New Pope is a former Hitler Youth...?

[J. J.]

1. The fact that there were other Condorats doesn't say anything about whether the Nazis supported this particular one in exchange for the Enabling Act

2. The fact that the Condorat was actually signed by future Pope Pius XII a few months after the Enabling Act doesn't say anything about whether the Nazis supported it in exchange for the Enabling Act.

3. I will not respond until you tell me whether if there is a poll of 1000 random likely voters, if Kerry leads Bush with 94% of the vote to 6%, that means that Kerry has a statistically significant lead. This is relevant, because if you answer yes, you are contradicting what you argued for months, not admitting defeat, so to be consistant, you have to answer no, a lead of 94% to 6% in a standard opinion poll is not a statistically significant lead.

1.  It does show that the Vatican wanted treaty (conordats) to protect its members, and yes, its interests, in other countries.  It further shows that it was interested in protecting itself in Germany prior to the Nazi rise to power.

2.  Well, there is no evidence that the Enabling Act was in any way tied to the Concordat.  And the Catholic parties were not needed.

After the 1933 election of March 5, there were 647 Reichstag members; the KPD and SPD had a total of 201.  Since, to get the 2/3 vote, the government had to arrest all the KDP delegates (81) and about 24 SPD delegates.  The Nazis had 288 and their rightist allies had another 61.  They quite simply could have arrested some or all of the remaining SPD members to get a 2/3 vote.

3.  Since you've attempted to hijack this tread with irrelavent statistical arguments, I've created a separate thread for the answer.  

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

It is a testimony to your intellectual dishonesty.  Any further question on this thread will be directed there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern:
The reason why this is getting tiresome and why you haven't convinced anyone after 14 pages of posts is that you don't have direct evidence to support your claim.  You can post all the links you want that link to an author who is speculating that the Church supported the Enabling Act.  2,000 speculations do not add up to even a single hard fact.  You are presuming guilt based solely on circumstantial evidence.

Your argument is also based largely on an atempt to shift the burden of proof.  You are essentially saying that you will believe that the Church did support Hitler unless someone can prove otherwise.  We cannot prove a negative in this case, nor do we have to.

They were clearly linked. If you want undeniable evidence that Pope Pius XII was behind the Enabling Act, I don't think you're going to find that. Here's the definitely facts we have

1. The Catholic Center party voted for the Enabling Act, and Hitler wouldn't have gotten the required 2/3rd without them.

2. The Socialist and Communist parties strongly opposed the Enabling Act

3. The Condordat was good for Hitler in that it had Catholics worldwide recognize him as the legitimate leader of Germany, despite the fishy circumstances of the Enabling Act, particularly that all of the Communist MP and a lot of the Socialist MPs were arrested before the vote.

4. Pope Pius XII not only support the Condordat, he was the one who went and signed it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. The fact that there were other Condorats doesn't say anything about whether the Nazis supported this particular one in exchange for the Enabling Act

2. The fact that the Condorat was actually signed by future Pope Pius XII a few months after the Enabling Act doesn't say anything about whether the Nazis supported it in exchange for the Enabling Act.

3. I will not respond until you tell me whether if there is a poll of 1000 random likely voters, if Kerry leads Bush with 94% of the vote to 6%, that means that Kerry has a statistically significant lead. This is relevant, because if you answer yes, you are contradicting what you argued for months, not admitting defeat, so to be consistant, you have to answer no, a lead of 94% to 6% in a standard opinion poll is not a statistically significant lead.

1.  It does show that the Vatican wanted treaty (conordats) to protect its members, and yes, its interests, in other countries.  It further shows that it was interested in protecting itself in Germany prior to the Nazi rise to power.

2.  Well, there is no evidence that the Enabling Act was in any way tied to the Concordat.  And the Catholic parties were not needed.

After the 1933 election of March 5, there were 647 Reichstag members; the KPD and SPD had a total of 201.  Since, to get the 2/3 vote, the government had to arrest all the KDP delegates (81) and about 24 SPD delegates.  The Nazis had 288 and their rightist allies had another 61.  They quite simply could have arrested some or all of the remaining SPD members to get a 2/3 vote.

3.  Since you've attempted to hijack this tread with irrelavent statistical arguments, I've created a separate thread for the answer. 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=20699.0

It is a testimony to your intellectual dishonesty.  Any further question on this thread will be directed there.

1. You seem to think of the Concordat as a one sided thing. The Concordat in Germany had Catholics worldwide recognize Hitler as the legitimate leader, despite the fishy methods of gaining power.

2.  I don't know the details, but perhaps (this is all speculation)
a) The Nazis needed 2/3rds of validly elected MPs to vote for it.
b) The Nazis were concerned with appearing somewhat legitimate, and figured they'd better have some non right-wing parties vote for it.
c) Perhaps some of their rightist allies had qualms about voting for it that were ended when the Catholic Center party supported it.
d) They were afraid the Catholics would vote it down if they arrested every Socialist MP.

Of course that is all speculation.

3. I noticed you focused on irrelevant stuff to try to distract from the real statistical question. Are you incapable of answer that straight question?

[Jake]

If they arrested every Socialist MP, they would have the 2/3rds majority without needing the BVP to vote for it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If they arrested every Socialist MP, they would have the 2/3rds majority without needing the BVP to vote for it.

The arrested socialist party members may have still been considered sitting representatives. Here it says two thirds of sitting representatives were needed.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob60.html

It seems like the most logical explanation (not sure it's the truth, but it seems quite likely) is that without banning the Socialist party (I think the Communist party had already been banned), Hitler couldn't get a two thirds majority without the Center party.

[J. J.]

If they arrested every Socialist MP, they would have the 2/3rds majority without needing the BVP to vote for it.

Bingo, except they would have had to have arrested about half of SPD delegates, instead of just about 20%.  The center parties really were not needed to give Hitler power; look he arrested some of the SPD delegates anyhow.  

The Nazis along with their right wing allies, the German National Peoples Party (DNVP), had the 2/3 vote if the KPD/SPD were arrested.  In 1933, there were 647 deputies, 201 were KDP/SDP, the Nazis had 288, and the DNVP had 52, Even if the center and other rightist parties voted against it, the Nazi/DNVP's would have had 340 to 106, more than 2/3 and above 3/4.

Contrary to JFraud's claim, international recognition wasn't really the issue at that point; most countries, including the US had relations with Germany and Hitler wasn't the head of state at that point.  So long as the Nazis had the majority in the Reichstag as well as the support of President Hindenburg, they were "legitimate."

[J. J.]

If they arrested every Socialist MP, they would have the 2/3rds majority without needing the BVP to vote for it.

The arrested socialist party members may have still been considered sitting representatives. Here it says two thirds of sitting representatives were needed.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob60.html

It seems like the most logical explanation (not sure it's the truth, but it seems quite likely) is that without banning the Socialist party (I think the Communist party had already been banned), Hitler couldn't get a two thirds majority without the Center party.

Neither the KPD or the SPD were banned at that point. 
There is a problem with logic (again).  If you don't need them to win, why bother arresting them to lower the vote totals?  That's especially true of SPD arrests.  Why run the risk of getting sympathy from the smaller center parties?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If they arrested every Socialist MP, they would have the 2/3rds majority without needing the BVP to vote for it.

The arrested socialist party members may have still been considered sitting representatives. Here it says two thirds of sitting representatives were needed.

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob60.html

It seems like the most logical explanation (not sure it's the truth, but it seems quite likely) is that without banning the Socialist party (I think the Communist party had already been banned), Hitler couldn't get a two thirds majority without the Center party.

Neither the KPD or the SPD were banned at that point. 
There is a problem with logic (again).  If you don't need them to win, why bother arresting them to lower the vote totals?  That's especially true of SPD arrests.  Why run the risk of getting sympathy from the smaller center parties?

Yes it's a confusing situation. There had however just been an election, so the Communist MPs and a few Socialist MPs had never taken their seats. The 94 or whatever Socialists who took their seats after the election may have counted against the two thirds majority needed.

Here's a timeline
Feb 27, 1933: Reichstag fire - blamed on Communists
Mar 5, 1933: Elections (I think it's safe to say the resulting anti-Communist feelings greatly helped the Nazis here)
Mar 23 Enabling Act

[J. J.]

Well, the number that I've seen is 2/3 of the members voting.  Still, why not just arrest all of them?

[phk]

So what.  An abortion kills actual human life.

I kill life everytime I masturbate

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, the number that I've seen is 2/3 of the members voting.  Still, why not just arrest all of them?

Maybe they couldn't in time.

[J. J.]

Well, the number that I've seen is 2/3 of the members voting.  Still, why not just arrest all of them?

Maybe they couldn't in time.

Well, let's see.  The got every KPD delegate.  The meeting was being held in one building.  Herman Goring was both in charge of the Prussian government and President of the Reichstag (presiding officer, not Chancellor).  He controlled both the room and the local Prussian police force.  He could just had police surrounding the building and arrested them when they showed up. 

Any more straws you wish to grasp at?

Just for the record:  If someone ever complains about legistative immunity, remember this example.