Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Reference list[edit]


The Table Talk stuff needs to be largely deprecated.[edit]

"transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded" -- This turns out to be false as testified in court. These were not transcripts, nor were they intended as private conversations, nor do the purported quotes even exist in the German. They were recollections sometimes much much later written down after the fact. The anti-religious quotes were added during the translation from English to French. But, it's certainly wrong to say false things like they are transcripts of recorded private conversations. They were intended for a book and later publication, and were recollections by Picker and Heim. Even if we ignore the stuff that French con-man inserted into the text. Tat (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC):

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Some of the Table Talks--the last ones--are inauthentic. The early ones--the ones cited here--are accepted as authentic by all historians. I have only heard their authenticity challenged by Holocaust deniers. Steeletrap (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, Carrier and Nilsson are challenging the entire set of Table Talks, including the early ones cited here. The biggest complaint is the translation process, but they also raise questions about the accuracy of transcription. The Nilsson paper is well worth reading, but the publisher unfortunately has hidden it behind a paywall. I found a new link to a preprint and updated it in the article. JerryRussell (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The following link might help. 2601:982:8200:4790:6C02:3133:447F:507A (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in '45 Hitler Wikiquote is Xtian.[edit]

Those statements could be made by almost any theist, and a good many deists as well. Anmccaff (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
So it's the sort of thing that says nothing about someone holding conventional beliefs, or, with only a little leap, religious beiefs at all. Khrushchev probably invoked God as much as some undoubted Xristians did: that doesn't mean he was a believer, or a believer at the time. Anmccaff (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Here, BTW, are the quotes:

God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work.

Radio address, 30 January 1945; from Thomas Streissguth (2002). World War II. New York: Greenhaven Press, p. 118.

Hell, Paine could have written that.

Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me. In the years to come I shall continue on this road, uncompromisingly safeguarding my people's interests, oblivious to all misery and danger, and filled with the holy conviction that God the Almighty will not abandon him who, during all his life, had no desire but to save his people from a fate it had never deserved, neither by virtue of its number nor by way of its importance.

Again, completely consistent with a wide span of beliefs, including merely conventional usage by a agnostic or heathen. Anmccaff (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, for starters, there's no point to trying to identify a person's beliefs by their words. For example, I am an Atheist and I know that Jesus loves me and that I will be reincarnated after death as long as I make sacrifices to Odin and abstain from eating beef. Blessed be. One cannot look to public utterances (which, like my previous sentences were thought out in advance and designed in order to make a point or elicit an emotional response) of this sort and assign qualities to the person or phrase such as specific types of religiosity. Nothing Hitler said in public proves he wasn't an orthodox Jew; it certainly can't be said that a particular reference to God 'wasn't Christian', but was rather Deistic. We seem to be in more or less agreement on this, except that I believe you're missing out on my second point.
Said second point is: drawing a distinction between Christianity and Deism in the Western world is an exercise in futility. All Western Deism is based upon Christianity. Indeed, it is merely a particularly liberal version of Christianity, with relatively minor influences from other Abrahamic religions. This really looks like splitting hairs in order to distance Hitler from Christianity. I'm not suggesting that's what you are actually doing here, but that is certainly what it looks like. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
All is a very big word for only three letters; I'd agree that most Western Deism has roots in Xtianity, but there are certainly other threads; Spinoza, Bacon at his most sufi-istic, to say nothing of greco-roman paganism and borrowings from Buddhism. Most is certainly on the continuum that goes from Unitarianism through nihilism, though, yes.
No, it's pointing out that using the language quoted by the resident sock-troll says very little about someone's religious belief, and claiming that it proves otherwise is nonsense, not about distancing Hitler from anything. There are plenty of idiots available to do that from both extremes already.
My apologies for the late reply, I ran into a bit of the Minneapolis School of Adminizing. Anmccaff (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree that most Western Deism has roots in Xtianity, but there are certainly other threads; Spinoza, Bacon at his most sufi-istic, to say nothing of greco-roman paganism and borrowings from Buddhism. Spinoza and Bacon were influential thinkers in general, not particular to Deism. There are no "Spinoza" schools of Deism (Indeed, Spinoza's thoughts on divinity are often more influential among pantheists, as famously reflected in that Einstein quote). Bacon's writings might have been influential upon a number of recognizable Deists, but that does not, in any way, translate into him being even partially responsible for the development of any sort of non-Christian deism. The mention of Greco-Roman paganism is strange, as polytheism of the Greek and Roman varieties is about as far from Deism as one can get. Indeed, the only similarities are the acknowledgement that some form of divinity exists. They disagree on the number of gods, the nature of gods, the real-world effects of gods, etc, etc, etc. And of course, Buddhisms famously lacks any deity.
At their edges, some deisms, some theisms, and some pantheisms overlap; this isn't just about enlightenment rationalists jabbering about watchmakers. Given 'dolph's limitless capacity for muddled thinking, there's no reason to believe that his ideas here were any more organized or coherent.
In addition, modern Deism (the sort that was influenced the most by non-christian thought) antedates Hitler's death, and is generally held to be more a product of the 1960's counterculture and the resultant mysticism and influx of Eastern thought. Deism in the 1940's and earlier would have been markedly more Christian than the current (still highly Christian) Deism.
As an absolute, that simply isn't true, although I'd agree strongly it's a fairly valid generalization. It's also irrelevant; this thread is - or at least was, initially - about IPboy's claims that these '45 quotes...well, from the horse's mouth (or at least some end of the same canal):Wrong, he made statements affirming a belief in Christianity publicly even in his final year of leadership. Anmccaff (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Finally, I fail to see how statements made about God could possibly not be germane (pun intended, thank you) to an article about the subject's religiosity. The only change to the article I can glean from your comments is the implied removal of those quotes. I'm assuming you are, in fact advocating their removal, as otherwise, this discussion is a violation of our talk page guidelines. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
First; no. Discussing something beyond immediate use of a quote isn't making this into the hitler forum. This discussion is about whether the '45 quote conclusively proves that 'dolp then affirmed a belief in Christianity as he undoubtedly had prior to and in the early years of his rule Anmccaff (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Look, I agree that simply because Hitler made a reference to God does not make him Christian. But that cuts both ways: you cannot assert that a mention of God is a deistic mention (indeed, if anything, the reference to God creating Germany flies in the face of the most fundamental tenet of Deism), and then use that to suggest that he lacked Christian beliefs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
If you are going to insist on arguing against points I haven't raised, I certainly can't stop you, but I'm damned if I have to participate. Anmccaff (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what points you are referring to. You haven't actually proposed a change, so I am left with assuming that your proposal is to remove the material you are objecting to. Everything else I've said has been in direct response to what you said. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
This section was opened in response to one example of IPguy removing prior to and in the early years of his rule, as a qualifier to to 'dolph's [affirmation of] a belief in Christianity, reponding to his assertion that the '45 speech conclusively disproved it. Several people...yourself included reverted his change to the article, although I was the only one who opened it up on talk. (Which is undoubtedly why some &*^%$ blocked me, alone, for it...) Anmccaff (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, well in the future, you might want to make note of that when you comment at talk. Also in the future, if you expect people to read your comments, you would do well not to cut them into other editor's comments. I didn't revert because I didn't even notice until after I responded to the last part. I'm not responding to the rest because I honestly can't be bothered to read comments that aren't formatted with respect and consideration of others. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You know, I've seen a number of people here on Wiki who responded to the words "good faith" as though it were a deadly insult, in the way that that some southerners respond to "bless their heart" as though it meant "and your little horse, too." This is to be expected, because "assuming good faith" is a Wikipedia "Sunday truth", something everyone shakes their head in agreement with, but seldom puts in practice; the term is often used as a cloaked insult.
We have a case in point here; you appear to have no possible explanation for interlaced editing than lack of respect and consideration of others; you might want to reconsider that. If it makes it easier for you, I can re-edit this so it's a lengthy sea of quotes; but I find that needlessly unwieldy when the indents shows who said what. Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You should, perhaps read WP:TPO before you presume to lecture others about failing to assume good faith in your editing of their comments. It makes the thread more difficult to read, and regardless of your intentions, is rude and disrespectful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've read it before, and re-read it now; not only does it say nothing against the practice, it specifically approves full sectioning, a rather more dramatic change. As I said above, I can use the more mainstream formatting if you like, but I think it makes things harder to read, not easier, in this case. This is all getting a little too meta; if you want to address the stuff above, I'll re-edit it; if you want to just drop it -and it is bordering a general discussion rather than specific discussion of potential edits, so you may want to - then I'll drop it; either way, I'll try to keep in mind that you prefer what, to me, is a rather bloated way of keeping continuity is a discussion, so I'll use {{tq|talk quote}} here more, but you might want to stop seeing disrespect and lack of consideration under every rock. Anmccaff (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That is the single most blatantly obvious example of full-on bullshit I've seen in a very long time. Congrats. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

"Consensus" and "minority" are both modifiable words.[edit]

...and the modifiers used, "strong (consensus)" and "small (minority" are appropriate. Anmccaff (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not needed. Both words already concluded that. 2601:982:8200:4790:345F:8636:32F0:6C49 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Anmccaff in principle, although I think "large" might be more appropriate than "small""strong". There is a difference between a consensus vs a minority and a large consensus vs a small minority, and the latter is more reflective of this subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
There isn't a large minority, except on Wikipedia itself, where SG's admittedly minority views are amplified, and Wiki isn't a suitable source. Anmccaff (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
My mistake: I meant to suggest substituting "large" for "strong", not "small". I agree that it is a small minority. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Although it's a little hackneyed, "wide consensus" has nuances which are appropriate; it correctly suggests that the idea isn't limited to a single school of thought.
Meanwhile, though, the less accurate, less nuanced anono-edit stands; would you mind...? Anmccaff (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
"Wide" works for me; it doesn't have the... pushiness? of "strong". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)