Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 10

New references supporting long standing claims in lede
Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate; the wide consensus of historians consider him to have been irreligious and anti-Christian, while a small minority have claimed he was a sincere follower of what he called "positive Christianity". JerryRussell (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Conway, along with -nearly every- other academic reviewer, savaged SG's work to the extent that he felt compelled to answer them; how good a job he did I'll leave as an exercise to the reader, but using Conway in support of SG suggests rather strongly that the reference here was Google-dredged rather that read. Anmccaff (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Conway wasn't offered in support of SG, but rather as an independent secondary source evaluation. Yes, this is a "Wikipedia fringe" view, to use the jargon. Tell me something I didn't know already. JerryRussell (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What you appear not to know is that excluding fringe ideas from serious scholarship isn't an idea limited to Wikipedia, and that Wiki has some rules on keeping fringe-y stuff out of the lead of articles. As it stands now, SG's views are given far too much play in the article, and for that matter, in his biography. Anmccaff (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is WP:LEDE which says: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
 * Academia may have collectively decided that Hitler was not Christian, that is aside from a few brave dissenters. However, prominent authors and politicians (apart from academia) still regard this as a controversial topic, for obvious reasons which are explained in the quotes from the academics. The consensus lede has opened with the statement Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate for I don't know how many years. What is the controversy? It's whether Hitler was a Christian or not. JerryRussell (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with JerryRussell. If there was no controversy, this article would not exist and a single mention of the controversy is in no way WP:UNDUE as the majority of the lead seems dedicated to informing the reader that irreligious and anti-Christian is the majority view.  Per WP:Lead, we note the controversy and move along, which is what the article did before the recent changes. 2602:304:788B:DF50:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MjolnirPantsThis is the discussion about long term stable. User:Anmccaff reverted it yet again without discussing on the talk page's active discussion.  If anything, he is guilty of the slow rolling edit war. 2602:304:788B:DF50:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's simply not true. The edits you are reverting to were first added on 8 days ago, and immediately contested. I've reverted to the actual stable version. Make your case here and it may end up being reinserted, but edit warring over it will only result in blocks being handed out. Remember, it's "be Bold, get Reverted, then Discuss", not "be bold, get reverted, revert yourself until the other side gives up to avoid violating 3rr, then discuss". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, you've reverted 4 times now, and may be blocked immediately for exactly that. If you revert again, I will request intervention. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What you reverted to is by no means the long term stable. The wonderful prose in the version you reverted to says "Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate" and then goes on to says Hitler was "irreligious and anti-Christian" 3 times in the first paragraph without mentioning any debate.  Very encyclopedic.  2602:304:788B:DF50:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The controversial sentence in the lede ...a strong consensus of historians consider him a skeptic of religion, while a small minority have claimed he was a Christian (or variants) was introduced on 19 July 2017 by Steeletrap, who reverted his own edit on 19 September 2017. So that was stable for 2 months.

More or less the same point has been in the lede (in the phrase a few scholars accept [Hitler's Christian] views as genuine...) since I introduced it in July 2016, gradually working its way down from the 1st paragraph to the 3rd.

In his edit summary of 19 Sept., Steeletrap said ''deleting unsourced. Who are these historians who say he was Christians? Do they number high enough to be called a "minority"''? That seemed like a good question to me, and I contacted Steigmann-Gall to ask him about it. All we could come up with are the two additional historians mentioned above, Michael and Lackey. Ironically I'm not sure whether it's Michael or Lackey who is being denounced as Steigmann-Gall's lackey. I don't see any objective basis to exclude these WP:RS publications from the references for this item.

Beyond those three historians, we have Carrier and Reinberg raising questions about the Table Talk and suggesting rather broadly that they aren't buying Hitler's atheism; major atheist public figures like Dawkins and Hitchens; and probably more I don't know about. The policies suggest that the difference between significant minorities and tiny minorities is assessed in terms of the existence of 'prominent' adherents. It seems to me that the major advocates are very well known, and thus NPOV requires us to mention this significant minority. JerryRussell (talk) 02:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Anyone who has introduced Dawkins and Hitchens into a serious historical debate has already conceded it. Anmccaff (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Bringing in any writer completely dependent on Steigman-Gall adds nothing to SG's admittedly minority position, especially if one of the hangers-on isn't even a historian. Anmccaff (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , the WP:RS policy describes a spectrum of RS from the highest quality (journal review articles with high citation index) on down through other peer reviewed scholarly articles, books published by academic presses, reputable mainstream newspapers, and publishers of popular mainstream books & magazines. According to WP:DUE, the judgment of whether a viewpoint represents a 'significant minority' should take into account all sources across the spectrum of RS, including biased polemical sources such as Dawkins and Hitchens, as well as the tenured or tenure track academic sources.
 * If you look through the talk page archives of this article, Anmccaff, you'll find that this is a very long running debate. The existing text represents a standing compromise. Do you see any basis to challenge this mature consensus that Steigmann-Gall's position represents a significant minority position, and as such is entitled to representation in the lede and in the article?
 * Appropriate use of the other two sources is a distinct topic. Let's clarify first whether you agree that S-G represents a significant minority. JerryRussell (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Silly me, I had assumed that had some sort of basis in fact for his claims that the books by Michael and Lackey are somehow dependent on Steigmann-Gall. In reality, Dr. Robert Michael was a Professor Emeritus of European History at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, where he taught the Holocaust for nearly thirty years and he published more than 50 articles and eleven books on the Holocaust and the History of Antisemitism. Robert Michael obituary Michael Lackey is Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. In his description of his work, Lackey makes this statement about his inspiration for his book: I noticed that many prominent black writers made a startling claim: they said that Hitler and the Nazis were Christian, and that, had they not been Christian, the Holocaust would never have occurred. Lackey's page at academia.edu Inasmuch as Steigmann-Gall is not black, it seems that Lackey is not Steigmann-Gall's lackey. Furthermore, there's an entire class of authors to be explored for further information, and to add weight to this significant minority position. And I couldn't find any evidence of any institutional dependency at all between these professors. JerryRussell (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Silly me
 * Clearly. When confronted by an implicit accusation of google-dredging sources without really understanding them, you went out of your way to prove it above. Horace would be displeased.  Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * {I had assumed that {u


 * ...mmmm. yeasss. Always a safe assumption, that.  Michael very well might be mentioning elsewhere. Michael was not, however, a major biographer of Hitler, nor of his religious leanings, and the cite used reflects that...and, of course, it references SG.  It's not going so far afield as, say, Dawkins and Hitchens, as you have already suggested, but it isn't major central scholarship. Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And Michael Lackey is Distinguished McKnight University Professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.


 * Of English, yes. Have you read him?  It's enough for a sane man to get a mallet, an oak stake, and a shovel and search out Derrida's grave.


 * The only parts I could see attributed to a competent modern historian -as opposed to, say, Virginia Wolfe or Nietzsche - were cites from...yeah, Stiegman-Gall. Anmccaff (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In his description of his work, Lackey makes this statement about his inspiration for his book: I noticed that many prominent black writers made a startling claim: they said that Hitler and the Nazis were Christian, and that, had they not been Christian, the Holocaust would never have occurred.
 * Leaving aside the problems with "scholarship" based on folklore, who exactly are you trying to pin these beliefs to in particular, or should we stick to "BS", which also covers "black students?" Anmccaff (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's enough for a sane man to get a mallet, an oak stake, and a shovel and search out Derrida's grave. Yes, I know you don't like it. WP:IDL says that's not a good reason not to use it.
 * who exactly are you trying to pin these beliefs to in particular...? I guess I could go and google dredge the answer, but what would be the point if you equate "black students" (or for that matter, "Prominent Black Writers") with "BS"? And did you really mean to say that, in a discussion about Hitler and the Holocaust of all places? WP:IUC, The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment: ... derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities... JerryRussell (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * of course, it references SG And who could write about Hitler and Christianity, after 2003, without referencing S-G? Isn't that just basic academic competence to list him among the relevant sources? How does this create dependency, in the sense that due weight is determined by the prominence of a viewpoint in independent RS? JerryRussell (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's enough for a sane man to get a mallet, an oak stake, and a shovel and search out Derrida's grave.
 * Yes, I know you don't like it. WP:IDL says that's not a good reason not to use it.
 * But the near-universal suspicion of deconstructivist historiography among actual historians is. Anmccaff (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * who exactly are you trying to pin these beliefs to in particular...? I guess I could go and google dredge the answer, but what would be the point if you equate "black students" (or for that matter, "Prominent Black Writers") with "BS"? And did you really mean to say that, in a discussion about Hitler and the Holocaust of all places? WP:IUC, The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment: ... derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities... JerryRussell (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear...do you really think there's a color bar for taking a black studies course? Anmccaff (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good save. I'm going to concede that since Lackey is (strictly speaking) an English professor rather than a historian, he shouldn't be mentioned in the section on historians' views. JerryRussell (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * of course, it references SG And who could write about Hitler and Christianity, after 2003, without referencing S-G? Isn't that just basic academic competence to list him among the relevant sources? How does this create dependency, in the sense that due weight is determined by the prominence of a viewpoint in independent RS? JerryRussell (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As an also-ran, to be mentioned if time allowed? Sure.  In the near fawning terms we see in The Modernist God State?  No so much. Anmccaff (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usd230.k12.ks.us/PICTT/eisenhower/PaulaWolff/3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926204151/http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml to http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926204151/http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml to http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM
After seeing this at ANI Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents I changed claimed to stated based on WP:CLAIM and slightly rearranged the paragraphs so that it would be a topic sentence to introduce the views of scholars who are generally skeptical about his public statements - I'm hoping this will be acceptable to both editors, but I'm opening a discussion in case the involved editors dispute the changes I made. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The change is OK in form, but I think we need a specific citation as to what speech it was in which he supposedly claimed to be a "Christian". I'm betting, but don't know for certain, that his reference would actually be to "Providence" and not to Christ as a savior, the belief in which would be the definition of a Christian.  It may be that the reference given at the end of the compound sentence is the source of that claim, but I'm not familiar with it, so I can't be certain about that.  I'll try to get hold of a copy and confirm or refute the claim.  In the meantime, I've added a "CN" tag to that specific part of the sentence.As for the second part, about Jesus as an Aryan fighter, I'm aware that Hitler spoke in these terms to his entourage in his Table Talk, so I've added that information to the second part of the compound sentence, and added a reference to support it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

can you post the quote for the footnote on talk? Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * {ec} Having just checked my copy of Percy Ernst Schramm's Hitler: The Man and the Military Leader, the first part of which is an analysis of Hitler's statements at the Berghof to his guests and staff, and seeing that Schramm is quite specific in saying that Hitler did not believe in Jesus Christ as a savior, I've added a footnote to your section saying that.  If we cannot come up with a specific citations for thespeech where Hitler supposedly said he was a "Christian", the section will need to be re-written to restore "claimed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not need to be rewritten to say claimed, if there is no source for it, it would need to come out entirely. Please don't restore the content about "the definition of a Christian" this article is not about Christology Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for cleaning up the footnote. You were right to remove the "definition" statement, sorry about that. Was that the focus of your question above about "the quote for the footnote"?  If not, I can provide any additional text from Schramm you'd like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine now to emphasize that most scholars believe he was mostly a political actor - this is the view of most scholars without venturing into the area of theological dispute. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * After checking the source (Conway), I had to change the initial statement, as it doesn't say that Hitler said he was a Christian, it says that he "evidenced an appreciation of Christianity", which is not the same thing at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Goebbels
"Once in office, Hitler and his regime sought to reduce the influence of Christianity on society.[18] From the mid-1930s, his government was increasingly dominated by militant anti-Christians like Goebbels, Bormann, Himmler, Rosenberg and Heydrich whom Hitler appointed to key posts.", the last paragraph in the lead refer to Goebbels as anti-Christian. Goebbels seems to favor Christianity in his diary.

"A nation without a religion - that is like a man without breath."

"Christianity is not a religion for the masses, let alone for all. Cultivated by few and translated into deeds, it is one of the most splendid blossoms that can grow in the soul of a good man."

"If Christ came back he would drive his treacherous servants out of the temple with a whip."

"Christ is the genius of love and as such the most diametric antipole to Jewry, which is the incarnation of hate. … Christ was the first anti-Jewish opponent of stature. … The Jew is the lie that became flesh. He nailed Christ to the cross, and thus for the first time in history nailed the eternal truth to the cross."

"The war we are fighting until victory or the bitter end is in its deepest sense a war between Christ and Marx. Christ: the principle of love. Marx: the principle of hate."

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels#Michael:_a_German_fate_in_diary_notes_(1926) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:6060:b889:419c:a7b9 (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2018‎ (UTC)
 * The article is "Religious view of Adolf Hitler". not "Religious views of Joseph Goebbels" or "Religious views of prominent Nazis". Goebbels was many, many times out of sync with Hitler, and his views most certainly cannot be taken as being Hitler's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I was only referring to the last paragraph in the lede which mentioned Goebbels as anti-Christian. "his government was increasingly dominated by militant anti-Christians like Goebbels," was the previous version. I am only disagreeing with that portion. AnalyticCritic (talk) 03:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Nazi actions in Poland
I have removed a section added by a new editor about the Nazis imposing state atheism on Poland after the successful invasion of that country, because it is not germane to this article. Even if the actions taken were specifically ordered by Hitler, that does not necessarily reflect on Hitler's personal religious views, considering that his intention for the Poles was to entirely strip them of the veneer of civilized society and leave them as simply slaves, with rudimentary education and infrastructure. Thus, the decision -- if it was Hitler's, and not that of someone else in the Nazi hierarchy, reflects a socio-political choice, not a religious one per se, and says nothing whatsoever about Hitler's person views. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't read much about this issue. Is there a source on Hitler's motive for this? The Nazis regarded Slavs as racially inferior and planned to ethnically cleanse them from Poland. (Killing or expelling most Slavs while allowing the "racially valuable" ones to marry Germans; in any case destroying any vestige of Polish culture.) So it could've been motivated by racism rather than atheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Poles_by_Nazi_GermanySteeletrap (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
I went through this article again and corrected a number of weasel-words that both misrepresented sources and clearly were intended to rebut the scholarly consensus on this matter. Steeletrap (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Quote lists
Bundle5 and Bundle6 quotes are literally the same, one should be substituted but I'm not sure which one. --178.252.126.70 (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

survival of the fittest comment
The following Allan Bullock quote should be removed since it's just his opinion: "In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest."

Not only that, but it actually makes Hitler sound practical or even reasonable. Many people (including Christians) believe in the survival of the fittest. In other words, the survival of the godly people in the world. Reedlander (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing "survival of the fittest" in the context of Hitler's documented atrocities against the vulnerable as either practical or reasonable. Survival of the fittest isn't a widespread view among Christians or anybody else, certainly not in the murderous manner practiced by Hitler and his followers. Hitler's contempt for Christian teachings of mercy and charity are not admirable attributes.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The following Allan Bullock quote should be removed since it's just his opinion Call me crazy, but I'm of the opinion that the opinion of the single most influential biographer of Hitler is WP:DUE for this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  01:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You actually highlighted my point that this is just someone's opinion. Not only that, but it is very non-specific. That is why I don't think it is meaningful. It almost encourages sympathy toward Hitler's ideology. Reedlander (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a major scholar describing Hitler's opinion, so it should stay. It doesn't encourage sympathy, in fact, it almost suggests that Hitler was cold and calculating. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:41, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Hitler as atheist
An editor is adding a source which they say quotes Kershaw as saying that Hitler was an atheist. This is odd, since nowhere in Kershaw's bio of Hitler does it say this, or anything near to this, although he deals extensively with the "Church struggle" and Hitler's views on the Catholic and Protestant chirches. I cannot evaluate the reliability of the source, as it is not in English, would someone who speaks the language ofthe source (Polish?) please evaluate it for the reliability of the person quoting Kershaw, and the source of publication. The same goes for the second source in the same language. I have removed the edit until its reliability can be verified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The first source is an interview, where Kershaw replies, "You can probably say" when asked if Hitler were an atheist. That's not a good source.  The second quotes an opponent of Hitler (Otto Strasser) while implying he was a supporter.  This strikes me as cherry-picking.  TFD (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Otto Strasser (1897 –1974) was a member of the Nazi Party and a political opponent of Adolf Hitler. "... an early member of the Nazi Party. Otto Strasser, together with his brother Gregor Strasser, was a leading member of the party's left-wing faction, and broke from the party due to disputes with the dominant ‘Hitlerite’ faction. He formed the Black Front, a group intended to split the Nazi Party and take it from the grasp of Hitler. This group also functioned during his exile and World War II as a secret opposition group. His brand of National Socialism is now known as Strasserism." Dimadick (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that these aren't great source. But if a historian of Kershaw's standing had said Hitler is a Christian in the same kind of context as Kershaw called him an atheist--which none has, ever--the tendentious editors here would be rushing to push it into the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can picture the storm of neckbeards and fedoras flying as millions of atheists rush to their computers to make that edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am an atheist myself, but I don't get the fascination with the subject. Raised in a Catholic family, in the primarily Catholic Austria-Hungary, he would qualify as a Cultural Christian even as an atheist. In Mein Kampf, Hitler offers but a few words for his experiences with Christianity as a child: "In my freetime I practised singing in the choir of the monastery church at Lambach, and thus it happened that I was placed in a very favourable position to be emotionally impressed again and again by the magnificent splendour of ecclesiastical ceremonial. What could be more natural for me than to look upon the Abbot as representing the highest human ideal worth striving for, just as the position of the humble village priest had appeared to my father in his own boyhood days? At least, that was my idea for a while. But the juvenile disputes I had with my father did not lead him to appreciate his son's oratorical gifts in such a way as to see in them a favourable promise for such a career, and so he naturally could not understand the boyish ideas I had in my head at that time. This contradiction in my character made him feel somewhat anxious." In other words, "daddy did not want me to become an Abbot". See: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt Dimadick (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm an atheist as well. I'm also a skeptic, meaning I'm a lover of truth. Part of that truth is, Hitler was pretty much an atheist. As for being a cultural Christian, allow me to quote Cenk Uygur: Of course!!. The vast majority of Europeans are cultural Christians, including myself and all my Atheist friends. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * not sure we want to bring Cenk into this. He believes that "Gott mitt uns" on Wehrmacht belt buckles--which was a tradition of the German military going back to the time of Bismarck--is proof HItler was a Christian. Steeletrap (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, so did Hitchens. It's fooled a lot of smart people. Not that Cenk is even in the same league as the Hitch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  12:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Evidence of Hitler's private sentiments regarding Christianity has no bearing on whether or not he believed in God. It gets overused in apologetics to state "this is what happens when atheists are in charge" and both sides are too busy playing "people that disagree with me are like Hitler" Czarnibog (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you would think that Hitler's private sentiments regarding Christianity would have no bearing on his religious views. It's almost an oxymoron to say that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Christianity does not equate Theism (subset/subcategory is not equivalence). Similarity, Theism does not equate Religious views. Private sentiments regarding Christianity is independent of whether one thinks a deity exists or not (you can be Jewish, Hindu, etc.). Religious beliefs is independent of whether one thinks a deity exists or not (Buddhism is an atheistic religion). I have no idea why you would think Czarnibog's statement on beliefs in Christianity having no bearing on theistic views equates a claim that views on Christianity has no bearing on religious views in general. It is almost a non-sequitur. Fmarkqiao 1:30, 31 Dec 2019 (PST)

Also worth mentioning in the lede that Hitler was a member of the church in good standing, during the Holocaust as noted by Toland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satendresse (talk • contribs) 01:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Toland’s view differs from the scholarly consensus, and thus shouldn’t be mentioned in the lede .Graecusperseus (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This article requires serious work.
This article requires serious work. It is thoroughly misleading and references known fraudulent works like Hitler's Table Talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Zande (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree. The motivation of the cooperation of the christian churches with the fascists was that the churches regarded fascism as bulwark against atheist bolshevism. When looking at other European states like Slovakia and Croatia the fascist dictators were even catholic priests themselves like i.e. Jozef Tiso in Slovakia. Croatia is an example for another clerical fascist state : Catholic_clergy_involvement_with_the_Ustaše, the Chief Guard of the concentration camp Jasenovac was a Franciscan friar, Miroslav Filipović. The German article on clerical fascism is much better : Klerikalfaschismus. Then there are other examples like the Vatican Ratlines, antisemitic quotes from the bible that were used by the fascists : Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament like the very prominent John 8:39-44. Against this background citing the Catholic Ian Kershaw, who probably intends to protect christian faith with his writings, is a bit strange : " Hitler had an "ability to simulate, even to potentially critical Church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity [from Bolshevism]" wrote Kershaw, which served to deflect direct criticism of him from Church leaders, who instead focused their condemnations on the known "anti-Christian party radicals". " Did Jozef Tiso and the Croatian Franciscans also simulate their christian belief ? And there are several other christian and fascist ( clerical fascist ) regimes in Europe during times of fascism i.e. Vichy France, Romanian Iron Guards, Francoist Spain ... They where all ruled by explicitely Christian dictators and only the Germans were atheists ? 158.181.78.241 (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This article is about what Hitler believed, not about what the church, (people who weren’t Hitler) regarded the Nazi regime as. Therefore, how clerics regarded Hitler is not relevant to this article as it is a separate topic. Whether or not Croatia or France had a religious fascism doesn’t affect this article. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 06:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

A few Christian-biased editors are on guard of this article to devoid it of any content that links Nazism with Christianity. As long as a few with a Christian favoritism is in charge of this article, this article will not be able to be improved on. The following was deleted for a pro-Christian bias as the motivator is one of the many examples of this Christian control of this article.

"[Richard Steigmann-Gall]] saw evidence of a "Christian element" in Hitler's early writings. In Mein Kampf, Steigmann-Gall saw "no indication of [Hitler] being an atheist or agnostic or of believing in only a remote, rationalist divinity, writing that Hitler referred continually to a providential, active deity." "'Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.'" −	−	"'His [the Jewish person's] life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties—and this against their own nation.'" −		 −	Steigmann-Gall argued that Hitler's references to Jesus, God as the "Lord of Creation" and the necessity of obeying "His will" reveals that Christianity was fused into his thinking. "What Christianity achieves is not dogma, it does not seek the outward ecclesiastical form, but rather ethical principles.... There is no religion and no philosophy that equals it in its moral content; no philosophical ethics is better able to defuse the tension between this life and the hereafter, from which Christianity and its ethic were born," Hitler stated. " 98.235.17.150 (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @User:98.235.17.150 is absolutely correct. the info that she\he is presenting here should be incorporated into the article. There are plenty of references presenting Hitler’s criticisms towards Christianity, but whenever someone tries to add any favorable remark that he has made regarding it, it is promptly deleted. As we can see here and here, for example. Daveout (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is because Hitler used Christianity for his own ends, while not believing in it at all.Graecusperseus (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion. But what are the reasons for removing that information? If it's a minoritary view it's ok to remove it from the lead, but from the body of the text, why? Those are sourced and credible statements. Daveout (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't remember removing it from the body, what are you talking about? Anyways the neutrality tag should be removed because all the controversial edits served to enforce the majority view, nothing more.Graecusperseus (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, would it be ok if I added those "minoritary views" on the body of the article?. We could reach consensus this way. Consensus is about making concessions; trying to find a fair balance that editors can agree on. I can see that this is a sensitive topic for you, but let me tell you this: I'm an atheist, and many atheists have done things that were comparable or worse than what Hitley did (like Stalin, or Mao). That doesn't mean all atheists are like that. The same goes for christians. I think there's enough evidence to say that hitley was christian, even if he believe in a very "unusual" version of it, and even if he had criticized some aspects of it. Still. Erasing the opinions of those who believe in that isn't the way to go. Daveout (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be ok to include it in the body, but it must be clear that it is a minority view. Also, we must never enforce as the dominant view any view that Hitler was a Christian (at least in the normal orthodox form that could properly be called "Christian") or an atheist. This article does not enforce either view as the dominant view, so it is neutral, and the tag should be removed.Graecusperseus (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV
Much of the article seems to be posed to argue that Hitler was not Christian, in some parts by unreferenced claims.

Sometimes by language

The former is weasely and probably ought to be removed as it overshadows the rest of the article without justification, and the later is overtly not in neutral point of view let alone using language appropriate to wikipedia. Wolfmankurd (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

A few Christian-favoring editors on here aren't concerned by NPOV, considering they removed nearly all sources from Richard Steigmann-Gall among many other sources that weren't in their favor. 2601:982:8200:4790:F493:BD53:25D0:6C55 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC) They seem to have removed Steigmann-Gall and Robert P. Ericsson from the article almost completely so they could shoehorn in the « consensus » statement in the lede. These two leading Nazi historians certainly negate consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satendresse (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I just looked into Ericksen, but his work (‘’Theologians under Hitler’’, ‘’Complicity in the Holocaust: Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany‘’) seems to be about how priests and Christian Germans reacted to Hitler, which isn’t relevant to this article. This is an article about Hitler’s personal beliefs, not other people’s beliefs about Hitler. If you find something he said that was about Adolf Hitler himself, feel free to incorporate it. However, the real consensus you need to be concerned about is about what the dominant consensus among the majority of historians like Kershaw, Bullock, Toland, etc. Steigmann-Gall has a different view than the historian consensus, so Wikipedia rules do not allow us to make the lead section reflect this minority view that Hitler operated from a fundamentally religious mindset. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 05:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @Wolfmankurd and @2601:982(...). This is particularly clearer in the lead. This article is supposed to present Hitler's religious views as they were stated by himself, instead we have "speacialists" claiming that he wasn't Christian (contrary to his own statements). "Specialist"'s opinions should be complementary, not main info here. Daveout (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy is to use secondary sources primarily. The policy on original research says:
 * ‘’ Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.
 * The reason sources by historians disagree with some public statements that Hitler hs made is that there are sources, like Goebbels’ memoir(!) Speer’s memoir, and the book Hitler’s Table Talk that suggest something very different than what many would like to see in the lede.’’ Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 13:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Biased first sentence: criticizing specific aspects of a certain christian denomination doesn't mean one holds "anti-christian views". It's not up to us nor specialists to define who is and who isn't a christian, but the individual himself, it doesn't matter if his interpretations of it are odd. For instance: For a long time (maybe even today) many Catholics didn't recognize Protestants as being (true) Christians. And vice versa. Yes, he had some criticisms and doubts about christianity, but he also recognized and accepted a great deal of it (to my knowledge, he NEVER rejected it). Why hide that fact?. The article's first sentence sounds like a desperate attempt to dissociate Hitley from christianity out of group pressure or political correctness. We have a lot of so called specialist saying that Hitley hated and despised christianity, but where are HIS texts or speeches stating that???, there are none bc those a pure biased interpretations. Having doubts about the future of religion and recognizing natural selection is not enough to corroborate the aforementioned specialist's claims. etc... Daveout (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per our policies, we place greater emphasis on third party scholarly analysis than primary source documentation. While I personally feel that there is plenty of evidence in his writings and personal conversations that he almost certainly believed in God (Mein Kampf has numerous passages such as "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator"), all that really matters is what reliable third party sources say about it. It is pretty clear that regardless of his personal beliefs, he was incredibly hostile to "the Church" as entity, probably out of a kind of rivalry, and his desire to dissolve the boundary between politics and religion. I don't have the book in front of me to dig through it for a quote, but in God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World—and Why Their Differences Matter, Stephen Prothero mentions how Hitler used Christianity and shaped it to his own ends, and why it is incorrect to view his ideology as fully disconnected from Christianity. I know he references Theologians Under Hitler by Robert Ericksen, which discusses why some Christian Theologians embraced the idea of exterminating Jews, and is another book that may have some good info for this article. I do however feel that the current lead is much better than the one that I changed it from, which was full of apologetics and somewhat misrepresented sources to paint him as an Atheist (something not supported by most current scholarly research).AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, the lead is now a little "less worse", if we can put it this way, than previous versions. But it doesn't mean that it's good enough. It's not about valuing "third party scholarly" OPINIONS over primary sources. If someone identifies as a christian, that is what should matter most, not what so called "specialists" think about it. No one gets to decide who is and who isn't "a true christian" but the individual himself. And lets not forget that specialists who assert any association between Hitley and Christianity are being ERASED from the article for no reason. Only those who deny any association are being allowed to stay. And, most importantly, criticizing SOME ASPECTS of more traditional denominations doesn't mean one holds "anti-christian views" [sic.], it only means that he had criticisms towards specific widespread christian practices and interpretations (like most, if not all, christians do to some extent). "Positive Christianity" no matter how odd it is, is still Christianity. The article as a whole still looks like an desperate attempt to say: "Hitley hated christianity! If he stated anything different, he was only instrumentalizing it. he wasn't a tRuE bELiVeR" Daveout (talk) 13:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * May I ask your help to rewrite this awful first paragraph. An early version of it over-simplistically and wrongfully stated that Hitley held "anti-christian" views. The present version somewhat states that he was an unusual kind of christian. I've been reading about it and looks like he changed his views (at least in intencity) throughout his lifetime. He starts "very christian" and then progressively becomes more critical and distant from christianity. The first paragraph should reflect this progressive change of tone, instead of being so time-specific\"static" (as one historian puts it). Still, It doesn't seem right to bluntly call him "anti-christian" (in my opinion). I'm basing myself on these sources:
 * More enigmatic is the change in Hitler's attitude. During the Kampfzeit and into the first years of the Third Reich, he maintained - both publicly and privately - that the movement bore some fundamental relationship to Christianity, as witnessed by his repeated intonations of positive Christianity and his repeated reference to the relevance, even priority, of Christian social ideas to his own movement. Then we see an apparent total rejection of those same ideas near the end. […] But even while he claimed to be unambiguously opposed to Christianity, he revealed considerable ambivalence and even contradiction in his views on certain Christian precepts. As well, he betrayed a persistent affection for Christianity’s founder. Especially evident in Hitler's case, the Nazis' consistent association with the person of Jesus and his message reveals a religious dimension to Nazi antisemitism, which coexisted with and in some ways even informed the racist dimension. The change that we do see, especially in the war years, is a growing vituperation in Hitler's language. However, this vituperation does not necessarily tell us a great deal about a fundamental change in Nazi ideology. Any institution or individual that did not perform up to expectations - whether the Protestant Church, the Foreign Ministry, or his own army officer corps - became the subject of Hitler's increasingly abusive ranting. On the face of it, this ranting often took the form of a total rejection. Any failure on the part of his underlings was more and more likely to be seen as abetting the Judeo-Bolshevik cause. What Hitler's vituperation reveals is not, however, a nihilist bent on destroying friend and foe alike, or a defection of previously reliable forces to Judeo-Bolshevism, but an increasingly isolated megalomaniac who blamed others for his own mistakes and failures. That Hitler's vituperation against Christianity signaled an actual rejection of the religiously associated ideas he had previously acclaimed is highly dubious.
 * and
 * While there is little doubt that Hitler was a staunch opponent of Christianity throughout the duration of the Third Reich, I would caution against viewing Hitler’s religious identity in static terms. Rather, it seems to me that Hitler’s religious stance underwent a significant evolution over time, particularly in an external-historical sense but quite possibly internally as well. Before the Beerhall Putsch, Hitler made public statements of devotion to his “Lord and Savior” that would never have been made— either publicly or privately—at a later date. […] At the same time, a shift is already visible in the pages of Mein Kampf away from energetic and open advocacy to a much more subdued tolerance of Christianity, a respect for the institutional strength of the Catholic Church, and a practical desire to avoid interconfessional squabbles within the movement. Daveout (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you presenting new quotations, these are good for the lede. However, I’m going to make an edit to your lede later, which will try eludicating which scholars say what. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 13:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses
The section on Jehovah's witnesses does not mention Hitler's views, only the state actions. They are not necessarily the same. Specific views of Hitler's should be mentioned. --Error (talk) 10:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Shinto
Speer has a sentence with Hitler praising the religion of the Japanese. Should it be included? --Error (talk) 10:25, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, we would need a reliable source that commented on it. Otherwise, it's very hard to know what Hitler thought about Shinto based on a passing comment he may or may not have made. TFD (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality tag\template
Ever since I added the neutrality template, there have been some complaints, such as: 1) Not specifying enough the reasons for adding the template 2) I also have been accused of intending to keep it there "forever". The problems are exposed on the talk page already (and, additionally, in the article's history). It’s basically this: The article, in its entirety, is written in a very biased way, conspicuously seeking to deny any possible and imaginable link between Hitler and Christianity (most of the time, it feels more like a propaganda piece). Scholars who point out any connection between Hitler and Christianity have been erased to fabricate a so-called "scholarly consensus" that Hitler was "Anti-Christian" [sic.]. It's a blend of apologetics and Stalinist-style rewriting of history. All sections suffer from this bias to some extent, it's not just a couple sentences here and there that could be pinpointed. To fix this, all sections would need to undergo serious and extensive reformulations. We use this sort of templates to draw attention to problems in the articles so other editors (those who have more time) can fix them, sometimes they stay in place for years (unfortunately). Just because no one appeared to fix the problem yet, doesn't mean the problem disappeared and the template can be removed.

To illustrate: Just in the first section, "Historiography", 12 of its 13 paragraphs attempt to portray Hitler whether as anti-Christian or anti-religious based solely on opinions rather than actual evidence. (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You provide no evidence or sources that there needs to be any changes, just that you do not like what is already there. The scholarly consensus clearly dominates in the article as it should be. Hardyplants (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of sources, like Derek Hastings and Kevin P. Spicer, I just don't have time to add them right now (and there's no "consensus" among scholars when a number of them hold opposing views). -  (talk)  19:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I see little evidence that the two people you state support what you think they do - note this quote: "This concluding chapter examines the religious identity of the early Nazi movement, particularly in light of the later (anti-Catholic) nature of the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler." which is a summary from Derek Hastings book. Hardyplants (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Roman Catholic
I know this is considered "original research" but I would like to share my experience regarding the Catholic Church and my thoughts of Hitler. I was born in 1953 to "Roman Catholic" Irish parents. While I did not go to parochial school, I did go to "Sunday School", and there they did teach that Jesus was a Jew, who was killed by Jews via the Romans. I once asked a nun "If Jesus was Jewish, how come we're not?" and instead of getting an answer, I was punished; made to stand outside the class until it was over. I recently remembered that and thought about Hitler as a Catholic & his hatred of Jews; so, I thought, he must have been taught & believed the same. The irony of "Roman" & being raised "Roman Catholic" and Romans were passively involved in Jesus' death, or 'just following orders' is something important, right? There must be some information somewhere that can, at least, bring some attention to that "fact"? IrishLas (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting thought on the subject,.
 * Umm... as it stands, you rightly mention this is OR, and thus putting it in would merely make it open to removal. However, maybe it could inspire you to look and see if you find some historians who mention this about Hitler’s upbringing.


 * You would have to find a historian who studies Hitler who mentions the way his religious education treated Jews to get a mention of this into the article. I don’t know if that exists, but I can’t tell you not to look. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 10:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, I'm not notable, and anyway it's just a thought I had (and dwell on from time-to-time) especially remembering being "punished". :/ IrishLas (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be difficult to find, as numerous books mention, or are devoted, to that notion. Jules Isaac wrote The Teaching of Contempt: Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism which traces nearly all antisemitism to the Christian view of Jews as the killers of Christ. Theologians Under Hitler by Gerhard Kittel has analyzes why the idea of exterminating Jews was appealing to some Christian Theologians (though in this case Protestants). Richard Evans also touches on this early on in The Coming of the Third Reich. Just a few possible suggestions if you have an interest in this line of reasoning. You may not be notable but your instincts in this case are accurate. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It is ludicrous to take Hitler's Catholic background seriously after the Nazi rise to power. Doing so would be ignoring the various pragmatic rules of politics, especially in a totalitarian state. 129.205.113.201 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hitler seems to have developed his anti-semitism later in life, as sources seem to indicate that he wasn;t anti-semitic during his period as a (failed) artist in Vienna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.171.63 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This sounds more a disgruntled anecdote than anything else. I was raised catholic too and no one denied that Jesus was a Jew or that was bad to be Jewish but we understood that the Jews rejected Jesus as messiah and thus we have different religions. I mean all the Catholics (and other Christians) that helped the Jews during WWII also had a similar education, presumably, so trying to blame it on that it's a huge stretch and comes closer to propaganda than actual history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.171.63 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2021
Hanhanhan1 (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC) edit
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)