Talk:Centre Party (Germany)

It is nonsensical to use American english in the name and contents of an article on a European topic. Germany no more had a Center Party than Australia has a Labour Party. Similarly it would wrong to write about American theatre. The German party is generally translated by Germans into British English, not American English. FearÉIREANN 23:09, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm? Germany had neither a Center Party nor a Centre Party, but a Zentrum. Although I will admit that I've much more frequently seen "Centre Party" than "Center Party", and I'm not sure why I titled the article as I did. john 23:48, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is incorrect:The Zentrumspartei dissolved itself . This is repeated under Adolf Hitler and Pope Pius XII , and I believe its' inclusion as error reveals concerted attempts over the intervening years to conceal Vatican Appeasement . See Hitler and Stalin -Parallel Lives by Alan Bullock ( Lord Bullock),p.338, published by HarperCollins,1991, ISBN 0-00-686198-9.Flamekeeper 08:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My understanding was that Hitler dissolved it, but I'm not sure. At any rate, it is essentially immaterial - even if it dissolved itself, it's not as though Hitler would have let it alone if it had not done so. But we should definitely figure out what exactly happened. I would suggest, though, that Bullock is almost certainly not the best source on this topic. john k 08:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou for your quick response . Who is better then ?Flamekeeper 12:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)09:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to think. The best book on the Weimar Republic is Hans Mommsen's The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy, but I think that ends before you get to this period. The best book I can think of off the top of my head is the first volume of Kershaw's biography of Hitler, although, again, this doesn't seem especially terrific. There's also Richard Evans's new book on the coming to power of the Nazis, The Coming of the Third Reich, but I'm not sure, again, how far that book goes. john k 19:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Undoubtedly you mean that Hitler eliminated the Catholic Centre Party in Czechoslovakia . 159.134.212.148 21:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The german Wikipedia says: "Die Zentrumspartei löste sich am 5. Juli 1933 als letzte der so genannten bürgerlichen Parteien auf." Meaning in English: "The Centre Party dissolved itself as the last conservative party at 7.5.1933." This is confirmed by the website of today's Centre Party ( http://www.zentrumspartei.de/html/geschichte.html ). (Jan) --80.134.146.150 22:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protection

Following the edit and inclusion of the Template may I ask that the editing that removed quoted history backed with reference , be re-included , so that a revert will not be required . This was flagged as a minor edit but is not -would you please re-include the text removed .This page which is expamding rapidly is of importance in revealing the varied connections and I am at pains to show real references to prevent any dispute .I fully expect an assault on the revealing of this history and that this page will need protection at that point .07:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flamekeeper, I have a great deal of concern about the material you've added. Firstly, some of it is quite sloppy. Names are misspelled (Alfred Huguenburg instead of Alfred Hugenberg, Heinrich von Bruning instead of Heinrich Brüning), and so forth. Secondly, the material you provide is idiosyncratic and out of context. You talk about 1928, but don't even mention the formation of the Grand Coalition. You don't say anything about the Centre Party as one of the bulwarks of the republic in its early years, except to add a mention of supposed "odium" from accepting reparations (and inaccurately saying that this led to Erzberger's assassination, when in fact Erzberger had been murdered in 1920), when this was not the decision of the Centre Party, but of a coalition also including the SPD. The material on their supposed "support" of the Nazis in 1932 is also problematic. It is true that both the Nazis and the Centre opposed the government of Papen (whom you incorrectly imply to be a Centre Party chancellor, as opposed to a turncoat who was disavowed by the party), but so did the SPD and the KPD. It is also true that the Centre Party did enter into negotiations for a coalition with the Nazis, but it was only in this context that they made any statements in favor of a Hitler chancellorship. The overall tenor of your edits seems to be simply to imply that the Centre Party was responsible for the accession of Hitler. While the Centre certainly bears its share of blame, and Brüning, in particular, bears a great deal of responsibility for both the collapse of Weimar and the rise of the Nazis, to take this all out of context with misleading cherry-picked events is problematic. That you want your version of the page to be protected is even worse. john k 16:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot dispute the limits to my re-write but what you have done is more than correct the spelling . You have wiped the slate entirely and proved the necessity for protection .Are you really going to dispute the writers who I so assiduously referenced - and deny the world the ability to understand , why cannot you add rather than diminuish the sum of knowledge ? Your action is harsh and un-reasonable . Dispute a fact or a date -by all means correct a spelling , expand but don't censor . You seem to be trying to protect the appeasers . In fact you seem to bury what happened , to completely whitewash the actual relationships and events . By all means qualify about Papen and reasonably correct . What you do by reverting is to deny the world the chance to understand -is that your aim ? Why? I seem to remember attempts before to sever the links out of this page and in particular an attempt to prevent my reference to the centre party dissolving itself .I do not consider your reasoning here sufficient to justify your censorship actions . Let you revert again if you cannot expand within the history quoted - otherwise I am asking again for protection .Flamekeeper 07:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Expand ,correct, improve , qualify -I leave an analysis section there . I have included reference to disavowal of Papen and qualified . Cover the ealier period- I claim no facts there other than the reference re Erzeberger-which I did not invent but quoted. Be reasonable or frankly I shall abandon the attempts to set the wikipedia straight and simply work against what will be proved a flawed concept.Flamekeeper 08:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I left a proposal for Partial Page Protection on the Village Pump (technical) suggesting that we might both be able to present parallel viewpoints. Wouldn't that enable the reader to actually weigh the historical disputes and circumvent this regrettable discord?Flamekeeper 09:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To all your suggestions Ive tried to achieve them and to correct. However can you for your part not allow the references to the alleged quid pro quo re: The Enabling Act and the Concordat ? Does Klemens von Klemperer's assertion that Papen and Kaas were both the key figures not mean it is necessary to retain the whole Kaas leadership and reasonable analysis of his actions ? . Paranoia strikes only those who seem blocked and Kaas has been remarkably anonymous until now . The dissolution of the Centre needed great promotion in here and in your revert Kaas is no longer even a Monsignor .and The very link from cyberspace into the centre page is unfunctional on Explorer and yet zentrum leads into the german Wikipedia alone . Could that be fixed ?

I have no idea what you're saying, exactly. If you want to add Kaas back in being a Monsignor, I don't particularly care. Perhaps you would be better served by writing an article on Kaas, which is currently absent. To focus the article on the Centre Party entirely on its behavior in 1928, and again between 1932 and 1933, is just unbalanced. I would add that much of the time, I am uncertain what you are trying to say in your version of the article. More detail is, of course, welcome, but not at the expense of clarity, and not in order to advance a POV with respect to the Centre Party's supposed responsibility for the coming to power of the Nazis. At any rate, I've reverted your version again. I will not revert again if you incorporate my post-revert revisions from last time into the article, although I still find your version very problematic. john k 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He was a ranking member of the Catholic Church , a close friend and associate with Cardinal 1928 then from 1929 Secretary of State Pacelli and worked under this name and is reported under this ID. Kaas was not a nobody and took over immediately a very important Vatican position variously described as keeper of the fabric of the basilica of St peter- do we accept that it was a dream posting or not ? It represents a factor in the actions of the chairman or leader , do we accept it is likely to have proved an inducement or to have provided a reward . We know what Hitler got .[[User-talk.Flamekeeper]]

We don't normally use honorifics repeatedly. I'm happy to call him Monsignor Kaas at some point. Beyond that, I am certainly not suggesting he was a nobody - he was the chairman of an important German Catholic political party, and a priest, and his idea was that the party needed to obey the Vatican more. So of course he had close relations with the Vatican. BTW, do you know why he was a monsignor? Was he a vicar-general or was he a member of the pontifical family? If the latter, which rank? john k 19:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have interlineated replies below. john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have incorporated your justifiable text as word for word and am glad if we can agree to let stand all these quotations and the vast expansion that follows.

I certainly have not agreed to "let stand" your changes to the article. I have agreed not to revert them for the moment, in hopes of getting changes introduced through discussion. At the moment, I am still concerned that you have removed useful information that I added - for instance, on the subject of the Centre's and Brüning's role in the collapse of the Grand Coalition in 1930. I also think the rather opaque discussion of Centre policy in 1928 needs to at least include a reference to the Centre taking part in the Grand Coalition immediately thereafter. john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite agree -was trying to fill in gaps- these years are only important socially as showing catholic german thinking in the period during the evolution of the nazis, no ? I mean the centre party is not actually in itself important for much else as we look back from here-certainly nothing else that changed the planet . [[user_talk. Flamekeeper 18:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)]]

Huh? The Centre Party was important for various reasons. Certainly it was important in the 19th century for opposing the Kulturkampf, in the World War I period for joining with the SPD to produce the Peace Resolution, important in its aftermath as a key part of the Weimar Coalition, and so on. We shouldn't reduce all German history to the Nazis, which seems to be the implication of this statement. Even in the period right before the Nazis took power, the Nazis aren't the only thing going on. john k 19:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As the mysterious Monsignor Kaas semms to have been influential whilst leader I think it could rightly rest on this page.

He should certainly be discussed here. However, the article as you revise it seems to be more a history of how Monsignor Kaas betrayed the republic than a history of the Centre Party. john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is his only importance. Ok, he's nor a Bavarian-I told you his page needed work .

Firstly, the story of how Monsignor Kaas led the Centre Party between 1928 and and 1933 is not simply a tale of how he "betrayed the republic." Secondly, the Centre Party is more than just Monsignor Kaas. The fact that he's not a Bavarian, while you said he was, is significant. In the first place, while ignorance is always excusable, ignorance posing as knowledge is not. If you didn't know where Kaas was from, you shouldn't have said he was a Bavarian. In the second place, it shows rather clearly an ignorance not only of Kaas's life (I learned where he was from just by looking at the very short entry on the German wikipedia (de:Ludwig Kaas)), it also shows a complete ignorance of Weimar period politics. Bavarian Catholics did not support the Centre Party. Their branch of the Centre broke off in 1919 to form the Bavarian People's Party (BVP). john k 19:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree that Kaas should have his own page and I look forward to anyone supplying the relevant facts however poorly translated or truncated or even , incorrect . He is absent from this period and surfaces much later during papal diplomatic widerstand contacts . Your inclusion of him now in your edit seems to me to be the first Kaas appearance outside of the Simon Wiesenthal Timeline . Flamekeeper edits are repeated around cyberspace already of course . Yes he figures as party leader and as suppling the vote , but questions of undue influence only appear in Wiesenthal and they are not emphasised or speculated upon.

Do you know how actual historians deal with the issue? Mommsen (The Rise and Fall of Weimar Democracy), as I recall, is very critical of both Kaas and Brüning, but he certainly doesn't accuse them of having a conspiracy to bring the Nazis to power, or whatever. I haven't checked out Richard Evans's new book yet, but that would be another good place to look. There's probably also been more specific studies of the Centre Party itself, too. john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mowrer first published direct accusation in 1968 and if Mowrer hadn't been subject to pressurised removal from Germany at the signing of the Enabling Act, he would have put the two and two closer together . As it was he engaged himself during the following months on writing Germany Puts The Clock Back. None of this surfaces in Arthur Rosenburg in 1936 who simply states that the centre party was induced to support Hitler . This is repeated then for nigh 60 years even unto this page on the Wikipedia.

This is, in fact, the main theory held by historians today (see Mommsen). While the Centre Party was certainly gravely responsible for the fall of Weimar, their involvement in the coming to power of the Nazis, specifically, was minimal (their negotiations for a NSDAP-Centre coalition came to nothing), and their support for the Enabling Act was grudging. john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Main theory...of course, without the Vatican . All we can do is register the extreme proximity of the times of the meetings coupled with the telegrams( Yes-Im wrong , it was of course only Kaas himself who telegrammed congrats to Hitler's 1933 Birthday from the vatican , but it was official and disseminated widely-presumably for some reason . What reason ?) you chucked out all the times and now no-one can see them cept in the parallel bucket above under 'history of edits'.[[User_talk :Flamekeeper 18:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)]]

Our purpose is not to relay innuendos, and not to provide a forum for original research. john k 19:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If these edits seem un-clear it is because the Centre Party existed and operated within deeply fractured political waters . The years 1932, 1932 and 1933 are self-evidently crucial to modern history as providing the basis for the following 12 years through World War II and the Centre Party is a fulcrum , at least. The existence of four putchist parties at the same moment in Germany (Communists, Nazis, the Army, and the Cabinet of Barons represented by von Papen), means that clarity is hitherto woeful.

The DNVP might be a separate group, although it (and the Army) was allied to the cabinet of barons. john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Putsch and putschism is in his Holiness's words this day [[User talk:Flamekeeper 18:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)]]

And if a world class historian publishes his belief that Papen and Kaas are the two central figures of the moment, then it begs the question of why don't we know more about Kaas?

Which historian is this? john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Klemens von Klemperer - in the Widerstand field . [[User_talk .Flamekeeper 18:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)]]

Klemperer was a historian of the 1950s - his views are no longer authoritative, if they ever were. At the very least, Brüning, Schleicher, Hindenburg, and Hugenberg played equivalently important roles to Kaas and Papen. And Papen, Hindenburg, and Hugenberg bear a lot more blame for Hitler ultimately becoming Chancellor than the Centre politicians do. john k 19:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes he is widely reported as an archeological figure for his excavations of the Tomb of Saint Peter but not as a successful negotiator with the anti-christ Hitler. No one disputes that Hitler was an anti-christ nor where Ludwig Kaas spent the following 12 years.

I would most certainly dispute that Hitler was an "anti-christ," as I don't believe in such things. I imagine most people would concur with me in this, or else in believing that, as bad as Hitler was, he was not the antichrist. At any rate, Kaas is also widely reported as the very conservative leader of the Centre Party in the years up to 1933. I don't know much about the Concordat, but I am dubious of your emphases here. john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In short I'll be as open , as you un-welcomingly(to me) ask. Ludwig Kaas is the smoking gun. John Cornwell was not allowed view of the documents pertaining to these years and no-one else has been . I predict that an outbreak of Benedictine Glasnost will be delayed until the Holy See comes to an understanding with the present political forces. At present it is apparent that Pope Benedict is deeply worried by a future loss of europe to Islam following its weakening by extreme...liberalism(his words). Immediately the prospect arises for a repetition of the history as described on the Centre Page - of europe not accepting turkey , in fact of europe not accepting the proposed constitution. Even if the Church does not have as great a vote as in the thirties, we are on a knife edge and have exactly the same choice between an inclusive future or a disastrous one. But since you have pressed me , I shall also say that I equally think we need Pope Benedict and what he stands for, as we need all the possible good from each of the modern equivalent of the putchist parties. We absolutely need to understand Hitler and the power of propaganda under dictatorship - and apply this to our understanding of 1/5 of humanity who live under Communism. We need to avail of the wisdom of Islam which in various modernising ways purges the world of regrettable practices and thinking, we need the christian virtues of forgiveness and love, we need to confront huge, almost parallax shift in our levels of understanding of the universe and we all know this equally. However, finally , we all from whatever strand of human thinking, whatever party or still effective creed , need to confront the truly fundamental position of the present equivalent of the war. The war is really everywhere between the male , territorial principle(an instinct for successful breeding) and the female , inclusive principle(an instinct for successful breeding). The battles that rage within the churches , across the continents are battles in this one war of modernisation . It will be necessary for Kaas to surface and understanding to surface . It is not enough for a certain generation to say - Oh but he was always known to be Hitler's Pope(Pius XII). New generations must apply forgiveness following understanding. Can we therefore consider the page as it is .12:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flamekeeper, I can tell that you are very passionate about this stuff, and that you know a lot, but have you considered that your passion may be interfering with your ability to create a good, NPOV, encyclopedia article on the Centre Party. I'm going to list this page on Requests for Comment and perhaps contact other people who have been involved in other Nazi-related articles, to garner more opinions on this. john k 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good-I have been asking historians to come in on this via Pius XII. Perhaps you would also see that the Centre Party connects with the outside world on a search because it doesn't yet...why not? A good article should include all the relevant facts and factors and if I have added or said or insinuated anything wrong then it is wrong. I have added a page for Monsignor Ludwig Kaas and certainly that is lacking facts . I shall be interested to see how the present article is compared with the article prior to my interference. Revisionism can work through a thousand cuts and I am not so much passionate as shocked . The use of one word can change everything(see Adam von Trott zu Solz) and then the error is repeated worldwide through syndication(?) .Seeing that and finding it manifestly dishonest makes me suspicious . Hence my suspicion over the 'dissolution' of the Centre -wrong but I had to struggle didn't I ? Anyway there should be more shock and passion and if the Wikipedia can list every last website it can surely list Monsignor Kaas and a deal of this earth-shaking magnitude. How many died ? Is it 40 million ? The culture lost - the wasted flower of thousands of years ? If your concern is as an encyclopedist ,very admirable but the nitty gritty is that the centre dissolved itself and not as you wished it to be put .If you think passion has no place , your may be right but is it for instance , passion to reveal that a small act achieved a big , big deal ? You admit at the top of this page that you are not sure and then argue what is immaterial - and actually , again , I find this puts you under my suspicion . Why do you several times now say that something wouldnt have made any difference anyway- I mean is that encyclopedic ? Thats POV Flamekeeper 08:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that I was incorrect about the fate of the Centre Party does not mean I am pushing a POV. That said, the question of whether a German political party was disbanded by the Nazis are dissolved itself is essentially academic - the reason they dissolved themselves was because the Nazis weren't prepared to tolerate multiple political parties. Furthermore, your entire purpose here seems to be to suggest a quid pro quo over the Concordat and the Enabling Act, but you have yet to present any evidence of this. Certainly Kaas and the other Centre leaders were reluctant to oppose Hitler over the Enabling Act due to their concern about the Concordat. But that does not make it a quid pro quo. At any rate, I am no apologist for Kaas or the Centre. But their failure was much broader and more important than just cutting a deal with Hitler over the Concordat. Brüning and Kaas's legacy is that they led the Centre Party in the direction of authoritarianism to the point that they had no convincing legitimate reason to oppose Hitler; that they so abused the process of constitutional government between 1930 and 1932 that Hitler's maneuvers became conceivable; that they so distrusted the Social Democrats as to destroy the grand coalition, and then were utterly unwilling to consider a revival of it. And so forth. The Centre Party didn't want the Nazis to come to power, and they didn't particularly want to support the Enabling Act - they campaigned against the government in the March 1933 elections, recall. But their actions, and particularly Brüning's and Kaas's, were highly responsible for creating the conditions which made the Nazi takeover possible. There's no need to create conspiracy theories to make Kaas and the Centre look bad - just about everyone in Germany comes off looking pretty bad in the years leading up to 1933, and the Centre Party is more tarnished than many. john k 19:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At considerable effort by myself you have been forced to include the minimum of the truths that I demanded . From this minimum it seems you however cannot reduce further . I therefore consider this a victory for justice and truth against a platitudinous obfuscation which has reluctantly been abandoned .Erstwhile-well, lets say it was a seemless day by day transition between working(negotiating) for a democracy and working for a faith .Ludwig Kass' work involved jobs of work with Adolf Hitler here and with Jesus Christ's representative there .The whole world went up in flames as a direct result yet you hypothesise about what would have happened otherwise . Reluctantly is obfuscatory simplism and contradicts your censorship of all the sources I cited and your attacks upon myself , however creeping and patronising .

What sources have you cited? john k 14:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your allies protect you and the little children of the world are clothed in comforting white swaddle. Chuck the history in the bin because it doesn't fit , what? Without me that's what you'd have kept, revisionst whitewash. One fears for the future if not for the present, this cancels out any joy brought to us by the Church for it contradicts with the truth. The seed of doubt is enormous and shattering and there is every reason to cover it up or minimize it. If you do this un-intentionally, you know not what you do. A blind and bureaucratic mentality of adherence to a minimalist encyclopedic ideal allows for the subversion of the truth here. The truth is that one side of the coin was Pope Pius XI and the other side was Adolf.

What does this mean? Have you read Mit Brennender Sorge? Pius XI was hardly a friend of democracy. But he was not a Nazi, and he found Nazi racial policy horrifying. john k 14:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The truth is as I tried to write it coming as it did from the historians I quoted. The seed of doubt now extends frighteningly into the wikpedia as delivery of knowledge, and into the power of repetition in cyberspace and its capacity for propaganda. Albert Speer said that it was above all the propaganda, the power of the radio, we must remember. Benedict XVI is well aware of that, and of this controversy, presumably. Now you John kenny have the power to do so much and what is the result -kicking and screaming and squealing over every last little fragment that is not embarrassing but shattering. All the little pieces add together. The dissolved or dissolved itself is of the utmost importance though you do not understand it will not accept it, because Hitler needed legality to hoodwink the masses . Kaas gave the legality on two fronts, the Reichstag and the papal and at the wishes of his masters who were all along Pacelli and Pius XI. You wish still to censor all the truth about this as is visible in your article ( crucial was brought in by myself and whilst you accept it you also hamstring it by crucially leaving out any reference whatever to Pacelli and to the negotiations during March before and after the Enabling act ).

I'd be happy to have sensible material about this, but I don't trust the factual accuracy of your material. For instance, in your original Kaas article, you said he was Bavarian, which is simply untrue - if he had been Bavarian, he would not have even been in the Centre Party, and he was, in fact, from Trier, in the Prussian Rhineland. Beyond not trusting the factual accuracy of your claims, I will add that they are extremely poorly written, and that half the time I can't even understand what you're saying. They're also full of innuendo, which ought to be avoided. john k 14:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By diminuishing the links and censoring the Op Cit's you close down the inquiry carried through great minds for all these years into the quietest possible puff of grey smoke, nay mist. It is perfectly normal to include wide-spread cutting edge accusations or analyses which like this one has been in print , with references for at least 50 years . It is more than a dispute I have with you- I suggest you seem by your acts to have an intention, and that it is to change truth to un-truth . I see no communication as being possible to you, but I note that an inch or two of ground was given by you . The arlicle should be now corrected by you to take account of all that I included which is Op Cit , just as I included all of yours otherwise- well, I will be further proved right. Go on -prove me wrong at least about you . You can't about Pacelli, nor Kaas .Flamekeeper 11:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea what you're talking about. I am not a Catholic, and I am not interested in being an apologist for the Catholic Church. I am interested in presenting an article about an important political party in Germany which is not entirely about how that party was the tool which the Pope used to bring the Nazis to power. The original version of this article, I will concede, was not terribly detailed, and didn't get into the ways in which the Centre Party was, indeed, responsible for the Nazi coming to power. There was much room for improvement. But that improvement doesn't come from crankish POV advocacy, which is, I'm sorry to say, the main thing that you've brought here. john k 14:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some perspective...

Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People: A History of European Catholicism since 1750 by Nicholas Atkin and Frank Tallett, published by Oxford University Press in 2003. This can surely stand in as a relatively authoritative source. Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent. I don't know that I ever intended to deny this, although I probably did in the course of the discussion. So let me say now that I am perfectly willing to accept this as true, and I am happy to have something to this effect included in the article. That said, focusing singlemindedly on this issue does not come anywhere near to telling the whole story of the Centre Party, or even the whole story of the Centre Party's role in the last years of Weimar. Basically, Kaas was the Chairman of the Centre, not its dicator, and to focus exclusively on his connections to the Vatican is to give a false impression that the Centre Party was essentially the agent of the Vatican in German politics. Which is not true. Furthermore, the basic fact is that the Vatican and Kaas were not supporters of Hitler coming to power in Germany. Once Hitler was in power, they were willing to cut a deal with him, but the Centre remained basically opposed to Hitler right up through the March 1933 elections. Basically, even if Flamekeeper's specific claims are basically true, his contributions are still unacceptable in tone and content. john k 20:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The tone is used under pressure , beg P- I was beginning to thankyou in my own mind for giving the world the opportunity to benefit from this discourse-and maybe I have set a bad example which I must try and correct . However I think your awareness of the gradualist change brought through the German Cardinals and Bishoprics (by Pacelli) is what leads you again to say that Kaas and the Vatican were not supporters of Hitler coming to power. No, they were and we can all take Mowrer's word that this certainly started in May 1932. From Kaas' own words, even, it comes - it's been reverted - I don't think we know the actual date of his reminiscence but he Kaas referred to many beneficial meetings before Hitler came to power.

There were, indeed, negotiations between the Centre and the Nazis to form a coalition after they fall of Brüning's governments. But they definitely wanted a Centrist as PM, not Hitler. I'm not disputing your facts here, I'm disputing your emphasis and your judgment, which is deeply suspect. john k 14:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pacelli didn't soften his view from May 32 - he hardened it and leant on  the Cardinals who were reluctant to back Nazism. What you say is wrong  and at variance with the public Kaas telegram for Hitler's birthday  from the Vatican, and  with the Cardinal  Faulhaber revision which I included as proofs.  I quoted that Pius XI relayed approbation. This is an integrally related  subject and huge. Indeed there was a dialogue and a difference within the church and in the Centre Party electorate  in Germany over the right  attitude to Nazizm , and it would be wrong to accuse   'good men all' of any darkness. There had been in fact a considerable and worthy resistance by the german hierarchy  but this was chipped away by Pacelli whose eyes were on the that grand prize of John Paul II(the  defeat of Bolshevism ). Sounds odd , but true. In fact one might come to see the re-direction of the church immediate to this period as being somewhat of a putsch itself, one more  double headed  'party' in the affairs of Germany. I again say that only by reason of this Pacelli subversion does the Centre Party deserve importance and that is why the article needed the extra analysis.

And I say you are full of shit. That's garbage. The Centre Party was one of the main parties in Germany from 1871 to 1933, and did all kinds of things worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. john k 14:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Earlier history should be expanded  yes, but the importance is in the quid pro quo.

Bull shit, again. john k 14:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Centre Party wasn't of course the sole agent of the Vatican policy but it was essential (viz the Vote ) and  essentially is  simply a debate about what majority voted at whatever interior  party meeting in the intervening period between  Cardinal Pacelli's letter of May 1932 and the final  Enabling  Act vote. It would be most interesting  to unravel and would doubtless also  have to include the as yet un-linked culpability of the industrialist classes to the  catholic bourgeoisie voters.  No, I am not trying to pin the ills of history on the miserable (ie rump or weak) Centre Party  and I do not think that observers would take this as being the message. The conditions which allowed a Kaas and a Pacelli to influence the Party  are  however needful of our attention  and per se involve lay catholicism. No one  denies   that there was  vast disquiet in the  hierarchy down to the lowest  level - historians are  simply pointing out what was happening at the highest level as well. No one denies  that the church remained troubled by all forms of  Nazism throughout  but the clear nose of history returns like a sleuth  to try and understand and piece together a puzzle. We should all like douments on this -and the likelihood of  survival of Kaas' Papal recommendation letter from Pacelli outside of the Vatican is slim. Unfortunately the importance of Kaas and the quid pro quo is clouded by the unavailabilty of records, which is not to say that they don't exist, the minutes of meetings Kaas had in the Vatican before  resigning as Leader of the Centre. That they happen is nowhere denied. No- again, it is clouded deliberately, excuse me, but in all the voluminous transcripts relayed by faith-led investigation it is clouded. Kaas and the Act scandal gets a two-line whitewash and then the question is moved forward onto ground where the useless (from a Jewish point of view) Papal Mit Brennender Sorge, heads a rear-guard list of weak, vacillating Catholic action(in-action). It was too late, Pacelli and the whole of Germany perhaps knew it was too late. The Catholic Church were suckered at best. Pius XI failed to speak out ever in defense of the Jews (by their name) which is to say he never did. However the rear-guard action by the church does bespeak their consequent  realisation of the menace. Now, today the rear-guard has to be analysed for what it was. To account for the great braveries and the great betrayals. No one accuses the Church of anywhere like exclusive responsibility. The other Protestant Churches are  nominated for complicity. The German Army is nominated for complicity, the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrialists, the Americans, the British appeasers. All of these are studied to greater or lesser degree, however, today the period  following the Concordat and in particular the refutation of Pacelli (Pope Pius XII anti-semitism is used as a screen by the rear-guard. On top of this  though the other Papal Hitler  scandal resides, you bet, on  Ludwig Kaas again. He pops up with our world class historian, and this is published late 1990's (Klemperer) apropos Widerstand in the German Army in 1940. Initially it appears a virtuous connection, as indeed can be the presentation of Kaas on this page - the goood Pope Pius XII's efforts to stop war. However if you look into it you are required to hesitate at seeing the furtherance of a deal  offered even at this wartime point. The smell that emits from widerstand study of this deal and of in fact all the  'widerstand' deals is powerful. It tracks back amongst all the putschist parties -everyone  if you add them together except the  Communists and Trade's Unionists who were removed from the equation. They by default, following their proscription, came to be represented by  Stalin. The Left never went away you know  and remained as a factor. The Widerstand deals, all of them , overlap with the objectives of the Catholic Hierarchy throughout. It is to neutralise the Left. The scandal therefore is that both the Church and the Widerstand share the capacity to tolerate a  racist part of Hitlerism and  a part of German Hegemonialism. Kaas here furthers one effort in 1940 and fortunately, the allies rebuff the advanced proposition, as again  later. The British scandal is that another  pre-war offer in  1939 was entertained. However the  single point I wish to address is that there is still a historical motive for  vatican obfuscation  on two related issues separated  by a decade. That their wrong-headed fear of the consequences of its' disclosure  promulgates at all opportunity this obfuscation. That it now seems you completely un-wittingly wrote within their line is only revealing of their determined efforts  and not any reflection on your self. I do apologise for my mistaking you but hold you to understanding that there is an active on-going effort by the Church and by the proponents of the validity of the german Widerstand to precisely affect our view. This needs correction and I claim that Kaas' relationship to this page, and his disappearance so suddenly into the Vatican after the vital arrangements made , warrants the deepest attention. Equally I do not wish to inaccurately tar the whole Centre Party  delegation, but the result of their voting demands  fullest inquiry. The church may have back-pedalled, partially and in-sufficiently, at the time,  but the Church now almost forces this to remain in dispute . No one addresses this problem  and as I repeat, from John Paul's book  and now Benedict XVI we see  an inversion of the reality which caught up all our forefathers in blood and gore and war. We must help them to understand, as we now come to understand.

Flamekeeper, I think that what you are trying to do here is to use wikipedia as a platform for original research on this particular issue. While research probably does need to be done on this stuff, that is not wikipedia's purpose. We should be trying to simply give readers a basic understanding of the role and history of the Centre Party, not to expound on this one particular subject at extraordinary length. Your version of the article obfuscates more than it reveals, in part because of the incredible length it devotes to a very small part of the party's long history, and in part, I'm afraid to say, because your writing in English can be difficult to understand. Later, I may try to put a bit more detail into the issue of Kaas and the Vatican in the shorter version of the article. Hopefully, some discussion of this would be acceptable to you, and we can move on? john k 14:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)