Talk:Centre Party (Germany)/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Centre Party , Stresemann & Loss of the Middle Class Block

The break up of the Middle-class block in the Reichstage at the beginning of 1928 was a masterpiece of parliamentary tactics . Not all that passed in those days has yet been fully revealed . It would appear that Stresemann held all the trumps in his hand  ; and at the same time feared to compromise himself too deeply ,or to appear in the public eye as the destroyer of the block . The actual dissolution of the block occurred as a result of a proposal that was certainly not numbered among the most prominent political issues of the day . The Centre desired a new Reich Education Law that would strengthen the influence of the Church over the schools . The Nationalists gave their active support to the proposal . The People's Party opposed it . Certain National Liberal traditions dating from the days of the Kulturkampf were still alive among the propertied classes in Western and Southern Germany , and these classes were opposed to any further extension of the power of the Catholic Church . The German catholics had no need of a new Education Law , since their rights and priveliges in regard to education were already sufficiently secure . The Education Law was therefore in no sense a matter of life and death for the middle classes . The inability of the People's Party and the Centre to agree upon the measure would in other circumstances have caused it be allowed to lapse .
It is moreover , obvious that if the struggle had really turned upon the education question the result would have been on the one hand a bitter conflict between the Centre and the Peopla's Party , and on the other hand still closer union between the Centre and the Nationalists , who were in agreement over the education question . At the same time the Centre and the People's Party remained on good terms despite their inability to agree on the education question . At the same time the Centre announced the dissolution of the block to the accompaniment of fierce attacks upon the very Nationalists who had given it faithful support in the education question . The truth is that that the education question merely provided the occasion for a new constellation of the political Parties .

I take this from Arthur Rosenberg's A History of the German Republic1936 , Methuen and Co , under very fair use .I put it here by way of under-scoring the questioning that should be appearing in this article , and throughout . You will notice that there is a complete absence within the Str1977 dominated article of issues which lead to such historical analysis . I remain of the opinion that this is distortion resulting from a mentality of catholic apologia un-becoming our supposedly enlightened age , and as dangerous to the WP as it is to the minds of the reader . I would request Robert McClenon who has come in from the RfC page to see that this relates to the other disputes I have enumerated . This was towards the period when Monsignor ludwig Kaas gained the leadership of the Centre and would exhibit not a little Church influence in the politics of the day , perhaps more than Arthur Rosenberg was able to analyse after so few passing years . Nevertheless there is a clear line of mystery or contradiction here that echoes throughout history since , and which co-alesces into the general indictment .

This all started on the Pope John Paul II page following reports on Euronews concerning Jewish outrage at his erroneous and , considering the history , beyond the outrageous , assertions against democracy using 1933 as example .. These have yet to be answered , and lie in the relevant archive . Thankyou Famekeeper 12:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read the article as requested. I am not entirely sure what Famekeeper is stating in the article is 'distortion' or what 'general indictment' he wishes to present. It is true that the article is not trying to provide historical analysis. One of the first rules of Wikipedia is to take a Neutral Point of View. The article as I read it presents the facts of the history of the party. Since those are facts, they are NPOV unless their accuracy is disputed. I did not see an accuracy dispute cited. A historical analysis of the reasons for the Centre Party's acceptance of the Enabling Act and the resulting dissolution of the Centre Party is a point of view, since there can be different analyses. I see two alternatives. The first is to leave the article as it is, without historical analysis. The second is to provide a balanced presentation of alternate historical analyses. Do we want to expand this article to discuss multiple POVs? Can we keep our sense of balance and POV well enough to allow multiple POVs to be analyzed, or should we simply leave the article more or less as is?

Robert McClenon 21:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I will hope to let another answer this ........Famekeeper 22:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute , Mediation , and Apology to St1977

I apologise to Str1977 for my uncontrolled imputations . I refer the reader to my apology on Hitler's Pope discussion and Ludwig Kaas discussion . My anger at the scandal relating to the Centre Party relates to the massive mortal consequences of Centre action on 23 March 1933 , as suggested by the events .

[[I Famekeeper 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC) call/ask/agree]] mediation' via Robert McClenon, in generality for the subject of the Pope -Hitler quid pro quo,including Hitler's Pope and [Ludwig Kaas]] .

I disputed , and , following my POV tagging , my RfCing , my rv's , my apology and all ,will summarise an initial summary . However I ask on Kaas' discussion page if it is not true that the Roman Catholic Church has the intention and will to influence all that concern it here on the Wikipedia , (see reference on previous post concerning catholic /new media/ conference /2005 at Ludwig Kaas discussion).

sUMMARY :That this article obfuscates the deep and continuous historical comment concerning the Party action or inaction on March 23 1933 when Monsignor Ludwig Kaas a longtime close friend and associate , in vatican policy and direction on the European political plane , of Cardinal Pacelli , gave the suicide note for democracy . I refer to multiple historical sources ranging from the mere word condonation by the Party - to those calling Kaas one of the two most important actors in this death of suicide , by way of others calling it representative of a Pope-Hitler quid pro quo ( short-lived but crucially historic nevertheless ). I claim that the repeated rv of the associated section demonstrates a POV , whereas the section is NPOV as sourced . That this article needs to have true and un-inhibited reference to these conclusions from history since they are not interpretations but are relevant as history and that whilst they relate mostly to questions about the vatican influencing german catholicism and Kaas over the period , they are in fact necessary even on the level of simple Party history . In so far as Kaas acted within the party during the alleged or suspected or real arrangements of such influence during especially 1933 , reference to this must be allowed in full , in accordance with its importance . Quotes from Kaas concerning Adolf Hitler made at the end of his 5 year chairmanship must be allowed as relating to this tenureship and to his judgement of Hitler during this time . Timeline dating should be allowed as revealing the exact over-lapping nature of Kaas/vatican/Centre actions  ; Kaas' friendship with Pacelli revealed ; and a full relation of the historians concerns that a quid pro quo existed , (despite Party internal differences), should allow for further expansion of the historical relationship between german Party catholicism with the vatican ; and the allegations and proofs as can be sourced , placed on/page . I herewith call for all of good will to help in this expansion , as they may be capable because of their access to sources . Meanwhile mediate .If it please you , I withdraw until called upon further , leaving here my contribution subject to reverts:-

"Controversy exists concerning the extent to which the 1928-1933 Chairman of the Centre party , Monsignor Ludwig Kaas , acceded himself to , and influenced the party towards , the reportedly expressed instructions of the papacy . This remains un-proven but Kaas is reported as having ,in May 1932, relayed the exhortation of Pope Pius XI, from a letter written by Cardinal Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli , for the Centre catholics to assist Hitler to power in every way necessary . This was allegedly required in order to counterract burgeoning german Communism . Approbation by this Pope for the appearance of Hitler as a strong counterracting force is on record during , and Kaas as a churchman acted beneath the papal orders throughout, the Enabling Act-Concordat negotiations . Monsignor Kaas' own approbation of Hitler is equally on record at this time . Certainly the self-serving actions of the party at the enabling Act vote on March 23, 1933 remain the subject of studied controversy , as it remains the epitome of democratic suicide . The mysterious Centre party vote for the two-thirds majority , enabled the legal ascent of Hitler to complete Dictatorship . The defection en masse of party members to Nazism coupled with a softening in the Hierarchical attitude to Hitlerism came along with pro-Hitler communications from the vatican . The historical allegation is that the Enabling act represented the quid pro quo for the (still in force) reichsconcordat " .

Famekeeper 16:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Formal Request for Mediation

I have posted a formal Request for Mediation concerning any neutrality and POV disputes about this page. Robert McClenon 17:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

One more request for a summary

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

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

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

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

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

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 02:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Redirect leftovers

Someone created another article on Centre Party, I redirected it to this page. The following was the content on that page:


Germany

This article is part of the series:
Politics and government of
Germany
Constitution
Parliament
Judiciary
Executive
Divisions
Elections
Foreign Policy
Other countries · Atlas
 Politics Portal
view • talk • edit

The German Center Party (Deutsche Zentrumspartei) is a political party in Germany without parliamentary representation. It the successor of the pre-World War II Centre Party.

In the first federal election (1949) the Centre-Party got 10 seats, in the second federal election (1953) the Centre-Party got 3 seats. In the state-parliaments of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony the Centre-Party had representation until the late 1950s.

The party-leader is Gerhard Woitzik, the vice-mayor of Dormagen in North Rhine-Westphalia.

External link

{{party-stub}} Category:Political parties in Germany de:Deutsche Zentrumspartei

Str1977 20:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Dubious

  • contrary to the text , some dispute the mathematics. Possible the solution to this issue rests in qualification as to legality of arrests of reichstag deputies , which affected balance. arrested under a change in procedural rules as yet undetermined on WP .
    • The article gives no mathematics except that the Act needed 2/3 and that the Centre vote was crucial (decisive) - that's what's really important to a Centre Party article and you never disputed that.
I was trying here to be absolutely fair to your analysis. actually . This returns to the question re:Dormancy. How to change the balance such that he pass the EAct on 23 rd march . I post therefore again this mornings question here below.
  • Working Committeee : exactly when was the first meeting of this , which was co-chaired with AH ?
    • Have to look it up.
I distinctly saw 17 th as start of daily meetings. You claimed from 31 Febuary 1933 . big difference.Ill agree its a bugger to remember in which book even one reads such stats.we have to use a lot of good faith, and "misrepresent" is cookoo if I quote it,isn't it ?
  • C Party hurt by more - by Kaas telegram to AH on 23 April 1933, by Kaas approbation by his own characterisation , by Mowrer's may 32 reports of papal 'leaning' .
    • We have covered the report about a report about a speech about the telegramm. I think I have included this (32 Kaas strategy).
It is wrong to remove and right to add.It must be clear, shouting conspiracy theory is bad faith otherwise. Avro Manhattan is relevant to all machination. Not theory .but political history , in which the vat entered. Telegram promulgated as influence from vat . Fact . Spee ch of approbation by Pius XI to goering is fact . denies your bad-faith conspiracy accs re FK .
  • Kaas did not arrive in Rome before Papen , they arrived together on 9 , trvelling by train , Papen surreptitiously , exposed by Italian press. Kaas had been in Rome from 24 March to 31 when he was recalled as Centre chairman or as papal negotiator for the at that time very un-usual PRIVATE Hitler meeting 2 April . The significance or subtatnce of the discussion is unknown .
    • Haven't we already agreed on them arriving together. No article removed such and fell into serious error both here and elsewherein Weimar/nazi articles. I'm forced to clean-up patrols, every 2 months, nearly always your editing is at root. I charge you with removal . serious. Kaas started first, but Papen caught up on him. The "exposed" thing is irrelevant here (> Papen).
I Deny it to be irrelevant. Historians remark as relevant, and of course it is. No , here article had removed such and fell into serious error both here and elsewherein Weimar/nazi articles. I'm forced to clean-up patrols, every 2 months, nearly always your editing is at root. I charge you with removal . serious. Tut.
  • The removal of political interference by clergy was the aim of Hitler, the concordat the aim of the vatican . That is a quid pro quo .
    • Neither I nor anyone else disputed that.
Quid pro quo in all artcles relevant then- or state clearly why not . This is removal . Differene as to start of quid pro quo is our difference but you always remove quid pro quo from everywhere. Tut. Logic is it starts at 2 April with Kaas Hitler private conference. You say 9 th April in vat . Isay report Hitler surety of Centre from 15th March , and suspicion must be recorded-history'd suspicion, not consp.theory but vatican -political-conspiracy as always recognised eversince. Nought to do with FK.-withdraw your accs, please .
  • Kaas had had a hand in Hitler's "christian" speech at the abandonment of democracy , earlier on same day 23 March , Kaas voted the catholic centre bloc(Centre and Bavarian Nats).
    • You are still misrepresenting Klemperer. Hitler based his speech on what concerns Kaas uttered him. It's like flattery - you tell them what they want to hear. That's how it worked. PS. What is "Bavarian Nats"?
No, I sourced exact words, so exact words can be included. A hand in, sourced . Don't take it upon yourself to negate source. Don't accuse me , withdraw, please, as sign of general withtraction against me all over WP, please .
  • Pacelli dismay runs contrary to report by Brit Ambassador to holy see , revealing from within Vatican that centre agreed to dissolution , prior to such in Germany .
    • It is reported that Pacelli was dismayed that the party dissolved that early. It was however clear that the Centre was on the bargaining table and would go. But that was Hitler's and Papen's aim not Pacelli's or Kaas'. Str1977 11:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. It is reported the fact that first notice of Centre dissolution emanated from within the small c vatican property (not Berlin}}. V Serious this, . If you source P dismay, do add, but it is as a contradiction of the actual Ambassadorial diplomatic report rervealing completion of quid pro quo. Separate two issues, add to do so . Vital as pointing to complete involvement of Holy See.You say just for Reichskonkordat, sources suggest that +Enabling Act assent, concessions for . Mowrer shows link in simplest. otherwise lets get Avro manhattan in here , et al.

Plse continue to interpose all within except that specific to next section , which is better below .

Answers to answer by EffK 11:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Dormancy change in Procedure etc

Boringly , I say WP needs to get to the bottom of the above title, namely the vaunted(in WP) "changes of procedure" that allowed not only the loss of civil liberties (and I do not refer to the omission of the habeas corpus protectin left off by Hindenburg at the Fire Act ).That was an omission,. I mean the decree/procedure change that is so far un-sourced , which procedure enabled the arrest of Deputies . I point always to article two of the Enabling Act and the contradiction between that and such "procedura" change. Vital , Str1977, so please please find it for the WP . EffK 11:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer and new POV tag

You answered that for me yesterday Str. I revisit these centre Pages and see that there is no mention of the quid pro quo in the limited terms User Kenny solidified, and entirely absent is the historians relation of the Rkkdt to the over-all . In fact you have achieved complete removal of all such reference, so I'd better tag it , as unbalanced POV . Dont remove that until you can find source to promote non-existence of the referencing -actual source. I have quoted the reverse thru Klemperer ,as you long know ,and I object to your denial of that source and Lewy and other sources I have quoted. If you want to ,we could bring this to the arbitration too?EffK 15:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Continuing Centre Party concerns

The following series of remarks I would ask to be left as they are and not separated. I place them to demonstrate the confusion in this article, not to allow for repeat interpretative-type rebuttals. EffK 13:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hitler Govt and new elections

  • It would be clearer to say H Appointment than Government at that section title
  • Here "magnates" is allowed where elsewhere it is not, so that's something
  • basic rights is off-topic, whereas deputy arrests is on-topic and absent:sovereign rights of KPD deputies is not part of citizens habeas corpus
  • Kaas negotiated "letter of Constitutional Guarantee not linked to last-minute as Kaas was fobbed off with "It's being typed up" reality
  • Doubtful nature of such guarantes reduces fact of above "typed-up"
  • Needed:Kaas himself advocated no course at the last Centre meeting- but did he not propose the letter of gurantee prior to this ? or during this meeting ? and was it was it not decisive factor in assenting members' minds? and was it surely not at the top of Bruning's (who said get it in writing)? Is or is not the 'guarantee' not the basis for the Party allowing Kaas the vote?
  • Presumably "national revolution" refers to the in-judicial Deputy arrests which effectively rigged the Reichstag, skated over as the irrelevant habeas corpus ? This is to whitewash the history , and to ignore the over-riding rigging of the parliament.
  • Both groupings, ie. for and against were not unaffected...why? ...because of the referace to the Holy see by Hitler?
  • Needed: was the last meeting (11.30 AM?) not before the Hitler rference at the opening Session that day?
  • Please source that Kaas gave a speech:I have seen no such source for a Speech by Ludwig Kaas after Otto Wels.This seems to refer to a speech he may have delivered in the midday Sitting.
  • it needs to be known whther the Centre Party meeting was before, as seems likely, or after the midday session.

EffK 12:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The End of the Centre Party

  • I will have to add following no longer needed that it was only ever needed to give Hitler the appearance of good faith ,whilst, in effect, it connived at the rigging by voting assent to something which in its Section 2 , prohibited such interference with Deputies(rigging)
  • I have still to see source for the reference to 31 March as "working committee" . I suggest that the dates for the "working committee" if it is such then, include the days between the 15 March Hitler Cabinet EAct discussion, and the 23 EAct, when the working committee in fact negotiated the various advantages re Unions, Schools etc. No dates there, when Kaas was co-chair with Hitler day after day ?
  • Why are further legislative measures on-topic, when they are not specified and not sourced?
  • Where is the Hindenburg letter of "utmost sardonic hypocrisy" sent to the Centre leaders(whilst Kaas was in Rome)?
  • Kaas in Rome is made off-topic ? In In the Weimar republic , Kaas is there to strengthen ties with Bishops-OK, but why no mention of ties to papen, and I proved Pacelli/pontifical input from source to Centre at May 1932, so why Pacelli, the vatican foreign minister and Kaasbuddy less than un-sourced Bishops ?(See Mowrer).
  • The Bishop's u-turn: historians relate this to the 23 EAct Hitler quid pro quo pro Holy see Speech
  • In so far as Kaas was chairman, why is there zero mention of his Rome stay from 24-31 March, and why no allowance for Klemperer characterisation of Kaas and papen as the two most influential players in the demise of Weimar?
  • Papen and Kaas arrive on 9 April in Rome. and if it so true to mention Hitler sending papen to do this, why not mention the relevant secrecy of papen's journey, Kaas association, and arrival , the last only revealed by the Italian press?
  • Is it not true what Lewy states that Papen and Kaas arrive on the same train, having 18 hour discussions since Papen's meeting him in Munich the 8th April
  • Pressure from the German Government(sounds clean doesn't it?) has never been sourced ,or has it?
  • Vatican tried to hold back:Today at Reichskonkordat the editor McClenon takes a contrary postion and removes much clear reference to loss of autonomy of the Church. Why does this article allow the Vatican to mysteriously acquiesce into anything, let alone the dissolution of this party without the Vatican requiring proper scrutiny throughout, and certainly as regards the Cornwell, Kershaw, manhattan, Lambert, Klemperer, Lewy., Toland reports ? EG the close personal relations of ex-centre papen and then Chairman Kaas to the Vatican power ? Off-topic, really?
  • Kaas did not prolong his stay. That suggests that he eventually, after such prolongation, did end or break his stay. this as historians note, was his exile. This would be the truer commentary, and this is symptomatic of the articles thorough and subtle whitewash
  • Pacelli was dismayed -this was reported by the British Envoy to the vatican before it happened in Germany. This is a disconcerting rality even then, and reportable ever since. whose dismay? This question of Pacelli dismay requires full linkage to the Cornwell, Avro Manhattan analysis by way of clarification .

Please do not break up my points . I place these here for edititors to realise my view, not for repeated and un-sourced interpretative rebuttal. OK? EffK 13:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Kenney bad faith Archiving and Kenney Censorship harassment

Dear friendly Kenney, not withstanding your earliest errors and retractions and use of the words shit and bullshit, you now provoke me most severely with no justification whatever. If this is your idea of good faith, then you are indeed a mystery to me. I showed exactly that which needed to be addressed in the question of this article, and I regret more than these words can tell you the manner of you dismissal. Garbage I suppose is one up from shit you previously used. You are a disgrace to good faith, Sir, as you must presumably know. Only inability to deal with the valid points or intellectual laziness or pure spite can have motivated your actions which hide valid questions related to the incorrect. I shall not be induced by your wrongs, to join you in wrong. Any independant editor should open the Archive prior to battling with these ridiculous editors.EffK 01:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom can be the judge of whether John Kenney did any bad faith archiving, or whether EffK was ranting. Robert McClenon 03:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK Concerns with the Centre Party Article :The Enabling Act (point by point POV massage)

The government confronted POV [building up for months] the newly elected Reichstag with the Enabling Act that would have vested the government with legislative powers for a period of four yearsPOV[dictatorship]. Though such a bill was not unprecedented, this act was different since it allowed for deviations from the constitution. As the bill required a two-thirds majority in order to pass, the government needed the support of other parties.POV[massage ignores Deputy arrests]

The Centre Party, whose vote turned out POV{known since 15 Mar]to be decisive, was split on the issue of the Enabling Act. Chairman Kaas advocated supporting POV[Kaas did not advocate at last meeting] the bill in parliament in return for the government giving guarantees POV [one "letter"guarantee", several separate 'advantages']. These POV [negotiated by others under Kaas chairmanship] mainly included respecting the Church's liberty, her involvement in the fields of culture, schools and education and the concordats signed by German states and also the continued existence of the Centre Party itself{{POV[last un-sourced-ignores Civil Servants]. Via PapenPOV [Hitler in negotiations], Hitler responded positively and himself POV [ignores KvKlemperer source] addressed the issuesPOV[addressed Holy See] in his Reichstag speechPOV[2 speeches, one nicey one nasty]], but he repeatedly put off signing a written letter of agreement POV[put off once-"being typed up" at last minute].

Kaas was aware of the doubtful nature of such guarantees POV [One Guarantee- Constitutional ], but when the Centre fraction assembled on 23 March to decide on their vote, he still advised his fellow party members to support the bill POV[Kaas as chair advocated neither actions], given the "precarious state of the fraction", he described as follows: "On the one hand we must preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences for fraction and party. What is left is only to guard us against the worst. Were a two-thirds majority not obtained, the government's plans would be carried through by other means. The President has acquiesced in the Enabling Act. From the DNVP no attempt of relieving the situation is to be expected." POV [suggests advocation]

A considerable part of parliamentarians however opposed the chairman's course, among these former Chancellors Brüning, Wirth and former minister Stegerwald POV[they negotiated advantages and Bruning accepted the "letter of guarantee" idea]. Brüning called the Act the "most monstrous resolution ever demanded of a parliament", and was also sceptical about Kaas' efforts: "The party has difficult years ahead, no matter how it would decide. Sureties for the government fulfilling its promises have not been given. Without a doubt, the future of the Centre Party is in danger and once it is destroyed it cannot be revived again." POV [no context for last distorts meaning]

The opponents also argued in regard to Catholic social teaching that ruled out participating in an act of revolution.VITAL[Proves illegality of disputed legal/illegal Nazi 'rise' on WP elsewhwere] The proponents however argued that a "national revolution" had already occurred with Hitler's appointment and the presidential decree suspending [[human rights|basic rights] POV[Habeas corpus not relevant to Reichstag KPD/SPD Deputy arrests ] and that the Enabling Act would contain revolutionary force and move the government back to a legal order POV{un-sourced]. Both groupings were not unaffected by Hitler's self-potrayal as a moderate seeking cooperation, as given POV [also 1st session at midday] on the Day of Potsdam, over against the more revolutionary SA led by Ernst Röhm POV Quiet opening session[Ignores 2 parts session]. EvenPOV[even is massage] Brüning though[t] it to be "decisive which groups of the NSDAP will be in power in the future. Will Hitler's power increase or will he fail, that is the question."

In the end POV[in end Kaas acted alone handing vote"silently"] the majority of Centre parliamentarians supported Kaas' proposal POV[approved before the 1st sitting due letter]. Brüning and his followers agreed to respect party discipline by also voting in favour of the bill.POV [massage,as did not vote-Kaas alone handed bloc]

The Reichstag assembled under turbulent circumstances POV [ 1st session orderly]. Some SA men served as guards, while others crowded outside the building, both to intimidate any opposing views. Kaas gave a speech POV [Kaas did not speak in 2nd session prior to his vote], voicing the Centre's support for supporting the bill amid "concerns put aside", while Brüning notably POV remained silent[adhered to agreed Party plan of letter]. In the end, all parties except the Social Democrats, voted in favour of the Enabling Act POV[Ignores rigging against KPD, therefore massage].

30 Dubious statements in one Section "The End of the Centre Party"- make that 31 as the section title is an incorrect POV. The wrongly archived Continuing Centre Party Concerns should be read in conjunction with these points by way of good faith guide, and also relate to the previous section also subject to gross POV manipulation.

I am a very traduced witness of massive concerted Wikipedia massage. The two editors above are here beneath the bar of all that WP wishes to up-hold, and their harassment here actively defends distortion of truth. They are both very un-informed, and acting against source in worst of faith. I protest for the nth time, and relate this to their protection for a chief masseur, whom I also have protested. Wikipedia is failing me and its readers hereon by this monstrous massage cabalism that User:Famekeeper specified .

EffK 11:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Assistance Towards Historical Resolution for this catholic Political Party-Claim Ownership?

Well, this above is a precursor to my POV identification at Ludwig Kaas. I may not be able ever to see that these concerns are dealt with, beacause I am under grievous danger, largely of my own honest making. I call a spape a spade, but nor a bloody shovel. I am being hit by a spade all the way through this Wikipedia, every day I have known it. I really have come to the briefest conclusion: Wkipedia is being colonised by the vatican (from the Pontifical Council for Social Communications through papal instructions from 21 Febuary 2005, and certain Jesuit military internet guidance ). I may not be able to prevent this, nor anybody, but I am able to remark it. To them I say , don't forget that I am right canonically and magisterially, so prepare yourselves for your necessary u-turn. The infallibility could be re-arranged perhaps in a similar way that Mowrer assisted the newly crowned Pius XI out of a hole. Think about it... if your faith is true it shall find you a way to leave behind the errors. If you changed the Canon Code very rapidly, that would help. You yourselves could remove the digging up of burial rights and the losses of priveliges for Pacelli. Let's think of a way for you guys to back out of your self-made infallibility troubles.....Look, Pius XII/Pacelli invoked infallibility long after all this Centre subversion( or direction of the vatican's own Party only). So-there was no subversion, if it was your very own Party. There- I have helped you now already on three things. Now, re-write the entire vatican involvement correctly and fess up as much as ye can, that way it will all ease. This is the way it is done- you don't carry on kicking and screaming to the last, whilst the forces of media over-run you step by step. Save what you can now as I show you. I'm afraid there is probably no way to save Pacelli either here or above. I believe you could save Pius XI, as he was duped by the german vatican putsch of Pacelli. You have to immediately claim the real ownership of the Centre Party in 1933, reveal the confirmation of the primary sourced May 1932 instructions from Pacelli to Kaas. You have to publish them and to determine via revised Canonical code how to censor Pacelli (and Kaas and Papen are not a problem). I am afraid that you will possibly only be able to save yourselves the actual exhumation, but not the excommunication. I think I dealt with Double-Effect, and you have no more ways out there. Re-write it all, publish it all here on-line, is my advice. Stick to Pius XI as duped and blinded. EffK 14:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC) EffK 14:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)