Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Possible introduction

A very quick idea for a rough outline of a much shorter, tighter introduction with indicative sources;

'Adolf Hitler was a 'private, secretive individual'(Kershaw), who was also known for tailoring his remarks to suit his audience. (Steigmann Gall 93) As a result his religious views are difficult to discern with any accuracy. His closest confidante, Josef Goebbels, suggested that Hitler was 'profoundly religious yet entirely anti-Christian', seeing Christianity as an offshoot of the Jewish race. (Goebbels Diaries) He appears to have ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood, and in 1924 instructed members of the Nazi party not to describe him as a member of the Catholic church. (Hastings 157) However, after coming to power he continued to work with the German churches, coming to a concordat with the Catholic church and attempting to create a new Nationalreichskirche (roughly 'United Government Church') to bring the Protestant churches under direct Nazi control. Recent research has emphasised how his views changed over time, although there are differences among historians over the degree and the timescale of these changes; some argue that by 1933, Hitler was hostile to Christianity and worked with the churches purely out of pragmatism, but others have suggested that until the late 1930s Hitler still considered himself a Christian. (e.g. Hastings 181, cf Steigmann Gall 252) By the time of the Second World War, however, it is generally agreed that Hitler had at least privately rejected orthodox Christianity (citations as before). In private, he compared it to Bolshevism and Judaism, the two ideologies he was most stridently opposed to, and suggesting the clergy were 'effeminate' (a euphemism for 'homosexual', a criminal offence in Nazi Germany). (Burleigh 101-102) He appears, however, to have had an ongoing attachment to the concept of God, which he referred to as 'Providence,' leading historians to suggest he was by this stage a deist. (Michael Burleigh, Sacred Causes, 94,105) Although there are suggestions that in seeing himself as the instrument of providence, Hitler began to develop a 'Messiah Complex', (Hastings 158, 163-4, Burleigh 102) this is disputed (Steigmann Gall 59, 130-31). There is also reason to think that he continued to hold Jesus in high esteem as an anti-Jewish fighter of the first century. (Burleigh 95, Steigmann Gall 254) Even in later years, when he started to make vituperative remarks on Christianity in private, Hitler also continued to denigrate both atheism (which he equated with the Soviet Union's Communist ideology) (Steigmann Gall 255) and Rosenburg's paganism, which underpinned the Deutsche Glaubensbewegung ('National German Faith Movement') (Steigmann Gall 59, 92-93).

I think that would set the article up much better than the present, rather rambling and overlong introduction. Of course, it's based on only about 6 sources because that's all I have to hand at the moment, but I wouldn't advise it being much longer than that. It seems to cover all the essential points very briefly and summarise the key scholarship. If there's anything further, it can be added lower down in the article.

For consideration, anyway. What do others think? This may be my only visit here for the next few weeks, so do adopt/adapt/improve as you see fit if you like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.33.173 (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Apart from anything else (no comment on the text), you need to learn how to add proper references. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This strikes me as less of an introduction to the article, and more of a series of cherry-picked references used to support original research on a history that isn't supported by the article or a consensus of scholars. It's a nice narrative, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't appear to accurately describe the messy, contradictory, and hole-filled history of Hitler's religious views we see in the actual literature as described by this article. The article would have to be completely rewritten for this to be an accurate summary of it, and I think just the intro needs to be rewritten, not the whole article. -- HiEv 13:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed deism and atheism claims

There were two lines used twice in the article that claimed "various scholars" said Hitler was a deist or atheist. Besides being weasel words, only one scholar in the whole article suggested Hitler might have been a deist and no scholars are referenced supporting atheism (unless I missed them). Hitler was anti-church, anti-Catholicism, and anti-religion, but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he was against believing God or Jesus existed, at least, there's no such evidence shown in the article, and there's plenty of evidence that he did believe Jesus and God existed. So I removed those two lines due to a lack of verification and the unsupported weasel words. Since I know that the article is in dispute I wanted to explain why I removed them in case there was any question. -- HiEv 09:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The definition of a 'deist' is somebody who believes in God but not any particular sort of God. Hitler did believe in a God, he thought it was called 'providence', and he thought he had been sent by Providence to create a 'Thousand Year Reich.' That definitely makes Hitler a deist. Providence was, in his eyes, something quite different from Judeo-Christian or even Islamic notions of God. Sources that can be used to clarify this include Burleigh, Sacred Causes, Hastings, Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism and indeed Steigmann Gall. I would personally be doubtful about any claims Hitler was an atheist - possibly at the very end of his life, but certainly not earlier - and I would support the continuing exclusion of that from the article. It does not seem to me that the sources used to back that statement are adequately summarized. Not quite sure where the confluence of 'Jesus existed' and therefore 'Hitler must have been more than a deist' comes from - Maurice Casey and Bart Ehrmann are both agnostics/atheists, never mind deists, and spend much time patiently explaining Jesus existed! Hitler's views on Jesus are really a separate issue, covered in Steigmann-Gall's own works on Hitler's views on Jesus. Incidentally, I agree with many of the other criticisms of the article especially about the length of the introduction, which is far too long. However, it should be noted that any reasonably accurate article on the controversial aspects of religion on Wikipedia will always attract criticism from some New Atheist fanatics or from diehard apologists (cf The Christ Myth Theory, which is a shambles). Some of Ozhistory's sources (Catholic Encyclopaedia?) are less than perfect, but the article has improved markedly since Greengrounds left. I would try to edit it further but I have very little time at the moment. Hcc01 (forgotten password). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.33.173 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the lines because there were not sufficient references to support them and they depended heavily on weasel words, as I stated previously. Also, Hitler's views on Jesus could be relevant, because if, for example, Hitler thought Jesus was the son of God, then that would require an interventionist god, thus Hitler could not be a deist if he believed that. Furthermore, I note that you attack several sources, not on the basis of their academic standing or acceptance among experts, but based on what religion they do or do not hold. The source's religion (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the quality of their scholarship, and as such bringing it up is merely an attempt at poisoning the well. You would do well to avoid that argument in the future. In any case, your opinion that Hitler was a deist is insufficient to include that claim. If you have sources supporting the claim that Hitler was a deist, you'll need to add them to the article with appropriate references, otherwise your argument is personal opinion and/or original research, neither of which have a place in Wikipedia. -- HiEv 13:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

HCC01 is up the right alley in terms of the meaning of the term deist, and clearly a number of historians cited in this text are using formulations along those lines without being quoted as using the word 'deist'. The introductory paragraph HiEv deleted from the "Hitler and atheism" section was merely a summary of what follows, and should probably be restored. On atheism, there are a number of authors again using word formulations which amount to it (for example, as I understand it, the word "materialist" has historically often been used to mean "atheist", though now it more commonly is associated with loving material possessions). Just by the by, and further to HCC01's comment - I have not used a Cath. Encyclopedia reference at all in this article, and nor would I - I believe it was written around 1912! Nevertheless it does have its obvious uses in Wikipedia however, particularly when talking about the years Popes reigned, the findings of Councils etc etc etc.) Ozhistory (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Nazi regime was a radical atheistic movement (common misconception)

Unfortunately many people today believe that Hitler publicly showed the same contempt and hostility against Christianity as Stalin. This is false, quite the opposite was the case. Hitler portrayed himself as a faithful Christian in all of his speeches and made a great number of references to God. He was more ambiguous privately, but publicly he did not at all promote atheism. Many of you may know this, however, in the general public many people still think Nazi Germany was an atheistic state. This couldn't be further from the truth with 95% Christians.

Here are some recent quotes of public figures perpetuating this misconception:

• Dvir Abramovich; article title: Celebrety atheists expose their hypocrisy; 2009; [1]: "For Hitchens and co, religion does little good and secularism hardly any evil. Never mind that tyrants devoid of religion such as Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot perpetrated the worst atrocities in history. As H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at the University of Rochester, observed, the 20th century was an experiment in secularism that produced secular evil, responsible for the unprecedented murder of more than 100 million."
• In 2010 Catholic League President Bill Donohue issued a public press release stating: „Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. […] Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers.“ [2]
• In a 2010 speech now retired pope Benedict XVI made several statements implying connections between atheism and nazism as quoted by an article published in the British newspaper The Guardian; article title: Pope Benedict XVI goes to war with 'atheist extremism'; [3]

I think this should be pointed out in the article. I previously included it by writing "contrary to popular belief" and supplying the above citations as references. Any suggestions how to approach this? Ideas or criticism welcome.178.8.176.145 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

"Implying connections" is simply not a lot to go on. One Catholic League president does not public opinion make, as much as he'd like to. I don't really dispute the general premise, but I think it requires much better sourcing than what you've given. This is an encyclopedia, and this is an important topic--important enough to cite scholarly studies rather than newspaper articles. All of this beside the obvious, of course--Nazi policy against religion, and don't let me hear anyone say that that's irrelevant in a state dominated by its leader. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

So you agree that this is indeed something many people believe but three examples as footnotes are not sufficient evidence to put it into the article? Note though, that we are speaking of *popular* opinion, so I doubt that experts have much to say about this. I don't think studies have been done to evaluate the public opinion on this. Of course historians will also know it's not true, but many people who are not experts on history do have this misconception and these quotes are evidence for it. I surely could easily find more if that helps, but it's only worth the effort if I know the addition won't get rejected again. I understand that my description of the statements from the pope was too vague (the article I linked, describes it sufficiently though, should I quote parts?). Beyond that I think the people are quoted are indeed influential to man groups of people and therefore representative. How many more sources would be required to be considered sufficient evidence?188.103.221.111 (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a bit of confusion here between what Nazi Germany was (religiously speaking) what the Nazi party was and what Hitler himself was. To clarify: 1) Nazi Germany, the country, was mostly Christian. That's never been disputed so far as I know. However, the article isn't about religion in Nazi Germany, it's about Hitler, so that's a bit of a side issue. 2) The Nazi party itself was mixed as regards religion. Unlike the Communist party, it was never a requirement of Nazi party membership that you must not be religious. However, it was officially discouraged because the Nazi movement held that there could be no higher loyalty to anything other than Germany. God, the Pope, bishops, even local churches were all potential distractions from that. However, the Nazis didn't dare risk a showdown because the size of the church membership was so vast - they feared they would lose the all-important support of the regular army (whose motto was of course 'Gott mit uns') if they began a war with the churches (with the SS, where they had a much freer hand, religious affiliation was actually very low). 3) This article is about Hitler, not Germany or the Nazi party. Hitler undoubtedly, down to 1922 at least, was a believing if not necessarily a practicing or orthodox Catholic. Exactly when he ceased to be one is a matter of heated debate. Certainly, however, by the 1940s he was pretty hacked off with Christianity and was utterly scathing in private, as well as silent in public on the subject. His religious views led him to talk a lot about the guiding hand of Providence (this is I think where the confusion comes from) which is a form of deism espoused, among others, by Thomas Jefferson. Eventually, by about 1941 this had become elevated to almost a full-blown Messiah complex. However, he had no wish to provoke a confrontation with the churches and kept his views to a close circle, going to the length of maintaining his membership of the Catholic church and ordering Goebbels to do so as well. Indeed, one of the few people who was really close to him - Magda Goebbels - was and remained a devout Catholic. (Although one who was totally unhinged. One of the creepiest things I have ever read is her suicide note to her eldest son, explaining how she had to kill her other children because God's mercy would then protect them from the Russians.) I think as you say perhaps more of a distinction might be drawn between Hitler (whose interest in religion was limited and tangential to his policies) and Stalin (whose vehement opposition to religion led him to commit several atrocities). As I once said to my students, don't get too hung up - whatever Hitler's private religious views, he was above all a pan-German nationalist and eugenicist, and that is where you need to look for detailed explanations of his behaviour. This article therefore becomes more important to refute the misconceptions - on both sides - that you outline.

Some quotes to help with that from Michael Burleigh's Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda (I did put a version of these upthread in a possible new introduction but they were not well received by some of the Hitler was a Christian crowd);

'He [Hitler] Subscribed to the view that science had largely supplanted Christianity, without rationalism eradicating the need for belief, or undermining the existence of a creator God in whom he continued to believe. Christianity had been progressively subverted by science, which he understood as a series of heroic discoveries by titanic figures progressively rolling back the frontiers of ignorance.' (page 100)

'Hitler himself believed in a God, depite having parted from the rote Catholicism of his Austrian childhood in his early teens...He had a growing sense that his own destiny was providentially guided, that he was 'doing the Lord's work'. (p 100)

'His sallies into theological matters were unimpressive, the musings of a saloon bar bore. Hitler's God was not the Christian God, conventionally understood...He saw himself on Olympus, surrounded by historical figures of equal stature; hell, of which his understanding was primitive, held no terrors for him. While, ironically enough, he respected the Ten Commandments, his attitude to Catholic dogma was that 'a negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.' (page 101)

'He regarded the clergy of both major denominations as devious, effeminate, hypocritical and venal. Their public subsidy should be drastically curtailed, the residue unevenly distributed so as to promote further clerical backbiting and political tractability; 'We can make this clerical gang go quite easily - and at far less cost than at present.' During the war, his feelings towards clerics became as murderous as his feelings towards just about everyone else.' (page 102)

'Hitler believed he had a special relationship with God and Providence...God's will had guided Hitler's personal odyssey from Austrian obscurity to being the German Führer.' (102)

Steigmann-Gall, Hastings and a version of Koehne, the other important scholars in this area, are already there of course thanks to Ozhistory.

Hope that's of use/interest. Burleigh is of course himself a conservative Catholic, but so far as I know nobody who is actually qualified to do so has ever suggested that that has affected his historical work.86.183.139.158 (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think there is a confusion of issues going on. Also at issue currently, the IP user is relying on citing a series of hustings speeches made by Hitler and some media reports rather than interpretation by historians. Citing a collection of speeches from the period 1922 to 1939 and Mein Kampf, for example, he makes the claim "Hitler never publicly advocated atheism, and quite on the contrary presented himself as a faithful Christian to the German people." The statement is not backed by the sources as currently cited (they are primary sources which do not cover the whole Hitler period); and is also problematic, because many of those speeches actually present a challenge to faithful Christians (eg denying the Jewishness of Christ, as Cardinal Faulhaber pointed out, undermines the theological basis of his being "the messiah" of the "chosen people" etc etc). Then there are the policies he allowed which clearly breached his promises not to interfere with the Churches. Pope Benedict's 2010 speech cited in the IP editor's media report is also wide open to interpretation: "Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live" could well be specifically referring to the Judeo Christian notion of God, not the vague deistic notion favoured by some Nazis at some points in time. And remember, we can only ever talk of some Nazis, because there most certainly were very high profile atheists in Hitler's inner circle, and there were multiple measures taken to decrease the influence of churches on society. The statement that Hitler never publicly advocated atheism, firstly needs to be adequately sourced and secondly adequately nuanced against his policies and private musings. Ozhistory (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor TheGFish please explain your additions and deletions

I have reverted some work by User:TheGFish, because first he reverted content without giving explanation, and then began a series of false edit summaries (and allegations on my user page of vandalism. It may be that he is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Greengrounds and if you are an admin, please have a look into this. At any rate he has been warned for a false allegation here: here. On the off chance that he is not a sockpuppet, I ask him again to please provide explanation for his desired edits here. Unconstructively he is reverting some useful clean-up bundling of sources which I have done. His desired additions are also a dis-improvement, as he is mixing up sources, and it is not clear which author is expressing the view. If he wants to insert the line "Hitler was not an atheist", I suggest he provides the precise quote and author on whom he is relying here (perhaps there isn't one?), otherwise that he leaves the wording "Hitler did not present himself as an atheist". As far as I can see he wants to run a comment from a 1922 speech as something Hitler believed, but doesn't want to identify the timing or precise quotation from that speech. I believe it is better to identify the speech and give the line in full. Ozhistory (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Ozhistory: If you are concerned about your cite bundles, perhaps you should make an edit with only bundling to avoid any content disputes. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I did. At any rate, after much toing and frowing, his last reversion did not delete the bundling again (though it did delete several citations without explanation, and restored an error or two. The remaining contentious addition has been tagged by me for full citation. It can't stand as is, because it conflicts with other assessments stated by historians in the article, so it will have to be re-written to identify who is making the claim. Getting there, phew! Ozhistory (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

TheGFisg apologised to me for his claims of "vandalism" on my talk page, and in reply I discussed my concerns with his edits as follows: I have some concerns about your use of sourcing in your latest edit on the Hitler religion page - it doesn't yet comply with wikipedia policies. At the moment there are issues of synthesis and reliance on interpretation of primary sources rather than evaluation from an historian. If an historian is saying something that might be contentious, then we should name who that historian is to give a clue to the reader that it may not be every historian's view or that the assessment is coming from a respected source (or otherwise). We cannot use a public speech by Hitler from one year as evidence of his position on a topic for his entire career, but we can cite that he said such a thing on such a date... The synthesis in your edit needs to be addressed. And an actual quote from an historian still has to be found. Ozhistory (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This article still has a very strong pro-Christian and anti-atheist bias. There is no indication that Hitler was seeking to "eradicate Christianity", regardless of whether or not Hitler was Christian himself (which probably is debatable and unclear from historical records.) Since Hitler frequently spoke of the "creator", he obviously had some sort of people in a deity, regardless of whether or not he believed in the Abrahamaic god. He also seemed to like Jesus and believed Jesus was an Aryan fighter against Jews, although Hitler and most of the other Nazi officials hated the Old Testament (for fairly obvious anti-Semitic reasons). Hitler seems to have been some kind of cross between a deist and a Marcionist Christian, even though he also took some influence from German paganism and the occult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushobama (talk • contribs) 14:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

These claims lack evidence. There is every reason to think Hitler ceased to be a Christian himself, and that has been affirmed by a number of studies into him particularly in the last few years since Steigmann-Gall's book came out. Nazism also had an anti-clerical undercurrent, but trying to undermine the churches was clearly not a priority and the only senior Nazi to press for it to be promoted up the scale was Bormann. Of course, the questions about the intent to pursue 'eradication' after the war are more difficult. There were innumerable Nazi/Hitlerian plans that were wildly impracticable that were due to be finished at some unspecified date 'after the war' that never would have been. However, I would question whether this is an 'anti-atheist' article. It does not seem to me to portray Hitler as an atheist, rather as anti-church. While there can be little doubt that the article seeks to dissociate him from Christianity, that is also what Hitler did in private to his close friends. And that is why scholarship for the last fifty years has supported the idea of Hitler and Nazism as anti-Christian. As Ernst Piper pointed out, 'the contention that National Socialism was a profoundly anti-Christian movement endured for so long not because it was convenient for researchers not to prove otherwise but because it is a fact.' And I'm afraid that because the article must follow the scholarship, it must reflect that reality.86.182.118.87 (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge with Adolf Hitler main page?

Since the subject of the article is Adolf Hitler, why not merge it into his page, under, for example, a 'Religious Views' subheading.92.27.249.84 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

While it's superficially attractive, I would very strongly advise against it, for all sorts of reasons. Partly due to the sheer length of the article (although it has to be said there are places where it could perhaps be shorter) but also due to the various controversies over Hitler's religious views in the Anglophone world over the last few years. That's taking in both scholarly disputes and the Papal/Dawkinsian spat on the subject. Wikipedia.de has taken the course of action you suggest (or perhaps never had an equivalent article to this in the first place - I don't know) but as there is much less interest in Hitler's religion in German language scholarship and pretty general agreement on what his religious views were that's understandable.86.177.234.245 (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Very questionable and misleading statements about Hitler's alleged anti-Christian views/plans

This article is subject to a strong bias as some people seem to try to rewrite history. There are no first-hand sources of Hitler saying anything about a plan to eradicate Christianity yet already the second sentence makes the bold claim "It is generally believed by historians that Hitler's long term aim was the eradication of Christianity in Germany" as if this was a settled issue.

These wild speculations do not only fly into the face of Hitler's consistent efforts to work together with the church but also all of his speeches and "mein Kampf" where he tirelessly stressed that he believes he is doing the work of the almighty creator. There are lots of contradictions in Hitler's position towards religion and this article is pushing an agenda to distance Hitler from the church, ignoring the massive evidence that doesn't support an anti-Christian Hitler whatsoever. He was in power for many years, it he had intended to get rid of Christianity, why didn't he and why did he keep endorsing it by letting SS soldiers wear belt buckles saying "God is on our side"?

I could go deeper into this, but I think I've made my point. This article needs lots of work. Comparing it against the German version of the Article would be a good start.178.0.209.5 (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by this comment - indeed, I'll go so far to say as I'm completely unconvinced! Let's go through them in turn.

'There are no first-hand sources of Hitler saying anything about a plan to eradicate Christianity'

There are several, including some in the article. Of course, whether the sources can be trusted is a different question, but they are there.

'These wild speculations do not only fly into the face of Hitler's consistent efforts to work together with the church'

Hitler worked with the church when it suited him, against when it didn't. For example, despite the famous remark that all education should have a religious basis, he ordered the closure of all church schools because he was unhappy that they taught more about God than about Nazism. He signed a Concordat with the Catholic church, but repeatedly twisted it when he claimed that the church was interfering in political matters to stop them doing it. This included, for example, preaching on Psalm 121 (which he considered to be in some obscure sense anti-German).

'ignoring the massive evidence that doesn't support an anti-Christian Hitler whatsoever'

There is no 'massive evidence.' There is massive evidence of a Hitler who found pro-Christian public statements useful, which is not the same thing at all.

'He was in power for many years, it he had intended to get rid of Christianity, why didn't he'

Because he was not sufficiently securely in power to upset the religious sensibilities of 95% of the German people. He was concerned that in a power struggle between the churches and the state, the state would lose. This was even more important in the Second World War, where internal bickering (which would have had to be controlled by the Army) might seriously damage the war effort. He only had six years before war broke out to implement all his policies, and that isn't sufficient time for a complete reorganisation of society and culture. Or by your logic, was the Holocaust non-existent because he didn't launch it in February 1933, even though he clearly wished to do it from very early on? Incremental actions against the Jews were what he chose to do - much as he did with the Churches. Because he was more interested in getting rid of Jews for racial reasons than for attacking churches for social/religious ones, he didn't make much headway with the latter.

'why did he keep endorsing it by letting SS soldiers wear belt buckles saying "God is on our side"?'

He didn't. You are confusing the SS (which were under Hitler's direct personal control and who were mostly deists or pagans) with the German Army (who retained a degree of autonomy and a strong religious tradition). The SS belt buckle displayed their motto - which was the notably secular 'My Honour is Loyalty.'

'This article is subject to a strong bias as some people seem to try to rewrite history.'

This article summarises the majority of reliable English language sources in a mostly neutral fashion (there are some passages that tend to one side or the other). That's what Wikipedia is for.

'Comparing it against the German version of the Article would be a good start.'

By all means do so. There is no direct parallel largely because I think it is not an important issue in Germany, but you may find this section from the Adolf Hitler biography of interest.

'I think I've made my point.'

I am afraid you are incorrect, although that does depend on what point you wished to make. The point you have made is that you are not happy, but the rest go down. You have certainly not provided any compelling as to why your private religious views should trump the information in the historical sources cited.86.183.143.103 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Or by your logic, was the Holocaust non-existent because he didn't launch it in February 1933, even though he clearly wished to do it from very early on?" I don't think this is the intelligent point that you think it is, since the Holocaust *did* happen while any widespread persecution of churches is still, at best, a plan whose existence is unproven and was never acted upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Tags removed

I have removed removed two of the three tags at the top. The 'neutrality' tag appears to have been there for purely ideological (anti-clerical) reasons, and nobody has been able to put forward a convincing argument for a missing alternative viewpoint backed by hard evidence on the talk page or indeed anywhere else. The merge tag is more or less dormant. The intro too long tag remains entirely accurate, but it appears difficult to actually do anything about it without rather seriously compromising the lede and leaving it vulnerable to a 'failure to adequately summarize' riposte. If nobody starts making a serious effort to sort it out in the next month or so, I would recommend removing that as well.86.183.140.98 (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hitler remained a catholic until the day he died

The German priest-historian Hubert Wolf wrote in in recent book “Hitler remained a member of the Catholic Church until the day he died. Like the pope, even the devil could be Catholic”.(Pope and Devil: The Vatican’s Archives and the Third Reich, p. 271,) Adolf Bertram asked for masses to be said for Hitler when his death was announced[4]. I have read an unconvincing attempt by an apologist to write away the memorandum but from what I can tell professional historians accept this was indeed the cardinals intent. "In April [1968], Spanish students protested at the fascist regime of Franco sanctioning a mass for Adolf Hitler." (Protests of 1968 with citation[5]). So what? I'm told that masses for the dead in that era were only celebrated for Catholics. I apologize if the article alludes to this somewhere, I don't have the time or attention span for reading such lengthy articles on a computer screen. Yt95 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The article should also describe how Hitler never stopped paying his Church tax contribution. Yt95 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In the case of your second point, yes, that could certainly be included if an appropriate citation could be found - I can't however think of one off hand. If you can provide one, go ahead. For your first point, I am slightly puzzled by the logic. It is several times stated in the article that Hitler publicly remained a Catholic. Nobody has ever disputed that, with (ironically) the possible exception of Richard Carrier, who doesn't know what he's talking about anyway. Therefore, it is understandable if less than creditable if the official head of the Catholic church did indeed order masses to be said for a deceased officially Catholic Head of State, just as Eamonn de Valera signed an official book of condolence for Hitler as a diplomatic courtesy. However, it should be noted that your claim about Bertram is disputed. More to the point, much of this is about Hitler's private views, which clearly became increasingly anti-Catholic as the years passed. While I can understand and sympathize with the desire to dissociate Hitler and Nazism from atheism - indeed it would be completely wrong to conflate the two because religious belief or lack thereof was not a fundamental tenet of the movement - trying to do so by twisting the evidence to portray his views as in some way essentially Christian as you and more than a few others on Wikipedia seem to wish is not merely wrong and facile, it is absurd.86.180.74.184 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That Hitler paid his Church tax right up until his death and thus can be considered a nominal Catholic is from The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, Richard Steigmann-Gall, pxv. I'm unsure what you mean "your logic". It is a Catholic professor of history who is making the assertion and not me and note he doesn't qualify it with "nominal". That the Church in Spain and Germany considered him to be still a Catholic is surely worthy of note? Do you have an non apologetic source that denies Bertram at least had the intention of having masses said for Hitler (surely a pr disaster if any priest let it be known) ?Yt95 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Steigmann-Gall is arguing against consensus on the subject of the Nazis and Christianity. In fact, the cover of his own book says that. His assertions are contrary to what most historians posit. Citing him on this sort of subject is only authority to support what is a minority view. Mamalujo (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please show citations for the claim that Hitler didn't pay the Church tax until the end as being the consensus. If you mean Hitler wasn't any sort of Catholic at all then there are professors of history who say differently and I have given an example. Hitler himself declared as late as October 1941 that he was a Catholic and surely his own beliefs cannot be ignored and they should be in the lead. If I remember correctly you were the one who was desperately keen to claim Shakespeare as being a Roman Catholic? but this guy is one trophy you do not want? Yt95 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an non apologetic source that denies Bertram at least had the intention of having masses said for Hitler (surely a pr disaster if any priest let it be known). You haven't yet provided a RS (or any source that I can see - random book reviews from Google don't really count as sources) that states he did, and I think that you should make the effort to prove a point before demanding proof that it can be refuted. I think you are also getting a bit confused between 'public' and 'private' beliefs. Hitler stated in public that he was a Catholic several times, for all sorts of reasons, and refused to let Goebbels leave the church. His personal religious views however, which are what this page is designed to describe, appear to have been very different. It should also be noted that in many fields (e.g. genocide and Hitler's personal amassing of wealth) his public pronouncements were at odds with his private views and actions, and religion appears to have been another. With regard to Steigmann-Gall, I'm happy to accept the book as a RS despite some reservations about his methodology, but it would be better if you quoted from the main body of the text rather than a throwaway remark in the introduction. I don't have a copy handy to see if there is any citation. However, it should also be pointed out that Hitler could not stop paying his church taxes without being thrown out of the church. This would have been at odds with the image of himself as a Catholic leader he sought to cultivate, and provides in itself a compelling reason for him to keep paying the taxes. It should not be uncritically taken, as you seem to be, as evidence that he was a practicing, believing, orthodox Catholic in private.86.183.143.103 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The source I gave is indeed reliable. It's written by John Connelly a professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley. Saul Friedlander mentions it. I'm not at home so cannot give page ref just now (added p. 661)but this review The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945 mentions it[6]. Michael Balfour mentions it.[7]. Guenter Lewy mentions it.[8] Joseph A. Biesinger mentions it.[9] Michael Berenbaum mentions it[10] and there are probably many more reliable sources on google books as well. What is a true Catholic? Hitler may not have considered himself a good Roman Catholic (how could he?) but maybe some days out of the complex strands of belief/non-belief circulating in his mind he still felt some connection that convinced Bertram and the Spanish Church that he was still, however imperfectly, in the fold. I simply don't know but we should follow what reliable sources say and not indulge in original research. Your views may be of interest but do you have a reliable sources for them? Yt95 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead states "Unlike his comrade Joseph Goebbels, Hitler was not excommunicated". That Goebbels was excommunicated is news to me but on looking up the ref given it doesn't check out. Yt95 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yt95: Agreed, those sources all say pretty much what you claim they say. There are however a few caveats: 1) While they are (mostly) by scholars, they are not in scholarly works, rather in reference books and articles. The standard of scholarship tends to be somewhat lower in such items because of time and space constraints (I've written both types in the past, and I never advise reference books or encyclopaedias or news reports as anything other than starting points). It would be better - not essential, but better - if you could find scholarly works that make that claim, backed up with footnotes and with a detailed discussion of the controversy on whether the order was ever in practice issued (one or two of them do touch on it, as you may have noticed). I have never read Wolf's book - do you have a copy? If so, is it in there? 2) I'm still not quite clear on how you feel this relates to the article. It's about HItler's religious views - not the views of other people on Hitler, or on the reaction of the Catholic Church to Hitler (there's a separate article for that). Is there any evidence to suggest that Bertram's actions were based on a firm, valid belief that Hitler remained a Catholic? Because if not, I'm not convinced it's quite so big a deal as you're making it out to be. Again, this is about Hitler's private views.

'I simply don't know but we should follow what reliable sources say and not indulge in original research.'

Agreed. Or lead ourselves up blind alleys or indulge in completely unsourced speculation based on private religious views like this:

'What is a true Catholic? Hitler may not have considered himself a good Roman Catholic (how could he?) but maybe some days out of the complex strands of belief/non-belief circulating in his mind he still felt some connection that convinced Bertram and the Spanish Church that he was still, however imperfectly, in the fold.'

I felt there was a certain irony putting that remark next to this one:

'Your views may be of interest but do you have a reliable sources for them?'

This is not about my views, or yours - that much we agree on. The problem is that we seem to have a difference of opinion about the content and scope of the article. You clearly want it to include some of the less creditable (or indeed, dafter) actions of the Catholic church in relation Hitler, but my view is that would be better on this page. I am open to being persuaded otherwise if you can put forward a good argument. I will check back as and when I can - I'm very busy at the moment - to see what you have.

And on your original point, I am still not satisfied that you have proven 'Hitler remained a Catholic until the day he died'. He officially remained a member of the church, which is a very different matter and is not disputed in the article.86.177.234.245 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A "good scholar" can make some concessions in works destined for the mass market by leaving out non essential or highly technical information. Only a "bad scholar" sets out to target book sales by sensationalist claims that they would never dream of making in a more technical work. You can probably think of at least one book in this subject area that was rightly criticized through the choice of the books title, never mind anything else. As best I know none of the works I have quoted above would be challenged on these grounds indeed one of the authors you(?) use above (Michael Burleigh) gives a glowing review on the back of Saul Friendlander's book regarding the authors scholarship and credentials (a book I have). If you choose to use only journal peer-reviewed material then the article, indeed most of the articles on Wikipedia, would be completely gutted so I don't think that is a practical option. On the other hand if you have any journal articles that refute the claim in these books then of course please bring them to the page. You raise a good point on the relevance of the material. Cardinal Bertram's intention of celebrating a memorial mass for Hitler is one very senior person in the Catholic Church giving his opinion on Hitler's religious views, i.e if he thought Hitler had left the Church he wouldn't have considered celebrating such a mass[11]. The header I used to the sub section was just paraphrasing what appeared in Hubert Wolf's book (which I don't have). Since Hitler continued to pay the tax and PPXI/XII never excommunicated him (Guenter Lewy thought it doubtful that it would have made any difference) maybe influenced Cardinal Bertram - I don't know. Everyone I think agrees we should just follow reliable sources and not try to prove anything. Yt95 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul O'Shea (OUP published holocaust author writes])

"#7: Why did he permit the German Churches to hold a Requiem Mass upon Hitler’s death? Meanwhile, there there was no papal prayer or Mass celebrated in solidarity with the Jews. The best known requiem Mass was that ordered by the Archbishop of Breslau, Cardinal Bertram, for all parishes in the diocese. In April 1945 Breslau was under siege by the Red Army, making the request for parish requiems all the more odd. The "best spin" was that Bertram was asking Catholics to pray for the dead head of state. I admit, it was probably not the most successful pastoral strategy.[12]

Yt95 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Klaus Scholder's book perhaps gives more details.[13] Yt95 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry YT95 but I still feel you're missing the point with this remark:

'Cardinal Bertram's intention of celebrating a memorial mass for Hitler is one very senior person in the Catholic Church giving his opinion on Hitler's religious views, i.e if he thought Hitler had left the Church he wouldn't have considered celebrating such a mass'.

As I have repeatedly said, Hitler remained a member of the Catholic church. That doesn't necessarily make him a believing Catholic, and the preponderance of evidence is that he wasn't.So I still feel that this would be better suited to the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany page.

'A "good scholar" can make some concessions in works destined for the mass market by leaving out non essential or highly technical information. Only a "bad scholar" sets out to target book sales by sensationalist claims that they would never dream of making in a more technical work.'

I wish - you have no idea how much I wish - that that were so. Alas, it isn't. More pertinently though, what far too many scholars do is oversimplify, leave out arguments and fail to check material added/removed by editors to make sure it fits the space. Even where we mean well, we sometimes don't have time to get it right - I've published popular stuff under pressure that I'm rather ashamed of with hindsight. In a peer reviewed journal article, that is much less likely (although it can still happen under unusual circumstances) and that is why it is prized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.140.98 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The distinction you make between Hitler not being a believing Catholic yet still being a member of the Catholic Church doesn't resonate well with me. As mentioned above its entering into the realms of "what is a true Scotsman?". As far as Bertram was concerned Hitler’s beliefs did not take him out of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Bertram was the head of the Bishops Conference at the time in Germany. This issue isn't about how many, if any, masses were said publicly for Hitler but rather that the head of the Bishops conference in Germany felt that Hitler’s beliefs were still Catholic. If Hitler’s beliefs were so out of touch with mainstream Catholicism such that, for example, he was considered to be excommunicated then there is no way Cardinal Bertram would have proposed such a requiem. The article is full of scholars giving their opinion on if Hitler was a Christian or Catholic but here we have a senior prelate giving his opinion and surely his opinion is worth more than know-nothings when it comes to Catholicism and canon law? Yt95 (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Klaus Scholder wrote: "So the [requiem mass] paper shows that all down the years the Cardinal was not in fact acting out of tactical considerations, but that despite all the insults to the church, the threats and the persecutions, he continued to see and respect Hitler as the Catholic state head of the Reich. He did not have long to live to realize how wrong he was in this." (p. 166, A Requiem for Hitler))

On the letters between Cardinal Bertram and Hitler: Klaus Scholder took the view, based on 1941/1942 [table talk?] that Hitler had a growing hatred of Christianity so "It's not easy to interpret these letters [between Bertram and Hitler]" which are "unusually cordial". Scholder doesn't seem to be aware of Hitler's 1941 assertion that he was a Catholic and suggests "So Perhaps there were also distant recollections of the years when to be a priest seemed to the young Hitler to be the 'embodiment of all humanly attainable heights'; perhaps a last relic of a Catholic's respect, of which Hitler himself was hardly aware, the the church and it's hierarchy moved Hitler in these letters." (p.165) Yt95 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

YT95, I'm puzzled by some of these. Let's go through in turn:

"The article is full of scholars giving their opinion on if Hitler was a Christian or Catholic but here we have a senior prelate giving his opinion and surely his opinion is worth more than know-nothings when it comes to Catholicism and canon law? "

You have just referred to scholars as 'know nothings' compared to a clergyman, which given your evidently antitheistic religious views strikes me as ironic. Moreover, I don't think that's a very fair characterisation. The point is that we have to look at a range of evidence. That may include letters to clergy, remarks to confidants, behaviour, private writings, etc. etc. Bertram had only one real source - Hitler's letters to him (Goebbels and Bormann would hardly have communicated Hitler's private remarks to Bertram)!

'As far as Bertram was concerned Hitler’s beliefs did not take him out of the Catholic Church.'

Which presupposes that Hitler revealed to Bertram what his true views were. As you yourself note further down, he didn't. Indeed, Hitler's desire to keep in with Bertram may be why he was not excommunicated. However, as there is good reason to think that the main concern he had was not to cause an open rift with the church during the war, that doesn't lead to certainty on his private views. His de jure membership of the church is noted in several places, as is his lack of enthusiasm for it.

'If Hitler’s beliefs were so out of touch with mainstream Catholicism such that, for example, he was considered to be excommunicated then there is no way Cardinal Bertram would have proposed such a requiem.'

He was not excommunicated, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

' "It's not easy to interpret these letters [between Bertram and Hitler]" which are "unusually cordial". Scholder doesn't seem to be aware of Hitler's 1941 assertion that he was a Catholic and suggests "So Perhaps there were also distant recollections of the years when to be a priest seemed to the young Hitler to be the 'embodiment of all humanly attainable heights'; perhaps a last relic of a Catholic's respect, of which Hitler himself was hardly aware, the the church and it's hierarchy moved Hitler in these letters."'

Again, there is some reason to think - and this is also mentioned - that on several occasions Hitler expressed a certain degree of qualified admiration for certain aspects of Catholicism, particularly its widespread organisation and hierarchical structure. That is very far from saying he was a practising or believing Catholic. We seem to be mostly retreading old ground now - I've said most of this before. I'm afraid in light of this my final response is that I am not satisfied with your case that Hitler was a Catholic and that your evidence base is far too narrow to support such a contention. It would be of use in the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany article, but it doesn't match the aim of this article to document and explain Hitler's private religious views based on scholarly research.86.182.112.227 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed we seem to be going round in circles. It's not what you or I think but what published scholars of note write that is important. You seem to be coming with some preconceived ideas to the article, i.e you first assume that I am an atheist because I quote the German catholic historian Hubert Wolf who asserted that "“Hitler remained a member of the Catholic Church until the day he died. Like the pope, even the devil could be Catholic”. As best I know Father Wolf remains in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church. You then class me as an "anti-theist" but could you please show your evidence for this claim? If you were correct, and you are not, then some might think you have a point worthy of noting (I would assume even an anti-theist can write and contribute neutrally). You write "His de jure membership of the church is noted in several places" and "He was not excommunicated, as has been repeatedly pointed out". There is one mention that I can see in the article that refers to excommunication but it is factually incorrect[14] and the citation doesn't check out as I mention above. I intend to add at some point Hubert Wolf's assertion and frame it within the issue of excommunication and the diplomatic considerations that may have influenced the issue. That Hitler paid his Church tax to the end is also worthy of note and that will be added (see citation above). The opinion of the head of the Bishops Conference in Germany that Hitler remained a Roman Catholic until he died cannot be left out (See citation above). The requiem mass, and it's significance, is mentioned by too many scholars and unbiased reader I think would have difficulty justifying its omission. Cardinal Bertram was a expert contemporary witness on Catholicism and his views trump even a modern Catholic scholar who clearly doesn't realize how modern practice regarding requiem masses doesn't represent the norm in the middle of the early-middle 20th century (see my links above). You allude to your own scholarship which might be a subtle form of invoking authority and perhaps a certain right to control content? I don't equate you with him but the last person on a related Church page who claimed to be an expert in canon law and Catholicism turned out to be a fraud and know nothing who was fated to be spread all over the world's press.[15][16][17] so forgive if we seem to be once bitten twice shy. I intend at some point to add Bertram's views on Hitler's religious beliefs and frame it within his knowledge of what the Nazi's were doing to the Church etc as the source I use above does. He wouldn't have had access at the time to Table Talk (to which Klaus Scholder may allude) but not every scholar believes that these quotations attributed to Hitler are reliable and that has to be made clear in the article. Bertram also is unlikely to have known at the time that Hitler had killed himself. Perhaps it's better now just to leave it until I get around to adding the material. You might then feel it's much ado about nothing. Finally and FYI only, I have never (unlike Cardinal Bertram) thought Hitler a Roman Catholic, i.e the adult Hitler seems never to have been in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Yt95 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points yt95. Mama seems totally confused if not outright dishonest. As you mention he has in fact inserted his own Christian interpolations on reliable sources. That is lying. I might suggest that he stick to less important topics if he cant maintain academic honesty on the bug topics. I look forward to your improvements on this page. For far too long it has been getting tag teamed by Oz history, mama and one or two other teamsters. You bring up some very good points and much of that stuff actually used to be in here. But it has slowly disappeared with each NPOV edit from certain users. Hitler certainly remained a Catholic fr both his and the Churches perspectives. He was a Christian and like all Christians prone to sectarianism. No different than the Catholics who denounce "Christians" of other sects. When Hitler says something bad about Christians he's one referring to a certain sect. We know this because he himself was a Catholic Christian (till the day he dies, as he said to his general and the public over and over). But yet three confirmed palagiarized verses in the table talk and the apologists jump all over them and pretend like they weren't mistranslations by Christian translators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.17 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it's too much to expect A Certain Person to post something passably sane or unbiased, although I did find the irony of his comments on religious zealotry touching. I do hope he gets much needed psychological help at some point. As for 'flat out lies' from the man who claimed Irving is not a Holocaust Denier because it happened to suit his purposes...

YT95: if you wish to go ahead on the basis you outline I am willing to accede to your points. I still think this is the wrong page for them but I have to admit you make a compelling and well-researched case (and because I am anonymous, I fully accept your reservations about my status - I am not trying to 'own' the content but I may sometimes succeed in coming across that way without trying)! I have to say though I don't know of any actual scholar who doubts the veracity of Table Talk. There are, and always have been, some issues around the translations, which is a different problem, but the problems tend to be sins of omission rather than addition - Kershaw's your best bet for more detail on that. With regard to Catholicism - as Hitler was officially a Catholic (I agree, church taxes should be in there) it would be surprising if the head of the German RCC did not regard him as one of his flock - but I still think that is different from making a statement on his private religious views.

Finally I apologise for misconstruing your motives - I am still scarred from the behaviour of certain insane editors last year (Greengrounds in particular) and I thought you were another such. I accept I was hypersensitive and wrong on the subject, and I hope you will forgive me for my irritability.31.52.239.219 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Severe POV issues

This article seems to be pushing an idea that Hitler was deeply opposed to Christianity. What I find most concerning is the selective quoting from mein kampf because surely this quote

For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!"

- Adolf Hitler's prayer, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 13

Should be included. there is strong evidence that Hitler believed in "muscular Christianity" the idea of Christ the lion rather than the innocent lamb which was popular in the early 20th century, CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien both being strong proponents. for example this quote from My New Order.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

"good" Anti semitism at the least was an acceptable practice in the catholic church until after the war. this quote from the same book would indicate his anti semitism like most was borne from the treatment of jesus.

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. "

Also some the sources are dubious at best such as the encyclopedia Britannic ones which themselves cite no sources.

This needs a major rewrite to address the POV issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems with this article is and always has been that it's difficult to get across the flux in Hitler's views over time without making the article virtually incomprehensible to the non-expert audience it's aimed at. The sources you cite are not unreasonable ones for inclusion, but they have two shortcomings: (1) they were written in the 1920s, at a time when Hitler's views appear to have been undergoing rapid change and (2) they were written for public consumption, and as has often been noted, his private views and public pronouncements were often two very different things. As late as 1933, for example, Hitler was anxious to conciliate both the Lutheran and Catholic churches because he needed their public support, but from those references we have in private particularly from Goebbels (who was probably the nearest thing Hitler had to a close friend and whose diaries are therefore one of our best sources for what he thought/said in private) he appears to have dropped all religious notions except a form of deism. This is one of the reasons for the contradiction noted at the very start. This complexity is covered far better than I can do it here in Hastings, Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism, to which I would refer you for more information on the subject.

Incidentally, you are of course entitled to put tags on the page if you think it needs them, but this is one that is constantly flagged up and so far nobody has put forward a very convincing argument for a different point of view. What we need are major secondary sources to support the point of view that Hitler was a Christian before it can be included - raw quotes not backed by scholarly discussion are just about usable but they can sometimes be rather dubious (see points 1 and 2 above). I only know of one that might qualify and that is Steigmann-Gall's the Holy Reich, but that's quite a marginal theory because most of its points have been toned down or modified by more recent scholarship. Other sources (like those put forward with inexhaustible patience by YT95 above) tend to focus on the response of the religions within Germany to Hitler, which is a different matter and for which there are separate articles.86.169.0.249 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(PS: three quotations from two books are 'evidence' of a sort, certainly, but I would hesitate before calling them 'strong' evidence. Historians try (we don't always succeed, but we try!) to gather a mass of evidence and then consider it in the round before coming to a reasoned conclusion as best we can. That's one reason why scholarly commentary on quotations are strongly encouraged. Hope that helps.)86.169.0.249 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and what's more - those kinds of public remarks made early in Hitler's political career are already noted extensively in the article. They are valid to note, because they shed light on Hitler's public relationship to religion at different stages of his career - but they must be balanced against the private (and more overtly anti-Christian) remarks noted by Bormann, Goebbels, Speer and others in their various journals; and they must be understood in the context of the political realities of Germany. Ultimately (according to wikipedia rules) their significance must be measured by serious historians of the subject like Kershaw and Bullock etc who by and large have concluded that the private Hitler was essentially an anti-Christian, anti-Semite who probably had some vague and self-serving notions of providence or destiny; while the public Hitler was a calculating politician, who saw the political significance of churches, and was prepared to bide his time for any show-down against them. Ozhistory (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Ozhistory and his two socks or sidekicks have bombarded this article into a pile of apologetic drivel. First off, "Hitler's secret plan to destroy Christianity" is based off three or four verses from the table talk that Richard Carrier in a peer reviewed journal has debunked as mistranslations (flat out lies by apologists is more likely). The argument is given FAR too much weight. Secondly he was opposed to some forms of Christianity but not all. He was a Catholic after all and even told his generals he would remain so until he died. Turns out the Church agreed with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.17 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that proponents of the "Hitler was Christian" line are incapable of contributing to this page without personally attacking anyone who sticks to actual historical consensus about Hitler? If it need be said, I am immune to such bullying and will continue to refer such abusive editors to historians like Kershaw, Bullock, Rees, Shirer, Phayer, Gill etc etc (there are so many) and yes to the journals and transcripts of Goebells, Speer and Bormann. Please don't attack me again, it's such a waste of time and in the end will only get you banned. Ozhistory (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking purely for myself (and I am, incidentally, Welsh and live in Staffordshire, so have no connection with Ozhistory, whom I believe is an Australian) I found it rather amusing that an IP editor with a suspiciously similar style to the one above began a comment with 'agreed' and attacked anybody else for being 'socks or sidekicks'!86.169.1.243 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, though, though I have not forgotten WP:NOTAFORUM it is worth responding to this comment: 'First off, "Hitler's secret plan to destroy Christianity" is based off three or four verses from the table talk that Richard Carrier in a peer reviewed journal has debunked as mistranslations (flat out lies by apologists is more likely).' I'm afraid this comment is based on ignorance. Carrier doesn't speak German, or at least, not fluently enough to translate texts from it (which I would argue needs to be a better than merely good knowledge, due to the severe difficulties involved) although he may know a few words. His translation is deeply flawed (for example, anyone with a better than working knowledge of German would reject, and indeed does reject, Carrier's suggestion that 'Christentum' means 'Catholic' - it means Christianity as a whole). He has no awareness of the secondary literature on the subject, and there is every reason to think he mistranscribed the key sentences in his article because they bear only a passing resemblance to his source. It is also worth pointing out that the limited amount of secondary literature he does include is doubtful in quality and presented with a false claim as to its reliability. I'm thinking here of a diary entry on David Irving's Focal Point Printing website. Carrier described this as 'first person and credible' before rejecting the idea that Irving was a Holocaust Denier. It's slightly concerning that he didn't check out FPP more thoroughly or he would have realised that wasn't a tenable position. It is also worrying that he considers a source so patently untrustworthy trustworthy merely because it is 'first person' - two of the more amusing moments in the Irving libel trial were when Irving lied to the judge about what he had said to the said judge, and when he denied calling the judge 'Mein Führer,' a claim that didn't survive the replaying of the tape recording. Further, you say Carrier's article has debunked these claims - then perhaps you would explain why mainstream scholarship, most notably Steigmann-Gall and Hastings, ignore his arguments and relegate the article itself to a footnote? Finally, Hitler's anti-church stance is not merely based upon 'three or four' statements in Table Talk, but on a wealth of different material, including his actions in office, some of which are mentioned here, his work with Bormann on the 'church question' as it was called, and a number of documents found by the prosecutors at Nuremburg that suggested plans had indeed been drawn up by the Nazi leadership to launch a radical attack on the Christian churches, but that it was to be delayed until 'after the war' for pragmatic reasons. Of course, since after 1942 it was fairly clear Germany would lose the war, there is a reasonable debate to be had about whether or not these plans were taken seriously. They may have been mere fantasies, like his utopian city in Austria to house the museum of the Thousand Year Reich. But they were undoubtedly there. To present them as some kind of proto-Christian conspiracy against atheism is about as convincing as George W. Bush's claims that there were substantial WMDs in Iraq (admittedly, many people did find them very convincing). Hope that is of interest.86.169.1.243 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is one of the poorest articles I've seen on Wikipedia. It is very selective in its presentation of the evidence, gives undue weight to particular scholars while ignoring or undermining others, and has progressively eliminated evidence that apologists have found undesirable. I used to contribute to this article but found it pointless and not worth my time. I just don't have the passion held by the apologists, nor the patience for edit-warring. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait...why are we still using the Trevor-Roper "version" of Hitler's Table Talk here?

I mean, it was shown to be inaccurate decades ago, and included forgeries and mis-translations. I sincerely hope that some editors take a few moments to read the following paper, which includes my personal favorite line, at least in regards to this issue: "The immediate and most important conclusion is that the Trevor-Roper edition, the only English version in print, is worthless. No one who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said." Carrier, R.C. (2003). "'Hitler's Table Talk': Troubling Finds" German Studies Review 26 (3): 561-576. (It can be found on a non-JSTOR page here: [18].) And if you think that this is "fringe" or something, then why is it cited in the Foreword to the 2013 edition of HTT? [19] I mean, seriously? We're relying upon Genoud's outright fabrications and Trevor-Roper's usage of a mis-translation of Genoud? (Rather than the original German...) No wonder most people have a completely inaccurate assessment of this topic. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the section above, and the many others that have addressed the weakness of Carrier's article. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was Wikipedia, where peer-reviewed journal articles trump the personal opinions of anonymous IP addresses. Do you have any WP:RS discussing the "weaknesses" of Carrier's article? Otherwise, I will be deleting this sentence ("The widespread consensus among historians is that the views expressed in Trevor-Roper's translation of Table Talk, are credible and reliable, although as with all historical sources, a high level of critical awareness about its origins and purpose are advisable in using it.") which is cited to a book written at least 2 years PRIOR to the publication of Carrier's article, though it's clear that that sentence is someone's passive-aggressive "dig" at those who point out that it's quite clear that the book contains forged statements and mis-translations. Frankly, I'm shocked that Carrier's article isn't even MENTIONED on the page, even though you're apparently aware of it. (Silly me...I assumed it was UN-intentional. How silly of me to AGF when dealing with Christianity.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Or you could look at the numerous other discussions of the Carrier article in the talk page and elsewhere. It is not at all "clear" that the book contains any "forged statements" or mistranslations. Carrier is a well-known ideologue with no special expertise in the area. We shouldn't be giving his article too much weight, though I have no problem with including it. One piddling article ignored by specialists does not magically invalidate everything written before it. As an aside, this page has to deal with dogmatic Christian ideologues who want to delete anything that does not conform to their view that Hitler was rabidly anti-Christian. It's tiresome to have to engage with people who adopt the opposite point of view that anyone who questions the objectivity of Carrier must be a Christian apologist. Carrier does his cause no service IMO by his exaggerations. Paul B (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

One less-than-glowing reference to Carrier's article is in Hastings' Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism, hardly a book of Christian apologetics. He writes: "On Hitler’s table talks in the early 1940s, which were saturated with deeply unflattering references to Christianity, see Picker and Ritter, Tischgespräche. For an attempt to undermine the reliability of the anti-Christian statements, see Carrier, “Table Talk,” 561–76." (p,251). Note the word "attempt" and the fact that he endorses the view that the TT is "saturated with deeply unflattering references to Christianity". Paul B (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Hitler believed himself to be some sort of follower of Jesus, having "invented" his own version of Jesus, but believed that the Christianity created by the church is false. In many ways there isn't much to argue about. No-one believes that he was a Christian in any standard sense. Even Carrier can't go that far, though he tries. It's really a question of emphasis. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

He was as much a Christian as Osama bin Laden was a Muslim. All of this "No True Scotsman" hogwash is ridiculous. Even Kershaw cautioned people to put too much stock in HTT, long before Carrier had written anything. If we accept the Apologists' viewpoint that Hitler wasn't a Christian, then we are embarking on the same kind of thinking that modern American Right-Wingers do in declaring that Obama is a "Secret Muslim". It's just plain garbage, and more appropriate for discussion on one of those absurd History Channel "documentaries" where they try to claim that the Nazis were secretly "Pagans", space aliens, or Knights Templar. Either way, the discrepancies between Genoud's "translation" and the German ones are something that should be duly noted, particularly in light of the other forgeries created to promote the same nonsense (i.e., Rauschning), and it's telling that Genoud refused to show anyone the documents that he allegedly copied these alleged "Anti-Christian" statements that appear nowhere else... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"He was as much a Christian as Osama bin Laden was a Muslim. All of this 'No True Scotsman' hogwash is ridiculous." I'm sorry, I've no idea what that is supposed to mean. Bin Laden didn't profess Islam in public, while saying it was a load of tosh in private. We do not judge that he wasn't a "true" Muslim, any more than we judge that Al Capone was not a "true" Catholic. You are confusing two wholly separate issues. In the case of Bin Laden (and Capone) their religious allegiance is undisputed. Critics, however, say that they ignored or misrepresented the faith they professed. If Hitler had consistently said to everyone that he was a Christian believer, and there was no evidence that he had other beliefs, then you would be right. Christian apologists would be forced to say he wasn't a "true" Christian in the same sense that Bin Laden's Muslim critics say he wasn't a "true" Muslim. But that's not the issue here. He clearly said one thing in public and another in private. Even Carrier does not dispute that. We discuss how scholars interpret his assertions about his religious beliefs, which include his attacks, in private, on Christianity. Your analogy with Obama is utterly bizarre. If there was evidence from diaries and other records that Obama was seen praying to Mecca, reading the Quran and saying "Inshallah" at the end sentences, then there would indeed be a case that he was a "secret Muslim". So far such evidence has, surprisingly, not been forthcoming. There is a great deal of evidence, including even Carrier's version of the TT, that Hitler did not believe mainstream forms of Christianity. That he believed in God, at least in some form, is not in doubt. That he believed Jesus was a heroic fighter against Judaism is not in doubt. But that's not Christianity by any normal definition. There was indeed a neo-Pagan wing within Nazism. It's not fiction. Hitler, as is well known, did not support it. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mormonism is not Christianity by the "normal definition" of many (if not most) mainstream Christians. But that doesn't mean that those mainstream Christians would be justified in editing this encyclopedia to claim that they are not Christians. The only alleged "evidence" of Hitler being anything BUT a Christian are HTT, Rauschning, etc., which all suffer from credibility issues, and all claim to base these assertions on alleged secret, private conversations that cannot be verified. Compared to the overwhelming amount of public affirmations of Christian belief...they are given entirely too much "space". And yes, if you compare the claims made by the Christian Apologists on this page, they appear quite similar to the kinds of claims made here: Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. The idea that we should all ignore the wealth of evidence showing that he, (as well as the vast majority of Nazis in general), was Christian...and instead focus on some alleged quotes that are almost undoubtedly forgeries (just like Rauschning), is frankly ludicrous. On any other WP page, this kind of "evidence" would be laughed out of the talk page. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, the "Pagan wing" of the Nazis was tiny enough to hardly merit discussion. Most, if anything, were like Himmler...Occultists who focused primarily on Christianity, viewed through an Ariosophic lens. (i.e., you won't find many actual "Pagans" searching for the "Spear of Longinus" or the "Holy Grail"...LOL). Just because Rosicrucianism or other Christian-Occultism is not mainstream, does not make it "Pagan". --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no search for the Spear of Longinus (the spear's location was well known) or even for the holy grail, outseide the imagination of the makers of Secret History. However, they were both significant because of concepts within German nationalism (the spear is Frankish; the Grail exists in Germanic myth). Catholics don't think Baptists are true Christians, but that's beside the point. Mormonism is a religion that consistently identifies itself as Christian and in which Jesus is a central figure. Hitler did not create a religion in which Jesus was a central figure, he merely made approving references to him as an individual. If I make approving references to Paul McCartney, it does not make me a follower of a religion of Beatleism. There is no wealth of evidence that Hitler was a Christian believer. There are some public statements made for obvious political reasons. There is a wealth of evidence recorded by Goebbels and many others that Hitler was not a believer in Christianity. There's nothing remotely comparable for Obama. No similarity whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Hitler did not create a religion in which Jesus was a central figure, he merely made approving references to him as an individual." So, I just imagined Positive Christianity? (And yes, I know that he didn't "create" it, but he certainly was instrumental in helping promote it.) Also, those who accuse Obama of being a "Secret Muslim" use the same "reasoning" as you when you state that, "There are some public statements made for obvious political reasons." Frankly, I'm surprised we don't see HTT on Snopes, like this: [20]. (1). Please link me to any of these alleged "diary" statements of Anti-Christian comments by Hitler. (2). Please show me where being a "believer" is something that can be proved in regards to any historical personage. The facts remain: Hitler said he was a Christian. He said it unequivocally, and often. He promoted (a weird form of) Christianity. (Note: Aryan Nations (a/k/a "The Church of Jesus Christ-Christian") and the Ku Klux Klan are also Christian organizations following similarly "weird" forms of Christianity...but their members are still "Christians".) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Since I created the article Positive Christianity, I think I might be aware of it. That's not a religion; it's policy, prominent in the '20s. And it wasn't created by Hitler. It was more or less the brainchild of Rosenberg, a man who was explicitly anti-Christian. You are now being simply silly when you make more comparisons to Obama. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Obama has or ever had Muslim beliefs. Just fantasies from the web. There is abundant evidence from Goebbels, Speer etc that's already in the article. I don't have to link to it. Just flip thew page and read the freakin' article. Of course we can't 'make a window into the soul', as the lady said, of any historical personage. But that's an irrelevance. We have evidence of statements. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The problems you raised are real, and should not be dismissed as Paul has done here. Although there are some issues with Carrier's thoroughness, the problems he raised in his paper are pretty incontrovertible. The translations are presented in the original German, and portions from the English Trevor-Roper translation (containing anti-Christian statements) are missing from the original. There's just no arguing around that. It's right there (or rather, not there) in black and white.

What's more, the newest edition of the Table Talk states, "Richard C. Carrier has shown, the English text of the table-talk that originally appeared in 1953 and is reprinted here derives from Genoud's French edition and not from one of the German texts. Until a major institution finds a way to surmount the legal and financial obstacles that currently prevent a complete collation and publication of the various texts in existence—and can arrange for an English translation—this edition will remain the only one in English that is accessible to readers."

And Professor Rainer Bucher states in his, Hitler's Theology: A Study in Political Religion: "Copyright issues have resulted in the two different German versions and the translation is purportedly based on a third set of documents. As the English translation is not only of dubious origin but also of dubious intent and ideological underpinning, I have chosen to translate the German source material myself. (For a discussion of this problematic see: Richard C. Carrier, “Hitler's Table Talk”: Troubling Finds'. German Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, (Oct 2003); 561-76.)." Miguel Chavez (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Best,

'Professor Rainer Bucher states in his, Hitler's Theology: A Study in Political Religion: "Copyright issues have resulted in the two different German versions and the translation is purportedly based on a third set of documents. As the English translation is not only of dubious origin but also of dubious intent and ideological underpinning, I have chosen to translate the German source material myself. (For a discussion of this problematic see: Richard C. Carrier, “Hitler's Table Talk”: Troubling Finds'. German Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, (Oct 2003); 561-76.)."'Ummm - no, I think you will find if you check the book carefully, that actually it was the translator, Rebecca Pohl, who said that. It would have been an extremely strange thing for Bucher to say, given that he was writing in German (the original was called Hitlers Theologie) and worked from the original German texts...109.156.157.17 (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's simply untrue that anti-Christian statements are "missing from the original". We may argue about whether or not specific passages were missing, but Hitler's dismissive comments on Christianity - as we normally understand it are still common, and have many other sources. The IP is correct. The passage you quote is from the translator's note at the beginning of the book. Bucher himself is clear about Hitler's anti-Christian stance, quoting a passage in which he says "its constructs will break down entirely one day". Paul B (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, the quotation comes from the translator not the author. Nevertheless I believe a German translator qualifies as an authority given that we are discussing exactly that topic, an English translation of a German work. I agree with you Paul that there are other passages in the table-talk (unchallenged by Carrier) that can certainly be interpreted as being anti-Christian. However my point was that Carrier demonstrated through peer-review that "portions from the English Trevor-Roper translation" containing anti-Christian statements are indeed missing from the original German. To say this raises legitimate questions is an understatement. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that, if you read the book further, it reveals that even in the original German Hitler's views on the churches could be pretty scathing (as the good Mr Barlow notes). Now, it's true that Hitler said one thing and may have thought another. In fact, we all know he did that. And it's also true these passages were edited by Bormann, who hated religion and loved HItler and wanted, therefore, Hitler to hate religion too. So he may have 'enhanced' Hitler's views but - and here is the snag - while it is possible, the evidence for it is scanty and rests upon the word of Picker, who was trying to sell his own version at the time he said it. So therefore, that theory (espoused by Carrier) is not something we can rely on. As for translators not using translated documents that miss out the words in question and mentioning in passing that there is an article that lists some of the issues, without mentioning its central thesis that Hitler must have been a Christian...do you see how weak that argument is becoming? Appeals to authority are of course dangerous - Einstein's much-maligned theory of relativity springs to mind, as does Darwin's theory of evolution, when it comes to successful insurgents against a hidebound consensus - but the fact is that Carrier's work doesn't really make the grade. Quite apart from his well-known fanaticism, his doubtful qualifications in the field have put it rather beyond the pale, and the continuing efforts of Carrier's admirers (such as, I fear, your good self) to push its central thesis at the expense of the vast mass of scholarship is wearisome.109.158.93.246 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Byron, have you read the Goebbels Diaries? It's just one source containing records of Hitler disdaining Christianity outside of HTT that might change your view. Meanwhile, to address the underlying logic of your argument that Hitler must be Christian if he admired or followed things Jesus said, well this is not true either. If it were true - then that would make Muhammad Christian because of Jesus in Islam. And then there's people like Richard Dawkins, who was Christened as a child, saying things like "Jesus was a great moral teacher" even after becoming a prozlytic atheist. Ozhistory (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)