Talk:Pope Pius XII/Archive 12

Pius XII and the Holocaust

I have no expertise in this area, but I began to edit this section as it is difficult to read. I tried to pare it down (cutting repeated phrases and unnecessary adjectives, patching up solecisms with idiomatic uses, breaking up paragraphs, and putting logic on some awkward syntax). I only got half-way (gave up at the phrase "virtually universally" - it's not forbidden to simply say, "widely"). There is a lot of pro-Pius POV in here, and it actually muddies the statement of the facts. I'm familiar with some of the talk pages and recognise that there may be an anxiety to compensate for the hateful contributions about Pius that are just waiting to get in, but clarity of expression, where possible, is always best. I'll try to do the rest of the section, if nobody well-meaning has an objection to that. Otherwise, please break up the paragraphs, and divide the section with sub-headings: after all, the article is meant to be read. Personally, I would cut its length in half by farming out certain themes and subjects to their own articles.--shtove 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

edit of 1-10-06 Shtove makes excellent points and his edits are good. I reworked just a few bits of the article while preserving his good ideas such as toning down the part about Pius's critics being "pilloried for their poor scholarship" etc. and some of the redundancy. I did restore one minor thing that I think was the result of someone's recent edit: Identifying that the criticism of Pius came in two distince phases - 1963 and the late 1990's. If the record is going to be clear here, vis-a-vis that Pius was widely praised and that the first round of criticism came 18 years after the war, then idetifying when and how the criticism came is very important and should be part of the article.

It appears that in the course of trying to rework the edits by shtove, the anonymous editor accidentally reverted them. I have restored them. Robert McClenon 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As Churchill said, balls are round and they bounce,. The edits are not WP standard, given the situation. I'm sure they are made in good faith, so they are a reflection of the soft-ware. Whereas of the history,for which they represent an un-sourced speculation, they are a poor reflection, nevertheless they represent a clear and good response, an active esponse within the capacities of the Soft-ware. Meaning that goodness vitiates truth. A bit like saying, Oh -He didn't die at all, he went to heaven. All very well and good. Systemic Bias .EffK 16:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Bob, Sorry I am an anon and would like to remain one for a short while longer, but just so you know that a few of us really liked Shtove's contributions and so we kept them while restoring what we thought was important (the time line material - see edit of 1-10-06 above). The easiest way to do this was to work from the older version and put Shtove's stuff back in (such as getting rid of "pilloried" and getting rid of some of the redundancy etc.) Likewise, I see you punctuated Nazis' properly in your edit so I incorporated that too. I write this just so you know what is going on and how we were trying to achieve the proper outcome. Thanks!!!

Intriguing - an anonymous "we" who work in mysterious ways. Are there three of you? I see you kept "ensured" when you must have meant "ensued". It's much better if you log in, because things can be worked out on your user page without clogging up the talk page here. Regards.--shtove 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe its the royal "we" :) Good catch on the "ensued" - I'll fix it now. Thanks.

Hello Weber1 - It's important to present both sides and I've always encouraged everyone to do that, but adding a phrase such as "according to his defenders" doesn't create neutrality or objectivity. The fact is that Pius was universally praised after the war just as the sun rises in the east. The sun does not rise in the east "according to its defenders" - it simply rises in the east. Of note is no criticism of Pius from 1945 - 1963 and in fact positive praise from 1945 onward. Likewise the little blurb about "His critics point out the bald fact that those Jews in Europe who survived the war were simply attempting to recover from the loss of their families and friends in a genocide that claimed two thirds of the Jewish population. It is not a time for much celebration and praise when you barely survived yourself, and most of the people you knew and loved didn't. The remaining information in this article is brought to you by defenders of Pius XII. You will have to look elsewhere for sources of unbiased information." is totally out of place. We should never indict the reputation of Wikipedia as it grows and becomes more useful for students everywhere. Furthermore (with regard to the "recovery" argument 1) I don't know of anyone who makes this argument 2) it is very argumentitive and subjective and really doesn't belong in an article - it's more of an essay or stream of consciousness. I'm not saying that anyone's sentiments are invalid, just inapposite to this article. Likewise, whether they were grieving or not, everyone from Golda Maier to Albert Einstein spoke out and did so in praise. I guess your argument is that everyone was stupified by the war for 18 years until the play debuted in 1963? Maybe, but this would have to be supported. Likewise, maybe a section of theories is called for to explain the very delayed criticism. The section originally explained things that dovetail with history so I respectfully revert.

The section is still prolix and confused: some overlong paragraphs, repetition of points, insistence on certain points that looks like special pleading, and a fair amount of non-neutral POV, which - as I said before - muddies the facts. The section isn't there to make a case for or against the subject, but to state the facts clearly and concisely. And Note to every unsigned user: Get a Page! It's not fair to others wishing to edit, when they're kept in the dark about your other Wiki contributions and the prospect of maintaining a debate with you.--shtove 21:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Continuing Impossibility of consensus upon the Article

It is a reflection upon us that so many un-attributed apply. EffK 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean? Robert McClenon 20:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It means the Oracle has spoken and left the building.--shtove 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Since those who are asked questions refuse to answer there is no possible consensual repair to the Article. This is bad faith. Short of looking into the last Archives,which are at least from Archive 8 onwards, the recent questions are gone, so those to whom I addressed them no longer need to answer so obviously. Now the Article and the discussion lollops along to nowhere with unsigned contributions. I don't think I have to mention intellectual dishonesty more clearly than I already have. I can wish this area well as playgound, but certainly without reference to the since repeated conclusions of the 50-Edition Avro Manhattan, little can be expected. This writer is considered as hate literature, and despite the 50 editions sold since 1949, he is disallowed as source even requiring of careful de-POVing by Robert McClenon and Str1977. There will be no proper resolution of any of the interlinked history joining with the political involvements of Eugenio Pacelli here or elsewhere in Wikipedia, so long as balanced sourced history is down-sized by such editorial decision making by Users constrained to the opposite. Here will doubtless follow an opposite view, with a chance that yet anbother archive will be required equally soon. It is play, not serious building, to ignore source and the resulting questions of consensus. EffK 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC) ........................Some 5 months ao I wrote the following : I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you(Jimbo) therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) .EffK 09:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any specific change that you want made to the article? In particular, exactly what quote by do you want added to the article? I have never taken issue with adding her words to the quotes. I have only taken issue with presenting her opinion (which is an opinion) as fact. Robert McClenon 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who have arrived late, I have not tried to exclude statements of opinion that have been unfavorable to Pope Pius XII. I have tried to prevent their presentation as statements of fact. There is a difference between saying "Mowrer says that there was a quid pro quo involving the Reichskonkordat and the Enabling Act" (statement of sourced opinion) and saying "There was a quid pro quo involving the Reichskonkordat and the Enabling Act (with a footnote to Mowrer) (statement as fact of what is a valid opinion). Robert McClenon 12:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You consciously have denied source, and you take it upon yourself to judge verifiabitlity of source. The argument against me is a strawman to prevent various source. Your edit is counter , here, to your itemised behaviour. There is no prospect of consensus whilst you avoid the questions arising, but now hidden in archives. As to your charge of POV to the now eradicated Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates, that is pure symptom of your denialism. The subject was sourced, twice, and fact as fact. No POV at all. You are a regrettable editor preventing rational consensus through verifiability, and that is why you are a party to the Arbcom EffK trial. EffK 12:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Can some third party tell me what that means? Robert McClenon 15:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There you go again. An example of your disingenuous poseurdom as genuine- the Roman jewess had her own words quoted, and then removed. That was most outrageous, and that jimbo chose not to reply to my resulting question does not allow you to mischaracterise that .You know that the recently mentioned deleted article also was sourced nearly verbatim from Mowrer with the actual numbers and persons then backed up categorically from the Nemesis of Power as op cit. You were supplied with the actual page numbers after you pov tagged the article, if I remember this boring histoy at all. However, despite my requesting proper due consideration be given at the linking Hitler page towards referring to the magnates as industrial magnates, you ignored that ongoing plea in discussions, which you knew to be there as you were posted before and after it, only for you to go ahead and post your delete request. At no stage did you answer any of the related discussion requests with anything approximating good rational userfaith.

The strawman argument is the description given to the removal of an unwinnable argument onto that which the contestant believes might be winnable, to then paint that as the argument, and to twist thus away from the original argument. Thus the argument has to become -who is this mad Effk POv pushing wikigangster whom we should all revile and get banned ? The source is utterly forgettable. As\in who gives a dime for Wikipedia or whether it's on the ball, lets say all the problems are what you term problematic users, because humans are problematic. Your good faith in humanity is zero from your user page outwards.

I posed the apposite resulting queries to do with source upon this page here, at sufficient length to your demands for elucidation under wikipedia rule of verifiability, together with conclusions arising in front of your eyes, and about which you well knew were sourced at any rate, all this presented as good faith to advance the wikipedia article here. You will remmeber the section titles you yourself entered , or you will look in the archives, The Impossibility of editing this Article is one archive in itself, and then the next is where the totally relevant history and study of the earliest sourced commentary apart from the Nuremberg and the pre-war commentwas placed for rational consideration or comment on source call it what you will but chiefly call it verifiable. The accusation you and your ilk make is that the source is presented as my POV. That is the strawman. That way it is kept from a qualification of the source and declined as to a misinterpretation by EffK, or at best an inability by EffK to present the source as NPOV. however where we are now , and have been for many months , is that clearly I write as in NPOV saying clearly who says what and why and sourcing this exactly. All statements into articles I make are rigorously NPOv in presentation. But you mr Mcclenon, act both within talk, and at any edit I have ever made, as if my original moral expression of shock at the history - is what I write in the Articles. However you never point out a clear POV edit in any discussion, but cut and run. Then, all you ever say is -Does any third party know what this means? Am I EffK proposing any change to the article?

Well, it is frankly disingenuous to require source and correct verifiability and good faith and then to completely ignore it. You even have the gall to say at times that you agree with me(yet what you know to agree about is beyond my ken) and only your dislike or disapproval of my lousy editing makes you deem all I say to be POV pushing propaganda. but again, no diffs from you of any overturning source. You post POV reverts , deletions, Arbcoms, RfC's and these disingenuous and bad faith ripostes, but never a word of a countervailing source to dispute the dozens I have always faithfully presented. it takes you so, 3 minutes at most to swing by and leave an abuse, whilst I have entered the world of rational wikipedia verifiability and clear composition. I was driven conclusively off this article towards Hitler's Pope which I wrote in sufficient NPOV to have stood there where it survived a delete called for by was it not yourself? To say that it was insufficiently distanced by me from the source was only true in so far as the cornwell stood upon itself. But I know as well as you who have been informed in here, that there is myriad source from 1934 onwards suggesting precise co-ordination between Pacelli and the interior German situation. That the facts are so clear that they do not need to be constantly presented as somehow some scholarly POV, but are the actual history. Here the source on this article should be admissable despite past hagiographic ecclesiastical domination. Your inability to counter with countervailing source simply rules you out of being necessary.

You can and do contribute nothing except to harass me from entry. This makes you a regrettable fixture around here, and everywhere you behave the same. I am very glad that you are now to be considered a party to the Effk trial, as I have beeen trying to alert rational consensus to your simple denialism , for some time. you are offensive, hence I deemed it entirely necessary to expand to the point where you do understand. it would be idle to return with you as interlocutor upon the remaining balancing of the article. You are quite simply beyond reasoning through verifiability, and you always were. I refer any other would be editors to the Archived sections previous, The Impossibility of Editing this , and to Avro Manhattan, then to compare archives here with Centre Party Germany , Ludwig Kaas, Hitler's Pope, The Great Scandal, Reichskonkordat, Reichstag Fire Degree and Enabling Act, all of which pertain eventually to the subject of Pacelli, because Pacelli set up a collaboration with Hitlerism dependant upon a bargain, according to the history. But this is not admissable here because of ecclesiatical hagiography dominating Wikipedia which qualifies without counter source that this is malign impious slander unworthy of the internet, despite it being filled up out there with clearly the exact references. well, in fact because of me there are one or two sources more in here in WIKIPEDIA, AND WE ARE AHEAD , BUT....IT AIN'T ALLOWED. Neither I am allowed, nor you , reader editor. this could be you writing this, it makes no difference whatever, as the scandal cannot be presented for what it is known everywhere else to have been. this is purely a result of the Wikipedia software, not of the reality. Thus it is. EffK 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Reckless disregard of the Falsity re Pope Pius XII

Listen up guys:I don't hold with un-intentional error any more than with intentional error. The relevant 15 december AHitler/Pius XII hypocrisy is the best to be studied by Bengalski with particular reference to the Str1977 agreement with JKenney as linked from Evidence /Effk to 15 December 2005. I do not say this because of the contumate hypocrisy of calling something one has assented to believe to be historical, only to be later a POV of Effk's. That is another issue, that behaviour, I section off following. The behaviour deals with the same subject, but is an issue in itself, now,in WP, very firmly an Issue.The evidence relates to the revisioist level of admission here in this preceding editing subject:Pacelli/Pius XI(the papacy) and Hitler.

The Mowrer which is technically, in WP, classed as Primary witness/Source (Robert McClenon kindly left a link to WP source qualification,) is a Primary source because it is written and published reputably, from a first hand witness to the living claim . Whether Str1977 likes it or not it fits the qualifications by being that and no more nor less. The P/Source tag is an affront, if it doubts primary source. If it is placed against Mowrer it is a reportable issue, for several reasons.

Mowrer puts his entire reputation on the line by publishing the precise way he does. The Cardinal wrote that the Pope was worried about the rise of communism in Germany and advised our Party to help make Hitler chancellor. The Zentrums leaders agreed. and From that day the Center[American spelling]regularly supported Hitler

• From this p 209/210 can be seen several things. The date is thus: The May election to the Prussian Landtag brought another communist gain. This set the stage for a second betrayal, that of the Catholics. This in other words falls into the scheming Camarilla/Hitler/Schleicher proposition of the figure head Papen cabinet replacing the Bruning-with-General Groener Republic. Diet elections were on 29 May- is that the date before the following.
• Str1977 better remembers his comment to those elections and this May date. However all that can otherwise be deduced is sometime following those elections- 'set the stage' is indeterminate.political events would place this papal advice as during the period in which von papen was either being proposed , or following his proposal as chancellor.
• This v complex Bengalski, as Hitler and Schleicher were both hoping to control the other. What prompted Pacelli to write this to Kaas was the communist gains, and these were long-term fears of Pius XI, long term results, and I don't even know if it is that Diet elections is what were dicussing. i believe that mowrer's takinf a apge to tell the world , following the appearance of the Hochhuth controversy, is respectable in that Mowrer was not going to stake his Pulitzer Prize reputation in all theatres of War and Peace, upon this if it were not his witness as to the subject matter of the Pacelli papal relay.
• This is a blanket instruction or advice, and assent. Papen was not a Centre leader, but a renegade engineering for himself and his separate threads, notably the industrial side; Hindenberg was within the landed Junker/ aristocracy on top of Papen's threads; Schleicher was attempting to control the SA and thereby weaken Hitler, and himself gain army leaning Dictatorship, hitler was biding his time with his longsstanding experience of the need to win over forces and not make rebellion.
• Pacelli wrote this and it was read out as from him, by Kaas. Str1977 may well be good to qualify what advised means in papal/catholic terms. It needs to be sourced such that the word advised from a Pope can be utterly clear. It is not me advising Str1977,say, after all.
• Papen was not a Centre leader, but a renegade engineering for himself and his separate threads, notably the industrial side; Hindenberg was within the landed Junker/ aristocracy on top of Papen's threads; Schleicher was attempting to control the SA and thereby weaken Hitler, and himself gain army leaning Dictatorship, hitler was biding his time with his longsstanding experience of the need to win over forces and not make rebellion.
• We see Mowrer finishing this by saying that the Centre later at the close of the cabinet of Papen's Barons, proposing a Hitler chancellorship to Hindenberg.

• In fact Mowrer says even when in Febuary [sic/error= March) 1933, the Catholics realised it was too late to hold him [AH] to the Constitution, they voted an Enabling Act doing away with personal freedom, democracy, and law in Germany. This they called "clarifying the situation".
• The catholics. The Pope. Monsignor Kaas. The Secretary at State. Law.
• Mowrer appends results "And see we did. From that day forward..." and includes the Enabling Act,despite knowing they had no guarantee.
• Yes, this primary source makes un-ambiguous accusation against the papacy, Pacelli, Kaas and the Centre as Catholics, and as nothing else. As a Monsignor led, catholic, Pacelli influenced, papally submissive, Party. "...to help make Hitler chancellor."

• Bengalski read it very well and is utterly correct in the sense of his reduction. It is not a POV, but primary source from a Pulitzer Prize winner.

• Shirer is a Secondary Source as sourced at usertalk:Jimbo Wales:Section Shortcut to the brain Re: EffK/Arbcom.
• Shirer:"Hitler... added- with an eye to the votes of the Catholic Centre Party, which he received- that "we hope to improve our friendly relations with the Holy See". [23 March 1933]
• Shirer:"Monsignor Kaas, the party leader, had demanded a written promise from Hitler that he would repect the President's power of Veto. But though promised before the voting, it was never given. Nevertheless the Centre leader rose to announce that his party would vote for the bill."

• Now shall we go to the other issue. I note two defamatory personal attacks made aginst me here whilst the usual users, Str1977 and robert McClenon are talking to Bengalski. I repeat to B that he is best advised to go to 15 december EffK Trial evidence by EffK to understand what Str1977(and in fact RMcClenon are or are not prepared to believe, accept as NPOV history , as well as, Str1977, then renounce. B is best advised to withdraw from this Article and from any contact with these two users, as well as with the sevaral other named imlicated users whose defamation of me is specified by me at my Trial. Technically I believe I have proved that a catholic has to obey his church, and thus do not believe it a similar precept to have labelled Str1977 as I have as to his obedience. I regret the necessity of it.

The clear line , except that he Str1977 forgot it or thought he could nullify it for a spurious reason, at AHitler at 15 dec 2005, is this : The legality of the relationship between AH and the Holy See is unquestionable and begins with the Hitler proposed ( not secret) Papen trip to Rome 8, for the Government of the Third Reich/German Empire/Germany, to negotiate the Reichskonkordat, kaas joining him(not secretly) at Munich is incidental. kaas has no relationship to the negotiations whatever, and was just drafted in to draft the RKKDt at 10 th April. The papal approbation of the new german government havibg at its head a strong man , at last, to deal un-compromisingly with nihilistic russian communism, is purely diplomatic speak and . does not relate to Deputy,arrest , torture or murder. Because Jkenny confirmed categorically to me FK as was, that it is historically the case that there was a quid pro quo thereafter between the papacy(small P) and the auto dissolution of the Catholic Centre Party Germany as per refernced Secondary Source(Atkin and Tallet), str1977 has once assented to it. EffK sourced the reason why this is so known, as coming as news directly first from the Vatican State(according to the British diplomatic records). however Str1977 undid this assent as it being in some way to single out that party un-fairly(as if other tiny parties were of equal importance or were in some way themselves equally negotiated from inside the vatican. Such is the acceptable version of History, to some.

Any other version is of course un-historical POV, and slander. Scholars who hold to the earlier quid pro quo, skated by Shirer yet definitely included as received and linked to the Holy See, are all single source, discredited, erroneous, slanderous, retracting, not serious, non-historiographical, bunkum. EffK definitely mis-interprets them. When a Professor published by OUP states that kaas had a hand in the very speech here just referred to, it is mis-interpretion even if the sole words of that Tertiary source themselves are placed. they mis-interpret themselves. If not that, the Scholar is alone. Previous Secondary Source , such as Shirer can be out of date, un-'historiographical'.sign section EffK 08:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Duty to the Article etc

I have made it excessively clear to the publisher of this organ that we are all walking into very dangerous ground. I find the trial made against me an offense against my person, even as pseudonymous. I do not see any recuperation of these offensive users into any meaningful eidting, as their combined intellectual dishonesty is a matter of my knowledge . They are all very capable good writers and brains, but they are concerned with good taste and the interests of revisionism for clerical denialist document war, here relating to, of course, the historical shattering of the Magisterium or Divine Law. Hence the tangential discussions relating to Articles, which is the true explanation for motive in this particular document war . I do not waste my time Bengalski in acting under normality of good faith by attemting to edit the namespace articles, as I will have no good faith reaction from such revisionism. even when this view is tangential to the content of the articles. I should not try and tell you, Bengalski, what you should or should not do. I am familiar with the routine here. I would suggest you , however, that you bengalski go to Arbitration now as is your right and probable capacity, and place the names of these two editors Str1977 and Robert McClenon up for MY longstanding request for their arbitration. You would be doing Jimbo an enormous service, as the way this clerical revisionism is slipping this will become more damaging. Call it clerical revisionism against verifiable source, whatever. Your time would be better invested in that form of editing, as I for one cannot function as an editor, cannot help the text, and cannot submit to offense against the history and, less important,against my person. The Inmanuel Kant test as to whether I'd expect having this done against me -well- it is being done against me already. I have no hesitation in continuing my call for an outright ban on these two who are disruptive Users. Suggest? No- you can see the continuous seriousness of this situation, and you can see the rationality of my good faith, and so I urge you most strongly to do this now by way of a review for compliance by WP of WP in WP. If you lose me here, you will have no future guide but my posts to dicussions, and these revisionists will soon get rid of them. I posted for Arbitration a year ago here or very close,so, duty'' to this WP Article is to act, duty to the Magisterium would be to act, duty to the memory of the Shoah is to act, duty to the War dead is to act, duty to civil society is to act and duty to oneself, is to act. I await another than you Bengalski, I say save yourself.

Alternatively, we give them more rope, I'd rv to before you tried, just as I did not touch Pius XI.

I'm easy- it's Jimbo. I think Jimbo should do the duty. Reckless disregard of the demonstrably false is against all communities, not simply this one. He knows . EffK 01:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)