Ludwig Kaas - Kaas As Party Chairman

Kaas As Party Chairman

Without being a candidate, September 1928 Kaas was elected chairman of the Centre Party, in order to mediate the tension between the party's wings and to strengthen their ties with the Bishops. From 1930 onwards, Kaas loyally supported the administration under the Centre's Heinrich Brüning. In 1932 he campaigned for the re-election of Hindenburg, calling him a "venerated historical personality" and "the keeper of the constitution". As his frequent Vatican travels hampered his work as chairman, Kaas was prepared to yield the leadership of the party to Brüning, whom Hindenburg had dismissed in May, but the former Chancellor declined and asked the prelate to stay.

Kaas and Brüning led the Centre Party into opposition to the new Chancellor: party renegade Franz von Papen. Kaas called him the "Ephialtes of the Centre Party". Kaas tried to re-establish a working parliament by cooperation with the National Socialists.

When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor on 30 January 1933 based on a coalition between National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), German National People's Party (DNVP) and independent conservatives which excluded the Centre Party, Kaas felt betrayed. In the campaign leading up to the election on 5 March, Kaas vigorously campaigned against the new government, but after the government parties succeeded in attaining a majority, he visited Vice Chancellor Papen, offering to put an end to their old animosities.

Later that month, from 15 March, he was the main advocate supporting the Hitler administration's Enabling Act in return for certain constitutional and, allegedly ecclesiatic guarantees. Hitler responded positively via Papen. On the 21st and 22 March the Centre leadership negotiated with Hitler on the conditions and reached an agreement. A letter, in which Hitler would confirm the agreement in writing, was promised by the government but never delivered.

Kaas - as much as the other party leaders - was aware of the doubtful nature of any guarantees, and, when the Centre fraction assembled on 23 March to decide on their vote, he still advised his fellow party members to support the bill, given the "precarious state of the fraction", saying: "On the one hand we must preserve our soul, but on the other hand a rejection of the Enabling Act would result in unpleasant consequences for fraction and party. What is left is only to guard us against the worst. Were a two-thirds majority not obtained, the government's plans would be carried through by other means. The President has acquiesced in the Enabling Act. From the DNVP no attempt of relieving the situation is to be expected."

A considerable group of parliamentarians however opposed the chairman's course, among whom were the former Chancellors, his nemesis Heinrich Brüning and Joseph Wirth and former minister Adam Stegerwald. The opponents also argued in regard to Catholic social teaching that ruled out participating in an act of revolution. The proponents however argued that a "national revolution" had already occurred with Hitler's appointment and the presidential decree suspending basic rights, and that the Enabling Act would contain revolutionary force and move the government back to a legal order. Both groupings were not unaffected by Hitler's self-portrayal as a moderate seeking co-operation, as given on the Day of Potsdam of 21 March, as against the more revolutionary SA led by Ernst Röhm.

In the end the majority of Centre parliamentarians supported Kaas's proposal. Brüning and his followers agreed to respect party discipline by also voting in favour of the bill.

On 23 March, the Reichstag assembled at midday under turbulent circumstances. Some SA men served as guards, while others crowded outside the building, both to intimidate any opposing views. Hitler's speech, which emphasised the importance of Christianity to the German culture, was aimed particularly at assuaging the Centre Party's sensibilities and almost verbatim incorporated Kaas's requested guarantees. Kaas gave a speech, voicing the Centre's support for the bill amid "concerns put aside", while Brüning notably remained silent. When parliament assembled again in the evening, all parties except theSPD, represented by their chairman Otto Wels, voted in favour of the Enabling Act. This vote was a major step in the institution of the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler and is remembered as the prime example of a democracy voting for its own demise.

Because of Kaas's request for guarantees and because of his later involvement in the Reichskonkordat negotiations, it is sometimes alleged that Kaas's assent was part of a quid pro quo of interests between the Holy See and the new regime. His actions might very well be influenced by reflections on how to further and protect the Church's interests and how to obtain the long-desired objective of a nationwide concordat, needed even more given the anti-Catholic stance of the NSDAP. There is however no evidence for involvement of the Holy See in these dealings.

Kaas had planned to travel to Rome since the beginning of the year, to discuss a conflict in Eupen and Malmedy, formerly German towns now belonging to Belgium, where priests had been arrested. This trip had been postponed by the political events - first Hitler's appointment, then the March elections, then by the Enabling Act -, but on 24 March, one day after the decision, Kaas finally managed to leave for Rome. During this stay, Kaas explained to Pacelli the Centre's rationale for acceeding to the Enabling Act. On 30 March, he was called back to Germany to take part in sessions of the working committee, that had been promised during the Enabling Act negotiations. This committee was chaired by Hitler and Kaas and was supposed to inform about further legislative measures, but it only met three times: on 31 March, on 2 April (followed by a private talk between Kaas and Hitler) and on 7 April. On 5 April Kaas also reported to the foreign office about his talk in the Eupen-Malmedy affair.