Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:02, 2 December 2005

What in the hell? There is absolutely NO relation between Socialism and the German Nazi party. Just because the party went by the name "National Socialist," it does not in ANY respect signify them to be actual Socialists. I recommend the removal of this article completely. It is a factual inaccuracy and will mislead just about anyone studying the Political Sciences.

---Micky Z.

I agree. Someone needs to remove that section in the article about Nazism and its supposed "relation" to Socialism. There is no connection, absolutely no correlation that can be drawn between the Nazi party and Socialist policies or beliefs. A party professing the name "National Socialist" does NOT necessarily imply a party professing Socialist beliefs, policy, or values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabidgumby (talk • contribs)

Recent edits

This edit by Sam Spade looks to me to be wholesale reversion of a mostly legitimate edit by Mihnea Tudoreanu. I'm not going to take this up line by line, but, for example, the reversion of Mihnea's normal use of inline notes ("National Labour Law of January 20, 1934 ") into "National Labour Law of January 20, 1934"—simply not Misplaced Pages style—makes me wonder whether Sam even read what he reverted.

Similarly, Sam, what is going on here:

Since the fall of the Nazi regime, many theorists have argued that there are similarities between the government of Nazi Germany and that of Stalin's Soviet Union. In most cases this has taken the form of arguing that both Nazism and Stalinism are forms of totalitarianism, rather than socialism. This view was advanced most famously by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism.

Given that you have been at some pains to point out in the article that Hayek considered Nazism to be socialist, it would seem to me to be equally important to point out that Arendt (and, for that matter, Popper) did not.

The next edit, by EffK is clearly well-intentioned, but this sentence is kind of a mess: "Misplaced Pages lists many main-stream sources concerning Hitlerism and Nazism , the concept of Widerstand or internal resistance against Hitler aw well as the study of the Holocaust and Anti-semitism." For one thing, if "Misplaced Pages lists" this, then where? If you are going to add a see-also, do so in a way that lets people easily follow it up. And also, consider the self-reference issue here: if this is later re-published by someone outside of Misplaced Pages, why is it specifically notable that Misplaced Pages has this coverage?

-- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious why you agree w Mihnea's "edit" (partial revert). I admit many of his changes may have been beneficial, and I am willing to examine them point by point. Certainly his stylistic changes can be restored. Lets take things slow, and do our utmost to preserve neutrality. I happen to know Mihnea rather well, he has strong views on this subject, but he's a great guy, and an easy person to edit w. The best thing we can do for the reader is take the time to get this right, and resolve our misunderstandings in a calm and studious manner. Sam Spade 15:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I hadn't noticed that this was mostly a revert, though I guess I shouldn't be surprised. It was not marked as a revert; I looked at it as an edit in its own right, and judged it a generally good one. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been at it, restoring as many of Minhea's edits as possible. I will continue to edit and discuss. Sam Spade 16:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Both of us have strong views on this subject, Sam. But I don't think it will take very long to sort things out - I think we work well together. Here are the issues I have with your edits to the Nazism and socialism section so far:

1. You modified a sentence in the first paragraph to give the impression that socialist opposition to Nazism is a modern development, when in fact the Nazis and socialists were enemies from the very beginning.
2. You split up the paragraph discussing the narrow vs. broad definitions of socialism. This may not be a big issue, but I'd like to keep that discussion together in one paragraph. It will also make it easier to see the exact differences between our edits if we keep the same paragraph structure.
3. You removed the mention of the fact that, under a definition of socialism broad enough to include Nazi Germany, many other European countries (e.g. most of Western Europe in the Cold War, Scandinavia today) would also be included. This, I believe, is a very important point. And there are people out there who do use the label "socialism" for just about anything that falls short of laissez-faire.
4. You removed the paragraph noting the difference between the Nazi nation-based paradigm and the socialist class-based paradigm. This, again, is very important, because loyalty to the nation vs. loyalty to the working class was one of the biggest fault lines between Nazis and socialists.
5. Finally, a smaller issue: Why did you remove the paragraph discussing Schleicher and Papen?

Before you edit, I'd appreciate it if you listed your issues with my text. Thanks. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

1. The problem w your version is it presumes the Nazi's were not socialists themselves.
2. I am perfectly willing to try differing formats, esp. once we agree on content
3. I think this is misleading, but would agree to its inclusion if it is cited and balanced w a contrary citation
4. This needs to be explained in detail, and we need a new article written on class collaboration. I agree more time and space needs to be spent on this particular.
5. I thought it was excessive, too much content on papen has been finding its way into various articles, you may want to ask EffK about that ;)

Sam Spade 11:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam, can you give any reference for this self-description, i.e. which NS leader called it socialism and in what context and when and where. Thanks! Str1977 18:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused, they were the National Socialist German Workers party... they always called themselves socialist...

Sam Spade 07:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Sam, they called themselves "Nationalsocialist" - in German that's one word and no one disputes that they called themselves like this. But "socialist" on its own is another matter, To simply state, that the Nazis were socialists is, in my view, incorrect. To state that there are affinities with socialism however is valid, with qualifications and all. However, the party's manifesto and its actions should be taken into account and not just the name. I won't enter into this discussion, since I have other things on my mind right now, both inside and outside WP - my previous post was merely a suggestion to you, to make your point more solid. Cheers, Str1977 14:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitler said socialism cannot exist without nationalism. Sam Spade 14:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

And many communist dictatorships liked to call themselves "democratic republics" but that doesn't mean they were democratic in fact. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thsnks, comma or solution. Re socialism , thats just so many hunf=dreds of pages , and what I last read re rebuilding programmes was that the Nazis in fact were building on Economic policies , loans etc built up in prior administration(s) and its a myth Hitler solved unemployment in by genius or social means .

Its fascinating all . User:EffK

Nazism and religion - a mess

Just a quick note: The religion section needs cleaning-up badly. Note in particular, that this article is supposed to be about concepts and not about who voted when for whom. Anyway, I won't enter into this article now, but I had to make to changes: 1) "Protestantism" cannot vote, so I changed it to Protestants (another thing would be that German Protestantism, being always close to the state, and being a national thing, was more vulnerable to Nazism than Free Churches to the RCC).

That's a way of using English actually , but never-mind, it is debateable within English , but for the anglo world the change wd perhaps forestall your implied conclusions reachable. good faith as the ability to be a native speaker, may help, after so long !

2) The statement "Catholic Bavaria supported Hitler" is inaccurate. Nazism first developed in Bavaria, yes, but more specifically it developed in Munich, which is quite distinct from more rural areas of Upper and Lower Bavaria. The deeply Catholic areas (inside and outside of Bavaria) were most resistent against Nazism as a political force - there it was allied to already anti-Catholic forces, as can be typically seen in regard to Dr. Hellmuth, the Gauleiter of Mainfranken - the Protestant areas (Middle Franconia, parts of Upper Franconia) however voted for Nazis and Nuremberg (with Julius Streicher) was a basis. These are just electoral facts you can look up on any electoral map - I have found only this link on the web . This only gives the 1930 elections (page 11), but the tendency remains the same for the elections of 1932 and 1933. Goodnight, Str1977 00:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I did try and start an article , jumped on and deleted ,specifically to park such clarifications, Hitler and Bavaria or something , Str?

I made some efforts to clean up the section "Nazism and religion", but it's still a mess. First I was copy editing, then I found myself interspersing more and more questions about what certain phrases even might mean, then I just about gave up on passages I found incoherent. If someone wants to clean this up, feel free, but if no one has done so in a week or so, I will probably prune this back radically. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the stuff on Protestantism because there was essentially nothing on that before I did. The "Nazism and religion" section was pretty much just Catholics before I edited. This seemed really biased and off-kilter. What I said about Bavaria I said because I figured my edits would be deemed suspect because I'm Catholic.(Which has occurred some, oddly enough)--T. Anthony 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think an NPOV ,wide trawl of sources would help too. I agree that the concepts need to be more to the fore, but it'll be a touchy job as there is suggestion that Nazism consciously robbed the Vatican's power-template . And, accusation that this was a Jesuit import . It'll make fireworks , but it would be NPOV to report it if published ,no?. EffK 10:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Possibly no. You know many things are published, but many things that have been published about history are total nonsense. I can find historians who said Confucius, not the Latinized name but the actual person, was an invention of the Jesuits and that aliens built the Mayan ruins. I think the credibility of who published what would determine whether it's NPOV and admissible. Whoever edited the Catholic section did it in a confusing, almost unreadable manner. I'll try to edit, but I think you consider me a Vatican agent so I can't guarantee you'll accept the edit.--T. Anthony 11:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Please, EffK, be more carful with your answering on talk pages, e.g. note the boundaries between my comments and yours (not everyone notices the "plenking" indicator). And yes, this article is solely about concepts and ideas and the respective relationship between them. And PS. Keep on telling me off for my English skills - it's not me that will get hurt by that. Str1977 18:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Specific questions

I'm in the process of copy editing, but have some specific questions where the text is too ambiguous to edit and be sure I am preserving intended meaning:

• "…other writers have utilized Nazism's occasional outward use of Christian doctrine…": it is unclear what it means for a writer to "utilize Nazism's use of a doctrine". Would someone please clarify?

as part of their theses = ==referred to

• "…was hardly recognized by ideologists..." I have no idea what this means. I could form several ideas, I suppose. It is very ambiguous. Hardly noticed? Or they didn't grant legitimacy to the office? or what?

Where are we,which section? FK

• "The existence of ties between Nazism and Protestantism has been hotly debated for decades." Meaning that it has been debated whether there were any, or what was their nature and how deep it went into what breeds of Protestantism. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that none of the Protestant churches in Germany developed any ties to Nazism.

Leave out existence?FK

• "…just as happened to assist the rightward drift of the Roman Catholic Centre Party" does not make sense to me, could someone reword?

Yes,Include of the "nationally suspect.. delete/Roman.. catholic small c large C Centre Party" . its explained/sourced at Centre article.FK

• "Hitler also led to the unification…": "led to" is very vague: would "instigated" be accurate? And, if not, what was his role?
• "The idea of such a "national church" was possible in the history of mainstream German Protestantism…": what does it mean for an idea to be possible in a history? This is very confused.
• "Nazi Party membership was forbidden until the takeover and a policy reversal." How quickly did the policy reversal follow on the takeover? And does "takeover" mean Hitler's chancellorship or the abolition of the Weimar Republic?

Co-eval , but un'clear, by 1933 March 28 The German Catholic episcopate, organized in the Fulda Bishop's Conference, withdraws its earlier prohibition against membership in the Nazi ... answer 5 days from empowerment(Kaas went to Rome on 24, day after, returnrd , somewhere I saw words@hurriedly recalled , left Rome 3q1 March, met Hitler privately 2 April, left germany forever 8th met papen secretly in Munich ,travelled together , papen hiding his mission etc etc see megamemex http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography... FK

I could go on, but that's about all I have patience for right now. I also, a week ago, left a bunch of HTML comments in the text itself, as far as I can tell none have been addressed. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

alot happens , I acn't recall a week, is this note to me, if so , Ive pushed FK

I generally second your above objections. Sam Spade 01:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I raise a long-standing pet issue? The absurdly patchy linkage and difficulty of accessing the same old Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. This is basic foundation history, please throw it in as you pass thru pages, and concept led thru their actuality . As I'm not monocausal I'll read this here.EffK 01:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How is that? Sam Spade 01:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes thats it, whats above may need a spit of polish, but this magnates is pure Mowrer pith. I tell you you'd be hard pushed to see links though elsewhere. I was looking at siemens just now . I can't believe this organ, I mean the world. You should see the link into current politics I put up , much hated, you see nothing has changed in Germany other than a disappearance of the Nazis. Its the same old interests electorally to those which Hitler was allowed to pervert . FK

Effk, please, if you say that nothing has changed in Germany you either don't know Germany or you have never known Hitler. Of course we once were farther away from him, ironically, in the fifites. Str1977 19:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Yet Protestants voted for Hitler more then non-Protestants"

="Yet Protestant electoral support for Hitler preceded that of non-Protestants." I was into Bullock's spoiled ballots today. 3 million german voters didnt back Hitler in 1933 FK

I think concepts is where we really get into the principles of nazism. Ill return with them as a list to show why .Article tidied as to events Til so .EffK 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

But instead of cleaning this up...

EffK, nstead of cleaning this up, you seem to be adding more poorly written material. This is really getting old. From :

• "Political and corporate engineering, immediately prior to the 30 January Hitler presidentially appointed Chancellorship": what is "Political and corporate engineering" supposed to mean?

It relates behind the scenes machination such as the recorded meeting with the banker chief, sourced by me much earlier for Str1977, the engineering of the magnates, the fixing I explain .

I absolutely do not understand that answer. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

All you are saying is that you require source here. I'll get it to help you understand.

• "Huguenbergian nationalist?" Never heard the term and, needless to say, the red link does not elucidate.

If I said nationalists it wd be no clearer. The party was in his Huguenbergs pocket , the rump of an earlier force . Huguenberg barony of media was a force.

But who the heck is "Huguenberg"? Ah, I see below, Hugenberg. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

yes that is avery important correction of the spelling of the name :was that your question. if so all my repeated error is the same error. It was some time since I had been back in the source...very sorry .

• "Co-alition": how is this different from a "coalition"? Normally, I'd presume a typo, but you use it twice, so I assume you have something in mind.

Guess youre right, its not important to me, and I was wrong. OK

So it's a typo? I will correct -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Typo,inattention, automatic error along line of Hugenberg, .Does it justify removal of my attempt at shortening text?

• What on earth is a "pure sufferance appointment"?

Briefest way of bringing in the facts - the whole point of the 30th was that Papen painted it so to Hindenburg who thereby appointed the man he had hitherto considered the jumped up corporal.

This completely fails to answer my question. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed . there are some on WP who do not particularly source the paul von hindenburg innocence in this matter. WP tries a sort of Wikinfo SPOV(sympathetic slant) . At the evry least it is I thought well understood that hindy was at the very least entirely snobbish re: the corporal, and that he allowd this Papen engineered Hitler placement as chancellor on pure sufferance, hence the large majotity in Cabinet of the Hugenburg Nationalista .That is what I wished to shorten. do you undertand , and do you require source for Hindeburg as well? I could given time repair the whole of Hindenburg too....?

Not to mention adding massive material in a controversial area with no more citation than the oddly formed "(See Wheeler-Bennett]]". I assume this is the same book Sam is citing. Would it kill either of you to actually give page numbers when citing books?

A compendium of many books, which makes it very very very irksome to have to repeat source after having elsewhere done so.

It doesn't matter what you've done elsewhere. Each Misplaced Pages article is supposed to stand on its own in terms of citation. don't follow you around looking for what you've written and cited elsewhere, and I shouldn't have to. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OK you make your point, serves me right for trying to do serious work on the Misplaced Pages .I shall do all sources next on my time. I will over-source for some, and sourc will expand the article doubtless, so I will do as you have a right to insist , Jmabel...

And I could go on, but I won't. EffK, I'm dealing with you on two articles right now (the other being The Great Scandal, where I left you a bunch of specific, detailed questions and got a diatribe, largely directed at another contributor, in response), and on both you seem to pour in massive half-written stuff and expect other people either to leave the mess or to clean up after you. This is not fair. I've been trying to work cooperatively with you, but I'm really reaching the end of my patience, and am likely to just start cutting entire paragraphs to the talk page with minimal comment. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You should go on . if there are other points you can make, you would assist by making them so I ask you to what you refer . I note your use of descriptive language about your mental reactions. I am very sorry if you consider it unfair when I try and clarify that which I saw needing clarification .I will look at that immediately to see that which you characterise as mess.

Not sure what to say to you Jmabel. Sam was ,as everyone easily can, confusing the short chancellorships ,is why I corrected there. I think Sam knows why I did it. If you are at the end of your tether , I'm sorry. I was trying to communicate with you in good faith and relevance , will I therefore not try and do so ? I have to work on many articles, rather more than 2 . Sounds like a tick off to someone who after all has been trying to repair the situation consistently and under persistent abuse of good faith through actual sourcing. I am not encouraged that you do not see it as relevant for me to explain the situation in the editing ranks, actually . And you seem to suggest that I did not source the great Scandal exactly as you required , so why the disparagement there? To be brief , you continue to insult writing ,in this case which I was at pains to leave in a readable and correct state. It is fashionable to do so, but there we are. I believe I have behaved correctly towards you, and hope that your impatience now will only remain with the history. It is so complex that no one here on WP can or did or will be able to state it more briefly . I do not determine this, Papen and Hitler do . Please- Give us a break ,Jmabel, and direct yourself to understanding the events. Do you say you now understand less or more? .Source is another issue, a drag but possible, to someone who has patience here and sees the necessity for absolute clarity. I write this in good faith, and since I do not like lingering doubt I shall present source.I will say that obviously this history should be elsewhere, and unless you assist in over-sight of fair play, it is considered inadmissable. This page could then develope the concepts theme. I cannot say I find it other than easy for you to disparage (I answered your points exactly in fact|) and recognise that simple knifing would eleiminate all issues this time here. Your choice, but we'd have to face the issues elsewhere. It is also shorter to criticise than it is to explain. Diatribe by the way borders bad faith assumption, so please don't repulse my good faith so smartly, unless you actually have your mind made up to so do. EffK 10:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK 10:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources

What should be applied to this page or others is to be clarified. towards solution I present source educational fair use from 1936 publication .

The chief source for all succeeding histories portraying the Weimar history is ex-Berlin University history professorArthur Rosenberg's Methuen 1936 A History of the German Republic .The Epilogue deals with the results of the collapse of the middle class in 1928-30.

In briefest gist:

308:Dictatorships of Bruning,Papen ,Schleicher and Hitler of highly complicated nature, Bruning carries out wishes of great capitalists and landowners.Unemployed rise vastly. Middle class ruined , lose confidence in conservative Govt. 309:SDP blamed for their support for such govt. 1931 banking system standstill . Cllapse of capitalism. KPD do not receive growth . both SDP and KPD fial to seize opportunity.Capitalists gain time. No marxist advantage. bruning incapable of preserving internal peace tween KPD and NSDAP.Diverts attention by more nationalist forign policy . proclaims customs union with austria. France and italy force austria out of this.Bruning thereby destroys external co-operation. 310:Bruning wished to show external powers Germany's inability for reparations, situation itself performed this liberation .

The majority of German capitalists and land-owners had originally supported the Conservative experiment: not from any personal liking for Bruning, but because they believed that the Conservative methoid would best serve their intersts. As, however , the masses not only of the working class, but also of the middleclasses turbned against Bruning , and as the economic and political situation of Germany grew increasingly worse, more and more of the great capitalists and landowners declared themselves in favour of his opponents-Hitler and Hugenberg. By the end of 1931 Conservatism as a political movement was dead, and the time was coming when Hindenburg and the Reichswehr would drop Bruning and come to terms with Hugenberg and Hitler.

311:Hindenburg after re-election, no less a supporter of military dictatorship and of the anti-democratic counter-revolution... The Reichstag had no say in any changes ( removal of Bruning ..) for the real political sysyem under which germany had been living since 1930 was a presdential dictatorship. 312:H'burg appoints Papen

who was closely associated with the industrialist and land-owning classes...had always pursued an extreme Conservative policy on Hugenberg's lines... .Schleicher achieves ambition as all of the members of the new cabinet were of the same political opinion as Hugenberg.It was to be expected to..assure itslef of the co-operation of Hitler. Since the Republicans and Socialists were not yet ready to take actionand the Conservatives had shot their political bolt, Hitler and Hugenberg were certain to achieve power.

312:July 1932 results.the question now was what part this immense Party would play in the Government of the country ..

313:

owes its enormous increas to the influx of workers,unemployed,despairing peasants,and middle class people.The millions of radical adherents at first forcd the party towards the Left .They wanted a new Germany and a new organisation of German society. The left wing of the Party strove desperately against its simply drifting into the train of the capitalist and feudal reactionaries.Hence Hitler refused to serve under Papen, and demanded the Chancellership for himself.

313:Capitalists and Generals filled with suspicion at NSDAP radical tendency. NSDAP left attempts coalition with ventre party . Papen at this challenge dissolves Reichstag

he declared emergency, appointed extraordinary courts for political offences, and threatened to punish acts of political violence with death. the result ws staggering. The civil war that had been afflicting germany for years came to a sudden end, and all was quiet.It was clear that the that the capitalist class in alliance with the Reichswehr, and usung the State machinery , could always dispose of the .The masses of camp-followers who had during the past year joined the National Socialists began to waver as soon as they saw that Huitler was nor invincible .

314:NDSAP November 1932 vote drops 2 million.The above suspicion opens prospects for the Republicans and Socialists. SPD and KPD Could have achieved success building on Berlin transport Strike.

if the working class had taken united action against against papen, the Left wing of the would have been swept along in the movement, the Right wing isolated, and the Fascist danger wholly averted.

The Trades unions and the SPD refused support to the strike, which was the last proletarian blow against the ruling capitalist dictatorship.Altho papen was victorious , 9/10 of the Reichstag were hostile to his Government.

The four great massmovements , the SPD,KPD,Centre and the were in opposition. If this situation continued there was some danger rthat the centre and the would grow more and more radical, and that in the end a gigantic united national bolshevist front would be formd against the ruling system.

Schleicher

315:continuing Arthur Rosenberg,1936 History of the German Republic.Papen loses his most potent support-the Army General Reichswehr Minister Schleicher, was the type of political officer who had developed in the atmosphere of semi-obscurity and intrigue that encompassd the Republican military policy.He had for years been in the van of those fighting for the Conservative counter-revolution....

Declares sudden opposition to Papen's methods and evolved a programme of social pacification under military leadership....H'urg appoints Schleicher..

Thus about the turn of the year 1932-3 , there occurred a curious political entr'acte .Schleicher appeard in the role of'Socialist General',and entered into relations with the Christian Trade Unions , the Left , and even with the Social Democrats . Schleicher's aim appeared to be a sort of Labour Government under the direction of the General.It was an utterly fantastic idea as the Reichswehr officers were hardly prepared to follow Schleicher on this path, and the working class felt a very natuaral distrust of their future allies. Meanwhile Schleicher aroused furious hatred in the ranks of the great capitalists and landowners by these plans .

316:

In revenge Schleicher made sensational disclosure about the Osthilfe scandal, about the squandering of government money for the benefiit of the bankrupt landowners in Eastern Germany. The landowners and capitalists determined to act quickly . The situation was only to be saved if the counter-revolutionaries could once again show a united front, if papen and Hugenberg became reconciled with Hitler. After the serious set-backs that had suffered during the past six months, its pretensions had been considerably modified . Hence a compromise was reached. Hindenburg, who disapproved strongly of Scheicher's campaign against the Prussian landowners, dismissed him. Schleicher played with the idea of a military coup d'etat-of eliminating Hitler,Papen and Hindenburg, and with the support of the Labour organisations assuming the Dictatorship himself . But Schleicher, a seconfd and lesser Wallenstein, could not take the decisive step either. He retired quietly into private life. Schleicher's fall, however, by no means implied the defeat of the Reichswehr as a whole. the Generals merely dissociated themselves from the plans of their venturesome colleague.

January 1933:Curious epilogue Arthur Rosenberg

pg: 316 Arthur Rosenberg's 1936 History of The German Republic, fair use/educational

On January 30, 1933,the new coalition government of the paries of the Right assumed office. ....The balance of power within the the coalition appeared to be wholly on the side of the Nationalists{Hugenberg's DNvP]. The fact that Hitler had at last become Chancellor nevertheless gave the NSDAP mass movement a tremnndous upward impetus.At the Reichstag elections, which took place in March, the NSDAP obtained seventeen million votes.They and the Nationalist together constituted aa majority in the Reichstag.The Government induced the President and the Reichstag to grant them authority to issue decrees having the force of law.The dictatorship had thereby given itself a new legal form.

continues The mass movement soon proved to be beyond the power of the Nationalist Ministers to control . Unchecked by the police the S.A indulged in acts of terrorism throughout Germany. Communists,Social democrats ,and the Centre were everywhere ousted from public life. A violent persecution of the Jews began, and by the summer the felt itself to be in scuh a strong positionthat it could do away with all the other parties and the Trade Unions. The Nationalist Party was among those suppressed. The thenceforward ruled alone in Germany . The Reichswehr had remained untouched by all these occurrances. It was still the same State within a State that it had been in the Weimar Republic. Similarly ,the private property of great capitalists and landowners was untouched, while the administrative and judicial machinery was only very slightly tampered with .

Fk:Along with Edgar Ansel Mowrer, the above Berlin History Professor is viatal for us to reach some understanding of the forces (each with their concepts) at interplay arounfd the . It seems evident that this Rosenberg left Germany in haste. Mowrer who published his thorough portrayal of the forces and concepts in 1933 itself, was ejected by Hitler before even the Enabling Act , and thus is equally unable to explain the denouement which only post [[Nuremburg Trial history conceives. Apart from Avro Manhattan perhaps, who came from a Roman viewpoint, and seems to have smelled the same that Mowrer only published much later in 1968. The suggestion that Manhattan is hate literature may or may not be purely a function of the danger his knowledge and publication represents still .

What is sure is that Margaret Lambert's 1934 book I sourced at The Great Scandal shows the effect of what is absent Centre-accusation in Arthur Rosenburg. As Lambert shows, the Saar acted as adelay-filter upon NSDAP ability to fool the whole world, something I FK find still affecting us all here in Misplaced Pages . Hence the 'educational use for Misplaced Pages as a whole. This should inform all editors in future as source.

The section on Magnates shows the later revelations of banking and corporatist capitalism, same old same old companies from Nuremburg.

The Reichswehr is subject worthy of our attentions as readers and Wheeler-Bennett in 1953's the Nemesis of Power , avails of his personal presence in pre-war Germany, and at the post-war Trials . Klemperer and the Widerstand begin the over-lap of scholarly interest from take your pick what year beyond 1930 . Shirer and Toland I have sourced extensively . Lewy's Catholicism study is brought to us in detailed fashion by the Megamemex timeline, which I cannot dispute, and no one else has here yet. User:John Kenney confirmed Tallet ? only post 23 March re Vatican quid pro quo , but Cornwell and Kershaw seem to contradict this and edge close towards Manhattan.

I still say the Magnates are getting insufficient notice in Misplaced Pages. I personally regret that delving there enters a string of positively American accusations, just as I regret the situation brought on with the vatican . I think people should read more source . I think sam may remeber that I have sourced Rosenberg before, and others more modern re: the text I produced here. (bye Sam, Jmabel) .EffK 14:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tumble and Soothe

I had intended to now source all you required . I delivered the above because 1936 is like,un-obtainable. I strongly suggest you obtain a copy of Mowrer's Germany Puts The Clock Back which is the fruit of this Pulitzer prize-winners stay in Germany from 1918 to 1933, c March the 1st . Hitler obliged Mowrer's departure by threatening the whole body of foreign correspondents in some way. Mowrer acceded, and was probably aware he could be murdered, though that thought occurs to me just now. Listen , I'm sorry that you don't appear to answer the questions I return, whilst I tried to answer your points as assidously as I could both here and there. That said, I have an arbcom case against me for propounding just the catholic part of the intrigue, and in my view, objecting to catholic denialism on WP . As you see this is but a factor in the history , whereas here it sucks up all my time, all my credulity and so on. Obviously you made no personal attack. Anyway I do assure you that I have sourced everything elsewhere, and been wiped only to a certain extent. The Pope Pius XII pages do now exhibit some relationship to politics in Weimar, and vice versa. I spoke to you at the length I did so you could carry on the good work .

Now-Tumbleif I put that in it's Mowrer, but surely not. I hate to think I could use such an inappropriate word either . One that I have seen in relation to political cover-up and appeasement, and which I loathe, is soothe and soothing. I just class that as so tasteless that it isn't "en." use. On a par with charismatic on Hitler. Well, Jmabel, I hope you will understand better for having seen the source above. You will find nowhere the succinct manner in which I portrayed the final acts, but in your library you will easily find many of those writers I high-light, and of course each will pay re-reading as the actual events are so very multi-influenced , that no single straight chronological explanation can be written by them . Only an actual timeline, ie megamemex, which solely attributes date-stamp gives succinctness. Shirer for example finds so much to clarify that you could read right through the chapter and come out confused as to what happened. Indeed actual confusion still remains in the books as here on Misplaced Pages . Shirer's lack of clarity in this is why I repaired ,for user:Wyss ,the Weimar Republic article or Weimar Germany or both, and of course, why I provided you with my succinct squaring in the article here. I should come back and source soon , but I am rather thinking about the definition of vatican agent right now, and heading back into the legalities . Keep killing tumble and target the soothing prose .You see how clear and un-soothing Arthur Rosenberg is, so you can imagine how fast he had to run from the Fuhrer. Check out Edgar Ansel Mowrer for the future concepts as lived around the time. I'd better head for the scandal and finish with it .It'll take a while .Thanks , EffK 23:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel revisions, questions , 29 Nov 2005

I have looked through what you call my mess and half-written, and rationally I wonder why you use that word mess or hald written. I may be slap-dash in my eagerness to help an imbalance that justifies such an article, but my two minor spelling mistakes you changed, the fact that DNvP has changed in WP into DNVP, and all you actually point to is , if mess, not the historical mess I imagined your reactions referred to. If you consider it hald written the long edit, i should need some help in understanding why you choose to say so . Please qualify that statement half-written here . Historical mess would require strong terms, and I would wonder what greater level of terms would arise . Please state how the clarification turned the sense of the article into a mess ? I thankyou for your peer review at The Great Scandal and am sorry you appear to be under such pressure. I do know that this can lead to impatience . EffK 11:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK, I'd really rather focus on fixing specific issues in the article than on your writing, but if you insist: in the past week, I have fixed well over 50, perhaps 100, typos by you in this article and elsewhere: misplaced punctuation, odd spelling, etc. This has included weird things like opening a parenthesis with "(" and closing it with "]]" (and not just once). Some of this may seem trivial, but for example, in German, seeing DNvP, I assumed that the "v" had to be "von", and therefore couldn't make sense of an abbreviation I would otherwise probably have recognized.

Just to give another example of what I'd consider a "half-written" sentence: "Von Papen persuaded the President to Decree Hitler into the 30 January 1933 minority and appointed cabinet with a view to him, von Papen and the vested German political forces, controlling Hitler.":

• Why is "Decree" capitalized?
• What does it mean to "decree somone into something"? I don't believe I've ever seen that construct before. I'm guessing you mean "Von Papen persuaded the President to place Hitler in the cabinet by decree" (or, in equally good English, …to place Hitler, by decree, in the cabinet"), but I shouldn't have to guess.
• "…into the 30 January 1933 minority and appointed cabinet…": I still am not sure I understand this. Is 30 January 1933 an adjectival phrase, and are 30 January 1933, minority, and appointed all supposed to modify "cabinet"? "Minority cabinet" is a relatively obscure phrase on its own (less than 1000 Google hits, compared to 610,000 for "minority government"); "minority and appointed cabinet" gets zero Google hits, obviously an unusual turn of phrase. Because of the way the sentence is shaped, it took me a couple of readings to guess (I think correctly) what modified what. On my first reading, I read this more like "…to Decree Hitler into the 30 January 1933 minority, and appointed cabinet…"
• "with a view to him, von Papen and the vested German political forces, controlling Hitler." Grammatically, the referent of "him" is unclear. After several readings of the sentence, I will venture to guess it means Hindenburg. But even after those several readings, I'm not sure.

Again, you asked me to "qualify that statement half-written". I don't see any reason to qualify it: I think it applies full force to sentences like that. And, no, I didn't go looking for a particularly bad one, I picked one almost at random.

I don't really want to get into a big fight over this. I am trying to go through this piece by piece and turn what you wrote into something that can be read. I'd really rather not make this ad hominem, but if you insist that there is nothing wrong with this sort of writing, I don't feel I can let that stand. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Concepts range and necessities

Jmabel, what EffK meant with this passage I guess is:

On January 30, 1933 Papen persuaded Hindenburg to appoint (has nothing to do with decree) Hitler Chancellor, though Hindenburg didn't like Hitler as a person and as politican (he called him the "Bohemian private" - which I personally object to as unfair to all people from Bohemia which was not Hitler's home country), hence the "pure sufferance appointment".

No I mean that the president acted under decree 48 etc.Therefore it relates to both P and those appointed. both stem from the decree. is this wrong, Str?

"Minority" probably means either that the Nazis were the minority in the cabinet (only Hitler, Göring and Frick, later Goebbels) or that his administration had no majority in the Reichstag (just as Brüning, Papen and Schleicher).

"Appointed" is redundant since all governments of the Weimar Republic were appointed.

Niet, no. understanding is not redundant, absolutely wrong to say it is so. no one understands this at all clearly enough. Please, please, do not minimise understanding for the sake of one word. is it that some people actively do not want understanding to be easy and widespread. This is wrong .

Da, yes. It is redundant in this form. "Appointed" alone is either redundant (as all administrations were appointed), or it is not enough to convey what you are trying to say. It should be (guessing your intention) something like a government without a majority in parliament. I'm giving you some advice (though I don't know why, since you vilify me again further down): Not everything can be experessed in a simple sentence by packing together adjectives. It works in Latin, it might work in Spanish, but it doesn't work in this case. Str1977 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"with a view to him, von Papen and the vested German political forces, controlling Hitler" - the him refers to Papen whose name is added as a clarification but without the proper comma after the name.

Big deal, I'm pushed from trial to execution here thru denial of source and provocation of my brain cells and fingers. A lousy comma.

Please read carefully. Did I complain to you or did I explain to Jmabel? You shouldn't bite the hand that tries to clarify your meaning to others. Str1977 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Still the wording is very hard to understand and it is certainly not your fault, Jmabel, that you are not that familiar with EffK's language. I have some experience.

My writing in the article where space is conserved)by you) is clear enough- perhaps you don't want is said. What is not clear?

Whatever you say ... Str1977 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

But another point, I must say that all these events are off-topic to this article. This is about "Nazism in relation to other concepts" and not "Hitler and how he come to power". It is about the ideology and programme of Hitler and his party and what elements he took from here or from there, about influences on his thinking, e.g.

• Hitler/Nazism and anti-semitism
• Hitler/Nazism and racism
• Hitler/Nazism and eugenics
• Hitler/Nazism and social darwinism
• Hitler/Nazism and socialism (through facism)
• while we're at it: Hitler/Nazism and facism, as they are not the same
• Hitler/Nazism and nationalism
• Hitler/Nazism and Christianity
• Hitler/Nazism and Catholicism
• Hitler/Nazism and paganism
• Hitler/Nazism and esotericism
• Hitler/Nazism and nationalism
• Hitler/Nazism and democracy
• Hitler/Nazism and liberalism
• Hitler/Nazism and Christianity
• Hitler/Nazism and secret societies
• Hitler/Nazism and war
• etc. etc.

These are the things proper to this article. All the historical events are certainly valid information but they are already included in other articles. Str1977 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I thank Str for his clarification. I thought the power of appointment was through a power of Decree . This was as Str points out just another presidential dictatorship, meaning the president enabled the government himself by accepting some likelihood that such government could avoid or survive instant dissolution from a convening of the Rechstag. I bow to Str on his native understanding of how the constitutionality was allowed in Weimar .

Effk, let me try to explain again. Since 1867, the Chancellor has been the head of government, comparable to the Prime Minister.

In the Kaiserreich, the Deutscher Kaiser/König von Preußen appointed both the Chancellor and the Prussian Prime Minister and most of the time the two were one and the same. Neither in the Reich nor in Prussia was any parliament or other body involved. The Chancellor has to answer questions by Bundesrat or Reichstag but he didn't need their approval. This was changed in 1918, when the constitution was changed. Wilson had proclaimed (quite stupidly in my opinion) that he would only parlay with a democratically legitimate government, so Ludendorff, the de facto ruler of Germany, allowed for these changes: the Chancellor (now: Prince Maximilian of Baden) now needed the approval of the Reichstag and parliamentarians were made secretaries of state (as the minister in the Kaiserreich were called) - I said "stupidly" because this put a good man like Erzberger in a position of having to sign the armistice for which he was later shot - when the chief culprit of anything from 1916 to 1918 should be Ludendorff. Anyway, back to the constitution - I don't know whether in the Kaiserreich the Reichstag had to approve of the appointment or whether it only had the right to force him to resign by "vote of no confidence" - I suppose the latter version, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the Chancellor was still appointed by the Kaiser, as the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen.

In the Weimar Republic, a President replaced the Emperor and he still appointed the Chancellor and all ministers. However, the Chancellor and the minister needed the confidence of the Reichstag, who could "no-confidence" the Chancellor as well as any individual minister out of office. And this happened very often, since no administration had the majority of the house after 1920 - with the exception of the two Grand Coalitions - however these were fragile. After the second Grand coalition fell apart in 1930 (the culprits were the DVP and the SPD who could not agree on how to tackle the effects of the Grand Depression, and the DDP and the Centre were lost in between). Brüning formed a Centre-DDP-DVP coalition with a view to being tolerated by the SPD. At first, this didn't work out: the SPD rejected his budget bill, so Brüning via Hindenburg had the Reichstag dissolved and his budget implemented by emergency decree (article 48). After the Reichstag had reassembled, the SPD now was willing to tolerate Brüning as the least of many evils. The Reichstag could have enacted the rescinding of Hindenburg's decree. This worked out, as a semi-parliamentarian government, until Brüning was kicked out by Hindenburg. Papen was bent on a strictly authoritarian course, pushing for a reversion of the constitution (what Kaas so vigourously opposed). Schleicher was more of the same and then came Hitler.

Now, until 1930 there was nothing like "presidential dictatorship". Brüning's administration I wouldn't call that either. There was a cooperation between a minority cabinet and parliament, though only because the parties knew that if they weren't cooperative, measures would be decreeed anyway. That was one occasion in which the SPD showed his "sacrifice party interest for the good of the nation" attitude. Papen was bent for authoritian rule, and after the elections of 1932 the enemies of the Republic that were not as "reasonable" as the SPD had a negative majority.

Today, in the BRD, the Chancellor and the ministers are still appointed by the President. However, the Chancellor is first elected by parliament, then appointed, and on his proposal the President also appoints ministers. The Chancellor needs the confidence of the parliament, but he can only be forced to resign if the parliament elects his successor. This prevents the parliament from just no-confidencing him wihout having an alternative. Also, the ministers are not subject to such a vote - they stand or fall with the Chancellor.

McClenon would reject that answer out of hand and insult me thrice to boot. My small understanding is that the Reichstag was solely able to convene in order to veto such an appointment. A highly important subject is therefore the information that Hitler learned from von papen, that Schleicher as a non-elected Minister, could not call the Reichstag to session, and therefore was unable to precipitate such closing veto on even his own administration. This is included under Weimar Germany, because I put it there just recently, where I am glad to say that it remains.

I don't entirely understand. The Reichstag was convened by its president, or due to a demand by some of its members. It could be dissolved by the President, which within a fixed time led to new elections and the convening of the new Reichstag. Yes, it was not the government that convened the Reichstag. Schleicher was no MdR but neither were Papen or Hitler (who for the most part wasn't even German).

The Reichstag could no-confidence the cabinet and, in fact, that is what it immediately did in regard to Papen. Papen wanted to forestall this by handing the "red folder" (which contained Hindenburg's blanco order of dissolving the Reichstag. Göring, then the Reichstag's president ignore this and proceeded with the no-confidence vote which Papen lost. Papen then dissolved the parliament anyway (this led to the November elections). After this, Papen who was only acting Chancellor, had to resign.

But again, I don't know what you tried to say exactly. Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Str that the concepts derive such as from the list he posted and that this article should therefrom derive its future substance. I have to say I came into the article partly to help Sam with the convolutions, which are mind-boggling to everyone, and then weighed in at sign of negative balance further in,- by which I mean actively promoted over-simplification leading to effective disclarity. This is to speak entirely under assumption of good faith, something I may not have adhered to on this very page. I won't cause argument here about my rights of notice accrueing from experience of POV massaging. We all can fall into the trap,but when it becomes too repeatedly obvious, I kick.

You may get teed at my agreeing with Str's last, which I can only agree to given that Weimar Republic only through my bulk contribution achieves historical verisimilitude. (I dispute ,though,Str's claim that the information here is represented elsewhere'-it wan't until 2 days ago and may not be by now.Except that I checked, and it is accepted as I write.) I am not enamoured of the presention howsoever short upon Germany or Adolf Hitler , I retch at Holocaust and have fought there to little avail over 2 words, in fact I am all-round shocked, but see this as Str "SPOV" at work .It's not the worst crime, but annoying and time-consuming and trying of all social patience, which is why I sound harried and belligerent-I am fought because I aim to change things all-round.And I consider it would simply continue the un-informed SympatheticPOV or National or Right-Wing or Church POV everywhere apparent (maybe from de. imports or users or whatever reason I mention.

If it's not presented elsewhere, it should be presented elsewhere. This article is not the proper destination. I can't see that Wikipedian is in any way right-wing, or nationalist or church-friendly. Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I read the language closest to latin whcih is Spanish, like a precocious and opinionated kid, and the effect on my native en. may lead me to the pomp of such words as similitud etc.)I don't write it though .However my possibly personal chaining of words such as you found irksome above,is brought forth by 4 things:

• The complex politics I visit in this history,
• The constant attack on edits I tried to write in normal spoken en. , generally having been STR himself, as he and I are like Janus himself.Oddly Str has been suggesting that I must be German or something and tells me all the time that what I write is not en. .

I am certainly not the only one that finds your writing unique. The idea that you were German was in fact not my own but Sam's. He suspected that and asked whether we could get along better (talk-wise) in German. So I tried to find out. However, I soon thought you weren't and rather thought you Italian or Spanish (would have explained the temper and the anti-clericalism) or maybe, since you insited on being a native speaker, a Chicano. But it turns out you are ...? Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Severe distress at seeing massaged history, or history written from a POV. For example Arthur Rosenburg talk of landed classes and capitalist classes-if I did not purely demonstrate the source for such talk-it would be gone in seconds. Why- is another days work .
• Constant remark and instant excision edited as off-topic:I try therefore to pare and pare down the length of explanation fitting 3 separate concepts into 4 words.As here.
• As with science,professional contemporary historians,claw at the carcass of earlier knowledge and seem to seek their own professional salvation , and there is as such an actual industry of it , and dissenters are rubbished as in science,and Str does this quite remarkably. I would shut up about it but he doesnt provide counter-sourced argumant disproving or proving. Herein lies massage at industry level.It pre-dates Misplaced Pages by about 30 years, is really a german History Industry, and it is obvious why the interest derives from the body count. And the stupid mystery perpetuated by interests. One such is the British follow on appeasers, who have motive for massage. Enough,one shudders-but let me tell you that the two leading brit papers in 30's london were owned by 2 Astors.Think about that, and think about today , and then the rise of Hitler.That is why I go on, and on. FK

I repeat I am only happy when the sources I know are properly reflected in WP, and generally do not excise other sources,as Str knows, nor was I big one for reverts,til I do it solely in distress as signal to the edit history page that something is wrong . I should have done it more, as a visitor comes in . sees str and me chatting away amicably and doesn't understand that we are in a fight to the wikideath over this history problem. It is not personal , Str I reckon missed me when I was gone, as he would do, if I went again. I give him six weeks and he'll be forming societies to analyse the strange User of en. I fear Str's interst as when he is most nice to me, he is being most dangerous too ..... I go above as you deserve answer, whether this article now agrees its substance only to deliver it to suitable location elsewhere and reforms for further battle. FK

So you have enough of sweettalk and want to renew hostilities by throwing German historiography in the bin? Consider that you yourself used a few as sources. A dissenter always has a hard time convincing others. That might be sad, but it's unavoidable. And don't be fooled by this modern myth of the lone genius unappreciated by his stupid surroundings. The lone dissenter is not always right. For one Gallileo (and in fact, he wasn't right at the time, but that's a different story), there are ten Erich Dänikens and five Lanz von Liebenfelses.

Who is being addressed here? Please define, as I am far from throing anything in the bin- I saw no one else providing as much source, anywhwere,(which is contantly vilified and down-classed in every way possible. Very inwiki.

I am no lone dissenter, as the sources prove.This is clear , even mcClenon claimed shock to his faith etc. FK

You, FK, are addressed. If you ask whatfor than read the paragraph starting "As with science,professional contemporary historians ..." You discounted off hand all of German historiography some months ago (I will see whether I can dig it up again). You did never take my sourcing by Morsey and Volk into account, and my probing and inclusion of Klemperer and Mowrer (though he's more of a witness, albeit a delayed source). Str1977 22:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think that whoever writes should use source if they cannot be there.Rosenburg above all was there. Mowrer as you kindly call is a witness, Wheeler-Bennett was there. The following 'Shirers' after the war-trials had more source than witness. Today I just say that there can be a natural desire to work within the safety of apparent consensus, and the concensus is to bottle Hitler more into either the NSDAP , or into personal madness, and not into a national wish to follow anti-semitic etc etc hysteria with arms raised. The whole thing deserves more rather than less study. And you see that I have nothing against german historiography , if it's not massage.look I quoted against KvK in so far as I saw two main things of interest . One was re continued Widerstand desire for the territorial expansion until at least mid 1943, the other you know, which is hardly more than an aside in an introduction. He happens to be an expert on the Widerstand , and thus arrived at his vatican understanding, as I expanded for the later Kaas(and you cut back for precisely the reasons I'd presented it). Klemperer takes very great efforts to see back into his roots, Haffner too, and We wanted to be nice after the War .So doing Cornwell's aint cosy, re a national conciousness. Analyses by Butler shows the national failure to be derivative of the philosophical concept. I say this as it is true.FK

There will be one, as anyone who has not read the devastating analysis of Rohan Butler, all deriving from German philosphy, will accept modern post-war PC and allow as is apparent on wikipedia, a completely distorted view of the concepts under-lying hitlerism. Butler proves beyong shadow of doubt and sourced to a T that Hitler could only have happened in germany, been accepted, because of the philophical concepts parlayed into that nation on top of its Teutonic and Holy Roman Empire base .

That might be the case or it might not be the case. But I must reject any insinuation that there's something inherently Nazi-esque about Germans (as teutonic suggest) and also that the HRE has something to do with Nazism. At best, there's a indirect connection as Germany was no nation state around 1800, when the French revolution issued waves of nationalism around Europe. Also note - and this is vital in such philosophical discussions - that his not a development of strict consequence, e.g. one can be a Romantic without becoming a Nazi, one can adhere to Herder (he's a hero in Poland) without committing genocide. Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not as Germans now after this gap, but equally certainly there was teutonic german nazi character aplenty during Nazism. Nor am I saying that only descendnts of the HRE can become nazis. I simply report the analysis of each known german literary and philosophical figure butler made, he started it long before the war, even before nazism, and that makes it all the more interesting. read it-you can find Mowrer, so get it and read it.FK

The trouble is that as the study requires that in turn each generation of philosophers must be sourced, that there will only be possible in this enciclo a final summation type article. this will be corralled by post-war PC into the weakest reflection of the truth, to assuage literature written since, which distances Hitlerism from Germany and Germany from Hitlerism :as proof-FK

This is one reason for Misplaced Pages's policy against Original Reasearch. Because it is not feasible when editing an encyclopedia, at leat when done properly.

• Where is Nazism and German Philosophy ?FK

My list was not meant to be complete - it just wrote what sprung to mind, sometimes overlapping. Str1977 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but its central and it didnt spring to your mind-proves my point were coming from a cleaned up PC phoney wished-for world. Plus some of those concepts evoke the anti-secularit push we discuss here, specially ot is good to dwell on the neo-darwinian more than the "cornwellian" . FK

I am trying to control my typing and apologise to you Jmabel, for it. My punctuation is un-informed,which is a pity, but heck, who's perfect? Thanks. EffK 18:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I had a conflict in an up-load of answers to both str and jmabel, even TAnthoy. Yours Str were entirely unnecessary and very minor indeed. I placed a section as the subject was requiring it, in good faith , man . I cannot distinguish any longerwithin this large body of answer and question how to get back without reverting yr minor edits Str. Shame as I had tried. I shall have to move on to where doubtless I shall collect your attention str, sorry Jmabel, but listen to the nature of the co-eval and remeber what the prosecution at Nuremburg said; The concordat was a maneuver intended to deceive ( spoken by von papen as he simply answere , well see who signed it ( he had since ascended the throne Pacelli.) We must not deceive ourselves now, just as Nuremburg were not deceived by the decption , they simply could not prosecute deception. the only body that can is the Church for the church little C . but we can learn from history and free ourselves from repetition. FK

I'm sorry about your edit conflict. Maybe you should use a word processor which can also help in correcting typos etc.

Your quote is still not very meaningful, as you don't say who the deceived was, in Papen#s mind.

The Nuremberg trials were prosecuting crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity and aggressive war (only the last point was a new one) - of course only the crimes committed by the German side. They did not prosecute the politics that brought Hitler into power. This was no crime, though it was morally wrong. And the concordat is neither a crime nor morally wrong, but a international treaty.

Please, stop your wrong explanations on small c and capital c or I will ask someone who should know and provide you with a lengthy explanation.

Jmabel, I'll tell you where the war is , if you don't know from your newspaper. Seriously, Bush wouldn't be in the White House but for Ratzinger, ...

So, Bush wouldn't be in the White House? He wouldn't be there if the Democratic party were still the party of FDR, JFKennedy or Johnson or even Jimmy Carter ... but they are sadly the party of unlimited baby slaughtering. And JFKerry toed the line and was criticized for that by his fellow Catholics - and rightfully so. But this is only one factor in his defeat. BTW, Ratzinger did not forbid anyone to vote for Kerry. You obviously have not read what he wrote back then:

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."

In layman's language: voting for Kerry because he's a pro-abort is sinful, voting for Kerry inspite of him being a pro-abort and because the other guy's a war-monger may be permissable. Depending on how much weight you place on the "war issue".

Some Catholics said yes, a war is bad enough so that we will vote for that pro-abort, others said no, it is not bad enough, or milk is spilled or there's too much at stake on the other issue. (SCOTUS)

... and the new Pope's european policy is to stop Islam.FK

Strange, the other day someone vandalized the article on the Holy Father. Have a look: Islam's not the problem. Secular nihilism is and only because of this can Islam in future ever be a problem.

Yes, I do understand :it goes like this, secular graduate or materialist airheads, the young let's say, aren't even bothering to breed let alone present a repetition of some sturdily spiritual christian european response to a burgeoning Islamic entry , and the fear is that this decadent secularism will allow a threat to the Church to grow, more or less, ? I haven't got the time to look , sorry.

I can source these assertions, well the Pope is perhaps impossible for me to source as he's got to stay for more than 2 years .And it may not be comfortable to say it-FK

I don't have the time to source the Kerry controversy , the fact that even the vatican suffered broken rank in the States etc, you know the rest.FK

And I say that the idea that Popes and Cardinals and Bishops and Priests all counselling people against such a vote, even in this difference specified ,is worth the 2 per cent swing, so sorry, it is effective political power, enough to tip the balance as is well noticed by that dispute. It's not me, I'm just reporting the attitude, and since it is so relevant in these considerations of Hitler, I mention it. FK

No need to source it, I have done it for you.

but to be pro-life and to get action on that you have to start illegal or inhuman war, it is reminiscent of the deal with the tyrant done here. FK

Complaints about the war sent to Mr Bush and his associates in government and in congress (including Senator Kerry), not to the church and certainly not to the late or the current pontiff that didn't support the war, nay tried to hinder it. But by the time of the election, into which the church did not interfrere, the war had been waged. The milk was spilled. But since you are so into body counts, count the numbers and consider which of the two phenomena has cost more lives.

its not just the two of them , its all sorts.FK

Don't have a clue what that means.

More interests, economic ones...FK

bye str, you got my edits lost for nummat except well , a tiff and a provocative denial of good faith.EffK 20:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What is this about "denial of good faith" again. may I post on a Wp talk page? May I hope that my comments are not artificially cut in half by section headers? Str1977 21:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That is artificial pique, surely , I did it in clear good faith actually, but you want your pique, OK. I don't punish you for braking up my very sentences-beacause I accept it is for the greater good. you don't though. What is that?EffK 23:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of power of dissolution

I was too busy quoting your and McC's and LIng's denialism to get back to yoy STr, and by rights I gotta rush back round and skiffle off the rain of knives McC sends. You know it isnt personal , I just can't let you get away with doing things that ignore source or asperse POV for NPOV. Your edit of KvK whilst leaving the source for instance.

I am at much greater loss for understanding after the above responses than before . I'm afriad I trust Arthur Rosenberg's interpretations at first hand rather more than what I simply do not understand from you . I believe his description of Hindenburg as Presidentially appointer of Dictators at his appointment , thereby being presidential Dictatorships is utterly descriptive , and that considering he as source is used evr since, that it should stand everywhere as he wrote. I beleive that to obfuscate his clarity as to the fact that germany was subject to 4 presidential Dictatorships, before the Nazi take-over was enacabled, is clarity required for all of us who are led to beleiev that somehow Hitler came along and from som lovely liberal constitutional democracy, took sudden mysterious wing from the charismatic power of his own evil .

The move to what Rosenberg appearently calls presidential dictatorship was a gradual one.

• Preliminary step: The Weimar Coalition (SPD-Z-DDP) had no majority since the Reichstag elections of 1920. The result were minority cabinets formed by Z, DDP and DVP, sometimes including the DNVP, at two instances including the SPD to form a Grand coalition, which alone could muster a majority. In 1923, the year of multiple crises, with Nazis and Communists trying to topple the Republic, President Ebert was heavily involved with decrees and an Enabling Act etc.
• In 1930 the Grand Coalition fell apart because of disagreements between the parties, mainly SPD and DVP. Hence, no majority cabinet was possible, given the figures.
• Z, DDP and DVP decided to form a government without the SPD, since the three parties could agree on policy, while they could not with the SPD. Brüning, expert on finances on also on social issues, was chosen chancellor (Adenauer was briefly considered). Basically this was a return to the situation 1924-1928 with three differences: 1) the DNVP could not be counted on helping out; 2) the depression made governing more difficult: 3) the SPD was not willing (at first) to tolerate Brüning's policy which was considered anti-labour.
• The SPD hence rejected Brüning's budget and because of this the Reichstag was dissolved. The Budget was pushed through by decree. Nazis and Communists gained in the elections - now even the Grand coalition would have had no majority.
• After the elections, the SPD was more conciliatory: it did not try to bring down the decreed budget. However, it still would not support legislative measures by Brüning and only tolerate it if the measures were implemented by decree (they could have voted each decree down, together with Nazis, Communists and DNVP). Of course, this led to the government getting used to ruling by decree.
• The aging Hindenburg was moving more and more to the right at that time, influenced by the Camarilla and especially after being reelected against his right-wing base. He was pushing Brüning to moving to the right as well by replacing some ministers and in the end wanted to replace him as chancellor too (though not as foreign minister). Brüning however was too independent a character and hence resigned.
• He was replaced by Papen who had no party base at all and could only count on the fragile support of the DNVP. He used the decree to oust the acting government of Prussia and considered a coup.
• After him Schleicher's plans of uniting various factions against Hitler failed too.
• Then Papen's intrigue brought Hitler into power - the administration now had a larger basis in parliament, after March 1933 even the majority. This could have meant a return to parliamentary government, but Hitler would not have it.

To sum up: the parliamentary government was broken but not destroyed from 1930 to 1932, though the government slowly moved towards dictatorship, in 1932 presidential dictatorship was de facto introduced, though it was very fragile one as the ruling circle didn't dare to do away with the constituion. January 1933 again increased the parliamentary basis of the government and with March 1933 the government could have gone back to normal. The Nazi-DNVP coalition put an end to presidential dictatorship, but ... Hitler wouldn't share and hence instituted not a presidential dictatorship but a chancellor's dictatorship, though Hindenburg retained the legal authority to stop this at any time (though at the cost of civil war) by dismissing Hitler. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I will hold to the source of the words, and with the second as to the nature of the Reichstags powers , until I find the source of the exact description of how the Reichstag was limited to the sole function of voting a dissolution , I shall have to allow you some potential qualification, if you really can show some. I believe it was the sole democratic power , triggering back into the Presidential Dictatorship . I don't really gain anything from your explanation, so far. Please can you separate the events you describe from the description of the nature of the Presidential Dictatorship . Please qualify as you can , but please do not disqualify that which Rosenburg said in that I sourced so assiduously , twice.

I don't disqualify what Rosenberg said, I only differentiate the various steps.

Please state in short sentences what you want to know:

Do you want to know how the constitution works?

Do you want to know the party conflicts?

Please state that clearly. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The decivers were all who would have gained from th deception , whereas the deceived would categorise all who had rights which were lost from the deception. I do not find it funny when Nuremburg Trials testimony recorded by stenographer , is denied, minimised, discarded or anything. I firmly place the links and I firmly quote the relevant passages from the single "Avalon Project" page. I suggest that in consideration of the complicity with and commodation of Hitler, that you as an interested member of the church, busy yourself with completely understanding the violent ramifications of papen's extraordinary revelation concerning how the Holy See still in 1936 had a high power or powered faction or personage pushing a policy of combination with the healthier aspects of National Socialism , Papen says synthesis'. What does this mean, who is this power, who is Hundal he mentions who published a Church ratified book(presumably) which promoted this, is it that hundal is the power-it seems not, so is it that he refers to the high power in the vatican which fosters this bishop or cardinal Hundal, and where is this text?

No one ever disputed that Catholic individuals, even prominent ones did wrong. But that's a completely different story.

Mere insinuation will not work: name the deceivers and prove that they wanted to deceive and who they wanted to deceive. Papen can only speak for himself, so it is that he's saying that he wanted to deceive. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please answer the cardinal question. Why do you personalise all the issues of the scandal/ scandal accusation in my username/person? I have had to continue showing the way this is done by you and people with whom you seem to show sympathy etc.I see no logical way you can answer , myself. The same goes for my questions at Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal, which are dependant on my apology etc. to you etc. i see no logical way .

I do not personalise the issue. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why me and not the body of history and comment I sourced repaeatedly. Do not criticise source University source at this claim, answer as to why in me alone , not in the conglomeration however deep or shallow, in me , please .At Hitler's Pope, please. Meaning please justify your personal slander, and by all means prove I am an agent of just myself or the aliens or the forgs, or that I am not just aware of what is and has gone on, and that it is not my normal NPOV. I better drag up the McClenon words saying he was shocked and appalled at Cornwell. meanwhile, while I await a long delayed answer. Thanks for everything, sincerely .

I add that you yourself said that were it so that Kaas acted in such a way as the accusation that it would indeeed be a serious matter so since so may sources link the whole hierarchy/Holy See/Hitler u-turns why is not important to allow that the writers who indeed questioin this be represented, and as parenthisis to this strange dis-allownace put it all on me?EffK 22:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles should reflect the historiographical consensus (otherwise it's Original Research) - controversies (those really happening, not imagined ones) should be included too. Minority/controversial views can be included but it must be clear that they are disputed. All this has to be in a NPOV language (and this is a major difference between us - you don't want, at least not until now, NPOV language). Note, I allowed inclusion of your Mowrer, even though it at least borders on Original research, but only in NPOV language. It is you who are not satisfied. Str1977 23:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You may be governed by Canon 752 (Fair use/educational excerpt) from http://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/ADTUCANS.HTM ]

While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith and morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act* Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine. *=FK highlight .

Readers please note that I reported the TV Euronews reference to the imposition of this order at the vatican's Spring "New Media Conference" .They should please note that any such doctrinal order ..need not be expressed... and allows for a submission of intellect... whatever that is.

You said to me that you were a believing catholic, Str, I accept that, I simply clarify what this means to Misplaced Pages.EffK 11:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)