Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:46, 17 August 2006

/Archive 1: up to 28/11/05 (before start of EffK arbcom trial).
/Archive 2: 28/11/05 - 7/02/05 (EffK trial and banning)
/Archive 3: Neutrality problems
/Archive 4: WP Notes: articles needing attention; guide for Bengalski; Reichskonkordat
/Archive 5: WP Notes: novissimi; Nazi seizure of power
/Archive 6: WP Notes: a history, with diffs, of editing on Pope Pius XII, Kaas etc. in Wikipedia
cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:EffK [Kaput-no trial]
cf http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:EffK [on-going]
cf http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Adolf_Hitler/EffK
cf http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:EffK&redirect=no [Kaput- no trial [1]]
cf http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruger:EffK [on-going, inactive hitherto]
cf http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:EffK (Kaput-no Trial , flaso viz[2] no record but category 'Troll' at[3])* cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:EffK&action=history [visble]
cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:EffK&action=history [Kaput--no Trial)
cf http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EffK, see user contribs [on-going]

Promise- I tried archiving, but guess what- I'm blocked. I see little changes around here, once I'm dead. Long live User Savidan.

Keep on page/EffK monitoring

[4] Abuse of Power in WP. Freenode-Wikipedia 2006-06-18 01:18 < sfacets> ouch... User:EffK --> if the claims he made were verified shouldn't this guy be unblocked? [Google]

Hi guys, I haven't gone away you know...Indeed I will quote this wiki-ness to explain:-

The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This is distinct from following a contributor in order to clear repeated errors.

I see little changes around here, once I'm dead. Long live User Savidan. EffK 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nl.wp

I sniff, sniff at the bijdragen. Here be gebruickers who are specialists is Dutch fascism edits. They don't want the sniff sniff, that's why they don't want Hitler to be looked at.... better block EffK quick, he's dangerous. It is the same old story, the upper classes who collaborated. Now their children and grandchildren are into the wiki- and there is a tremendous opportunity to do apologetics. It is not far from that to the full on clerical connection. As they say all ist claar. It is the same story here as fr.wp, de.wp and yessiree, en.wp/america. Some call it 'historiography', some call it revisionism, the french call it negationnisme, I have my own name, an expanding name. It expands as I see it more and more. I'll have to recognise the dutch collaboration apologetics now, so well, it'll have to be european class clerical collaboration revisionist denialism. Lets say [[ECCCRD[[. If you are one of the other normal wikipedians, you probably aleady sniffed it. Sniff is what you do with your nose. So, its the same internal political wikiwar. The right-wing revanche via WP. Plus ça change...The others should fight hard, or they are lost.Gebruiker:EffK|EffK 15 aug 2006 15:01 (CEST) [5]

It took about an hour from writing this to get blockeered by a strange dog breed specialist, who just happened to lose a bunch of highly technical Sedevanticist and u=know-what edits in the thousands of dog breed edits. He was another techie type who spent a goodly time patrolling the banning patrol bureaucracy, like Robert McClenon here. My, I don't like to think on it, but the word sleeper springs to my mind. I think the instant reaction, cutting off the liberal dutchies in mid discussion kind of proved the above analysis. And let's face it, it isn't just Europe that is politically divided by history this way...

Pause for the opening of the vatican files for pius XI

Grace peut-être à Avrahim Lehrer(Zehrer?) en Cologne, qui demandait directement ? :

Agence France-Presse - June 30, 2006

The Vatican will open completely the archives of the 17-year papacy of Pius XI who died in 1939, following a decision by Pope Benedict XVI, a statement issued Friday said. dès http://www.wiesenthal.com/atf/cf/{4BBE989B-D21C-4116-BC6F-92CE75144F83}/article-international.html?SMContentIndex=1&SMContentSet=0

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:EffK ...EffK 1 juillet 2006 à 02:32 (CEST)

And here in WP we now see:

Pope Benedict XVI has decreed that from September 18, 2006 all documents relative to the pontificate of Pope Pius XI be made available to researchers.

According to a communique made public on June 30, 2006, signed by Frs. Marcel Chappin S.J. and Sergio Pagano B., respectively keeper of the Historical Archives of the Secretariat of State and prefect of the Vatican Secret Archives, "this opening, which had already been desired by John Paul II, ... makes available to historical research, within the limits of the regulations, all documentary sources up to February 1939 conserved in the various series of archives of the Holy See, and principally in the Vatican Secret Archives and in the Archives of the Second Section of the Secretariat of State (formerly the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs)."

The media has speculated that the material to be released may include an encyclical that Pius XI commissioned to denounce racism and the violent nationalism of Germany. The encyclical was titled "Humani Generis Unitatas," or "The Unity of the Human Race," but Pius died before releasing it. It was never made public. [this was made public in the USA]

J'admire cette ouverture, et pour en remercier, je le vois maintenant tout a fait logique que j'attends pour voir ceux qui nous en sort sans continuer ici avec des accusations faits hors de la possibilité d'y entrer. Je ne voulais pas passer aucune accusation inventée, et, comme ici on a la promesse de BXVI , je vais m'arrêter toutesuite d'en ecrire plus rien de ces deux papes, mais, je vais attendre ce que j'attends. Au revoir EffK 1 juillet 2006 à 02:46 (CEST) dès http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Pie_XII#Merci.2C_On_ouvre

Those concerned to make WP a success may wish for a very early appearance of relevant info from these archives, as a little tour shows that en.wikipedia is still incredibly lop-sided. Ludwig Kaas remains screamingly funny, and all to which he connects except Pius XII , which is finally heavily de POV'd and patrolled by Savidan, and Hitler, which is partly de POV'd. But try the Enabling Act, and the gloop sticks well. By the way, Bengalski, Savidan should now avail of the info deleted from Kaas concerning the Vatican Exchanges in order to give us the history of PPXII with the Widerstand. The interesting spiritual side of Pacelli has had to go by the board, a casualty of the artificial EffK fight and ejection. I wonder how some can show their face really -given the state of their favourite perches.Quite extraordinary, the whole affair. ciau for now EffK 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No pause in the War of german clerical denialist revisionism in international Wikipedia

The month I spent in french/WP proved Jimbo's legal problem, see below, to understand the law of internet defamation of even a pseudonym. Here y'are!

Avis de Blocage Illégale de EffK dès Wikipédia Français=

Compte bloqué 205 jours (environ jusqu'à la date de déblocage du même compte sur WP:en) pour comportement inadéquat (langue française mal connue, POV pushing pour les mêmes thèses qui ont valu un blocage long sur WP:en suite à un arbitrage, et comportement général). Markadet ∇∆∇∆ 16 juillet 2006 à 21:39 (CEST)

Bon, alors, je ne serai pas aussi préssé! Merci mon chef, mais vous aviez la nécessitée d'abord de rendre le lien éxacte, non? Votre vitesse de vous en debarrassé de la verification presenté ( " pas... vraisemblables " de Klaus Scholder ) pour ce qu'il parait(sans lien) d'être mon deuxieme éxécution digitale est si loin de la vérité que- sauf l'importante soi-même du sujét- que c'est ridicule. Pour deuxième fois. D'avoir encore me qualifiqué par la tèrme POV-pushing est de me donner toute la raison et la justification, et je suis heureux que vous aviez vous pris cette erreur, parce que ça montre éxactement l'origine de l'erreur. En vrai c'est plus qu'une erreur, car ça sort completemt de légalitées particulières diverses. J'oublie le nom, mais ici en voit le résultat.

Bien sûr cest contre les règles de Wikipedia ici et partout. Montrez SVP comment y ou c'est fait, afin de comprendre toute dépassement ici des mêmes règles. Je n'ai pas honte du tout, car tout action administratif jusq'ici sort de ces règle spécifié ici sur page. Je vous conseils vous, de vous pensez ce que possiblement soit votre part dans cette illégalité Wikipédienne. les autres jen ai déjà averti. Pour l'instant je vois que un bloqué ne peux pas aller ou être emmené a l'arbitration donc il me parait qu'une ruse fait pour quelques gens ici qui veux plutôt se défendre dès ses propres petites illégalitées. HC parait elle-même d'aller d'autre chose, qui est d'entrer a être capable de surveillé la protection voulu par la force impliqué dans l'histoire. De toute façon je commence à comprendre la situation politique ici, qui sont qui veux contrôler quoi et comment et pourquoi. Vous m'aviez donné ensemble les justifications pour en venir. Ce qui est sûr c'est que vous auriez êtres bien étudiés dans l'avenir pour ces abandonnes faitent de Wikipedia même. Ditez-moi, vous qui avez commencé l'action même de blocage, si ça ne vous parait un peu dingue cette contravention des règles ici marqué.

Ainsi, les administrateurs[.. ont la capacité de bloquer un contributeur ayant provoqué des vandalismes à répétition, ou exclu de façon temporaire ou définitive à la suite de la décision du Comité d'arbitrage.

Les participants viennent de différents pays et de différentes cultures, et ont des points de vue très différents. En traitant les autres et leurs avis avec respect, nous pourrons collaborer avec plus d'efficacité dans la construction de l'encyclopédie.

Négligence La personne se lasse, peut-être même devient-elle un ennemi ? Nous abîmons notre propre réputation. Ce comportement de la part de la communauté est mauvais et à éviter. Il est préférable de se montrer chaleureux, accueillant. Au cas où la personne se vexe, soyons humbles, excusons-nous, essayons d'être plus généreux, de passer un petit moment pour un bon coup de main.

En cas de doute, ne pas attribuer un mauvais motif

Certains utilisateurs de Wikipédia sont impopulaires, peut-être à cause d'une attitude stupide ou grossière par le passé. Ces utilisateurs peuvent avoir fait l'objet d'une action disciplinaire de la part du comité d'arbitrage. Il est simple et humain d'imaginer que de tels utilisateurs sont des cibles privilégiées et « autorisées » pour les attaques personnelles. Cette attitude est bien évidemment à éviter absolument.

De toute façon moi je vais suivre à presenter ici mon propre procés contre ces événements comme si ça soit une arbitration sous règles ou Loi de la fondation Jimmy Wales. Tout simplement vous m'avez donné, en suivant les ménaces auparavant sortie d'une position politique de l'extreme droite/ecclésiastique, en fournissant toutes les preuves nécéssaires . Votre fautes ici sont comme je qualifie. La culpabilité intellectual et légale de Jimmy Wales est déjà averti sans obscurité. Ils étaient enregistrées et ce qui à passé ici à d'interêt sociale bien hors de moi comme individu. je suis triste pour ce projét, pour le monde, pour des arbitres ici, admins et utilisateurs, et pour vous même Monsieu. J'ai toujours apprécié que la guerre de denialist revisionism, dites négationnisme en votre langue, n'a jamais finissait. Vous étez que les fantoches, vous ne comprenez, ne veux comprendre, et vous étez appauvri. J'ai toujours éxplique que je suis venu dans une sens de résponsabilité humain, et nos nouvelles çe soir de Guerre font ces justifications. Vous montrez-vous très bien les danger prévus au Tribunal de Nuremberg qui roulait sur la nécessité de comprendre et de ne pas répéter. Si vous pensez que c'était de joie venir marquér l'histoire ici, je vous dis que malgré ces characterisations que vous avez constatées sur mon comportement, ce n'était pas un plaisir. Avant de terminér j'aurais plaisir pour vous éxplique pourquoi les Espagnols vous qualifient comme ils font, los cerdos francéses. D'ou ça vient votre vache, ben... ça soit peut-être autre tel mensonge, quoi? J'aurai temps pur les visiter , à voir s' ils sont moin enmèrdeurs. Un Salut humain , quand même. EffK 16 juillet 2006 à 23:09 (CEST)

from http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:EffK

Monitoring

And according to the South China Morning Post, the Chinese government is now planning to recruit about 200,000 youngsters to monitor internet activity for illegal file transfers.

"and thus allowed for the arrest of political adversaries"

I'll do a quickie monitor of 18 06 2006 Wikipedia:

at the mercy of the Gestapo, the 'newly established secret police force. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany.

incorrect. Gestapo did not exist until April 24. Prussian Police were used. Special Courts Decree of 24 march 1933 enabled appearance of accused in front of closed Court.

On 3 March 1933 he was arrested in Berlin by the Gestapo. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Th%C3%A4lmann
Among the German communists arrested on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree was KPD chairman Ernst Thälmann from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree
[23 march 1933]not including the Communist delegates, since their party had already been banned by that time from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act
[27 Febuary 1933] and used as an excuse by the Nazis to close the Communist Party of Germany's offices, ban its press and arrest its leaders. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party#Electoral_Victory_and_Seizure_of_Power
On 27 February 1933 the Reichstag was set on fire, and this was followed immediately by the Reichstag Fire Decree, which rescinded habeas corpus and civil liberties. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Consolidation_of_power
[27 Febuary] 1933Communist agitation was banned, but at this time not the Communist Party itself. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Germany
the SPD was the only party to vote against the act (the KPD being already outlawed)....the party was finally banned by the Nazis on July 14, 1933. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany
Communist Reichstag deputies were supposedly given protective custody (against their constitutional privileges). from ditto
A further decree preventative detention of all the Communist deputies, amongst many thousands of others.[un-cited] from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_German_Workers_Party#Electoral_Victory_and_Seizure_of_Power
Fire allowed Hitler to accelerate the banning of the Communist Party from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germanyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
They used the fire as a pretext to introduce laws enabling suppression of political parties. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany
He proved his innocence and the innocence of his Communist comrades and was set free. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
was responsible for drafting many of the laws that set up the Nazi regime...He was sentenced to death on October 1, 1946, and was hanged two weeks later from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Frick
The Vatican signed a Concordat with Hitler in 1933 and had the Centre Party support the Enabling Act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism%27s_links_with_political_authorities
This act had then given the government legislative powers which effectively finished the Weimar Republic and led to the dictatorship of the Third Reich. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law_for_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany
After the prohibition of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) on March 1, 1933, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency
Members of the Reichstag and provincial parliament (Landtag) were immune from arrest or investigation of a criminal offense except with the approval of the legislative body to which the person belonged. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_constitution
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act
[28 Febuary 1933] As a result of this decree, Nazi authorities were able to constitutionally suppress or imprison their opposition, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_by_decree
From 1930 on, however, the Reichstag was practically circumvented with the use of the extensive powers that the constitution granted to the president. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_%28institution%29
and the Enabling Act (Ermächtigungsgesetz), in which the Reichstag formally dispensed of its legislative powers. From then on it only functioned as a body of acclamation for the actions of the dictatorship from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_%28institution%29
On 23 March the Reichstag adopted the Enabling Act, which effectively brought an end to the Weimar constitution. From this point onwards almost all political authority was exercised by Hitler. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichspr%C3%A4sident
With the Nazis still short of a majority on the Reichstag, yet more elections were held on 5th March, and on 23rd March Hitler assumed dictatorial powers with the passing of the Enabling Act. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
Under the provisions of this decree, the Communist Party and other groups were suppressed; Communist functionaries and deputies were arrested, put to flight or murdered. Campaigning still continued, with the Nazis making use of paramilitary violence, anti-Communist hysteria and the government's resources for propaganda. from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

Quotes of the days

"One might understand why FK is mad at me, since I oppose his conspiracy theory POV edits ........" User Str1977 21:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"*Talk:Pope Pius XII Edit war over the inclusion of one writer's POV of the subject in the introduction as the third sentence of the article." patsw 22:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[diff at Requests for Comment][reply]

"What was illegal was the deputies formal expulsion from their parliamentary membership. Whether that affected the approval of the EAct you know best." Str1977

What this is all about

A wikiwar exists between EffK and those who would contradict even themeselves in their effort too contradict the truth. A shortened version of the truth could be represented by the noble editor, noble for his persistenece in this described manner, who only in late April of 2006 wrote this as his variation of a POV (bad) to his own NPOV9good):

The Reichskonkordat preserved funding for the Catholic Church but at the cost of making the Catholic Church subservient to the Nazi Party.

This brief statement is entirely unacceptable to the editor who wrote it, and yet it is true. If anyone else on Wikipedia attempted to write this clarity, it would result in an edit war, though perhaps not as extreme as this EffK war catalogued here, which concerns the extension of this statement towards the full picture of subservience and the reasons of explanation. The results were more than unfortunate for the nations involved , and their memory is ill-served by the particular Wikipedia article, Hitler and the Church that claims Wikipedia's brand of verity presently stating that:

The Church encouraged worshippers to support a state of fascism rather then Communism. By doing this the Church gave a boost to the Socialist party in Germany.

The single edit user who placed tghis information may even have done so other than as a distraction from a terrible historical subject(which of course 'Socialist' achieves, and is ohterwise remarkable for its peculiar existence amongst apparently informed community (Wikipedia) minds. However the result of EffK challenge to the extraordinary manner in which the subject has been controlled by varous users, a cabal of varying but also core consistency, has resulted in the total 'lifelong banning' of yours truly EffK from ever editing any specifically 'Catholic' articles or talkpages. Hence this and all other errors exist in their limbo of error, whilst the patrolling of specifically catholic editors ignores it, and all like it. This is because the cabal of catholicism, a huge cabal on Wikipedia which has consisted of many almost fullly emoployed persons each uploading the former Catholic Encyclopedia into Wikipedia, can choose to group miraculously upon Wikipedia articles that their church appears most worried about. The successful elimination of EffK concerns at error, whether intentional, as I often see, or un-intentional, allows very many pages to silently live in an intellectual limbo. Some number of these articles are , when objectionable to the church, tagged by Wikipedia methods, to prevent their appearance within search engines/ Google. The Wikipedia experience of edit war upon these inter-related Hitler and Church subjects, listed far below, only reflects the similar publishing war in real life. Later I show that this same attempt to censor and control media has been a factor within the USA since before the particluar Hitler and Church experience (insert Francisco Franco and the censoring is equal. In fact you are reading the here the last refuge of complaint at this censoring, exactly categorised hitherto as clerical revisionist denialism. Insert country where appropriate, as the church is everywhere and the censoring is palliative.

The formal attack, as opposed to the insinuations, began with[6]

The user in question maintains that leaders of the Catholic Church, including ]]Pope Pius XII]] and Ludwig Kaas, the leader of the Catholic Centre Party(Germany), were guilty of collusion with Adolf Hitler and so share responsibility for the Holocaust. He claims that because the articles do not present that POV, they are not neutral. That claim is a POV that has been stated by several scholars and it is appropriate to present it as POV.

EffK used several FK type tags, openly linked and never more than one name at a time, and alerted the founder of Wikipedia to the censoring of his grandiose website before a voluntary departure preceded this letter to him.

hi Jimbo, . I come back to defend myself from users making accusations against me now, insulting me and posting my location.

You suggested I leave because no one wished to listen, but I am glad that you did not join the psychiatric hullabaloo against me . However the idea that I could hold my head held up high whilst being shown the door by you , was a tad contradictory . I have created this username now because I am missed so much by certain users, that they speculate beyond the psych. and into my IP .

I presume you do not wish for me to be unable to defend myself ? 'EffK'

See also: [[7]] ,[[8]] . EffK 08:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Anti-EffK attacks proliferated again, all seemingly approved from the apparent central censor-editor, until finally a sane editor stood up to him. it was too late though as the Founder appears to have a set of arbitrators who do not cre about verifiability against censorship, and only billed the resultant exasperation as soap-boxing. Again, the attacks:

"but what is "The Great Scandal"? It is once more a ploy to create a parallel article for your pleasure, to fill with all your half-baked conspiracy theories," 'Str1977'

He had a theory that Pope Pius XII had actively collaborated with Hitler 'Musical Linguist'

Would a neutral admin be so kind as to look into the history of the page, and if you think you need to blank and protect it, please do so as gently as you can. I think the poor guy is completely sincere in his belief that Wikipedia is full of Vatican agents who are planning to take over the world, and his extremely eccentric and obsessional behaviour can be partly excused on those grounds. Nevertheless, his behaviour, at least on the English Wikipedia, has been highly disruptive, and I can understand that the arbitrators couldn't allow it to continue. Also, I'd like feedback about Bengalski putting the contents of a banned user's page onto his own page. 'Musical Linguist'

EffK's claims were treated unfairly, labelled as conspiracy theory by biased editors, and the dispute degenerated from there. 'Bengalski'

To sum that up: EffK was making substantive, verifiable claims which are not at all lunatic conspiracy theory; they are points which I, and other editors, are still working on - and I still find it valuable to communicate with EffK about them; the conduct of the editors who deleted and dismissed EffK's points also should be considered. 'Bengalski'

Following EffK

I am EffK and I am banned from any further questioning, or referencing, or interaction of whatever kind, on any but this page. However, there are links from this page accessible to a normal arrow and software 'internet browser' , as you have already used to arrive this far. To see the work that I have done in this open editable multi-page space ,you need to see on the right that there are a number of blue coloured words in a "toolbox". The "What Links here" provides a very incomplete relief of Articles , all named by subject, the which are incomplete because the passage of time reduces their lien back to me in interaction. The "User Contibutions" is more exact and retains every editorial or commentating change I have made under this EffK username (of which the majority are "discussion" related. For example you will not see my name at the Pius XII article, which is actually edited here as [- [ Pope Pius XII ]- ] which in removing the space between the square bracket and the words, achieves a linking Pope Pius XII. There, you must visit the "history" and again work backwards, to see when I or my namesake alternates have edited. Equally if you visit the "discussions" you will not see me, but there you will find many "Archives" to touch, any which touch will reveal past EffK conversations and attempts at instituting historical and moral sanity. Any blue highlighted word or subject all through and everywhere is worth visiting, as rapidly as you can, to see the extent of the publishing here. I have uesd other names, User:Flamekeeper, [[User:Famekeeper} and as at the early stage of EffK, all history of such User identities is reachable in inverse logic by going to "Earliest " at the bottom of the "Contributions" shown in list ,and working forwards through the "Previous" option, to bring up the later edits. New people need to vist the main page too, and study how easy the writing technique is, where you are advised to so do, from ther in "how to edit".

Political situation

Anyway, politically, a User, User:Bengalski, has finally understood the situation, and here [9]] this User helpfully reports his first analysis of it. This situation in essence only relates to how Hitler's conspiracy, classed as beginning, for the subsequent Nuremberg Trial, at 4 January 1933, with a suborning of the Weimar Republic, assisted by german heavy Industry, banking and then by the papacy. No more, and no less.

The Lesson from History

To some observers such history can appear as distant and irrelevant , but EffK contends that the Nuremberg "Tribunal"'s chief instruction, is that their judgement remain an enduring lesson to future generations, making of their uncovering of that conspiracy or "common purpose", ( which allied with a generalised Anti-Comintern counter-revolution , or rightism) and is a central contemporary political lesson. This lesson has not been learnt, as the Tribunal itself acted to seal and stem the adjudged hostilities at a time of weak resolve, whereas the lesson of political subversion echoes today, and is in part fuelled, by very similar or even identical forces. Not only did the Hitler experience put the world back a hundred years, but he was empowerd to do so, by some forces of recalcitrant obscurantist religiosity and pseudo-moralism, together with other "sinister forces" of purely material greed. These sinister forces have their defendors here on these pages, and the religiously motivated are absolutely precise in their defense of their past part in the conspiracy of Adolf Hitler (touch) and the Nazis(touch) to Institute Totalitarian Government designed to wage inhuman and aggressive war.

Go back to the main "User page" for EffK, and follow to Bengalski to read the material that was censored there . Below here starts an explanation via this third-party Bengalski, and afterwards very much interlinked referencing of subjects .

Archive 7/Called Subjects that connect with this politics

Blanking of this user page

EffK's userpage has been blanked by admin User:Sean_Black. I have copied the text from it onto my user page here. I have asked for views on whether the admin is entitled to do this at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. See my talk page for more details. Bengalski 22:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archivals

It is most reassuring to know that there is one person out there with both an academic ability and an understanding of the great relevance of this material. Bengalski, you are the exception that proves the rule. I suggest in fact that you may in future need to archive that user page at your discretion. My extreme battle forever prevented me from picking up these basic skills. If you are good at it, perhaps I may ask you to Archive later the EffK discussions here, in various parts? As you will have seen these Archive residues that are relevant to you, are relevant to trying to inject the principles of verifiability back into Wikipedia and this history . It would appear these persons who assail the evidence come all at once, and I have a hunch why. I think I should soon point you to users whose balance appeared rational- there are some, but no one seems to have fully understood , or wished to be counted.

I am rather amazed that other academics than yourself have not interjected similar confirmations. I owe you a great thankyou, above all for speaking the truth which the terrible gravity of the subject deserves.

I shall hope , perhaps after we have archived here, to send you,by posting here, ome highly interesting material concerning Nazi Economics. My writing was ever excoriated in the name space, so I shall keep it factual for you to do the honours which these wikipedians so esteem. IE they hate any complicatedly correct length, wanting a simpler English. Manwhile I eagerly but patiently await being able to at least read the necessary but as yet un-received replies to your highly pointed reference number 10) and your QPQ confirmations. There is a remarkable silence which only one User needs to, or can, fill.The plethora of Archives show the problems-there are many more and they all need this above itemisation. Just look at the contradictions made by every (always the same) parties re-new page for PPXII , for his controversies! Total vote to do it on main page- isn't it 118 for, to 12 against? I am sorry only that you have to bear this hard news for the good of the world,the Church itself and WP . Ill shove in some marks for archives and bill this edit as asking your assistance.EffK 22:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

present Archiving of EffK

Hi there Bengalski, bravo. I was just going to try the cut and paste. I left some notes in there tonight for your assistance.

I suggest, since you seem to have this going well, that you separate an archive to Kaas, Pacelli, another to RKKDt, another to the Wikipedia repair, the defamation you could call ongoing straw-man argument, and that you call them pages . IE that they are for editing by you or for you. Thankyou very kindly. EffK 21:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you'll see what I've done above (I left Kaas in with Pacelli in the last archive). If you want to move them around it ain't very hard - I just learnt how to do it from this guide here: Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. I think it's a good idea to keep them as archives, i.e., no one is supposed to edit them now they're archived. But obviously we can copy whatever we want from them for any future work (I'm assuming you're able to edit the archives - but let me know if you can't). I will go through them and copy stuff I need onto my Pius XII user sub-page or other sub-pages. Cheerio.Bengalski 21:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Crossed-post here] No, Bengalski, again , for a second time, the Archives when red, are unreadable, blocked. if they are blue I can read, again they're blue so OK don't lets worry..I can touch nothing red here.] I really am locked down to this one page here. Fortunately I had inserted that which I had there tonight and had left it all in good order. There is clarity for those who need the information. If I remain allowed to edit here I shall see this assail on my intellectual dignity as a spur to further worthwhile assistance to you: I shall indeed pass you the economics of the Nazi madness and continue to show relevant Wikipedia inconsistancy .

To others I say it is, apart from here which was archived out of necessity at my own request, the general method of silencing EffK used. Astounding contradictions of political subversion and ecclesiastical denialism, is made invisible to the casual or un-wary newcomer, by Archiving. I am there, but apparently the discussion is dead. it is not, it is only because the method to finish the un-answerable historical demand, was to make a straw-man argument of my supposed behaviour. thus banned, the arguments appear stilled. They are not , but spill forwards through such honourable people as now Bengalski. Sometimes this is so blatant that still, even now I ask those involved in either doing it, such asRobert McClenon or Str1977, or supervising it, such as admin's Tom Harrison and Musical Linguist to account for this negative behaviour. None of the above have answered , and appear un-able to do so....

EffK concerns

Elsewhere in Wikipedia, the following discussion-page Archives reveal lengthy attempts to source and achieve consensus through Verifiability.

Archive 7=

Archive/8 called: The Help of Ann

Hi, EffK. I wrote this while you were editing your page, and there was an edit conflict, but I'm posting it anyway, even though you seem to have sorted it out.

No, I haven't touched your page. I wouldn't do that without letting you know. I saw a few minutes ago that one of your edits undid some previous edits. It was the one you made at 22:25 (UTC) — the one where your edit summary was, present Archiving of EffK - Ask Musical Linguist , for fourth time , for answer re rapid artifical archiving.[10] I presume that it's simply that software bug, but it was your edit that wiped out some previous edits; it wasn't mine.

I was hesitating as to whether or not I should fix it for you, when I saw your latest post, in which you suspect me of rolling back your edits. If anyone rolled back your edits, it would show in the history of this page. I would very willingly fix it for you, but I wasn't sure whether or not you intended to restore some material and delete other. Also, having looked at the diff for that post of yours which did the damage, I'm not sure if you added any new content. I can see that some recently-archived content got put back, but I'm not sure if you added anything new. It's too difficult to see. So I think it's better if you fix it yourself. I'll be very happy to do it for you, though, if I know exactly what you want me to do. I would suggest that the page should be reverted to the last version before this happened (which is this one), and then anything more recent that you intend to keep should be added manually. If you'd like me to do it, please let me know exactly what you intended to add in your post at 22:25. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 23:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ann, more an assumption of your power than suspicion. Hope I didnt sound bitter, and surprised at your speedy entry. What it was is that Bengalski was Archiving as I was filling in notes for him re WP inconsistency and I saved something that was no longer my page but had become an Archive.

I saved a page after 2 Archives not realising he was going so fast. I figuresd it like you, and went back and saved, losing only the chat, more or less directed at you.

As you ask, I'll repeat it as before re 1, 2 and 4 questions from the now archived section....which. Anyway I would ask you as an admin to show some equal treatment of wikisin around here, and answer for your so defended friend on what grounds he claims the right to archive =within 23 minutes, and that strange other editor , within 6 minutes? I think these guys have always been dangerously bad company for such a good girl as yourself, and perhaps I should just continue interrogation of themselves for themselves, after all it is so evidntly wrong, perhaps you don't feel any need to answer. However I would , given your evident respect for canonical law and all that is good, advise you to distance yourself as much as possibe from what appears to me to be indefensible and out-moded response. Frankly, it is I who have been lenient with Str1977, rather than him of me. The fact that there seems to be a general fear of rocking the catholic editors boat here, has allowed complete dismissal and ignoring of my experience in trying to counterract the negative policy emanating as if by generalised agreement of command, and the which serves simply to delay a vital reckoning.It does not evitate my truths, now confirmed by honourable Bengalski. You should' answer for Str1977, or else understand that my civil manner of disputing him was not as you and he present in any way harsh personal attack. I have made efforts to avoid palabrotas or swearing, used by so many whom one may have wished not to, their four letter reactions( of course Str1977 apart). I would assert to you in good faith that those which you take as so condemnatory of me, are taken without the extreme exegesis length of civil and elevated discourse between us. It was not right of Str1977 to make them the argument as they were made in a particular determining context. Anyway it is a straw-man argument.

If you persist and succeed , as you may wish now to try, in banning me from interaction with Bengalski here, well, I think you may be sowing dragon's teeth. Bengalski is plainly able to confirm verifiability, and you may find that the tide may be turning even within WP. I note that now the Council , and all those in the barrio Aurelie, have succeeded in removing negative Gooogle rankings for PPXII from the first 4/5 pages of hits. I do not mind that I am in a wilderness as a user, in fact it is the only place worthy for one to be, as yet. I would however remind you and yours, and I am pleased they exist for you, that the absence of reference by BXVI recently, shows that you all have been paying attention. I certainly do not expect that renewed attempt will be heard to settle that matter as was expected before, and wished for so ardently. The Postulator must be very old, and the secret Library very vast, and the checking that has been done will have undoubtedly raised the awareness from the level , completely, un-suspicious , of Memoria e Identida . You, and if not you, they know that I am right. WP can be wrong, but they cannot be wrong who postulate. There is no alternative to me. The flame was kept and shone, and it has already passed to another here.

You know Ann, that I do not do this to destroy civilisation, nor WP, but to uphold the clearly delineated canonical and human Law. If it surprises you here or anybody elsewhere, this is not my fault. I am doing all of us a favour by re-asserting Law that your accept and revere. I am repairing as much as I can from my technically exterior position, just as now you should prepare yourself on the inside. Aurelie and all offices must be on absolute alert, and great preparation be made. You will have read of the Novissimi as I presented for you, and we see that what had been feared, can be seen some of it to have already passed. I do not fear for what will come. Indeed the powerful of the past are to be dealt with, and the resurgence of Law will more than counterract admissions of past error. There is to be repair , and there is no choice but to make it. I have given you all great assistance, and you know precisely the Law, the motive, the transgression, everything I have shown you all. Be happy for it. I come as is my right by blood to administer the truth in good faith, that thus I am in no need of fear. As you know I go in verifiability from romans through canonicals through history. It would appear that Bengalski may have the time to hold again the light I pass. I will guide him, and it will shine strong. I invite you now to be of our path towards truth, to call like us for the assistance of indivisible truth. You must call back to Aurelie, tell them to hurry, please.

You will have noted my edit referring to the canonical centrality to modern world history which is the Wikipedia Article's relation of the German catholic Centre Party discussion prior to the Enabling Act vote,concerning the prohibition on acts of revolution, and that thereby canonical law here in Wikipedia is considered a vital reason and context of the shattering world event. You will immediately realise that my at times gentle friend Str1977, thereby has, once again, provided the force of truth with the pointer towards its own necessity. He is the means of advance, and Str1977 works more than he knows. I thank him. He brings to the fore that which is ultimate. These are my communications to you. Our friend Str1977 will be happier when he too embraces the joy we should feel, in fact I am sure in his heart he already does. If not, then I am as sad for him as when I alluded before to such sadness. it must be awful for him to have to do this, and I urge him to be given a speedy release, and not obliged in this manner .

It is for us to perform this enormity of change, as if it were the music your spirit craved. As soon as he can , he , and you, will embrace it. Meanwhile I alone shall continue to shew the paths, hoping that soon I shall not be alone, but that all of you will join to help me . There is no time to be lost, we are at the mark, and we cannot hold back . I live in hope that truth now will repair at the very centre, and that I may return to solely personal repairs.

I am glad to know you are there and guarding. EffK 00:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, EffK. Regarding the questions you had for me, I didn't mean to ignore them for so long. Sometimes rolling back vandalism, or defending an edit on a talk page of a controversial article seemed more urgent. I went to your talk page a few times to look at those questions, but honestly, you had so much stuff on the page that it was almost impossible to find the questions, and you didn't provide dates for this premature archiving that Str1977 carried out.

You refer just above to questions 1, 2, and 4. But earlier you mentioned questions 1, 5, and 6. I have found them in Archive 3 of this talk page, and reproduce them below.

1) I suppose I should thank you, Ann. As an admin I am quite happy for you to answer as to admin type questions, rather that call censorship. In fact refactoring is allowed, but within defined limit. So anyone could try and weed through my length and decide things unncesssary. However good faith requires that anything to do with explanation even that of motives however they may be driving actions of belief is allowed in main articles and presumably even more so in discussion. Moreover, to remove now from any archives would not appear to me to be an act of good faith.

5) As an admin you, Musical Linguist, will be particularly interested in the two remarkably premature archiving actions, from Str1977 made within 23 minutes of a posted relevant question at Hitler's Pope, and an Archive similarly unusual upon a posted question,
6) and, made by Robert McClenon within 6 minutes- .Diffs are : [11] and [12]. Apart from being entirely against WP norms, the two Users are now beyond being able to claim mistakes in these sort of actions. Perhaps you would kindly investigate and ask for the required explanations of justification ? If you do not wish to involve yourself, I am just presently rather unable to call any other admin to the task. If you wish to ask another admin, that is your prerogative, but as we all know you work sometimes very closely with these two users, and it might benefit all three of you to remain as linked as you already are.

I can't see that there's any question contained in number 1. Regarding number 2, I had the impression that Str1977 himself answered that, although at first he thought you were talking about a different archive — he does quite a lot of archiving — so he answered:

Regarding my quick archive: If I remember correctly, I thought you were already banned that day (not understanding Wiki proceedings in detail) and since your post didn't seem to me to provide anything substantial I archived it together with other stuff. Had I not thought you banned I wouldn't have archived it.

Then, when you made it clear that you were talking about a different archive, he answered:

Re the archive at Hitler's Pope: I archived the discussion that was going nowhere, including the reply of Brainhell that provided nothing substantial and in any case rejected the point of the section (which asked: "Why do we need this article?")

I have looked at the archive in question, and it's quite true that he archived something just 23 minutes after someone had posted.[13] That doesn't often happen, but I've seen it happen with other users at other articles, and I don't see that it's a very serious matter. If somebody wishes to resume the discussion, he or she can move the thread back to the talk page. The talk page hadn't been edited for several weeks, and that particular section hadn't been edited for several months. Then one comment was posted, but it didn't seem like the kind of comment that would start a lot of fresh discussion. Anyway, I agree that it was archived rather quickly, but I don't see that this is important. It didn't have to prevent Brainhell from coming back and making another comment, or moving his post back to the talk page in order to re-activate the discussion. It seems that nobody has been editing that page since then, so the discussion probably was closed.

Regarding your question about Robert McClenon, I looked at the diffs, and then at the history of the Ludwig Kaas talk page. I see that he archived posts quite soon after you made them, and that he asked you to summarize in fewer than 500 words what improvements you thought should be made to the article. He said also that the posts that were archived were lengthy and difficult to understand.[14] I found them hard to understand, myself. I have no background knowledge of Ludwig Kaas. In fact, I had never heard of him before you got into your dispute with Str1977. I can see that the prompt archival may have been frustating, and I'm sorry if that was the case, but while it was unusual, it wasn't against the rules. So I'm not sure why you bring me into it. If you want me to reprimand him or block him, I can't do that — firstly because he didn't break any rule, secondly because administrators are not in a position of authority, with the right to scold other users, and thirdly because Wikipedia does not have a punitive policy. Blocks are give for prevenative reasons, to stop a behaviour that can't be stopped any other way.

I can assure you that I have no wish to cut off communication, and if your page is protected again, it will probably be another administrator who protects it. But I hope that won't happen, and I ask you again to give up the things that are less important to you on Wikipedia. If you really want to be able to make a comment here about something you think is important in some article, don't throw away that chance by making long complaints about Wikipedia on this page, thereby tempting some admin to protect the page.

EffK, I really do wish you well, and I am confident that I can speak for Str1977 in saying that he does too. It's a pity that we can't agree on POV, but I can assure you that neither of us will take any mean or nasty advantage of the fact that you're blocked. AnnH ♫ 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, Ann, I see that you have gone to considerable effort to answer, and that things aren't punitive around here for you. I don't take your lenient line when it is obviously designed to prtoect people from seeing unfinished business of verifiaction. The archiving was wrong, in WP terms, 1 week is the minimum , neither 23 minutes nor 6 minutes. It is a typical defense from the scandal, and if these editors are not watched, they may repeat this wrong. I collect this stuff, as I dispute that WP is not punitive: The actual vindictiveness is as plain as my speech, and has been wrongly used to deny history. That is a serous matter. I am quite sure you understand my post prior, and to what I refer, which is The Great Scandal, referred to by JPII as a "scandal", and considered a regression of civilisation by the Nuremberg Trials- necessitates a canonical repair to the earlier pontiff, PPXII. More to the point in this organ, is that you will also be aware that a user, Bengalski, has come in with precise sourced confirmation of all that your friends were so adamant in painting as my wrtongful conspiracy theory, so I ask you now, will you be prepared to oversee the coming interaction between my Bengalski and your Str1977 as to verification of EffK presented scandal? There is no original research, only verifiability and expalation of bbeliefs. I refer you to the centre party decision again, and the centrality of catholic teaching to the events of the 30's scandal.

The actual wrong that Str1977 insisted was my impious and anti-catholic/ant-german paranoiac exaggeration and un-historical interpretation, is precisely the opposite, and I am proved right, from the very words of the chief actors on that stage. I ask Ann, that as one who has joined in seeking my discredit, that you, when the battle for verifiability begins , that you provide true NPOV administrative witness, such that Bengalski is not treated to the denials and absurdities of straw-man arguments that have led to all my complaints. I may say that I invite you most strongly, because you pushed yourself forward against me, and, given the evident justice of all my arguments, it is only correct that you be prime observer .

However this is delayed, because our friend Str1977, refuses thus far to take the field. Bengalski quite plainly challenges the wrong by providing the closest possible referenced primary source, with Ludwig Kaas himself admitting that which Str1977 absoluteley rigorously fought. I am glad that you will gain a thorough understanding of the central issue of modern history and that you will see your friend now behave under all Wikipedia and civilised norms, of honstsy and integrity and admission of proven vertifiability in the case, as and if it is shown. I will understand if you recuse your witness, but will only accept that if you will provide real reason for your inability to witness.

You should understand that you may feel a conflict of interest between your hopes derived from your faith, and the reality of history. I quite accept that your faith is more important to you that our history, and that you withdraw, but please take your fellow believers away from this rationally based organ, Wikipedia, because after a destruction of the whole of Europe which was the result of this scandal, a destruction of verifiable history is not further acceptable. I am sorry to have to insist, but I do, insist.

And please tell Str1977, that we await his acceptance or rejection of reference 11) at PPXII, in the first instance of many that will need to be repaired from his, Str1977's interpretations. And by the way, I didn't invent Kaas' part in digging up the bones of Simon the Magus/St Peter and the magical bones of the beasts from beneath where his mentor PPXII lies. I seriously suggest that you pay good attention, and be of help to your Lord in this terrible situation. I did not invent the canonical requirements attendant on repair of this scandal, and it is erroneous for anyone to call impiety that which is a quotation of canonical Law. I am not Nostradamus, and did not invent anything. I am EffK and I will not abide seeing Bengalski treated as I have been. There is no urgency for us to do this, but it will be done, and I ask you therefore to please pay the greatest attention to the seriousness of this subject, which is central to my history and your faith. I would expect you to take counsel for your conscience, all of you. EffK 02:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help for "Emma"

Someone calling themselves Emma bills her post for [[Pope Pius XII] discussion under my branding. That get's notice, quickly. You are indeed correct Emma, that Str1977 had better be believable, for us to retain peace of mind. Our good friend Str1977 told me this , which sounds likely:

The pope cannot be deposed for anything, except for heresy by a ecumenical council, and even then it's totally unclear what would happen, since there's also the principle that noone on earth can judge the Pope.

But, Emma, ask him for exonerating source that negates the sourced scandalous assistance by Pacelli and his pontiff, to the Common Plan or conspiracy to wage Aggressive Inhuman War ( the Nuremberg charge)? I have asked for years here, and only got a summary ban, so do it even more civilly than I did. Ask for some source that shows that Ludwig Kaas was not Pacelli's tool, to counterract the primary and secondary source confirming he was, do ask ! Ask for something to counterract William L Shirer, your oldest standard history who stated clearly that the empowerment of Hitler was linked to the desires and approbation of Rome? Above all, ask when the present pontiff, is going to clean up this scandal of Civilisation, so we can believe, and not live in fear of renewed conspiracy ?

I am also reading Bengalski at the related Adolf Hitler discussion page. I advise people to stop dancing on the heads of pins, with their angels, and to get back to the nitty gritty of the anti-comintern pact which led to 60 million dead and c 100 million wounded. I dealt with Str1977's excommunicationary counsel , here, thus [15], for perhaps the third time.

My advice to Lacatosias et el, is that we have dealt with this, and clearly both Hitler and Pacelli excommunicated themselves under Canon 1336, and Canon 1329. That neither has been so declared is a scandal referred to here :

Canon 1399:Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws , the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished , and with a just penalty , only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired.

Whilst we are all prepared to see that it was a mistake, papen threw doubts upon that claim, by referring to a high vatican authority seeking still to achieve a synthesis between the Church and healthy tenets of National Socialism as late as 1936. So at any rate the mistake persisted until then .I ended thus:

The Church is not only historically out of step , remaining at the stage of dishonesty about its Fascist collaboration , but is weakening its very Magisterium or Divine Law through hypocrisy. There cannot be Divine law for the Church and another Divine law for society . The relevance of Christianity is to mankind , not to a clerical elite . They exist to administer this 'divine' truth and have debased it to the extent visible on these two pages , on the Pope Pius XII article page and on the Centre Party Germany (as well as in multitudes of cemetaries and as well as in multitudes of personal genealogical tables).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hitler%27s_Pope"

Archive/9 called:Faith Based Editing and Council Revisionism in Wikipedia

Hi EffK. Yes I think the discussion about whether Hitler was a catholic may be pin-head-dancing - my understanding of this is that yes, he was a catholic. But in much the same way that however many million other Austrians were brought up catholics - there certainly will be a link between his catholic upbringing and the development of his ideas, but even that isn't enough to say Hitlerism was a fundamentally Catholic ideology. (Was Meyer Lansky a fundamentally jewish gangster? Or Ted Bundy an intrinsically methodist serial killer? I don't know.)

The more immediately relevant point I think is how this reflects on the editing behaviour of the group of catholic editors we have both dealt with. As Agathaoclea writes, the question of Hilterism and Catholicism was not an issue until the Catholic POV made a meal of it.

What happened is that Musical Linguist began this by removing the category on the grounds that It's POV to list as a "Catholic politician" a lapsed Catholic who rejected and lived in violation of Catholic teaching, and who martyred Catholics. Technically, as well as by background and by self-avowal, he was indeed a catholic. I don't think this is a stick to beat the church with, but it shouldn't be hushed up just because it makes some people feel uncomfortable.

What we have here is faith based editing pure and simple. There is no evidence, no sourcing provided, to say that Hitler left the catholic faith. Just the strongly stated opinions of a few loyal individuals. This is the point - it needs to be pointed out again and again that the touchstone for wikipedia is sourcing. Some of the same editors threw this at you incessantly - unfortunately you didn't have access to the texts I have got hold of which provide incontrovertible academic respectability to the QpQ claim. But the same people, perhaps blinded by the strength of their faith, seem to ignore all these rules when it suits their side of the story.

So to re-cap: when you presented an important claim with what were seen as inadequate sources, you were hammered for it, and the claim was labelled conspiracy theory. Now we have the academic sourcing required, it's gone very quiet. Some of the same editors who so were so insistant against you feel themselves entitled to edit by quite different standards, on the basis of opinion rather than evidence. In two words: double standards. Because faith, and fidelity to the church and what is perceived as its interests, comes first. Wikipedia's principles of NPOV, verifiability etc. are tools to be used as and when appropriate to serve the primary goal.

So what. This is how we all are, more or less. We're all flawed human beings, blinded or blinkered so often by our prejudices. But still, capable of working collaboratively and achieving some kind of result I think with a bit of prompting and scrutiny.

The thing is, as you very rightly point out, is there is a more than pin-sized issue at stake here. We're dealing with fundamental history - 'the anti-comintern pact which led to 60 million dead and c 100 million wounded.' The catholic church played a substantial role in the rise of fascism. Church leaders, I think, believed themselves to be acting righteously in opposing Godless communism. If they had been able to forsee the consequences, the full extent, of what they were helping to unleash, perhaps they would have acted differently. But as much as we can debate the motivations, we shouldn't cover up the actions.

That's my take on it. Yes it's influenced by my own background and prejudices, my POV. But as I've said a few times, I think a crucial first step is to be open about where we're coming from. Another thing that's important is to be able to admit our mistakes, and revise our views as our understanding grows. And to increase our understanding we need to try as much as possible to put our prejudices aside, and deal strictly with the evidence. I think the WP principles are very useful guides in this, and I ask all editors to apply them. Without double standards.Bengalski 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your confidence at verification of the Quid pro Quo comes too late to preserve my voice in all the inter-related articles, and I fear will make their correction a harder task. I came to the conclusion that a certain editor was the essential problem, and that a direct arbitration was necessary to ensure WP principles upheld sourced editing. It is faintly possible that this editor will, as you have done for me, discover the exonerating source, or that he will provide lengthy translation from the German texts he listed(and tanslation of source is demanded by the WP norms for their use). Maybe he will still the extreme disquiet attendant on the history, apparent since at least Otto Brok, by source. I wish he would, and have encouraged him to do so, which is to retain the WP principle of good faith. I warn you that you have to do so too. You must in other words give him the chance to answer specific points. That he has not, must not be called a faith problem, but a source and verification issue. I am concerned that verification be master of the situation, and not the straw-man argument about editor behaviour.

As to the sinister forces alluded to at the Tribunal, the more sinister aspect is the hidden anti-semitic aspect. The anti-Comintern motive is easily politically comprehensible, and apart from the anti-Magisterial and anti-canonical ramifications, which are shatterring within themselves, there is little or no surprise. The sinister nature of genocidal intent, and the Cornwell suspicion that Pacelli sympathised with the nazi anti-semitic program is more shocking, and a much larger subject. The thesis of Rohan d.'O Butler , from his Roots of National Socialism is clear: neither the germanist totalitarianism or the anti-semitism were inventions of Hitler's, but emanated from a cultural continuum. The church side of this , as Durova wishes, needs to encompass all denominations for us to face up to it completely, and Pacelli's part in persuading collaboration through Kaas probably has to be also placed in this greater context.

On the purely personality level, I believe that the same out-moded thinking which allowed the British and the French to appease, at a certian level 'informed' the Pacelli -Papen aristiocratic strokemanship. Dilectissima Nobis reveals this level in an official manner (and as you know, it is part of the sourceing). I believe that Pacelli allowed this thinking to colour his planning and thereby jeopardised his own Law and church, just as both Britain and France jeopardised themselves by such erroneous thinking. The thirties contained thinking which we now consider anitquated, namely Imperialist thinking- at least we wish to think it antiquated, though plainly it has merely shifted into the economic shere, and is recognised by many from amongst those who feel dominated. In fact it is war by other means.

We see that the Holy See has a continuing problem, and although we can source and completely verify-given WP verifiability actually being upheld- the worldly effects of the QpQ collaboration, and the acquiescence to at least the 1937 Encyclical, the Magisterial( and excommunicatory) ramifications must remain exterior to the name/Article space and be within the basis of Jimbo's explanation guideline alone. I agree with claims that this thinking is original, except that I deny that I ever presented it as more than explanation in discussion space. At any rate the canonical demands and procedures are excessiverly clear, as Law should be. It is all consequent on Pacelli persuading PPXI that the anti-Comintern agenda required Hitler and his bellicosity. It is clear that PPXI was focused throughout on his anti-Comintern agenda, but it is equally clear that Pacelli knew of the social evils and bellicosity inherent to Hitlerism.

The situation in Wikipedia is that there is a thorough-going perversion of the entire history , a simplistic revisionism that colours all the articles I list again above, and very many more within the biographical field. I do logically consider that part of this is due to the success since 1945 at obscuring the wrongful collaboration, and that most people even in Wikipedia are un-aware of it. There is also the modern concept of political correctness, a desire to make end with large scale and racially based conficts by means of a clean break, in even thinking about it. There is also a natural entering of post-war nationalist excusatory thinking. There is the solely jewish-Christian division between rapprochement and blame. These factors add to the Wikipedia problem , and are not particularly controversial. Together with them are the modern political factors, such as I sourced to modern German Party Political controversy, and the dual obfuscation emanating from the Appeasement descendance, and the Widerstand "industry". The military-industrial factor is one that I am openly prevented from making, and as you know would couple with the ratlines and investments and continuance of these forces in our present world.

However, my contention, logically, given sourceing to that office and its leader, that the Holy see is actively iinvolved in administering repair against the verifiable history, is the contention that allowed for me to be excluded from this community. My contention that agency was present, was not taken seriously. The political correctness which demands of groups not to think ill of an organisation claiming righteousness, is precisely what led to the disaster of the thirties. It is unfortunate for both of us that any mention of the Council and the instructions to members is taken as illogical and paranoid. Ionically we can source political interference to the thirties, but present day interference is only visible through the Council's web pages I linked, and through the illogicallity and denialism I have counted. Jimbo's own reckless disregard is a central burden , no less contradictory than the ecclesiastic situation. What is evident to all of reasonable mind, is that given the thirties collaboration, any agency here is but a lesser action to be expected .

I have had to explain to editors the exact nature of the danger to the organisation, and I have felt that the Council were entirely aware of both this and of every edit that I have made. The Councils Spring 2005 Conference was widely reported and I stll believe was direct result of this organ's software, and the sourceing I made. It is clear that whilst the verifiability of history is our aim, that to do so before the organisation arrives at its own internal resolution of its history, leaves us exposed . I warn you that you may well become the subject of extreme ad hominem as well as the straw-man argument diversion, and that your name too will be excoriated. I suggest you try and stick within the pure sourceable facts and witness, such as that letter of Kaas to Ritter, and that henceforward you seek to avoid any Council conclusions along EffK lines. In so far as I have delineated these to their moral conclusions within canonicals and Kantean philosophy, I believe you may justifiably refer to them for explanations, using links. To this end I should assist you by setting some of the links to those expanations I made ,as much as by interjecting( here)notes relevant to your editorial interactions. I have reasonable memory of the plethora of such interactions, but it takes more memory to isolate the exact presence of any one exchange in the many discussions.

Lastly-and I am sorry for the length, you must face the question of whether you too can be treated as I was, your editing wasted over long periods. My impression of Wikipedia is poor at present as regards the adherence to principles, and it is possible that you should consider this as firstly a concentration upon Wiki-ill, rather than continue to assume that there is any central Wikipedia good faith- that we may not be able to repair the historical scandal, but that if we cannot repair the Wikipedia scandal, then that the world should know that even in the age of the Internet, censorship is still rife, conspiracy goes un-checked and obscurantism rules. EffK 10:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[I notice since this that Bengalski has been following canonical relevances, the which caused the centre party germany to agree that "an act of revolution" had already occurred on 30 january with hindenberg's appointment of Hitler as Chancellor. The clai represents to me the purest hypocrisy. QWe can excuse the centre for this reasoning, and at the same time, here in Wikipedia, assert and ensure that any such conception as revolution be denied under Adolf Hitler.]

I believe that the same out-moded thinking which allowed the British and the French to appease, at a certian level 'informed' the Pacelli -Papen aristiocratic strokemanship ... The thirties contained thinking which we now consider anitquated ...

Yes, and this gets to what really interests me about this period in history. The education I received - I don't just mean schooling but also the way this history had become represented in popular culture, movies, playground games etc. - was very black and white. Allied democracies good, Hitler and the Germans maniacally bad, that was it. When people of my generation start reading texts from the time and get a view of how people actually thought, it can be quite a shock. For even rather moderately conservative thinking Hitler wasn't a monster but a defender of faith, culture, right values and the Germans' rightful claims after Versailles. And appeasement was the natural response, not just of the church, but of almost all political (and industrial, economic etc.) establishments at the time.

This reality of wide-scale 'collaboration' has become obscured by the post-war recasting of history, and we need to fight against that here. As I say, it's not just the church by any means, and within the church certainly not just P12. But given the church's special moral claims, and its continuing efforts to obscure this aspect of its history, it's an important focus for the debate.Bengalski 12:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed so, Bengalski. You are absolutely right that it is the wider lessons that will speak to us. I don't think there is any fear of, or likely resurgence of the germanist philosophy as a germanist or German precept, so our conversation here obviously concerns the lessons and the reporting of the history as a mental preventative. Wikipedia is the evolutionary blackboard of the moment, and we are discussing the repair of it, or the prevention of it from being further compromised.

The Tribunal stated that there were (un-named) "sinister forces" and "organisations". Edgar Ansel Mowrer appears to be the closest we have to a completely modern thinking witness of these forces, and we have to recognise that his modernity was a product of America and all that used to mean in terms of liberty. I question post-war recasting, because I rather think that such recasting has been building up a momentum. If you mean that the re-casting was in showing solely the Germans as responsible for the drift to war, as opposed to say the vested class interests of all the nations, we may have to sub-divide this particular issue into say the over-simplification, you refer to; and the revisionism, that has followed beyond that very simplification. The former has decayed naturally whereas the latter is become pernicious to our health.

I see the multifarious appeasement itself as driving the non-German later revisionism: that the very sinister forces of appeasement, and lets be blunt, collaboration, have clear interests in re-writing their forbears part in history. The descendants of the Robert McClenon deleted Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates and the Nazis are all amongst us, and that Article (if WP is worth your time ) needs you, Bengalski, to call for its reappearance. (The particular scandal of its deletion is a subject in itself.) However, aside from multi-natioanal and corporate excess, which American/financial collaboration this Article should be linked to, there appears to be a large measure of, as our good friend would term it, (purely German) historiographical revisionist thinking: in so far as this percolates out of that language, it appears to minimise the Rohan D.'O Butler (All Souls) delineation of philosophical 'germanism'. It is not welcome news to us moderns to see that Hitler was as if the creation of a purely 'German' tradition but Butler clearly shows just such a continuous build-up of a dark and destructive national consciousness. Hitler was but the natural culmination, and in no way abherrant. The bellicosity did not stem from Versailles, as Mowrer reported, and Versailles should not then have been seen as cause, nor should it be accorded as the (simplistic) cause now, as it is in Wikipedia.

I think the beginning of the rot was letting the sinister and evidenced industrial interests off scot-free both sides of the Atlantic pond. With and because of that omission, there was thereafter no attempt at remembering international culpability nor the analysis that should have driven it. As we see, the vatican, for its separate but financially linked shocking part, is suggested by some as even having saved some Jews as if as an "insurance policy"- and this is believable given the ICJHC unanswered questions, and not far fetched given the shocking contemporary cynicism of insuring itself against sodomist rape. The Hochhuth accusation regarding materialist blinding of Church (large C) policy appears to echo Manhattan primary (vatican) source and appears to have created the stir it did because based within reality (of investments in German and Italian Heavy Industry). I seem to remember that Mowrer himself alluded to this motive, but have not pin-pointed the quote. This is an aside, however, and teaches us to understand and remember the broader history of contributions and consequence.

Central to the case is that the Tribunal did not find judicial precedent to indict those who were clearly culpable and implicated in assisting the Nazis to power, only prosecutiong the maintenance provided, with its concomitant link to the inhuman practise of slave labour. I do not think it is enough to leave our understanding as if halted at this lack of indictment, not that there be any likelihood of proper reparations at this stage, despite evident continuance and growth of these effectively sinister international combines. But if we cannot understand our world, well, we may well be left with no more than palliative bells and prayers. However the American chief Judicial representative at the Tribunal enjoined all humanity to learn the lessons and avoid the future civilisational costs. In this regard I see clear linkage to our present day situation, where the most advanced thinking begins to formulate similarly truer costing to our current methods and behaviour: we have never paid the true costs, and we are bound to learn what they are, and to pay.

Of course, there was direct continuance of the wartime armaments race into the Cold War era of nuclear-armed rocketry, which saw not only relatively minor ratline-type Nazi relocations, also saw the entire highest nazi Intelligence apparatus moved lock stock and barrel to Texas, ironically taking with it the previously embedded seeds of Soviet infiltration. As you know we all forgot about primitive nazi menaces, and increasingly concentrated on the power of a thousand suns. You know the rest, Reagan out-spent the amateurish Soviets and JPII, along with that, brought out the Polish ant-russian proletariat. The KGB failed in seizing the terror at their disposal and didn't fly the Backfire down the Denmark Strait to drop the token signal for America to withdraw. Indeed already the Russian Generals and higher apparatchiks were , at the end of the Vietnam War, identical with their American counterparts, and it is only now that we see just how similar they have become.

But the power of human thought is as strong as the combinations ranged against us but yet supposedly in our interest, and your presence here SHOULD be more fruitful than any such combination. If the Wikipdia is to serve some purpose, it can only be because humanity demands it, and the software whilst making of it a battleground in the subject (revisionism) we discuss, contains that possibility which is the power of human thought. It is all rather as "Emma" wrote

"I really hope whoever Str1977 is that he/she is etremely unbiased, can back up his facts, and is nearly perfect in his facts and opinions. If he isn't a lot of poor ppl are going to believe misguided stuff, because he is one heck of a persuader. So whoever you are watch what you say VERY carefully!!!! Emma"

But as I write I see the usual edit-war back at Pius XII. The admins enter- there are two who are posting, and there is an anon. The battlegound itself is so bloody and opinionated, even after all the verification, and shows us that, interestingly, the partisan revisionist necessities of simply one branch of the multifarious collaborationism, are indeed the sole active revisionists here in Wikipedia. The shamelessness in Wikipedia, which rests on this denial of verifiable history, is astounding, but happily serves the very purpose of alerting the world to that which it wishes to deny. The policy has evidently still not been formulated of how to extricate this particular force from its embarrassment. I have warned them that they do themselves no good, and repeat that they actually enforce that which they fear. The denialism can never be fully achieved, just as, say, all squirrels cannot be fully eradicated. The necessity of human thought to achieve the future payment of our 'planetary piper' will of itself require complete conceptual change, and this particular force we both recognise cedes position minute by minute and person by person.

I do not recommend, Bengalski, that you enter into dialogue of any kind with people who claim their ignorance, and then impose their wishful interpretations. You may just as well study the "evidence" you saved from my EffK name Page, read the entire EffK etc diffs where I could have counted a thousand examples more, see where shameless denialism was used as firmly held opinion to cut down Wikipedia verification. You know my conclusion, and you know what Jimbo said, go blogging elsewhere, and saw what he did, which was not uphold his organisational principles. I countered by stating his reckless disregard for publishing his Foundation's judgement of me. We know very well that the Wikipedia Articles are as pastiche of reality , and why. In fact, the entirety of FK's 'group' editing, lastly known as EffK, is of itself a complete run-down analysis of the organisations Wikipedia revisionism. I do not suggest that you or I delay ourselves, in fact, any further. The complete evidence is collected in the 10 thousand or so diffs made, and the entire verification is now stated, linked, sourced, fought and revised by the revisionists backwards to the pastiche. Klaus Scholder finding those words of Kaas', is the summit of the case-the proof beyond any further contention or at any rate, our slightest doubt. Finding the Pacelli letter to the 1932 Zentrums meeting, seeing some Hitler note from the 2 April private Kaas conference, would be no more than addition to the primary source we have presented. Should Kaas' Diary or Letters provide more than that one Scholder published Kaas letter confirms, it would only re-confirm what we in effect already know. All FK/EffK edits are confirmed by that one Kaas letter. All conclusions of all length are all justified and correct, down to the analysis of what is the situation in Wikipedia itself.

The only benefit that can be gained from your, painful, continuation, which in the same Articles would be the same sourced editing attempt, would be the simple second demonstration of the Pontifical Council for Social Communication's canonical confusion. The denialism is not rationally based, and not susceptible to rationality. Resultingly, there is only a facade of good-faith. You have to understand that choice does not come into it, it is obedience alone, and not obedience to rationality or to 'good faith'.

On the basis that I predict this as the out-come, and that in your case it could take them perhaps 2 years instead of only one for me, and because they are unlikely to repent of what amounts to a continuance of strictly their own canonical illegality, they will rather choose to bring upon themselves the sundering predictions of Paracelsus/Nostradamus, whatever you do. I suggest you simply demand a re-opening of the EffK Verifiability case, and spend your time canvassing those few editors capable of understanding and desirous of rationality. Not that this will make any difference, as the case cannot win without the prior repair internal to the Council's parent. As the 'parent' is as forceful as a very race of humanity, larger than a continent in power, whether its beliefs be probable, or concoction, or not, then no amount of well meaning rationally based Wikipedians will be sufficient to overcome its off-springs blind devotion. However as favour to yourself, doing so will simply shorten your mental suffering by speeding the process towards your own censure and elimination. You may wonder at this given my continued presence, but it is suggested to me that the anti-revisionist case could better thrive in its own wiki, and google-bomb the results to counterract this nonsense in Jimbo's now infected set-up. I have no experience that you will find the slightest civilisation here.

Archive/10 called: Pacelli & QpQ

We are where we are. Here is an example of where someone claims we are , at great length at [16] http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/piusxiibobprint.html [Fair use/ educational] by By Robert P. Lockwood, Catholic League Director of Research (March 2000)

It seems ludicrous that a pope* praised for his actions in 1941 – and by all leading Jewish organizations throughout his life – could be discredited based on nothing more than a theatrical invention. Yet, that is what took place and has taken place since. A combination of political and social events early in the 1960s, biased historical revisionism, and an exercise in theatrical rhetoric, created the myth of the uncaring pontiff in contradiction to the clear historical record. The myth thrived because people want to believe it rather than because it was believable.

[Sadly, this is the original self-exculpatory obfuscation (a precise term ). "Nothing more" is a straw-man argument. Rolfe Hochhuth is supposedly alone , there are no conclusions from Shirer onwards to such as Klemperer. This writing is beyond massage, it is an intellectual insult. It is to not under-estimate the general ignorance, but for the abuse of truth. The biased historical revisionism is a use of that term emanating from an un-usual quarter ( one jaundiced against the "left" ). It is illustration of the facility the words give us for the blackening of all or any opponents, between anybody. I would say that it is a borrowing after the fact of its implication to the contrary side: reviionism whitens those who collaborated, rather than blackens those who accusingly remember the collaboration. hence Widerstand studies tend to revisionism. Immediately, then, we are fed the word myth, as if to stop our minds altogether with a plug.

Re the Beer hall putsch , this is provided also:

. Recalling those early days, Pacelli noted that he – and the rest of the foreign diplomatic corps – paid scant attention to the Munich ruffian. He explained, "In those days, you see, I wasn’t infallible."

[This is interesting, as it calls to mind the Mowrer /newly PPXI incident when Mowrer suggested the way out for Cardinal Ratti/PPXI's denial of having been interviewed by the press when Mowrer himself had files the very interview to America in 1922. Mowrer said, that's easy, you say that you werent interviewed, you the pope, and that the denial was therefore technically correct, it was only Cardinal Ratti ! This worked. Now, here, these words of Pacelli's , echo those I earlier suggested to the Council in my advice about this pontiff*'s Infallibility: at the time of the Concordat 'hustle': he wan't infallible, at that point. Here it is confirmed , by himself. We can see ourselves cutting through the canonical forest already.]

At the same time, however, the Vatican was forced to deal with the reality of Hitler’s rise to power. In June 1933 Hitler had signed a peace agreement with the western powers, including France and Great Britain, called the Four-Power Pact. At the same time Hitler expressed a willingness to negotiate a statewide concordat with Rome. The concordat – highly favorable to the Church – was concluded a month later. In a country where Protestantism dominated, the Catholic Church was finally placed on a legal equal footing with the Protestant churches. The accusation is often made that the concordat negotiated by Cardinal Pacelli gave legitimacy to the Nazi regime.

[It is faintly possible but appears to me unlikely , that our friend Str1977 could have been basing himself upon this sort of historical claim. Undoubtedly there is great truth herein. I first take objection, however, with was forced to deal with: this is to imply clear assumption, and negate all plethora of reference to the QpQ. The Four Power Pact I have not had time to study, but doubtless I have all necessary military and nazi thinking at hand, in Wheeler Bennett and others. I do not yet answer for the importance it is arranged here, or on PPXII's Article and continue to avail of foolish AGF that a) Pacelli wan't shooeing it in any way from the sidelines, and b) that such as Mowrer had not qualified it as dastardly cynical act. It is presented as somehow civilising, and I am suspicious of such implication towards that. I lose further adherence at the end, when accusation is often made . This is entirely couched language. From Shirer onwards, which is to say everybody, reference to it is as to fact, not accusation. So, this is massage,outside Wikipedia. I think an admission by our friend could clear up the latter, and first points, quite speedily (Yes speedy becomes speedily, although it can also become speedy: as (to)speedily delete is useage, but 'speedy delete' has to rather become 'speedy deletion'(Uh-huhm).]

The Church had no choice but to conclude such a concordat, or face draconian restrictions on the lives of the faithful in Germany.

[This is a remarkable assertion. Ludwig Kaas then had no choice. Indeed this is what our good friend said from the start. It is a violent claim, the violence was such that pure, formalised, written submission or surrender of the right or autonomy of socio-political comment within the universal Catholic autonomy,was surrenderd. No bishop nor priest could function, but were forced by the Reichskonkordat to submit to the nazi* "government". If such assertion is to be allowed in Wikipedia, then all due arguments and explanations should qualify this entirely. Space must be given, and I return therefore to the necessity for the a.r.t. at discussionVatican Bank: even erroneous claims are necessary under due qualification , as revealing as much as their opposite truth. No one disputes that there was pressure, and no one disputes the Papen assertions regarding the RKKDt, nor the terms, nor the crucial Party chairman/Priest Ludwig Kaas' part in the drafting of these terms after the essential political influence, Kaas, had exiled himself to Rome. At least no one sources any such contentions they make, however friendily made. The element of choice cannot be so speedily dismissed, and the dismissal conjures necessary further accountability through purely internal Church law (christian Law), applicable to both major denominations equally. If a Church claims it has no choice, or this is posited, as either a reality or a justification, then canonical Law is worthless, along with all failing christianity. Now, our good friend is very useful in regard to such seemingly contradictory questions or thoughts as these, and I wish him back to help us confront them...]

...its [The Reichskonkordat's] existence allowed for Vatican protest.

[This is deeply contentious, and can be shown to be a perversion of the results, which was to effectively muzzle the entire German Hierarchy from 1933 to 1945. The article is typical in that following this, these protests enumerate then onwards from Mit B. Sorge in 1937. There appears always to be a complete dearth of sourced stated protests from the vtiacan, or the hierarchy. And as I remind in the previous section., Franz von Papen referenced the Nazi Bishop Alois Hudal, of later Ratline fame together with a 'high authority' as late as 1936 , promoting facets of Nazism within the vatican's "thinking"(high authority) . curiously this Hudal is not wiki-qualified under the term Bishop, as if he were so nazi, that he was not a Bishop, when in fact he had evident benfaction and pulpit-power extending into an officially sanctioned 1936 publication: is this wrong-was it not official, can anything not be official to the vatican (where the friend?) ?

Mr. Lockwood writes well, and the very considerable apologetics continue for some handstretch with no further mention of PPXI , nor of Cardinal Pacelli as such. The gist, as everywhere in apologetics for the subject, is towards the PPXII defence from accusataion of ignoring the Holocaust. I do not delay myself with this subject, have not sourced it, and consider it off-topic, as our friend Str1977 would say. I am only concerned with that from which I am blocked at reporting, that is, the standard Shirer et al conclusion concerning the actual empowerment of Adolf Hitler. My friend Bengalski, whilst tolerant of this deficiency of my investigation, has been known to report post-war events, whereas I am un-able to even finish with the 7 weeks from this "revolution" , unto the papal* Prelate Kaas' handing in of the note rquisite to that end. Bengalski's sourceing of Pacelli or Hudal as post-war nazi saviours has not been my consideration, and will not be until the 7 weeks have been conclusively admitted to Wikipedia .

I, and Mr.Lockwood too, adhere to small letters where they be relevant, in view of un-spoken rules.

The "Straw-man" Argument and EffK demands of AnnH /Musical Linguist

"A low average of edits per page suggests that someone is interested in contributing to Wikipedia, including articles unrelated to his POV, and that he has no personal axe to grind. My average yesterday (the counter is running a day behind) was 2.29. Robert McClenon's was 3.7. Patsw's was 4.17. Str1977's was 5.05. EffK's was 7.87 under the name EffK, and 9.42 under the name Famekeeper. Yours was a staggering 11.91."

This was about Giovanni33 by Ann H/Musical Linguist, from Hitler's Pope pages. So far Giovanni33 is either very cool, rather inexperienced or unaware of the precise history that these users censor . Of course our friend, Str1977, has yet to answer for his actions, which were to consistently censor as unsubstantiated POV that which Scholder dug up from Ludwig Kaas-the which I place here below. Well, I know a little better than to characterise the actions of these editors too closely, but in Wikipedia terms they thus far rebel against Verifiability, that concept posted on every Article page. EffK has, and had, no POV, as EffK was bringing sourced history in to the Article namespace, and EffK suffered the Straw-man consequence: if you can't defeat the argument, change it to another issue and work on that one: so "you're" all POV anti-christian editors, and we can prove that, and show you are disruptive.

Are there really so few people out there with a rational take, fewer even than needed for an RfC? It is remarkable- has there been no reformation, no western philosophical tradition, no secularism whatever, that we are back here like this with the "inquistion" ?.

This blatancy reveals, just like I said, that there is out-there a dangerously subversive oragnisation, which these facts reveal to have empowered the greatest modern menace, and who are here in Wikipedia actively censoring our minds, or killing us off . Welcome to Wikipedia as run by the Pontifical Council for Social Communications under now Bishop Renato Boccardo. I don't know the name of the Jesuit central Internet whizz kid-he's got his own deeper office.

What happened to Robert McClenon- has he gone to a behavioural course? I loved the guy who said : "Rude. Beyond rude". Of course beyond rude is what he was up for on a RfC- "bully" was the term. I signed it too late, but see what GMaxwell said about him-

"I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. I am especially disappointed in your case because you offered to switch to neutral if he explained that his 100% wasn't a minimum, he did and you failed to follow through with your word. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether."

If Giovanni needs a deeper Wikipedia education he should read our friend Str1977's deleting edit here (from Hitler)[17] "In particular this self-dissolution,in the case of the large and noble Centre Party, was brought about with a classic kick-back scheme in return for Vatican achievement of the subsequent Reichskonkodat negotiations." despite his own agreement to the very same thing at [18] "This is right insofar the actual Concordat negotiations starting with Papen's arrival in Rome. The Centre party's existence was on the bargaining table. Pius and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce into the party's demise in return for the concordat. The party's demise was not their intention and it is obvious that the party was a dead man at that point."

I placed that milder, non- Enabling Act accusation of history, precisely. I could have placed the full accusation: the Holy See (un-canonically) empowered the actual bloddthirsty dictatorship of Hitler knowing of its anti-semitic inhumanity and desire for illegal territorially aggrandising War( The Great Scandal.

Well, Giovanni33- You are talking tough out there, you and Bengalski, and Bengalski has sourced the exact truth of what I always entered, which was that the Shirer reference "with an eye to the votes of the Centre party, which he received" is correct. Str1977 pushed a POV against all my AGF and Verifiability, turned a Straw -Man (with McClenon and Musical Linguist) on me, got McClenon to arrest me, and doubtless Musical Linguist/Annh will take this here now as a personal attack- when it's pure truth and Wikipedia reality. Well Giovanni33, and you AnnH, I dont like anyone mentioning the word POV close to my username, and I take it as an unwarranted Wikipedia attack made in reckless disregard for the truth, which is known to you M-L.

So Giovanni33, do you care about this, which is history, and which is the Internet being twisted to suit a secret anti-democratic sovereign state? Do you care enough to follow the history back to the 23 March 1933 Enabling Act? Do you care to follow my GF efforts in all these different articles (all censored or tagged which is the same Google-wise), and would you care to correct the aspersion of AnnH, that my edits were designed to promote a POV ? I do not like the fact that you allowed her to so characterise me- I proved my worth, and you will have seen that by now, if you are serious.

Ann, I demand an apology from you for suggesting I have or had a POV. This you insinuate in reckless disregard of the truth, and I won't tolerate the insult to my good faith. If you blank this page, I think Bengalski will call an investigation of you. I here make this call on your good faith duties as an administrator, and with reference to my notice upon your RfA. If you wish to repeat by insinuation the reckless disregard that Jimbo publishes about me, know what you do. Apply now, Ann, to Bengalski and to his verification of the QpQ as organised by Kaas and as admitted by Kaas to precede the Str1977 insistent 9 April negotiating block-back to at least the 24 march 1933, and given that Kaas admission, refer that in your brain to the April 2nd, 73rd anniversary today of Kaas' subsequent private meeting, on his return from Rome, with Adolf Hitler. Then remember that which (Professor) Klemens von Klemperer wrote, and Edgar Ansel Mowrer, and Margaret Lambert, and John Toland , and Guenter Lewy, and Wheeler-Bennett, Shirer, the Nuremberg Trials, Klaus Scholder, accept von Papens admission the Reichskonkordat was planned from the date Bengalski confirmed, accept papen's Alois Hudal reference, accept Papen's "highest vatican authority seeking in 1936 a synthesis with the healthy tenets of national Socialism". Ask for bengalski now to report fully, and bring your (our)good friend Str1977 here to accept the Verifiability of EffK and for him to equally accede to all the 8 demands I make of you, with a ninth, that he submit himself immediately to arbcom as requirous of banning for his actions , for one year, and for life from "Catholic Articles"

If people want I can go through Scholder's arguments and primary sources in detail. One of the main ones is Bruning's memoirs, where he says clearly that Hitler raised the concordat in the EA negotiations. Papen also is quoted as saying that the concordat was discussed as early as 30th January. There are plenty more. Scholder concludes: "those who dispute a link between acceptance of the enabling act and the conclusion of the Reich concordat definitely seem unconvincing." [19]

I object in the strongest terms to you Ann for your reckless and fasle insinuation.

I demand (1) of you that you forthwith correct your administrator's reckless disregard for incorrect Wikipedia editing, against Verifiability, against Archival practise and in the actioning of Wikpedia censorship,

I demand (2) that you admit that you have acted as a cabal with Str1977 and McClenon to block the verifable truth and to apologise openly for allowing YOUR christian faith to lead you to mal-administrate the Wikipedia.

I demand (3) of you that you now return to the Arbcom and place there the admission of your error, and call for my re-instatement as a non-POV rational, good editor with the remoal of all stain on my name encapsulated with my lifetime ban from "Catholic" Articles.

I demand (4) you place there the question of your allies' Str1977 and Robert McClenon's wrongful accusations, as editors requiring long term banning for their long term actions against Wikipedia principles.

I demand (5) that you call direct to Jimbo's page and own-up to the anti-verifiability agenda that you have supported through-out, and

I demand (6) that you no longer hide behind ignorance of the subject and

I demand (7) of you, a personal complete public apology . If you are sincere that you do not understand the history, accede to all of my demands by starting with reading Bengalski and then as GMaxwell says above,

I demand (8) you remove youreslf forthwith from the Article namespace wherever I have been or where I will return.

I will not demand of you an admission of why you have acted in this way, nor for whom . I am sorry to have had to be so blunt, but the continuance of the Straw-man leaves no alternative: I am out-raged by YOU.

I also do not demand of you that you act on your rightful christ-ian conscience to immediately instigate the canonical inquiry of your ecclesiastical courts: this demand I do not need to make, as the law demands it. This is the 2 April and the exact 73rd anniversary of the future Pius XII's emisssary's Private conference with the anti-christ Adolf Hitler. It is regrettable that the last pontiff's death should also occupy this awful date. That pontiff insulted all our histories when he ascribed the passing of the Enabling Act to a failure of Liberal Democracy. He was ill-advised to publish this conversation in his last book, Memoria e Identida and thereby require the painful scrutiny of the exact catastrophic church error of 1933. I do this as a defender of Man and of all Law: I , man, say take this Church and wash it of its un-lawful errorEffK 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to User:Bengalski

I request you kindly to see that user Annh/Musical Linguist and Str1977 are informed of the above demands I make, and to kindly oversee the correction required through these demands. EffK 22:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted messages on both their talk pages. Yours, Bengalski 23:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive /11 called: Analysing Wikipedians

Dear EffK,

First of all, there is absolutely no need for Bengalski to inform either me or Str1977 of what is on your talk page, as it is on my watchlist, and almost certainly also on his. There is nothing that Bengalski can do to oversee the correction required by your demands. You were found guilty, by the arbitration committee, of obsessional editing and personal attacks. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but it is a fact.

With regard to the remark I made which seems to have offended you, I said (at Talk:Hitler's Pope):

An edit history with an average of more than eight edits per page generally indicates that somebody might be here with an agenda.

I then gave a list of figures for people who had contributed to the article, showing that the Catholic editors had a lower average than those who were trying to criticize Pius XII. (Incidentally, while I didn't mention Bengalski, his average is also rather high.) Please note that I said "indicates" and "might", agreeing that it doesn't necessarily follow in every case, and I did not single you out in any way. You did not have the highest average. My remarks were in reply to another user who was implying that Catholic editors might be suppressing information out of religious motivation. I pointed out that the Catholics had a wider variety of edits than the other editors.

That you have and had no POV is impossible. Everyone has a POV. I have one; you have one; Str1977 has one; Giovanni33 has one; Bengalski has one. What matters on Wikipedia is whether or not you can respect the NPOV policy, regardless of your POV. My first experience on Wikipedia was with the Terri Schiavo article. I was, and still am, convinced that it was wrong to remove the feeding tube from Terri and to allow her to starve to death. I was also convinced that her husband's motives were very suspect. But I did not insert edits like "her estranged husband, who lives with another woman, and who stands to inherit the remainder of her malpractice money when she dies, is trying to have her starved to death." The trick was to be able to edit the article in such a way that it did not side with those who were in favour of Terri's death or with those who were opposed to it. We had to simply edit the article by reporting that this happened on this date, and that this person said that. Our own opinions had to be kept out of it. I believe that I gained a lot of respect by staying calm, and trying not to push my own POV; but I never denied that I had one.

I cannot apologize for saying that you have a POV, any more than I could apologize for saying that you are a human being. In fact, if you didn't have a POV, you wouldn't be human. There is no Wikipedian of whom I could say that he doesn't have a POV, so I fail to see what's insulting in that. Why should you be the exception? I do, however, regret if my words hurt you in any way; that was not my intention.

Believe me, there is no need to threaten me with a possible investigation called by Bengalski if I blank your page. If I decided to protect your page again, there would be nothing that Bengalski could do about it, because you have given reason for a protection. Have you ever considered how this page got unprotected after it had been protected? Can you think of any other reason than simple kindness on my part (and on the part of Str1977)? It had been protected, and would have remained protected for the full year, if I had not felt sorry about the frustration you would feel at having communication cut off. I don't want to protect it again, despite what you have written about me, but I have sometimes felt saddened because it was obvious that you were abusing the chance I gave you. You have no right to a talk page during a block. I'd like you to be able to have your talk page anyway, but it's most important that you don't use it as a soapbox, or you will lose the privilege. In the meantime, please try to understand that your talk page is still unprotected because of my good will, not because Bengalski is watching me. It might also interest you to know that it was I, not Bengalski, who managed to stop the admin who was blocking all your other accounts from putting the word "sockpuppet" in the block log. I thought that it would be unfair, and that you wouldn't like it.

With regard to GMaxwell, the message he sent to Robert was in fact one that he sent to everyone who voted a certain way. I read it at the time. Many people thought it was rather odd, and in fact, I recall that he apologized to Robert later.

Neither Str1977 nor Robert McClenon has ever done anything which would require me, as an administrator, to take action against them. I generally don't edit the same articles as Robert, and have had very little encounter with him. If it were necessary to take action against Str1977, it would be more proper for me to leave that to another administrator, as it is obvious that I count Str1977 among my friends. Archiving a talk page more quickly than is normal is not a blockable offence. I have never found that he edited against verifiability on theology-based articles. On history-based articles, I don't have enough knowledge to form an opinion, but someone who has shown himself to be trustworthy in one area can usually be trusted in other areas, in my opinion. That is my answer to demand no. 1

With regard to the other demands, I do not feel that I have acted as a cabal, and I repeat that I have had very little encounter with Robert McClenon. Most of the articles I edit are ones in which you have shown no interest. I have never taken any administrative action that was influenced by my Christian faith, unless you argue that the unprotection of your talk page was influenced by Christian charity. I have no intention of calling on ArbCom to undo their decision. With sadness, I agreed with their decision, and only hoped that it would be made in a way that would leave your dignity intact. (That was also a hope that Jimbo expressed.) I don't think there is anyone except you who thinks that Str1977 and Robert McClenon should be banned. I have not supported any anti-verifiability agenda; that is just your opinion. I am not hiding behind anything. I freely admit that I know very little twentieth-century history, and it doesn't particularly interest me. I have no reason to apologize to you. I have nothing but good will towards you, and have tried to make your ban easier for you. If it weren't for me, you'd have no way of communicating with other Wikipedians, and I'm feeling increasingly uneasy about having restored that privilege to you while you keep abusing it. And finally, I have no intention of removing myself from articles that you have edited or will edit. Remember that on your return, you can be blocked for causing disruption to any article, and I think that a post like the ones you made tonight would qualify.

If I can do anything to help you, within reason, I'll certainly do so, like the time that I removed some funny coding from your talk page. I would ask, however, that you do not send messages to me through other people. Your talk page is on my watchlist. If you have something to say to me, I will see it there. If I do not respond, it is probably because I'm busy, or else it could be because I have already responded to the same question. And if you want to stay on Wikipedia after your one-year ban expires, you'll have to stop making these long lists of accusations against other editors. I know you think you're in the right, but you're not going to convince Jimbo, or the ArbCom members, or the administrators. You probably won't convince anyone except Bengalski, and could end up being blocked or banned again shortly after your return.

With good wishes,

AnnH ♫ 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann, I accept the civility of your tone and thankyou for it. I do not accept your answer to my demands, and they all ignore the issue which is that I placed NPOV sourced verifiable statements in Wikipedia, and all your group of editors shamefully acted to censor these. It is quite clear that my editing was not POV but verifiable, and that therefore I cannot be accused of a POV without it being a reckless disregard and a defamation. In fact I was found to have been pushing a POV. In truth I was prevented by what are called trolls from the permitted editing. These trolls were fed by me in pure good faith. The obsession was not mine but that of supposedly catholic Wikipedia editors( who are unable to consider themselves in cohesion to their Law). The supposed obsession was to have believed it possible to alert this new online organ to the truth, the verifiable truth, amongst which comes the verifiable evidence of obsessional censorship made against verifiabiliy. The arbitration cannot be considered other than puerile: I dispute anything except my right to call all these irresponsible Wikipedians technically slanderers, with Jimbo as the publisher of slander. I may or may not consider this defamation needs actual technical consideration outside Wikipedia, and have clearly warned Jimbo. You will be aware of that warning. I repeat that I have no POV - I happen to accept the gist of canonical Law, and it appears that you and these others do not. Why you should be out of line with your own faith is a secondary, lesser matter. I am and always was concerned with Verifiability and, as Bengalski said, none of the lengthy discourse would have been required had rationality and its good faith been applied. Our friend Str1977 is clearly shown as having been in the wrong, and therefore in denial throughout. The evidence is quite clear, and the state of the verifiability is against you, and all further contention.

You do not state in your reply that I have a POV, but you continue to insinuate a guilt in that regard, that I do not respect NPOV. This is clearly contrary to the NPOV of my precise editing concerning the history of the Church and its alliance with Adolf Hitler. As you know I did not enter personal viewpoint from the discussions into the Namespace Articles, and as you know you acted to protect and re-inforce the most outrageous censorship of the historical truth. It is incorrect for you and your fellew sympathisers to attest that I present Cornwell, for example, wrongly, when Cornwell only reports that which such as Klaus Scholder have primary sourced. Such verifiability is entirely against your allegations against me. It is and was correct that I report the findings of Cornwell re 1933 as historical. This truth has been proved, and I am seen to be correct and NPOV. Any suggestion by you or Jimbo or anyone as to my probity is technically a defamation, as being in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity. I consider this in itself to be useful to the cause of repairing civilisation now from the attack upon it emanating from the nazi-catholic past alliance. I regret to warn you that your dismissal of reason now and throughout, shows you to be unable to accept the pillar of Verifiability and hence NPOV, and that even if I esteem your manner in doing so, in Wikipedia terms, you are acting in an unacceptable manner. Your refusal, as with Str1977's now, to assume and repair the good faith which my demands represent will lead to a thorough investigation within and without Wikipedia. I predict that you will regret your irrational response: the concerted action joined by you will be increasingly clearly seen for what it is.

It is quite clear that you defend and join with a Catholic POV that affects history articles in Wikipedia , and specifically that you have joined by supporting the unsuccessful attempt to eradicate knowledge of the alliance made by Pius XI with Adof Hitler. I would once more remind you of the gravity of the human question, of the immense suffering and death, which the clearly illegal action (both canonically and by Treaty) of that alliance produced. Whilst your ability to answer calmly speaks well of your nature, you are deeply wrong to use this gentle capacity to disparage me and thereby malign the truth. I have said before that I, at any rate, feel a duty to those who did pay the immense price, and that duty extends to teaching you to recognise history and the Laws (which you claim to adhere to).

Jimbo and the Arbcom did not refer to a single point of verifiability, and avoided all even handed comment whatever. Their facile conclusions do not close this history, and only shows them in the poor light they currently deserve. I am and will remain proud to have been banned for having been verifiably correct and believe the banning will prove the very signal of the concerted denialism made against verifiable truth - a truth known to history ever since, and only un-acceptable to the vested interest of the canonically wrong.

I see no further point in appealing to your sense of honesty here, rather accept that you are bound by purely by an allegiance, and thus not free, otherwise you would possess a response based on the verification referenced by User Bengalski. I very much hope that you may become free at some future time, and feel deeply sorry for you and your fellow members in your effective mental distress. My only hope for you is that your present pontiff indeed confronts this issue now, to save what is left of your Church, whereupon you will be released, and then you will be able to purge your sharing of this defamation against the history itself.

I am sorry for you, as you yourself did not negotiate the alliance, and should not have to defend it now. EffK 10:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Three levels of Wikipedians at Adolf Hitler

I find it quite refreshing to see the half-baked facility with which Wikipedians can waste their time, as at Hitler discussions. That Hitler is in heaven as a catholic, is the un-asked question, un-asked because even the puerile concepts of such a place invoke an entirely general but unformulated understanding: Hitler is not in any such heaven, and everyone accepts this. He is not there because of his actions that were driven by his cold heart. However the editors play around with themselves in borderline madness there, debating that which every heart knows and which is so evident from both natural and Catholic (ie christian) Law: Hitler's evil acceptance of human division, and the partition of suffering solely to his inherited concepts of the in-human, these disbarred or excommunicated him immediately from any possible greater power's welcome embrace. Thus Hitler, a figure who was predicted before his appearance, chose through his free-will, to arrest, to enslave ,to torture and to kill those proportions of humanity he decided to so treat as in-human. In purely Catholic terms, Hitler excommunicated himself at the first offence, which is certainly from the appearance of the 25 point Program of nazism- a program much evaded here in Wikipedia-vaticanus.

Poor people, poor Wikipedians, do you not know that you are the wind that pushes us forwards, that Law already exists, and that not alone Hitler, but each of us, is judged? The judgement is excommunication, and from that judgement, which is un-spoken and purely internal rupture of the spirit within humanaity, there is no return.

The alliance made with this excommunicate is the battleground for those editors to whom the self-evident appeals, but into where the others are too obtuse to enter, and/or, those who re-activate the benefit to Hitler, here and now: they are also subject to excommunication. Repent, I ask you, for your soul, you whom I address here. EffK 13:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repentance is visible

No less than you write and show this repentance: the inexorable canonisation is gone. Now it is become 'moves towards canonisation' (making a saint). The postulator Father Gumpel must be surprised, if stll there, as the assignment of the term Venerable to Pope Pius XII was not assigned but with the certainty of this very same eventual canonisation. Ye are lost who defend evil, and I am pleased to see this crack in the hard stone which your hearts seemed to have become. But, you do not answer the penultimate section and I fear for you. EffK

Archive/12 called: French Wikipedia and Pius XII

Yep...-[20] the fr.wp is just as busy , and in line with the above Internet article. WP.fr seems like WP.en circa New Year 2005. Both WP's exhibit the same influence and are only out of sync by this years time drag, ie my presence. A look at the NSDAP article shows the same skipping as does their AH. And the EAct, of coused doesn't link , but is there all wrong in three Atiiles, in red !

Here's the Church and the war

L'attitude de son successeur Pie XII secrétaire de Pie XI qui participa comme tel au groupe de travail mettant en forme l'encyclique Mit brennender Sorge , fait l'objet d'une ardente polémique.

Les adversaires de ce pape lui reprochent de s'être insuffisamment engagé contre le nazisme et l'antisémitisme, voire d'avoir cautionné par son silence les agissements nazis. Il aurait souhaité ne pas mettre en danger l'Église d'Allemagne par des prises de positions trop tranchées. Ses défenseurs rappellent que son action directe et indirecte a permis de sauver entre 700 000 et 860 000 juifs, et que plusieurs institutions juives l'ont remercié à différentes reprises pour ses actes. Le grand Rabbin de New-York, David Dalin, a proposé la nomination de Pie XII "Juste parmis les Nations". Lors de son message de Noël 1939, Pie XII accusa clairement l'agresseur de la Pologne, l'épiscopat polonais lui demanda de modérer ses propos par crainte de représailles.

Il faut préciser que le Vatican n'est pas le seul à s'être exprimé tardivement sur la Shoah. Y compris chez les alliés, le programme Nuit et brouillard ne fut rendu public qu'à la fin de la guerre. Les renseignements n'ont filtré sur ce sujet que petit à petit. C'est durant l'été 1944, que Rudolf Vrba et Alfred Wetzler, évadés d'Auschwitz-Birkenau, font parvenir un rapport détaillé au Vatican et aux alliés.

Pourtant l'examen de la correspondance du Vatican et des archives diplomatiques conduit à nuancer les propos tenus par les partisans et les adversaires de Pie XII. En mars 1942, Mgr Burzio, délégué apostolique à Bratislava, annonce la déportation de 90 000 Juifs slovaques, allant « à une mort certaine ». Le 9 décembre de la même année, un document signale des ghettos et l'existence de camps polonais « où la privation de nourriture et un travail extrêmement lourd conduisent rapidement beaucoup de gens à la mort. » Pie XII lui-même y fait allusion dans son message radiodiffusé de Noël. En mai 1943, le Vatican est informé de l'existence de camps d'extermination. Pie XII évoque le sujet dans son discours du 2 juin devant le Sacré Collège. Dans le même discours, il refuse de parler plus précisément « dans l'intérêt même des victimes, afin de ne pas rendre leur situation plus grave et insupportable contrairement à nos intentions. »

Les interventions du Vatican s'effectuèrent en fait par le biais des clergés nationaux et des nonces. Ainsi, les démarches de Mgr Rotta à Budapest et de Mgr Burzio à Bratislava, par exemple, permirent de sauver plusieurs centaines de milliers de Juifs. Quand le 16 octobre 1943, les Juifs de Rome furent raflés, Pie XII demanda à son secrétaire d'État de convoquer l'ambassadeur Ernst von Weiszäcker. Celui-ci négocia le silence du pape sur la rafle, moyennant l'arrêt de celle-ci. Un millier de Juifs déjà raflés moururent à Auschwitz.

Plusieurs représentants Juifs ont défendu l'action de Pie XII. À sa mort, Golda Meir, Premier ministre d'Israël, dit « pendant la décennie de terreur nazie, quand notre peuple a subi un martyr terrible, la voix du pape s'est élevée pour condamner les persécuteurs et pour invoquer la pitié envers leurs victimes. » Le grand rabbin de New York, David Dalin, déclara en 2001 : « Il fut un grand ami des Juifs et mérite d'être proclamé « Juste parmi les Nations » parce qu'il a sauvé beaucoup de mes coreligionnaires (...) Selon certaines statistiques, au moins 800 000. » À propos des mêmes événements, Albert Einstein affirma « l'Église catholique a été la seule à élever la voix contre l'assaut mené par Hitler contre la liberté. »

La principale critique envers son action et celle de l'Église catholique se manifesta en 1963 avec la pièce satirque "Le Vicaire", dont le film "Amen" de Costa-Gavras fut tiré en 2001. Il n'est pas question ici d'histoire mais de grossières caricatures.

Le 16 mars 1998, le Vatican a publié le document Nous nous souvenons - Une réflexion sur la Shoah[1] sous la direction du cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy. Ce document tente notamment d'analyser dans quelle mesure les préjugés antijudaïques de nombreux catholiques ont pu influer sur la position et le rôle de l'Eglise pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. from[21]

Fr. Article for Pie XII

.....Parmi les neuf ouvrages traitant de cette polémique parus à cette période, seuls deux attaquent Pie XII, dont le très médiatique Hitler's Pope de Cornwell. Les autres ont dégagé une conclusion positive envers Pie XII, parmi lesquels Pie XII et la seconde guerre mondiale du jésuite Pierre Blet, qui avait coordonné les travaux de recherche sur les Archives secrètes du Vatican. Dans ce contexte, Israël a ajouté cette polémique à la liste des contentieux existants entre cet État et le Vatican, ce qui a provoqué le report de l'ouverture du procès en béatification de Pie XII. À l'inverse le rabbin David Dalin, récompensé pour l'un des meilleurs travaux académiques en 1998 a demandé en 2001 que Pie XII soit officiellement reconnu comme juste parmi les nations, ce qui n'est actuellement pas le cas.

Les documents relatifs au pontificat du pape Pie XII, conservées dans les Archives secrètes du Vatican n'ont cependant jamais été publiés intégralement. En octobre 1999, une commission mixte d'historiens juifs et catholiques a été chargée d'étudier la période. En 2001, le Congrès juif mondial prend acte de l'échec de cette commission, dû à la fermeture des archives vaticanes sur la période. Quelques mois plus tard, le Vatican reconnaît également cet échec. En février 2002, Jean-Paul II ouvre aux chercheurs, à partir de 2003, la période 1922–1939 pour la partie concernant les rapports du Vatican avec l'Allemagne. Accusée de mauvaise volonté et de manque de transparence, l'Église se défend en faisant valoir qu'une partie de ses archives pour cette période a déjà été publiée, sur ordre de Paul VI, de 1965 à 1981, sous le titre Actes et documents du Saint-Siège relatifs à la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

and

......Son action lors du complot du général Beck pour supprimer Hitler, le poids qu'il a pesé pour retarder l'entrée en guerre de l'Italie ou encore le fait qu'il ait transmis à la France et au Royaume-Uni les plans de l'offensive allemande en mai 1940 laissent pourtant peu de doute quant à son engagement face au nazisme. Les propos rapportés par Léon Bérard au gouvernement français sont également très clairs : « Je redoute Hitler encore plus que Staline.» De même les textes des discours qu'il a prononcé alors qu'il était nonce apostolique en Allemagne montrent que sur ces 44 discours, 40 dénonçaient l'idéologie nazie.

Archive /13 Nuremberg trials edits

The Crime Against Peace

"A basic provision of the Charter is that to plan, prepare, initiate, or wage a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances, or to conspire or participate in a common plan to do so, is a crime.

"It is perhaps a weakness in this Charter that it fails itself to define a war of aggression. Abstractly, the subject is full of difficulty and all kinds of troublesome hypothetical cases can be conjured up. It is a subject which, if the defense should be permitted to go afield beyond the very narrow charge in the Indictment, would prolong the Trial and involve the Tribunal in insoluble political issues. But so far as the question can properly be involved in this case, the issue is one of no novelty and is one on which legal opinion has well crystalized.

:"One of the most authoritative sources of international law on this subject is the Convention for the Definition of Aggression signed at London on July 3, 1933 by Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Turkey, the Soviet Union, Persia, and Afghanistan.

"And I further suggest that it is the general view that no political, military, economic, or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or justification for such actions; but exercise of the right of legitimate self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a state which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression.

Nuremberg Military Tribunal connecting subjects

Excerpts from http://www.roberthjackson.org/Man/theman2-7-8-1/ [Educational Use]. I place these points made by Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States, at his opening statement to the International Military Tribunal in Case No. 1, The United States of America, the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics v. Hermann Wilhelm Göring, et al.

....prisoners represent sinister influences that will lurk in the world long after their bodies have returned to dust..... Civilization can afford no compromise with the social forces which would gain renewed strength if we deal ambiguously

The Nazi Party from its inception, however, contemplated war

in a time of peace, war was a preoccupation of the Party, and it started the work of making war less offensive to the masses of the people

The forecast of religious persecution was clothed in the language of religious liberty....But, it continues with the limitation, "so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race."

The Party program [1920-1945] "We demand ruthless war upon those whose activities are injurious to the common interests", and it demanded that such offenses be punished with death.

The immediate aim was to undermine the Weimar Republic.

On January 30, 1933 Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the German Republic. An evil combination, represented in the prisoners' dock by its most eminent survivors, had succeeded in possessing itself of the machinery of the German Government, a facade behind which they thenceforth would operate to make a reality of the war of conquest they so long had plotted. The conspiracy had passed into its second phase.

The democratic elements, which were trying to govern Germany through the new and feeble machinery of the Weimar Republic, got inadequate support from the democratic forces of the rest of the world, including my country.

But the Nazi program... embraced ends recognized as attainable only by a renewal and a more successful outcome of war, in Europe.

We find ....two governments in Germany-the real and the ostensible....the real authority in the State was outside and above the law and rested in the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.

It is not necessary, however, to resolve the controversy as to who set the fire. The significant point is in the use that was made of the fire and of the state of public mind it produced.

But the National Socialist coup was made possible because the terms of the Hitler-Hindenburg decree departed from all previous ones in which the power of suspension had been invoked. Whenever Ebert had suspended constitutional guarantees of individual rights, his decree had expressly revived the Protective Custody Act adopted by the Reichstag in 1916 during the previous war. This act guaranteed a judicial hearing within 24 hours of arrest, gave a right to have counsel and to inspect all relevant records, provided for appeal, and authorized compensation from Treasury funds for erroneous arrests.

[logic would say that the Goering fire was really the AH Fire, as the lack of Special Courts Decrees since Oct 31, necessitated 'armed revolt'/provocation to avoid habeas corpus. ]

It is not because the Nazi themselves were irreligious or pagan, but because they persecuted others of the Christian faith that they become guilty of crime, and it is because the persecution was a step in the preparation for aggressive warfare that the offense becomes one of international consequence.

[As Mowrer said, the next great betrayal was of the catholics: confusion reigns beause people do not recognise that every force contains its opposite:Pacelli /German Vatican Putsch was subverting the religion, just as EffK is rebuilding it]

A most intense drive was directed against the Roman Catholic Church. After a strategic concordat with the Holy See, signed in July 1933 in Rome, which never was observed by the Nazi Party, a long and persistent persecution of the Catholic Church, its priesthood, and its members, was carried out.

[Pushed the Tribunal and world off the scent, too cept for Avro and general street consensus-"everyone knew he was Hiterl's Pope" : comes back to the fact that it was Hitler who was the pawn as the succflly VfD Pope's Hitler title had it,]

Determination to destroy the Jews was a binding force which at all times cemented the elements of this conspiracy. On many internal policies there were differences among the defendants. But there is not one of them who has not echoed the rallying cry of nazism: "Deutschland erwache, Juda verrecke!" (Germany awake, Jewry perish!).

[see Edgar Ansel Mowrer : they don't like remember, topic two , leeching backwards here , which Mowrer's Clock back preserves

But the German mistreatment of Germans is now known to pass in magnitude and savagery any limits of what is tolerable by modern civilization. Other nations, by silence, would take a consenting part in such crimes.

[Canonical Charge : contumacy of entire Hierarchy, and V putschists]

The purpose, as we have seen, of getting rid of the influence of free labor, the churches, and the Jews was to clear their obstruction to the precipitation of aggressive war....Terrorism was the chief instrument for securing the cohesion of the German people in war purposes.

["Uncompromising" PPXI 10 April ]

Germany became one vast torture chamber. Cries of its victims were heard round the world and brought shudders to civilized people everywhere.

But the Nazis not only silenced discordant voices. They created positive controls as effective as their negative ones.

[Incl RKKDt]

They inculcated and practiced the Führerprinzip.... with a mysticism that is incomprehensible to my people.

[and 'let's stifle that one, along with the 25 NSDAP program ]

All these controls from their inception were exerted with unparalleled energy and single-mindedness to put Germany on a war footing.

To Germanize or to destroy was the program.

The Nazi purpose was to leave Germany's neighbors so weakened that even if she should eventually lose the war, she would still be the most powerful nation in Europe.

We have here the surviving top politicians, militarists, financiers, diplomats, administrators, and propagandists, of the Nazi movement. Who was responsible for these crimes if they were not?

::[NB : the question was raised

The Charter of this Tribunal evidences a faith that the law is not only to govern the conduct of little men, but that even rulers are, as Lord Chief Justice Coke put it to King James, "under God and the law

Their program ignored and defied all law.

[ V Putschists didnt seem to think so]

"Agreements are to be kept only as long as they serve a certain purpose."[AH]

They cannot show that they ever relied upon international law in any state or paid it the slightest regard.

[one State]

The first and second Counts of the Indictment add to these crimes the crime of plotting and waging wars of aggression... There was a time... when it could not have been said that war-inciting or war making was a crime in law, however reprehensible in morals.

The common sense of men after the first World War demanded, however, that the law's condemnation of war reach deeper, and that the law condemn not merely uncivilized ways of waging war, but also the waging in any way of uncivilized wars-wars of aggression. The world's statesmen again went only as far as they were forced to go. Their efforts were timid and cautious and often less explicit than we might have hoped. But the 1920's did outlaw aggressive war.

One of the most significant is the Briand-Kellogg Pact of 1928...This pact altered the legal status of a war of aggression.

Article 4 of the Weimar constitution provided that: "The generally accepted rules of international law are to be considered as binding integral parts of the law of the German Reich" (2050-PS).

[Of course Kaas the politico cannot now be tried, but kaas the Monsignor can]

Any resort to war-to any kind of a war-is a resort to means that are inherently criminal.

The law, so far as international law can be decreed, had been clearly pronounced when these acts took place.

I suggest that an "aggressor" is generally held to be that state which is the first to commit any of the following actions:

4) Provision of support to armed bands formed in the territory of another state, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded state, to take in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.

[The RKKDt has to come from AH not vice versa, and only as Papen said, after 8 April]

And I further suggest that it is the general view that no political, military, economic, or other considerations shall serve as an excuse or justification for such actions;

The United States does not desire to enter into discussion of the complicated pre-war currents of European politics, and it hopes this trial will not be protracted by their consideration.

It is the plot and the act of aggression which we charge to be crimes.

The Charter also recognizes individual responsibility on the part of those who commit acts defined as crimes, or who incite others to do so, or who join a common plan with other persons, groups or organizations to bring about their commission.

Only sanctions which reach individuals can peacefully and effectively be enforced. Hence, the principle of the criminality of aggressive war is implemented by the Charter with the principle of personal responsibility.

The Charter recognizes that one who has committed criminal acts may not take refuge in superior orders nor in the doctrine that his crimes were acts of states.

The superiors were protected because their orders were called acts of state. Under the Charter, no defense based on either of these doctrines can be entertained.

The Charter also recognizes a vicarious liability..... for acts committed by others in carrying out a common plan or conspiracy..

Although the need for prompt action has admittedly resulted in imperfect work on the part of the Prosecution, four great nations bring you their hurriedly assembled contributions of evidence. What remains undiscovered we can only guess.

[Mowrer didnt guess, Margaret Lambert(The Saar Faber 34 didnt guess]

If we cannot stay out of wars, our only hope is to prevent wars.

Wars are started only on the theory and in the confidence that they can be won. Personal punishment, to be suffered only in the event the war is lost, will probably not be a sufficient deterrent to prevent a war where the warmakers feel the chances of defeat to be negligible.

[other social forces, organisations, states]

We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law.

[ ditto for Canonical, hence the same need for imposition of the Law]

[That question raised again]

Their acts have bathed the world in blood and set civilization back a century.

Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance. It does not expect that you can make war impossible. It does expect that your juridical action will put the forces of international law, its precepts, its prohibitions and, most of all, its sanctions, on the side of peace, so that men and women of good will, in all countries, may have "leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law."

[Supreme Court USA comment: ridicule of Law]

re Concordat

{Educational use from: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-08/tgmwc-08-76-01.shtml }

SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE

With regard to Archbishop Groeber, if the Tribunal would not mind looking at No. 12 in the application, in the opinion of the prosecution the matters raised by the questions are not relevant. The first is "Were the Concordat negotiations between Germany and the Holy See brought about by the defendant von Paper's own initiative?" The second part of this question is, in short, "Did von Papen make efforts with Hitler regarding the conclusion of the Concordat?" Well, the Concordat was made, and what the Tribunal are really concerned with is the breaches of the Concordat, of which the prosecution has given written evidence.

The second question - I am afraid that I do not understand that, and in its present form I submit that it is irrelevant, in addition to being vague - "Were the activities of the defendant directed by his positive religious attitude after the conclusion of the Concordat also?"

Then the third question: "Was the conclusion of the Concordat welcomed by the German Episcopate?" I do not think that really helps.

And the fourth question: "Did the Concordat give legal backing to the Church during the latter's religious struggles?" And, "Could the Church, in the end, fall back on the Concordat?"

The Concordat is there and speaks for itself, and, as I say, the issue in this case is the breaches of the Concordat, not its contents. So we object to No. 12.

DR. KUBUSCHOK[Papen Defence]: No. 12, Archbishop Groeber - the Indictment asserts that the defendant von Papen used his position as a prominent German Catholic for a dirty business of deception, and that the conclusion of the Concordat, as such, was effected in the course of a policy directed against the Church; that the conclusion of the Concordat was not intended seriously, as one could see from the later violations of the Concordat. Archbishop Groeber was at the time of negotiations concerning the Concordat, at the Holy See. He was present during all the negotiations. He knows that the initiative for starting negotiations came from von Papen himself, who did not get Hitler's approval until later. He knows that the draft which had been made by von Papen for the Concordat was strongly disapproved by Hitler and that Papen was able to submit this draft only after a long struggle. The witness knows the defendant von Papen very well. He also knows from what inner feelings toward the Catholic question the defendant approached the matter of the conclusion of the Concordat. As an influential dignitary of the Church he can also judge the consequences of the Concordat. He is in a position to judge that the contents of the Concordat, at a later time also, were still a protection for church interests; and from his knowledge of the personal relations of the defendant and all the conditions of the Church in Germany, he can testify as to whether the defendant had anything at all to do with the violations of the Concordat.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, does witness No. 2 deal with the same subject? Where you say in your discussion of the subject of the evidence, that witness No. 2 accompanied the defendant to Rome to conclude the Concordat can he testify that against Hitler's strong opposition he succeeded, at the last minute, in concluding the Concordat? At that time was the witness present at all the proceedings?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The witness Tschirschky was introduced into the negotiations concerning the Concordat by the defendant. It is very important, in my opinion, to examine also a witness who was present at the negotiations as representing the other side. In particular, this witness, Archbishop Groeber, could also

[Page 206]

express an opinion in regard to the later period, the violations of the Concordat. He can judge the entire situation from the point of the Church better than can the private secretary Tschirschky. He can also give an essentially more reliable picture of von Papen's personality, which in this matter is very closely connected with his political activity. I have been very modest in my requests; but I should like to ask urgently, in this case, that an interrogatory or an affidavit by Archbishop Groeber be granted, for it is indeed clear, that the accusation that a prominent German Catholic uses his position for evil purposes of deception is a very serious one, and the defendant also is very greatly interested in having this question clarified, within the framework of the Indictment and also beyond that.

re NSDAP-Churches; Defence(Jodl)

Educational Use from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/07-18-46.htm ]Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 18, ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FIRST DAY Thursday, 18 July 1946

DR. SAUCER: Now I turn to a further accusation which has been made by the Prosecution against Defendant Von Schirach. ............

Schirach himself, as well as his wife, always remained members of the Church. To the foreign critic this circumstance may perhaps appear an unimportant detail, but we Germans know what pressure was exerted upon high-ranking Party officials in these very matters, and how few in his position ventured to resist such pressure. Schirach was one of those few. He was the one high-ranking Party Leader who constantly and invariably punished with extreme severity any hostile interference and outrages against the Church on the part of the Hitler Youth.

With the Protestant Church, on the other hand, Schirach achieved an agreement with the Reich Bishop, Dr. Muller, so that the incorporation of the Protestant youth groups into the Hitler Youth was not attained by constraint but by mutual agreement, not by breaking up these associations by the State or the Party, as the Prosecution assumes, but upon the initiative of the Protestant ecclesiastical head and in complete agreement with him. It must be pointed out here that it was always Schirach's policy that no restrictions were to be imposed on church services by the Youth Leadership, neither then nor later. On the contrary, as he himself has testified and as was confirmed by the witness Lauterbacher, Schirach emphatically

444 18 July 46

stated in 1937 that he would leave it to the churches to educate the younger generation according to the spirit of their faith, and at the same time he ordered that, as a principle, no Hitler Youth service was to be scheduled on Sundays during the time of church services. He gave strict orders to the unit leaders of the Hitler Youth not to schedule duties which might disturb church services.

You are, Gentlemen, truly sovereign judges, not bound by any written law, not bound to any paragraph, pledged to serve your conscience only, and called by destiny to give to the world simultaneously a legal order which will preserve for future generations that peace which the past was unable to preserve for them. A wellknown democrat of the old Germany, the former Minister Dr. Diltz, said in a recent article on the Nuremberg Trial: In a monarchist state justice would be administered in the name of the king; in republics courts would pronounce their rulings in the name of

465 18 July 46

the people; but you, the Nuremberg Tribunal, should administer Justice in the name of humanity.

8It is, indeed, a wonderful thought for the Court, an ideal aim, if it could believe that its verdict could in fact make real the precepts of humanity, and that it could prevent Crimes against Humanity for all time. But in certain respects this would still remain an unsteady foundation for a verdict of such magnitude as confronts you, because ideas on what humanity demands or prohibits in individual cases may vary, depending upon the epoch, the people, the party concepts according to which one judges.

I believe you may find a reliable foundation for your verdict when you revert to a maxim which has endured throughout the centuries and which certainly will remain valid in ages to come: Justitia est fundamentum regnorum.

Thus the German people, and with them the entire world, await from you a judgment which will not just be hailed today by the victor nations as the final victory over Germany, but which history will recognize as proper; a verdict in the name of justice.

In order to facilitate proper judgment, a clear distinction must be made between the different bearers of responsibility. The works manager was responsible for general labor conditions in the works, while the general conditions of life outside the works were the competence of the German Labor Front.

These spheres of responsibility become clearly apparent through the fact that two exponents for them are mentioned in the Indictment, namely, Krupp and Dr. Ley. The Defendant Sauckel can be held responsible for what happened in these spheres only insofar as events were due to his decrees, or where, contrary to his duty, he failed to exercise direct supervision.

On the grounds of this tremendous amount of material we see 22 men being accused simultaneously. That makes it immensely difficult to gain a clear picture of the guilt and responsibility of each individual, for inhumanities of an almost unimaginable vastness have come to light here, and there exists a danger that the deep shadow which falls upon some of the defendants may also darken the others. Some of them, I fear, appear in a different light because of the company in which they now sit than they would if they were alone in the dock.

The Prosecution has promoted this danger by repeatedly making joint accusations, thereby mixing legal and moral reproaches. They have said that all the defendants had enriched themselves from the occupied territories, that there was not one who did not shout, "Perish, Judah!" and so forth. No attempt to prove this in the case of any single individual was made, but the statement in itself creates an atmosphere hostile toward all of them.

re Constitutional reform 1932

[Educational, from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/06-14-46.htm ]

Re Papen speech . Munich , 12 October 1932

VON PAPEN: The reform of the Constitution, as I have already mentioned, was one of the most urgent aims of my Government. The reasons for it are set forth in this document, on Page 9. This reform was to include an electoral reform, in order to end the multiplicity of parties, and the creation of an upper House. Above all, it vitas to give the Government more authority and more opportunities to govern than was possible under the Weimar Constitution.

DR. KUBUSCHOK[defence] : As an explanation I should like to mention that the reform of the Constitution which was to do away with the conditions at that time-that Government measures were issued solely on the authority of Article 48, the emergency decree. To what extent this took place may be seen in Document 4 which gives a picture of the great number of emergency decrees which were issued.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Please give us a description of these negotiations.

VON PAPEN: These negotiations are interesting, and the Tribunal must be made familiar with them so that they can judge the events of 30 January 1933.

First of all, I tried to clear the situation with those parties that were in opposition to my Government, and especially with the Social Democrats and with the Center Party. The Center Party took an adverse position. They desired a majority government with Hitler, but Hitler did not wish to govern with a parliamentary majority. From Document 2, Page 13, we can see what the attitude of the Center Party was.

Since Hitler's collaboration in a coalition government was out of the question, I again turned to Hitler in order to ask him whether he was now ready to enter my Government. I did this

257 14 June 46

He immediately tried to do that and beginning on 18 November he received all the party leaders, from the Right to the Center; and on the 19th he received Hitler. The topic was: How can we form a parliamentary majority government? He instructed Hitler to form a majority government; Hitler would then be Chancellor.

On 23 November Goering presented Hitler's answer to Hindenburg; it was: "Hitler could not undertake the formation of a majority government."

On the 24th, Hindenburg received Monsignor Kaas, the leader of the Center Party. He declared that Hitler had not even tried to find out whether a majority government could be formed, but Monsignor Kaas promised the Reich President to try once more to form a majority government. On 25 November he reported to Hindenburg that the attempt had been in vain, that the leader of the Nazi faction, at that time Herr Frick, had stated that the Party would not be interested in such discussions. The result: The formation of a majority government with Hitler is impossible.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Now we shall turn to the year 1933. On 4 January a conference between Hitler and you took place at the home of the banker, Schroder. The Prosecution is presenting this conference as the actual beginning of your common conspiracy. Please give the Tribunal a description of how this conference came about.

VON PAPEN: I was...

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, we have been hearing for the whole of the afternoon the background of the conference. Surely we can hear of the conference now.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The defendant is charged with the fact that he was the promoter of the negotiations, which supposedly started on 4 January, for the formation of the government formed on 30 January. The role which Von Papen played in it is of decisive importance. Therefore, I consider it necessary that he tells us briefly about the background...

260 14 June 46

THE PRESIDENT: The negotiations did not start on 4 January. The defendant told us earlier, about a couple of hours ago, that they started on 12 August 1932. The negotiations started earlier than this.

VON PAPEN: I may perhaps quite briefly say, Mr. President, what it concerns. This conference on 4 January, on the occasion of which the Prosecution asserts that I pledged myself to National Socialism, was a conference which took place on the initiative of Hitler. At this conference nothing was said about the overthrow of the Government of Von Schleicher; and there was nothing said about the formation of a government by Hitler, as it later actually took place on 30 January. We merely discussed the necessity for Hitler to decide to take a responsible part, not as Chancellor, but with his Party. And, My Lord, that I did not engineer this conference or have it called may be seen clearly from the statement of Herr Von Schroder, at whose home this conference took place.

VON PAPEN: Before I reply, may I make a brief correction? Your Lordship asked me on Friday for the date of the evacuation of Jerusalem. I said it was 1918, but of course Your Lordship was right; it was in 1917. I beg your pardon.

Now in reply to your question: I did not exert any such influence on Reich President Von Hindenburg, but even if I had done so, it would not have carried any weight in the final decision of the Reich President. The political situation, as we shall see, left the Reich President only the choice between a violation of the Constitution and a Hitler Cabinet.

Furthermore, and I already mentioned this at the conclusion of the last session, it is plain from the historical events of January as reproduced in Document 9, Pages 27 through 31, that during the entire month of January until the 22d almost daily negotiations without my participation took place between the Reich Government and the various parties or among the parties themselves. All of these negotiations were concerned with the possible formation of a

263 17 June 46

majority in the Reichstag, but all of them were of no avail. I have explained that the Reich Chancellor, Von Schleicher, was trying to bring about a majority in the Reichstag by splitting the Party. This attempt, too, finally failed on 20 January; and that was obvious to the world, for on that day the Reich Chancellor authorized a statement in the Reichstag to the effect that he no longer attached importance to forming a majority in the Reichstag.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Hugenberg's statement is on Pages 194-195; Lersner's on Pages 210-212.

The Prosecution asserts that the Government formed on 30 January took over the program of the NSDAP as its own. Will you explain now, Witness, what the basis of that Government's policy was.

VON PAPEN: The view held by the Prosecution is completely incorrect. The program which on 30 January we decided to adopt was not the program of the Nazi Party, but it was a coalition program. And this is perfectly plain from the proclamation which this Government issued to the German people on 1 February. And to give historical proof of this, may I quote two sentences from that proclamation? It says:

"The National Government will consider it as its first and foremost task to restore the spiritual and political unity of our people. It will consider Christianity as the basis of its general moral outlook and will firmly protect the family as the determining unit of the nation and the State.

"The tremendous problem of reorganizing our economy will be solved with two large Four Year Plans."

I should like to add just one sentence:

"This Government is fully conscious of the magnitude of its duty to support the maintenance and affirmation of peace, which the world now needs more than ever."

In addition, this coalition program, which the Prosecution describes as the Nazi program, contained the following points: Continued existence of the Lander and the federal character of the Reich; protection of justice and the legal system, permanent tenure of office for judges; reform of the Constitution; safeguarding of the 'rights of the Christian churches; and, above all, abolition of the class conflict through a solution of social problems, the restoration of a true national community.

Enabling Act

VON PAPEN: The Enabling Act arose out of the necessity to have the economic measures carried out in an untroubled Reichstag session. Negotiations were conducted with the Center Party to obtain a 1-year parliamentary truce, but these negotiations failed. Hence this law which had some parallels in the past became a necessity. The Prosecution has emphasized this law as clear proof for the existence of a conspiracy. May I say, therefore, that I myself tried to provide for a certain check by desiring to maintain the veto power of the Reich President. The Cabinet records of 15 March show, however, that State Secretary Meissner did not consider the participation of the Reich President necessary.

DR. KUBUSCHOK:I should also like to refer to Document 23, because from the enumeration of the emergency decrees in that document it is clear that in the state of emergency which obtained then it was not possible to govern by means of Reichstag laws and that the Enabling Act was to be a substitute for these emergency decrees which were being repeatedly issued.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was your attitude towards the dissolution of the parties?

VON PAPEN: The exclusion of parties was a necessary result of the Enabling Act. For 4 years Hitler had demanded the reforms which we wanted to make. Document 25 shows that I asked Hitler to create a new basic State law, and, in his speech of 23 March Hitler

276 17 June 46

promised that. In that speech he spoke of a reform of the Constitution to be carried through by the appropriate existing constitutional organs. That reform would have given us, in my opinion, in a revolutionary way, a new and sounder democratic and parliamentary form of government. Moreover, I must say that I saw no danger in the temporary use of the one-party system. There were excellent examples for it in other states, for instance in Turkey and Portugal, where this one-party system was functioning very well. Finally, I should like to point out that in my speech at Marburg on 17 June 1934 I criticized this development and said that one could only regard it as a transitional stage which a reconstructed Constitution would have to terminate.

Concordat

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document 39, Page 121. I should like to read now a quotation from Document 40, on Page 122. After the conclusion of the Concordat, Hitler published a decree, which is worded as follows-near the middle of Page 122:

"I therefore order:

"1. All Catholic organizations which are recognized by the present Treaty and which were dissolved without directions from the Government are to be immediately reinstated.

"2. All measures of coercion against members of the clergy and other leaders of these Catholic organizations are to be rescinded. A revival of such measures is prohibited in the future and will be punished under prevailing laws."

I read that quotation to prove that only later did Hitler change his mind, probably under the influence of the circle nearest to him.

I refer to Document 41, Page 123, a telegram of Von Papen. In the English translation of this telegram there is a mistake which changes the sense considerably. Paragraph 2 of the telegram says, "Thanks to your generous and wise statesmanlike conception..." The English translation reads "sportsmanlike" instead of ' "statesmanlike."

On the next page I draw attention to the telegram addressed by Von Papen to the Bishop of Treves. There are also affidavits relevant to the questions which have been discussed. Document 43, Page 127 is the affidavit of Freiherr von Twickel, and it takes the place of an affidavit which the late Cardinal Von Galen was to have signed. The matter had already been discussed with Cardinal Von Galen; but before being able to put it into writing, he died.

VON PAPEN: It appeared to me necessary, since the Catholic press had been completely muzzled, to do something to continue public discussion of the struggle against tendencies inimical to the Church. I very often talked about this question with Bishop Hudal, an outstanding churchman in Rome, whose book written in 1936 will be submitted to the Tribunal by my counsel. This book contains my severe criticism of the anti-religious tendencies and contains also an objective appreciation of the positive social ideas of National Socialism; it is all the more notable because a high authority of the Church was then, in 1936, making yet another attempt to create a synthesis between Christian ideas and the healthy doctrines of National Socialism.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: In what way do you consider the book of importance with regard to the charge brought by the Prosecution?

VON PAPEN: I consider it to be relevant for the following reason: The Prosecution makes its task very easy: In view of the criminal end of National Socialism, it shifts all blame to the initial years of development and brands as criminals all those who, out of pure motives, attempted to give the Movement a constructive and creative character. But here in this book of 1936 a churchman of high rank lifts his voice in an attempt, made on his own initiative, to bring about an improvement of conditions. Today we know that all such attempts failed and that a world crumbled in ruins. But is it right, on that account, to accuse millions of people of crimes because they tried to attain something good in those days?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Is refer to extracts from Bishop Hudal's book, contained in Document 36, Page 116, and ask that judicial notice be taken of that document. With reference to the subject which the witness has just mentioned, the attitude of high-ranking churchmen to the question of a possible synthesis of ideas, I refer to Document Number 50, Page 135, which is an appeal made by Cardinal Innitzer on behalf and at the request of the Austrian bishops.

Witness, as you have said, Bishop Hudal aimed at a change in Hitler's ways along the lines proposed in his book. What was Hitler's reaction to the book?

VON PAPEN: At first Hitler was, I thought, very much impressed by this book; but then the anti-Christian forces among his advisers gained the upper hand once more and convinced him that it would be dangerous in the extreme to allow such a book to appear in Germany. The book had been printed in Austria, and therefore a permit for its publication in Germany was required. All I could obtain was permission to print 2,000 copies, which Hitler wanted to distribute among leading Party members for a study of the problem.

Not vatican but re Austria, Turkey

VON PAPEN: It is true that Hitler tried to keep me attached to his staff, and that about a week after the incidents I have described he sent State Secretary Lammers to ask me if I was prepared to accept the post of Ambassador to the Vatican. Of course, I refused this unreasonable request, which I mention here only because a few weeks later I accepted the Vienna post for an entirely different reason, and to prove that I was not interested in obtaining a post as such. I refused this request of Hitler's most bluntly at the time.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, we have heard of your political break with Hitler after the speech at Marburg, your resignation from the Cabinet and your treatment on 30 June. I should now like you to give us your reasons for accepting that post in Austria in spite of the events already described.

300 17 June 46

VON PAPEN: My decision to go to Austria has been made the subject of a special charge by the Prosecution. In order to understand this decision of mine you must be acquainted with German history and you must know that the Austrian problem was the central problem of German policy generally. As Dr. Seyss-Inquart has discussed this problem at length, I can dismiss it quite briefly; and I need only add that the achievement of German unity, for which we had fought for three centuries, was considered by Germany herself to be the most significant and important aim of our national policy. The events of 30 June had brought about the collapse of the coalition which I had formed on 30 January. It had been historically established that I had failed to achieve my intentions and aims in home policy. After the Dollfuss murder, the danger existed that Germany would now suffer bankruptcy also in her one great foreign political aim of the desired unity. All this was in my mind when' I weighed the very serious decision as to whether I should accede to Hitler's request. If he put a Party man in that post, then obviously all hope would be lost. If he appointed a diplomat from the Foreign Office, it could be assumed that that official would have no personal influence on Hitler. Therefore, if the situation was to be saved, it would have to be someone who was at least in a position to influence Hitler and moreover someone who, like myself, was independent and had his own political line. Today, just as at that time, I am fully aware that many of my friends did not understand the step I took and that they interpreted it as lack of character. But I hold the view that this is a question which the individual has to settle with his conscience, without regard to understanding or the lack of it; and my conscience told me that I must do everything to restore order in this one question at least.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. Messersmith, in his affidavit, 2385-PS, alleges that you pursued from Vienna a policy of aggression towards the states of southeastern Europe and quotes as your personal verbatim statement, made on the occasion of the return visit he paid to you, the following:

". . . southeast Europe as far as Turkey constitutes the German hinterland; and I have been assigned to carry out the task of incorporating it into the Reich. Austria is the first country on this program."

I should like to point out that the wording of the statement referring to the influence of Germany on the states of southeast

Europe differs considerably in Messersmith's two affidavits.

As I have already indicated in my previous question, Mr. Messersmith says in 2385-PS that Papen said that he had been assigned to carry out the task of incorporating southeast Europe into the Reich. In contrast to that, the statement is worded very differently in 1760-PS. There Mr. Messersmith states that Papen said on that occasion that he had been ordered to see to it that the whole of southeast Europe, up to the Turkish border, should be regarded as Germany's natural hinterland, and that German economic control over that entire area should be facilitated by his work; thus, in one affidavit, incorporation is mentioned and in the other the facilitation of economic control.

In connection with this latter much less strongly-worded affidavit 1760-PS, I ask the witness whether he did at that time make such a statement, namely, that the whole of southeastern Europe as far as the Turkish border was Germany's natural hinterland and that he had been called upon to facilitate German economic control throughout the entire area on Germany's behalf.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer in this connection also to Glaise-Horstenau's deposition in the case of Seyss-Inquart. Mr. Messersmith further alleges that you said to him during the discussion that you were trading on your reputation as a good Catholic with, among others, certain Austrians like Cardinal Innitzer. Further on in his affidavit he even asserts that you used your wife's reputation as a fervent and devout Catholic for this purpose, without scruples or qualms of conscience. Will you kindly state your views on this assertion of Mr. Messersmith's.

VON PAPEN: When this report was written, we had news that Starhemberg-Starhemberg was the chief of the Heimwehr- wanted to link himself with Mussolini in a policy which would be hostile in future to any Germanophile tendencies in Austria. In order to counter Prince Starhemberg's maneuver, I advised Hitler to suggest to Schuschnigg that, instead of forming a coalition with

the Heimwehr, he should do so with the Christian Socialist elements, who were not opposed to a reconciliation of Germany with Austria. In order to induce Schuschnigg to enter into such a coalition, Hitler was to offer him a final settlement of German and Austrian interests. In other words, Hitler was to tell him that Germany would recognize the national independence of Austria and would undertake not to interfere in future in the internal affairs of Austria.

And I went on to say to Hitler that if we achieved this pacification and established good and friendly relations with Austria, we could even join in the Danube Pact. This was the combination of the French, the Italians, and the Czechoslovaks, who were always in favor of a pact of the Danube powers including Austria. We in Germany had opposed the policy of those powers at the time, because we feared that if Austria joined a Danube Pact, she would be estranged from Germany once and for all. If, on the other hand, we were on good terms with Austria and friendly relations were established again, we could, as I pointed out to Hitler, join in this Danube Pact and by this means achieve something extraordinarily constructive for the cause of European peace.

VON PAPEN: I have heard about this Case Otto for the first time during this Trial. The Case Otto was, it was stated, a theoretical preparation for a military attack in the event that, as a consequence of the restoration of the Hapsburgs, the Czechs and Hungarians should march into Austria.

VON PAPEN: I have heard about this Case Otto for the first time during this Trial. The Case Otto was, it was stated, a theoretical preparation for a military attack in the event that, as a consequence of the restoration of the Hapsburgs, the Czechs and Hungarians should march into Austria.

VON PAPEN: I accepted the post, after I had refused it twice, under quite extraordinary circumstances. On the day of Italy's occupation of Albania, Herr Von Ribbentrop called me up and urgently asked me to come to Berlin. There he explained to me that the post in Ankara, which had been vacant for 6 months, would have to be filled immediately because of the complications which might arise in the southeast from the occupation of Albania. Before I accepted this post I carefully considered whether I could do and had

to do anything more for the Hitler Government. After 15 March, the entry into Prague, we knew that we were sitting on a powder keg. In this European problem there were two possibilities of conflict; one was the Polish problem, where I could do nothing; the other was the southeast problem which had become acute through the occupation of Albania. I felt that I could do something here and could contribute to the maintenance of peace in Europe. For that reason I offered to go to Ankara at this moment.

Re-contitiutionality, Church matters and peace

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I wish to point out that with the approval of the Court an interrogatory. on this subject was sent to Minister Dr. Visser, but the interrogatory has not yet been received.

Did you make further suggestions as to ending the war in 19391 I am thinking in this connection of a report on the restoration of legal life in Germany.

VON PAPEN: Yes. In December of 1939 I sent a detailed report for Hitler to Herr Von Ribbentrop, and in this report I said that the first condition for any conclusion of peace and for any readiness abroad to conclude a peace would be the renunciation of the present government methods in Germany; that is, a return to constitutions conditions in Germany. Then I told Hitler, "If you do this, you wit have more credit abroad; and it might be possible to prepare the way for peace negotiations."

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I refer to Document Number 93, Page 214. This is the interrogatory of Freiherr von Lersner, whom I wanted to call as a witness but who could not come here because of transportation difficulties. On Page 214, the answer to Question 7 is:

"My activities for the mediation of peace negotiations were always based on my own initiative and extended to the attempt to mediate general world peace between all belligerent states. Prior to all peace measures, I engaged in detailed discussions with Ambassador Von Papen and was always warmly supported by him to the utmost, although every peace measure was forbidden him and was at least as perilous for him as for me. "He also made me acquainted with a number of foreigners, above all with the Apostolic Delegate to Istanbul, Archbishop Roncalli. "When in 1942 I resolved to go to the Vatican, not only did Ambassador Von Papen urgently advise me to make the trip; but he also personally procured for me all the necessary PAPENs and passports for Rome, where in spite of the express

prohibition of the Reich Government I suggested to Cardinal Maglione and the diplomatic director of the Curia, Bishop Montini, a world peace drive by Pope Pius XII with all belligerent powers.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: What did you do during this time regarding Church matters?

VON PAPEN: During the war I did everything in my power to counteract an intensification of the fight against the Church. That means that I took all such institutions in Turkey under my personal protection.

Re-armament

DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Now the charge is made against Herr Von Neurath of having co-operated in the rearmament of Germany. What was Hitler's reason and motive for this rearmament, which it may be supposed started before the actual taking over of the military sovereignty?

VON PAPEN: I stated yesterday that the actual rearmament began only after I had resigned from the Cabinet. But as far as I am informed, all of my former colleagues held the view that a rearmament was only to serve the purpose of giving Germany a defensive protection for her borders.

VON PAPEN: My opinion about Hitler and his inner political significance was completely clear after 30 June 1934. But, like all other human beings, I could assume that in the field of foreign politics at least he would be sensible and I was of this opinion until after the Munich Agreement.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, just let us see whether you had not had an opportunity of forming that view much earlier. When you were Reich Chancellor in 1932 it was necessary for you to acquaint yourself with the personalities and aims and methods of the Nazi Party, was it not?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you did so, did you not?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And you remember-I do not want to delay by referring to the document, but you may take it as an exact quotation-that on 16 November 1932 Hitler wrote to you and said: "You must be aware of my attitude and the attitude of my Party."

VON PAPEN: Of course, I knew the aims of his Party; but I may add, if a party forms a coalition with another party it has to eliminate a great deal from its program and form a coalition program. That was what Hitler did on 30 January.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but before we come to 30 January I want to ask you-get your view in 1932. You had very little doubt in 1932, during the period of your Chancellorship, that if Hitler got into power Germany was in danger of being ruled by violent and unconstitutional methods, had you not, if Hitler got into power?

VON PAPEN: Doubtless the program of the National Socialists was revolutionary in this connection, but I explained in detail to the Court that when we came to this forced solution of 30 January we established a number of safeguards and drew up a joint coalition program which in our opinion eliminated the points of danger which you have mentioned

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It was very strongly the view of President Von Hindenburg in the middle of 1932 that it would be most dangerous to put power into Hitler's hands, was it not?

VON PAPEN: Yes, that was indeed his opinion, that Hitler had to be controlled by restricting his power.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, is it true, as the Defendant Goering stated under oath, that he told you in 1932 that whatever else the Nazis would do Hitler would not become a "Vice" or

339 18 June 46

second man; that he would oppose any political set-up which did not give him the first place? Is that correct?

VON PAPEN: Yes, Hitler always told me that.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, in order to save time I just want to see if Herr Meissner puts the position correctly in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of his affidavit. I will summarize it for you, and believe me, I will be most pleased to read anything of which you have any doubt. He puts it in this way: That in November 1932 you

340 18 June 46

thought that the general situation and the Nazi Party, in particular, could be controlled if the President gave you the power to make decrees under Article 48 and you had the support of the Reichswehr and the Police, and at that time General Von Schleicher disagreed because he thought that the Reichswehr was not capable of keeping order in Germany. Is that right?

VON PAPEN: It is incorrect insofar as this process cannot be covered by any paragraph of the Constitution, but constitutes a breach of the Constitution. Otherwise it is correct.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE That he might have had to use ultra-constitutional methods to keep control, is that what you 'mean?

VON PAPEN: Yes. As I have said here he gave me this assignment on 1 December.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, but originally, is Meissner right in saying that you desired, after you had failed to get Hitler into your Government, to rule by decree and by keeping control with the Reichswehr, and General Von Schleicher said that it could not be done?

VON PAPEN: Now, that is not true. After President Von Hindenburg had decided that he did not want to break the Constitution he appointed General Von Schleicher Reich Chancellor, as is well known. At that time Herr Von Schleicher wanted to create a majority by splitting the Party and, of course, I supported this attempt of Herr Von Schleicher's.

Banker Schroder Meeting

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: But he was not the only person, you know, that published a communiqué. You and Hitler published a communiqué.

I want you to remember, Defendant, I put to you that the suggestion from you was that you and Hitler would form a coalition with the conservative forces behind you, and the National Socialist forces behind Hitler. Now just look at the communiqué that you and Hitler issued.

Will you give the defendant Document Number D-637. My Lord, this is a new document, which will become GB-496.

Look at the foot of it, Defendant, the end of the document:

"Adolf Hitler and Herr Von Papen publish the following joint declaration:

"In answer to false deductions which have in many cases been circulated in the press regarding Adolf Hitler's meeting with

the former Reich Chancellor Von Papen, the undersigned declare that the conversation dealt exclusively with the question of the possibility of a great national political united front and that in particular the opinions of both parties on the present Reich Cabinet were not touched on at all in this general discussion."

Hindenberg

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE:But now, let us come to the next action of yours. Do you deny that during January you were active in making contact with Hitler, and on Hitler's behalf with President Von Hindenburg, in order to bring Hitler into the Government? Or do you agree with that?

VON PAPEN: That is true, and I will say in what respect. I had two official talks with Hindenburg. On 9 January, when I returned to Berlin, I went from Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher to Reich President Von Hindenburg. Reich Chancellor Von Schleicher, being of the opinion that in the Schroder talk I had been disloyal to him, had asked Von Hindenburg not to receive me any more. I informed Von Hindenburg of the actual contents of the Schroder talk and, after I had reached an agreement with Von Schleicher, Hindenburg was also convinced that the whole thing had been a big misunderstanding.

[A document was handed to the defendant.]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE" In the meantime Papen had returned to Berlin and, through arrangements with Hindenburg's son, had several talks with the President. When Schleicher renewed his demand for emergency powers, Hindenburg declared that he was unable to give him such blank authority and must reserve for himself decisions in every individual case. Schleicher, for his part, said that under these circumstances he was unable to stay in the Government and tendered his resignation on 28 January 1933."

Then, Paragraph 7:

"In the middle of January, when Schleicher first asked' for exceptional powers, Hindenburg was not aware of the meetings between Papen and Hitler, particularly the meeting which had taken place in the house of the Cologne banker, Kurt von Schroder. In the second part of January Papen played an increasingly important role in the house of the Reich President, but in spite of Papen's persuasions Hindenburg was extremely hesitant, until the end of January, to appoint Hitler Chancellor. He wanted to have Papen as Chancellor once more. Papen finally won him to Hitler with the argument that the representatives of the other rightwing parties which would belong to the government would restrict Hitler's freedom of action. In addition Papen expressed his misgivings that, if the present opportunity were once again neglected, a revolt of the National Socialists and civil war would be likely."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I think you said, Defendant- you put it that you had two meetings with President Von Hindenburg and then, I think, after 18 January you had meetings with Hitler, and after 22 January you had meetings with the Defendant Goering, as he said in his evidence, is that not so?

VON PAPEN: No, I did not meet with Hitler from 4 January until 22 January.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: We will call it about 4 days, the dates of the Nazi Party say that you began negotiations on the 18th, but we will not quarrel about a day or two. The crucial meeting was the meeting which eras arranged with Oskar von Hindenburg at the Defendant Von Ribbentrop's house, was it not?

VON PAPEN: It was a preliminary talk; it was at any rate the first contact with the National Socialists, with Hitler, and with Goering.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And Oskar von Hindenburg had private conversations with Hitler which lasted for about an hour, at that meeting at Von Ribbentrop's house; is that not so?

VON PAPEN: That is possible. I do not recall it any more.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And thereafter, the decision was come to that Hitler would become Chancellor in the new Government and that he would bring into the Government the Defendant Frick as Minister of the Interior, and the Defendant Goering as Minister without Portfolio, and he himself would head the Government as Chancellor

Deputy arrest

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: What I really want to know, Defendant, is that at this time you had had these contacts with Hitler. You have been Chancellor of Germany yourself. At this time did you think that Hitler personally, and Hitler's aims and intentions and personality, were a good thing for Germany to have as Chancellor? It is a perfectly simple question. I want a straight answer. Did you think it was a good thing to have Hitler, as you knew him then, as Chancellor of Germany?

VON PAPEN: To that I can say only that the coalition which I formed on behalf of the Reich President was a forced solution. There was no question of whether it was better or worse. We had to accept it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, now, just let us see. I think you said that you were not certain that Hitler would eliminate opposition before he came into power. How long did it take you, after Hitler became Chancellor, to find out that his desire was to eliminate all opposition?

VON PAPEN: I realized that finally when I made the last attempt in my Marburg speech to hold him to the joint program, and when this attempt failed...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was 18 months later, on 17 June 1934. Are you telling the Tribunal that it took you 17 months to realize that Hitler wanted to break down the opposition?

VON PAPEN: No, I told the Court...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Just let me remind you of one or two things. Do you remember Herr Ernst Heilmann, who had been the leader of the Social Democrats in the Prussian Diet?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: He was, I think, for 10 years a member of the Prussian Diet with you. He went into a concentration camp at once and was treated with the most terrible cruelty, was he not?

VON PAPEN: I learned of that later, here, for the first time. I did not know it at that time.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Are you telling the Tribunal that you did not know in 1933 that Ernst Heilmann went into a concentration camp?

VON PAPEN: I knew only that a number of political opponents, Communists and Socialists, had been sent to concentration camps by the Gestapo. That I knew.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, answer my question. Here was the leader of the Social Democrats in the Prussian Diet, a man who sat in Parliament with you for 10 years. Do you say that you did not know that he had gone to a concentration camp?

VON PAPEN: I do not recall, no. I believe I learned of it only here.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now will you answer my questions. Did you not know that hundreds of Social Democrats and Communists had been put in concentration camps?

VON PAPEN: No, I did not know there were hundreds. I knew that individual leaders had been thrown into concentration camps.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, you mentioned, in giving your evidence to the Court, that the Amnesty Decree of 21 March was only the sort of thing that had happened before; that was a concretely one-sided amnesty, was it not? It was an amnesty to those who had fought in the national revolution, that is, an amnesty for Nazis. It was not an amnesty for Communists or Social Democrats or anyone who had been on the other side, was it?

VON PAPEN: Quite true, yes. It was an amnesty for the people who had worked against the formation of the Government.

Concordat 2

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I just give you the last words. Here you are appealing in a careful and special appeal to your Catholic fellow citizens, and you say:

"Let us in this hour say to the Fuehrer and the new Germany that we believe in him and his work."

Why did you talk like that when you must have known, in November 1933, that his program was to smash opposition, smash his political opponents, smash the trade unions and put himself in complete control of Germany? Why were you making speeches like that unless you believed and agreed with everything Hitler wanted to do?

VON PAPEN: I will tell you that very precisely. You know that in July of that year I concluded the Concordat, and that I received Hitler's assurance that he would make religious peace the basis of his policy. The more conservative elements could be brought to back the Government, so much the better it would be for the fulfillment of my program.

Killings of the Schleichers

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, you knew very well that Hitler was worried from the point of view of foreign opinion as to publicity being given to the effect of a break between you and him, did you not?

You knew that the support, after the blood purge, of an ex-Chancellor of the German Reich and, as you have told us, a Catholic of old family with great position amongst the German population- the support of someone of that kind would be of great value to him after this blood purge, which had caused foreign opinion to be very disturbed, did you not? You knew that?

VON PAPEN: No, it seems clear from this letter that I constantly asked Herr Hitler to ascertain why and for what reasons action had been taken in this manner against my associates and me. He was to explain this to the world.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Herr Von Papen, if you, as an ax-Chancellor of the Reich and, as you said yourself, one of the leading Catholic laymen of Germany, an ex-officer of the Imperial Army, had said at that time "I am not going to be associated with murder, cold-blooded murder as an instrument of policy," you might at some risk to yourself have brought down the whole of this rotten regime, might you not?

VON PAPEN: That is possible, but had I said it publicly, then quite probably I would have disappeared somewhere just as my associates did. And, apart from that, the world knew from my resignation that I did not identify myself with this affair.

Austria, after the killings

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, if you look down a few lines in Mr. Messersmith's statement, he says:

When I did call on Von Papen in the German Legation he greeted me with: 'Now you are in my Legation and I can control the conversation.' In the baldest and most cynical manner he then proceeded to tell me that all of southwestern Europe, to the borders of Turkey, was Germany's natural hinterland, and that he had been charged with the mission of facilitating German economic and political control over all this region for Germany. He blandly and directly said that getting control of Austria was to be the first step. He definitely stated that he was in Austria to undermine and weaken the Austrian Government, and from Vienna to work towards the weakening of the governments in the other states to the south and southeast. He said that he intended to use his reputation as a good Catholic to gain influence with certain Austrians, such as Cardinal Innitzer, toward that end. He said that he was telling me this because the German Government was bound on this objective of getting this control of southwestern Europe and there was nothing which could stop it, and that our own policy and that of France and England was not realistic."

Then Mr. Messersmith says that he told you that he was shocked, and that you merely smiled and said that, of course, this conversation was between you and Mr. Messersmith, and you would not talk so clearly to other people. Then he says:

"I have gone into this detail with regard to this conversation as it is characteristic of the absolute frankness and directness with which high Nazi officials spoke of their objectives."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes. That is the answer which I thought you would have to give. Now, just look at Page 83, which is in the very next paragraph:

"The German nation has for centuries had to pursue a veritable path of suffering in order to secure its unity. With the dawn of National Socialism and the founding of the Third Reich by means of the final overthrow of all particulars, an opportunity, unique and never to be repeated, seemed to present itself to complete Bismarck's work and to bring relations between Germany and Austria nearer to a solution, as a dynamic result of internal events in Germany."

I will see if I can put quite shortly what you mean by the completion of this man's work, because I hope we shall not disagree about ancient history, whatever we do about the other. As I understand, your view is that this, Bismarck's setting up the German Empire in 1871, was merely an attempt at a solution which left the Hapsburg Empire separated from Germany, and the final completion of his work was that the old Hapsburg dominions should be brought back with the states which had been in the Holy Roman Empire. Is that roughly the truth?

VON PAPEN: Quite right; not all the Hapsburg states, but Austria, the German part.

374 18 June 46

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The original Hapsburg domains?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Quite right. I hope I am putting it objectively enough.

VON PAPEN: Oh, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: With regard to that, what did you mean by saying that the solution of the relations between Germany and Austria should be brought about by "dynamic consequences of internal events in Germany"? What did you mean by that?

VON PAPEN: By that I mean the following: Never in Germany's history had it happened that a large party whose aim was Germany's unity existed in both nations. That was a unique historical event. And I wished to state that the dynamic force of this movement in the two countries, which was urging unity, gave promise of a solution. '

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You see, Defendant, the difficulty that I want you to explain is: How do you square an approval of centralization in Germany with a Nazi Government whose unscrupulous message you then knew after the affairs since 30 June 1934 how do you square an unscrupulous centralized Germany with an evolutionary solution of the Austrian problem?

[following, Educational Use, from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/06-19-46.htm ]

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, before you explain it, just have a look at it. You will find Dr. Paul Schmidt's affidavit

380 19 June 46

on Page 41 of Document Book 11, that is Page 37 of the German document book, Document 3308-PS. Now just listen to Dr. Paul Schmidt's view, Paragraph 8:

"Plans for the annexation of Austria were a part of the Nazi program from the beginning. Italian opposition after the murder of Dollfuss necessitated a more cautious approach to this problem for a time; but the application of sanctions against Italy by the League of Nations plus the rapid increase of German military strength, made the resumption of thee Austrian program safer. When Goering visited Rome early in 1937, he declared that the union of Austria and Germany was inevitable and must be expected sooner or later. Mussolini, hearing these words in German, remained silent and uttered only a mild protest when I translated them into French. The consummation of the Anschluss was essentially a Party matter, in which Von Papen's role was to preserve smooth diplomatic relations on the surface while the Party used more devious ways of preparing conditions for the expected move."

Concordat and Austria

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: You say that you had nothing to do with that; that is your answer? I want to ask you one or two things about the Catholic Church. You remember the Fulda Declaration of the Bishops?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is right, is it not? That was made and based on an assurance which Hitler gave to the Church of his good intentions, on 23 March 1933? Do you remember Hitler's making a statement like that?

VON PAPEN: Not only on the 23d, but also in the Government declaration Hitler expressly stated his view that every policy must be based on both the Christian denominations.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, that in turn was the result, at least in part, of a statement of yours at a Cabinet meeting on 15 March 1933, when you stressed the importance of incorporating political Catholicism into the new State; that is a correct and factual statement, is it not? That is the way the thing works out?

VON PAPEN: Completely, Sir David.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes.

VON PAPEN: I made every effort to induce Hitler to establish this Christian basis of his policy firmly by means of solemn engagements; and I think I have already explained to the High Tribunal that I really made every effort to carry through this program.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now let me ask you to look once again at Document 11, Page 96; Page 78 of the German version, which is Document 2248-PS. It is your report to Hitler of 27 July 1935. Now in that report you use these words: "...the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany..."

401 19 June 46

My Lord, it is on Page 99 of the English text and it is Page 86 of the German text. My Lord, it is the first paragraph, Page 99: "Cultural problems have a special significance. The way in which Germany deals with her political and religious difficulties, the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without weakening the Christian foundations of Germany will not only have a decisive reaction on England or Catholic Poland. We may rather say that the solution of the German-Austrian question stands or falls with it."

Now, what I want you to bear in mind: This is your account to Hitler in July 1935, over 2 years after the Concordat: "....the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany. . ." Now your counsel quoted one passage of His Holiness the Pope's allocution, and I would just like you to look and tell the Tribunal whether you agree with the next passage, which occurs after the bit quoted by Dr. Kubuschok. My Lord, this is a new document-no, My Lord, I am sorry. It is an old exhibit. It is Document 3268-PS, which is Exhibit USA-356. Your Lordship remembers that Dr. Kubuschok quoted a portion, in his document book, of the Pope's allocution. My Lord, I have some extra copies.

Now after the bit which Dr. Kubuschok quoted as to the Concordat having prevented worse evils, His Holiness goes on to say: "The struggle against the Church did, in fact, become more and more embittered: the disbanding of Catholic organizations; the progressive suppression of the flourishing Catholic schools, both public and private; the enforced weaning of youth from family and Church; the pressure brought to bear on the conscience of the citizens, and especially of civil servants; the systematic defamation, by means of clever, closely organized propaganda, of the Church, the clergy, the faithful, and of the Church's institutions, teaching, and history; the closing, disbanding, and confiscation of religious houses and other ecclesiastical institutions; the complete suppression of the Catholic press and publishing houses."

Do you agree with His Holiness that that is a correct description of the action of the German Reich against the Catholic Church?

VON PAPEN: Completely.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well now, I would just like you also to look at the "Mit Brennender Sorge," which is Document 3280-PS.

Your Lordship will find it at Page 40 of Document Book 11-I am sorry, My Lord, it is Page 47. I said 40. It is 40 of the German text.

402 19 June 46

Now, if you notice, that is quite early, on 14 March 1937, 4 years after the Concordat, and he says in the second sentence at the beginning:

"It discloses intrigues which from the first had no other aim than a war of extermination. In the furrows in which we had labored to sow the seeds of true peace, others-like the enemy in Holy Scripture-sowed the tares of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, of secret and open basic hostility to Christ and His Church, fed from a thousand different sources and employing every available means. They, and they only, along with their silent or vocal protectors are responsible for the fact that on the horizon of Germany there is now to be seen, not the rainbow of peace, but the threatening stormcloud of destructive religious wars."

Now, Defendant, what I want you to tell the Tribunal-do you agree with that?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If you agree with these statements of the head of the Church, how could you possibly write to Hitler, 2 years after the Concordat, in July 1935, that he had "eliminated political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundations of Germany"? It was absolutely wrong, wasn't it, that Hitler and the Nazis had not touched the Christian foundations of Germany? They had uprooted them and were in process of destroying them?

VON PAPEN: Sir David, you are confusing two completely different things, political Catholicism...

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, I don't want to interrupt you, but I have made that point quite clear. The point I am putting to you is not the elimination of political Catholicism. I am not, for the moment, dealing with the relation between you and Monsignor Kaas. What I am dealing with is your other statement, that it had been done without touching the Christian foundations of Germany. What I am putting to you is what His Holiness is saying, that the Christian foundations of Germany were being destroyed. I don't mind, for the moment, about the views that Monsignor Kaas had of you or you had of Monsignor Kaas. I know what they are.

VON PAPEN: Let me explain these things to you. The struggle against the Church and its institutions, against which His Holiness the Pope inveighs in his encyclicals in the years 1937 and 1945, and in which he recognized the intensification of the situation obtaining during the war-all of these things were an attack on the Christian foundations of Germany, an attack which I always condemned most

403 19 June 46

strongly. But this has no connection at all with the elimination of so-called political Catholicism for which I hoped and which I demanded. These are two completely different things. Perhaps it is hard for you to understand, since you are not familiar with circumstances in Germany.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Please believe, Defendant, that I have spent a great deal of time in pursuing the troubles between you and Monsignor Kaas. I am not going to bring them out before the Tribunal because they are not important. I appreciate and agree-not as well as you do, but I appreciate the position of political Catholicism and I am not asking you about that. I am asking you about your statement. Why did you say to Hitler that he had not touched the Christian foundations of Germany? That is what I want to know. You must have known in 1935 that that wasn't true?

VON PAPEN: But, Sir David, that is a complete distortion of the contents of this report. I am telling Hitler that the Christian foundations of Germany must not be weakened and that may still be read in the report today: "Political Catholicism must be eliminated without weakening the Christian foundations of Germany."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, you appreciate how it begins. You say ". . . that a clever hand which eliminates it without touching..." Just let me remind you: Didn't you say, in your interrogation, that your trouble-part of your trouble in the summer of 1934, before you made the Marburg speech, was due to the nonfulfillment of the Concordat, that after it had been signed, with the consent of Hitler, ". . . he treated it just as a scrap of paper and I couldn't do anything"? Then there was the persecution of the Churches and the Jews at the same time. That was late in 1933 and in 1934. Is that your view in 1934, ". .. that there had not only been treating of the Concordat as a scrap of paper but persecution of both the Churches and the Jews"?

VON PAPEN: I do not know which document you are quoting from, Sir David.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: This is your interrogation on the morning of 19 September 1945.

VON PAPEN: Yes, of course. When I delivered the Marburg speech, I believed that the State was violating all these things; otherwise, I would not have made the speech. But in this speech, Sir David, I again expressly emphasized the fact that no European occidental state can exist without a Christian foundation, and that by disregarding our Christian basis we would cut ourselves off from the group of Christian peoples and from our mission in Europe.

404 19 June 46

I could scarcely say it more clearly than that. And perhaps I can tell you something else on the subject of political Catholicism. You have . . .

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do as you want to. I especially want to avoid burdening the Tribunal with the exchanges between you and Monsignor Kaas, because both of you used harsh language and it might not sound very good if I repeated it now. If you want to go into it, do, but don't open it up unless you must.

VON PAPEN: I regard this accusation which you are making against me as one of the most tremendous for it violates my whole conception.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Defendant, you remember you told the Tribunal just before the adjournment that you had introduced Cardinal Innitzer to Hitler when you went into Austria. You remember that after the statement to which Dr. Kubuschok has referred, that Cardinal Innitzer in a broadcast from Rome made it clear that he was only accepting the Nazi rule of Austria on certain conditions. Do you remember that?

VON PAPEN: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Oh, Defendant, surely you have told us that you were one of the leading Catholic laymen in Germany. You are not going to tell the Tribunal that in the Catholic Church it wasn't known to every bishop in Germany and probably to every parish priest that this abominable and sacrilegious insult had been offered to a prince of the Church in his own house in Vienna. Surely it would permeate through the Church in a few days.

VON PAPEN: That is quite possible, Sir David; but would you expect me, a private citizen, to do anything? What could I do? The Tribunal did not take notice of the discussion which I brought about between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler. You mentioned that for the first time here today.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That is exactly why I am putting this incident to you, that you were responsible for bringing about the meeting between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler in March of 1938. When His Eminence is attacked in October, I should have thought- it is not for me to express my thoughts-that you might have taken the trouble to protest to Hitler, and all that you do is to take another job under Hitler within 6 months, in April 1936.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes. Now one last question to the witness.

A while ago Cardinal Innitzer's talk to Hitler in Vienna was discussed. What occasioned you to arrange this meeting of Hitler with Cardinal Innitzer?

VON PAPEN: With our march into Austria and the Anschluss of Austria to the Reich, Hitler had joined a Catholic country to Germany; and the problem, which was to be solved, was winning this country from the interior as well. That was possible only if Hitler recognized the religious basis, recognized what rights Catholicism had in this country; for this reason I arranged a talk between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler in order to make sure that Hitler in the future would follow a policy which stood on a Christian basis in Austria.

DR. STEINBAUER: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall now call Chief of Police Dr. Skubl as witness.

[The witness Skubl took the stand.]

DR. STEINBAUER: When Dr. Schuschnigg announced the plebiscite, did he order any special security measures?

SKUBL: The order for the plebiscite naturally had the effect of a bombshell on the National Socialists, not only on the National Socialists in Austria, but also in the Reich. There was feverish activity, therefore, and preventive measures naturally had to be introduced.

This special activity can be explained by the fact that the National Socialists were afraid that in the event of a plebiscite they would suffer a great defeat, for the election slogans would have been accepted by the overwhelming majority of the Austrian population.

In this connection it is most interesting to draw your attention to an article which appeared on 11 March in the Deutsch-Osterreichische Tagesreitung, in which the fear could be read that this plebiscite would open the way for a democratization of Austria, the formation of a people's front, and subsequently as a result of this, for bolshevization. From this one could recognize the consciousness that the Austrian National Socialists were a minority.

Schacht

[Educational use fromhttp://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/01-10-46.htm#schacht]

LT. BRYSON: Schacht also exercised broad powers as a member of the Reich Defense Council, which was secretly established on 4 April 1933 and

125 10 Jan. 46

the function of which was preparation for war.

Archive 14/called: Straw Man Notes, 1937 PPXI, Council failure

Secretary Rumsfeld Assertion

“I mean, we’ve got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money,” Rumsfeld added. “He’s a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally......"

during a National Press Club appearance Thursday 02 02 06

From the Trials above it appears the conspiracy or common purpose was judged to have begun on 4 January at Schroder's House.

supposed Pope Pius XII in Wikipedia at 7 April 2006

There is a total absence of Sister Pasqualina/Pascualina.

"It is sometimes perceived" 9the RKKDt) is remaining unhistorical whitewash. It is perceived is correct (in histories as we know them). Who disputes this?

Scholder is only confirming the standard Shirer, whose text couldn't be more succinct nor less controversial. he's old , he used all the sources of his time, and he confirms that "with an eye to the Votes of the Centre Party, which he received" that AH spoke warmly of the better relations to come with the Holy See.

The Cornwell section should reiterate the assistance to power, and discuss the particularly pacelli family connection to such fascist empowerment and abandonment of democratic catholicismin both Italy and Germany(if not also the Saar,and laterAustria. There is entirely insufficient recognition of the Pacelli enforced volte face by the German Hierarchy , which connects to this aspect.

The private' Kaas audience , is in my view on-topic as he was pacelli's friend, confidante, and tool. Kaas is called mouthpiece for whom ? Pacelli.

Mowrer report should be linked as reporting a letter of Pacelli's :it is primary source, being witnessed by the credible and respected world class Mowrer. That is primary source, not history but live action report by a living testimony. Not an analysis but primary.

As with the entire ascent of the nazis, trickery was along there with menace, and all history recognises the trickery whereby the Kaas and papen journey was secret, until the Italian press revealed them exiting the vatican. This therefore is remaining whitewash and outright lie.

Relationship with Germany: this centres back with Kaas as eventual successful tool and the Scholder thesis that the vatican was central to the very success of the Common Plan or Conspiracy. What's wrong, is it too much logic for you there, even though Shirer says it? The relationship with the Nazis was a 5th German putsh, and a successful one, taking over the vatican itself by blinding PPXI through his anti-communist fear, eventually causing his re-awakening and Church-Cardinal-alleged (Tisserand) murder before he could bring the Holy See out in complete confrontation.

This particular putsch was successful because it brought the Hitler dictatorship to power. It cannot therefore be removed from this relationship section, as it is all sourced, repeat sourced, Shirer onwards, i.e. standard fare, and correct. Nazi Germany began, to the Tribunal and all history since, at the vote upon Kaas' hand. The conspiracy begins with the 25 point Nazi program of 1921, and this moment represents the culmination of that conspiracy and the entering of the phase towards inhuman and Aggressive War. This was all tried and classified as rolling continuously from the pivotal 4 January intrigue. Despite the earlier mention, this cannot but be faced up to as clearly as it was found to have been the case. Kaas as mouthpiece and tool, is to all intents and purposes therefore himself a doppelganger of Pacelli. The effect is as I describe, and here perhaps the private Hitler meeting of the mouthpiece be centre stage. It is not the RKKDt here, it is the choice of anti-communist and anti-semitic belligerence, no less. That the vatican was evil in this is indisputable, that Papen named a high authority is a contradictory primary source against self-serving and contradictory Pacelli apologia for 1935. Both must be mentioned as relevant to this subject's absence from heaven, etc. The trials clearly state that all who were involved were culpable. Pacelli was more involved through Kaas than anyone. He effected the vote though his stooge's solo negotiation for the Letter of Constitutional Guarantee; as I have stated , this is history.

All that is my Original thought is how Kaas and Hitler arranged this, not that they did arrange it. I never suggest it enters the articles, because it is largely unnecessary, and of course, original to me. It is, solely, that Hitler said such as "Kaasie, they'll never know-you'll still look good, don't worry, we 'll just promise the letter, and once the vote is done, it won't matter anymore-you'll get Russia on a plate, you'll see"

Expensive dish, eh Str1977? How much will the bill be NOW, from what your lot will find they NOW henceforth will bear as costs to their reputation? Get yourself onside Str, before the assisatnce to these excommunicates becomes a problem to you. There must be a penalty to assist excommunicates as you are doing, no? Do please save your last shreds of credibility, and open the canonical rectification of this scandal. Do once and for all accept my good faith , which is more in line with catholic magisterial (Divine) law and canonical Law. Acept my good faith.

It is not enough to hide anymore, nor do as you did here to me, not enough to blind the world with off-topic later little efforts made against Hitler. You had no Pope Pius XII, he never was a pope, only an excommunicate. By your Lady war criminal is what he was, and hiding him makes it all the more criminal.

Do the history and accede to the Nuremberg demands , all of you.EffK 02:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit agency & Straw-man in WP.fr / Pie XII discussion

Ce qui a été écrit par toi jusqu'à présent n'est aussi qu'un point de vue, et il n'a jamais été précisé que c'en était un. ça à au contraire été présenté comme une vérité intengible et éternelle, intouchable--fl0 18 octobre 2005 à 12:56 (CEST)fl0
J'admire en vérité l'art que tu as de ne pas vouloir lire les réponse qu'on donne aux questions que tu poses quand elles te dérangent .--fl0 12 octobre 2005 à 15:09 (CEST)fl0
La question qui se pose ici n'est pas tant ce pape mais la manière dont est présenté l'article en général, à savoir qu'il est l'expression d'un principal contributeur (Werewindle), soutenu par d'autres tacitement et que de ce fait il n'a pas été possible jusqu'à présent d'approcher de cet article sans etre immédiatement reverté si l'on tentait d'insérer un point de vue différent du sien, ce qui est contraire à la neutralité dont il faut tout de meme un minimum pour que tous les points de vue puissent au moins etre présentés. Voilà.--fl0 19 octobre 2005 à 09:47 (CEST)fl0
Oui mais comme Ganymede te dis on ne peut plus clairement à christianisme et homosexualité qu'il te prend pour ce que tu es, un jésuite, ou plutot un de leurs élèves, il n'aura pas besoin que je lui explique que tu es champion dans la manipulation et l'agencement de soit-disant preuves que tu avances pour faire apparaitre les choses sous le jour qui t'arrange. Ainsi, il n'aura aucune difficulté à se rendre compte que tu as l'art de retourner les choses. Un fanatique, comme tu l'es, ne s'aperçoit jamais qu'il est de mauvaise foi: il en accuse les autres. C'est vieux comme l'Eglise.--fl0 19 octobre 2005 à 12:10 (CEST)fl0
Cette collusion a eu lieu le 23 mars 1933. En plus, si les catholiques ont coopéré avec les nazis en vue de dissoudre les partis démocratiques, ils n'ont jamais eux-mêmes été dissous par le régime hitlérien. --GRINDIN 19 octobre 2005 à 19:26 (CEST)

J'avais -il y a des mois- stigmatisé l'attitude de WEREWINDLE dans mon intervention "Aux hagiographes qui foisonnent ici" (voir PIE XII -Discussion). Je rappelle la description de WEREWINDLE :

"le deuxième couteau vous minaude une foultitude de concessions lénifiantes dans l'espace "DISCUSSION". Mais attention, cela ne l'empêche pas d'utiliser ses propres concessions pour dénaturer complètement le passage de l'article auquel vous avez contribué, tout en en vous assurant que, d'accord, vous n'êtes pas impartial mais que lui ne l'est peut etre pas non plus mais qu'il est neutre et s'il ne l'est pas tout à fait, il tente de l'être et qu'il ambitionne d'être objectif et qu'en attendant, il maintient tout à fait sa version première."

FLOREAL fait à propos du même personnage le même constat que moi.

En clair, nous accusons WEREWINDLE de considérer cet espace comme sa propriété : il condamne, il sentence, il vire, il déplace, il reverte, ... et trouve encore le moyen de donner des leçons tout en ayant la candeur (un comble) de vous avouer qu'il ne s'oppose pas à ce que vous participiez au projet WIKI.

--GRINDIN 3 octobre 2005 à 18:31 (CEST)

Je suis contre le retrait du bandeau pour les raisons que j'ai clairement exposées dans la page dediscussion de l'article. Mon opinion est que cet article est une apologie de ce pape qui n'a pas lieu d'etre, et que si l'on veut jamais parvenir à un consensus il vaut mieux survoler certains passages et ne pas trop insister en posant dessus un "voile pieux". --fl0 4 octobre 2005 à 16:21 (CEST)fl0

Enfin je veux exprimer le regret qu'Hégésippe, intervenu qu'une seule fois dans ce long débat durant depuis des mois, à propos d'un détail formel et tout à fait accessoire, ait cru bon d'aller tout droit au CAr jeter de l'huile sur le feu d'une polémique par lui présentée pour le moins de façon partiale.--fl0 7 octobre 2005 à 15:43 (CEST)fl0

La culture de celui qui parle avec l'intelligence d'un pied nous promet des articles d'une érudition à l'odeur de sainteté. Je les sens déjà venir...--fl0 7 octobre 2005 à 23:51 (CEST)fl0

Cet article finira bloqué de la meme manière que tant d'autres: sur la version la moins neutre, et, en l'occurence, la plus complaisante envers le catholicisme, la plus édulcorée, émanation d'un soit-disant "consensus" (inexistant), ou d'une prétendue "majorité silencieuse" wikipédienne. Actuellement, trop de chose sont passées sous "silence". Ce quiconcernant le pape du "silence" est bien naturel.--fl0 9 octobre 2005 à 12:53 (CEST)fl0

Je me suis permis d'archiver les discussions inactives depuis 15 jours. Il pourrait être intéressant de constuire une page de rédaction pour mettre au point la version neutre à mettre en ligne quand tout le monde sera d'accord. Werewindle 26 octobre 2005 à 09:33 (CEST)

Fin du vote hier: trois pour et un contre. A la majorité, donc la version de travail proposée est adoptée. La question qui va maintenant se poser est celle du bandeau de neutralité. Par ailleurs, je retire le bandeau de l'arbitrage, étant donné que ce dernier a été rendu (je ne sais pas si c'est la bonne précédure). Werewindle 25 novembre 2005 à 10:46 (CET)

Mais moi aussi, j'ai fait des propositions. Mais aux fins de repartir de zéro, pas d'un texte à la WERWINDLE pour lequel il faut des jours pour comprendre le sens et pour lequel il est impossible d'obtenir des amendements même mineurs, même empreints du plus élémentaire bon sens ( (Cfr les expériences avec PIE XI et avec Benoît XV). AUCUN DE VOS 7 contradicteurs n'est parvenu à faire bouger les choses d'un iota. La suite se trouvera dans la presse. BYE --GRINDIN 14 novembre 2005 à 21:12 (CET)

C'est la 2°fois que tu tournes hideusement, bassement, mes propos Werewindle, dans un sens qui me laissent à penser que tu es pour le moins anti-judaiste et que tu n'es pas le seul à confiner avec un relent d'antisémintisme. Je t'invite à ne pas recommencer ce genre d'insinuation vénimeuse, parce que la 3ème sera pour toi la direction comité d'arbitrage et je ne pense pas qu'on pourra me me reprocher d'accuser Israel pour m'etre appuyée sur Primo Levi. Toi par contre à à la longue tu risques de rester interdit d'édition sur "tes" articles favoris et d'avoir du congé pour méditer la question.--fl0 2 décembre 2005 à 10:47 (CET)fl0

Je conteste la légitimité d'un vote sur un paragraphe, une phrase ou un mot, décidé unilatéralement par dieu-Werewindle. Ce paragraphe a toute sa légitimité. --fl0 7 décembre 2005 à 22:41 (CET)fl0

Je rallonge la sauce parce que tu poursuis tes agissements. Encore une fois tu apportes des critiques, mais aucune proposition constructive. Werewindle 8 décembre 2005 à 13:11 (CET)

Oui oui c'est ça, glose, glose...--fl0 8 décembre 2005 à 16:00 (CET)fl0

Ceci étant une des raisons du contentieux mentionné, la démonstration de votre vilennie est faite une fois de plus. Ceci dit vous ne vous appelez pas Thierry Vignaud et c'est à lui que je répondais. Quand vous déciderez vous à ne pas parler à la place des autres quand vous n'etes pas interpellé?

Je persiste à dire que laisser ce paragraphe est légitime, et que terminer cet article sur une polémique toujours existante est également légitime autant que logique. --fl0 9 décembre 2005 à 11:31 (CET)fl0

Well then as far as I can quickly tell flo here above fell into the same straw-man trap, from werewidle, who seems mightily remeniscent , jesuit that Flo accused him of being, to someone who now finally has been shown to have wrongly denied verifiable argument o fht exact English WP article equivalent. if the EffK/Flo conclusion is logical, this was only to have been expected. one can assume that all human languages have their appointed little Cerberus, whitening away, and then most carefully trapping the un-wary appellant to WP's supposed principles. it appears to be the same old Pontifical Council for Social Communications, who learnt very quick from the Hitler's Pope page appearance, and therefrom exactly what needed protecting where. Hitler is not a catholic, but its amazing how cherishing of his page good catholics are. Some people are either so naive they wont add two and two, or too stupid to count. However it will be interesting to see how savidan and Bengalski make out after my long softening up . Neither seem to have quite got all their counting together, yet, but I await the clang as the penny drops. This is no criticism, as they are not as schooled as Flo here , who recognises exactly the methods she sees from , I imagine , cultural experience neither I nor Savidan nor Bengalski appear to have had.

Minor Note to Bengalski

re your dragging out this from the PPXII, "Despite criticisms of the historicity of the play,[citation needed] a separate criticism emerged of Pius's negotiation of the Reichskonkordat with Adolf Hitler. -this just reminds me of that McClenon's walkabout and old Avro, who had very pukkha publishers who rolled out 50 successive editions. This is where Hitler's Pope as a term derives from, Avro said 'Nazi Pope', and Cornwell re-phrased it. As you know the Avro book , based on Primary source vatican informants, came out 15 years before The Deputy. Even this timing of controversy is whitewashed. It simply reminds me that Jesuits are allowed to lie, unlike non-military christians. Dig the .fr too ! And guess what Werewindle is 29, as well...so we all want to be, or are, 29!

Gordon Corrigan:Blood,Sweat and Arrogance

From : Blood , Sweat and Arrogance: and the Myths of Churchill's war , by Gordon Corrigan, Weidenfeld, 2006.(Fair-use/Educational) -Brackets inserted by EffK.

.."it may take another 50 or 100 years before an objective assessment of Adolf Hitler appears.

"he was a man of enormous personal charisma(1), was by no means lacking in military judgement(2),[and] was elected (3)to power in as democratic an election as Germany had ever experienced(4)...Hitler stabilised the currency(5), enacted laws to protect workers(6) that were far in advance of anything in British legislation; introduced a public health service long before Britain's NHS; built the autobahns and achieved full employment by a massive program of public works. All that was undeniably good. It was in his attempts to remove the shackles(7) of Versailles and to give Germans back their dignity(8) that Hitler's policies are controversial(9)."'

Lord of Str1977! , this Corrigan is beyond admission to the ranks of the just and true. If it were not for this excerpt we could imagine that this be another purveyor of since-released information seeking to broaden our view . But, No. Here I shall show you, Bengalski, how very dangerous this day is becoming, and just why we(you and such as Savidan (say) ) cannot relax. This is hyper-dangerous, pernicious mythologising obfuscation. It is disgraceful un-truth , similar to all I have battled, and thus presenting to me the prospect that Corrigan too is influenced by the Council. It is execrable anti-reality, and the only possible saving ould be that Corrigan is an ignorant chancer, whose book has a merit which this cobbled sentence of ignorance belies.

1)Hitler was not a charisma of personality at all. There are numerous witnesses to the fact that as man , he was far from impressive or magnetic: the charisma was a political ploy, concious and forced along with the over-all consistency towards the 25 point plan. In another of todays dumb-fuck newspapers there is separate quoting of the pure conscious cynicism he enforced for the repetition of the very word Hitler. The man was schooled and given assistance and was a monster of cynical front created upon a Germanist myth and philosophy. There is no denial of his monomania.

2)It is quite clear that the German High Command informed and led Hitler's policy through from 1933 to the 'positive' demarche of Czecholslovakia, and as towards the Black Sea. As Haffner shewed , Hitler failed by late 1940, and was happy to fall back on the Eradication of European Jewry as his central plan of achievement . Military defeat was clear to him from then onwards. Corrigan has a clear motive.

3)The claim that Hitler was elected is , to repeat George Orwell, a claim that is "a hole in the air" : Hitler was not elected ever, democratically. Mr Corrigan knows that the November elections of 1933 were after Germany had become a one-party state on 23 Mar 1933. (Who is Mr Corrigan?)

4) As democratic as Germany ever had: No, Mr Corrigan, you may have wished to bring the history of Germany down to 4 or 5 words, but nevertheless you here support the un-truth of 3). A democratic parliament is not democratic whilst one-fith of the deputies are under governmental lock and key, now is it?.(Why do you do this Mr. Corrigan? )

5) The currency was managed by Schacht within a quid pro quo to the interests of Capital, and the stability is no more separable from nazi economics as is the resultingly necessary territorial conflict. ) I shall write Nazi economics for Bengalski, Mr . Corrigan, as you appear to be a great malignance with your erroneous claims.)

6) The German Revolution actually brought in these more humane laws, and the social foundation of what was enacted through Hitlerism came from the Social Democratic/Papen/Schleicher continuation of this pre-Weimar direction. (I claim this as I have sourced it before, and can do so again, grudgingly.)

7) Shackles , well, these, if they were, were designed to prevent the very same German madness re-occurring. Shackle is to dismiss the profligacy of German politicians throughout who avoided all financial probity towards the peace of Versailles, and instead ran economic riot, to the point of actual contumacy in doing so (ie. knowing that their fiscal irresponsibility was the means to return to the worst side of the Germanist belligerence.)

8) Is purely to profit Hitlerian thinking (Mr.Corrigan with such as this sentence can be called the moment's prime defender of Hitler.)

9) Shoah ? Not a policy ? ( Give this Corrigan a medal - a papal medal ?)

I can see , Bengalski, that it will need the economic history . Soon.EffK 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, bring on the economic history. You will have seen some more work going on at P12, which is much needed, though I note your points above and will try to incorporate them as well. Also need to do some updating at other related pages - Kaas, Reichskonkordat etc. Meanwhile, d'you want me to archive your page again as it's getting a bit long?Bengalski 19:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EffK, I am agreeing about 90% with your assessment of Mr Corrigan. Though I disagree with what you wrote about the "shackles" (even some English and some French and many Americans considered the Versailles treaty disgusting, at least from hindsight) and I would restrict my condemnation of Corrigan's quote to "Yes, he did all this, but what else did he do?" It is not that Corrigan is not correct in what he's saying (except for points 4 and 9), it is what he's ommitting that is problematic.

Be that as it may. EffK, I want to remind you that you are banned from editing Wikipedia. You are not allowed to use your talk page as a platform and rest assured, your attempt of circumventing your block don't go unnoticed.

(self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note a slippage there, oldd man, in your language. Your welcome debate of actual issues is one thing (and you are 100% wrong about Versailles, which throughout the very era was reported closely by Mowrer, so hindsight is irrelevant)but your attempt to qualify the notes made here as being other than relevant to the editing of Articles is another. I recognise the means, though, and its desire is exculpatory obfuscation. Obfuscation was that which I was born to reject, and to fight as wrong. Corrigan's line there echoes the precise obfuscation I have had to fight, and which you and Savidan now correct. The editor Str is unfortunate, and I do not envy him his position. You, Bengalski, will have noted his un-willingness to admit to his wrongful claims, which because I am the source, have led to my completely unjust wikipedia treatment. You Bengalski are the proof that this page is used for the benefit of Wikipedia. Jimbo's guidelines as to explanation still cover my necessity to explain, even if solely (in English Wikipedia) here. My pseudonymity shows that I claim no reward but that of doing right (Droit/Derecha).

I note Str that you are still refusing to own up to the verifiability of my contributions to Wikipedia, despite your self-contradictory acceptance of them to others. of itself this is not new, and is characteristic of you. This proves to me that none of my attempts to edit, circumvented by you Str, were treated in the AGF they deserved, and which Wikipedia demands. Now again you are threatening me and trying to prevent my assistance to truth by my here informing these editors of the gaps in their presentation or reading. Doubtless these AGF editors who do act for verifibility will be feedable even if you now repeat your attacks on me as agent of verifiable truth, and succeed in re-closing this page. This will not close the communication, and your part in essaying this will also be noted all the more. Str1977 , I would remind you that you owe me an apology , and a retraction of the ad hominem that accompanied your straw-man argument. You need to forthwith explain why, if not for the motive I expressed, you wrongfully prevented my sourced information from inclusion in Wikipedia? I, or anyone could enumerate each denial further, from within the long history of our close interaction, and show exactly those methods you wongly used. Or,do you threaten me from within the Church to which you profess to belong? You should have figured by now that I descend from people who had to sacrifice their lives to protect us from the culpability that you brush aside on two tracks. Like yourself, I claim the sheathe of protection that comes from rightful justice, but the difference is that my right is verifiable, and yours is not. I do not fear attack upon me, as the reason for it is against that Divine law which you, amazingly, allow to be subverted. I rest within this justice and within my own relation to divine heritage. Let me say this, any attack upon me, will not go unnoticed in the world, and will speed rather than delay, the repair of the injustice committed. Any attack on me will bring the truth all the more to the fore, and I shall be remembered as the sword of the future. I remind you that I am from Corecticus, and that the resulting history is as much mine as any claimed at Rome. Your de-linking of the desposyni cannot change the descent. That is my warning to those who doubtless approve of your apparent threat. I am only saddened that material such as that brought directly from the Nuremberg trials be categorised as POV platform-ing: I repeat, Str, come to the good now, please.

Bengalski-Please do Archive, and I suggest copying all of them to your specialist page where you will need them : all my work is concerned with the single history- but of course, history cannot be dual. I suggest you enlargen with the clearest words understandable to internatuiional Users the danger that caused my main page contributions to be expunged . As to M-L and my "obsession", is solely an ad hominem as you still see where the denials hold sway. As Str watches me, presumably Jimbo also noted the legalese concerning reckless disregard, posted for him. Justice and truth are my necessity, and the recognition of Law is my aim, therefore all the material under my banner, anywhere, is relevant.All actions now by all players, including Jimbo,is relevant. You see notice being made here against my person, or my userdom, or both, so the necessity arises to save the material before it can be expunged by would-be executioners. I do not fear, as they would only take me closer to my goal. One thing that Str and I agree on, is that this does not "go unnoticed", and I take my responsibility in being "noticed" by openly stating which office precisely studies me. EffK 09:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

towards Nazi Economics

A software glitch-deriving from intent to save the first section to this to HD, ate it . I find software hassle tips me out of the sanguine and tolerant feeling I have for my accusers. I was however intending to , again, particularly thank Str1977 for having given me an inestimable gift. I am unable to specify what that is nor say that it has anything whatever to do with either him or the subjects at contention, but I do thank him in sincerity.

I guess I will return to the Economics for you Bengalski, when my annoyance has subsided. I meanwhile advise you to watch your back, as you are the subject of attention from those who would categorise my verifiability as personal attack. I think in fact that all the exasperation that bred such qualified attacks happened on one page on one day, in the year long daily battle this has been. This fact will perhaps one day be noted. As to the Corrigan response from Str, it is a bit rich of him to now agree I am "90% right", when a large part of the problem is that he promiulgates precisely the same "wrongs" I enumerated.

Pius XII original EffK "POV", as charged

This was what caused the dispute in early 2005. It is entirelyNPOV

...Germany however this seems not to be supported by the events leading up to the signing .

The strongest criticism in the still remaining dispute about the Concordat rests on the terms which enbabled the concordat and with Cardinal Pacelli's involvement with the Nazi party through the Catholic German Centre Party or Zentrum. A series of meetings for negotiation are on record which defined the Concordat , the self-dissolution of the Centre Party and the passing of the Enabling Act that finally gave Adolf Hitler dictatorial power. The explosive accusation of complicity is that this was a quid-pro-quo , and that Hitler would not have achieved his legally instituted dictatorship without the complicity of the Holy See in his aquiring the vital two-thirds parliamentary majority required .The Catholic Church has yet to release documents for the relevant period or to come to terms with this involvement but there is no disputing that the Zentrum vote changed modern history completely , nor that the leader who cast this vote , retreated into the vatican permanently thereafter .

However ,in 1933 during Mar 20-23 the Enabling act negotiations were undertaken for Cardinal Pacelli by his close friend and lifelong associate Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, leader of the Zentrum party . Kaas followed this by immediately reporting to Cardinal Pacelli in the Vatican before then returning by Apr 2 for a private meeting with Adolf Hitler .

Some critics regard = Some weaker critics regard

But a particularly troubling aspect of the German Concordat- a concordat which remains in force to this day-was a secret annexe which did not come to light until the outbreak of World War II . This allowed for the induction of Catholic padres into the armed forces during hostilities , thus revealing the extent of concious complicity in the negotiations between the Holy See and the Nazis .

However within Germany it was reported that Rome saw no difficulty in relation to a christian dictatorship .

The questions arising from the Concordat have re-surfaced of late because of the moves toward canonisation for Pope Pius XII , and recent reference to the Enabling act in the book Memoria e Identidad by Pope John Paul II , who cites it as an example of the dangers associated with Liberal Parliamentary Democracy. However the Concordat represents most clearly the opposite dangers to a Democracy from a Church .

Wheres' the POV here, eh ? Eh?

Yes, and The Great Scandal is still there, un-reformaed by others , tossed off by me one night, immediately atttacked for deletion, and hence never adjusted by a single second writing. Yes.

Another note I'd pass is that you find strange single-posting editors, who turn the attention as if they know so much more. I have noticied this throughout, they dart in quietlt and away again just as fast, leaving an arrow or a sign. It is as if they do not wish to be discovered,and not by Wikipedia, but by some greater body. They are to be thanked...

"The Plague of Communism",Pope Pius XI, 1937

DIVINI REDEMPTORIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI

ON ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM

TO THE PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,

ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER ORDINARIES

IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.

Excerpts, [Fair Use/educational/highlights EffK] from [22] 32. In this same Encyclical of Ours We have shown that the means of saving the world of today from the lamentable ruin into which a moral liberalism has plunged us, are neither the class-struggle nor terror, nor yet the autocratic abuse of State power, but rather the infusion of social justice and the sentiment of Christian love into the social-economic order. We have indicated how a sound prosperity is to be restored according to the true principles of a sane corporative system which respects the proper hierarchic structure of society; and how all the occupational groups should be fused into a harmonious unity inspired by the principle of the common good. And the genuine and chief function of public and civil authority consists precisely in the efficacious furthering of this harmony and coordination of all social forces.

38. It may be said in all truth that the Church, like Christ, goes through the centuries doing good to all. There would be today neither Socialism nor Communism if the rulers of the nations had not scorned the teachings and maternal warnings of the Church. On the bases of liberalism and laicism they wished to build other social edifices which, powerful and imposing as they seemed at first, all too soon revealed the weakness of their foundations, and today are crumbling one after another before our eyes, as everything must crumble that is not grounded on the one corner stone which is Christ Jesus.

42. With heart deeply grateful to the Father of Light, from Whom descends "every best gift and every perfect gift,"[22] We see on all sides consoling signs of this spiritual renewal. We see it not only in so many singularly chosen souls who in these last years have been elevated to the sublime heights of sanctity, and in so many others who with generous hearts are making their way towards the same luminous goal, but also in the new flowering of a deep and practical piety in all classes of society even the most cultured, as We pointed out in Our recent Motu Proprio In multis solaciis of October 28 last, on the occasion of the reorganization of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.[23]

48. To be sure of eternal life, therefore, and to be able to help the poor effectively, it is imperative to return to a more moderate way of life, to renounce the joys, often sinful, which the world today holds out in such abundance; to forget self for love of the neighbor. There is a divine regenerating force in this "new precept" (as Christ called it) of Christian charity.[35] Its faithful observance will pour into the heart an inner peace which the world knows not, and will finally cure the ills which oppress humanity.

50. Therefore We turn again in a special way to you, Christian employers and industrialists, whose problem is often so difficult for the reason that you are saddled with the heavy heritage of an unjust economic regime whose ruinous influence has been felt through many generations. We bid you be mindful of your responsibility. ......

53. It happens all too frequently, however, under the salary system, that individual employers are helpless to ensure justice unless, with a view to its practice, they organize institutions the object of which is to prevent competition incompatible with fair treatment for the workers. .....

62. Indisputably much has been done in this direction, especially after the publication of the Encyclicals Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. We are happy to voice Our paternal approval of the zealous pastoral activity manifested by so many Bishops and priests who have with due prudence and caution been planning and applying new methods of apostolate more adapted to modern needs. But for the solution of our present problem, all this effort is still inadequate. When our country is in danger, everything not strictly necessary, everything not bearing directly on the urgent matter of unified defense, takes second place. .... . Let them work to infuse the Christian spirit into quarters where it is least at home. .....

72. But in this battle joined by the powers of darkness against the very idea of Divinity, it is Our fond hope that, besides the host which glories in the name of Christ, all those - and they comprise the overwhelming majority of mankind, - who still believe in God and pay Him homage may take a decisive part. We therefore renew the invitation extended to them five years ago in Our Encyclical Caritate Christi, invoking their loyal and hearty collaboration "in order to ward off from mankind the great danger that threatens all alike." Since, as We then said, "belief in God is the unshakable foundation of all social order and of all responsibility on earth, it follows that all those who do not want anarchy and terrorism ought to take energetic steps to prevent the enemies of religion from attaining the goal they have so brazenly proclaimed to the world."[45]

74. This means that all diligence should be exercised by States to prevent within their territories the ravages of an anti-God campaign which shakes society to its very foundations. For there can be no authority on earth unless the authority of the Divine Majesty be recognized; no oath will bind which is not sworn in the Name of the Living God. We repeat what We have said with frequent insistence in the past, especially in Our Encyclical Caritate Christi: "How can any contract be maintained, and what value can any treaty have, in which every guarantee of conscience is lacking? And how can there be talk of guarantees of conscience when all faith in God and all fear of God have vanished? Take away this basis, and with it all moral law falls, and there is no remedy left to stop the gradual but inevitable destruction of peoples, families, the State, civilization itself."[46]

75. It must likewise be the special care of the State to create those material conditions of life without which an orderly society cannot exist. The State must take every measure necessary to supply employment, particularly for the heads of families and for the young. To achieve this end demanded by the pressing needs of the common welfare, the wealthy classes must be induced to assume those burdens without which human society cannot be saved nor they themselves remain secure. However, measures taken by the State with this end in view ought to be of such a nature that they will really affect those who actually possess more than their share of capital resources, and who continue to accumulate them to the grievous detriment of others.

76. The State itself, mindful of its responsibility before God and society, should be a model of prudence and sobriety in the administration of the commonwealth. Today more than ever the acute world crisis demands that those who dispose of immense funds, built up on the sweat and toil of millions, keep constantly and singly in mind the common good.

77. At the same time the State must allow the Church full liberty to fulfill her divine and spiritual mission, and this in itself will be an effectual contribution to the rescue of nations from the dread torment of the present hour.. ...

78. Those who act otherwise, and at the same time fondly pretend to attain their objective with purely political or economic means, are in the grip of a dangerous error. When religion is banished from the school, from education and from public life, when the representatives of Christianity and its sacred rites are held up to ridicule, are we not really fostering the materialism which is the fertile soil of Communism.?

81. To hasten the advent of that "peace of Christ in the kingdom of Christ"[48] so ardently desired by all, We place the vast campaign of the Church against world Communism under the standard of St. Joseph, her mighty Protector.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, on the feast of St. Joseph, patron of the universal Church, on the 19th of March, 1937, the 16th year of our Pontificate.

PIUS XI

Relationship of 1937 Encyclical to Roosevelt Lend/lease to Stalin

4. Professor Robert FAURISSON

In my 2002 booklet (Le Révisionnisme de Pie XII) I clearly stated that Pius XII was against Stalin and Hitler but that, at one point, having, in the summer and in the fall of 1941, to choose between both, he chose to help Roosevelt in his preparation of a most probable war against Hitler. The documentary evidence is to be found in Actes et documents du Saint Siège relatifs à la seconde guerre mondiale, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, vol. 5 [1967], especially on p. 13-26 for a summary; for the references to the documents, as reproduced in this volume, see the footnotes. Four people authored the publication of the 12 volumes of those ADSS. Among them, Pierre Blet, still alive, who, in 1997, published a remarkable 342 p. summary, Pie XII et la Seconde Guerre mondiale d'après les archives du Vatican, Paris, Librairie académique Perrin.

Before the war, in 1937, Pius XI had clearly stated in the encyclical letter Divini Redemptoris that Communism was intrinsically perverse and that no Catholic could collaborate in any way with it. Therefore it was difficult for Pius XII to say in 1941 that it was nevertheless possible for a Catholic to back Roosevelt's policy towards Stalin. Roosevelt wanted already in the summer of 1941 to extend the benefit of the Lend Lease Act (March 1941) to the Soviet Union; this meant he wanted to deliver goods and armament to Stalin, which he did.

So the Pope had to find a way. On September 20, 1941, his "right hand man", State Secretary Mgr Tardini, permitted Mgr Cicognani, Vatican's representative in Washington, to discretely receive Mgr Nicholas, Cincinnati's archbishop, and to tell him that the Pope had condemned communism but not the Russian people and that consequently it was OK to have Soviet Union benefiting from the Lend-Lease Act. On October 14, Nicholas was received by Cicognani who asked him to make a public statement in that sense. And, accordingly, this is what Nicholas did in a pastoral letter. Then, later on, in December 1941, with Pearl Harbour and the automatic entering of Germany into the war, the whole problem was solved for Roosevelt and the Pope (ADSS, vol. 5, p.13-26 under the heading "Pie XII et la politique de Roosevelt").

The four publishers of the ADSS conclude by these words: "We are obliged to state that [Pope Pacelli] made his State Secretary [Tardini] and the American hierarchy to speak as if he had admitted with Roosevelt that Hitlerism was the most dangerous enemy, of which only a military victory could get the better, a victory obtained even with the support of Soviet Union" (ADSS, vol. 5, p. 25-26).

That was not "the central thesis" of my 121 p. - booklet. As indicated by the title, the central thesis was that Pius XII was more than sceptical about the rumours during the war of an extermination of the European Jews by Hitler ; there had been a specific revisionism à la Pie XII . The short section where I discuss the matter of the Pope's choice between Hiler and Stalin occupies less than three pages (p. 36-38). from[23] [fair Use /Educational]

Comment to B

Having read the link(in Italian) placed there at Pius XII talk re the 1937 Ecyclical I excerpted, our interest for the present is not the relationship to Lend/lease as discussed hereabove but to the Ecyclical's relevance to Papen's statement to Nuremberg that a high vatican authority was still in 1936 seeking to achieve a synthesis with the healthy tenets of National Socialism. Here we perhaps see in this Encyclical the hand of Pacelli-presumably since he is claimed for so much of the following encyclical. Or, perhaps, what we see is his hand in this Encyclical, and a conscious attempt in the Mit B Sorge to counterract this earlier Pacelli pro-Nazi tendency. We know PPXI shared this exact anti-bolshevistik-atheism position, and it is no surprise, but the extent which Pacelli informed the choice of nazism as bulwark and defender of the faith, well, you may know more. I imagine that such as Lewy and Scholder and the plethora of studies deal with this properly, bit all I can say is that I relate the words in the Encyclical directly to National Socialism and its healthy tenets. We need to separate some day the position of PPXI from PPXII, or make the qualification of their positions. It seems on the face of this primary source Encyclical that PPXI was still convinced that the whole RKKDt effort to infuse (Catholic) Christianity into the Dictatorship might still succeed enough to counter the menace of Stalin. Certainly the complete absence of other than approbation towards the working-man supporting Nazism, fused as within a controlled Capitalism, suggests that there is a discontinuity between the two 1937 encyclicals, and not just between Dilectissima Nobis of 1933 and Mit B Sorge.

As you know I am , apparently ,forever banned from editing any of these articles, which is a sentence of intellectual death the which Jimbo may yet be forced to revoke. Jimbo seems to me not to hold the courage of his digital convictions. As to the trolls, well we know who they are. It is absloutely evident that labelling what you despise as spam is what in my Trial I called provocation. That is, troll-ish. They grew too fat on my tidbits, but then spam was one of many, sometimes worse, provocations. Paranoid schizo with a writing disorder was a chuckle to some. I'm amused so many feel sorry for me, as if I were sub-normal, and it's funny, because I genuinely feel sorry for them who are so foolish and naive . EffK 09:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Council failure

Bengalski,eventually we arrive at the sad state whereby verifiability wins. It is sad because it is news. Facts interpose in between our/their/someone's wishes. I believe from your name and your sympathy to this de-racination I effected in Wikipedia, that Bengalski puts you towards a hint of sympathy for what used, quaintly, to be termed, third-world. This is only a guess, and you may feel no such lien towards that which I immediately classed as entire-world political relevance within my own Wikipedia presencd..

Without diminuishing Str1977, whom I have never wished to diminuish intellectually, but only to challenge in the hope of a real meeting of minds, I operated upon the meaning inherent to the words. Str was always at an incredible disadvantage: precisely his un-erring capacity to master UK-speak, something I note no absence of in your posts, alerted me to the presence of some council. Str may be no more than an educated christian who calls himself historian on the basis that a historian is someone who has a degree in history. To me a historian would be closer to that which Jimbo/WP says, that a historian is someone who has a published work, an ISBN of a work of historical study. Or, Str is a genius , or he is is counselled. If Str exists , then he is surely the best. I say this to you Mr. Bengalski in the clear assumption of our shared mastery, from whatever corner of the earth we derive, that my recognition comes from pure experience and witness. Whilst I might be capable of much dither, to actually possess this assurance that Str possesses, in another language, is beyond belief. It could simply be , dear Str, that my experience does not cognise such high level of operation, however, I would wonder what a Bengalski would make of you should S/he attempt the same dialectical discourse which led to Str's and M-L's collection of FK's personal attack mode. Ie `you're a morally evasive.... bur buh boo, deeply-whatever-soul ,all said in controlled(civil) manner. But , Str is even more civil, or is he (Spam word he uses being foremost in our doubt).

Maybe , and the issue is of post-historical and purely existentially digital-blog relevance which is no small factor now, and maybe the analysis of all our interactions is more interesting than this papal-bull analysis that History forces us to attend. I spoke of this to SamSpade. I found him as interactive as he found me, but Sam Spade as well as the rest of WP was nearly hand-cuffed out of the interaction. Anyway, short of Sam reading this by chance, or you Bengalski dropping him a line of diffs, well the side-issue of analysing the WP mentality as polarised between the remaining four players in this vast historical poker-game, namely you, me ,M-L (for all her protestations of ignorance) and Str, well... only we few players understand the internal and external stakes. I see no McClenon, no Patsy, I see only those two. I see M#L reverting for Str and Str giving M-L that necessary boost of confidence whcich I know for the want of it to be important.

Or, this analysis is not entirely true, because, if my assumption, based on the papal-bull of 21.02/05. and following , then the Council are indeed either soliciting or receiving feed-back on this European History /regional religious Christian problem from surely more than these at present tread-water Users. But no, go to fr.WP and there's little more strength. In WP it seems only a Council cynicism (that un-fortunate trait we recognise in the Church's reactivity to complaints) adjudges Jimbo as exactly as his myriad thickos: Let's not underestimate their stupidity. Jimbo and those across in America, and I see B. that you roughly exist in our Eurasian timezone, do not understand. Jimbo plainly prefers to play , well, it cannot be expressed too nicely: mute. He knows that I know that he knows that I know, like Bogie or Elvis or Marylin. That is the way of them. There is no more than recognition of face values or mood, and our old-world history cannot affect their New-world pocket books.

However that is not the way either I impugned , you seconded, or Str1977 discussed. We deal with real concepts of consequence. The strange Mc/Mc -dispara'(ie gone fr now), was the builder/fixer, and we miss his structure. Whilst Mac Le Non, sorry WP allows no jokes, so no McClenon, was here I at any rate lived under 9 months of constant 7/4/12 threat. RfC's and RfD's and personal judgement from Str's sidekick, a watchful eye who's first interaction with me was to write The phrase Hitler's Pope is sufficiently provocative that it should be avoided except as a proper title of a book. Such an article should not include other criticisms of Pius XII, and should not refer to any "common perceptions" [24], but this Cerberus is gone, and the sorry two-some of M-L and Str make me feel guilty: should we care more about these two woeful wrongsters , whose gleee in religious certitude led them to such shining ignorant error and ignominious intellectual retreat, or should concentrate still on the force behingd them tyhat drove civilisdation back a century. I , to me, it cost me a 100 years. It took my whole civilisation backwards that am,ount of time. I thas not only devoured the last year here in digifanity but also has splattered my blood through the fields of this time.

Explain to me why I should not be vituperous now,as I mightily am, any one of you three? I see the Council have failed, and I sense their inability to rule, and I will focus on this: they always risked this when they set about their control of this medium. I see no reason no to appeal against this crass and dishonest use of this digital stage of goodness.

I wish to make an appeal to Bengalski, within the knowledge of my peers, in whom thus far Bengalski is the only to admit to a real whol;e mind. I have no faith in others because that digitally dictatorial power which Jimbo holds, dissuades others. Why only Bengalski speake the truth, I cannot tell. I know no one else is strong enough, and Jimbo awaits an actual rekoning for his disregard. Therefore I appeal to no ne but Bengalski, for Ye do not exist who sit in your digital beds to sleep. It appears that you are afeared of the Council.

An Eye On

Like a criminal. I am being kept an eye on. Here ! Am I supposed to be less verifiable? The person who offers to keep an eye on me evidently has not had an eye on the PPXII affair , or he would not speak of me in this fashion. If you are a person of honesty and you bother to understand by reading the history-why are you not shocked and why would you not stick up for WP principles ? Why would you not instantly demand a reversal of the successful AfD for Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates? Why not care about verifiability, and why attack me even as slightingly as you do when Bengalski uses the word 'substantive'? If you are a true person, you will study the alleged personal attacks, and my trial, and you would be a true Wikipedian if you knew that the characterisations I made were within WP guidelines , which say that a justifiable observation cannot be classed as a personal attack. If someone vaunts at me their religion and their religiosity and states that I am 'no' such, it is not a personal attack to categorise that. If they dismiss multiple verifiability, then partly retract, then hypocritically deny their admission, and create multiple trollery interpretation in effort to negate actual history purely for a faith reason, it is no attack to characterise their action as clerical denialist revisionism. If you never deviate from an assumption of my wrong based on WP bureaucratic blindness, you will be technically within some order but you will aslo join with a group of people whose bureaucratic action leads them precisely into the field of technical illegality brought on by their reckless disregard of the verifiability .

You may keep an eye on EffK for all you are worth, but I dispute that you are of worth to do so if you make no study henceforward and hold to no principles. I do not consider that the community, if the arbcom represent such, has behaved in the manner that the 21 digital century should expect, and hence I from now on will also keep an eye on you, Nicholas Turnbull to see whether you are of principle. I object to the WP-slander made of me that I push a POV or extreme theory or an impiety or a conspiracy theory or even a personal attack. If I am not to have the currency of WP intervention, I do not accept that the currency be abused by faith based editors. I dispute entirely my temporary and permanent ban, and consider I have a sound basis for appeal, however if you or anyone votes of acts or in anyway interferes with my communications I shall hold you evidentially responsible, and , technically, herewith you are advised of the actual verifiability and of the reckless disregard of it, that does not justify my silencing: any such action will be in breach of your duty to the Law which governs all of us and this Foundation.

I urge you mr Turnbull to do as your name suggests, and turn the bull. I urge you to study the denialism and the extreme provocation made against me, urge you to see that the conscious denialist revisionism has been repaired on several articles, by my intervention, has been accepted by latter editors on others, has been supported by AGF from Bengalski. I urge you to recognise the very great effort that I made to correct WP from its undermining . I urge you to study the WP specs concerning personal attacks. I urge you to accept that ther provocation against truth justified my logical response, named soap by ad hominem , and I urge you to recognise that I never placed within WP articles anything even slightly soapy, or un-historical . I urge you in short, to recognise the truth. If you do this , I am pleased to welcome your presence, but to do this you will also have to study my attackers. I add that I have since read your talk page and seen that you wield an axe in WP. Under AGF and common sense I cannot nor wish to attempt any judgement but simply see that you are an administrator of an organisation that is publishing a clear slander against me. I request you to be entirely aware of the law relevant to this and to understand that your actions in furthering this publishing matter in manner will be evidential. I will also add that I am extremely unhappy at the presentation within reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of my editing. You are entirely wlcome to study me to your hearts content and to possess or express whatever values you possess or share, but I have to openly tell you that I consider Jimbo to be in the wrong in publishing a finding that I am a conspiracy theorist, POV pusher and I have informed him so as I believe befits the law and my charge against him and his Foundation. I reserve the moral and legal right to challenge whomever would deny history ("an extended effort to use Wikipedia to present a theory of Roman Catholic Church complicity in and active support of Adolf Hitler." ), and will simply take any action performed upon his Foundation's behalf (including by you) as further grist to my mill. I place for you the same warning as for everyone alive, which is I remind you that good action must not only conform to moral law, but be done for the sake of moral law. That good will is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition, and that the function of reason is to produce a will good in itself, for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination . I am not content to rest as banned for a year or for a lifetime, as I have a moral duty to bespeak the evil belligerence for that which it is. You have a duty to understand. Lastly , you have a certain self preservatory duty, and I advise you to not to enter this world shattering history of evil: but please do not light the path to a better part of valour by burning the remaining good that are these contributions of mine.EffK 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler, 17 March 2006

1 Rhenisch-Westphalian Industrial Magnates was a grouping of, if I remember, 17 magnates. The information was validated and relevant to the conspiracy of nazism. The timing is omitted and the position is out of sync with the suggested timing.
2 Note 3 Should be translated.
3 There is no mention of the last minute counter-coup.
4"Having become Chancellor, Hitler foiled all attempts to gain a majority in parliament and on that basis convinced President Hindenburg." -Is nonsense.
5 "Elections were scheduled for early March, but before that day, the Reichstag building was set on fire on February 27 under still unclear circumstances." -is against "all reasonable doubt" (Nuremberg Tribunal)
6 "Under the provisions of this decree, the Communist Party and other groups were suppressed; Communist functionaries and deputies were arrested, put to flight or murdered." -Is a perversion of EffK edits, is revisionist as suggestive of legality when it was absent.The least forceful historical words are "appearance of legality". the Decree was brandished falsely by infiltrated Prussian Police, against Deputies. This is a WP manufactured and sustained lie.
7 "Campaigning still continued, with the Nazis making use of paramilitary violence, anti-Communist hysteria and the government's resources for propaganda." -Is revisionist attempt to include the continuing legality of political parties (such as the Communists) in contradiction of the above. EffK inclusion of anti-semitism is excised.
8 "On election day, 6 March, the NSDAP increased its result to 43.9% of the vote, remaining the largest party, but this success was marred by its failure to secure an absolute majority. Hence, Hitler had to maintain his coalition with the DNVP, which jointly had gained a slim majority." Is incorrect/ whitewashing. Election was March 5 1933. The use of the word marred is revisionist as suggestive of legality only hindered by the reality of votes held in normal democratic campaigning, and therefore a contradiction of *6)
9) "On 21 March, the new Reichstag was constituted itself with an impressive.." is bad English, rather below the simple english WP level, and the entire whitewashing uses this poor simplification, to circa 13 years age, as cover for its activity.
10) "Because of the Nazis' failure to obtain a majority on their own, Hitler's government confronted the newly elected Reichstag with the Enabling Act" Is a lie and perversion. It was neither unexpected as reads from the word contronted, nor as suggested a result of the lack of a majority but was desired as end in itself. It was the parliamentary manner of imposing the essential bedrock Nazi 25 point program.
11) "As the bill required a two-thirds majority in order to pass, the government needed the support of other parties." -This is a deflection away from the Centre Party. Other parties were not in themselves of similar consequence, as they were both tiny in number and insufficient in aggregate.
12) ". The position of the Centre Party as the largest non-Marxist party, turned out to be decisive." This is deflective (as means of denialism): it suggests there was a presence of Marxist party(ies). Turned out is a lie. All history relates the first order of post 5 March repeat co-alition cabinet business as revolving on the necessity for the Centre bloc vote. It is revisionist and an offence against the truth made through carefully twisted wording.
13) "Under the leadership of Ludwig Kaas, the party decided to assent to the Enabling Act in return for the government's oral guarantees regarding the Church's liberty, the concordats signed by German states and the existence of the Centre Party itself." in fact the party was persuaded by the Kaas solo negotiated written Hitler Constitutional Guaranteee. The Party acvhieved its preliminary guarantees in Hitler/Kaas chaired meetings between 20-22 March. The letter kept the Party from fracturing, thus enabling the Enabling Act.
14) "At the end of the day, all parties except the Social Democrats voted in favour of the bill." The description of the 23 March is highly deflective. The speech of Hitler referring to better relations with the Holy See is excised, the separation of the midday's superficially constitutional , and menacing evening sessions, is deflective: the all parties whitwashes *11).

WP has retreated to its original revisionism entirely from Effk correction. There is total absence of the crucial Reichskonkordat factor, and thus (the desired)absence from the page of the Vatican, Pacelli and the Holy See. The reason for the complete contradiction between Pope Pius XII's page and Adolf Hitler's, is that here at Hitler the revisionism still dominates.

Wikipedians should revert to EffK last revision : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=31356930. Wikipedia should chastise the revisionists who effected the intervening emasculation. Wikipedians should be ashamed.

Wikipedia Lies and the Relevance of Adolf Hitler's history to report of far-right "protest vote" in March 2006

The manner in which extreme danger materialised in 1932/1933 and led to the retreat of Civilisation, is forgotten and also subject of conscious dishonesty from those who possess reason to cover their tracks within it. That democratic populations such as that of the UK can register opinion polss of 27 % for the rabid national Front extreme-right , even as "protest vote" shows us the consequences of this olvition. To forget the position of "sinister forces" (Nuremberg quote) allows for even greater danger. I should not have to express further the basic tenets of civilisational advance, nor serve as one-man Wikipedia watch-dog in defence of this civilisation and if I do so at all it is because Wikipedia is a danger to civilisation in itself. Only very doubtfully can I suggest that the aim of Wikipedia was to so empower falsity, as open software would not be the choice of the liar, but the present reality in Googleland is that Wikipedia Lies are branded as acceptible and peer-reviewed truths; a the precise neverending effort to subjugate the truth of history, which I recognise, emanating from this one central historical page, shows no more than that the repetition of lies ascends into belief. The Article Adolf Hitler is a lie perpetrated upon the world and supported by, at the very least, the ignorance of fools. Release Effk from unjust bondage to fight this revisionist lying, or awaken yourselves to the flames of your foolishness in allowing Wikipedia to be so used to perpetrate falsity: Hitler was not legal, he was a criminal conspirator against humanity.

Unquiet Bodies: Retroactive Justice & Wikipedia 'Explanation'

Only Str1977 will perhaps understand a reference to this by the TLS (56 April 2006) reviewer Thomas Laquer, of István Rév's Retroactive Justice:Prehistory of Post- Communism (Stanford 2005). (Fair Use/Educational)

A central tenet of liberal jurisprudence is that one can only be punished only for what was a crime at the timeit was committed. Retroactive Injustice is inherently injustice unless one can get outside time: either the act committed in the past was criminal, as judged by some timeless higher law ( a proleptic sense of history will serve equally well), or the wronged and the perpetrators need to somehow become our contemporaries.

We know that the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates, and other sinister forces marshalled by Franz von Papen were, for this precise reason, not prosecuted for assisting in the "Institution of Totalitarian Governement to Wage Aggressive and Inhuman war". My blunter references to the canonical necessities, entirely recognised there by the reviewer, under timeless higher law mentioned precise supposed constructs of that very timeless higher law, and led to the accusation of gross impiety against EffK/Flamekeeper by Str1977 and others.

I can see the discomfort of the position, and know that Jimbo also foresaw the necessity for explanation within Wikipedia (for belief and motive etc.). I believe there to be clear motive , demonstrable even here within Wikipedia Articles, to avoid the canonical necessities referred to by Laqueur. The explanation was required when I made it, and is relevant to an understanding of why the WP History Articles are subject to very precise revisionism we see.

Vatican and other Revisionism in Wikipedia

I am disturbed by Savidan's allusion to pro and anti positions regarding Pope Pius XII. This is , whilst perhaps an attempt to remain conciliatory to all, a wrong. The verifiability of inaction and collaboration during March-April 1933 is not a personal opinion.

The disgusting vision upon Hitler's discussion page of attempts to twist history should better allow reference to the historians. It is quite obvious that there is only one church order which permits lying, and that wp.fr editor hit the bullseye for, otherwise, christians must be truthful. The chat-line nature of Wikipedia lends itself to counting the angels on the head of a pin and this order abuse us all mentally.

I was looking for the reference to the "particularly troubling aspect" which was the Secret Annexe to the RKKDt. However whilst Savidan is to be commended, he is loathe to recognise the secrecy employed in the events. The Papen trip to Rome , leaving Berlin 8 April , was secret. The meeting with Kaas, in Munich, was equally secret and co-ordinated . The Secret Annexe envisioning future hostilities was secret. Such is relevant and not POV or anti. I repeat for the benefit of this editor that I have no POV , other than that of reason emanting from verifiability.

The shocking nature of the truth that anti-semitism drove the Hitler pro-Christian conspiracy appears at p 310 , John Toland, Adolf Hitler, Doubleday, 1976 where he deals with the April 1, 1933 boycott(one day before the private audience Monsignor Ludwig Kaas held with Hitler) :

...Even so the outcry of liberals from abroad increased to Hitler's annoyance and he announced that Jewish business in Germany would suffer until the Jews in England and America ceased their atrocity propaganda.

They did not and on April 1 Hitler instituted a boycott with these words: "I believe that I act today in unison with the Almighty Creator's intention: by fighting the Jews I do battle for the Lord." It [the boycott] was only a tentative step , almost as if Hitler was testing to see how far his countrymen would let him go. On the eve of the boycott, Italian Ambassador Cerruti had urged him in the name of Mussolini to soften his attitude toward the Jews. Hitler replied that there were very few Jews in Italy and Il Duce did not understand the Jewish Question which he himself had studied "for long years , from every angle, like no one else". He predicted "with absolute certainty" that in five or six hundred years the name of Hitler would be honoured in all lands "as the man who once and for all exterminated the Jewish pest from the world".

....p310-311

Hindenburg himself protested further anti-Semitic measures and wrote the Chancellor a strong letter condemning discrimination against Jewish war veterans. "If they were worthy of fighting and bleeding for Germany, they must be considered worthy of continuing to serve the Fatherland in their profession." But the Old Gentleman was no match for a man whose secret goal in life was the Jewish extinction. Hitler replied that the Jews , who monopolised up to eighty per cent of the professions of law and medecine, were now pushing their way into government posts. "One of the major reasons why the old Prussian state was such a clean one was that the Jews were granted only a very limited access to the civil service. The officer corps kept itself entirely pure." It was an argument that could not fail to impress the the field marshal. This, coupled with a vague promise to give some consideration to Jewish veterans, was enough to permit the enactment of decrees on April 7 removing all Jews from civil srvice posts and restricting the freedom of the legal profession. That same day Hitler told the Doctor's Union that he was aware of their present distress, espercially amongst the young members, and in so doing subtly revealed his two-pronged Weltanschauung. "It is precisely for these young Germans that a Lebensraum and possibilities for the exercise of their profession must be created by a vigourous repression of an alien race...This work of cleansing through racial hygiene now being undertaken will perhaps take centuries. The important thing is to lay a firm foundation today for future political developement."

Several weeks later, under the Law Against Overcrowding of German Schools, the number of Jews in higher institutions was reduced. Hitler defended his action in a talk with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann. After reminding the priests that the Church had banished Jews into ghettos and forbidden Christians to work with them, Hitler explained that he regarded the Jews as "nothing but pernicious enemies of the State and Church, and therefore he wanted to drive the Jews out more and more, especially from academic life and public professions. He was only going to do more effectively what the Church of Rome had been attemtping for so many centuries."

The Wikipedia is entirely affected by the thorough de-coupling of the Hitler-vatican-capitalist axis. The only Article that yet accepts the EffK verifiiability is Pope Pius XII where all that stated is visible thanks to Savidan and Bengalski. All other articles are whitewashed, and they are all listed above in blue. The very same reasons pertain for them:

1) The influence of Pacelli was only the tipping factor amongst many other factors in late Weimar, but nevertheless the politically decisive factor. The Army- as Hitler said (Sept 23 1933) "We all knew well that if, in the days of the Revolution, the Army had not stood on our side, then we should not be standing here to-day." The Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates as deleted from Wikipedia, live on in world 'stocks'. The German aristocracy and bourgeoisie lives on- EffK verified internal comment attesting to the fact that nothing in Germany has changed for them or for Germany.

2) The denialism is shared between the vatican and the defenders of the disgusting widerstand, and here still in Wikipedia there is a secondary strong appeasement whitewashing. Effk verifies this too and shewed why 'disagusting' :territorial aggrandisement desired until late 1943.

3) The Trickery utilised from November 1932 ( with the Magnates ), to the 4 Jan (with Oskar von Hindenburg) to Kaas (on 6 March, 22 March , 2 April and 8 April 1933) was stated as such by the Nuremberg tribunals. This trickery is still sufficient to prevent intelligent beings here from recognising that which happenend. More fool them perhaps.

4) Un-acceptable truth :As Daniel Barenboim said tother day, Wagner was as anti-semitic as everyone " of intelligence" in mid-nineteenth century Europe/Germany, and no more so. This would equally hold for Pacelli. The subsequent joining of anti-semitism with anti-bolshevism is the nub of the matter, and the un-acceptable truth is that all are guilty of appeasement or much worse. The church is paricularly un-fortunate, as it is guilty of the very worst, of abetting the belligerent genocide. The church has immutable value and law, and defiled this , known as the Magisterium . This is the most unacceptable truth and puts into the shade any USA/capitalists appeasement/collaboration, as the church knew what it did, and did it for a spiritual 'profit', with great and lasting success. Until now, that google threatens the truth.

5) The unacceptable truth however is not the same as a POV . As soon as some worthy editors succeed in enforcing the non-POV EffK verifiability in the plethora of blue articles, the truth will have arrived at the top ranking on the Internet. It has not yet done so, and The Great Scandal is orphaned and lost. It is the un-acceptable truth. Reichskonkordat cannot be linked nor shown for the trickery ( the secrecy of the Papen trip to Rome, and the 'secret clause' revealing church contumacy of belligerence). A start is perhaps being made, but the other articles from Germany onwards are all either dishonestly edited or blind to truth.

6) The consequences for EffK are simple. The consequences for Rome, Israel and for the world are vast. European cultre in its entirety is revealed for the sham it has been. Any culture has only existed to serve falsehood, from Michelangelo to Beethoven to Barenboim back to Bach. The true cultural reckoning will come, and it appears this may be quite soon. Either the acceptable-liers bomb the threateners of justice, or those threateners will change the balance by force of the bomb. Read your newspaper to see. The truth is a bombshell to western culture.

7) I owe you one , Jimbo Wales. You stood in the way of truth.EffK 10:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler in fr:wiki

Resalut. Je viens de lire ton texte dans fr:Discuter:Adolf Hitler. Je crois avoir compris que tu estimes que Hitler était dans l'illégalité (ou du moins avait déjà instauré une dictature) avant l'incendie de Reichstag, ce que ne dirait pas assez explicitement l'article fr:Adolf Hitler. Ai-je bien compris? Cordialement. Felipeh | hable aquí 25 avril 2006 à 15:29 (CEST) PS : If you don't understand what I say, I'll try to write in english.

Hola F. Oui,au premier, non au seconde. la dictature commencé le 23 Mars. On a constaté au Tribunal de 1946 que avant la loi des plein pouvoirs on avait une conspiracie disant en anglais " a rolling conspiracy" qui en effet debordé le soir du 4 Janvier dans la maison du banker Kurt Schroeder dont le sustance était parlé aux alliés par le secretaire Hugo Meissner du President, confirmant que le fils du President, Oskar, lui disé dans le taxi apres le fin de son rencontre privé avec Hitler , que "there is no choice but to have him as chancellor". En vérité, moi, j'imagine que la guarantie des frais pour la partie nazi de la part des Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates en Novembre 1932, signifie la même. ce qui est absolument sûr, jugé, c'est que cet époch, y la conspiracie commence en 1921 avec le programme des 25 points(manifesto nazi) est continuait come conspiracie jusqu'au moment 23 mars de la loi etc. Apres Ça c'est devenu le totalitarian government qui éxistait pour son belligerence inhumaine.

C'était jugé, confirme, que la conspiracie était d'instituer la puissance totalitarienne pour pouvoir lancer une guerre aggressive inhumaine. Jugé ausi, que toutes personnes òu societés óu n'importe qu'el état dans toutes cette époch qui fonctionées n'importe comment avec les Nazis étaient aussis criminelles: moi, je trouve que illegale nous reste la plus courte parole.

Je devrai te dire qu'ici, Felipeh, moi (seule) ai constaté que la raison pour plusières éditeurs pour combattre cette parole, c'est pout restaurer y defendre le fait du Reichskonkordat, la seule loi toujours nous restant del'époch. Si hitler commencé a être illégale en Janvier, eux , ils tomberaient en flammes pour avoir formellement allié avec ces plans d'aggression. Tu vois que c'est préferable qu'on brûlera EffK ?

Si puedes leér el inglés, pues, poco tendré de añadir. Pero no te creés nadie aqui, ni encontreras la vérdad dans en el articlo de Hitler aqui. Y yo estoy amordazado. ! Cuidado collega !EffK 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[ Following from fr.wp]

How about you write French and I write English ? I left messages at my page in en.wiki and at fr.wiki. Lets meet at my talk in en.wiki. I can demonstrate verifiability more easily there. I can point you to pre-censored info on AH , which just wants translating [25]. The sense of quid pro quo is equal between us. The minimum required is the quid pro quo, and the remaining question that exists is the exactitude concerning the solo negotiation of a letter of constitutional guarantee FROM AH to Kaas. This is what convinced the Zentrum to vote as a bloc for the pleins pouvoirs. If there is any info in fr. it would be most interesting. The utilisateur Bengalski in en.wiki has verified the William L Shirer reference connecting the AH address and AH reference to the sainte siege which resulted in the vote success. Bengalski quotes Klaus Scholder, and Bruning. This moves the quid pro quo , against the legal wish or rquistie of today's vatican, from 9 April bac to before pleins pouvvoirs- and is a problem, as it shows their knowledge and them to have acted in contumace contra the Divine christian law.

It is claimed on en.wiki that Avro Manhattan, the first (1949 in 50 separate editions) to publicise the Pacelli/Piu XII is not tolerable, but in fact Manhattan classes as Primary Source for verifiability , as Avro Manhattan possessed contacts and info from with-in the vatican itself. A M studied also the elder Pacelli brother's part in the Italian arrangements re their catholic political party, its equal auto-dissolution and the benefit to the church. But no no , he is mechant etc.

Then comes the 1963/4 Rolf Hochhuth theatre-allegations, then Edgar Ansel Mowrer in 1967 with info re Ludwig Kaas in 1932, Kaas as porte-parole. All this is known to the international timelines and to the Jewish org's. The UK writer John Cornwell seems to be repeating AM and Scholder info, and Scholder uses an actual diary of Ludwig Kaas'. That from Bengalski disproves the en.wiki "Werewindle" type, that indeeed. as 'timelines' suggest, Kaas went to Rome the day after he voted the dictatorship, pleins pouvoirs, the 24 March 1933, precisely for the Reichskonkordat. This with everything was the subject of the en.wiki EffK edit war. Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope" is a variation of AM's "Nazi Pope".

I do not insist that Pacelli's Kaas 'mouth-piece' was the only important figure in the conspiracy, nor do I insist that AH knew the way the politics would evolve in the 7 weeks of 'rolling conspiracy' from 30 january to 23 march. It was a combination of: industrialist money , Reichswehr sympathy ( and general's hesitation at 29 jan), nationalist collaboration, [[Franz von Papen's upper class pull with Hindenburg(and Pacelli and the bankers in Europe and USA ,)false Versailles angst, middle-class impoverishment, Prussian Junker's , and the actual black-mailing of Hindenburg through his son Oscar.

All are factors, and the law of 1946 could not prosecute assistance to the conspiracy, only such as contribution after the fact of the 'total gov'. Nowadays this is an offence, a crime of assistance to effect a crime, is a crime. Then, in 1933 or '46, it was crime only to Piu XI, Pacelli and Kaas. All off the above is verified now at en.wiki, but is still only tolerated at the Pope Pius XII/Pacelli page. All other pages are still censored-protected, especially that of AH. The subject is bad/catastrophic history, and bad WP practice without principles: the verifiability was never accepted , but it is difficult for the defenders to stop users Bengalski and now 'Savidan' at Pius XII.

My efforts are not inutile because the material is there in discussions and the historique. Truth makes me appear an enemy of the church. I come for history, not for the church, and I have previuosly never had any interest in religion. The fact that real effort exists to change or stop history, makes me re-double my effort. I claim pure good faith, and verifiability, down to study of church canon law. There is no wiki law... ciau !EffK 25 avril 2006 à 23:50 (CEST)

Pope's Hitler?:Howto control Wikipedia

FK-It is still a curiosity that googling Hitler's Pope gives WP's Hitler article up as first Wikipedia result- google hit number 13. This is followed by hit no. 26 for the present pontiff, and apart from that there is zero. I tried again and by pabe 15 I'm re-convinced that the the WP is clearly just a spike in the over-all vatican Internet manipulation. There is no link from Hitler's WP page to either Cornwell, the Pope or the Reichskonkordat, or the Holy See. Any attempts I made to include any of these were removed by the usual EffK suspects. If you really want to see Wikipedia , you have to write Hitler's Pope Wikipedia. Then up it comes number one. So, as EffK always says, this is m/o (modus operandi] : shut down the links. Wikipedia is a dangerous organisation( to the vatican). Close the links by using editors sympathetic (POV) to the cause, and insist on tagging that such as Hitler's pope ain't neutral. Then it fails the google search. meanwhile the suckers out there searching see the results of the vatican misinformation campaign, which is page after page of that cleverly entitled The Myth of Hitler's Pope in endless apologetical sites. Certainly you won't bump into a Wikipedia result for Cornwell nor the subject. you'll maybe drift into Wikipedia and there, well, the aplogetics is firmly in sway, as EffK shewed , and Jimbo didn't care to believe or attend to. EffK saw since c 2004 how this developed, how this was re-inforced. EffK sees how the present pontiffs page states that rationality is central to the faith, and sees this as remarkable co-incidence. effK saw the editors creep in at the turn of the succession to the Holy See, suffered the attentions of the appointed few, and Effk still does. But there, this is the denialism, the german clerical revisionist denialism that so shocked Fred Bauder and his pals at Wikinfo. The vatican are straightforward: they don't underestimate the stuipidity of the people, even those in Wikipedia. They take advantage of the fact that wikipedians , as others, are too thick, or too gullible, or too soft intellectually. Wikipedia is infiltrated, as is the entire net. Wikipedia is controllable, and controlled, and so is the net. The modus operandi is well used, was used against Effk, and is still used because it works. banning EffK is practical sense. denying that paedophilia afflicted priests was good , for a while. Such lying is costly, and will cost the vatican very much more when this misinformation campaign is recognised. However I bring the following here to show that there is one site on the ball. Pity . I guess Cornwell knows the score, indeed , all top academics must know. Certainly they say that the vatican has too many divisions to be taken on. [Excerpts following taken from org:liberalslikechrist' and thereby from Hitler's Pope, by John Cornwell./fair use/educational/public]

A few days after the signing of the Lateran Treaty (between the Pope & Mussolini) , Hitler wrote an article for the Volkisher Beobachter, published on 2/ 22/ 1929, warmly welcoming the agreement ( which he would strive to copy and build upon 4 years later in his Reich Concordat with the same Pope Pius XI):

"The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism, shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than (it) did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms." Turning to the German situation, he rebuked the (Catholic) Center Party leadership for its recalcitrant attachment to democratic politics. " By trying to preach that democracy is still in the best interests of German Catholics, the Center Party . . . is placing itself in stark contradiction to the spirit of the treaty signed today by the Holy See."

The conclusion of his rant contained a gross distortion as well as a remarkable intuition of future opportunities: "The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy. . . proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity (i.e. Catholicism) than (to) those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism, to which the so-called Catholic Center Party sees itself so closely bound, to the detriment of Christianity today and our German people."

(Another of Hitler's comments on the conclusion of the Lateran Treaty in 1929 is quoted by Scholder in "The Churches and the Third Reich", Vol I, p. 388: "If the Pope today comes to such an understanding with Fascism, then he is at least of the opinion that Fascism -- and therefore nationalism -- is justifiable for the faithful and compatible with the Catholic faith." (p. 115 Hitler's Pope).

[from http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/1933Concordat.html, fair use educational]

excerpts

"The German hierarchy and clergy had not been involved, nor had the Catholic Center Party or the German laity as individuals or at large. The bishops were even denied information about the fact (i.e. the very existence) of the negotiations. . . When Cardinal Bertram, president of the bishops' conference, petitioned Pacelli with a series of anxieties about the rumored negotiations on April 18, Pacelli did not deign to respond for two weeks. He merely confirmed that "possible negotiations had been initiated." Three weeks later, when the final points were being argued, Pacelli patently lied when he informed Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich that there had been merely talk of concordat, but nothing concrete.

Meanwhile, the Center Party was made all the more impotent by virtue of the absence from Berlin of its chairman, Ludwig Kaas, now based permanently in Eugenio Pacelli's apartments in the Vatican. It had been suggested to Kaas that he should resign, but he refused, arguing that "it would upset things in Rome"-the clearest indication that one of the last great democratic parties in Germany was now being run at the whim of Pacelli." (from Vatican City) [ pp. 141-142 ]. . .

And now, with the negotiations on the concordat far advanced, Pacelli decided to bring the German bishops into the picture. The occasion was an ad limina visit to Rome by Bishop Wilhelm Berning of Osnabruck and Archbishop Grober of Freiburg on May 18. Pacelli's choice of emissaries left nothing to chance. Both were Nazis sympathizers. The time had come, Pacelli told the two prelates, for all the German bishops to consolidate their view of the concordat. As it happened, a meeting of the-German bishops had been scheduled for the end of May to review the standpoint of the episcopate toward the Third Reich. When they came together, however, the issue of the concordat, successfully stage-managed by Pacelli's two envoy bishops, dominated their deliberations. Berning and Grober assured the assembled prelates that the Concordat was virtually complete and that the remaining focus of negotiation was the depoliticization clause 27. The Cardinal Secretary of State wanted their support, Berning told the bishops, and speed was of the essence.

The fragmentary notes of Ludwig Sebastian, bishop of Speyer, indicate that there were fierce disageements at this critical meeting. Cardinal Schulte of Cologne objected that under the Nazi government `law and right' were nonexistent and "no concordat could be concluded with such a government." ; Bishop Konrad von Preysing distributed a memorandum to the conference reminding the bishops that the view of the world held by the National Socialist Party was completely at odds with that of the Catholic Church. "We owe it to the Catholic people to open their eyes to the dangers for faith and morals which emerge from National Socialist ideology." He asked for a pastoral letter setting out the errors of Nazism to be addressed to all Germany. It was essential, he said, to have such a letter to refer to "in a conflict which is probably coming."28 All too little, and too late.

The objectors were a minority. The fact that Pacelli was involved in direct negotiations with Hitler inspired the bishops with a measure of confidence. All the same, they evidently saw the dangers of the depoliticization clause, Article 31, since the provision could ban any and every species o social action performed under the auspices and in the name of the Catholic Church. Rushed into a corner by Pacelli's envoy bishops, the hierarchy did not make their suggested revision a condition of acceptance. Following a persuasive plea by Archbishop Grober, the German bishops endorsed the concordat, passing the responsibility back to Pacelli.

As a result of the bishops' decision, a pastoral message drafted by Grober was published on June 3 announcing the end of the hierarchy's opposition to the Nazi regime, provided that the state respected the rights and freedoms of the Church -- notably in relation to Catholic schools and associations. On securing the agreement of the bishops, Grober wrote to Kaas: "Praise God, I succeeded in getting approval for the accompanying pastoral.... A series of wishes were expressed_ but l could easily reject them because they demand the impossible." Cardinal Faulhaber brought the matter to a close by informing Papen that he was willing to yield on Article 31 because "the concordat as a whole is so important, for instance [in the matter of] confessional (i.e. parochial) schools, that I feel that it ought not to fail on this point." [ pp. 144-146 ]

James Carroll's response from "Constantine's Sword"

" The role of Eugenio Pacelli ( the future Pope Pius XII ) in promoting the historic Code of Catholic Church Law, which he had be instrumental in creating :

Pacelli was one of two Vatican priests who spent more than a decade developing the Code of Canon Law, which was finally promulgated in 1917. [ Until then there had been no official body of law governing every aspect of Church life throughout the world]. Canon 218 defines the pope's authority as "the supreme and most complete jurisdiction throughout the Church, both in matters of faith and morals and in those that affect discipline and Church government throughout the world."

In Europe, where church and state were traditionally intermingled, with much overlap of political and religious authority (schools, the appointment of those bishops), the implementation of the new code required the cooperation of governments, which led to Pacelli's next assignment. John Cornwell, Pacelli's biographer, points out that the task of negotiating treaties (concordats) that recognized the freshly claimed prerogatives of the papacy fell to Pacelli. In 1917, shortly after his consecration as bishop, and after having successfully concluded treaties with Serbia and other countries, Pacelli was sent to Munich as papal nuncio. Cornwell writes that his "principal task in Germany was now nothing less than the imposition, through the 1917 Code of Canon Law, of supreme papal authority over the Catholic bishops, clergy, and faithful."To that end, he set out to renegotiate existing concordats with the German regional states. Ultimately he hoped for a concordat with the German nation itself, one that would solidify Vatican power, especially in the matter of the appointment of bishops, which, as we have seen, had dogged papal--German relations going back to the eleventh century.

The anti-Catholic suspicions of Protestants and liberals of the Weimar Republic, which governed Germany from 1919 until 1933, were not the only obstacle to the new definition of Church authority. Germany's bishops were accustomed to holding sway in their own sphere, and the Catholic Center Party, soon to be one of the most powerful institutions in Weimar, had always defined itself as a defender of the Catholic people, not simply of the institutional Catholic Church -- a distinction that might not serve the Vatican's purposes under the new code.

Since the Kulturkampf, the Center Party had become a truly successful political organization. In 1919, it drew six million votes, second only to the Social Democrats. Occupying the contested middle ground in the mounting chaos of the Weimar era, the Center would provide five chancellors in the ten governments that came and went from 1919 to 1933." [p. 496]

. . . "But the leaders of the Center Party were not uniformly as malleable as Pacelli wanted them to be. For example, they consistently ignored Pacelli's and the pope's express wish that they keep the party out of coalitions with the left-wing Social Democrats . Once the new Code of Canon Law was imposed on German Catholics, with the approbation of the German state, it would end such defiance.

The Cooperation between the Church and the Reich:

[The preceeding ] is the fateful background to what followed when Hitler, soon after coming to power in early 1933, entered into treaty negotiations with Eugenio Pacelli, by then the powerful cardinal secretary of state." [p. 497 ]

"A seismic shift had occurred in Catholic attitudes toward the Nazis, partly related to Hitler's having taken over the government, but also related to the Vatican's eagerness to deal with the Fuehrer. Within a week of his first cabinet meeting, in early March 1933, Hitler received a friendly message from Pacelli, who was moving quickly to take advantage of a long-awaited opportunity to achieve the Reichskonkordat.The message included, as the Vatican envoy told Hitler, "an indirect endorsement of the action of the Reich chancellor and the government against Communism."

Even an indirect endorsement meant everything to Hitler as he sought to establish his legitimacy at home and abroad. In these early months of 1933, Catholic leaders went from being Hitler's staunch opponents to his latest allies. This transformation was dramatically symbolized by the fact that in 1932, the Fulda Episcopal Conference, representing the Catholic hierarchy of Germany, banned membership in the Nazi Party" and forbade priests from offering communion to anyone wearing the swastika; then, on March 28, 1933, two weeks after Pacelli offered his overture to Hitler, the same Fulda conferees voted to lift the ban on Catholic membership in the Nazi Party. The bishops expressed, as they put it, 'a certain confidence in the new government, subject to reservations concerning some religious and moral lapses.' Swastika bearers would now be welcomed at the communion rail. Cornwell writes, 'The acquiescence of the German people in the face of Nazism cannot be understood in its entirety without taking into account the long path, beginning as early as 1920, to the Reich Concordat of 1933; and Pacelli's crucial role in it; and Hitler's reasons for signing it. The negotiations were conducted exclusively by Pacelli on behalf of the Pope over the heads of the faithful, the clergy, and the German bishops.'

Pacelli's negotiations must be seen in the full context of the siege under which Roman Catholicism had found itself in Europe in the previous decades, but there was a distinction in his mind, and in his purpose, between a defense of the Catholic Church in Germany and a defense of the Vatican. Indeed, his disregard for the prerogatives of the local Church is indicated by his readiness to ignore, and even to deceive, important figures in its hierarchy. Whatever its stated goal, the effect of Pacelli's maneuvering was hardly to advance the standing of the German Catholic Church. 'When Hitler became Pacelli's partner in negotiations,' Cornwell observes, 'the concordat thus became the supreme act of two authoritarians, while the supposed beneficiaries were correspondingly weakened, undermined, and neutralized.'

The first true beneficiary was Hitler himself. The Reichskonkordat, agreed to on July 8,1933 was his first bilateral treaty with a foreign power, and as such gave him much-needed international prestige, whether the Vatican intended it or not.

" (The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano published a statement on July 2 saying that the concordat should not be taken as a moral endorsement of Nazism, and Pacelli would make the same point later.) Yet the price Hitler demanded for the concordat was stiff: the complete withdrawal from politics (and therefore from any possible resistance to the Nazis) of all Catholics as Catholics. In negotiations with German officials, Pacelli had offered the 1929 Lateran Treaty between Italy and the Vatican as a model for the concordat, and Hitler would surely have been aware that the pope had agreed there to Mussolini's demand that the antifascist Catholic political party, Partito Popolare, be suppressed. Bismarck had sought to have the Vatican disown the Center Party, which it refused to do. In his 2005 book,The Myth of Hitler's Pope, which purports to refute the scholars who point an accusing finger at Pope Pius XII, a rabbi named David Dalin, who teaches at the ultra-conservative Catholic Ave Maria University, argues on page 60 that

1) the Reich Concordat did NOT give any moral endorsement of Hitler's regime (because the Pope and the Vatican said that was not a consequence which they intended).

2) the demise of the Center party had nothing to do with the negotiations over the Concordat. And he offers as proof the statement by Carroll that " Even before the Concordat was formally signed, the Center Party ceased to exist.

It's hard to imagine any honest motive for Rabbi Dalin to quote this passage out of the context which makes it clear that Carroll was arguing for the very opposite of what Dalin claims.

Now Hitler made that a key demand, and the Vatican acquiesced. On July 4, in the final runup to the agreement, the leader of the Center Party, Heinrich Bruning, who had served as Germany's chancellor from 1930 to 1932, consented "with bitterness in his heart to dissolve the party." Hitler wanted the Center Party gone because it represented the last potential impediment to his program. In truth, Pacelli wanted it gone for the same reason -- for the sake of his own program. But there is evidence that the unseemly rapidity of the Center Party's demise startled Pacelli, and, perhaps, embarrassed him. Even before the Concordat was formally signed, the Center Party ceased to exist.

. . . As would quickly become clear, the Nazis were prepared to stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Soon enough, blood would be flowing in the streets, the opposition press shut down, and the constitution abrogated. But in 1933, Hitler was not remotely what he would become, and the connivance of the Roman Catholic Church in these months of transition is part of what enabled him to emerge as a dictator. The Catholic people -- there were more members of Catholic youth associations than there were of the Hitler Youth -- were the last possible obstacle in Hitler's way. [p. 498-499]

As a baptized Catholic himself, he (Hitler) would have been intimately aware of the courageous and wily history of the victorious Catholic campaign during the Kulturkampf. But instead of being called by the Church - by the pope himself - to "passive resistance," as their parents and grandparents had been, Catholics were encouraged to look for what they had in common with Nazis. And they would find it.

The Reichskonkordat effectively removed the German Catholic Church from any continued role of opposition to Hitler. More than that, as Hitler told his cabinet on July 14, it established a context that would be "especially significant in the urgent struggle against international Jewry."

The deep well of Catholic antisemitism would be tapped, to run as freely as any stream of hate in Germany. The positive side of the long-standing ambivalence, which had again and again been the source of impulses to protect Jews, would now be eliminated, allowing the negative side to metastasize. "This was the reality," Cornwell comments, " of the moral abyss into which Pacelli the future Pontiff " - he would become Pius XII in 1939 - "had led the once great and proud German Catholic Church." [Hitler's Pope, p. 499-500 ]

"The concordat's significance to Hitler at that crucial moment is hard to overemphasize. 'The long drive against the alleged atheistic tendencies of our Party is now silenced by Church authority,' one Nazi Party organ crowed. 'This represents an enormous strengthening of the National Socialist government.' We saw that L'Osservatore Romano had refuted (or denied) the claim that the concordat meant Church approval of Nazism, but the German bishops made it seem otherwise. [p. 504 ]

The full import of the Vatican agreement with the Third Reich was perhaps best described by a later dispatch from those same bishops. They sent it from their formal meeting at Fulda two eventful years later. On August 20, 1935, the prelates defended Pius XI (1922-1939) by presuming to remind Hitler that His Holiness had 'exchanged the handshake of trust with you through the concordat - the first foreign sovereign to do so . . . Pope Pius XI spoke high praise of you . . . Millions in foreign countries, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, have overcome their original mistrust because of this expression of papal trust and have placed their trust in your regime.' Cardinal Michael Faulhaber of Munich, in a sermon in 1937, declared, 'At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat, expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.' (Lewy, Guenter (2000). The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, p.90)

"Hitler had other reasons for welcoming the concordat, one to do with his plans for the army, and the other with his plans for the Jews. A "secret annex" to the treaty, finalized some months after the promulgation and not publicized, granted Catholic clergy an exemption from any conscription imposed on German males in the event of universal military service. Since Germany was still expressly forbidden by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles to raise a large army, Hitler could regard this provision as the Vatican's tacit acquiescence before a campaign of German rearmament. As Papen wrote to Hitler at the time, this provision was important for Germany less "for the content of the regulation than for the fact that here the Holy See is already reaching a treaty agreement with us for the event of general military service.” Papen concluded his brief on the secret annex with a note of smug ingratiation. "I hope this agreement will therefore be pleasing to you ”.

We noted earlier that an article in the July 2,1933, issue of L'Osservato, Romano had insisted that no Vatican endorsement of Nazi teaching should be inferred from the Concordat, but Hitler himself saw it otherwise. The treaty with the Holy See had both spiritual resonance and political implication, for it was a world-stage rebuttal to those who accused him of being anti-religious, and it established diplomatic recognition for the famously neutral Vatican at a time when other powers were still eyeing him with suspicion." [p. 505]

"Especially in hindsight, defenders of the Vatican's readiness to enter into such a treaty with Hitler insist that it was nothing more than realpolitik. diplomacy designed to safeguard the political and social rights of Catholics in a hostile climate, a way in which the Church hoped to temper Nazi extremes to the benefit of all concerned. In this view, Pacelli’s own wariness at the time of the treaty is emphasized. But is it conceivable that Pacelli would have negotiated any such agreement with the Bolsheviks in Moscow? Gordon Zahn, the American scholar of Hitler-era German Catholicism, reports that Cardinal Faulhaber and other bishops dismissed such a notion, and in the act defined the concordat as a Church endorsement of the Nazi regime. Pacelli's defenders say he wanted the treaty as a basis for future protests against Nazi excesses, and indeed the Church would use it as such. But to Catholics in Germany at that pivotal time including leaders like (Bishop) Bornewasser, the concordat was, and would remain the soul of a compliant Catholic conscience that saw the way clear to support Hitler and his program. Even after the true nature of that program was laid bare, and after numerous provisions of the treaty had violated, the Vatican would never repudiate the concordat. Many bishops and priests, even through the paroxysms of the war, cited the intact Vatican treaty as a sign of the Third Reich's ongoing legitimacy, allowing – no requiring - German Catholics to carry out its orders.

Despite the contrasts with the city's earlier prelates, it is probably no surprise that one of Hitler's most enthusiastic backers in 1933 should have been the bishop of Trier [Bornewasser]. Taking the long view, many Catholics saw the Vatican--Berlin agreement as promising a return to the “Sacrum Empirium” [Holy Empire] that had been given its first expression by Trier's own Constantine, and that had reached its apogee under the Holy Roman Emperor, whom Trier served as an elector. The shadow of Constantine had never fully lifted from Trier. The Aula Palatina, the enormous throne hall of his otherwise ruined palace, had been restored, as we saw, and transformed by the Prussians into a Lutheran church. The golden cross that hung in the vast imperial basilica had never seemed more full of implication. “In hoc signo”: Constantine's vision had changed the religious and martial nations forever.

“Cross and Eagle”, about which we will see more, was the name of the Catholic group - consisting of bishops, priests, theologians, and politicians, including Papen - that saw the advent of the Third Reich as a way to restore the medieval ideal of a united throne and altar. That ideal had been lost to the hated forces of Enlightenment liberalism, which, as Catholics told themselves, invariably led to godless Bolshevism. If Hitler was anything, wasn't he the enemy of that?" [p. 506]

"Catholic euphoria was widespread in the summer of the concordat. The Te Deum (official hymn of thanksgiving) was sung in Catholic churches across the country. Once the treaty was formally ratified by both governments in September, a pontifical Mass was celebrated by the papal nuncio (Pacelli) in an overflowing cathedral in Berlin. Above the worshipers, flags emblazoned with the papal colors and the swastika hung side by side. It was a long way - although a short time - from the prohibition of the Nazis' wheel of a broken cross in church. The preacher at the Berlin Cathedral that day praised Hitler as "a man marked by his devotion to God, and sincerely concerned for the well-being of the German people." At least one bishop enlisted in the SS. Obviously, these churchmen had been deluded by Hitler, and they had deluded themselves." [p. 507]

[all fair/use educational / public as from http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/1933Concordat.html]

Archive/15 called:"Crusaders", Infallibility & Weimar

Alienus' definition of Wikipedia Crusaders

Alienus writes :

However, look at the players involved. Nandesuka, who gleefully left the block message, is part of the pro-circumcision group that I lovingly refer to as the Snippies, and our mutual affection is boundless. His feelings for me are so strong that he has an obligation to remove himself from the case, yet he failed to do so. This is clear evidence that the fix is in.

An earlier hint was that the Snippy fanatic-in-chief, Jakew, left unrequested comments on my 3RR report, rallying his forces. More to the point, AnnH, a member of the Christian group that I call the Crusaders, supported their previous effort to block me, showing that these two groups are quite willing to work together to harm a common enemy. In the end, a joint Crusader/Snippy action acounts for their behavior a lot better than invoking coincidence and herd mentality.

Please understand that the issue is not my attitude but my actions. The very things that make me a good editor are what doom me. I call a spade a spade, and I deal with a lot of shovels. My primary job on Wikipedia is defending it from vicious packs of like-minded zealots, such as the Snippies and Crusaders. I therefore make it my business to routinely butt heads with these buttheads, so getting blocked once in a while is just plain unavoidable.

So long as I thwart them, it's only a matter of time before they dig up some some lame technicality and a zealot-friendly admin to enforce it. Of course, they're using the precedents of their last hostile actions to justify extending the blocks more and more, until they can characterize me as an Enemy of Wikipedia and have me thrown off entirely, like when the Snippies circumcized Robert Blair. I could easily avoid this fate by kowtowing to them, but that's not the way I am. Instead, I'll go down, but I'll go down fighting. Perhaps I'll do more good as a martyr to the NPOV cause than as a working anti-zealot zealot who endlessly crusades against Crusaders and snips the Snippies. Either way, my time here is limited and I know it.

What's sad is that this is not an isolated case, and it's only getting worse. It's part of what's so seriously wrong with Wikipedia, and if it continues in this direction, the day will come when Wikipedia ceases to be taken at all seriously by the real world, and for the best of reasons. Alienus 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may as well bring this, EffK over-lapping, personal comment, from Alienus as it represents a strong degree of Wikipedia understanding and Wikipedia conclusion. I may say that my Wikinfo EffK analysis of the Wikipedia Weimar Republic's complete editing history revealed even more sinister patterns: I concluded that there are subterranean, because solely IP numbered. vandals, working to deflect attention away from the 'crusaders', as Alienus calls them. By this action, only visible with concentration [26],[27] one sees that crusaders are enabled to benefit by reversions, from entirely un-related and thereby innocent third-party Wikipedians -back to the interposing crusader. This way the reversion is billed to the crusader's name, the crusader appears as the sane Wikipedian, pockets the kudos, re-inforces the preceding crusading edit, and fools the un-wary, over-seeing or visiting "normals". IE , Alienus, it's even worse than you realise....

+ Crusading for Legality of The Reich =

There is still clear crusadingPOV in Wikipedia.en, .de,esp,.fr and worldwide socio-historical subjects , particularly at Hitler himself. This POV seeks to suggest that there was a norm of legality in the Machtergreifung or seizure of power in Weimar Germany by the Fuhrer. Here's a rationale, which gets to todays spin-off:

"But the point EffK is making about legality is another one, I think: he wants to prove that at some point down the line in early 1933 Hitler broke the law, thereby making his government illegal and hence in no position to negotiate and ratify the concordat, which therefore was never legally concluded and therefore could be done away with today. That's his reasoning not mine and I have spend some energy in pointing out the holes in this reasoning. But to no avail. The issue is irrelevant for our article here. Str1977 11:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC) [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Enabling_Act] [reply]

My old friend Str1977 focused as intently on his side as the EffK incarnations required. The worth of history itself becomes the subject, once Hitler is legalised (as he is, in Wikipedia). I repeat, that William L. Shirer said:

All was legal, except for the deputy arrests.

Do you, stray reader, have a country? If you do, have you a deputy/ congressman/ M.P/ some representative elected by your vote, or people in general? Do you want some democracy ? Do you understand the concept of legality? Can murder (and torture) of elected political opponents, and of them being thus prevented from voting, result in a vote that you consider to be a legal democratic vote ? Do you think there is a contradiction between Shirer and Wikipedia'sStr1977 ? If Hitler is legal, is the slave trade legal where you live? If Hitler is legal, are the murders of M.P's /Deputies equally sanctioned where you live? If his mass murder (genocide) is not legal, was the Government of Germany from 1933-1945 legal? If it was legal, can you not, like Hitler, torture and kill all your political opponents and not expect Wikipedia to grant you legality? Str1977 says yes, clearly. He also stops at no means to enforce this view, in a steely civility. I always congratulated him for his effort, and always said his success would sow its own destruction. I deny this is a personal attack, and I deny that I ever made a personal attack on Str1977. He says Hitler was legal, and defends the legality, and we both know why he does. EffK does not limit his historical attack to the Reichskonkordat, and Str1977 equally knows this. I call for adherence to christian law, for christians, else they are not christians, whether pope or bishop or Wikipedian. EffK 14:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not novel here in WP, and here is a reminder of that which has been obscured into archives (at Weimar Republic, the article that leads off from Nazi Germany and from Hitler, in discussion with Wyss:

Only just saw your assent to Arb, thanks. listen to this from [3] at [28] they seem to get to the nub of the fire Decree , saying that unlike prev. use of Decr use for susp of rights , PvHin on 28 Feb didnt notice the absence of the Ebert revived "Protective Custody Act" of 1916 ( they have a typo on the date)This A guaranteed a judic'l hear'g wi'in 24 hours of arrest, the right to counsel, to inspect relevant records, appeal, and compensation from Treasury for erroneous arrests.

This seems to be from the Trials and goes on to say that since the courts couldn't emit writs for habeas corpus et al , the germans were in the hands of the police who were in the hands of the Nazis who were in the hands of the nugget cabal of evil men.

Seems throroughly illegal to have denied Deputies their freedom , even under supposed protection . It was contrary to art 20 and even sect 2 EAct . The questions I raised re this tyherefore still stand . Certainly the govt was an illegal entity from 23 Mar , and the reichskonkordat is illegal in consequence as it was not made by a legal entity , the vatican state , with any other legal state . This sure relates to Pope Benedict XVI , who people try and suggest I shouldnt bug . Famekeeper 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wyss who used FK sourced info to rectify the (still rectified) Weimar Republic article , had commented, in reaction, to this:

(FK)Historian(s) use the word illegal prior to the Fire Decree , illegal post that Decree , but who ever discussed the legality post the EAct ? It would appear to be still illegal even then .

This is plainly controversial. We all know their application of the law was unethical and abusive. We know the communists were bullied out of the government. However article 48 was so sweeping in its language that the Nazis (and others) easily identified it as the swiftest means to legally undermine the constitution. To reduce this discussion down to "legal" or "illegal" is sophistry. Laws can be "wrong." Laws can be poorly written. Article 48 was a backdoor to dictatorship. If one characterizes AH's takeover of the German government as "legal" that doesn't imply an endorsement, but only a method or tactic. Meanwhile, no high court ever had an opportunity to render a judgement under German law and the vast majority of Germans accepted the Enabling Act throughout the 1930s. Why the controversy? In my view, it's an unwillingness on the part of some people to accept that undesireable and harmful things can happen through skillful politics and the application of badly written laws, combined with a misunderstanding of what law is. Wyss 15:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

As the "crusaders" have succeeded in banning me, despite the clear truth I proved by the (still rectified) rectification of modern German history, in this crusader infiltrated Wikipedia, I cannot talk to Wyss. She perhaps gave up or was driven down a back alley somehow. It is the case though that at Pope Pius XII now, that the FK correct NPOV has been brushed up by this new Savidan after the kindly Bengalski proved the final EffK source to be NPOV. However the sole articles at Wikipedia that speak the truth, are Pope Pius XII and Weimar Republic.

Weimar Republic is correct and stable with:

. Measures with an appearance of legality suppressed the Communist Party in mid-February and included the plainly illegal arrests of Reichstag deputies.

The date[30 January 1933] dubbed Machtergreifung (seizure of power) by the Nazi propaganda is commonly seen as the beginning of Nazi Germany.

These two points thereby show the truth , and relate to all the above billowing content placed to convert some meagre intelligence towards an NPOV history and a recognition of its enemies. However the Wikipedia remains everywhere else, except at The Great Scandal and at these two articles, subject to the crusading POV. The denialist clerical german revisionists are very busy, ready to leap wherever they can, if only , as at present, to seduce the unwary away from the truths of history into lesser angel-on-the-head-of-a-pin counting. Look you, if you possess either intelligence or an integrity that overcomes your fear of being banned yourself, at the articles listed above as connecting to this corrected reality, and weep. The Council I recognise works on your brains, here, digitally.

The unwary can persuade themselves that there is not a specific department of crusaders, outside and inside WP, and survive, if they judiciously pretend that these NPOV truths are extreme ,or vilification. In fact Wikipedians disappear, when the smoke from the attack becomes too acrid. Wikipedia is very similar to Weimar Germany: They came first for the Communists, and I said nothing, then they came for the Socialists, and I said nothing, then they came for the catholics, and there was no one left to say anything, isn't that the quote?

You may kid yourselves I'm wrong, but whether you will sleep anything but the sleep of a slow death of civilisation is doubtful. Already we see the fruits of the clerical success in Eastern Europe, that took 60 years to arrive, as the flooding of the African continent with sidearms. What should we care for a continent of such misery, when the Magisterium may appear intact? Oh Evil! It is evil and criminal and indisputable, as the Pope Pius XII and Weimar Republic show you. Count your angel/pins, they want you to count the angels, and not to see the steps you take to this doom of civilisation. You do not understand where you have come from and why, and you do not see where you are going. The crusaders are insensible to this world, to truth and NPOV and reality, and solely wish to preserve their macabre harvest for their 'next'. They paradoxically desire to conserve the world , as they tried in 1933 , and the effect they have with their tipping of our world politics is the oppsoite of that they seek. the WWII they envisaged as beneficial, viz Pius XI and XII, in which the Jews were but the side-dish ids precisely what led to the almost overwhleming loss of (western) human society to their nonsense. Now they seek to turn what balance there was to their advantage, to protect their nonsense they now sacrifice us all to the most evil rampant forces, just as they allied with Hitler.

Oh Evil ! Evil made and done and planned and instituted. We call this criminality. History records this criminality, but the Magisterium defines the Evil. EffK 20:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP legality of Hitler presentation as May 12 2006

See the presentation as it is: the subject is the means of Hitler's takeover of the German State and all its resources.

Gestapo [inception of name 23 April 1933 At named article]

[from]Gleichschaltung In a more specific sense, Gleichschaltung refers to the legal measures taken by the government during the first months following January 30, 1933

[ re The Reichstag Fire Decree] One day after February 27....suspended most human rights... thus allowed for the arrest of political adversaries....and for general terrorizing... voters before the upcoming election.

Nazi Germany [says in entire]

The new government installed a dictatorship in a series of measures in quick succession (see Gleichschaltung for details). On February 27, 1933 the Reichstag was set on fire, and this was followed immediately by the Reichstag Fire Decree, which rescinded habeas corpus and civil liberties.

A further step that turned Germany into a dictatorship virtually overnight was the Enabling Act passed in March 1933 under pressure by 444 votes to the 94 of the Social Democrats. The act gave the government (and thus effectively Adolf Hitler) legislative powers and also authorized it to deviate from the provisions of the constitution. With these powers, Hitler removed the remaining opposition and turned the Weimar Republic into the "Third Reich".

[from Weimar Germany

The Reichstag Fire on February 27 was blamed ...Communists, and Hitler....invoked Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution ....to take swift and harsh action against political meetings.

The Government... issue[s] martial emergency. With this.. ruse Hitler was at a stroke able to break the log-jam of forces arrayed against him by simple physical arrest, and some murder, of the entire KPD Communist Party.

[from] Hitler's rise to power

This Act passed... in the constitutionally-disabled and effectively rigged Reichstag. Thi...seasily defeated the sole opposition of the Social Democrats, because a large proportion of the Communists had been either arrested or murdered.

Constitutional fears were assuaged through mysterious written promises, and the Centre was finally squared.

[from] Adolf Hitler [Fire Decree] Under the provisions of this decree, the Communist Party and other groups were suppressed; Communist functionaries and deputies were arrested, put to flight or murdered.

Because of the Nazis' failure to obtain a majority on their own, Hitler's government confronted the newly elected Reichstag with the Enabling Act

With this combination of legislative and executive power, Hitler's government further suppressed the remaining political opposition.

[from] Enabling Act It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means.

The Decree enabled Hitler to have the Communist Party's offices raided and its representatives arrested effectively neutering them as an political force.

[from} Reichstag Fire Decree Among the German communists arrested on the basis of the Reichstag Fire Decree was KPD chairman Ernst Thälmann; KPD founding members Wilhelm Pieck and Walter Ulbricht — later to be leaders in postwar East Germany — were among those who escaped arrest and lived in exile.

Articles 4 and 5 established draconian penalties for certain offenses, including the death penalty for arson to public buildings

[from] Germany On 27 February, the Reichstag was set on fire. Basic rights were abrogated under an emergency decree. An Enabling Act gave Hitler's government full legislative power. A centralised totalitarian state was established, no longer based on the rule of democratic law, a policy that Hitler had outlined in his biography 'Mein Kampf.'

[from] History of Germany Communist Reichstag deputies were supposedly given protective custody (against their constitutional privileges).

The Communist Party was proscribed in April 1933.

The Vatican in pre-war & WWII Europe : What Baron Avro Manhattan wrote by 1949

Historical developement [29] http://www.geocities.com/visplace/vatican6.htm and [30]

Avro Manhattan wrote that "the Vatican's policy in the international sphere had one main goal: to consolidate all forces and countries into a solid block inimical to the U.S.S.R"

Spain: [31]

Italy [32] and [33]

Germany [34] and [35] and ,1933-45[36]

"When Mgr. Kaas, the leader of the Catholic[Centre] Party, went to Rome he was instructed by the Pope to declare his support of Hitler, thus hinting to his followers what they should do. Whether or not he was personally convinced of the ideas he expressed, it is impossible to say; but the fact remains that, after interviews with the Pope and his Secretary of State, to the great surprise of many he made the following declaration:"

""Hitler knows well 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 is wrong to insist to-day on what Hitler said as a demagogue, when the one thing that interests us is to know what he does to-day and to-morrow as a Chancellor...It matters little who rules so long as order is maintained. The history of the last few years has well proven in Germany that the democratic parliamentary system was incapable.""

and

""The Episcopate of all the German Dioceses, as is shown by its statements to the public, is glad to express as soon as it was made possible after the recent change in the political situation through the declarations of Your Excellency its sincere readiness to co-operate to its best ability with the new Government, which has proclaimed as its goal to promote Christian education, to wage a war against Godlessness and immorality, to strengthen the spirit of sacrifice for the common good and to protect the rights of the Church." (From a letter of His Eminence Cardinal Bertram to Chancellor Herr Hitler after the conclusion of the Concordat between the Vatican and the German Government. See Universe, August 18, 1933)."

[fair use /educational from Avro Manhattan 1949

Pope Pius XII / WWII [37] and [38]

"But then, as the Nazi armies seemed to have stopped, and as the defeated "Atheist Russia" gave more and more signs of being alive and ready to counter-attack, the Vatican was again assailed by fears and doubts. While preaching peace, the Pope began a great diplomatic campaign in the various capitals of the belligerent countries. The goals of the campaign were two: (1) To prevent

United States of America and Great Britain from giving active help to Bolshevik Russia; (2) To find a means of preventing Russia advancing westwards.

The best means of reaching these two fundamental aims was to attempt a negotiated peace between the Allies and the Axis. [ as above fair use, and see at editing/ removals/history of Ludwig Kaas, removal of references to, from Klemens von Klemperer.

Nuremberg Trials [39]

Baron Ernst von Weizsäcker

"When the Allies-Great Britain, the United States of America, Soviet Russia, and France-staged in 1946 what Hermann Goering called (September 1946) "the framed-up trial" of Nuremberg (the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal), to which the principal Nazi survivors were brought, Pius XII sent Baron Ernst U. von Weizsäcker, former German Ambassador to the Holy See, after having granted him a long audience (May 1946), to give evidence against the men responsible for having helped Hitler to power. It should be noticed that not a single word was spoken on the part played by Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, and the various German cardinals and bishops. On the contrary, the Vatican was publicly thanked by the Chief American Prosecutor at Nuremberg, Justice Jackson of the United States Supreme Court, who expressed his "gratitude to the Vatican for making available to the Nuremberg trials documents touching upon the charges of persecution of religion in Germany and Nazi occupied countries. . . . The part of the Nuremberg trial that was concerned with proving the persecution of the Churches was greatly expedited and aided by documents provided for us by the Vatican" (Justice Jackson, in a statement to the N.C.W.C. News Service, Washington, August 1946). While helping the victors and indicting the former Nazi leaders, presenting itself as one of Nazism's victime, the Vatican was using all its influence to save those Nazis who had helped to place the Catholic Church in a privileged position in the Third Reich and her satellite countries. This with particular regard to von Papen (see Pravda and Osservatore Romano, third week of March 1946), who was acquitted October 1, 1946; Mgr. Tiso, Prime Minister of Slovakia; Arthur Greiser, former Gauleiter of Western Poland, sentenced to death (July 15, 1946), and in an effort to save whom the Vatican sent a special cable to the President of Poland (see The Observer, London, July 21, 1946)."

[So, it must have been Weizsäcker who presented Kaas' expostulation/ spat against von Papen...see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_criminals#W for the red-linked 'Weizsacker', who at his blue stub os presented )in totality)as no more than a "prisoner of war"-thus after the Article was reduced by 83.109.183.235:

Ernst Freiherr von Weizsäcker (born May 25, 1882 in Stuttgart, died August 4, 1951 in Lindau) was a German diplomat. Baron Weizsäcker, who belonged to the German Foreign Office since 1920, became Under-Secretary of State and directly responsible to Joachim von Ribbentrop, Head of the Foreign Office, in 1938. He was envoy to the Vatican from 1943. Baron Weizsäcker was a prisoner of war from 1947 until 1950.

Ernst von Weizsäcker was the son of the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Württemberg Baron Karl Hugo von Weizsäcker and Paula von Meibom, and the father of Baron Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and Baron Richard von Weizsäcker

Pacelli the Subject of continued historical controversy

In Wikipedia the Anti-Catholicism Article lumps the anti-comintern pact and Avro Manhattan with the likes of Dan Brown type Conspiracy Theories, which is some kind of ignorance, or else useful to denialists. The Wikipedians who estimate Manhattan as hate literature seem to have good reason to do so, but not one founded upon his primary sourceing and scholarship. As usual, I see easy denialist, anti-googling tickets are placed as headers , cleanup always works ...

Anti-Catholicism Conspiracy theories

"A series of tracts by noted anti-Catholic and comic book evangelist Jack Chick accuses the papacy of supporting Communism, of using the Jesuits to incite revolutions, and of masterminding the Holocaust.

"Avro Manhattan's books, The Vatican's Holocaust, The Vatican Billions and Vatican, Washington, Moscow Alliance advanced the view that the Church engineers wars for world domination.

Dan Brown's best-selling The Da Vinci Code depicts the Catholic Church as determined to hide the truth about Jesus Christ. An article in the National Catholic Register (April 2004) maintains that the "The Da Vinci Code claims that Catholicism is a big, bloody, woman-hating lie created out of pagan cloth by the manipulative Emperor of Rome".

There is mention of Avro Manhattan and of Paul Blanchard publishing during Pius XII's reign , as well as the comintern press. I would remind that Margaret Lambert's clear record of catholic press reversal was published in 1934, and that John Wheeler-Bennettt left a large historical question mark concerning Ludwig Kaas in his 1936 Hindenburg:The Wooden Titan:

"The moment of crisis had come but the letter had still not arrived. Was the prelate still so naïve that he believed in nazi promises or were his nerves a little shaken by the Chancellor's outburst and the grim incantations fom without? whatever the cause, Kaas showed less courage than the Socialist leader. he recorded the vote of the Centre in favour of the bill and thereby condemned his party in the eyes of many of his faith."

Other co-eval material concerning the continued controversy:

note 38, selected from Mark Riebling's Vatican Assassins? The Pope, the Jesuits, and the Plot to Kill Hitler, forthcoming from HarperCollins[40]

U.S. intelligence received early warning of this propaganda offensive in December 1945, when leftist groups in Italy began accusing Church-friendly politicians of neo-Fascism (SECRET Rome Area Allied Command Security Summary No. 19, 31 Dec 1945, NA 226/174/104/799). In Switzerland the former Superior General of the German Jesuits, Father Agostinius Rosch, had apparently read communist allegations against Pius XII by the turn of the year, when he wrote to Pius XII's confidential secretary, Jesuit Father Robert Leiber, that he had read "horrifying opuses -- from East Germany -- in which the greatest blame is attributed to your boss [i.e., Pius XII]." (Rosch to Leiber/Rome, Lenzerheide, 2 January 1946, AMSJ, Akt Rosch, Handwritten).

and note 39,ditto

Prace alleged that Pius XII had consented to "a solution of all Eastern European problems in favor of Germany," and that he had given his assent for Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels to succeed Hitler. The charges were recapitulated (and contested) in L'Osservatore Romano (Rome), Feb. 12, 1946. Two weeks later a variant of the allegation had already sprouted in Yugoslavia, where dictator Josef Tito said: "They [the Catholics] marched jointly with [Nazi-puppet Croatian] Ustachis and were spiritual inspirators [sic] of massacres which were never condemned by them." OSS Report, Jan. 29, 1946 (NA 226/174/116/883). For earlier intimations that the Vatican was pro-Fascist, see Izvestia, February 1, 1944, and the communist pamphlet by D. Petroff, "War and the Working Class," October 9, 1944 (Pius wanted "a soft peace to let Germany escape her just deserts"). Soviet historians later alleged Hitler and Pius agreed that "The Vatican would send into the Soviet territory, with the German army, agents for implanting Catholicism, so that the occupants could subject the Soviet peoples and organize espionage and sabotage." G. Deborine, La Deuxieme Geurre Mondiale (1955); Robert A. Graham, The Vatican and Communism During the Second World War: What Really Happened? (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996), pp. 117-18.

and note 41 ,ditto

"It is sad to have to say that during the entire war, while the laboratories of death worked to capacity, the Pope kept his silence" ("The Vatican and the Jewish Question: The Record of the Hitler Period -- and After," Commentary, Nov. 1950, pp. 439-449). In 1949 anti-Catholic authors Avro Manhattan (The Vatican in World Politics) and Paul Blanshard (American Freedom and Catholic Power) had criticized Pius' wartime conduct, but these tracts had little impact.

It should be remembered that the Jewish reaction to Pope John Paul II's promotion of Pius XII towards saint-hood, was to call for 50 years historical study to be allowed. This would run out in 2008. it could be remarked that even trusty old William L. Shirer's open linkage of the hard or full Enabling Act/Reichskonkordat Quid pro Quo has copyright from the year immediately after the death of Pope Pius XII, ie 1959.

(It might be helpful if the preventers of such sourced history be purged from their ability to deny such verifiabilities in the manner in which my various usernames have consistently suggested to Wikipedia...)

Paul Blanshard

Appeas to be rather more controversial than Manhattan, for, dually, his pro-eugenics as much as his appearent anti-catholic 'bias'. Here are snip reviews by Amazon readers:

"The tone set...fair discussion. The copious source notes indicate.. show the extent of the author's research. Represents an attack by the author on Church policies..author's points regarding medicine and sex remain largely valid.To the extent that religious conservatives are still trying to co-opt public policy, there are still points in here to ponder."

"..was a Book of the Month Club recommendation and a 1949-1950 Best Seller due to its simple but biased message; "The Catholic problem is still with us." Unfortunately, Paul's study... was nothing new..though I disagreed with Blanshard, his book is interesting for the historical perspective it lends to current debates."

Paul Blanshard was never an "anti-Catholic bigot." On the contrary, he was one of America's foremost advocates of true religious liberty maintained through strict separation of church and state! If Paul Blanshard were alive today, he would be screaming out at the top of his lungs at what is happening in our country today.

"If any twentieth century book deserves the monniker "Epoch-changing," Blanshard's 1949 certainly does. Although it is a classic of anti-Catholic bigotry, American Freedom is distinguished from other screeds by an extensive set of footnotes and better than average research. As Mike Jones has documented in John Cardinal Krol and the Cultural Revolution, the Blanshard book helped stimulate a coordinated effort to nip Catholic power. The book tries to look objective,.."

from [41] Typed ms. of review of American Freedom and Catholic Power, by Paul Blanshard, pub. in Catholic World, May, 1949. Includes notes

Then, from the 'Catholic League' re :Anti-Catholicism in America: The Last Acceptable Prejudiceby Mark S.Massa, S.J. at [42]

"Chapter 5 begins the book's post-World War II account by examining the publication of what many scholars consider the most sustained intellectual attack on U.S. Catholicism in the twentieth century—Paul Blanshard's 1949 "classic,"' American Freedom and Catholic Power. Massa explores Blanshard's accusations regarding Catholicism's purported "totalitarian threat" to the fragile freedom of Cold War America. He also discusses the philosophical and theological responses to Blanshard's most famous Catholic debate partner, Jesuit political theorist John Courtney Murray."

and from [43] Blanshard describes a February 11, 1928 article by a Jesuit priest, Charles J. Mullaly, that appeared in the Jesuit magazine, AMERICA. The article is a point-by-point description of Catholic techniques in boycotting an American newspaper and a censorship program for priests and laymen. Blanshard writes: "Father Mullaly tells with perfect candor how a priest and four or five Catholic laymen, with the help of an impressive letterhead bearing the names of prominent citizens, can terrorize any editor with the specter of a great wave of Catholic indignation."260p This same technique is still in use in the 1990s..

"Blanshard concludes, "The machinery that the Church uses in the United States to enforce its boycott of unfriendly literature is quite elaborate....Non-Catholic publishers who print criticism of Catholic policy are threatened with boycotts and flooded with very unpleasant letters of protest. As a result of this type of pressure scarcely any publishers in the United States will even consider any manuscript that might expose them...to Catholic boycott.

"Every city editor in the United States," Blanshard goes on to say, "knows of the unofficial Catholic censorship of American news, but almost all publishers avoid discussion of the phenomenon because of the fear of Catholic reprisals. The Hierarchy itself has avoided public discussion of its boycott techniques in recent years, and has resorted more and more to quiet pressure....As a result of this policy of siege and boycott, very few publishers in the United States are courageous enough or wealthy enough to deal frankly with Catholic social policy or stories of priestly crime....Frequently the Church succeeds in intimidating the most powerful newspapers by this policy of organized protest and boycott, and, in many cases, the facts suppressed have great social significance."

George Seldes and the reason for the 'Silence' or lack of (Pius XII) Controversy in USA

"Seldes quotes Heywood Broun, "And still more precarious is the position of the New York newspaper man who ventures any criticism of the Catholic Church. There is not a single New York editor who does not live in mortal terror of the power of this group." from ditto [44]

"But from the beginning of August 1936, the Catholic hierarchy in America...began a crusade against the newspapers which truthfully reported events in Spain."

"On July 2, 1995, George Seldes, author, award-winning journalist and media watchdog, died at age 104. He began his career as a reporter for the Pittsburgh Leader in 1909 and later went to Europe to cover World War I. From 1918 to 1928, he worked for the Chicago Tribune, heading bureaus in Berlin and Rome, and also reporting from Mexico. He covered the Spanish Civil War for the New York Post in 1936-37. He was a mainstream reporter for nearly 30 years. From 1940 to 1950, he edited the nation's first periodical of media criticism called In Fact --which won him a George Polk Award in 1982. In an article, "George Seldes Leaves a Legacy of Courage," the media watchdog publication, EXTRA!, writes, "As a press critic, George Seldes picked up where Upton Sinclair left off. From the 1930s onward, Seldes led the way for new generations of journalists eager to search for truth wherever it might lead....I.F. Stone aptly called Seldes `the dean and granddaddy of us investigative reporters.'"260y He was an American journalism insider."

"While Blanshard's intensive study of the press focused on what the Catholic hierarchy said and did regarding freedom of the press, Seldes observed and reported on the actual outcomes of the hierarchy's influence over American newspapers."

And here on Anti-Catholicism this User answered a question....in manner which appears to refer to the result of the above:

'American Catholics being pro-Franco is a big claim, please list your sources[?].'

strong majorities favored Franco as did nearly all bishops. historian John Diggins said "'at first glance it does appear that the American clergy had indeed composed a political choir in behalf of Fascism.' Diggins portrayed a large number of Catholic clergy led by figures like Cardinal William O'Connell of Boston and Father Charles E. Coughlin who found occasion to praise Mussolini. He outlined the views of the major Catholic periodicals and discovered that only the Paulist-sponsored Catholic World took exception to fascism with any consistency. ....Ryan's critique of both the doctrine and practice of Italian fascism set him apart from the vast majority of Catholic thinkers and spokesmen. Most Catholics who addressed the matter ignored questions of principle and simply measured fascism in the light of the interests of the Vatican and the Italian church and reacted favorably towards it." Wilson D. Miscamble, "The Limits of American Catholic Antifascism: The Case of John A. Ryan" Church History. Volume: 59. Issue: 4. 1990. Page 523+. also: Diggins, Mussolini and Fascism, pp. 182-190. and Diggins , "American Catholics and Italian Fascism," Journal of Contemporary History 2 (1967 ): 51-68 Rjensen 22:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it appears anywhere in Wikipedia, but it is a shock to see reference to people being arrested, tortured and killed in both Spain and germany for non-attendance at Mass.

Catholicism/Communism/Holocaust/Pius XII writers

And nybooks contains a [[Gary Wills quote from

"Hebblethwaite [ Peter Heblethwaite ] does not refer to Pius? On the second page I listed (p. 188) he says: "Maglione's words [about the "transfer of Jews" as endangering the "liberty" of the Holy Places were worse than any of Pius XII's 'silences.' Yet they represented the firm and considered position of the Vatican [italics added]." Anyone who doubts that Pius's secretary of state spoke his views misunderstands that autocratic ruler. And a sneer at Falconi [[[Carlo Falconi]]] does not shake the fact that Pius thought the Holocaust less important than the threat of communism—a position Mr. Buchanan, a self-confessed cultist of Pius, clearly found congenial.

Whilst the 'Catholic League alludes to:

The wartime organization, The Sword of the Spirit, led by Cardinal Hinsley of Great Britain, was inspired by Pope Pius XII and approved by the Vatican. This group published a monthly bulletin.... With monograms by Christopher Dawson, John Murray, SJ, Barbara Ward and other well-known writers, the group published a series of leaflets on wartime activities. These offer proof of Pope Pius XII's embrace of all peoples and faiths.

Among the pamphlets of this ecumenical organization, one title is: "Voice of the Vatican" by Robert Speaight. In it the author answers the question, "What is the Pope's attitude towards the belligerent nations and the issues for which they are fighting?" He analyzes the policy of Vatican Radio and shows how uncompromisingly it spoke on the moral and spiritual problems raised by the war. In "The Pope and the Jews," A.C.F. Beales describes the struggle of the Catholic Church against anti-Semitism during the war. Certainly, such contemporary commentaries deserve to be carefully considered.

Shortly after the Pope's death, Secretary of State Cardinal Domenico Tardini wrote in his book Pio XII:

Pacelli ('the vatican') in 1933 Saarland, published in 1934

I suggest that the predictable discussion and defence concerning the inception of a Pius XII controversy, echoes some of the earlier arguments EffK tried to adjust to verifiability. Throughout there has been an apparent attempt at deflection, at the very least, and whether the present new names /Users who combine with the usual roster of older users do this by chance is not the central issue.

The central issues of Pius XII within and without Wikipedia have always been deflect-able due to the nature of the man's 'Office' overlapping between two pontificates through to his own. His Germany experience preceded the election of Pius XI by some years, and it is evident that Pacelli had both immense understanding and great German significance and that the deflection serves only to diminuish the centrality of Pacelli to the history of Germany and thus of the world as a whole.

As verified, from 1934. Faber and Faber were publishing accusations as to complicity with Nazism by the German and Saarland catholic Presses, in unison with the volte-face imposed on the local Hierarchy from the vatican. Nevertheless there remained evident disquiet amongst clergy on the local levels. However it is clear that this Gleischaltung era imposed with the 23 March Enabling Act was recognised in London for what it generally meant in the Saar district : "Attempts are being made to induce the local branches of trade unions, and little local unions and co-operatives to vote for Gleichshaltung, which ibn this case means means that the chairman becomes 'leader' with dictatorial powers, and the committee merely an advisory council. The gleichshaltet unions are sometimes subsequently dissolved..." [Margaret Lambert, The Saar, Faber& Faber , 1934].

1933 Nazi intentions to dissolve Roman Catholicism known in London in 1934

A revealing sentence from this last writer concerns this section:

"At first the Nazi party in the saar, as in other districts[of Germany ], appeared to enjoy considerable local autonomy with not altogether satisfactory results. Catholic opinion was sensitive, and naturally not pleased to hear from the more ardent members of the party that the Catholic Church in another twenty years would have disappeared and been replaced by national Socialism."

Vatican,Kaas and Hierarchy volte-face & Clergy complaints published 1934

There are also reputed to have been complaints to the Vatican about the pressure exercised on the clergy by their German Bishops. They in turn are said to be acting under pressure from Berlin, intervening in politics and removing clergy entirely for political reasons. ibid,p 288. Written prior to the vatican replacement of Mgr. Testa, who left the Saar in July, and yet prior, it appears, to the Reichskonkordat. The volte-face by the German Bishops is centred on 28 March 1933 Fulda Bishops Conference. Here Lambert clearly implicates Ludwig Kaas, hence Eugenio Pacelli, hence the vatican itself.

Priests arrested: Four Saar priests are also reported to have been arrested in Coblenz, and released only on the intervention of herr Kossman, the Saar Commissioner. ibid p287. Nothing here is new or unknown, but the knowing and verifiability of the publication in 1934 is relevant.

Actions to silence Catholic Press, example

Furthermore Lambert speaks of that 1933 by clear example of Press manipulation

The appointment of herr von Papen as Saar Commissioner by the Reich Government was intended to conciliate Catholic opinion. He had property and family connections in the Trerritory, moreover he had successfully negotiated a Concordat with the vatican whereby the National Socialist government were saved a conflict with the powerful Catholic Church. But his personal affability could not make up for his political past, of which not all catholics approved. There was apersistent rumaour that Herr von papen had not entirely succedded in converting the catholic clergy to the new regime; that indeed he had had a stormy meeting with them.

"The uneasiness of the Catholic clergy in the Reich spread to the Saar. In the autumn, aspecial envoy from the vatican was sent to watch the situation. meanwhile the catholic pape, the Landeszeitung, coordinated like the rest[Gleichshaltung], began to show disquieting symptoms. When the Commission obliged all papers to publish its announcements , the Landeszeitung was apt to print the portions least favourable to the National Socialist in unnecessarily heavy type. Foreign or other Press opinions hostile to the Third reich would be quoted and then refuted, whereas the usual process is to refute without quoting. When an extraordinary article on the saar, obviously a hoax , was accidently accepted by a german paper, the Landeszeitung joined the chorus of hottor, but reprinted the offending article in full. The climax came apparently over an indiscreet interview with a Scandinavian journalist, given by some of the Saar national Socialist leaders, and containing expressions (subsequently denied) which reflected unfavourably on the Catholic Church. This interview , ignored in the other saar Press, appeared after some delay in the Catholic paper, and caused much dissatisfaction. The editor could not, however, easily be dismissed,being, as the editor of their larges dfaily, a person of some consequence in the Catholic community. A way out was found by buying up a majority of the paper's shares, and thus acquiring the right to nominate a new editor, who was completely reliable.

Published 1934 conclusions

as to the meaning of Gleichschaltung,
confirmation that Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli himself was thoroughly on top of the situation
that local clergy were disputing the policy co-ordinated by Berlin (Kaas and the Hierarchy),
that the Catholic Press was thoroughly 'co-ordinated',
that Nazi intention to replace the R.C church entirely was well known and thus provided a factor to Pacelli considerations,
and that Papen was again used as pseudo-papal Nazi envoy to control 'German' civil catholicism, just as he had played his part , with Ludwig Kaas prior to the Enabling Act , or principle Gleichshaltung in Berlin,
that the first real controversy ,concerning Pacelli,was internal to the RCChurch(apart from that Bruning/Pacelli vatican meeting in 1931
that the Roman Catholic Church was interfering in the internal politics of Germany and areas such as the Saar district in 1933.

Infallibility is the real Pacelli Controversy

The real controversy is not divisible into Pacelli influence upon the Gleichshaltung through Kaas and Papen, upon the Pius XI pontificate, or WWII and his negotiating acceptance of German terriotrial gains in the East(with Kaas and Lieber), or the vast Holocaust questions, or the anti-communism, but is composed of all these factors. The essence of the need to characterise or persist in the events as controversy at all stems from Pacelli's papal invocation of the Doctrine of Infallibility, the which is sullied by the preceding history. There appears to be no controversy, only the denial of history by those appointed by the secret organisation, or affiliated to it by faith as opposed to reason. The controversy is their awful inability to face the unacceptable truths of their organisational history, which are technically, as I have proven many times, Canonically illegal .

WP definition of Infallibility

Notwithstanding the actual Pius XII reference to his misreading of the Nazis after the fact(I wasn't infallible back then) the issue relates to Ronconte's following :

Vatican II specifically stated the limits of papal infallibility: “And this infallibility…in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of revelation extends”.

Garry Wills (again....)

from the WP article , a recent name, perhaps missspelled above here, reappears:

A few Catholics refuse to accept papal infallibility as a doctrine of faith, such as the theologian Hans Küng, author of Infallible? An Inquiry, and historian Garry Wills, author of Papal Sin.

Autocracy, War and President Wilson's Third Note to Berlin re the Armistice

In the Third Note to Berlin c 23 Cctober 1918, To President Wilson's consent to recommend to the Allied Powers the Armistice terms previously agreed, was added that IF it was still necessary to treat with the military authorities and monarchical autocrats of Germany...they must demand not negotiations but surrender.

The angel-counting arguments at Adolf Hitler in May 2006 here, appear to be an efficient deflection from the associated arguments continuing at the related Pope Pius XII pages. certain users do not seem to see the connections, hence i bring the above in a hint towards the greater complexity of the relationship between Hitler and Pacelli. These relations encompass, along with the other influential players, amongst whom are the ever present industrial magnates, the infection of the events succeeding 30 January 1933 by those conjured through Wilson's note, and by the revolution in Germany and its military forces.

The axis between Pacelli and Hitler was by no means solely anti-comintern, nor anti-comintern-jewish-bolshevik, but also leaning through the 1920's onwards until the decisive 30 January seizure and 23 March dictatorship, towards a restoration of religiously based autocracy in the form of a monarchical restitution. The association is therefore considerate upon history back to the French Revolution, as well as that of the German monarchy as part of the more ancient Holy Roman Empire.

The heavy industrial magnates figure throughout WWWI and to WWII, and their page which was eradicated from WP was the intended destination for their relevant aspect to the history.

Allusion to a subject such as German nationalist sentiment and its relationship to Nazism should not of itself hinder whatever other deeper historical forces there are from being pictured, and goodwill concerning verifiability should not allow the serious contributors to be hindered from doing so. Blatant prevarication and denialism should suffer the penalty it deserves, and those responsible for it should be made example of to discourage the increasing band of wishful thinkers following the defensive revisionism, whether of aristocratic or clerical or other party-type German or the more international/clerical denialism. Wikipedia articles concerning this history are a scandal, and historical ignorance blinds supposedly modern wikipedians to this reduction of WP into revisionism. It is a self condemnation, and it is abused openly by the faith crusading yellow banner types, who's football team commands them to deflect and deny and plug every opening of consciousness. This is evidentiary, as every intellectually dishonest denial is visible and recorded.

"Enemy POV" and revisionism in WP

"Writing for the enemy is the process of explaining another person's point of view as clearly and fairly as you can. The intent is to satisfy the adherents and advocates of that POV that you understand their claims and arguments.

It's a great way to end an argument in real life, and it can often halt an edit war in an instant.

Note that writing for the enemy does not necessarily mean one believes the opposite of the "enemy" POV. The writer may be unsure what position he wants to take, or simply have no opinion on the matter. What matters is that you try to "walk a mile in their shoes" instead of judging them.

Writing for the enemy contributes to the NPOV of Wikipedia. Wikipedians often must learn to sacrifice their own viewpoints to the greater good.

This above is regrettable quotation at Hitler-talk, and appears to represent the wishes of a user called Colonel Marksman, and be dragged from the bowels of WP. A curious user ( a quotation from him is "What I do know, however, is arguing as a defined art form." [45]]) , Colonel Marksman, reminds one of Robert McClenon, and appeared in WP just before the also curious disappearance of McClenon, and he now raises as much as he can, a concept of 'enemy POV. He does this whilst alluding to 'human' knowledge in a manner that reminds me of that McClenon. The negative association of the word enemy is quite out of place with the open concept and usage of the WP title NPOV, and to me contains clear echo of R McClenon's negative statements concerning "human beings" placed at his original talk page ( |"We have problematical editors on Wikipedia because editors are human and humans are problematical." )

The negativity within the above representation of intellectual choice could raise a whole polemic in itself, suffice it to say that this is recognisable as the favoured modus operandi for the particlularly clerical revisionists EffK has always had to chase thru Wikipedia.

I warn user Bengalski, who is the only editor who chooses to listen, that I have read Colonel Marksman's attempt towards re-writing/shortening the Adolf Hitler information, and that it is clear from the entire omission of the period from 6 March 1933 to 1933 May, and the claim that opposition parties were banned somehow at the last date mentioned (6th March), that it betrays a very serious desire to affect "human knowledge", oe else is a curious example of someone entering the historical field with a desire to diminuish the ability of others to understand. This could conceivably be the case, although such excuse could only stem from the most sublime type of un-informed state.

Furthermore the length to which this C.Marksman goes in order to argue at AH talk that somehow any POV can enter what is history, puts him slotted into the McClenon type argumentation-supported by and supporting of, Str1977 equal penchant for diminuishing history. There would be nothing remarkable about such editing but fot the fact that this is inexorable behaviour wherever Adolf Hitler and his history touches that of certain editors chosen or born religion. I called for both these older users to be investigated, and recognised as dangerous revisionists following a religious and utterly revisionist viewpoint, because of their veriable intellectual dishonesty. The wish C.Marksman promulgates -'this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves together with -trust readers' competence to form their own opinions is for a vaunted Intellectual Independance which entirely marries with the desire for such historical separation. Innocent as it may be in the case of Marksman, who may have lifted the thoughts entirely because he agreed with their promise of simple solution, yet there has been nothing innocent about the others who use the same means and argument about the same subject.

In fact the idea and practice is that this argumentation is the last refuge of the intellectual scoundrel (sadly they are under intellectual orders from their Church), those who desperately wish to eradicate from history, that which actually happened. What happened should not and need not be anything to do with POV or NPOV, and I would suggest it could even struggle on without someone who may, if it is the case, like marksman simply wish to shorten all articles. The suggestion is, however, rather that there exists an NPOV or POV about everything. Thus money guaranteed by industrial magnates, letters of constitutional guarantee being typed up, letters being read at Party meetings (such as Mowrer's Pacelli report from the catholic Centre Party in May 1932 ), are not facts or actual happenings, but some form of soapy substance with which 'evil' or now enemy people desire to fill their minds. This intellectual independance wishes in fact to build an alternative world-view, based on censorship (there is for C Marksman no Enabling Act, and, perhaps Hitler used 'oratory to obtain total fuhrerdom, not paper backed guarantee (ie money, and written Centre votes). +The allowance into our world of doubtful and parallel realities or POV's achievs the desired end, which is effective censorship. By general discreditation of any belief in any truth, the untruth becomes less noticeable, and more easily defended.

I see that Savidan is much to be commended for disallowing obvious censorship furthering this regrettable clerical revisionsim, and both his intellectual rigour and civil appliance, is laudable. However along with Bengalski he is isolated, amidst a growing pack of intellectually suspect users, and I have to wonder how long Savidan can bear to hold the gates from their attacks. These are striving towards allowing us to choose or recognise any version of POV on the reality of that which was built up, and then destroyed, day by day and word by word and with drops of (all our) blood when, of course, there is no POV but only one set of facts. All EffK and FK writings explain clearly enough why there is this desire (motivation) for, to put it bluntly, untruth. The motivation is to actually destroy facts 73 years after the events, as the facts are dangerous to the survival of an autocratic organisation claiming a right in law which the facts contradict. Thus, all of these type of polemical entries are but da type of deflection and al are intellectually dishonest. prior to concern about historians POV comes the litany of fact. If a historian nails a fact by verifiability, this becomes fact. If a government record exits storage, it becomes known fact: if a telegram is sent and promoted in written media, that is a statement of fact, not of POV, and it is not honest to suggest it is a POV. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. And, it is creepy the way denialists refer to the "human".

WP PEW catch-up 23 May 2006

Is twofold, Hitler and Pacelli )Pope Pius XII}. EffK absence saves the edit war spreading throughout Historical and political pages, as they are all in simply a general state of Wikipedia error.

AH is locked down , which is really useful to the revisionists, who thereby possess a status quo they can live with. At any rate they have a tremendous distraction going, as to AH honesty regarding the catholicism he was/was not a member of.

Let's avoid the nature and consequences of his relationship TO Catholicism via Kaas and Papen:

The position of the Catholic Centre Party, at this point the third largest party in the Reichstag, turned out to be decisive: under the leadership of Ludwig Kaas, the party decided to vote for the Enabling Act. It did so in return for the government's oral guarantees regarding the Church's liberty, the concordats signed by German states and the continued existence of the Centre Party itself. (today)

However beyond these guarantees[ those mentioned above], developed in Committee from 20 March, was a decisive Hitler promise to Kaas of further written general constitutional guarantee. On this basis the Centre Party agreed on the morning of 23 March to assent to the Enabling Act. ( 14 December 2005)

It is a subtle difference, but one that allows for entirely differing perception, and the generalised error.

The Pacelli article , is virtually locked down to open revisionism by the user Savidan protecting Bengalski verification. Personally my experience there would even see Savidan over-playing the obvious diplomatic character of Pacelli's pontifical succession. The whole spiritual side of Pacelli is essential, and is little cultivated. I was prevented from so doing, by the necessities of edit warring on the diplomatic front. I always believed, from the very visible catholic diffusion of this aspect to Pacelli, that this was as important as any of his diplomatic activities. This aspect of the history is absolutely vital, IF shown in the truthful light of his diplomatic persona.EffK 22:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive/16 Wheeler-Bennett & Fixing WP Hitler errors;Weizsacker

30 January 1933

"With that same lack of emotion which usually characterised his parting from a Chancellor, Hindenburg firmly placed the Schleicher episode behind him and turned resolutely to the business in hand, the negotiations with Hitler. The marshal was frankly delighted to have papen back at his side, parrtly because of his congenial company and partly because he relieved Hindenburg of the trials, and above all, the responsibilities of negotiation.For in this situation, as in all previous critical moments of his like. hindenburg ran true to form. He shirked the ultimate responsibility. he knew that the decisisons that must be taken in the next forty-eight hours were of the most vital importance to Germany. Instinctively he realised that an end to the Weimar System had come and tha the country of which he was the head was on the threshold of tremendous happeneings, the final issue of which could not be seen. It might be that papen's plans would succedd; it might be that they would meet with ghastly failure. in any case Hindenburgs instinct was to protect himself against the future. he named papen his deputy, with the task of "clearing up the political situation within the framework of the Constitution and in agreement with the Reichstag"."

"Papen, whatever else he lacked, was fully alive to the eccentricities and weaknesses of the President, and particularly those whcih had placed him in his present position of arbiter. The inhertent dislike of Hindenburg for shouldering the responsibility was a trump card in papen's hand which he kept back until he could use it to its fullest advantage. He was not even entirely decided in his own mind whether he would make Hitler Chancellor or not, and in his first effort at Cabinet-making, which occurrred on the afternoon of Schleicher's dismissal [28 january], he gave himself the leadership of the Goverbnment and the key positions to members of the former Cabinet, leaving only minor ministries to his allies. Hitler, however, never abandoned his fundamental demands:the Chancellorship for himself, the control of the Prussian police[ ie Berlin], the passage of an Enabling Act, and if necessary, new elections. He refused to consider anything else and reminded papen of their pact at Cologne,"( at Schroder's, the Banker ;start of Common Plan or Conspiracy].

"With considrable reluctance the President, late on the night of Saturday, January 28th, authorised Hitler to form a Cabinet and the following morning was spent in bickering and argument.The air seemed heavy with the presage of great events, rumour followed rumour. The city was restless, and armed police patrolled the streets. Now the Palace would make a concession, now the Kaiserhof, til shortly before noon papen made his final offer. Hitler should have the Chancellorship and the Reich and prussian Ministries of Interior for his party; Papen himself would be Vice-Chancellor and reichskommissar for Prussia; and Hugenberg, as representaive of the Right and heavy industry, the Minister of Agriculture and Econcomic Affairs in the Reich and in Prussia, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Finance were to remain in the hands of their present holders, Neurath and Shwerin von Krosigk, and General Baron von Blomberg was to be the new Minister of Defence."

"Though this proposal went far to meet the demands of the nazis, it omitted all mention of the Enabling Bill and of the right to dissolve the Reichstag, and while it gave the party control of the whole police force of Prussia, it necessitated their agreement with Hugenberg's economicb theories of autarchy. After considration the offer was refused.Once more papen began to play with the idea of assuming thecChancellorship, and by the evening had almost succeeded in forming a cabinet, when again dramatic events changed the course of history. It became known that schleicher, who still remained in office as acting Chancellor, had sumoned by telegram all the Trade Union leaders throughout the country to an immediate conference in the Ministry of Defence."

While the Palace debated as to whether this was a prelude to a general strike, Werner von Alvensleben came hot-foot from a dinner -party with even more disturbing tidings. There had been present general von bredow, Schleicher's closest friend and colleague, beside himself with grief and anger at the curt dismissal of his chief. Without restraint hwe had cursed the House of Hindenburg for its perfidy and cried, in the fury of his rage, that Schleicher shhould -or would -summon the Potsdam garrison and restrain by force the Old gentleman(but this was not what bredow actually called him) from committing the monstrous crime of giving the supreme power to Hitler; he added that papen, Oskar[von Hindenburg's son], and the Fuhrer [AH] himself should be confined in the fortess of Lõtsen."

Though it is virtually impossible that this plan could have been anything but the figment of Bredow's rage-drunk mind,for the Potsdam garrison weould never have changed their loyalty from Hindenburg to Schleicher, the news which young Alvensleben brought to the palace, and which soon spread to the Kaiserhof, threw both camps, already in a state of nervous tension, into complete panic. The need for an immediate agreement was obvious, and both sides prepared to make concessions. Hitler accepted the offerof the mornning on condition that Gõring should become a Minister without Portfolio in the Reich Cabinet, giving the party three votes instead of two. But the greatest obstacle was the Enabling Bill."

"It was now that Papen used his trump card. He knew well how weary Hindenburg had become of government by decree[ viz EffK 'Presidential Dictatorship' from historian Arthur Rosenberg] which laid upon him the responsibility of all Notverordnungen. The Enabling Bill, passed by a two-thirds majority of the Reichstag, would relieve him of this burden. From Hitler was extracted the verbal undertaking that he would not make use of the extraordinary powers accorded him in any point to which the president objected, and, further,to liberate the president from all rsponsibility, it was suggested that Papen should exercise the power of veto in his name . But in order to secure a parliamentary majority for such legislation fresh elections were necessary- and the naizs were determined that, with the machinery of government in their hands, the results would be satisfactory- and thus it came about that the decree od dissolution which had been denied to Schleicher was granted to Hitler."

"Under the blandishments of Papen, Hindenburg was turned once more along a fresh path of duty. The new Government, it was urged upon him, would wipe out for ever the stain of November 1918. He was reminded of his own words, written under the shadow of defeat: "The old German spirit will descend upon us again, though it may bethat we shall first have to go through the purifying fires of passion and suffering". How nobly he had written, they told him, and how truly. The days of the refining fire were over and the new dawn of an awakened Germany was about to break. He who in his person united whole generations, had outlived the wandering in the wilderness to bring his people into the promised land. germany , once arraigned as the criminal of Europe, would again be a power in the councils of the world, and the traditions of the german army would take on a fresh lustre and a new brightness."

"All these things were told to Hindenburg and he was fain to believe them. And did not Papen whisper something else into the Old Gentleman's ear? The spectre of Spa [ Hindenburg's seat of Military Command at the Kaiser's abdication and the Armistice] had grown appreciably dimmer in these later years and it seemed at times as if it had altogether been exorcised. But now it grew again in strange new guise. With the powers of the Right united, and in the saddle, with Hitler, though Chancellor, yet securely the prisoner of the Nationalists, it might at last be possible to do that which in his heart of hearts Hindenburg had long believed it his duty to do; to restore the monarchy and recall his "Most Gracious Kaiser, king and Lord" to the throne. he himself had written that "from the tempestuous seas of our national life will once more emerge that rock-the Imperial German House"; now perhaps he might make good his words."

'Wheeler Bennett ends the chapter with the fact that Hindenbur broke his oath -to defend the German people.

The Cologne Meeting

ibid p 426

"The historic interview between Papen and Hitler took place at Cologne on January 8[ according to Shirer/Nuremburg it was the 4th January] 1933, at the house of the great banker Baron [Kurt von]] Schroeder, and here the basis for a working agreement was laid. Nothing was put in writing, but it was agreed that, in return for the Chancelorship and the funding of the enormous debts of the Nazi party, Hitler would give his word that he would not infringe the Constitution in any respect. For Papen this undertaking was of the greatest importance, for only by this fiction could he reconcile the President to the idea of Hitler as Chancellor."

Industrial Magnates from William L. Shirer

Rise and Fall o the Third Reich by Shirer 1959 ,Secker and Warburg/Pan Books p 181, fair use/ educational (anti WP 'error')

"Hitler , then,...was beginning to see the men in Germany who had the money, and he was telling them more or less what they wanted to hear.The party needed large sums to finance election campaighns, pay the bill for its widespread and intenssified propaganda, meet the payroll of hundreds of full-time officials and maintain private armies of the S.A and the S.S, which by the end of 1930 numbered more than 100,000 men, alrger force than the Teichswehr. The businessmen and bankers were not the only financial sources-the party raised sizeable sums from dues, assessments, collections and the sale of party newspapers, books and periodicals- but they were the largest. And the more money they gacve the Nazis, the less they would have for the other conservative parties which they had been suppporting hitherto."

"'In the summer of 1931', Otto Dietrich, Hitler's press chief first for the party and then for the Reich, relates, 'the Fuehrer suddenly decided to concentrate systematically on cultivating the influential industrial magnates.'"

"What magnates were they? "

"Their identity was a secret which was kept from all but the inner circle around the Leader. The party had to play both sides of the tracks. it had to allow Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the national Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand , money to keep the party going had to be wheedles out of those who had an ample supply of it. Through-out the latter part of 1931, says Dietrich, Hitler 'traversed germany from end to end, holding private interviews with prominent [business] personalities.' So hush-hush were some of these meetings, that they had to be held 'in some lonely forest glade. privacy' explains Dietrich, 'was absolutely imperative; the press must have no chance of doing mischief. Success was the consequence.'

ibid p 182, Shirer lists these magnates, taken from Nuremberg testimony. Someone should list the re-instatement of the McClenon-and-one-vote deleted Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates, and add the page 182 to the Wheeler Bennett extract it contained.

Archive/16: Instructions to users-A Pontifical document

(fair use/educational from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_20050124_il-rapido-sviluppo_en.html -

Relevance highlighted by EffK

"To analyze with the eyes of faith the processes and value of communications, the deeper appreciation of Sacred Scripture can undoubtedly help as a “great code” of communication of a message which is not ephemeral, but fundamental for its saving value....Salvation History recounts and documents the communication of God with man, a communication which uses all forms and ways of communicating....Thanks to the Redemption, the communicative capacity of believers is healed and renewed.... Communication permeates the essential dimensions of the Church which is called to announce to all the joyful message of salvation. For this reason, the Church takes advantage of the opportunities offered by the communications media as pathways providentially given by God to intensify communion and to render more penetrating the proclamation of His word.[3] The media permit the manifestation of the universal character of the People of God, favoring a more intense and immediate exchange among local Churches, and nourishing mutual awareness and cooperation.

We give thanks to God for the presence of these powerful media which, if used by believers with the genius of faith and in docility to the light of the Holy Spirit, can facilitate the communication of the Gospel and render the bonds of communion among ecclesial communities more effective.

III. A Change of Mentality and Pastoral Renewal

7. In the communications media the Church finds a precious aid for spreading the Gospel and religious values, for promoting dialogue, ecumenical and inter-religious cooperation, and also for defending those solid principles which are indispensable for building a society which respects the dignity of the human person and is attentive to the common good. The Church willingly employs these media to furnish information about itself and to expand the boundaries of evangelization, of catechesis and of formation, considering their use as a response to the command of the Lord: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature” (Mk 16:15).

This is certainly not an easy mission in an age such as ours, in which there exists the conviction that the time of certainties is irretrievably past. Many people, in fact, believe that humanity must learn to live in a climate governed by an absence of meaning, by the provisional and by the fleeting.[4] In this context, the communications media can be used “to proclaim the Gospel or to reduce it to silence within men’s hearts.”[5] This poses a serious challenge for believers, especially for parents, families and all those responsible for the formation of children and young people. Those individuals in the Church community particularly gifted with talent to work in the media should be encouraged with pastoral prudence and wisdom, so that they may become professionals capable of dialoguing with the vast world of the mass media.

8. The appreciation of the media is not reserved only to those already adept in the field, but to the entire Church Community. If, as has already been noted, the communications media take into account different aspects of the expression of faith, Christians must take into account the media culture in which they live: from the Liturgy, the fullest and fundamental expression of communication with God and with one another, to Catechesis, which cannot prescind from the fact of being directed to people immersed in the language and the culture of the day.

The current phenomenon of communications impels the Church towards a sort of pastoral and cultural revision, so as to deal adequately with the times in which we live. Pastors, above all, must assume this responsibility. Everything possible must be done so that the Gospel might permeate society, stimulating people to listen to and embrace its message.[6] Consecrated persons belonging to institutions having the charism of using the mass media have a particular responsibility in this regard. Spiritually and professionally formed towards this end, these institutions, “should willingly lend their help, wherever pastorally appropriate […] in order to offset the inappropriate use of the media and to promote higher quality programmes, the contents of which will be respectful of the moral law and rich in human and Christian values.”[7]

9. Such is the importance of the mass media that fifteen years ago I considered it inopportune to leave their use completely up to the initiatives of individuals or small groups, and suggested that they be decisively inserted into pastoral programs.[8] New technologies, in particular, create further opportunities for communication understood as a service to the pastoral government and organization of the different tasks of the Christian community. One clear example today is how the Internet not only provides resources for more information, but habituates persons to interactive communication.[9] Many Christians are already creatively using this instrument, exploring its potential to assist in the tasks of evangelization and education, as well as of internal communication, administration and governance. However, alongside the Internet, other new means of communication, as well as traditional ones, should be used. Daily and weekly newspapers, publications of all types, and Catholic television and radio still remain highly useful means within a complete panorama of Church communications.

While the content being communicated must obviously be adapted to the needs of different groups, the goal must always be to make people aware of the ethical and moral dimension of the information.[10] In the same way, it is important to assure that media professionals receive the necessary formation and pastoral attention to confront the particular tensions and ethical dilemmas that arise in their daily work. Often these men and women “sincerely desire to know and practice what is ethically and morally just,” and look to the Church for guidance and support.[11]

IV. The Mass Media, the Crossroads of the Great Social Questions

10. The Church, which in light of the message of salvation entrusted to it by the Lord is also a teacher of humanity, recognizes the duty to offer its own contribution for a better understanding of outlooks and responsibilities connected with current developments in communications.' Especially because these influence the consciences of individuals, form their mentality and determine their view of things, it is important to stress in a forceful and clear way that the mass media constitute a patrimony to safeguard and promote. The communications media must enter into the framework of organically structured rights and duties, be it from the point of view of formation and ethical responsibility, or from reference to laws and institutional codes.

The positive development of the media at the service of the common good is a responsibility of each and every one.[12] Because of the close connections the media have with economics, politics and culture, there is required a management system capable of safeguarding the centrality and dignity of the person, the primacy of the family as the basic unit of society and the proper relationship among them.

11. We are faced with three fundamental options: formation, participation and dialogue.

In the first place, a vast work of formation is needed to assure that the mass media be known and used intelligently and appropriately. The new vocabulary they introduce into society modifies both learning processes and the quality of human relations, so that, without proper formation, these media run the risk of manipulating and heavily conditioning, rather than serving people. This is especially true for young people, who show a natural propensity towards technological innovations, and as such are in even greater need of education in the responsible and critical use of the media.

In the second place, I would like to recall our attention to the subject of media access, and of co-responsible participation in their administration. If the communications media are a good destined for all humanity, then ever-new means must be found – including recourse to opportune legislative measures – to make possible a true participation in their management by all. The culture of co-responsibility must be nurtured.

Finally, there cannot be forgotten the great possibilities of mass media in promoting dialogue, becoming vehicles for reciprocal knowledge, of solidarity and of peace. They become a powerful resource for good if used to foster understanding between peoples; a destructive “weapon” if used to foster injustice and conflicts. My venerable predecessor, Blessed John XXIII, already prophetically warned humanity of such potential risks in the Encyclical, Pacem in Terris.[13]

12. The reflection upon the role “of public opinion in the Church,” and “of the Church in public opinion” aroused great interest. In a meeting with the editors of Catholic publications, my venerable predecessor, Pius XII, stated that something would be missing from the life of the Church were it not for public opinion. This same idea has since been repeated on other occasions[14], and in the Code of Canon Law there is recognized, under certain conditions, the right to the expression of one’s own opinion.[15] While it is true that the truths of the faith are not open to arbitrary interpretations, and that respect for the rights of others places intrinsic limits upon the expression of one’s judgments, it is no less true that there is still room among Catholics for an exchange of opinions in a dialogue which is respectful of justice and prudence.

Communication both within the Church community, and between the Church and the world at large, requires openness and a new approach towards facing questions regarding the world of media. This communication must tend towards a constructive dialogue, so as to promote a correctly-informed and discerning public opinion within the Christian community. The Church, like other institutions and groups, has the need and the right to make its activities known. However, when circumstances require, it must be able to guarantee an adequate confidentiality, without thereby prejudicing a timely and sufficient communication about Church events. This is one of the areas in which collaboration between the lay faithful and Pastors is most needed, as the Council appropriately emphasized, “A great many wonderful things are to be hoped for from this familiar dialogue between the laity and their spiritual leaders: in the laity a strengthened sense of personal responsibility; a renewed enthusiasm; a more ready application of their talents to the projects of their spiritual leaders. The latter, on the other hand, aided by the experience of the laity, can more clearly and more incisively come to decisions regarding both spiritual and temporal matters. In this way, the whole Church, strengthened by each one of its members, may more effectively fulfill its mission for the life of the world”.[16]

V. To Communicate with the Power of the Holy Spirit

13. The great challenge of our time for believers and for all people of good will is that of maintaining truthful and free communication which will help consolidate integral progress in the world. Everyone should know how to foster an attentive discernment and constant vigilance, developing a healthy critical capacity regarding the persuasive force of the communications media.

Also in this field, believers in Christ know that they can count upon the help of the Holy Spirit. Such help is all the more necessary when one considers how greatly the obstacles intrinsic to communication can be increased by ideologies, by the desire for profit or for power, and by rivalries and conflicts between individuals and groups, and also because of human weakness and social troubles. The modern technologies increase to a remarkable extent the speed, quantity and accessibility of communication, but they above all do not favor that delicate exchange which takes place between mind and mind, between heart and heart, and which should characterize any communication at the service of solidarity and love.

Throughout the history of salvation, Christ presents himself to us as the “communicator” of the Father: “God, in these last days, has spoken to us through his Son” (Heb 1:2). The eternal Word made flesh, in communicating Himself, always shows respect for those who listen, teaches understanding of their situation and needs, is moved to compassion for their suffering and to a resolute determination to say to them only what they need to hear without imposition or compromise, deceit or manipulation. Jesus teaches that communication is a moral act, “A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil. I tell you, on the Day of Judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak. By your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Mt 12: 35-37)

14. The apostle Paul has a clear message for those engaged in communications (politicians, professional communicators, spectators), “Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, for we are members one of another… No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear” (Eph 4: 25, 29).

To those working in communication, especially to believers involved in this important field of society, I extend the invitation which, from the beginning of my ministry as Pastor of the Universal Church, I have wished to express to the entire world “Do not be afraid!”

Do not be afraid of new technologies! These rank “among the marvelous things” – inter mirifica – which God has placed at our disposal to discover, to use and to make known the truth, also the truth about our dignity and about our destiny as his children, heirs of his eternal Kingdom.

Do not be afraid of being opposed by the world! Jesus has assured us, “I have conquered the world!” (Jn 16:33)

Do not be afraid even of your own weakness and inadequacy! The Divine Master has said, “I am with you always, until the end of the world” (Mt 28:20). Communicate the message of Christ’s hope, grace and love, keeping always alive, in this passing world, the eternal perspective of heaven, a perspective which no communications medium can ever directly communicate, “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1Cor 2:9).

To Mary, who gave us the Word of life, and who kept his unchanging words in her heart, do I entrust the journey of the Church in today’s world. May the Blessed Virgin help us to communicate by every means the beauty and joy of life in Christ our Savior.

To all I give my Apostolic Blessing!

From the Vatican, 24 January 2005, the Feast of Saint Francis de Sales, Patron Saint of Journalists.

IOANNES PAULUS II

NOTES

[1] No. 1.

[2] Apostolic Exhortation Evangelio Nuntiandi (December 8th, 1975): AAS 68 (1976), 45.

[3] Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (December 30 th , 1988), 18-24: AAS 81 (1989), 421-435; cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Pastoral Instructive Ae tatis Novae (February 22 nd , 1992), 10: AAS 84 (1992), 454-455.

[4] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (September 14 th , 1998), 91: AAS 91 (1999), 76-77.

[5] cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Pastoral Instructive Ae tatis Novae (February 22 nd , 1992), 4: AAS 84 (1992), 450.

[6] Cf. John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Pastores Gregis, 30: L’Osservatore Romano, October 17 th , 2003, p. 6.

[7] John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Vita Consecrata (March 25 th , 1996), 99: AAS 88 (1996), 476.

[8] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter, Redemptoris Missio (December 7 th , 1990), 37: AAS 83 (1991), 282-286.

[9] Cf. Pontifical Council for Social Communications, The Church and Internet (February 22 nd , 2002), 6: Vatican City, 2002, p. 13-15.

[10] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Inter Mirifica, 15-16; Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Pastoral Instructional Communio et Progressio (May 23 rd , 1971), 107: AAS 63 (1971), 631-632; Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Pastoral Instructional Aetatis Novae (February 22 nd , 1992), 18: AAS 84 (1992), 460.

[11] Cf. Ibid., 19: l.c.

[12] Cf. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, num. 2494.

[13] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 37 th World Communications Day (January 24 th , 2003): L’Osservatore Romano, January 25 th , 2003, p. 6.

[14] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Lumen Gentium, 37; Pontifical Council for Social Communications, Pastoral Instruction Communio et Progressio (May 23 rd , 1971), 114-117: AAS 63 (1971), 634-635.

[15] Can. 212, §3: According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

[16] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Lumen Gentium, 37.

Archive/17 called 'censorship' examples in WP

As you see the threat is digital decapitation(again). However they may put the finger into this hole in the dyke, they cannot prevent extra-Wikipedia communiction. You shall of course be provided with whatever verifiability you may need to add. I suggest there is no hurry, other than the polluting effect of the present articles, towards our cleaning this augean stables. The level of revisioniusm is so blatant as to precipitate itself even greater ridicule. I allude there to an appeal, but I refuse to appeal to Jimbo, as he appears not to show good will. The wikipedia fear and ignorance- I'll admit to the complications being arcane in 1932/33- is such that I do not foresee even a dozen honest wikipedians arising to prevent the ridicule from falling against Wikipedia. You are entirely aware that all the archives everywhere this period touches, are filled with FK/EffK attempts to challenge the spoof-history, and that published materials necessary to such as yourself or a Savidan, have been placed within these relevant Wikipedia archives. I am no longer necessary, except that my mind has a firm grasp of both the external and internal Wikipedia history, and I alone on Wikipedia am able to speedily analyse and correct the falsity of that which is massage or deflection or censoring. I can inform Wikipedia through you or others upon other channels, and in the event that these faith-based catholic editors challenge you, possibly your later arrival and your legally temperate manners could enable you to have again the same repairing success that you achieved at Pope Pius XII. There is never very much text to change to eradicate the revisionism, and all the efforts really subsist in attempts to demand of well, Str1977, that he accept the verifiability. He never came back to deny you on Klaus Scholder, and meekly had to accept that which he considered legal to categorise as EffK slander. I doubt it is worth your piffling about in an RfC/RFC or appeal to the strangely mute arbcom, certainly not to the founder, who is aware of the oustanding legal complexity from specific EffK allusion to reckless disregard for truth or falsityin publishing the mute arbcom /McClenon written criminalisation of EffK.

None of this however can prevent my helping you and you from helping in this organ.

I hereby state in Wikipedia my equal trust in Bengalski as this user has stated he places in me, and that from hereon whatever statement this user chooses to relate or append or reference to EffK shall be taken as entirely made with the personal approval of me EffK as EffK signing EffK 14:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC) now. My personal communications with User:Bengalski are all genuine and un-breakable beyond any contrary attempts, processes or assumptions. I am sure that this user accepts full use of all material uploaded to anywhere in Wikipdia by EffK, and that he will maintain as he or I may deem it appropriate, timely or justified to use such as they are verifiable, relevant and explicatory. I, EffK shall be required by my conscience to monitor Wikipdia and the editing of it, as I have always done, and I reserve the right to all commentary outside the organ whether the present reiteratd threat to GAG me is effected by the partisan administrator, the Lady Musical Linguist. If a non-partisan should close this line to Wikipedia, it is no more than the closing of one line, and will not close the monitoring of Wikipedia by EffK, nor the making of reports subsequent to that monitoring, nor of whatever conclusions may be deemed resulting, nor the likely Wikipedia actions which will become necessary.[reply]

We should , paradoxically, give great thanks to Str1977, who's efforts will be repaid with the greatest interest towards the eventual glories of truth.

Str1977

Thankyou Str, for writing here on my page, and thankyou for your denial made in it, and thankyou for the threat you make, and thankyou for the belittlement you make of my intellect. I love you, so, I hope your letter'll make you happy, but I am concerned to have to say that on the contrary I fear for you very greatly.EffK 14:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice from Str (and reply from EffK edited by )

Hallo Famekeeper, I see you are having fun in your parallel universe. A word of advice, though, if you don't want the fun to end: remove your new conspiracy accusation (working on orders blaha ...) and also the claim that I removed information - I did not remove information. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Famekeeper, from all these post you appear to be quite busy. Hence, I do not attribute any evil intention to you when you haven't followed my advice and removed the most blatant slandering of me and other Wikipedians, based on my and their religion. You know that this is frowned upon at Wikipedia and that it is one of the reasons you were banned. Because you appearently are that busy I have stepped in for you and removed the passages in question (maybe you also had diffulties in identifying them). So my complaint above is answered and I retain no hard feelings. However, if you choose to reinsert these slanders I will consider myself bound to take the issue to the authorities. You will see what you will have from that. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old Str, I am always busy and hence the time we fought over that which you chose to be different history- I'd call it a la carte history, has been time lost to me. i hope that it will however be others' gain.

Again you make severe threats, so you choose whether you wish to have me decapitated or whether you wish to asnwer the particular accusations of removals, and these are just the ones I remember-the list falls short. I therefore replace that section of my response to you , and I challenge you to actually deny that you removed the information I refer to, one by one. If you choose to do so, it is only correct that you stand by your edits, and since I say you did this, undoubtedly your edits(actions) will be the record. If you say I am wrong ,and that I am a slanderer, then you will by the same token assent to your own actions. However I believe I did not receive a fair trial at Arbcom, and wonder therefore whether anyone with real IQ or just nouse is in WP bureaucracy. I say that you removed an essential point that you youself had assented to in your own commentary-discourse. All the other things around the volte face you expunged and what was not expunged was massaged. So here they are again, we'll work down the letter to you and by the time we get to the accusation you consider a slander, lets see how your edits stand beside the list, whether you did or did not remove these facets of history. This assumes that there is some good faith here now, and that if I show the edits and your name made them, and there are there and then not there, and removed by your action, that you will assent to being Str1977 the editor whose actions are recorded. Here we go:

"You did remove information, particularly anything to do with the history of the vatican and the Nazis concerning the 1920's and 1930's.

Removals from Wikipedia, by Str1977

You continue to do so, as these facts are largely eradicated except from the current Pope Pius XII article, whereas you have succeeded in 'snowing' all attemtped rightful verifiable interventionary editing on all the other aricles, such that the transition to power of Adolf Hitler is entirely mysterious upon the Adolf Hitler page, barely is comprehensible on the Weimar Republic page as it fudges both the Illegality and the Letter and the solo centrality of Kaas.:

I EffKchallenge you old friend, as again you accuse me of slander. I am very busy and it is no priority of mine to revisit what in good faith should have been settled earlier. You removed this information, and why you did so can remain a question dependant on showing that you did so. I am happy with that order, let us show first that you removed, and when that is shown, let us wonder exactly why you did so. Of course without a mediation , it is frustrating, as what has been denied can continue to be denied. You get a 'second' old man , and Ill try and get one, though it is a bit hard when Bengalski is the only link . Sam Spade was a good head. Ask old Sam if he'd risk getting involved with a test of whether or whether you did not not remove this information. I know you Str, and witnesses are required. Arbcom did not refer to one diff, so far as I could see, and there was no trial by any normal m,eans of referral to evidence . So, come on -when or if we see how you have done exactly that which I describe, lets see if the reason you did is exactly that I describe. Of course if you think that it is easiest to make unspecific blanket accusations , and do not wish to face up to each particular action, but rather consign me to digital silence, well.... anyone who reads this page can just as well read the diff where you, again, removed, material. Here it is my commentary of what I have experienced in Wikipedia. There in the latest diffs for this page at the "history" above. If this all disappears Str1977 may have chosen the chop-EffK answer, and preferred it to the lets look at Str1977 actual diffs. Difficult position for poor old Str. Always was, I'm sorry for your invidious position str1977, but then you chose the actions you made- I did not force you to do what you did any more than you forced me to do what I did. And yes those who supported you, should aslo be studies, as supportive of removals, anti-regulation archiving, assumption of bad faith, and in the case of JKenny, the identical hypocrisy as in 15 dec at Adolf Hitler. Well...?

to Reichsminister Göring , Pius XI and approbation of Hitler at 10 April 1933,[46]
to 2/3 majority instituted dictatorship, at Holocaust ,[47],[48]
to Holocaust, [49],[50]
to removal of 'attestation' bureaucracy and of link towards Holocaust, [51]
to google presence of Hitler's Pope by use of clean-up tag,[52] and by deletion entirely [53]title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pope%27s_Hitler&diff=prev&oldid=19516466,[54]
to papal loss of temporal dominions,[55]
to German national reluctance to back a Reichskonkordat in 1925 and 1928,[56]
to evolution of Vatican policy re catholic democratic parties,[57]
to Mussolini Government as "fascist",[58]
to anger at classing abortion as a holocaust,[59]
to Bavarian anti-semitic politics,[60]
You removed references,link to Reichskonkordat,[61],[62],[63]
to disempowermentof the clergy by Reichskonkordat ,[64]
to "soapbox article" The Great Scandal(still wiki-existent),[65]
to 'Liberal" from memoria e identidad[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=prev&oldid=13211081]
reference, line 39 following at[66], to Hindenburg favouring Papen due delinking of Centre to left parties
reference to Centre party as 'constitution' Party, [67],
part of serial removal of Socialist as term for SPD,[68]
to Socialists and Communists, from Hitler,[69]
to Socialist protest at Enabling Act, [70]
reference to crucial nature of Centre Party to Enabling Act,[71]
reference to Kaas drafting the Reichskonkordat,[72],
to Nazi -Centre negotiations ,[73]
to Holy See, from Hitler article,[74]
link to Industrial magnates ,[75],and [76]then re-added , & scrubbed etc
You removed decline in Centre Party voters and vatican attitude to democratic catholic Party [77]
to Fulda Conference/thaw of approbation from Hierarchy,[78]
to pressure put on Cardinal Faulhaber,[79]
to Kaas being a vatican 'insider',[80]
to 'Osservatore Romano' being vatican controlled,[81]
to only gradual realisation of Reichskonkordat effects,[82]
to resulting prejudice upon Jewish education in Reich,[83]
reference to quid pro quo ,[84],[85]
to Enabling Act, and barter for,[86]
reference to civil servant members of the Centre Party ,[87],
"dubious" tags removed from Centre article, [88]
to notability of private meeting of Pacelli's friend Kaas with Hitler,[89],[90]
to Papen subterfuge re Rome visit April 1933,[91]
to Italian press uncovering the secrecy and subterfuge,[92]
to Pacelli's belief in 'leadership principle',[93]
to Pacelli diplomatic training,[94],[95]
to Pacelli contempt of Jews for political reasons ,[96]
to loss of RCC historic autonomy,[97]
to secrecy of Papen trip to Rome on 9 April 1933, [98],[99],[100]
to Kaas being a close friend of Pacelli,[101], [102]
to his being Pacelli's Secretary,
to Pacelli and his acquiesance to Centre dissolution ,[103],
to his travelling on 24 March to negotiate the Reichskonkordat,
to primacy of Reichskonkordat to Pacelli strategy,[104]
to opposition of Centre to Nazism conflicting with Rome,[105]
to Reichskonkordat (from Hitler page),[106]
to the Reichskonkordat containing a Secret Annexe,[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ludwig_Kaas&diff=prev&oldid=22177766]
to that being what it was as contravention of a German signed Treaty,
to Reichskonkordat inducting priests into Nazi racial bureaucracy,[107]
to Mowrer, [108],[109]
to Mowrer confirming the Pacelli aims and the Bruning vatican meeting with Pacelli,[110]
to number of WWI war criminals, Mowrer,[111]
to Hitler as 'bulwark',[112]
to Communism'[113]
to full report of Bruning meeting with Pacelli in 1931,[114]
to Cornwell conclusion,[115]
to Levy,
to Wheeler-Bennett,
to Klemens von Klemperer,[116]
to Atkin & Tallet,
to Arthur Rosenberg and 'Presidential Dictatorship',
to Toland,
to Shirer,[117] despite source ref-[118]
to quid pro quo, thus to Shirer,
to Klemperer whose very words you distorted,
to denial of Kaas involvement in the Reichstag speech of 23 March,
to illegality of Deputy arrest,
to Letter of Constitutiional Guarantee,
to papal approbation of 10 April,[119]
to "christian dictatorship" as import of 1933 Encyclical [120],[121]
to dictatorial result of Enabling Act [122],[123]
to Germany as Nazi [124]]
to Vatican State [125]
to Kaas approbationary AH Birthday telegram and statement concerning Hitler leadership being widely promulgated on 23 April following.
to mass defection of Centre to Nazism,[126],
to Kaas acting under papal orders,[127]
to talk pages,[128]
to external links ,[129],[130]
to internal links, [131],(Odessa,)[132]
to disputed tags,[133]
inactions of Pius XII as fact ,[134]
to petition of 5 high clerics from germany in 1937,[135]
to Pacelli and Jesuit suppression of the 'Lost Encyclical' of Pius XI,[136]
scriptural derivation and link to 2004 presidential campaign,[137]
internal Nazi left-wing opposition ,[138]
dangers from a church not opposite to danger from liberal democracy ,[139]
political influence of a Pius XII statement ,[140]
to Pacelli passivity concerning the Roman Ghetto,[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=prev&oldid=20627654]
to Pius XII desire for Rome liberation to not be by partisans,[141]
Legal separation of Church and State in Germany [[142]],[143]
prohibition of religious qualification in USA office holders,[144]
public adversity affecting isalmic organisation in Germany,[145]
heresy resulting from doctrinal error (Cornwell),[146]
'Papal fascist collusion' from section title of discussion, [147]
to initial church acquiescence with Nazis,[148]
to vatican pre-1937 silence,[149]
to secrecy and other conditions of papacy in first 'Vatican Exchanges',[150]
to Kaas reporting Goering position re 'Widerstand',[151]
to Kaas co-ordinating second 'Vatican Exchange',[152]
to Pius XII misgivings re 'unconditional surrender',[153]
to Nuremberg Trials,[154],[155]
to denial of 'vatican sovereign immunity' on appeal,[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XII&diff=prev&oldid=18843432]
to demand for release of vatican archives,[156]
to Pacelli campaigning to exclude afro American troops from occupied Rhineland, and later, Rome,[157]
to Pius XII re financing and ratlines,[158]
to Jewish figure's Cologne question of BXVXVI re vatican Archives,[159],[160]

Archive 18/ called: Note Store, Scholder and Savidan

"Gentlemen, I hope you will not hold me capable of appointing this Austrian corporal to be Reich Chancellor"^[1].. [161]
. Like Brüning's government, Papen's government was a "presidential government" that governed through the use of Article 48.[162]
Hindenburg played a supporting but key role in the Nazi Machtergreifung (Seizure of Power) in 1933. [ditto]
In this regard, it is important to note that Mommsen was the first historian in the early 1960s to accept the conclusions of the journalist Fritz Tobias who argued in a 1961 book The Reichstag Fire that the Reichstag Fire of 1933 was not started by the Nazis, and that Marinus van der Lubbe had acted alone. ...Nazi state as a chaotic collection of rival bureaucracies locked into endless power struggles with one another. In Mommsen's view, it was these power struggles that provided the dynamism that drove the German state into a spiral of increasingly radical measures, leading to what Mommsen has often called the "realization of the unthinkable." More recently, he has revised his "weak dictator" thesis to some extent, conceding that Hitler possessed more power than he, Mommsen, had originally credited him with[163]
In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy, [164]
This Act was passed due to up-set in the Institution of the Reichstag following flight ,arrests and even murder of all the Communists and some Socialists .[165]
The plan to transform Germany into a constitutional monarchy similar to Britain quickly became obsolete as the country slid into a state of near-total chaos. [166]

Savidan

Prevented as I am from commenting directly , I would address the burgeoning issue in my mind of Savidan. User, in the offchance you will be directed to this comment, and in the belief that if you have visited, that you could not have studied much of the sourced material here, may I wonder at your over-reticence in regrds to Pacelli? As you seemed to recognise that which was entirely sourced from bengalski, I assumed you to be a rugudly faitr user, and highlt useful, but my doubts as to your principles in regards Pacelli are finally shaken into this cornered action as far as to suggest your removal now of the anon user's inclusion of "suddenly" died re Pius XI was over-hasty. I say that advisedly, as surely after the number of books you were counting you had about Pius XII was firstly 7, and then was it 12, perhaps you may have thereform been led towards the outstanding questions regarding the suddenness of that death, of the comment made by the Cardinal Tisserand of that closest chamber and his entry and sight of the corpse of the deceased, and his testimony in his journal itself unveiled upon his death, not as far as I have seen challenged , as to his belief that this pontiff came to an unnatural end. Indeed this was evidence at the EffK trialhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Pius_XI&diff=20488467&oldid=20372898 ,[[167]]. Ie "suddenly" on Pius XII doesnt seem odd in light of that which exists on Pius XII. of course pius XI's murder, which is not solely the whim of Tisserant, is qualified as "not widely believed". The witness believed it, other facts are remarkable, such as the hidding , I believe , of the moratal remains etc. The Mussolini link is not imagination. The apparent reference was to bruising around the neck. Be this as it may, having some obscure link to a natural causes death could perhaps but has not, been counter verified .It is known Pius was medicated and had a medical condition, there remains the coincidental lively questioning concerning the medical treatment being accorded to Pius XI by was it the father of Mussolini's mistress, and that variously the death is ascribed to Mussolini, or to a desire by amongst others' Cardinal Pacelli, to effect the immediate demise of Pius XII for fear of the latter's probable publication of the 'Secret Encyclical' openly setting the Holy See against the Nazi machine. Pacelli himself is implicated , ie it is said that he is implicated, just as it is said the hand was left clutching the encyclical.

Savidan, if you are unaware of these circumstances and therefore of why the word sudden is less than imaginary , and releatively calm as a word to begin to adjust the history towards the apparent verifiability of primary source, ie witness, then p[erhaps yopu had better extend the range of books that you read and clarify for yourself some of the issues. You say you wished to study more the anti-comintern nature of the history of Pacelli, but whilst apparently blessed with this avowed ignorance, you yet appear to wish to direct certain facets, such as recently the Ratline -Pacelli connections in such manner as to suggest complete assurance. There is an inconsistancy which seems to contradict the initial involvement of Savidan, and as with the the use of suddenly, even a single word is not lightly used or misused. It can possibly, though I deny it, be lightly dismissed, and the doing so is preserved. Please discover that which is relevant soon, and I remind you that good action must not only conform to moral law , but be done for the sake of moral law. That good will is good not by what it performs but simply by virtue of the volition, and that the function of reason is to produce a will good in itself , for reason recognises the establishment of a good will as its highest practical destination. If it were the reason of a cardinal and witness , in an official capacity , to write in his own hand his suspicion that pius was Murdered, then it is quite reasonable, that suddenely , be expanded rather than contracted.

Nuncio

As to the discussion about the Pacelli appointed Nuncio, I seem to remember that Pius XI refused to name a nuncio to replace Pacelli , and therefore it is relevant that Pacelli as pope nominated a Nuncio.

Cadaver Synod: hacking off papal fingers?

The Cadaver Synod (also called the Cadaver Trial or, in Latin, the Synodus Horrenda) is the name commonly given to the posthumous ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, held in Rome in January of 897. During the proceedings, the decomposing body of Formosus, who had been dead for nine months, was dressed in his papal vestments and seated on a throne while his successor, Pope Stephen VI, read the charges against him and conducted the trial. The Cadaver Synod is remembered as one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of the early medieval Roman Catholic papacy.

Formosus, who had been appointed bishop of Porto, Italy in 864, had acceded to the papacy in 891. At the Cadaver Synod, he was accused of violating church law by serving as Bishop of Rome while he was still the bishop of a different diocese. No official record of the proceedings survives, but it is generally agreed that Pope Stephen VI, together with a panel of judges appointed from among the Roman clergy, presided over the trial. A deacon was designated as Formosus' counsel and instructed to answer on his behalf. The assembly observed the spectacle in silence, while Stephen shouted accusations and insults at the dead man. At the end of the synod, Formosus was found guilty, his election as pope was declared invalid, all of his acts as pontiff were annulled, his corpse was stripped of its vestments, and the three fingers used for consecrations were hacked off. The body was then dressed in ordinary clothes and buried. Shortly thereafter it was exhumed and thrown into the River Tiber.

Oh my-I had not followed this link provided directly to me , but see now why old Str1977 became so touchy, as there is precedent for papal disinterrment and trial. The river Tiber would come under health and safety regulations these days, so one should speculate as to the actual place for re-burial after the trial. Where would Ludwig Kaas be ? Where are minor vatican citizens buried, are they "citizens" of their temporal and appearently legal or sovereign state? And how is the California Trial deciding these days as to that sovereignty and its immunity from prosecution under Californian jurisdiction?

I note that the British PM and the present pontiff were one on one recently. Was George W. one-on-one too...? There's a touch of Ludwig Kaas , prelate of the church and thus servant to Pius XI, and his one-on-one with Adolf Hitler. Inadviseable of the PM...

Oliver Cromwell I already mentioned re posthumous retributive justice.

fr.wikipedia

"Cet article a été traduit du Wikipédia anglais" from http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discuter:Loi_des_pleins_pouvoirs&diff=8024659&oldid=8022851.( user fr. RamaR). This editor shows up the problem, well-english wikipedia.EffK 10:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The clerical revisionist denialism in Wikipedia-the French version

A "super-educated nutcase" was the description of me by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lacatosias . Lacatosias is an example of someone who cannot bring himself to see the bigger wikipedia picture. Of deep philosohical education himself , Lacatosias can take his place as a prime example of the good-faith unaware Wikipedia contributor. Lacatosias was warned by me that, his entry to this organ being traceable, he should have to mind his concern with the Church, as they are deeply invloved, and especially in particular articles. lacatosias cannot be cescribed as an innocent, as he was warned, and therefore in self-defence chose to turn away from the central problem .

The problem is really very simple. The historical connivance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EffK#Subjects_that_connect_with_this_politics of the Roman Catholic Church with Nazism during the 1930's and 1940's is a scandal because (amongst others, I, proved) not only did the Church (big C meaning the bosses in the small c church)collaborate with the rise to power of Adolf Hitler, but actually enabled that empowerment ( by using the proxy Ludwig Kaas on 23 March 1933) -see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#Reichskonkordat, and this history remains a danger to that great secret human society centred in Rome. The wikipedia whitewashing reduces the facts to this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#The_.22Day_of_Potsdam.22_and_the_Enabling_Act. You will there see that the catholic party ( here in this other whitewashed organ it is called Zentrum ) is recognised despite the whitewashing, as crucial to this empowerment. From your view of the papal page there you will see that the facts are more or less retained, due to the diligence of a certain impregnable User who has defended the facts( ie verification). These facts are entirely eradicated here in fr.wikipedia. Ludwig Kaas has no article, of course.

The facts speak for the reality,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EffK/Archive_1#Who_is_Klaus_Scholder.3F , and apart from the Church scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EffK#The_Crime_Against_Peace itself, which is of course even now utterly shattering to that Church, of lesser interest is the secret war within the wikipedias to attempt to hide these facts at eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EffK#Subjects_that_connect_with_this_politics . There are several respectable publication that deal with the facts, irrespective of myself. I came to this rather directly,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EffK/Archive_1#Being_user:Corecticus_-_The_Mowrer_Accusation_Against_The_Holy_Roman_Catholic_Church , and naively took the vaunted principles of Wikipedia to allow for a rational control. I was and continue to be naive, and am turned into a quixotic 'nutcase', and illegalised both here and back in the English organ.

So there is no need to discuss the verification, which is absolute and all that remains is for someone of my direct experience to analyse the purely Wikipedia means of its censorship. Here we get back to the partial innocence of a 'Lacatosias' and have to oepnly consider the deeper involvement of wikipedia editors who graduate through to the most blatant denialist revisionists.

I categorised these on en.wikipedia as 'german clerical denialist revisionists', but here in french wikipedia there is a slight difference,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EffK#Hitler_in_fr:wiki . In essence all those who, exactly following the orders [168]of their corrupted and poisoned Church, aim to demean and lessen the forces of modernism and liberal social values, seek and -by their numbers succeed- in so slanting the wikipedias against this modernity. They do this of course by degree,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EffK#Jesuit_agency_.26_Straw-man_in_WP.fr_.2F_Pie_XII_discussion .

Some are purely technicians, such as my nemesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_McClenon who came into existence precisely after I suggested the chief denialist, one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Str1977 should fetch his master. Here there are equivalents, of whom it is obvious the chief is http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:H%C3%A9g%C3%A9sippe_Cormier, a technician rather than a contributor. On en.wiki the equivalent is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musical_Linguist , a technician so closely aligned to the needs of the Church as to suggest that she is a name used by multiple inner vatican editors, who stop generally for no more than 5 hours a night, but who work at the overall defence from mini=ute to minute throughout the day.

Here in fr.wkipedia there is of course some difference. In en.wikipedia , the alliance is between commanded technicians, and massive contributions by more or less instructed editors. Evidently in both organs, and throughout the languages, there are many almost unsuspecting and nearly innocent catholic editors- those who contribute by placing the multifarous catholic Encyclopedia articles into WP. This is a faith-led colonisation, and indeed entirely unnecessary, as the articles are already online under that separate organ. This is however symptomatic of the orders actaully stated by the vatican, to use all online media available in a sort of re-conquest. That is not denialism .

The denialism in en.wikipedia is 'german' in so far as there is a similar clear importation of deutsch wikipedia articles, which are themselves-judging by the translations, of a weakening apologetical political correctness. Things like the Versailles Treaty and the economic background to the pre-Nazi days as well as the Nazi era economics are german slanted in so far as they echo the same german revisionism repeating of itself that which allowed the german populace to believe in the merits of Hitler. German also in that a clear editorial imposed deflection leads away from such and other realities. This is natural, if un-historical.

The clerical nature of the denialism, however, is altogether more sinister. For the above reason of 23 March, because it broke the very Church canonical and magisterial (ie biblical0 law) it cpombines with the natural national mental revision to actually seek to destroy wikipedia as worthwhile project. The whole subject has been treated pretty exhaustively at my en.wikipedia user pages, and really the only thing remaining to be itemised here in fr.wikipedia is to report the subtle french distinction. My short time in this side of the organ unfortunately increasingly persuades me that the same gradation of editorial activity is imposed upon those who are either too blind or too cowardly( and self-interested for their 'names' to wish to rock the boat and thus rsk those 'names'.

here in fr.wikipedia we see the variant, which conjures the echoes of purely french collaboration with Naizism, and in this regard we have the clerical aspect, itself a factor in histroy, aligning with the regional as well as the current far-right. The far-right do not have to be catholic to wish to share this position , as self-evidently the far-right share with the clerical the need to dissociate , by sublte censorship, from the Hitlerian reality of the past. Thus we see the same purely Breton collaboration, repeating that particularly Breton collaboration which allowed of it to raise its own army battalion under Hitler. Thus those editors who are most active in the denialist revisionism are of course those who are doubly fearful, the Breton catholics.

It is possible that wikipedia as experimental project may be saved from this subtle subjugation, but sadly the adminsitration from the highest to the base is of itself either corrupted, or fearful against alienating the huge numbrs of faithful or even partial adherents, and thereby diminusihing its appeal. Unfortunately the plethora of rules written into the organ are not to be upheld if the result should be such alienation and faith-led anger, and the founder appears himself not to be prepared to uphold the tenets of adjudication and social interaction that he paid to install. We have in fact a publisher who because of this has become a pawn in the hands of a greater and still less democratic organisation, and he anyway would appear to himself not be of the highest porbity in his publishing history. The fact is that you have to be of subtle mind to realise that wikipedia is fast become a real and present danger to civilised society, and the danger is increasing rather than lessening. A cynicism of purpose assails History in particular, and the presentation of our recent costly European disaster of war shows clearly that this danger is not imaginary.

Of course I would say this, having been banned for no more than demanding the inclusion of verifiable truth. These you can see presented to talk pages here, and throughout my quixotic wikipedia passage, by simply following my personal 'contributions'. Ad hominem rules , here as at en.wikipedia. If someone cares, these words are free, and that someone can feel free to translate this, and preferably transmit it as widely as possible outside this corrupted organ. Alert the press. 3 August 2006

ps Musical, I suggest you consider very carefully that pre-emptive action by you will go against your religion. You are not a jesuit, and are not empowered to their use of dishonesty in protection of the pontiff. You are not civilly empowered either, and action against this page will be considered hostile and aginst both civil and religious duty.

(diff) (hist) . . Discussion Utilisateur:EffK‎; 23:27 . . EffK (Discuter | Contributions) (→The clerical revisionist denialism in Wikipedia-the French version -Alert the press ALERT THE PRESS -ALERT THE PRESS-)

Avis de Blocage Illégale de EffK dès Wikipédia Français Compte bloqué 205 jours (environ jusqu'à la date de déblocage du même compte sur WP:en) pour comportement inadéquat (langue française mal connue, POV pushing pour les mêmes thèses qui ont valu un blocage long sur WP:en suite à un arbitrage, et comportement général). Markadet∇∆∇∆ 16 juillet 2006 à 21:39 (CEST) Bon, alors, je ne serai pas aussi préssé! Merci mon chef, mais vous aviez la nécessitée d'abord de rendre le lien éxacte, non? Votre vitesse de vous en debarrassé de la verification presenté ( " pas... vraisemblables " de Klaus Scholder ) pour ce qu'il parait(sans lien) d'être mon deuxieme éxécution digitale est si loin de la vérité que- sauf l'importante soi-même du sujét- que c'est ridicule. Pour deuxième fois. D'avoir encore me qualifiqué par la tèrme POV-pushing est de me donner toute la raison et la justification, et je suis heureux que vous aviez vous pris cette erreur, parce que ça montre éxactement l'origine de l'erreur. En vrai c'est plus qu'une erreur, car ça sort completemt de légalitées particulières diverses. J'oublie le nom, mais ici en voit le résultat.

Bien sûr cest contre les règles de Wikipedia ici et partout. Montrez SVP comment y ou c'est fait, afin de comprendre toute dépassement ici des mêmes règles. Je n'ai pas honte du tout, car tout action administratif jusq'ici sort de ces règle spécifié ici sur page. Je vous conseils vous, de vous pensez ce que possiblement soit votre part dans cette illégalité Wikipédienne. les autres jen ai déjà averti. Pour l'instant je vois que un bloqué ne peux pas aller ou être emmené a l'arbitration donc il me parait qu'une ruse fait pour quelques gens ici qui veux plutôt se défendre dès ses propres petites illégalitées. HC parait elle-même d'aller d'autre chose, qui est d'entrer a être capable de surveillé la protection voulu par la force impliqué dans l'histoire. De toute façon je commence à comprendre la situation politique ici, qui sont qui veux contrôler quoi et comment et pourquoi. Vous m'aviez donné ensemble les justifications pour en venir. Ce qui est sûr c'est que vous auriez êtres bien étudiés dans l'avenir pour ces abandonnes faitent de Wikipedia même. Ditez-moi, vous qui avez commencé l'action même de blocage, si ça ne vous parait un peu dingue cette contravention des règles ici marqué.

Ainsi, les administrateurs[.. ont la capacité de bloquer un contributeur ayant provoqué des vandalismes à répétition, ou exclu de façon temporaire ou définitive à la suite de la décision du Comité d'arbitrage. Les participants viennent de différents pays et de différentes cultures, et ont des points de vue très différents. En traitant les autres et leurs avis avec respect, nous pourrons collaborer avec plus d'efficacité dans la construction de l'encyclopédie. Négligence La personne se lasse, peut-être même devient-elle un ennemi ? Nous abîmons notre propre réputation. Ce comportement de la part de la communauté est mauvais et à éviter. Il est préférable de se montrer chaleureux, accueillant. Au cas où la personne se vexe, soyons humbles, excusons-nous, essayons d'être plus généreux, de passer un petit moment pour un bon coup de main. En cas de doute, ne pas attribuer un mauvais motif Certains utilisateurs de Wikipédia sont impopulaires, peut-être à cause d'une attitude stupide ou grossière par le passé. Ces utilisateurs peuvent avoir fait l'objet d'une action disciplinaire de la part du comité d'arbitrage. Il est simple et humain d'imaginer que de tels utilisateurs sont des cibles privilégiées et « autorisées » pour les attaques personnelles. Cette attitude est bien évidemment à éviter absolument.

De toute façon moi je vais suivre à presenter ici mon propre procés contre ces événements comme si ça soit une arbitration sous règles ou Loi de la fondation Jimmy Wales. Tout simplement vous m'avez donné, en suivant les ménaces auparavant sortie d'une position politique de l'extreme droite/ecclésiastique, en fournissant toutes les preuves nécéssaires . Votre fautes ici sont comme je qualifie. La culpabilité intellectual et légale de Jimmy Wales est déjà averti sans obscurité. Ils étaient enregistrées et ce qui à passé ici à d'interêt sociale bien hors de moi comme individu. je suis triste pour ce projét, pour le monde, pour des arbitres ici, admins et utilisateurs, et pour vous même Monsieu. J'ai toujours apprécié que la guerre de denialist revisionism, dites négationnisme en votre langue, n'a jamais finissait. Vous étez que les fantoches, vous ne comprenez, ne veux comprendre, et vous étez appauvri. J'ai toujours éxplique que je suis venu dans une sens de résponsabilité humain, et nos nouvelles çe soir de Guerre font ces justifications. Vous montrez-vous très bien les danger prévus au Tribunal de Nuremberg qui roulait sur la nécessité de comprendre et de ne pas répéter. Si vous pensez que c'était de joie venir marquér l'histoire ici, je vous dis que malgré ces characterisations que vous avez constatées sur mon comportement, ce n'était pas un plaisir du tout. Avant de terminér j'aurais plaisir pour vous éxpliquer pourquoi les Espagnols vous qualifient comme ils font,commes los cerdos francéses. D'ou ça vient votre vache, ben... ça soit peut-être autre tel mensonge, quoi? J'aurai temps pur les visiter , à voir s'ils sont moin enmèrdeurs? Un Salut humain , quand même. EffK 16 juillet 2006 à 23:09 (CEST)

Hitler Salut. J'ai vu ton message dans Discuter:Adolf Hitler. C'est difficile de comprendre ce que tu écris. Il faudrait peut-être faire des phrases plus courtes et plus simples dans un premier temps. Je sais que les Français ne sont pas les plus doués en langues étrangères alors je ne te jèterai pas la pierre. Je vais essayer de lire ton texte pour essayer une réponse puisque le sujet m'intéresse. Cordialement. Felipeh | hable aquí 13 avril 2006 à 22:32 (CEST) [pris de Wp.en]

Resalut. Je viens de lire ton texte dans Discuter:Adolf Hitler. Je crois avoir compris que tu estimes que Hitler était dans l'illégalité (ou du moins avait déjà instauré une dictature) avant l'incendie de Reichstag, ce que ne dirait pas assez explicitement l'article Adolf Hitler. Ai-je bien compris? Cordialement. Felipeh | hable aquí 25 avril 2006 à 15:29 (CEST) PS : If you don't understand what I say, I'll try to write in english. Hola F. Oui,au premier, non au seconde. la dictature commencé le 23 Mars. On a constaté au Tribunal de 1946 que avant la loi des plein pouvoirs on avait une conspiracie disant en anglais " a rolling conspiracy" qui en effet debordé le soir du 4 Janvier dans la maison du banker Kurt Schroeder dont le sustance était parlé aux alliés par le secretaire Hugo Meissner du President, confirmant que le fils du President, Oskar, lui disé dans le taxi apres le fin de son rencontre privé avec Hitler , que "there is no choice but to have him as chancellor". En vérité, moi, j'imagine que la guarantie des frais pour la partie nazi de la part des Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates en Novembre 1932, signifie la même. ce qui est absolument sûr, jugé, c'est que cet époch, y la conspiracie commence en 1921 avec le programme des 25 points(manifesto nazi) est continuait come conspiracie jusqu'au moment 23 mars de la loi etc. Apres Ça c'est devenu le totalitarian government qui éxistait pour son belligerence inhumaine. C'était jugé, confirme, que la conspiracie était d'instituer la puissance totalitarienne pour pouvoir lancer une guerre aggressive inhumaine. Jugé ausi, que toutes personnes òu societés óu n'importe qu'el état dans toutes cette époch qui fonctionées n'importe comment avec les Nazis étaient aussis criminelles: moi, je trouve que illegale nous reste la plus courte parole. Je devrai te dire qu'ici, Felipeh, moi (seule) ai constaté que la raison pour plusières éditeurs pour combattre cette parole, c'est pout restaurer y defendre le fait du Reichskonkordat, la seule loi toujours nous restant del'époch. Si hitler commencé a être illégale en Janvier, eux , ils tomberaient en flammes pour avoir formellement allié avec ces plans d'aggression. Tu vois que c'est préferable qu'on brûlera EffK ? Si puedes leér el inglés, pues, poco tendré de añadir. Pero no te creés nadie aqui, ni encontreras la vérdad dans en el articlo de Hitler aqui. Y yo estoy amordazado. ! Cuidado collega !EffK 13:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC) [PS I could write to you in English and you could write back in French ? Where? Come over there to my en.wikipedia ?

Hitler Hello. Don't worry, I didn't ignore what you wrote to me. It's just a little difficult for me to read a long text in english and I didn't have time yet to concentrate about it. I began to complete article about Hitler, part by part (I did the diplomacy and I'm on the holocaust). When I'll write more about rise to power, I'll read what you wrote. When I read quicklly what you wrote, I see you talk about Zentrum and Vatican. I don't know exactely what you said about it, but I know that pope allowed Zentrum to vote with nazis MPs to rewrite the constitutionn, then Hitler could have full absolute power. Felipeh | hable aquí 17 juin 2006 à 03:36 (CEST)

Listen, i dont' understand a word of what you say You could as well write chinese. You don't speak french, so don't come writing here, please !

ecri :http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:EffK&diff=8027981&oldid=8005160 par 'Frank Renda'. Mordre comme tu veux, t'a eu raison de langue, mais tu n'a aucune raison historique. T'a peu de raison WP, en faites. Ça sois mieux de regarder le sens de l'égalité Hiterien des arrêtations. Pourquoi tu mordre le sens-que tu n'a pas le temps, ou le gout d'en faire? EffK 18 juin 2006 à 11:59 (CEST)

"You don't speak french, so don't come writing here, please ![Renda} - Tching Tchang Tchong Tchoong. Just forget me, okay ? dès Frank Renda 18 juin 2006

I should very much like to forget you but if you prevent the truth from being shown, that is hard to forget. you decided to use specific and superable language issues to do so. I suggest that you return to your reverts and look at the sense. You could immediately improve the article, and you could have the assumption of good faith. Why would you prefer to avoid the legality issue, unless Hitler bores you, in which case, yes, let us forget you, please. EffK 18 juin 2006 à 12:18 (CEST) Nur wer es gut sagen kann hat auch Gutes zu sagen (Mann). Good day. Frank Renda 18 juin 2006 à 12:30 (CEST) I supposed so....tu m'a dit de "don't come writing here". Je demande si tu va toutesuite me chasser d'etre... ou detre ici? Vas'y...EffK 18 juin 2006 à 12:36 (CEST)

About Otto Meissner I do not understand what you wrote, especially the last sentence.

On dit rien des faits du 22 janvier 1933, quand Hitler négocié avec Oscar Hindenburg , et ce que Meissner disé sur le suject. Le procès a Nuremberg à eu son pointe , avec conclusion que c'etait l'arrivé même de la conspiracie Do you mean?

Nothing is said about 22 January 1933 events, when Hiltler negotiated with Hindenburg and about what Meissner said about this. Nuremberg trial culminated on this, leading to the conclusion that that was actually a conspiracy. Pierre de Lyon 19 juin 2006 à 11:56 (CEST) One says nothing about (the) events of 22 january 1933, when Hitler negotiated with oscar von hindenburg, and what meissner said on the subject. The Nuremberg trials focused on this, concluding it to be the beginning of the conspiracy.

of course the actual term was a "common plan or conspiracy to intitute authoritarian government with the purpose of waging aggressive and inhuman war".

thanks for you cilil query, its tough crossing languages, but it is much tougher to accept un-truth. i am deeply shocked at how backward wp.fr Hitler history is, considering the french experience. The americans have never wished to be too invloved, which was itself the primary factor leading to WWII, as I can veify, and would if left in peace to contribute. however kind editor i am currently wasting my time at hitler discussions with the noteworthy werewindle upon what are the purely wikipedia legalities of these truths or untruths. I believe that there will be a rapid push to destroy me and force me from Wp.fr .

je suis tres presse , salut, a bientotEffK 19 juin 2006 à 13:07 (CEST)

Avertissements Hégéssipe Cormier-Blocage EffK en progrès Je vous avertis que si vous continuez à discuter sans retenue pour essayer de faire passer vos points de vue sur la Wikipédia francophone, cf. Discuter:Pie XII (notamment l'allégation d'assassinat de Pie XI par son successeur Pie XII) et Discuter:Adolf Hitler, vous vous exposez à une mesure de blocage de votre compte utilisateur. La communauté Wikipédia francophone ne se laissera pas imposer un point de vue par un contributeur qui débarque de la Wikipédia anglophone parce qu'il y a été bloqué pour des motifs analogues.

Et cela avec d'autant plus de raison que vous ne pratiquez pas suffisamment notre langue pour pouvoir prétendre y contribuer de façon constructive. Les Wikipédien-ne-s francophones ne sont pas non plus vos domestiques, censés obéir à vos exigences. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 22 juin 2006 à 23:17 (CEST) (un parmi 102 administrateurs de la Wikipédia francophone) Ciau Mme/Mlle,Merci bien pour votre inquiétude. Je voudrai bien que vous m'expliquer ou je trouverai votre origine de règles sur l'arrivée de quelqu'un comme moi que je puisse me préciser d'eux? Surtout je ne suis pas venu en cherchant des domestiques ni pour vous faire inquiéte de ça. Les règles de Wikipedia m'ont toujours fascinées mais, je suis toujours aussi occupé en aidant les editeurs en repondant leurs questions posées. Vous voyez comment ici ils nous restent plusières précisions à resoudre car l'histoire modèrne nous échappe dans ces moindres détailles. les paroles comme majorité ou légalité nous donne confusion en quand on ne les vérifie pas sur notre sources. je vous assure que je ne suis pas venu ici pour parler de rien hors des sources et les vérifications, et je suis content de vous recevoir comme editeur interessé reconnaissante des règles et normes de Wikipedia. je ne comprends pas ce que vous disez de point de vue, car j'entends que ça soit quelque chose hors de prendre et formuler sources respectées. Je vous assure que plusières editeurs ici ont déjà m'invités a contribuer mes sources et explications en Anglais, puis votre intervention ici pourrait-elle être innécessaire. Vers votre drnière , je vous pourrai selement répondre que dès mon dernier modif , il parait que la langue n'est pas la cause principe du choque. Néansmoins je reste heureux de faire votre connaissance,A bientôt, Ciau EffK 23 juin 2006 à 00:15 (CEST) apporté dès la page HC

Je vous en prie de ne lancer plus d'attaques perso' contre moi en contradiction avec cette regle, SVP.EffK 14 juillet 2006 à 16:38 (CEST)

Rien compris, comme à tout ce que raconte cet utilisateur. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14 juillet 2006 à 18:56 (CEST) Pourrait-être cette réponse la provocation normale? Je vous conseille de vous s'addresser directement vèrs notre maître Jimmy Wales, et lui démander si- comme il a publié les choses contre moi- que ça vous donne votre justification de me poursuivre, de m'attaquer hors de la règle AGF? Ce que vous aviez plusières fois écrie vous mettent totalement hors de AGF. Comme vous savez, j'ai mis les vérifications nécéssaire pour montrer toute légitimie pour mes paroles, donc vous avez et vous continuez à faire des attaques personelles contre moi, en ignorant ces vérifications. Pourquoi vous vous dérouler comme ça? Votre manque de courtesié a été totale. Vous tombez en erreur contre votre capacité, qui est intéressant. Allez voir si vous comprenez-pas, en imaginant que ça soit pas vous, au fin qui va perdre. Moi, j'ai la vérification plus que j'ai votre langue, mais qu'est-ce que vous en avez pendant que les mots pas vraisemblables coute votre defence. Les éditeurs que vous aidez vont perdre pour absence de contra-vérification, et ce n'a aucune importance ce qui se passe avec moi et mon nom. Désolé. Aillez-prudence parceque même que notre fondateur n'en a pas, si vous suivez comme maintenant, vous tenter votre réputation- pas la mienne. Vous pouvez m'offrir une apologie....EffK 14 juillet 2006 à 19:58 (CEST)

Commentaires HC,dès historique HC, mis parceque HC me traite comme criminel sans AGF en parlent par diff/ commentaire:

14 juillet 2006 à 20:05 (hist) (diff) m Discussion Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier (persona non grata, c'est clair, oui ou non ?) (dernière) 14 juillet 2006 à 19:59 (hist) (diff) m Discussion Utilisateur:Hégésippe Cormier (quand cet utilisateur s'exprimera en français intelligible, j'accepterai ses interventions. en attendant, je blanchis) Reaction Hegessippe Cormier le 14 Juillet numero ? quatre ? dès http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs/2006/Semaine_28&action=edit&section=2

Je demande le blocage permanent de cet utilisateur qui, non content de s'être fait interdire d'édition sur le Wikipédia anglophone, a choisi depuis plus d'un mois de venir pourrir le wiki francophone, alors qu'il est incapable de s'exprimer en français intelligible, exigeant des autres contributeurs qu'ils obéissent à ses requêtes d'insertion de ses thèses dans divers articles (à charge pour eux de les traduire), certaines de ses thèses étant d'ailleurs des monuments de non-neutralité (comme le prétendu assassinat de Pie XI avec la complicité active de son successeur Pie XII, entre autre joyeusetés). EffK se livre au passage à des opérations de harcèlement, pour ceux qui ne l'auraient pas encore remarqué. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14 juillet 2006 à 20:09 (CEST) – Note (1) EffK a été averti dès le 22 juin que son comportement posait de gros problèmes. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14 juillet 2006 à 20:19 (CEST) – Note (2) : l'attention des administrateurs avait d'ailleurs été attirée à la même date, ici même sur les dangers potentiels que faisait risquer ce contributeur ayant choisi WP-FR comme base de repli après l'arbitrage rendu contre lui sur EN le 7 février (et qui ne l'a pas empêché de continuer sa logorrhée sur sa page de discussion anglophone. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14 juillet 2006 à 20:31 (CEST)

J'approuve. Utilisateur clairement pas constructif, on ne va pas attendre aussi longtemps que les anglophones pour le virer. Il ne sévit ici, dans un mauvais français, que parce qu'il s'est fait exclure de là-bas. Fugace causer 14 juillet 2006 à 20:13 (CEST) Oui. Qu'il fasse passer ses thèses dans le wiki de sa langue maternelle, on les traduira après :-) Un doute me vient, mais je serais intéressé de voir si un membre du CAr voudrait nous dire ce qu'il pense de cette procédure. Bradipus Bla 14 juillet 2006 à 20:16 (CEST) Pour info, sa page en est en:user:EffK. Hégésippe, peux-tu montrer un diff sur fr qui tomberait sous le coup de son blocage d'un an sur en: ? Si oui, je propose d'appliquer la même sanction : dans la mesure où les tentatives de discussion ont échoué sur en:, je ne pense pas qu'il soit souhaitable de repartir de zéro sur fr: en ignorant ses antécédents ailleurs. --Gribeco %#@! 14 juillet 2006 à 20:20 (CEST) J'approuve un blocage d'un an également, il a exactement le même comportement ici que là-bas, en plus pénible (et vu que de toute façon, il aura retrouver son compte sur en à ce moment, on le reverra plus, ou alors c'est qu'il se serra refait bloquer là-bas, et on pourra régler son cas définitivement :P) Eden ✍ 14 juillet 2006 à 20:26 (CEST) Il faut vous conseillér à contre. Comme je suis seul, c'est moi qui doit le faire. Vous etez tous les gentils éditeurs qui patages en ce moment d'une lynching comment dire-hanging une assassination digitale d'une réputation pseudonyme protégé, voir page discussion dernière User:EffK, si vous comprenez l'anglais lègale. C'est identité Effk est protégé même que l'identité de Tom paine à été protéegé il y a des ans. La pseudonimité se défendre , mes amis. C'est sacrér. ici vous vous mettre a suivre quelqu'un, HC, qu'on connais, qwui est lutteuse rénommé par toute éxperience francias de cett organ. Elle va sure d'être légale , en WP et ailleurs, de suivre les errreurs déjjà fait en amérique par notrte fondateur.. Vous pourriez vous en penser que je suis, comme quelqu'un a dit le "super-educated nutcase EffK", mais , faire attention ici, vous etez tous très près d'aider la dissolution de votre enciclopedia en parlent comme des assassinateurs digitales publie et immortalisés. Oui, il nous reste question de comment continuer àprés la géstion déjà jugé. Chacun qui roulent digitalement en attaquant l'honnêté mienne, ici, peut-être demain devra se répentir. Vous alliez contre la règle de AGF ici qui n'est pas que la structure Wikipédienne de la Loi-en vrac, messieurs-dames. Vous devrez bien demander aux centre, d'abords aux arbitres ici, pour les conseils. Je suis tout d'accord d'admettre ce qui c'est passé là en en.wikipdia.org, mais aussitôt je doit vous aider en dire qu'en 10 jours ici c'etait moi que a pu changer, avec l'aide d'un francophone, l'article Hitler vers la crédibilité inéxistante depuis votre commncement. Vous n'entendez les faits qui se passent dans l'organ WP,et l'histoire ou vous devriez vous s'addressaient en savoir que toute l'accusation d'être POV pusher est devenu ridicule, car la verification exacte a était presenté et accepté pour le tout que les arbitres américains ont permis. Rendez vous aux paroles de User 'Bengalski' et de 'Savidan' qui ont defendu l'exactitude de mon honnêté, sur page Pope Pius XII-lArticle le plus dur sauf cel de Hitler. Allez-y et ce que est présenté-c'est moi. Puis vous vous seriez conseillé de vous comprendre que vous déniers fait possible par votre manquent automatique de AGF, va contre toutes les vérifications fournis ici, honnêtemnt et en bonne fois, pour contribuer le maximum. Donc ça m'est égal ce que vous faisiez sauf que vous comprenez que vous jouent vèrs moi, vous m'aviez maintenant, en précisant l'effet de l'acte de Jimmy Wales conscieux pour me jéter, à été une acte realisée sans les légalités necessaires de telle malediction, et la Loi de l'internet, en force ici meme et en amerique.Ça vous dit la contradiction tel que du fait de mon arbitrage. Donc je vous avers que ce que vous etez en train de dire ici, c'est qu'une confirmation pour moi, comme representatif anti-négationniste, qui nous sommes totalement justifiés. Votre acceptance aveugles sans penser de la AGF vous rendrent toute(?) ici contre la Loi. OK guys, thanks , really...I am made a criminal and you all just repeated this fact.Do you get it now? Vous avez toutes (peut être pas toutes ) depasser La Loi. J'apportes ce-ci a ma page avant que ça coule mon sang. On se verra tout qui firme. 14 juillet 2006 à 21:40 (CEST) Comprends pas. Solensean 無 14 juillet 2006 à 20:51 (CEST) Il veut s'assurer aux AGF? Bradipus Bla 14 juillet 2006 à 21:09 (CEST) Je crois qu'il dit qu'on le lynche, qu'on tente de le pendre, qu'il voudrait être juger au CaR ou par des vrais responsables, il invoque le assume good faith (AGF), il reconnait ses tords sur en: mais il dit que grâce à lui, ici, on a un vrai article sur Hitler (après rapide parcours de l'historique, je n'ai trouvé que des modifs mineurs et un paragraphe ajouté qui a été effacé. Mais peut-être plus en page de discussion). Voilà, je crois je retranscris fidèlement sa pensée :) Eden ✍ 14 juillet 2006 à 21:11 (CEST) J'approuve tout blocage de ces comptes. PoppyYou're welcome 14 juillet 2006 à 21:14 (CEST) Ah oui, tiens, je viens de voir en:WP:AGF, qui n'existe pas en français. Moi aussi, je suis plutôt pour un blocage. Markadet∇∆∇∆ 14 juillet 2006 à 21:17 (CEST) Il n'est pas intervenu directement sur Pie XI ou Pie XII. Les changements sur Adolf Hitler ont été faits par l'intermédiaire d'un tiers francophone, s'ils sont inadmissibles (je n'en sais rien, je ne les ai pas encore identifiés), il faudrait suivre le contributeur sur les deux premiers articles ; a priori s'ils posent problème c'est à leur auteur de se justifier, pas à un instigateur. Rien vu sur Zentrum pour l'instant. Il me semble prématuré d'approuver un blocage avant d'avoir vu le moindre diff. --Gribeco %#@! 14 juillet 2006 à 21:18 (CEST) Je vois aussi et surtout que, depuis des semaines, alors qu'il est incapable de s'exprimer dans un français intelligible (ce qui n'est pas une tare, quand on se contente d'intervenir sur des points mineurs, comme des interwikis, etc.), il se pose en grand censeur d'articles à contenu potentiellement très politique et, dans les pages de discussion (jusqu'à la liste des articles non neutres, tout récemment), vient apporter ses directives sur le contenu des articles, attendant que la valetaille francophone daigne obtempérer. Cette attitude est inadmissible. Il ne me viendrait pas à l'esprit d'aller exiger de contrôler globablement (ou sur des détails très importants) le contenu d'articles sur des wikis dont je ne pratique pas la langue avec aisance. Les Wikipédiens francophones ne sont pas les domestiques d'EffK. Qui'il fasse d'abord l'effort d'apprendre notre langue de manière à être compris par tous, après on verra. Mais devoir se mettre à son niveau pour prendre ses instructions, il ne faut pas pousser... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14 juillet 2006 à 21:33 (CEST) Tout ceci viens de la peur de HCormier,parce que jel'ai posé les questions sur son ------de chercher l'arbitrage. Neutralite peut étre n'est pas une Loi ici non plus? Excusez moi-AGF = assomption de bonne foi. Quel gens plus inciviles, sortez vous, parceque lui qui le disait manque de conscience. AGF ce traduis ou non? Mon oeil! Je croyais que vous étiez des Wikipédiens. Aidez-moi à controler les vrai negationnistes avec les règles mises. Qui sont-ce qu'ils sont, ditez-moi si vous n'aviez aucune idée de ce que je parle. Mon oeil? HC- voyez! Aillez la gentillesse de commencer à me repondre sur votre page locutor etc.....EffK Modif http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Liste_des_articles_non_neutres/Zentrum Justification incompréhensible' : ici c'est la Wikipédia francophone, et les contributeurs ne sont pas tenus de se mettre au niveau d'un contributeur anglophone. Si EffK ne peut s'exprimer en français intelligible par tous, qu'il s'abstienne d'essayer de « contribuer » à la teneur des articles. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 15 juillet 2006 à 11:36 (CEST) J'ai interagi avec EffK à propos de la loi des pleins pouvoirs ; de mon point de vue, il ne parle simplement pas assez bien le français pour éditer ici. Quand bien même ce qu'il dit serait pertinant, il écrit un tel charabia que tout ajout de sa part rend l'article ridicule et inintelligible ; et naturellement, il se vexe quand on retire sa prose. Vu en plus son pédigrée sur en:, on peut légitimement se demander dans quelle mesure il cherche à avancer des thèses personelles : c'est difficile à dire, vu que ce qu'il écrit n'a ni queue ni tête. Quand à savoir si Wikipédia peut se passer de gens qui n'écrivent pas dans la langue, mordent leurs interlocuteurs et viennent sur fr: parce qu'ils se sont fait mettre dehors de en:, je le laisse à votre sagesse. RamaR 16 juillet 2006 à 10:16 (CEST)

RamaR ,Frank Renda, l'anonyme etc, et la G.D'Édition sur la Loi des pleins Pouvoirs [2] revert charabia Kauderwelsch [description insultant de reversion déraisonnable sans excus de la langue [3]] Frank Renda ne continuait ses manques de courtésie, mais pour montrer les capacitées des gens autour du sujét.. un vrai problème Salut Céréales. Ne trouves-tu pas problématique que cet utilisateur, qui affirme sur sa page ne pas parler le français, se mette à créer des articles [5] consacrés aux Palestiniens et au Liban juste en ce moment ? Je ne présume pas de ses intentions, mais après « l'ami américain »[EffK}, en voilà un autre qui nous impose sa vache espagnole, au lieu de se contenter d'une requête (cf. son article Hanan Ashrawi). Opinion tout à fait personnelle, mais je tenais à la partager avec quelqu'un. Cordialement, Frank Renda 13 juillet 2006 à 19:33 (CEST) , [4] [5] repétition par RamaR ver modif déraissonable [6] anonyme/81.50.146.233 shoqué(?) par presentation des faits Hitler/Zentrum [7] example d'une correction du français bien juste et normale [8] anonyme/81.50.146.233 suivas raison en rejoûtant info correcte "une coalition formée par les députés d'estrême-droite (NSDAP et DNVP) et les députés catholiques (ZENTRUM et BVP). Lors de vote de cette Loi, seuls les députés"....description modifs: Le sujet de la phrase ? Ben, c'est simple : "Allons enfants de la Patrie !!!!...les cathos se sont alliés aux fachos", [auprès source ..] [[9] "Des calculs, toujours des calculs" [10] Necrid Master continuas G.D'E sur qualification parti Nationaliste d'être "extrême-droite nationaliste"

Sand http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Liste_des_articles_non_neutres&diff=prev&oldid=8647448 http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Liste_des_articles_non_neutres/Zentrum&diff=prev&oldid=8650212 http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Liste_des_articles_non_neutres/Zentrum&diff=prev&oldid=8659771

Solensean http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Liste_des_articles_non_neutres&diff=next&oldid=8643050 Comprends pas. Solensean 無 13 juillet 2006 à 23:23 (CEST) Now, you, Solensean said you do not understand this:"Il y a une guerre d'édition absolument indépendant et il y a un refus des vérifications." Please explain your preremptory action of denial of that. This is remarkable behaviour. it is discourtesy and against AGF, I feel.EffK 14 juillet 2006 à 02:12 (CEST) En parlant anglais, vous empêchez la majorité des contributeurs de comprendre vos arguments. Merci de parler français. Solensean 無 14 juillet 2006 à 15:48 (CEST) réponse- http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Liste_des_articles_non_neutres/Zentrum&diff=8660645&oldid=8659771 Comprends pas. Solensean 無 14 juillet 2006 à 20:25 (CEST) [11]

Wikipedia,Piu XII, Scholder et John Jay Hughes [Malheureusement il parait encore être nécessaire d'en suivre tous les liens sur ces sujets, et je suis en train d'expliquer des choses de rélations. Aillez-vous gentilesse d'attendre une traduction de la texte, ou, si vous entendez, pour vous rendez conte du signification du mot secrèt, en entendant ce qui vient de EffK et ce qui vient des autres. La qualification des sources doit être compris, surtout ce qui est source primaire. Source primaire vient de testimonie directe, en voyant ou en écoutant quelque chose. EffK veux éxpliquer, car l'éxplication, surtout en pages de discours est un bulot conseillé par le fondateur ici. Relaiment des sources poiur en parler et juger l'entier d'un sujet soit une nécessité protèger en Wikipedia. Les normes ou le retenu d'une personne ne peux pas avoir rélation en quant aux sources sur dicussion, sauf que ça soit d'interdiction.]

re John Jay Hughes' review [12] relevant to the renewed (23 06 06) excision of the entire Reichskonkordat/Scholder input , see [13] for this "reviewer's" writings upon then Cardinal Ratzinger, Cornwell, and the vatican Archives. Hughes is billed as "John Jay Hughes is a priest of the St. Louis archdiocese and a church historian." . I seem to remember this article came into focus before in WP. The excisions to the input folows on it having been referred to by EffK at fr.WP as being 'accepted' if not consensual, whilst there have been several intervening months of inaction.

Amidst great praise for Scholder 's volume Hughes writes

"Less satisfying still is his lengthy account of the Concordat of July 1933 between the German Reich and the Holy See. Repeatedly*1 Scholder insists that this agreement resulted from an undocumented secret deal made in early*2 march between Hitler and Monsignor Kaas, then head of the Catholic Center Party*3 (Zentrum). This allegedly called for the Zentrum to supply the crucial votes*4 for the Enabling Act, in return for Hitler's promise of a concordat which would doom the party to extinction. Among much evidence*5 contradicting this hypothesis*6 is a well documented fact mentioned by Scholder only in a footnote. Throughout the concordat negotiations*7 Kaas fought tenaciously for his party by refusing to accept the exclusion of the catholic clergy from party politics*8 (for the sake of which alone*9, on Scholder's own account, Hitler desired the concordat.) When in June 1933, the democratic parties collapsed*10, what had previously been an unacceptable Church concession became a protection for the clergy against absorbtion by the only party remaining*11." The inclusion of the scan of Hughes on WP by Str1977may be quite helpful, as I expect to show. *

1)repeatedly is in itself further precise information as to the view(evidence) of Scholder. I EffK interpose here a third party Wikipedian review of the Scholder :At last I've had a chance to do some more serious reading on this. I now know that EffK's 'strong' quid pro quo - relating the concordat to the enabling act, not just the self-dissolution of the Centre party - is supportd by at least some heavyweight historians. The source given by both Cornwell and our friend Gregory is the late Professor Klaus Scholder of Tubingen University, in his 'The Churches and the Third Reich', vol 1, who basically devotes a whole chapter to arguing this. From what I can see, he seems to be recognised even by his critics (and I note he was a protestant) as an important authority on this area. Scholder himself points to earlier historical work on this: "the argument for a connection between the Reich concordat and the EA was stated and substantiated in detail for the first time by Karl Dietrich Bracher" but unfortunately I can't read Bracher as he has not been translated from German. (For those who can teh reference is 'Nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung und Reichskonkordat.' in F. Gese and F.A.von de Heydte (eds.) 'Der Konkordatsprozess', Munich nd 1957-59 pp. 947-1021). If people want I can go through Scholder's arguments and primary sources in detail. One of the main ones is Bruning's memoirs, where he says clearly that Hitler raised the concordat in the EA negotiations. Papen also is quoted as saying that the concordat was discussed as early as 30th January. There are plenty more. Scholder concludes: "those who dispute a link between acceptance of the enabling act and the conclusion of the Reich concordat definitely seem unconvincing." (p248) People here have argued that no serious historian would argue the 'strong QPQ', only conspiracy nuts. I think Scholder rates as a serious source for the strong QPQ claim in anyone's book. Argue against the QPQ claim by all means, and cite contrary interpretations, but it is time to stop dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory'.Bengalski 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Scholder is with EffK on this - he is clear that both Pacelli and P11 were involved, with Kaas the 'key go-between' in the negotiations (in the English translation anyway). Also his sources say much more than that it just passed through Kaas' mind - they are saying this was specifically part of the bargaining. But I suggest you read the Scholder (I think you said you didn't know it, but from what I found it is fairly easy to get hold of in academic libraries) and we can discuss the details after if you like.Bengalski 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

2) secret Just as primary source Pulitzer winner Mowrer described , the Centre leadership meeting to hear Kaas present the written Pacelli relay of Pius XI's instructions(well, papal desire..) that they empower Hitler to prevent German Communist ascendancy. Secrecy is in the humanitas timeline , from Levy, apropos the 8 April Papen mission to Rome . The Tribunal choses the term 'trickery' in referrence to the banker Schroeder -Oskar Hindenburg -Meissner affair, and the Hitler means of avoiding social notice. 3) early March refers to the Kaas effort of 6 march to bury the hatchet with Papen( and the actual arguments between the high catholic aristocrat Papen and Pacelli's 'mouthpiece is worthy of sourceing). By mid March the assurance existed in hitler's mind. This is Tribunal testimony. The 15 march was not the first post election cabinet meeting, which was immediately after the election. the cabinet was the same as the coalition, and the coalition remained. Hitler at any rate knew the centre would accede to the Enabling Act at the middle of march. Here early March is 6 th march onwards until the knowledge of the 15th. Pacelli would equally have had time to form opinion as to the outcome. Papen denied knowing of Deputy arrests at all prior to the Eact. However, arrested they were, described as unnecessary of legality by Goering on the 3 March. Kaas could not have shown that 15 March likelihood to Hitler without both Hitler and himself Kaas understanding that the composition of the Reichsatg would be so depleted by the arrests as to enable the trickery of the Enabling Act vote by 2/3 majority. 4) in return for is the strong or full quid pro quo, supposedly EffK conspiracy theory illness, slander & impiety. Couple this with ' repeatedly ' and ' secret '. Remember that the weak quid pro quo, is that solely concerning the sourced bargaining, emanating via the British Ambassador to the vatican , for the Centre's self-dissolution at 5 July ' in return for ' the Reichskonkordat. The distinction is an artificial division, and only useful to save face. Doom the party to extinction. Here begins the Father Hughes repudiation. We naturally would make assumption that he, Hughes, sounds plausioble-unless you know the relationship of Kaas to Pacelli and Pacelli to the Communists and to Hitler and even to Papen. The constant WP battle to negate, remove, excise and deny all these further sourced facts is roughly the basis for the whole argument against each of the EffK names. I believed the humanitas international timeline as to events, and apart from minor administrative error they are vindicated altogether. That EffK had to then verify every event from multiple primary and secondary reputable source, is what discussion pages were used for. Allegedly stands alongside less satisfying as personal to the reviewer, as, if it is Scholder alleging , he does it repeatedly, and as the other user Bengalski confirmed, assuredly. Allegedly is not what Otto Brok informed Mowrer nor what Mowrer put into print in America in 1968. It was primary witness that secrecy attended the may 1932 reading of the pacelli letter, and it is clear why the secrecy was called for to cloak that meeting, as with other sourced secret vatican involvements in 1925(the restoration of the German monarchy) and 1939/40 and 42/43 ( Widerstand/Allied /Wehrmacht mediation). There is nothing alleged about 15 march and Hitler's words. There is nothing alleged about Shirer's with an eye to...which he received. It is a statement based on testimony, large testimony. 5 much evidence is instantly required from Str1977, who uses this review to shatter Scholder and remove what the reviewer also confirms is the epitome of balanced informed study. less satisfying naturally to a reviewer keen to up-end the conclusion in the paragraph here being used as negation for source. here we are to accept one footnote of much evidence, which allies to the continuous claim that pacelli was dsiappointed that the centre should dissolve. A memoir by his confessor provides this vital weight of disappointment, despite huge exegesis elsewhere. Indeed the centre was a noble body , and of course its leader, whilst ensconced for a full month en-sheeted within the vatican before demitting himself from the chair of that noble constitutional democratic party, would factor its dissolution greatly. All historians after all refer to it as large -if not bargaining chip, then large influence on the subsequent drift of thier 33% of the electorate towards the NSDAP. Sure. However the primary source is rather at odds. Historians refer to Kaas being prevailed upon in reference to his loud and country-wide approvals of Hitler as 'captain..noble..'. The Tribunal refers to acrimony in their testimony between Kaas and Papen, and what testimony, then, did Kaas give? Why don't Yale tell us poor pseudonymous mice what testimony ? It was obviously transmitted by another, as not the least sourced reference in the whole affair is the manner of asheeted safety Kaas himself availed of in forever entering the vatican. in prog

Excision du propos d'EffK pour resolution des article en guerre d'edition? J'ai metté au propos [14] la vision d'une manière de resoudre les guerres d'edition avec le titre Article Resolution Template[15], mais avec la même dégout en Wp.en qu'ici pour enfronter l'histoire dificile il n'y avait qu'un editeur qui l'à pris comme sufissant d'intérêt pour l'ammener ici. Cet editeur l'a aporté à Wp.fr en janvier 2005 , mais justement je vois que c'est disparu d'ou il l'a mis [16] puis [17]. Comme je ne comprends pas comment c'est disparu, et comme je pense que j'aurais pas recevoir explication, et comme un editeur francofone l'a trouvé interessant je le remettre ici . |Est-ce que ce ne pas dingues quand les choses disparaissent comme ça/ et est-ce qu'on va enfin trouver les tels faits digitales marqué quelquepart? Des questions suivrent peut-être ou c'est seulement que l'editeur se fatigué d'en retenir. Je persiste à suggérer l'utilité.

WP Article resolution template All Sourceable material Any Article here should be either informative in cultural, historical or scientific terms. This article should present all appropriate cultural and historical information. What I wrote above is still in order. There is nothing new about the "interests" which influenced Vatican politics, as visible in recent books and it is incorrect to see these as novel and thereby suspect. The attitude of editors here should be that full elucidation of our World be achieved through Wikipedia by inclusion of all sourceable material. Whether such material re-inforces criticism should itself be a matter of sourceable report, in so far as criticism, however directed, itself relates to a sourced reality. Apologist stance should rest on that source which it presents (which it clearly does by providing sourced comments by known persons) .

Historical Ignorance I would say that the criticism as presented by some of the present 'parties' to what is a legal and cultural dispute with the Vatican and its Bank, appear not to possess sufficient historical clarity. I refer to what is labelled as RFA-17 by http://www.spitfirelist.com/rfa.html . It is apparent that Wikipedia is a very true reflection of the outside world, and that the confusions that reign within WP are much the same as those without. The highly complicated history of inter-war Germany has, due to its complexity, disabled our understanding of the forces and interests at work. The un-revealed nature of trans-Atlantic interests(& their relationship to the subject of this Article) has, it appears, thus far been occluded by the un-revealed nature of the 'inter-European' interests. Again, none of this history is new , nor is it the fact that de-mystifying it can be original research. Even some of the prime accusers against this Bank show that they are in confusion as to the history. This is much the same confusion that circulates the erroneous definition of there having ever been a single Hitler's Pope.

Hagiography and Culture If the Wikipedia is able to distinguish the hagiography from the sourced documented history, by means of articles where hagiography can be represented and proved as such because verifiable upon its very contradiction of sourced history, then the existence of such hagiography must itself be worthy of true sourced report and inclusion. Apparent hagiography which verifies history is not hagiography, but would nervertheless be best parked closely but separately from un-supported hagiography/apologia. All religious concepts being POV , allows them to be culturally represented, but only as such. Hagiography needs to be coralled under 'culture'.

Inclusion of Contradiction Therefore the way to deal with such as the forgoing section title -"Inherently POV"- here at Batican Bank or elsewhere, is to include everything sourceable and to order it by its correct association. If there is disagreement by editors, such disagreement should be reflected in the Articles . Such disputed interpretations or contradictory sourced statements should all, therefore, appear. An erroneous statement made by a pope , for example-and I can name one- is reportable however erroneous. By a bishop or a priest or anybody sourceable and relevant, whether a trade unionist, or policeman or politician or cultural figure.

Inclusion of Error An erroneous statement by a historical writer or person should be allowed and categorised by those who would so identify such error as determinable. The error of itself is relevant, as demonstrating a real-world relationship to the subject of the Article, however erroneous (and accusatory) as it be. A completely cultural reflection since artistic and un-sourced, such as Rolfe Hochhuth's The Deputy, is relevant to this Article on a cultural basis alone, as representing the opposite to hagiography.

A Nuremberg trial reference , a denunciation emanating from the Church, anything- must be sorted correctly. If it transpires that contradiction exists, those sources that publish even erroneous analyses of such contradiction, must be allowed but correctly labelled. The contradiction that exists cannot be 'undone' in Wikipedia, and in such case the errors themselves are important, both within WP and with-out.

No Refusal of Sources The very effort to determine the report of the history and the culture, is itself a long and relevant history. There can be no refusal of sources, only the ordering within the Articles of their presentation. Contradiction is not solved by omitting one part of the contradiction and, therefore, all inter-opposing hagiographies and histories must co-exist, however unhappily. In this way the Articles may proceed and serve purpose. I believe the template for this is being constantly tested at Eugenio Pacelli's own page. I shall send there a link of this editorial view. EffK 13:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from [18]

Proposition Bonjour, EffK,

Vos interventions sur les pages de discussion de différents articles (Adolf Hitler, Pie XII, Loi des pleins pouvoirs) semblent commencer à lasser les utilisateurs qui consentent à discuter avec vous. Deux choses donc :

- sur certains sujets (comme Pie XII, avec votre soi-disant assassinat de Pie XI et votre "synthèse christiano-nazie" au Vatican), vous avez des idées qui relèvent de la théorie du complot, et qu'il ne faut donc pas vous attendre à voir un jour incorporer aux articles. Ce sont des théories extrêmement marginales, qui ne reposent sur aucune preuve, et qui plus est diffamatoires et blessantes pour beaucoup de gens. Sur ces sujets-là, vous pouvez abandonner vore "combat", vous ne gagnerez jamais.

- sur d'autres, vous avez des théories qui dans une certaine mesure sont présentes dans la communauté scientifiques : par exemple, sur l'article Adolf Hitler, vous semblez défendre la théorie "intentionnaliste" contre la thérie "fonctionnaliste" - je suppose que vous connnaissez bien ce débat qui a animé les historiens allemands dans les années 60. Ce débat est présenté (même si les termes précis ne sont pas cités, il faudrait d'ailleurs faire un article à ce sujet) dans l'article (section "Solution finale") et vous pouvez être sûr qu'il y aura toujours un francophone capable de rééquilibrer cette présentation. (En l'occurence, vos arguments ne sont pas les meilleurs - le procureur du tribunal de Nuremberg n'est pas vraiment une référence sur le plan historique...). Vous pouvez donc là aussi laisser l'article tranquille, il n'y a aucun risque.

J'en déduis que : - vous pouvez tout à fait contribuerà Wikipédia, bien sûr - à condition de faire relire vos textes par un francophone, quand même. - cependant, compte tenu des deux points que je viens d'exposer, il est préférable que vous laissiez les articles concernant la période 1933-1945 en Europe tranquilles. Merci d'avance, et bonne continuation sur Wikipédia, --bsm15 30 juin 2006 à 21:39 (CEST)

Thankyou for the advice. I am sure that the history is hurtful, and it is a problem. The events were hurtful in their effects from 1933-45. The hurt of religious adherents now surely cannot prevent the truth of the hurt done. It is not the procurator alone, there are all the historians who based themselves upon that evidence . You ask that Arthur Rosenerg,Wheeler-Bennett, Mowrer,Shirer, Toland, Atkin&Tallet, Lewy, Scholder etc etc cannot be cited by me(or anyone?). I showed you that it was |franz von papen who asserted the synthesis as late as 1936 between , well, catholicism and "the healthy aspects of nazism". I would call that a falling out between thieves, that Papen used Pacelli in a manner that the church must fear. This is the testimonie of papen, and it helped to save him, as it did when he used Pacelli as last resort when questioned about the Concordat. pacelli defended himself by saying that surely the Tribunal could not impute any impropriety against the present pontiff(Pius XII) or Monsignor Kaas. You are wrong to make these events appear to be mine when they are verifiable. Kaas did not exist until I entered him and it is not I who presented Scholder as verification of all that I asserted as information. You ask that simply because the events, such as the quid pro quo are un-acceptable to religious adherents, that verification of those events not be written here. You ask therefore that fr.wikipedia accepts a false and massaged version of the events. You are very civil about it, and honestly dirct. but, much as I agree that the truth is so astounding as to prevent its mainstream acceptance, that in fact such historians as Scholder are extremely well respected by all. It is very unfortunate that such as mu=yself should bear the burden of having to enter the verifiability of these better minds. However, as is perfectly clear from all my experience in wikipedia, none of it was preswent anywhere before my arrival. It is I who affected the Hitler article via the Weimar article, and all my history of editing shows that not only are my sources mainstream and respected and verifiable in themselves, but that they prove the timelines such as Humanitas International, which are published online, to be correct. I would very much like not to touch any of this, nor before, nor ahead. I agree that it is ridiculous for me to even contemplate writing anything on the mainspace articles in french. I think it aslo unlikely that any editor will assist me in translating the small entries which would correct the massage. I'm sorry but massage it is, and for the reason you allude to, kindly, as being hurtful to people. believe me, I hate these confrontations, and this constant necessity to defend and rioposte and remember everyone's POV, and edits, back over years. However, would you really respect me as an editor, if I were to do as you suggest/ Would I respect myself? Would wikipedia be a good project if it cannot absorb even the report of verification? I have verified everything in en.wikipedia, and am proved correct whatever about my failure to tolerate either denialism or personal attack. I have had a very great deal of useful time wasted by pure nonsense denialism. I can prove to you edit by edit what I say. Do you imagine I want to spend such effort at these repairs here? No, but you want me to allow that Hitler is elected and all was legal-that's what it said in en.wikipedia , and what it still says in fr.wikipedia. In the course of all this time the same defence from verification, not defence of verification, exists. Here I find the exact similar situation-no one wants the verification as to exactly how Hitler achieved his power. You still talk of my theories, and it is simply not the case that I invent anything to do with 1933. My reference to papal murder was in passing as an illustration. Any verification there is still purely my theory- I am Cardinal Tisserand . I would like to do as you ask, and in fact I would like not to be here at all. I can live for myself without changing fr.wikipedia for the better, but, do I owe a responsibility to those people who already suffered? Can I walk away from them ? Can I allow the history which led directly to their suffering to be presented entirely wrongly? To assert that it was legal is an insult to all of civilisation, and what you are asking me to do is to walk away from civilisation itself. If I do, why on earth would I want to do anything else on fr.wikipedia, except say, read about football? Maybe I should just stay here on this page and monitor, for Jimbo Wales (again)? For my several dead relations who were in the french resistance, perhaps? Non, non, vous vous trompez, mon principal argument n'est pas que ça choquerait les catholiques. A la limite, je m'en fiche que ça choque qui que ce soit. Si vous suivez l'ordre de mes arguments, je rejette vos théories parce qu'elles sont 1) extrêmement marginales 2) complètement infondées. Ensuite, évidemment, quand en plus une théorie choque beaucoup de gens, il vaut mieux qu'elle soit sérieusement argumentée. Ce qui n'est pas la cas de la vôtre, puisque vous vous justifiez par des interprétations extravagantes de propos tenus ou de phrases écrites par von Papen et Tisserand, par exemple. Mais j'ai vu ce que vous avez écrit dans la discussion sur Pie XI, cela me semble en effet très raisonnable. Attendons que les archives soient étudiées. Cordialement, à bientôt sur Wikipédia, --bsm15 1 juillet 2006 à 12:37 (CEST)

P.S. Et surtout, je vous en prie, ne vous sentez pas "investi d'une responsabilité" (ce que je crois comprendre en lisant votre dernier paragraphe). En histoire, c'est très dangereux, et en général ça conduit à écrire beaucoup de bêtises.

Suite à votre message sur ma page de discussion, je vous réponds : J'essaie de lire tout ce que vous dites. Je fais de l'histoire, et même de l'histoire religieuse du XXe siècle (c'est d'une certaine manière mon métier !) - même si je ne m'intéresse pas particulièrement à la période 1933-1945, et suis donc en contact avec quelques universitaires français spécialistes de ce sujet. Je ne connais pas trop mal l'historiographie sur les questions dont vous parlez. Donc, si vous le voulez bien (comme vous ne pouvez pas écrire directement en français, vous en conviendrez, même si vous semblez bien comprendre cette langue), vous m'envoyez par mail ce que vous souhaiteriez voir préciser dans les articles en question, et je m'engage personnellement à aller vérifier dans les ouvrages que vous citeriez, et au besoin à aller consulter les meilleurs spécialistes - au moins francophones - sur le sujet. Le seul problème étant que je suis à l'étranger jusqu'à début septembre et que je ne pourrai pas m'en occuper avant cette date.

Vous m'enverriez par mail ce que vous souhaitez voir ajouter, je le vérifie et le fais vérifier au besoin, je le traduis, je vous le renvoie pour voir si vous êtez d'accord, et on l'insère dans l'article. On manque d'articles de qualité en histoire religieuse, donc ce sera très bien pour tout le monde. Je vous demanderais cependant de vous limiter aux thèses acceptables : inutile de me demander de vérifier si Pie XII à fait assassiner Pie XI, ou si la Curie romaine était pro-nazie dans les années 30. Dans ces cas-là, je vous répondrai non tout de suite. Mais si (en vous appuyant par exemple sur des gens comme Scholder, qui pour autant que je puisse en juger sont fiables) vous avez des textes déjà prêts sur les silences des ecclésiastiques dans les années 30, ou des choses de ce genre, je suis tout à fait prêt à coopérer. Dites-moi donc si vous êtes d'accord, et dans ce cas laissez-moi votre adresse mail, je vous contacterai. (En effet Wikipédia n'est pas Usenet).

Bien sincèrement, --bsm15 2 juillet 2006 à 01:00 (CEST)

PS : Et en plus, ça m'intéresse vraiment.

Suite à votre autre message, je vous réponds : Je veux bien être conciliant cinq minutes, mais il y a des limites. Si vous voulez que je m'excuse pour avoir qualifié certaines de vos affirmations de théories du complot, vous pouvez attendre longtemps. Je vous rappelle que jamais je ne vous ai mis en cause personnellement , je ne vous ai jamais insulté, je n'ai pas qualifié de théories du complot toutes vos affirmations. Il faudra vous habituer, parce que qu'on vous rie au nez quand vous dites que Pie XI a été assassiné ou qu'il y avait de la "synthèse christiano-nazie au Vatican", c'est parfaitement normal, c'est la réaction de toute personne saine d'esprit. Je n'ai pris que ces deux exemples et je n'ai pas émis d'opinion sur le reste. Donc, pas d'excuses, et pas de coopération puisque vous semblez "exiger" des excuses. En outre, je trouve un peu étrange que quelqu'un qui a réussi à se faire virer de la Wikipédia anglophone (pourtant ô combien patiente et tolérante) vienne donner des leçons de "Wikipédia social rules" à un utilisateur contre lequel jamais aucun arbitrage n'a été demandé alors qu'il contribue en grande partie sur des sujets très "sensibles" (je me jette des fleurs, mais de temps en temps ça fait du bien). Je trouve également étrange que quelqu'un qui tire des théories extravagantes de documents connus et étudiés depuis des dizaines d'années vienne faire le malin en parlant de "verifiability principles". Je trouve très étrange que vous me reprochiez d'avoir tenté de vous empêcher d'éditer des articles alors que je n'ai jamais fait aucune demande de blocage, et qu'au contraire je vous ai demandé poliment - peut-être trop poliment ? - de bien vouloir de pas éditer certains articles. Délire de persécution, peut-être ? Bref. We can't "talk again", so. Compte tenu de votre attitude, je ne vois aucun intérêt à coopérer avec vous. Discussion close. --bsm15 3 juillet 2006 à 13:54 (CEST) Si vous voyez une seule attaque personnelle dans la liste de phrases que vous avez mise sur ma page de discussion, je mange mon chapeau (ou tout autre objet indigeste à votre convenance). Et vous êtes gonflé de me reprocher de refuser vos sources alors que je vous ai proposé il y a moins de deux jours de faire un travail considérable de vérification et de traduction si vous me communiquiez ce que vous croyez devoir être inséré dans les articles. Vous voudrez bien comprendre, encore une fois, qu'une telle attitude n'incite pas à se montrer coopératif. Enfin, je vous répète que quand je critique vos théories (à chaque fois vous sortez les phrases du contexte) il s'agit seulement de vos deux bêtises sur "l'assassinat de Pie XI" et la "synthèse christiano-nazie". Rassurez-vous donc, personne ne vous persécute. Passez quand même une bonne journée. --bsm15 3 juillet 2006 à 19:19 (CEST)

Blocage Utilisateur bloqué une semaine car troll et plus un poids qu'un moteur pour le projet. (Voir aussi ici) Markadet∇∆∇∆ 14 juillet 2006 à 22:31 (CEST)

Tu peux préciser ce que tu entends par "Dac mon petit attaquante, perso ="troll" par utilisateur preemptoire, faites avec qual paresseux intellectual normal francais d l'histoire pndant que ca commence idi" ? Parce que ce n'est pas limpide, loin de là. Markadet∇∆∇∆ 14 juillet 2006 à 23:38 (CEST) Hi, je ne te connais pas. Je suis extrémement shoqué par ton action contre moi. Je ne veux rien discuter sauf que j'ai voulu prendre l'attention de quelq'un- et, c'est sûr que l'anonyme IP qui criait à mon côté a la page Zentrum ou Loi des pleins pouvoirs déjà a eu sufissament d'éxperience pour préviser le lynching que tu , toi a mis en ordre. Toi tu peux -pour te légailisé, car avant cette blocage j'avait demandé à n'importe qui qui lisez-là, de toutesuite mettre un appel aux arbitres locaux pour ce que j'ai annoncé. Avant de tout avec toi, je te oblige , pour la séconde fois, de te comporter avec les raisons "tal y cuals", comment tu t'en entend de wikipedia, en faire la demande presenter devant toi, là. Toi, seule, tu m'oblige d'être constraint dehors, interdit contre les veux sociaux plus necessante- gens qui au jourd'hui même crient, baff, un type pour le moin, mais qui por le moin comprends que tu et des autres te portes contre toutes raison ici, sans écoutant en tes sommeilles digitales, possedées plutôt d'une pauvresse marquée par la vouloir de ne te mettres en comprendre. Moi, je suis venu toujours croyant que les normes sociaux se puissent être sauvées par les bonheurs des éxactitudes apportés par la verification. De toute facon, si tu vas pas toutesuite implantér l'appel aux arbitres specifiér par moi là ayant bonne fois et contre Hégégessipe Cormier, pour rien plus que ton acte d'ignorer mon appel, tu pourras mieux, qu'avant que je le ferai, t'inscire toi aussi comme éxample non-positive vèrs les mêmes règles. Ségnalles-toi d'abord ton adhérence à ma démande pour arbitration contre cette personne si plein de dégout pour notres régles. Elle doit aussi être obligér à ne pas s'éviter de répondre sur sa page interlocution avant ce propos d'être arbitre elle-même, -afin de ne pas laisser wikipédia francofone tombe par résulte en être pourrit (ses paroles insupportable et raison de l'appel aux arbitre- bien marqué là pour toi. Puis je te repondrais, tal y cual, jefe. OK- ou tu choisis arbcom aussi?

? Il y a bien des petits îlots de sens qui émergent de ce magma, mais désolé je n'ai pas le temps d'enquêter pendant des heures pour savoir ce que tu veux. Pour déposer un arbitrage tu peux envoyer un mail à un arbitre (voir Wikipédia:Comité d'arbitrage/Arbitrage) Markadet∇∆∇∆ 15 juillet 2006 à 00:14 (CEST) Tes paroles son incomprehensibles tu sais, comme beaucoup de gens ici t'est mis en ne pas comprendre rien de rien, mais zooooot , c'était la chanson, quoi? EffK 15 juillet 2006 à 00:24 (CEST)

Règles et Wikipédia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia /=

Jimbo Wales "Et je fais ça pour ma fille, qui je l'espère grandira dans un monde où la culture est gratuite, libre d'accès, où le contrôle de la connaissance est dans les mains de gens du monde entier, avec des travaux basiques qu'ils peuvent adopter, modifier, et partager librement sans demander la permission à qui que ce soit. l’évolution des espèces est considérée sur Wikipédia comme un fait démontré, ce qui n’empêche pas de consacrer un article au créationnisme. à des travaux originaux. Ceux-ci doivent d'abord être reconnus par leurs pairs selon le système scientifique classique avant de pouvoir figurer dans l'encyclopédie

Si une constante devait être dégagée, ce serait sans doute le plaisir de se confronter à la retranscription des connaissances, lié à l'attrait de l'humanisme de la démarche propre à Wikipédia.

Il est nécessaire d'accepter que d'autres puissent avoir une meilleure approche de la vérité, lorsqu'ils le démontrent de façon argumentée, Il existe un risque que l'arrivée massive de nouveaux contributeurs, pleins de bonne volonté mais peu informés des règles de Wikipédia, entraîne une régression de la qualité des articles Ainsi, les administrateurs[1].. ont la capacité de :

supprimer des pages dont la nature ou le contenu ne correspondent pas aux règles de Wikipédia, après une procédure de vote protéger ou déprotéger une page, à la suite de vandalismes répétés, ou d'un désaccord sur le contenu tournant à la guerre des mots au détriment de l'article. Cette procédure est rarement employée bloquer un contributeur ayant provoqué des vandalismes à répétition, ou exclu de façon temporaire ou définitive à la suite de la décision du Comité d'arbitrage. Ouverture à tous de la modification des articles-Wikipédia est un système ouvert où tout le monde peut modifier tous les articles (sauf mesure de protection contre les vandales). Au contraire d'une organisation fermée, les participants sont vivement encouragés à ajouter leurs contributions à celles des autres. Ainsi, ils corrigent les erreurs d'autres rédacteurs et travaillent ensemble sur les thèmes éventuellement controversés, tout en respectant une neutralité de point de vue. Le projet Wikipédia vise à atteindre les caractéristiques suivantes, à savoir être :Encyclopédique, et refléter de manière aussi exhaustive que possible l'ensemble du savoir humain. Sur Wikipédia, les règles d'écriture visent à convenir aux personnes rationnelles, même si celles-ci ne sont pas toujours du même avis. En cas de désaccord sur le contenu d'un article, un débat argumenté se déroule dans la page de discussion annexée à l'article. Cette discussion fait partie intégrante de l'encyclopédie, et sa lecture peut être instructive sur les points délicats à traiter dans le contenu de l'article. Contrairement à une idée souvent répandue dans la presse, il n'y a jamais de vote pour déterminer le contenu d'un article. Les contenus des articles portant sur des sujets polémiques sont en principe établis à la suite de débats raisonnés et argumentés, et non en fonction de l'avis du plus grand nombre. Si ce principe est respecté, Wikipédia n'est pas une « démocratie d'opinion ». Une des particularités de Wikipédia est d'être fondée sur la méfiance : il est en effet demandé aux wikipédiens d'être vigilants et critiques sur la qualité des contributions des autres acteurs de l'encyclopédie. Ce principe concerne la détection des actes..erronées ou encore qui ne seraient pas respectueuses des règles de Wikipédia La politique de neutralité de Wikipédia indique que toutes les facettes d'un point controversé doivent être évoquées, et que l'article ne doit en aucune façon déclarer, sous-entendre ou même insinuer, qu'un des points de vue est celui qui est correct a priori. La neutralité de point de vue n'implique cependant pas la représentation à égalité des différents points de vue. De plus, si un point de vue est très minoritaire, par exemple soutenu uniquement par certains groupes de certaines tendances idéologiques spécifiques, il sera décrit comme tel.

Les participants viennent de différents pays et de différentes cultures, et ont des points de vue très différents. En traitant les autres et leurs avis avec respect, nous pourrons collaborer avec plus d'efficacité dans la construction de l'encyclopédie.

Le respect des autres va au-delà du respect de leurs opinions ; il s'agit également, au quotidien, de leur éviter des tâches ingrates ou pénibles, si cela peut être évité. Pour un grand nombre d'entre elles, les règles « de base » ont été établies au début du projet Wikipédia, autrement dit sur la Wikipédia anglophone, essentiellement par l'usage, par consensus, sur les pages de discussion ou sur les listes de discussion. Au fur et à mesure de l'évolution du projet francophone, des règles adaptées à notre langue commune sont mises en place. Les Wikipédiens utilisent les pages de « discussion » des articles pour discuter des changements de contenu, plutôt que d'en discuter dans l'article lui-même.http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:R%C3%A8gles On a tous mieux à faire que de s'engager dans des discussions interminables : notre projet commun c'est de faire au mieux pour que cette encyclopédie devienne un outil de connaissance. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Trolls Négligence Un nouveau venu est fasciné par Wikipédia... et nous l'accueillons mal. Peut-être oublions-nous de lui souhaiter la bienvenue ? Ou oublions-nous de répondre à ses questions au Wikipédia:Le Bistro ? La personne se lasse, peut-être même devient-elle un ennemi ? Nous abîmons notre propre réputation. Ce comportement de la part de la communauté est mauvais et à éviter. Il est préférable de se montrer chaleureux, accueillant. Au cas où la personne se vexe, soyons humbles, excusons-nous, essayons d'être plus généreux, de passer un petit moment pour un bon coup de main.http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Relations_sociales_entre_Wikip%C3%A9diens

Les wikipédiens se doivent : d'être courtois. de respecter la Wikipétiquette. de travailler dans le sens du consensus. de respecter le droit d'autrui à avoir ses propres idées. Cela ne veut pas dire qu'il faut être forcément d'accord avec autrui, mais simplement qu'il faut reconnaître ensemble l'existence d'un désaccord. de débattre des faits et de la manière de les formuler, et pas des arguments de l'autre parti. de ne jamais insinuer qu'une approche n'est pas valide simplement à cause de l'identité de l'utilisateur qui l'énonce. de reconsidérer le débat dans un contexte plus privé, par e-mail par exemple, quand le débat devient personnel. de lire Résolution de conflits pour voir comment les autres wikipédiens peuvent vous aider à résoudre une dispute. d'être tolérant envers les visions des autres, même si vous n'êtes pas d'accord avec celles-ci. Vous pouvez bien considérer les visions des autres partis comme marginales. Mais même si cela était vrai, il faut garder en tête que le but de Wikipédia est de garder la Wikipedia:Neutralité de point de vue, sans pour autant exclure les approches non-conventionnelles. Nous n'essayons pas d'écrire "une seule version correcte de la vérité." http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pas_d%27attaques_personnelles traitez tout un chacun en étant certain que son objectif est d'essayer de contribuer et qu'il le fait en s'associant à l'effort collectif, même si la nature de cette contribution n'est pas claire. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esprit_de_non-violence Les participants viennent de différents pays, de différentes cultures, ont des points de vue très différents et peuvent ne pas parler la même langue que vous. En traitant les autres et leurs avis avec respect et dans un esprit de non-violence, nous pourrons collaborer avec plus d'efficacité dans la construction de l'encyclopédie qu'est wikipedia.http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wikip%C3%A9tiquette Il découle de cette perspective un comportement pratique : l'ouverture précipitée d'une page de conflit ou d'une demande de sanction est une mauvaise démarche, car la sociologie démontre qu'il est plus facile de faire l'union d'un groupe autour d'un projet de haine qu'autour d'un projet constructif. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esprit_de_non-violence En cas de doute, ne pas attribuer un mauvais motif http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esprit_de_non-violence En cas de doute, ne pas attribuer un mauvais motif de mauvaise foi, l'origine de ce concept étant que la mauvaise foi est d'abord la foi de l'autre. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esprit_de_non-violence It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behavior - are contrary to this spirit. Avant de considérer qu'un passage est orienté, vérifier dans l'historique l'auteur de la contribution et ne pas hésiter à lui poser des questions sur sa page de discussion. Il est possible que ce propos, à première vue orienté, ne soit qu'un propos audacieux ou récent dont il peut donner les sources ou l'origine, http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esprit_de_non-violence Make others feel welcome (even longtime participants; even those you dislike) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette#How_to_avoid_abuse_of_Talk_pages There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the Arbitration Committee. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPA =On ne frappe pas un(e) wikipédien(ne) à terre Remarque: Certains utilisateurs de Wikipédia sont impopulaires, peut-être à cause d'une attitude stupide ou grossière par le passé. Ces utilisateurs peuvent avoir fait l'objet d'une action disciplinaire de la part du comité d'arbitrage. Il est simple et humain d'imaginer que de tels utilisateurs sont des cibles privilégiées et « autorisées » pour les attaques personnelles. Cette attitude est bien évidemment à éviter absolument.

Récupérée de « http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pas_d%27attaque_personnelle »

Ce type de relation peut aussi exister entre Wikipédiens habitués, l'un cherchant à agresser une personnalité amicale. Essayez de comprendre le motif de l'agression pour pouvoir désactiver le conflit.http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Relations_sociales_entre_Wikip%C3%A9diens

"Victimes"-Nous les attaquons alors qu'ils ne comprennent pas pourquoi. Par exemple en croyant qu'un nouveau venu est un ancien éditeur problématique revenu sous un autre nom. Évitons de l'attaquer, présumons de sa bonne foi. Peut-être n'est-il pas une réincarnation d'un ancien vandale ? Peut-être l'est-il mais a-t-il décidé d'être plein de bonnes volontés ? Restons prudents, évitons de l'attaquer tant qu'il n'a pas prouvé sa mauvaise volonté. En cas d'attaque de notre part, ce nouveau venu pourrait se tranformer en ennemi par dépit.-http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Relations_sociales_entre_Wikip%C3%A9diens If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPA Quelques exemples spécifiques d'attaques personnelles

Les commentaires personnels dévalorisants. Les commentaire personnels usant de la dérision. L'utilisation de surnoms à caractère racial, sexuel, religieux, homophobe, ou éthnique à l'encontre d'un autre contributeur. Les attaques basées sur une affiliation politique, comme par exemple traiter quelqu'un de nazi Proférer des insanités envers un autre contributeur.

Les menaces d'action en justice. Les menaces de mort. Les menaces ou actions qui exposent d'autres wikipédiens à une persécution politique, religieuse ou autre persécution par leur gouvernement, leur employeur ou par qui que ce soit d'autre. Dès qu'elles sont mises à jour, les violations de ce type peuvent entraîner un bloquage immédiat pour une période de temps indéterminée par n'importe quel administrateur. Les administrateurs qui appliquent une telle sanction doivent en informer de manière confidentielle les membres du Comité d'arbitrage en précisant ce qu'ils ont fait et pourquoi. Il n'y a aucune excuse pour de telles attaques. Ne faites en aucun cas d'attaques personnelles. Restez calme ('cool').

Dans les cas extrêmes, vous pouvez saisir le comité d'arbitrage. Quoi qu'il en soit, restez poli en toutes circonstances. Faites aussi la distinction entre la description des actions d'une personne, et les attaques envers la personne. Il y a une différence entre "Votre commentaire est un troll" et "Vous êtes un troll". Il aurait bien sûr été préférable de dire "Vous ne faites que provoquer les gens". "Votre phrase est une attaque personnelle ..." n'est pas non plus une attaque personnelle, elle décrit une l'action, et non pas directement l'utilisateur. De la même façon, répondre dans un commentaire d'édition "en réponse à l'accusation de mauvaise foi de l'utilisateur X" n'est pas une attaque personnelle contre l'utilisateur X. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Pas_d%27attaques_personnelles

Principles of Wikipedia etiquette Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles. Treat others as you would have them treat you. Even if they are new. We were all new once... Be polite, please! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette

To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project either. However, if it means they annoy you, it is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent.

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

A fuller statement of AssumeGoodFaith is "I have faith that I am doing good for you." Acting in bad faith is doing bad with respect to someone else, possibly yourself if you are self-destructive. It's legitimate to state that you are being threatened; however, don't be surprised if this was unintentional. Be more surprised if it is intentional. http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?AssumeGoodFaith

[ voir l'absence de catégorie "Négationniste" http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wikip%C3%A9diens_par_sensibilit%C3%A9_politique ]

L'Anglais en Wikipedia, liste générale : wikipedia-l Liste générale de discussion portant sur tous les sujets pouvant intéresser la communauté wikipédienne élargie. La plupart des discussions se font en anglais par défaut, comme langue de discussion commune. Si l'anglais vous pose problème, faites appel à un de nos ambassadeurs. Vous pouvez néanmoins vous exprimer dans la langue qui vous convient. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Liste_de_discussion

Règles Pages d'utilisateurs/Critiques Deleting or removing text from any Talk page without archiving it. Talk pages or any discussion pages are part of the historical record in Wikipedia. Every time the pages are cleaned up, don't forget to store the removed text in its corresponding archive (/Archive) page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes Don't label or personally attack people or their edits. Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively. If you have to criticize, you must do it in a polite and constructive manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette#How_to_avoid_abuse_of_Talk_pages

Attaques "Stop being such a pain! Your writing is awful, let real historians edit this article" is a personal attack...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded. Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.

Examples that are not personal attacks Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements just to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling. Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism.

Collection afin d'Arbitration Il n'y a jamais de questions stupides. Solensean 無 14 juillet 2006 à 02:13 (CEST) Xmple mélange langues [19] Bandeau Zentrum [20] [21] Bandeau [22] POV propos HC [23],[24], [25],[26],[27],[28] bandeau etc Le Pen [29] Théorie du complot contre... EffK [30],[,[31 candidature HC,critikx-defenzz "la malveillance" [32] remercie acceuil HC [33]], [34],[35] guerre bandeau/supprimer anti-s français [36],[37] HC archive EffK/Bsm [38],[39] textes etr ,traduire HC [40],[41] HC avert EffK et autre [42] HC plaisanterie suffisamment duré [43] seait lamentable [44] HC sur Q 'blocage' Moez [45] exit intervention florealesque [46] accuse d negationnn [47] les fâcheux ne feront pas la loi sur WP) [48], [49] commentaire ant-HC [50] les contributeurs honnêtes peuvent me parler [51], [52],[53],[54],[55] persona(1=una)non grata [56],[57] jerotito [58] POV liste f/maç [59]-HC-je n'ai pas autorisé EffK à faire un lien hypertexte (qui ne fonctionne d'ailleurs pas) sur un mot de mon intervention , declaration de possession HC de la parole en question: 'pourrit' [60] Plus on est de fous, plus on rit...) Felipeh | hable aquí 17 juin 2006 à 03:36 (CEST) {une confirmation historique, avec courtésie, Felipeh) [61] FR A mourir de rire [62] ref vers [63] Desaccord EffK - marquer [64] chinese quip FR titré 'huh?', sans se signer, avec [65] onomatapeia, [66] [Frank R]...you could have the assumption of good faith. EffK 18 juin 2006 à 12:18 (CEST) [67] nettoyage FR contre ? règles, tu m'a dit de "don't come writing here". Je demande si tu va toutesuite me chasser d'etre... ou detre ici? Vas'y...Utilisateur:EffK|EffK 18 juin 2006 à 12:36 (CEST) [RamaR contre admins ]- [68] [69] nettoyage de EffK raisonnable [70] puis déraisonnable [71]'pas de sens' même apres être expliqué, modif en texte EffK super court, suivi par provoK't'n "for instance in a language that you know"- [72] [73] -RamarR-'Je te conseille d'expliquer Utilisateur:EffK|EffK 18 juin 2006 à 11:51 (CEST)[74]suivi par RamaR raisonnable -[75] puis RamaR ='feel free to point it out, explaining why, how to correct and back your ideas with source (you know the tradition here" [76] avis RamaR pour EffK raisonnable, puis demande assistance WP [|EffK]] 18 juin 2006 à 15:50 (CEST)] contre provoKN de Frank Renda restant à page Discussion Utilisateur:RamaR [77] reponse Bsm15 sur l'honnêté

Blocage (2) Compte bloqué 205 jours (environ jusqu'à la date de déblocage du même compte sur WP:en) pour comportement inadéquat (langue française mal connue, POV pushing pour les mêmes thèses qui ont valu un blocage long sur WP:en suite à un arbitrage, et comportement général). Markadet∇∆∇∆ 16 juillet 2006 à 21:39 (CEST)

Solensean A cause de ce fait je suis obligé t'attendre ici. Je dirai en avance que maintenant je vais tutoyer à tout le monde. On verra si en résulte j'aurai l'apparence un tout petit peu moin étrange pour cette ensemble. Alors, les problémes de ces articles. T'est déjà averti, toi et tout autre qui lisent le bistro etc et les admins sur sa page. Tu sais bien que mon français n'est pas la problème la plus sevère. Je suis tout a fait d'accord que je ne puisse tenter d'entrer dirèctement sur mainspace(articles) et tu vois que après l'expereince irrégulaire antre Renda/RamaR quand j'ai vu une seconde et tres courte et exacte edition reverti contre son trés simple sens, j'ai arreté en commecent surtout faire avis aux gens dès les sources. En fait comme j'étais si mal traité et avec si grand vitesse, comme toujours quand en apporte l'histoire difficile non pour comprendre mais pour accepter, que j'avais pas le temps pour m'en occuper sufissament du français. Je me suis de plus en plus converti à me défendre des attaquants, qui m'ont suivis dès que j'arrive. J'ai lu ton interdiction là sur moi, disant de me debloquer, et bien que tu deviens plus arrèglé avec WP et ces exactitudes nous prevus pour sustenance d'une communauté, neansmoins je devrai te dire que sans arrègle des gens plusièrs qui manquaient les plus fondamentales afiliation avec assomption de bonne foi, je vois pas beaucoup de raison en circuler rien de sources ou arguments ou raison soit-même. En cet WP j'apporte beaucoup d'experience gagné à grand coût personelle. Le jugement au fin de l'anglais à été corrècte , ou pas corrècte.

Je ne peux, en bonne foi, accepter ce que n'est pas la verité, et la dernière art sur le sujét globale du vote pour les Pleins Pouvoirs nous est donné par un proff allemand tres respecté sur ls deux cotés de l'eglise chrétien alemande. Il dit tout simplement que ce n'est pas vraisemblable niér la connéxion entre Les Pleins Pouvoirs et le Concordat suivant. C'est simple. Si on est absolument neutre, et on a d'interêt pour comment s'est tombé le monde entier en guerre, on peut choisir de entrer le sujet pour y comprendre l'evolution vers la guerre WWII.

Les problêmes ne sont pas toujours celles de vérification, Ça on a déjà fait en anglais. Lire l'article principal global, de Piu XII, section Reichskonkordat, ça vous explicera toutes. Àu moment de mon abbâtrage là il y avait des autres éditeurs qui ont obligés à la même type de cartèle qui seulemnt les anonymes ici qualifique ultimament comme nazi-papotés ou quelquechose, mais qu'ils ont toujours reconnus, à admettre la vérité. Je te dit tout simplement que cela ou que c'était contre le jugement contre moi, répété ici, ou le jugement POV pusher avait raison. Me traiter comme POV warrior c'est de faire contradiction contre les arbitres plus respectées- qui sont les sources respectées. Les arbitres en anglais pareil de n'avoir pas compris l'histoire ni de ces années 30's ni des interventions qui étaient mais je dis spectaculairement, faites en guerres d'édition perimée par la vérification.

Moi -pour me comprendre un peu - je prefère de ne faire pas des reversions, parceque toujours en trouve quelqu'un avec moins de honte, ou plus de gens à son coté. Ici c'est bien clair que je ne suis pas seule, et à cause de cela, seulement, vous continuer là d'en parler etc. En en,WP je suis bien remercié par l'éditeur qui venait enfin de me vérifié en toutes- mais toutes. J'avais travaillé dans la manière plus civilisé que de faire guerre D'éditions, qui était de discuter en bonne foi, avec l'idée de convaincre mon seul opposant- un type connu pour son grand capacité et education historique et culturelle. Lui, qui le suit toujours son incapacité d'admettre le fait particulière entre les Pleins pouvoirs- qui donné la dictature légale a Hitler, et le Concordat, qui donnée a l'église ce qu'il voulaient. Alors, en esayent de convaincre on a prèsque remplir le livre là. Ce qui c'est passé ici n'est rien à coté, et moi je suis très circonspecte avec mes remonstrations contre une maivaise foi ou intelligence deshonnête. Se sont la même chose, et je l sais parceque j'avais besoin de l'en prouver dès vérifications.

Moi je suis criticable par des autours de moi d'abord parce que le sujét est incroyablement essentiel sur plusiers niveaux- politique, histoire, contemporain, moral, religieux, philosophique, Holocaust, canonique chrétien et canonique de Wikipedia. Quand c'éatait devenu qu'une guerre de discussion entre moi avec l'autre representative contraire, c'est élargi comme monstre, dont la culpabilité tombé sur moi. Je savais comment ça en sortira, et il parait , possiblement, que les francophones ici, peut-être, auront un peux plus de coco ou tête remplis d'intelligence. Les yankees ne sont pas très connus pour suivre l'intelligence des pays loins, et même pour les anglais c'est presque impossible celle de la chutte de Weimar.

Vous qui rétiennent des bases d'une revolution peut-être ont plus de capacité, un peu d'honte, un peu de liberté pour maintenant écouter aux anonymes que gueles-là. En Wikipedias les gens sont un peu divisés entre les techniciens, qui sont bien nécéssaires et les types plus literaires informés culturellement. On le voit toutesuite sur ses page, et ses éditions. Malheureusement l'adminstration peux être problèmatique dans ce tel sujét .

Ça soit inutile de continuer de t'expliquer jusqu'ou ça vas ou d'ou ça viens. J'ai mes conclusions et ils sont illégales en WP, sauf qu'une question posée après base de voir des actions se pretends d'étre toleré. Ce n'est pas tolerée parce que le sorti de cette question nous apporte à l'endroit pire de Wikipedia et son software, et son fondateur. Je dis fondateur, car c'est lui qui a spécifie que WP existe pour retenir l'opinion majoritaire, donc, si la majorité sont les jaunes- ou des grises, alors, on prends l'opinion de cette majorité. Cela c'est une contradiction des autres bases de WP, comme verification, qui est plus scientifique. Nous, esperons, nous faisons base sur la methode scientifique , même dans un art qui s'appelle histoire.

Comme ça on reviens vers notre probleme en ce cas-ci. Ils y on a une billion de types qui sont actuellemnt obligées par ses lois canoniques appris à chaque visite à l'église, dès l'enfance, de croire et de suivre, obéissants. On sais que ça change, et il y en a entre nous qui sait que pour ce fait même de s'en changer- ou tomber de l'obéiscance, il y un effort contre qui est expressivement lancer pour le frêner. Je connais la vérification pour cette effort sur l'internet aussi. C'est un ordre, que tu t'en veut ou pas.

Ayant ces problèmes je ne sais moi plus quoi faire, ici ou ailleurs. Je prefères d'être bloqué toute ma vie, que de suivre contre la raison, dans les guerres déraisonables comme celle du bandeau au Pleins Pouvoirs. J'ai déjà suivi toutes les articles globales en anglais, et je te jure que, même que j'ai pu arrègler certains articles, comme Hitler,Weimar, Germany,Pope Pius XII, que la plupart d'eux qui restes, qui sont nombreux, continue en être compromises. Là les guerres non pas reussi, il ne brules parce que personne entre, ou personne comprend. Ce sont les articles comme Ludwig Kaas, zentrum, Reichskonkordat, Hitler's Pope, Hitler's rise to power, The Nazis and religious concepts, mais regard ma page là- il y en des dizaines quand en commence à vraiment compter.

Je te dis que je sais qu'un étranger ne peux pas écrire les langues d'autres. Ce que je ne savait pas c'était que c'était impossible de prendre l'assomption de bonne foi en introduire les infos et vérifcations nécéssaires ici. Je suis à ce moment tout à fait convaincu que non. Et, en plus, mon lutte là en anglais me prepare pour te dire que comme autant d'articles son traduit dès là-bas, que rien plus que ça même les rendrent compromises. Comme on n'a encore pu nettoyer l'anglais de cette infection intellectual qui veut surtout nous défendre de la comprehension, vous rendres ces importées une problème sans le reconnâitre. Il y a effectivement un plus grand guerre d'édition, et si tu passe vite sur ma page là tu pourras voir la vérification éxacte du perversion de la presse americain depuis 1935 et la guerre civile espagnol. C'est un fait . Ici en Europe on avait notre propres situations, et le fait que toi, ou la majorité ne comprends pas du tout ce qui c'était passé il y a 70 ans , est l'effet d'une même effort.

Je vais continuer à voir ce qui se passe autours de cette incroyable blocage, mais je serais pas juste ni aux règles de Wikipedia si j'ignorait les plus incroyables faits qui ont précédés cette exclusion à moi. Que je comprends la force, la nécéssité de le trouver- comme résultat techniquement illégale n'est pas de l'en accepter. Le fait que les americains m'on tirés, à fait possibles votres importations des erreurs ici, et si les gens qui ont continués sa guerre de religion ici ne sont pas controlés non plus, bon, c'est finis pour Wikipedia comme projet qui nous avons voulu aider d'être util comme Jimbo a dit. Ça deviens que dangereux. ciau Solensean EffK 17 juillet 2006 à 05:03 (CEST)

OK, let's talk in English - only for this conversation - for a while. Just translate to me what the point of this section is. A few sentences will do (and I'm serious: I won't read two pages of rant).Solensean 無 17 juillet 2006 à 06:10 (CEST) Solensean, I request that you observe Wikipedia law, and unblock EffK immediately. I request that you assist EffK in everyway possible to thereafter take this case to arbtration. At that arbitration I shall continue, as always, to prove the actions. You should only have to observe the rules of wikipedia, and not concern yourself with content problems. There are no content problems, there is only the breaking of rules. I have shown you- which I should not have had to do- which rules are broken in this illegal blocking of me. You are advised by these rules, not by me. I will deal with the over-all problem through arbitration, and if the arbitration fails again, eventually I will deal with it through the courts directly against the foundation.

I tell you that despite Jimbo's prohibition of making legal threat, that that itself is an oxymoron. It is not a form of threat when the law itself is being upheld, and another way of saying that is that it does not constitute a threat to propose an action which is supported by law. The legal failure of Jimbo the last time is precisely relevant to this issue of content and accordingly of EffK here.

The actual concerted denialism repeated in all wikipedias stems from the failure of Jimbo to enforce wikipedia principles. It is not your problem, but herewith you are alerted and become involved. You should know that defamation (diffamation) is a precise legal concept and revolves upon the repetition of accusations made with a reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the accusations or repeated statements. IE to go against proffered verification.

There is no alternative to a trial now of all those who have been involved here in french wikipedia, which at present appears to be everyone concerned but the anons, Felipeh and Gribeco.. Sadly you yourself continue to act outside WP rules in calling me a troll. Please do not continue to make un-warranted defamatory statements against me. The above text was clear enough for you to understand the content related context. Your refusal to attempt to understand is no longer excusable. I strongly advise you to hereonwards act in a completely neutral manner and thereby lessen any damage to youself. You are bound to accept my good faith, and I am bound to present verification for everything. It is not my problem that you do not wish to follow explanations already given to you. There is nothing personal in any of this, of course.

EffK 17 juillet 2006 à 14:30 (CEST) Pour comprendre la guerre un peu en courte, eux qui veux -[78]. The use of anons to support blanchiment en cours n'est pas WP. pas grands choses ici n'en est pas WP. Plus ça change. Négligence, diffamation, manque de bonne foi, subversion d'administration, subversion tenté d'arbitration, petits gens en se protègeant partout- c'est wikipedia. C'est Animal Farm par Orwell.

I am prepared to call for arbitration in 204 days, by the way. Maybe some of you will no longer be around but tant pis for them. The point of this section was to encourage you to stick to your words Solensean, which was presumably to uphold the principles of Wikipedia- why should I have to say that? EffK 17 juillet 2006 à 20:36 (CEST)

EffàK Joke factory There is/be no legality in this taudis, and like in all good dictatorships to joke is/be illegal and as all the rest of the règles that are/be not maintain-ed are/be a joke, so feel at liberty. But I'll mock the rules and delete what I verily elect. fact is these little guys and dolls don't appear to know the Wikipedia Foundation , and live in a little francophone bubble imagining they somehow can pick and choose and invent règles for themsleves.

blague on pourrait dire aussi que wikipédia anglais est deux fois plus gros parce qu'ils sont beaucoup moins rigoureux sur l'acceptation des articles. Le but de wikipédia n'est pas d'avoir le plus d'articles possibles sur tout, mais de construire une encyclopédie. Cordialement, David Berardan 2 avril 2006 à 10:02 (CEST) Blague PS : Ne me répondez pas : "Il suffit de bloquer" ou "Il suffit de ...". Vous pourriez aussi dire "Posez la question au bistrot"... Ou encore ... Croyez bien que toutes ces solutions ne servent à rien. A vous, ou à nous de trouver LA solution. Moi, je constate une et une seule chose, ce site est complètement mité par la fraction dure de l'église catholique. Si vous n'êtes pas persuadé, réfléchissez Bonne nuit. (anon!) [79]

Joke: Utilisateur EffàK 80 bloqué le EffK 14 juillet 2006 à 23:30 (CEST) for exactly 23,031,933ième jours

Joke

:: OK. Oversight permet, dans des cas très limités, de retirer des révisions de l'historique d'un article de façon définitive. Ce n'est pas un outil à utiliser à la légère. Seule la suppression d'informations personnelles (numéros de téléphones privés, par exemple) peut avoir lieu sans consulter une personne agréée par la Wikimedia Foundation. Si cette fonctionnalité est activée sur la Wikipédia francophone, il faudrait donc deux utilisateurs (nul besoin de plus) ayant à la fois la confiance de la communauté et de la Fondation pour bénéficier de l'outil. Je le répète, ce n'est pas une action réversible de façon simple, et tout abus pourrait conduire à de graves sanctions. Ce pourrait être une bonne chose d'activer la fonction sur la Wikipédia francophone, si toutefois un consensus est atteint sur la façon d'attribuer ce statut. J'attends de voir. Pour plus d'informations, vous pouvez consulter Hiding revisions. Solensean 無 21 juillet 2006 à 05:36 (CEST) dès [81]

25 juin 2006 à 19:56 ~Pyb (Discuter | Contribs) a effacé « Discussion Utilisateur:~Pyb/À faire/Antiquus Mysticusque Ordo Rosae Crucis » (Supprimé à la demande de son auteur) Contributions de cet Utilisateur pour ce moment sont : 25 juin 2006 à 20:13 (hist) (diff) Wikipédia:Le Bistro/25 juin 2006 (→Appel aux contributeurs utilisant un modèle dans leur signature. - rép) (precedé par) 25 juin 2006 à 19:52 (hist) (diff) Wikipédia:Le Bistro/25 juin 2006 (→Appel aux contributeurs utilisant un modèle dans leur signature. - rép)

Salut Pyb, je remarque l'effacement...je pensais au propos de resoudre les articles là dedans). EffK 27 (EffK) Je n'ai pas compris. (~Pyb) Est-ce que ce n'était pas vous qui a apporté de Wp.en mes suggestions pour resoudre les conflits ? Ils étaient placées a [82], comme je dit à [83].EffK 28 juin 2006 à 17:31 (CEST) Sorry, it's not me ;) (~Pyb29 juin 2006 à 11:49} it is odd- what was I doing on your page? or how has it gone if not from that à faire page (EffK 30 juin 2006 à 00:16) Blague/Joke On a déjà assez de "cas" à gérer, inutile d'en rajouter un et surtout je m'occupe déjà du portail cryptologie, pas besoin d'en rajouter en matière de crytanalyse :) Dake@ 18 juillet 2006 à 10:48 (CEST) Joke Si Hégésippe se met à dos tout le comité d'arbitrage (ça en prend le chemin...) il n'y aura plus personne pour arbitrer quand il est partie :-) Joke: FàK Ce n'est rien de nouveau- changez-vous seulement de pays car ici parait-il d'être occasionné par complexe d'infériorité française. La blague c'est que c'était le jour de la fête pour la liberté americaine. L'un et l'autre étaient perdus le 23 mars 1933 et toutes vos soucis et peurs pour l'avenir d'y viennent. Là se trouveras la blessure et le coup mortel de notre civilisation imaginaire. Nous avons que 666 previssé. Ça c'est l'energie du soleil. Perdre ce jour de cette légalité était de nous perdre notre chance de dévelloper, et en résulte en bouffera 666 librement pendant que ça va nous brûler. Ici pue l'enciclopédie pourrit en étant hors de légalité. Tant pis! This from a bog in a literary capital with its own inferiority complex. You read it as you stand there(some do) and piss. It concerns the mawkish slobbery book about the lfe of a mouette. It says - "You read the book." "You saw the movie." "Now, taste the stew." Sobre tema vache Espanol "Porque le llaman cerdos à los francéses ? blague Remarque : je me suis bien gardé de présenter un point de vue contraire, bien que je dispose de quelques sources pour apporter des rectifications [84] blague Si je puis me permettrez, pourriez-vous donnez plus de contexte à vos propos ? Il m'a fallu fouiller dans l'historique pour comprendre que vous condamniez la phrase « dans les termes exacts négociés avec la république de Weimar ». Par ailleurs, je suis d'accord avec vous sur ce point, cf. aussi concordat du 20 juillet 1933 qui mentionne l'art.137 de la constitution de Weimar, proscrivant toute « église d'État ». Jastrow ✍ 15 octobre 2005 à 19:20 (CEST) blague Ca me fait penser à la blague que tout le monde connaît : A quoi reconnaît-on qu'une blonde s'est servi d'un PC ? RE: Il y a du blanco sur l'écran. Variante Il y a du gruyère à côté de la souris. Ludo29 23 juin 2006 à 10:46 (CEST)

Tu vois il est toujours délicat de savoir ou se termine le résumé et où commence le plagiat. Je reconnais que sur le fond tu as raison, mais je préfère au début commencer par une source vérifiable. Cordialement Mirmillon 15 juillet 2006 à 06:27 (CEST) blague ...qui va sous la terre et qui mange des cailloux? Réponse : un mange-caillou bleu eh oui Le gorille | Houba | Gare au gorille 5 janvier 2006 à 18:15 (CET) blague Jésus marche tranquillement sur les eaux du lac de Tibériade. Pierre qui est à son côté, lui dit en nageant : - Eh, Jésus, t'es con, parce qu'elle vachement bonne ! Semnoz 11 oct 2004 à 08:12 (CEST) (Tranféré depuis Lac de Tibériade blague Jesus was hanging on his cross, the women and coupla followers below, the 4 man detachment of Roman soldiery there, playing dice. One of them , looking up , asks what do you think about the times? Another looks up, and replies Yeah, the nights are really drawing in. Supprimer idem. On peut dire tout et n'importe quoi... Diffamation, procès, amende, fermeture de wikipédia... (Quoi, je suis pessimiste?) Jeanfi 18 juillet 2006 à 12:22 (CEST) blague Bonjour, 83.152.87.215, Sachez qu’il est possible à un administrateur de vous empêcher d'écrire dans Wikipédia Liste des contributions de 83.152.87.215 Aucune modification correspondant à ces critères n'a été trouvée. blague En dépit des messages que nous vous avons adressés, vous avez cru bon de ne pas tenir compte de nos avertissements. En conséquence, un administrateur vous a bloqué pour une durée de 2 heures. Passé ce délai, vous pourrez à nouveau écrire régulièrement sur Wikipédia. Si vous estimez ce blocage injustifié, ajoutez le texte « Template:Déblocage » sur cette page, en rajoutant à la suite du caractère « | » la raison le motif de votre contestation. blague . In that order the present yugas is Kali Yuga. In this yuga the sixth and the final slice of Kroni took birth as evil spirit (without a physical shape or body). This was the most serious manifestation of evil. In all the previous yugas Vishnu incarnates to kill the each slices. See thisBut in this yuga to overcome the serous nature of evil the supreme power Ekam (that is The Ultimate Oneness)incarnates in the world in the name of Ayya Vaikundar carrying Narayana, the combination of Sivan Brahma and Vishnu within himself . So since the Ultimate Oneness incarnates in the world, he is the only worshippable and Monotheistic God. See this Do I need to demonstrate in detail? - 61.1.210.167 21 juin 2006 à 00:47 (CEST) blague Loi des pleins pouvoirs ... apparemment, ça s'est calmé... --bsm15 17 juillet 2006 à 20:27 (CEST) blague Lorsque tu es bloqué, tu peux me laisser un emssage sur ma page de discussion pour qu'on fasse le nécessaire. Pyb 19 novembre 2005 à 13:45 (CET) blague Révoquer en demandant des sources. Le point de vue est orienté, mais c'est le point de vue du Vatican ou d'autres théologiens. Qu'il se prenne la main et aille chercher les infos et sources au lieu de nous donner son avis Bradipus Bla 8 juillet 2006 à 15:54 (CEST) blague le CAr a pris la décision suivante dans l'arbitrage (x)

Considérant que (x) ignore délibérement les règles de fonctionnement de Wikipédia afin de chercher à faire prévaloir un point de vue partisan, qu'il a recouru dans ce but à des actions de vandalisme et à l'utilisation abusive de comptes multiples, en tenant compte de la date récente de ses premières contibutions, le Comité d'Arbitrage décide de bloquer (x) pour une durée de 2 semaines blague Catho carré Benoît 4² blague Bref, en clair, avant de s'énerver, « assume good faith » et chercher à comprendre ;D Alvaro 6 juillet 2006 à 23:58 (CEST) blague Pas d'attaques personnelles

Un des principes fondateurs de Wikipédia est... pas d'attaque personnelle. Les attaques personnelles font du tort à la communauté et découragent les wikipédiens. Un contributeur à l'origine d'attaques personnelles peut se retrouver bloqué, voire banni. Suite à cette modification : [85] Gribeco %#@! 14 juillet 2006 à 21:04 (CEST) blague People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both This site actually does quite often suggest things like massive nuclear strikes on very much anything, but I do not think it constitutes a serious menace. As mentioned earlier, women can engage in tribadism with or without double-ended dildos and men can engage in penis-to-penis frottage, the anatomical pairings involved enable positions which heterosexual couples might find difficult or impossible. Mutual masturbation can also be differently choreographed for homosexuality, for instance a man can stimulate his and a partner's (or multiple partners') penises simultaneously with only one hand. RamaR blague I would tend to see the key of the issue on "total war" : in lots of countries, when th modern state has a revolutionary genesis (the USA, France, Italy, Greece, Japan), conscription has (also) a connotation of unity of the people within a nation -- the workers and the riches wearing the same uniforms, people from all regions coming in the same regiments... (though of course the riches tend to wear officers uniforms, or skip the whole thing, mor easily than the poor do). So in peace time, it has a unifying role (look in France or Japan, very centralised countries); allows really poor people to get bases in hygien, have shoes and clothes (the best clothes some French peasants had in the XIXth Century were army uniforms); allows statistical measures of the population (how many of the drafted people can actually read and write ?)... Of course, the wartime usage is still the same. On the other hand, the concept of "total war" is truely horrible. It has "war" in it; dates (in its modern acceptance) roughly from the First World War, the worst bloodbath from a long time; it was "officially" sacralised by Goebbels; and it is specifically a wartime phenomenon. blague To make things perfectly clear, I am a Wikipedia sysop. I do not mean to protect you from something, I mean to protect Wikipedia from you. So please be civil in the future, or you will face sanctions. Rama 23:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Rama you should do some flipbook type stuff with your rough sketches for your iaido and for sex positions and post it on a page so we can print it out and make into a flipbook of our own. That would be pretty sweet. It would help with knowing what to do with my wife, we do not always get it right with the descriptions, and would a lot better if we had a flip book to go through. : ! I will not be accountable if you try iaido tricks in bed with your wife, lover, pet or anything. Rama 07:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC) lol I'l be gentle with my wife. Wow my title looks pretty dorky... feel free to change it if you like. [RamarR stuff} blague (diff) (hist) . . m Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JD UK‎; 11:26 . . JD UK (Talk | contribs) (→JD_UK - ack, forgot to sign :S) blague rv. Résumons : vos arguments pseudo-historiques ont été taillés en pièces donc on remet la version « honnête ». blague bonjour est il quelqu'un là? Non. -Ash - (ᚫ) 17 juillet 2006 à 13:52 (CEST) Enfin, oui, mais incognito. Michelet-密是力 18 juillet 2006 à 08:01 (CEST) Récupérée de [86] blague (re Zentrum) . Et par ailleurs, il est normal de laisser à ceux qui souhaitent s'exprimer sur le sujet le temps de le faire. Werewindle 24 juillet 2006 à 09:13 (CEST) [Récupérée de [87] ] joke 'Et la semantique generale te permettra de douter avec certitude' Bonjour Oracle Un homme fait 50km vers le nord 50km vers l'est 50km vers le sud et se retrouve a son point de depart? Es tu capable de trouver son point de depart? En retour de ta reponse tu sera paye suivant ta sagesse. .melusin 27 juillet 2006 à 00:46 (CEST) M:) Il est partie du pôle sud ? --Elemïah • 27 juillet 2006 à 10:00 (CEST) Si vous repondez au hasard,la vie vous apprendra a etre zen. Essayez encore. Merci.88 blague Ma patience et ma tolérance ont des limites. ±Θ± 24 juillet 2006 à 20:54 (CEST) ...bravo, maintenant j'ai été interdit sans preuve, c'est bien cette dérive! ça porte crédit à tous ces admins qui se prennent pour des flics! (U Kernitou) blague Je viens d'aller voir l'article Zentrum, sur lequel je ne suis jamais intervenu, et je constate que... ce qui s'est passé sur cet article parfaitement normal,.... à vous de vous mettre à l'honnêteté, effectivement ! --dès sa page Ubsm15 29 juillet 2006 à 01:45 (CEST) blague Voir aussi le cas d'EffK : contributions polémiques d'un utilisateur très approximativement francophone (qui insulte, aussi !), qui se sont finalement soldées par un blocage. Une jurisprudence ? --bsm15 31 juillet 2006 à 17:30 (CEST) blague revert: on n'enlève JAMAIS une bannière POV posée par un autre contributeur !!!! [89] blague La loi du 22 floréal an VI (11 mai 1798) est une loi qui élimine les députés indésirables au profit d'élus d'assemblées minoritaires.[90] Récupérée de « http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:EffK » AffichagesPage utilisateur

Klaus Scholder reviewed

re John Jay Hughes' review [169] relevant to the renewed (23 06 06) excision of the entire Reichskonkordat/Scholder input , see [170] for this "reviewer's" writings upon then Cardinal Ratzinger, Cornwell, and the vatican Archives. Hughes is billed as "John Jay Hughes is a priest of the St. Louis archdiocese and a church historian." . I seem to remember this article came into focus before in WP. The excisions to the input folows on it having been referred to by EffK at fr.WP as being 'accepted' if not consensual, whilst there have been several intervening months of inaction.

Amidst great praise for Scholder 's volume Hughes writes

"Less satisfying still is his lengthy account of the Concordat of July 1933 between the German Reich and the Holy See. Repeatedly*1 Scholder insists that this agreement resulted from an undocumented secret deal made in early*2 march between Hitler and Monsignor Kaas, then head of the Catholic Center Party*3 (Zentrum). This allegedly called for the Zentrum to supply the crucial votes*4 for the Enabling Act, in return for Hitler's promise of a concordat which would doom the party to extinction. Among much evidence*5 contradicting this hypothesis*6 is a well documented fact mentioned by Scholder only in a footnote. Throughout the concordat negotiations*7 Kaas fought tenaciously for his party by refusing to accept the exclusion of the catholic clergy from party politics*8 (for the sake of which alone*9, on Scholder's own account, Hitler desired the concordat.) When in June 1933, the democratic parties collapsed*10, what had previously been an unacceptable Church concession became a protection for the clergy against absorbtion by the only party remaining*11."

The inclusion of the scan of Hughes on WP by Str1977may be quite helpful, as I expect to show. (work in progress)

1)repeatedly is in itself further precise information as to the view(evidence) of Scholder. I EffK interpose here a third party Wikipedian review of the Scholder :At last I've had a chance to do some more serious reading on this. I now know that EffK's 'strong' quid pro quo - relating the concordat to the enabling act, not just the self-dissolution of the Centre party - is supportd by at least some heavyweight historians. The source given by both Cornwell and our friend Gregory is the late Professor Klaus Scholder of Tubingen University, in his 'The Churches and the Third Reich', vol 1, who basically devotes a whole chapter to arguing this. From what I can see, he seems to be recognised even by his critics (and I note he was a protestant) as an important authority on this area.

Scholder himself points to earlier historical work on this: "the argument for a connection between the Reich concordat and the EA was stated and substantiated in detail for the first time by Karl Dietrich Bracher" but unfortunately I can't read Bracher as he has not been translated from German. (For those who can teh reference is 'Nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung und Reichskonkordat.' in F. Gese and F.A.von de Heydte (eds.) 'Der Konkordatsprozess', Munich nd 1957-59 pp. 947-1021).

If people want I can go through Scholder's arguments and primary sources in detail. One of the main ones is Bruning's memoirs, where he says clearly that Hitler raised the concordat in the EA negotiations. Papen also is quoted as saying that the concordat was discussed as early as 30th January. There are plenty more. Scholder concludes: "those who dispute a link between acceptance of the enabling act and the conclusion of the Reich concordat definitely seem unconvincing." (p248)

People here have argued that no serious historian would argue the 'strong QPQ', only conspiracy nuts. I think Scholder rates as a serious source for the strong QPQ claim in anyone's book. Argue against the QPQ claim by all means, and cite contrary interpretations, but it is time to stop dismissing it as 'conspiracy theory'.Bengalski 22:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholder is with EffK on this - he is clear that both Pacelli and P11 were involved, with Kaas the 'key go-between' in the negotiations (in the English translation anyway). Also his sources say much more than that it just passed through Kaas' mind - they are saying this was specifically part of the bargaining. But I suggest you read the Scholder (I think you said you didn't know it, but from what I found it is fairly easy to get hold of in academic libraries) and we can discuss the details after if you like.Bengalski 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

2) secret Just as primary source Pulitzer winner Mowrer described , the Centre leadership meeting to hear Kaas present the written Pacelli relay of Pius XI's instructions(well, papal desire..) that they empower Hitler to prevent German Communist ascendancy. Secrecy is in the humanitas timeline , from Levy, apropos the 8 April Papen mission to Rome . The Tribunal choses the term 'trickery' in referrence to the banker Schroeder -Oskar Hindenburg -Meissner affair, and the Hitler means of avoiding social notice.

3) early March refers to the Kaas effort of 6 march to bury the hatchet with Papen( and the actual arguments between the high catholic aristocrat Papen and Pacelli's 'mouthpiece is worthy of sourceing). By mid March the assurance existed in hitler's mind. This is Tribunal testimony. The 15 march was not the first post election cabinet meeting, which was immediately after the election. the cabinet was the same as the coalition, and the coalition remained. Hitler at any rate knew the centre would accede to the Enabling Act at the middle of march. Here early March is 6 th march onwards until the knowledge of the 15th. Pacelli would equally have had time to form opinion as to the outcome. Papen denied knowing of Deputy arrests at all prior to the Eact. However, arrested they were, described as unnecessary of legality by Goering on the 3 March. Kaas could not have shown that 15 March likelihood to Hitler without both Hitler and himself Kaas understanding that the composition of the Reichsatg would be so depleted by the arrests as to enable the trickery of the Enabling Act vote by 2/3 majority.

4) in return for is the strong or full quid pro quo, supposedly EffK conspiracy theory illness, slander & impiety. Couple this with ' repeatedly ' and ' secret '. Remember that the weak quid pro quo, is that solely concerning the sourced bargaining, emanating via the British Ambassador to the vatican , for the Centre's self-dissolution at 5 July ' in return for ' the Reichskonkordat. The distinction is an artificial division, and only useful to save face. Doom the party to extinction. Here begins the Father Hughes repudiation. We naturally would make assumption that he, Hughes, sounds plausioble-unless you know the relationship of Kaas to Pacelli and Pacelli to the Communists and to Hitler and even to Papen. The constant WP battle to negate, remove, excise and deny all these further sourced facts is roughly the basis for the whole argument against each of the EffK names. I believed the humanitas international timeline as to events, and apart from minor administrative error they are vindicated altogether. That EffK had to then verify every event from multiple primary and secondary reputable source, is what discussion pages were used for. Allegedly stands alongside less satisfying as personal to the reviewer, as, if it is Scholder alleging , he does it repeatedly, and as the other user Bengalski confirmed, assuredly. Allegedly is not what Otto Brok informed Mowrer nor what Mowrer put into print in America in 1968. It was primary witness that secrecy attended the may 1932 reading of the pacelli letter, and it is clear why the secrecy was called for to cloak that meeting, as with other sourced secret vatican involvements in 1925(the restoration of the German monarchy) and 1939/40 and 42/43 ( Widerstand/Allied /Wehrmacht mediation). There is nothing alleged about 15 march and Hitler's words. There is nothing alleged about Shirer's with an eye to...which he received. It is a statement based on testimony, large testimony.

5 much evidence is instantly required from Str1977, who uses this review to shatter Scholder and remove what the reviewer also confirms is the epitome of balanced informed study. less satisfying naturally to a reviewer keen to up-end the conclusion in the paragraph here being used as negation for source. here we are to accept one footnote of much evidence, which allies to the continuous claim that pacelli was dsiappointed that the centre should dissolve. A memoir by his confessor provides this vital weight of disappointment, despite huge exegesis elsewhere. Indeed the centre was a noble body , and of course its leader, whilst ensconced for a full month en-sheeted within the vatican before demitting himself from the chair of that noble constitutional democratic party, would factor its dissolution greatly. All historians after all refer to it as large -if not bargaining chip, then large influence on the subsequent drift of thier 33% of the electorate towards the NSDAP. Sure. However the primary source is rather at odds. Historians refer to Kaas being prevailed upon in reference to his loud and country-wide approvals of Hitler as 'captain..noble..'. The Tribunal refers to acrimony in their testimony between Kaas and Papen, and what testimony, then, did Kaas give? Why don't Yale tell us poor pseudonymous mice what testimony ? It was obviously transmitted by another, as not the least sourced reference in the whole affair is the manner of asheeted safety Kaas himself availed of in forever entering the vatican.

in prog

^ Jäckel, Eberhard Hitler in History page 8.

[1] Jäckel, Eberhard Hitler in History page 8.

[1]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 *[[/Archive 5]]: WP Notes: novissimi; Nazi seizure of power
 *[[/Archive 6]]: WP Notes: a history, with diffs, of editing on Pope Pius XII, Kaas etc. in Wikipedia
-*cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:EffK
+* cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:EffK [Kaput-no trial]
-*cf http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:EffK
+* cf http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:EffK  [on-going]
-*cf http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Adolf_Hitler/EffK
+* cf http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Adolf_Hitler/EffK
-*cf http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:EffK&redirect=no
+* cf http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:EffK&redirect=no  [Kaput- no trial [http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina_voor_moderatoren/RegBlok&diff=prev&oldid=4920293#Gebruiker:EffK]]
-*cf http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruger:EffK
+* cf http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruger:EffK [on-going, inactive hitherto]
+* cf http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:EffK (Kaput-no Trial , flaso ''viz''[http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Archiv] no record but category 'Troll' at[http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalensperrung&diff=prev&oldid=19792718#Benutzer:EffK])* cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:EffK&action=history  [visble]
-*cf http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:EffK (Kaput-no Trial)
-*cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:EffK&action=history
+* cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:EffK&action=history [Kaput--no Trial)
-*cf http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Utilisateur:EffK&action=history(user Blocked-no Trial)
+* cf http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EffK, see user contribs [on-going]
-*cf http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EffK, see user contribs
 Promise- I tried archiving, but guess what- I'm blocked. I see little changes around here, once I'm dead. Long live User Savidan.