Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 4

Summary needs to be correspond more closely with the evidence in the body of the article
I am proposing that language such as the following be included in the summary, in particular to quell the revisionists who are claiming that Hitler was an atheist or satanist. The body of the article is clear that this is not true, and I think that should be reflected in the summary.

From the documented evidence of Hitler's actual beliefs and the quotes of Hitler in the article we can summarize that:


 * Hitler began life as a Catholic. He attended a Catholic choir school for his primary schooling and for some of those years aspired to join the Catholic clergy.
 * In early adulthood he adopted on a looser form of Christianity and ceased attending mass, while he continued to profess a belief in Christianity.
 * His beliefs in later life, after the mid-1930s, are a matter of debate due to widely conflicting evidence. Whether he was a Christian or not depends largely on how expansive and inclusive a definition is used for the term Christian.  Evidence is that he either believed in a form of Christianity that was both racist and against the absolute power of the clergy, or a mix of Christianity and neo-Germanic paganism.
 * Rumors that Hitler was an atheist, agnostic or satanist are without foundation.
 * His beliefs in later life, after the mid-1930s, are a matter of debate due to widely conflicting evidence. Whether he was a Christian or not depends largely on how expansive and inclusive a definition is used for the term Christian.  Evidence is that he either believed in a form of Christianity that was both racist and against the absolute power of the clergy, or a mix of Christianity and neo-Germanic paganism.
 * Rumors that Hitler was an atheist, agnostic or satanist are without foundation.
 * Rumors that Hitler was an atheist, agnostic or satanist are without foundation.

I think the summary should be explicit that claims Hitler was an atheist, agnostic or satanist are without foundation since claims he was are so wide-spread in many parts of the English-speaking world, and since the body of the article speaks only of beliefs that preclude atheism, agnosticism and satanism.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and as such not every quote is deserving of being included.

Specifically, revisionist propaganda intended to distort the image of the subject should not be presented in an article as being proof of what the subject was like. (They can be quoted in an article or section discussing propaganda on the subject.)

The article quotes a great deal of propaganda that attempts to distance Christianity from Hitler, in the same way that Hitler attempted to distance Jesus Christ from the Jews.

The article quotes claims that doubting the beliefs of particular Christian denominations precludes belief in Christianity.

And yet I can count on the fingers of one thumb the number of Christian Churches that do not doubt the beliefs of some other denominations.

The article quotes claims that belief in an Aryan Christ precludes belief in Christianity.

And yet I can count on the fingers of one thumb the number of Christian Churches that have a mono-browed well-tanned looking middle eastern looking man up on their cross.

Hence the quoted claims are propaganda.

Even the suicide, which perhaps every organized sect of Christianity prohibits, is something many practicing Christians (many thousands a year) sadly end up restoring to.

Yes we can conclude that at the end of his life Hitler's beliefs were neither Catholic nor Lutheran, but none of the evidence contained in quotes suggests he was not any type of Christian at all. And if the reader's definition of Christianity includes beliefs acceptance of some pagan traditions, then by that definition Hitler would probably be a Christian.

Certainly there is no evidence for the popular theories he was an atheist, agnostic or satanist. 50.71.210.133 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestion Hitler was a Satanist is clearly wrong, but I can't see where anyone suggests that in the article so it becomes irrelevant. It's much less clear cut as to whether he was an agnostic or atheist, but contrary to your claims most mainstream scholars have concluded he was not a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, something that is reflected in the article. His final religious views appear to have been some sort of Deist (as in 'Mother Nature', based on a neo-Darwinism) with a pagan bent and an admiration for Nietzsche. Much of the evidence used in reaching this conclusion is cited in the article, including his private writings, his actions and his attempts to force the Nazi party towards a more radical, anti-clerical worldview. That's not propaganda, it's a straightforward fact. Therefore your assertion is I fear entirely wrong. Simply because you wish something was not true does not mean that anything that proves it false is propaganda. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it must reflect facts as far as we know them. I therefore do not support your suggestion that the summary should be altered in the way you suggest, as it would be doing a disservice to Wikipedia and running counter to our current state of historical knowledge. As for your suggestion that we redefine the meaning of the word 'Christianity' to include something that is manifestly not Christian but would suit your worldview by allowing you to include Hitler...well, I only have to put it that way to show how it comes across!

If you can come up with hard evidence from widespread peer reviewed research to support your opinions, that would be different, but as it doesn't exist (with the exception of one very suspect article by Carrier, which does not on its own make an historical consensus) I fear you won't be able to unless you are in a position to research and write it yourself. Even then, you might find it difficult as even Richard Steigmann-Gall accepts that Hitler's views gradually became increasingly anti-Christian from the later 1930s.

The one thing I think we do agree on is that this article has recently attracted an awful lot of heat from both sides, but it isn't currently generating a lot of light. Would it be worth putting the article up for a full copy edit to try and iron out the kinks that the recent controversies have caused, followed by a six-month lockdown while everyone cools off a bit?Hcc01 (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Basically agree with Hcc01. Satanism is an irrelevance and evidence is firmly against Hitler believing in the Judeo-Christian God, or any meaningful allegiance to a Christian denomination beyond boyhood/early adulthood. This doesn't equate to him being an atheist, but it doesn't preclude it - and of course he vacillated in himself and deceived others on the topic anyway, so at which point in time a belief is attributed to him (based on one or other comment or political action) must also always be made clear. Regardless, this article will remain a magnet for kooks and people with "a little learning", so no harm in a cool off period. Ozhistory (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with 50.71.210.133 (talk), and I findHcc01 (talk) to be quite hypocritical in what he is demanding vs what he is providing, I find the drawn conclusions absolutely absurd. It is exactly the type of propaganda that the previous user was talking about. Ozhistory (talk) I find your response quite arrogant, patronizing and non productive. Your conclusion shows that you are completely unwilling to look at all the evidence. I disagree with you too on this. I maintain that the article should provide evidence and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions.Greengrounds (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds - can you actually not hear yourself? You are (falsely) attacking other people for doing exactly what you are doing yourself. You make false claims to support your own worldview, you provide unreliable sources to support it and seem surprised when people remove them, and all anyone who has ever tried to engage with you has got from you is highly unpleasant abuse. Let me put it to you simply. I am an expert. You are not. I have said I have no objection to you writing what you like if you source it properly. You do the first, not the second. The reason is that there are no sources for the second, so it requires a leap of faith on your part, rather than the use of reason and research. Wikipedia is not the place for that. It deals in facts. Sorry Greengrounds, but if you cannot abide by Wikipedia's rules, you would be better off leaving again.Hcc01 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are a self proclaimed "expert" here's the evidence: directly from you "His final religious views appear to have been some sort of Deist (as in 'Mother Nature', based on a neo-Darwinism"). You leave out... with Jesus Christ as the central figure. Neo Darwinism is irrelevant when talking about religion. Christianity itself is a religion of "Neo Darwinism", what with all of the genocide committed in the bible. Greengrounds (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try once more Greengrounds, although given the level of your response I don't know why I bother. I am a PhD in history, have worked as a history teacher, been a lecturer in two universities, a consultant to others, have written eight articles and one book with a second on the way, receive enquiries about my work from all over the world and I speak German. That makes me an expert. You have none of the above qualifications. What does that make you? I did not leave anything out - there is very little evidence to suggest Jesus was a central figure in Hitler's worldview. He admired him, but that is all. I admire Tony Blair's masterful political chicanery, but I don't worship him in any way, nor am I a 'Blairtian' (I never even voted for him). Insofar as Hitler considered Jesus important, it was as a fellow 'victim' of the Jews. Indeed, at times Hitler seemed to identify with Jesus as part of an increasing Messiah complex. That alone should be enough to warn you that Hitler's religious views were diverging very far from any meaningful definition of Christianity. Neo-Darwinism is nothing to do with the Bible, it is a pseudo-scientific creed underpinned by partial and incomplete theories of evolution. Its champions included such notably religious people as the Huxleys. (That was sarcasm, Greengrounds, in case you didn't get it.) Bringing in the Bible to that debate says a great deal more about you than it does about neo-Darwinism. Once more Greengrounds - write anything you like, as long as it's backed by good sources that have survived peer review. Otherwise, take your bias and your vandalism elsewhere. I will not respond to any more of your posts that merely contain childish abuse (which includes almost the entirety of your postings on this page so far). If you can engage intelligently with the substance of the debate, that's fine, and I'm happy to discuss matters with you. It might be helpful, especially to you if everyone else takes that approach as well.Hcc01 (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You sound very proud of you accolades, but they are really quite irrelevant here unless your books are on topic and have been peer reviewed, and if they are, you should really cite them here. As for your PhD, it means nothing here, and you are simply making an appeal to your own authority. Kenneth Sheppard also has a Phd in history, and he is a Christian apologist, and I would not trust him for one second with this important part of history. If you want to attribute Hitler's killing of jews solely to some kind of racial bias he had, that is on you. But the fact is, he was a man of Christ, his anti Semitism has been closely and linked to his Christianity by Toland and others, and what's more Nazi Germany was at that time in history the most Catholic it had ever been, and that was under Adolf's rule. It's a very basic exercise in logic to come to the conclusion that he and the Nazis were Christian, given the light of their actions which was to carry out the holocaust, which was supported by Christian antisemetism, and your conspiracy theory that Hitler did nothing but lie about his true beliefs is yet to be proven. You can't prove it. His words and actions were Christian antisemetism in action, and the fact that you want to spread unfounded, unproven assumptions and conspiracy theories is akin to holocaust denial and revisionism. To deny who did it is to deny it happened, and it was most assuredly a Christian movement, as Adolf himself said. Over... and over... and over again. And his followers ate it up, and they carried out those actions because they were Christians too. For you to dumb this down and say oh it's "neo Darwinism" is all it is, is certainly akin to holocaust denial in my eyes, your PhD be darned.Greengrounds (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a misunderstanding here, Hitler was anti-Jewish because he perceived Jews to be a different race that was evil and against the Aryan or Germanic race, and it did not matter what religion they were. Christians were anti-Jewish because it was a different religion that rejected Jesus as the Savior, Christians wanted Jews to convert, Hitler wanted them dead, Hitler was not motivated by religion but by racial theories. This distinction may have a place in this article which is short on Hitlers views on Judaism. 97.92.24.253 (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Most recent Anonymous edits
The editor anonymously undid a revision I made that made Toland's scholarly opinion more visible within the article (by using block quote). I did this revision in the first place in respose to Ozhistory, who had previously made his favourite quotes highly visible (by using block quote). Is any one in favour of removing all the block quoting from the scholarly opinion section? It is being used unfairly to feature certain viewpoints. If we do not remove the block quoting from it, or we do not add it back for the Toland quote this is an unfair POV violation.

See section on Scholarly opinion where two christian apologist quotes are made higly visible, while Steigmann-gall and Toland are buried in the text and not given any weight. What are your thoughts?Greengrounds (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Most of the direct quotes (especially those from primary sources) should be removed, and we should stick to what historians say. 97.91.100.34 (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad to see some consistency on your part, but why did you only remove one block quote though? I'm sorry if I consider that hypocritical, but your actions are not consistent with what you are saying here. The "anti-Catholic" one. Shall we get to work on removing similar block quoting?Greengrounds (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Frédéric Hoffet
An anonymous editor removed a reference to Frederic Hoffet's scholarly opinion on the basis that the book is French. Of course, if he is truly worried about mistranslations then he would have to take an honest look at the article and see how much would have to be removed on the same basis that he removed this reference. Seems rather hypocritical. I will strengthen the citation so he can cross reference it, and reintroduce it to the article.Greengrounds (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Greengrounds, Do you speak and can you translate french, I ask this because you have this quote referenced directly to the french source. If you do not then your reference needs to be to the source that you got the quote from, and since you reference a source that is notoriously anti-catholic and does not have a good "track" recorded of being faithful to facts; it seems apparent that this is a quote you picked up somewhere on line and is more likely a misquote or misrepresentation - you need to reference your source for the translation and Chick Tracks is not satisfactory. Also the book this quote is supposedly from does not appear to come from a scholar of Germany of the period but is called "a lawyer and French Protestant writer, essayist and pamphleteer"  and he seems to also be pushing a particular point of view.  Also calling others hypocritical is a personal attack and a violation of Wikipedia rules.  In any case the quote is off topic, the Nazi government may have had more persons that had catholic backgrounds than other German governments but this does not say anything about Hitlers religious attitudes, he also had more anti-christians than other governments. 97.91.100.34 (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the logic, but it follows that if the totalitarian leaders of the country allowed same country to become and stay highly Catholic that they were not opposed to it. It's simple logic, really I don't understand what's so hard to follow. Regardless, I appreciate your feedback, I will work on finding a more suitable source, and I will also make sure that your standards are not being applied hypocritically and I would ask you to do the same. This means looking very closely at references to the table talk and other German or non English translations. Thank you. '''Also please provide proof that Chick tracks is not reliable. Just because they may appear anti catholic to religionists, Catholics and other Christians, doesn't mean they are "anti-Catholic". Let's remember that the Catholic church has done many detestable things I.E. supporting Hitler, the Nazis, and the Holocaust, and pointing those things out may seem "anti-Catholic" because those things are so detestable. But in fact, it is not "anti-Catholic" it is simply historical fact.''' Greengrounds (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, RE: you're accusations of personal attack, when someone is not consistent in their application of standards, that is called hypocrisy, please see above under "anonymous edits". Pointing this out is not a personal attack as you would have it.Greengrounds (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Greengrounds, you need to go back and read WP:NOTRELIABLE. Chick Tracks are questionable in the extreme--216.31.124.50 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

97.91.100.34 (talk), 216.31.124.50 (talk) Actually guys, I'm sorry you're confused. The book citing Hoffet is published by Chick publishing, but it is not a chick tract. Chick tracts, are little comic books, you know that, right? Hoffet is a French historian, and I do speak some french, but with the translation already. Also, Hoffet reference is not published in a chick publishing book. Here is the original in context: Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and most members of the party's "old guard" were Catholics", wrote M. Frederic Hoffet. "It was not by accident that, because of its chiefs' religion, the National-socialist government was the most Catholic Germany ever had... This kinship between National-socialism and Catholicism is most striking if we study closely the propaganda methods and the interior organisation of the party. On that subject, nothing is more instructive than Joseph Goebbel's works. He had been brought up in a Jesuit college and was a seminarist before devoting himself to literature and politics... Every page, every line of his writings recall the teaching of his masters; so he stresses obedience... the contempt for truth... "Some lies are as useful as bread!" he proclaimed by virtue of a moral relativism extracted from Ignatius of Loyola's writings..." Frederic Hoffet: "L'lmperialisme protestant" (Flammarion, Paris 1948, pp.172 ss).

As for me "having to be able to speak french", sorry but you're wrong. And if I say or don't say I can speak french, how would my expertise add to the verifiability or reliability of the passage? Please review Citing_non-English_sources Now that that's clear we can get back to what we do best: editing.Greengrounds (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

"Statements in favour of atheism" Section
Opening discussion on changes to or deletion of "Statements in favour of atheism" Section.


 * "Favour" in section title should use American English spelling for consistency.


 * Section is incongruent with previous section, "Statements against atheism". "Statements against atheism" provides statements made by Hitler against atheism, while "Statements in favour of atheism" provides references to claims Hitler was atheist. Section title OR content should be changed.


 * Uninformative use of references. Leads with two statements in the form of: [author] concluded/wrote that Hitler was atheist. That would be an F-grade term paper for lack of elaboration on why the authors thought Hitler was an atheist.


 * Weak statement and support beginning in third sentence with "including statements suggestive of an atheist outlook." According to whom? Section title is "Statements in favour of atheism," not "Statements suggestive of..."


 * Possible weasel word ('scorns') in: "Hitler scorns Christianity as 'founded on nonsense',..."


 * Ambiguous use of quotes giving the appearance of quote-mining: "Hitler scorns Christianity as 'founded on nonsense', while 'science', he says 'cannot lie.'" (Is this a summary of the cited author or the editor?)


 * Contradictory statement and false dichotomy presented between "... suggestive of an atheist outlook" and supporting quote (below). Quote supports the conclusion that Hitler believed scientific knowledge of the universe would supplant Christian (perhaps religious) dogma and doctrine, not that Hitler believed there is no god. Consider "All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic" supports some belief in the supernatural or Deism. Consider how the quote reads by replacing "Christianity"/"Christian" with "Judaism"/"Judaic" to reveal the false dichotomy that anticlerical statements necessarily suggest atheism.

Taigei (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. That section doesn't appear to add anything to what has gone before. Neither does the one above it on 'statements against atheism', if it comes to that. Most of the material that would be used for either is referred to higher up in the article. I would recommend deletion of both, and just leave the relevant statements under 'public/private statements', with the scholarly opinion under 'scholarly opinion' where it belongs. Certainly the title bears no resemblance at all to the text. Maybe some of the key quotes on both sides should be put on Wikiquote if they're not there already? Just a thought.Hcc01 (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably ok to delete both sections. They are mostly repetition better dealt with under other existing headings. Ozhistory (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as it is relevant that Hitler persecuted the churches, it is relevant that Hitler persecuted Atheist and Freethinking groups. I really don't see how anyone could logically argue otherwise. I would have no problem with deleting all three sections or just the section on statements in favour of atheism as was originally suggested, especially since there is really nothing there. Greengrounds (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems best to remove those sections and incorporate any useful info that is on topic else were. To greengrounds are "Atheist and Freethinking groups" religious? Scholars do not generally find Hitler against atheism, but against Communism which was atheistic, and being against atheistic Communism was the major way Hitler tried to gain the favor of the churches - often times this fact is left out when quotes are introduced in the the article from primary sources.  97.92.24.253 (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article suggests that since Hitler persecuted some churches it is evidence that he was not religious. Therefore the fact that he persecuted atheist groups is relevant, since it could be evidence that he was religious. The underlying tone being that he persecuted whichever group he was not a part of. Also when you say remove those sections are you moving that we remove the persecution of churches as well, or just references to his persecution of atheist groups? I agree with you that most scholars don't consider Hitler Atheist, but given that the article which makes reference to him being a "rationalist/materialist" (who isn't), such language is meant to point him as being an atheist. My argument is that he persecuted churches, he persecuted pagan groups(see above in talk on including that fact in the article as well) he persecuted atheist and freethinking groups, all of which are purported at times in the article as what his religious beliefs were. So and so said he was a Christian, but he persecuted Christian churches so he couldn't have been one. Such and such said he was a pagan, but he persecuted pagan institutions so he couldn't have been pagan. Yet another says he was atheist, but he persecuted atheist groups so he couldn't have been one. These conclusions do not necessarily follow, but that is certainly their only relevance in the article is to be used as evidence for those types of conclusions. In order for the article to maintain a consistent tone either the full story of who and what he persecuted should be presented as relevant to his religious beliefs, or none of it should be included, as it is irrelevant to his religious beliefs, especially since he persecuted all groups to which his religious beliefs could be attributed. I would be open to discussing either option, as long at is consistent with a neutral POV, which POV BalanceGreengrounds (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The topic at hand is the "Statements in favour of atheism" section. Please voluntarily move discussion of the "Statements against atheism" section to a new Talk topic under that title. I will be cleaning up this Talk topic in the near future.

On "Statements in favour of atheism", it has been recommended, and generally agreed, that the section be removed and worthwhile information be moved to existing relevant sections.

The Hitler's Table Talk quote (above, "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away...") seems on topic and worthwhile in providing useful insight not appearing elsewhere in the article. '''I intend to move the quote to the "Hitler's Table Talk" subsection immediately after the first paragraph, and scrapping the rest of the "Statements in favour..." section.'''

Changes will be made between 12-24 hours from datestamp to allow some time for critical feedback on the change.

Taigei (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * An alternative is to head the two sections "Hitler and atheism", thus allowing a space for discussion of the topic in toto, without limiting scope? Thus those scholars who have judged Hitler to be atheist can find inclusion, without skewing the topic heading in either direction. As a rule wikipedia articles are not the place for listing quotes - such material is for wikiquotes. As editor 97.92.24.253 notes, most of the overt references to atheism made by Hitler in the "statements in favour of atheism" section were targeted at atheistic communism, as opposed to atheism per se, thus contextual historical discussion will be required. I agree with Taigei that the quote from Table Talk is strongly on topic and worth preserving, and that the section heading "Table Talk" is a sensible place to put it, but suggest that the obvious resolution it to his broader concern is to re-title the two subsections into one neutral heading: "Hitler and atheism". Thus the Blainey and Bullock quotes can be retained, while the Table Talk quote is shifted. Ozhistory (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Blainey and Bullock should be expanded to provide some information on the reasoning which led to their conclusions for the sake of readers. I do not have the referenced materials to do so myself. Volunteers? Taigei (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Taigei, I have expanded on Bullock and Blainey, per your request. Bullock's position is particularly subtle and worth reading. I have cleaned up the section and combined all content under the heading: "Hitler and atheism", so additional scholarship on the topic can find a home here. Ozhistory (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oz, you have done work and it is worthwhile. Good integration, neutral, representative, and concise expansion of Blainey and Bullock. The Bullock paragraph put my arm hairs on end, and the Bullock and Table Talk paragraphs finish the section powerfully. Good read. Taigei (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Taigei - a very descriptive review! Ozhistory (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The current state of the article
Morning all.

I am a bit concerned about the current state of this article, for the following reasons:

1) Due to constant edits, the text doesn't flow very well;

2) Sections have been created, titled or edited so that they bear no resemblance to the title of the section, the ostensible goal of the article or the current state of historical scholarship;

3) It appears to have become more or less a battleground and that is not only not acceptable it is highly damaging to all concerned;

4) There is a huge mushrooming of disputes on this talk page over all this, which is not always - particularly with one user - either civil or constructive.

This is obviously of concern to me, although I am only a perfectly ordinary editor on Wikipedia, because it is a topic that I have a personal stake in (see above). It is an important and sensitive topic, and gratifying though it is to see the wide interest it attracts, given Wikipedia is now everyone's point of first reference, I think it should be as accurate, as user-friendly and reflect historical scholarship as far as possible. At the moment, it is not succeeding in any of those three aims. My offer is that I am willing to re-edit the page from first principles in July if - and this is the important part - everyone currently involved is willing to take three months after that to cool off a bit before any heavy-duty editing begins again. I have no authority whatsoever to order anything on Wikipedia and this would be purely voluntary restraint upon your part. However, it does mean taking some time off from my own research, so I would like to be sure it will be time well spent. Is this something other people would like me to do - or would rather I did not do? I'm throwing it open to everybody to respond.

The reason I cannot do it today is that my university year does not finish for another month (it's a late one) and until then I will be busy. I have had to take more time off than I can really afford over this already. If the offer does meet widespread acceptance, I would appreciate it if everyone could chill a bit about the article until I have a chance to get to work on it, although suggestions for further input on the talk page would be welcome.

What do people think?Hcc01 (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hcc01, I agree with the concerns you list as to the current state of this article, however, would point out that realistically, editors will come and go from this page and no undertaking from recent editors to "stand back" for three months will mean much. Wikipedia is a "democracy" (the worst system except for the alternatives, as you-know-who said). I suggest that you simply "be bold" and launch into the best edit you can. Not only content, but also text flow, sequence, spelling, grammar, sourcing, and overall structure can all be improved. If you go too far, editors will no doubt haul you up. Ozhistory (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Ozhistory is right, as long as the article is open to unrestricted editing people with ideological agendas will come in and muck up the place. On your concerns:

1. Due to constant edits, the text doesn't flow very well; The outline is critical to controlling flow. Off hand, I think the top level outline should be a timeline because Hitler's ideological views are shown to evolve over time. Subtopics within the timeline should be inclusive (people will tend to edit existing sections and only add them if their topic of interest is not covered), and chronological.

2. Sections have been created, titled or edited so that they bear no resemblance to the title of the section, the ostensible goal of the article or the current state of historical scholarship; Is it worthwhile to make a short Talk post to clarify the goal and scope of the article? Or an article head describing the purpose and scope? Perhaps that will provide conscientious editors guidelines to control edits. Forewarned is forearmed, and all that. Perhaps there is too much dedicated to topics covered in existing articles, such as the "Positive Christianity" section which is ~7000 characters, while the article on "Positive Christianity" is ~10,000 characters. The section on the persecution of Christians is overwhelming and could have it's own article, or be integrated into the existing article "Persecution of Christians" which has a section on Hitler. All that is needed is a chronological subsection on "Treatment of ideological groups" which shows Hitler's politic and systematic approach to replace all ideologies with his own. Narrowing the scope of the article may be in order.

3. It appears to have become more or less a battleground and that is not only not acceptable it is highly damaging to all concerned; Indeed, and that battle will outlast us. Honestly, a section titled "Was Hitler an atheist?" might at least restrict the battleground and Talk to that section.

4. There is a huge mushrooming of disputes on this talk page over all this, which is not always - particularly with one user - either civil or constructive. Which is a shame because there are good points being made which are lost on those who ignore off-topic, uncivil and unconstructive remarks. The quality of a Talk page is reflected in the quality of an article. I have no qualms editing the Talk page itself for the sake of other editors and the quality of the article.

I am not in favor of Hcc01 rewriting the article because his suggestion seems last ditch, and his work will almost certainly be overwritten within the three months he is requesting the article remain unedited - I would rather he pace himself and stick around, perhaps proposing an outline that we can work with, but not taking on the laborious task of a rewrite. I think we have enough principled, dedicated editors to approach issues methodically. Taigei (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in favour of Hcc01 (talk) doing a rewrite, and I would be willing to stay away. My only concern has been and remains certain user's POV policy violations. As for Taigei (talk) editing the talk page, I would have no issue with placing a hat on some sections, but I do have concerns with what you would be looking to censor out. Obviously I have said some things which are regrettable directed at other users, but I do not agree with having my opinions or lines of thought removed.96.52.180.114 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * When I say I have no qualms editing the Talk page, I mean if I am left to clean up the messes of other editors, I will do so at my own discretion to make this Talk page in compliance with Wikepedia guidelines and efficient for editors to study. This is not a forum for people to gunk up with irrelevant spittle over whether Hitler was a Christian or an atheist. If you want to save vitriolic discussions, create a clear, descriptive topic and move the discussions there so no one else has to wade through the self-indulgent drivel of personal conviction. Do so, and you will be thanked and applauded. Taigei (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points Taigei, and if a general overhaul can be agreed among editors here, that would be great from my point of view, as I'm still scrabbling for time where I can at the moment. Do people think (per Taigei's suggestions) that this might be a better flow:


 * Introduction - this could set it up rather differently. So for example, it could stress that Hitler was a very private, secretive man who tended to say what he thought his audience wanted to hear, rather than what he actually thought himself (both Kershaw). Then exemplify this with a passage on Goebbels' views that he was religious but anti-Christian, Faulhaber's conviction of the opposite, some indication of his public and private statements etc. (the debate on their veracity should be lower down, not in the lede). Then, a quick paragraph to stress that his views changed over time and his actions altered according to 'his immediate political purposes'.

Early religious views 1889-1922 (maybe make the end date elastic)

Views as NSDAP leader 1922-1933

Views as Chancellor 1933-39

Views as war leader 1939-45

Possibly then conclude with a section on the scholarly debate (I'm willing to write that if necessary) and a section on further reading above the bibliography rather than below it?

It doesn't need to be a vast article, because it's really a side topic compared to his actions which as has been repeatedly noted are covered elsewhere in articles on Nazi policy, which could be linked to in the relevant sections. I certainly think most of the bulk quotes from Hitler should be moved to Wikiquote, because they tend to be one of the things that get in the way. These again could be linked to in relevant sections or directly where they are referred to.

The suggestion of rejigging the Talk page to act as a lightning conductor is a really good one - but it's not going to be easy! Is it possible to archive this one and start entirely afresh?

How does that sound to other people? I'm very pleased to see there is a willingness to move forward on this guys, and I really appreciate your response so far. Will be back later this evening to see if there's any response. Hcc01 (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Charting the evolution of his views make sense as a structure - both for lead and main. Some of the block quotes attributed to Hitler can certainly be summarised, with historical context provided, while the full quotes can be shifted to wikiquote, but hard to know which you are referring to, until you pinpoint them. My experience in these types of articles is that editors will always question foreshortened quotes (fearing quote mining) and ask for more - hence the clumsy (yet accurate) insertion of extended texts. On Hitler's actions - yes there is alot of fat that can be trimmed - but Hitler, more than most, has to be judged by his actions far more than his public words, so demonstrating how promises not to interfere with the churches were discarded once he obtained office (etc etc etc) are essential. One point from your intro suggestions though - to me Faulhaber's view following a meeting with Hitler is way down the line of significance compared to the views of Hitler's inner circle. Kershaw's take on it is probably right, a case of Hitler at his duplicitous best. Certainly a place in the main, but why a place in the intro? Ozhistory (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hcc01, I think you're right about archiving the current Talk page. We can copy over "The current state of the article" as a starting point for the new Talk page. We can create a "Christian vs atheist" topic if we can't keep other editors on task. Oz is making perfect sense to me. Hc, I'm 98% with you.


 * Evolving content may make it necessary to edit strict dates in section headers, but it would be accurate enough to note header dates as "ca."


 * The introduction will likely be refined as we go, but not fully refined until we can sit back and read the article and work on an excellent summary. Ultimately, I believe the article will point to Hitler's desire to replace all ideologies with his own, and the lede should follow.


 * I think Hc may be right that there will be sections following the chronological sections, but as much as possible, I feel we should fit content into chronological order, and reference other articles where possible.


 * A "Hitler's Post-war Intentions" section seems likely given some of the content, and I think would be a frightening and engaging tie up for the chronological section.


 * Oz's writing is delicious. My experience is in editing and layout: the layout is fine, so I may end up being most useful in polishing existing content with minor changes and rewriting awkward sentences rather than producing original content. Where are your strengths and passions Hc? Taigei (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying - pressure of work.

Your ideas sound good to me Taigei. My particular strength is factual knowledge, although I can mug up on historiography when I have too (which is rather a lot, given my job)! I can also write quite well, although I write very fast and I am not good at proof reading, so what I write usually needs tidying up (if I do edit it, your talents would definitely be very useful in a follow-up).

Ozhistory - my particular thought was that it would be better to keep quotes to a minimum, and certainly any quoted material should be short and sharp, no more than 20-30 words at most, so they can be integrated into the text. The block quotes are all well and good but they get in the way. I fully appreciate your point about how some people demand to see the full quote - can a link be put to Wikiquote for any other material? As an encyclopaedia I think the majority of Wikipedia's readers want to get at the information rather than the detail from the source, and perhaps the article needs slanting back towards their needs. If anyone would like to go ahead on the basis outlined above, I'm happy to watch them and offer (constructive) suggestions. Otherwise, I'm willing to do it myself next month, although not this month as I am absolutely snowed under.Hcc01 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am delighted we have complementary strengths. Is there a way to create a sandbox article we can all view and edit without publishing live? EDIT: I've created a duplicate of the existing article at User:Taigei/rvoh to start reorganizing the information. Feel free to talk and edit. Taigei (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Taigei. Will make a start as soon as I have time.Hcc01 (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

A way forward-- Rename the article to something objective
WHY BOTHER? WHY NOT BE HONEST INSTEAD OF OBJECTIVE, CALL IT THE "CHRISTIAN HISTORY RESTORATION PROJECT" INSTEAD OF WIKIPEDIA AND ALL "OBJECTIVITY" AND "HONESTY" PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED YOU FRAUDS - (this is the remainder of a rather long unsigned comment/rant; the rest can be found here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.85.98 (talk) 09:16, December 24, 2013‎

Came here from the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I do see there's a lot of disputes going on, and the article text is suggestive of a article that's endured strife.

I can't solve all your problems, but I maybe I can help with one. "Religious views of Hitler" is a very board topic and one that is impossible to verify. No one really knows what his views were-- in truth I guess no one truly knows ANYONE's actual inner religious views, but especially in the case of propaganda enthusiast Hitler, it's impossible to know.

One of the reasons you can't agree is that you're examining a question that is inherently unanswerable. You can't get at what was really in Hitler's head. I would suggest rename to something that encompasses just his religious affiliations and his 100% verifiable statements (public speeches, personal publications, public actions), something like "Religious statements by Adolf Hitler". I think this could also be expanded to include second-hand statements that are not 100% verifiable, but have been reported by notable acquaintances (and covered in RSes of course).
 * Rename and refocus

The problem we're getting into here is that there is no consensus definition for what "Christianity is". We can answer the question: Was he a known member of a given church-- but we can't answer "Was he a Christian?"-- which is what it looks like we're currently trying to do.

Re-focus on the verifiable: what did Hitler actually said, or is reported to have said, what were his personal formal affiliations, etc. The best examples of this material are "The young Adolf Hitler" and "Views as an adult".


 * Split off the "Religion under Hitler".

Meanwhile, the content discussed in the rest of the article would fit well in an article on "Religion under Hitler's Regime"-- it'd be a good home to sections like "Role of religion in the Nazi state" "Positive Christianity", "Persecution of Christian Churches by Hitler regime",  "Long term plans". These sections deal more with state policies which could be hypothetically be used to infer Hitler's beliefs.

For example, what does Nazi crackdowns on anti-Nazi churches tell me about Hitler's religious views? Perhaps it tells me that I personally don't think Hitler was a "Good Christian" in his deeds, but it doesn't tell me much about his personal religious views-- Christians persecute each other all the time.

It's good material, it belongs in an article-- just not one about the religious views of a single person.

For example, consider this quote:
 * "Jehovah's Witnesses were a small Christian minority, numbering around 30,000 at the start of Hitler's rule in Germany. For refusing to declare loyalty to the Reich, and refusing conscription into the army, they were declared to be enemies of Germany and persecuted. About 6000 were sent to the concentration camps."

Pretty much anyone who refused to declare loyalty or conscription was persecuted-- that Hitler would persecute them tells me he was a totalitarian, but not that he was anti-Jehovah's Witness due to his religious views.

Thoughts? --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello HM, thank you for the input. In one sense you are entirely correct, and there is much that would be better on other pages, which is one reason why I suggested a chronological approach on his personal religious views for the rewrite. In the second, while it might be more desirable to limit it to his public statements, there is unfortunately no such thing as material from Hitler that is '100%' verifiable. Quite apart from the vexed question of translating from German into English (which was exploited to the full by, inter alia, Carrier to support his point of view) to repeat Hitler's statements more or less uncritically would tend to tell us only what he thought people wanted to hear. As 90% of the German population were devout Christians at this period, a far higher proportion than in just about any comparable country, his public statements are unsurprisingly strongly Christian and for many years his private statements were very guarded so that they could not be used against him by his enemies (and he did have a number of enemies, particularly in the Army hierarchy, although despite Hitler's paranoia on the subject their actual effectiveness is highly questionable). It is a whole separate debate, incidentally (and a very, very scary one) as to how far Hitler was actually able to act in a totalitarian fashion, and how far Nazi rule was imposed by the will of ordinary people on their neighbours. I think to try and limit the article on Hitler's verifiable statements as you suggest would run the risk of being highly misleading, if not actually unhelpful. I think at least come critical analysis and an idea of the historical research on the subject is not merely desirable but essential.

On the subject of the persecution of the churches and his personal affiliations - again, if only it were that clear-cut. Hitler was raised as a Catholic. His father was however an atheist Catholic (those are apparently quite common, although it always seems a strange contradiction in terms to me). He paid his church taxes at intervals and certainly always stressed his allegiance to the church when he met members of its hierarchy. All of which suggests he must have been a Catholic. Yet a Catholic must attend mass and confession to be so considered - Hitler is not known to have done so after 1922. Christians do, of course, persecute each other all the time (as do atheists persecute each other!) but what has always been held up against Hitler being a Catholic is that he persecuted and repeatedly attacked the Catholic church. His moves against it in Germany were restrained by pragmatism - again, keeping the Army with its large Catholic minority quiet - but in Poland it was no holds barred. Even in Germany, he provoked passages of furious opposition with his education policies (having once said that secular education was reprehensible, he then tried to introduce it by stealth) and his 'social hygiene' campaigns (most of the disabled who were vivisected, murdered or otherwise attacked by the Nazis were cared for by the religious orders). Catholics do not usually persecute the Catholic Church, although they may persecute other Catholics. That would mean he wasn't a Catholic. So without even breaking a sweat, I've given you two contradictory analyses of his religious views and affiliations.

What I visualise for this article is an attempt to present as coherently as possible these contradictions and difficulties, in as neutral a fashion as possible, so people can use it as a starting point to inform themselves and get more information on the subject if they want. Apart from anything else, that is what I understand the purpose of Wikipedia to be. Of course, that does mean rebalancing it away from the narrower question of was/wasn't Hitler a Christian, but that's unfortunately going to have to be part of it because given the context that's the really important question - and although you are not the first person to suggest that this article doesn't really fit, given the context of public debate it is a really important question and therefore does require an article. So I agree entirely with your remarks on the amount of excess baggage, but I'm afraid I don't think your other idea has any mileage. I wish it did - it would make life a lot simpler!

Again, thanks for your input. Any further suggestions (or clarification if I have misunderstood you) gratefully received!Hcc01 (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, there are two fundamentally different questions:  (1) What did Hitler do or say about his personal religious views, and (2) How did Hitler treat religious organizations under his reign.
 * My point is that these are two different subjects, two different questions, best dealt with each in their own articles.
 * I wish it were so that persecuting the catholic church automatically implied that the persecutor is non-catholic.  In practice, though, "who you persecute" is not related to "what you believe".   One asks how Hitler viewed himself;  The other asks how Hitler treated others.
 * People who call themselves catholic are still "catholic", even if they stop going to mass, confession, or have a major dispute with the main body of the church.Sedevacantists, for example, deny the validity of every pope since 1958's Pius XII-- but they're still Catholic.  I could draw a similar comparison to fundamentalist mormons who remain being mormon despite breaking away (and preaching against) the main body of the LDS church.
 * It's tempting to look at government policy and use it to infer beliefs-- but that's reading tea leaves. --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought of adding a describtion to the top of the page saying 'This page discusses the religious nominal and personal religious views of Adolf Hitler, along with his policies regarding religion and religions' or somesuch. But making a split between discussion of his personal beliefs and his activities could reduce a lot of the tension taking place in the talk page. I'd suggest keeping it simple and not branching 5 articles out of this, though. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

100% support HectorMoffet's Proposal.

"Jehovah's Witnesses were a small Christian minority, numbering around 30,000 at the start of Hitler's rule in Germany. For refusing to declare loyalty to the Reich, and refusing conscription into the army, they were declared to be enemies of Germany and persecuted. About 6000 were sent to the concentration camps." Pretty much anyone who refused to declare loyalty or conscription was persecuted-- that Hitler would persecute them tells me he was a totalitarian, but not that he was anti-Jehovah's Witness due to his religious views.

A perfect example of what is wrong with the article. Yes, HC001 provided an alternative view on this "without breaking a sweat", it is a subjective and illogical view. Hitler persecuted the Catholic church. That he was not a catholic does not follow that premise. This line of reasoning is only ever used in this article on some viewpoints. Hitler persecuted atheist organizations, so he was not an atheist. WRONG! Hitler persecuted pagan organizations so he was not a pagan. WRONG! It's only when he persecuted Christian organizations that it becomes evidence that he was not a Christian. That's why this article needs to be renamed, and a new approach needs to be taken- the approach proposed by HectorMoffet.Greengrounds (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks Hector. I agree with the thoughts expressed by Hcc01 above, and don't really support a separation or renaming, as I think Hitler's policies towards religious groups be they Christian, Jewish, Pagan etc are all worthy and relevant of discussion in an article on the "religious views of Adolf Hitler". That Hitler thought that religions should be subservient to the state is, a "view on religion". I do however agree that the sections on Hitler's "religious policies" should be kept tight and linked to Hitler's personal involvements, rather than stray to broad Nazi aims, and the section you identify could be improved in this respect. Ozhistory (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "religious policies" section/subarticle will be the more difficult of the two to work on-- regardless of whether where we put that info. As you note, it's quite tricky to distinguish between "Hitler's Policies" and "Nazi Policies", and I worry that narrowing the focus to only policies in Hitler was personally involved could be difficult. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is really believed that Hitler's policies towards religious groups are all worthy and relevant, then why is there no mention of Hitler's persecution of pagan groups in the article? Pagan is only mentioned in reference that "Hitler was a racist pagan", and absolutely no mention is made of the fact that that he persecuted pagan groups as well? Like I said, it's only when he persecutes a church that it can be used as evidence that he was not a christian. But when he persecutes the Pagans, it cannot be mentioned. I had tried to add that in that he persecuted Pagans but it got removed by certain editors on "sourcing" even though it is an easily verifiable fact, while sources such as www.churchinhistory.org are laughably included by these same editors without so much as bating an eye. If persecution is being used as evidence the fact that Germany was a christian country and therefore more christian organizations would have been persecuted does not give more weight in the article than Pagans, atheists ans others who were equally or more persecuted per capita since there was less of them and their major organizations were all but wiped out. So for you could say 90% of atheist organizations were wiped out, whereas 10% of Christian groups were wiped out. In my opinion, either the persecution sections go, the pagan and other groups' persecution gets an equally weighted feature or the article is doomed for NPOV violations.Greengrounds (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hector, yes sometimes difficult, but certainly not always. For example, it is known who Hitler backed to be Reich Bishop and later to be Minister for Religious Affairs for example, and such things are useful indicators. At any rate, there seems to be quite a bit of discussion in the various histories precisely on the point of Hitler's involvement in religious policy making, and to me it remains well and truly on topic, though needing, as I said, to be kept tightly directed, so as to avoid being only tangentially relevant. To Greengrounds, I believe - though I don't remember being directly involved - that your edit concerning "persecution of pagans" was removed by other editors because your text did not match the content that you were citing? At any rate, Hitler's skeptical views on paganism, astrology, occultism etc get an airing in the section on "Mysticism and occultism", and I would suggest that well sourced material dealing with any "persecution" of such groups can be placed there, provided it adheres to due weight and verifiability requirements etc? Ozhistory (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, Ozhistory, please try and keep up with the talk page. It was removed because in one user's opinion the source has an "anti-clerical agenda", and that it was not directly related to Hitler's own views. The same could be said about your Britannica quote that you feature so prominently in the article, and the reason that the persecution of the pagans is so important is you cite very prominently your selected quote from Britanica that Hitler wanted to replace Christianity with paganism. We know this view has been put to rest. "Another truism demolished by Steigmann-Gall is the assumption that Nazism was closely associated with the paganist predilections of prominent leaders such as Alfred Rosenberg and Heinrich Himmler. In fact, as Steigmann-Gall reveals, their attempts to replace Christianity with a paganist faith of Germanic blood and soil were derided and never became the dominant view of the Nazi elite. Hitler found Himmler's mysticism and occultism absurd:

"What nonsense! To think that I may some day be turned into an SS saint!"

Either the Britannica quote must go (as it does not directly correlate to Hitler's own view, but is loosely linked) or the Steigmann-Gall evidence must be given due weight. Greengrounds (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Greengrounds, as has been said before - keeping up with this talk page has been made exceptionally difficult. Besides, I can't see that you convinced the other editors that only your source was problematic - AndyTheGrump said you were misreading it too. Please try to be more respectful in your tone when addressing other editors. As for your further points, well - I was the one who inserted the line (from Table Talk) you quote above ("What nonsense!"). Given I assume you now endorse Table Talk, can you share what do you make of the line following on from that that reads: "We might just as well have stayed with the church". What do you take to be Hitler's meaning there? As for the Britannica quote (which is only presented as one of several views), the full text of the source says: '''Martin Bormann, the second most powerful official in the Nazi Party after 1941, argued that Nazi and Christian beliefs were “incompatible,” primarily because the essential elements of Christianity were “taken over from Judaism.” Bormann’s views were shared by Hitler, who ultimately wished to replace Christianity with a racist form of warrior paganism. Although Hitler was cautious about dangerously alienating Christians during World War II, he sometimes permitted Nazi officials to put pressure on Protestant and Catholic parents to remove their children from religious classes and to register them for ideological instruction instead. In the Nazi schools charged with training Germany’s future elite, Christian prayers were replaced with Teutonic rituals and sun-worship ceremonies." As you can see, the source directly addresses Hitler's views and actions on religion. It is bang on topic and comes from a reliable source.Ozhistory (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Steigmann-Gall is a reliable source that completely contradicts your source when it comes to Paganism. Why is only your source to be featured and not Steigmann-Gall? Also please watch your patronizing tone with me. It is a recurring theme with you and I have warned you about it before. If advising you to read the talk page is something you find to be a "disrespectful" tone, you need to start worrying about something else. Or just use the talk page. Something you have failed to do for most of your controversial edits. Greengrounds (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This seems to be spiraling again. I have once more addressed your questions directly, using full citation. Pointedly you have not chosen to address any of the substance of my comments and have shifted to personal criticism and a new question, based on I am not sure what: "why is only your source to be featured?". Previously you have tossed up a number of sources to back your personal opinions of Hitler's religiosity - but upon scrutiny, none have matched your black and white language. So now it's Steigman-Gall who you feel has all the answers. Well, Steigman-G already features prominently in this article and nobody has proposed to remove him. Certainly not me. Perhaps you might start a separate entry entitled "Steigman-Gall" and explain what additional material you want included from his work in our article, so that this section can stick to HectorMoffet's purpose. This will help us all "keep up" with the talk page. Separately you might also consider, in full, the extended Hitler quote "What nonsense", and examine just how it squares with your insistent view that Hitler was Christian/Nazism was a Christian movement etc. Clearly you don't intend to answer me on it, but it might lessen your conviction that anyone who disputes your personal certainty must be a "liar", a "retard", a "deniar", an "apologist" and all the other words in that vein you have used. From that, who knows, maybe a respectful dialogue could even grow? Ozhistory (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your source, featured in the lead has been shown to be wrong by Steigman-Gall. I already provided you with that information. I'm sorry if you can't understand it. Greengrounds (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We need to get away from quoting primary sources and stay within Wikipedia guidelines and cover what scholars and knowledge experts have to say on the topic. Any quotes without scholarly context need to be removed. 66.188.191.126 (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

As to covering Paganism more, we shouldn't add sections to the article simply for the sake of countering the points made by other users. Balance doesn't necessarily mean covering counterpoints equally. Also, please state who you're talking about. If a user is removing well-sourced entries about persecution of pagans, then we need to make a concerted effort to keep it on the page. Although I agree that the Britannica reference looks silly, as it contradicts the rest of the article, it is a pretty common (though perhaps completely false) opinion that Hitler was some sort of neo-pagan. The Britannica quote is at the bottom of a list of opinions, as OzHistory said. There's no issue of weight of coverage, except that the Britannica opinion might be non-notable, as far as prevalence of theory goes. But Britannica is also the English language's most popular encyclopedia. Perhaps that side of things needs more sourcing, coverage, and explanation. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Why the change in focus to tie Hitler to Darwinism on a "Religious views" page?
The page originally discussed "racism", but that word has been replaced with "Darwinism" in the section title, and it seems out of place. First of all, the section now refers to "social Darwinism", not merely "Darwinism" as given in the section title, and the text there points out that it wasn't even social Darwinism at all. Second of all, this article is supposed to be about his religious views, not his non-religious philosophical views, correct? But mainly I'm concerned because I've seen people in the past try to falsely tie the racism and genocide of the Nazis and Hitler to Darwinism in an effort to impugn evolution, when both racism and genocide long predate Darwin's ideas. As such I'm a bit concerned at how the article which barely mentioned social Darwinism in one paragraph before (here), has shifted to now including it in a section title and greatly expanding to a couple of paragraphs on what appears to be an off-topic and inaccurate diversion. Am I wrong here? As much as I'd like to be bold here, I'm a bit biased, so I'd like a second opinion. Thanks. -- Hi  Ev  22:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks HiEv. I changed that heading, and this was my thinking: I have made some structural adjustments to try and contain topic areas as much as possible, so that we don't have repetition throughout the article, and headings not really indicating what the section was about. The former subheading said: "God, racism and anti-Semitism", my ammendment says "Religion, Darwinism and anti-Semitism". God was already dealt with elsewhere, and very little of the content merited inclusion in the subheading. Other than adding relevant scholarly discussion, I've also added lines indicating which scholar is stating which view, as formerly, some POV was presented as universal. Reading your thoughts, I wonder if we shouldn't amend the title to read "Religion, Darwinism and racism", which would be broader that "anti-Semitism" and more accurate for the information discussed. On the question of why we would tie Hitlerian racism to Darwinism here, well the short answer is: because Adolf Hitler tied his racism to Darwinism. The question is relevant to a "religious views" article because some editors want the section to imply that religion motivated Hitler's genocidal morality, when clearly many scholars point to other influences, notably Hitler's interpretation of Darwinism. You acknowledge that you've seen people try to "tie the racism and genocide of the Nazis and Hitler to Darwinism", well this is the section where that topic can be dealt with. To imply that Hitler was motivated only by a "long history of anti-Semitism within Christianity" does not reflect that scholarship on Hitler. In fact, as far as I know, there aren't any Hitler scholars who deny that the Nazis viewed their ideology as in line with Darwinian principles? The fact that we accept evolution and admire Darwin does not alter that the fact that Hitler did too. Therefore the section must broach the subject, and given the wide knowledge of and interest in the interplay between ancient culture and modern science in the pathology of Nazism, the title fits and is an improvement. Thanks for requesting comment. Ozhistory (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me put this another way, I don't see any evidence here that Hitler's views were based directly on Darwin's theory, I only see one person trying to tie Darwin to Hitler based on his opinion. Your citation is to Richard Weikart, who "is a senior fellow for the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute", an organization with a determined bias against evolution.  The book itself, From Darwin to Hitler is a widely criticized attack on evolution due to the motivated reasoning of its author, and not due to the facts.  Following WP:SCHOLARSHIP I remind you that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."  This book has been found unreliable by the scholarly community (see the numerous criticism listed on its Wikipedia page).  I also point out, "biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking."  This book does not appear to meet that requirement, as such Wikipedia's standards appear to recommend against using this book as a "reliable source".
 * By comparison, the following paragraph which names Richard J. Evans and other researchers, who are much more reliable sources, agree that the tie to Darwinism is weak and confused at best (though the citation for Evans is Weikart's book). If there were some quotes from Hitler where he tried to use evolution to justify his philosophy there might be a case to be made, but the source you added is motivated by exactly the kind of motivations I feared was the case here.
 * So, I'm removing all of the references to Weikart and his book except for the one quote from Evans. I also changed "Darwinism" to "social Darwinism" in the section title, since that more accurately represents what's discussed in the section.  --  Hi  Ev  17:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * HiEv, it won't be necessary to quote Weikart to demonstrate that Hitler believed his ideology to be in accord with, or informed by, Darwinian notions. That point is made in most every biography of Hitler, or relevant history of the period. In view of your comment, "I only see one person trying to tie Darwin to Hitler based on his opinion", can I ask if you have read widely on Hitler's views, or if your intervention here is rather based mainly on a desire to defend Darwin's legacy? I only ask because from my reading/watching, the connection the Nazis themselves made between their ideology and Darwinian notions is so well established that I am not sure that it can be seriously challenged. Is it just Weikart you object to, or do you want to block reference to any scholarship acknowledging the connection? Ozhistory (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My complaint is as stated above: making a claim that relies on a single unreliable source. If it is so "well established" then you shouldn't have any trouble finding reputable sources backing that assertion, and you (or anyone else) should do so before adding that claim to the article, and then include those sources as references.  Isn't that part of one of the five pillars of Wikipedia?  And please, rather than attacking me, let's keep the discussion focused on the article.  Thanks.  --  Hi  Ev  15:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

HiEv, I didn't mean to attack you, merely get a better sense of your point of view here, and the extent of you background reading. Your general points about sourcing and process are fine, but on the other hand, you have told us you are "somewhat biased" here and challenged the Weikart quote partly on the basis that you have "seen people in the past try to falsely tie the racism and genocide of the Nazis and Hitler to Darwinism in an effort to impugn evolution", rather than on an historical basis that Hitler was not influenced by interpretations of Darwinian notions. If you are asking for reliable sources confirming that the Nazis drew on Darwinian notions, well, they are already provided:


 * Laurence Rees says "the notion of life as struggle [Hitler] drew from Social Darwinism";
 * Richard J. Evans wrote that [Hitler's] views on these subjects have often been called "social Darwinist", but that there is little agreement among historians as to what the term may mean..."; and "Hitler used his own version of the language of social Darwinism as a central element in the discursive practice of extermination... persuading [the perpetrators of the Holocaust] that what they were doing was justified by history, science and nature..."

For the benefit of other editors, here was the Weikart text:
 * Zalampas on the other hand doesn't seem to say one way or the other whether Hitler was influenced by Darwinian notions, only that in her view, he didn't actually use Social Darwinian methods.

It was clearly identified as one scholar's point of view, and it followed from a similarly structured point of view paragraph beginning "According to historian Lucy Dawidowicz, anti-Semitism has a long history within Christianity, and that the line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Luther to Hitler is "easy to draw." etc. (neither the author nor the opinion there stated is without its own controversy). HiEv is right that we don't want to go off on a tangent examining Hitler's scientific beliefs too extensively in an article about his religious beliefs, but a level of discussion in clearly relevant, and eventually, inclusion of one of the various historians who has argued that Hitler's genocidal morality was at least partly born of a rejection of Judeo-Christian principles will improve the section. Ozhistory (talk) 06:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Quotation
Ozhistory, You want to add "Richard J. Evans wrote that Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition". " You justify this with an edit summary that says "quotation says hitler believed religion and nazism could not co-exist. atheism is the opposite of religion. the quotation is relevant.". Firstly the quotation says that science will destroy superstition, not that science will destroy religion, or that "religion and nazism could not co-exist". You could find many theists saying the same thing. No-one admits to being in favour of "superstition". Secondly the claim that atheism is somehow the opposite of religion is both false and OR. There are atheist forms of Buddhism and Hinduism, for example. They are also religions. However, the main point is simply an OR to extrapolate an implication from a quotation that says something quite different. To says science is a good thing to counter superstition is not to argue for atheism, a position we know Hitler never took in public or private. Paul B (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. The full source says precisely what I have written it says, and more, but I think I see now why you are challenging it - you appear to assume that I have extrapolated the first lines from the last? This is not what I have done. The original page of text clearly states that Hitler believed that religion and Nazism could not co-exist. Here is the precise quote from Evans' page dedicated to Hitler's hostility to Christianity, and religion more broadly:




 * Is it better to include the full quote perhaps, so that others do not assume, like you appear to have done, that I have "extrapolated", when in fact, I have quoted? Evans has Hitler's remarks as quotations, and he plainly, unambiguously says "religion" will not co-exist with Nazism in the long term. Does this answer your concern? You may like to have a read of p. 547 of this widely available text yourself, as there is actually several more lines which might be applicable. For example, Evans ends the section quoting Hitler as saying that once the churches have been withered away by science "we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying". Ozhistory (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As per above, I have amended edit to quote Evans directly for the avoidance of doubt. Ozhistory (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, buit that's not the same as "atheism", nor is it at all clear what Hitler means by "religion" in this passage. Paul B (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The strong impression given by Evans is that Hitler looks on religion (especially Christianity) and superstition as one and the same, while the Nazi Party encouraged atheism. Evans quotes Hitler as saying "Put a telescope in a village, and you destroy a world of superstitions" and soon after "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science". I believe these quotes are coming via Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann, who was of course a dedicated atheist, which, we can expect, would lead him to fastidiously record utterances with might be seen as pro-atheist (but then, Hitler knew of Bormann's staunch atheism, and appointed him to be his secretary and defacto Deputy Fuehrer, so there is a level of circular endorsement there). On the preceding page introducing the section, Evans says "In 1939... 3.5% [of Germans] were 'Deists' (gottglaubig), and 1.5% atheists: most people... were convinced Nazis who had left their church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid 1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society." Ozhistory (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Article includes "strawman" attacks on Hitler's religious views probably provoked by cognitive dissonance
For those who do not know, strawman attacks are attacks where you state your opinion of what the other guy believes and then attack that. In other words you fabricate the other guys' side of the argument and then attack your fabrication.

An strawman argument is still a strawman argument even if it is some book.

Claiming an strawman argument is valid because it appears in a book is a "Fallacious appeal to authority" argument.

These are both logical fallacies.

Why would some authors do this? I think this article answers that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

These authors likely hold the belief that "We are Christians, Christians are good people. Therefore Hitler could not have been a Christian". Then they interpret his writings with the intent of proving that statement. And you can directly see that with the many statements that can be paraphrased along the line of "Hitler said X supporting Christianity but obviously he didn't believe it and you can tell he didn't believe it because he was a bad man."

Did Hitler believe in God? Did he try to have a secular state?

Read the oath he had his SS men take.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichswehreid

"The full Eidformel der Schutzstaffel (Oath of the SS) consisted of three questions and answers. The following text is cited from a primary source written by Heinrich Himmler.

""What is your oath ?" - "I vow to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and chancellor of the German Reich loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to the leaders, that you set for me, absolute allegiance, till death. So help me God !"

"So you believe in a god ?" - "Yes, I believe in a supreme being."

"What do you think about a man who does not believe in a god ?" - "I think he is overbearing, megalomaniac and foolish; he is not adequate for our society.""

That Hitler forced his SS men to say this oath makes most of this Wikipedia article (to use a technical term) 'intellectual garbage'.

As far as I can see this Wikipedia article is substantially the attempt of his fellow coreligionists to separate themselves from him by saying he was never one of them by fabricating his beliefs.

The article should be cleaned up and list what Hitler actually said and what he actually did. Remove all the strawman arguments because they do not belong in an encyclopedic article. 50.71.210.133 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * AS it happens I do think this article has become biased by the one-sided editing of Ozhistory, but these "anonymous" rants are not going to solve anything. By the way an argument from authority is not falacious (though some forms of it can be). It's perfectly valid. In any case, Wikipedia is supposed to be summarising the views of authorities, which is quite different, so in fact your a=own argument is a perfect example of a strawman. Paul B (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * anonIP, you might want to incorporate that Reichswehreid into the article Ideology of the SS first. Currently, the latter article expresses only the view that the SS was anti-religious. This appears to directly conflict with your primary source (so unless something is amiss, one would also expect authorative secondary sources to bear this out too). However, all of this relates more indirectly to this article (since, without background expertise, it isn't immediately beyond-doubt that Himmler's employment of sectarian propaganda accurately reflects Hitler's private views); it is more compelling/reliable/informative/supported if we find and report several expert's interpretations rather than us editors producing our own original synthesis. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I too believe that this article has become trashed. Actually, I believe it to be a one-sided Christian apologist propaganda page with its constant attempts to conflate Hitler's religious beliefs and science... and atheism. Of all the things to try to connect Hitler, the man with God in every speech, who was called pious by his followers, and pursued a union of Protestant and Catholic Germans by building upon the inherent antisemitism of Christianity of those two groups... I mean, the first line of the article, besides being in an inappropriate place, talks of Hitler being raised by a "anti-clerical, skeptical father" with no citation to show this to be the case. At all. On multiple pages which Oz has edited.


 * If you go through this Talk page alone, you can see more of Ozhistory's attempts at rewriting Hitler's religious beliefs. "Racist pagan"? Quoting the Discovery Institute on how much evolution influence Hitler?


 * Not to mention the logical fallacies. The first three into paragraphs contain a number of "No True Scotsman"-esque attempts to whitewash Hitler's belief that Jesus was not a Jew but the first Aryan, sent down by God himself to eliminate the Jewish plague (I do not hold this view, FYI) and his appeal to the Germans after living in the actually secular, and pretty liberal Weimar Republic.


 * It's disgusting how long Ozhistory has been allowed to get away with this historical negationism. --Mackinz (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Please don't use this thread as a soap box for personal attack. The single issue of fact you raise (Hitler's father) is sourced in the article and is contained, I would say, in most every biography of Hitler which deals with the subject. The other statements you have made bare so little resemblance to anything I have written that I feel unable to respond to any of them. Ozhistory (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's a personal attack when it is a matter of fact that you originally cited the Discovery Institute, and did originally call Hitler a "racist pagan" within the article, but no matter.


 * I did attempt to check the sources listed. Not exactly having an easy time checking them, but Google searches did not serve me well in finding anything of relevance in regards to Alois Hitler's religious views. Which, even if they were as you claim they are, would still not be relevant as the first line of the intro to the page. They already find a nice home under the "Youth" section.


 * In fact, the page reads, largely, like an attempt to whitewash Hitler's proclamations of Christianity and paint him as an secular, anti-Christian atheist. As I said, there are various attempts at "No True Scotsman"-esque logical fallcies in the intro alone, like this:


 * "He did not believe in the Judeo-Christian notion of God, though various scholars consider his final religious position may have been a form of deism. Others consider him "atheist". The question of atheism is debated."


 * And this:


 * "He presented a nihilistic, Social Darwinist vision, in which the universe is ordered around principles of struggle between weak and strong, rather than on conventional Christian notions."


 * It's not even remotely hidden with this:


 * "John S Conway considered that Steigmann-Gall's analysis differed from earlier interpretations only by "degree and timing", but that if Hitler's early speeches evidenced a sincere appreciation of Christianity: "this Nazi Christianity was eviscerated of all the most essential orthodox dogmas" leaving only "the vaguest impression combined with anti-Jewish prejudice..." which few would recognise as true Christianity."


 * True Christianity? If we were being serious here, true Christianity (as evidenced by the entirety of European and Middle Eastern history) would most certainly not be excluded from this article as you have attempted to do with your white-washing. Hitler was far from the 'only' man who proclaimed a belief in Jesus while killing Jews. Granted, he is perhaps the most well-known, but still. One does not have to look far into the history before Adolf to find antisemitic beliefs were far from uncommon among Catholics. Protestantism was, in itself, extremely antisemitic in general.


 * This page is heavily disputed for obvious reasons, Oz. Very one-sided and propagandistic. --Mackinz (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, be careful relying on a google search. I suggest you drop in to a local library and start with some respected biographies - you should be able to find Ian Kershaw and Allan Bullock in any half-decent collection in the English speaking world. For primary sources, I suggest you go through the index of the Goebbels Diaries, Inside the Third Reich and Hitler's Table Talk to give you a good sense of the kind of things Hitler was saying to his inner circle.


 * On your other issues:


 * - I never wrote "Hitler was a racist pagan". I added an attributed quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica which says: "Martin Bormann, the second most powerful official in the Nazi Party after 1941, argued that Nazi and Christian beliefs were 'incompatible'... Bormann’s views were shared by Hitler, who ultimately wished to replace Christianity with a racist form of warrior paganism."
 * - I have never quoted the Discovery Institute. You are presumably referring to a citation I added at one point from From Darwin to Hitler, an interesting work by Dr Richard Weikart of the California State University. It was not necessary to retain the quote, as the essence of it is available from multiple other sources.
 * - "He did not believe in the Judeo-Christian notion of God, though various scholars consider his final religious position may have been a form of deism. Others consider him "atheist". The question of atheism is debated." This is an accurate reflection of the scholarship on Hitler and a summary of the views of the various and diverse authors in our article.
 * - "He presented a nihilistic, Social Darwinist vision, in which the universe is ordered around principles of struggle between weak and strong, rather than on conventional Christian notions." - this is sourced to Laurence Rees, as per the article: Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler; Ebury Press; 2012; p135.
 * -"John S Conway considered that Steigmann-Gall's analysis differed from earlier interpretations only by "degree and timing", but that if Hitler's early speeches evidenced a sincere appreciation of Christianity: "this Nazi Christianity was eviscerated of all the most essential orthodox dogmas" leaving only "the vaguest impression combined with anti-Jewish prejudice..." which few would recognise as true Christianity." - these are attributed quotes to Conway ("true Christianity" being his phrase). They follow attributed quotes to Richard Steigmann-Gall. Together they, and the other sentences in that paragraph, are a summary of scholarly views, and are in each case stated only as such.
 * I hope that all helps. Ozhistory (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will try to find them given time, and my issue was, again, with the wording outside of the quotations. Even if they are accurate reflections on the views of those authors, there should not be mentions of "true Christianity" on an article trying to accurately reflect the religious views of Adolf Hitler. "Traditional" or "non-Orthodox" both could be used to better reflect upon his religious views and it is most certainly not accurate to immediately distance Hitler from the Judeo-Christian God which he had routinely made references to while having widespread support from Protestant and Catholic Germans who did not oppose his actions except when it personally affected them.
 * --Mackinz (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. No, it's not like Hitler was exactly religious and the truth is that, quite arguably, Nazism was a religion of and in itself. I don't know if I can find links, but I think Hitler might have personally even made some quotes where he described Nazism as his religion when people asked him what his religion was. However, Hitler also had was pretty much a Marcionist Christian and he viewed Jesus as an Aryan opponent of the Jews. Hitler was certainly not a "traditional" or "orthodox" Christian with his anti-Old Testament views, belief in a non-Jewish Jesus and his belief that Jesus was some kind of warrior rather than a preacher. But, what is a "true Christian" supposed to mean? At best, the meaning of a "true Christian" is very open to opinion, and this is a neutral site.Excellentman9999

This article is unreadable.
There are a lot of things that need to be done to this article... The lede is way too long. The article is way too long. The topic strays from one subject to another and is not on point with the title of the page. It also seems POV. R mosler | ●   00:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It would probably help if you gave an indication of what POV you feel is being promoted, and on what grounds you have come to this conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The prose size is 116 kB compared to 47 kB for Consequences of Nazism and 135 kB for Adolf Hitler. Among other things, this appears to be a coat rack for Criticism_of_atheism.  R mosler  | ●   18:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will however admit that HiEv's edits have helped get some of the weasel wording out. But still there are the readability issues of the long lede and long article.  I still have not made my way through the entire article. R mosler  | ●   18:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No Source Cited
Please. I could back up everything I type easily, I merely do not have all day to lounge about... I am formally requesting Paul Barlow to 1) cease stalking-like behavior of myself and 2) if, in misuse of office, licensed to "track" troublesome I.P.'s, be re-assigned to another "individual" due to his near decade-long vitriolic and personal vendetta against me, ad hominem, out of sheer spite... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 February 2014 ‎


 * Stalking? Do I know you? This article is on my watchlist, and removing uncited pseudo-intellectual drivel is not an "ad hominem", a phrase much cited by people who haven't a clue what it means. Look it up. Paul B (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP reverted you. And he/she has only been editing since September 2009. He/she has posted to your talk page a couple of times last year. IP, we can all track troublesome editors, not just IPs. Since you say that you could source and won't - over a long period of time, there's no reason to think that will change. Dougweller (talk)


 * Given the above, and other issues (the IP has been adding similar unsourced material to multiple articles), I've reported the IP at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)