Talk:Ludwig Kaas/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.

Contents 1 Arbitration 2 Dispute 3 Criminal Subversion 4 Edits 5 New section 6 Wikipedia Litmus Test

Arbitration

Is needed on all the articles that , like this one, touch or deal with the papal policy of combating communism through promotion of fascism . Arbitration is needed across languages and into the parallel wikipedias .A quick view of the editing here will show an arbiter what is going on : I have warned from the beginning of my attempts to straighten the record, that the Holy See would not be able to permit these links. Here even the later and relatively inocuous involvement of the vatican with the army widerstand , are presently axed . I rather think the arbitration should take a hard line about this editing. Famekeeper 08:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dispute

Henceforth I will not believe discussion with such active revisionism possible.I revert the word "reluctant" as being clear POV :no proof or citation provided . But I put it back in to show the extent of the problem , This article is seriously wrong and flawed . I warn of impending dispute . I cite under fair use and the needs of historical correctitude the following text from Klemens vov Klemperer's 1992 Oxford University Press German Resistance Against Hitler (The Search for Alies Abroad 1938 -19450) ISBN 0198219407 :

The German Catholics , the once much maligned "enemies of the Reich", partly in compensation , were pre-occupied during the Second Reich with proving their national reliability, and, while after 1918 their Centre Party did become one of the pillars of the 'Weimar coalition', it clearly veered in the last years of the Republic towards the right. Franz von Papen , one of the last chancellors before Hitler , belonged to the increasingly influential right wing of the Centre Party and became a decisive force in engineering Hitler's seizure of power . The leader of the Centre Party , Prelate Ludwig Kaas , was no less instrumental in advocating co-operation with the Nazis and, after their seizure of power , negotiating the treachorous Enabling Act(23 March 1933) and subsequently the Concordat with the Vatican (20 July 1933) . As for the German episcopate , it did not see fit , despite its obvious fundamental differences with Nazi ideology , to assume a clear cut position against the movement . "

That paragraph continues and will probably need fair-use to squash more POV/revisionism as KvK deals with the episcopal weakness following its reversal of policy towards the Nazis and its relationship to the Enabling Act . Below there is a reference to further damnation , given by one of the users , yet not availed of by that user in his editing , in any way .

I insert this relevant statement by user JohnK "Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, published by Oxford University Press in 2003. This can surely stand in as a relatively authoritative source. Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent."

The clearly incorrect statement that the CP was dissolved is flagged . If you dissolve me , in past tense I am dissolved . If I dissolve myself - I dissolved . The history has been proved by the German user who informed us of the official line on this ,emanating from its contemporary remains , at talk Centre Party Germany . All historians equally contradict the statement- and it was clear Nazi policy to achieve auto-dissolution , Therefore this is of the utmost revisionist importance . This is linguistic revisionism of a similar subtlety to all other such historical abuse I have encountered on pages touching the history of Papal collusion with Fascism .Fiamekeeper 08:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article as rewritten now is completely unacceptable . The Vatican details are presumably valid corrections , and presumably that is officially provided . Would the Vatican, then ,deny that a letter from Cardinal Pacelli was read out during a leadership meeting of the Centre Party as early as May 1932 ( accusation by [[Edgar Ansel Mowrer in 1968) ? That this letter was read out by Kaas? That this letter exhorted the catholic party of the Centre to support a Hitler Chancellorship thenceforward ? That the Vatican policy as delineated by John Cornwell as repeating the similar democratic destabilisation of Italy is clearly historically attested ? That all the historians cited thus far on the relevant pages who attest to a Kaas parlayed (by his mouth to Hitler from that of Pope Pius XI and the future Pope Pius XII ) quid pro quo are slanders? All the above historical evidence of negotiations prior to the Enabling Act and up until the signing of the Concordat , which carry on throughout with Kaas playing the role of designer and intermediaary , are ignored . It is not enough to interpolate the more temporal nature of the leadership's (Kaas') activities of negotiation or electioneering during the March 1933 elections , negotiations which were indeed focused on balancing and redesigning the Reichstag , with the meatier negotiations being conducted by Kaas on behalf of his true masters, The Holy See . These negotiations are attested to , the visits of Kaas between Hitler and Rome , attested , lenghthy stays with Pacelli in the vatcian attest to more than a formal relationship, as is suggested. Kaas ' own language in approbation of Hitler is attested, his determinant communications back to Germany from the vatican on Hitler's Birthday in 1933 are attested , attested as fundamental in co-ercing and spinning Catholic voters towards the changed approbation and tolerance of Nazizm along the Pius XI/Pacelli line.

Criminal Subversion

Whitewash is all over this , Cover-up. This page represents most serious revisionism about an act of criminal subversion , this subversion is known to be criminal by the moral definition of Law . This has been discussed and /or archived on Pope John Paul II , Pope Benedict XVI ,Theology of Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Pius XII , the Centre Party Germany and Hitler's Pope . Historical scholarship & references from published sources has been removed throughout these pages in a concerted attempt to whitewash this criminality of purpose . This purpose was to use Fascist Dictatorship as a bulwark against Communism. As we all know the result has been a considerable success (apart from the civilian and military casualties of 80 millions) , and now we can all see a revived capacity for influence by a self-electing and by its own definition , criminal institution . The culpability is clear in the comments and analysis of mainstream historians for at least 50 years and the criminality remaining subsists in the denial of responsibility by this institution . Ludwig Kaas is of the utmost importance in this , the oustanding suicide of Democracy that is the Enabling Act . On behalf of all who suffered this subversion of the human order , I continue to protest most strongly .

See page 38 of German Resistance Against Hitler by Klemens von Klemperer . After stating the above and continuing that the German Hierarchy , notwithstanding its clear moral differences with Nazi ideology ,failed to take a 'clear-cut' position against them, Klemperer cites general considerations of expediency and fears of Communism , as reason. That the earlier 1930 position of declaring a warning of moral incompatibility with Church teaching , of disallowing Priests from co-operation was retracted "however , once Hitler in his governmental declaration of 23 March 1933, in the formulation of which prelate Kaas had a hand - assured both Christian denominations that the 'National Government considered them 'the most important factors ' for the maintenance of the people's well-being and promised to respect their rights. With the Concordat the Church finally conferred international respectability on the Nazi regime."

In other words Ludwig Kaas here wrote part of that speech . A Prelate of the Catholic Church speech-writing for Adolf on the very day he defeated democracy . Slander ? Kaas Collaboration ? Over-turning of the Bishops and their experience ? Papal interference in the civil order ? Papal collaboration ? Against the Bishops ? Against the moral order of humanity ? Against democracy in order to beat Communism? Against the Magisterium , against the Bible Book of Romans 3, 8 ).

I am Dr Corecticus and I make no slander : The Wikipedia is under assault , as is a democracy near to you , again . Flamekeeper makes no slander , but read the Excommunication there , behind Hitler's Pope : there is no slander to say that these two Popes , by Canonical law ,should be dug up and removed from the Basilica of St. Peter . Ludwig Kaas too . Fiamekeeper 00:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry FK, but what you are posting here does not warrant calling the entry "disputed".

In the first half of your post you again post general statements we have heard time and again from you and with not specific connection to Kaas. In the second half you quote Klemperer and what he says is basically correct and/or valid interpretation.

However you then draw unwarranted conclusions from it and state them as fact. The effect is slander, even if you don't mean to since you honestly hold this to be correct.

Let me explain, what Klemperer means:

Kaas negotiated with Hitler and Papen on the Centre's support for the Enabling Act and asked the government to give guarantees or assurances ("he was the main advocate for supporting the Hitler administration's Enabling Act in return for certain guarantees") and the government promised to accept these (though a written confirmation was delayed - on purpose) and Hitler also addressed the issues in his speech (I will include that fact, if you insist). In that way Klemperer is right in referring to the "governmental declaration of 23 March 1933, in the formulation of which prelate Kaas had a hand". It is however untrue to say that Kaas wrote Hitler's speech and it is much less true that he should bear the blame for Hitler breaking these promises. He already bears enough blame.

After this you again to your usual general statements, implying things that are mostly untrue and that have no bearing on this entry.

Protecting yourself against the possible accusation of slander by saying: "I am Dr Corecticus and I make no slander". Consider, Emperor, that you are human, I say.

And yes, it is not slander to say they should be dug up, it is a dispicable display of gross impiety.

The Wikipedia is under assault. But what do you care, since you consider Wiki a flawed concept anyway, as you stated somewhere. Yes, it is under assault, under assault by you, since you consider it to be your personal soapbox. Please stop this.

Str1977 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One cannot seriously read this poor English in the article . One itches to correct it , even that it would strengthen this subtle revisionism . The gulf though, just linguistically, prevents my doing so , as doubtless it would be considered an aggressive act . Am I the first person on the Wikipedia to be accused of both Slander and Impiety ? Even just Impiety ? Is this a threat  ? Am I to be burnt and made a martyr of the Aquarian Church of Jesus Christ because I point out the hypocrisy and criminality in this transgression of Ecclesiastical Law. I do not make the stipulation that these excommunicants may/ should be dug up and removed from the sanctum in question, the [Pius]] do through their law .

In regard to your linguistic criticism: "He who sits in the glass house shouldn't throw stones!" And BTW, no one else has ever complained about my prose.

I have come not to accuse, but to edit.

Did I accuse you of (intentional) slander in my post above? No, I didn't. Actually I think you are in honestly believing what you post, but not all of this is true.

Impiety? Yes, to dig someone up from his grave is impious – no matter when or where. I think Emperor Charles V in 1547 is a great example: "Peace to his ashes!"

That is even if your accusations are correct, but argument is flawed as I have stated many times. There was no formal cooperation with evil – maybe a material one, but not a formal one (Go and look up what the terms mean).

Neither of these Popes should have had any business here in German democracy . This is extremely apposite to contemporary Politics - I mean papal subversion of Democracy . Yes you were right , Sam Spade to include the magnates who equally are culpable of subversion . In fact the impiety should broaden to include those fellahs and the vatican investments made in German Heavy Industry following the sale of Church lands through Italy . This may be the subject of Hochluths Play , but that is beside the point . Monsignor Kaas and his very close lifelong friend Pacelli would have discussed these and factored them in to the more ideological side of their German efforts.

You might disagree, but it is not your job to tell a Pope or anyone else what is not his business. But in this case, there was no papal subversion of democracy. Maybe a Kaasian, but not a papal. The Pope was not involved and the Weimar Republic was already tumbling since 1930.

This entry is about Kaas, the Centre entry about the Centre. So the Magnates did not necessarily have a place in there. But I did find one in the end.

Remember, Hochhuth's work is fiction. And he has a reputation of being wrongheaded. He even advocates asassinating businessmen nowadays.

No, no . This is still not in line with the historians . Kaas is attested as drafting the Concordat , on instructing papal direction to the Centre Party from 1932. Nowhere is he called "Kaas" . Everywhere he is specifically mentioned as Monsignor , everywhere Holy See/Catholic policy is to the fore except here on the wikipedia. This is outrageous because it is knowing . A cursory glimpse into history as available can put people straight : it was clear vatican policy to do away with the Catholic temporal Parties in both Italy and Germany .

Calm down, find out when Kaas was made a Prelate and Monsignore and I will be more than happy to include this fact. But we cannot call him Monsignore Kaas every time. It is common in an ecyclopedia to use a short form of the name (usually the family name) or a pronoun to denote the subject of an entry. There is nothing sinister about that.

He at that time was no representative of the Holy See (he was in April 1933) – he was a cathedral canon of Trier, he was a politician and parliamentarian, a delegate to the League of nations, a professor.

There is no evidence for concordat talks before April, 1933. Of course, Kaas thought about concordats – that was one of his academic fields – and would have liked to negotiate, but there was no partner. Of the major parties the Nazis, the Communists, the Social Democrats and probably the Liberals (DDP) were all against it.

It was not Vatican policy, let alone a clear one, to do away with them. Though the cooperation was not always easy (see the septennat dispute I included into the Centre Party). The Italian People's Party was crushed in 1924, as far as I can remember, the Lateran treaties were in 1929. The Holy See did acquiesce into the Centre's demise – there was a "quid pro quo" – but the Centre was finished anyway and Pacelli disapproved of the Centre's "early" self-dissolution.

At first contradictory , this is best understood by following John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope. Kaas' deep connection to this Pacelli (as opposed to his brother who destroyed Italy) , and hence to the centralisation policy referred to on the Hitler's Pope page is completely ignored .

I never knew Italy was "destroyed" in 1929. The government lost some land, some buildings, some money. How was Italy destroyed. (BTW, are you from Italy?)

Kaas' involvement in the 'vatican episode' in 1940 is ignored.

Then tell us now: What is that episode?

Kaas and Papen are reported in the humanitas timeline to do with the Holocaust for good reason (from Guenter Lewy) as joining secretly (ie by subterfuge ) in Munich before travelling on to Rome . Papen didnt 'turn up ' in Rome . He was uncovered by the Italian press . No ,this is well slanted on both pages (Centre Party ) and I guess by now on others, to shift away from Monsignor Kaas any speck or whiff of culpability , such that the Holy See is protected .

According to my books, Kaas was way ahead of Papen on his way to Rome. I haven't found anything about a meeting, but I will check again, if I find the time. But even they met, what does that imply?

Papen did turn up in Rome (do you want to say he wasn't there or what?) in order to offer the concordat. He kept his mission secret, but the press found him out. So what!?

This editor calls me for slander. Does he call for slander against John Cornwell ? John Cornwell should be allowed back in to the Vatican archives . Special attention must be paid to the accusations in respect of vatican involvement with a replacement of the Monarchy in Germany , as these accusations echo the 'vatican episode' in revealing the carefully undocumented or purely verbal nature of the orders, negotiations, discussions and conspiracies emanating from Pacelli/The Holy See in various affairs . Does he call slander against Edgar Ansel Mowrer ,against Klemperer ? Against JohnKenny for reporting the further historians ? Those historians ? Against every mention of the Catholic Church and its policy for decades and more ?

So let's sum up:

Cornwell is a sloppy historian who did a hatchet job – but I guess he will be allowed back into the archives anytime – maybe this time he will make use of this license more often than last time.

I don't know anything about EAM.

I actually have concurred with the Klemperer quote more than you did.

Please, consider who you cite as supporting your point John Kenney is not. (And correct spelling of another person's name is a matter of respect.)

The apologists are clearly visible and now this editor has exceeded himself and all of them in casting cuddly Kaas , beaten down by Adolf and Cardinal Faulhaber , even bullied is it ?

I'm not here to do apologetics, but you are here, as you constantly state, to accuse – what kind of a court is this: behold on one side: the accuser … and … on the other side: nobody. Even the inquisition did better than this.

Whether you or I or anyone else feels sympathy for Kaas's "plight" in Rome is besides the point. This entry is about him and about his life and all of his life and if he had a phobia of spiders from his childhood I might still include it. This entry is about Kaas not about what you are solely concerned about.

And there is no Cardinal Faulhaber around here.

Impiety stems alone from the transgression by the Holy See of Romans 3,8 .

Which I deny to have been the case.

Str1977 16:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good ,I am pleased to be so attacked ,if Light shines from the pyre .Fiamekeeper 11:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Thanks Sam, I appreciate your edits. It's always better to have more than one person editing - not just because of typos and idiosyncracies. However, I changed some things back. The "irresponsible" is included again, though in different form, so that it's clear that this was Kaas' view. The "himself" I changed to "in person" - the point was that Hitler agreed via his substitute Papen and addressed the issues in the speech he himself held that day (this is what Klemperer referred to). The only thing I actually reverted was "convincing" into "bullying". I'm open for a better wording (say pressuring), but the government did not convince the diocesis by some fair and balanced argument, but by putting pressure on them, citing this paragraph and that etc. Str1977 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can you give some reference for this bullying, and specifics of how it occured? Its not a terribly neutral term, but could be appropriate depending on what was done. Was their violence? Sam Spade 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have returned the book to the library. But as far as I can remember, it was a series of official letters citing this law, and this decree, basing their argument about Kaas being constantly absent, and having attained Vatican posts. There was no violence involved but between the lines one could read the message: "you better do this - you better don't to be associated with this one" On the other hand, Kaas was not too popular anymore with the Bishops, so you are probably right: "bully" is too strong. Possible alternatives: pushing, pressing, making, causing. What do you think? Str1977 20:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about "pressuring"? Sam Spade 20:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Why would Hitler want vengence on Kaas, btw? That could be better explained. Sam Spade 20:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why? I'm not sure either. It's not completely rational. Maybe for messing things up? Maybe for bothering Hitler all the time with coalition negotiations (even though they very quite useful for Hitler) Maybe being a very outspoken opponent of nazism in election campaigns and in the Reichstag? Maybe even for being the leader of the one party that had the audacity to bargain (I haven't heard of any other party's attempt to get guarantees)? Again it is not clear to me at all, why, but the pressure put on the diocesis by the government is there for all to see. "Maybe because he doesn't like his nose? I don't like it either" (Capitain Renault) Str1977 21:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/f65_547/index.html

is that image fair use? We could use an image for the article. Sam Spade 21:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a picture too and this one is good. However, I have no clue about copyright issues on wikipedia. Str1977 22:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New section

Dear FK, thanks for posting a really interesting section. I hope you don't mind that I straigthened it a bit (nothin really big. There are just some question I'd like to ask:

1) this is a fascinating story, but Kaas is rather a minor character in this. Of course, it should be mentioned here, that he was part of it, but maybe the whole thing would suit better in an entry on the "Ochensepp" Josef Müller, of whom there is much more to say - his work as a lawyer and his post-war career as a politician.

2) I don't understand these sentences:

"It seems the British were keen, as power was still with Chamberlain and Halifax and the later corrected vacillation concerning German demands was evident."

"At any rate the implication is that all involved were prepared to foresee some solution based on sufficient German territorial aggrandisement to placate the German people after the "loss" of their "Adolf Hitler" during wartime."

3) I think the following sentence is too much POV. At least it should be explained what was so fortunate.

Fortunately for Europe, the British policy was to swiftly change once Winston Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain.

3) And I don't really get the last sentence either, especially after "the views ..."

Monsignor Kaas is reported as alerting the British contact, the Minister to the Holy See, Francis D'Arcy Osborne, the views of Hermann Göring in anti-communist sympathy with the opposition.

Kaas was alerting the British ambassador - about what? How is the sentence after "the views of Göring" connected. And who had anti-communist sympathy And what about the opposition

Please consider these questions. Anyway, I really appreciate this post. Str1977 21:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Come off it strasser, every time hitherto I play nice to your nice, somewhere else you are setting up a huge battering ram against me . Why should I trust you when you eradicate anything impius and problematical and just the slightest bit awkward to you know who ? If you don't understand, get someone else to translate , just don't think you can twist English , cause 'taint possible or you need better help. I mean exactly what I say - so mind , cos this is a subject that didn't start and won't end, and I don't mean the Pope in particular . I shall reveal what and wherever I can .Fiamekeeper 22:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh poor FK, Can't you accept a positive response when you get one? I don't see where I answered your niceness with a battering ram and if I did I ask your pardon. I am quite able to translate from English, but sometimes translating from one language (what is your mother tongue, BTW?) into another (English) and then back into a third language results in coherence being lost in translation. Though I don't translate it into German, but read it as it is in English. But I will ask some native speaker of English to read the sentences I don't get and ask his opinion. Mind what ...? Str1977 11:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Litmus Test

I think we very much need to assume good faith, and observe a wikipedia:truce regarding all these contentious and confusing debates. Everyone wants what is best for the article, none of us are vandals, so let us simply take things slow and calm, step by step... Sam Spade 20:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had better qualify the "agent of the vatican" as I say it here : this editor , who is a big cheese in English WP terms , and I guess maybe even bigger in Deutsch , this editor has stated he is a Catholic, he has assented himself to (my) particular extraction of Canonical Law and therein the catholic law states that it is the sacred duty of a catholic to uphold , and to defend in every way necessary ,the pontiff of the Church .

We can all admire and applaud the editor's effort and expertise-especially as he is translating into english . He is doubtless worthy therefore of his high editor ranking (though he has a propensity for the use of minor for what would appear to me to be important edits). I have no personal animosity and regret that strong words-not expletive in any way - have been taken as personal when they have been directed at his avowal of church policy . I have criticised this policy as having been and remaining extremely dangerous :this is not the same as saying the editor is extremely dangerous .

A policy which so clearly involved war ,and major war , has attracted a great deal of somewhat terse or professionally muted historical comment . Here on discussion pages, this editor and I have carried on a wide ranging analysis of the policy and of the morality or, more properly , Church law concerning the policy . I would like to think that my language was used for the same clear intent as my interlocutor used his . That neither of us are in any breach of good literary taste -we fight our corner and aimed to convince the other . Now, my assertion refers not to such discussions , which I have consistently seen as beneficial to all , but to an editing that , unlike my own on Pope Pius XII , does not include the clearly justified contrary interpretation of history . This editor is so assiduous , that I have no confidence that any further attempts to balance the history will be allowed . I call him also a very worthy servant to his faith , with no disrespect . I have indeed been trying to help his faith , by throughout promulgating the very clear part of the Magisterium (in the Book of Romans) to which the Holy See should have , but did not, adhere . Even this editor himself would I am sure recognise this, indeed stated that if I(the cited historians) were correct , then those responsible would be needful of the judgement by their own Law .

Herein lies the problem: the law cannot be denied, and therefore the policy(replacement of democracy by anti-communist dictatorship ) cannot be admitted to -or included in the wikipedia . This article ,as it is, demonstrates very subtly the historical glossing over or beneficial slanting upon the issue of the policy . In fact there would be no way of remotely understanding the policy , its effects nor the reasons for its implementation from the article . The article is essentially useless, but of a very high category of uselessness . It is positively artful .

I write this because I fear that the WP board or somebody will see me as a nasty little gadfly, upsetting the punters, of whom a great many in the world are , in this case , catholic. Obviously there would come a stage when even Jimmy Wales might regret the awkward questions and the stir of division between , well, the complacent , and the deeply worried and fearful . I have said that revisionism is a test for the WP . It is possible that I myself may be no more thasn a scrap of litmus paper in a Wikitest..................Fiamekeeper 22:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)