Talk:Enabling Act/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Please use Talk:Gleichschaltung for discussion. -- djmutex 2003-04-30

"Enabling act" is a common legal phrase. Your current article will have to be renamed and "Enabling Act" turned into a disambiguation page...something like "Enabling Act (Reichstag)". —B 19:19, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion Enabling Act

I suggest discussion should open here if there is need to comment etc . I say legally at the opening is disputable, ... legal appearance it is. EffK 03:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I had favoured restricting this article on the Act itself, it is a valid enterprise to expand it to include the event leading up to it (although these are already covered elsewhere). Hence I will not remove your edits, but they definitely need a clean-up language-wise, structure-wise, content-wise. I will come back to this later. Str1977 10:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC) .

OK -you are so good at it -why dont you fix the present grammatical errors.

I have been asking for qualification of the dormancy for a very long time , anf or clarification of its contradiction with article 2 Enabling act . I refer to the changes of procedure , which destroyed the Institution . I think German speakers could help with that . Cvilised Europeans should have an understanding of german- I lack this .

You seem to be quicker to criticise my language than to have repaired the ridiculous prior version. Your edits have now lead to a similar illogic, see if you can spot it . You alas seem to think that articles on WP should be as brief as possible- does this come from the nature of the Personal Computer format/screen  ? Does WP have to be childish , abbreviated  ? There are many long articles in Britannica .I remind you that this AE is much studied in Univerities , and even schools around the world . It requires therefore, the political background as it had developed . And this investigation of dormancy must be clarified absolutely from Institutional legislation . I repeat that I have long asked, such as Djmutex , to , to fill us in with a translation of these procedural changes. When , what , signed by Hindenburg? Another decree ? Please supply and include it here, wherever else it may be needed . Plase include what Bruning said about such dormancy- presunmably as this is cardinal , he referred to it at the time and afterwards in his memoirs. And does he confirm the monarchist allegations, I mentioned first so loong ago. You afre so good, please deal with this according to source on B's page when you can . I will visit elsewhere now .EffK 10:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Just three quick items: 1) Yes, being concise is one of the features of any encyclopedia, including WP. 2) Procedural changes are done by the Reichstag itself, no President or Chancellor (officially) involved. 2)I will have a look into the cleaning-up business but I can't do it now. Please have some patience. Str1977 11:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Str-that's all well and good, but your answer to how procedure changed has one problem . Isn't it the case that the procedure supposedly allowing for "arrest/dormancy" of certain deputies thus acted upon them to keep them quasi-legally from the Reichstage chamber at 23 Enabling Act ?

This would appear to be the course of history as laid out in WP from the rider/corallory mentioning the further procedural change , no ? But what you qualify here has a problem , which is that the Reichstag had not been sitting and thus had not been able to effect your defined change . Are you saying that the dormancy came from the previous Reichstag prior to the 5 March elections? That's fair enough , but when did it happen, when did the Reichstag sit to make such change, and vote on it ? Are you saying that the engineered co-alition appointed by Hindenburg on 30 January won a vote c Reichstag Fire Act to change procedure? When did the Reichstag sit then ? Did it sit then ? Can we be concise ? Decrees , yes, signed by the president( and badly forgettting habeas corpus , and , did the Reichstag assemble for the winding -up by Hitler's choice (to pressure the centre) and to appeal directly to the electorate ? Your reply pushed us closer and I look forward to your further qualification as to when the Reichstag itself sat to make/made the procedural change prior to the 23 April first sitting or prior to Hitler's calling elections for 5 March from an other-wise non-sitting assembly . Or was the previous Reichstag in function, in which case we can check and specify the day the dormancy procedure preceded the general elections for ther subsequent reichstag . I remind you that when I entererd WP that the Communists were supposedly proscribed prior to the Elections ! Could you ask this on Deutsch WP , or supply a concise means for the claim / fact .EffK 09:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK, I haven't been able to do much digging, but some things I can state:

• The RTFire Decree authorized the arrest of anyone - and the Communists bore the brunt of these actions. This was the factual ban on the KPD, but not the legal one (I haven't been able to locate when this took place), as the KPD still participated in the March elections and was represented in the Reichstag.(read Rechstag fire Act-false answer)
• The deputies of KPD and (to a lesser degree) SPD that were arrested were nonetheless legal members of the Reichstag, counting in votes where "a majority of the members of the house" was needed (some decisions need only majority of those present, but changes to the constitution certainly need "majority of the members of the house")
• The SPD tried to hinder the Enabling Act by staying away from the Reichstag session. Since they had 120 seats and the Communists 81, these missing 201 members would have rendered the Reichstag unfit to pass the bill, which required the presence of at least 2/3 of members (without SPD and KPD the number came short by one member)
• the government countered this strategy with an idea of Wilhelm Frick, minister of the Interior: it proposed a change to procedures, under which deputies absent without excuse (factually that was to be decided by RTPresident Göring) would be counted as present. This was approved of by the other parties, either in a plenary session or in the "council of elders" (the body chaired by the RTPresident, administering the parliament's affairs). SPD Deputies (those not arrested, of course) therefore dropped their thwarted strategy and took part in the session.
• as for dates, the Reichstag constituted itself on March 21 (Day of Potsdam) and it assembled again on March 23, to debate and pass the Enabling Act. The procedural changes must have been made early on the 23rd. (My lecture notes didn't give a date).
• this however is not the same as a legal dormancy of the Communist seats. I haven't found anything on that and it might be that there was no legal dormancy. If there was, my guess is, that it was declared by the Reichstag itself. In any case, in December or November a new Reichstag was elected with only the Nazis running in the election (as in the Communist states later).
• I haven't found anything on either this or the legal ban of the KPD. Books gloss over this probably because it is of no factual importance: de facto, the KPD was banned with the Fire Decree, apart from its candidate list showing up in the elections. My guess is, that the legal ban occured either before May Day (in correlation to the dissolution of the trade unions) or around the time the SPD was banned (June 22). In any case, it should be before July 14, when the forming of new parties was banned. But they might not have bothered with a legal ban at all.
• under the legal thinking back then ("legal positivism"), the arrest of the Communist deputies was not illegal, neither was the procedural change, nor the Enabling Act itself. That doesn't make it good or legitimate, but I'm afraid to say it, it does make it legal.

Str1977 11:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting and helpful .Except I do not understand that any legal positivism can up-end a contitution, see below for my nub of the question. Thankyou .

• First , Wikipedia everywhere needs correction by stating the Communist Party was banned by the 23 Sittings, which is blatantly erroneous, please let you correct , as you cause slower reverts( and, I tend not to revert you)

• User:Djmutex wrote in the dormancy/procedure back at the very opening in 2003 ,at his of his translation of the Articles.Perhaps this dormancy/procedure is a translation also, from Deutsch WP ?I note that same Djmutex is rather quiescent , nearly absent .
• Would you check the De WP to see if there there is a user history with source for the dorm/procedure going back to 2003?
• The words of Djmutex in that regard (procedure & dorm.) are the only online references to either. I also saw no references to either in the sources I have . The scraping meaning the search engine relevance /pick up , now make En:WP and Djmutex the sole reference, repeated(mirrored) into other references.
• This is an example of why I , and possibly you, have considered it so important that we get the facts straight here-WP mirroring .. it's both good and bad .
• We presumably agree now that there appears to heve been a midday(if the Centre meeting you quoted was at 11.30 we could estimate the) first session of the Parliament at c 12.30-1 pm .
• Historians presumably under pressure from publishers ,precisely in the manner that you and others have pressed me space-wise/encyclopedia wise - historians - conflate the two meetings , the midday and afternoon sessions , of the day and thus confuse us. Only the timelines note the difference(and the Wikipedia Timelines are a disgrace in their extreme paucity .)
• Yes the timelines rely on Guenter Lewy . I know nothing of him nor any specifically church orientated history .
• I cannot at all agree with your supposition or suggestion as to the importance of the Procedural change. What you relate sounds extremely likely and plausible -that even some Elders (which?) did indeed effect the change, and that Hitler presumably managed therewith to succeed in his hood-winking . But important it most crucially was/and is whether that or by actual vote at that morning sitting-at which all remain accountable *Please let's completely separate any dormancy legality questions from the one-party elections of November which were 39 million for Hitler out of c 46 million total , a remarkable result , and therefore relevant to all that I have noted re Catholicism's(and the rest, yes) commodation of Hitler. Commodation is the correct word I believe we can and should agree upon , as I have and don't now wish to suggest that it was more by anyone, whether Warburg bankers or popes or aristocratic big-wigs or French armaments manaufacturers or IBM (which you should please return to its shocking because recognisable English, please note .)
• I note that Gleichschaltung as a Nazi term needs proper translation, and until you can have the good faith to recognise my honesty in respect of the usage of my mother tongue, it is difficult for us to advance towards the clarity requisite .)English needs the German sense but then to speak it in its own English way . Seizure is not accession , in the other relevant term . Enable is something basically descriptive also , something which pricks up the ears .(And It is something I have had to accept , that a translation into another language cannot be understood unless the translator is completely bilingual from infancy , and even then without actual dual and changing residence ,will fall into malapropism . Even long residence in another language area will stultify one's native use .)
• I try to be open to your legal thinking but nevertheless in this case wish for sourced actuality' rather than any thinking.Please sub-section the legal positivism into the Articles , which you refer to this . Legal practice , you may mean , but I/the WP scraper /truth want definable legality or absence of it (-though of course I thoroughly assent to all your arguments that actual deputies, civil servants, Priests, Bishops even ,were practicably constrained to keep shtum / be prudent in their actions/inactions/run/even justify them etc . I have no criticism for anyone except the difficulty that I continue to point to regarding the christian contradiction(legal & canonical , as shared by them all in great part - is it not so?). I have to recognise that christianity has hitherto built upon our Roman and ,say brehon cultural basis , and so see it as necessary to repair any major faults in such foundations of our culture.
• I will admit to no particlular significant error because our point of dispute rests upon an documented(un-prosecuted YES IT WAS -SEE BELOW ) series of meetings and events which culminate in July and begin for me , but not Avro Manhattan nor Bruning, nor WheelerBennett who recognised a German monarchist push from Rome from 1925 . I come , for the nth time, from Mowrer and have confidence in him.I do not come from online conspiracy , but merely find greater and greater confirmation , deeper and deeper cause to warrant Mowrer's clear mention, as an important witness we should remember. Hitler got rid of Mowrer in early Febuary and it were wise to do so, as the world remained then , and still is now,un-informed .
• Where we continue( do we really?) to differ and battle is that you state as do the more truncated histories -that because they say that Hitler sent papen to negotiate the Reichskonkordat on 8 April , that therefore this means that the negotiations purely began then (say 10th) in Rome. You stick with John Kenney's reading of his source that therefore the quid pro quo was the Rkkdt for the terribly electorally important(because Hitler wanted the leaglity to persude the further November one-party peoples blessing of 39 millions) . However Kenny himself did not recognise that the voluntary dissolution thereby was the vital accurate reflection of the truth , as he himself adhered strongly to the dissolution of the Centre by Hitler. Subsequently he came back at me suggesting improper use of WP or something , and perhaps due to this sense of correction(not pleasant I'll agree) it has led him to persist in a contrary attitude. Somewhat like McC , who can never forgive me for catching him out personally and then editorially.(By the way McC I peruse without success thus far your user history for July , when I asked you why you claimed position as a mediator, when you had no user-history -You replied that you had changed your name . I distrusted you because of that answer, and because you asked me to give firm canonical definition beyond even that which I had exagerratedly uncovered,to willed grave sin . I had reason to doubt you good faith , and this was an unfriendly trick question , which I felt opened me to supplying the full extent of the overall opacity of the subject. I had no reason to trust you , and you justified this by then totally mis-labelling an edit, which I have saved. But I dig for the first still- funny I can't get the whole of July up .I believe you and I will be forced to return to all that, to your actions against the balance of NPOV, your saying youreslf that mediation would have to be called for and thus confirming to me that it had very much not arrived with you..))

It is not entirely clear to me what the source of this strange claim is. EffK appears to imagine that I stated that I had changed my user name. He did ask me whether I had changed my user name. I simply refused to answer the question. I never claimed position as a mediator, but only as a third party. EffK states that he has "caught me out" personally and then editorially. I have no idea what he thinks he is claiming. Robert McClenon 17:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• And User:John Kenney apart , my position as opposed to yours Str , is that given the clearest signal from Mowrer, I wish for total clarity about amongst other great figures,Eugenio Pacelli . Everything I have been testing you with as source for the last year , which is a long list and enumerated between us , and particularly reflected in full by the megamemex timeline (deserving of adjudication themelves ,perhaps)-all adds together to the Shirer and Klemperer and pretty much everyone in between those writers' opinions, that the negotiations are shrouded in a mysterious in-defined continuous parlaying between Pacelli and Kaas and Kaas and the Centre , between the wings of the Centre , between the Centre and Hitler(the nazi chief negotiators included) and between Kaas and Hitler directly whether for Pacelli or of of the Centre indefined. Hitler dead, Kaas under sovereign protection, the Vatican Archives still locked (apparently the only known fact) . I am not interested in interpretation or excuses however real , but in understanding , and therefore refuse to call halt to this. The historians leave it by relating to us the remarkable and indisbutible volte face in the Hierarchy , they append this to the terms of the Rkkdt eliminating the very real , true christian witness and interference by denying Clerics their hitherto political voice in Germany .
• If you consider these the words of a paranoid schizo, you only trouble any such person , not me . Similar insult is visble on that dreadful RCC sex abuse page, and is painfully shameful .You may prove to be right, if the Vatican opens, you and the vatican could forever still these historians' implicit conclusions, made with as much fact as they could un-cover. It is not enough to translate what is a distillation of many sources (as Shirer is or Klemperer or Bullock ) that is already itself a diminuishment , into wikispeak . I go further and see -perhaps-that you share with me in wishing an actual answer . Not interpretation but like the Nuremburg Trial , documentation , words used, numbers, hours , consequences, documents . Like these facts you allude to . Like that Centre meeting of 11.30 Am of the 23 march 1933 - Who says what to whom .
• I formulate my remaining 23 March question as being similar to that which is outstanding re Article 2 of the Enabling Act: a contradiction with arrest of a deputy of the Institution ,so ,whatever Frick's cleverness, I want to see how Germany(or anyone) today describes this maneuver of Its parliament, how define the absence of a deputy by his arrest when it's contrary to the constituion? Ie legality of the arrest, and subesquent definition of that as mere dormancy , as even protective custody for normal post Fire Decree citizens ? Would contravene the constitution as referenced in article (section) 2 of the Enabling Act ? Surely someone has answered this in the intervening years by more that an interpretation of by saying as you do that it is not important (because of the de facto , indeed not glossing it over .
• I have [to] repeat to you that , as I cannot believe that any kind of stupidity infects your rebuttal, and denial, and disagreement ,and dispute , with the opinions of largely English historical source; estimate logically that this extraordinary and never-ending behaviour of yours must bespeak a will or agency . Since the action is chiefly characterised by defence of the two Popes in question , I recognise the characterisation you show by your actions, as such agency . Maybe you just got the wrong end of the stick somewhere and wished to battle for some other reason, but for the life of me , I cannot see it . For the CDU? is your grandaddy some CDU figure you have to protect ? What's the big deal with you.? Why be so out of line with thinking on this, out of line with Pius XI's words of 10 April? Why be so obtuse as to deny all that historians assert in saying the very dissolution voluntarily matched up with the 10 approbation , with the Fulda Conference decisions, with the Kaas telegram of 23 April AH bithday , with everthing? Why deny this? Why not agree to the reality which is that evidence is lacking to absolutely write the history, and confine the problem ? Is this a language problem-I using English source and you using German ?If you can get hold of Mowrer from 1969 , why do you not read Shirer and all of them ? How can you possibly think this is something personal to me ?]
• Anyone from outside this interminable discussion between Str1977 and myself , would of course think me turgid, long-winded and over the top, however this talk page discussion relates not simply to this Artcle , but to a generality of articles, the which mention I shall favour you all by omitting. EffK 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires the assumption of good faith, civility, and avoidance of personal attacks. Insults to another editor's grandfather are not useful. Robert McClenon 17:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I shall hope you will agree at any rate to continue to find some solution. I'll accept anything that you come up with, and hope it gives utter clarity , no gloss . And then we can discuss the qualifications. I note yr recent change to Mowrer . We two should be able to agree , and source should be all we need . I fear Avro points us deeper, and there is little pleasure in such , and equally I respect the position of vatican knowledge that you have brought to this table. I see other points and will raise them . Good luck .EffK 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have only glossed over your post, the rest has to wait until tomorrow. But let me state a few things:

• Legal positivism is not my legal philosophy and never will be. In fact, I utterly despise and don't like it rearing its ugly head again during the last thirty years. However, when looking at the historical issues here, I have to accept that it was the accepted philosophy of that time. History must always be explained out of its own time, or as Ranke put it, "any time is immediate to God". Hence your attacks on Frick's cleverness don't hurt me at all (but you seem to be attacking me too just for stating this. Let me quote you: don't hit the messenger). I don't agree with what they did or how they did it and I don't think it legitimate or that it could or should happen today. But it did happen then.
• I think the ban of the Communist needs not be corrected as much (at least as long as we don't have the legal date or even know whether there was a legal date) it needs to be qualified by "de facto" or "factual". Note, that it is mere conjecture by me that there was a later date of legal dissolution. It sounded logical to me, but I don't know it for a fact. It seemed odd to me that a legally banned party should run for elections (even if the deputies were jailed or killed).
• Note that it cannot be the objective of these pages to note any detail. Hence, I will oppose any inclusion of a birthday telegramm. Not that it didn't happen but it clearly is a diplomatic gesture to foster relations and hence nothing that needs specific mentioning.
• I have never refused to consider your edits bit by bit, as much as I could process it. And I will not change that. However, I can't understand the gap between your last post here and the one before it. The last one seemed friendly and forthcoming to me, but in the one before you attack me, for no reason whatsover, quite personally and not only me but my family and my grandfather, a simple worker, whom this Gröfaz send to Leningrad and back and back to the Oder river, where he fell two weeks before the capitulation, leaving behind a wife and five children. So don't you ... it is you who is out of line and recent edits have shown not historical thinking but a tremendous amount of either anti-Catholic hatred or of credulity to those who spread it. Unless you clean up your act and decide whether you want to spread hatred or want to be amicable, I cannot trust your friendliness. I will employ good faith to your edits, that's for sure, because it's WP policy which I do respect, but nothing more.

Str1977 01:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you take it wrong. Whatever about a characterisation of your edits, the WP is in error' in its statements. Of course the KPD were not proscribes/banned/ at the 5 March elections, they received their same 100seats . It needs to be clear and I cannot see why there is any quibble . Friendliness is a side issue, in contradiction to our general possition. You have repeatedly and wrongfully edited my posts hundreds of times ,fact . But let us stick to history fact .It is a mark of importance that the BBirthday telegram emanated from the vatican and was widely promulgated .This was relevant and it is incorrect for you to judge the importance of such side effects . I am appalled .

You really do not understand English , to take yr grandfather so personally-it was a possibility to justify motive. I'm sure he sounds beloved , but that is not the point. I still say you have shown disregard for source, and your hestiatation as to whether the KPD was banned at elections simply suggests that you are unable to concentrate or understand,. It suggests to me that I have accorded you too much importance, and this history between us is at a lower level . I shall change the articles myself then . Please discuss on relevant pages before removals and reversals, as I try .Please do not after such endless discussion , insult my intelligence by back-tracking away from all that I did prove. I will be forced by you to take this as serious . EffK 09:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr EffK, I see no point in discussing at all with you until you apologize for your speculations about the grandfather I never knew (as he died 32 years before I was born). It is not good faith at all to speculate about motives, but that's what you have done from the start (remember, I'm a Vatican agent ... ooops, I forgot: irony is not allowed at WP, according to the late Dr. Correcticus). I will post the things I have dug up regarding some of these detail issues but I will not enter into discussion with you, until you apologize. Rest assured, your words (regardless of your language) don't go unnoticed. Str1977 14:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You writeIt seemed odd to me that a legally banned party should run for elections (even if the deputies were jailed or killed).Str1977 You have wasted more time than I have, you have considerably jeopardized the WP, you don't understand and you revert to your earlier worse understanding. This is time wasting and it is incredible. You avoid my direct question as to why you acted as you did to continuously block me for 9 months over every fact. I believe I have given you more credit than you are due. The wikipedia is ill served by dogmatic reversion and control coming from ignorance . I thought better of you . So much for wikipedia and open interactive editing as led by wishful thinking. The wikipedia remains historically half-baked , and will apparently remain so .I am controlled by you at enormous cost to us both, and I fail to overcome this nature of the organ . Perhaps it really is no longer for me to characterise the attempt . Whatever about your granfather, any apology or insistence that I referred to either of them as examples of motive , which you choose to take badly , will not obviate my demand that your answer for your 9 months blocking actions. You may inherit the WP , and the WP may be characterisd by this error and imported ignorant motive , I don't know, and I'm getting increasingly less concerned . the WP may have to save itself from this . I believe you will not answer .EffK 20:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Stuff moved over from article, clearly off topic

For the benefit of EffK, who inserted this again, I will explain the problems with this section:

The Centre Leader , Kaas , got a letter from Hindenburg commending his support of Hitler ."I wish to assure you that the Chancellor has expressed his willingness , even without formal constitutional obligations , to take measures based on the Enabling Act only after consultation with me . These words , honestly meant , momentarily reassured the betrayed Centre Party Germany . The majority of Germans were eager to be reassured and those who did not rush to join the NSDAP gave support in less overt ways . Civil servants and bureaucrats , (no different from bureaucrats in other lands) stayed at their posts to keep the machinery of government running smoothly as if the most conservative party had won .

The Hindenburg part is on-topic (and might be included), but it is not completely accurate and NPOV. Who says, these words were honestly meant? Given the rest of the evidence, neither Kaas nor Centre Party were reassured by these words, as they didn't hope in the ailing President before the passing of the act. Also, the focus on one party is out of place. The rest is not quite on-topic.

A number of intellectual and literary figures figures vaunted this regeneration of Germany . These included the philosophers Krieck and Bäumler , the poets Bluck and Binding , and Germany's most distinguished dramatist , Gerhard Hauptmann who several weeks later hung a Swastika out of his window , and later assured [Harold Nicolson]] that Germany would "liberate itself" as Italy had done .

Has absolutely nothing to do with the EA.

After the Enabling Act, the KPD and SPD were outlawed, whereas other parties dissolved themselves. On July 14, 1933 a law prohibited the foundation of new political parties. Accedance of the Centre Party to the Act and their own later dissolution are noted in the leading histories as the result of intimidation and / or quid pro quo . In his opening speech Hitler had in sarcasm shouted " I do not want your votes . Germany will be free , but not through you , Do not mistake us for the bourgeoisie . The star of Germany is in the ascendant , yours is about to disappear, your death knell has sounded ."

The first part is already included. The quid-pro-quo passage again out of place pet issue pushing (it is included in Kaas and Centre Party. Here, we don't have sections on any distinct party and its motives). The Hitler quote might be useful, if properly put in context. For the moment I will insert another quote (or maybe the same? - mine is from a campaign speech).

In the succeeding months to the July Rechskonkordat, in which Hitler found approbation and recognition from the Holy See , the princes of the Church curried Hitler's favour (John Toland Adolf Hitler 1977 p 315 ). Monsignor Ludwig Kaas himself announced that Hitler knows how to guide the ship . Even before he became Chancellor I met him frequently and was greatly impressed by his clear thinking , by his way of facing realities while upholding his ideals , which are noble....it matters little who rules , so long as order is maintained " . And on the 10 April Pope Pius XI had himself welcomed Hitler's representatives most graciously and remarked how pleased he was that the German Government now had at it's head a man uncompromisingly opposed to Communism and Russian nihilism in all its forms" [von Papen ,in Toland p 315 ]. The vatican was so appreciative of being recognised as a full partner that it asked God to bless the Reich . On a more practical level , it ordered German Bishops to swear allegiance to the National Socialist regime . The new oath concluded with these significant words : "In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interest of the German Reich , I will endeavour to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it'. [ibid ,p 316] .

Again, this is off-topic and pet issue pushing, all along filled with POV language.

The Reichstag success also brought into the open a number of industrialists who had supported Hitler , and unlimited credit was extended to the regime in the form of Mefo bills ( Metall-Forschungsgesellschaft A.G.) which could be drawn by Government contractors , that acted as a form of promissary notes and which allowed Hitler to re-arm on a large scale .

Nonsense. The Reichstag did not bring industrialists into the open. That was historical research years laters. Then, they stayed behind the scenes. And neither this nor Mefo have anything to do with the EA. Str1977 09:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Hindenburg Letter to Centre leaders

From Hindenburg the Wooden Titan by ,then,later Sir John W. Wheeler-Bennett Macmillan 1936 p 448:

I am glad to be able to confirm that the Chancellor has given me assurance that, even without being formally obliged by the Constituion, he will not use the power conferred on him by the Enabling Act without first having consulted me. In this connection I shall always endeavour to secure our intimate co-operation and to fulfil my oath "to do justice to all men".

W-B continues:

Here was the one remaining check upon Hitler's power, a gentleman's agreement to consult the President, and it may be asked why did Hindenburg not more energetically defend his oath? The answer is obvious. A weary Old Gentleman of eighty-six, of rigid mind and slow reasoning, anxious to avoid responsibility and surrounded by a pack of watch-dogs, is no match for a virile young politician of forty-four, free as the air and with no inhibiting political scruples . The agreement has the appearance of the most sardonic hypocrisy. (Highlight-EffK

EffK 09:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)