Hi Sid
Not that it matters greatly, but you implicitly assume the Versailles Treaty was immutable and eternal. Clearly it was not and it was not beyond the realms of possibility that either article 173 or the Treaty in its entirety would be set aside entirely legitimately at some point in the future. And regardless of that, predicting (accurately as it happens) an outcome and taking measures to protect yourself and/or your flock from it does not make you complicit unless (a) those measures somehow facilitate the outcome (b) you are aware of this before the fact. I don't see how the konkordat did either of those things. Just because you shore up your private levees, doesn't make you are complicit in the rain falling on the town!
As an aside, you say Hitler was unprincipled - I disagree. In many ways Hitler was very principled, indeed driven and blinkered by principles which he had clearly set out when he embarked on his political career, beyond reason and common sense. Indeed, I would argue that the failure of the Allies to contain and neutralise him was in no small measure because they failed to understand that.
We are Voting for Hitler!
-
Sid Guttridge
- Member
- Posts: 10162
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
Hi gebhk,
That is a fair point. The Versailles Treaty was not necessarily immutable or permanent. However, at the time of the Reichskonkordat it was still in force.
You say, "(a) those measures somehow facilitate the outcome". I would suggest that the reason the clause was secret was precisely to facilitate the reintroduction of conscription at the time of Hitler's choosing. I can't see that the Vatican required such secrecy, unless it feared being seen to connive in a German breach of the Versailles Treaty. More likely, I suspect, it was just conforming to a German requirement.
You say, "(b) you are aware of this before the fact." I would suggest that, even discounting Hitler's decade of rhetoric on the subject of the Versailles Treaty, the mere fact that the reintroduction of conscription was mentioned in the Reichskonkordat at all indicated that it was under consideration in advance.
Pius XII, who was Hitler's co-signatory of the Reichskonkordat, doesn't seem very impressed by his adherence to principle. As I have mentioned above, he had the following read from pulpits throughout Germany on Palm Sunday, 12 March 1937, in his encyclical titled With Deep Anxiety: “….anyone must acknowledge, not without surprise and reprobation, how the other contracting party emasculated the terms of the treaty, distorted their meaning, and eventually considered its more or less official violation as a normal policy.”
Hitler's aims may have been pretty consistent, but he was far from principled in pursuing them. At the IMT after the war, his regime was charged with breaching 13 assurances, 8 treaties, 6 conventions, 3 solemn assurances, 2 agreements and one declaration against 12 different countries by 11 December, 1941, so the Vatican City State was not alone (or perhaps even on that list?). Indeed, as perhaps the first foreign state victim of Hitler's lack of principle, the Vatican probably had more excuses for being gulled than later state dupes.
There are other reasons why the Vatican City State was ill prepared to meet the sort of challenges presented by a head of state as unscrupulous as Hitler. It had spent from 1870 to 1929 on lockdown pending resolution of its precise status vis-a-vis Italy. No Pope left its grounds, which were not even legally defined, in 59 years. (In the most literal of senses, the Popes were cloistered!). Only in 1929, with the conclusion of the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini, did it reacquire full legal standing as a territorial state. It thus emerged blinking into a modern world without even internal telephones (Pius XI never used one), or its own automobiles. It was hardly surprising that it was played by Hitler just four years later. As I say above, I think that Pius XI was a decent man and Pacelli/Pius XII was far from being "Hitler's Pope", but during the 1930s he played them both, among many others.
Cheers,
Sid.
That is a fair point. The Versailles Treaty was not necessarily immutable or permanent. However, at the time of the Reichskonkordat it was still in force.
You say, "(a) those measures somehow facilitate the outcome". I would suggest that the reason the clause was secret was precisely to facilitate the reintroduction of conscription at the time of Hitler's choosing. I can't see that the Vatican required such secrecy, unless it feared being seen to connive in a German breach of the Versailles Treaty. More likely, I suspect, it was just conforming to a German requirement.
You say, "(b) you are aware of this before the fact." I would suggest that, even discounting Hitler's decade of rhetoric on the subject of the Versailles Treaty, the mere fact that the reintroduction of conscription was mentioned in the Reichskonkordat at all indicated that it was under consideration in advance.
Pius XII, who was Hitler's co-signatory of the Reichskonkordat, doesn't seem very impressed by his adherence to principle. As I have mentioned above, he had the following read from pulpits throughout Germany on Palm Sunday, 12 March 1937, in his encyclical titled With Deep Anxiety: “….anyone must acknowledge, not without surprise and reprobation, how the other contracting party emasculated the terms of the treaty, distorted their meaning, and eventually considered its more or less official violation as a normal policy.”
Hitler's aims may have been pretty consistent, but he was far from principled in pursuing them. At the IMT after the war, his regime was charged with breaching 13 assurances, 8 treaties, 6 conventions, 3 solemn assurances, 2 agreements and one declaration against 12 different countries by 11 December, 1941, so the Vatican City State was not alone (or perhaps even on that list?). Indeed, as perhaps the first foreign state victim of Hitler's lack of principle, the Vatican probably had more excuses for being gulled than later state dupes.
There are other reasons why the Vatican City State was ill prepared to meet the sort of challenges presented by a head of state as unscrupulous as Hitler. It had spent from 1870 to 1929 on lockdown pending resolution of its precise status vis-a-vis Italy. No Pope left its grounds, which were not even legally defined, in 59 years. (In the most literal of senses, the Popes were cloistered!). Only in 1929, with the conclusion of the Lateran Treaty with Mussolini, did it reacquire full legal standing as a territorial state. It thus emerged blinking into a modern world without even internal telephones (Pius XI never used one), or its own automobiles. It was hardly surprising that it was played by Hitler just four years later. As I say above, I think that Pius XI was a decent man and Pacelli/Pius XII was far from being "Hitler's Pope", but during the 1930s he played them both, among many others.
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
Hi SidYou say, "(a) those measures somehow facilitate the outcome". I would suggest that the reason the clause was secret was precisely to facilitate the reintroduction of conscription at the time of Hitler's choosing. I can't see that the Vatican required such secrecy, unless it feared being seen to connive in a German breach of the Versailles Treaty. More likely, I suspect, it was just conforming to a German requirement.
You say, "(b) you are aware of this before the fact." I would suggest that, even discounting Hitler's decade of rhetoric on the subject of the Versailles Treaty, the mere fact that the reintroduction of conscription was mentioned in the Reichskonkordat at all indicated that it was under consideration in advance.
I don't think we disagree greatly. I think my point is that it is not unusual for legal documents to take into account what might happen in the future to avoid the need for drawing up new ones every time there is a change of circumstances (for example , if you have a properly drawn up will, it will no doubt stipulate what happens if your inheritors predecease you and/or if you all die at the same time). That is not tantamount to being complicit in an illegal or immoral enterprise, especially where the party in question was not party to the treaty or had any control over its implementation or revision. The Vatican had no duty, legal or moral, to defend or maintain a treaty it was not a party to but it did have the right to protect itself from the potential effects of one or all of the contracting parties either breaking or voiding the treaty.
Perhaps a more interesting question is why the issue was included at all. It could have easilyy been covered by a blanket 'the German armed forces will have Catholic chaplains' and no feathers need be ruffled. Yet if AH wanted it there why make it a secret? After all, as you have quite rightly pointed out, if he didn't want the world to know his intentions, the cat was well out of the bag in any case with 10 years+ worth of rants on the subject. Perhaps he just wanted something in his bag of tricks to help muddy the water should the need arise. The Vatican should have smelled a rat, perhaps didn't (and as you say AH pulled the wool over the eyes of great many people who had much less excuse) and perhaps did, but in any event even if they had, what else useful could they do?
On the subject of principles, I think we just disagree about a word. I get your argument but I would still hold that AH was applying principles to his dealings with other states and people - namely that conventional morality and honesty were not going to get in the way of him getting his way. I have no doubt that he was duplicitous, amoral and dishonest in his dealings. However those are nevertheless principles - even if they may be different to yours or mine. However, as an aside, it would probably be somewhat naïve to claim that he was the only such politician in history. Who was it who said that treaties only obligate the weaker party? I am sure, without singling them out in any way, that North American Indians would have something to say on this subject for example!
Last edited by gebhk on 14 Dec 2020, 21:30, edited 2 times in total.
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
The point is the Reichskonkordat was real (and the proper thing to do) and provided the German Catholics with some protection against the Nazis.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020, 00:43You post, "The Papacy wasn't duped by an unprincipled Hitler." Well, if that is so, it was instead presumably a fully conscious accomplice of a principled Hitler. Is that your position?
As late as 1942 Hitler himself strongly complained that the Reichskonkordat was an obstacle to his policies.
Some protection means some protection was available.
I don't argue with the Pope, that the Pope complained in 1937 didn't mean the Reichskonkordat was a failure.
Only its signatories were bound by the treaty as its preamble clearly stated. Germany was, the Vatican wasn't.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020, 00:43But that needn't stop it being complicit in advance to a breach of the Versailles Treaty by Germany. How else does one explain a secret clause in Article 27 of the Reichskonkordat reading “In case of a change in the present German armed forces in the sense of the introduction of universal conscription….”. Article 173 of the Versailles Treaty says, "Universal compulsory military service shall be abolished in Germany." The Vatican negotiators could hardly have been unaware of that fact.
And complicity in a breach of the Treaty wasn't a thing at that time.
That's arrived (in a very weak) form post-war.
-
Sid Guttridge
- Member
- Posts: 10162
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
Hi wm,
"Complicity" was always a "thing". It wasn't invented in 1945.
The Vatican City State couldn't breach the Versailles Treaty, as it wasn't party to it, but it could be complicit in others doing so.
I don't have to be married to you to be complicit in you planning to cheat on your wife!
I have no particular problem with the bulk of the Reichskonkordat, ineffectual as it was, but in its rush to achieve it, the Vatican rather threw the Catholic Centre Party under the oncoming Nazi bus! The only record I can find of any objection to the Centre Party dissolving itself comes from the Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII). He apparently felt it had done so prematurely, before the Reichskonkordat had been finalised!
Cheers,
Sid.
"Complicity" was always a "thing". It wasn't invented in 1945.
The Vatican City State couldn't breach the Versailles Treaty, as it wasn't party to it, but it could be complicit in others doing so.
I don't have to be married to you to be complicit in you planning to cheat on your wife!
I have no particular problem with the bulk of the Reichskonkordat, ineffectual as it was, but in its rush to achieve it, the Vatican rather threw the Catholic Centre Party under the oncoming Nazi bus! The only record I can find of any objection to the Centre Party dissolving itself comes from the Vatican's Secretary of State, Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII). He apparently felt it had done so prematurely, before the Reichskonkordat had been finalised!
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
For Anglos to understand this map, one should understand the greater history of Christianity in Europe.
British people often fail to remember this because the Church has had no significant influence in their country since the 16th century (due to Henry VIII's actions).
Simply put, where the Catholic Church was established anywhere else in Europe, it was a state within a state. Catholics are beholden to the Church authority and the pope, and in all those countries where the Church activities are not hampered by state secularism, the Church effectively wields enormous power by controlling the Catholic vote (if Vatican tells Catholics in country X to vote for candidate X, they will).
In Germany, this is what happened. The Vatican was not enthused by Hitler because Nazism told Germans the only higher authority was loyalty to their race & state, not any kind of Church. So at this time, protestant Germans (there were only really two religions in highly religious Germany at the time, protestant or Catholic) who were free, more often voted Hitler (which doesn't mean all voted Hitler), and Catholics were told at the time by Church authority not to vote for Hitler.
Hitler & Nazis understood they needed Vatican support to get German Catholics on their side, so they made a deal with the Vatican later on (Concordat), where the Vatican was effectively bought off. Vatican renounced its authority in Germany and agreed the state rules Germans, but on the other hand the Nazis allowed the Vatican/Catholic Church to collect Church tax on all Catholic Germans (which still makes lots of cash for the Vatican).
Even today, this church tax is still imposed on German Catholics even though it's Hitler who made it possible.
The Vatican is hypocritical as ever. They haven't changed in 2000 years.
On one hand the Vatican loves to condemn Nazism and Hitler in retrospective, on the other hand, they will not say anything when it comes to pro-Church Nazi era laws.
British people often fail to remember this because the Church has had no significant influence in their country since the 16th century (due to Henry VIII's actions).
Simply put, where the Catholic Church was established anywhere else in Europe, it was a state within a state. Catholics are beholden to the Church authority and the pope, and in all those countries where the Church activities are not hampered by state secularism, the Church effectively wields enormous power by controlling the Catholic vote (if Vatican tells Catholics in country X to vote for candidate X, they will).
In Germany, this is what happened. The Vatican was not enthused by Hitler because Nazism told Germans the only higher authority was loyalty to their race & state, not any kind of Church. So at this time, protestant Germans (there were only really two religions in highly religious Germany at the time, protestant or Catholic) who were free, more often voted Hitler (which doesn't mean all voted Hitler), and Catholics were told at the time by Church authority not to vote for Hitler.
Hitler & Nazis understood they needed Vatican support to get German Catholics on their side, so they made a deal with the Vatican later on (Concordat), where the Vatican was effectively bought off. Vatican renounced its authority in Germany and agreed the state rules Germans, but on the other hand the Nazis allowed the Vatican/Catholic Church to collect Church tax on all Catholic Germans (which still makes lots of cash for the Vatican).
Even today, this church tax is still imposed on German Catholics even though it's Hitler who made it possible.
The Vatican is hypocritical as ever. They haven't changed in 2000 years.
On one hand the Vatican loves to condemn Nazism and Hitler in retrospective, on the other hand, they will not say anything when it comes to pro-Church Nazi era laws.
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
1 This is very questionableSarge3525 wrote: ↑27 Dec 2020, 20:01
British people often fail to remember this because the Church has had no significant influence in their country since the 16th century (due to Henry VIII's actions).
the Church effectively wields enormous power by controlling the Catholic vote (if Vatican tells Catholics in country X to vote for candidate X, they will).
and Catholics were told at the time by Church authority not to vote for Hitler.
but on the other hand the Nazis allowed the Vatican/Catholic Church to collect Church tax on all Catholic Germans (which still makes lots of cash for the Vatican).
Even today, this church tax is still imposed on German Catholics even though it's Hitler who made it possible.
The Vatican is hypocritical as ever. They haven't changed in 2000 years.
2 This is total nonsense :The Vatican does not tell Catholics in country X to vote for country X, and besides : Catholics would not do it .
3 Most of German Catholics did not vote for the Zentrum party .The Church did not tell people not to vote for Hitler
4 The Kirchensteuer does not belong to the Vatican
5 Hitler did not make it possible . The Kirchensteuer was created in 1919 by Weimar .
6 The Kirchensteuer exists also in Scandinavia, Austria and Italy .
7 The Kirchensteuer is more fair than the system that exists in other countries : non Catholics are not obliged to pay the tax for the Catholic church .
8 The Kirchensteuer is not limited to Catholics: he exists also for protestants and Jews .
9 From 1956 til the end the Kirchensteuer existed also in the DDR .
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
The Zentrum party received in 1912 ( last elections of the Kaiserreich ) only 55 % of the Catholic votes,in 1919 less than 59 % ( there were 34 % of Catholics and the Zentrum Party received 19,7 % of the votes .In 1933 the Zentrum received only 14 % ( not all from Catholics ) which means that 60 % of the Catholics did not vote for the Zentrum,and that it is even possible that more Catholics voted for the Nazis .
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
Does anyone have any reliable figures of the percentage of eligible Germans who voted for Hitler in the last, 'free' - i.e. pre-Nazi, elections?
Kein Irrtum ist so groß, der nicht seinen Zuhörer hat.
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
From Reichstagwahlen in Deutschland
NSDAP
4 May 1924 : 6,6 (under another name )
7 December 1924 : 3
20 May 1928 : 2,6
14 September 1930 : 18,3
31 July 1932 : 37,4
6 November 1932 : 33,1
5 March 1933 : 43,9 ( these elections were only free to a limited extent )
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
Even with "free" elections, there is no evidence results would be much different in march, with millions more voting for the SPD+KPD. It is a fact that a lot of people turned to the NSDAP after 30 january.
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
Errm, but you would not be if you declared your willingness to see someone's etchings when and if their marital status changed - which I think more closely mirrors the situation under discussion. You could of course be accused of encouraging the split albeit that, I guess, depends on how much the party in question wants you (as opposed to how much they just dislike their wife/husband!).I don't have to be married to you to be complicit in you planning to cheat on your wife!
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
Thanks for the info, ljadw! What does "these elections were only free to a limited extent" mean?
Kein Irrtum ist so groß, der nicht seinen Zuhörer hat.
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
Theoretically these elections were free,but SA and SS were mobilized to help the police and exercised terror against the opposition .Media of the SPD and KPD were forbidden and the top of the KPD was arrested . After the burning of the Reichstag a state of emergency was declared for the whole of the country and almost all civil rights were suspended .
-
George L Gregory
- Member
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: 13 Nov 2020, 16:08
- Location: Britain
Re: We are Voting for Hitler!
With regards to those people who supported the Nazis after 1933, I think this is relevant to your post:
Ian Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich, Bavaria 1933-1945, p. 117.The mood of national exultation which enveloped Germany during the first months of Nazi rule had its tone set above all by the middle class. Most middle-class Germans found much to admire and relatively little to condemn in the spring and summer of 1933. The assault on the Left was widely popular. The ‘Emergency Decrees’ of 28 February 1933, immediately following the Reichstag Fire, which made devastating inroads into the freedom of the individual, gave extensive executive powers to the government, and announced a state of emergency which was in effect until the end of the Third Reich, were warmly welcomed.
What’s striking is that the Nazis lost votes and the Communists gained votes in the last free election in 1932, but in 1933 after the Nazis came to power the attack on left-wing ideas like Bolshevism and Communism was widely approved of by many Germans.