[edited Dec 2011: krótka dyskusja tych wyników tutaj. Jak kto ma wątpliwości, niech się pofatyguje do biblioteki jakiejś i sprawdzi, czy Kuehnelt-Leddihn kłamał.]
[edited 16.03.2009: Wilkommen, Lesern der CDU-blog:-) Wir sprechen Deutsche (erm, Notburga sprecht Deutsche …:-) ]
Amazing maps from ‘Liberty or Equality’ by Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn via Catholic Church Conservation via Fr Tim’s blog showing the inverse proportion between Catholicism and support for the Nazi Party in Germany in 1932.
Distribution of Catholics in Germany according to the 1934 Census
Distribution of Nazi Voters in 1932 German Elections
Contemporary German Voting Patterns
Laodicea 
August 1, 2007 at 8:37 pm
The Nazis polled 36-37% in the 1932 elections; they were not the popular choice. Worries about Catholic complicity derive from the acquiescence of the Catholic Party in the passing of the Enabling Act, and the terms of the Concordat (the Church would continue to get money off the state). The infantry did the right thing; the generals could (probably) have done better.
August 1, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Pius XI and the Zentrum seeing that it was impossible to prevent the Nazis from obtaining power thought a temporary enabling act (it expired in 1937) a price worth paying for the guarantees contained in the Concordat. Both Pope and Centre Party underestimated the Nazi’s contempt for anything but the bare appearance (and often not even that) of domestic and international law. Pius XI was unstinting in his opposition to Nazi and Fascist ideology and his condemnation of the violations of the German Concordat and the Lateran Treaties. In 1927 he declared “All forms of society should be founded on the divine precept. Man is not and never can be a means, he is the end—not of course the ultimate, supreme end which is God—but in the creation, man is really the end and centre about which everything is organized. Therefore neither the concepts of race nor those of the State or nation should supersede that of man as the end.” In addition to his general teaching on the role of the state and his 1926 condemnation of the French Integral Nationalist movement Action Française, Pius XI’s specific criticisms of the German and Italian regimes were delivered in Mit Brennender Sorge (1937) and Non Abbiamo Bisogno (1931). He also condemned anti-Semitism as incompatible with the spiritual Semitism of all Catholics. Pius XII (formerly Pius XI’s Secretary of State) laid out the theoretical basis for this opposition in his first Encyclical as Pope Summi Pontificatus – On the Unity of Human Society (1939). Although Pius XII later taught that the modern conception of Democracy is logically dependent upon revealed truth the Church maintained neutrality on forms of government requiring merely that private law (in the Roman sense) be in accord with natural and divine law. It is for this reason that the Church does not oppose any given form of constitution. The laity are free to determine by natural reason which is the best form. As Leo XIII, taught in the context of France, “Various political governments have succeeded one another in France during the last century, each having its own distinctive form: the Empire, the Monarchy, and the Republic. By giving one’s self up to abstractions, one could at length conclude which is the best of these forms, considered in themselves; and in all truth it may be affirmed that each of them is good, provided it lead straight to its end – that is to say, to the common good for which social authority is constituted; and finally, it may be added that, from a relative point of view, such and such a form of government may be preferable because of being better adapted to the character and customs of such or such a nation. In this order of speculative ideas, Catholics, like all other citizens, are free to prefer one form of government to another precisely because no one of these social forms is, in itself, opposed to the principles of sound reason nor to the maxims of Christian doctrine. What amply justifies the wisdom of the Church is that in her relations with political powers she makes abstraction of the forms which differentiate them and treats with them concerning the great religious interests of nations, knowing that hers is the duty to undertake their tutelage above all other interests.”
August 2, 2007 at 1:59 pm
(1) The suspension wasn’t temporary: Hitler was careful to renew the enabling act at appropriate intervals. That the suspension was not going to be temporary was eminently foreseeable: people do not give up absolute power on gaining it; to spot that Hitler was unlikely to be an exception to this generalisation required only a very modest knowledge of human nature.
(2) That it was impossible to prevent the Nazis from obtaining power is no justification for having assisted them; indeed, if it was inevitable that they would gain power, they wouldn’t need the assistance. And it is amazingly cheeky to assist – materially – in the suspension of the law, and then complain that one has been left unprotected:
August 2, 2007 at 4:06 pm
The Nazis were already in power when the enabling act was passed. This act allowed them to establish a temporary dictatorship within the framework of the law. Hitler’s renewals of the act required the consent of the legislature. Of course, by the time this consent was required the legislature was no longer truly a democratic body but this was due to the illegal acts of the government. No doubt this should have been foreseen. The question is whether given the information available at the time (rather than with hindsight) it was the right decision to permit the Nazis to establish a temporary dictatorship within the law in exchange for treaty guarantees enshrined in a concordat rather than risk the establishment of a revolutionary dictatorship of right or left. As it happens the Nazis had no intention of ruling within the law even if they thought it expedient to obtain their initial powers by legal means. The Church does not prescribe democracy as a form of government and democracies are also as capable of atrocities and violations of the natural law. It is the case however, according to Pius XII that Democracies have a certain dependency upon truths of Divine Law which at least makes it more difficult for them to violate Divine and Natural Law (though when they get away with it the long term damage may been greater because society is more comprehensively complicit).
“If the future is to belong to democracy, an essential part in its achievement will have to belong to the religion of Christ and to the Church, the messenger of our Redeemer’s word which is to continue His mission of saving men. For she teaches and defends supernatural truths and communicates the supernatural helps of grace in order to actuate the divinely-established order of beings and ends which is the ultimate foundation and directive norm of every democracy.” Pius XII Democracy and a Lasting Peace
August 23, 2010 at 5:12 am
[…] Tanto la figura 1, en donde cuanto más negro, más votos recibió el NSDAP (Partido Nacional-socialista de los Trabajadores Alemanes), como la figura 2, en donde cuanto más negro, más proporción de católicos, demuestran la relación inversa entre catolicismo y nazismo (fuente: Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn: Liberty or Equality, vía el blog católico de un escocés: Laodicea, «una sucia charca de papismo»). […]
September 28, 2010 at 6:49 pm
So, after World War II, Nazionalsozialismus has only dropped Nazional…
July 17, 2011 at 11:48 pm
[…] own behaviour. Adenauer said immediately after his liberation that there was a struggle between two Germanies: the Germany of Austria and Roman Civilisation and the Germany of Prussia, militarism and the […]
August 15, 2017 at 8:02 pm
The Nazis had already begun moving against the trade unions, including the Christian trade unions that formed the Left Wing of the Centre Party. With the Left wing weakened, the Zentrum surrendered.