Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler

Dill's characterization of the differences between Nazism and Christianity

I've removed it again pe WP:UNDUE. If he says that "Christianity was based on divine authority devoted to a loving brotherhood of man which transcended political and racial boundaries" that is clearly a statement of his own opinion and cannot be given as if it was simply a general and objective description of Christianity which would suggest that Christianity is ipso facto incompatible with cruel atrocities and racism - something which is clearly false. I would want to look at the full context of what Dill says to decide whether to include or not - and it can only be included as with a direct attribution to Dill i.e. "Dill argues that ..."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I've read the page in question. This is clearly a personal, subjective interpretation by the author - not a statement of fact. If Dill's opinion is a significant one about the relation between Nazism and Christianity - I can't find his credentials but it seems he is neither an expert on Nazism or Christianity, but rather an expert on general German history. In any case the material can't be included as it was - it was a very close paraphrasing using Dill's exact words - it would have to be reformulated to avoid plagiarism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The O.S.S Outline: Some due caution

Much has been made here regarding the 1945 O.S.S. report which was uncovered by Julie Seltzer Mandel, a law student at Rutgers University in 1999. The O.S.S. report suggested that the Nazis persecution of Churches was indicative of a plot which sought the outright "destruction of Christianity" after WWII "as an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest." Perhaps a bit of hyperbole on behalf of the O.S.S. investigators? In any case, no charges were filed at Nuremberg regarding such an elaborate scheme, and the report itself, in the section called "The Problem of Proof" claims to posses no "direct evidence." The report request that investigators gather further evidence and probe the directives of the Reich Propaganda Ministry; if such evidence was destroyed, they suggests that the "questioning of Nazi newspapermen and local and regional propagandists might elicit the desired evidence." We should also bear in mind that the O.S.S. is the same organization which forwarded allegations that Hitler was a coprophile (sexually gratified by being defecated or urinated on) impotent, a homosexual, a masochist, and a pederast (i.e., a man who "enjoys" the company of young boys). William Langer (1972) The Mind of Adolf Hitler. New York: Basic Books, pp. 124, 138, 178. What I find troubling is that some editors here have treated this report as definitive proof that Adolf Hitler wanted Christianity destroyed. All from a long forgotten report which has been conspicuously ignored by historians. I don’t have a problem discussing it in the body of the article, however incorporating it in the lead is asking too much. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree there is definitely some POV-pushing going on here, cherry picking sources and twisting others to suit an agenda. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Any article that discusses religion and Adolf Hitler is going to have serious problems. Miguel Chavez (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I also think it should be noted that the New York Times piece is merely a summary the original report. Joe Sharkey states, "Verbatim excerpts from the outline would require extensive explanations. Instead, the outline is summarized below." Nowhere does Sharkey consult a historian, nor does he explicitly claim the report is historically accurate. Sharkey does a fair job of summarizing it, apart from the fact he misquotes Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth, saying, "the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement" which was not actually von Schirach, but the opinion of the O.S.S. outline (Sharkey had missed the end-quote on p. 6). Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the next/new section. Mamalujo (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo, you seem to be under the impression that the section, formally titled "Plan to destroy Christianity," was deleted. It wasn't. The earlier version of the paragraph summarized (a summary) of an O.S.S outline without context, as if it were factual and undisputed. It presented an assertion from the report which editor Richard Bonney said was "interesting, but undocumented" (p. 4). It also contained a quotation which was misattributed to Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth. The title was also changed because it was endorsing a particular viewpoint; a view which is not held by a consensus of historians and remains disputed. Furthermore, the title of the section was not reflective of the context of the report, which was not about a "plan to destroy Christianity," but rather an outline describing the persecution of Christian Churches and Church leaders. If you read the report carefully the tiny bit about "destroying Christianity" applies only to a "sector of the National Socialist party," namely that of Alfred Rosenberg and his allies. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is from the first paragraph of the O.S.S. report, describing its own shortcomings: "The document is still seriously lacking in evidence of probative value, and is consequently ill suited to serve as the basis for an international discussion." Which would explain why nothing ever came of it, and why it was quietly tucked away only to be discovered in 1999. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Article should state scholarly consensus & notable/reliable dissent with appropriate weight. RS consensus material shouldn't be blanked based on OR.

What you claim to be POV pushing is actually the scholarly consensus. This is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia's policy is to report the scholarly consensus of historical facts. Dissents which fall into the fringe category should not be included in the article at all, and those minority and dissenting opinions which are significantly notable are included according to their weight. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with scholarly views (not internet polemics and screeds) on these subjects. You will see for example that Steigman-Gall's book actually admits that he is arguing against the consensus on the subject of Nazism and religion. According to his own book he "argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it". I will edit accordingly, stating the consensus view, while including dissenting/minority revisionist views (with appropriate weight) such as those of Steigman-Gall, noting that they are such. Consensus of Wikipedia editors only means so much. Numerosity of editors does not mean that they can claim that H2O is steel, for example. Also, edits which are misleading, especially in the lede should be removed. Kershaw is not saying at all what he is cited for in the lede. Indeed, he seems to be saying close to the opposite. With regard to the plan to destroy Christianity, it is accepted as the consensus. If there are notable and reliable sources who take exception to it, they can be stated. However, editors' original research on the subject should not be stated and certainly aren't reasons to delete reliably sourced material. I'm going to restore it.Mamalujo (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This both misrepresents the case (no one is arguing H20 is steel) and policy - which clear states that the fact that you think you are right and they are wrong does not excuse or justify editwarring ever.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I might add that the consensus view of scholars of fascism, and this is one of the areas where they do have a consensus, is that fascism is typicaly and essentially secular movement and a political religion which is a "holistic weltanschauung" claiming the whole of the person, hence, like communism typically opposed to and a competitor with actual religions. Such scholars have noted this notwithstanding the variants of clerico-fascism and the like. You will note that in Poland, where Hitler, unlike in Germany, did not have to concern himself with the opinion of the populace, nearly 20% of the Catholic clergy was killed, about half in concentration camps. In some of the regions the numbers were as high as 80%. Mamalujo (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm far from convinced that this is indeed a consensus, indeed there have been strong criticisms of the political religion model. It's very hard to apply to Franco and rather less than convincing as an account of Italian fascism. Also, the Stiegmann-Gall quote says that the consensus is that "Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it". In other words one part of the consensus is the view that it was essentially indifferent to Christianity, which makes the claim that the supposed plan to destroy Christianity is a consensus view rather problematic. Indeed, I know of no evidence that it is a consensus view. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Barlow - a claim that there is consensus that Hitler wanted to destroy christianity would have to rely on an exceptionally good source such as a well respected textbook or a review article that actually states that that is the consensus view. This has not been presented. In fact several sources, including some cited by Mamalujo notes that Hitler worked actively on making christianity and Nazism compatible. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Paul, most scholars of fascism, dilettantes and nonexperts excluded, do not consider Franco a fascist. See the articles on fascism and on Franco. Fascism entails a radicalism, a desire to remake man. Franco lacked this element. He is generally considered conservative, nationalist authoritarian. He used some of the trappings of fascism and for that reason is sometimes categorized as "parafascist". One of the definitions of fascism focuses on the fascist negations or negatives. Anti-communist, anti-liberal, anti-capitalist anti-conservative, etc. Griffin speaks of Palingenetic ultranationalism as being a fascist minimum - a radical element which Salzar and Franco lacked - hence calling them parafascist. Payne, the doyen of fascism studies, like most others hold this view. As Payne states, also quoted approvingly by Laqueur, "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist". Franco did garner support from fascists, the early Falange, as part of his coalition. When he took control however, he merged them with the monarchist Carlists and robbed the party of its truly fascist character. Also, if you read the books of Ian Kershaw, perhaps Hitler's most noted biographer, he regularly speaks of of a war (often of attrition) on the church or churhes, the "Church struggle", and mentions that Hitler at times sought a detente as it was not now the time. I think you're hard pressed to deny their is a consensus when the most prominent advocate of the revisionist view admits there is. You might be right about the issue of political religion. I'm quite confident you are not about the rest. Maunus, if you read more about "positive Christianity" you will see that it was an attempt to coopt Christianity and the same authors who write about it will also discuss the struggles against the Church. Also, he abandoned even that syncretist project by 1940. Hitler did at times seek a detente with the churches, you can find many references to this, typically it is said that this was done out of practicality. You all seem to be simply voicing your opinions but there is no sourcing suggesting this was not the case. Mamalujo (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is disputed whether of not Franco is a fascist. There really is no clear definition of the concept at all. Strictly, it's the name of an Italian political party and that is all, and that party made no attempt to destroy Christianity. Of course the term has been extended in usage and Franco is commonly included in that extended usage. This is a matter of debate. Your fatuous comment about dilettantes and non-experts merely indicates your own unfamiliarity with the history of the literature on this topic. The rest of your post is mere assertion. Grandiose dogmatism will not impress anyone. Of course Hitler attempted to undermine the independence of churches - or rather of Protestant churches. That does not mean he had a coordinated plan to destroy Christianity or that there is any consensus that he did. You provide no evidence of this at all. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly a novel interpretation of fascism to suggest that it is incompatible with conservatism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Although the article includes arguments made by Steigmann-Gall, the article is hardly an apology for his views. They are included, but they are not given undue weight. Secondly, the reference to Ian Kershaw was related to a statement made by Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, not Kershaw himself. And third, the O.S.S. report is not cited by a consensus of historians as evidence of a plot to destroy Christianity. Therefore to place its radical conclusions in the lead would be irresponsible. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Were his religious views maybe just confused and jumbled in many respects?

Many people hold a plethora of partially conflicting opinions on religious matters, often without very strong attachments to any of them. Couldn't this have been the case with Hitler too? Why does the article assume that there must have been any kind of "clear" religious views in Hitler's mind, apart from his extreme hatred of Judaism? -- 77.7.167.132 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Its difficult to say, I know one of his parents was jewish. So that might have something to do with his conflicting views.Millertime246 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a very fair point, but a rather difficult one to articulate without sources. In reply to Millertime, neither of his parents were Jewish. As 77.7.167.132 says, that aspect of his thinking, at least, is clear. Paul B (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase that "H.P. Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy" should be rewritten as "H.P. Blavatsky. the founder of The Theosophical Society and author of The Secret Doctrine". Theosophy is a part of Philosophy. She stole the term "Theosophy" from the Philosophers and wrote The Secret Doctrine which created a Doctrine for what she called Theosophy. The root races were from her book, and not recognized in the Philosophy Schools as Theosophy, except for a possible footnote on H.P.B. Furthermore, the root races she referred to were not similar to Hitler's interpretation of them. Hitler was very confused on this. JEMead (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Persecution of the Christian Churches section

I think the section understates scholarly opinion regarding the reality of the intention to eradicate Christianity. Many scholars, including some quite prominent, assert that it was the long term plan to destroy or at least mortally wound Christianity. You wouldn't get that impression from the section which seems to have a POV mostly casting doubt on the assertion. Below is a number of quotes from reliable sources making the assertion. I think the section should be edited for balance.

• “There is no doubt that in the long run Nazi leaders such as Hitler and Himmler intended to eradicate Christianity just as ruthlessly as any other rival ideology, even if in the short term they had to be content to make compromises with it.”

• "Had the Nazis won the war their ecclesiastical policies would have gone beyond those of the German Christians, to the utter destruction of both the Protestant and the Catholic Church."

• “Consequently, it was Hitler’s long rang goal to eliminate the churches once he had consolidated control over his European empire.”

• “And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”

• “The objective was to either destroy Christianity and restore the German gods of antiquity or to turn Jesus into an Aryan.”

• “It seems no exaggeration to insist that the greatest challenge the Nazis had to face was their effort to eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least to subjugate it to their general world outlook.”

• The Nazis sought to "to eradicate Christianity in Germany root and branch."

References

Mamalujo (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've trawled all the sources you can find to cherry-pick quotations to put one side. What a surprise. The idea that the Nazis intended to restore the 'old pagan gods' is completely marginal. Hitler was absolutely clear that that would never happen. Even Rosenberg never intended to do that. Paul B (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reasonable evidence cited by these sources which might lend support to their assertions? It just seems curious to me that such a grand conspiracy to destroy one of the longest lasting and most influential faiths in all of human culture is conspicuously absent from virtually every scholarly work concerning Nazism and World War II. You would think it might merit a line or two. In any case, you did make the effort to provide a handful of references to support this hypothesis, however I worry that you are giving these speculations, as it were, undue weight in light of all other evidence. I would hate to accuse you of selectively choosing your sources, but I could without any trouble find more sources that claim the Holocaust never occurred than citations that claim the Nazi's had "a plan to destroy Christianity." It's easy to find reputable sources by reputable scholars to claim all sorts of ridiculous assertions. Pseudo-scientists and Pseudo-historians make a living out of this. But this is not the most honest way to present nor understand history. Just looking at your citations, notice how unauthoritative they seem. Dill for example is openly speculating, or "insisting" rather, that it was a coin toss between destroying Christianity or domesticating it. Fischel, a coin toss between destroying Christianity or simply making Jesus Aryan. Both Griffin and Wheaton quote and rely upon Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks, by all accounts a dubious or fraudulent work. And your other sources seem to be asserting that Hitler intended, not to destroy Christianity per se, but to eliminate or marginalize the Churches—which just seems bizarre given that Hitler financially supported them, signed deals with them, always payed his church taxes, and given that most Churches and pastors in Germany supported the Nazi regime, especially among the conservative Protestant and Evangelical faiths. If there was any sort of plan at all, it was the plan to unite the twenty-eight Protestant state churches into a national Reich Church, similar to the Church of England. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think it is possible to reject these sources out of hand. They are reliably published. Obviously this bis a significant view and Mamalujo has doen the right thing to provide sources. Now those who want to show that this view may not be the only view or the mainstream view need to present theirs. Unless Mamalujo does not report the sources accurately (a possibility I mention because it has happened), I think these views will have to be mentioned in the article. The question then becomes one of balance with possible other views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has advocated that we dismiss anything out of hand. Mamalujo has offered sources ascribing to a particular view, and now the sources are being analyzed and debated amongst the contributors here to reach a consensus, or compromise. I don't have a problem at all with including this viewpoint in the article. It obviously exists in the literature. I am concerned, however, with how this view is being presented, particularly as it relates to the larger body of literature published on the subject, and how some sources have been misrepresented. Have I been unfair? Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Mamalujo, you speak of an "intention to eradicate Christianity." I'm curious to know what you mean exactly by this statement, and how you wish to incorporate this hypothesis into the article. Historians who use this kind of dramatic language often mean different things. Some mean the attempt by the Nazis to Nazify the Churches, some equate it with the systematic persecution of churches and church leaders, some mean the eradication of Church autonomy, others mean efforts by some to secularize the German culture, and some mean it in the most literal and extreme sense of destroying Christianity all together. I am also curious to know how you wish to portray this theme of "eradication." To what extent was there an actual plan, rather than a sentiment, to "eradicate" Christianity? How did the plan originate? What specific policies were proposed to carry this plan through, if any? Which specific classes of people, denominations, or institutions were targeted for eradication? Was it a plan of violence, or more of persuasion? What actual pieces of evidence is there to substantiate this plan (memos, reports, transcripts, etc)? How many people were involved, and who were they? To what extent was Hitler involved, if at all? (Which is very important, for relevance.) To what extent was this plan hidden from members who would have opposed it? When was this plan first uncovered or disclosed, and by whom (the OSS, Nazi members, or historians)? How seriously is this hypothesis considered by mainstream historians? Now you don't have to answer all these question, but I think more detail would help us come to an agreement on how to best address this issue. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

the devil is in the detail. the detail questions are very important. In any case after you mentioned a book on the Michael Faulhaber discussion page, maunus, I looked at the quote about faulhaber meeting hitler in 1936 in the Spicer edited book, Nazism, Christian Ambivalence and the holocaust' ..a detail "on Novemebr 4 1936 faulhaber travelled to berchtesgarden , - accroding to faulhabers' account the topic on the agenda was the possible success of bolshevism in spain ..hitler told faulhaber that religion was critical for the state, for society, and for the soldiers, stating 'man cannot exist without belief in god. the soldier who for 3 or 4 days lies under intense bombardment needs a religious prop." he told the cardinal that pragmatically speaking the Church needed to join in the fight against Bolshevism or 'the Church and Xty are finished . Hitler told faulhaber they needed to 'protect the German people from 'congenitally afflicted criminals' such as were fighting in Spain - faulhaber replied 'The Church will not refuse the state the right to keep these pests away..' hitler commented 'eiter nationl socialism and the Church are both victorious or they perish together.." So in november 1936, the cardinal (that Mamalujo on that page insists was a noted anti-Nazi btw) - and hitler clearly have not mutually displayed very successfully their intentions to destroy each other - indedd what they display is a nauseating unprincipled, 'pragmatism' - maunus, the entire point of every edit mamalujo makes is to whitewash the catholic church, because he loves it so much - that is the only point of every edit he makes. Sayerslle (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, Carrier Is Not Reliable

Good research and a neutral point of view will tell you he has promoted propaganda against religion.75.72.35.253 (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem as I see it. Richard Carrier is a historian. He received his doctorate from Columbia University, without question one of the better schools in the country. He published his work in a peer reviewed journal, the German Studies Review. The reviewers checked his facts, and the editor approved it for publication, and presumably paid him for his work. Given the scrutiny involved with the peer review process, his analysis here carries more weight than, say, his Internet publications, or even the casual opinions we so often see thrown about in books published by commercial publishing houses. His so-called bias on religion (which exists, but we all share) is therefore irrelevant to this article. The only reason to highlight his religious activities is to throw spurious doubt as to the reliability of his work. And we all know this to be true. I happen to know that many historians cited here are active Catholics. Some are even priests. Now, it would be astoundingly petty to highlight this fact every time they offered their expertise on matters pertaining to religion. Just because someone is active in their faith, or lack of faith, does not imply they are untrustworthy in their work. If they have garnered a reputation for misrepresentation or distorting facts, then by all means, let us alert the reader. But as long as the author has the proper credentials, and their work has been reviewed by a journal or a university press, I see no reason to "poison the well." Furthermore, Carrier's article has been cited favorably by historians Richard Steigmann-Gall, Dagmar Herzog, Derek Keith Hastings, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Gerhard L. Weinberg (in no less the new edition of Hitler's Table Talk). If you are aware of a published critique of his work, please include it. Just spare everyone the obvious ad hominem smear tactic. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where he received his college degree from. That still doesn't excuse the fact that Carrier has a history of promoting propaganda against religion. For example, he has questioned Jesus' existence. I am not smearing anybody. I'm just pointing out the facts.75.72.35.253 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But they're irrelevant facts. What is relevant is that he is a respected academic - not his religious beliefs. Otherwise we would of course also have to discount any Christian, Muslim or Hindu authors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

So you are arguing that because Carrier has questioned the historicity of Jesus he no longer deserves to be taken seriously as a historian, and thereby loses all rights to be treated with the same respect we afford Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish historians? Miguel Chavez (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

75.72.35.253, you didn't even read Miguel's entire response. You simply read the first sentence and proceeded to respond. Because if you did read the entire thing, you'd know that Miguel addressed your objection that Carrier has an "atheist bias". Uh, hello, we all have certain opinions and biases when it comes to religion. Should we discount a christian historian's work on Hitler merely because he is a christian and/or promotes Christianity? Of course not. Carriers other publications on religion, internet infidels, etc are irrelevant to his work on Hitler. As Miguel rightly pointed out earlier, his work on Hitler was published in a peer-reviewed journal (German Studies Review). Unless you attack his work and avoid attacking the man himself (doing so commits the fallacy of ad hominem) then we have no reason to take your objections seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.1 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am attacking his work when I typed that he promotes propaganda against religion. Apparently, you are being bias and one-sided. Carrier and his work promote very unproven propaganda that strongly suggests he tries to get people to turn against religion. Read them for yourself.75.72.35.253 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. It holds no weight for wikipedia however - we go by reliable sources and this is as reliable as they come. There are other wikis that only allow sources written by christian authors - we're no it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't give crap about whether or not it was written by an atheist. What is of great concern is the fact Carrier is a propagandist. You can be an atheist and I won't care, but you should be a neutral one and not promote nonsense propaganda to get people to turn against religion. Carrier has demonstrated clearly that he does so. His own words on his website are not unreliable. That was very pigheaded to assume I'm just adding this input because Carrier is an atheist.75.72.35.253 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

What is pigheaded if not outright obtuse is to propose that peereviewed journals publish propaganda.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, stop trying to speak nonsense and spell better so I can understand you better next time.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, I completely understand your concerns. I too worry that historians sometimes allow their personal religious views to influence their work. But like it or not, Carrier's paper was independently reviewed and has been cited favorably by a number of historians. It wouldn't be right to single him out for being an open atheist, without also singling out other historians who are priests, or who are otherwise active in their faith. I would never imagine doing this to a Christian historian, or Jewish historian, or whoever. It bothers me. It strikes me as petty, childish, and disrespectful. If they are legitimate scholars let their work be judged on its merits. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Source your claim please. I find it hard to believe it is not true otherwise.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I did. Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Carrier's work on Hitler is reliable. It's been published in a peer-reviewed german journal and cited by other historians. Asserting over and over again that he's not reliable because he's a "propagandist" is meaningless unless you actually show what is wrong about his work on Hitler. Unless and until you do that, Carrier will remain on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.1 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than remove the reference to Carrier's paper entirely, I believe 75.72.35.253 would like to identify Carrier as an atheist/activist/propagandist, than use the more respectful and fully appropriate title "historian." Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You speak nonsense. You have nothing to source your ridiculous claim that his work has "been published in a peer-reviewed german journal and cited by other historians."75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Chavez. I have now removed Carrier's entire citing from the article. He is not reliable and he is more than just a historian. He is a propagandist who has gone so far as to also challenge Jesus' existance75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome 253. Well, at least you put it back... Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What in the world does Carrier's questioning jesus' existence have to do with his peer reviewed work? So we are to take the word over a man who believes that jesus walked on water over a man who questions the historical accuracy of the gospels?11:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Greengrounds (talk)

Lead of Article

I also put this on Mchavez's talk page about the current lead of the article:

I fear that the lead of the article is, at is now reverted by User:Mchavez, is also a POV. First of all I have to say that I fear that a lead on such article will almost always be at least some POV. But how the lead is written now, is not in line with the body of the article. Because most of the article does support the claim that he was a firm believer, in public and private sense. Of the sources that claim he was not a believer 1 is disputed, and the others indicate that he was or against organized religion competing with the 'belief' in a German Third Reich and the Nazi party. Probably my lead was still far from perfect, but I do think that it would be better to reverse the last sentence into a structure resembling: Hitler was a believer. Other reports state he was hostile to Christianity. That would be a more fair representation of the article. Because the current: Disputed source claims Hitler was hostile to Christianity. Others claim he was a believer. Does not suit well to how well sources are claimed, and that the 'Others' are in majority and not minority. 82.197.216.236 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually you are quite wrong. Most scholars of the subject do not maintain that Hitler was a believer. The consensus is that he was hostile to Christianity. If the lede does not comport with the bulk of the article, the defect is more in the article than in the lede. Mamalujo (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that the Third Reich was the most Catholic government in German history, particularly in its upper echelons. Hitler was raised Catholic and was an altar boy. The "putsch" occurred in Bavaria, which was almost entirely Catholic, at the time anyway. To my knowledge, not a single Nazi or fascist, and many were practising Catholics, especially in Austria, Croatia, Lithuania, and other areas, was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic church, which assisted war criminals to escape justice in Europe and flee, particularly to Spain and Argentina, two Catholic fascist states. Cardinal Bertram urged his parishioners to pray for the repose of Hitler's soul, despite Hitler's suicide! The degree and nature of hostility between the Nazis and Christianity, and more particularly, Catholicism, has always been exaggerated. Quis separabit? 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with Steigmann-Gall on this one, and accept that Catholicism was tolerated, but marginalized more and more as the Church continued to raise objections over the Nazis' extreme nationalism and racial attitudes. If there was a clear preference at all (which I believe there was), it was towards the Protestant Church. You are right that Bavaria was indeed highly Catholic, but the Nazis' true stronghold in Bavaria was the region of Franconia, which was decidedly Protestant (2007, p. 192.). This point aside, I largely agree with your conclusions. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Your statement may have been true 20 years ago Mamalujo, but as recent scholarship has shown, this issue is much more complex than earlier thought. Especially as new material has been brought to light, and earlier sources have now been discredited. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This precisely exposes one of the major drawbacks of Wikipedia. If articles were based on a careful weighing of evidence, then I could enthusiastically support your changes. However the general consensus view is that none of us can be trusted with such a task. Editors can only reflect what other experts have already published on the topic, and such a reflection should precisely mirror the nuances of the published literature (and do so in accordance with due weight). With that said, there is considerable belief among scholars that Hitler was in some sense "anti-Christian." Therefore this has to be reflected in the article. Now, one can privately believe, as I do, that this is a systemic result of several problems. First, early biographies of Hitler relied upon Hermann Rauschning's memoir Hitler Speaks, which quoted Hitler saying very negative things about Christianity. Rauschning's proximity within Hitler's inner circle was later discovered to be grossly exaggerated, and now the work is considered to be a fraud, or at very least, a deeply untrustworthy account. Rauschning's memoirs had the effect of tainting many early historical studies (e.g. Alan Bullock and Joachim Fest). (This influence can also be attributed to the English translation of Hitler's Table Talk, but not to the same degree.) Second, immediately after the war a flurry of scholarship by Church historians flooded the literature with accounts of anticlericalism by the Nazi government. This had the effect, weighed in light of other work, of casting the Nazi Party leadership in an anti-Christian and paganists light. Scholarship in the past twenty years, however, has significantly dented this view, but it still has some hold (especially among today's contemporary church historians). Third, one cannot forget that most historians are themselves religious, and in some instances very energetic and active members of their faith. Nevertheless, I have read accounts by a number of Christian historians which admit that their faith bears a heavy responsibility for German anti-Semitism, the rise of the Nazi Party, and even the shocking outcome of the Holocaust (see R.L. Millen, New Perspectives on the Holocaust, p. 345, for example). They have suggested that the repeated portrayal of the Nazis as anti-Christian, or paganists, is a result of Christians being unwilling to come to terms with the reality that Hitler shared—in some twisted sense—the same religious worldview. And finally, back to the Table Talk, you are right that a portion of the English Table Talk has been placed in serious doubt, however historians still rely upon it as a historical source. Until a reliable edition is published in English, the quotations which have not been shown to be fraudulent must be considered, but done so with extreme caution. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A point of agreement: What I find curious about the lead is that it makes an issue of the fact that Hitler "ceased to participate in the Sacraments," but does not mention the fact that Hitler never left his Church (indeed discouraged others to do so) and continued to pay his church taxes until the very end. If the former is significant, then by implication, the latter must be so as well. Miguel Chavez (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the 'problem' of what to do with this lead does stay. Because looking at the points mentioned above in the discussion, the lead does not fairly reflect the controversy, and the role of different sources on it (and the POV and reliability of those sources). I do think that if we are mentioning the Table Talk, it would be very good to at least point out in that same sentence the controversy about this source itself. Because the style it is written now, it presents it in such a way that a reader does get the feeling that this source is the most reliable and undisputed source available, as in: why else would it be the only source explicitly mentioned in the lead? Since it is a major source, I am not against mentioning it, it has great value. But not to fool a reader into a wrong perception of this source, a mention (by an adjective) of the controversy around it would improve it in my opinion. Also, I am still a bit with doubt about the word 'Others' in the very last sentence. Because if the sentence of hostility towards Christianity is so long, but the other (just as arguable) committed believer sentence is so short, it again implies an unbalanced view to the reader. 82.197.216.236 (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I would put it this way. The lead does not fairly reflect the evidence, but it does fairly reflect the controversy. In my opinion the evidence seems to be clear: Hitler thought of himself as a Christian, even though he held rather unorthodox Christian beliefs. But there is certainly enough Christianity left to warrant calling him a Christian, a label he himself used. However some historians continue to maintain that his views were too unorthodox to merit using such a term, or argue that that he was in some sense anti-Christian. The literature seems to be all over the place on this issue, and I see no obvious consensus one way or another. There are a few points that I would like to see in the lead, but I've been reluctant to add them because I don't want to overload it with facts sympathetic only to my view. I also worry this would lead to predictable edit warring. The lead, as it stands, does not really convey a particular viewpoint. If anything, it's kind of wishy washy, which forces the reader to examine the evidence in further detail and decide for themselves. You are of course free to make any changes you like, but I would do so carefully. For example, I have no problem calling the Table Talk controversial, as this is generally accepted. Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is unprovable. Please keep your opinions to yourself Chavez.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitler were an Islamophilic

europenews german the german Organisation Central Council of Ex-Muslims had published this informations.--77.3.126.198 (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it's already discussed in the article. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Hitler liked sugar too, guess we should all hate sugar now, huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.167.234 (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, Carrier Is Not A Reliable Resource

Miguel Chavez's argument that his article has "been cited by other historians" is baseless. It has not at all been cited Carrier's input should either be removed or it should be known he is an atheist advocate who has promoted such propaganda. This is a neutral website and not a place to promote atheist propaganda.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

With a simple search of 'Carrier' and 'Hitler' at Google Scholar I directly get the results of a paper of Carrier about this that has been cited in other articles (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14871513883682262853&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ). These other articles also have been written by authors with high academic degrees which also have been cited many times. Clearly the statement of JoetheMoe25 is plainly false, claiming that it is not cited at all, if it can be found in a matter of seconds and by very reliable sources. I would also like to point out that in a 'neutral' website it is not proper to accuse historians with a PhD and solid academic reputation of 'propaganda'. Mastah (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I do see now that you introduced a 'controversy' topic around Steigmann-Gall in Hitler's Table Talk and Richard Steigmann-Gall. First of all, the claim on the controversy does not appear from the sources, but is original research. Next to that, the first source is reliable and well-established, there were conflicts of interests of policies introduced by the Nazi's, which conflicted with the interests of the church. And the clergy was certainly not happy with this and therefore also had the conversations with Hitler about this. The second and third sources are clearly sources with a self-interest and of very low reliability. Therefore I propose to remove the claimed controversy until the controversy around the statements of Steigmann-Call can also be sourced within reliable academic sources (since Steigmann-Call his study has also been academically peer-reviewed). Mastah (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Matash, you speak in the language of nonsense. Carrier has not been cited by any other historian in the manner which I described. I searched that shortcut you gave me and the resources listed basically just turned up results about Hitler's Table Talk without mentioning Carrier's name. The resources I added are quite reliable. One of the them was even the same Ian Kershaw book that was sourced in this article. It is also common sense to know that if a reliable resource shows that his feud with the church predated 1937, the year Steigmann-Call claimed was when the Nazi's feud with the church originated, his work was unreliable. You have nothing to back your claim that his study was "academically peer reviewed" or that it was either reliable or neutral. This is a neutral website.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Carrier has been cited for the article Chavez is pointing to. If you did click the link, in all those books and papers the study of Carrier has been cited. Carrier has been named in all of them (just open one of them, press ctrl+F and search for 'Carrier'.) Of the sources you have added, only the first one is reliable (I think I also clearly stated that I agree that that one is reliable). But the only statement that occurs from this source is that there were problems between the Nazi's policies and the interests of the Church. Which is already well documented and sourced in this article. Fact is, that the claims you added in the articles are not mentioned in the article and are thus original research. The second and third source are unreliable, I already stated clearly before for which reasons. About the quality and academic reviewing, you can see that the Carrier article has been published in German Studies Review: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1432747?uid=3738736&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21100720483431 and you can also check the site of German Studies association academic grounds at https://www.thegsa.org/about/index.html . Therefore I am not 'claiming' anything out of the ordinary for Carrier's article and your doubt about the reliability and neutrality is not valid. Please also let first other people respond to this discussion before pushing your changes through, also on the related pages. Mastah (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the articles better. They do not contradict what I wrote at all. They do not "cite" Carrier in the definition which I was clearly arguing. They only mention him and do not call him reliable.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Your "definition" does not matter for reliability. What makes Carrier reliable is that his article has been peer-reviewed by other experts for publication in the academic paper called German Studies Review. If experts read and checked an article, gave their feedback and it was published in a renowned academic journal. More reliable than that it does not get in this world. Citations by other books and articles also indicate the relevancy of a study. Since his study has been cited by (even some major) studies his study is relevant and reliable by all academic standards. Mastah (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Anybody's name can be mentioned as long as they argue something. Historians have not cited Carrier at all in the manner I was describing. If you read what I was typing clearly, I was arguing he was unreliable.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, the manner you mention it should be cited is not relevant. I highly even doubt whether you're acquainted at all with the academic process, where paraphrasing is only done when quoting an original source (like Hitler itself) but almost never another article (because it would not make any sense). And you are clearly not reading, responding or even willing to understand the points that have been made why Carrier is reliable. It really reminds me of your discussion in Talk:Black hole/Archive 14 'Wikipedia Is Not A Fan Page For Stephen Hawking' where the valid points of other editors are plainly ignored. Mastah (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Joe, this topic has been reviewed several times by the editors here, and the arguments against Carrier have been found rather weak. Carrier is a historian, he received his doctorate in History from Columbia University, his article was properly peer-reviewed, it was published in a scholarly journal, and it has been reviewed favorably by other historians and scholars. His findings are pretty incontrovertible, as he compares Hitler's English and French quotations side by side to the original German. Enigma books, who owns the copyright to the English Table Talk, was so impressed with Carrier's piece that they even offered him the job of re-translating the book from the original German. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mastah and Miguel as well as the other anonymous users that there is no reason not to include Carrier just because he is an atheist. I find it strange that an atheist who speaks out should be considered a propagandist when several sources used in this article come from people who have had their entire education from Christian universities. You don't get much more indoctrinated with propaganda than that.Greengrounds (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Blockquote of Carrier, in Private Statements

The blockquote in question is described as "which Carrier translates from the original German as"... The quote itself has no reference, but the author of that passage would be expected to have access to the German source material, possibly via secondary sources... Is it against wp standards to quote the actual, German original for those of us who actually understand the language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.144.106 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the MOS, foreign language quotations are not discouraged. "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English." And "If the original, untranslated text is available, provide a reference for it or include it, as appropriate." If you want to include the original German, just do so in italics. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I see that there was a lot of effort to portrait Hitler as a 'nominal' Catholic. However, pay attention to:

"The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism. ~Adolf Hitler, Feb.1929[1]

Roman Catholic Church returned compliments to Hitler:

“Adolph Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many where found to exalt his life. Over his dead remains stands his victorious moral figure, with the palm of the martyr; God gives Hitler laurels of victory.”

Catholic national newspaper in Spain [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.23.46 (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

For your first source - are you trying to suggest that the words of a psychotic mass murderer are trustworthy and that there is no chance that this propaganda mastermind was lying?

For your second source, there is absolutely no credibility. An angelfire site is simply never a WP:RS. Nor does the website provide evidence of it's claims, so we cannot even rip a source from it.Farsight001 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Farsight001, what you have done is created a straw man argument, where you are attacking the character of the person rather than the evidence. You are implying a conspiracy theory. Second, the letter was printed by a news paper, and it is cited in a book "The secret History of the Jesuits" by Edmond Paris. Greengrounds (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh...no I'm not. I am merely applying wikipedia policy. Personal angelfire websites do not qualify as WP:RS, so we can't use it as a source. Furthermore, neither is The Secret History of the Jesuits. Wikipedia has standards to comply with regarding the sources they use.Farsight001 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Creativity

Have any writers drawn parallels between Hitler's own religious beliefs and those of the white supremacist religion Creativity? Granted, the comparison is anachronistic since Creativity was founded in 1973, long after Hitler died. However there do seem to be a lot of uncanny similarities between them, including an emphasis on healthy eating/vegetarianism, a lack of emphasis on gods, the afterlife or the supernatural (instead, the white race is worshipped as the creator; Hitler referred to whites as "Culture Creators", which no doubt influenced Creativity), and promoting violence against nonwhites and Jews. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitler cool to astrology?

Towards the end of the article is "Unlike Heinrich Himmler and Rudolf Hess, for example, Hitler had no interest in astrology." That really throws off what I'd learned about the man. Perhaps it means that even if Hitler was open to astrology (which he was) and even had a semi-firm believe in it (which he did), he wasn't interested in the philosophy. If so, it should be reworded. If not, it should be reworded. Otherwise, a very thorough article. AngusCA (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you there. That's not what I learned about Hitler either.--Splashen (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence that Hitler had a belief in astrology (albeit a "semi-firm" one). Assertion isn't good enough. Paul B (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Why, do I need any? I thought it was just common knowledge that Hitler consulted the stars and not as a recreational diversion. Ok, well there's this article, Krafft did readings for him and a quick Google of "hilter astrology" gives endless hits. Sorry, no published works at my finger tips. So if there's no truth to this, there should at least be some sort of acknowledgement over this widespread misconception. AngusCA (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC

Without sources there isn't much that can be done. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Amusingly the actual reliable source quoted in The Guardian states that Hitler considered astrology to be "complete nonsense" [3]. So much for common knowledge. Even if this were a "widespread misconception", astrology is not a religious belief, so this would not be the article in which to discuss it. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is a religious belief in some cultures.--Splashen (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't. Being consistent with a religion, does not make it one. But even if it were, it wasn't in 20th century Germany. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that astrologers fell violently out of fashion eventually. But the fact that astrology isn't religious isn't the issue. Even if the line "Hitler had no interest in astrology" is true and well sourced (but a difficult negative to prove), I believe it has a credibility problem, because common misconceptions go against it. It disturbed my train of thought enough that I was moved to create this section. If there are many others like that, then it should at least be preceded by "Despite perceptions to the contrary..." or followed by "(it is widely believed that...)". AngusCA (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Great War or WWI?

In the second section of "Views as a youth", it refers to what is now known as World War One as the Great War. Since it is not quoting someone speaking of WWI prior to the start of WWII, should it perhaps be changed to World War One, for ease of reading?Roppen (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Executions of Religious clergy

Ummm....not sure why the article doesn't mention the fact that numerous religious clergy were executed by Hitler for opposing his regime? Seems to me there's relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.118.2 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

reference for review

Have found a collection of Hitler quotes (includes his 'We do not want to educate anyone in atheism" quote in context) http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm Could someone with the appropriate background knowledge decide whether or not it is useful for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good find. I have cross referenced the material from the website with "Hitler's Table Talk" translation by Cameron and Stevens, and I think this statement is very relevant to the religious views of Hitler. Afterall, if Hitler viewed atheism as good world view that suited his vision, why would he not want educate people in atheism? Does anyone have any objections to me adding this statement to "hitlers statements against atheism" as well as the sections on the table talk itself?Greengrounds (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

new source in lead

does this source say anything remotely relevant to the lead of this article? I only ask as I'm undoing superfluous links to an article under merge proposal. But don't know this source or whether it says anything remotely like what has been added. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Correspondence with the pope

Would you consider this relevant? http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/PopePiusXIILettertoHitler.htm

I also heard Hitler himself sent a letter to the pope first to get this permission. Robin.lemstra (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The webpage stating this letter is clearly biased (Protestant), and they don't provide a source for where they got this letter. This letter might be relevant, but I think it is important to find it from a more reliable and less biased source. Preferably an archive or library, I guess. Mastah (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Current paragaph about consensus Table Talk is a bit "weasel worded"

At the moment text says: "However, the widespread consensus among historians,[44] sustained over a long period of time since the initial work of William L. Shirer in the 1960s,[45] is that Hitler was undoubtedly anti-clerical and that the views expressed in Trevor-Roper's translation of Table Talk, are credible and reliable, although as with all historical sources, a high level of critical awareness about its origins and purpose are advisable in using it.[46]"

I tried adjusting the text (but it was reverted) because when reading the referenced papers, the Carrier article and the Wikipedia Article about the Table Talk (and its many versions and translations). I did try to do this, because the current text implies (partly) or states that:

1) a consensus for over a long period

2) 'undoubtly' anti-clerical

3) That Carrier is the only one doubting the reliableness of the Table Talk

4) Trevero-Roper's is 'credible and reliable'

5) That the Table Talk should be handled with the same critical awareness as all other historical sources

I don't think all these statements or implications are justified when looking at the sources or academic method: 1) There is a consensus, yes. But the consensus did change since Carrier's publication from 'Table Talk is reliable and credible' to a 'Table Talk in general is still credible, but reliability for some parts should be questioned'. That a consensus was there for a long time, several decades till Carrier's publication, doesn't make it 'more true'. Look at all physics laws that had to be changed/adapted after new discoveries, even though there were ages of consensus about how things worked. New discoveries shake things up.

2) Undoubtly is clearly not undoubted. e.g. Carrier doubts it, but also the many different versions of Table Talk and the worries about reliability makes clear that nothing is really undoubted.

3) If you look the overview study where Carrier's publication is discussed, it becomes clear that even though Carrier's claim of the Table Talks being 'completely untrustworthy' might be over the top. It is not as if no other doubts about the Table Talk's many versions exist, see point 2.

4) That is clearly untrue, since though it is according to general consensus credible, reliabilty is not. See point 2 and 3.

5) This is a really big weasel. It tries to downplay how much controversy there is about the Table Talk. The Table Talks are clearly a very controversial source and should be handled clearly with much, much more care than usual (and happened during the time before Carrier's publication).

I would like to know how other Wikipedians see this, and whether they agree that this paragraph needs an update. Mastah (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Table Talk a 100% accurate verion of what Hitler said while chatting? Almost certainly not. Is it generally reliable? I know of no evidence that the consensus is that it isn't. There were different versoins of Shakespeare's plays with slightly different wording published. That does not mean all versions of Shakepseare are totally unreliable and cannot be said to tell us anything about what he really wrote. That would be absurd. There is also the question of what Carrier actually demonstrates that is relevant to this issue. As far as I can see he noted a few inconsistencies between the French and German published versions of the text. How do these exactly impact on the central question? I really can't see how they are so important. Paul B (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with your first statements, about generally reliable. But on the differences Carrier found in the translations, some scholars even now state there might have been on purpose fraud with the Trevor-Roper version. And already long before, about the original notes, authors pointed out that the party-interest of Martin Bormann will probably have lead him to make (at least small) changes to the text to make them more usable for party purposes. (These statements can be found in the articles/books of sources of the Table Talk article #5,#16,#26). These do impact the central question that words like 'undoubtly' 'credible and reliable' and 'as with all historical sources' are not justified based on the sources and consensus, and are misleading to a user reading the text. Apart from this discussion, point #1 stays valid anyhow, doesn't it? That the length of time for a consensus to exist doesn't matter for a true or false in science/academic world? Scientists did stick for many years in Newton's theories, until they got caught up by new theories that were able to explain and model better. The age of these theories did not matter for the consensus. DaMastah (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As I started the process of editing this away from Carrier's article, it seems only fair to Mastah in light of his/her questions that I restate my reasons - as an expert on interwar European history and a professional historian - for doing so.

1) Dr Carrier is not an historian of the period - rather, he is a former classical historian who now works as an atheist blogger, and an activist one at that. The item you cite is the only item he has ever written that has survived peer-review. The GSR is not at the top of the academic league, although it is a perfectly reputable journal. Sometimes therefore it can struggle to attract material, and some odd stuff gets through - like this article. It has had zero impact on the scholarly consensus. It is occasionally cited by teachers and hobby-historians - usually to show they have considered all angles, before dismissing its arguments - but I have never come across it in an academic reference book. Indeed, the first time I came across it was when I followed a link on Wikipedia. Those who have doubts about the Table Talk, or who are urging caution in its use, turn to Kershaw, not Carrier. Among atheists, yes, there has been an impact on the consensus. It has allowed them to agree that Hitler was clearly a Christian, which in light of Ratzinger's rather inflammatory remarks on the subject of Hitler's atheism (and incidentally, while I am convinced after long study and much thought that Hitler was not a Christian, I am equally sure he was not an atheist) has become quite important to them. But not among historians (including historians who are atheists). More on the question of its veracity below.

2) Dr Carrier does not speak German (although he claims to have a 'translation knowledge' of it, whatever he means by that - I suspect he says it to avoid awkward questions about how he can translate a language he doesn't speak). The actual translation was done with the aid of Reinhold Mittschrang (I think that's how it's spelled) who to judge by his internet profile, is not especially fluent in English. His qualifications and affiliation are not cited in the article. The translations in the article are not, in my admittedly subjective view, of the highest standard. They are also very tendentious, and heavily reliant on one copy of the work which seems to be the most sympathetic to the author's view - almost as though the aim had not been to give a sense of what was there (which is not easy in translations but about all that can be hoped for) but rather to try and prove Hitler was not anti-religious. It has been claimed upthread that Carrier was asked by the current copyright holders to do a new translation of it on the strength of this article. No source is given for this extremely improbable claim, and I could find no reference to it on Dr Carrier's website. As the original translation has just been re-issued, it seems unlikely in any case that the publishers were looking for a new translation.

3) The article cites David Irving as a reliable source, describing him as a 'controversial historian' (wrong on two counts - he's not controversial because he has no reputable supporters left, and he is not an historian, he is a writer of historical fiction that he persists in passing off as fact) and flagrantly misrepresents Irving's views on the Holocaust, claiming that actually Irving had 'never denied the Holocaust happened'. Since during the period when this article was being written, Irving was failing very publicly in a libel suit against somebody who had exposed his pro-Nazi views and forgeries during the course of which Irving repeatedly claimed the Holocaust never happened, I find it extremely difficult to believe Dr Carrier was unaware of this.

4) Much of the previous material on this source, which lent it undue weight, was actually written by Dr Carrier. It is incidentally very noticeable that one of the fields he is unquestionably expert in is self-publicity and self-publication in all their forms. Again, I question his objectivity and reliability in promoting his own work. If it had been the only source on this question, that would be a different matter. However, historians have been using Table Talk in all its translations and in the original German for decades, and it is striking how every scholar with a good knowledge of German is happy to use the translations by Trevor Roper and Genoud as a source for English-language readers even though some (particularly Ian Kershaw) criticize them for being imperfect, for omissions and occasional mistranscriptions. Yet mysteriously this scholarly consensus and wider scholarly debate on the issue was absent from the original paragraph. Even Richard Steigmann-Gall accepts the broad thrust of the scholarly consensus about Hitler's private remarks, saying - in my view correctly - that Hitler's views on religion changed about 1937-8 to a much more hardline anti-religious view (incidentally, he and I disagree about Hitler's views in the early 30s, but his argument while not totally convincing is perfectly tenable).

I am sorry that you find it uncomfortable that this paragraph now conflicts with your views. But I fear that is unavoidable because you want it to say something that would be historically inaccurate. Table Talk is more widely accepted, and more likely to be accurate, than just about any other contemporary written source we have of Hitler's private life - especially given how dishonest most of the biographies of the surviving Nazis are, mostly being designed to try and exculpate themselves from guilt in the regime rather than to inform historians about what happened. That does not mean it should be accepted uncritically. It must be treated carefully - like any source. That is even true of memos written by Winston Churchill. In the case of Nazi documentation, an even higher degree of awareness is advisable due to the sensitivity of the topic. Therefore, I think the current bit on the consensus and the health warning added by later edits have it about right. If you are still in doubt, a special issue of the Journal of Contemporary History on Steigmann-Gall's book in 2004 (I think) (no. 42:1, anyway) might be of interest to you in exploring the wider issues about Hitler's religious views and the sources we use to arrive at our conclusions about them.Hcc01 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Devout Catholic"

Editor Greengrounds wants to open the article with the line "Hitler was a devout Catholic". A view not sustainable by reference to any reputable source. He also wants to delete material sourced from Alan Bullock, the Encyclopedia Brittanica and other noted histories which note hostility held by Hitler towards religion or Christianity. There is room for a lot of nuance is trying to state Hitler's position on religion - he may have had neo-pagan ideas. His public and private statements conflict and there are questions about reliability of primary sources. Serious historians have disagreements that can be reflected in our text. But beginning an article with "Hitler was a devout Catholic" would be as preposterous as an article on Hitler beginning "Hitler was a European statesman who met with world leaders to avoid a a war in 1938". Ozhistory (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, please DISCUSS here. If you have a precise quote from Toland saying Hitler was a "devout Catholic" then you may be able to insert it and name him as source so that editors can peer review. You can't just delete all the other well sourced material and present it as uncontested that Hitler was a "devout Catholic" (a view contradicted by the Enyclopedia Britannica for example). Suggest you write a practice version here. Ozhistory (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you citing britanica and yet saying that the same article does not say that the MALE NAZIS CALLED THEMSELVES SS SOLDIERS FOR CHRIST. Please read the article again, and the quote you said was copyright is in there. How can you say it's copy right IF IT'S NOT IN THERE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The text you are citing does not say "the male Nazis called themselves SS for Christ". Read it again. It says that one sect of Nazi-aligned Protestants (the so-called "German Christians" Lutheran sect) called themselves "SS men for Christ". Our text already makes it clear that "the great majority of Germans did profess to be Christian" and that Hitler "had promoted Positive Christianity" and "gave support to the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen church". So the issue of "Christian Nazis" and Hitler's views of them is already made perfectly clear. Ozhistory (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The introduction of the article is very biased towards your viewpoint. We need to have both viewpoints represented in the introduction, not just yours. See my latest edit, and if you don't agree with that particular approach, please make sure to find an approach that is not focused solely on apologetics and focuses equally on the other perspective.Greengrounds (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a highly non-neutral point of view that comes through very strongly - however this recent edit is far better than your earlier ones! The Speer quote is interesting, but it shouldn't trump the consensus view of Ency. Brit. as the opening lines. Speer is not a very reliable source - he was a war criminal, partly trying to explain away his loyalty to Hitler. He also claimed to "know nothing" about the Holocaust, which is almost certainly a lie. I think it's ok to mention his claim, but not lead with it - also it can be compressed. Ditto Toland. The Ency. Brit. is a more respected neutral source, whereas Toland offers a highly contentious line of argument, to say the least, and Speer is a dubious, though significant source. Ozhistory (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

I assume that is was Greengrounds who anonymously "undid" the following introduction:

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible" and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism". Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, wrote that Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church but "had no real attachment to it." The biographer Alan Bullock concluded that, though raised Catholic, Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest. Though Hitler had some respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote that he became deeply hostile to its teachings. The biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Pope Pius XI infuriated Hitler with his 1937 critique of Nazism, Mit brennender Sorge, which denounced racism.

And replaced it with this one:

According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic Church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members, however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it." According to biographer John Toland, Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within himself its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God — so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty." (for the official Catholic position on Nazi racism in the 1930s see Mit brennender Sorge).

Can we have a vote/discussion on which is better? As already said, the testimony of Speer (a convicted war criminal) is not a good opening line when we have the neutral assessment of the Encyclopedia Britannica to go with. Toland's assessment of Hitler being "in good standing with Rome" seems to be both vague (what does that even mean - he liked the Church or the Church liked him??) and th ordinary consensus on Hitler. The wording of Toland's claim is also extreme: that Catholics could murder without conscience!

I suggest an editor is just bold and reverts the "anoymous" undo. Ozhistory (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That was not me, but I applaud whoever did that. Your censorship of anything that does not support apologist viewpoints is sickening. I vote we keep it the way it is, or if you're going to edit it don't just edit out the parts that contradict what you want to hear. Greengrounds (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Greengrounds (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither introduction is acceptable. The opening should sum up the article. Speer is an important source - being a war criminal seems irrelevant in this case since he wasn't vcharged with crimes against religion. He has no self-serving incentive to say what he did. There are planty of sources that dispute the warrior paganism viewpoiint, so having it presented as fact is whollyt unacceptable. In any case this article is about Hitler's personal religious beliefs, not his alleged policies. Of course Catholics can murder without conscience. Haven't you ever heard of the Mafia? The attitiude of the Catholic church to Hitler is complex, but again it is not the primary focus of the article. No-one is saying that the church approved the holocaust. Toland's point is more subtle than that, but I do agree that's it's still a rather problematic and one-sided claim to have in the lede section. Paul B (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I agree with your final conclusion that Toland quote is problematic in a lead. I agree also that Speer is an important source (although I would say that he did indeed have a self serving motive: he was at times trying to justify his own actions, and along the way he makes some dubious claims - such as pleading ignorance of the Holocaust), so his reliability, if not his significance, can be questioned (certainly as the basis for an opening line). And I agree that the first text is not great (I only say it is better than its replacement). Toland may well be more subtle when read in full, but in the extract provided here, he doesn't just harmlessly imply that a Catholic could murder without conscience, he appears to say that Hitler murdered without conscience because he was a Catholic! The two comments are worlds apart and the ambiguity should disqualify it from our lead. As for Greengrounds accusations of "apologetics" and "censorship", well a cursory examination of his edits reveals a determination to remove evidence contrary to his eccentric view that "Hitler was a devout Catholic". To speak with such certainty of "knowing" Hitler's religion is quite odd - let alone proclaiming with certainty that he was Catholic. Ozhistory (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the latest revision by deadbeef and I also agree with Paul's assessment of the situation, though I see no reason to put words in his mouth. Also no one is saying that a "catholic" could commit murder without conscience any more than they are saying a "rationalist" could commit these crimes. Everybody in the world is a "rationalist and materialist", Adolf on the other hand would need a little more explaining, as he was often quoted as saying he was doing "gods work". I think jus summing that up as a "lie" is a little off putting. The only evidence that he was nothing more than a "rationalist and materialist" is scholarly OPINION, and the lead should not reflect OPINION, but should only refer to factual information pertaining to hitler and his PERSONAL religious beliefs.Greengrounds (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying that he was not a Christian because he "protested" some of the teaching of the church, or he did not like their position and influence in his country is akin to saying "protestants are not Christian" because they protest some teachings of the church and the churches position in society. Hitler and the Nazis were undeniably Christian, as protestants are undeniably Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph draft

Gentlemen (and others involved or interested):

Seeing as how the introductory paragraph is under contention and discussion on the topic has stagnated, I would like to submit to all parties involved a draft introduction paragraph written by myself, as someone completely neutral on the issue and interested only in building a civil consensus. Please read below, and weigh in on whether it is acceptable, or if you would like something to be changed.

Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his ties to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it." Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Conversely, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible" and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism". Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote that, though raised Catholic, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest. Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote he became hostile to its teachings.

Please respond with any complaints as a new indentation (i.e. don't edit the above block of text directly). Please remember to assume good faith, and remain civil as a consensus is built. It is clear that both parties have reasoned arguments behind their choice of content and are not simply trying to "troll" the other. With that being understood, please keep your discussion to the content itself and not lose your temper at the other. Deadbeef (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, thank you Deadbeef Greengrounds (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggest change "ties" to "relationship". It is more encompassing and neutral. I suppose the missing statement in the opening paragraph is that many historians doubt Hitler had any religion (which would complete the range of "contradictory accounts" you refer to). Going back to Bullock's text then, can I suggest we alter the final section of your draft to include this fuller summary of his view:

"Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote that, Hitler did not believe in God, was anti-clerical, and held Christian ethics in contempt because they contravened his preferred view of "survival of the fittest." Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote he became deeply hostile to its teachings.

That serious scholars doubt Hitler believed in God is very significant. Ozhistory (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an objection to your proposed change to Deadbeef's text. Hitler was baptised into the Catholic faith, if you don't consider that a "tie", but a "relationship" then more power to you, change the wording there. We should add his baptism certificate from wikimedia commons into the article. Any objections to this?

Also,you have managed to cherry pick an even more biased and clearly contradictory quote from Bullock, saying he did not believe in god (which is an OPINION), and which contradicts britanica which says he basically beleived in "pagan gods" so which is it, he believed in pagan gods or no god?

Your emphasis on the importance of sholarly opinion should be offset with an emphasis on what hitler professed his own beliefs to be (afterall who is a better judge on what you believe than yourself?) So I have no problem with changing the Bullock quote if you will allow a reference to Hitler's own self professed beliefs in the christian god and a reference to his baptism.

So a reference to Hitlers baptism and his self professed beliefs in the christian god in exchange for your change in the bullock quote. Let me know if you think this is fair.

Also the baptism certificate is completeley relevant and deserves a place somewhere in the article, where do you suppose we should link that up?Greengrounds (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If you mean that a baptism certificate can be taken as evidence of someone's grown up beliefs, then you can't be serious? Why don't you log on to Richard Dawkins and rewrite his biography crossing out every reference to being an atheist and replace it with "Anglican" (because when he was a little boy his parents baptised him)? Nonsense. Also Bullock's text says Hitler "believed neither in God nor conscience": that is to say, Bullock refers to the capital "G" God (the proper name given to the god of the Judeo-Christian understanding). As for Hitler calling himself a "Christian", it's already in the lead and doesn't need to be repeated (though some context of Hitler being "cautious about dangerously alienating Christians" at a time when he was being widely condemned as "anti-Christian" by everyone from Pope Pius XI to Churchill & Roosevelt would be helpful). So: no to "baptismal certificate in lead" (redundant information); and no to "Hitler said he was Christian" being repeated (it's problematic, because he also said he wasn't a Christian, BUT it is already stated in the lead text anyway - so its redundant. If a watertight sourced baptismal cert actually exists, then it can be referred to or included in general discussion of his childhood. But the point of Catholic background is already made in our article Ozhistory (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The original text here by Deadbeef is satisfactory. I prefer it to your rewording. We could mention that Hitler was baptised, professed publicly and privately that he was a christian and was never ex communicated from the catholic church ALL OF WHICH MAKE HIM A CATHOLIC. I am not willing to agree with you that we put in the lead that "hitler did not believe in god" it is an OPINION of ONE author. As for the baptismal certificate it is available on wiki commons and I'm not proposing we put that in the lead, I agree that it could find a place in his childhood section.Greengrounds (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Being baptized a Catholic and then not being ex-communicated makes you... a Catholic? You can not be serious. You keep repeating that Hitler said privately that he was a "Christian" as evidence that he was a Catholic. So what do you believe the fact that Hitler said in private he wasn't a Christian is evidence of? As for wanting to remove Bullock's assessment that Hitler did not believe in God, because it is "one opinion" - um, what do think all those other referenced assessments are? You are now sourcing your new edits to a site called "The History Place". Please remove these edits and find a valid source. Ozhistory (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That edit you are referring to was not in the lead, it was in the "childhood beliefs" section, and it was ONE QUOTE, not multiple edits as you're making it out to be. If you don't like the source, please demonstrate why you think it is unreliable, as there are MANY questionable quotes and citations, in the article and there is potential for an edit war(as you know)if people start deleting sources that they don't like, just because they are of the opinion that it is not a respectable source, or more likely that they don't like the evidence.Greengrounds (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

FURTHERMORE, the edit had to do with Hitler's BAPTISM, which as you previously AGREED, should go in that section. Greengrounds (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If Hitler said in private or public that he WASN'T a catholic, that is evidence that he wasn't a catholic, and I don't have a problem with you citing those quotes. However, in the lead, I do have a problem with you citing "Hitler did not believe in god", as it is misleading, and is based on one man's OPINIONGreengrounds (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, the wikipedia sources policies which you are asking about are outlined here: verifiability. Please review and pay close attention to the section "Reliable Sources". Then it would help if you went ahead and removed the edit you have based on "The History Place" which does not fit the criteria. Ozhistory (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how that sources contravenes these guidelines more than many other sources that are used throughout the article. Please explain how my edit was "vandalism" as you put it, and what did my edit have to do with britanica? You neglected to use the talk page when making these claims and allegations, so please be more specific in the talk page as to what part was vandalism and what it had to do with britanica, because I can assure you that that was not my intention, so if I did, it was by mistake.Greengrounds (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The source you are concerned about, thehistoryplace.com has received awards from your beloved Britannica herself, for "quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability." Please see http://www.historyplace.com/awards/index.html The author of the articles on the site, Philip Gavin has degrees from Boston University. If This is not an acceptable source, then that really brings into question the Britannica website as an acceptable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the website has not been put to review. Articles/encyclopaedia entries/books/monographs are sent to experts, at least one, usually two or three, sometimes up to seven, who read them and write a report highlighting any issues. They then recommend publication, rejection or further work. As a result, it is unusual - not unheard of by any means, but unusual - for dud stuff to be published. On the internet, anybody can publish anything with no quality control whatsoever - and it is worth noting, with due respect to Mr Gavin, that he appears to be a scientist rather than an historian (nb he also has only one degree from Boston University - precision is important in these matters). To compare it to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, whatever Britannica's shortcomings, is almost as absurd as your claims upthread that the Nazis were demonstrably Christian and that historical writing represents only peoples' opinions. Historical research rather represents deductions based on available evidence. The overwhelming evidence from the Nazi period is that Nazism was Nietzschean rather than Christian in origin, as was Hitler's personal worldview, and that is reflected in the historical consensus. Even Steigmann-Gall admits his controversial thesis on Christian Nazism could only be valid for the earlier 1930s. I think Deadbeef's introductory paragraph is a good one. It reflects the complexity of Hitler's views as far as they are known about as accurately as could be done in the space constraints.86.167.1.30 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're that worried about the source, I'll use a different one. BTW, the author had two degrees, one an arts degree not a science degree (precision is important in these matters) also be careful what you are demanding for being used as sources, which is basically your demanding proof that each individual articles are peer reviewed. :-)Greengrounds (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think, Greengrounds, you should read what was written more carefully, both in my comment and your source. He has ONE degree from Boston - the other is from Northeastern. So I was right and you are still wrong. Moreover, I should point out that merely because somebody has a BA is not a guarantee it was not a degree in science. Moreover, why should Wikipedia not use material that has been checked for quality? Nobody is demanding proof that they are peer-reviewed - merely that high quality sources are used. There is a reasonable doubt about the validity of the source you cite - particularly given your own blatant tendentiousness on the subject. Hope that helps.62.30.228.103 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, please do try and find a different source, as per the guidelines. In the meantime, remove that edit. I agree poor sourcing is common in the article - it is the nature of this sort of article that people take things from blogs and cooky websites, which contain a mix of fact, rumour and unscholarly prejudice. Collaboratively, we must watch out for such citations and remove material sourced to them. Meanwhile, the "vandalism" I reverted was a series of alterations made by an editor who completely changed Britannica & Bullock (for example changing: "in elite Nazi schools, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic worship" to "Christian prayers were added to Teutonic rituals"). I had assumed these were your edits, but it may have been the anonymous IP address (that you "applauded" earlier on). Collectively, we must watch out for this type of vandalism and correct whenever we see it. I also encourage you to read Bullock and other noted biographies by respected scholars on the subject of Hitler - or at least find out who Bullock was before attempting to go through an article and removing all quotes sourced to him. Ozhistory (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Recommend you do not try to alter the article to the point where you set opening line to "Hitler was an atheist", as I see you tried to do at one point. That is why I got involved and set the page to an earlier revision. As for your other conspiracy theories that I signed in anonymously from Bangalore (you can search the IP from whoever did that), please stop. And please don't slander me as "a vandal" just because I disagree with you. And by the way, was it really the SOURCE of the well known fact that hitler wanted to be a priest, or was it the FACT that Hitler wanted to be a priest that bothered you? Either way, another source was referenced for that WELL KNOWN FACT.Greengrounds (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ozzy you tried to summarize the article with a an OPINION from Geoffrey Blainey, using his book as a citation. Just because it is published does not make it a reliable source. Here's a summary of the sources you are trying to use to SUMMARIZE Hitler's religious beliefs: "Geoffrey Norman Blainey AC (born 11 March 1930), is a prominent Australian historian and commentator with a wide international audience. He is said to be the “most prolific, wide-ranging, inventive, and - in the 1980s and 1990s - most controversial of Australia’s living historiansNotice the language used to describe this well known source: "INVENTIVE", "CONTROVERSIAL". Probably not the best source to summarize an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Citing wikipedia as a reliable source to judge a reliable source is not a great start - especially when you are seeking to win an argument over the truth of wikipedia content. On Geoffrey Blainey, the Encyclopedia Britannica's opening summary says he is an "Australian historian, teacher, and writer known for his authoritative texts on Australian economic and social history". On Alan Bullock its says "British historian who , was founding master of St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, and the author of major historical studies and biographies, notably Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952), Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (1991)." So, Blainey, it describes as "authoritative" and Bullock as writing "major historical studies" of Hitler. These two eminent historians concluded from their studies of Hitler that he did not believe in God. This can be noted and cited in the article. Due weight can also be given to their views in our introduction. John Toland, Britannica notes, wrote "one of the most comprehensive biographies" of Adolf Hitler. His views also have a place in the body, and may be referenced in the introduction. Ozhistory (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if you are truly retarded, but you seem to be making the same mistake over and over again. As you did with the history place, you are attacking the source rather than the easily verifiable information cited there. The wiki on Blainey (which I see you have altered) references "Essay on “Blainey” by Profesor Graeme Davison, “The Oxford Companion to Australian History”, Oxford Univ. Press, 1998, p. 74)" So once again, I tell you WE ARE NOT LEADING THE ARTICLE with Blainey's statement that "Hitler was an Atheist". Blainey is WELL KNOWS for his controversial and "inventive" writing. It's not hard to find evidence for that.Greengrounds (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have previously referred you to Wikipedia's sourcing policies and copyright policies. I now refer you to the wikipedia policy of no personal attacks. I ask to please stop with your personal attacks. I also ask you again to read the sourcing policy, so that you can answer your own question as to why the verifiability of "sources" is vital in wikipedia. Ozhistory (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen: This conversation has now, once again, stagnated. I'll ask you both (and open the floor as well) to state if you agree with the following line of text for the first paragraph, altered using the revisions suggested and agreed on:

Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his relationship with Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it." Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Conversely, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible" and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism".Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote that Hitler did not believe in God, was anti-clerical, and held Christian ethics in contempt because they contravened his preferred view of "survival of the fittest." Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote he became deeply hostile to its teachings.

Let's please agree not to attack the sources of the other, and instead comment on whether the text, as it exists, is acceptable. It is clear that neither editor is trying to vandalize Wikipedia, but simply has a different set of ideas. Please remember that there are multiple, verifiable viewpoints on the issue, and it is in the interest of neutrality to "teach the controversy" if credible dispute exists. The purpose of this is to build an introductory paragraph that satisfies both editors if possible, not to build a paragraph that one editor and one editor only is in favor of. The goal here is "agreeable", not "perfect". Deadbeef 02:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Britannica does directly state that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible". It only states that Martin Bormann, argued that, and hitler "shared these views". If Britannica makes a point to make this distincion, I don't think we should bypass that. Also it is important to note that Britannica also states that this was "primarily because the essential elements of Christianity were “taken over from Judaism.”" That is also an importand distinction that should not be left out if we are to use Britannica here. Also I've already stated that I don't agree with putting the words "hitler did not believe in god" in the paragraph. I would however agree to this statement if we were to also include mention that Hitler himself often stated publicly and privately that he did believe in god, and never publicly or privately said the he didn't believe in god. However like I also stated I was willing to accept the original rewrite by Deadbeef. I would accept that original rewrite, but not this one as it is. Greengrounds (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright then. In the interest of ending the argument, is anyone not in favor of using the first draft (at the top of this section)? Deadbeef 15:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ozzhistory, it looks like we need to resume the dialogue again here. We both agreed on the draft by Deadbeef, and I see you have been slowly chipping away at it again to fulfill your agenda, which seems to be that Hitler was an atheist. Your latest draft seems to say just that, slowly but surely that is what it has become. So, I reverted back to the April 25th, which was the last time that we both agreed on the intro. Please use the talk page when editing the lead of the article, and please remember we both agreed with Deadbeef's draft when neither of us answered that we are "not" in favour of using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 07:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In view of large number of precise citations included in the May text, I've restored most of it. I didn't agree the April text, it was inserted by Deadbeef without a final comment from me after you wanted to delete Bullock's full text because you don't want any reference to a view that Hitler might be an "atheist" to be included in the introduction. (To me this is unacceptable censorship of an influential authority on the topic). Meanwhile I have gone to the sources you chose - (Toland, Speer) - and found that their complete text on Hitler's religion were not reflected in our/Deadbeef's April text. Could you (and other interested editors) take a look at the referenced material and see if you disagree? For example, Speer says Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church" to his political associates - a view endorsed by Kershaw, Bullock and, to a lesser extent, by Toland (Toland did say that Hitler was in "good standing" with Rome - but he also says Hitler essentially believed the Pope wanted him dead and was "no friend"). The cited texts quite simply don't match our/Deadbeef's April version and exaggerated the supposed "contradictory" views of historians. Certainly of the cited historians. Ozhistory (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Yes you did agree with Deadbeef's text in April, because the last comment was is anyone "NOT" in favour of using the text, and you did not object. You seem to forget that the whole reason we had deadbeef get involved is because we had a disagreement, and even after moderation and arbitration you have gone ahead, contrary to the moderator, contrary to our agreement, and edited, without so much as using the talk page even once. All I ask is that you use the talk page before modifying the lead of the article, which simply needs to start off that conflicting views exist about his religiosity. Anything else you add to the article can go in the body under the applicable sections. As for Speer, you can change the quotes and the context to suit many agendas, and that is why the lead must reflect that it is controversial. All I am asking here is that you stick with the moderation and arbitration that you asked for, and use the talk page. Therefore, I am reverting to the last edit that we had agreed on. We can let the readers make their own judgements by reading the article themselves, it is not up to you to pick and choose what viewpoint should go in the lead. Therefore, the lead gets reverted to our previously agreed upon edit. If it were up to me, the lead would start off with Hitler's own assertion that "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Unfortunately that wouldn't be fair would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not agree the text in April. But I did undertake additional research, specifically going to each of the sources. The April text does not adequately cover the views of the authors cited. We most certainly cannot "change" the Speer - or Bullock, Toland Kershaw or Phayer quotes - to "to suit many agendas" as you suggest - on the contrary, we must accurately reflect 1) what they actually wrote 2) what our article says. You can add to the expanded text that one General once wrote in his diary that Hitler told him he was a Catholic if you like (with correct timing and attribution). It's doesn't cancel out everything else Hitler said and did. I will insert the new text under a new heading to get people engaged. Ozhistory (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes you did agree. Do I have to spell it out for you? It was asked who ever does NOT agree with this paragraph please raise your hand. You chose not to raise your hand, and instead go ahead and bypass the conversation and go along on your own. We most certainly CAN pick and choose and mine Speer, Bullock, Toland, Kerhsaw or Phayer quotes to reflect various conflicting viewpoints, and that is all you are doing. Picking the parts that best suit your viewpoint and quotes that you use like "While noting that under Pius XII the church saved more Jews from the Nazis than all other rescue organizations combined, Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his anti-Semitism" Did you not write that? Please explain to me how this is not twisting words and quotations and contexts to suit your agenda?Greengrounds (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of "non partisan" sources

Anonymous editor 66.216.235.202 wants to cite the following people:

RANDALL BYTWERK is a faculty member of Calvin College, which is an educational institution of the Christian Reformed Church

David Nicholls, a THEOLOGIAN educated at Yale Divinity School (Henry Fellow 1960–66, STM 1962), and Chichester Theological College

John S. Conway, A member of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster's Refugee Liaison Committee. On the UBC campus, he has been long associated with the Student Christian Movement

However, when I provided an alternative viewpoint by Richard Carrier, an American historian and writer, he undid the edit, because it was "partisan", because Carrier is a well known atheist. You can't have it both ways, either your partisan viewpoints should be blocked, or Carrier should be allowed. Greengrounds (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your mistaken, carries nonsensical statement comes from a Blog ( which even notes some of his incorrect knowledge about the topic of Nazi Germany), while all those other sources come from academic presses. Texas A&M University, Oxford University Press and ABC-CLIO. 66.216.235.202 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It provides a popular counter argument to the "propoganda, therefore he was lying about everything" argument. The source I provided is not a "blog", but an essay, and if you know of a better way of putting it, or another source, please let me know. Your sources are all from christian "partisan", and provide a legitimate but biased viewpoint. I'm not saying they should not be allowed, but I am saying the counter argument needs to be heard. Greengrounds (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"After all, if Hitler had to pretend to be a god-fearing Christian to sway his Nazi supporters, that means Nazis had to have been god-fearing Christians": This addition is not about Hitlers beliefs but about some of those that may have joined his movement and is thus off topic it says nothing about whether hitler was a Christian or pretending to be one, Also a blog Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, it is a fringe source. 66.216.235.202 (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, though I disagree that is a fringe source, as all of your sources are educated at non-secular "fringe" universities, and/or have a clear motivation for an apologetic viewpoint, being devout, outspoken christians themselves. Surely we can both agree that there are alternative view points on the issue of hitler's propoganda. Your edit, stating that "one must read between the lines" does not offer any evidence of hitler's religiosity, it is a blanket statement that could be applied to any person who publicly states their religion. Yes Hitler certainly had his political motivations when declaring that he was doing gods work, and you are right that readers should be skeptical about this, but the alternative viewpoint is also that we cannot disregard the fact that he did say these things, and he may or may not have meant it to various degrees. Perhaps we can come to a consensus on presenting the counter argument that perhaps he did mean what he was saying, despite the political propoganda involved. Any suggestions?Greengrounds (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at it another way Greengrounds. These sources are all partisan, but Carrier's is by far the most doubtful in terms of its accuracy. Let's deconstruct that sentence for you: "It is claimed that the quotations and evidence of Hitler's belief were a ruse, propaganda for the benefit of his Nazi followers. This is hardly plausible. After all, if Hitler had to pretend to be a god-fearing Christian to sway his Nazi supporters, that means Nazis had to have been god-fearing Christians" The last sentence is a perfectly fair observation. It falls down because it is based on a false premise set up in the first sentence. Apart from Steigmann-Gall, whose work was not published at the time this was written, nobody has ever claimed that all Nazis were God-fearing Christians (even RSG doesn't claim it of all of them). Many undoubtedly were, worried by the rise of atheism on the Marxist left and moving to the authoritarian right as a bulwark against it. Many were former Socialists, however, disturbed by the flagrantly anti-Nationalist rhetoric of the Communists, who were most certainly not. A large number sat somewhere in between. Carrier appears to have taken an oft repeated, and in my view accurate, claim that Hitler's speeches were propaganda aimed at reassuring the majority of Germans who were God-fearing Christians, and changed it to mean something else entirely. It is noticeable both that Carrier provides no source for his extraordinary claim, and that it did not survive into the peer-reviewed article. It exists only on this very doubtful and clearly biased website. I have therefore removed it.86.149.32.170 (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you need to have sources of various beliefs to 'balance out the opinions' then you should be using them for quoted opinions, not sources. It seems like Hitler's political and religious beliefs motivate many people to assert that they aren't like him, and this motivates bias, because they don't want to be perpetually stuck on the end of an "Well, Hitler believed that too" argument. Please don't bring your personal feelings to Wikipedia unless it gives you energy to contribute something beneficial. People are here to learn, not to be brainwashed or sift through material that only you understand or find relevant. I'm speaking generally to everyone editing here.

I did use that Carrier quote as a quoted opinion. Yes, you are right many Christians are trying to assert that that Hitler was not a Catholic, despite him saying that he was over and over again, and despite many scholarly opinion such as Carrier and Toland. This is why I got involved in the first place, since the article had regressed to the point that the opening sentence of the opening summary read "Hitler was atheist". -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk). Please do not break comments between a user's comment start and their signature.

Also, just because an author is religious or from a theological school does not make him a fringe source. Many of Wikipedia's articles are made up from quotes and citations from authors with a theological education, and for some topics they are the only available sources. Yes, even articles about history. Background and affiliation do not mean its a bad source. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess we know where you stand with your oh so typical Christian hypocrisy. Let us apply your logic to other sources and say "just because an author is an atheist does not make him a fringe source. Capice? I notice you only hypocritically applied this line of reasoning to defend Christian apologists, but when it comes to atheists, it somehow makes them a fringe source that they are atheists. -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk)

Upon further reviewing WP: Reliable Sources and the comments in this discussion, along with comments of both users, I'm going to give my consensus that the Carrier source does not belong here. If we look at the Wikipedia articles for any of the men mentioned in this debate, only Carrier is sited as an individual with a religio-political agenda. The following sentence even says " However, the widespread consensus among historians,[82] sustained over a long period of time since the initial work of William L. Shirer in the 1960s,[83] is that Hitler was undoubtedly anti-clerical and that the views expressed in Trevor-Roper's translation of Table Talk, are credible and reliable, although as with all historical sources, a high level of critical awareness about its origins and purpose are advisable in using it." Do you have any sources other than Carrier to show that this is not an isolated idea? General consensus on other Wikiedpia articles, like Adolf Hitler, show him as a non-religious person. Using simply the Carrier quotation to throw doubt on all of these sources and information in a sub-article could be construed as a POV Fork maneuver. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Carrier source in question was already removed. You are now removing an additional source. Also, checked the Carrier article, could not find your reference. Keep in mind that it would be IRRELEVANT WHAT HIS POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE! Isn't what you JUST SAID? Your Christian hypocrisy is absolutely ASTOUNDING. -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk)

Because the discussion has gone cold, I'm removing that bit, especially as the lead-in for that section, until more sources are found to make the claim. Edit: Upon further reading of the Carrier sources, there is a clearly stated agenda relating to the ideological blame-game I mentioned in my earlier post. Protestants, Catholics, and Atheists have long been pointing fingers at each other as responsible for Hitler's behavior, despite (imo) his sharing common beliefs and influences from all of these. This article is not anyone's forum for trying to end common rhetoric, and, indeed, for a year it seems users have been fervently angling for this very thing. This should not even be an issue, because the article already states well enough Hitler's influences and beliefs, and never points a finger at atheists.

It seems like you are getting defensive, because no one is saying the article is "pointing fingers at atheists". You are the one who is feeling attacked therefore you are saying well, we didn't attack the atheists so why are they attacking us? -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk) Please do not break comments between a user's comment start and their signature.

PLEASE DO NOT USE BOLD TYPEFACE- IT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE YOU ARE YELLING AT ME. It is common in internet circles that BOLD TYPEFACE IS AKIN TO INSULTING OR YELLING.Greengrounds (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked Carrier's sources in the article of his I had access to, and they were just mostly defunct links to other atheist websites. Going to do some digging with the links in the header. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

More hypocrisy. When it's Christian authors who have links to Christian schools, Christian websites, Christian agendas, it's no issue but when it's an atheist that has GASP links to ATHEIST websites, then the source is invalid. I am undoing your edits. If you want re org the section so it's not the lead, then fine go ahead and put your agenda all over it. But the source is valid and applicable so I think it should stay. -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk)

A person's background has no bearing on their reliability. But if a source has an agenda, a problem arises, but not always. Keep in mind that you're editing a discussion about a historical person's religious beliefs, which involves religion and history, something which historians with a theological background would be interested in and possibly write more than others historians. Those sources may be biased, but if you only way to see that is through their religious background rather than their clearly stated intentions (as the Carrier source), then the bias is less tangible. The source you added is a person promoting atheism, and using the subject specifically with the intent to assign religious beliefs to Adolf Hitler while denying any sort of atheistic connection to him. I asked you to provide more sources so that the material could be included. From the time stamps on my entrees, you can clearly see that I spent hours researching sources and opinions here. Please do not revert without reading my posts (or at least without responding to anything I said) and then call me biased simply for not agreeing with you. If you think I'm being biased, please flag me to a moderator instead of ignoring me.

As said, this is not a forum for anyone to say that their opinions do not align to Adolf Hitler's, not a forum for anyone to assign his beliefs to other people. I've found other problems with the article, like a very apologetic attitude toward Social Darwinism, where its pointed out that he 'didn't advocate Social Darwinism, [he merely practiced it]'. Those will hopefully be getting the boot soon. Your material is not so questionable; all we need is more sources to confirm notability and to dissuade raised opinions about 'partisanship'. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read your unsigned comments in between my updating comments. Again, please do not accuse me of bias. Please remember to sign your comments so that its easier to see. Please don't type in all caps; in internet culture this can be viewed as 'yelling' or an insult. If you mean to italicize your statements, there's a button for that in the top left of the edit toolbar. The problem is not so much the religio-political beliefs of the source, its that the source is using the material to promote his religio-political beliefs, that the source adds little to the actual topic, and is being heavily defended by a small group of editors with the same minority religio-political background. That may be okay, but when those things align it raises red flags to me.

I'll check the theologians' content to see if there's any offending material. I thought you meant you merely objected to their background. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed the offending line with the theologian sources. The problem I see is that the line where the Theologians have been added is apologetic and seems to be meant to excuse any material found in the rest of the section (given the edit war, I came to this conclusion by assuming that the material was biased). This also appears to be tied up in the edit war between Greengrounds and the IP address user and I don't really feel like reading why every single one of those edits was made. I don't think the situation between the two of you belongs on Wikipedia. I'd move to scrap that sentence at the beginning of the section. I only looked at the Bytwerk source, because in-between doing so I saw that your edits removing it were based on the religious background of the source and your personal opinion of religious universities (which is not a commonly held opinion, as far as I know, outside of religious universities giving fringe religious opinions on evolution and other scientific theories). I saw nothing wrong with the Bytwerk source: the sited opinion was readily located in the text and Bytwerk is noted historian with published works discussing Adolph Hitler. I did not see any links to Christian websites. Perhaps the sources were theologians because the user is more familiar with theological authors, but the actual sentence (the context is the problem) is a theme in the rest of the article. I doubt it would be hard to find similar statements ('Hitler's public messages were propaganda and one must read between the lines' and 'Propaganda is meant to reeducate to a specific viewpoint') from sources with a completely secular background. That isn't necessary, though, because Wikipedia does not discriminate sources simply based on their religious beliefs. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Finished review. None of the offending links from the historians from theological schools use links to Christian websites as sources, at least not in the statements for which the material was sourced. They are all published books. If you find something problematic in a source, please note it specifically. Otherwise, editors waste their valuable time doing research just to come up empty handed. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this a "propagandist atheist" source? "German Studies Review 26 (3): 561-576." Because that is the source you were trying to erase. Carrier has been discussed at length in this talk page, please do some more research on it. How dare you say that Carrier has an agenda while a devout Christian educated at fringe Christian universities has no agenda. Please look into the education of Carrier vs. someone educated at "Calvin College" where the motto is "my heart I give to you lord promptly and sincerely." Then tell me who has the agenda. Who has the apologist and skewed world view? Furthermore, if you have an issue with my tone or my punctuation, go ahead and make another complaint to deadbeef LOL good work.Greengrounds (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2013

(UTC)

Also, Iron Maiden, don't you find it slightly odd how quick you are to dismiss Christian schools giving "fringe opinions on evolution and other scientific theories" as something that is irrelevant to their credibility? IS'T THAT WHAT UNIVERSITIES ARE FOR? To teach people how to use the scientific method? Oh. Yes, that is what NON CHRISTIAN, SECULAR universities are for. Thank you. Please remind me what Christian universities are for, if not to propogate a different world view, a lie at all costs to protect the scriptures EVEN TO THE POINT OF giving "FRINGE OPINIONS ON EVOLUTION". Pls explain what I'm missing here. Excuse me but if they are not teaching science than what are they teaching? OH YEAH! They are teaching Christian apologetics!Greengrounds (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for you to discuss the merits of theological universities. If you have a problem with such sources ever being used on Wikipedia, I recommend you use the proper channels for getting that made into a proper WP. I can't help you there. As it stands, its allowed on Wikipedia. The 'its needed for balance' argument will get you nowhere, and really the argument has little to do with the situation - perhaps, because we have American historians sited in the article, we should include some African ones. Wikipedia does not require that every single opinion be reflected. I suggest this is because you see the article as involving Christians vs Atheists, stemming from an idea (which Carrier promotes) that there is a conspiracy among Christians to supplant evidence that Hitler was a Christian. Note, though, that you are the one making edits along the lines of "Hitler was just a Catholic" rather than "Hitler had a complex philosophy with diverse and ever-changing set of religious beliefs", which is the truth and well presented in the article already. My problem with the Carrier source from his German Studies is the vocal opinion and agenda from users; just as I have a similar problem with the line with the theologically educated historians. Also, that Carrier source is not given such weight in the Table Talk article that it seems to be the topic of discussion, as it is presented here. I already recommended removing the line sourced by the theologically educated historians; what more do you want? I suggest that you are way too close to this subject, and perhaps you should steer clear from articles which touch on religion. Your hatred of Christians is palpable, and bringing out your animosity towards any religious group is not appropriate here. Assigning your opponents to that religious group is also not appropriate. Still, I'd like to find a solution which you can agree with. I'd recommend removing the theologians, removing the Ffrf link, and presenting the German Studies reference as a counter to a popular opinion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is not a forum for you to discuss the merits of historians who are atheists. Do you see the hypocrisy in your statement now? Go ahead and move the Carrier reference, if you feel you need to do that to BALANCE the article to better suit your agenda. I already suggested that. I'd like to keep this conversation productive, so please read my comments before making me repeat myself. As for "popular opinion", please clarify what you think the popular opinion is that you think Carrier is countering? Also my animosity is towards your astounding hypocrisy in selectively applying your logic. Do as I say not as I do.Greengrounds (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, and theological education was not mentioned. It did mention fringe theories on evolution and other common scientific ideas, but that doesn't apply here. I never challenged Carrier's ability as a historian based on his atheism. Most historians are biased to one viewpoint, and we are allowed to quote and source these. In my opinion, I noticed distinct interest group activity. I believe would have done the same if it were any other group. I have no connection or interest in theological education or the churches. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's Table Talk

Since this book is mistranslated, can you also include the original German for any quotes mentioned? Maybe use the same template as Enabling_Act_of_1933#Text

Small text

Introduction at May 2013

Please review following text for introduction, to replace the essentially incomplete (and even misleading) April text. In particular, this text provides a more accurate summary of what Speer, Toland and Bullock wrote on the topic, as well as adding material from Phayer and Kershaw, not previously included:

Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic, anticlerical father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. Though never formally expelled from the Catholic Church, he later had "no attachment to it" and became hostile to its teachings. Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's adult religious views, including his relationship to Christianity and the Catholic church.

According to Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, amid political associates, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", yet conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and around 1937, amid an exodus of Nazis from the Catholic fold, he ordered his chief associates to remain members of the church. According to transcripts edited by Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann, in the 1940s, Hitler spoke of Christianity as "absurdity" and "humbug" founded on "lies" with which he could "never come personally to terms."

Hitler biographers John Toland, Ian Kershaw and Alan Bullock all noted that Hitler was anticlerical. Toland wrote that Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", but said that in 1941 Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy". Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Toland also wrote that some who met Hitler were convinced that he was a committed believer. To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, able to disguise his inner beliefs, yet he clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question" in Germany, evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility" towards them. According to Bullock, though Hitler retained respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, he was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest.

In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches Hitler often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. In religious policy in office, Hitler instigated an all-out persecution of Jews - based on racial rather than religious grounds - and permitted or encouraged varying degrees of interference, harassment and persecution of Christian churches.

Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament that he would not interfere with the rights of the churches. With power secured in Germany, Hitler quickly broke this promise. He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. He attempted to Nazify German Protestants in a Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt backfired with the formation of the anti-Nazi Confessing Church. He instigated an aggressive persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses because of their religious objection to military service and pledges of allegiance to the state.

Bullock and Kershaw wrote that Hitler intended to eradicate Christianity under a Nazi future. Many historians have written that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible". Historian Michael Phayer wrote that by the latter 1930s, church officials knew that the long term aim of Hitler was the "total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion".

Ozhistory (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be a section headed "Introduction", but the above is far too long to be considered for the lead. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cesiumfrog that it is far too long. Furthermore, I don't even know where to begin with what is wrong with the wording, context and biased viewpoint that it presents. You have really gone the extra mile in using quote mining, blanket statements, and opinions stated as fact in this lead, that we would really have to start from scratch in order to reach a consensus on this. Let's start with the initial lead that we had agreed upon with deadbeef, before you chose to ignore the dialogue and rewrite the whole section on your own terms. We can work from that one:

Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his ties to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it." Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Conversely, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible" and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism". Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote that, though raised Catholic, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest. Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote he became hostile to its teachings.

Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. In office, Hitler agreed a Concordat with the Catholic Church, and briefly sought to unify Germany's Protestant churches under the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen movement, which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel. Hitler routinely violated his treaty with the Vatican and failed in his effort to Nazisfy German Protestantism.

In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. According to the controversial collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled Hitler's Table Talk, as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity. Others reported he was a committed believer. Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war. Greengrounds (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of the words "ties" or "relationship" is too ambiguous, I feel; might appear to mean that his dealings with the Catholic church/etc is a matter of dispute. How about "his (private/personal) opinion of"? I don't see what exactly is wrong with the text. It presents several viewpoints and there's no obvious use of language to give credence to one over another. Can you address some specifically? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ironmaiden, as I understand it, Greengrounds central objections to the expanded text are that: firstly, it states too plainly that there are historians who believe Hitler did not believe in God (or specifically that leading Hitler biographer Alan Bullock believed this); and secondly that various authorities on the Third Reich have written that Hitler was hostile to the Christian Churches and/or Catholic Church (Bullock, Kerhsaw, Phayer, Encyclopedia Britannica etc etc etc). In April, Greengrounds pushed for selected quotes from Albert Speer and John Toland to be placed in the lead, however now does not appear to wish their full views to be stated. Greengrounds believes Hitler was a "devout Catholic", therefore he says, any contrary assessments of an historian like Alan Bullock (and now authors like Speer) must not be allowed to appear in our lead (despite the fact that they appear in our article), even with the caveat that there are differing or contradictory views on Hitler and religion. In his memoir, Speer wrote that Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church to his political associates" and further, that as chief architect he was told that there would be no space for churches in the designs for the new Berlin. You don't get that impression from the selective text appearing in the April draft. So, for accuracy purposes, we need to adjust the April text, simply by completing the Speer, Bullock and Toland quotes for a start, and for further opinion can add Ian Kershaw and Michael Phayer's highly relevant remarks. Finally though, I agree with Cesiumfrog (and Greengournds) above that shorter is better, and will work on a shorter version, which still addresses these accuracy concerns. Ozhistory (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What views are stated by speer and toland that you think I have an objection with? You are the one who is trying to twist their words to suit your own agenda, and I've seen you do that over and over. Greengrounds (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither Speer nor Toland call Hitler a "devout Catholic". Toland is critical of the RCC, but his criticisms are not unqualified "the Pope is no friend of mine", he quotes Hitler as saying. Speer gives alot of context eg "Hitler made harsh pronouncements on the church" and it "obstinately opposed him" and there was to be no room for churches his designs for the new Berlin etc. See below. Ozhistory (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Shorter re-write, May 2013

Adolf Hitler was the son of an anticlerical father and a practicing Catholic mother. Though remaining nominally Catholic, Hitler was anticlerical, and became hostile to the church's teachings. In office, Hitler sought to exterminate Judaism (on racial rather than religious grounds), and persecuted the Christian Churches. Many historians have written that Hitler had a long term plan to destroy Christianity within the Third Reich.

Differing accounts of Hitler's views on religion exist. According to Speer, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument". Amid heightened church-state tensions in 1937, he therefore ordered chief associates to remain members, and did so himself - though having "no attachment to it". According to Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler spoke of Christianity as "humbug" founded on "lies" with which he could "never come personally to terms." Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism and wrote that, while Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", he was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy". According to Domarus, Hitler had jettisoned the last of his earlier religious beliefs by 1937, believing thereafter in a new and warlike German "god". According to Bullock, Hitler retained respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, but was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of survival of the fittest. Hitler convinced some that he was a committed believer. To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, who disguised his inner beliefs, yet clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question", evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility".

In Mein Kampf (1925-7), Hitler used language affirming the existence of God, and significance of religion, but criticised Political Catholicism and the lack of racism in the churches. Campaigning for office, he courted the Christian vote and benefited from fear of atheist communism. In public speeches he often affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II, Hitler promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament not to interfere with the churches. With power secured in Germany, he quickly broke this promise. He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. He attempted to Nazify German Protestants in an apostate Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt backfired with the formation of the Confessing Church. He instigated an persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that it was "incompatible" with Nazism.

Ozhistory (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This should not replace the current lead. Right off the bat, it appeals too much to scholarly opinion, and of course only the opinion of the scholars that support your viewpoint. Why can't we include scholarly opinion from people who have other view points? There is also too much irrelevant information to be in the lead, and you have clearly made an effort to use this irrelevant information to "apologize" when there is about to be a reference to Hitler's religion. For example: you rewrote "According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it." Amid heightened church-state tensions in 1937, he therefore ordered chief associates to remain members, and did so himself - though having "no attachment to it". What is wrong with this is that, we're talking about Hitler's religion. The fact that he remained a member of the Catholic church until his death is relevant. You are trying to hide this fact by not openly just saying he was a member of the church, but that he ordered others to do it, and did it himself.

The quote mining is all in favour of your personal agenda. For example, a quote from the table talk, which is under dispute. Why would you include it? There are far more quotes of Hitler professing his faith as a christian, so why not use them? Reading the article is like an exercise in apologetics and seems to be arguing with itself. It uses a tone that poopoos all evidence of his religiosity. The current lead is much more concise. Yours is far too biased, I really don't think should be the one to rewrite the whole lead.

While in your hands, the initial reference to Toland went from "Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism.[2]"

To

"While noting that under Pius XII the church saved more Jews from the Nazis than all other rescue organizations combined, Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his anti-Semitism"

To

Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism and wrote that, while Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", he was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy

And you this time you buried latest reference two paragraphs into the lead, between your hightly disputed "bahumbug" table talk quote and your Domarus reference.

Keep in mind, the scholarly opinion you keep showing is highly quote mined, and it would be very easy to find quotes of those and other scholars that contradict what you are trying to say. And you are using blanket staments to reflect the viewpoints of many scholars when they all have different view points, which furthermore cannot be summed up in one sentence. Greengrounds (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the original quote from acclaimed Hitler biographer John Toland:

"Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, 'I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,' he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God-- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.[Toland, p. 703]"

It was in the article in full, but you removed it because you didn't agree with it, Ozzhistory, you are trying to change the meaning and downplay it while only wishing to tout scholarly opinion as "fact" when it reflects your own opinion.Greengrounds (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, I did not delete the full quote from the article at all! It is still there! Could you try to stick to content discussion and STOP attacking other editors (currently, me!). And try to stick to the current draft v April draft, not previous intermediary material, so we can make progress. "Scholarly opinion" (ie history) is what wikipedia is supposed to reflect. I cannot understand your comment that the lead should not rely on "scholarly opinion" when you then want to quote John Toland (which is scholarly opinion - in fact one of the scholars attributed in the first paragraph). Domarus is an historian you referenced and he directly contradicts Toland's minority view that Hitler was a Catholic by 1941. That makes it relevant to the presentation of differing views on Hitler and religion. Table Talk, like Speer is evidence of what Hitler was saying to policy makers in Germany. His ministers. It is not scholarly opinion (so you should approve), but it is a contemporary account of what Hitler said. That makes it important. Why on earth would you argue that the memoirs of Albert Speer or the diary note by a general (ie "Hitler told me "I am now a Catholic...") is ok, but the edited transcripts by Martin Bormann (the man closest to Hitler from 1941-1945) are NOT ok?. Speer doesn't just neutrally explain that Hitler remained a Catholic and ordered his associates to do so - he gives background as to "why" (Hitler viewed it as a useful instrument - ie politics) and "when" (1937 - ie during one of the most intense periods of the Nazi persecution of the churches). Ozhistory (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The table talk is in dispute. It should not be in the lead at all, and but if it is, there is evidence in the talks themselves that shows Hitler was a Christian.

"The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on! Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

You assert that Toland is in the minority, but this is a lie. There are several scholars who are of the opinion that hitler was a Christian, but you don't give them any weight. Greengrounds (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you quoting somebody there, or is this your own list. I'll try to address the points raised:

1) "Hearsay" is rumour received from others that one did not personally hear oneself. That does not describe Table Talk, which is essentially a primary, contemporary source of edited notes taken down by scribes. Mein Kampf I believe was also began as a text dictated by Hitler, rather than written by Hitler - is that hearsay too? And what of notes taken by Speer - is that "hearsay"? (Interesting you note that Bormann was anti-Catholic. Why then would a "devout Catholic" as you term Hitler, appoint an "anti-Catholic" as his Private Secretary and the defacto Deputy Fuehrer?)

2) Multiple translations - a valid issue to raise, but given that Hitler and his henchman all, strangely enough, conversed in German, we are dependent on translations in all cases - whether it be Mein Kampf, Inside the Third Reich, or Table Talk. The fact that authors like Kershaw, Bullock, Encyclopedia Brittanica and Toland all quote from Table Talk is evidence of its essential bone fides - though if you are aware of alternative translations provided by reliable sources, please do present them (or bracket them as "also translated as").

3) The "bias" of the translators. Can you provide reliable sources for this please.

4) I do not know what you mean by "the Table Talk thoughts do not occur in other private or public conversations". Table Talk contains all sorts of quotes which are reinforced by other sources! To pluck one from the countless options: Speer (whom you view as a reliable source) says that Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the churches to his political associates in Berlin" and specifically notes that Bormann relished to take down Hitler's harshest comments on the Churches. Goebbels diary (per Kershaw & others) is another source, confirming Hitler's thinking on the Church Struggle.

5) You say "Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity". This comment seems to suggest that you are indeed willing to accept the validity of at least some of the Table Talk text. Good. So please note: the text says Hitler believed "it is certain that Jesus was not a Jew" and that the Apostle Paul "falsified" Jesus' doctrine. These alone are the words of a heretic, not a "devout Catholic". Agreed? As a sign of good faith, it would help at this point if you renounced the claim that Hitler was a "devout Catholic". Beyond this, the transcripts are thoroughly peppered with denunciations of Christianity.

6) The anti-Christian pronouncements contained in Table Talk are entirely consistent with the Nazi efforts to promote positive Christianity as a substitute for Christianity. The renunciation of the Bible and Jewish origins of Jesus (which "positive Christianity" entailed) was to give him a "false birth certificate" as Cardinal Michael Faulhaber put it in 1933, and the notion of the myth of blood and soil was, as Pope Pius XI wrote in Mit brennender Sorge in 1937, entirely inconsistent with Catholicism and Christianity more broadly: "The peak of the revelation as reached in the Gospel of Christ is final and permanent. It knows no retouches by human hand; it admits no substitutes or arbitrary alternatives such as certain leaders pretend to draw from the so-called myth of race and blood". Hitler, plainly was not in "good standing with the Church of Rome" in 1937! Ozhistory (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that hitler was a "devout catholic" He was a Catholic, and later a "protestant", promoting positive christianity. no his comments on Jesus are not "herecy" any more than King James was a Heretic when he rewrote the bible. We have already provided citations highlighting the dispute of the Table talk, please try and keep up. It does not belong in the lead, is all I'm saying. Also you claim that his actions reflect certain statements in the table talk that he was against the church. That is a lie.

If Hitler had really wished to eliminate Christianity, then why did he act to unite the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany?

If Hitler wanted to denounce Christianity, then why did he remain a Catholic in good standing until he died?

Why did Hitler not break the Concordat between the Vatican and Germany? A case might be made that Hitler signed the Concordat in the first place, to help himself into power, but by no means does it explain why he kept it after winning power. His absolute power of the German state, Hitler could have, at any time, broke the Concordat if he was so against the Catholic religion. Why did he not do so, nor even consider it?

In Albert Speer's memoirs, Speer recalls Hitler as saying: "The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element." [Speer, p. 95] Although Hitler approved of destroying Judaism and other cults, never did he give orders against the Protestant or Catholic Church. Why not?Greengrounds (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, previously I have advised you of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policies and copyright policies. Myself and AndyThe Grump have noted that you are misquoting sources. and Deadbeef has advised you of the requirement to assume good faith and of no personal attacks. It is difficult for me to assume good faith in relation to your comment above that "I never claimed that hitler was a "devout catholic" when your [edit of 07:22, 19 April 2013‎] opened the article with the unsourced lines: "The adult Adolf Hitler was a devout Catholic who professed his faith in many speeches and writings. On top of this you repeatedly call me a "liar" for referencing well sourced historical views!

Now to answer your questions, which demonstrate a lack of awareness of this topic:

1)"why did he act to unite the Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany": to control and subjugate a threat to his power (much the same as Chinese Communist Party created the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. I am sure that even you would not cite this as evidence that Chairman Mao was a Catholic). It's called Totalitarianism.

2) "hitler remained a Catholic until he died" - well I don't have to point you to other sources on this, as you already state above that you now believe : "He was a Catholic, and later a "protestant", promoting positive christianity." As you contradict yourself and Toland, I guess I don't need to.

3) Why did Hitler "keep the Concordat": he didn't keep the terms of the Concordat. "The agreement", wrote William Shirer, "was hardly put to paper before it was being broken by the Nazi Government". Michael Phayer too wrote: ". The ink had not yet dried on the agreement before the Nazi government broke it" Kershaw notes that "serious continuing harrassment continued" after the Concordat was signed. Paul O'Shea notes: "Between October 1933 and 1937, Pacelli wrote over 70 diplomatic notes and memoranda to the German ambassador to the Holy See, or directly to the foreign ministry in Berlin. Nearly all concerned breaches of the concordat...". Pope Pius XI of course condemned these breaches publicly in Mit brennender Sorge (1937)

4) "never did he give orders against the Protestant or Catholic Church" - wrong again. Ian Kershaw, p. 381-2, referring to the "continuing conflict with the Catholic and Protestant churches" wrote that "however much Hitler on some occasions claimed to want a respite in the conflict, his own inflammatory comments gave his immediate underlings all the license they needed to turn up the heat in the "Church Struggle", confident that they were 'working towards the Fuhrer'". William Shirer explains some of the actions taken against Catholics: On 25 July, the Nazis promulgated their sterilization law, an offensive policy in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Five days later, moves began to dissolve the Catholic Youth League. Clergy, nuns and lay leaders began to be targeted, leading to thousands of arrests over the ensuing years, often on trumped up charges of currency smuggling or "immorality". On Protestants, Shirer explains: "Hitler insisted that his friend, Chaplain Mueller... be given the highest office... [the leaders of the church proposed Freiderich von Bodelschwingh but the Gestapo] terrorized all who supported Bodelschwingh etc etc etc.

Speer said Hitler saw the church as a "necessary for the people, a strong and conservative element". Correct, Speer did write that - also that it was a "useful instrument", also that he made "harsh pronouncements against it". Hitler knew the political significance of Christianity in Germany. Hence my text: "Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument". Happy to extend that to: Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and strong conservative element". Ozhistory (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ozzy, please stop patronizing and slandering me. You have previously accused me of chaning my IP address to an IP located in Bangalore, and making edits from there. I never wrote that Hitler was a "devout Catholic", (which he most certainly was at times in his life. He was, however a Catholic to the day he died and was never excommunicated from the church.) I know this is hard for you to understand, but he could have wiped out christianity, outlawed it.

As for the edit you are complaining about, it wasn't my writing I simply reverted to an older edit, from someone else which was much more accurate reflection of the truth than your edit at [06:56, 14 April 2013‎], where you change the lead to "Hitler was an Atheist", and I quote you made this edit for "clarity".

Let's go back to before you and I got involved in our edit war. This is how the lead looked:

:Adolf Hitler supported the Deutsche Christen church which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel.[1] In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity.[2][3] Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy.[4] According to the controversial collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled Hitler's Table Talk, as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity. Others reported he was a committed believer.[5][6] Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

I think that was a great lead, we could revert back to it? Then you came along, and you made it look like this:

:The adult Adolf Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion fit for slaves, and a rebellion against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest.[1] Raised a Catholic, Hitler had some respect for the 'great position' of that church, but became deeply hostile to its teachings.[2] In office, Hitler sought to control the German Churches through Gleichschaltung and sought to eliminate Judaism by genocide. He supported the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen church which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel.[3] In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in adaptations of Christianity.[4][5] Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy.[6] According to the controversial collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled Hitler's Table Talk, as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity. Others reported he was a committed believer.[7][8] Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Hitler appointed the anti-Judaist, anti-Christian Alfred Rosenberg as official Nazi ideologist and Martin Bormann as private secretary ('deputy fuhrer'), who together collaborated in efforts to eliminate the influence of churches in German life.

:So basically, your first edit is to make it look exactly the opposite of the consensus that had been reached by the community up until your involvement.

:And eventually, you keep editing until the lead simply states: "Hitler was an Atheist". Do not even get me started on what you have unilaterally taken out of the body of the article. I'm sorry, but I say again, I really don't think you should be the one to continue setting the tone for the article, given what you've done with it unchecked in the past. That is all.Greengrounds (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, the "atheist" line you point to had been removed by IP address 86.177.235.226 on 14 April on the grounds that it was "Perhaps a bit dogmatic etc". I accepted this as a reasonable comment, and at no point have attempted to restore the line. Your deletions began on 19 April when no such text existed. As to your other point, earlier I did confuse you with a vandalizing IP address, because sometimes you write with an IP address, and you, like that IP address were misquoting the same source in back to back edits. I apologize if the mistake upset you. But your own anonymous IP contributions have included deleting a referenced paragraph opening to replace it with the unreferenced sentence: "Hitler was a Christian and described Christianity as the “foundation” for German values." In the meantime, I have not been "patronising or slandering you", I have been trying to answer your questions with reference to sources. A process in which you seem unwilling to reciprocate. Ozhistory (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You and I both know that as a new editor, I was still learning the basics, and I still am learning. You are referring to a "revision" I made. Here is the is a sourced version of that

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

You see, Hitler did say that, and only a christian would say that, or someone "pretending" to be a Christian, as you would have it, and the only proof of this you have is 3 or 4 selected quotes from scholars, that you give an unbelievable amount of weight to even more than their contemporaries who often have a different opinion. The article currently gives enough weight to those selected scholars that you have chosen, and it doesn't need to give more.Greengrounds (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No Greengrounds, not "only a Christian" would say such a thing! A conniving liar would say it too - and Hitler was a conniving liar, (agreed?). He made this comment on 1 February 1933, when he was not yet a dictator and still had to answer to the Reichstag (the German Parliament). He needed to convince the Conservative and Catholic Centre Party voting blocks that he would not attack them if he was allowed more power. He made similar remarks on 23 March in the debate immediately preceding the Enabling Act vote. He declared specifically that the Reichstag, the President, the States and the churches would not be threatened if the Act was passed. He lied on all four counts. He didn't make such promises because "only a Parliamentarian, a presidentialist, a federalist or a Christian would say those things" (as your logic would necessarily imply), he said them because he was a liar. That's why Scholarly views, not assertions based on readings of lines in speeches, are the basis on which to open a wikipedia article. Ozhistory (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler may have lied about certain things, but many Christians lie. This does not mean they are not Christains. Agreed? Where is your proof that he lied about this? He may have violated portions of the concordat but he did not call it off, and neither did the church. Your assertion that he made statements because he was a "liar" a gross misinterpretation of the facts. Yes, scholarly views are important I agree, but there are many scholarly views on this and one or two selected scholarly opinions need not trump all other scholarly opinions. Agreed?Greengrounds (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's persecution of the Pagans and Atheists

Due to the prominent use in the article of the Britannica reference which states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with neo paganism, I though it should be noted that Hitler never actually banned major Christian groups such as Catholocism or Protestantism, but he did ban the main Pagan group. I thought it should be noted in the article that he did ban that group (as well as the main atheist and freethinker groups). I made an edit, which was reverted by [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]and we have discussed it on his talk page as follows:

You recently undid an edit I made on the Wiki, citing that you my sources "said nothing of the kind". I'm sorry if you were confused and unable to find the relevant information on the websites I provided.

Here is the edit you removed:

However, the Nazis actually banned paganism, while tolerating Christianity. Here are the links since they don't seem to work on your lovely page here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2racialreligiouspolicy2.shtml http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/181472.article

The first link explicitly says that pagans were banned. Click the link and push "CTRL F" on the keyboard, and search for the word "pagan". It will lead you directly to "the kind".

The second link, if you click on it and read the article states

"The paganists found themselves locked in an ultimately futile battle for influence over the "positive Christians" who dominated the higher echelons of the party. While Christians were tolerated, the paganist organisation, the "German faith movement", was banned by the Nazis in 1935."

Again, it might be easier for you rather than having to actually put too much effort in reading, push "CTRL F" on the keyboard and search for the word "pagan". Once you confirm, please get back to me or undo your revert.Greengrounds (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The BBC source does not state that pagans were banned - the word 'Pagan' isn't in the bulleted list of banned groups - it is a sentence following the list (though why you are using GCSE crib notes as a source, I've no idea - I very much doubt they'd be accepted as WP:RS for such matters while we have scholarly articles on the subject.) As for your second source, it states that the pro-Nazi German Faith Movement was ultimately banned. It does not state that paganism was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So the German Faith Movement, a pagan group was banned. Does that deserve a place in the article?Greengrounds (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source that makes a direct link between Adolf Hitler's religious views and the banning, it might possibly - though obviously this would depend on the source, and on what it actually said. To make any assumptions about Hitler's reasons for banning the organisation would constitute original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, can you please peruse the article? There is a whole section called "Nazi persecution of the church", without links that it had to do with Hitler's religious beliefs. I will remove that section right away, just waiting for you to get back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 21:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am involved in your long-running debate over the content of this article. I'm not. I have it watchlisted mainly because it has attracted vandalism in the past. I commented on your edit because it clearly wasn't properly sourced. Nothing I have said can have any bearing one way or another on other parts of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy stated that to be included in the article it should "have a source that makes a direct link between Adolf Hitler's religious views and the banning, it might possibly - though obviously this would depend on the source, and on what it actually said. To make any assumptions about Hitler's reasons for banning the organisation would constitute original research."

I was looking for some consensus on which approach should be taken here, because there is the whole secion on nazi persecution of the churches which has paragraph after paragraph of information that is not necessarily relevant to Hitler's religious beliefs.

Basically, if we have information about his persecution of churches, why should we not include information of his persecution of pagan institutions. I would be open to including both sets of information, or removing them both, but I think it is inconsistent to include one but not the other. Furthermore, perhaps they should also have their own header. What are your thoughts?Greengrounds (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary needs to be correspond more closely with the evidence in the body of the article

I am proposing that language such as the following be included in the summary, in particular to quell the revisionists who are claiming that Hitler was an atheist or satanist. The body of the article is clear that this is not true, and I think that should be reflected in the summary.

From the documented evidence of Hitler's actual beliefs and the quotes of Hitler in the article we can summarize that:

Hitler began life as a Catholic. He attended a Catholic choir school for his primary schooling and for some of those years aspired to join the Catholic clergy.

In early adulthood he adopted on a looser form of Christianity and ceased attending mass, while he continued to profess a belief in Christianity.

His beliefs in later life, after the mid-1930s, are a matter of debate due to widely conflicting evidence. Whether he was a Christian or not depends largely on how expansive and inclusive a definition is used for the term Christian. Evidence is that he either believed in a form of Christianity that was both racist and against the absolute power of the clergy, or a mix of Christianity and neo-Germanic paganism.

Rumors that Hitler was an atheist, agnostic or satanist are without foundation.

I think the summary should be explicit that claims Hitler was an atheist, agnostic or satanist are without foundation since claims he was are so wide-spread in many parts of the English-speaking world, and since the body of the article speaks only of beliefs that preclude atheism, agnosticism and satanism.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and as such not every quote is deserving of being included.

Specifically, revisionist propaganda intended to distort the image of the subject should not be presented in an article as being proof of what the subject was like. (They can be quoted in an article or section discussing propaganda on the subject.)

The article quotes a great deal of propaganda that attempts to distance Christianity from Hitler, in the same way that Hitler attempted to distance Jesus Christ from the Jews.

The article quotes claims that doubting the beliefs of particular Christian denominations precludes belief in Christianity.

And yet I can count on the fingers of one thumb the number of Christian Churches that do not doubt the beliefs of some other denominations.

The article quotes claims that belief in an Aryan Christ precludes belief in Christianity.

And yet I can count on the fingers of one thumb the number of Christian Churches that have a mono-browed well-tanned looking middle eastern looking men up on their cross.

Hence the quoted claims are propaganda.

Even the suicide, which perhaps every organized sect of Christianity prohibits, is something many practicing Christians (many thousands a year) sadly end up restoring to.

Yes we can conclude that at the end of his life Hitler's beliefs were neither Catholic nor Lutheran, but none of the evidence contained in quotes suggests he was not any type of Christian at all. And if the reader's definition of Christianity includes beliefs acceptance of some pagan traditions, then by that definition Hitler would probably be a Christian.

Certainly there is no evidence for the popular theories he was an atheist, agnostic or satanist. 50.71.210.133 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)