march reduced/removed . Centre opponents re: Catholic teaching removed (who put that in , who sourced that , not I . Why removal now ? Is it incorrect ? Going by other removal , it is a poor show , Str . reversion od first two points requested , other analysed ...Midday and evening speeches 23 March . please try and put me straight-where did I go wrong there re these assemblies . Qualification as to demise of democracy is absolutely relevant for educational purpose . I protest , request gd fth reversion .

So one by one:

I reinserted "loyally" because it is accurate. (The same goes later for "vigourously" - Kaas' and Brüning's health called for lighter campaigning and both later were ill for a day or two). I have this proposal for you: I later excised hurriedly because it seems a bit POV to me. Only a bit. Since you appearently feel the same way about "loyally" and "vigourously": I would accept "hurriedly", but only if you accept these two as well. How about that?

Sorry about some double posting. I did or will remove what's superfluous.

I don't think I removed anything on the negotiations in this section. I only reordered it. First came a postitive answer through Papen, AFAIK, then the negotiations your posted and then the "letter that didn't come" (I made this more concise). I removed the working commitee from here (and reinserted it further down) because it doesn't belong here. Maybe you are confusing two things: the negotiations at this time before the bill was passed, and the working commitee which was part of the agreement reached. It was a sort of replacement for the fact that the Centre could not enter the cabinet (hypocritical Hitler told Kaas, that all the major offices had been already distributed and he couldn't give any to the Centre except maybe for Post or the like) - the commitee was meant to discuss laws passed under the Enabling Act, but of course Hitler was never interested in this to work, he only wanted the vote.

"Reichstag speech, itself influenced by Kaas": it's enough to mention the speech once, further down, when it is held. There it is explained, quite clearly and concisely, how the speech related to Kaas' points. To say that Kaas influenced the speech (if you turn your passive into active voice) is utterly misleading.

"Kaas himself nevertheless handed the entire centre Bloc vote ...": this wording is unacceptable. They were grown-up deputies responsible for their vote.

"including the allied Catholic Bavarian People's Party of BNvP": untrue. Kaas had no control over this distinct party. Though of course, their resisting was pointless now. Apart from this, the acronym you give is incorrect: the "Bayerische Volkspartei" is abbreviated "BVP" - maybe you confused them with the DNVP - Deutschnationale Volkspartei.

"for the democratically treacherous Act": un-encycopedic language.

I don't know what happened to the "Catholic social teaching" paragraph (I wrote it in my overhaul) - whether it was deleted by mistake or not but right now it is still in there. As it should.

"Brüning and his followers agreed to respect party discipline by also voting in favour of the bill and remaining silent": Br. & Co. agreed to vote in favour of the Bill. Br's silence is already covered further down (as it occured) and refers only to him. His followers of course were silent too but no one expected them to speak, while Br's silence was noted by a French observer.

14.34Minor no overall sense change- only in-correct as I had left out a comma . English just needed a comma. OK.

The paragraph on the sessions I only straigthened out linguistically.

14.34 (2nd)You seem simply to require that your contribution to conspiracy categorisation , be replaced against the new clearer sectioning, and again diminuishing the picture . Against gd fth . Pleasse?

Yes, I think my paragraph is clear, concise, included both views and I haven't seen anyone object to it. Do you really honestly believe that your version (which I retained for now) is clearer, more accurate or even fair?

In another edit I removed a double post and replaced your "rightist" insertion by a wiki-link. It is not good to insert comments into quotes.

14.41 History sources do not describe, to me , Kaas as "managing" to leave : this is POV down-sizing to Eupen/Malmedy(one of them (which ?) French speaking . It appears to be massage? You replace the working committee , again sources say this started work as I said immediately following 1st |Cabinet of co-alition with Nationalists on 15 march . No mentions in my source of that continuing 'after Enabling Act-you may have something about the  ! April, please prove that for me in some fashion , as to at least who writes that, please. The promised during Enabling Act- no one I know says that. promises are indeed the point . May I ask , are you able to back this up , as it seems like a desire to deflect and declarify the question of unknown promises

Here now comes the working commitee. It belongs here (see above). (It only "sat" now, not before the Act - maybe your book omitted it because of its unimportance in effect.)

"Holocaust Timelines present the sequence of their presentation in the Vatican as noteworthy" is a sentence for the talk page. It doesn't belong into the article and a timeline is no source you mention, as long as its factual correctness is undisputed (if it were, it would be excised). I don't source things (either here or in a paper) I take from my "Great Ploetz" (a volume standard for German historians, providing a load of data (time, statistics etc) or from another encyclopedia. Your time issue I didn't touch.

I removed the Göring reception, because this is an article on Kaas, not on Papen, Göring, Pius XI or the Concordat.

(Also the "If it is denied that the pontiff used these words, this denial is unknown" is a sentence that belongs into discusions not the article. Note that I don't dispute that the Pope said that, though I dispute your taking diplomatic niceties at face value for heartfelt sympathies.)

I also corrected your falling to the present tense (which I consider bad style in historiography, thoigh some do it to make it more lively).

The "annex issue" has been dealt with above. Again, this article is about Kaas and not about the concordat as such. And "most disturbing aspect" is highly "POV'ed up" language (and I don't agree with that for the reasons explained above).

Also the Papen secrecy issue does really not need that much coverage. What was in the article before your edit was clear and concise. That the press found him out is of interest to them, but not so much to us.

As for issues raised in your post:

Kaas managed to leave Berlin for Rome after repeatedly postponing the trip. That's a fact and not POV. It's not downsizing to Eupen-Malmedy. That was the first reason to go to Rome, but the "postponing events", I'm sure, were discussed as well. However, that's guessing and we don't know what they spoke anyway.

To my knowledge, both towns are German speaking (and nowadaways part of the "German community" withing Belgium), but I reworded it to avoid this debate. That they belonged to Germany before 1919 is a fact no one can deny.