![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Despite my bitching , however, I am correcting this article's english composition, at the risk of communicating.
Under "Catholic groups in the Prussian Diet" the second paragraph should refer to who -peresumably 'the group'. I put it in.
Previous section- the revolution is always referred to in English as the Revolution. This is mysterious because of the generality of the term, but refers to the German Revolution, which should have a page and a link. I put in the brackets..
Soest... Confessional Sch.- this needs "establishment" , one could assume.
Strengthening middle classes-financial presumably ...
fraction is not normal use in english outside of measurement, hence italics.
soest... rights for germanPoles or Polish Poles ... presume the former...
Soest...particularistic is not in use : if it refers to an emphasis of conservative then 'paticular'. Otherwise de-regulising.
Kuturekampf(KK) ... did the CP gain greater support or is this the continued support.. put gained greater
KK...eg or ie are not necessary in WP
KK...social security is better as social welfare
KK... notable is bordering on notorius but leave notable
KK... had even then ...defended...had . Very unclear, assume ..'during it (KK)
Tower...would persuade the CP . classic english difficulty I have referred to before
Tower- for strenthened substitute re-inforced. Strength is too physical Tower... politicians and public : this is a mental difference between languages. I say that english speakers would assume public precedes
All non-germans have difficulty with these party titles and abbreviations . historians all refer to socialists at this time as socialists. In actual vote counts and tables the the direct name is used . The english norms should be used . I therefore make an extra inch space for the hard-pressed WP .
Linking left-wing, surely left wing is already explained in seating terms above , rather strangely .... this makes it rather de trop.
weimar...The depression is not the sole cause of the economic crises , nor were repayments. It exacerbated a german crisis of economic mis-management , according to many analysts. Until their viewpoint is sufficiently represented on WP, see Edgar Ansel Mowrer. If this is considered an aggressive edit, then this is a POV article ....this is a cardinal difference between POV German and POV exterior analysis, during and ever since .
In history books, neither minister nor prime-minister not chancellor are capitalised ....
Weimar, here at the end .. the election of Kaas. This is not enough to describe the importance of the 3rd way, the papal way .here it is referred to as bishops .However Monsignor Ludwig Kaas already was deep in friendship and association with Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, Pacelli's own brother and he were not only full cognizant of the centralising anti-democratising of the Church , but were in fact leading proponentsd and administrators of this (the brother in Italy in a mirror image of this Pacelli's involvement through Kaas in Germany ) see Hitler's Pope . Herein begins the avoidance or glossing-over of the issue at dispute : Kaas's agency from 1928 for the vatican at the literal centre of the German democracy of Weimar . At best this is avoidance , which up until now I have been trying to prevent . It is not slander , but history....like saying Alexander invaded Persia . This is no slander because , were he alive , it would be fact . A church may not anyway be slandered, as this editor writing the article says, the relevant people are beyond a Court . However I have confirmed by this wikipedian in our discussions on Hitler's Pope discussions ,that indeed there is automatic quasi legal sanction . The sanction emits from transgression of Romans 3,8 and in short, enforces excommunication from the moment that these vatican figures actuated their pro-Hitler policy through the Centre Party , and with-out ,through lesser and , in the case of the Industrial-Magnates, greater forces of interest in Germany.
Also missing from this article is any reference from 1925 onwards of papal interference via Bruning towards an authoritative return of a Kaiser or monarch.
In english plural of junker is junkers . Or prussians or foxes .
Added Weimar to Bruning section title -Weimar continued ...
Bruning...-say crises , there were several , some caused by German mismanagement in and out of the treaty revision negotiations .....
Explain article 48 -I did before , more clearly ....
Lord of all the wikis help me! Hanoverians in english -will you please stop trying to change what is english into what is not . And that goes for everything ..... I cannot be like a teacher and discipline you - but I can tell you that you make yourself foolish by arguing about english usage . If the wikipedia is to become so influenced, that is not my major concern. Particularistic means nought, nowt, nuffink , nummat , nil . For wiki's sakes get real . We know the real battle is elsewhere .And, ask a friend if you cannot recognise the origin of my language : are you a lay catholic(under canonical duty anyway) or are you of clerical connection , or are you like myself, under-cover? Do you get your expenses paid ? I do not insult you, this time, but I see consitent defence of the Holy See for months now, down to tiny edits . All right now I'll go further and ask -do you receive money / Why do you betray your countrymen , your morals ? I challenge you because we must not repeat these mistakes, as we are plainly in danger of doing . Instead of Panzer tanks the weapons will be nearly virtual- like wikipedia /internet freedom control, brain-washing . I am really trying not to insult you but you are un-remitting in this fight , and it is of moral proportions, and bigger than the wikipedia .
Are we back to the argument? Yes we are. How can there be good faith when one party is deaf to the cited works ? If you have good faith you will , quite simply ,allow me that which I know from historians, needs to be said . Then we can remove to the next encounter, and you can fight against the apparent-because-reported facts all over again. Why is my good faith impugned , why is a contemporary correspondent's recording a witness to the 1932 intruction by the Pope , impugned ? Why Klemperer impugned by association with myself, why do you impugn Guenter Lewy and then Tollett ? Why do you ? and by what right? This is quite extra-ordinary and completely un-acceptable . You leave no alternative , still, to simple disputed.
I was correcting your english composition , not accepting your un-acceptible gloss. The length to which you have gone suggests that you have not only been taking lessons from myself in verbosity , but wish to hide the lack of reality in a show of fulness. It may fool others but not me. If you did not have an axe to grind , you wouldn't be here , and if you had no reason to , you would accept what kenny accepted. I can't go on repeating myself on this - I will have to call you to account as I may perhaps be allowed . Why don't you make it easy on youreslf , and come peacefully into the accepted history ? Surely this is more than a simple national feeling or such-like that motivates you. History is not so split from within and without and this is too rigid of you , too specific in the disallowal . You force me towards my complaints . Please accept the corrections and don't waste one's time , and really, I will not withdraw , cannot .... Only suspect you more as you dig yourself deeper into your trench . Again , you serve the world well. Now- please explain exactly why the historians who Kenny quoted, whom the humanitas foundation quote, whom I quote are all censored by you . Is there a big blinker upon the german history -horse, do tell...
After posting a message to Sam Spade I have become Famekeeper I requested arbitration, I'm sorry to say . Or seeing that page , perhaps not. Mediation, well Sam plainly says he can't do it . Will you finally accept a proper balance in the editing , and let us avoid it growing even more serious ? Famekeeper 21:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A curious fact is that Pope Pius XI had to recant in a manner suggested by Edgar Mowrer himself following his accession. he had said that he had not sopoken about the silesian/polish question after his words to Mowrer had been reported . Mowrer suggested he get out of that erroneous denial by saying that only as Cardinal had he spoken to journalists .
I protest most strongly that this article is not allowed to include true references to the Papal intervention, nor the Pacelli -Kaas axis . I say that the effect is revisionist . I post that it is disputed and I have already cited all relevant sources, to add to John Kenny's confirming source . Put in requests for arbitration , ye who will remove the disputed.
Dear FK,
I cannot agree with what you wrote about my or your past editing, but I am willing to let the past be past so I will not comment on it. Let me just state, that I'm not receiving money from anyone and doing all my editing completely on my own. Please refrain from accusing (and in our circumstances this cannot be done civilly) other editors (not only me, also others) from being part of some conspiracy.
I never questioned that you honestly believe that what you post is the historical truth and hence your intention is not to slander. But your interpretation is not beyond reproach and must be debatable (including a conclusion and not a perpetual debate).
As far as I see it, our arguments can be classified into several fields:
Now, points 3 and 4 are valid in their own right, but not really relevant to the scope of Wikipedia. You might dislike it, but Wiki is an encyclopedia. (Though I have repeatedly pointed out to you, why your "Question of the Law" reasoning is wrong, and can do it again, one final time.)
Points 1 and 2 is what we should discuss, since these are relevant to the entries here on Wiki and this is what I propose to do.
You mentioned several sources in support of your point and I am willing to check these, if you will provide exact references (page numbers, if you are using German editions, or the respective chapters). That goes for works of historigraphy, not for drama.
John Kenney has clarified that his book does not specifically supports your interpretation.
I have looked into Günther Lewy, but have found no support for your interpretation either (but you may point out some specific passages for re-reading)
Also, your quotes from Klemperer and even Mowrer didn't seem to necessarily support your interpretation.
If you will point me to the passages, I will look into Klemperer (German resistance against Hitler) or Mowrer (Germany puts back the clock) as well.
Any other books, I must first find out whether I have them accessible at the library. Sorry, if I can't read all your books cover to cover, but I am quite busy with other things (and as I said I'm not getting paid for this).
Another point (point 5, if you will) is your "Vatican exchange" section - it needs clarification and editing. This is a really interesting and much more rewarding field for contributing to wiki.
Please don't shout at me, if I say that I don't completely understand all passages, as I have written above. If you are German or have translated this from German, I am more than willing to have a look at the German wording and try to help in translating it into English. Also, if your German or German-speaking, I am quite open to a discussion in German, if that helps you.
Str1977 30 June 2005 09:53 (UTC)
Dear FK,
I don't have to dig up the canon law in the archive, because I think, we have sufficently debated them. I think I have repeatedly stated why your reasoning does not work. Actually I'm more interested in discussing facts and interpretation (points 1 and 2) - and I also would like you to finish the "Vatican exchange section" you have started. I don't know how to handle it edit-wise in its current state.
As for your books:
Sorry to say, but what I read in Lewy does not support your interpretation and Lewy is very critical of the Church.
What you cited from Klemperer does not support your interpretation.
Even what you quoted from Mowrer does not necessarily support your interpretation.
I want to look up your quotes from Klemperer and Mowrer too, so please provide page numbers (no German edition needed, I can access the English one).
And please stop using John Kenney again and again. He only stated that his book referred to a quid-pro-quo in the Concordat dealings, namely trade concordat for centre party. No one here ever disputed that. Even I, in my very first post directed to you, accepted that (my "sell the car to the robber" analogy). John's book however does not support any larger quid-pro-quo.
The thing I'm concerned about is your constant claim, that the Pope put Hitler in power, when he didn't. Neither did Pacelli. The German people, yes the middle classes and some reactionary and business circles, put him into power. Kaas also bears some blame, but he didn't have the purpose of making Hitler tyrant. His coalition negotiations were quite stupid and quite useful for Hitler. I think I included this into the Centre article (section: Between ...), and in a much broader way than it was there before. Str1977 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)
If Lewy does not back up the timeline of Kaas movements back and forth to Rome, it doesn't. 'Humanitas Foundation' will have to account for it. I did not say he backed any thesis, just that he is the source cited for the actual journeying on specific days.
Klemperer states what he states, quite clearly and I have already quoted in full with pp nos.
Mowrer I gave pp nos for , endlessly- why argue.
You are correct that it becomes the accusation , that the Pope indeed did put Hitler into power by instructing Kaas and the whole Zentrumspartei leadership from 32 , to accede to Hitler in every way .
Indeed it should worry you and everyone-this is the most serious accusation that could be made and is made by Mowrer.
But I repeat, it becomes worse. It becomes the final solution- the active street quote all through is perish the jew ..... the change in the hierarchy, the abandonment of all the critical priestly testimony, abandonment of the morality of the faithful , the dignity and morality of mankind itself, all was bartered to defeat atheistic communism . I repeat , I ask out of duty , whether the 80-100 million violent deaths were the result of anti-semitic collaboration ?
I am not going to go away- I also repeat that it is high time the factor was taken into account to share the opprobrium which otherwise falls so confusedly and mysteriously upon the entire country of Germany .
Editor, this is not over , and you are most definitely by bolstering pope Pius XII , not on the side of the angels , but of the excommunicated .
I hear you deny this, and I am very loathe to have to personally call for your recantation, ...
... a one such as was indeed given by kenny , quite clearly for all to see and which he needn't have said but evidently carefully composed - so sorry , it is now contradicted , un-usefully . Famekeeper 30 June 2005 23:12 (UTC)
Just to illustrate my last point, FK, please have a look Kenny and compare with Kenney. Str1977 1 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)
I have removed my pov tagging on this article and inserted reference to the more or less alleged influence of Pope Pius XI on the party prior to the Enabling Act vote . I still think the tone otherwise would remove any of the justifiable suspicion and be , in the absence of any such references , pov/dubious .
I find it extraordinary to note ,Str1977( if it is yourself who included them) , that we have here now in the article Monsignor Kaas' own words concerning the Enabling Act : "On the one hand we must [oppose] to preserve our soul..." . These words relate to my legal canonical accusations . I believe this is defined as contumacy .I believe these words absolutely incriminate by expressing the contumacy . 'Soul' is the word used and is the word that relates to the breaking of the magisterial Divine Law claimed as being upheld by the Roman Catholic Church . Whatever the meaning of the word "we" , whether referring to the party as conscious moral (christian) individuals or whether exclusively to the 'we' of a political party , it is undoubted that Monsignor Kaas was extrememy close by all standards of church history , to Eugenio Pacelli ; that Pacelli and Pius XI could have been in no doubt that they authorised in every way all the actions and words of Monsignor Kaas ; and that all three of them were in league in contravening the injunctions of the church or were justifiably acting under the conditionality of better the lesser evil.
That they were arguably politically and historically wrong , is something that has contributed vastly to the world as we now see it ( and to the very forces of rebellion against world stability apparent) . Being in the wrong is not a crime against humanity , but consciously to support Hitler at this period was as Kaas says, to abandon the preservation of the soul and is the most serious charge in present western civilisation , only exceeding the charges of corruption one-day to be levelled at the forces of capital in this same civilisation .
Although you have removed the dates of the many interactions linking Hitler directly through Kaas to Pacelli and Pius XI , they remain on the Pius XII article and you yourself confirmed them to indeed emanate from historian Guenter Lewy . I do not think we have an argument about their actuality -though the secrecy attempt of Kaas and Papen on 7 April in Munich en route to Rome is something you could also confirm from Lewy . The Italian press (quoted previously by me) publicly revealed at the time , some of the secrecy .
In general I still object to the sanitised slant of your apparently more centre effort than vatican effort and I still think the centre article lacks a reasonable suspicion of the quid pro quo . I therefore have added in the controversy . If you are prepared to accept that paragraph , we may be able to move on to the real issue here, one which still touches all our lives and influences our futures materially , politically and spiritually . Famekeeper 09:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
This reduction by Str1977 ignores very full citation of sources as to the whole context and he placed these in the archives , having accepted them as they are checkable . I used the word alleged and made it clear , so that is not enough reason to ignore all the historians . please do not ignore these sources editor STr1977 . Accept the course of the discussions as otherwise they are entirely pointless .
Please don't talk about "all the historians" when you base this claim solely on Mowrer's remark, which I now have read in the original book. The date (May 1932) is wrong, it refers to the Prussian elections a few lines above. The event occured at some time after May, and I guess after Brüning's resignation. Also didn't have "assist Hitler to power", but "help make Hitler chancellor" and nothing about "in every way necessary". If you can't provide sources for these bolder assertion than leave them out. You also have not substantiated in any way any connection to the Enabling Act, which happened in a different stage, when the Centre Party's strategy of 1932 had failed. There is no continuity from the talks of 1932 and those of 1933.
"advised our party to make Hitler chancellor . The zentrums leaders approved."
"Accept the course of the discussions as otherwise they are entirely pointless". I guess I'd better not comment on your style of discussing things. Just this: Anyone who disagrees is part of some conspiracy and/or paid by the Vatican. A shaky argument is called "case proved", a claim is a proof, and if someone clarifies an earlier post you yell "No, you did mean it as I took it." You have so far shown an enormous propensity of misinterpreting sentences, be it sources or other posts. It might sound harsh, but if you're not up to the task, ...
PS. I will reply to your "soul" post in time. Str1977 23:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Otto Brok and all the Zentrums leadership are cited . There must be some references to this letter from that leadership who attended that meeting . I'd say zentrums(partei) is specified exactly due to the wider connotation than 'center' , as Mowrer also uses . You seem to be able to relate theology perfectly , which is necessary , so can this knowledge extend to un-covering the vatican end ? First question I'd ask you is whether , in the case of a letter arriving into Kaas' hands from Pacelli , there would be a record kept of such a letter by the Secretary of States' office ?
I have quoted citations as to the capacity for complete avoidance of trailing evidence inside the vatican at other times , and as I say, we cannot argue the same things over when dealing with citations . Until the citations we can differ, after the citations we can show related evidence to discredit the citations . I will fully accept any proofs you supply for anything , and my unexotic memory will at least try to retain such developemnt into the argument . Please leave off your reverts and we shall bi-laterally amend. I helped you with this initially completely unsatisfactory article and am responsible for its initial growth . Do not edit that section as it is considerably important that it stand alone.
Well, this is were we disagree. I don't think it was a "completely unsatisfactory article". There is always room for improvement.
You helped in so far as you drove me towards these pages and to overhauling them. Especially the Kaas page was badly in need of that and I think it is now up to standard. And part of that credit belongs to you (though that wasn't necessarily your intention).