Talk:Nazism

DAP ?

What's point with DAP ?! Nazism isn't socialism. It's only the name :

• Not class struggle, which is an important socialism topic

--Bobybarman34 (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an old chestnut. Search the archives, this has discussed before. --Nug (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's more than just a name. It certainly isn't socialism in the Marxist sense or in the Christian socialist tradition, with their vision of a more just and egalitarian society. But neither should the 'socialist' element in Nazism be underrated in terms of explaining its wide appeal to many Germans. The 'socialism' of the Nazis was very narrowly defined within a nationalist framework (its variant of egalitarianism being embodied in the idea of Reich citizenship - as Hitler put it, a German street sweeper should feel superior to any foreign king). It never quite succeeded in winning over the workers to the extent the Nazis hoped for, but it did in many individual cases cut across the class divide. I think this is why the Left has never understood why the Nazi dictatorship was possibly the most popular in history. It built on Bismarck's state socialism which was well in advance of other European countries (and eventually copied by them). Nazi social welfare put France and Britain in the shade during the 1930s Depression. Read Hitler's Table Talk to see how smug he is when referring scornfully to the way the class system operates in England. I'm sure it was awareness of the inadequacy of Britain's welfare system compared with Germany's that made its expansion under the Beveridge Plan of 1942 a political imperative. Hitler and Goebbels were proclaiming a 'New Order' in Europe which would sweep aside the old, decadent 'plutocratic' order in France and Britain. Politically, these older systems could not, after victory, return to pre-war average levels of material existence and still expect to enjoy popular legitimacy. Neutralising the propaganda of the Soviet Union's 'workers' paradise' was also a consideration. Kim Traynor (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Socialism should not be confused with social welfare programs, or we will end up referring to Roosevelt's New Deal as American socialism (a claim generally made only by fringe right-wing polemicists). The Nazis' "national socialism" should not be confused with what is generally understood by socialism as an ideology. Of course, the name was chosen to appeal to the working class. Bismarck was not a socialist. In fact, he passed the Anti-Socialist Laws. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Socialism should not be confused with social welfare programs..." Indeed so, but social welfare programs are popularly associated with socialism. It's absurd to imply I suggested Bismarck was socialist. He was playing the same game as Hitler, providing social welfare measures 'from above' to wean the workers - proletariat if you prefer - away from Marxist socialism and integrate them into the authoritarian state. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. The Germans were not smart enough to figure out what 'Socialist" actually meant, and were thus fooled by the Nazi's, or is your assertion that the Germans were so smart that planned to confound us all over a half a century later with this incredibly clever scheme to fool us all and make Socialism look bad by falsey using the name? Really, do you all have anything but your own personal opinions to actually back this up? Something solid and lastings. Hey I know we will settle this by looking at specific planks in the National Socialist Party Platform. You know, the National Socialist Program.

11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

19.We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20.The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

Holey Moley Braintrusts, they were Socialists. The biggest fraud perpetrated by the so called intellectual elite in the 20th Century was the idea that National Socialism and Marxist Socialism were polar opposites. They were not, they were in competition for the same groups of people. If you have trouble understanding the animosity between them, I suggest you research Stalinism, Trotskeyites, and Maoists and their notably (not peaceful) ideological disputes. They are all Socialist. Whether Hitler, Stalin or Mao actually believed in Socialism is certainly debatable, but their ideology was all socialist, so the point can be made it was meant to just attract followers. That point can be made about any Political Ideology or movement. But these groups were far more alike than any of them were "different" and what they sound like is the half of the Occupy Wall Street movement, right down to the Anti-Semeticism.

Power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.79.13.6 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Under your absurd "reasoning," we are to then conclude that the German Democratic Republic (a/k/a, the "DDR," otherwise known as East Germany) was really not Communist at all! Why, they had the word "Democratic" right there in the name! There is no merit whatsoever to your argument, which is why there are no reputable historians that buy into such a ludicrous concept. There is no "conspiracy" or "fraud," any more than there is any merit to other wackadoodle conspiracies, like the "Truther," "Birther," or "Chemtrail" conspiracies. Promoting this kind of nonsense is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of critical thinking skills. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

My absurd reasoning relies not on the title of the Party, but principles of the Party Platform. Can you show me where the Nazi Party enshrined, as part of the Party Platform or even operating philosophy, which proves your point? Too much critical thinking results in denial of reality in favor of your own opinion. Power 108.241.120.20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

no, several editors including myself have alluded to the 25 point plan before. ip makes a great point, either much of germany did not understand the meaning of the term, or it is misunderstood here. ddr was forced on germany by communist, NSDAP won elections. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The NSDAP did not win election. They formed a coalition with the Conservatives, which gave them a majority. They achieved dictatorial power when the Christian Democrats and others including free market types approved the Enabling Act of 1933. Only the Social Democrats opposed this measure, the Communist MPs having already been arrested. TFD (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

here are the actual election totals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Federal_election_results Darkstar1st (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

a perfect example of why naziism and nazi party should be combined, editors on one page are unaware of material on the other. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Their best showing was 288 out of 647 seats and together with the Conservatives' 52 seats they were able to form another coalition government. However they needed a 2/3 vote to achieve dictatorship which they did by obtaining the support of all the non-socialist parties. TFD (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

so we are back to my original point, either millions of Germans did not understand the definition of national socialism, or you do not. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have facts to back up my assertion. Not just the platform of the National Socialist Party, but go and look at the statements by both the German Government and the Soviet Union during their pact. What do you have, your opinion. Please bring some facts to the argument. You may disagree with idea that they were good Socialists, but they were Socialists none the less. You do not get to define it to suit your ideology. Bring some facts and debate the issue. This is not a conspiracy theory. Again, it was the way they presented themselves to the electorate, and the mode of most of the Social Policy programs they implemented. The GDR was communist; they also had that little fact in their Constitution. The Russians made sure of it when they wrote it or them. Just because the Soviets massacred hundreds of thousands of Socialists, Trotskyites, and various other forms of progressives whose ideologies did not mesh well enough with the Stalin variety does not make them Capitalists either. It was the way they operated. Same thing with the Nazi's. Hell, even IL duce, Mussolini was a member of the 2nd (Communist) international. The Marxists hated the National Socialists and Fascists for one major reason, and it was not because they were not socialist, it was because they focused on Nationalism in opposition to internationalism. Think about what the biggest threat to say a Sunni Muslim is. It is a Shiite Muslim. That and again they were competing for the same pool potential supporters. Capitalism will really never undermine the base supporters of any Socialist party, but another Socialist party sure as heck can. People who thought that Socialism might be a good idea were not going t leave the Soviet Bolshevik version to join the Christian or Centrists Democrats in massive droves, but they did leave to join the National Socialists. As far as the birther comment, now that we know that Obama was the source of the rumor he was born in Kenya, you should probably retract that little (meager) attempt at ridicule, it does not ring true. Power75.143.144.55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

"The GDR was communist; they also had that little fact in their Constitution." It says no such thing, please do not provide false facts to support your opinions. TFD (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Um ...

Article 1 of the 1968 constitution began with the words, "The German Democratic Republic is a socialist state of the German nation. It is the political organization of the workers in the cities and in the countryside, who jointly under the leadership of the working class and their Marxist-Leninist party will realize Socialism."

Seems to contradict your wondrous blanket assertion (trusting that you acknowledge "Marxist-Leninist party" = "Communist party" at least. When accusing editors of lying, it would help if you had actual facts on your side, TFD. Or will you now insist that "Marxist-Leninist" has naught to do with "Communism"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It says "socialist" not "communist". Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. The leaders of the GDR claimed that they had established socialism, which in their view was a step to communism, when the state would wither away. TFD (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Republic is a socialist state in the constitution, voted democratically by free people, if there be not objection, i suggest we simply use the constitution as a RS, for what else could be more peer reviewed by scholars than the very constitution of the nation. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that self-description is not sufficient to categorize a government. Power75 wrote, "The GDR was communist; they also had that little fact in their Constitution." They did not, and editors should not use false facts to bolster arguments. --TFD (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The term they used is "Marxist-Leninist" -- I find the cavil that this is not "communism" to be remarkable, but incorrect. Collect (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It says the party was Marxist-Leninist. The claim that the GDR claimed to be a communist state in its constitution is false. TFD (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You do know that was a revision of the original Constitution, which was promulgated 20 years earlier, written by the Soviets, after they forced the formation of the “The ruling Communist party, known as the "Socialist Unity Party" (SED), was formed in April 1946 out of the forced merger between the German Communist Party (KPD) and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). As Walter Ulbricht noted, everything was made to look democratic while in reality Communists retained control in the background.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany#History

I To be blunt, all Communists are Socialists, or claim to be, not all Socialists are Communist. And, keeping in mind the fact that Engels and Marx were after all German, that the German people were pretty well clued in to what Socialism was, and more accurately, what was not Socialism.

The fear of Communism in Germany was based on the international aspect of Soviet Communism, dominated by the Soviet Union. The Russian Communists dominated the Communist International, and the German fear was of, and it was often stated, Bolshevism. In fact, they likely considered Soviet Communism as a perversion of Socialism.

If such an idea still confounds you, go and review the relationship between the Soviet Union and the Peoples Republic of China. To include their numerous border incidents and the fact that one of the Soviet Union’s biggest fears was an American Chinese relationship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

Power 108.241.120.20 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Trevor-Roper Edition of Hitler's Table Talk Should Not be RS...

I just noticed that someone is adding stuff to this page, particularly in regards to the whole Hitler/Christianity debate. Rather than copy and paste the many comments from reputable historians regarding the absolute fakery involved in Trevor-Roper's "translation," particularly in reference to the alleged "anti-Christian" passages, I'll just link you to where it has already been cited very well in the WP article for the book in question: [1]. Such obvious (and well-known, at least in the academic community...) forgeries should not be used as RS on this page. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That someone is me. And that someone is now being told that Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk is an obvious and well-known forgery. I'll need to investigate what that assertion is based on because it isn't obvious to me nor known. Is Picker's Table Talk text also a forgery? Kim Traynor (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've now looked at the link you provided. It'll take me time to digest and act upon. My first reaction is not to believe that Trevor-Roper's work is a forgery. I am being told Hitler has been mistranslated, which is perfectly believable but a different proposition. Since it might well be true, may I suggest you have a go at trying to provide a straightforward account of the Nazi-churches relationship. I've found that difficult to achieve without going to the horse's mouth, so to speak, for Hitler's views on Christianity. If we don't know what they were, we will certainly find ourselves in a different place. The rest of the information on that link seems to be a discussion about contradictions between the Nazi relationship with the churches and what one might term Hitler's religiosity. There are certainly ambiguities in these, so why should we be surprised to find contradictions? I already tried to point that out by saying much of the evidence appears contradictory. The other stuff about an Aryan Christ is hardly revelatory. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is very serious, in fact shocking. If Steigmann-Gall's findings are reliable, I assume he immediately started work on a new translation, or has convinced a publisher to step in and arrange one's appearance. If, for example, Hitler did not refer to "the disease of Christianity", Trevor-Roper has indeed been fraudulent, or perhaps, more charitably, lazy in relying on the incorrect French translation. If fraudulent, it places a question mark against the credibility of his other work. How much of 'The Last Days of Hitler' did he also invent? (Goodbye 'Downfall' et al.) Does the English version of Hitler's 'Last Will And Testament' also contain translation errors? My brain is slowly shifting gear here, and if, after rummaging around, I find I've been duped, I'll have to expunge the TT references and try to stick to what has been recorded independently of what were hitherto believed to be relevant Hitler utterances. I did say earlier in the discussion that I am not best placed to rewrite this section, but recognised the need to do so. I think, for example, the material on Luther should be on a page dealing with anti-Semitism and that this page should only mention it briefly as one ingredient in the Nazis' anti-Semitism. Now I note that we have a seemingly stranded pic of Streicher whose position will have to be moved to link him more to the Luther section. Kim Traynor (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the passages which were based off of specific statements from Trevor-Roper's "translation" that have been shown to be forged. (I use the term "forged" because I think it goes beyond mere "mistake" when you add things that aren't there in the original...in order to change the entire meaning of a sentence...) I left the rest of the stuff cited to Trevor-Roper, because I can't say that everything in HTT is fraudulent, and if I did so, it would totally mess up the section. I do think, however, that other RS should be used in place of it, because of the "issues" in Trevor-Roper's edition. It's like using Hermann Rauschning's "The Voice of Destruction" as a source. It's just not reliable. Here's an essay I found, discussing the various fakeries and mistranslations often used to "prove" that Hitler was anti-Christian, when the actual historical record shows otherwise: [2]. (It also discusses the Trevor-Roper fiasco...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm pretty much persuaded now that Trevor-Roper isn't reliable (though I must say the mistake about the army belt buckles on that link is pretty crass. It suggests unfamiliarity with German history because the motto predates Nazism; so who did that chap's translations for him?). If Hitler's other pronouncements in the TT are NOT mistranslated, the basic picture remains the same, but can only be illustrated by duller quotations. By the way, I thought the consensus view of Rauschning was that contemporaries thought he was making it all up, but that events proved he was pretty much accurate on what he was reporting. Kim Traynor (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well some authors have a tendency to attribute everything to Hitler, but the Nazi party was more than just him. Goebbels also held a dim view of the established churches stating: "Catholicism and Protestantism are both rotten". And let's not forget that one of the key ideologues of the Nazi movement was the Baltic German Alfred Rosenberg, being a true anti-semite he rejected both Catholic or Protestant beliefs and tenets as tainted by Jews and wanted to create an entirely new religion. Hitler may have admired Jesus to be the "slim, tall, blond" aryan saviour of the Germanic people, but at one stage Hitler also admired Stalin thinking he must of had some Ayran blood due to his ruthlessness. The Nazis rejected the Old Testament , which is core to Christian belief, and wanted to merge the Catholic and Protestant churches after the war into a unified German secular religion with elements of paganism. So in that sense the Nazis were anti-Christian. --Nug (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"In that sense," what you just wrote was OR... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense Byron, see Richard Steigmann-Gall,The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 Page 218: "Over time, Nazi hostility to Christianity seemed to increase, as new anti-Christian voices, particularly Martin Bormann's, began to be heard. By the start of the war, Hitler himself was taking a more antagonistic stance". --Nug (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link. The author says there were both Christian and anti-Christian elements in Nazism. Notice that Catholic and Protestant churches continued to be major supports for Nazism, even as relations strained. All political movements have internal divisions. TFD (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nug, the sentence that begins with, "In that sense..." is clearly an attempt to reach a conclusion, rather than a presentation of RS. It is your conclusion, and therefore OR. Furthermore, while it can easily be shown that the Nazis used "pagan" imagery and symbolism, you will find it difficult to show that the Nazis actually promoted any kind of "pagan" religious belief or ritual, or incorporated it into their version of Christianity. There is plenty of "pagan" symbolism all over Washington D.C., but that does not mean that the founding fathers of the United States intended to promote "paganism," or anything else. If you want to prove that the Nazis created a "unified German secular religion with elements of paganism," then you need to find RS stating that specifically...rather than reaching your own conclusions based upon your ideas of the definitions of "Christianity" and "paganism." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Byron, perhaps you should get up to speed with the literature first. A review of Steigmann-Gall's book by Milan Babík (Nazism as a Secular Religion. History and Theory, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Oct., 2006), pp. 375-396): "Steigmann-gall’s revision of Nazi conceptions of christianity represents a welcome addition to accounts of Nazism as a form of neo-paganism". --Nug (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't find anything better than a third party, admittedly "revisionist," interpretation of RS? And the title of the article, denoting a "secular religion" is at odds with the sentence you quoted, as "neo-paganism" is not in any way "secular." (This leads me to doubt that the author has anything but a chauvanist definition of "neo-paganism" similar to how many Christians view anything not fitting in line with mainstream Christian dogma as "pagan" -- like those who refer to Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormoms as "pagan.") Show me an example of the Nazis promoting the worship of Odin, Thor, Freya, etc., and you might have a point. Anything else is just an attempt by modern Christian apologists to try to distance Nazism from Christianity, now that most of the alleged anti-Christian statements by Hitler and "Occult Nazi Conspiracy" hogwash have been debunked. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, what Steigmann-Gall's book actually says is this: "Whereas past forms of Christian politics were known to embrace nationalism, antisemitism, anti-Marxism, or antiliberalism, the Nazis took these ideologies to new levels. For this reason the Nazis represented a departure from previous Christian practices. However, this did not make them un-Christian. Whereas millions of Catholics and Protestants in Germany did not think Nazism represented their interests or aims, there were many others who regarded Nazism as the correct Christian response to what they saw as harsh new realities." (Steigmann-Gall, "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945," p. 262). He then goes on to discuss what he terms as elements of "paganism" in Nazi belief, but it is clear from the context that he is using it in the un-scholarly, Christian chauvinist, fashion...referring to any departure from Christian canon or dogma as "pagan," when the correct term really should be "heretical," rather than showing any connection whatsoever between Germanic pagan religion (the worship of Odin/Wotan, Thor, Freya, etc.) and the religious beliefs promoted by the Nazis. In fact, he specifically dismisses any connections between the actual Germanic pagan religions and Nazism as simply "window dressing for an ideology rooted in a different source." (p. 263). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Bryon, it is clear that you regard your own interpretation of Steigmann-Gall's book; "but it is clear from the context that he is using it in the un-scholarly, Christian chauvinist, fashion...referring to any departure from Christian canon or dogma as "pagan," when the correct term really should be "heretical,"" carries more weight than Milan Babík's review published in a reliable source. But unless you find a RS that supports your contention that Babík's or Steigmann-Gall's definition of "paganism" is a chauvinist definition it remains essentially OR coloured by your personal POV. --Nug (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear from Steigman-Gall's own statements (quoted above) that he was not insinuating that Christianity had merged with Germanic paganism under the Nazis, as if that were somehow possible...though that appears to be what you are promoting, by using Steigman-Gall as a "source." Incidentally, I've noticed that there are other peer-reviewed articles out there by Christian apologists who DENOUNCE the book in question because they feel that it promotes the idea that the Nazis "were essentially ‘Christian’," and "that neo-pagan ideas played an insignificant role in the ideology." (See "Inventing ‘Paganists’: a Close Reading of Richard Steigmann-Gall's the Holy Reich," by Irving Hexham, Journal of Contemporary History, January 2007, vol. 42, no. 1, 59-78) So I don't understand how you are using Steigman-Gall as a "source" that the Nazis weren't really Christian, and that their ideology was merged with paganism. It's like trying to "prove" that a government, ruling over a non-Christian country, somehow promoted Christianity...without ever mentioning "Jesus," "Christ," or "God" in any public speeches, legislation, or other policy matters whatsoever. It just doesn't make sense at all. Regardless, your own source (Steigman-Gall) specifically states the exact opposite of what you posted when you said that the Nazis were "anti-Christian," when he stated, as was previously quoted by me, that, "this did not make them un-Christian." Also, I can't access the article right now, but from reading the abstract and first page [3] of the Milan Babik article you quoted earlier, it certainly looks to me as if you're mischaracterizing the author's conclusions and opinions regarding Steigman-Gall. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The section reads poorly now, and whitewashes Christian church's support for the Nazis and of course their support after the war with the ratline. TFD (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

TDF, you should also read up on the current literature, because if you had you would know that Protestantism includes a vast number of independent religious bodies many of which were unrelated to each other and you would know that out of the approximately 18,000 Protestant pastors in Nazi Germany, only around 3,000 were members of the pro-Nazi Deutsche Christen faction while the remaining 15,000 pastors were not.(William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp. 234–40.) This plain fact shows that your statement "The section whitewashes Christian church's support for the Nazis" seems not to be based upon any source but rather your personal uninformed POV. --Nug (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry TDF thinks that the section reads poorly. For someone exploring the subject for the first time, I'm sure it provides them with a clearer mental map than what existed before. This section is not there to put the churches in the dock, nor to whitewash them. It hardly does that. It explains they had a shared anti-communist ideology with Nazism, were prepared to come to an 'arrangement' and tried not to rock the boat. It ends with a moral condemnation. On the other hand, it tries to show that many church-goers would have felt no categorical imperative to protest against a regime that was reluctant to carry out unpopular measures against them. It was left to people of conscience to register their protest by not conforming to the institutional 'party line'. The section is trying to include a mention, as briefly as possible, of all the elements involved (I left out Jehovah's Witnesses as being more appropriate to a page dealing with persecution). I haven't found the secondary literature I've consulted giving a sense of the proportion of these elements (that's another discussion), probably because we simply can't put any figures to how many thought X and how many thought Y within each church. All we can probably do, unless someone comes up with hard evidence, is indicate who appears to have been in the majority and who in the minority. We can, however, give estimates like Shirer or exact figures if recorded, as in the case of Hildebrand's figure for the arrest of Lutheran pastors in 1937. I would say the ratline had more to do with personal acquaintances assisting each other or being asked to assist third parties on the basis of their anti-communism, hence pro-fascist tendencies. You can say the hierarchy turned a blind-eye, or even colluded in certain cases, but that is specific to the Catholic Church in any case, or more precisely some Catholic clergy, and has nothing to do with the majority of church-goers in Germany who were Lutheran. It is also irrelevant to the Third Reich time frame being dealt with here. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, a whole issue of the Journal of Contemporary History , Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan., 2007) is devoted to the reviews on works authored by Steigmann-Gall. Therefore, by no means is this author non-notable or fringe. I suggest everyone to read those articles. I know that Nug has an access to this journal and, therefore, he can read all of them. In connection to that it is strange for me that he claims that some authors denounce Steigmann-Gall, and forgets to note that many articles from the same issue support his views. For example, Richard J. Evans's summary of the issue says:

"In his book "The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 1919–1945", published in 2003, Richard Steigmann-Gall proposes a way forward. Presenting for the first time, at least in English, a thorough analysis of the religious beliefs of the nazis themselves, Steigmann-Gall argued that although active nazis, from the leadership down to the lower levels of the party, were bitterly opposed to the Catholic Church, they had a more ambivalent attitude towards Protestantism and to Christianity more generally. Even those who, like Himmler and Rosenberg, advocated a kind of pseudo-Germanic paganism, retained at least some Christian elements amongst their religious beliefs. Most preferred a nazified form of Protestantism as suggested by the ‘German Christians’. Nazism in fact contained a wide variety of religious beliefs. Crucially, however, Steigmann-Gall argues that the paganists were less important in the end than the proponents of a ‘positive’, that is, a nazified Christianity. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Germans, including those who carried out monstrous crimes of mass murder, torture, human experimentation and much else besides, remained members of the Christian Churches. Although their beliefs and attitudes changed over time, the fact remains, he concludes, that the nazis were, at bottom, basically Christian in their religious orientation.

These are controversial theses. Steigmann-Gall backs them up with a wealth of illustrative material, garnered from a score of archives and a large quantity of obscure nazi publications. Yet do they, in the end, convince? In this special debate, commissioned by the Journal of Contemporary History, a variety of experts in the field address the issues raised by Steigmann-Gall’s book. The theologian and religious historian Stanley Stowers considers them in the light of the theoretical literature on the nature of religion, and particularly political religion. Doris Bergen, author of the standard work on the ‘German Christians’, provides a balanced appraisal of Steigmann-Gall’s central arguments; Manfred Gailus, whose social history of the Protestant Church in Berlin under the nazis has established itself quickly as a major contribution to the debate, launches a critical assault on Steigmann-Gall’s theses, backed up by Ernst Piper, author of a recent major biography of Alfred Rosenberg. Finally, the theologian Irving Hexham uses an approach derived from the sociology of knowledge to take issue with Steigmann-Gall’s use of sources, rightly concluding, as in the end do all the contributors, that it is necessary to take the nazis’ ideas seriously, however repulsive or bizarre they might seem, if we are to understand their appeal."

Some other quotes from that issue:

"Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich provides a clear alternative to vague ideas about an incoherent religion of National Socialism that arose due to the spiritual vacuum of modernity and tried to replace Christianity. Instead of symbols and rituals that work in mysterious ways and language that does not mean what it seems to mean, The Holy Reich shows that the dominant portion of the nazi leadership held familiar Christian beliefs with their own distinctive interpretations of some points." Stanley Stowers, Brown University

"Summed up this way, Steigmann-Gall’s book can be seen as an expression — perhaps even the culmination — of a trend in the scholarship over the past several decades. Indeed, claims of his project’s originality notwithstanding, with The Holy Reich Steigmann-Gall entered a lively and well-established conversation on both sides of the Atlantic. Like many other misconceptions about National Socialism, the anti-Christian notion has long been disputed by historians and scholars of religion, even if they have not succeeded in changing popular views. In different ways and to different extents, John Conway, Ernst Helmreich, Richard Rubenstein, Gordon Zahn, Robert Ericksen, Susannah Heschel, Rainer Laechele and many others have pointed to connections and affinities between National Socialism and Christianity. I consider my work on the German Christian movement part of this broad historiographical development." Doris L. Bergen, University of Toronto.

"Steigmann-Gall has good reason for concentrating on Protestantism as the philosophical point of access for nationalistic and National Socialist ideas. One can identify the contemporary National Protestant milieu — as compared with other social milieux and group cultures — as the main breach point for the ‘Ideas of 1933’. Manfred Gailus, Technical University of Berlin

Despite considerable reservations and omissions, Steigmann-Gall’s study makes an interesting, stimulating and at times provocative book. I agree

entirely with his assessment of the presence and effectiveness of National Socialist Christians, particularly in the Protestant milieu. I would estimate that a third of the contemporary Protestant milieu belonged to these dual-faith inner ecclesiastical circles. I am less convinced about the presence and prominence of Christian National Socialists, particularly in the Party leadership. They certainly existed but more so in the lower and middle ranks of the NSDAP; if they were present in the upper echelons, it was only here and there and usually in diluted form. ‘Conceptions of Christianity’ cannot seriously be applied to this group; a more appropriate description would be dual faith side by side with shrinking remnants of Christianity." (ibid)

"In writing The Holy Reich, the title of which is never explained, Richard Steigmann-Gall has chosen an extraordinary topic. He provides interesting information about the religious career of leading National Socialists, but has failed to justify his claim to have proved that National Socialism was a Christian movement." Ernst Piper, Moses Mendelssohn Centre for European-Jewish Studies in Potsdam.

"In conclusion, there is no easy answer to the questions raised by SteigmannGall’s book. National Socialism still sends shivers of horror through most people today. All we can do is plot its progress and attempt to understand how such evil was sold to the world. Unless we face the full horror, including its intellectual and mythical appeal to both the masses and scholars through works like Michael and the Mythus, we will have failed to understand the true rhetorical significance of nazism and its literature." Irving Hexham, University of Calgary

These are all reviews devoted to the Steigmann-Gall's book. As you can see, some of them are critical, whereas others fully support him. Interestingly, Manfred Gailus noted that the situation with religion in the Third Reich showed tendency to drift from Christianity to some form of Neo-Paganism. That trend became especially prominent in early 40s, and was stopped by the military defeat of Germany. In connection to that, the very question "were Nazi Christians?" is incorrectly formulated: probably, they initially were Christians (or predominantly Christians) and they probably would become Pagans (or the proponents of Nazism as a form of secular religion) later (if they would not be defeated).
In addition, some of other reviews criticise just some theses of Steigmann-Gall. Thus, the main Babik thesis is not that Nazi were not Christians. He simply argue that it would be correct to describe Protestant Progressivism as a form of secular religion, therefore,

"Fine-tuning secularization as a tool of historical understanding in this manner represents a second, and perhaps the key, potential benefit for political religion historiography. With the distinction between partial and complete secularization in place, there is every reason to believe that one can classify Steigmann-Gall's Protestant Nazism as secularized eschatology while remaining sensitive to its differences from other (irreligious) instances of the same phenomenon"

In other words, Babik does not argue that Nazi were not Christians, his point is that their Christianity fits a definition of secular religion.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul, the volume of your latest contribution is impressive, but it is not clear to me what your reason is for presenting it. Is it to show that Steigann-Gall is taken seriously? What conclusion should we draw from your last sentence in terms of how it should affect what appears in the article? Kim Traynor (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Steigann-Gall, as well as many other authors expressing similar views, should be taken seriously, and the idea that Nazism was intrinsically secular anti-Christian movement should not be presented as the sole mainstream views. For example, in light of some sources cited by me it is clear that the idea of the fundamental incompatibility of Christian teachings and Nazi ideology appears not as obvious today as the article says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul says: "I know that Nug has an access to this journal and, therefore, he can read all of them. In connection to that it is strange for me that he claims that some authors denounce Steigmann-Gall, and forgets to note that many articles from the same issue support his views." Well, thank you Paul for the reference to this journal issue, but your contention that I somehow "forget to note that many articles from the same issue" is most bizarre, as I don't see how it is possible to "forget" something before the fact of becoming aware of it in the first place. As you recall, I referred to Babik's critical paper published in History and Theory, so I am unsure why you think I might have read this particular issue of Journal of Contemporary History before your mention of it. But anyway, as we now have these reviews, let's examine them in order to assess the weight we should apply to Steigmann-Gall's POV.

Stanley Stowers doesn't seem to be a review of Steigmann-Gall's book but rather he is appears to be air his own opposition to the concept of "political religion", citing Steigmann-Gall briefly in support of his own POV.

Doris L. Bergen seems supportive but highlights some issues:

"According to Richard Steigmann-Gall, ‘the insistence that Nazism was an anti- Christian movement has been one of the most enduring truisms of the past fifty years'", "As I suggested in my book Twisted Cross, the German Christians did not fit most standard theological criteria for Christians: that is, they rejected basic Christian teachings about the divinity and humanity of Jesus and renounced the canonicity of Christian scripture.", "Perhaps in an effort to make his evidence fit neatly, Steigmann-Gall left out the crucial element of tension in nazi–Christian relations. Without conceding at least some nazi hostility, however, the dynamic generated by Christian defensiveness cannot be understood. This and other shortcomings will reduce Steigmann-Gall’s ability to convince sceptics of his arguments, but they cannot negate the significance of his call to confront the presence of Christianity in National Socialism."

Irving Hexham:

"Richard Steigmann-Gall challenges the dominant view that nazi leaders were hostile to Christianity"

Hexham goes on to criticise Steigmann-Gall misuse of primary sources such as Goebbels:

"Presented in this way, Goebbels appears to be endorsing Christianity. When read in the context of genre and situation, Goebbels’ speech appears in a very different light. As the editor of Goebbels’ Reden points out, Goebbels was a master of irony and rhetoric, making it very difficult at times to know exactly what he meant. In the context of the speech cited by Steigmann-Gall it appears that Goebbels is being ironic."

and dismissal of non-Christian influences in the Nazi Party such as Rosenberg’s:

"It is here that Steigmann-Gall’s approach fails. Rather than enabling the reader to understand how and why people accepted nazi logic he dismisses it as illogical and vainly seeks an alternative explanation that leads him to deny that anyone could possibly have read Rosenberg’s work."

Ernst Piper:

"In his book The Holy Reich, Richard Steigmann-Gall confronts us with the provocative thesis that, in reality, National Socialism was a Christian movement." "He provides interesting information about the religious career of leading National Socialists, but has failed to justify his claim to have proved that National Socialism was a Christian movement."

Manfred Gailus :

"In his introduction he notes correctly that, to date, mainstream researchers have characterized National Socialism — in terms of a movement, a regime, an ideology — as predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian."

On the other hand Gailus states Steigmann-Gall adds nothing new as most of it had been discussed in previous decades, citing Claus-Ekkehard Bärsch’s 1998 study of the religious dimensions of NS ideology:

"That Steigmann-Gall fails not only to mention but also to analyse this research which is core to his subject, is utterly incomprehensible. Was he not familiar with it? Would it have reduced the novelty value of his intended ‘revision’? There is another consideration which greatly reduces the surprising or sensational nature of his purported ‘discoveries’. All the nazi protagonists belonged to a generation born between 1880 and 1910 into an empire orientated towards Christianity. What other religious-philosophical influences could they be expected to bring with them from their — mainly bourgeois/petty bourgeois — family background, school, church and upbringing, from the civil-religious cultural contexts of public morality, morals and values, than a belief system informed by Christianity in its broadest sense and the corresponding mentality and loyalty to tradition?"

Given that there are so many writers that support or reject his work, we can conclude that Steigmann-Gall book is at least controversial, and this is confirmed by Evans in his introduction to the issue: "These are controversial theses". Given that most reviewers, both supporters an detractors, state Steigmann-Gall book challenges the dominant viewpoint, we can say his POV is therefore minority and thus be given less weight. Given that most reviewers, and including Steigmann-Gall himself, state the dominant viewpoint is that Nazism was anti-Christion, we can also conclude that this POV can be given most weight. --Nug (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his viewpoint is not the mainstream (at least, not the sole mainstream view), but it is not a fringe view either. Doris L. Bergen listed several authors, who, as well as Bergen herself express the idea of affinity of Nazism and Christianity/Protestantism. They are John Conway, Ernst Helmreich, Richard Rubenstein, Gordon Zahn, Robert Ericksen, Susannah Heschel, Rainer Laechele and many others, according to her. Therefore, this viewpoint should be represented in the article at least as one of significant minority views. As our policy says, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I named several prominent adherents, and I believe it is quite sufficient to devote decent space in the article to this viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no impression in any of the journal papers that there is more than one mainstream view. You say that Bergen mentions a number of authors having expressed the notion of affinity between Nazism and Christianity, but she says "in different ways and to different extents" to Steigmann-Gall. Let's not confuse the two issues of church collaboration/support and the whether the Nazis were pro or anti-Christian. There is no question that thousands of pastors supported the Nazi movement, but equally thousands of pastors opposed the Nazis, causing a split in German Protestantism into the pro- and anti- Nazi factions of German Christians and Confessing Church. The point of divergence is that Steigmann-Gall (who Bergen states is also claiming to revise her viewpoint too) asserts that most of the top Nazi hierarchy were active Christians who saw the Nazi movement as an extension of the Reformation through Positive Christianity. But Bergan states "Most scholars dismiss ‘positive Christianity’ as nothing but an opportunistic slogan coined to conceal nazism’s intrinsic hostility toward Christianity and the Churches". Steigmann-Gall leaves out, as Bergen states, the crucial element of tension in nazi–Christian relations and he fails to concede any nazi hostility existed that created a sense of a return to Kulturkampf that drove German Catholics and Protestants into defensiveness and thus collaboration as a strategy for self-preservation. So while I agree Steigmann-Gall is not fringe, his viewpoint never the less goes far beyond that even of those authors mentioned by Bergen (which she includes herself) who discuss the affinities between the German church and state. So I don't think you can use these other authors to claim Steigmann-Gall has greater weight than he has. --Nug (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The positions by Nazis in public differed from what they thought in private. Public stances by Nazi officials on Christianity were carefully crafted because: (1) Germany's Christianity has been divided since the Reformation between Protestantism and Catholicism, (2) it would be stupid in those days for any politician to say they were an athiest - they would lose support from the religious communities. In private, the Nazis were divided - some despised Christianity altogether for being of Jewish origins, others claimed that they supported a Positive Christianity - that claimed that the Jews stole the Christian legend from the Aryans, and then there were others who sought alliance between Nazism and the Catholic Church like Mussolini and the Italian Fascists did - as a means to legitimize Nazism amongst Germans of the Catholic faith. There is little that can disguise the fact that the Nazis were highly uncomfortable with Christianity in the mainstream form - because of its connections with Judaism, although heroic patriotic imagery of Germany's Christian past was emphasized by the Nazis - such as references to the Teutonic Knights who were involved in the Crusades - mostly because it represented a historic example of German commitment to faith to a common cause and because it emphasized a warrior spirit that the Nazis sought to instill upon Germany.--R-41 (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Also agreeing that the use of an Aryan mythos was critical to the core methodology of Nazism - the creation of a fully unified populace on the basis of an Aryan race, with a mythical history including the Teutonic Knights, but absolutely not one based on "religion" as such. Some of the claims that Nazism was "Christian" are quite ludicrous - Germany had lots of Christians, so any group could be labeled as Christian if the criterion is "were Crhistians in the group?". Collect (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nazism was as "Christian" as Mormonism is... In other words, plenty of Christians will say, "No they weren't Christian! They believed very different things than mainstream Christians!" but that does not mean that they weren't, from an objective viewpoint, (rather than a biased, pro-modern-Christianity one...) that they were indeed promoting a type of Christianity. The No true Scotsman logical fallacy applies to those who claim that they weren't "really" Christians. And no, as can be seen by the evidence, the only criteria is NOT simply that there "were Christians in the group." That's a blatant distortion of the facts. Christianity was promoted by the Nazis, and specifically burned books that were in any way critical of Christianity (a policy that I'm betting many modern Conservative Christians would approve of...). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Absurd and fallacious in the utmost. You might as well say that about any society pr grup. The point is that Nazism was not founded in Christianisty. Some Christians were Nazi-voters; some Nazis attended Christian churches; but that does not then allow the claim that "Nazism was founded (in any sense) in Christianity". As far as hitting Godwin's Law by asserting that modern "conservative Christians" would be Nazis in any form - that is simply inane at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Good job at trying to redirect the argument into strawmen, but no dice. Nobody is asserting that (1) Nazism was founded on Christianity, (2) that this argument relies simply upon the religious affiliations of Nazi members, or (3) that modern "Conservative Christians" are Nazis. (1) The modern American Conservative movement (as an example - again, I am not saying that Conservative Christians are "Nazis," but this works as an example) was not founded on Christianity, but it is very pro-Christian. American Conservatives promote Christianity, and propose very pro-Christian laws, often at the expense of minority faiths. Well, the same was true of the Nazis. They were not founded upon Christianity, but they promoted Christianity, and certainly proposed very pro-Christian laws, very much at the expense of minority faiths! Now, it is not controversial to state that Christianity is a part of Conservative Christians' ideology...though many Christians state that they find their views abhorrent and not consistent with their own Christian beliefs. Does that mean that less-Conservative Christians get to say, "Sorry. Those Conservatives aren't REAL Christians"? No. Not in an objective arena such as this. (I'm sure in a hundred years, when homophobia is a thing of the past, and religious tolerance has advanced far greater than today...that Conservative historians will be claiming that the Conservative Christians of today weren't "really" Christians either...just as they have with the Nazis, and the slave-owners, and the ones who marched against African-American Civil Rights.) (2) This argument relies upon a lot more than simply the religious affiliations of members of the Nazi Party, and you damned well know it. The evidence is presented all over the place, from Hitler's speeches, to Nazi government laws, policies, and actions, etc. (3) The point was to compare pro-Christian worldviews. If I call someone a "Nazi," you better be certain I won't mince words. I think everyone here knows that I say exactly what is on my mind, and give not the slightest @#$% whether it offends someone's sensibilities or risks sanctions on my part. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My point is fully proven by your Well, the same was true of the Nazis. That is precisely the sort of argument which goes absolutely nowhere on Wikipedia, and should be relegated to the dustbin utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You aren't even capable of the critical thinking skills necessary to denote a difference between saying, "The Nazis, as well as X, did this..." and "X are Nazis"??? Or are you insinuating that anyone who does anything the Nazis did...is therefore a Nazi? It brings to mind the legendary Lewis Black bit: "Hitler had a mustache. Mother Teresa had a mustache. Mother Teresa is Hitler!" Oh brother. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The section on the economy of Nazi Germany should be moved to its own article

The section on the economy of Nazi Germany is duplicating material that is mentioned on its own article. As this is on the ideology of Nazism and not the economy of Germany from 1933 to 1945 that was influenced by many other factors than political ideology, a brief mention about how Nazi economic ideology was pursued in practice may be acceptable but not multiple paragraphs.--R-41 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree.Spylab (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I stress that it needs to be reduced down to what was the economic ideology, not economic practice - economic practice is influenced by multiple non-ideological issues - and that can be mentioned in detail on the article Economy of Nazi Germany. If economic practice resulted in an official or clearly recognized change of the economic ideology promoted by the Nazis, that can be mentioned. Again economic practice should not be assumed to be connected to ideology alone, there are other reasons for practices.--R-41 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that where no ideological basis is present for a topic, that it does not belong here. Pragmatic decisions do not really have a lot to do with "Nazism." Ditto in Fascism - where material is not reasonably connected to an ideology or consistent position across the topic, it does not belong in the article. Collect (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have just deleted a lot of unsourced, very badly sourced, and fringe claims from the article. I retained what had reliable sources - but I still think the article requires major reorganization.--R-41 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest for the benefit of the common good that you do not consider doing this yourself. See following section. Kim Traynor (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent mutilation of the Church and State section (not to mention other sections)

Given the effort I put in to attempting an explanation of Church and State relations in Nazi Germany, it is very demoralising to see so much excised by R-41 with no attempt to replace it with constructive contributions. Wagner can go because mentioning him was done only to provide an example, but to anyone who knows the historical background to Nazism, he is anything but "irrelevant", as R-41 states. Bormann was quoted because he is an eye-witness stating that Hitler had a religious side to him, a point worth making on this topic. To expunge the fact that Hitler employed religious vocabulary in his public and private speech suggests to me a deliberate attempt on R-41's part to mislead readers by suppressing a truth. I think he has an ulterior motive, namely a hidden Christian agenda. The Fischer summary of the moral culpability of the churches has also been expunged. That's fair enough if the intention is to replace it with another reputable historian's judgement on the issue(s), because anyone considering the position of the churches in the Third Reich (not Christianity per se as R-41 states to justify deletion) must wonder how it was possible that the two co-existed and whether the churches had a case to answer for in not offering organised moral resistance to the regime. And while no-one is in any doubt that Speer's testimony may not always be credible, his report that Hitler thought the churches would accommodate themselves in time to the regime does not seem to be a self-expulcatory comment. To remove the entire section stating the motivation of the Confessing Church as an attempt to counter the strength of the German Christian movement on the grounds that it is unreferenced is either the result of a woeful ignorance of the subject, or just plain dishonest. The proper thing to do would be to tag it "citation needed", not remove it entirely. To delete material based on the wholly false and absurd claim that the text implied that "all Christianity was to blame for what Hitler did", also shows complete and utter dishonesty by inventing a statement that is nowhere in the text. The Lutheran tradition of obedience is accepted by historians and Lutheran churchmen who have written on the subject, and if R-41 has no comprehension of the link between Lutheranism and German-Christian patriotism, he should turn to another field of study where he knows something about the topic. The reference to Hitler's belief that the churches provided solace to the bereaved during the war does exist in the literature, though I confess that I have not yet tracked it down; so I wouldn't object to its removal at this stage. But I cannot help feeling that R-41 is exacting some sort of revenge for the fact that I was one of the contributors who resisted his attempt to add detail to the Adolf Hitler page which, as others agreed, departed from the general consensus of Hitler studies. Here, too, R-41 made false claims about what other contributors were saying in order to promote his own specious arguments. His editing behaviour on this page has been quite disgraceful. Also, the posting by others of images of SS-Runes and a Nazi Eugenics poster in this section has created an ugly page lay-out, quite apart from the fact that neither is relevant to Church and State. If the collective efforts of those who strive to improve Wikipedia can be so easily and irresponsibly undermined, I can't see the point of continuing to try to improve this article. I shall leave it to others to decide what, if any, of the deleted material should be reinstated. Meanwhile, may I suggest that in future, R-41, you do not indulge in destructive editing by gaily deleting whole chunks of the work of others if you cannot contribute constructively by replacing what you have removed with an alternative version aimed at improving the article. At present I believe your edits, taken as a whole, amount to vandalism, even if unintended. Kim Traynor (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Try WP:NPA to start. The issues regarding the internally contradictory claims in that section have been discussed. And I think, considering his posts, that saying R-41 has some sort of hidden Christian agenda is sufficiently far afield as to make your position less than a consensus one. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Kim, i see your point and agree with Collect, using the term "vandal" will bring out the long knives. just change it back if you want, or even better, lets build a draft in the sandbox and present an improved version bring back your edit perfected. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Collect, can you explain to me why R-41 has removed the mention of traditional Lutheran deference to the state, the notion from the Romantic period that all true Germans are Christians and not Jews, the Bormann observation that Hitler had a traditional Christian mindset, Hitler's use of religious phraseology, Speer's comment that the churches would eventually tow the party line, and Fischer's assessment of the moral failure of the churches in the face of evil? And you really don't think there is any motivation on R-41's part to remove the implication that there may have been a Christian propensity to accept Hitler's regime? Pull the other one. Kim Traynor (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I accept your observation, Darkstar1st, that vandalism may perhaps be too strong a word. I use the term to mean the wanton destruction of what others have painstakingly created without the slightest attempt to put something in its place. I'll modify the comment by saying that R-41 has ruined a genuine attempt to lay the basis of a Church and State section that could have been improved by others with a more positive attitude to explaining the issues rather than removing them from sight. Kim Traynor (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

indeed, i often feel the same when i put an edit together and the ENTIRE edit is undone, EVEN the parts not contested. wp instructs us to improve, not simply delete, meaning attempt to find alt sources, etc. send a link to the sandbox if you create draft and ill try to find sources to help. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to produce another draft for the same thing to happen again. You'll find it more difficult than you imagine to come up with ready references on this subject (that's what took me so long to produce the section in the first place). Even many of the acknowledged authorities on Nazi Germany, like Bracher and Fest, are curiously deficient on this topic, largely because, I think, no exact sources exist that sum up general attitudes across the broad sections of society represented in the churches. Kim Traynor (talk) 12:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No this section was filled with POV, made essentially derogatory claims that Christianity and particularly Lutheranism was the cause of Nazism. It was COMPLETELY unacceptable. That section was being used by editors with an axe-to-grind against every religion they happen to dislike - if they disliked Catholicism they emphasized how close the Nazis and the Catholics were, then the Catholic users probably responded by mentioning how close the Nazis were with Martin Luther, then users who wanted to claim the Nazis had no connection with Christianity at all emphasized its roots to the pagan Thule Society, then anti-Christian users arrived and claimed that the whole of Christianity is responsible for Nazism! It was a hyperbole tossed salad of contradictory claims one after another that appeared to be written by multiple users with an axe-to-grind and was totally unencyclopedic. Lastly, the insinuation that I am conspiring to deny any Christian links to Nazism is completely false and absurd, I am not a Christian but an athiest, I hold criticisms of parts of Christianity - including its authoritarian aspects. I do reconize that fascists and Nazis exploited religious themes to gain support from religious people. It is true that there were Christians who were Nazis just as there were neo-Paganists like Heinrich Himmler who were Nazis. Kim Traynor's comment of a "Christian propensity to accept Hitler's regime" reveals a strong POV - there were many Christians who opposed Hitler.--R-41 (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

To further reveal that Nazis held mixed views towards religion, here is what Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess said in a decree issued on October 13, 1933: "No National Socialist may suffer any detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all." (Baynes, Norman H. ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. 1. New York: Howard Fertig, p. 378.). Bear in mind that I am an atheist and an opponent of Nazism noting this.--R-41 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You're at it again. The entry did not state or even imply that "Christianity, particularly Lutheranism was the cause of Nazism". (That is too ridiculous for words. Why do you invent falsehoods like this? Is English not your main language?) It has been generally accepted in the literature on the subject that Lutheran teachings on respecting the authority of the state inevitably reduces the likelihood of organised protest against the state. The entry was not the work of multiple editors, but myself alone trying to lay the basis for a section that others could develop. I tried to convey the general conclusions scholars have come to regarding Nazi-church relations. I also tried to convey the contradictory viewpoints that have to be included in any balanced account. The entry made this perfectly clear. This is not a weakness but a strength, unless, of course, you are illiberal. That is precisely what the Catholic Church was at the time, as well as extremely anti-communist. If you don't understand the shared ideology between Nazi and Catholic anti-communism, then I was correct in assuming you know next to nothing about the subject. The number of the "many Christians who opposed Hitler" has never been determined, because it cannot be, and was a drop in the ocean compared with the number of church-goers who have been regarded as fellow travellers. If Christianity had not had a propensity to accept Nazism, the history of Germany in the 1930s would have been different. That is self-evident from the historical development and does not need 'proved'. If I have attributed a pro-Christian motivation to you wrongly, why on earth have you removed so much of the entry rather than allow others to modify it or build on it? If you knew more about the subject, or spoke to some experts in the field, you would realise that the statements are not "filled with POV" and are not "completely unacceptable" except in your uninformed opinion. This is yet another example of your negativity. If you want to improve the article, please write your own entry on Church and State. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You are being highly insulting and combative. If you absolutely think that I am wrong that restore the material, I think it is a mistake. But before you do, just look at Hess' decree again: October 13, 1933: "No National Socialist may suffer any detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all." (Baynes, Norman H. ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. 1. New York: Howard Fertig, p. 378.). Do you really think the Nazis had any firm commitment to Christian principles if the Nazis' Deputy Fuhrer essentially said in the decree it doesn't matter if someone was an athiest and a Nazi at the same time. The Nazis were politicians who appealed to all kinds of voters, there were religious Nazis and irreligious Nazis. It's just like any political party does to get supporters - in the US, President Obama appealed to Christian voters while at the same time appealing to the LGBT community - the two do not typically mix as most forms of Christianity oppose homosexuality, but Obama appeals to both. And he can't be consistent with appealing to both, if Obama genuinely supports Christianity to the letter that would mean that he would view my partner, a bisexual women as being damned to hell for her homosexual tendencies; but if he is a legitimate LGBT supporter he would not accept the Bible as God's actual word. I personally hope that Obama supports LGBT over the Bible, but again as a politician he appeals to both for political purposes. Most wise politicians attempt to get the broadest possible base of supporters, just add up all the contradictory comments of the Nazis appealing to Protestants, Catholics, and atheists (as shown by the Hess quote) and you will realize the obvious that the only consistency is that Hitler and the Nazi leadership were trying to appeal to multiple groups (who held strong differences between each other) at the same time in order to rally the broadest possible support of people who could support their views.--R-41 (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope you change your opinion on what you view as a "Christian propensity to accept Hitler's regime", because that is an insult to the many Christians - including in particular Jehovah's Witnesses who were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure why you're placing any importance on the Hess quotation, which is why I did not respond to it in the first place. He is a politician saying to prospective supporters, "We don't care what you believe in. Join us." I can see nothing profound or remarkable in that. Nowhere did I say or imply that the Nazis had a commitment to Christian principles. That's just another of your strange inventions. I really think you should reflect on why you create such untruths out of thin air. They are the product of your imagination, not the material. Your digression on Obama is besides the point, another habit you should reflect on, as I recall you digressing in similar manner when we discussed Hitler's Vienna years on the Adolf Hitler talkpage. You seem to be suggesting that Hitler made active appeals to diverse Christian groups. I don't see that this happened at all. Christianity was, for millions at the time, the default position for their view on the world, if I can put it that way. The point is that Hitler left them alone, because he knew (and was right) that most Christians would prefer his authoritarian state to the failed democratic state and the communist alternative on offer. The Jehovah's Witnesses are a special case and in no way representative of mainstream Christianity, as covered in the Church and State section. (I left out the Salvation Army too.) I said on the talkpage that they are probably better dealt with on pages dealing with Nazi persecution. (You could add a statement about them to this article.) They were declared enemies of the state because their pacifism was completely at odds with the Nazis' militarisation of society and war ideology that was essential to carrying out their political programme. They were not, repeat not, typical German Christians. They have been traditionally regarded in Europe as being outside mainstream Christianity, and, like most outsider groups in the Third Reich, suffered for it. You may have a different perspective on them if you live on the other side of the pond where all kinds of religious groups spring up. I shall repeat: there must have been a Christian propensity to accept the Nazi regime, otherwise there would have been some sort of organised resistance to Nazism. Apart from the protest symbolised in the stance of the Confessing Church, there was none. There was no active underground Christian resistance movement organised by the churches; only small isolated groups of individuals acting on their Christian consciences. When people are determined to resist en masse, they do so despite the terrors they face. Look up the history of the Scottish Covenanters or the armija krajova (Polish Home Army) for examples. Men and women brought up with Christian teachings went along with Hitler's national project of territorial expansion and the racial reorganisation of Europe. Many were even directly involved in the apparatus of genocide, e.g policemen, railwaymen, medical graduates, German Red Cross nurses etc. We have to conclude that most Christians did not think their religion was incompatible with the fight against atheistic Bolshevism (and non-Christian Jews believed to be behind it), or, to be more charitable, that most Christians were happy to sit things out and keep their heads down until the nightmare was over. Kim Traynor (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) You are asserting what you think you know. That is not how Wikipedia functions. By your standards, any country with a dictator which has a large majority of one religion, and where a majority of the people in that majority support the dictator, makes the religion connected to the dictator. Ir doesn't. Nor is the "communal guilt" theory currently accepted by scholars. Collect (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I know tends to be what I have learned about the subject from others who have written about it. I can't help that being reflected in what I write. Like R-41, you are assuming that I am somehow linking Christianity to Hitler and his dictatorship. I have not said that anywhere. I have said that Christianity may have been predisposed to accepting Hitler's regime for a number of reasons, e.g. patriotic traditions, historical anti-Semitism, shared anti-communist ideology and, not least, institutional self-survival. I don't see that any of that is controversial unless you have particular viewpoint which is offended by it. Are you sure you are not trying to dissociate German Christians from their lamentable historical record in failing to resist Nazism? That is a fundamental issue which must be addressed in any Church and State section. Forget about 'communal guilt'. At one time it was politically fashionable, so historians peddled it. Now it is politically unfashionable, so they say it doesn't exist. Let's not be naive about how historians operate. As for how Wikipedia functions, this is a discussion, not the article. Kim Traynor (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You say:

I have said that Christianity may have been predisposed to accepting Hitler's regime

The problem is that the sources and section are entirely contradictory on that claim. Christianity does not have "patriotic traditions" as an intrinsic tenet, nor is "anti-Semitism" intrinsic to Christianity, nor are all Christians even "anti-Communist" -- you seek to label groups which are not now so treated by scholars. At this point, you "know" something which no one else "knows" here. So why not simply say "WP:CONSENSUS is what counts at this point" and stop wrangling here? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the sources are entirely contradictory. You will have to explain that to me. German Christianity since Luther did have patriotic traditions. Anti-Semitism exists in the history of both Roman Catholic and German Lutheran Christianity. I take it you are outside of Europe if you do not know that the great ideological divide between the world wars was between Communism and its enemies in the West who feared its spread. I think you will find that Christian Communists were few and far between. The middle classes in the different countries of Continental Europe, and that includes Christian households, were overwhelmingly anti-communist. So, all three assertions in your last comment are actually false for the period under discussion. I assume you are not a historian. I have no wish to 'wrangle' as you put it. I am responding to a destructive series of edits of the page which you seem to be defending by pleading for consensus. Consensus should be based on the historical material, which can be debated and modified, not on what R-41 thinks should be included. I'll remind you that the section came about after a lengthy talkpage discussion where it was made clear that a basis would be laid for others to modify, not for one user to come along and perform a hatchet job. You seem to be defending that behaviour. Kim Traynor (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, Kim Traynor, you are being extremely combative and hostile in violation of "Wikipedia is not a Battleground" policy. I am considering reporting you for personal attacks as the very title of this section is intentionally hostile at a personal level, and your comments have been highly personal and hostile towards me. Please acknowledge and rescind these personal attacks and focus on the content. Secondly, considering what you said I do not believe you when you say that you do not have an agenda to portray Christianity as in cahoots with the Nazis, with your statement of a "Christian propensity to accept Hitler's regime" and what Collect has quoted from you "I have said that Christianity may have been predisposed to accepting Hitler's regime". There were many Christians who did not vote for Hitler, even when Hitler became popular, they voted for the moderate Christian Centre Party - a Christian democratic party.--R-41 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, I do not see much combativeness in Kim's posts. Of course, you can report him, but that will be a waste of our time and may have some boomerang effect.

Regarding Collect's "the sources and section are entirely contradictory on that claim", this post is simply a lie. I would suggest Collect to read numerous sources provided by me. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"simply a lie" is errant, combative, battleground and generally Snidely Whiplash-like behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just look at the title, it is personal, hostile, and in violation of Wikipedia policy that says that discussion pages on general articles should not have Wikipedia users' names in the headline titles. This is the title he wrote "R-41's mutilation of the Church and State section (not to mention other sections he has edited)" - accusing me of bad faith destruction of the section and other sections. The user has insinuated in an accusation that I have been "plain dishonest". And then saying "His editing behaviour on this page has been quite disgraceful." Of course these are personal, and of course they are combative personal attacks, they are focused on condemning me rather than addressing the content.--R-41 (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the title is not fully appropriate, and it would be good if Kim re-worded it. However, that does not change a fact that you should be more collaborative. Kim's posts contain many reasonable arguments, which deserve to be treated seriously, and I think Kim's frustration is quite understandable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry -- look at Paul's wonderful comment about me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I will gladly change my comment about your post if you will provide an adequate answer on a simple question:

"Can a good faith user, who seems to participate in this and this discussions, declare that the sources are entirely contradictory to the claim that that Christianity may have been predisposed to accepting Hitler's regime?"

--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Frustration by Kim Traynor does not legitimize personal attacks that are not supported under any circumstances by WP:NPA. Frustration does not warrant combativeness that is opposed by Wikipedia, nor baseless accusations of dishonesty without evidence.--R-41 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I think it would not be difficult to convince Kim to slightly modify his vocabulary (I noticed two users have already advised him to do so on his talk page, and I believe he will follow their advice). However, the problem will not be resolved by that. Kim rightfully notes that some connection between Christianity (especially Protestantism) and Nazism did exist, and the changes made by you conceal this connection. Are you ready to discuss this thesis seriously?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Then find some da*n current peer-reviewed scholarly texts making specific claims instead of defending silly mish-mash claims that Wagner was anti-semitic, therefore Christians were. Collect (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

since no one drew blood, lets quash the civility discussion plz and focus on Catholics. lots of picture show them sieg heiling, many in the photos look more than reluctant. Kim has provided data on those who were not. lets try to sort it again, and maybe make a sandbox to compare with the current edit, thx. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read the above comments, I have amended the section title of this discussion, but I see no reason to retract comments I have made. I would point out to R-41 that Hitler could not have established his dictatorship without the support of the Centre Party for his emergency legislation and that party's silence on the arrest without trial of the regime's opponents and suppression of the representative organizations of the workers. If Catholics collectively had been determined to prevent Hitler establishing his dictatorship, their political party would not have supported him in this manner and then dissolved itself. Bracher quotes the President of the Rhine Province informing the Prussian Minister of the Interior on 27 September, 1933 that as a result of the concordat "a substantial portion of the Catholic population, which up to now has shown an inner reserve towards the Reich Government, has now been unconditionally won over to allegiance to the new Reich". Bracher also notes that "anti-Communism tied both Protestants and Catholics to the policies of National Socialism and neutralized much of the opposition against the regime". He further notes that where individuals did resist "The churches never saw their way clear to sanctioning these efforts". If you accept Bracher as a foremost authority on the subject, which I do, that does not support your position that there was no ideological linkage between Nazism and the churches. If you want to focus on content, as you say, it would be helpful if you didn't remove so much of it. Please find some sources from before 1933 containing outright condemnations of Nazism by churchmen and we'll use them as a starting point for your proposition that Christians in Germany were not predisposed to accept the regime. Finally, I would point out that I used the phrase 'may have been' because its implication seems to have escaped you. Kim Traynor (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see is a difference over what a Nazi was. Is the true Nazi a Strasserite, in which case Nazism ceased to exist before the NSDAP came to power. Is Nazism some mystical ant-Christian belief system, in which case it was never implemented. Or was it the coalition of industrialists, Christians, militarists and fanatics who put the NSDAP into power? But that would then include Centrists, who before 1933 were distinct from the NSDAP and never merged with them, unlike the Conservative Party. TFD (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you're muddying the waters, The Four Deuces. We don't need to debate who was a 'true' Nazi to arrive at conclusions on the issue(s) being discussed. The only reliable answer to your question is "a member of the Nazi Party" (regardless of their personal motivation for joining). Kim Traynor (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I did acknowledge in my first statement here that there were Christians who were fascists and that fascists sought to appeal to religious voters. This is what I said: "I do reconize that fascists and Nazis exploited religious themes to gain support from religious people. It is true that there were Christians who were Nazis just as there were neo-Paganists like Heinrich Himmler who were Nazis." It is quite another think to place a label on the entirety of Christianity of being "pro-Nazi", as you indicated with your statements of a "Christian propensity to accept Hitler's regime" and what Collect has quoted from you "I have said that Christianity may have been predisposed to accepting Hitler's regime".--R-41 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If, by Christianity, Kim means the main churches in Germany, then the statement is true and supported by sources. Catholics of course were more likely to support the Center Party, but moved to the NSDAP after the demise of their party. TFD (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we just clear something up? R-41 has now quoted the same phrase about Christianity having a propensity etc. about three times, I think. The section is about the Christian churches. I was therefore a bit sloppy using that formulation in the discussion, because it should of course have read "the Christian churches (or Christians in Germany) may have been predisposed..." Even if we clear that phrase, which R-41 seems to find objectionable, out of the way and start afresh, he will have to explain why he finds it so astonishing. Before you do so, R-41, may I suggest, as a little experiment, that you procure yourself a copy of "Kriegsbriefe gefallener Studenten", a Great War best-seller in Germany, and read what a whole generation of young theology students, who were all destined to be Lutheran pastors, felt about impending death on the battlefield for the sake of the Fatherland. (Collect, you should do the same, as you questioned my assertion regarding German-Christian patriotism.) Then play Friedrich Silcher's song "Reiters Morgenlied" which begins "Morgenrot, Morgenrot, Leuchtest mir zum frühen Tod?", i.e. Red morning dawn, red morning dawn, are you lighting my way to premature death?" (That goes a bit further back to the war against Napoleon.) Then ask yourself the question: "Are these sentiments entirely unrelated to later developments, such as the presence of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front from 1941 onwards and its enormous death-toll after 1943?" I know this might sound irrational, but try it. You'll see that some things are "known", not because they exist in printed sources, but because they are cultural imprints that reveal societal mindsets. I think you'll find that Nazism could not have operated so successfully in German society, had the ground for it not been prepared well in advance. There was a long and deep tradition of German patriotism ("Gott Mit Uns") amongst Lutherans which reached a new height between 1914 and 1918, only twenty years before Hitler's troops invaded Russia with the blessings of both mainstream churches. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

And again you demonstrate that your desires are motivated by what you "know" and not by what scholars state. This is a major problem here. As for the fringe thoeoy that "cultural imprints reveal societal mindsets" I would love to see a real sourse for that sort of claim! Collect (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be daft, Collect. You can't find a source for that. This is a discussion, not the article. Kim Traynor (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Kim Traynor your claim about German Lutherans praising German efforts in World War I is referencing a primary source and it is not about Nazism. Unless you have a secondary source that demonstrates its relation to Nazism, that is original research on your part. Furthermore, there were many Jews who were patriotic German soldiers in World War I.--R-41 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me from your comment, Collect, that you've entirely missed the point. The section on Church and State was heavily referenced, but if you want that section to convey an overall picture, you will not find it readily stated in print. It has to be informed by more than the printed source. R-41, you take my breath away by saying "it has nothing to do with supporting Nazism". You've also missed the point. The link between Lutheran patriotism and German nationalism is NOT original research. I have no idea where you are coming from. And what do patriotic German Jews have to do with it? I am talking about German Lutherans, not German Jews. I believe the latter did not support Hitler (though some are on record as saying they would have, had he not been anti-Semitic). Kim Traynor (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Die Gartenlaube (1873) pic 132.JPG

Well then here is a link to Eduard Lasker a prominent German nationalist who was Jewish.

Inscription at the top: “To the German mothers!” On the tomb: “12,000 Jewish soldiers fell on the field of honor for the fatherland” And below: “Christian and Jewish heroes fought side by side and rest side by side in foreign land. 12 000 Jews were killed in action! Furious party hatred does not stop at the graves of the dead. German women, do not tolerate that a Jewish mother is scorned in her grief.”. An RJF leaflet published in 1920

Here are some pictures and material to demonstrate that there have been Jews who were German nationalists and that there were Jews who were patriotic soldiers in WWI, just like the Lutherans that you quoted. You say that Lutherans promoted German nationalism and therefore in your view should be equated with Nazis via a primary source, so I have shown you a primary source that shows that Jews were also patriotic to Germany. It says that 12000 Jews died fighting for Germany (the total number of Jewish German soldiers in the war has been estimated at over 80,000).--R-41 (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

But patriotic German Jews did not support Hitler. Patriotic Lutherans did. I can't see the purpose of your last posting. Kim Traynor (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Your primary source that you just showed of patriotic Lutherans in World War I had nothing to do with the Nazis - it was before the Nazi Party existed. The purpose of the last post I made was to show how you choosing a random quote from World War I to demonstrate nationalism amongst Lutherans, can be done to demonstrate that Jews supported German nationalism in World War I. - Therefore how does a World War I quote of patriotic Lutherans prove that they supported the Nazis?--R-41 (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

May I remind you that the Nazi Party was a direct outcome of the Great War and its aftermath. You can't understand the Nazi mentality if you fail to grasp that. Why do you say "random" quote, rather than "example"? It was in fact carefully chosen. And you accuse me of being insulting! I am not trying to prove anything here. If you don't accept that the extreme German nationalism of the Nazis had anything in common with the heightened German nationalism of the Great War, I think you are in a minority of one on that point. Kim Traynor (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That is one view of the causes of the Nazis' rise to power. The end of World War I also resulted in the creation of a liberal democracy in Germany, it resulted in communist revolution throughout Germany, and a rise in Bavarian separatism. After 1925, the Weimar Republic flourished up until the stock market crash of 1929 - the Weimar Republic was noted for its cosmopolitanism and liberal attitudes and the risque exotic dancing, popularity of jazz music, amongst the social life of its youth - a socially liberal culture much like that in Amsterdam in the Netherlands today - and hardly like the strict regimented discipline of the later Nazi regime. It was the stock market crash and the Great Depression and corresponding civil unrest that were the primary reasons the Nazis were able to rise to power. Also here is an example of an anti-Nazi Lutheran movement, the Confessing Church founded by Dietrich Bonhoeffer who took part in resistance to the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It is actually more than a personal view. I think I can state confidently that all commentators on the subject see the birth of Nazism in the Great War. You can't write a history of that movement without taking the Great War as the latest starting-point in time for it. Thanks, by the way, for mentioning Weimar's socially liberal culture - another reason for a shared outlook between the mainstream churches and the Nazis who were appalled by it. The Confessing Church was an example of what I addressed in the section as "institutional self-survival". To quote Bracher again, "Given the totalitarian ruling claims of the Nazi regime, the moves described above [i.e. Niemöller, Bonhoeffer stands] were political, but they did not constitute political resistance in the strict sense of the word, since they were not directed against the National Socialist 'authority' but were concerned solely with the preservation of autonomy and the freedom to teach." No-one would deny the bravery of a man like Bonhoeffer, but I would point out that Niemöller was a one hundred per cent German patriot and had absolutely no difficulty in supporting the regime until it came to the issue of who controlled his church. Unlike Bonhoeffer, he lived out the war in relatively comfortable conditions resembling house arrest. Besides, you are quoting exceptions to the rule to support your argument that Christians did not support Hitler. I tried to encapsulate the general picture when I wrote the section. Speak to some Germans about the role of the churches in the Third Reich and find out from them why church-going in Germany collapsed after the war and has never recovered. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"but they did not constitute political resistance in the strict sense of the word," - that's nonsense Wikilawyering on that whole "strict sense of the word" - bottom line, the Confessing Church rejected the Nazis' agenda, they were persecuted for this, they were not Nazis, period. This article should not stereotype every Christian nor every Lutheran as a Nazi, it should say who specifically were Nazis and who were not Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I never put historians on a pedestal, as Wikipedia seems to do, but I do respect Bracher. Are you really saying he wrote nonsense about the subject? By the way, I don't think quoting Wikipedia guidelines is very helpful in that Bracher can't exactly do a rewrite to please. Bonhoeffer rejected Nazism personally; I'm not sure Niemöller did, so I think you are wrong in saying he rejected their agenda, except in relation to control of his church. His famous quote about no-one being left to resist when they came for him is his personal admission that he did not oppose the regime's agenda. It was easy for him to position himself as an anti-Nazi after the war. You are going over the top again with your statement about stereotyping. Every historical summary has to generalise. Show me one that doesn't. What are obviously generalised statements is not stereotyping. This is a brief section, not a full page, on the subject. It cannot do what you ask of it. None of the literature specifies who amongst Christians was a Nazi and who wasn't. I don't even really understand how you think that would be possible. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

+

arbitrary break

In my opinion, the whole discussion has gone into a wrong direction. Instead of spending your time to find additional sources, you have been engaged in speculations. Meanwhile, I found some sources (in addition to those I already presented, see archives) that directly address the issue of connection between the Church and the Nazi state. Thus, Hans Tiefel (The German Lutheran Church and the Rise of National Socialism. Church History, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 326-336) says:

"Official Lutheran support began with Hitler's accession to power and continued till the end of the war, despite the martyrs, the oppression, the war and the rather obvious destructive nature of Nazism. In January, 1934, all the Lutheran bishops affirmed their unconditional loyalty to the new government. They sharply condemned "all intrigues of criticism of the state, nation and (Nazi) movement which might endanger the Third Reich."2 They pledged themselves to support Hitler's Reich-bishop and affirmed their unconditional and unreserved assent to state and party. A Lutheran conference in 1935 concluded that there was no opposition between National Socialism and the proclamation of the church. Opposition could arise only if National Socialism were a new religion which attempted to replace the Christian faith. But since this obviously was not the case, all Christians should gladly meet National Socialist demands as confirmation of their Christian faith."

(@Collect. Anticipating your arguments that the source is 40 years old, let me point your attention that that is not an argument per se: thus, this Einstein's article is even older, which does not make it obsolete.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What about Lutheran opponents of Nazism like the Confessing Church founded by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and included the famous Lutheran figure Martin Niemöller amongst them, who took part in resistance to the Nazis, shouldn't this be mentioned along with the sentences on Lutherans who supported Nazism - this article should not stereotype every Lutheran as a Nazi.--R-41 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

How numerous and active they were? And can their activity be compared with, e.g. Deutsche Christen who advocated an active synthesis of Christianity and Nazism? "Throughout the Third Reich the six hundred thousand, mostly Protestant, lay people and clergy in the movement agitated for a "people's church" based on blood and race." (Doris L. Bergen. "Germany Is Our Mission: Christ Is Our Strength!" The Wehrmacht Chaplaincy and the "German Christian" Movement. Church History, Vol. 66, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 522-536) --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The section explains the emergence of the Confessing Church. It was you, R-41, who removed the statement that it emerged as a counterweight to the German Christian movement. I take it your comment on Niemoller means Bracher's judgement cuts no ice with you. It looks now as if you have succeeded in sending all of us back to square one, undoing a great deal of previous effort to get this article right. Paul, the problem with a source like the Tiefel above is that it is only valid for the German Christians, not for the dissenters. This is a big problem. All sources are partial (and many contradictory). As I discovered while trying to put together a summary of the subject, the printed sources alone are not sufficient to encapsulate the whole. Someone has to plot the general development, while making specific references to illustrate differing positions and viewpoints, However it is done, the result will appear to some extent self-contradictory, which R-41 gave as his justification - "a hyperbole tossed salad of contradictory claims" - for deleting so much of it (even though it stated explicitly that the evidence is often contradictory). Kim Traynor (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we all just sit back for a moment and stop racing to the finish line. The bottom line of what I said was this article should not stereotype every Christian nor every Lutheran as a Nazi. If it is going to delve into the controversial topic of religious support for the Nazis, it should say specifically that there were Christians who supported the Nazis, who tolerated or were indifferent to the Nazis, and who opposed the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The section's title is "Church and state", not "Christians and state", therefore, the question if every Christian was Nazi is simply beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's evading the issue that I have raised. This article is running the risk of stereotyping all Christians including all Lutherans as being Nazis. I suggest that this be brought up to administrators to review, moreover I would like to hear what Lutheran German Wikipedia users would have to say about these claims.--R-41 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish you would stop going on about stereotyping when all that means is that a historical summary necessarily generalises. Yes, it would be interesting to hear from Lutheran Germans, but you know what? I suspect they might be unduly influenced by post-war apologetics and the German need to raise super-patriots like Niemöller (who never regretted torpedoing British ships in the Great War) into resistance heroes. I prefer to rely on the work of dispassionate German historians like Bracher. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to bring up this topic to administrators to ask what should be done. Kim Traynor, I think that you have a strong POV here that is aimed at presenting Christians in Germany as causing Nazism. I believe that that POV is demonstrated by your unwillingness to accept my proposal of having material that shows Christians who supported Nazism along with mentioning those who did not support Nazism. If you think of accusing me of the opposite POV of being a pro-Christian, remember that I am an atheist, I have no interest in defending Christianity.--R-41 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed the issue at the administrators' noticeboard and am asking for advice on how this dispute should be resolved: [4]--R-41 (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. Your contention that I am saying Christians caused Nazism will be received with gales of laughter. The section mentioned both Christians who supported Nazism and those who did not. It was you who removed the balance and put your own gloss on it, namely that I was out to slander Christians. In fact, if you are an atheist, you have little to contribute to the discussion, as it can't mean much to you. I have no desire to misrepresent Christians in the Third Reich. I used the works of historians to state the issues. Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, had to do a great deal of soul-searching after the war to explain the quiescence of their churches during the Nazi period. Anyone trying to block references to that issue does not, in my opinion, understand the subject. You have hurled the accusation against me several times that I have been insulting, but you seem to have a selective blindness when it comes to your own contributions. I could, for example, if I felt so inclined, find your characterization of the section as "a hyperbole tossed salad of contradictory claims", made before any of my responses, an offensive, insulting and combative remark, but it seems clear you do not perceive it as such. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You've really got to stop your combativeness with that Clint Eastwood character's "Go ahead, make my day" kind of attitude, as well as your repeated condescending remarks towards me like how people are going to laugh in my face. Please read these policies: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground and WP:CIVIL.--R-41 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, they may not laugh exactly, if they take the dispute seriously, but they will wonder where on earth you got the idea from that I had stated anywhere that Christians were the cause of Nazism. You are the one who opened hostilities by rubbishing the Church and State section. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You talked about a "Christian propensity to accept Hitler's regime", that's what gave me the idea that you have a strong POV here in viewing Christians as a whole in Germany as proponents of Nazism.--R-41 (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well that's because the section has to address the relations between the Churches and the State in Nazi Germany. It never said that Christians were proponents of Nazism (though the German Christians were). It said that on the whole they accepted the new regime and gave possible reasons why this was so. I can't see how you can possibly argue with that. It also went on to explain the dissent that developed in both mainstream churches, but made it clear that this was very much a minority position. Again, I don't see how you can argue with that. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I have restored everything that you have complained that I removed without consensus. Now that that complaint has been addressed by me restoring the material that you condemned me for removing, I suggest that you stop your combative and condescending behaviour towards me. I have addressed your complaint and frustration, if your combative behaviour continues, then that is a grudge, and I will report it. The content has to be addressed and an RfC on this issue is needed.--R-41 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now if you, or anyone else following this debate, would care to modify the section so that it avoids what you see as crass stereotyping, I think that would be all to the good. You'll find, however. that it is notoriously difficult to state briefly the different currents within the different churches short of creating a full page on the subject. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the things that needs to be clarified is why certain Christians supported the Nazis. Secondly there needs to be clarity on the types of anti-semitism involved here - it is true that Luther wrote anti-Semitic works, but it is also true that Luther did not reject the Old Testament like the Nazis did, I am not aware of Luther denying that Jesus was born from a Jewish mother, and lastly Luther's development of Protestantism relied on him seeking out Hebrew texts. Luther's anti-Semitism was religious anti-Semitism - blaming Jews and Judaism for the death of Jesus. The Nazis' anti-Semitism was racial anti-Semitism - attacking the Jews in their entirety, including attacking the Old Testament. The Nazis supported an Aryanized Christianity that excluded the Old Testament. Now as for why they supported the Nazis, one of the major fears amongst substantial numbers of people in Germany in the early 1930s was communist revolution and communism intends to destroy all religion because it views it as an opiate of the masses - the Nazis played on this fear, and the fear may be a major reason they supported the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I put in a part about how Hitler wanted to reshape the Christian views and added a part as to Ernst Bergmann (philosopher). What else needs to be added is about the Protestant Reich Church, (The German Evangelical Church or Deutsche Evangelische Kirche) and ce work. I don't have time right now but those are my thoughts. Kierzek (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Knowing why people who were nominally Christian voted for the Nazis is very difficult, if not impossible to determine, as every individual had their own reasons. This was discussed previously on the talkpage where I made the point that Protestant East Prussia and Catholic Silesia were overwhelmingly Nazi, not because of religious affiliation but because they were border areas affected by the Treaty of Versailles and high unemployment; and, as you say, fear of communism from the East was widespread, not so much perhaps because it threatened religion, though that would play a part, but because it threatened private property. It is no coincidence that small-town shopkeepers were overproportionately represented in the Nazi Party and the ranks of the SA. It was the undue prominence given to Luther's anti-Semitism in the article which was raised in the first place (mea culpa) as the reason why the Church and State section had to be recast. I am glad to see that relegated. The consensus was that, yes it did have an influence, but that Nazis like Streicher were really using Luther to give their brand of modern racial anti-Semitism an historical legitimacy. Even Luther's anti-Semitism is full of contradictions, as I pointed out at the time. I still think the Thule Society, while intrinsically interesting, is not really in the right place, or even necessary to understanding Church-State relations in the 1930s/40s; and I still find the idea of Luther's anti-Semitism being a blueprint for Kristallnacht utterly absurd - but that's an opinion. Finally, it's good to see the page evolving so soon after the calming of the waters with Kierzek's latest addition. Note, however, that the German Christians are well covered on their own page. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only Nazi movement was inhomogeneous, it was gradually evolving, so non-Christian national-pagans had become more influential by mid 40s. As a result, had Das Dritte Reich been victorious, the logic of development of Nazi ideology would lead to complete rejection of Christianity. However, that does not mean that it was not Christian in the very beginning.

However, we again have deviated from the main point: I suggest to clearly separate "Church and Nazi State" and "Christians and Nazi State" issues. The section should discuss position of main churches (from restrained loyalty to active support) and describe a whole spectrum of attitudes of German Christians to Nazism, from active support ("German Christian"), indifferent (majority of Christians) and opposition (Confessing Church).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul you stated what I was thinking about the section; with that said, I don't think one can talk about "Church and Nazi State" without some inclusion of "Christians and Nazi State"; although we need to focus most on the interplay in relation to Nazism and its ideology; otherwise we will be putting in material more suited for the articles Religion in Nazi Germany or even Nazi Germany. I also have a problem with the sub-section: "Thule Society". A better sub-section would be a brief one on Nordic paganism and how some wanted to use it as a Germany substitute for Christian faith. Then mention the occult, thereby briefly talking about the Thule Society along with occult mythology and symbolism in Nazism. Kierzek (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Another issue I should have pointed out here is that this is about ideology but not the supporters of Nazism. Therefore the main focus should be on the output of Nazism (what religious views it specifically promoted) and aside from material describing ideological influences - it should not be on the input of religious people supporting Nazism. The Nazi Party article should deal with the membership of religious groups, or an article on religious influences on Nazism. This article is about the ideology and what it as a whole promoted - material on religious influences should be reorganized to the sections in this article that describe the influences on Nazism, if they are significant influences.--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I should point out that unlike Catholicism, there was/is no monolithic Protestant Church, but a collection of loosely affiliated churches and the German Christian faction was a relatively small group. Out of 18,000 Protestant pastors in Germany, around 3,000 strongly adhered to German Christian faction, 3,000 strongly adhered to Confessing Church faction, while the remaining 12,000 were not closely affiliated to either faction. Protestant churches were generally split over Nazism so the assertion that there was some kind of "Christian propensity to accept Hitler's regime" is unsupported. The largest Protestant church, Prussian Union of churches was split and the section on Nazi rule in that well referenced article is an enlightening read. As I stated above, scholar Manfred Gailus has written that "mainstream researchers have characterized National Socialism — in terms of a movement, a regime, an ideology — as predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian". Given WP:DUE, we should give that mainstream view its due weight. --Nug (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for your assertions? While it is true that only 20% (!) of pastors were members of the most extreme pro-Nazi group, it does not mean that most pastors did not support the regime. TFD (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

an you conceivably give a source for your apparent assertion that most pastors supported the Nazis? Absent such, it is OR at best, and quite possibly a fringe point of view. Chers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

We are again getting distracted. I made an important point a few comments above, this article is not about the membership to the Nazi party by people of certain religious affiliations - info on that can be put in the Nazi Party article on its membership. This article is about the ideology of Nazism - the article is about the output of Nazism as an ideology. So the primary issue in regards to religion and Nazism is what positions on religion did the Nazis themselves promote as part of their ideology.--R-41 (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I am asking Nug for a source that supports his assertion. I don't have to find a source that his assertion is wrong. TFD (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) Nug gave sufficient reliable sourcing to delink what you wish to link by assertion. Thus it is up to you to provide a scholarly source for your specific assertion if you wish it to be in the article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep out of this discussion for fear of antagonizing any of the participants, but I'd like to make this point. If there is an overall absence of evidence that Lutheran pastors publicly condemned aspects of Nazi policy from their pulpits (for very understandable reasons, and I believe there is), and if there is evidence that they said official prayers for Hitler and the Wehrmacht when Germany was engaged in conquering other countries, and they did, I think that can be construed as support, while recognising it would be as much a result of political pressure and fear as voluntary agreement. Kim Traynor (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am going to repeat what I said above, since users have decided again to go back off topic of the serious issue. Again, here is what I said: We are again getting distracted. I made an important point a few comments above, this article is not about the membership to the Nazi party by people of certain religious affiliations - info on that can be put in the Nazi Party article on its membership. This article is about the ideology of Nazism - the article is about the output of Nazism as an ideology. So the primary issue in regards to religion and Nazism is what positions on religion did the Nazis themselves promote as part of their ideology.--R-41 (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect, I did not make a specific assertion (your emphasis), rather I asked Nug to provide a source for his assertion. Misrepresenting other editors comments is disruptive. TFD (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding alleged Nug's "sufficient reliable sourcing", you might be interested to compare this:

scholar Manfred Gailus has written that "mainstream researchers have characterized National Socialism — in terms of a movement, a regime, an ideology — as predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian""

with this:

"In his introduction he (Steigmann-Gall) notes correctly that, to date, mainstream researchers have characterized National Socialism — in terms of a movement, a regime, an ideology — as predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian. Meanwhile, however, more recent studies have shown how heavily permeated and partially dominated by National Socialist ideas and the National Socialist disposition the main denominations were — Catholicism to a lesser extent, Protestantism more so in the form of the ‘German Christians’. Starting from these well-founded research conclusions, Steigmann-Gall claims to extend these findings."

The part of quote that was taken out of context is underlined. That is a good example of selective quotation: as we can see, the author's point is that the thesis about non-Christianity of Nazism has been challenged by many authors during last 15 year, the point Nug seems to ignore.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

For the third time I will say, now specifically to TFD and Collect, that discussing membership religious people in the Nazi Party is not going to help here. This is about the ideology of Nazism and the positions on religion that Nazism promoted are what is relevant here. Now what Paul Siebert has referenced is more relevant to this article - discussing what the ideology's positions on religion were.--R-41 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not in fact "discussing membership religious people", but objecting to another editor's misrepresentation of my comments. I notice that you posted a message on my talk page about this but not on that of the other editor. TFD (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot, but I guess you mention that to make you feel better to tell everyone that I made a mistake in forgetting to tell Collect and to insinuate that I am in cahoots with Collect - whom I often disagree with - and strongly disagree with at that, rather than getting back on topic as I suggested, that I thought you as an administrator would be able to do.--R-41 (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul is talking nonsense. Manfred Gailus clearly states what the mainstream scholarly viewpoint is, that "National Socialism — in terms of a movement, a regime, an ideology — was predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian", and confirms that Steigmann-Gall correctly notes that. Gailus then goes on to mention more recent studies about the degree of permeation of Nazi ideology into some churches. So in other words, recent studies have shown that a "predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian" ideology permeated and partially dominated the Church. --Nug (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin, I request you to apologize. You have been caught in flagranti: I demonstrated how, by taking Gailus' phrase out of context, you misinterpreted it, and instead of apologies you declare that I am talking nonsence. In addition, since you have an access to the full text of the Gailus' article, you perfectly realise that the major author's idea is not anti-Christianity or non-Christianity of Nazism, but gradual drift from Christianity to Aryal Paganism. However, Galius totally agrees about " the presence and effectiveness of National Socialist Christians, particularly in the Protestant milieu". Regarding "anti-Christian" ideology of the Church (btw, are you sure you are not talking nonsense?), let me remind you that the section we discuss is not "Christianity and state", but "Church and state".--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Martin, your selective snipping of Gailus's quote completely warped the context it was placed in; Paul is right. And Paul—"Aryal Paganism" was never as dominant a force as is sometimes claimed. Hitler himself disdained it, regarding it as "mediaeval" and a potential hindrance to German progress. The later Nazi political apparatus can be more correctly regarded as 'secular' (Bormann is a good example of such a persona within the party), but Christianity had not totally faded to the sidelines. But an "explicitly anti-Christian" movement does not gain the sort of traction that the Nazis did in a country like Germany, where the religion has always been strong despite paganist/atheist intellectual currents. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Gailus didn't say paganism was dominant. He says: "The dynamic of the 'new faith', predominantly non-Christian, only began to unfold in the later years of the regime, particularly from the early astonishing war successes to the turning point of the war in 1942/43", in other words, he speaks just about a trend.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, I respectfully disagree. Gailus makes a distinction between Nazi ideology and Christianity, and his assertion that the mainstream view is that Nazi ideology is predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian is not warped by the secondary notion that this Nazi ideology subsequently infiltrated into both Protestism and Catholicism. Paul's "Regarding "anti-Christian" ideology of the Church (btw, are you sure you are not talking nonsense?)" indicates he does not see any distinction between Nazi and Christian belief systems and thus reads this into what Gailus writes. Paul's claim that Gailus is saying "non-Christianity of Nazism has been challenged by many authors during last 15 year" is simply misleading as his contention of some kind of drift from Christianity to paganism as if the two were part of the same continuum. Instead what Gailus is discussing is the "dual faith" of German Christians. The "Christian" aspect derived from the petty bourgeois upbringing of all the Nazis that were of a generation born between 1880 and 1910, and the Nazis' "völkisch-political faith movement" aspect, both existing side by side, with the former atrophying while the latter coming to dominate. --Nug (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The statement that, in your opinion, demonstrates my inability to see a difference between Nazi and Christian belief was: " Regarding "anti-Christian" ideology of the Church (btw, are you sure you are not talking nonsense?), let me remind you that the section we discuss is not "Christianity and state", but "Church and state" " In connection to that, let me remind you that that statement contained no mention of Nazi belief at all. You just type some random words to create a visibility of your participation in a discussion. How can you speak about "Nazi and Christian beliefs" if Nazism and Christianity were quite different categories? That phrase is a pure nonsense, similar to "Women and chessplayer's belief", "Scientists and Caucasians belief", "Muslim and mojahedin belief"...--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you think it is pure nonsense, but the fact remains that the mainstream academic viewpoint is that National Socialism was predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian, while viewpoints like Steigmann-Gall's remain minority viewpoints. --Nug (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Coming here from AN/I, I see much in the way of nasty bickering, but comparatively little in the way of actual discussion of reliable sources. I have recently done some research into the "Luther-Hitler" connection and the dynamics between Christianity and Nazism during the Third Reich, and am inclined to side more with Kim on the basis of what I have read. I will provide a list of some of the sources later (I am away from my main computer at the moment). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here are a few sources that should be of use here. The print sources are no longer in my possession (library books), but I'll try to get my hands back on them ASAP:

• Bergen, Doris L. "Collusion, Resistance, Silence: Protestants and the Holocaust." The Holocaust and the Christian World. Ed. Carol Rittner, Stephen D. Smith, Irena Steinfeldt, and Yehuda Bauer. New York: Continuum, 2000. 48-54.
• Michael, Robert. Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
• Steigmann-Gall, Richard. The Holy Reich : Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
• Steigmann-Gall, Richard. "Christianity and the Nazi Movement: A Response." Journal of Contemporary History, 42.2 (2007): 185-211. JSTOR

Of these, Steigmann-Gall's and Michael's are probably the best; the first source is kind of an "illustrated history". I have some more on Luther specifically, but those won't be of too much use here. I'll keep rooting around, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

For the fourth time. Discussing individual Nazi members' stances and numbers of members is not what this article should be addressing. We should be talking about what Nazism as an ideology promoted as positions on religion. Not about the membership of religious people in the Nazi Party - that can be discussed in a section on membership on the Nazi Party article. This article is about the ideology of Nazism, not the membership of the Nazi Party. Focus on Nazi ideology's positions on religion.--R-41 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Problem is, the Nazi stance on religion/Christianity is not easy at all to nail down in a pure, dissociated form. Steigmann-Gall in Holy Reich notes a significant degree of factionalism within the Party itself—"Deutsche Christen" vs neo-pagans predominantly—and the interplay/conflict between these two groups coloured the Nazi religious stance to a significant degree. Hitler's complex role in these struggles is also key. When discussing the Nazi stance on religion, the time needs to be disambiguated as well—there were pronounced differences from the beginning to the middle to the end of the regime. There isn't one hard and fast answer, I'm afraid, even if we are talking about "pure ideology". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

EXACTLY. I challenge the pro-Christian faction here to show an example of the Nazi Party publicly promoting the worship of Odin, Thor, Freya, et.al. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of the Nazi Party promoting Christianity. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 01:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As no one here has made any such claim, asking anyone to prove it is fatuous. Your assertion that the Nazis promoted Christianity is, unfortunately, belied by reliable sources. Nazis, like all governing parties, sought to have as little overt dissent as possible - but to assert that those who did not stick their necks out were Nazis is also inane as a position. Per scolarly consensus, as it turns out. Collect (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

But many of "you" (plural, meaning the "Pro-Christian" contingent on this page) have promoted the idea that the Nazis promoted some form of "Neo-Paganism," which seems to be a nebulous concept that none of you wish to define, nor is it in any way similar to the term "Neo-Paganism" as it is used in the English language (as in, the religions based on the worship of deities like Odin, Thor, Freya, etc., or other pantheons...). On the other hand, there was a concerted effort to promote the Nazis' own specific "brand" of Christianity, as with Positive Christianity. To deny that the Nazis' version of Christianity, which was certainly promoted by the Party, government, and Hitler himself, is actually "Christianity," is nothing but a No true Scotsman logical fallacy, and no more logical an argument than asserting that Mitt Romney is not a "Christian," because his sect is not mainstream either. You can say that the Nazis were against "mainstream" Christianity to an extent, but to claim that they did not promote their own version of it, in its place...is deliberate misinformation, and contrary to all RS. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Nazis' own specific "brand" of Christianity, Positive Christianity, was just a 'sleight of hand’ born of political opportunism calculated to deceive those Germans brought up in the Christian tradition, that is the mainstream scholarly viewpoint. What you state represent a minority viewpoint proposed by Steigmann-Gall. While Hitler thought that Christianity was of utilitarian benefit to the regime in that it helped mothers and wives grieving the loss of their sons and husbands in battle, the Nazis had every intention of entirely replacing it with a pagan style völkisch-political faith movement after their anticipated victorious conclusion of the war. --Nug (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If you compare, e.g. Calvinist and Armenian monophysit Christianity, you will see that each Christianity is just a specific "brand". I expect you to provide a source (and an extended quote from it) to demonstrate that Positive Christianity was invented to deceive Germans, and that that is a majority viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "every intention of entirely replacing it with a pagan style": Uh, no. Just no. The paganists were just one faction within the party—and a faction for whom Hitler had no real love for, characterising the movement as having a "mediaeval" mentality and being a hindrance to German progress. Kudos to Bryonmorrigan for pointing out No True Scotsman: that is exactly what is going on here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Paul, we have discussed this extensively before in April here, I provided a quote from Bergen: "Most scholars dismiss ‘positive Christianity’ as nothing but an opportunistic slogan coined to conceal nazism’s intrinsic hostility toward Christianity and the Churches". Why are you pretending you don't remember this? --Nug (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, you seem to be attributing a lot of weight to Steigmann-Gall, however we discussed him in April and the conclusion was that his viewpoint is a controversial minority viewpoint, and thus should be accorded due weight of a minority viewpoint. Bryonmorrigan's view is based upon his own opinion, the view I describe is attributable to published sources. --Nug (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read that archived thread, I don't think such a solid conclusion as you claim was made there. Steigmann-Gall's conclusions are certainly controversial, but he notes in the response article that reception has been generally positive; I don't see any reason why Babik's criticism should be regarded as unassailable or final (as you seem to treat it there). Historians have their works responded to and criticised—that's just how it works ;). I could see S-G's work as being classed as a "minority" because of how recent it is, as a newer work that has broken from the seated establishment. Furthermore, I think we need to use precise terminology: "pagan" should not be used to generically describe groups and movements that are non- or anti-Christian (like these kids do); this isn't the 1500s. The term should strictly be used to apply to those espousing that peculiar breed of revived Germanic mythology, like Rosenberg or Himmler (both of whom, incidentally, had considerable respect for Luther in spite of their anti-Christianity). Otherwise, use "non-" or "anti-Christian" (or "-clerical" as the case may be) to avoid confusion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

...and frankly, a lot of the outdated "sources" for the claims of the Pro-Christian faction here are reliant upon the (now debunked) fakery of Trevor-Roper's edition of Hitler's Table Talk, or upon other examples of the private thoughts of various Nazi Party members. These opinions are NOT, however, based on Nazi policies, which were very much pro-Christian. Here's an example:

"According to the principles governing the compilation of this list, the following publications must be removed from public and commercial lending libraries: (...) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk." (Stadtbibliothek Koblenz, 1993; pp. 5-7)

Yeah, they totally hated Christianity.  :::eyeroll::: Furthermore, relying upon private opinions, rather than public policy is a completely and totally ridiculous way to examine historical events. For example, in modern American politics, there have been multiple instances where it turns out that many outspoken Christian Conservatives who speak against homosexuals are later "caught" in a scandal where there own homosexual behavior comes to light. Using the same "logic" being used to claim that the Nazis were "anti-Christian," one would then have to conclude that American Christian Conservatives are really pro-homosexuality, because, in opposition to their public policies, many of them secretly are homosexuals. Do you see how absurd this is? Futhermore, the pro-Christian faction really needs to take heed to Lothar's words regarding terms like "Pagan" (or "Neo-Paganism") here. As I've pointed out repeatedly, and Lothar has reiterated, you are not using that word in a scholarly fashion. There is no evidence whatsoever of the Nazi government promoting anything like "Neo-Paganism," and your attempts to create such fictions is clearly OR. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Byron, your constant reliance on US politics to support your arguments is not of any benefit here, as it is just OR. Your contention that the Nazis were "very much pro-Christian" is simply you personal (minority) opinion. Scholarly sources tell us otherwise: for example Doris L. Bergen: "Most scholars dismiss ‘positive Christianity’ as nothing but an opportunistic slogan coined to conceal nazism’s intrinsic hostility toward Christianity and the Churches"^{(Nazism and Christianity: Partners and Rivals? A Response to Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945, Journal of Contemporary History January 2007 vol. 42 no. 1 25-33, doi: 10.1177/0022009407071629)}. Comprende? --Nug (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

All she's dismissing is the concept of "Positive Christianity," which she views as disingenuous, which it probably was...(as least much as "Christian Identity" is a way to "justify" racism and anti-Semitism, and opposition to gay marriage is just a way to "justify" Homophobia and Christian Dominionism...). This does not change the fact that Nazi policies were extremely pro-Christian, as I've shown through RS. One could easily make the case that ALL government-sponsored religion is "opportunistic," and not based on true religious feeling...especially in the case of Conservative Islamists like Osama bin Laden...but that doesn't mean that he/they weren't promoting their own "brand" of Islam. Oh yeah, and you still haven't shown any RS whatsoever backing up these tired fringe theories of the Nazis promoting "Neo-Paganism," sport...which more aptly belong on sensationalist shows on the "History" Channel, right between "Ancient Aliens" and some nonsense about Nostradamus. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 21:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Might you kindly provide a scholarly reliable source for the Nazis being "extremely pro-Christian"? I rather think that one is a long stretch from being more than a fringe view, at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Plenty have been provided, like Steigmann-Gall, and you know it. Their laws and policies were pro-Christian. You cannot dispute this, so instead you promote wacky fringe theories about the Nazis secretly promoting some form of undefined "Neo-Paganism," mostly based on debunked forgeries and other nonsense. You can't refute anything I've written...but plenty of evidence has been presented (by me and others) showing that Nazi policy was decidedly pro-Christian. I even showed where the Nazi policy was to burn or remove books from libraries that even CRITICIZED Christianity! LOL. Your responses are always essentially, "But so-and-so said privately that he hated Christianity!" which is nothing but a red herring argument, and of no use whatsoever.

February 1, 1933, in Hitler's first radio address to the German people, he pledged that the new Nazi government "would preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life."

--Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) Nope. You can provide some minor views saying some policies were "pro-Christian" (though there are sources suggesting the "pro-Christian" part was analogous to the USSR guarantee of "freedom of religion" in that constitution) but your sources do not support the overreaching claim you made of them being "extremely pro-Christian" especially since so many sources argue the contrary point of view. Meanwhile, kindly note that I have advanced zero wacky fringe theories and your wording is perilously close to being a blatant violation of WP:NPA to boot. Cheers, Collect (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Collect: Sorry, I mixed you up with "Nug," because you jumped into the conversation where he had been responding to me. It is "Nug," and other pro-Chrisian editors on this page, who are primarily advancing the "wacky fringe theories" of some kind of never-defined "Neo-Pagan" faith having been promoted by the Nazis...which is of no more merit than the idea that there is a secret Nazi base on the moon, where they plot their triumphant return to Earth via their fleet of flying saucers. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

You should apologize to Nug as well then - making personal attacks is not proper behaviour on any Wikipedia page. I would suggest you take some time off and reconsider your apparent belief that disparaging others makes you somehow a "good editor" per the Five Pillars. Collect (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(1) Where was the "personal attack"? I attacked a position, not a person. (2) I apologized for attributing this position to you, not because I thought my behavior was "bad." I stand firm in the belief that absurd positions should be met with ridicule, because treating them as "valid" positions gives them recognition that they do not deserve. (And I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I've seen you behave in the same manner in the past...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

I think we can agree that Hitler could not openly attack Christianity as has been stated. He chose a course of skewing the theology to match his and the Party's ideology (through men like Bergmann, Alfred Rosenberg and a much lesser degree, Ludwig Müller (theologian)); by putting de facto pressure/persecution on main-line churches and a certain amount of tolerance.

With that said, it is true that many churches in the 1930's did believe Hitler saved Germany from the God-less Communists/Bolsheviks. So that needs inclusion. Then briefly the Thule Society should be mentioned, as I said above; but it should not have a whole sub-section. Then we could mention the German Nordic paganism put forth by people like Rosenberg and Himmler. They did not have great success gaining true believers' and it was not officially adopted but what was officially adopted was the use by the Nazi Party/Nazi State of many mystical/Nordic symbols and the country did celebrate certain pagan holidays. Rosenberg and others had greater success with the promotion of Positive Christianity, as editor Bryonmorrigan points out above. That goes back to the skewing the theology to match Nazism/German National ideology. As the war went on many more churches and pastors were persecuted by the Nazis as the churches became involved in greater subversion. Kierzek (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Although listing religious membership numbers and individual members won't help, I suppose a brief mention on the Nazis' stances on membership may help. Could we summarize what has been said in that the Nazi ideology in Germany officially vouched for Germans to support Positive Christianity, but that they also officially accepted Catholic and Protestant denominations and atheists (as shown by Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess' decree on October 13, 1933, stating that: "No National Socialist may suffer any detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all."). Also in 1943, Hitler issued a decree that authorized Muslim Germans to be allowed into the party [5]. (I am not mentioning the last point out of some Islamophobic remark, but noting it alongside others to show the diversity of what was permissible by the Nazis).--R-41 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Nazis were not anti-religion so long as it supported national socialist goals, just anti-Christian because of its roots in Judaism. As quoted by Gailus, Goebbels wrote in December 1941:

"The Führer has the highest regard for Japanese religiosity which is equal in importance to genuine Japanesedom. How regrettable that we don’t have something similar. Because of its constitution and spiritual structure our brand of Christianity will always be opposed to a strongly nationalistic attitude. Its whole essence is, after all, predetermined by Judaism. A religion which proceeds from the basic principle that we must love our enemies, not kill, and turn the right cheek when we have been struck on the left one is not suited as a virile example for defending the Fatherland."

--Nug (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As a rule, most regimes, except the clerical ones, were religious so long as it supported their goals. It is not surprising that Nazism was not an exception. I do not understand the idea you are trying to convey.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We should be addressing what the Nazis promoted in their ideology, not the personal opinions of Adolf Hitler unless those personal opinions directly affected positions of the ideology of Nazism.--R-41 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We should be using sources about Nazi ideology rather than for example Nug presenting quotes from Herman GoeringGoebbel's (which is a primary source). We are not here to collectively develop our own theory of nazism, but must present mainstream thinking. TFD (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

TFD, how about you take the time to read before responding, you may then make a useful contribution. I'm quoting from Gailus who is quoting Goebbels, not Herman Goering. --Nug (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It is the same thing. You are quoting a primary source (Goebbels' words) not a secondary source (Gailus's comments). The fact that his comments were reported somewhere else does not elevate them to a secondary source. So you read Goebbels and develop an original view on Nazi ideology. Please read policies on OR and SYN - we are not supposed to do that. TFD (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The personal opinions of individual Nazi members (regardless of their rank) on religion are not relevant here, unless there are secondary sources that specifically demonstrate the significance of those opinions to the positions of the ideology of Nazism. The following is a repeat of what I said above that did not receive much acknowledgement. Nazi ideology in Germany officially vouched for Germans to support Positive Christianity, but that they also officially accepted Catholic and Protestant denominations and atheists (as shown by Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess' decree on October 13, 1933, stating that: "No National Socialist may suffer any detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all." - Source: Baynes, Norman H. ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. 1. New York: Howard Fertig, p. 378.). Also in 1943, Hitler issued a decree that authorized Muslim Germans to be allowed into the party [6]. (I am not mentioning the last point out of some Islamophobic remark, but noting it alongside others to show the diversity of what was permissible by the Nazis). To Nug and TFD: before making a response to each other, please consider what I have written here.--R-41 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Both Michael and Steigmann-Gall discuss the views of individual Nazi figures as representative of the sectarian divides within Nazism. The views of major leaders are relevant here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is the output of Nazism as an ideology, not the internal divisions of membership of the Nazi Party: what Nazism as an ideology promoted on religion. The views of major leaders need to be demonstrated to have clearly influenced the positions of Nazism, as demonstrated by reliable secondary sources.--R-41 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely. The Nazi ideological position on religion varied over time and from group to group. It is difficult, if not impossible, to pin down one unified view. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If there was no unified position at all on religion promoted by the ideology, then it seems irrelevent to describe opinions of Nazi leaders that did not become positions and policies of Nazism. However there is one religious theme that Nazism is known to have promoted, Positive Christianity. Outside of that promotion and the well-known persecution of Jews and Jehovah's Witnesses, what sums up the rest of the position on religion, appears to be Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess' decree on October 13, 1933: "No National Socialist may suffer any detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all." - Source: Baynes, Norman H. ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. 1. New York: Howard Fertig, p. 378.--R-41 (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(out) We need to restrict this article to ideology, explaining origins and the degree to which it influenced policies. From my reading, there are disagreements over what constituted nazi ideology, it altered over time, there were internal differences and inconsistencies and contradictions. Some elements were more important than others. Hess's statement about religious freedom cannot be considered to be part of the ideology unless we have sources that say it was. TFD (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But the pro-Christian faction on this discussion will never allow it, because the only argument that they have is to rely on private, personal statements of individuals...rather than ideology, policies, or actions taken by the Nazis as a whole. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

No faction on anything can push its way around here and "never allow" something to happen, Bryonmorrigan, we have Wikipedia policies and administrators to deal with such disruptive behaviour if it happens. Let's focus on what we do know. TFD has made an accurate critique about my comment about Hess' decree, I do not have evidence that it substantially affected Nazism as an ideology and could not find any, so I will retract further mentioning of it. What we do know however is that the Nazis promoted Positive Christianity - a "Nazi-fied" Protestant Christianity as a preferred alternative to mainstream Protestant and Catholic Christianity, but we also know that the Nazis created a concordat with the Catholic Church. Still evidence is needed to demonstrate whether the concordat with the Catholic Church was an ideological stance or a pragmatic political decision - it might be ideological since the Nazis sought the unity of Germans.--R-41 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazism#Church and state is almost entirely about the relationship between the Nazi regime and churches. But "The historical roots of nazi ideology" does not mention views on religion at all.[7] We are blurring the line between ideology and actions. We need to use sources specifically about nazi ideology, otherwise it is just OR. If we mention religion, we need to say something like, "although nazi ideology did not deal with religion, in practice they were pro/anti-Christian and supported/opposed by the main churches" (whatever the sources claim). But again we need sources that connect their religious policies with their ideology. TFD (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Addition of sources to review and claim of POV reasoning for the inclusion of those sources

Here is a prominent source on the subject at hand that is available on Google Books that all users here should take a look through: Richard Steigmann-Gall. The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

• Steigmann-Gall states in the intro that Chapters 1 and 2 discuss Nazi religious views that were hard to reconcile with Christianity, such as the Nazis ending confessional schools and the Nazis' opposition to the Old Testament. Chapter 3 discusses the "paganists" within the Nazi movement as well as those who were explicitly anti-Christian. The author says that the first three chapters analyze the "text" of Nazism, while the subsequent three chapters analyze the "action" of Nazism. Chapter 4 analyses how major policies fit into the Christian framework - including analysis both Christian and anti-Christian policies, Chapter 5 discusses how the Nazis sought to form a "Protestant Reich Church" to unite the splintered state churches under a single Reich Bishop, it notes the strongly anti-Catholic policies of the Nazis, it also notes the suppression of Christian movements such as the Confessing Church. Chapter 6 investigates claims by the Nazis that they were following a Christian ethic in their social policies.--R-41 (talk) 01:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Two other books available on Google Books that should be reviewed by users here: J. S. Conway. The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Regent College Publishing, 2001 (original: Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ryerson University, 1968). It is self explanatory about what this book covers. And there is this book: Hans Maier. Totalitarianism and Political Religions, Volume 1: concepts for the comparison of dictatorships. Oxon, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2004. This book focuses talks about Nazism as itself being a religion. I am only including sources made by academic institutions or in the case of the Routledge books - publishers that print works of professional academic historians.--R-41 (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You are blurring the distinction between nazi ideology and nazi government. None of your sources discuss nazi ideology. TFD (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The first book specifically discusses Nazi ideology involving religion in the first three chapters, the other three chapters discuss Nazi policies in action. The other two books I mentioned I included because they are prominent academic sources that included material focused specifically on issues of religion in relation to Nazism.--R-41 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazi Persecution does not discuss nazi ideology. Also why are you presenting an obscure book published in 1968? Instead of searching for sources that support your POV, you should use mainstream sources and reflect what they say. Please read WP:WEIGHT - we are supposed to figure out what are mainstream views and present them, not make articles present our personal opinions. TFD (talk) 03:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That's it TFD, I've had it! Out of the blue you suddenly and ignorantly accuse me of POV-pushing for presenting three sources with no evidence of what the POV is that I am pushing!!! Explain to me exactly what POV I am pushing here with the presentation of those three sources. Those sources contain different views. I get it, you're cynical from being on Wikipedia for years, but you don't have the right to make callous accusations based merely on your cynical gut-instinct.--R-41 (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As you have pointed out, nazi ideology and administration are two separate things. Experts may examine administration when they are determining what nazi ideology was, but for us to do that is original research. If religion was a major component of the ideology then you should be able to find an article about nazi ideology that says that. A book about the relationship between the nazi state and the churches does not do that. We cannot assume that nazi policies on the churches reflected ideology rather than for example pragmatism. TFD (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You have no evidence of POV-pushing that you accused me of when I presented the three sources. Rescind the accusation of POV-pushing.--R-41 (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of POV pushing. TFD (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Also why are you presenting an obscure book published in 1968? Instead of searching for sources that support your POV, you should use mainstream sources and reflect what they say sure reads like an accusation, TFD. Collect (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The term POV-pushing is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular POV in an article and generally does not apply to talk page discussions. Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing. TFD (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Cut out the legalistic technicality nonsense, TFD, that's Wikilawyering. You clearly accused me of selecting those sources to promote a POV. You have no evidence of any POV that I was promoting from the sources I provided. Rescind the accusation and stop evading the fact that you made a mistake in accusing me of something with no evidence.--R-41 (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, "POV-pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article". In my opinion, nobody can be absolutely neutral, and the choice of source is affected by the POV we have. That is normal, and the real or perceived mistake in selection of sources is not POV pushing per se. Therefore, I am not sure TFD accused you of "aggressive presentation". I believe the issue can be easily resolved if TFD explained why the sources used by R-41 are, in their opinion, non-mainstream. Accordingly, if the viewpoint R-41 supports is, in his opinion, mainstream, it is quite possible to find more sources on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

TFD made an inappropriate evidence-less allegation against me that I selected those three sources that I presented for others to review to support a POV. The accusation is false, I selected several academic sources that presented either different interpretations from each other or indepth scholarly investigation into multiple claims. This is what TFD said "Also why are you presenting an obscure book published in 1968? Instead of searching for sources that support your POV, you should use mainstream sources and reflect what they say". The allegation of POV is inaccurate and evidence-less. Dismissing my valid complaint of an evidence-less and thus inappropriate accusation based on a technicality is Wikilawyering. TFD should rescind the accusation that I selected those three sources, that I presented here for others to review, to support a POV; because it is evidence-less and thus inappropriate and because it could influence other users here.--R-41 (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, the problem is more complex than you think. How can you be sure your search was neutral? In actuality, to make totally neutral search sometimes is rather difficult for purely technical reasons (I myself am currently trying to find out what is a mainstream view on that account, and the gscholar results I obtained give no clear picture). In this concrete case, the fact that you have some POV (we all are somewhat biased), and TFD has somewhat different POV is very beneficial for the article, because two competing POVs may result in creation of good and neutral content. Of course, that is possible only if both parties act in good faith and respect each other. Until the very last moment that was the case, so I suggest you to forget about somewhat awkward word choice by TFD and return to respectful discussion. In actuality, e.g., when you type "nazi ideology" OR "ideology of Nazism" Church you get about 5,500 results, and you have no other choice than to select few of them. Obviously, selection of sources is affected by you POV, and that is normal. Therefore, the question is not if you selected or not (obviously you did), but if your selection was correct or not. Therefore, the best way to resolve the issue is not to request TFD to retract anything, by to request them to explain why, in TFD's opinion, the sources provided by you are obscure and not mainstream (and what sources are mainstream, in their opinion, and why).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That's Wikilawyering based on technicality and excuses of vague interpretations of what POV accusations mean in Wikipedia to justify an evidence-less and thus inappropriate accusation that could influence discussion in a misleading manner. Accusing a user of posting sources to support a POV implies that the user is deliberately attempting to manipulate discussions in a way to support a specific position. If TFD or you believe that I posted those sources with such intentions, then either present evidence for exactly what the POV was in my presentation of those sources that I posted for others to review, or if you are unable to present evidence for it then rescind the accusation. This could have been and still could be easily resolved by TFD simply admitting that he/she made a mistake in accusing me of posting those three sources for review for other users in order to support a POV. If it stays without evidence, then it means that TFD is not upholding responsibility for posting misleading material about the contributions and their intentions. It is irresponsible and unacceptable for a user to make accusations that could affect another user or their contributions and perceptions by other users, without having evidence to support those accusations, that is why I am asking for TFD to specifically rescind the accusation here.--R-41 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, one thing I do accept is that I often talk too much. So to cut this short, I will not respond to any further claims of technicality or excuses that are examples of Wikilawyering used to justify the evidence-less and thus inappropriate accusation that I deliberately selected specific sources to promote a POV. Options for TFD: present the evidence, rescind the accusation, or hide and say nothing/make excuses. I guarantee TFD that if he/she chooses the third option I will within reason lose respect for TFD's ethics, as up to this event I thought TFD was a conscientious and responsible user.--R-41 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I cannot tell anything about TFD, however, with regard to myself, I believe that you (and well as I myself, TFD, and all other users) are non-neutral, and your choice of sources is affected by your non-neutrality. That is normal, and I myself have similar problems. That is very good, because if several competing viewpoints clash that may result in significant article's improvement. The only thing we need for that is a polite discussion where everyone treats arguments from each other seriously. As a rule, when I appear to be accused of selective choice of sources I respond with the detailed description of the procedure I used to find those sources. For example, I provide a link to the gscholar search results that would allow anyone to make sure that I took the most relevant sources from the beginning of list, and didn't miss anything significant that contradicts to the viewpoint I defend. In any event, I do not treat accusations in searching for sources that support my POV as accusation of POV pushing, just as a notion about possible flaws in my search procedure. Of course, the accusation in deliberate attempting to manipulate discussions is quite a different story, however, I am not sure that was a TFD's intention (it it was, they should to apologise).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

PS. Thus, instead of unproductive accusations of Wikilawyering, you could respond, for example, that the Conway's book you refer to got at least 6 reviews (based on jstor), one of which (The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-45 by J. S. Conway Review by: R. G. L. Waite The American Historical Review, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Oct., 1969), pp. 152-154) says:

"This fair-minded book is, nevertheless, the most comprehensive, balanced, and complete study in any language on church-state relations during the Third Reich "

Therefore, by no means the book that got a positive review in such a respectable journal is "obscure". (Although that does not address the TFD's argument that the book is old).

That would be a productive way to conduct discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

(out) I have explained my position several times and instead of expressing disagreement with my views, R-41 keeps asking me to present my views. For the sake of Paul Siebert and anyone else who does not want to read through numerous postings, I will present my position again.

Several authors have written about nazi ideology, as opposed to the nazi party or the nazi government. R-41 says this article is about nazi ideology not the nazi party or the nazi government. From what I have read, religion was not an important part of the ideology and is barely mentioned in articles about nazi ideology. If I am wrong, then R-41 should be able to provide an article about nazi ideology, which he has not done.

R-41 has however presented a number of sources for the religion section, including the 1968 book The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945. But that book is not about ideology but about specific actions taken by the nazi party when they were in power. If we use this source then we are implying in the article than there was a connection between religion or opposition to religion and nazi ideology, even though no sources make that connection. I would also question using a source that old because the new "consensus theory" of fascism was developed later and may influence scholar's views of nazism, which they consider to be a form of fascism.

I do not have a specific view on nazi ideology, whether one existed, what its elements were, what its sources were and what effect it had on policy. We need sources for that and we need to address the probability that scholars are divided on the subject. We should not ourselves decide what the ideology was by extracting information from party pronouncements and government actions. That is the role of scholars and our role is to report what they say.

BTW lots of books get good reviews.

TFD (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That is not evidence that I deliberately and intentionally posted those sources to support a POV, TFD, as you clearly indicated in your statement that I was intending to do. You cannot even describe what POV I have based on those sources. I see now TFD that you mixed an attempt to do option 1 (evidence) with option 3 (excuses). I held you in esteem as a conscientious and respectable user in the past, I am deeply disappointed with your failure to admit that you have no evidence that I selected those sources to support a POV, and that you would rather choose to be defensive, make up excuses, and evade the issue of your accusation, rather than simply address that you made a mistake - that would have been slightly embarassing for you, but it would have been responsible, instead you have decided to uphold your sense of honour by refusing to acknowledge your mistake and thus being unethical.--R-41 (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you don't care about posting evidence-less accusations against me, I am making three requests of you, TFD: (1) Never accuse me without evidence of pushing material to promote POV again, if you make such an evidence-less accusation against me again, I will report you that time and will recall this incident as another example of where you have done this; (2) Do not post on my talk page, nor talk with me beyond responding to this post, for at least one month, I am in no mood to talk with you on any level other than the most minimal level on material for articles; (3) Do not play up your frustration with me, you are in no position to complain, you accused me of something with no real evidence to back it up and have refused to admit that it was a mistake, and I do take this seriously because you sought to delegmtimize my good-intentioned contribution because of your cynical gut instinct of me promoting POV. I seriously believe that this was a violation of ethics on your part and reveals a sense of contempt and disrespect towards me by you.--R-41 (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

TDF has been reported before for accusing others of promoting a particular POV, in this case he received a warning, in this case case he was facing a 3 month block before apologising and promised not to do it again. --Nug (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)