Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/FAQ

Q1: "Why do the views of historians dominate the introduction, rather than us just relying on extended quotes from Hitler speeches?"

A1: The first reason is because Wikipedia policy requires an emphasis on reliable secondary sources, and secondly because of the contradictory nature of so many of Hitler's words and actions. The article covers several decades during which Hitler contradicted himself in word and action repeatedly. Relying on extended quotes, (especially from narrowly-sourced websites or blogs,) is therefore neither practical, nor likely to accurately summarise our article in a reasonable space. Wikipedia policy on sourcing, such as our policy on original synthesis and original research discourages users from interpreting the sources by themselves because people will disagree with the interpretation. Wikipedia policy is to regurgitate claims from secondary sources we think of as reliable. (We already have a section for "Hitler's public rhetoric and writings about religion".)

Isn't the idea that he wasn't Christian in and of itself revisionism?

No. The long established, mainstream, orthodox viewpoint is that Hitler was not Christian. Prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials after the War put the case that Hitler had engaged in a slow and cautious policy to eliminate Christianity. Richard Steigmann-Gall, (who is one of the scholars that we cite in partial opposition to this view,) in his book The Holy Reich notes that the concept has gone "unquestioned" by scholarship (p.3), in spite of the fact that "[n]early all aspects of Nazism" (p.3) have been challenged by "revisionist scrutiny"(p.3) and proceeds to challenge it. Here is a review by Ernst Piper, saying "'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..."

"If Hitler was raised a Catholic and wasn't formally excommunicated, doesn't that make him a Catholic?"

Many irreligious people were raised in religious households, but it does not mean they cannot change their religious identity. Accordingly, the article notes the view of Hitler biographers and historians like Ian Kershaw, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Laurence Rees and others, that Hitler came to despise Christianity, and that his government in many ways persecuted the Catholic Church. The article notes too however Albert Speer and John Toland's view that Hitler, while being anti-clerical and having no connection to the Church, did not formally leave it before his death.

Where are these historians even drawing from?

Sources include Goebbels' diary on Hitler, Albert Speer's memoirs, and Hitler's Table Talk as transcribed by Bormann. Historians also cite the Nazi policy toward the churches, and Hitler's promotion of anti-Christians to key posts in his inner circle throughout his career: Himmler, Goebbels, Rosenberg, and Bormann were all virulent anti-Christians.

What about Carrier and Mittschang's work on the subject? Shouldn't it destroy Table Talk?

Yes, Carrier and Mittschang have challenged several statements in Table Talk. See this thread.

Is the church persecution thing based off Table Talk?

No, sources are multiple. They include the Nuremberg documents, the Goebbels Diaries, and Speer's memoirs. Other evidence of the Hitler regime's persecutions includes the Pope's Mit brennender Sorge 1937 encyclical and emergence of the Protestant Confessing Church, the prominence of Christian clerics in the Concentration camps, and of Christians in the German Resistance, the closure of religious schools and newspapers, arrest of clergymen, and seizure of church properties in Germany.

May I add a new scholarly work to the article if it suits your definition of a good source, without rewriting the lede entirely?

We should definitely be wary of undue weight, but if you find something directly relevant to Hitler, okay, you can put it in a relevant section.