Talk:Ludwig Kaas/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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.

Str1977 13:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

My edits and explanation

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?

PC OK

OK.

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.

I base on source . Even the Centre was split because of what I said -it is historically accurate . Put it back in , please. As I wrote.

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).

if not used by source why do you put it there-it is like "managed" . isee it as deflective . OK take out hurried , but include "called back" as this is historical , the meeting was planned ahead , Kaas did hurry back suddenly .

Well, it was in my source and hence i included it and you removed it and I re-included it and you removed and I re-included. So here we are.

Can you prove that it was planned ahead. And even if you can, does equate with the "hurry" - and is the hurry really important? Well, my proposal still stands.

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.

You took out the whole work committeee from 15 march onwards, and removed the 20 22 negotiations referred to by me elsewhere, with Stegerwald definitely present , possibly not Kaas at all because un-named, with ecclesiatical conditions as well as contitutional . put it back as I wrote . You are absolutely wrong , and should recognise your actions, too. Tut Tut Tut-waste my time you do . I protest , at your concentration and your preremptory actions .

I removed the "working commitee" because it belongs to a later time. I didn't remove the 20-22 negotiations, only reordered the sentence a bit. Can't you see. Yes, Stegerwald was present. But did you include him in the text?

Tut, that boyish king, is dead! Accident or murdered? Who knows?!

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.

Wrongly

Rightly

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.

Not what Shirer states or others . the negotiations followed as I said the cabinet where there was big row between AH and hugenberg, but it was seen that the remaining issue was the Centre and how to win their vote to pass the EAct . That was the Working Committeee. Quote source if different .

Did Shirer mention the "working commitee" by name? If not, your point falls apart.

No that wasn't the working commitee! The wo.co. was a result of the agreement, as I wrote:

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.

Quote source verbatim and well have parallel versions if need be . i dont accept what you say . the EAct is abundantly clear . the only remaining laws were imposed without neccesity for Kaas or any of them to vote any more . that was the whole essence of the EAct . I protest , it is deflective , suggesting Kaas had something political to offer . All he had after the Eact was the dissolution referred to on 5 March inside the Vatican at close of negotiations for RKK't.

Yes, no need to vote anymore. That's the flaw. The wo.co. was no substitute parliament but only a consultative group between Centre and government and the government was free to forget about it. And it did after a few meeting that were merely "pro forma".

"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.

I sourced close relation of Kaas(the Church) into this speech . The historians say this , It is linked and recognised , so why do you do this . I say if you have different source make it known , you haven't ever provided such whereas I have repeatedly .

I sourced this , so change re Klemperer and do not insult him more (KVK) . I do not see any reference to the Work committee (correct English spelling NB) at the 31 Mar(he left Rome ) nor the 1 April . The meeting was Apr 2

No, you mis-(over-)interpreted Klemperer's sentence. The truth behind Klemperer's sentence is Hitler covering Kaas' points (and Kaas is not the Church) in order to soothe the Centre. Morsey has clearly referenced the points in Kaas and in Hitler.

Why do you always take things personally, even for others. I have no reason to insult Klemperer and never have and never will.

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

it is sourced because literally true . You are wrong and it is an outrage you accused me ever of either POV or anything , when you are denying literal truth ,he handed the vote himself en bloc. That is no interpretation-though there is much historians interpret ever since that day .

You are either referring to a mere formalia (that Kaas announced in his speech, that the entire Centre would approve of the bill) or fantasize (that Kaas somehow controlled the votes other than by persuasion)

"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.

BVP, sorry the catholic break-away from the centre party as you know . Kaas did hand their vote included en bloc-or so I reported since the start .

If so, than again it's the mere formalia. But they decided for themselves.

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

This relates to the fact and to the political recognition of Bruning . I protest at deflection ,You are by this against the educational interest and I protest .

Obviously you don't know what language to use in an encyclopedia.

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.

Don't give me mistakes - this is very weak and un-acceptable . i will have to return to heavier criticism , this is not one word here .I protest as being time wasting deflection and offensive to the gd fth priciple . It is an outrage- I didnot include this-but you did dis-include . I protest

You protest against what? That I messed up things computerwise? I do protest too but that doesn't help things.

"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.

The paragraph on the sessions I only straigthened out linguistically.

Would you stop trying to mis-interpret my english . you are not a native speaker and I am . This is ridiculous . I protest-all that was lacking as below is a comma . I protest at putting your linguistic towel on the beach .

Sorry, despite good faith and all, but I don't believe you are a native speaker.

"Evening assembly" might exist, but my wording IMHO flows more naturally.

As for the facts, no one was notable for remaining silent except for Brüning.

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

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?

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 : there as far as I have sources no promise to provide a working Commmitteee from the as youy call it EA @negotiations' and this appears to me no more than an attempt to deflect from the private Hitler audiece after being there in Rome and it is legitimate to see, paving the way for something .This is a regrettable return to your earlier manner . I protest strongly and request reversion absolutely in disgust, repeated , at this .

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.

14.42 edit: Moved "died" note to a place before your "controversy" section to ensure "unity of biography" and preclude any inadverted deletion.

14.47 edit: more appropriate wording of the connection + reinserted Reichskonkordat, while still explaining it.

14:48 edit: changed "Kaas's" to correct "Kaas'"

17:26 edit: removed another double post.

That's it.

Str1977 18:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper 20:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 20:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible to treat discussion pages as conersation and both upload when one of us breaks as I had and now have to again . In very briefest I will say that I am pretty confident that I can prove by sourcealready made just aboput everything I say , and that if not I can do so, but that I should not have to do so . then , that if we live in the ssame moment , our sources evidently do not , and there may exist differences-tho the w committee certainly didnt have Kaas for more that 1 and 2 April , same day as private Hitler u minmise . Then, that eeven if this is the case , you de-clarify and do so claiming actually I feel disingenuous bureaucratic wikip nicetires , to lock out the full picture . i protest heavily at this and in sum say your chamge to the entire article on that score alone should be reverted by whoever if you will not do so . soon . I cannot carry on with this bureaucratic attitude and consider I am again in effect , blocked . bye bye Str , for now . get wise and do put it back as it very carefully was -complete. please me or yourself or whatever . iam gone fopr now . i have tried and I have again revealed more than I like . Sorry . Famekeeper 20:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Here are some books I used, though I don't know whether they have been translated into English (or for you: Spanish).

Morsey, Rudolf: Der Untergang des politischen Katholizismus. Die Zentrumspartei zwischen christlichem Selbstverständnis und "Nationaler Erhebung" 1932/33

Junker, Detlef: Die Deutsche Zentrumspartei und Hitler 1932/33. Ein Beitrag zur Problematik des politischen Katholizismus in Deutschland

Volk, Ludwig: Das Reichskonkordat vom 20. Juli 1933. Von den Ansätzen in der Weimarer Republik bis zur Ratifizierung am 10. September 1933

Binder, Gerhart: Irrtum und Widerstand. Die deutschen Katholiken in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Nationalsozialismus

Feldkamp, Michael F.: Pius XII. und Deutschland

Str1977 20:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I was kidding you - I like spanish but I aint spanish . of course I am an english native - I have zero german . I have only english source , I gave you english source. i repeat that I disputed with you from start with those sources, you said I misinterpret which is rude. Now I see no way ahead-Ill tell wyss and bunk off. I cant deal with foreign intervention, I say it is remarkable that whatever you do or allow diminuishes impoort from 2 April . i dispute that Kaas returned for working committee then . No source specifies more than that it was private , importantly . All sources claim it relates within the picture I present-overall quid pro quo of interests between Holy see and Hitler . I do not accept this separation of simplex-style biography with real biography , not that wikipedia cannot spare space for relevant truth . goering and your diplomatic diminuishment is unacceptable to me , anyway . I see no point in treating wqith you as you choose evr changing reason , and wrong reason to deflect and limit. must be yopur sources, but seems to me unreasonable deflection always and wherever . deflection from quid pro quo events . Sorry . Famekeeper 21:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)