Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

paper-hanger

It is commonly said that AH was a paper-hanger. I think the Wik article should let readers know if this is true or not. 08:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)~

Moustache

I've heard a rumour that Adolf Hitler copied the style of his moustache from Charles Chaplin, whom he admired as a director and actor. Is this true? JIP | Talk 16:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That is highly improbable, because Chaplin himself copied Hitler's mustache on one of his movies where he parodies Hitler. Cockneyite 13:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The mustache was popular among British officers in WWI. It was never popular among Germans. Perhaps it is another case of Hitler admiring the British. Drogo Underburrow 15:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Hitler ever admired the British. The main reason for him having the moustache was to follow the advise of one of this advisors who told him that all great leaders had a distinctive facial feature. This information is from the film: Hitler: The Rise of Evil. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the Hitler imitated Chaplin as well, though I am not sure how reliable the info is. It is quite possible that Hitler copied the moustache of this famous actor as his "distinctive facial feature" - Chaplin clearly sported his moustache years before Hitler and from what I heard the similiarity of the beard actually contributed to CC's decision to satirize Hitler. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Chaplin was also British. Siva's doubts aside, I think a likely explanation is that both Chaplin and Hitler chose a look that was fashionable in British society at the time.

It was never about fashion. In fact at the time Hitler was a soldier in WWI the popular style was a large curved "imperial that dominated the face, and there are old pictures of hitler with this mustache. When gas was used as a weapon, any facial hair could allow gas to creep under the mask, therefore all soldiers shaved their facial hair, though many kept a small strip of hair under their nose which did not interfere with the function of a gas mask. The reason he kept it in that style was that it proved his heroism in the first world war. What we make fun of today was a symbol of heroism and military service. The idea that Chaplin had anything to do with it is just stupid. Angrynight 04:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Authenticity of accounts of Hitler's religious views

Giovanni33 justifed adding a qualifier to my edit that Hitler often criticized Christianity in private by nothing that their authenticity is questioned. He does not know the sources. True, there are many anti-Christian statements in Hitler's table talk, and questions are raised about them, but I didn not cite them. There are also many statements in Goebbels diaries, the authenticity of which are not questioned. And the source I added is a quotation from the early years of Hitler's rule, long before the table talk. And there are others as well. In short there is more than ample evidence, from numerous reliable sources, that Hitler often criticized the Christianity. I've therefore reverted to my original. Bytwerk 11:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I added "by some accounts" to qualify and reflect that Hitler's alleged private "anti-Christian" quotes are disputed, to put it mildely. Infact, all of the evidence produced to deny Hitler's christianity is shamelessly misleading or even fraudulent, with its proponents actually making the ridiculously audacious claim that Hitler's documented, corroborated statements should be ignored in favour of uncorroborated hearsay! His voluminous statements indicating his religious beliefs are summarily ignored in favour of private conversations with questionable sources, some of which may not have even taken place.

Virtually all anti-Christian quotes come from Martin Bormann's "Hitler's Table Talk", an exclusively hearsay compilation of "private" conversations in which Hitler was supposedly warned beforehand that everything he said would be recorded for posterity, yet he lowered his guard and supposedly revealed his true feelings anyway. Naturally, these feelings contrast violently with other public or private speeches or conversations, and mysteriously enough, no original documents or recordings can be found (see the excellent discussion of this book at nobeliefs.com, provided in the link below). Another over-used source is Hermann Rauschning's "The Voice of Destruction: Hitler Speaks", which was already so heavily quoted by 1945 that it was explicitly mentioned and dismissed in OSS documents because of its unreliable nature. In fact, May 1983, Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel formally gathered together all of the criticisms of Rauschning's book and resoundingly debunked it at a presentation at the annual conference of the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center, showing (among other things) that Hitler was not physically present at the times and places indicated, and that the financially desperate Rauschning was paid a staggering sum of money to produce the book by French and American sources who wished to use it as propaganda.

Martin Bormann was Hitler's private secretary and he was non-religious. He wished to make it appear as if Hitler shared his views, and his accounts of Hitler's opinions vary wildly and suspiciously from all others. The actual conversations in "Hitler's Table Talk" were recorded by civil servants Heim and Piker, and the latter complained that "no confidence" could be placed in Bormann's edited versions of them. Bormann took all the manuscripts for himself, produced edited versions, and then destroyed the originals. Given Bormann's suspicious editorial activities, his uncorroborated versions of those conversations cannot be considered credible evidence. Infact, like many of the anti-Christian quotes, attributes to Hitler actually came from Bormann himself (including your example: Bormann once said that "one can either be a German or a Christian, but not both", and overzealous Christian apologists have widely promoted the "mistaken" impression that the quote came from Hitler himself). So for me to add "by some accounts" is quite resonable. In truth, it should have a much stronger qualifier. The source you use is "Hitler's Pope," but you should check the sources for that quote used by Cornwell, because he is not without known errors in that book you cite. Infact Newsweek summarized Hitler's Pope as having “Errors of fact and ignorance of context appear on almost every page.” Kenneth L. Woodward, Newsweek, September 27, 1999. I refer readers to review the subject in these two links: http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.shtml http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p378_Weber.html

Interesting discussion taking place here with good points made from all, making for a very intriguing talk page. Quotes aside what does everyone think about the Third Reich's activities against christians, such as the decimation of the Catholic church in occupied Poland? Does this make Hitler non-christian, does it reflect contemporary German rural Catholic distaste for the clergy, the oppositional position of church against national socialism or something else? PhilipPage 00:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make Hitler un-Christian--when we look at how he treated all the churches it is clear he gave preference and protection for Chistian churches as churches, but attacked others. So, the Nazi actions against the Church were not on the basis of them being Christians, but due their political activities, specifically an issue of nationalism, not religion. The Roman Catholic Church in Poland was suppressed because it had led Polish nationalist forces fighting for Poland's independence from outside domination, historically. The Germans treated the Church harshly in the annexed regions but not in Germany. This is different than how he treated other religions and churches which were attacked because of the religion, not because of political opposition. So the question is not whether Hitler killed Christians; the question is why? When one considers that Hitler himself openly professed his Christian faith in both his writings and public speeches, and when one considers the specific actions for which Christians were arrested and killed, it's obvious that they were killed for actively opposing his government, not for being Christian. This is entirely different from his hatred of Jews (whose only crime was their religion and race) and Slavs (whose only crime was citizenship in a "Godless Bolshevik" state). Also, Hitler did have confict with the Church, but again its was due to the role of the Church with the State, which is common in history as Christians have feuded with one another for centuries over these issues, including killing fellow Christians when politics and control was involved. In Hitler's case, he also feuded with the church was over the division of power between church and state. Note that he never contested the idea that the Christian church its religion belonged in government; he only insisted that he have control over the church, rather than the church having control over him. And if you resisted this you would be suppressed.Giovanni33 01:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with discussing things with Giovanni33 is that when he tries to build an argument, he generally weakens his own case. I've given a variety of examples above... Here he goes again. He was the one who first quoted the Cornwell book, which he now decides isn't very good, after it turned out to disagree with his position. And Nobeliefs, his favorite site, depends heavily on Cornwell (at least 11 citations). So if the book is bad, why does Nobeliefs use it so much? Actually, I agree with Giovanni33 that the book is not that good - but that particular point is based on other sources. The “Nazi or Christian” statement is in fact from the Table Talk. Depending on Nobeliefs for his argument, he completely dismisses the Table Talk. Well, the truth is that historians consider it useful, but to be used with caution. That can be determined by reviewing any major biography of Hitler. So given the choice between the consensus of historians and Nobeliefs, I’ll go with the historians.

And then there’s Albert Speer, who confirms Hitler’s frequent attacks on the church, and who was often there to hear them. On p. 95 of “Inside the Third Reich”, for example, he reports being present during Hitler’s attacks on the church, and notes that Bormann eagerly wrote such remarks down. The point is that Bormann was writing down what Speer was there to hear. Here’s an example of another conversation that Speer reports in “Inside the Third Reich.” He quotes Hitler: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness? (p. 96)” Doesn’t sound like the views of a Christian to me.

Then he brings up Rauschning, as a straw man, who I never mentioned, but he ignores my point that Goebbels' diaries provide evidence for the Hitler’s less than Christian views. If I get time, I'll dig up an example or two from Goebbels.

And he repeats the claim that Hitler's public statements should be believed as Gospel, even though anyone who attempted to understand Hitler by only believing what he said in public would come to a very peculiar understanding of Adolf Hitler. No scholar would determine Hitler’s views on anything solely on the basis of his public statements. There’s something called propaganda, and Hitler was good at it. He’s certainly persuaded Giovanni33.

In sum, I’ve spend enough time on Giovanni33, who has yet to come up with a well supported argument that goes beyond what’s on Nobeliefs. If he comes up with something worth responding to in the future, I will, but until then… Bytwerk 02:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your thinking is that you are making it an all or nothing proposition regarding works in question, or statments of belief. One is able to critically asses the valid and non-valid parts of any construction using logic and critical methods. That I can find some things in a scholarly work with is good does not mean eveything that is reports is valid or should be accepted. Your quote is an exampel fo that. Infact, even you admit, now, that the consensus among historians regarding the source of your quote (Table Talk) is to be qualified, problematized, as "used with caution." Yet you opposed my edit and reverted just such an attempt. Note that I do not try to censor this view as you do the other side of the debate. Yet, you even oppose qualifiying your quote source with something as soft as "by some accounts." This reveals your bias.

Regarding other Nazis', I never said that everyone was a Catholic, or even a Chrisitan. Some were very critical and in particular Bormann, who you keep refering to. As explained above, the circumstances of these alleged quotes makes them unreliable. Even those who recorded it, the civil servants Heim and Piker, stated that "no confidence" could be placed in Bormann's edited versions of them. And, why did Bormann took all the manuscripts for himself, and then destroyed the originals? But his uncorroborated versions of those conversations that reasonably cannot be considered credible evidence are more important than documented beliefs of Hitler, becaues the latter were just propganda? It is widely acknowledged that the most authoritative statement on Hitler's beliefs and plans is his infamous "Mein Kampf", which contains voluminous statements within that clearly mark Adolf Hitler as a Christian. But you want us to disregard his most personal work? Far from being the carefully crafted political statement that some would make it out to be, it was Hitler pouring out his soul and revealing all of his life's plans to his closest confidante. He dictated and Hess transcribed the text of Mein Kampf while he was in prison in 1923-1924, finishing it after his release and publishing it in 1925. In it, he revealed everything: his plan to expand Aryan "living space" at the expense of the Slavs (ie- the foolish attack on Russia that so few saw coming), his plan to avenge the German defeat of World War I by conquering France, his belief that all of the world's races should be subjugated under the Aryan race, and his plan to exterminate the Jews. By reading this single document, one can predict every major action Hitler would take over the next two decades including the Holocaust and the "surprise" attack on Russia, yet Christian apologists such as yourself would have us believe it was nothing but a misleading propaganda piece!

You then use Speer and say it doesn't sound like a Christian to you. Well that your your interpretation. I can pull quotes by other Christians who rebelled against the structure of the Church, and made critical statements. Quoting Speer, talking of Hitler: "The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong conservative element," he might say at one time or another in this private circle. However, he conceived of the church as a instrument that could be useful to him..."Through me the Evangelical [Protestant] Church could become the established church, as in England." ... Undoubtedly, he continued, the church would learn to adapt the political goals of National Socialism in the long run, as it had always adapted in the course of history. Speer, Albert, Inside the Third Reich, Bonanza Books, New York, p. 95]

And: "Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church..." [Speer, p. 95-96]

• All of the evidence for this massive contradiction between public and private beliefs is hearsay. Typically, it involves uncorroborated accounts of private conversations. Any sensible observer must question why Hitler suddenly became so open about his secret beliefs that he would spew them even after having been informed that they would be documented.
• Most accounts of his private conversations do not contain anti-Christian sentiments. In fact, when you look carefully at all the anti-Christian quotes attributed to Hitler, you will find that virtually all of them come from just two or three people! One must question why they alone were privy to secret thoughts that he carefully hid from everyone else in his life and his government. Why didn't he reveal these secret thoughts to Rudolf Hess38? Heinrich Himmler? Joseph Goebbels? Hermann Göring? Are we supposed to seriously believe that Hitler kept all of these men in the dark for more than a decade while abruptly pouring out his heart to his secretary Martin Bormann, under suspicious circumstances?
• In order to generate something more substantive than unreliable hearsay quotes, Hitler's actions or words against political opponents or competing brands of Christianity are almost invariably misrepresented as actions or words against Christianity as a whole. This is simply absurd; if we adopt denominational intolerance or political ruthlessness as the definition of anti-Christian attitudes, then most Christians throughout history have been anti-Christian, including the Roman Catholic church throughout most of its existence.
• Hitler never publicly therefore spoke out against Christianity right up until the very end, yet he demonstrated such extreme megalomania, capacity for self-delusion, and overconfidence in his own abilities (particularly as the war dragged on) that it seems absolutely ludicrous to believe that he was still hiding his true beliefs for fear of offending religious groups.
• When one pays lip service to a common religious belief which one actually finds repugnant (as many of the American founding fathers did), one normally does not do it as clearly and enthusiastically as Hitler did, when he professed his love and faith over and over in such terms.
• There is no serious historical doubt that the roots of his anti-Semitism came from the Viennese Christian Social movement, or that he was inspired by Martin Luther who wrote the infamous racist screed "On Jews And Their Lies". Are we to believe that he admired these men and followed in their footsteps while simultaneously despising their beliefs?
• Even if we accept the unfounded notion that Hitler pretended to be a Christian in order to curry favour with the public, we would still have to acknowledge that the Christian public was amenable to his message. There would have been no benefit in paying lip service to Christians if Christianity were as inherently unreceptive to his message as modern Christian apologists would have you believe. If Christians of his time believed him to be one of theirs, then that is also evidence of who he was.
• The harsh reality is that there is no credible evidence whatsoever for the notion that Hitler was not a Christian. He might not have practiced your next-door neighbour's version of Christianity, but based on all credible sources including his own seminal Mein Kampf, he did believe in Jesus Christ, the supreme being, Heaven and Hell, divine judgement, expulsion from paradise, etc.

Finally, regarding Joseph Goebbels, like Hitler, he was raised Catholic. He claimed that "Christ could not possibly have been a Jew", and in a radio broadcast in 1936, he proclaimed that "We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God, including all classes, professions and creeds, where the Fuhrer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty." Like it or not the Nazi state was a right-wing Christian state, and the evidence support that. Evidence to the contrary should be properly qualified, as I did, with a very modest "according to some accounts..." This is a quesiton of intellectual honesty. You may not respond but that is nothing new. You have not responded to any of the real arguments I've made, as can be seen above. My use of Rauschning is a classic example of false Hitler quotes that were used and still are used by Christian apologists to distort the reality, and which were shown to be bogus. When we remove them, and throw out the highly suspicous private heresay accounts, we have a clear and non-contradictory view of Hitler's religous beliefs. Giovanni33 04:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Consistent with my last post, I’ll hold off responding to Giovoanni33 until he makes an argument with some force. However, I had said I’d check the Goebbels diaries. Unfortunately, I don’t have the multi-volume German edition available. However, one example comes from the April 8, 1941 entry in the Fred Taylor translation (p. 304), where Goebbels reports on a conversation with Hitler: “The Führer is a man totally attuned to antiquity, He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much more noble and more humane than the Christians’.”

As I’ve suggested before, to understand Hitler’s tangled relationship to Christianity, one needs to consider both what he said for public consumption and what he said in private to his intimates. Bytwerk 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would venture to suggest that if Goebbels said "Christ could not possibly have been a Jew" then he disbelieved the historical accounts of Christianity, which would make him a prime candidate for not being a Christian. DJ Clayworth 17:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hitler Historical Museum

An unbiased page about A. H. is Hitler Historical Museum. Competent people, please add this link to External Links. Among other details, there is a statement, with sketch, that he designed Volkswagen Beetle car.

Not only is it not unbiased, its promotes a neo-nazi and revisionist perspective, which has been throughly discredited. Its not part of any legitimate debate. Giovanni33 06:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic POV pushing by ML and Str

The latest rv, with an edit summary that requests that I respond here. ML writes: 09:14, 24 April 2006 Musical Linguist (Rv. Giovanni, since you insist on implying he was a PRACTISING Cath in some way, perhaps you could explain on talk what OTHER way he practised. Speeches are not part of requirements for practising.)

First of all I note that ML's revert also removed the external link that presents the evidence of Hitler being a Christian, although her edit summary and reverts don't mention that fact. Str1977 is guilty of doing the same thing.

To answer your question, no, I don't have to explain what ways he was a practicing Cathlolic, as I'm not an authority on what constitutes acceptable practices that allows one to define in any definitive manner who is practicing and who is not. The standards are simply not clear and its a matter of POV or original research as far as I can tell to make the case at this point.

The edit you are removing does not make any original research question, it simply states the known fact as we know them: that he was at least not in this way a practicing Catholic (stopped attending mass. The word "at least" implies, if anything, that there many be more ways in which he was not "practicing." You believe that this (or for other reasons) makes him (Hitler) not a practing Catolic in an absolute sense, infact you believe he was not a Catholic or even a Christian---but this is not established, it a POV. I simply leave the question open, only reporting the facts as we know them. We know the Hitler was a Catholic and remained one in good standing officially. The Church authorities did not contest that but affirmed it. He was raised such and professed his beliefs his whole life. We know he stopped attending Mass, and so at least in this way he was not a practicing Catholic. That is all I say. Maybe he was not practing in any other way, or maybe he was--this is not a defintively known without enganing in original research, unless you can provide a definitive reference about what constitues "practice" among Catholics, and to show that if one stops practing in some ways that this means they are not a practicing Catholic, period (that they can not still practice in other ways). Many Catholics I know who don't even attend Church but still consider themselves practicing Catholics by virtue of their private prayers. Hitler certainly continued to pray, as that is documented in public. So, for you to stay he did not practice in anyway (as your seem to content) needs to be supported or else it original research. Also, stop removing the external link. That is censorship of the POV you don't agree with as has been explained by other editors. If you don't agree just place a good link that makes the case for the other side, instead of removing the evidence that supports the argument you don't like. Giovanni33 09:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio, the thing is

1. we don't "know the Hitler was a Catholic and remained one in good standing officially" and Church authorities did not "affirm it.
2. he "did profess his beliefs his whole life" but these beliefs were not Catholic - he certainly did not profess being a Catholic his whole life - at least you have not established this - to do this you would have to provide quotes by him self-identifying as a Catholic up to his suicide (which is not a Catholic thing to do) in 1945. But all you did was produce one public self-identification as Catholic - publich and for propaganda purposes. But even self-identification is not enough to make him a practicing Catholic.

ML's request is right on the mark: If Hitler was not in this way a practicing Catholic, then in what way are you suggesting he was one? If there is no other way than your addition is unsubstantial and only included to push a POV by toning down the opposing evidence. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Many Catholics I know who don't even attend Church but still consider themselves practicing Catholics by virtue of their private prayers. Pardon me quoting you, this is a grave error. They are mistaken. If they really understood Catholicism, they would know that the public Prayer of Mass is the highest form of Prayer, where we literally meet Jesus. What is more profound is we actually take a bite out of Jesus there. If they do not believe that the Body and Blood of Christ is the Eucharist, and they need not go to Mass, then they are no longer Catholic, no matter what they "consider" themselves. Is this all based on a badly cathechized friend's opinion? Dominick ^(TALK) 13:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, regarding my edit summaries, about which you use the word "guilty", the first one begins with "Rv to Str1977"; the second begins with "Rv". In other words, I announced in my edit summaries that I was reverting. Having given that full, open, and honest edit summary in each case, I then added more clarifications or remarks (in no way compulsory), and ran out of room at the end. You are doubtless aware that the edit summary box only allows a limited number of characters. You owe me an apology for that remark.

Contrary to what you say, "at least in this way" suggests that there may have been some ways in which he was a practising Catholic, not that there may have been other ways in which he did not practise. You can take that from a qualified linguist, whose Bachelor's and Master's degrees included analysing texts for hidden meanings.

A Catholic who stops going to Mass while it would be possible to attend (i.e. not living in a country that persecutes Catholics) is a "lapsed Catholic", regardless of his virtues; a Catholic who continues to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days is a practising Catholic, no matter what terrible sins he may commit. You are trying to redefine what a "practising Catholic" is. I am aware that some people who lapse continue to call themselves Catholics, though others don't, so it would be POV to assert that a baptized Catholic who stops attending Mass is or isn't a Catholic. The traditional, official interpretation of "practising Catholic" is one regularly attends (Mass). That can also be called "participating in the Eucharist", since the Eucharistic Celebration is another name for the Mass. See here andhere.

He "received the sacraments and Communion" sounds a bit silly — like "I have parents and a mother", "I wore clothes and a dress", "I bought fruit and apples". Communion (the Eucharist) is one of the seven sacraments. Why try to make it sound as if it's something different, unless it's to expand the number of words you spend on Hitler's Catholic upbringing. You used to have "received the sacraments from Communion". I don't know what that was supposed to mean. And I presume (though I haven't checked the history) that it was you who originally had that he reveived the sacraments "devoutly" — completely unverified, and definitely promoting an agenda. If it wasn't you, you were certainly reverting to that version at one stage.

I can't see any need to put in all that about being baptized, serving as an altar boy, singing in the choir, and receiving the sacraments, except as part of emphasizing his Catholicism. Being baptized and receiving the sacraments is an essential part of a Catholic upbringing. Serving as an altar boy and singing in the choir is not, though it's certainly a normal part of a Catholic upbringing.

You say that he received a "strict" Catholic upbringing. In what way was it strict? I know that his father was harsh, but I'm not aware that there was a connection between that and the "Catholic" upbringing. In what way was it more strict than a normal Catholic upbringing for that era? Did his parents force him to say the Rosary every day? Did they make him read the Bible for hours at a time. Did he have to go to Mass every day? If so, was this unusual for the period and place?

"His mother was a particularly devout Catholic". No doubt she was more devout than his father. But was she more devout than the other local women, to justify using "particularly devout"? Did she attend daily Mass. Did she say the Rosary? Did she go to weekly Confession? Did she read the Bible constantly?

You're constantly re-introducing spelling mistakes — "auhorizing", and "by this Catholic parents". AnnH ♫ 13:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I just undid most of an edit labelled 'NPOVing. For your information 'assertive' means standing up for your rights, which does not describe Hitler's foreign policy. Likewise Hitler is not 'widely believed' to have started the second world war - he did start the second world war. The number of people who believe otherwise is tiny. DJ Clayworth 16:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

ADDING DATE TO HIS MOTHER

When you read the CHILDHOOD part, his father's year of birth and year of death are given yet not his mother's (1860-1907). I don't how to add them, but it would make it sync up better I think.

ERR

Alois Hitler starting using that name in around 1876, not 1898 or whatever year it has in the article. Can one of the serious editors changed that.

Any references to this? And please sign off your after each comment you make. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1 grammar

At the end of the introductory paragraph is a sentence stating "The Third Reich he has created has lasted twelve years". Shouldn't this be had? Using "has" makes it sound like it was written by a Neo-Nazi who expects the Reich to reappear. I would change this small but significant thing myself, but I don't want to get in trouble for editing this particular page without asking Rusty2005 00:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold in editing pages, fixing poor grammar is always welcome. -- Drogo Underburrow 00:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

New section on Hitler and religion

I've just finished reading Richard Steigmann-Gall's book, The Holy Reich. The topic of Hitler's religion is complex, and deserves an entire section of its own. For now, I edited the youth section which I hope is acceptable to all, as its all factual, and as neutral as I can make it. Lets start a new section and put the discussion of Hitler's adult religious thinking and actions there. I'll be creating it soon if nobody beats me to it. -- Drogo Underburrow 06:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Drogo. I like what you have done and support it. I agree that this is a section that is long overdue given the interest (and debate) that exists on the internet. It would improve the informative value of this article. Giovanni33 07:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That section became a little bit of a nightmare. But as the saying goes ..."Don't let the facts get in the way of an opinion" --> expect opposition. Agathoclea 08:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objectiong to covering Hitler's religious views in a separate section. But since a section normally has several paragraphs, and since a paragraph is supposed to have at least two sentences, I think that

In public discourse he proclaimed his belief in God and his admiration for Jesus, though by some accounts his private comments were sometimes hostile to the church as an institution

is inappropriate for a section. I wouldn't object to an expansion, as long as it respects NPOV. But stylistically, it's not satisfactory at the moment. I see it also has "by some accounts", which Bytwerk objected to, and which is rather weaselly.

The original section now says again that his mother was devout. Nobody has responded to my earlier question as to what this means. Did she go to daily Mass, when only weekly Mass was required. Did she say the Rosary every night? Did she read the Bible a lot? Or was she just an ordinary pracitising Catholic like many women of that time?

I had already explained that it shouldn't have "the sacraments and Communion", since Communion is one of the sacraments, and it's like saying I have parents and a mother. That has not been responded to, but Drogo has reinserted it and added "and was confirmed in the faith". Let me point out that Confirmation is also one of the seven sacraments. It's now like saying, "I have siblings and brothers and sisters."

I see that Str1977 expanded the section while I was typing this, but I'll leave my comments anyway. AnnH ♫ 09:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo Underburrow's initial idea was good, and appreciated, but editorial chaos has struck, which I assume will be straighted out. Giovanni33 reverted material which is not relevant any longer. Since he was unhappy with the Table Talk, even though most historians give it some, but not absolute, credibility, I cited Speer and Goebbels as sources. The reverted edit speaks two sources that are not even cited in the note at this point, which is rather POV silly, no? I'll get around to trying to set it right again... Bytwerk 18:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Not true. The material is revevant. I was not responding to the quote you happened to use, but the fact that is the primary source of much of the alleged anti-Christian quotes attributed to Hilter (infact you used it yourself!). The fact that you changed it doesnt change the validity of my discussion of it. Its important and valid information on scholarly discussion on Hitler's religious beliefs. Infact, if you leave in your original Table Talk quote, it works better--a case in point. This way it just may need some slight formatting changes.Giovanni33 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my, where to begin.... A few comments on the current state of the article. Hitler was born in Austria, not Germany. John Toland is not a "notable" historian. He was never trained as such, and real historians tend to view his books as a bit naive. Steigmann-Gall uses the "Table Talk" in his book. It's Rauschning that he competely rejects. Steigmann-Gall certainly thinks Hitler was influenced by Christianity, but one should perhaps also cite his conclusion toward the end of his book:

”The contradictions and inconsistencies found in ‘Table Talk’ on many issues makes it impossible to know Hitler’s mind. Nevertheless, certain tendencies in his thought are discernible. Even though he never converted to paganism, Hitler nonetheless became increasingly opposed to Christian institutions and, on the face of it, to the Christian religion as well. However, the process was not as clear as historical analysis generally suggests. In fact, Hitler’s professed hatred of Christianity was shot through with ambiguity and contradiction. Even as he accused Christianity of being Jewish and Bolshevik, at all times he carefully protected the Jew Jesus from his attacks. According to Hitler, Christ’s ‘original message’ could still be detached from what was later called Christianity. In other words, Hitler continued his long-held belief that the unfettered ideas of Christ were different from the ideas of the churches.”

Once Hitler was left with an Aryan Christ, a de-Old Testamentized Scripture, and a rejection of the institutional church, there wasn't much left that the average Christian would recognize as the faith.

And now instead of one weak link (Nobeliefs), we've got a second to "balance" it out.

But, as a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I gather this is typical, and things will sort themselves out in time. Bytwerk 22:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, not really honest here. Even though I disagree that John Toland as a historian is not a notable one (I recall he even won awards for his historical work on the Japanese empire in WW2), the articles says that he is a, "notable Hitler biographer," not "notable historian." He is certainly well known for his biography of Hitler. Are you saying we should not use Toland?

Also, the articles does not say he was born in Germany. He was born in a small town on the German border. It does state the religious make up of Germany since Hitler did rule Germany, and establishes the nation as a Christian one. The ideas contained in the conclusion towards the end of the you cite are arlready present in the section with the quotes and points in MF (Jesus not a Jew, but Aryan, etc), and the fact there are contradictory statements attributed to Hitler. To say we can not know the "mind of Hitler," is a trusim, just like saying his views of Jesus "were different from the ideas of the Church." I think these concusions are quite obvious, and including this conclusion when its already there based on the evidence and points presented just makes it wordy and a bit redundant. The POV that there was not much left that the average Christian would recognize as the faith is a POV, but I prefer to let the reader decide, but certainly the opposite POV can be made. I'd say its interesting that all the contemporary Christians of Hitler, including at the highest levels all certainly recognized him as being an adherent to the faith. Giovanni33 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you please cite a page number where Steigmann-Gall calls the "Table Talk" a fradulent primary source? Bytwerk 02:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You stated that the quote you used from Cornwell, "...you are either a Christian or a German...,” was from the Hitler Table talk. The footnote states that historian Richard Steigmann-Gall, in his book The Holy Reich p.28 says that Hitler said no such thing; the quote comes from a fraudulent primary source. Therefore, since you say this quote is from the Table Talk, which rings true, the question is if the footnote about it, which you did not dispute before, is accurate.Giovanni33 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to quote a passage from a published work, Bytwerk, don't quote most of a paragraph but then omit the final two sentences, which are the most important ones, especially as this paragraph concludes a chapter summary. I'll finish off for you:

"Elsewhere, Hitler went further, indicating an appreciation for aspects of Christian teaching and even a remorse that the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped. Although increasinngly anticlerical, Hitler put limits on his apostasy."

Also, if you are going to quote material, please copy it correctly. Steigmann-Gall actually wrote:

”The contradictions and inconsistencies found in Table Talk on many issues makes it impossible to claim to know Hitler’s mind."

I added boldface to the words you deleted from his quote. For the convenience of the reader I'm going to present the entire passage, corrected and with the final two sentences included:

”The contradictions and inconsistencies found in ‘Table Talk’ on many issues makes it impossible to claim to know Hitler’s mind. Nevertheless, certain tendencies in his thought are discernible. Even though he never converted to paganism, Hitler nonetheless became increasingly opposed to Christian institutions and, on the face of it, to the Christian religion as well. However, the process was not as clear as historical analysis generally suggests. In fact, Hitler’s professed hatred of Christianity was shot through with ambiguity and contradiction. Even as he accused Christianity of being Jewish and Bolshevik, at all times he carefully protected the Jew Jesus from his attacks. According to Hitler, Christ’s ‘original message’ could still be detached from what was later called Christianity. In other words, Hitler continued his long-held belief that the unfettered ideas of Christ were different from the ideas of the churches. Elsewhere, Hitler went further, indicating an appreciation for aspects of Christian teaching and even a remorse that the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped. Although increasinngly anticlerical, Hitler put limits on his apostasy.” - Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich p. 260

Now, the Bible states, John 3:16:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

While opposed to man-made Christian institutions, Hitler believed in God, and in Jesus, and that is all that is required for salvation. This is the core teaching of Christianity. Not everyone believes that it is; but it is a view held by a significant group of Christians. -- Drogo Underburrow 05:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not held by a majority of Christians. That certainly is not the mainline position. Most all Churches hold that more than mere belief in Jesus would be required for salvation, even among the most fundimentalist. That is not the core belief in Christianity. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

'Believing on God and believing in Jesus' do not on their own make you a Christian. Muslims do both. Are you saying that Muslims are also Christians? DJ Clayworth 18:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I was wrong in atttributing the "German or a Christian" statement to the Table Talk. I was responding to the previous post by Giovanni33, who said above: "Bormann once said that "one can either be a German or a Christian, but not both"" Without checking the source, I went on memory and agreed it sounded like the Table Talk. Actually, Cornwell cites it as being said in 1933, long before the Table Talk.

That's what I get for accepting something Giovanni33 says without checking it.

So apologies for the error. May I repeat my question that sparked the above rather lengthy post? Where does Steigmann-Gall claim that the table talk is a "fradulent primary source"? He cites one scholar who suggests that, but notes that the Ian Kershaw, the most recent biographer of Hitler, finds the table talk useful, although a source needed to be treated with caution. Meanwhile, both ignore the comments by Gooebbels and Speer, who were also present at many of Hitler's monologues, and who confirm that Hitler regularly made anti-Christian statements.

Second, do read the quotation that Drogo kindly provided at length. The key phrase is that it is "impossible to claim to know Hitler’s mind." It seems to me that both Drogo and Gio are claiming to know Hitler's mind, making statements that Hitler was a Christian, and assuming that only his public statements should be given weight (when, in fact, most people, assuming with good evidence that Hitler was entirely willing to lie in public, would give significant credence to his private statements). Steigmann-Gall's book does a good job of gathering a lot of information, and drawing nuanced conclusions. He notes the many statements Hitler made in public about Christianity, but also the private statements, and draws reasonable conclusions. I fear his book is being used here as the old line about the drunk and the lampost has it: "for support rather than illumination." Bytwerk 11:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting Steigmann-Gall. First you copied a quote wrong, then you omitted the most important sentences from a qoute, and now you are taking a quote out of context. What Steigmann-Gall is refering to when he says it is impossible to know Hitler's mind, is Table Talk. He is saying that it is impossible to use Table Talk in an attempt to know Hitler's mind, he is not saying that all attempts to know Hitler's mind are useless. That would be a pretty rash statement, especially as Steigmann-Gall throughout the book makes statements about what Hitler thinks. Finally, Steigmann-Gall denigrates Table Talk's reliability as a source in the very sentence Bytwerk misuses. Ian Kershaw? This is the note that Steigmann-Gall wrote:

Ian Kershaw alludes to the questionable nature of Table Talk as a historical source; see his Hitler 1889-1936 HubrisLondon, 1998, xiv. Richard Carrier goes further contending that certain portions of Table Talk, especially those regarding Hitler's alleged hatred of Christianity, are outright inventions: see his "Hitler's Table Talk, Troubling Finds" German Studies Review26:3 (forthcoming 2003). However, although Kershaw recommends treating the work with caution, he does not suggest dispensing with it altogether. (The Holy Reich, p. 253)

So Steigmann-Gall notes that Ian Kershaw finds Table Talk useful? That's a stretch, ignoring everything negative about it that is said and then claiming that Kershaw thinks its useful, because Steigmann-Gall noted that Kershaw doesn't suggest dispensing with it altogether . -- Drogo Underburrow 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, first all, in the discussion I quoted Steigmann-Gall as saying: “make it impossible to know Hitler’s mind,” whereas the original has “make it impossible to claim to know Hitler’s mind.” While I leave it to the rest of the group to decide how major the omission is, I doubt that the meaning has changed greatly as a result.

Second, let’s look at what Kershaw says in Hubris: “…even the ‘table-talk’ monologues of the last months, of which no original German text has ever been brought to light, have to be treated with caution.” His comments stress the ‘table-talk” from the last months of the war — and much of the ‘table-talk’ is earlier. That being said, Kershaw cites the table talk, which one assumes he would do if he did not think it useful. Moreover, the way one uses a source with caution is to check it against others —which is what I did in citing Speer and Goebbels, both of whom were present when Hitler made such statements, providing independent confirmation. And to keep you happy, the last version I edited doesn’t even cite the “table talk,’ so why fight about it?

Third, Steigmann-Gall’s quotation is in his conclusion to the chapter. He’s clearly taking the table talk seriously, but it’s also in the context of the other material covered in the chapter. What he’s doing in the passage is very carefully stating what he thinks is reasonable to say about Hitler. Note that he doesn’t decide to call Hitler a Christian (nor not one, either). As he suggests, the evidence isn’t sufficient to draw a reliable conclusion on the matter. And I’m entirely happy to see the rest of the quotation included in the article, although one can’t put in everything without exhausting the reader. Bytwerk 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I once pled a similar excuse to a history professor; and was informed that misquoting in any form was a serious academic sin. Perhaps in Professor Bytwerk's classes standards are different. What about claiming that Steigmann-Gall said that it was impossible for anybody to know Hitler's mind? Do you retract that statement now? Drogo Underburrow 20:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Serious sin or not, it doesn't invalidate the underlying argument once the quote is corrected. DJ Clayworth 20:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My, my. Of course quotations should be accurate. However, a Wikipedia discussion page, I should think, is a tad more like a conversation than a scholarly article, and I guess if I make an occasional mistake, I'd rather it be skipping a few words that hardly change the meaning than some other sins I could think of. Bytwerk 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. -- Drogo Underburrow 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

changes

This information was removed: "confirmed at age 15; an adolescent he began to have aspirations to join the Church and become part of the clergy himself. After he had left home, later as an adult, he stopped attending mass, and is not considered a practising Catholic"--which is how I restored it. It was removed in favor of this:

"Influenced by pan-german nationalism and social darwinism, he began to reject the Church and Catholicism as an adolescent, and after he had left home, he ceased being a practising Catholic altogether, stopped attending mass, recieving sacraments..."

What first jumps out is the redundancy. It states he ceased being a practing Catholic, but then adds in "altogether, stopped attending mass, stopped recieving sacraments.." Well was not the argument that when one stopped being a practicing Catholic that it means what it says and you could not practice in some ways, that it was an either or proposition? So when one stops practing, since one can not partly practice (as was argued before) what sense is there saying he ceased being one altogether? This contradicts the earlier Catholic expertise that was provided as their argument. That was the argument made by ML and Str.

Also, why was the part about Hitler having aspirations to join the Church and become part of the clergy removed? Is it disputed? I've read it in a number of reputable sources.

Lastly, the point is made that Hitler being influenced by nationalism and social darwinsim was the reason he began to reject the Church and Catholicism (although simply not practicing is different than rejecting them). But such a cause and effect is not established. Its stated as if it were a fact, even if it is a POV, according to some source. It suggests that nationalis ideology and the faith are not reconcilable, which certainly is not true. But, if the infuence of this ideology in this Christian beliefs are explained it woudl be fine, i.e. he opposed the Catholic center being in Rome instead of Berlin, etc. Giovanni33 08:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The section was growing to devour the rest of the article. I shortened things, removed repetition, and tried to reflect a balanced view of the topic. I rather suspect some will vehemently disagree, but I'd appreciate the thoughts of others as well. Bytwerk 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio,

• re the redundancy: I changed the wording from "stopped X and hence was not Y" to "stopped doing Y" and gave as an example "no longer did X" - I can very well live without the examples. It is indeed true that one cannot partly practice, or practice (or not) in this way. Hence there is no contradiction in my intention - to stop attending Mass and receiving sacraments is to stop being a practiciing Catholic.
• the part about his alleged aspirations was deleted because

a) if there is any truth to it, it was a child's wish to become a priest after having seen a priest children do that kind of thing a lot.

b) it certainly was misplaced. AH's rejection of the Church was already prevalent when he was confirmed (as you say at age 15), so any aspirations would be placed before that. There also seems to be ambiguity about adolesence - what years does it encompass?

But my main point is what I wrote under a) - it is of questionable factuality and relevance.

• Gio, while you complain about my replacing your "aspiration" passage with my "rejection" passage, why did you delete my rejection passage entirely - your objections to redundancy don't warrant that., especially since my passage is properly sourced.
• The cause and effect is established in the passage I quote from Rissmann. In Austria at that time you were either Kaisertreu (loyal to the Emperor), which meant adhering to a supranational rule of a Catholic Emperor, or you were advocating the unification of all Germans in one national state, which meant breaking up the Austrian Empire and which also meant the rejection of a suprantional figure like the Pope. Schönerer did found the "Los-von-Rom"-Bewegung (away-from-Rome movement). Also, it is utter nonsense to say "he opposed the Catholic center being in Rome instead of Berlin" - you cannot have the Catholic center anyway but in Rome, especially not in a partly Protestant, partly godless Berlin. You may say that one may be a German nationalist and a loyal Catholic in principle - only in the situation of Hitler's school years you couldn't. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

EffK

EffK has transferred to the Adolf Hitler talk page in French WP: he was driven there by a pro-Vatican "concentration".--shtove 23:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)