Talk:Nazism in relation to other concepts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tumble and Soothe

I had intended to now source all you required . I delivered the above because 1936 is like,un-obtainable. I strongly suggest you obtain a copy of Mowrer's Germany Puts The Clock Back which is the fruit of this Pulitzer prize-winners stay in Germany from 1918 to 1933, c March the 1st . Hitler obliged Mowrer's departure by threatening the whole body of foreign correspondents in some way. Mowrer acceded, and was probably aware he could be murdered, though that thought occurs to me just now. Listen , I'm sorry that you don't appear to answer the questions I return, whilst I tried to answer your points as assidously as I could both here and there. That said, I have an arbcom case against me for propounding just the catholic part of the intrigue, and in my view, objecting to catholic denialism on WP . As you see this is but a factor in the history , whereas here it sucks up all my time, all my credulity and so on. Obviously you made no personal attack. Anyway I do assure you that I have sourced everything elsewhere, and been wiped only to a certain extent. The Pope Pius XII pages do now exhibit some relationship to politics in Weimar, and vice versa. I spoke to you at the length I did so you could carry on the good work .

Now-Tumbleif I put that in it's Mowrer, but surely not. I hate to think I could use such an inappropriate word either . One that I have seen in relation to political cover-up and appeasement, and which I loathe, is soothe and soothing. I just class that as so tasteless that it isn't "en." use. On a par with charismatic on Hitler. Well, Jmabel, I hope you will understand better for having seen the source above. You will find nowhere the succinct manner in which I portrayed the final acts, but in your library you will easily find many of those writers I high-light, and of course each will pay re-reading as the actual events are so very multi-influenced , that no single straight chronological explanation can be written by them . Only an actual timeline, ie megamemex, which solely attributes date-stamp gives succinctness. Shirer for example finds so much to clarify that you could read right through the chapter and come out confused as to what happened. Indeed actual confusion still remains in the books as here on Wikipedia . Shirer's lack of clarity in this is why I repaired ,for user:Wyss ,the Weimar Republic article or Weimar Germany or both, and of course, why I provided you with my succinct squaring in the article here. I should come back and source soon , but I am rather thinking about the definition of vatican agent right now, and heading back into the legalities . Keep killing tumble and target the soothing prose .You see how clear and un-soothing Arthur Rosenberg is, so you can imagine how fast he had to run from the Fuhrer. Check out Edgar Ansel Mowrer for the future concepts as lived around the time. I'd better head for the scandal and finish with it .It'll take a while .Thanks , EffK 23:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel revisions, questions , 29 Nov 2005

I have looked through what you call my mess and half-written, and rationally I wonder why you use that word mess or hald written. I may be slap-dash in my eagerness to help an imbalance that justifies such an article, but my two minor spelling mistakes you changed, the fact that DNvP has changed in WP into DNVP, and all you actually point to is , if mess, not the historical mess I imagined your reactions referred to. If you consider it hald written the long edit, i should need some help in understanding why you choose to say so . Please qualify that statement half-written here . Historical mess would require strong terms, and I would wonder what greater level of terms would arise . Please state how the clarification turned the sense of the article into a mess ? I thankyou for your peer review at The Great Scandal and am sorry you appear to be under such pressure. I do know that this can lead to impatience . EffK 11:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK, I'd really rather focus on fixing specific issues in the article than on your writing, but if you insist: in the past week, I have fixed well over 50, perhaps 100, typos by you in this article and elsewhere: misplaced punctuation, odd spelling, etc. This has included weird things like opening a parenthesis with "(" and closing it with "]]" (and not just once). Some of this may seem trivial, but for example, in German, seeing DNvP, I assumed that the "v" had to be "von", and therefore couldn't make sense of an abbreviation I would otherwise probably have recognized.

Just to give another example of what I'd consider a "half-written" sentence: "Von Papen persuaded the President to Decree Hitler into the 30 January 1933 minority and appointed cabinet with a view to him, von Papen and the vested German political forces, controlling Hitler.":

• Why is "Decree" capitalized?
• What does it mean to "decree somone into something"? I don't believe I've ever seen that construct before. I'm guessing you mean "Von Papen persuaded the President to place Hitler in the cabinet by decree" (or, in equally good English, …to place Hitler, by decree, in the cabinet"), but I shouldn't have to guess.
• "…into the 30 January 1933 minority and appointed cabinet…": I still am not sure I understand this. Is 30 January 1933 an adjectival phrase, and are 30 January 1933, minority, and appointed all supposed to modify "cabinet"? "Minority cabinet" is a relatively obscure phrase on its own (less than 1000 Google hits, compared to 610,000 for "minority government"); "minority and appointed cabinet" gets zero Google hits, obviously an unusual turn of phrase. Because of the way the sentence is shaped, it took me a couple of readings to guess (I think correctly) what modified what. On my first reading, I read this more like "…to Decree Hitler into the 30 January 1933 minority, and appointed [a] cabinet…"
• "with a view to him, von Papen and the vested German political forces, controlling Hitler." Grammatically, the referent of "him" is unclear. After several readings of the sentence, I will venture to guess it means Hindenburg. But even after those several readings, I'm not sure.

Again, you asked me to "qualify that statement half-written". I don't see any reason to qualify it: I think it applies full force to sentences like that. And, no, I didn't go looking for a particularly bad one, I picked one almost at random.

I don't really want to get into a big fight over this. I am trying to go through this piece by piece and turn what you wrote into something that can be read. I'd really rather not make this ad hominem, but if you insist that there is nothing wrong with this sort of writing, I don't feel I can let that stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Concepts range and necessities

Jmabel, what EffK meant with this passage I guess is:

On January 30, 1933 Papen persuaded Hindenburg to appoint (has nothing to do with decree) Hitler Chancellor, though Hindenburg didn't like Hitler as a person and as politican (he called him the "Bohemian private" - which I personally object to as unfair to all people from Bohemia which was not Hitler's home country), hence the "pure sufferance appointment".

No I mean that the president acted under decree 48 etc.Therefore it relates to both P and those appointed. both stem from the decree. is this wrong, Str?

"Minority" probably means either that the Nazis were the minority in the cabinet (only Hitler, Göring and Frick, later Goebbels) or that his administration had no majority in the Reichstag (just as Brüning, Papen and Schleicher).

"Appointed" is redundant since all governments of the Weimar Republic were appointed.

Niet, no. understanding is not redundant, absolutely wrong to say it is so. no one understands this at all clearly enough. Please, please, do not minimise understanding for the sake of one word. is it that some people actively do not want understanding to be easy and widespread. This is wrong .

Da, yes. It is redundant in this form. "Appointed" alone is either redundant (as all administrations were appointed), or it is not enough to convey what you are trying to say. It should be (guessing your intention) something like a government without a majority in parliament. I'm giving you some advice (though I don't know why, since you vilify me again further down): Not everything can be experessed in a simple sentence by packing together adjectives. It works in Latin, it might work in Spanish, but it doesn't work in this case. Str1977 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"with a view to him, von Papen and the vested German political forces, controlling Hitler" - the him refers to Papen whose name is added as a clarification but without the proper comma after the name.

Big deal, I'm pushed from trial to execution here thru denial of source and provocation of my brain cells and fingers. A lousy comma.

Please read carefully. Did I complain to you or did I explain to Jmabel? You shouldn't bite the hand that tries to clarify your meaning to others. Str1977 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Still the wording is very hard to understand and it is certainly not your fault, Jmabel, that you are not that familiar with EffK's language. I have some experience.

My writing in the article where space is conserved)by you) is clear enough- perhaps you don't want is said. What is not clear?

Whatever you say ... Str1977 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

But another point, I must say that all these events are off-topic to this article. This is about "Nazism in relation to other concepts" and not "Hitler and how he come to power". It is about the ideology and programme of Hitler and his party and what elements he took from here or from there, about influences on his thinking, e.g.

• Hitler/Nazism and anti-semitism
• Hitler/Nazism and racism
• Hitler/Nazism and eugenics
• Hitler/Nazism and social darwinism
• Hitler/Nazism and socialism (through facism)
• while we're at it: Hitler/Nazism and facism, as they are not the same
• Hitler/Nazism and nationalism
• Hitler/Nazism and Christianity
• Hitler/Nazism and Catholicism
• Hitler/Nazism and paganism
• Hitler/Nazism and esotericism
• Hitler/Nazism and nationalism
• Hitler/Nazism and democracy
• Hitler/Nazism and liberalism
• Hitler/Nazism and Christianity
• Hitler/Nazism and secret societies
• Hitler/Nazism and war
• etc. etc.

These are the things proper to this article. All the historical events are certainly valid information but they are already included in other articles. Str1977 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• FWIW, I agree with this. If someone decides actually to work on this, let me know. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I thank Str for his clarification. I thought the power of appointment was through a power of Decree . This was as Str points out just another presidential dictatorship, meaning the president enabled the government himself by accepting some likelihood that such government could avoid or survive instant dissolution from a convening of the Rechstag. I bow to Str on his native understanding of how the constitutionality was allowed in Weimar .

Effk, let me try to explain again. Since 1867, the Chancellor has been the head of government, comparable to the Prime Minister.

In the Kaiserreich, the Deutscher Kaiser/König von Preußen appointed both the Chancellor and the Prussian Prime Minister and most of the time the two were one and the same. Neither in the Reich nor in Prussia was any parliament or other body involved. The Chancellor has to answer questions by Bundesrat or Reichstag but he didn't need their approval. This was changed in 1918, when the constitution was changed. Wilson had proclaimed (quite stupidly in my opinion) that he would only parlay with a democratically legitimate government, so Ludendorff, the de facto ruler of Germany, allowed for these changes: the Chancellor (now: Prince Maximilian of Baden) now needed the approval of the Reichstag and parliamentarians were made secretaries of state (as the minister in the Kaiserreich were called) - I said "stupidly" because this put a good man like Erzberger in a position of having to sign the armistice for which he was later shot - when the chief culprit of anything from 1916 to 1918 should be Ludendorff. Anyway, back to the constitution - I don't know whether in the Kaiserreich the Reichstag had to approve of the appointment or whether it only had the right to force him to resign by "vote of no confidence" - I suppose the latter version, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the Chancellor was still appointed by the Kaiser, as the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen.

In the Weimar Republic, a President replaced the Emperor and he still appointed the Chancellor and all ministers. However, the Chancellor and the minister needed the confidence of the Reichstag, who could "no-confidence" the Chancellor as well as any individual minister out of office. And this happened very often, since no administration had the majority of the house after 1920 - with the exception of the two Grand Coalitions - however these were fragile. After the second Grand coalition fell apart in 1930 (the culprits were the DVP and the SPD who could not agree on how to tackle the effects of the Grand Depression, and the DDP and the Centre were lost in between). Brüning formed a Centre-DDP-DVP coalition with a view to being tolerated by the SPD. At first, this didn't work out: the SPD rejected his budget bill, so Brüning via Hindenburg had the Reichstag dissolved and his budget implemented by emergency decree (article 48). After the Reichstag had reassembled, the SPD now was willing to tolerate Brüning as the least of many evils. The Reichstag could have enacted the rescinding of Hindenburg's decree. This worked out, as a semi-parliamentarian government, until Brüning was kicked out by Hindenburg. Papen was bent on a strictly authoritarian course, pushing for a reversion of the constitution (what Kaas so vigourously opposed). Schleicher was more of the same and then came Hitler.

Now, until 1930 there was nothing like "presidential dictatorship". Brüning's administration I wouldn't call that either. There was a cooperation between a minority cabinet and parliament, though only because the parties knew that if they weren't cooperative, measures would be decreeed anyway. That was one occasion in which the SPD showed his "sacrifice party interest for the good of the nation" attitude. Papen was bent for authoritian rule, and after the elections of 1932 the enemies of the Republic that were not as "reasonable" as the SPD had a negative majority.

Today, in the BRD, the Chancellor and the ministers are still appointed by the President. However, the Chancellor is first elected by parliament, then appointed, and on his proposal the President also appoints ministers. The Chancellor needs the confidence of the parliament, but he can only be forced to resign if the parliament elects his successor. This prevents the parliament from just no-confidencing him wihout having an alternative. Also, the ministers are not subject to such a vote - they stand or fall with the Chancellor.

McClenon would reject that answer out of hand and insult me thrice to boot. My small understanding is that the Reichstag was solely able to convene in order to veto such an appointment. A highly important subject is therefore the information that Hitler learned from von papen, that Schleicher as a non-elected Minister, could not call the Reichstag to session, and therefore was unable to precipitate such closing veto on even his own administration. This is included under Weimar Germany, because I put it there just recently, where I am glad to say that it remains.

I don't entirely understand. The Reichstag was convened by its president, or due to a demand by some of its members. It could be dissolved by the President, which within a fixed time led to new elections and the convening of the new Reichstag. Yes, it was not the government that convened the Reichstag. Schleicher was no MdR but neither were Papen or Hitler (who for the most part wasn't even German).

The Reichstag could no-confidence the cabinet and, in fact, that is what it immediately did in regard to Papen. Papen wanted to forestall this by handing the "red folder" (which contained Hindenburg's blanco order of dissolving the Reichstag. Göring, then the Reichstag's president ignore this and proceeded with the no-confidence vote which Papen lost. Papen then dissolved the parliament anyway (this led to the November elections). After this, Papen who was only acting Chancellor, had to resign.

But again, I don't know what you tried to say exactly. Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Str that the concepts derive such as from the list he posted and that this article should therefrom derive its future substance. I have to say I came into the article partly to help Sam with the convolutions, which are mind-boggling to everyone, and then weighed in at sign of negative balance further in,- by which I mean actively promoted over-simplification leading to effective disclarity. This is to speak entirely under assumption of good faith, something I may not have adhered to on this very page. I won't cause argument here about my rights of notice accrueing from experience of POV massaging. We all can fall into the trap,but when it becomes too repeatedly obvious, I kick.

You may get teed at my agreeing with Str's last, which I can only agree to given that Weimar Republic only through my bulk contribution achieves historical verisimilitude. (I dispute ,though,Str's claim that the information here is represented elsewhere'-it wan't until 2 days ago and may not be by now.Except that I checked, and it is accepted as I write.) I am not enamoured of the presention howsoever short upon Germany or Adolf Hitler , I retch at Holocaust and have fought there to little avail over 2 words, in fact I am all-round shocked, but see this as Str "SPOV" at work .It's not the worst crime, but annoying and time-consuming and trying of all social patience, which is why I sound harried and belligerent-I am fought because I aim to change things all-round.And I consider it would simply continue the un-informed SympatheticPOV or National or Right-Wing or Church POV everywhere apparent (maybe from de. imports or users or whatever reason I mention.

If it's not presented elsewhere, it should be presented elsewhere. This article is not the proper destination. I can't see that Wikipedian is in any way right-wing, or nationalist or church-friendly. Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I read the language closest to latin whcih is Spanish, like a precocious and opinionated kid, and the effect on my native en. may lead me to the pomp of such words as similitud etc.)I don't write it though .However my possibly personal chaining of words such as you found irksome above,is brought forth by 4 things:

• The complex politics I visit in this history,
• The constant attack on edits I tried to write in normal spoken en. , generally having been STR himself, as he and I are like Janus himself.Oddly Str has been suggesting that I must be German or something and tells me all the time that what I write is not en. .

I am certainly not the only one that finds your writing unique. The idea that you were German was in fact not my own but Sam's. He suspected that and asked whether we could get along better (talk-wise) in German. So I tried to find out. However, I soon thought you weren't and rather thought you Italian or Spanish (would have explained the temper and the anti-clericalism) or maybe, since you insited on being a native speaker, a Chicano. But it turns out you are ...? Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Severe distress at seeing massaged history, or history written from a POV. For example Arthur Rosenburg talk of landed classes and capitalist classes-if I did not purely demonstrate the source for such talk-it would be gone in seconds. Why- is another days work .
• Constant remark and instant excision edited as off-topic:I try therefore to pare and pare down the length of explanation fitting 3 separate concepts into 4 words.As here.
• As with science,professional contemporary historians,claw at the carcass of earlier knowledge and seem to seek their own professional salvation , and there is as such an actual industry of it , and dissenters are rubbished as in science,and Str does this quite remarkably. I would shut up about it but he doesnt provide counter-sourced argumant disproving or proving. Herein lies massage at industry level.It pre-dates Wikipedia by about 30 years, is really a german History Industry, and it is obvious why the interest derives from the body count. And the stupid mystery perpetuated by interests. One such is the British follow on appeasers, who have motive for massage. Enough,one shudders-but let me tell you that the two leading brit papers in 30's london were owned by 2 Astors.Think about that, and think about today , and then the rise of Hitler.That is why I go on, and on. FK

I repeat I am only happy when the sources I know are properly reflected in WP, and generally do not excise other sources,as Str knows, nor was I big one for reverts,til I do it solely in distress as signal to the edit history page that something is wrong . I should have done it more, as a visitor comes in . sees str and me chatting away amicably and doesn't understand that we are in a fight to the wikideath over this history problem. It is not personal , Str I reckon missed me when I was gone, as he would do, if I went again. I give him six weeks and he'll be forming societies to analyse the strange User of en. I fear Str's interst as when he is most nice to me, he is being most dangerous too ..... I go above as you deserve answer, whether this article now agrees its substance only to deliver it to suitable location elsewhere and reforms for further battle. FK

So you have enough of sweettalk and want to renew hostilities by throwing German historiography in the bin? Consider that you yourself used a few as sources. A dissenter always has a hard time convincing others. That might be sad, but it's unavoidable. And don't be fooled by this modern myth of the lone genius unappreciated by his stupid surroundings. The lone dissenter is not always right. For one Gallileo (and in fact, he wasn't right at the time, but that's a different story), there are ten Erich Dänikens and five Lanz von Liebenfelses.

Who is being addressed here? Please define, as I am far from throing anything in the bin- I saw no one else providing as much source, anywhwere,(which is contantly vilified and down-classed in every way possible. Very inwiki.

I am no lone dissenter, as the sources prove.This is clear , even mcClenon claimed shock to his faith etc. FK

You, FK, are addressed. If you ask whatfor than read the paragraph starting "As with science,professional contemporary historians ..." You discounted off hand all of German historiography some months ago (I will see whether I can dig it up again). You did never take my sourcing by Morsey and Volk into account, and my probing and inclusion of Klemperer and Mowrer (though he's more of a witness, albeit a delayed source). Str1977 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think that whoever writes should use source if they cannot be there.Rosenburg above all was there. Mowrer as you kindly call is a witness, Wheeler-Bennett was there. The following 'Shirers' after the war-trials had more source than witness. Today I just say that there can be a natural desire to work within the safety of apparent consensus, and the concensus is to bottle Hitler more into either the NSDAP , or into personal madness, and not into a national wish to follow anti-semitic etc etc hysteria with arms raised. The whole thing deserves more rather than less study. And you see that I have nothing against german historiography , if it's not massage.look I quoted against KvK in so far as I saw two main things of interest . One was re continued Widerstand desire for the territorial expansion until at least mid 1943, the other you know, which is hardly more than an aside in an introduction. He happens to be an expert on the Widerstand , and thus arrived at his vatican understanding, as I expanded for the later Kaas(and you cut back for precisely the reasons I'd presented it). Klemperer takes very great efforts to see back into his roots, Haffner too, and We wanted to be nice after the War .So doing Cornwell's aint cosy, re a national conciousness. Analyses by Butler shows the national failure to be derivative of the philosophical concept. I say this as it is true.FK

There will be one, as anyone who has not read the devastating analysis of Rohan Butler, all deriving from German philosphy, will accept modern post-war PC and allow as is apparent on wikipedia, a completely distorted view of the concepts under-lying hitlerism. Butler proves beyong shadow of doubt and sourced to a T that Hitler could only have happened in germany, been accepted, because of the philophical concepts parlayed into that nation on top of its Teutonic and Holy Roman Empire base .

That might be the case or it might not be the case. But I must reject any insinuation that there's something inherently Nazi-esque about Germans (as teutonic suggest) and also that the HRE has something to do with Nazism. At best, there's a indirect connection as Germany was no nation state around 1800, when the French revolution issued waves of nationalism around Europe. Also note - and this is vital in such philosophical discussions - that his not a development of strict consequence, e.g. one can be a Romantic without becoming a Nazi, one can adhere to Herder (he's a hero in Poland) without committing genocide. Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not as Germans now after this gap, but equally certainly there was teutonic german nazi character aplenty during Nazism. Nor am I saying that only descendnts of the HRE can become nazis. I simply report the analysis of each known german literary and philosophical figure butler made, he started it long before the war, even before nazism, and that makes it all the more interesting. read it-you can find Mowrer, so get it and read it.FK

The trouble is that as the study requires that in turn each generation of philosophers must be sourced, that there will only be possible in this enciclo a final summation type article. this will be corralled by post-war PC into the weakest reflection of the truth, to assuage literature written since, which distances Hitlerism from Germany and Germany from Hitlerism :as proof-FK

This is one reason for Wikipedia's policy against Original Reasearch. Because it is not feasible when editing an encyclopedia, at leat when done properly.

• Where is Nazism and German Philosophy ?FK

My list was not meant to be complete - it just wrote what sprung to mind, sometimes overlapping. Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but its central and it didnt spring to your mind-proves my point were coming from a cleaned up PC phoney wished-for world. Plus some of those concepts evoke the anti-secularit push we discuss here, specially ot is good to dwell on the neo-darwinian more than the "cornwellian" . FK

I am trying to control my typing and apologise to you Jmabel, for it. My punctuation is un-informed,which is a pity, but heck, who's perfect? Thanks. EffK 18:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I had a conflict in an up-load of answers to both str and jmabel, even TAnthoy. Yours Str were entirely unnecessary and very minor indeed. I placed a section as the subject was requiring it, in good faith , man . I cannot distinguish any longerwithin this large body of answer and question how to get back without reverting yr minor edits Str. Shame as I had tried. I shall have to move on to where doubtless I shall collect your attention str, sorry Jmabel, but listen to the nature of the co-eval and remeber what the prosecution at Nuremburg said; The concordat was a maneuver intended to deceive ( spoken by von papen as he simply answere , well see who signed it ( he had since ascended the throne Pacelli.) We must not deceive ourselves now, just as Nuremburg were not deceived by the decption , they simply could not prosecute deception. the only body that can is the Church for the church little C . but we can learn from history and free ourselves from repetition. FK

I'm sorry about your edit conflict. Maybe you should use a word processor which can also help in correcting typos etc.

Your quote is still not very meaningful, as you don't say who the deceived was, in Papen#s mind.

The Nuremberg trials were prosecuting crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggressive war (only the last point was a new one) - of course only the crimes committed by the German side. They did not prosecute the politics that brought Hitler into power. This was no crime, though it was morally wrong. And the concordat is neither a crime nor morally wrong, but a international treaty.

Please, stop your wrong explanations on small c and capital c or I will ask someone who should know and provide you with a lengthy explanation.

Jmabel, I'll tell you where the war is , if you don't know from your newspaper. Seriously, Bush wouldn't be in the White House but for Ratzinger, ...

So, Bush wouldn't be in the White House? He wouldn't be there if the Democratic party were still the party of FDR, JFKennedy or Johnson or even Jimmy Carter ... but they are sadly the party of unlimited baby slaughtering. And JFKerry toed the line and was criticized for that by his fellow Catholics - and rightfully so. But this is only one factor in his defeat. BTW, Ratzinger did not forbid anyone to vote for Kerry. You obviously have not read what he wrote back then:

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

In layman's language: voting for Kerry because he's a pro-abort is sinful, voting for Kerry inspite of him being a pro-abort and because the other guy's a war-monger may be permissable. Depending on how much weight you place on the "war issue".

Some Catholics said yes, a war is bad enough so that we will vote for that pro-abort, others said no, it is not bad enough, or milk is spilled or there's too much at stake on the other issue. (SCOTUS)

... and the new Pope's european policy is to stop Islam.FK

Strange, the other day someone vandalized the article on the Holy Father. Have a look: [1] Islam's not the problem. Secular nihilism is and only because of this can Islam in future ever be a problem.

Yes, I do understand :it goes like this, secular graduate or materialist airheads, the young let's say, aren't even bothering to breed let alone present a repetition of some sturdily spiritual christian european response to a burgeoning Islamic entry , and the fear is that this decadent secularism will allow a threat to the Church to grow, more or less, ? I haven't got the time to look , sorry.

I can source these assertions, well the Pope is perhaps impossible for me to source as he's got to stay for more than 2 years .And it may not be comfortable to say it-FK

I don't have the time to source the Kerry controversy , the fact that even the vatican suffered broken rank in the States etc, you know the rest.FK

And I say that the idea that Popes and Cardinals and Bishops and Priests all counselling people against such a vote, even in this difference specified ,is worth the 2 per cent swing, so sorry, it is effective political power, enough to tip the balance as is well noticed by that dispute. It's not me, I'm just reporting the attitude, and since it is so relevant in these considerations of Hitler, I mention it. FK

No need to source it, I have done it for you.

but to be pro-life and to get action on that you have to start illegal or inhuman war, it is reminiscent of the deal with the tyrant done here. FK

Complaints about the war sent to Mr Bush and his associates in government and in congress (including Senator Kerry), not to the church and certainly not to the late or the current pontiff that didn't support the war, nay tried to hinder it. But by the time of the election, into which the church did not interfrere, the war had been waged. The milk was spilled. But since you are so into body counts, count the numbers and consider which of the two phenomena has cost more lives.

its not just the two of them , its all sorts.FK

Don't have a clue what that means.

More interests, economic ones...FK

bye str, you got my edits lost for nummat except well , a tiff and a provocative denial of good faith.EffK 20:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this about "denial of good faith" again. may I post on a Wp talk page? May I hope that my comments are not artificially cut in half by section headers? Str1977 21:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That is artificial pique, surely , I did it in clear good faith actually, but you want your pique, OK. I don't punish you for braking up my very sentences-beacause I accept it is for the greater good. you don't though. What is that?EffK 23:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I don't have the stomach for this. It would be nice if someone would clean up (or remove) the incomprehensible sections of this article before debating abstractions, but I can see that is not the task others view as being first at hand. I'll take this off my watchlist. If someone actually wants to work on the prose, or try to make some decisions about the article, feel free to get hold of me on my user talk page. BTW, please don't come to my user talk page just to slag each other. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of power of dissolution

I was too busy quoting your and McC's and LIng's denialism to get back to yoy STr, and by rights I gotta rush back round and skiffle off the rain of knives McC sends. You know it isnt personal , I just can't let you get away with doing things that ignore source or asperse POV for NPOV. Your edit of KvK whilst leaving the source for instance.

I am at much greater loss for understanding after the above responses than before . I'm afriad I trust Arthur Rosenberg's interpretations at first hand rather more than what I simply do not understand from you . I believe his description of Hindenburg as Presidentially appointer of Dictators at his appointment , thereby being presidential Dictatorships is utterly descriptive , and that considering he as source is used evr since, that it should stand everywhere as he wrote. I beleive that to obfuscate his clarity as to the fact that germany was subject to 4 presidential Dictatorships, before the Nazi take-over was enacabled, is clarity required for all of us who are led to beleiev that somehow Hitler came along and from som lovely liberal constitutional democracy, took sudden mysterious wing from the charismatic power of his own evil .

The move to what Rosenberg appearently calls presidential dictatorship was a gradual one.

• Preliminary step: The Weimar Coalition (SPD-Z-DDP) had no majority since the Reichstag elections of 1920. The result were minority cabinets formed by Z, DDP and DVP, sometimes including the DNVP, at two instances including the SPD to form a Grand coalition, which alone could muster a majority. In 1923, the year of multiple crises, with Nazis and Communists trying to topple the Republic, President Ebert was heavily involved with decrees and an Enabling Act etc.
• In 1930 the Grand Coalition fell apart because of disagreements between the parties, mainly SPD and DVP. Hence, no majority cabinet was possible, given the figures.
• Z, DDP and DVP decided to form a government without the SPD, since the three parties could agree on policy, while they could not with the SPD. Brüning, expert on finances on also on social issues, was chosen chancellor (Adenauer was briefly considered). Basically this was a return to the situation 1924-1928 with three differences: 1) the DNVP could not be counted on helping out; 2) the depression made governing more difficult: 3) the SPD was not willing (at first) to tolerate Brüning's policy which was considered anti-labour.
• The SPD hence rejected Brüning's budget and because of this the Reichstag was dissolved. The Budget was pushed through by decree. Nazis and Communists gained in the elections - now even the Grand coalition would have had no majority.
• After the elections, the SPD was more conciliatory: it did not try to bring down the decreed budget. However, it still would not support legislative measures by Brüning and only tolerate it if the measures were implemented by decree (they could have voted each decree down, together with Nazis, Communists and DNVP). Of course, this led to the government getting used to ruling by decree.
• The aging Hindenburg was moving more and more to the right at that time, influenced by the Camarilla and especially after being reelected against his right-wing base. He was pushing Brüning to moving to the right as well by replacing some ministers and in the end wanted to replace him as chancellor too (though not as foreign minister). Brüning however was too independent a character and hence resigned.
• He was replaced by Papen who had no party base at all and could only count on the fragile support of the DNVP. He used the decree to oust the acting government of Prussia and considered a coup.
• After him Schleicher's plans of uniting various factions against Hitler failed too.
• Then Papen's intrigue brought Hitler into power - the administration now had a larger basis in parliament, after March 1933 even the majority. This could have meant a return to parliamentary government, but Hitler would not have it.

To sum up: the parliamentary government was broken but not destroyed from 1930 to 1932, though the government slowly moved towards dictatorship, in 1932 presidential dictatorship was de facto introduced, though it was very fragile one as the ruling circle didn't dare to do away with the constituion. January 1933 again increased the parliamentary basis of the government and with March 1933 the government could have gone back to normal. The Nazi-DNVP coalition put an end to presidential dictatorship, but ... Hitler wouldn't share and hence instituted not a presidential dictatorship but a chancellor's dictatorship, though Hindenburg retained the legal authority to stop this at any time (though at the cost of civil war) by dismissing Hitler. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I will hold to the source of the words, and with the second as to the nature of the Reichstags powers , until I find the source of the exact description of how the Reichstag was limited to the sole function of voting a dissolution , I shall have to allow you some potential qualification, if you really can show some. I believe it was the sole democratic power , triggering back into the Presidential Dictatorship . I don't really gain anything from your explanation, so far. Please can you separate the events you describe from the description of the nature of the Presidential Dictatorship . Please qualify as you can , but please do not disqualify that which Rosenburg said in that I sourced so assiduously , twice.

I don't disqualify what Rosenberg said, I only differentiate the various steps.

Please state in short sentences what you want to know:

Do you want to know how the constitution works?

Do you want to know the party conflicts?

Please state that clearly. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The decivers were all who would have gained from th deception , whereas the deceived would categorise all who had rights which were lost from the deception. I do not find it funny when Nuremburg Trials testimony recorded by stenographer , is denied, minimised, discarded or anything. I firmly place the links and I firmly quote the relevant passages from the single "Avalon Project" page. I suggest that in consideration of the complicity with and commodation of Hitler, that you as an interested member of the church, busy yourself with completely understanding the violent ramifications of papen's extraordinary revelation concerning how the Holy See still in 1936 had a high power or powered faction or personage pushing a policy of combination with the healthier aspects of National Socialism , Papen says synthesis'. What does this mean, who is this power, who is Hundal he mentions who published a Church ratified book(presumably) which promoted this, is it that hundal is the power-it seems not, so is it that he refers to the high power in the vatican which fosters this bishop or cardinal Hundal, and where is this text?

No one ever disputed that Catholic individuals, even prominent ones did wrong. But that's a completely different story.

Mere insinuation will not work: name the deceivers and prove that they wanted to deceive and who they wanted to deceive. Papen can only speak for himself, so it is that he's saying that he wanted to deceive. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please answer the cardinal question. Why do you personalise all the issues of the scandal/ scandal accusation in my username/person? I have had to continue showing the way this is done by you and people with whom you seem to show sympathy etc.I see no logical way you can answer , myself. The same goes for my questions at Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, which are dependant on my apology etc. to you etc. i see no logical way .

I do not personalise the issue. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why me and not the body of history and comment I sourced repaeatedly. Do not criticise source University source at this claim, answer as to why in me alone , not in the conglomeration however deep or shallow, in me , please .At Hitler's Pope, please. Meaning please justify your personal slander, and by all means prove I am an agent of just myself or the aliens or the forgs, or that I am not just aware of what is and has gone on, and that it is not my normal NPOV. I better drag up the McClenon words saying he was shocked and appalled at Cornwell. meanwhile, while I await a long delayed answer. Thanks for everything, sincerely .

I add that you yourself said that were it so that Kaas acted in such a way as the accusation that it would indeeed be a serious matter so since so may sources link the whole hierarchy/Holy See/Hitler u-turns why is not important to allow that the writers who indeed questioin this be represented, and as parenthisis to this strange dis-allownace put it all on me?EffK 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles should reflect the historiographical consensus (otherwise it's Original Research) - controversies (those really happening, not imagined ones) should be included too. Minority/controversial views can be included but it must be clear that they are disputed. All this has to be in a NPOV language (and this is a major difference between us - you don't want, at least not until now, NPOV language). Note, I allowed inclusion of your Mowrer, even though it at least borders on Original research, but only in NPOV language. It is you who are not satisfied. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be governed by Canon 752 (Fair use/educational excerpt) from http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/ADTUCANS.HTM [[2]]

While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act* Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. *=FK highlight .

Readers please note that I reported the TV Euronews reference to the imposition of this order at the vatican's Spring "New Media Conference" .They should please note that any such doctrinal order ..need not be expressed... and allows for a submission of intellect... whatever that is.

You said to me that you were a believing catholic, Str, I accept that, I simply clarify what this means to Wikipedia.EffK 11:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this statements means something, but not what you want it to mean. I think it means that for the English-language Wikipedia your edits must now be viewed with intense scrutiny. This is because either your English is poor enough that your edits will need constant clean up or because you are a bigot. (There is of course a strong chance both are possible) In the first case, poor English, some of the phrasing you use kind of indicates that. "Readers please note that I reported the TV Euronews reference to the imposition of this order", is extremely awkward and difficult to understand as are some of your edits.

The second statement, that you are a bigot, is overly blunt and I'm not entirely comfortable making it. However the implication of your point in least implies, unless the language barrier is misleading to it, that believing Catholics Wikipedians must be placed under suspicion. Such an idea is default Anti-Catholic and bigotry. Your justification may make sense to you, but it is extremely faulty. Because there are certainly other religions where assent of the faithful is expected. I believe in Eastern Orthodoxy they have the Infallibility of the Church, in Evangelical Christianity the infallibility of the Bible, and in Islam the Infallibility of the Qur'an. So in essence you are narrowly targeting Catholics for undue suspicion. The alternative is that you feel most religious people should be purged or dismissed at Wiki. This would be a recipe for making an already biased system, when it concerns religious topics, many times worse. Also you need to understand that acceptance even "submission" to a doctrine does not mean you must therefore impose it on others. Nowhere in what you quote are Catholics required to force encyclopedias to write "their way." Indeed my edits have since been altered by non-Catholics because they were deemed too harsh on Bavarian Catholics.

Lastly I am willing to be charitable. There are some articles that can be biased by certain activists. I don't feel that's happening here, but if you feel Catholics are overly dominating this article you should contact the native English speakers at Category:Marxist Wikipedians.They may not have the values you do, but I chose them as they're extremely unlikely to be pro-Catholic biased. (Most of them define themselves as atheist, unsurprisingly, and the majority are either Pro-Choice or LGBT.) If you want a larger group to choose from presumably people at Category:Atheist Wikipedians wouldn't have a Catholic bias either. I recommend this because as it stands now I don't think you're doing any good at this article or discussion, for yourself or others.--T. Anthony 08:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care where revisionist denialism stems from, I react equally .Were it not for me the Rhenish_Westphalian Industrial Magnates would not exist. You should separate the justice from the bigotry. If I were a bigot, why would I try to help Wikipedia by making the simplistic more comprehensible? If your aim is to join in a chorus of ad hominem , you keep good company. Why sully yourself?EffK 14:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I feel in no way sullied. My initial version of that post indicated I was perhaps having difficulty understanding your syntax, but your User page changed my mind. You state things like that a user/users are acting as vatican agents. Your views are at best odd and at very best they are merely poorly written. However I actually acknowledged your concerns to some degree. Maybe at Category:Atheist Wikipedians you can find an English speaking Wikipedian who speaks your language. Then they can help edit articles for you. Because as it stands you would need help as your grasp of English is inelegant. It's riddled with phrasing patterns that read badly in English. That coupled with your eccentric views adds up to you saying things that are perhaps undermining your overall goal. The facts are facts and I call them as they are. This is your weaknesses:Poor grasp of the language, bigotry, and an excessive eccentricity. Your strengths are that you have passion and I think well-read. At present though I think you're a couple of years away from doing this at the English version. What is your native language, BTW?--T. Anthony 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And although somewhat ad hominem it was as much or more about constructive criticism. I think you have biases that undermine the credibility of your edits. You also essentially accuse people based on their religion. This is not constructive. Perhaps more worrisome is your nonstandard use of English. Combined I indicated where you could find people with a secularist anti-clerical bent to help you. Considering your attitude this was quite fair of me, more then fair in fact.--T. Anthony 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You are entitled to state an opinion, but I do not think that you understand me or the history. I have therefore written a clear summary for you on my actual User page. I do not make statements without proofs, and I have no need for atheists for any particular, or opinions . Thankyou for requiring an answer. EffK 17:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll concede I don't understand you well. I kind of find it difficult to understand your writing for example. As for the history I'm not an expert at it, but I am degreed and I have studied Nazi Germany for a year or so. I think your confusing "I don't agree with the historians you like" to "I don't know history." This is unfair at best. Still as I have difficulty understanding your writing I have no idea what you really mean.--T. Anthony 01:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know you and others find my writing painful, but that is a POV.I find the resume of history as written by editors more painful. I claim that no one understands , not even yourself at this minute, and my writing results from this confusion and complexity . Are you saying that you do not understand my answer concerning your bigotry charge ? I wrote excedingly clearly, and much more simply.I obviously own up to occasional past opacity when I was referring to a particular organisation. What is it that you do not follow in my latest attempt to explain ? I suggest you go to Enabling Act talk and read the Trials documents. I previously sourced the Papen statement ,made on one of those same documents, at talk Reichskonkordat .The Prosecution held "the view" that the "Concordat was a maneuver intended to deceive", and Papen referred them to the fact that Pacelli was now Pope as response . You encourage me, and I shall look for the internal references. As to historians " I like" -please present any historian of repute who does not reference a u-turn by the German episcopate prior to the Concordat . Please present us with this source , please tell me why I am a bigot by disproving the very many sources I have presented. You make statements without backing them up with fact, whereas I report. I do not try to annoy you or anyone else , but I am not interested in speculations which have been often made to me as substitute for such source. And if you do understand because you have studied the period, perhaps you would tell me what assertions I have made/sourced that are not true . EffK 08:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know you and others find my writing painful, but that is a POV. No it isn't. If you can't write in a manner that's readable that is very relevant to your ability to edit. It's not POV, unless you say that Wikipedia policy of translating articles that are currently in French or German is also a POV. After all it could be called "our POV" as English speakers that we can't read German, millions of people in English speaking nations can read German just fine. Or it'd be POV if I said I think you use too many adverbs or you couldn't get published at Simon & Schuster. What I really did mean was that your writing style is almost unreadable. I have been willing to be blunt to you, but maybe I wasn't blunt enough on what I meant there. By things like inelegant and awkward I meant confusing and borderline illegible. You kind of ask for such harshness so I'm giving it to you.

I claim that no one understands,not even yourself at this minute, and my writing results from this confusion and complexity If no understands the confusion and complexity of your writing it might just mean it's not ready for a wider audience. If you mean no one understands the confusion and complexity of the situation that's likely true, but there are ways to deal with uncertainty. You don't have to fill them with a mixture of fringe theories and oddball ideas just to fill empty space.

Are you saying that you do not understand my answer concerning your bigotry charge ? I understand much of it, but it only confirms what I already thought. You believe your bigotry is okay because it based on your interpretation of the facts. You believe, wrongly, that real bigotry only exists among the uneducate. This is what I'm sure Madison Grant and others felt as well. I am not remotely impressed.

You make statements without backing them up with fact, whereas I report-Baloney. In the edit I made almost everything was sourced. You look at the edits I made October 3 and October 4, then you say that. Or do you need sourcing for my edits that Methodists were more foreign to Germany then Catholics. Well that's easy, it's right here.

please present any historian of repute who does not reference a u-turn by the German episcopate prior to the Concordat You're misunderstanding what I said. I added the following to the article influence on the laity in light of hopes the Concordant would preserve Catholic influences amongst them. If you just added statements that are mainstream, similar to the one I did, there would have been no problem.

And if you do understand because you have studied the period, perhaps you would tell me what assertions I have made/sourced that are not true. It happened many places. You added The evolution of church understanding is either weak , and slow , or is culpable. According to who, you? This is speculation and opinion, it also involves bad use of commas. There was no source listed in this paragraph, no essay linked to in support. Tangential to the more extreme collaborationist accusations regarding Jesuitical and other church factions, no sourcing and Jesuits hadn't even been mentioned up to this point.--T. Anthony 07:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Still I restored a few small things I may have erased by mistake or because they were so horribly written.--T. Anthony 08:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OH ! Mistakes! Now I'm confused.....Do you want a link after the word culpable? Two , twenty ? I bet if I explained every last word thru source, you'd you'd be happier. It's right easy to slag someone, and you are doing so here. You want a bunch of links to the Jesuits do you ? thanks .

If you are so worried, and so right, I think you had better go to the articles I have expanded from one paragraph in conjucntion with nearly always Str1977 and excise all my contributions, and then you will have lived up to your ideals. Go on , please remove this obnoxious editor you take it upon yourself to excoriate openly like this. Go to Weimar Republic .I call whitewashers , when they do not observe goood faith thru sourced assertion, and they follow that line of defence , that which they deserve. I say that your notice of me is rather less rational, actually . It's largely ad hominem ? The fact that Str1977 has continuously rejected source has destroyed any ability for community whatsoever. He has edited from a policy , not from WP consensus. Your interjections here seem not to base themselves on any provision of source , or counter-source. You want culpable- I'd fill 50 pages on this Article with that which I have already sourced, and Str1977 rejects. This is why I have for 9 months called for the notice I give of his never-ending obstruction . You seem not to see it, and despite sourced argument above , you harrass me as an illiterate. Thanks , but I don't think you want any links,or more source, so I shan't revisit.Have a good day .EffK 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)EffK 01:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I didn't mean everything I've said in the talk page is sourced. Is everything you've said in the talk page sourced? Are we now to speak at each other in quotations of other people? However yes every edit I made in this article is sourced. I've showed you that even. I mostly only did the Protestant section. In that section I cited Jackson J. Spielvogel, Hitler and Nazi Germany ISBN 0131898779, Richard Steigmann-Gall The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945' ISBN 521823714, an article from Walla Walla College site, Claremont McKenna College's site, etc. It's certainly better sourced then you ever did. Your grievances to this Str1977 person is irrelevant. As for ad hominem it was in a way, but I'm really just pointing out criticism. Your edits are difficult to read, eccentric in orientation, and based in your intensely biased view of the Catholic Church. This is simply factual. If you can fix these problems concerning your way of editing I'll have no further complaints.--T. Anthony 13:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I see though that Walla Walla is a religious college, Seventh-day Adventist, so I'll remove it.--T. Anthony 13:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in citing a religious uni. Sam Spade 16:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

With Sam here,I'll reply. I agree with the last. I reject this accusation of bias. It is the subject of the Arbcom against me:that I push a pet theory. Go way with it !- I follow Jimbo's guidelines and seek to explain. I think the pet theories of the Vatican are what are pushed , not mine. Except they have no source . I'm sorry user, but by classifying this as my bias, you enter exactly into that charge against me. I make no charge against you, simply recognise your strong attack. I find Sam a calming influence and believe his presence rather finishes it here. I need no more enemies than I have, but , clearly, I need retraction of your bigotry charge, whenever or wherever you re-consider. I am not here on WP to simplify but to clarify what was outrageously far from the truth before . I hope you, Anthony, contribute with every rational success. Whether you or anyone else considers it un-important to actually understand the Hitler / past (whether it was legal or a rolling putsch) , I claim the usual reason to call for specifics: I do not wish to be condemned into their repitition . If I see on TV a report specifying the order for concerted activity on-line, I report this at face value. All my, vilified, discussion seeks to establish rational understanding. I source assiduously , as I think Sam will attest. I am generally under pressure, such as the ad hominem you avail of, I dart into an article under a rain of arrows and try and pull a couple out of the articles , and expect some good faith from you, even now , that I can source what I add. I am in a very irksome position, due to the fact that there is in this world active denialism, secrecy and contradiction. The beatification of Pacelli and the actual history raise issues that are fundamental to Christianity , and I have to put up with you worrying about my writing. Keep on the side of the angels politically , is my advice to you, and realise what you do by attacking me ,OK ?EffK 16:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the pet theories of the Vatican are what are pushed

This is what I mean by bias. I guess "bigot", though accurate, is too loaded a word. To me bigotry is something most people have they just won't admit to. Do you think I believe that I'm completely without bigotries against any religion? I know there are religions I have biases against so I avoid working on those articles by and large. (Exempting minor spelling correction type stuff) However I withdraw that word. Your writing is difficult to read and therefore makes your edits hard to understand. This does matter, whether you want it to or not. Your sources are highly contestable or fringe. (I took the Seventh Day Adventist thing out because that could also be viewed as fringe so wished to avoid hypocrasy) You talk of the Vatican somehow subverting Wikipedia. Do you see anyone from the Vatican here? Look at Category:Roman Catholic Wikipedians. The Atheist or LGBT categories of Wikipedians are each twice as large or more. Look at almost any article on Catholicism at Wikipedia, including Anti-Catholicism, and you'll see a plethora of mention of abuse or sex abuse of Nazi-collaboration allegations. That Wikipedia isn't going on about this stuff enough for you is your problem and again I hope you can fix that. So I do withdraw the "bigot" term for the less loaded "biased" term. There's no reason to withdraw that, but I hope there will be.--T. Anthony 05:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

But they are being pushed. Sure it all sounds far-fetched, I know. I started the train of thought from the report of the 24 Feb conference. Do read the 21 feb papal letter. Follow Renato Boccardo, and realise these guys have tea with each other in the real world. I can't demand you to think one way or another, only point you at canon 752. I have very little bias but obviously I have shock. I don't enjoy any of this spectacle. I don't want to get your back up. I have never partcularly paid any attention to any of this history , but others have, and now in this medium, I act as responsibly as reason dictates. If a major group of International TV networks happen to mention it, I am alerted. I personally think it odd when someone's level of communications varies between 100% and about 49%, and they happen to be terribly au fe with the vatican CommDefFaith. There's a multi-lingual office, response times vary, some go off message, there is an answer to everything, there is infiltration into the deeper levels as is only visible if you understand my latest posts . And if none of this is happening, then there are several private users with a very mysterious shared policy. It takes them over the WP rule-lines and against all reason , so I could not tell you of a possible shared motive for that other than the one I do. I don't doubt that all sorts of groups do the same, and apart from going to sleep-I dunno what you want reason to do. I don't coin the term Document war, some ex RC involved with sex abuse cases in US does that. Just cos I publicly say something, does not make it un-true. Any further attempts at concentrating this on me can only persuade me that you are un-willing or un-able to reason. I cannot accept your lesser charge of bias. I copy-waded thru an immense article on Guru's out of good faith. I actually tried and continue to believe that in a rational world, that the purely metaphysico-spiritual side of Pacelli needs to be recognised .It is highly interesting. Everything is interesting, but no other religious adherents are obstructing reason, whether by me or another, so right now, I don't have a problem with them. Withdraw bias, please - it is offensive to sourced reason. If you wish to insult reason be it as you wish.Your un-willingness to accept that orders have been given and means put in place is unreasonable. Track the history button,follow the links. All of this is just an on-line reflection of the way the whole vatican reacted to sex abuse: denial, document war, pay-offs and squirming. They already well know what they have to do, as they read it clearly. We await BXVI- no better man to do it. This whole subject could be sorted by them easily, and the out-standing history only needs about 4 questions answered, none of them to do with the vatican.Bye bye T.Anthony

ps:Yes what I discuss in discussions is all sourced in discussions. str1977 sees to that, but he still asks again and again, just to wipe out the sense. There is no rationality to constsnt and repeated dsimissal of source. he provides little source. He as a German speaker could answer the questions I want answered , and I have been asking him for some time. And no, I cannot repeat every discussion sourceing session on every page. When I was forced to do so, he attacked me for soap-boxing, so no . EffK 12:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted my response to you, but I can't take it out of the history of the talk page. I would if I could. I do apologize for making it in the first place. I also ask that you not put messages on my talk page again. Although for the record here are the edits and additions of mine I find concerning the Catholic section of this article. See you later, much later I hope--T. Anthony 03:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There was also strong protests among Catholics, and various other Christians, to the euthanasia programs. Further like...and several Catholic bishops in Germany or Austria are recorded as encouraging prayers of support for "The Fuhrer." Despite that Protestant segments of Germany tended to vote for Hitler more then non-Protestant ones did. (Exempting Catholic Bavaria which supported Nazism, source here is Hitler and Nazi Germany by Jackson J. Spielvogel ISBN: 0131898779) Difficult in retrospect is I changed to Criticism also arises'.' After that I responded to '' (defense of the use of your word Hitlerism) Vatican's understanding has faced criticism of weakness, slowness, or even culpability. On culpability this is perhaps clearest with regards to the German hierarchy, Daniel Goldhagen and others, while less clear in others. From the other extreme the hierarchy in the Netherlands officially condemned Nazism and so faced violence. Most nations hierarchy took a mixture of the two positions. Tangential to the more extreme of collaborationist accusations For example the special clothing, ghettoization, and badges demanded of Jews were once common or even began in the Papal States. Also that the Nazis saw themselves as an effective replacement of Catholicism that would co-opt its unity and respect for hierarchy.(Yes your friendly Vatican agent added that)influence on the laity in light of hopes the Concordant would preserve Catholic influences amongst them. This trial came after Pope Pius XII did not renew Von Papen's appointment as Papal chamberlain and ambassador to the Holy See, but before his restoration under Pope John XXIII. The Catholic opposition to the euthanasia programs led them to be quietly ended in August 28, 1941, according to (Spielvogel 257-258), but the German Catholics never protested Nazi Anti-Semitism in any comparable way.