Talk:Centre Party (Germany): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:43, 23 April 2005 editJohn K (talk \| contribs)Administrators59,942 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 16:03, 12 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk \| contribs)Bots7,353,610 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Germany}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject Conservatism}}, {{WikiProject Christianity}}. Remove 5 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
(139 intermediate revisions by 31 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|
	It is nonsensical to use American english in the name and contents of an article on a European topic. Germany no more had a Cent''er'' Party than Australia has a Labo''u''r Party. Similarly it would wrong to write about American theat''re''. The German party is generally translated by Germans into British English, not American English. ] 23:09, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Germany\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Politics \| political-parties=yes\| political-parties-importance=low\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=mid}}
			{{WikiProject Christianity \|importance=low \|catholicism=yes \|catholicism-importance=low}}
			}}
			{{Archives \|auto=short}}

			== Well-written and basically neutral article ==
	: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. ] 23:48, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
			I like the article as now constituted but it suffers from over-linking. One link per section is plenty, certainly not every paragraph within a section or within the same paragraph, which gets very distracting. ] 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

			=="Well-written and basically neutral article"??==
	::This is incorrect:The Zentrumspartei dissolved itself . This is repeated under ] and ] , and I believe its' inclusion as error reveals concerted attempts over the intervening years to conceal ] ] . See ''Hitler and Stalin -Parallel Lives'' by ] ( Lord Bullock),p.338, published by HarperCollins,1991, ISBN 0-00-686198-9.] 08:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			I think not. Large swaths of text lifted directly from . Article needs to be continually vetted for POV and tone. ] 12:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

			== Name ==
	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. ] ] 08:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			It was the Catholic Centre Party - not the Centre Party. When it lost against the National Socialists (Nazis) in the elections, the members of the Catholic Centre Party were imprisoned. The party disbanded to avoid further punishments by Hitler.
	: Thankyou for your quick response . Who is better then ?] 12:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)09:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

			The whole article does nothing to preserve history, but rather to obscure it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	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. ] ] 19:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			:The party was called Zentrum or Zentrumspartei or Deutsche Zentrumspartei. "Catholic" was never part of the name. ] ] 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

			::That's what the war was about in the beginning, not Jews. ] i.e. Prussia and Protestants. To place Prussia behind the Iron Curtain. Thankfully the Catholic Nazis lost! ] (]) 22:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
	: Undoubtedly you mean that Hitler eliminated the Catholic Centre Party in Czechoslovakia . ] 21:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
			:::While it is true that World War II wasn't about the Jews - it never was for the Allies - it definitely wasn't about the Centre Party or anything to do with it because the Centre Party was long dead when the war started. Nobody thought of an Iron Curtain in 1939 either and no one attempted to put anything behind, least of all those that began the war. Finally, if your conspiracy theory really were true, then the obscure "they" were pretty successful as Prussia ended up behind an Iron Curtain.
			:::It also remains unclear why you responded to my merely pointing out what the actual name of the party was. ] ] 16:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

			== Centre Party and social progress ==
	The german Misplaced Pages 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) --] 22:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

			Two suggestions.
	==Protection==

			First, someone should create a redirect called ] that redirects here, for the benefit of American readers.
	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)

			Second, the Centre Party played a key role in the development of labor laws (child labor, social security, maximum number of hours worked per week, etc.) in the 1880s and 1890s (beginning even before Bismarck's death). This is mentioned in only one brief sentence in a very long article. This article does an admirable job of describing the CP's political history, but its actual accomplishments should be included. (With neutral POV, of course; to libertarians it is not an "accomplishment" to pass a child labor law.) These laws influenced the American ] and also the development of ], and are thus very noteworthy. — <span style="font: small-caps 12px times;">]</span> <sup style="font: small-caps 10px arial; color: #129dbc;">(])</sup> 21:16, 17 January 2012 (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 (] instead of ], ] instead of ]), 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. ] ] 16:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

			== The Enabling Act ==
	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 .] 07:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

			Although it may be unintentional, this section reads as an attempt at whitewashing and excuse making. Bottom line is that the Centre Party voted UNANIMOUSLY in favor of the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler dictatorial powers. That is the most important piece of information, and should be in the first sentence of the section, not buried at the end of multiple paragraphs of excuses. It was not impossible to vote against the act, as the Socialist party voted unanimously against it. Also, it is misleading to say that the Socialist party was the only one to speak out against the legislation. The Communist party also opposed it, but were not allowed to speak since it had been outlawed by the Nazis.
	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.] 08:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

			Another interesting observation is that the word "Jew" does not appear once in this article. How is that even possible in such a long article dealing with a religiously-based political party operating during a time when the "Jewish question" was so prominent in German politics?
	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?] 09:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

			] (]) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (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 Misplaced Pages alone . Could that be fixed ?

			== The Party That Put Hitler in Power ==
	: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. ] ] 01:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

			How the hell is this party still around? Surely their collaboration with the Nazi's and help passing the Enabling Act would of been their death-knell after the war. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	I have interlineated replies below. ] ] 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
			:It wasn't the party that put Hitler into power. That would be the NSDAP, if you are talking political parties, or the Papen-Hindenburg-Industrial cabal that actually managed Hitler being appointed. THEY put Hitler into power. While the Centre played a not so glorious role in voting for the Enabling Act (but not any worse than all other parties save one), this did start Hitler's rise to power nor did it end there (it ended when Hindenburg died). Still, the vote was a blemish and it in part was the death knell of the party as it never returned to prominence after the war.
			:Still, it is strange but telling how all other culprits for the failure of the Weimar Republic are glossed over, only this one vote is put into prominence. ] ] 16:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

			== Slant in article ==
	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.

			{{ping\|Rjensen}} I see you reverted . This material is all currently unsourced, and reads with an editorial slant of proving that the Centre Party wasn't so bad despite voting for the Enabling Act. I mean, the Centre Party was not the Nazi party, it's not interesting or controversial to say that they campaigned against them or any other party. A quick check of Google Books shows authors saying that the Centre Party just straight-up gave up after the Pope & the Concordat basically thought they'd get some accommodations from the Nazis. Why have the retroactive crystal ball about how deeply uncomfortable they were about the disastrous vote? ] (]) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
	: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. ] ] 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
			:The goal here is to reflect what the reliable sources say, not to make a judgment on what the Center party should or should not have done. ] (]) 05:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
			::Way to entirely miss my point. I just said I searched on Google Books and that is what those sources said - the Concordat was what they talked about. The crystal ball part is currently unsourced, at least in-line (perhaps the sources in general say this). And I suppose I can't contest that surely some reliable source will say that someone somewhere was uncomfortable about the vote, this is meaningless without context - before ANY event, some people will be for it, some against it, some ambivalent. It's very easy to selectively cite the people who ended up being "right" as an attempt to make just such a judgment.
			::I see that you're citing Evans over this "deep uncomfortableness". I'll see if I can borrow a copy, but even if Evans talks about it, I'm really not a fan of how it's written anyway - it reads like special pleading, not history. If there was a split in the Centre Party on the wisdom fo the vote, then say so, and talk about the sides. ] (]) 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

			== Far-right? ==
	As the mysterious Monsignor Kaas semms to have been influential ''whilst'' leader I think it could rightly rest on this page.

			Perhaps it would be good to include some sources for the claim that they're far-right. I think right-wing by itself, given their adherence to social conservatism & Christian democracy is okay, but far-right is not substantiated.
	: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. ] ] 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
			<br>] (]) 14:50, 14 February 2022 (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 ] 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. ] ] 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 ] in ] 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 Misplaced Pages.

	: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. ] ] 16:24, 22 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 ], ] and ] are self-evidently crucial to modern history as providing the basis for the following 12 years through ] 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. ] ] 16:24, 22 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? ] ] 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

	Yes he is widely reported as an archeological figure for his excavations of the ] but not as a successful negotiator with the anti-christ Hitler. No one disputes that Hitler was ''an'' ] 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. ] ] 16:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

	In short I'll be as open , as you un-welcomingly(to me) ask. Ludwig Kaas ''is'' ''']'''. 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 ]. 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 ] 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. ] ] 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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. ] ] 19:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:03, 12 February 2024

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: Political parties Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Catholicism Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

1, 2, 3

Well-written and basically neutral article

I like the article as now constituted but it suffers from over-linking. One link per section is plenty, certainly not every paragraph within a section or within the same paragraph, which gets very distracting. Rlquall 00:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

"Well-written and basically neutral article"??

I think not. Large swaths of text lifted directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Article needs to be continually vetted for POV and tone. 216.194.3.77 12:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

It was the Catholic Centre Party - not the Centre Party. When it lost against the National Socialists (Nazis) in the elections, the members of the Catholic Centre Party were imprisoned. The party disbanded to avoid further punishments by Hitler.

The whole article does nothing to preserve history, but rather to obscure it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.235.122.19 (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The party was called Zentrum or Zentrumspartei or Deutsche Zentrumspartei. "Catholic" was never part of the name. Str1977 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's what the war was about in the beginning, not Jews. i.e. Prussia and Protestants. To place Prussia behind the Iron Curtain. Thankfully the Catholic Nazis lost! 69.29.213.247 (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

While it is true that World War II wasn't about the Jews - it never was for the Allies - it definitely wasn't about the Centre Party or anything to do with it because the Centre Party was long dead when the war started. Nobody thought of an Iron Curtain in 1939 either and no one attempted to put anything behind, least of all those that began the war. Finally, if your conspiracy theory really were true, then the obscure "they" were pretty successful as Prussia ended up behind an Iron Curtain.

It also remains unclear why you responded to my merely pointing out what the actual name of the party was. Str1977 16:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Centre Party and social progress

Two suggestions.

First, someone should create a redirect called Center Party (Germany) that redirects here, for the benefit of American readers.

Second, the Centre Party played a key role in the development of labor laws (child labor, social security, maximum number of hours worked per week, etc.) in the 1880s and 1890s (beginning even before Bismarck's death). This is mentioned in only one brief sentence in a very long article. This article does an admirable job of describing the CP's political history, but its actual accomplishments should be included. (With neutral POV, of course; to libertarians it is not an "accomplishment" to pass a child labor law.) These laws influenced the American New Deal and also the development of Catholic social teaching, and are thus very noteworthy. — Lawrence King 21:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Enabling Act

Although it may be unintentional, this section reads as an attempt at whitewashing and excuse making. Bottom line is that the Centre Party voted UNANIMOUSLY in favor of the Enabling Act, which gave Hitler dictatorial powers. That is the most important piece of information, and should be in the first sentence of the section, not buried at the end of multiple paragraphs of excuses. It was not impossible to vote against the act, as the Socialist party voted unanimously against it. Also, it is misleading to say that the Socialist party was the only one to speak out against the legislation. The Communist party also opposed it, but were not allowed to speak since it had been outlawed by the Nazis.

Another interesting observation is that the word "Jew" does not appear once in this article. How is that even possible in such a long article dealing with a religiously-based political party operating during a time when the "Jewish question" was so prominent in German politics?

Dansan99 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Party That Put Hitler in Power

How the hell is this party still around? Surely their collaboration with the Nazi's and help passing the Enabling Act would of been their death-knell after the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.162.92 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't the party that put Hitler into power. That would be the NSDAP, if you are talking political parties, or the Papen-Hindenburg-Industrial cabal that actually managed Hitler being appointed. THEY put Hitler into power. While the Centre played a not so glorious role in voting for the Enabling Act (but not any worse than all other parties save one), this did start Hitler's rise to power nor did it end there (it ended when Hindenburg died). Still, the vote was a blemish and it in part was the death knell of the party as it never returned to prominence after the war.

Still, it is strange but telling how all other culprits for the failure of the Weimar Republic are glossed over, only this one vote is put into prominence. Str1977 16:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Slant in article

@Rjensen: I see you reverted my edit. This material is all currently unsourced, and reads with an editorial slant of proving that the Centre Party wasn't so bad despite voting for the Enabling Act. I mean, the Centre Party was not the Nazi party, it's not interesting or controversial to say that they campaigned against them or any other party. A quick check of Google Books shows authors saying that the Centre Party just straight-up gave up after the Pope & the Concordat basically thought they'd get some accommodations from the Nazis. Why have the retroactive crystal ball about how deeply uncomfortable they were about the disastrous vote? SnowFire (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The goal here is to reflect what the reliable sources say, not to make a judgment on what the Center party should or should not have done. Rjensen (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Way to entirely miss my point. I just said I searched on Google Books and *that* is what those sources said - the Concordat was what they talked about. The crystal ball part is currently unsourced, at least in-line (perhaps the sources in general say this). And I suppose I can't contest that surely some reliable source will say that someone somewhere was uncomfortable about the vote, this is meaningless without context - before ANY event, some people will be for it, some against it, some ambivalent. It's very easy to selectively cite the people who ended up being "right" as an attempt to make just such a judgment.

I see that you're citing Evans over this "deep uncomfortableness". I'll see if I can borrow a copy, but even if Evans talks about it, I'm really not a fan of how it's written anyway - it reads like special pleading, not history. If there was a split in the Centre Party on the wisdom fo the vote, then say so, and talk about the sides. SnowFire (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Far-right?

Perhaps it would be good to include some sources for the claim that they're far-right. I think right-wing by itself, given their adherence to social conservatism & Christian democracy is okay, but far-right is not substantiated.
Horarum (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Categories: