This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
You should write something about the lifestyle and culture in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s. Berlin was the center of the world back then (Fritz Lang, Marlene Dietrich, etc.)
"The use of almost pure proportional representation (similar to present-day Israel)" Mentioning israel here seems very weird. Is this a troll ?
The phrase, "To ensure that his fledgling government was able to maintain control over the country, Ebert pacted with the OHL, now led by Ludendorff's successor General Wilhelm Groener" is problematic because Ludendorff has never been mentioned in the article up to that point.
Earlier, the article states, "From 1916 onwards, the 1871 German Empire had effectively been governed by the military, led by the Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, Supreme Army Command) with the Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg." I thought this role was actually played by Ludendorff, though I could be wrong about that.
Either way, the article should explain who Ludendorff is before referencing him in that way.
From Text
"His audacious plan was to find a majority in the Reichstag by uniting the trade unionist left wings in the various parties, including that of the NSDAP led by Gregor Strasser. This did not prove successful either."
This seems to imply that the NSDAP (IE the Nazis) was leftwing. Also an alliance between the left (far-left?) and the Nazis seems somewhat improbable.
I wont change yet mind.
Mazzarin 04:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just read more detail on this and I now have no problem with the text.
-- Mazzarin 04:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I note that there is no mention of why the collapse occurred, no reference to the Enabling Act here . No link ... No reference to the suborning of Hindenberg father and son through taxation-related blackmail and other related issues . I note that there is notice of the banker . I am working on this , this is a temporary notice of notice . Famekeeper 09:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing :) Wyss 17:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks . I have completed the summary for the end of Weimar . It had better be copied to this discussion in order that it can be accepted or disputed . Here it is below without sectioning on a date by date basis . I claim this is the shortest possible history of the crucial dath of democracy in NPOV form . I can back everything up .
Wonderful. I have reworded the text for flow and syntax and placed it into the article (the last two paragraphs are at the very end in a new section called later reactions).
Note to myself... blackmail of Oskar Hindenburg re Schleicher.
Wyss
21:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you answer my sticking point in general? What was the legal basis of arrest in Febuary of the Communist Deputies , in the 4,000 leftist roundup reported ? I saw that dormant was somehow what they became at the next Reichstag , but wonder at how the Febuary( pre-fire) action legally covered Deputies ? Illegally is used in major source, but its old . Arrested is always used .
They stood as candidates , did they , some ones ? legally 'dormant' , but retained all but one seat . ... I see a discrepancy between the clauses of the post-election Enabling Act which exclude anything prejudicial to the institutions of the Reichstag , and the detention-in-dormancy ? I have asked this on Enabling Act and , well, ran off with it into speculating consequences ,whilst I still here in what you worked into the article said in red that [[Hitler did / did not possess the power]] . Please help because this is un-clear (to me!) I asked for a translation on this , if it could be located .
My worry about Ludwig Kaas and his 2 April meeting with Hitler after beaming off to Rome on the 24 march ....is far from abated . He is the crack in a russian doll , or not . Tell me -allthose cardinals brought out of Guenter Lewy on the megaMemex timeline , are they right quoootes and dates out of Lewy . I am told [they] mis-represent . In fact I'm told its all slander and untrue and that onlt the official start of the Concordat negotiations was Papen on the train with Kaas to Rome ( not secret as several sources attest) . In other worde I'm all wrong , or its unacceptabl;e truth to someone.Thanks,Wyss. Famekeeper 19:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Kaas was out-maneuvered by Hitler and wound up in Rome. I don't think the talks were secret but they weren't much publicized. Various aspects of this are inevitiably "unacceptable truth" to someone, the Catholic church's relationship with the Nazis was never polarized during the 1930s, they did try to compromise in order to protect what they had, and individuals in the Vatican weren't at all sympathetic to jewish victims of anti-semetism, hence the accusations of outright collusion with the Nazis. The documented record supports neither collusion nor strong opposition. This middle way results in an ambiguity that's uncomfortable for many observers, even some otherwise objective historians, to accept. Wyss 22:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I take this from an archive to do with the Kaas question , Discussion Page|Archive 2 archive
Maybe he just meant that Kaas had worked with Pacelli . When I say Russian dolls I refer to Cardinal Roncallo (?) and the apparent Russian language-in-Catholic-services reason for his being vetoed as Papabile by the Emperor of Austria , his connection thru to JPII , that being a saner reason than that it was because he was a freemason, but that he , Roncallo is necessary to understand the Pacelli , the banking , the Lateran investments , Pius and pacelli . That even if Pius wasn't a rabid anti-semite , maybe he justifies the adage that my enemies' enemy must be my friend . I was really looking for the Edgar Ansel Mowrer quote , not under his name , must be at Centre party archives . Ill be back . PS, those dormancy questions still get me . Famekeeper
How do you find the unpolarised lens? Surely Kas met Hitler privately for more than dissolving the Centre- I mean what influence did he have with the Centre party having rushed off to Rome the day after the EAct anyway , then for a week ? Who speaks from within the Centre , what does Bruning write about this ?
I don't like calling it subterfuge because most diplomacy involves some secrecy. He was obviously in Rome to negotiate... but for whom? Here's where my "polarization" metaphor may be handy: He protected what he thought were the interests of German catholics as he could, which in 1933 wasn't entirely at odds with the public Nazi "platform.". After the Concordat he was largely marginalized, the Centre party ceased to exist and given the authoritarian climate in Germany and his past role as a political leader there, he was much more effective (and safer) operating under direct protection of the Vatican, which in effect throughout the 1930s tended to cooperate with AH, who was seen as a stabilizing influence against the (atheist) communists. One cannot understand Kaas until one accepts the ambivalence catholics tended to have for Hitler (who had not yet laid waste to Europe, but seemed like me might play a part in saving it from communism, which by the way was linked with ethnic judaism even in the minds of reasonable, educated people then). Wyss 06:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Str1977 18:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Wyss , I take a rather harder view than yourself , but what you say just here is a bit like saying it without saying it . Anyway , I don't have a view outside of what I see written . I accept what the sources say. Funny how I never see contrary sourced views either . I note that the secret annexe to the Reichskonkordat , confirms what you wiped from my edits , Str . When are you going to get real ? I may present a line of sourced reference , but do not, Str, imagine this this is an FK thing . I thankyou for broadening my mind actually ,Str, the canonicals are a wow . And the irony of the quid pro quo- which you should allow -both of you- to be reportrd as historical , is that it was to protect canonical law and keep clerics out of politics ! Hitler didn't half know ... . Funny , that . And yes , side-dish is more silence of the lambs than usual academia- what do you think's better, human soap bars and light-shades and stuffing of hair into arm chairs? Saint Pius XII? For his gluttony alone he is remembered , so side dish is perhaps more apposite than u think .
If this is gonna be a Str marathon again, I dunno I 'll bother . What the devil do you mean by fairly...? Perhaps I should simply concentrate on the canonical case from here-on , and leave Str counting angels on the pin ... do you want the sourcing Wyss , or shall I just go for the physical shovels those excommunicated Popes need ? Anyway Wyss , I'll send a link to the canonical conclusions , as they are very clear indeed . Admirable .
I think your editing is pretty sparkly ... but maybe you begin to think of me like the mob out there? . Str even avoids the words Weimar Republic . You are very cute Str, at killing links ..... signed Famekeeper 12:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Patience... this is still controversial stuff. FK I think you're a bit hard on the church and too easy on the communists (who would have locked in their own authoritarian system had they gotten the chance). Wyss 15:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
So it seems that you Wyss believe that Artcle 48 (49?) allowed for the arrest and dormancy of the KPD deputies . That wouldn't allow for their original arrest prior to the Fire Act , and still seems to me in contradiction with section 2 of the Enabling Act . Since you have written that it comes under the 49 decree, I should really like to see my questions regarding how the dormany or arrest of the Reichstag members was legal at any time ...please , can you get me off this point...? Famekeeper 12:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I see on the Fire Act page that Communist leaders were arrested earlier . But that is not to say deputies(they were ). I still do not see how elected members of the Reichstag could have been excluded , given article 2 EAct preservation of the institution of the Reichstag . They were part of the institution ---surely ? Famekeeper 12:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I do see what you're getting at, I think the pre EA interpretations were likely abusive but since they were based on charges of sedition were technically legal. Wyss 17:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Historian(s) use the word illegal prior to the Fire Decree , illegal post that Decree , but who ever discussed the legality post the EAct ? It would appear to be still illegal even then .
Howsoever , Wyss, I have had to prepare a 500 word summary for Arbitrators, and I am now calling for arbitration. As you have never entered any of the relevant pages , I invite you to become one arbitrator . I shall be posting the summary shortly at Robert McClenon. Famekeeper 08:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Will do, I left a message on your talk page. Wyss 08:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't find it -what talk page is that ? Famekeeper 09:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Well , no I don't say I know that their moves were illegal or abusive as you write , I'm not assuming anything , except that what I cannot see reason for , needs reason . I see throughout the nazi/germany pages there is simply ref,. to the power and its use, but no definition of the power to include deputies. Opponents yes, communists (ie anyone , except a Reichstag Dep with immunity) yes . But I find it hard to accept a history that does not explain itself , nor a law that is at odds with the law .
Humanitas- I don't know whether their timeline is the same as MegaMemex, this link is to Hum Org in fact,... they an industrial magnates meeting in Goering's palace on Feb 20 th .
I get back to magnates yet see all through ref to german capitalism being highly structured inside quasi social form , and therefore not alike to the international market , however the corporations are def . multi-national a lot of them . at least as important in historical terms as concept of race , somewhere above nation .
McClenon seems to warrant that changes were necessary to the various articles and that arbitration is not . Can't see that arbitration does much , however , McC kept wanting the precis . So that's on hold , or whatever .
However I am aware that the guys who want Hitler's Pope just to refer to Cornwell , thereby seem to also allow for a much tougher line against Pacelli than that which I interjected .
relevant to the above , I see that in the Fire Decree there is no reference whatever to Article 20 of the Wei Const. This states that the Deputies represent all the people , are ruled by their conscience alone , and subject to no ...forget the word, ? control .
There seems to remain a considerable confusion in the various interlinking wikipages now . All refer back eventually to the Fire Decree , but the Decree doesn't refer to Art 20 .
The Humanitas orgainsations time- line mentions Decrees, one on 4 Feb (Protection of the German People) forbidding meetings; the 28 (Fire Decree sic) they too see as allowing for Deputies' arrest : [ [2]]
Then 6 Mar an emergency Decree against the press etc . I don't see anything anywhere that up-ends art 20 . OK so KPD couldnt associate , but they could vote and be elected , as they were on the 5th Mar , which confirms that the 28 Fire decree did NOT allow for removal of Art 20 . The Eact equally did not . seems quite extra-ordinary to me - and yes I take your points about the situation , but I simply see no removal of no 20 and no possible contradiction with section 2 EAct at the time it was passed .
Ok so maybe some present Germany had better enlighten the world . I am going to have to chase art 20 . I , change sub, offered old Str to delete the crap . Whenever I thought we had a reasonable balance , he did always return with an editing onslaught , so I'm nervous of being amenable . Famekeeper 07:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Only just saw your assent to Arb, thanks. listen to this from [ [3]] they seem to get to the nub of the fire Decree , saying that unlike prev. use of Decr use for susp of rights , PvHin on 28 Feb didnt notice the absence of the Ebert revived "Protective Custody Act" of 1916 ( they have a typo on the date)This A guaranteed a judic'l hear'g wi'in 24 hours of arrest, the right to counsel, to inspect relevant records, appeal, and compensation from Treasury for erroneous arrests .
This seems to be from the Trials and goes on to say that since the courts couldn't emit writs for habeas corpus et al , the germans were in the hands of the police who were in the hands of the Nazis who were in the hands of the nugget cabal of evil men .
seems throroughly illegal to have denied Deputies their freedom , even under supposed protection . It was contrary to art 20 and even sect 2 EAct . The questions I raised re this tyherefore still stand . Certainly the govt was an illegal entity from 23 Mar , and the reichskonkordat is illegal in consequence as it was not made by a legal entity , the vatican state , with any other legal state . This sure relates to BXVI , who people try and suggest I shouldnt bug . Famekeeper 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The following text was in The Great Depression in Germany; as it seemed to be on the same topic as Weimar Republic#Economic_problems, I redirected it there and am copying the text here, for possible merging if it seems useful. JesseW 04:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
As the U.S. suffered in the grips of the infamous Great Depression of the late 1920's and early 30's, the reformed German nation had even greater worries. Due to a $33 billion war deficit outlined in the Treaty of Versailles, along with a war ravaged economy and farmland, the Germans were already in the grips of widespread poverty when the U.S. fell into the Depression. In order to the restimulate U.S. national trade and business, President Herbert Hoover raised U.S. tarriff rates to an an all-time high, severely limiting international trade with the economic giant. With their primary market gone, the German economy competely collapsed with titanic aftershocks. This miasma of poverty and desperation led Germans to look to a strong leader to rescue them, a leader who would betray their hopes and instigate a bloody struggle for the future of the world.
Str is removing the Cornwell stuff wholesale as I write, its an immediate editing , claims disproved , there is no source from him for this I can see to back it up . I am just letting the Cornwell stand on the link to the Vanity Fair abbreviation . This really aint a FK problem no more no more , but well, it is a problem and needs whatever . I shall have to rustle up some IQ and you are first on my list . Sorry . I don't even want to deal with this or them as I really don't want to strain my good faith .They just need to stick to the rules . My own view is that the page needs protecting from my last edit . I have of course posted the source on discussion to join the 25 feet of previous discussions . Wyss-it's time I fear . Famekeeper 16:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Some evidently think WP struggle is too much and just up sticks, seems . !
I think there's some evidence here that many powerful institutions were actively undermining the Weimar Republic, particularly the German military and German industry. Further, the Weimar Republic was deeply unpopular with a significant fraction of German voters. So it appears to me that even if Hitler had been thwarted, the Republic would have died sooner or later. Here's a speculative scenario.
This would go a long way to explaining why Hitler gained power so fast. Ie, he made a deal with these powerful institutions and they in turn used their power (and perhaps preexisting plans!) to support the Nazi party and more importantly to overcome obstacles in the way of a return to authoritarianism. For example, Hindenberg's resistance may have been overcome by persuasion from the German military. Or even that Hindenberg may have been persuaded that Hitler would make an adequate (if perhaps temporary) figurehead for a return to authoritarianism. Further, German intelligence would probably be far more capable at finding blackmail than the Nazi equivalent.
Whatever the case, it's clear that the Nazi leadership had planned extensively and thoroughly for a return to authortarianism. But to go from seizing power in 1933 to the start of the Second World War in 1939? That sounds like the culmination of a sophisticated war plan that the Nazi's might not have the resources to come up with on their own. The German military would have had adequate resources throughout the 20's to come up with something like this.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
You should write something about the lifestyle and culture in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s. Berlin was the center of the world back then (Fritz Lang, Marlene Dietrich, etc.)
"The use of almost pure proportional representation (similar to present-day Israel)" Mentioning israel here seems very weird. Is this a troll ?
The phrase, "To ensure that his fledgling government was able to maintain control over the country, Ebert pacted with the OHL, now led by Ludendorff's successor General Wilhelm Groener" is problematic because Ludendorff has never been mentioned in the article up to that point.
Earlier, the article states, "From 1916 onwards, the 1871 German Empire had effectively been governed by the military, led by the Oberste Heeresleitung (OHL, Supreme Army Command) with the Chief of Staff Paul von Hindenburg." I thought this role was actually played by Ludendorff, though I could be wrong about that.
Either way, the article should explain who Ludendorff is before referencing him in that way.
From Text
"His audacious plan was to find a majority in the Reichstag by uniting the trade unionist left wings in the various parties, including that of the NSDAP led by Gregor Strasser. This did not prove successful either."
This seems to imply that the NSDAP (IE the Nazis) was leftwing. Also an alliance between the left (far-left?) and the Nazis seems somewhat improbable.
I wont change yet mind.
Mazzarin 04:31, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just read more detail on this and I now have no problem with the text.
-- Mazzarin 04:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I note that there is no mention of why the collapse occurred, no reference to the Enabling Act here . No link ... No reference to the suborning of Hindenberg father and son through taxation-related blackmail and other related issues . I note that there is notice of the banker . I am working on this , this is a temporary notice of notice . Famekeeper 09:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing :) Wyss 17:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks . I have completed the summary for the end of Weimar . It had better be copied to this discussion in order that it can be accepted or disputed . Here it is below without sectioning on a date by date basis . I claim this is the shortest possible history of the crucial dath of democracy in NPOV form . I can back everything up .
Wonderful. I have reworded the text for flow and syntax and placed it into the article (the last two paragraphs are at the very end in a new section called later reactions).
Note to myself... blackmail of Oskar Hindenburg re Schleicher.
Wyss
21:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you answer my sticking point in general? What was the legal basis of arrest in Febuary of the Communist Deputies , in the 4,000 leftist roundup reported ? I saw that dormant was somehow what they became at the next Reichstag , but wonder at how the Febuary( pre-fire) action legally covered Deputies ? Illegally is used in major source, but its old . Arrested is always used .
They stood as candidates , did they , some ones ? legally 'dormant' , but retained all but one seat . ... I see a discrepancy between the clauses of the post-election Enabling Act which exclude anything prejudicial to the institutions of the Reichstag , and the detention-in-dormancy ? I have asked this on Enabling Act and , well, ran off with it into speculating consequences ,whilst I still here in what you worked into the article said in red that [[Hitler did / did not possess the power]] . Please help because this is un-clear (to me!) I asked for a translation on this , if it could be located .
My worry about Ludwig Kaas and his 2 April meeting with Hitler after beaming off to Rome on the 24 march ....is far from abated . He is the crack in a russian doll , or not . Tell me -allthose cardinals brought out of Guenter Lewy on the megaMemex timeline , are they right quoootes and dates out of Lewy . I am told [they] mis-represent . In fact I'm told its all slander and untrue and that onlt the official start of the Concordat negotiations was Papen on the train with Kaas to Rome ( not secret as several sources attest) . In other worde I'm all wrong , or its unacceptabl;e truth to someone.Thanks,Wyss. Famekeeper 19:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Kaas was out-maneuvered by Hitler and wound up in Rome. I don't think the talks were secret but they weren't much publicized. Various aspects of this are inevitiably "unacceptable truth" to someone, the Catholic church's relationship with the Nazis was never polarized during the 1930s, they did try to compromise in order to protect what they had, and individuals in the Vatican weren't at all sympathetic to jewish victims of anti-semetism, hence the accusations of outright collusion with the Nazis. The documented record supports neither collusion nor strong opposition. This middle way results in an ambiguity that's uncomfortable for many observers, even some otherwise objective historians, to accept. Wyss 22:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I take this from an archive to do with the Kaas question , Discussion Page|Archive 2 archive
Maybe he just meant that Kaas had worked with Pacelli . When I say Russian dolls I refer to Cardinal Roncallo (?) and the apparent Russian language-in-Catholic-services reason for his being vetoed as Papabile by the Emperor of Austria , his connection thru to JPII , that being a saner reason than that it was because he was a freemason, but that he , Roncallo is necessary to understand the Pacelli , the banking , the Lateran investments , Pius and pacelli . That even if Pius wasn't a rabid anti-semite , maybe he justifies the adage that my enemies' enemy must be my friend . I was really looking for the Edgar Ansel Mowrer quote , not under his name , must be at Centre party archives . Ill be back . PS, those dormancy questions still get me . Famekeeper
How do you find the unpolarised lens? Surely Kas met Hitler privately for more than dissolving the Centre- I mean what influence did he have with the Centre party having rushed off to Rome the day after the EAct anyway , then for a week ? Who speaks from within the Centre , what does Bruning write about this ?
I don't like calling it subterfuge because most diplomacy involves some secrecy. He was obviously in Rome to negotiate... but for whom? Here's where my "polarization" metaphor may be handy: He protected what he thought were the interests of German catholics as he could, which in 1933 wasn't entirely at odds with the public Nazi "platform.". After the Concordat he was largely marginalized, the Centre party ceased to exist and given the authoritarian climate in Germany and his past role as a political leader there, he was much more effective (and safer) operating under direct protection of the Vatican, which in effect throughout the 1930s tended to cooperate with AH, who was seen as a stabilizing influence against the (atheist) communists. One cannot understand Kaas until one accepts the ambivalence catholics tended to have for Hitler (who had not yet laid waste to Europe, but seemed like me might play a part in saving it from communism, which by the way was linked with ethnic judaism even in the minds of reasonable, educated people then). Wyss 06:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Str1977 18:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Wyss , I take a rather harder view than yourself , but what you say just here is a bit like saying it without saying it . Anyway , I don't have a view outside of what I see written . I accept what the sources say. Funny how I never see contrary sourced views either . I note that the secret annexe to the Reichskonkordat , confirms what you wiped from my edits , Str . When are you going to get real ? I may present a line of sourced reference , but do not, Str, imagine this this is an FK thing . I thankyou for broadening my mind actually ,Str, the canonicals are a wow . And the irony of the quid pro quo- which you should allow -both of you- to be reportrd as historical , is that it was to protect canonical law and keep clerics out of politics ! Hitler didn't half know ... . Funny , that . And yes , side-dish is more silence of the lambs than usual academia- what do you think's better, human soap bars and light-shades and stuffing of hair into arm chairs? Saint Pius XII? For his gluttony alone he is remembered , so side dish is perhaps more apposite than u think .
If this is gonna be a Str marathon again, I dunno I 'll bother . What the devil do you mean by fairly...? Perhaps I should simply concentrate on the canonical case from here-on , and leave Str counting angels on the pin ... do you want the sourcing Wyss , or shall I just go for the physical shovels those excommunicated Popes need ? Anyway Wyss , I'll send a link to the canonical conclusions , as they are very clear indeed . Admirable .
I think your editing is pretty sparkly ... but maybe you begin to think of me like the mob out there? . Str even avoids the words Weimar Republic . You are very cute Str, at killing links ..... signed Famekeeper 12:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Patience... this is still controversial stuff. FK I think you're a bit hard on the church and too easy on the communists (who would have locked in their own authoritarian system had they gotten the chance). Wyss 15:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
So it seems that you Wyss believe that Artcle 48 (49?) allowed for the arrest and dormancy of the KPD deputies . That wouldn't allow for their original arrest prior to the Fire Act , and still seems to me in contradiction with section 2 of the Enabling Act . Since you have written that it comes under the 49 decree, I should really like to see my questions regarding how the dormany or arrest of the Reichstag members was legal at any time ...please , can you get me off this point...? Famekeeper 12:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I see on the Fire Act page that Communist leaders were arrested earlier . But that is not to say deputies(they were ). I still do not see how elected members of the Reichstag could have been excluded , given article 2 EAct preservation of the institution of the Reichstag . They were part of the institution ---surely ? Famekeeper 12:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I do see what you're getting at, I think the pre EA interpretations were likely abusive but since they were based on charges of sedition were technically legal. Wyss 17:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Historian(s) use the word illegal prior to the Fire Decree , illegal post that Decree , but who ever discussed the legality post the EAct ? It would appear to be still illegal even then .
Howsoever , Wyss, I have had to prepare a 500 word summary for Arbitrators, and I am now calling for arbitration. As you have never entered any of the relevant pages , I invite you to become one arbitrator . I shall be posting the summary shortly at Robert McClenon. Famekeeper 08:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Will do, I left a message on your talk page. Wyss 08:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't find it -what talk page is that ? Famekeeper 09:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Well , no I don't say I know that their moves were illegal or abusive as you write , I'm not assuming anything , except that what I cannot see reason for , needs reason . I see throughout the nazi/germany pages there is simply ref,. to the power and its use, but no definition of the power to include deputies. Opponents yes, communists (ie anyone , except a Reichstag Dep with immunity) yes . But I find it hard to accept a history that does not explain itself , nor a law that is at odds with the law .
Humanitas- I don't know whether their timeline is the same as MegaMemex, this link is to Hum Org in fact,... they an industrial magnates meeting in Goering's palace on Feb 20 th .
I get back to magnates yet see all through ref to german capitalism being highly structured inside quasi social form , and therefore not alike to the international market , however the corporations are def . multi-national a lot of them . at least as important in historical terms as concept of race , somewhere above nation .
McClenon seems to warrant that changes were necessary to the various articles and that arbitration is not . Can't see that arbitration does much , however , McC kept wanting the precis . So that's on hold , or whatever .
However I am aware that the guys who want Hitler's Pope just to refer to Cornwell , thereby seem to also allow for a much tougher line against Pacelli than that which I interjected .
relevant to the above , I see that in the Fire Decree there is no reference whatever to Article 20 of the Wei Const. This states that the Deputies represent all the people , are ruled by their conscience alone , and subject to no ...forget the word, ? control .
There seems to remain a considerable confusion in the various interlinking wikipages now . All refer back eventually to the Fire Decree , but the Decree doesn't refer to Art 20 .
The Humanitas orgainsations time- line mentions Decrees, one on 4 Feb (Protection of the German People) forbidding meetings; the 28 (Fire Decree sic) they too see as allowing for Deputies' arrest : [ [2]]
Then 6 Mar an emergency Decree against the press etc . I don't see anything anywhere that up-ends art 20 . OK so KPD couldnt associate , but they could vote and be elected , as they were on the 5th Mar , which confirms that the 28 Fire decree did NOT allow for removal of Art 20 . The Eact equally did not . seems quite extra-ordinary to me - and yes I take your points about the situation , but I simply see no removal of no 20 and no possible contradiction with section 2 EAct at the time it was passed .
Ok so maybe some present Germany had better enlighten the world . I am going to have to chase art 20 . I , change sub, offered old Str to delete the crap . Whenever I thought we had a reasonable balance , he did always return with an editing onslaught , so I'm nervous of being amenable . Famekeeper 07:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Only just saw your assent to Arb, thanks. listen to this from [ [3]] they seem to get to the nub of the fire Decree , saying that unlike prev. use of Decr use for susp of rights , PvHin on 28 Feb didnt notice the absence of the Ebert revived "Protective Custody Act" of 1916 ( they have a typo on the date)This A guaranteed a judic'l hear'g wi'in 24 hours of arrest, the right to counsel, to inspect relevant records, appeal, and compensation from Treasury for erroneous arrests .
This seems to be from the Trials and goes on to say that since the courts couldn't emit writs for habeas corpus et al , the germans were in the hands of the police who were in the hands of the Nazis who were in the hands of the nugget cabal of evil men .
seems throroughly illegal to have denied Deputies their freedom , even under supposed protection . It was contrary to art 20 and even sect 2 EAct . The questions I raised re this tyherefore still stand . Certainly the govt was an illegal entity from 23 Mar , and the reichskonkordat is illegal in consequence as it was not made by a legal entity , the vatican state , with any other legal state . This sure relates to BXVI , who people try and suggest I shouldnt bug . Famekeeper 09:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The following text was in The Great Depression in Germany; as it seemed to be on the same topic as Weimar Republic#Economic_problems, I redirected it there and am copying the text here, for possible merging if it seems useful. JesseW 04:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
As the U.S. suffered in the grips of the infamous Great Depression of the late 1920's and early 30's, the reformed German nation had even greater worries. Due to a $33 billion war deficit outlined in the Treaty of Versailles, along with a war ravaged economy and farmland, the Germans were already in the grips of widespread poverty when the U.S. fell into the Depression. In order to the restimulate U.S. national trade and business, President Herbert Hoover raised U.S. tarriff rates to an an all-time high, severely limiting international trade with the economic giant. With their primary market gone, the German economy competely collapsed with titanic aftershocks. This miasma of poverty and desperation led Germans to look to a strong leader to rescue them, a leader who would betray their hopes and instigate a bloody struggle for the future of the world.
Str is removing the Cornwell stuff wholesale as I write, its an immediate editing , claims disproved , there is no source from him for this I can see to back it up . I am just letting the Cornwell stand on the link to the Vanity Fair abbreviation . This really aint a FK problem no more no more , but well, it is a problem and needs whatever . I shall have to rustle up some IQ and you are first on my list . Sorry . I don't even want to deal with this or them as I really don't want to strain my good faith .They just need to stick to the rules . My own view is that the page needs protecting from my last edit . I have of course posted the source on discussion to join the 25 feet of previous discussions . Wyss-it's time I fear . Famekeeper 16:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Some evidently think WP struggle is too much and just up sticks, seems . !
I think there's some evidence here that many powerful institutions were actively undermining the Weimar Republic, particularly the German military and German industry. Further, the Weimar Republic was deeply unpopular with a significant fraction of German voters. So it appears to me that even if Hitler had been thwarted, the Republic would have died sooner or later. Here's a speculative scenario.
This would go a long way to explaining why Hitler gained power so fast. Ie, he made a deal with these powerful institutions and they in turn used their power (and perhaps preexisting plans!) to support the Nazi party and more importantly to overcome obstacles in the way of a return to authoritarianism. For example, Hindenberg's resistance may have been overcome by persuasion from the German military. Or even that Hindenberg may have been persuaded that Hitler would make an adequate (if perhaps temporary) figurehead for a return to authoritarianism. Further, German intelligence would probably be far more capable at finding blackmail than the Nazi equivalent.
Whatever the case, it's clear that the Nazi leadership had planned extensively and thoroughly for a return to authortarianism. But to go from seizing power in 1933 to the start of the Second World War in 1939? That sounds like the culmination of a sophisticated war plan that the Nazi's might not have the resources to come up with on their own. The German military would have had adequate resources throughout the 20's to come up with something like this.