Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 2

Dill's characterization of the differences between Nazism and Christianity
I've removed it again pe WP:UNDUE. If he says that "Christianity was based on divine authority devoted to a loving brotherhood of man which transcended political and racial boundaries" that is clearly a statement of his own opinion and cannot be given as if it was simply a general and objective description of Christianity which would suggest that Christianity is ipso facto incompatible with cruel atrocities and racism - something which is clearly false. I would want to look at the full context of what Dill says to decide whether to include or not - and it can only be included as with a direct attribution to Dill i.e. "Dill argues that ..."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, now I've read the page in question. This is clearly a personal, subjective interpretation by the author - not a statement of fact. If Dill's opinion is a significant one about the relation between Nazism and Christianity - I can't find his credentials but it seems he is neither an expert on Nazism or Christianity, but rather an expert on general German history. In any case the material can't be included as it was - it was a very close paraphrasing using Dill's exact words - it would have to be reformulated to avoid plagiarism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The O.S.S Outline: Some due caution
Much has been made here regarding the 1945 O.S.S. report which was uncovered by Julie Seltzer Mandel, a law student at Rutgers University in 1999. The O.S.S. report suggested that the Nazis persecution of Churches was indicative of a plot which sought the outright "destruction of Christianity" after WWII "as an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest." Perhaps a bit of hyperbole on behalf of the O.S.S. investigators? In any case, no charges were filed at Nuremberg regarding such an elaborate scheme, and the report itself, in the section called "The Problem of Proof" claims to posses no "direct evidence." The report request that investigators gather further evidence and probe the directives of the Reich Propaganda Ministry; if such evidence was destroyed, they suggests that the "questioning of Nazi newspapermen and local and regional propagandists might elicit the desired evidence." We should also bear in mind that the O.S.S. is the same organization which forwarded allegations that Hitler was a coprophile (sexually gratified by being defecated or urinated on) impotent, a homosexual, a masochist, and a pederast (i.e., a man who "enjoys" the company of young boys). William Langer (1972) The Mind of Adolf Hitler. New York: Basic Books, pp. 124, 138, 178. What I find troubling is that some editors here have treated this report as definitive proof that Adolf Hitler wanted Christianity destroyed. All from a long forgotten report which has been conspicuously ignored by historians. I don’t have a problem discussing it in the body of the article, however incorporating it in the lead is asking too much. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree there is definitely some POV-pushing going on here, cherry picking sources and twisting others to suit an agenda. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any article that discusses religion and Adolf Hitler is going to have serious problems. Miguel Chavez (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I also think it should be noted that the New York Times piece is merely a summary the original report. Joe Sharkey states, "Verbatim excerpts from the outline would require extensive explanations. Instead, the outline is summarized below." Nowhere does Sharkey consult a historian, nor does he explicitly claim the report is historically accurate. Sharkey does a fair job of summarizing it, apart from the fact he misquotes Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth, saying, "the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement" which was not actually von Schirach, but the opinion of the O.S.S. outline (Sharkey had missed the end-quote on p. 6). Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see my comments in the next/new section. Mamalujo (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mamalujo, you seem to be under the impression that the section, formally titled "Plan to destroy Christianity," was deleted. It wasn't. The earlier version of the paragraph summarized (a summary) of an O.S.S outline without context, as if it were factual and undisputed. It presented an assertion from the report which editor Richard Bonney said was "interesting, but undocumented" (p. 4). It also contained a quotation which was misattributed to Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth. The title was also changed because it was endorsing a particular viewpoint; a view which is not held by a consensus of historians and remains disputed. Furthermore, the title of the section was not reflective of the context of the report, which was not about a "plan to destroy Christianity," but rather an outline describing the persecution of Christian Churches and Church leaders. If you read the report carefully the tiny bit about "destroying Christianity" applies only to a "sector of the National Socialist party," namely that of Alfred Rosenberg and his allies. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is from the first paragraph of the O.S.S. report, describing its own shortcomings: "The document is still seriously lacking in evidence of probative value, and is consequently ill suited to serve as the basis for an international discussion." Which would explain why nothing ever came of it, and why it was quietly tucked away only to be discovered in 1999. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Article should state scholarly consensus & notable/reliable dissent with appropriate weight. RS consensus material shouldn't be blanked based on OR.
What you claim to be POV pushing is actually the scholarly consensus. This is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia's policy is to report the scholarly consensus of historical facts. Dissents which fall into the fringe category should not be included in the article at all, and those minority and dissenting opinions which are significantly notable are included according to their weight. I'd suggest you familiarize yourself with scholarly views (not internet polemics and screeds) on these subjects. You will see for example that Steigman-Gall's book actually admits that he is arguing against the consensus on the subject of Nazism and religion. According to his own book he "argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it". I will edit accordingly, stating the consensus view, while including dissenting/minority revisionist views (with appropriate weight) such as those of Steigman-Gall, noting that they are such. Consensus of Wikipedia editors only means so much. Numerosity of editors does not mean that they can claim that H2O is steel, for example. Also, edits which are misleading, especially in the lede should be removed. Kershaw is not saying at all what he is cited for in the lede. Indeed, he seems to be saying close to the opposite. With regard to the plan to destroy Christianity, it is accepted as the consensus. If there are notable and reliable sources who take exception to it, they can be stated. However, editors' original research on the subject should not be stated and certainly aren't reasons to delete reliably sourced material. I'm going to restore it.Mamalujo (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This both misrepresents the case (no one is arguing H20 is steel) and policy - which clear states that the fact that you think you are right and they are wrong does not excuse or justify editwarring ever.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I might add that the consensus view of scholars of fascism, and this is one of the areas where they do have a consensus, is that fascism is typicaly and essentially secular movement and a political religion which is a "holistic weltanschauung" claiming the whole of the person, hence, like communism typically opposed to and a competitor with actual religions. Such scholars have noted this notwithstanding the variants of clerico-fascism and the like. You will note that in Poland, where Hitler, unlike in Germany, did not have to concern himself with the opinion of the populace, nearly 20% of the Catholic clergy was killed, about half in concentration camps. In some of the regions the numbers were as high as 80%. Mamalujo (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm far from convinced that this is indeed a consensus, indeed there have been strong criticisms of the political religion model. It's very hard to apply to Franco and rather less than convincing as an account of Italian fascism. Also, the Stiegmann-Gall quote says that the consensus is that "Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it". In other words one part of the consensus is the view that it was essentially indifferent to Christianity, which makes the claim that the supposed plan to destroy Christianity is a consensus view rather problematic. Indeed, I know of no evidence that it is a consensus view. Paul B (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul Barlow - a claim that there is consensus that Hitler wanted to destroy christianity would have to rely on an exceptionally good source such as a well respected textbook or a review article that actually states that that is the consensus view. This has not been presented. In fact several sources, including some cited by Mamalujo notes that Hitler worked actively on making christianity and Nazism compatible. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul, most scholars of fascism, dilettantes and nonexperts excluded, do not consider Franco a fascist. See the articles on fascism and on Franco. Fascism entails a radicalism, a desire to remake man. Franco lacked this element. He is generally considered conservative, nationalist authoritarian. He used some of the trappings of fascism and for that reason is sometimes categorized as "parafascist". One of the definitions of fascism focuses on the fascist negations or negatives. Anti-communist, anti-liberal, anti-capitalist anti-conservative, etc. Griffin speaks of Palingenetic ultranationalism as being a fascist minimum - a radical element which Salzar and Franco lacked - hence calling them parafascist. Payne, the doyen of fascism studies, like most others hold this view. As Payne states, also quoted approvingly by Laqueur, "scarcely any of the serious historians and analysts of Franco consider the generalissimo to be a core fascist". Franco did garner support from fascists, the early Falange, as part of his coalition. When he took control however, he merged them with the monarchist Carlists and robbed the party of its truly fascist character. Also, if you read the books of Ian Kershaw, perhaps Hitler's most noted biographer, he regularly speaks of of a war (often of attrition) on the church or churhes, the "Church struggle", and mentions that Hitler at times sought a detente as it was not now the time. I think you're hard pressed to deny their is a consensus when the most prominent advocate of the revisionist view admits there is. You might be right about the issue of political religion. I'm quite confident you are not about the rest. Maunus, if you read more about "positive Christianity" you will see that it was an attempt to coopt Christianity and the same authors who write about it will also discuss the struggles against the Church. Also, he abandoned even that syncretist project by 1940. Hitler did at times seek a detente with the churches, you can find many references to this, typically it is said that this was done out of practicality. You all seem to be simply voicing your opinions but there is no sourcing suggesting this was not the case. Mamalujo (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is disputed whether of not Franco is a fascist. There really is no clear definition of the concept at all. Strictly, it's the name of an Italian political party and that is all, and that party made no attempt to destroy Christianity. Of course the term has been extended in usage and Franco is commonly included in that extended usage. This is a matter of debate. Your fatuous comment about dilettantes and non-experts merely indicates your own unfamiliarity with the history of the literature on this topic. The rest of your post is mere assertion. Grandiose dogmatism will not impress anyone. Of course Hitler attempted to undermine the independence of churches - or rather of Protestant churches. That does not mean he had a coordinated plan to destroy Christianity or that there is any consensus that he did. You provide no evidence of this at all. Paul B (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is certainly a novel interpretation of fascism to suggest that it is incompatible with conservatism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the article includes arguments made by Steigmann-Gall, the article is hardly an apology for his views. They are included, but they are not given undue weight. Secondly, the reference to Ian Kershaw was related to a statement made by Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, not Kershaw himself. And third, the O.S.S. report is not cited by a consensus of historians as evidence of a plot to destroy Christianity. Therefore to place its radical conclusions in the lead would be irresponsible. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Were his religious views maybe just confused and jumbled in many respects?
Many people hold a plethora of partially conflicting opinions on religious matters, often without very strong attachments to any of them. Couldn't this have been the case with Hitler too? Why does the article assume that there must have been any kind of "clear" religious views in Hitler's mind, apart from his extreme hatred of Judaism? -- 77.7.167.132 (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its difficult to say, I know one of his parents was jewish. So that might have something to do with his conflicting views.Millertime246 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a very fair point, but a rather difficult one to articulate without sources. In reply to Millertime, neither of his parents were Jewish. As 77.7.167.132 says, that aspect of his thinking, at least, is clear. Paul B (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The phrase that "H.P. Blavatsky, the founder of Theosophy" should be rewritten as "H.P. Blavatsky. the founder of The Theosophical Society and author of The Secret Doctrine". Theosophy is a part of Philosophy. She stole the term "Theosophy" from the Philosophers and wrote The Secret Doctrine which created a Doctrine for what she called Theosophy. The root races were from her book, and not recognized in the Philosophy Schools as Theosophy, except for a possible footnote on H.P.B. Furthermore, the root races she referred to were not similar to Hitler's interpretation of them. Hitler was very confused on this. JEMead (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Persecution of the Christian Churches section
I think the section understates scholarly opinion regarding the reality of the intention to eradicate Christianity. Many scholars, including some quite prominent, assert that it was the long term plan to destroy or at least mortally wound Christianity. You wouldn't get that impression from the section which seems to have a POV mostly casting doubt on the assertion. Below is a number of quotes from reliable sources making the assertion. I think the section should be edited for balance.
 * “There is no doubt that in the long run Nazi leaders such as Hitler and Himmler intended to eradicate Christianity just as ruthlessly as any other rival ideology, even if in the short term they had to be content to make compromises with it.”


 * "Had the Nazis won the war their ecclesiastical policies would have gone beyond those of the German Christians, to the utter destruction of both the Protestant and the Catholic Church."


 * “Consequently, it was Hitler’s long rang goal to eliminate the churches once he had consolidated control over his European empire.”


 * “And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”


 * “The objective was to either destroy Christianity and restore the German gods of antiquity or to turn Jesus into an Aryan.”


 * “It seems no exaggeration to insist that the greatest challenge the Nazis had to face was their effort to eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least to subjugate it to their general world outlook.”


 * The Nazis sought to "to eradicate Christianity in Germany root and branch."
 * References

Mamalujo (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you've trawled all the sources you can find to cherry-pick quotations to put one side. What a surprise. The idea that the Nazis intended to restore the 'old pagan gods' is completely marginal. Hitler was absolutely clear that that would never happen. Even Rosenberg never intended to do that. Paul B (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any reasonable evidence cited by these sources which might lend support to their assertions? It just seems curious to me that such a grand conspiracy to destroy one of the longest lasting and most influential faiths in all of human culture is conspicuously absent from virtually every scholarly work concerning Nazism and World War II. You would think it might merit a line or two. In any case, you did make the effort to provide a handful of references to support this hypothesis, however I worry that you are giving these speculations, as it were, undue weight in light of all other evidence. I would hate to accuse you of selectively choosing your sources, but I could without any trouble find more sources that claim the Holocaust never occurred than citations that claim the Nazi's had "a plan to destroy Christianity." It's easy to find reputable sources by reputable scholars to claim all sorts of ridiculous assertions. Pseudo-scientists and Pseudo-historians make a living out of this. But this is not the most honest way to present nor understand history. Just looking at your citations, notice how unauthoritative they seem. Dill for example is openly speculating, or "insisting" rather, that it was a coin toss between destroying Christianity or domesticating it. Fischel, a coin toss between destroying Christianity or simply making Jesus Aryan. Both Griffin and Wheaton quote and rely upon Hermann Rauschning's Hitler Speaks, by all accounts a dubious or fraudulent work. And your other sources seem to be asserting that Hitler intended, not to destroy Christianity per se, but to eliminate or marginalize the Churches—which just seems bizarre given that Hitler financially supported them, signed deals with them, always payed his church taxes, and given that most Churches and pastors in Germany supported the Nazi regime, especially among the conservative Protestant and Evangelical faiths. If there was any sort of plan at all, it was the plan to unite the twenty-eight Protestant state churches into a national Reich Church, similar to the Church of England. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is possible to reject these sources out of hand. They are reliably published. Obviously this bis a significant view and Mamalujo has doen the right thing to provide sources. Now those who want to show that this view may not be the only view or the mainstream view need to present theirs. Unless Mamalujo does not report the sources accurately (a possibility I mention because it has happened), I think these views will have to be mentioned in the article. The question then becomes one of balance with possible other views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone here has advocated that we dismiss anything out of hand. Mamalujo has offered sources ascribing to a particular view, and now the sources are being analyzed and debated amongst the contributors here to reach a consensus, or compromise. I don't have a problem at all with including this viewpoint in the article. It obviously exists in the literature. I am concerned, however, with how this view is being presented, particularly as it relates to the larger body of literature published on the subject, and how some sources have been misrepresented. Have I been unfair? Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mamalujo, you speak of an "intention to eradicate Christianity." I'm curious to know what you mean exactly by this statement, and how you wish to incorporate this hypothesis into the article. Historians who use this kind of dramatic language often mean different things. Some mean the attempt by the Nazis to Nazify the Churches, some equate it with the systematic persecution of churches and church leaders, some mean the eradication of Church autonomy, others mean efforts by some to secularize the German culture, and some mean it in the most literal and extreme sense of destroying Christianity all together. I am also curious to know how you wish to portray this theme of "eradication." To what extent was there an actual plan, rather than a sentiment, to "eradicate" Christianity? How did the plan originate? What specific policies were proposed to carry this plan through, if any? Which specific classes of people, denominations, or institutions were targeted for eradication? Was it a plan of violence, or more of persuasion? What actual pieces of evidence is there to substantiate this plan (memos, reports, transcripts, etc)? How many people were involved, and who were they? To what extent was Hitler involved, if at all? (Which is very important, for relevance.) To what extent was this plan hidden from members who would have opposed it? When was this plan first uncovered or disclosed, and by whom (the OSS, Nazi members, or historians)? How seriously is this hypothesis considered by mainstream historians? Now you don't have to answer all these question, but I think more detail would help us come to an agreement on how to best address this issue. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * the devil is in the detail. the detail questions are very important. In any case after you mentioned a book on the Michael Faulhaber discussion page, maunus, I looked at the quote about faulhaber meeting hitler in 1936 in the Spicer edited book,  Nazism, Christian Ambivalence and the holocaust' ..a detail  "on Novemebr 4 1936 faulhaber travelled to berchtesgarden, - accroding to faulhabers' account the topic on the agenda was the possible success of bolshevism in spain ..hitler told faulhaber that religion was critical for the state, for society, and for the soldiers, stating 'man cannot exist without belief in god. the soldier who for 3 or 4 days lies under intense bombardment needs a religious prop." he told the cardinal that pragmatically speaking the Church needed to join in the fight against Bolshevism or  'the Church and Xty are finished . Hitler told faulhaber  they needed to 'protect the German people from 'congenitally afflicted criminals' such as were fighting in Spain - faulhaber replied 'The Church will not refuse the state  the right to keep these pests away..' hitler commented 'eiter nationl socialism and the Church are both victorious or they perish together.." So in november 1936, the cardinal (that Mamalujo on that page insists was a noted anti-Nazi btw) - and hitler clearly have not mutually displayed very successfully their  intentions  to destroy each other - indedd what they display is a nauseating unprincipled, 'pragmatism' - maunus, the entire point of every edit mamalujo makes is to whitewash the catholic church, because he loves it so much - that is the only point of every edit he makes. Sayerslle (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead of Article
I also put this on Mchavez's talk page about the current lead of the article:

I fear that the lead of the article is, at is now reverted by User:Mchavez, is also a POV. First of all I have to say that I fear that a lead on such article will almost always be at least some POV. But how the lead is written now, is not in line with the body of the article. Because most of the article does support the claim that he was a firm believer, in public and private sense. Of the sources that claim he was not a believer 1 is disputed, and the others indicate that he was or against organized religion competing with the 'belief' in a German Third Reich and the Nazi party. Probably my lead was still far from perfect, but I do think that it would be better to reverse the last sentence into a structure resembling: Hitler was a believer. Other reports state he was hostile to Christianity. That would be a more fair representation of the article. Because the current: Disputed source claims Hitler was hostile to Christianity. Others claim he was a believer. Does not suit well to how well sources are claimed, and that the 'Others' are in majority and not minority. 82.197.216.236 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you are quite wrong. Most scholars of the subject do not maintain that Hitler was a believer. The consensus is that he was hostile to Christianity. If the lede does not comport with the bulk of the article, the defect is more in the article than in the lede. Mamalujo (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact is that the Third Reich was the most Catholic government in German history, particularly in its upper echelons. Hitler was raised Catholic and was an altar boy. The "putsch" occurred in Bavaria, which was almost entirely Catholic, at the time anyway. To my knowledge, not a single Nazi or fascist, and many were practising Catholics, especially in Austria, Croatia, Lithuania, and other areas, was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic church, which assisted war criminals to escape justice in Europe and flee, particularly to Spain and Argentina, two Catholic fascist states. Cardinal Bertram urged his parishioners to pray for the repose of Hitler's soul, despite Hitler's suicide! The degree and nature of hostility between the Nazis and Christianity, and more particularly, Catholicism, has always been exaggerated.  Quis separabit?  02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Steigmann-Gall on this one, and accept that Catholicism was tolerated, but marginalized more and more as the Church continued to raise objections over the Nazis' extreme nationalism and racial attitudes. If there was a clear preference at all (which I believe there was), it was towards the Protestant Church. You are right that Bavaria was indeed highly Catholic, but the Nazis' true stronghold in Bavaria was the region of Franconia, which was decidedly Protestant (2007, p. 192.). This point aside, I largely agree with your conclusions. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your statement may have been true 20 years ago Mamalujo, but as recent scholarship has shown, this issue is much more complex than earlier thought. Especially as new material has been brought to light, and earlier sources have now been discredited. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This precisely exposes one of the major drawbacks of Wikipedia. If articles were based on a careful weighing of evidence, then I could enthusiastically support your changes. However the general consensus view is that none of us can be trusted with such a task. Editors can only reflect what other experts have already published on the topic, and such a reflection should precisely mirror the nuances of the published literature (and do so in accordance with due weight). With that said, there is considerable belief among scholars that Hitler was in some sense "anti-Christian." Therefore this has to be reflected in the article. Now, one can privately believe, as I do, that this is a systemic result of several problems. First, early biographies of Hitler relied upon Hermann Rauschning's memoir Hitler Speaks, which quoted Hitler saying very negative things about Christianity. Rauschning's proximity within Hitler's inner circle was later discovered to be grossly exaggerated, and now the work is considered to be a fraud, or at very least, a deeply untrustworthy account. Rauschning's memoirs had the effect of tainting many early historical studies (e.g. Alan Bullock and Joachim Fest). (This influence can also be attributed to the English translation of Hitler's Table Talk, but not to the same degree.) Second, immediately after the war a flurry of scholarship by Church historians flooded the literature with accounts of anticlericalism by the Nazi government. This had the effect, weighed in light of other work, of casting the Nazi Party leadership in an anti-Christian and paganists light. Scholarship in the past twenty years, however, has significantly dented this view, but it still has some hold (especially among today's contemporary church historians). Third, one cannot forget that most historians are themselves religious, and in some instances very energetic and active members of their faith. Nevertheless, I have read accounts by a number of Christian historians which admit that their faith bears a heavy responsibility for German anti-Semitism, the rise of the Nazi Party, and even the shocking outcome of the Holocaust (see R.L. Millen, New Perspectives on the Holocaust, p. 345, for example). They have suggested that the repeated portrayal of the Nazis as anti-Christian, or paganists, is a result of Christians being unwilling to come to terms with the reality that Hitler shared—in some twisted sense—the same religious worldview. And finally, back to the Table Talk, you are right that a portion of the English Table Talk has been placed in serious doubt, however historians still rely upon it as a historical source. Until a reliable edition is published in English, the quotations which have not been shown to be fraudulent must be considered, but done so with extreme caution. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A point of agreement: What I find curious about the lead is that it makes an issue of the fact that Hitler "ceased to participate in the Sacraments," but does not mention the fact that Hitler never left his Church (indeed discouraged others to do so) and continued to pay his church taxes until the very end. If the former is significant, then by implication, the latter must be so as well. Miguel Chavez (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So, the 'problem' of what to do with this lead does stay. Because looking at the points mentioned above in the discussion, the lead does not fairly reflect the controversy, and the role of different sources on it (and the POV and reliability of those sources). I do think that if we are mentioning the Table Talk, it would be very good to at least point out in that same sentence the controversy about this source itself. Because the style it is written now, it presents it in such a way that a reader does get the feeling that this source is the most reliable and undisputed source available, as in: why else would it be the only source explicitly mentioned in the lead? Since it is a major source, I am not against mentioning it, it has great value. But not to fool a reader into a wrong perception of this source, a mention (by an adjective) of the controversy around it would improve it in my opinion. Also, I am still a bit with doubt about the word 'Others' in the very last sentence. Because if the sentence of hostility towards Christianity is so long, but the other (just as arguable) committed believer sentence is so short, it again implies an unbalanced view to the reader. 82.197.216.236 (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would put it this way. The lead does not fairly reflect the evidence, but it does fairly reflect the controversy. In my opinion the evidence seems to be clear: Hitler thought of himself as a Christian, even though he held rather unorthodox Christian beliefs. But there is certainly enough Christianity left to warrant calling him a Christian, a label he himself used. However some historians continue to maintain that his views were too unorthodox to merit using such a term, or argue that that he was in some sense anti-Christian. The literature seems to be all over the place on this issue, and I see no obvious consensus one way or another. There are a few points that I would like to see in the lead, but I've been reluctant to add them because I don't want to overload it with facts sympathetic only to my view. I also worry this would lead to predictable edit warring. The lead, as it stands, does not really convey a particular viewpoint. If anything, it's kind of wishy washy, which forces the reader to examine the evidence in further detail and decide for themselves. You are of course free to make any changes you like, but I would do so carefully. For example, I have no problem calling the Table Talk controversial, as this is generally accepted. Miguel Chavez (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That is unprovable. Please keep your opinions to yourself Chavez.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Blockquote of Carrier, in Private Statements
The blockquote in question is described as "which Carrier translates from the original German as"... The quote itself has no reference, but the author of that passage would be expected to have access to the German source material, possibly via secondary sources... Is it against wp standards to quote the actual, German original for those of us who actually understand the language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.144.106 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * According to the MOS, foreign language quotations are not discouraged. "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not common in everyday English." And "If the original, untranslated text is available, provide a reference for it or include it, as appropriate." If you want to include the original German, just do so in italics. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Creativity
Have any writers drawn parallels between Hitler's own religious beliefs and those of the white supremacist religion Creativity? Granted, the comparison is anachronistic since Creativity was founded in 1973, long after Hitler died. However there do seem to be a lot of uncanny similarities between them, including an emphasis on healthy eating/vegetarianism, a lack of emphasis on gods, the afterlife or the supernatural (instead, the white race is worshipped as the creator; Hitler referred to whites as "Culture Creators", which no doubt influenced Creativity), and promoting violence against nonwhites and Jews. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitler cool to astrology?
Towards the end of the article is "Unlike Heinrich Himmler and Rudolf Hess, for example, Hitler had no interest in astrology." That really throws off what I'd learned about the man. Perhaps it means that even if Hitler was open to astrology (which he was) and even had a semi-firm believe in it (which he did), he wasn't interested in the philosophy. If so, it should be reworded. If not, it should be reworded. Otherwise, a very thorough article. AngusCA (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you there. That's not what I learned about Hitler either.--Splashen (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please provide some evidence that Hitler had a belief in astrology (albeit a "semi-firm" one). Assertion isn't good enough. Paul B (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Why, do I need any? I thought it was just common knowledge that Hitler consulted the stars and not as a recreational diversion. Ok, well there's this article, Krafft did readings for him and a quick Google of "hilter astrology" gives endless hits. Sorry, no published works at my finger tips. So if there's no truth to this, there should at least be some sort of acknowledgement over this widespread misconception. AngusCA (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC
 * Without sources there isn't much that can be done. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Amusingly the actual reliable source quoted in The Guardian states that Hitler considered astrology to be "complete nonsense" . So much for common knowledge. Even if this were a "widespread misconception", astrology is not a religious belief, so this would not be the article in which to discuss it. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a religious belief in some cultures.--Splashen (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. Being consistent with a religion, does not make it one. But even if it were, it wasn't in 20th century Germany. Paul B (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that astrologers fell violently out of fashion eventually. But the fact that astrology isn't religious isn't the issue. Even if the line "Hitler had no interest in astrology" is true and well sourced (but a difficult negative to prove), I believe it has a credibility problem, because common misconceptions go against it. It disturbed my train of thought enough that I was moved to create this section. If there are many others like that, then it should at least be preceded by "Despite perceptions to the contrary..." or followed by "(it is widely believed that...)". AngusCA (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Great War or WWI?
In the second section of "Views as a youth", it refers to what is now known as World War One as the Great War. Since it is not quoting someone speaking of WWI prior to the start of WWII, should it perhaps be changed to World War One, for ease of reading?Roppen (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Executions of Religious clergy
Ummm....not sure why the article doesn't mention the fact that numerous religious clergy were executed by Hitler for opposing his regime? Seems to me there's relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.97.118.2 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

new source in lead
does this source say anything remotely relevant to the lead of this article? I only ask as I'm undoing superfluous links to an article under merge proposal. But don't know this source or whether it says anything remotely like what has been added. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Correspondence with the pope
Would you consider this relevant? http://www.cprf.co.uk/articles/PopePiusXIILettertoHitler.htm

I also heard Hitler himself sent a letter to the pope first to get this permission. Robin.lemstra (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The webpage stating this letter is clearly biased (Protestant), and they don't provide a source for where they got this letter. This letter might be relevant, but I think it is important to find it from a more reliable and less biased source. Preferably an archive or library, I guess. Mastah (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Current paragaph about consensus Table Talk is a bit "weasel worded"
At the moment text says: "However, the widespread consensus among historians,[44] sustained over a long period of time since the initial work of William L. Shirer in the 1960s,[45] is that Hitler was undoubtedly anti-clerical and 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.[46]"

I tried adjusting the text (but it was reverted) because when reading the referenced papers, the Carrier article and the Wikipedia Article about the Table Talk (and its many versions and translations). I did try to do this, because the current text implies (partly) or states that:

1) a consensus for over a long period

2) 'undoubtly' anti-clerical

3) That Carrier is the only one doubting the reliableness of the Table Talk

4) Trevero-Roper's is 'credible and reliable'

5) That the Table Talk should be handled with the same critical awareness as all other historical sources

I don't think all these statements or implications are justified when looking at the sources or academic method: 1) There is a consensus, yes. But the consensus did change since Carrier's publication from 'Table Talk is reliable and credible' to a 'Table Talk in general is still credible, but reliability for some parts should be questioned'. That a consensus was there for a long time, several decades till Carrier's publication, doesn't make it 'more true'. Look at all physics laws that had to be changed/adapted after new discoveries, even though there were ages of consensus about how things worked. New discoveries shake things up.

2) Undoubtly is clearly not undoubted. e.g. Carrier doubts it, but also the many different versions of Table Talk and the worries about reliability makes clear that nothing is really undoubted.

3) If you look the overview study where Carrier's publication is discussed, it becomes clear that even though Carrier's claim of the Table Talks being 'completely untrustworthy' might be over the top. It is not as if no other doubts about the Table Talk's many versions exist, see point 2.

4) That is clearly untrue, since though it is according to general consensus credible, reliabilty is not. See point 2 and 3.

5) This is a really big weasel. It tries to downplay how much controversy there is about the Table Talk. The Table Talks are clearly a very controversial source and should be handled clearly with much, much more care than usual (and happened during the time before Carrier's publication).

I would like to know how other Wikipedians see this, and whether they agree that this paragraph needs an update. Mastah (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Is Table Talk a 100% accurate verion of what Hitler said while chatting? Almost certainly not. Is it generally reliable? I know of no evidence that the consensus is that it isn't. There were different versoins of Shakespeare's plays with slightly different wording published. That does not mean all versions of Shakepseare are totally unreliable and cannot be said to tell us anything about what he really wrote. That would be absurd. There is also the question of what Carrier actually demonstrates that is relevant to this issue. As far as I can see he noted a few inconsistencies between the French and German published versions of the text. How do these exactly impact on the central question? I really can't see how they are so important. Paul B (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your first statements, about generally reliable. But on the differences Carrier found in the translations, some scholars even now state there might have been on purpose fraud with the Trevor-Roper version. And already long before, about the original notes, authors pointed out that the party-interest of Martin Bormann will probably have lead him to make (at least small) changes to the text to make them more usable for party purposes. (These statements can be found in the articles/books of sources of the Table Talk article #5,#16,#26). These do impact the central question that words like 'undoubtly' 'credible and reliable' and 'as with all historical sources' are not justified based on the sources and consensus, and are misleading to a user reading the text. Apart from this discussion, point #1 stays valid anyhow, doesn't it? That the length of time for a consensus to exist doesn't matter for a true or false in science/academic world? Scientists did stick for many years in Newton's theories, until they got caught up by new theories that were able to explain and model better. The age of these theories did not matter for the consensus. DaMastah (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As I started the process of editing this away from Carrier's article, it seems only fair to Mastah in light of his/her questions that I restate my reasons - as an expert on interwar European history and a professional historian - for doing so.

1) Dr Carrier is not an historian of the period - rather, he is a former classical historian who now works as an atheist blogger, and an activist one at that. The item you cite is the only item he has ever written that has survived peer-review. The GSR is not at the top of the academic league, although it is a perfectly reputable journal. Sometimes therefore it can struggle to attract material, and some odd stuff gets through - like this article. It has had zero impact on the scholarly consensus. It is occasionally cited by teachers and hobby-historians - usually to show they have considered all angles, before dismissing its arguments - but I have never come across it in an academic reference book. Indeed, the first time I came across it was when I followed a link on Wikipedia. Those who have doubts about the Table Talk, or who are urging caution in its use, turn to Kershaw, not Carrier. Among atheists, yes, there has been an impact on the consensus. It has allowed them to agree that Hitler was clearly a Christian, which in light of Ratzinger's rather inflammatory remarks on the subject of Hitler's atheism (and incidentally, while I am convinced after long study and much thought that Hitler was not a Christian, I am equally sure he was not an atheist) has become quite important to them. But not among historians (including historians who are atheists). More on the question of its veracity below.

2) Dr Carrier does not speak German (although he claims to have a 'translation knowledge' of it, whatever he means by that - I suspect he says it to avoid awkward questions about how he can translate a language he doesn't speak). The actual translation was done with the aid of Reinhold Mittschrang (I think that's how it's spelled) who to judge by his internet profile, is not especially fluent in English. His qualifications and affiliation are not cited in the article. The translations in the article are not, in my admittedly subjective view, of the highest standard. They are also very tendentious, and heavily reliant on one copy of the work which seems to be the most sympathetic to the author's view - almost as though the aim had not been to give a sense of what was there (which is not easy in translations but about all that can be hoped for) but rather to try and prove Hitler was not anti-religious. It has been claimed upthread that Carrier was asked by the current copyright holders to do a new translation of it on the strength of this article. No source is given for this extremely improbable claim, and I could find no reference to it on Dr Carrier's website. As the original translation has just been re-issued, it seems unlikely in any case that the publishers were looking for a new translation.

3) The article cites David Irving as a reliable source, describing him as a 'controversial historian' (wrong on two counts - he's not controversial because he has no reputable supporters left, and he is not an historian, he is a writer of historical fiction that he persists in passing off as fact) and flagrantly misrepresents Irving's views on the Holocaust, claiming that actually Irving had 'never denied the Holocaust happened'. Since during the period when this article was being written, Irving was failing very publicly in a libel suit against somebody who had exposed his pro-Nazi views and forgeries during the course of which Irving repeatedly claimed the Holocaust never happened, I find it extremely difficult to believe Dr Carrier was unaware of this.

4) Much of the previous material on this source, which lent it undue weight, was actually written by Dr Carrier. It is incidentally very noticeable that one of the fields he is unquestionably expert in is self-publicity and self-publication in all their forms. Again, I question his objectivity and reliability in promoting his own work. If it had been the only source on this question, that would be a different matter. However, historians have been using Table Talk in all its translations and in the original German for decades, and it is striking how every scholar with a good knowledge of German is happy to use the translations by Trevor Roper and Genoud as a source for English-language readers even though some (particularly Ian Kershaw) criticize them for being imperfect, for omissions and occasional mistranscriptions. Yet mysteriously this scholarly consensus and wider scholarly debate on the issue was absent from the original paragraph. Even Richard Steigmann-Gall accepts the broad thrust of the scholarly consensus about Hitler's private remarks, saying - in my view correctly - that Hitler's views on religion changed about 1937-8 to a much more hardline anti-religious view (incidentally, he and I disagree about Hitler's views in the early 30s, but his argument while not totally convincing is perfectly tenable).

I am sorry that you find it uncomfortable that this paragraph now conflicts with your views. But I fear that is unavoidable because you want it to say something that would be historically inaccurate. Table Talk is more widely accepted, and more likely to be accurate, than just about any other contemporary written source we have of Hitler's private life - especially given how dishonest most of the biographies of the surviving Nazis are, mostly being designed to try and exculpate themselves from guilt in the regime rather than to inform historians about what happened. That does not mean it should be accepted uncritically. It must be treated carefully - like any source. That is even true of memos written by Winston Churchill. In the case of Nazi documentation, an even higher degree of awareness is advisable due to the sensitivity of the topic. Therefore, I think the current bit on the consensus and the health warning added by later edits have it about right. If you are still in doubt, a special issue of the Journal of Contemporary History on Steigmann-Gall's book in 2004 (I think) (no. 42:1, anyway) might be of interest to you in exploring the wider issues about Hitler's religious views and the sources we use to arrive at our conclusions about them.Hcc01 (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hitler were an Islamophilic
europenews german the german Organisation Central Council of Ex-Muslims had published this informations.--77.3.126.198 (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, it's already discussed in the article. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Hitler liked sugar too, guess we should all hate sugar now, huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.167.234 (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Devout Catholic"
Editor Greengrounds wants to open the article with the line "Hitler was a devout Catholic". A view not sustainable by reference to any reputable source. He also wants to delete material sourced from Alan Bullock, the Encyclopedia Brittanica and other noted histories which note hostility held by Hitler towards religion or Christianity. There is room for a lot of nuance is trying to state Hitler's position on religion - he may have had neo-pagan ideas. His public and private statements conflict and there are questions about reliability of primary sources. Serious historians have disagreements that can be reflected in our text. But beginning an article with "Hitler was a devout Catholic" would be as preposterous as an article on Hitler beginning "Hitler was a European statesman who met with world leaders to avoid a a war in 1938". Ozhistory (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Greengrounds, please DISCUSS here. If you have a precise quote from Toland saying Hitler was a "devout Catholic" then you may be able to insert it and name him as source so that editors can peer review. You can't just delete all the other well sourced material and present it as uncontested that Hitler was a "devout Catholic" (a view contradicted by the Enyclopedia Britannica for example). Suggest you write a practice version here. Ozhistory (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are you citing britanica and yet saying that the same article does not say that the MALE NAZIS CALLED THEMSELVES SS SOLDIERS FOR CHRIST. Please read the article again, and the quote you said was copyright is in there. How can you say it's copy right IF IT'S NOT IN THERE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The text you are citing does not say "the male Nazis called themselves SS for Christ". Read it again. It says that one sect of Nazi-aligned Protestants (the so-called "German Christians" Lutheran sect) called themselves "SS men for Christ". Our text already makes it clear that "the great majority of Germans did profess to be Christian" and that Hitler "had promoted Positive Christianity" and "gave support to the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen church". So the issue of "Christian Nazis" and Hitler's views of them is already made perfectly clear. Ozhistory (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The introduction of the article is very biased towards your viewpoint. We need to have both viewpoints represented in the introduction, not just yours. See my latest edit, and if you don't agree with that particular approach, please make sure to find an approach that is not focused solely on apologetics and focuses equally on the other perspective.Greengrounds (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a highly non-neutral point of view that comes through very strongly - however this recent edit is far better than your earlier ones! The Speer quote is interesting, but it shouldn't trump the consensus view of Ency. Brit. as the opening lines. Speer is not a very reliable source - he was a war criminal, partly trying to explain away his loyalty to Hitler. He also claimed to "know nothing" about the Holocaust, which is almost certainly a lie. I think it's ok to mention his claim, but not lead with it - also it can be compressed. Ditto Toland. The Ency. Brit. is a more respected neutral source, whereas Toland offers a highly contentious line of argument, to say the least, and Speer is a dubious, though significant source. Ozhistory (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
I assume that is was Greengrounds who anonymously "undid" the following introduction:

And replaced it with this one:

Can we have a vote/discussion on which is better? As already said, the testimony of Speer (a convicted war criminal) is not a good opening line when we have the neutral assessment of the Encyclopedia Britannica to go with. Toland's assessment of Hitler being "in good standing with Rome" seems to be both vague (what does that even mean - he liked the Church or the Church liked him??) and th ordinary consensus on Hitler. The wording of Toland's claim is also extreme: that Catholics could murder without conscience!

I suggest an editor is just bold and reverts the "anoymous" undo. Ozhistory (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

That was not me, but I applaud whoever did that. Your censorship of anything that does not support apologist viewpoints is sickening. I vote we keep it the way it is, or if you're going to edit it don't just edit out the parts that contradict what you want to hear. Greengrounds (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)Greengrounds (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither introduction is acceptable. The opening should sum up the article. Speer is an important source - being a war criminal seems irrelevant in this case since he wasn't vcharged with crimes against religion. He has no self-serving incentive to say what he did. There are planty of sources that dispute the warrior paganism viewpoiint, so having it presented as fact is whollyt unacceptable. In any case this article is about Hitler's personal religious beliefs, not his alleged policies. Of course Catholics can murder without conscience. Haven't you ever heard of the Mafia? The attitiude of the Catholic church to Hitler is complex, but again it is not the primary focus of the article. No-one is saying that the church approved the holocaust. Toland's point is more subtle than that, but I do agree that's it's still a rather problematic and one-sided claim to have in the lede section. Paul B (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Paul, I agree with your final conclusion that Toland quote is problematic in a lead. I agree also that Speer is an important source (although I would say that he did indeed have a self serving motive: he was at times trying to justify his own actions, and along the way he makes some dubious claims - such as pleading ignorance of the Holocaust), so his reliability, if not his significance, can be questioned (certainly as the basis for an opening line). And I agree that the first text is not great (I only say it is better than its replacement). Toland may well be more subtle when read in full, but in the extract provided here, he doesn't just harmlessly imply that a Catholic could murder without conscience, he appears to say that Hitler murdered without conscience because he was a Catholic! The two comments are worlds apart and the ambiguity should disqualify it from our lead. As for Greengrounds accusations of "apologetics" and "censorship", well a cursory examination of his edits reveals a determination to remove evidence contrary to his eccentric view that "Hitler was a devout Catholic". To speak with such certainty of "knowing" Hitler's religion is quite odd - let alone proclaiming with certainty that he was Catholic. Ozhistory (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the latest revision by deadbeef and I also agree with Paul's assessment of the situation, though I see no reason to put words in his mouth. Also no one is saying that a "catholic" could commit murder without conscience any more than they are saying a "rationalist" could commit these crimes. Everybody in the world is a "rationalist and materialist", Adolf on the other hand would need a little more explaining, as he was often quoted as saying he was doing "gods work". I think jus summing that up as a "lie" is a little off putting. The only evidence that he was nothing more than a "rationalist and materialist" is scholarly OPINION, and the lead should not reflect OPINION, but should only refer to factual information pertaining to hitler and his PERSONAL religious beliefs.Greengrounds (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying that he was not a Christian because he "protested" some of the teaching of the church, or he did not like their position and influence in his country is akin to saying "protestants are not Christian" because they protest some teachings of the church and the churches position in society. Hitler and the Nazis were undeniably Christian, as protestants are undeniably Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, Carrier Is Not Reliable
Good research and a neutral point of view will tell you he has promoted propaganda against religion.75.72.35.253 (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the problem as I see it. Richard Carrier is a historian. He received his doctorate from Columbia University, without question one of the better schools in the country. He published his work in a peer reviewed journal, the German Studies Review. The reviewers checked his facts, and the editor approved it for publication, and presumably paid him for his work. Given the scrutiny involved with the peer review process, his analysis here carries more weight than, say, his Internet publications, or even the casual opinions we so often see thrown about in books published by commercial publishing houses. His so-called bias on religion (which exists, but we all share) is therefore irrelevant to this article. The only reason to highlight his religious activities is to throw spurious doubt as to the reliability of his work. And we all know this to be true. I happen to know that many historians cited here are active Catholics. Some are even priests. Now, it would be astoundingly petty to highlight this fact every time they offered their expertise on matters pertaining to religion. Just because someone is active in their faith, or lack of faith, does not imply they are untrustworthy in their work. If they have garnered a reputation for misrepresentation or distorting facts, then by all means, let us alert the reader. But as long as the author has the proper credentials, and their work has been reviewed by a journal or a university press, I see no reason to "poison the well." Furthermore, Carrier's article has been cited favorably by historians Richard Steigmann-Gall, Dagmar Herzog, Derek Keith Hastings, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, and Gerhard L. Weinberg (in no less the new edition of Hitler's Table Talk). If you are aware of a published critique of his work, please include it. Just spare everyone the obvious ad hominem smear tactic. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter where he received his college degree from. That still doesn't excuse the fact that Carrier has a history of promoting propaganda against religion.  For example, he has questioned Jesus' existence.  I am not smearing anybody.  I'm just pointing out the facts.75.72.35.253 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But they're irrelevant facts. What is relevant is that he is a respected academic - not his religious beliefs. Otherwise we would of course also have to discount any Christian, Muslim or Hindu authors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So you are arguing that because Carrier has questioned the historicity of Jesus he no longer deserves to be taken seriously as a historian, and thereby loses all rights to be treated with the same respect we afford Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish historians? Miguel Chavez (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

75.72.35.253, you didn't even read Miguel's entire response. You simply read the first sentence and proceeded to respond. Because if you did read the entire thing, you'd know that Miguel addressed your objection that Carrier has an "atheist bias". Uh, hello, we all have certain opinions and biases when it comes to religion. Should we discount a christian historian's work on Hitler merely because he is a christian and/or promotes Christianity? Of course not. Carriers other publications on religion, internet infidels, etc are irrelevant to his work on Hitler. As Miguel rightly pointed out earlier, his work on Hitler was published in a peer-reviewed journal (German Studies Review). Unless you attack his work and avoid attacking the man himself (doing so commits the fallacy of ad hominem) then we have no reason to take your objections seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.1 (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am attacking his work when I typed that he promotes propaganda against religion. Apparently, you are being bias and one-sided.  Carrier and his work promote very unproven propaganda that strongly suggests he tries to get people to turn against religion.  Read them for yourself.75.72.35.253 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion. It holds no weight for wikipedia however - we go by reliable sources and this is as reliable as they come. There are other wikis that only allow sources written by christian authors - we're no it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't give crap about whether or not it was written by an atheist. What is of great concern is the fact Carrier is a propagandist. You can be an atheist and I won't care, but you should be a neutral one and not promote nonsense propaganda to get people to turn against religion. Carrier has demonstrated clearly that he does so. His own words on his website are not unreliable. That was very pigheaded to assume I'm just adding this input because Carrier is an atheist.75.72.35.253 (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What is pigheaded if not outright obtuse is to propose that peereviewed journals publish propaganda.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, stop trying to speak nonsense and spell better so I can understand you better next time.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Anonymous, I completely understand your concerns. I too worry that historians sometimes allow their personal religious views to influence their work. But like it or not, Carrier's paper was independently reviewed and has been cited favorably by a number of historians. It wouldn't be right to single him out for being an open atheist, without also singling out other historians who are priests, or who are otherwise active in their faith. I would never imagine doing this to a Christian historian, or Jewish historian, or whoever. It bothers me. It strikes me as petty, childish, and disrespectful. If they are legitimate scholars let their work be judged on its merits. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Source your claim please. I find it hard to believe it is not true otherwise.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I did. Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Carrier's work on Hitler is reliable. It's been published in a peer-reviewed german journal and cited by other historians. Asserting over and over again that he's not reliable because he's a "propagandist" is meaningless unless you actually show what is wrong about his work on Hitler. Unless and until you do that, Carrier will remain on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.1 (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than remove the reference to Carrier's paper entirely, I believe 75.72.35.253 would like to identify Carrier as an atheist/activist/propagandist, than use the more respectful and fully appropriate title "historian." Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You speak nonsense. You have nothing to source your ridiculous claim that his work has "been published in a peer-reviewed german journal and cited by other historians."75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Chavez. I have now removed Carrier's entire citing from the article. He is not reliable and he is more than just a historian. He is a propagandist who has gone so far as to also challenge Jesus' existance75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome 253. Well, at least you put it back... Miguel Chavez (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What in the world does Carrier's questioning jesus' existence have to do with his peer reviewed work? So we are to take the word over a man who believes that jesus walked on water over a man who questions the historical accuracy of the gospels?11:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Greengrounds (talk)

Again, Carrier Is Not A Reliable Resource
Miguel Chavez's argument that his article has "been cited by other historians" is baseless. It has not at all been cited Carrier's input should either be removed or it should be known he is an atheist advocate who has promoted such propaganda. This is a neutral website and not a place to promote atheist propaganda.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With a simple search of 'Carrier' and 'Hitler' at Google Scholar I directly get the results of a paper of Carrier about this that has been cited in other articles (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=14871513883682262853&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ). These other articles also have been written by authors with high academic degrees which also have been cited many times. Clearly the statement of JoetheMoe25 is plainly false, claiming that it is not cited at all, if it can be found in a matter of seconds and by very reliable sources. I would also like to point out that in a 'neutral' website it is not proper to accuse historians with a PhD and solid academic reputation of 'propaganda'. Mastah (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I do see now that you introduced a 'controversy' topic around Steigmann-Gall in Hitler's Table Talk and Richard Steigmann-Gall. First of all, the claim on the controversy does not appear from the sources, but is original research. Next to that, the first source is reliable and well-established, there were conflicts of interests of policies introduced by the Nazi's, which conflicted with the interests of the church. And the clergy was certainly not happy with this and therefore also had the conversations with Hitler about this. The second and third sources are clearly sources with a self-interest and of very low reliability. Therefore I propose to remove the claimed controversy until the controversy around the statements of Steigmann-Call can also be sourced within reliable academic sources (since Steigmann-Call his study has also been academically peer-reviewed). Mastah (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Matash, you speak in the language of nonsense. Carrier has not been cited by any other historian in the manner which I described. I searched that shortcut you gave me and the resources listed basically just turned up results about Hitler's Table Talk without mentioning Carrier's name. The resources I added are quite reliable. One of the them was even the same Ian Kershaw book that was sourced in this article. It is also common sense to know that if a reliable resource shows that his feud with the church predated 1937, the year Steigmann-Call claimed was when the Nazi's feud with the church originated, his work was unreliable. You have nothing to back your claim that his study was "academically peer reviewed" or that it was either reliable or neutral. This is a neutral website.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Carrier has been cited for the article Chavez is pointing to. If you did click the link, in all those books and papers the study of Carrier has been cited. Carrier has been named in all of them (just open one of them, press ctrl+F and search for 'Carrier'.) Of the sources you have added, only the first one is reliable (I think I also clearly stated that I agree that that one is reliable). But the only statement that occurs from this source is that there were problems between the Nazi's policies and the interests of the Church. Which is already well documented and sourced in this article. Fact is, that the claims you added in the articles are not mentioned in the article and are thus original research. The second and third source are unreliable, I already stated clearly before for which reasons. About the quality and academic reviewing, you can see that the Carrier article has been published in German Studies Review: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1432747?uid=3738736&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21100720483431 and you can also check the site of German Studies association academic grounds at https://www.thegsa.org/about/index.html . Therefore I am not 'claiming' anything out of the ordinary for Carrier's article and your doubt about the reliability and neutrality is not valid. Please also let first other people respond to this discussion before pushing your changes through, also on the related pages. Mastah (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the articles better. They do not contradict what I wrote at all. They do not "cite" Carrier in the definition which I was clearly arguing. They only mention him and do not call him reliable.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "definition" does not matter for reliability. What makes Carrier reliable is that his article has been peer-reviewed by other experts for publication in the academic paper called German Studies Review. If experts read and checked an article, gave their feedback and it was published in a renowned academic journal. More reliable than that it does not get in this world. Citations by other books and articles also indicate the relevancy of a study. Since his study has been cited by (even some major) studies his study is relevant and reliable by all academic standards. Mastah (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anybody's name can be mentioned as long as they argue something. Historians have not cited Carrier at all in the manner I was describing.  If you read what I was typing clearly, I was arguing he was unreliable.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the manner you mention it should be cited is not relevant. I highly even doubt whether you're acquainted at all with the academic process, where paraphrasing is only done when quoting an original source (like Hitler itself) but almost never another article (because it would not make any sense). And you are clearly not reading, responding or even willing to understand the points that have been made why Carrier is reliable. It really reminds me of your discussion in Talk:Black hole/Archive 14 'Wikipedia Is Not A Fan Page For Stephen Hawking' where the valid points of other editors are plainly ignored. Mastah (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Joe, this topic has been reviewed several times by the editors here, and the arguments against Carrier have been found rather weak. Carrier is a historian, he received his doctorate in History from Columbia University, his article was properly peer-reviewed, it was published in a scholarly journal, and it has been reviewed favorably by other historians and scholars. His findings are pretty incontrovertible, as he compares Hitler's English and French quotations side by side to the original German. Enigma books, who owns the copyright to the English Table Talk, was so impressed with Carrier's piece that they even offered him the job of re-translating the book from the original German. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Mastah and Miguel as well as the other anonymous users that there is no reason not to include Carrier just because he is an atheist. I find it strange that an atheist who speaks out should be considered a propagandist when several sources used in this article come from people who have had their entire education from Christian universities. You don't get much more indoctrinated with propaganda than that.Greengrounds (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church
I see that there was a lot of effort to portrait Hitler as a 'nominal' Catholic. However, pay attention to:

"The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism. ~Adolf Hitler, Feb.1929

Roman Catholic Church returned compliments to Hitler:

“'''Adolph Hitler, son of the Catholic Church, died while defending Christianity. It is therefore understandable that words cannot be found to lament over his death, when so many where found to exalt his life. Over his dead remains stands his victorious moral figure, with the palm of the martyr; God gives Hitler laurels of victory.'''”

Catholic national newspaper in Spain  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.23.46 (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For your first source - are you trying to suggest that the words of a psychotic mass murderer are trustworthy and that there is no chance that this propaganda mastermind was lying?
 * For your second source, there is absolutely no credibility. An angelfire site is simply never a WP:RS.  Nor does the website provide evidence of it's claims, so we cannot even rip a source from it.Farsight001 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Farsight001, what you have done is created a straw man argument, where you are attacking the character of the person rather than the evidence. You are implying a conspiracy theory. Second, the letter was printed by a news paper, and it is cited in a book "The secret History of the Jesuits" by Edmond Paris. Greengrounds (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh...no I'm not. I am merely applying wikipedia policy. Personal angelfire websites do not qualify as WP:RS, so we can't use it as a source.  Furthermore, neither is The Secret History of the Jesuits.  Wikipedia has standards to comply with regarding the sources they use.Farsight001 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

reference for review
Have found a collection of Hitler quotes (includes his 'We do not want to educate anyone in atheism" quote in context) http://library.flawlesslogic.com/religion.htm Could someone with the appropriate background knowledge decide whether or not it is useful for this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, good find. I have cross referenced the material from the website with "Hitler's Table Talk" translation by Cameron and Stevens, and I think this statement is very relevant to the religious views of Hitler. Afterall, if Hitler viewed atheism as good world view that suited his vision, why would he not want educate people in atheism? Does anyone have any objections to me adding this statement to "hitlers statements against atheism" as well as the sections on the table talk itself?Greengrounds (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph draft
Gentlemen (and others involved or interested):

Seeing as how the introductory paragraph is under contention and discussion on the topic has stagnated, I would like to submit to all parties involved a draft introduction paragraph written by myself, as someone completely neutral on the issue and interested only in building a civil consensus. Please read below, and weigh in on whether it is acceptable, or if you would like something to be changed.

''"Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his ties to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that 'he had no real attachment to it.' Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still 'a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy' and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Conversely, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were 'incompatible' and intended to replace Christianity with a 'racist form of warrior paganism'. Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote that, though raised Catholic, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion 'fit for slaves', and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest. Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote he became hostile to its teachings."''

Please respond with any complaints as a new indentation (i.e. don't edit the above block of text directly). Please remember to assume good faith, and remain civil as a consensus is built. It is clear that both parties have reasoned arguments behind their choice of content and are not simply trying to "troll" the other. With that being understood, please keep your discussion to the content itself and not lose your temper at the other. Dea db eef (talk)  19:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This sounds good to me, thank you Deadbeef Greengrounds (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggest change "ties" to "relationship". It is more encompassing and neutral. I suppose the missing statement in the opening paragraph is that many historians doubt Hitler had any religion (which would complete the range of "contradictory accounts" you refer to). Going back to Bullock's text then, can I suggest we alter the final section of your draft to include this fuller summary of his view:


 * That serious scholars doubt Hitler believed in God is very significant. Ozhistory (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really have much of an objection to your proposed change to Deadbeef's text. Hitler was baptised into the Catholic faith, if you don't consider that a "tie", but a "relationship" then more power to you, change the wording there. We should add his baptism certificate from wikimedia commons into the article. Any objections to this?


 * Also,you have managed to cherry pick an even more biased and clearly contradictory quote from Bullock, saying he did not believe in god (which is an OPINION), and which contradicts britanica which says he basically beleived in "pagan gods" so which is it, he believed in pagan gods or no god?


 * Your emphasis on the importance of sholarly opinion should be offset with an emphasis on what hitler professed his own beliefs to be (afterall who is a better judge on what you believe than yourself?) So I have no problem with changing the Bullock quote if you will allow a reference to Hitler's own self professed beliefs in the christian god and a reference to his baptism.


 * So a reference to Hitlers baptism and his self professed beliefs in the christian god in exchange for your change in the bullock quote. Let me know if you think this is fair.


 * Also the baptism certificate is completeley relevant and deserves a place somewhere in the article, where do you suppose we should link that up?Greengrounds (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you mean that a baptism certificate can be taken as evidence of someone's grown up beliefs, then you can't be serious? Why don't you log on to Richard Dawkins and rewrite his biography crossing out every reference to being an atheist and replace it with "Anglican" (because when he was a little boy his parents baptised him)? Nonsense. Also Bullock's text says Hitler "believed neither in God nor conscience": that is to say, Bullock refers to the capital "G" God (the proper name given to the god of the Judeo-Christian understanding). As for Hitler calling himself a "Christian", it's already in the lead and doesn't need to be repeated (though some context of Hitler being "cautious about dangerously alienating Christians" at a time when he was being widely condemned as "anti-Christian" by everyone from Pope Pius XI to Churchill & Roosevelt would be helpful). So: no to "baptismal certificate in lead" (redundant information); and no to "Hitler said he was Christian" being repeated (it's problematic, because he also said he wasn't a Christian, BUT it is already stated in the lead text anyway - so its redundant. If a watertight sourced baptismal cert actually exists, then it can be referred to or included in general discussion of his childhood. But the point of Catholic background is already made in our article Ozhistory (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The original text here by Deadbeef is satisfactory. I prefer it to your rewording. We could mention that Hitler was baptised, professed publicly and privately that he was a christian and was never ex communicated from the catholic church ALL OF WHICH MAKE HIM A CATHOLIC. I am not willing to agree with you that we put in the lead that "hitler did not believe in god" it is an OPINION of ONE author. As for the baptismal certificate it is available on wiki commons and I'm not proposing we put that in the lead, I agree that it could find a place in his childhood section.Greengrounds (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Being baptized a Catholic and then not being ex-communicated makes you... a Catholic? You can not be serious. You keep repeating that Hitler said privately that he was a "Christian" as evidence that he was a Catholic. So what do you believe the fact that Hitler said in private he wasn't a Christian is evidence of? As for wanting to remove Bullock's assessment that Hitler did not believe in God, because it is "one opinion" - um, what do think all those other referenced assessments are? You are now sourcing your new edits to a site called "The History Place". Please remove these edits and find a valid source. Ozhistory (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That edit you are referring to was not in the lead, it was in the "childhood beliefs" section, and it was ONE QUOTE, not multiple edits as you're making it out to be. If you don't like the source, please demonstrate why you think it is unreliable, as there are MANY questionable quotes and citations, in the article and there is potential for an edit war(as you know)if people start deleting sources that they don't like, just because they are of the opinion that it is not a respectable source, or more likely that they don't like the evidence.Greengrounds (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * FURTHERMORE, the edit had to do with Hitler's BAPTISM, which as you previously AGREED, should go in that section. Greengrounds (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If Hitler said in private or public that he WASN'T a catholic, that is evidence that he wasn't a catholic, and I don't have a problem with you citing those quotes. However, in the lead, I do have a problem with you citing "Hitler did not believe in god", as it is misleading, and is based on one man's OPINIONGreengrounds (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Greengrounds, the wikipedia sources policies which you are asking about are outlined here: verifiability. Please review and pay close attention to the section "Reliable Sources". Then it would help if you went ahead and removed the edit you have based on "The History Place" which does not fit the criteria. Ozhistory (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that sources contravenes these guidelines more than many other sources that are used throughout the article. Please explain how my edit was "vandalism" as you put it, and what did my edit have to do with britanica? You neglected to use the talk page when making these claims and allegations, so please be more specific in the talk page as to what part was vandalism and what it had to do with britanica, because I can assure you that that was not my intention, so if I did, it was by mistake.Greengrounds (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The source you are concerned about, thehistoryplace.com has received awards from your beloved Britannica herself, for "quality, accuracy of content, presentation and usability." Please see http://www.historyplace.com/awards/index.html The author of the articles on the site, Philip Gavin has degrees from Boston University. If This is not an acceptable source, then that really brings into question the Britannica website as an acceptable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the website has not been put to review. Articles/encyclopaedia entries/books/monographs are sent to experts, at least one, usually two or three, sometimes up to seven, who read them and write a report highlighting any issues. They then recommend publication, rejection or further work. As a result, it is unusual - not unheard of by any means, but unusual - for dud stuff to be published. On the internet, anybody can publish anything with no quality control whatsoever - and it is worth noting, with due respect to Mr Gavin, that he appears to be a scientist rather than an historian (nb he also has only one degree from Boston University - precision is important in these matters). To compare it to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, whatever Britannica's shortcomings, is almost as absurd as your claims upthread that the Nazis were demonstrably Christian and that historical writing represents only peoples' opinions. Historical research rather represents deductions based on available evidence. The overwhelming evidence from the Nazi period is that Nazism was Nietzschean rather than Christian in origin, as was Hitler's personal worldview, and that is reflected in the historical consensus. Even Steigmann-Gall admits his controversial thesis on Christian Nazism could only be valid for the earlier 1930s. I think Deadbeef's introductory paragraph is a good one. It reflects the complexity of Hitler's views as far as they are known about as accurately as could be done in the space constraints.86.167.1.30 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're that worried about the source, I'll use a different one. BTW, the author had two degrees, one an arts degree not a science degree (precision is important in these matters) also be careful what you are demanding for being used as sources, which is basically your demanding proof that each individual articles are peer reviewed. :-)Greengrounds (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think, Greengrounds, you should read what was written more carefully, both in my comment and your source. He has ONE degree from Boston - the other is from Northeastern. So I was right and you are still wrong. Moreover, I should point out that merely because somebody has a BA is not a guarantee it was not a degree in science. Moreover, why should Wikipedia not use material that has been checked for quality? Nobody is demanding proof that they are peer-reviewed - merely that high quality sources are used. There is a reasonable doubt about the validity of the source you cite - particularly given your own blatant tendentiousness on the subject. Hope that helps.62.30.228.103 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Greengrounds, please do try and find a different source, as per the guidelines. In the meantime, remove that edit. I agree poor sourcing is common in the article - it is the nature of this sort of article that people take things from blogs and cooky websites, which contain a mix of fact, rumour and unscholarly prejudice. Collaboratively, we must watch out for such citations and remove material sourced to them. Meanwhile, the "vandalism" I reverted was a series of alterations made by an editor who completely changed Britannica & Bullock (for example changing: "in elite Nazi schools, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic worship" to "Christian prayers were added to Teutonic rituals"). I had assumed these were your edits, but it may have been the anonymous IP address (that you "applauded" earlier on). Collectively, we must watch out for this type of vandalism and correct whenever we see it. I also encourage you to read Bullock and other noted biographies by respected scholars on the subject of Hitler - or at least find out who Bullock was before attempting to go through an article and removing all quotes sourced to him. Ozhistory (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Recommend you do not try to alter the article to the point where you set opening line to "Hitler was an atheist", as I see you tried to do at one point. That is why I got involved and set the page to an earlier revision. As for your other conspiracy theories that I signed in anonymously from Bangalore (you can search the IP from whoever did that), please stop. And please don't slander me as "a vandal" just because I disagree with you. And by the way, was it really the SOURCE of the well known fact that hitler wanted to be a priest, or was it the FACT that Hitler wanted to be a priest that bothered you? Either way, another source was referenced for that WELL KNOWN FACT.Greengrounds (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ozzy you tried to summarize the article with a an OPINION from Geoffrey Blainey, using his book as a citation. Just because it is published does not make it a reliable source. Here's a summary of the sources you are trying to use to SUMMARIZE Hitler's religious beliefs: "Geoffrey Norman Blainey AC (born 11 March 1930), is a prominent Australian historian and commentator with a wide international audience. He is said to be the “most prolific, wide-ranging, inventive, and - in the 1980s and 1990s - most controversial of Australia’s living historiansNotice the language used to describe this well known source: "INVENTIVE", "CONTROVERSIAL". Probably not the best source to summarize an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Citing wikipedia as a reliable source to judge a reliable source is not a great start - especially when you are seeking to win an argument over the truth of wikipedia content. On Geoffrey Blainey, the Encyclopedia Britannica's opening summary says he is an "Australian historian, teacher, and writer known for his authoritative texts on Australian economic and social history". On Alan Bullock its says "British historian who, was founding master of St. Catherine’s College, Oxford, and the author of major historical studies and biographies, notably Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (1952), Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (1991)." So, Blainey, it describes as "authoritative" and Bullock as writing "major historical studies" of Hitler. These two eminent historians concluded from their studies of Hitler that he did not believe in God. This can be noted and cited in the article. Due weight can also be given to their views in our introduction. John Toland, Britannica notes, wrote "one of the most comprehensive biographies" of Adolf Hitler. His views also have a place in the body, and may be referenced in the introduction. Ozhistory (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize in advance if you are truly retarded, but you seem to be making the same mistake over and over again. As you did with the history place, you are attacking the source rather than the easily verifiable information cited there. The wiki on Blainey (which I see you have altered) references "Essay on “Blainey” by Profesor Graeme Davison, “The Oxford Companion to Australian History”, Oxford Univ. Press, 1998, p. 74)" So once again, I tell you WE ARE NOT LEADING THE ARTICLE with Blainey's statement that "Hitler was an Atheist". Blainey is WELL KNOWS for his controversial and "inventive" writing. It's not hard to find evidence for that.Greengrounds (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have previously referred you to Wikipedia's sourcing policies and copyright policies. I now refer you to the wikipedia policy of no personal attacks. I ask to please stop with your personal attacks. I also ask you again to read the sourcing policy, so that you can answer your own question as to why the verifiability of "sources" is vital in wikipedia. Ozhistory (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen: This conversation has now, once again, stagnated. I'll ask you both (and open the floor as well) to state if you agree with the following line of text for the first paragraph, altered using the revisions suggested and agreed on:

"Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his relationship with Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that 'he had no real attachment to it.' Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still 'a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy' and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Conversely, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were 'incompatible' and intended to replace Christianity with a 'racist form of warrior paganism'. Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote that Hitler did not believe in God, was anti-clerical, and held Christian ethics in contempt because they contravened his preferred view of 'survival of the fittest.' Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote he became deeply hostile to its teachings." Let's please agree not to attack the sources of the other, and instead comment on whether the text, as it exists, is acceptable. It is clear that neither editor is trying to vandalize Wikipedia, but simply has a different set of ideas. Please remember that there are multiple, verifiable viewpoints on the issue, and it is in the interest of neutrality to "teach the controversy" if credible dispute exists. The purpose of this is to build an introductory paragraph that satisfies both editors if possible, not to build a paragraph that one editor and one editor only is in favor of. The goal here is "agreeable", not "perfect". Dea db  eef  02:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Britannica does directly state that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible". It only states that Martin Bormann, argued that, and hitler "shared these views". If Britannica makes a point to make this distincion, I don't think we should bypass that. Also it is important to note that Britannica also states that this was "primarily because the essential elements of Christianity were “taken over from Judaism.”" That is also an importand distinction that should not be left out if we are to use Britannica here. Also I've already stated that I don't agree with putting the words "hitler did not believe in god" in the paragraph. I would however agree to this statement if we were to also include mention that Hitler himself often stated publicly and privately that he did believe in god, and never publicly or privately said the he didn't believe in god. However like I also stated I was willing to accept the original rewrite by Deadbeef. I would accept that original rewrite, but not this one as it is. Greengrounds (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright then. In the interest of ending the argument, is anyone not in favor of using the first draft (at the top of this section)? Dea  db  eef  15:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Ozzhistory, it looks like we need to resume the dialogue again here. We both agreed on the draft by Deadbeef, and I see you have been slowly chipping away at it again to fulfill your agenda, which seems to be that Hitler was an atheist. Your latest draft seems to say just that, slowly but surely that is what it has become. So, I reverted back to the April 25th, which was the last time that we both agreed on the intro. Please use the talk page when editing the lead of the article, and please remember we both agreed with Deadbeef's draft when neither of us answered that we are "not" in favour of using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 07:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. In view of large number of precise citations included in the May text, I've restored most of it. I didn't agree the April text, it was inserted by Deadbeef without a final comment from me after you wanted to delete Bullock's full text because you don't want any reference to a view that Hitler might be an "atheist" to be included in the introduction. (To me this is unacceptable censorship of an influential authority on the topic). Meanwhile I have gone to the sources you chose - (Toland, Speer) - and found that their complete text on Hitler's religion were not reflected in our/Deadbeef's April text. Could you (and other interested editors) take a look at the referenced material and see if you disagree? For example, Speer says Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church" to his political associates - a view endorsed by Kershaw, Bullock and, to a lesser extent, by Toland (Toland did say that Hitler was in "good standing" with Rome - but he also says Hitler essentially believed the Pope wanted him dead and was "no friend"). The cited texts quite simply don't match our/Deadbeef's April version and exaggerated the supposed "contradictory" views of historians. Certainly of the cited historians. Ozhistory (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes you did agree with Deadbeef's text in April, because the last comment was is anyone "NOT" in favour of using the text, and you did not object. You seem to forget that the whole reason we had deadbeef get involved is because we had a disagreement, and even after moderation and arbitration you have gone ahead, contrary to the moderator, contrary to our agreement, and edited, without so much as using the talk page even once. All I ask is that you use the talk page before modifying the lead of the article, which simply needs to start off that conflicting views exist about his religiosity. Anything else you add to the article can go in the body under the applicable sections. As for Speer, you can change the quotes and the context to suit many agendas, and that is why the lead must reflect that it is controversial. All I am asking here is that you stick with the moderation and arbitration that you asked for, and use the talk page. Therefore, I am reverting to the last edit that we had agreed on. We can let the readers make their own judgements by reading the article themselves, it is not up to you to pick and choose what viewpoint should go in the lead. Therefore, the lead gets reverted to our previously agreed upon edit. If it were up to me, the lead would start off with Hitler's own assertion that "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Unfortunately that wouldn't be fair would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not agree the text in April. But I did undertake additional research, specifically going to each of the sources. The April text does not adequately cover the views of the authors cited. We most certainly cannot "change" the Speer - or Bullock, Toland Kershaw or Phayer quotes - to "to suit many agendas" as you suggest - on the contrary, we must accurately reflect 1) what they actually wrote 2) what our article says. You can add to the expanded text that one General once wrote in his diary that Hitler told him he was a Catholic if you like (with correct timing and attribution). It's doesn't cancel out everything else Hitler said and did. I will insert the new text under a new heading to get people engaged. Ozhistory (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you did agree. Do I have to spell it out for you? It was asked who ever does NOT agree with this paragraph please raise your hand. You chose not to raise your hand, and instead go ahead and bypass the conversation and go along on your own. We most certainly CAN pick and choose and mine Speer, Bullock, Toland, Kerhsaw or Phayer quotes to reflect various conflicting viewpoints, and that is all you are doing. Picking the parts that best suit your viewpoint and quotes that you use  like "While noting that under Pius XII the church saved more Jews from the Nazis than all other rescue organizations combined, Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his anti-Semitism" Did you not write that? Please explain to me how this is not twisting words and quotations and contexts to suit your agenda?Greengrounds (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)