Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:20, 21 November 2005

This article is a selected entry at Template:March 23 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)

Please use Talk:Gleichschaltung for discussion. -- djmutex 2003-04-30

"Enabling act" is a common legal phrase. Your current article will have to be renamed and "Enabling Act" turned into a disambiguation page...something like "Enabling Act (Reichstag)". —B 19:19, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion Enabling Act

I suggest discussion should open here if there is need to comment etc . I say legally at the opening is disputable, ... legal appearance it is. EffK 03:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I had favoured restricting this article on the Act itself, it is a valid enterprise to expand it to include the event leading up to it (although these are already covered elsewhere). Hence I will not remove your edits, but they definitely need a clean-up language-wise, structure-wise, content-wise. I will come back to this later. Str1977 10:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC) .

OK -you are so good at it -why dont you fix the present grammatical errors.

I have been asking for qualification of the dormancy for a very long time , anf or clarification of its contradiction with article 2 . I refer to the changes of procedure , which destroyed the Institution . I think German speakers could help with that . Cvilised Europeans should have an understanding of german- I lack this .

You seem to be quicker to criticise my language than to have repaired the ridiculous prior version. Your edits have now lead to a similar illogic, see if you can spot it . You alas seem to think that articles on WP should be as brief as possible- does this come from the nature of the Personal Computer format/screen  ? Does WP have to be childish , abbreviated  ? There are many long articles in Britannica .I remind you that this AE is much studied in Univerities , and even schools around the world . It requires therefore, the political background as it had developed . And this investigation of dormancy must be clarified absolutely from Institutional legislation . I repeat that I have long asked, such as Djmutex , to , to fill us in with a translation of these procedural changes. When , what , signed by Hindenburg? Another decree ? Please supply and include it here, wherever else it may be needed . Plase include what Bruning said about such dormancy- presunmably as this is cardinal , he referred to it at the time and afterwards in his memoirs. And does he confirm the monarchist allegations, I mentioned first so loong ago. You afre so good, please deal with this according to source on B's page when you can . I will visit elsewhere now .EffK 10:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Just three quick items: 1) Yes, being concise is one of the features of any encyclopedia, including WP. 2) Procedural changes are done by the Reichstag itself, no President or Chancellor (officially) involved. 2)I will have a look into the cleaning-up business but I can't do it now. Please have some patience. Str1977 11:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Str-that's all well and good, but your answer to how procedure changed has one problem . Isn't it the case that the procedure supposedly allowing for "arrest/dormancy" of certain deputies thus acted upon them to keep them quasi-legally from the Reichstage chamber at 23 Enabling Act ?

This would appear to be the course of history as laid out in WP from the rider/corallory mentioning the further procedural change , no ? But what you qualify here has a problem , which is that the Reichstag had not been sitting and thus had not been able to effect your defined change . Are you saying that the dormancy came from the previous Reichstag prior to the 5 March elections? That's fair enough , but when did it happen, when did the Reichstag sit to make such change, and vote on it ? Are you saying that the engineered co-alition appointed by Hindenburg on 30 January won a vote c Reichstag Fire Act to change procedure? When did the Reichstag sit then ? Did it sit then ? Can we be concise ? Decrees , yes, signed by the president( and badly forgettting habeas corpus , and , did the Reichstag assemble for the winding -up by Hitler's choice (to pressure the centre) and to appeal directly to the electorate ? Your reply pushed us closer and I look forward to your further qualification as to when the Reichstag itself sat to make/made the procedural change prior to the 23 April first sitting or prior to Hitler's calling elections for 5 March from an other-wise non-sitting assembly . Or was the previous Reichstag in function, in which case we can check and specify the day the dormancy procedure preceded the general elections for ther subsequent reichstag . I remind you that when I entererd WP that the Communists were supposedly proscribed prior to the Elections ! Could you ask this on Deutsch WP , or supply a concise means for the claim / fact .EffK 09:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

EffK, I haven't been able to do much digging, but some things I can state:

• The RTFire Decree authorized the arrest of anyone - and the Communists bore the brunt of these actions. This was the factual ban on the KPD, but not the legal one (I haven't been able to locate when this took place), as the KPD still participated in the March elections and was represented in the Reichstag.
• The deputies of KPD and (to a lesser degree) SPD that were arrested were nonetheless legal members of the Reichstag, counting in votes where "a majority of the members of the house" was needed (some decisions need only majority of those present, but changes to the constitution certainly need "majority of the members of the house")
• The SPD tried to hinder the Enabling Act by staying away from the Reichstag session. Since they had 120 seats and the Communists 81, these missing 201 members would have rendered the Reichstag unfit to pass the bill, which required the presence of at least 2/3 of members (without SPD and KPD the number came short by one member)
• the government countered this strategy with an idea of Wilhelm Frick, minister of the Interior: it proposed a change to procedures, under which deputies absent without excuse (factually that was to be decided by RTPresident Göring) would be counted as present. This was approved of by the other parties, either in a plenary session or in the "council of elders" (the body chaired by the RTPresident, administering the parliament's affairs). SPD Deputies (those not arrested, of course) therefore dropped their thwarted strategy and took part in the session.
• as for dates, the Reichstag constituted itself on March 21 (Day of Potsdam) and it assembled again on March 23, to debate and pass the Enabling Act. The procedural changes must have been made early on the 23rd. (My lecture notes didn't give a date).
• this however is not the same as a legal dormancy of the Communist seats. I haven't found anything on that and it might be that there was no legal dormancy. If there was, my guess is, that it was declared by the Reichstag itself. In any case, in December or November a new Reichstag was elected with only the Nazis running in the election (as in the Communist states later).
• I haven't found anything on either this or the legal ban of the KPD. Books gloss over this probably because it is of no factual importance: de facto, the KPD was banned with the Fire Decree, apart from its candidate list showing up in the elections. My guess is, that the legal ban occured either before May Day (in correlation to the dissolution of the trade unions) or around the time the SPD was banned (June 22). In any case, it should be before July 14, when the forming of new parties was banned. But they might not have bothered with a legal ban at all.
• under the legal thinking back then ("legal positivism"), the arrest of the Communist deputies was not illegal, neither was the procedural change, nor the Enabling Act itself. That doesn't make it good or legitimate, but I'm afraid to say it, it does make it legal.

Str1977 11:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting and helpful .Except I do not understand that any legal positivism can up-end a contitution, see below for my nub of the question. Thankyou .

• First , Misplaced Pages everywhere needs correction by stating the Communist Party was banned by the 23 Sittings, which is blatantly erroneous, please let you correct , as you cause slower reverts( and, I tend not to revert you)

• User:Djmutex wrote in the dormancy/procedure back at the very opening in 2003 ,at his of his translation of the Articles.Perhaps this dormancy/procedure is a translation also, from Deutsch WP ?I note that same Djmutex is rather quiescent , nearly absent .
• Would you check the De WP to see if there there is a user history with source for the dorm/procedure going back to 2003?
• The words of Djmutex in that regard (procedure & dorm.) are the only online references to either. I also saw no references to either in the sources I have . The scraping meaning the search engine relevance /pick up , now make En:WP and Djmutex the sole reference, repeated(mirrored) into other references.
• This is an example of why I , and possibly you, have considered it so important that we get the facts straight here-WP mirroring .. it's both good and bad .
• We presumably agree now that there appears to heve been a midday(if the Centre meeting you quoted was at 11.30 we could estimate the) first session of the Parliament at c 12.30-1 pm .
• Historians presumably under pressure from publishers ,precisely in the manner that you and others have pressed me space-wise/encyclopedia wise - historians - conflate the two meetings , the midday and afternoon sessions , of the day and thus confuse us. Only the timelines note the difference(and the Misplaced Pages Timelines are a disgrace in their extreme paucity .)
• Yes the timelines rely on Guenter Lewy . I know nothing of him nor any specifically church orientated history .
• I cannot at all agree with your supposition or suggestion as to the importance of the Procedural change. What you relate sounds extremely likely and plausible -that even some Elders (which?) did indeed effect the change, and that Hitler presumably managed therewith to succeed in his hood-winking . But important it most crucially was/and is whether that or by actual vote at that morning sitting-at which all remain accountable *Please let's completely separate any dormancy legality questions from the one-party elections of November which were 39 million for Hitler out of c 46 million total , a remarkable result , and therefore relevant to all that I have noted re Catholicism's(and the rest, yes) commodation of Hitler. Commodation is the correct word I believe we can and should agree upon , as I have and don't now wish to suggest that it was more by anyone, whether Warburg bankers or popes or aristocratic big-wigs or French armaments manaufacturers or IBM (which you should please return to its shocking because recognisable English, please note .)
• I note that Gleichschaltung as a Nazi term needs proper translation, and until you can have the good faith to recognise my honesty in respect of the usage of my mother tongue, it is difficult for us to advance towards the clarity requisite .)English needs the German sense but then to speak it in its own English way . Seizure is not accession , in the other relevant term . Enable is something basically descriptive also , something which pricks up the ears .(And It is something I have had to accept , that a translation into another language cannot be understood unless the translator is completely bilingual from infancy , and even then without actual dual and changing residence ,will fall into malapropism . Even long residence in another language area will stultify one's native use .)
• I try to be open to your legal thinking but nevertheless in this case wish for sourced actuality rather than any thinking.Please sub-section the legal positivism into the Articles , which you refer to this . Legal practice , you may mean , but I/the WP scraper /truth want definable legality or absence of it (-though of course I thoroughly assent to all your arguments that actual deputies, civil servants, Priests, Bishops even ,were practicably constrained to keep shtum / be prudent in their actions/inactions/run/even justify them etc . I have no criticism for anyone except the difficulty that I continue to point to regarding the christian contradiction(legal & canonical , as shared by them all in great part - is it not so?). I have to recognise that christianity has hitherto built upon our Roman and ,say brehon cultural basis , and so see it as necessary to repair any major faults in such foundations of our culture.
• I will admit to no particlular significant error because our point of dispute rests upon an undocumented(un-prosecuted ) series of meetings and events which culminate in July and begin for me , but not Avro Manhattan nor Bruning, nor WheelerBennett who recognised a German monarchist push from Rome from 1925 . I come , for the nth time, from Mowrer and have confidence in him.I do not come from online conspiracy , but merely find greater and greater confirmation , deeper and deeper cause to warrant Mowrer's clear mention, as an important witness we should remember. Hitler got rid of Mowrer in early Febuary and it were wise to do so, as the world remained then , and still is now,un-informed .
• Where we continue( do we really?) to differ and battle is that you state as do the more truncated histories -that because they say that Hitler sent papen to negotiate the Reichskonkordat on 8 April , that therefore this means that the negotiations purely began then (say 10th) in Rome. You stick with John Kenney's reading of his source that therefore the quid pro quo was the Rkkdt for the terribly electorally important(because Hitler wanted the leaglity to persude the further November one-party peoples blessing of 39 millions) . However Kenny himself did not recognise that the voluntary dissolution thereby was the vital accurate reflection of the truth , as he himself adhered strongly to the dissolution of the Centre by Hitler. Subsequently he came back at me suggesting improper use of WP or something , and perhaps due to this sense of correction(not pleasant I'll agree) it has led him to persist in a contrary attitude. Somewhat like McC , who can never forgive me for catching him out personally and then editorially.(By the way McC I peruse without success thus far your user history for July , when I asked you why you claimed position as a mediator, when you had no user-history -You replied that you had changed your name . I distrusted you because of that answer, and because you asked me to give firm canonical definition beyond even that which I had exagerratedly uncovered,to willed grave sin . I had reason to doubt you good faith , and this was an unfriendly trick question , which I felt opened me to supplying the full extent of the overall opacity of the subject. I had no reason to trust you , and you justified this by then totally mis-labelling an edit, which I have saved. But I dig for the first still- funny I can't get the whole of July up .I believe you and I will be forced to return to all that, to your actions against the balance of NPOV, your saying youreslf that mediation would have to be called for and thus confirming to me that it had very much not arrived with you..))
• And User:John Kenney apart , my position as opposed to yours Str , is that given the clearest signal from Mowrer, I wish for total clarity about amongst other great figures,Eugenio Pacelli . Everything I have been testing you with as source for the last year , which is a long list and enumerated between us , and particularly reflected in full by the megamemex timeline (deserving of adjudication themelves ,perhaps)-all adds together to the Shirer and Klemperer and pretty much everyone in between those writers' opinions, that the negotiations are shrouded in a mysterious in-defined continuous parlaying between Pacelli and Kaas and Kaas and the Centre , between the wings of the Centre , between the Centre and Hitler(the nazi chief negotiators included) and between Kaas and Hitler directly whether for Pacelli or of of the Centre indefined. Hitler dead, Kaas under sovereign protection, the Vatican Archives still locked (apparently the only known fact) . I am not interested in interpretation or excuses however real , but in understanding , and therefore refuse to call halt to this. The historians leave it by relating to us the remarkable and indisbutible volte face in the Hierarchy , they append this to the terms of the Rkkdt eliminating the very real , true christian witness and interference by denying Clerics their hitherto political voice in Germany .
• If you consider these the words of a paranoid schizo, you only trouble any such person , not me . Similar insult is visble on that dreadful RCC sex abuse page, and is painfully shameful .You may prove to be right, if the Vatican opens, you and the vatican could forever still these historians' implicit conclusions, made with as much fact as they could un-cover. It is not enough to translate what is a distillation of many sources (as Shirer is or Klemperer or Bullock ) that is already itself a diminuishment , into wikispeak . I go further and see -perhaps-that you share with me in wishing an actual answer . Not interpretation but like the Nuremburg Trial , documentation , words used, numbers, hours , consequences, documents . Like these facts you allude to . Like that Centre meeting of 11.30 Am of the 23 march 1933 - Who says what to whom .
• I formulate my remaining 23 March question as being similar to that which is outstanding re Article 2 of the Enabling Act: a contradiction with arrest of a deputy of the Institution ,so ,whatever Frick's cleverness, I want to see how Germany(or anyone) today describes this maneuver of Its parliament, how define the absence of a deputy by his arrest when it's contrary to the constituion? Ie legality of the arrest, and subesquent definition of that as mere dormancy , as even protective custody for normal post Fire Decree citizens ? Would contravene the constitution as referenced in article (section) 2 of the Enabling Act ? Surely someone has answered this in the intervening years by more that an interpretation of by saying as you do that it is not important (because of the de facto , indeed not glossing it over .
• Anyone from outside this interminable discussion between Str1977 and myself , would of course think me turgid, long-winded and over the top, however this talk page discussion relates not simply to this Artcle , but to a generality of articles, the which mention I shall favour you all by omitting. EffK 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I shall hope you will agree at any rate to continue to find some solution. I'll accept anything that you come up with, and hope it gives utter clarity , no gloss . And then we can discuss the qualifications. I note yr recent change to Mowrer . We two should be able to agree , and source should be all we need . I fear Avro points us deeper, and there is little pleasure in such , and equally I respect the position of vatican knowledge that you have brought to this table. I see other points and will raise them . Good luck .EffK 23:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)