Talk:Adolf Hitler

Hitler Christian?

"We will wash off the Christian veneer and bring out a religion peculiar to our race."

"The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

"The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble."

All of these are quotes of Hitler taken from Wikiquote, and they suggest that he is not Christian. The basis for the claim that he is Christian appears to come from his public speeches, which are probably misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.86.129 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw this too. I have no particular interest in Christianity, but having read some transcripts from his various meetings, I cannot possibly conclude that he was anything close to a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.19.49 (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Hitler being a Christian should be taken down since he only used Christianity to manipulate others. It is well documented that Hitler did despise the religion and before the war was over, he was sending evangelicals to the death camps. Trust me, if Hitler had won the war, Christianity would have been wiped off the face of the planet, at least publicly. The Jews were just some of Hitler's first planned victims of the holocaust, he would have wiped out many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.41.154 (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hitler was a Völkisch neoPagan, and that he wished the people to return to the "Religion of Blood & Soil." —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTracker (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, actually, Hitler was the one main guy in his administration who wasn't into the occult. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a whole article on Hitler's religious beliefs. The basic facts are, he was not a Christian in any traditional sense, he was not an occultist either. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that Hitler wasn't Christian in any usual sense of the word, as I've said rather often before. However, identifying him as "Positive Christian won't do, either. If one had to say anything specific in the box, it would have to be "Catholic," since he did in fact not officially withdraw membership. However, Str1977's revert to the former "see below" is the better solution. I'd forgotten that one. Bytwerk (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Positive Christianity" is no good a designation, certainly not for the infobox. For good reasons we once just related to the section below.

However, "Catholic" is completely unacceptable and I rightfully criticized your changing the box to say that. You were around when we discussed this a while ago and you know the facts and details so please don't play such a game. Hitler was no way a catholic and nonsense about "he was on the rolls" or "he did not officially withdraw membership" will not do either. Bytwerk, you know the facts, you know the requirements and I expected better from you.

But since you happen to agree with my solution (actually not my but the consensus from way back, that should have never been strayed from) I am content. I hope you will remember that solution in the future. 21:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did this thread help to alter the information on the encyclopedia falsely claiming that Hitler was a Christian? If so, then well done. Because Hitler was certainly anything but a Christian. I posted a thread on here some months back myself, and in it, I included the words of his personal secretary, Traudl Junge, whom wrote:

"He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. 'Science isn't yet clear about the origins of humanity' he once said. 'We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved onto human beings, perhaps by way of apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind, and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind." - Until The Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary, by Traudl Junge.TheBlackWhirlwind (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither a Christian or a pagan, he probably used both religions for political purposes. I agree that he was really more closer to an atheist: "nature was his religion", and his religion was really a distorted and perverted form of Darwinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.114.134 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Closer to an atheist despite believing in God, an active divinty? I guess "monotheist" would be the least controversial. He can't really be described as a Christian in light of his [private] comments. I suppose agnostic is close to what he was but he never admitted he didn't know, he seemed to change his beliefs always wanting to appear sure in one thing, I think his ego prevented him from admitting it, perhaps even to himself.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine use?

Is there anything to the reports of Hitler's cocaine and steroid use during period 1936-1945 ?

Proof Reader (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

relationship with Wittgenstein

According to en.wikipedia.org:

"His father's parents, Hermann Christian and Fanny Wittgenstein, were born into Jewish families but later converted to Protestantism, and after they moved from Saxony to Vienna in the 1850s, assimilated into the Viennese Protestant professional classes. Ludwig's father, Karl Wittgenstein, became an industrialist and went on to make a fortune in iron and steel. Ludwig's mother Leopoldine, born Kalmus, was an aunt of the Nobel Prize laureate Friedrich von Hayek. Despite Karl's Protestantism, and the fact that Leopoldine's father was Jewish, the Wittgenstein children were baptized as Roman Catholics—the faith of their maternal grandmother—and Ludwig was given a Roman Catholic burial upon his death."

Despite it was suggested by Kimberley to include Wittgenstein has not sense:

"A book by Kimberley Cornish suggests that conflict between Hitler and some Jewish students, including Wittgenstein, was a critical moment in Hitler's formation as an anti-Semite"

Even there was no evidence to say Ludwig and Adolf shared studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.62.117 (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a picture of Hitler's schoolclass with Wittgenstein standing a few feet away from him? Iosifvissarianovich (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please go to The Jew of Linz article. BTW, WP can never be a reference for WP. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The disturbingly named Iosif Vissarianovich has a point. Wittgenstein may be viewed as Jewish --

• three Jewish grandparents
• his father's parents were born as Jews but converted to Protestantism, only his mother's father was born and stayed Jewish
• arguably raised in a "culturally Jewish" environment
• musings by W. on his Jewish background

or not Jewish --

• mother not Jewish
• parents were converts to Protestantism
• parents baptized and raised as Christians
• raised not in the Jewish faith but as Roman Catholic, the faith of his maternal grandmother
• never practiced Judaism as an adult

depending on who is doing the viewing and when. Accordingly I removed the misleadingly unambiguous characterization of Wittgenstein as Jewish. Also, per WP:UNDUE I moved the sentence down into a footnote.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE Made a few mistakes above, sorry about that. See Ludwig Wittgenstein#Life. As it turns out now, the case for considering Wittgenstein Jewish is even weaker than I thought before.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion: nominally Catholic

So, I was just working at the Religion in Nazi Germany article, to include the information about the number of Germans who 'left the church' 1933-1945, when I realized that Hitler was not one of them, at least according to Steigmann-Gall. And then I realized that with Steigmann-Gall we can actually describe Hitler's religious beliefs with two words. Of course, "nominally Catholic" doesn't actually say much about what he 'believed', this is why I kept the internal link; But if we have an information field 'religion' in the template, it doesn't make that much sense to say there: see the article; on the other hand, to say that Hitler was Catholic would certainly be false; (I checked the index and read the archives to a certain extend on the previous discussions.) I think my suggestion takes both sides into account. If Steigmann-Gall got this point wrong and there is actually a tax computation of Hitler somewhere in the archives where no church tax is paid (from the time when he lived in Germany, Austria only got a Church tax after 1938) PLEASE give me a historian that has found such a document. Zara1709 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Paul B (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of grammatical errors in this article. I can understand why editing of an article on somebody that arouses so many emotions is prevented, but could we not improve its technical accuracy? Otherwise we run the risk of allowing critics (such as neo-Nazis) to state - correctly - that we can't even write decent English? 122.57.180.241 (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight to fringe and minority views re religion

I have made edits to move away from the fringe or minority view re Hitler and religion. Specifically the citations to Steigmann-Gall should not be given too much weight - his book self describes as being contrary to the scholarly consensus. The description on the author's own book states "Richard Steigmann-Gall argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it." It is explicitly stated that Wikipedia articles are not the place for novel scholarly concepts. And if the views of Steigmann-Gall and the like are not quite fringe but still contrary to the consensus (I believe they demonstrably are), then they should not be given too much weight and described as an alternate minority view. Mamalujo (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What, specifically, is it about the section Adolf Hitler#Religious beliefs that you do not like? For every item of information and every footnote that you want removed, please explain why. Steigmann-Gall is not gospel but neither is he some obscure crackpot to be dismissed out of hand. What is wrong with calling Hitler a "nominal Catholic"? It is obvious that Hitler could not be called a believing Christian in a true sense of the word and that he cynically used the Christian religion while it served his purposes. Yet he never renounced Christianity but professed it. You should not remove references to these undisputed facts.

Have you noticed that I am leaving some of your insertions intact? If I wanted to be strict, I could question the Adherents.com website under WP:RS policy but I would prefer to work things out with you.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversions and protection

Too many reverts in to short a time, and I've protected the article for 72 hours while you all sort this content dispute out. --Rodhullandemu 17:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to give the relihious affiliation of a person, according to the normal understanding of "religion". There are lots of nominal Catholics, and even practicing Catholics, who are murderers and criminals - such as most members of the Mafia. Of course that's true for any other religion you might name. The infobox is not for reinventing the definition of religion, otherwise we'd list Bill Shankly's religion as football, and Oscar Wilde's' religion as art. That's just the road to all out silliness. Paul B (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you help us to understand the "religious affiliation of a person"? The term implies a close, deliberate association or membership according to most dictionary definitions. As an adult, Hitler wasn't an active member of the Catholic church, so how could his "religious affiliation" be Catholic? He'd have to be taking weekly Holy Communion with the congregation. Bushcutter (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One does not necessarily have to be a practicing member of a religion to be affiliated with it. There are plenty of, for example, "Christian and Easter"-Christians who refer to themselves as Christians, even though they don't fit your criteria. Hitler claimed to be a Catholic; whether or not this was true is not for us to decide. The situation as it stands now is fine (nominally Catholic, linked to the section that discusses his religious beliefs.) Parsecboy (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If one is not a member of something, one is not affiliated with it. It's not "my criterion" - it's the definition of the word. We can't be making up the meaning of words on Wikipedia. BTW: Hitler never claimed to be Catholic. It doesn't fit with the known facts. He sometimes said he was Christian when speaking in public, but he always qualified it as Aryan Christian. Hitler openly despised normal Christians and didn't hesitate to send them to the ovens. He said (as noted herein) that he preferred the Muslim religion for its militaristic attitude, and therein lay his fantasy of "Aryan Christianity", one that was at war with the Jews. As far as anyone has ever been able to determine, he was never in his adult life affiliated with any religion. His info box should say "None" if it's referring to religious affiliation. Bushcutter (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing problematic about the word affiliation. It's just a word, not a fetish. BTW, Hitler did claim to be Catholic. He remained a member of the church throughout his life, and even paid church taxes. He also and said "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" in 1941. Muslims were not at war with Jews in the 1930s, though there were of course tensions. Please do not confuse contemporary politics with the 1930s by trying to imply that Hitler made one vague pro-Muslim comment because Muslims were perceived in some sense as part of anti-Jewish crusade. They were not, and Hilter never even implied that they were, only that their faith supported sacrificial warlike values. The Muslim SS recruits were mostly from the Caucasus and the Balkans and were recruited because of anti-Soviet religous and natonalist traditions that has very little to do with attitudes to Judaism. The fact is that Hitler was a member of the Catholic church throughout his life. Like many other people in history, his religious affiliation was largely nominal and his real ideas were more fluid. Paul B (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I really thought that this was clear. I didn't add the info that he made attacks on the Catholic church in private (and yes, this is NOT based on Rauschning) to that section to get another serious of rants on the talk page that Hitler was not a Christian. Yes, HITLER WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN. What Hitler understood as Christian has nothing to do with what you and I would consider Christian. Christianity is nothing more than a label here, to which different (actually opposing) ethical views can be attached.

Steigmann-Gall actually misses the last point, but that is acceptable because he is not a theologian and as a historian he doesn't need to focus on that question whether the beliefs of some Nazis who considered themselves Christians aren't actually anti-Christian. But we don't need to discuss Steigmann-Gall and his conclusions here at all. (His conclusions are, of course, controversial but are important enough to be discussed in other articles.) As a historian, Steigmann-Gall is up to scientific standards. So if he points to the fact that Hitler never formally left the church, and we don't have another academic that disagrees, then we can take his account to be accurate. So, until someone finds that tax record of Hitler which I mentioned above, on which no church tax is paid, that Hitler was nominally Catholic is fact. If you want to change that, the only way that can be done is to get the Pope to excommunicate him posthumously. Of course, there would be no need for that: Hitler is in hell anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

His tax record does exist until 1935, during which time he was paying the church tax. Paul B (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The church tax is important because it shows his religious affiliation. To this day, and ever since 1933, every church member in Germany pays the church tax. You can get an exemption, but it severs the relationship with the church. No church weddings or funerals will happen if you haven't paid your church tax. That is, if you're not paying the church tax, you're not a church member. Hitler may not have quit the church directly, but he didn't pay his taxes. This appears to confirm your statement that he was not a (tax paying) Catholic, at least after 1935. Bushcutter (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So the word affiliation is all right now? Church tax was not paid "since 1933". It existed long before that. An opt out was possible earlier. Hitler was paying his tax up to that date because records exist confirming it. He was probably paying it beyond that date if his staterment in 1941 implies anything, but by that date he was Fuhrer, so other tax rules may have applied. I can't see him being prosecuterd by the revenue people can you? But as far as I am aware, we just don't know what the situation was. Please stop trying to rewrite history to suit your preferences. Paul B (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he was not "affiliated" with either national church, either by his deeds or his words. It's a history-rewrite to claim he was affiliated with a church. One thing his tax records show is that Hitler was a tax-dodger, which means he wasn't a church member. He avoided paying his huge tax bill due to his "special relationship" with Ludwig Mirre, the head of the tax dept. But that also means he didn't pay his church tax, and was therefore off the membership list. Unless you can show us that he actually was paying his church tax somehow? I doubt that you can. 154.20.129.40 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's "personnel" not "personal"

Here's a sentence in the Brüning Administration section:

In September–October 1930, Hitler appeared as a major defence witness at the trial in Leipzig of two junior Reichswehr officers charged with membership of the Nazi Party, which at that time was forbidden to Reichswehr personal.

I think the last word, "personal," should be "personnel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.211.178 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and  Done. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 23:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Messy source references

The references throughout to "Mein Kampf" are either incomplete or improperly truncated. For example, the edit screen for "Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich", note # 13, shows "ref name = "Kampf-vol1ch2" and the Reference below displays as "^ a b c d e f Hitler 1998, §2" in the Notes. It looks like lazy editing. Can we agree to fix them up so they communicate properly? Sure, the original link can be tracked down, but it's an unnecessary interruption for the reader to have to do so. Bushcutter (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

split

This article should be split into specific articles, such as The early life of Adolf Hitler, Adolf Hitler's rise to power etc. The main article should contain condensed sections with links to the main articles. This would make it much more accessible. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes i totally agree, and the links should be made obvious. i.e not at the bottom but at the top.

We've already got Hitler's rise to power, and a number of other sub-articles. The problem is, people keep adding material here, and not to the sub-articles, where it belongs. The article is over 200kb, which is far too long; it takes several seconds to load on my cable internet connection; it must be abysmal on dial-up. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't split up a biographical article. That does not mean that sections can't be reduced, and longer main articles created elsewhere. That's fine if anyone wants to do it. Some xsections are indedd absurdly long. The WWII "Early triumphs" section is interminable. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Most of these sections can be really cut down. I was thinking along the lines of a general overview of each of the main sections with enough detail to keep this a good article, and a link at the top of each section to a much more detailed article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 18:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The name Adolf

The explanaition (Adel=nobility + wolf) would be better as: (Adel wolf) 145.7.182.13 (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)