Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 7

Hitler, before and during leadership, was Christian
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n--csXo6CJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VwEBX0dkAA 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. This speech is long before Hitler was leader of Germany, so it doesn't serve as evidence of what your subject heading claims. The comments you cite were actually made by Hitler in response to claims that Nazi anti-Semitism was un-Christian - i.e., even in 1922, Hitler's word and actions were already indicating a lack of Christianity. The lead in line that you - and other advocates typically drop is - this: "Count Lerchenfeld... said in the last session of the Landtag [Bavarian Parliment] that his feeling 'as a man and a Christian' prevented him from being an anti-Semite. [My feeling as a man as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter]" So Hitler is mimicking Lerchenfeld's lines, to try to draw a Christian audience away from some of the essentials of Christianity (such as the fact that Jesus was Jewish and opposed to violence). This is why historians do not take this speech as a serious expression of faith in a recognisable Christianity, but another example of Hitler as debater and manipulator. Hope that helps. Ozhistory (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is it starting to feel like we could almost use a notification above the edit window saying "your personal interpretation of what a psychotic mass-murderer said to get support from the public is not as reliable as what professional historians have deduced from his private conversations and writings"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Check the videos I provided, please. Could people please drop the bias, please. There's evil people in all groups. 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You're using your speculation and he definitely said what I typed. "personal interpretation of what a psychotic mass-murderer said to get support from the public" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As policy, we do not draw conclusions based on our analysis of primary sources. Ozhistory has provided an alternative interpretation based on additional information and no doubt you can find more primary sources.  Instead we rely on the conclusions provided in reliable secondary sources.  TFD (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There's probably secondary sources somewhere, there's just people that want to paint the article the way they want. Plus they'd revert it anyway. 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is conceded that there may be "bad people in all groups", including Christian, but that is not enough to change the article. Your problem is that despite the symbolism he used and despite the quotes, many Nazi expert scholars do not seem to agree with that, preferring private sources. For example, the videomaker put a Hitler Youth badge in his symbols vid. Look at this source that was used in the article (citation 6, currently).  Also, the belt is from the Kaiser, and the Nazis tolerated Rosenberg and Bormann, who were against Christianity. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Also I can just teach about Hitler's religious beliefs on Youtube anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's an example of a secondary source: https://books.google.com/books?id=QR_9T_8VLPAC&pg=PA57&dq=%22The+Reich+Chancellor+undoubtedly+lives+in+belief+in+God.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhgrSilIPNAhXMHB4KHSmUC1UQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Reich%20Chancellor%20undoubtedly%20lives%20in%20belief%20in%20God.&f=false 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"The Reich Chancellor undoubtedly lives in belief in God.", Michael von Faulhaber. 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You have cited from a chapter discussing at length the nature of Nazism's "rivalry" and "incompatibility" with Christianity, and exploring the nature of what YOUR author calls "Hitler's anti-Christianity". So your secondary source does not appear to agree at all with your assertion that Hitler was Christian. The Faulhaber quote you googled is already in our text - but where does your author conclude that Hitler was Christian, and Faulhaber was not wrong (as historians like Ian Kershaw have concluded from Hitler's encounter with Faulhaber? Ozhistory (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with author's speculation, I was using his book for merely the quote. Gott mit uns (God with us) was the official motto of Nazi Germany, I could give other examples, but I'm not interested in Wikipedia, I'm just here to suggest the editors do some researches with what I provided here and the videos I gave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It was also the official slogan of the pre-WWII German Empire.
 * Actually, WP is supposed to use the secondary guy's conclusions as the source, rather than our own. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The quote is from the source, not me. WP:IAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * IAR is only when things improve the encyclopedia, which is what WP:No original research is a part of. It is not a trump card.  Think of it this way -- IAR applies to itself.  Whether or not you agree with the author's speculation does not matter.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't using his speculations, I was using the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 02:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler was a liar and no reasonable analysis would take anything he said at face value. TFD (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the quote, we only have enough here to say "this is how Faulhaber perceived Hitler's personality". Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, the bias is strong in this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He's not the one acting as though almost all academic sources are wrong in the face of one's own personal interpretation. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

No facts, quotes or actions, just speculation, funny "truth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The current version of the article is based on mainstream academic consensus by professional historians. What you are advocating is your personal interpretation of a political speech (since when are those trustworthy?) and cherry-picked out-of-context quotes or even misquotations from a couple of other sources that actually say that you're wrong.  All of your posts would not even get a failing grade in an academic setting because that would require grading.  TFD's simply reiterating this disparity.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For a quote, see the Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939. Here. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"Well, looking at the quote, we only have enough here to say "this is how Faulhaber perceived Hitler's personality"", I gave videos full of stuff to research from. I mentioned this a couple times, please read or stop acting oblivious and stop lying, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please learn how to identify reliable sources instead of acting like you're the only person here who knows what they're doing. Any neckbeard can upload videos onto Youtube. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I've as much reason to believe Hitler's religious as the pope, especially from facts, actions and quotes. I'm not using videos as sources, but as a reference to find things to research. "Any neckbeard can upload videos onto Youtube.", Any neckbeard can edit articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Reasoning with the delusional seems near impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Hitler's religious beliefs aren't what you wanted them to be. I'm moving on, I don't have forever to repeat substance to those that act oblivious and are extensively bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In other words, you are using your own original research, which as we've already told you, we don't care about. Anyone can try to edit Wikipedia, but if their edit is not based on mainstream academic or journalistic sources, that edit will be undone by people who know what they're doing.
 * Also, "I'm not using videos as sources, but as a reference to find things to research" -- oh wow, you have no idea what you're talking about, please stop before you hurt yourself. That's like saying "I'm not smoking, I'm just holding a burning cigarette to my mouth and inhaling the smoke though a filter built into the cigarette."
 * This is not a forum for you to grandstand on, nor is it a soapbox for you to preach from. If your comments have nothing else to do with article improvement, leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McJxHwmgwgY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the approach "here's a pamphlet, now do the research to verify it" won't fly here. If you are not competent enough to find reliable sources to support your opinion, then your opinion is irrelevant for the purpose of Wikipedia. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you will stop wasting everybody's time (including your own). — Yerpo Eh? 06:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm just giving other people a place to start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, that's useless. — Yerpo Eh? 07:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We need to find him a quote. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 14:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

What was the official oath of Nazi Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:8200:4790:61A5:982C:C778:7325 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the relevant page, there are three oaths, where the applicant swears that they will be loyal to Hitler and demonstrate bravery, invoking God's name. I'm guessing you mean just the SS oath. Germane to this conversation is a statement about SS soldiers not being atheists and believing in God. Your problem is that this does not take into account the Gottglaubig agnosticism Hitler allowed. It would therefore not require all SS soldiers to be Christian, although many were. The SS was largely a creation of Himmler, actually.

The reason that we don't react the way that you expect is that most secondary sources, named in the lede section have found sources that contain quotes that have him criticising Christianity. These 3 sources are also named in the current lede.

Have you heard of the Kirchenkampf, by any chance? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 21:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing people." Adolf Hitler, 1933, 26 April 1933

In 1933, Hitler outlawed all atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany. German Freethinkers League

Hitler after attending church. http://www.tenc.net/vatican/hchurch.jpg 2601:982:8200:4790:25F1:4ADB:C245:1288 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This may be another FAQ: "Didn't Hitler once say that religion in schools was good, so doesn't that mean he thought religion in schools was good?" The answer must be that this is one of the statements historians might point to as Hitler manipulating his audience, because once he took power his government actually expunged clergy from teaching and closed religious schools and youth groups (often using terror tactics and illegal seizures of property to do so). To go into more detail: Bloggers like to cite an April 1933 quote where Hitler said how good it is to have religious instruction in schools as "evidence" that Hitler was "Christian". In truth, Hitler said a number of things to placate German conservatives while trying to seize power in 1933/4. But what did his regime actually do once in office? According to the BBC, evidence presented at the Nuremberg Trials outlined that the suppression of denominational and youth organisations, the campaign against denominational schools, and the defamation campaign against the clergy were all part of a calculated and cautious long term effort to de-Christianise Germany.(Nazi trial documents made public, BBC, 11 January 2002). The Hitler regime closed all religious schools and religious youth groups, removed clergy from schools, replaced Christian prayers. (Richard Overy; The Third Reich, A Chronicle; Quercus; 2010; p.157 + Theodore S. Hamerow; On the Road to the Wolf's Lair - German Resistance to Hitler; Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1997; ISBN 0-674-63680-5; p. 136). The Catholic Youth leader Adalbert Probst was murdered in the Night of the Long Knives. By 1939 all Catholic denominational schools had been disbanded or converted to public facilities.(Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-303790-3; pp. 245–246). Educative Orders like the Jesuits had their schools closed and property confiscated - 152 Jesuits died in Nazi concentration camps and a Superior of the Order in Germany, Fr Anton Rosch, was imprisoned, brutalised and scheduled for execution. (Vincent A. Lapomarda; The Jesuits and the Third Reich; 2nd Edn, Edwin Mellen Press; 2005; pp 232, 233). In short - what Hitler may have said in April 1933 means nothing against what he did, and what he actually believed. Just ask Neville Chamberlain. Ozhistory (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Historians or people cherry-picked, aren't immune to errors, fallacies, biases (such as confirmation bias) or prejudice, so carefully examine facts by one's self and not by blindly following what's told or written to you. I prefer empirical evidence. 2601:982:8200:4790:25F1:4ADB:C245:1288 (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just hypocritical. If a claim supported by the overwhelming majority of professional historians (many of whom have individually studied longer than you've been alive, have more access to relevant evidence than you could possibly dream of, and whose work collectively outweighs everything you could accomplish in a dozen lifetimes) cannot be trusted because a few of them might make mistakes on other matters, then nothing you think can be trusted either.  You are not simply presenting empirical evidence, you are presenting your ignorant and biased opinions of cherry picked sources in contradiction to thousands who, again, have been better able to judge matters than you have.  For you to even mention confirmation bias when you cited a youtube channel called "Christian Hitler" goes beyond the pot calling the kettle black into the pot calling the porcelain teapot black.  You are not Galileo, you are just another crank pseudohistorian who we've already given too much attention to.  Once again, if you're here just to thump your chest instead of contributing to the encyclopedia by this community ' s standards, then leave.
 * Everyone else: please stop feeding the crank, just keep collapsing everything until he goes away. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, but the same quotes keep being used by people presumably drawing from the same propaganda websites, so it doesn't hurt to have the explanations and context here for others- even though it is like talking to the proverbial brick wall! Ozhistory (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

As for the editor's new RS/AC complaint, I remembered that the second question for my FAQ. Would RS-G's book stating that it is mainstream satisfy his claim from a policy standpoint? That was a thing NM asked about, too. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Copying my remarks from NPOV noticeboard -- Reading the link to Source 2, it does start out by saying that "one aspect of our understanding of Nazism remains largely uncontested: the belief that ... Nazism itself could not be described as a Christian movement." So that quote doesn't address Hitler's specific religious beliefs at all. But then, author Steigmann-Gall goes on to say that he, for one, isn't buying this 'academic consensus', but that he is going to challenge it by showing that many Nazi Party elite members were, in fact, Christian.

Google books preview of Source 1 is here: I sure can't find any statement about near-unanimous scholarly views on Hitler's religion, neither at the cited p. xiv, nor on any other page by searching for the word 'Christian'.

The Wiki article states: "Steigmann-Gall concluded that Hitler was religious at least in the 1920s and early 1930s, citing him as expressing a belief in God, divine providence, and Jesus as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[78]"

So Steigmann-Gall does argue here that Hitler held Christian views, albeit far from orthodox.

Here is an RS confirming that there is a lively and ongoing scholarly debate on whether Hitler was an unorthodox Christian who believed in an Aryan Christ who was an opponent to the Jews: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/18/3480312.htm JerryRussell (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: perhaps the opening sentence could read:

The religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of debate, with most scholars agreeing that Hitler was not an orthodox Christian, neither Catholic nor Protestant, and that Nazism was not a Christian movement.[1][2]JerryRussell (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, that proposal won't work because most scholars are explicit in saying that Hitler was anti-Christian. Steigmann Gall's work explicitly notes that he is arguing against received wisdom in relation to the religious influences on the Nazis, so it cannot be presented as a representative view, only as a counterpoint. You must consider too that Hitler died in 1945, and your citation of SG's argument only deals with his earlier positions - and in any case are not sufficient to be called Christian views, given that Jews and Muslims (and even Richard Dawkins) also honour Jesus in different ways, but would never be called Christian for it. As to the link you provide, it does not claim there is "a lively and ongoing scholarly debate on whether Hitler was an unorthodox Christian". It notes three strains of thought on the Nazis overall (as opposed to Hitler himself), but it says: "was Hitler a Christian? Emphatically not, if we consider Christianity in its traditional or orthodox form: Jesus as the son of God, dying for the redemption of the sins of all humankind. It is a nonsense to state that Hitler (or any of the Nazis) adhered to Christianity of this form [...] some recent works have argued Hitler was a Deist." The journalist makes no reference to any Historian calling Hitler an "unorthodox Christian", but appears only to pose and answer his own rhetorical question. It was I who included this link in our article to begin with, but it is not sufficient proof for the redefinition of Hitler's religious position you propose to make to our lead. Ozhistory (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Should we just add all 3 ABC hypotheses? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Koehne's article does already feature in our article. But the three hypotheses are about the Nazi government, as opposed to Hitler personally. The trouble is Koehne doesn't name which recent authors have said Hitler may have been deist. Ideally, we want to cite these historians by name and publication, rather than a journalist saying they exist? It would be good if we have a quote as follows: "Historian X wrote that Hitler may have been a deist". This would fit in after say the Max Domarus quote about saying the word "God"? Remember though, our opening already says: "Historians such as Fischel and Dill have written that if the regime could not eradicate Christianity, it hoped instead to subjugate or distort it to a Nazi world view. Steigmann-Gall interprets Hitler's language to mean that Hitler held Jesus in high esteem as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against Jewry, but notes that, over time, his Nazi movement became "increasingly hostile to the churches". I think this is more specific than Koehne's text? Ozhistory (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the discussion. Koehne is not a journalist, he's Research Fellow at Alfred Deakin Research Institute. I guess that could mean he's a grad student. About Hitler personally, he says "it remains very difficult to ascertain his personal religious beliefs, and the debate rages on." As to the existing beginning sentence, I have two concerns. The first is the phrase "not a Christian". Koehne says he was certainly not a Christian of the traditional or orthodox type, but simply and flatly stating that he was Not A Christian seems lacking in nuance. The second is the word "consensus", which tends to imply that any nuanced deviation gets treated under WP:FRINGE rules. Considering that 'the debate rages on', is this appropriate?


 * Shall I try again? "The religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of debate, with most scholars agreeing that Hitler was not a Christian in any traditional or orthodox manner, and was skeptical of religion generally."JerryRussell (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's Koehne's resume. He's a 'visiting scholar', PhD 2010. https://blogs.deakin.edu.au/contemporary-history-studies/dr-samuel-koehne/


 * As to whether Hitler's views are sufficient to be called any kind of Christian: there are self-described Unitarian Christians who do not believe Jesus was anything but a great man. Who is going to say they are not Christians? What about Arian Christians (as opposed to Aryan Christians), were they Christians? The Nicene Creed says NO, but again, who are we to judge? In Koehne's article, Hitler is quoted as saying Jesus was "Lord and Savior" even while simultaneously denying salvation through the crucifixion. These are fine theological nuances indeed. All of this, and the range of scholarly opinion indicating Hitler was anti-Christian, names of scholars who think Hitler was a deist, and so forth, can go in the body of the article, or later in the introduction. One sentence at a time... JerryRussell (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The main reason this is at all in question is due to the existence of critical comments about "Christianity" ascribed to him in Table Talk, and people like Goebbels saying he did not like the religion. (see appropriate article section)


 * I'd also be willing to sign on to some sort of formulation that most scholars agree Hitler was strongly opposed to any traditional or orthodox form of Christianity, including Catholicism and Lutheranism. But, point of Wikilaw: are we allowed to make generalizations about what 'most scholars' think, just based on a summary of the article contents? Or are we required to give a citation for a claim like that? JerryRussell (talk) 04:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I might stand behind your second proposal. Maybe the lede should state Kershaw's belief that he was able to fool people. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I submit that this might be a better opening line, which more closely summarises our article and scholarly opinion : "Aspects of the religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of debate. Hitler was skeptical of religion generally, but conscious and wary of its importance to politics, and skilled at fooling an audience." The debate Koehne refers to seems to be more about whether or not Hitler was atheist (that certainly is the context of the Pell v Dawkins debate - or as the Richard Overy quote in our article summarises it: Hitler was not a "practising Christian," but nor was he a "thorough atheist".)
 * But your "unitarian" argument doesn't wash. If all we had were Hitler's political speeches, then sure, you could argue all sorts of positions based on the fact that he used certain phrases. Was Hitler a man of peace because he claimed he was in 1937? Of course not - we have the evidence of what his regime did, and we have the private discussions he had with his ministry to blow those claims out of the water. So it is with Hitler being "Christian". If a political leader went about saying "I'm a Unitarian" in public in an electorate full of unitarians, well we wouldn't take his word for it if we also had records from his Ministers saying he in fact told them he "hates Unitarianism" and looks forward to "destroying Unitarianism after he has finished with his War", and if he appointed an anti-Unitarian as his official state philosopher, and an anti-Unitarian as his propaganda Minister and an anti-Unitarian as his Deputy, and an anti-Unitarian as his Minister for Security and while his government went about confiscating Unitarian properties, arresting its clergy on false charges, and closing its schools and newspapers. It would be shear folly to then argue that the leader must still be a Unitarian because 11 years before he seized power he used a phrase about Jesus being "Lord and Savior" in a speech where he was in fact defending himself against a charge that his beliefs were un-Unitarian (which is precisely the context of the 1922 speech where Hitler used the phrase).
 * These are the reasons that historians expert on Hitler's life have concluded that he was an anti-Christian -- and "who are we" to dispute them by leading with an ambiguous phrase about "unorthodoxy". We need a far stronger source than a somewhat ambiguous opinion article from a little known academic to outweigh the in depth histories of Kershaw, Bullock, Rees, Shirer, Evans, Fest, Phayer et al in whose minds there is no debate on whether Hitler was Christian. Ozhistory (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Ozhistory, I think your opening line is excellent. I would be very happy with that. Also I agree that Hitler did everything you stated, to rout out what Rosenberg called "negative Christianity" (meaning, traditional Christianity.) JerryRussell (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As I didn't insert the line about consensus on Christianity, we'd better let others have their say before any change. On "positive Christianity", I hold what Steigmann Gall admits is the most common view among historians i.e. use of the term was a political ploy, and not a true statement of intent. Ozhistory (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

OK Ozhistory, no rush. Reviewing the history, I found that the line about consensus was introduced on April 25 by Steeletrap, and was challenged here at talk by three editors around May 13. An IP editor objected to the line and removed it around June 1, and a lengthy debate ensued. Citations for the statement were added on June 1 by Ian.thomson, and John Smith Doe put the issue on the NPOV noticeboard, which is where I learned about it. I'm not seeing a long history of consensus that we're overturning here. JerryRussell (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

About these Nazi Christians, I feel that my Unitarian analogy has fallen a bit flat, so I'd like to try again. Most Muslims in the Middle East are either Sunni Muslims or Shiite Muslims, right? So let's imagine that somebody starts a religion called the Christian Muslims, and they say Mohammed was Jesus' prophet. Then they start fighting a war against all the Sunnis and Shiites, saying that they hate 'Negative Muslims'. This would be pretty transparent propaganda, but at the same time, you would find many Muslims attending the new Christian Muslim Church, including probably some clergy of good reputation; while other Muslims would fulminate that "No True Muslim" would join this Christian Muslim church.

And yes, I know, this is all speculation aka "original research", and I would have to find RS's that expressed a similar thought before this could be incorporated into the Wiki page; I'm just trying to explain my POV.

Wiki has three articles about these Nazi Christians: German Christians, National Reich Church and Positive Christianity. I'm not sure if these three are all exactly the same thing, but if we consolidated the articles, it might make it easier to highlight their relative roles in the Nazi movement. Thoughts? JerryRussell (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I see where you are coming from.
 * We could make some kind of parent article. PC seems to be a decree/policy about controlling the church, GC is grassroots supporters, and I think the Reich church is something about a pro-Nazi (something about Kerrl) church governing body of some kind that failed. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So now I've read the articles. 'Positive Christianity' already reads like a parent article -- it covers the entire Nazi attempt to re-create Christianity in their own image, and mentions how the other two fit into the movement. Here's another closely related article: Kirchenkampf, the struggle between the Nazi churches and the traditional churches. JerryRussell (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * JerryRussell - National Socialist policy toward the churches was all about achieving compliance (in the context of an underlying - and what figures like Goebbels, Hitler and Bormann considered an "insoluble" - ideological tension between the key tenets of the two movements). We don't have to imagine scenarios where hypothetical people invent new religions, all we have to do is report what happened. Just as it doesn't flow that because the Chinese Government set up a group called the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association that the Chinese Government must therefore be Catholic (on the contrary, the Association is a transparent attempt to control and - ultimately - suppress Catholicism in China). The same goes for the National Reich Church in Nazi Germany - it was an exercise in political control (which largely failed). Apart from Goering (whose family maintained some Christian rituals), Hitler's key lieutenants were all either neo-pagans or atheists, who may have schemed at how to use religion, but did not present themselves coherently as being motivated by it as say ISIL claims to be. In any case, this is not chiefly an article about Nazi policy, but rather, Hitler's personal views. Kershaw, Rees, Bullock etc all characterise Hitler's interest in  "positive Christianity" as  being tactically motivated, and only passing:  Kershaw wrote that the subjugation of the Protestant churches proved more difficult than Hitler had envisaged, leading him to lose interest the so-called "German Christians" movement altogether by 1937 (at which point he was making private declarations that "Christianity ripe for destruction" (Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; W. W. Notron & Co; 2008 Edn; pp.295-297) and Goebbels et al amped up their campaigns against the clergy. The SS ultimately became more suspicious of the theoretically pro-Nazi Deutsche Christens than of the banned anti-Nazi Confessing Churchers (Mary Fulbrook; The Fontana History of Germany 1918-1990 The Divided Nation; Fontana Press; 1991, p.81). So we cannot claim that because of some hypothetical possiblities in other scenarios the historians have got it all wrong. The historical debates are more about the degrees of Hitler's ir-religiosity, and Nazism's unwillingness to compromise and co-exist with Christianity, than they are about the reverse. Our language must reflect this.  Ozhistory (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this discussion should involve the article Religion in Nazi Germany insofar as there is a discussion to be had of regime policy. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Ozhistory, I agree that this article is primarily about Hitler's religious views. I've also agreed to the language you proposed for the lede first sentence, and I'm not sure why you are accusing me of claiming that "the historians have got it all wrong." In general I think the article is excellent. My only concern has been the new lede sentence which has been the topic of such debate over the last several weeks, which claims a degree of consensus among historians that doesn't actually exist. Would you like to change the first sentence as you suggested, or shall I do the honors? JerryRussell (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Different historians weigh the evidence differently and therefore the consensus claim is wrong. Also, we should distinguish between anti-clerical and anti-religious views.  Most European governments preferred that they controlled the churches, rather than the churches come under the control of the Pope or exercise autonomy.  TFD (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I changed the lead to be more clear, and point to the facts of his atheism and non-religion.

The article should be renamed Hitler's atheism or non-religious views of Adolf Hitler. Monci M. Mus (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * sorry Jerry if my language sounded accusative- I was only trying to address the issues you raised with your hypothetical examples. But this is a long thread with a number of eyes watching, some with a tone far less respectful than yours, so that was who my "we" also speaks to. TFD, yes there is a long history of govt intervention in religion, my point is to those who cite Hitler's interest in policy toward the churches as evidence of Christianity within him.  Ozhistory (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Ozhistory, while we've been waiting for others to express their views, I've been wondering about that phrase "skeptical of religion generally." The source is given elsewhere in the article as Overy 2010, but Steigmann-Gall and Koehne (among others) wouldn't agree. Shouldn't it say "According to Overy, Hitler was skeptical of religion generally..."? Elsewhere in the article, Overy himself is quoted saying Hitler was no atheist. Which brings us to the 2nd sentence, with Bullock's view that Hitler was a rationalist and materialist. In the entire article, Bullock is the only one saying that Hitler was a materialist. And Hitler is also quoted as complaining that the hated Jews were materialists. JerryRussell (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There are multiple sources for calling him a religious skeptic. I'll take a look at attaching more, or listing names. Overy only says he was not a "thorough" atheist. As for the term materialist, it can be used differently, so the meanings you ascribe are not exclusive. Hitler plainly does not mean that Jews are atheists, and Bullock doesn't mean that Hitler was only motivated by money. Even the application of the terms we take as the same, it would not be the first time Hitler was a hypocrite Ozhistory (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

New Lede proposal
Ozhistory has reverted my new proposed lede section. I agree with his criticism that my new proposal is not broadly sourced, and I also want to thank him for his change to the first sentence. I would like to discuss my proposal, which I believe is a better reflection of the contents of the article below. Here was my proposed replacement for the lede:


 * Aspects of the religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of debate.[1] Laurence Rees stated that "Hitler's relationship in public to Christianity—indeed his relationship to religion in general—was opportunistic. There is no evidence that Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church".[2] However, Richard Steigmann-Gall interpreted Hitler's language to mean that Hitler believed in God and held Jesus in high esteem as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against Jewry.[3] Hitler's public speeches often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity, and Steigmann-Gall argued that these speeches were sincerely intended. John S. Conway responded that even if sincere, "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 recognize as "true Christianity".[4]


 * When young, Hitler was baptised and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church and raised by an anti-clerical father and practising Catholic mother. In adulthood, he became disdainful of Christianity, but retained some respect for the organisational power of the Church.


 * Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, according to Kershaw, Bullock, Evans, Fest, Phayer, Shirer and others, he eventually hoped to eradicate Christianity in Germany.[5] Prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials submitted that Hitler engaged in a slow and cautious policy to eliminate Christianity.[6] Historians such as Fischel and Dill have written that if the regime could not eradicate Christianity, it hoped instead to subjugate or distort it to a Nazi world view.


 * Considering these plans to eradicate Christianity, as well as actual persecution of the churches, most scholars agree that Nazism was anti-Christian.[7] Steigmann-Gall argued that the Nazis continued to tolerate Christianity to some extent, and opposed the established churches while continuing to support "positive Christianity". John S. Conway suggested that this analysis was not so revolutionary as Steigmann-Gall claimed, differing from earlier interpretations only by "degree and timing". Steigmann-Gall also acknowledged that, over time, Hitler's Nazi movement became "increasingly hostile to the churches." [8]

JerryRussell (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I adopted the language we discussed for opening, and I moved up and elaborated on Steigmann Gall so he follows the mainstream view more closely in sequence. Broadly though, your proposed changes give too much wait to Steigmann Gall, who self consciously is arguing against consensus. It also removes far too many of the historians who constitute that consensus.  Ozhistory (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Ozhistory, I don't agree that you implemented our consensus on the lede. That word "consensus" that I objected to is still in the 1st paragraph, it's only moved out of the first sentence.


 * Also I believe your new version has moved even further from NPOV, in that you have described Bullock as "Seminal". I might just as well describe his first book as "obsolete". I notice that the Wiki article on Bullock's "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" also reads like an advertisement, with no discussion of trends in scholarly opinion since the book was published in 1952.


 * I am not sure if you have any objection to my coverage of S-G and the reactions to him. This material has now been deleted from the introduction, when it could have been preserved somehow.


 * Another objection I have to your lead, is that it is not really four paragraphs, so much as four random bags of quotations. There is no organizing principle that I can discern.


 * The outline that emerged from parsing your old first paragraph was as follows:


 * 1) Hitler's ideas about religion


 * 2) The evolution of Hitler's ideas about religion over time


 * 3) Hitler's persecution of the churches, and plans to destroy Christianity


 * 4) Religion under the Nazis; or, opinions about Nazis in general, without specific reference to Hitler.


 * I feel this is a pretty good outline. I am hoping that some other editor will come along and revert your reversion, and then we can distribute the random bag of facts and quotations according to their place within the outline. I am willing to do the work. JerryRussell (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I won't say it is a great introduction. Indeed, I have always said it is too long - though now perhaps you will discover why it is so long. Attempts to summarise without quotation are invariably revoked as editors interpret the quotes differently (both for reasons of good and bad faith).


 * If you are building in new material, make sure you put it in the body before it goes in the lead. Then it won't be lost if a consensus text is restored. I don't want to delete hard work by any means, but it was too much new material to sift through without a reversion.


 * "seminal" means "strongly influencing later developments". That's a pretty fair assessment of Bullock, as he was one of the early biographers and remains influential. SG on the other hand is part of a contemporary reinterpretation. How would you word it? How would you distinguish the two positions (with reference to scholarship please, not wikipedia aticles). Seminal needn't say, but don't you think the distinction between long held, and SG's interpretation is relevant?


 * "consensus" is a summary of Steigmann' Galls words intro in Holy Reich where notes that he does not fully accept the "common" views on aspects of the Nazis and Christianity where he says Point 24 of the Party Program ("is commonly regarded as a product of caution ... The expression "Positive Christianity" as in particular is commonly regarded as a tactical measure... I will demonstrate that Positive Christianity was more than a political ploy" etc. There are other examples where he sets out to challenge "common held" beliefs, which we can present here too given time. Note though, that the term "consensus" is now used about the Nazis in general, rather than Hitler in particular, so the context is not the one to which you originally objected. But happy to agree to an alternative, provided we acknowledge SG's own view that he is challenging orthodoxy. What word catches that for you? For the time being, I'll take out the word as you find it contentious. User:JerryRussel When I read your lines above sayig "author Steigmann-Gall goes on to say that he, for one, isn't buying this 'academic consensus' I assumed you agreed that there is a consensus against which he argues, rather than a belief that he is denying the existence of consensus? Ozhistory (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Ozhistory, thanks very much for sharing your views. You are right of course that the new material I wrote can be preserved by moving it into the body of the article. I'm sorry I whined about that problem. I will move it below if we don't agree on some way to get it into the lede.


 * I would further argue that if there ever was a consensus regarding the thesis that "the Nazis were anti-Christian", S-G has succeeded in overturning that consensus, at least to the extent that his view is held by a respected minority.


 * With respect to Bullock, I would say that his view that Hitler was a materialist is now almost universally rejected, and therefore the quote from his first book should be viewed as obsolete rather than seminal.


 * What do you think of my notion that the lede should be organized based on some sort of outline? JerryRussell (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * In reply to your question: "I assumed you agreed that there is a consensus against which he argues, rather than a belief that he is denying the existence of consensus?" What I have learned is that some reviews of S-G argued that his views were not so novel as he claimed (that is, there was no such consensus beforehand), while others were deeply offended as if his views truly were revolutionary.JerryRussell (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but can I ask for a quote from an historian of note saying specifically that Bullock's views are "almost universally rejected". His writing on the topic is actually very nuanced - read our section on Hitler and Atheism for instance. SG's Holy Reich, meanwhile  was written around 2003, while I think the final Ian Kershaw biography was written around 2008. Kershaw differs very little from Bullock (if anything he discusses in more depth the Catholic-Nazi divide). But then Bullock and Kershaw are writing biographies, and SG is looking at the intersection of religion and politics. I guess until you have read Kershaw and Bullock, it is difficult for you to be sure where you stand on whether or not SG has overturned them? Bullock and Kershaw will almost certainly be at your public library, and well worth a read. SG, perhaps not. This too is telling. I meant to say though, that the "Religion Under Hitler" section is indeed too long. I just can't agree that is not relevant.  Ozhistory (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ozhistory, I take "materialist" as more or less a synonym for "atheist". Does Kershaw say anywhere that Hitler was a materialist or atheist? If there is some major historian today claiming that Hitler was an atheist or materialist, I would've thought it would be in the article already. There are many quotes in the article saying he was not an atheist. JerryRussell (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I know you are all working on it, but the lede is waaaaay too long and filled with point - counterpoint arguments that belong in the body. Good luck, I hope you find good compromises.  Lipsquid (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Too long. Ozhistory (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for overall quality improvement
The article is filled with repetition. Sometimes whole quotes.I have been shuffling the "summary" into the body (carefully cross checking they we are not losing citations). Please leap in and carry on with this if you can! And yes, let's reduce "Religion under Hitler". Let's argue the substance later, but as Step One, let's just eliminate repetition? The lead may in turn become easier to manage when the article is more digestible. Ozhistory (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ozhistory, thanks very much for omitting the 'consensus' meme. I hope you understand my objective: to prevent S-G, Carrier, Lackey, Nilsson, and others, from being tarred with the WP:FRINGE label.


 * Regarding article quality, I don't see as much verbatim repetition as you do. But to the extent that many themes re-appear again and again, I believe the problem is the lack of a strong organizing outline. In the existing structure, the article goes through various primary sources of Hitler's thought, and then repeats more or less the same scholarly opinion, as applied to each type of primary source material. The repetition is because Hitler was really fairly consistent in his various public & private statements, although there is some evolution through time. It might be stronger to organize by the aspects of Hitler's beliefs that are to be demonstrated, pulling from all the various primary sources to illustrate the points. Or if that's too large a jump, at least the existing categories could be rationalized: for example, section 3 "Adulthood and political career" covers the same material as sections 3.1 thru 3.7, section 3.6 covers a variety of topics in addition to Hitler's speeches, and 3.7 'Hitler and Atheism' reiterates yet again that Hitler might or might not have been one. Section 7 has half a paragraph on social darwinism, the rest is another recapitulation of the main themes from above.


 * I'm hoping you'll like my second attempt at a new lede. I've kept the text and outline from my last attempt, brought in all the materials from your lede but re-arranged according to my outline, and then trimmed a few repeats that turned up. It reads pretty well if I do say so myself. I don't think it feels too long, although it certainly could be made shorter. JerryRussell (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

New Lede
A lede should be a couple of paragraphs, each having a couple of sentences WP:Lead and not include any of the controversial information WP:CITELEAD It is not that hard, I used only existing wording and sources


 * Aspects of the religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of debate.[1] Hitler was skeptical of religion generally,[2][3] and wary of its place in politics.[4] Raised by an anti-clerical father[5] and practising Catholic mother, Hitler was baptised and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church.


 * In adulthood, he became disdainful of Christianity, but retained some respect for the organisational power of the Church. Although personally skeptical, Hitler's public relationship to religion was one of opportunistic pragmatism.[12] His speeches referred to belief in a "Creator".[13][14] He saw Christianity as a temporary ally against Communism.


 * Until the mid 1930s, Hitler's speeches sometimes advocated "Positive Christianity"[23] (a movement which sought to "Nazify" Christianity[24]), but by the end of the war Hitler repeatedly called Nazism a secular ideology founded on science, which in the long run could not co-exist with religion.

Put all the other stuff below, Done. Lipsquid (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, now I have a question. All recent editions of the lede have opened "...the religious views of Adolf Hitler are a matter of debate." I feel this is an accurate statement. That is, most scholars believe he was basically skeptical, cynical and opportunistic; while S-G and his followers (probably a much smaller group overall) take his statements about 'positive Christianity' more or less at face value. What other debate are we talking about?


 * In the "skeptical, cynical and opportunistic" camp, I can see that some shade more towards seeing him as materialistic and atheistic, while others see him as rationalist and deistic. Is that the debate you mean? As I said earlier, I don't see much support today for the "materialistic and atheistic" theory. For a source on my view, see Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, page xiv. What this page says is that Bullock relied heavily on Hermann Rauschning's "Hitler Speaks", which is now discredited. It also says that Table Talk needs to be treated with "due caution." My interpretation (and this would be OR, I admit) is that these seem to be the main sources Bullock relied on for his conclusion that Hitler was a materialist. Hitler vituperatively criticized the Jews for being materialistic, and the Jews he was talking about were intellectuals like Marx and Freud.


 * Having said all that: if we need to include Bullock's view to reach consensus, I'm fine with including the material.


 * As to the ideal lede length, I looked at a few other articles. The main Hitler article is 610 words, 'Historical Jesus' is 569 words, 'Shakespeare' is 429 words. By comparison: the existing article lede is 882 words, my attempt from yesterday was 350 words (a little short, but I intended it to be a basis for expansion) and Lipsquid's proposal above is only 149 words, which seems way too short, and very unsatisfying.


 * My suggestion this morning was going in the wrong direction for length at 1027 words, but I was trying to get organized while bringing all Ozhistory's material in, and I was expecting it to get cut.


 * I couldn't find any article lede written in the style of "Historian X says A, Historian Y says B, and Historian Z says C", etc. Every other lede presents a summary of the article written in clean declarative statements.JerryRussell (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you looking for a compromise and I cut it down to the bare minimum, too bare even, but somewhere to start from that doesn't include the "Historian X says A, Historian Y says B, and Historian Z says C" which is painful to read in the lede. It just needs to be much shorter, this isn't the main Hitler article or Shakespeare or Historical Jesus, all of those articles have much more to discuss, the lede should probably be shorter than any of them. Stick with the things that have broad consensus and keep the debate whether he was a deist or an atheist or a materialist or a devout Christian out of the lede, use facts and quotes like he was born Catholic, tried to develop a Nazi brand of Christianity as an opportunist and then later persecuted the Jews and Catholic Church and finally stated Nazism was incompatible with religion with lots of factual tidbits in between.  I won't be reverting your changes again.  i have said my peace.  I know this is a topic several of you care deeply about, you don't need my input and I won't make any additional reverts. I wish you the best in creating a great article.  Lipsquid (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Lipsquid. I'd like to challenge Ozhistory to write his best lede under 500 words. Here's another proposal from me: seems reasonably complete at 350 words.


 * Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of dispute, in part because of apparently inconsistent statements made by and attributed to him, and in part because he is considered a dishonest individual whose word could not be trusted about such matters. He was raised by a Catholic father and a devout Catholic mother; but he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood.[1] In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity.[2][3] Prior to World War II, Hitler also promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which rejected most traditional Christian doctrines, while retaining a belief in an active Deity, and holding Jesus in high esteem as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against Jewry.[4] While a few scholars accept these views as genuine, most believe that Hitler was skeptical of religion generally, but recognized that he could not be elected if he expressed his true opinions. According to the controversial collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled Hitler's Table Talk, as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity.


 * Once in office, Hitler's regime sought to reduce the influence of Christianity on society. Hitler himself was reluctant to make public attacks on the Church for political reasons,[5]but generally permitted or encouraged anti-church radicals such as Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann to perpetrate the Nazi persecutions of the churches.[6] Hitler angered Christians by appointing Alfred Rosenberg, who espoused neo-pagan views, as the official Nazi ideologist. The regime launched an effort toward coordination of German Protestants under a unified Protestant Reich Church (but this was resisted by the Confessing Church), and moved early to eliminate political Catholicism.[7] Hitler agreed to the 'Reich Concordat' treaty with Rome, but then routinely ignored it, and permitted persecutions of the Catholic Church.[8] Smaller religious minorities faced harsher repression, with the Jews of Germany expelled for extermination on the grounds of Nazi racial ideology, and Jehovah's Witnesses ruthlessly persecuted for refusing both military service and allegiance to Hitler's movement. Although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons, it is believed that Hitler eventually hoped to eradicate Christianity in Germany.[9] JerryRussell (talk) tweaked 23:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

400 wordish intro proposal
For your consideration, an intro of a little over 400 words:


 * Hitler was a secretive individual, prone to deceiving others, and aspects of the precise nature of the religious views of Adolf Hitler have therefore been subject to debate. In his youth he was baptised into the Roman Catholic Church. In adulthood, he grew hostile to the church, and he did not receive a religious marriage or Christian burial. His public relationship to religion tended to be pragmatic. In public, he could be conciliatory towards the churches, while being privately scathing of them. Some have written of the mature Hitler as leaning toward atheism, others toward deism, or a lapsed or modified Christianity. Interpretation of sources and emphasis on public versus private remarks account for some of these differences.


 * Notes taken by Hitler confidants - particularly his deputy Bormann and propaganda chief Goebbels - suggest that Hitler was anti-Christian and skeptical of religion generally. Speer wrote that Hitler would criticise the churches, but never publicly left his own. Early biographer Alan Bullock considered that Hitler hubristicly employed the language of divine Providence, but did not believe in God and saw Christianity as absurd and against the natural law of survival of the fittest. Steigmann Gall on the other hand, writes that some of Hitler’s Christian religious allusions may have been sincere. BBC historian Laurence Rees considers that such comments rested on political imperatives, and summarises that “there is no evidence Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church.”


 * As a politician, Hitler was wary of the influence of the churches and generally willing to postpone conflicts with them for political reasons. When campaigning for office in majority Protestant, but overwhelmingly Christian Germany, Hitler sometimes spoke favourably of non-denominational “positive Christianity” which stripped Jesus of his divinity, Jewish identity, and peaceable preachings. Steigmann Gall writes that, after it had applied the litmus test of compatibility with the 'Germanic race', the Hitler approved Nazi Party Platform of 1922 "claimed to uphold a type of Christianity” and queries the common view that reference to "positive Christianity" in the Platform was a political ploy. The Nuremberg Prosecutors and various historians including Bullock, Kershaw, Evans, Fest, Phayer and Shirer believe that Hitler’s long term aim was to eradicate Christianity in Germany.


 * Hitler took power in 1933, and beyond 1937 largely lost interest in “positive Christianity”. According to Evans, he believed that, in the long run, Nazism and religion would not be able to co-exist. He appointed the neo-pagan Alfred Rosenberg as official Nazi philosopher in 1934, and permitted him and key lieutenants like Bormann, Himmler and Goebbels to persecute the churches and work to reduce their influence on society. Smaller religious minorities like the Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses faced extermination. Evans notes the influence of Darwinian theory on Hitler’s racism, while Toland draws links between Hitler’s Catholic upbringing and his anti-semitism.

How's that? Ozhistory (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ozhistory! I like it a lot, and I would not put much effort into changing anything if that were the lede.


 * But, I'm really appreciating Lipsquid's view that the lede should be short and easy to read. Maybe there's no need to refer to any specific historians at all. Here's a 250 word version --


 * Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs have been a matter of debate. He was raised by a Catholic father and a devout Catholic mother; but did not take communion after childhood. In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches, he often affirmed his belief in God and Christianity. Hitler promoted "positive Christianity", saying that he believed in God and held Jesus in high esteem as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against Jewry. Some scholars accept these remarks as genuine, but most believe that Hitler was privately skeptical. Hitler's remarks to confidants have been taken as evidence that he was anti-Christian. "Positive Christianity" has been seen as a parody of traditional Christianity, stripping Jesus of his divinity, his Jewish identity, and his peaceful teachings.
 * Once in office, Hitler's regime sought to reduce the influence of Christianity on society. Hitler himself was reluctant to make public attacks on the Church for political reasons, but the Nazis quietly persecuted the clergy. The neo-pagan Alfred Rosenberg was appointed as the official Nazi ideologist. The Nazis tried to create a unified Protestant Reich Church, but this was resisted by the Confessing Church. Hitler agreed to the 'Reich Concordat' treaty with Rome, but then routinely ignored it. Political Catholicism was eliminated, and the Catholic Church was persecuted. Smaller religious minorities faced harsher repression. European Jews were expelled or exterminated. Jehovah's Witnesses were ruthlessly persecuted for their resistance to the regime. It is believed that Hitler eventually hoped to eradicate Christianity in Germany. JerryRussell (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been mulling it over, and I have another comment about the intro by. The organization of the paragraphs is all over the map. The first paragraph is about Hitler's youth, and mature views as expressed in public and private. The second paragraph is about Hitler's private remarks, and S-G's interpretation of his public remarks. The third paragraph is about Hitler's public remarks, his long term goals, and why most scholars think he is cynical while S-G thinks he is not. The fourth paragraph is about Hitler's late views, his administration's activities, and scholarly opinion on Social Darwinism vs. Catholicism as the source of Hitler's anti-semitism. Or, more generally, the overall effect is (1) Hitler was cynical, (2) Hitler was cynical, (3) Hitler was cynical, (4) Hitler was cynical. The source material is all fine, and the points are well taken. But if we want to include it all, it should be re-arranged to achieve a sense of distinct purpose for each paragraph. JerryRussell (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

JerryRussell (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Not much conversation here lately. Is this what consensus looks like? Or have I bored and/or bludgeoned everybody? I'm going to start introducing some changes into the text of the article. Meanwhile, I continue also with the discussion of the lede.

Social Darwinism section re-organization
The section is parsed into two distinct themes. Possible Christian sources of Hitler's anti-Semitism are identified, and contrasted to possible Social Darwinist sources of those same beliefs. For the most part, I believe all the original sources have been preserved in this update -- but if you find something is missing, please consider being patient, rather than doing a wholesale revert. All sources should be returning as I update further sections. JerryRussell (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft for re-organized article "Religious Views of Adolf Hitler"
In light of the discussion here, recognizing that the existing article contains many repeats, I've prepared a draft of a re-organized version of the article. It's based around a chronological outline. I believe the vast majority of repeats have been cleaned up, while preserving every last bit of the information in the original article. The size is reduced from 168K to 155K.

In order to get a page in draft space, I gave the article a new title, but I hope to revert to the original title on approval.

I'm looking forward to editorial review, I hope everyone likes the result. This was a lot of work -- it's easy to complain, but not so easy to fix things.

Draft:Evolution_of_religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

Regards, JerryRussell (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) JerryRussell (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have read part of it and the writing is clear, which is an improvement. I would suggest however that in the lead we clearly explain the relative weight of the different views of Hitler and Christianity.  Rather than say that there is evidence of anti-Christianity in other Nazis recollection of discussions, I would say that experts have relied on them to determine Hitler was anti-Christian.  That they are evidence is a matter of opinion, albeit the most accepted one, and should be presented that way.  TFD (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks TFD, I have replaced the sentence in question with: "Hitler's remarks to confidants, as described in the Goebbels Diaries, the memoirs of Albert Speer,[11] and transcripts of Hitler's private conversations recorded by Martin Bormann in Hitler's Table Talk, have been interpreted as evidence of his anti-Christian beliefs." Of course I don't claim any ownership of this draft; anyone is welcome to make edits as they see fit. JerryRussell (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I just took a look at the page view statistics for the draft. Two hundred and sixty-four views since it was created! Who is looking at it, how do they even find it, and why doesn't anyone comment? Haha, newbie here, just learned how to ping editors.

JerryRussell (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft has been updated today (at both locations, draft and user space): minor re-organization in preparation for beginning to copy the material over to the main page in sections. JerryRussell (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Same 400-ish words, different order
, here are your exact same 480 words, arranged in a different order. Do you think this an improvement?


 * Hitler was a secretive individual, prone to deceiving others, and aspects of the precise nature of the religious views of Adolf Hitler have therefore been subject to debate. His public relationship to religion tended to be pragmatic. In public, he could be conciliatory towards the churches, while being privately scathing of them. Some have written of the mature Hitler as leaning toward atheism, others toward deism, or a lapsed or modified Christianity. Interpretation of sources and emphasis on public versus private remarks account for some of these differences.


 * In his youth he was baptised into the Roman Catholic Church. In adulthood, he grew hostile to the church, and he did not receive a religious marriage or Christian burial. Speer wrote that Hitler would criticise the churches, but never publicly left his own. When campaigning for office in majority Protestant, but overwhelmingly Christian Germany, Hitler sometimes spoke favourably of non-denominational “positive Christianity” which stripped Jesus of his divinity, Jewish identity, and peaceable preachings. BBC historian Laurence Rees considers that such comments rested on political imperatives, and summarises that “there is no evidence Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church.” Steigmann Gall on the other hand, writes that some of Hitler’s Christian religious allusions may have been sincere. Steigmann Gall writes that, after it had applied the litmus test of compatibility with the 'Germanic race', the Hitler approved Nazi Party Platform of 1922 "claimed to uphold a type of Christianity” and queries the common view that reference to "positive Christianity" in the Platform was a political ploy.


 * Hitler took power in 1933, and beyond 1937 largely lost interest in “positive Christianity”. As a politician, Hitler was wary of the influence of the churches and generally willing to postpone conflicts with them for political reasons. According to Evans, he believed that, in the long run, Nazism and religion would not be able to co-exist. He appointed the neo-pagan Alfred Rosenberg as official Nazi philosopher in 1934, and permitted him and key lieutenants like Bormann, Himmler and Goebbels to persecute the churches and work to reduce their influence on society. Smaller religious minorities like the Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses faced extermination. Notes taken by Hitler confidants - particularly his deputy Bormann and propaganda chief Goebbels - suggest that Hitler was anti-Christian and skeptical of religion generally. The Nuremberg Prosecutors and various historians including Bullock, Kershaw, Evans, Fest, Phayer and Shirer believe that Hitler’s long term aim was to eradicate Christianity in Germany.


 * Evans notes the influence of Darwinian theory on Hitler’s racism, while Toland draws links between Hitler’s Catholic upbringing and his anti-semitism. Early biographer Alan Bullock considered that Hitler hubristicly employed the language of divine Providence, but did not believe in God and saw Christianity as absurd and against the natural law of survival of the fittest.

JerryRussell (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC) tweaked JerryRussell (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mysticism and occultism section update
A couple of relevant paragraphs have been introduced from other sections, where their appearance seemed random and disconnected. As these other sections are updated in days to come, the redundant paragraphs will be deleted. JerryRussell (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Re-organization of 'Religion under Hitler'
The theme of this section is re-focused on events happening after the Enabling Act. A new sub-section has been created for developments in "Positive Christianity" during this timeframe, including Hitler's personal relationship with his own Catholic faith. Much material from other sections has been moved into this one, and so it looks like the article length is growing. But, the section on Hitler's rise to power is shorter, and we'll be getting rid of the "summary" section, so the end result of this re-organization will be a trimmer article with much less repetition. JerryRussell (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-organization of sections on 'youth' and 'adulthood and political career'
This completes my series of organizational edits to the body of the article. There's a new section on Hitler's early speeches, consolidating material that had been more scattered. Scholarly opinion is presented immediately under the main section headings, before the materials quoting directly from Hitler, and the various opinions have been gathered together so as to eliminate unnecessary repetition. All materials in the former 'Summary' section have been distributed to the appropriate sections.

Today's edit brings the article length to ~8K bytes less than before the process started. JerryRussell (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

New lede
This is the version that's been incubating at my sandbox since late June, including a lot of text from Ozhistory's version. hasn't been editing at Wiki this month, it would be great to hear from him. JerryRussell (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hitler and Islam
""The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood. It is a tragedy that France has consistently degenerated in the course of centuries and that her upper classes have been perverted by the Jews. France is now condemned to the pursuit of a Jewish policy."."

It's in Hitler official political testament : https://archive.org/stream/TheTestamentOfAdolfHitler/TOAH_djvu.txt

You can see all other version, it's the same, Hitler was in total love with islam :)


 * Hello 176.190.253.53, thanks for your edit. Earlier versions of this Wiki article gave the source of the Hitler quotation as a book by Robert Wistrich. The Political Testament doesn't mention anything about speeches with similar content. This 'Political Testament' is a little sketchy -- apparently it was unknown before Genoud says it 'came to light' in 1959, and David Irving says Genoud admitted it was a fake. Of course Irving has his own credibility problems, but my impression is that few historians if any rely on this document. All in all, I think we were better off with the Wistrich source, although it may very well derive from this Political Testament. (I don't have access to the Wistrich book, so I don't know what it actually says.)


 * Whether valid or not, this statement seems very consistent with all the other information about Hitler and Islam in the section.


 * What puzzles me is: why did someone place a POV tag on this section? It was a drive-by tagging with no discussion that I can find. JerryRussell (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We need reliable secondary sources in order to include anything. First, there is doubt whether the quote is accurate and secondly it needs to be interpreted.  I think his point was that the French provided equal civil rights to Jews, while the Muslims did not.  But whether that is what he believed or said in a conversation with Bormann or never said at all is something we need expert opinion in order to include.  TFD (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi TFD, originally our 'expert opinion' was Wistrich. The phrasing is identical in the Testament, so it makes sense to me to include that as an additional source, which I've just done. The article includes a lot of primary source references, so this is consistent. I'm not sure Irving's skepticism is good enough reason to get rid of it entirely.


 * Do you see any reason for the POV tag? JerryRussell (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What was the opinion that he presented? Please quote Wistrich.  TFD (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is legacy material, but allegedly Wistrich gave this information: In speeches, Hitler made apparently warm references towards Muslim culture such as: "The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France" JerryRussell (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That is strange, because the quote is taken from an account of a private conversation written by Bormann, not a speech. TFD (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If you nuke it, I won't object. For my part, I'm getting rid of the POV tag. JerryRussell (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Guys, Hitler did really said that, the original quote is in his political testament !!! :


 * "The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France, in spite of the fact that we are related by blood.
 * It is a tragedy that France has consistently degenerated in the course of centuries and that her upper classes have been perverted ::::::::by the Jews. France is now condemned to the pursuit of a Jewish policy."

It's here, you can check all the german, french, english versions : https://archive.org/stream/TheTestamentOfAdolfHitler/TOAH_djvu.txt LaCensure (talk)


 * Hello LaCensure (and IP176, I presume?), I'm sorry the bot deleted your edit. I will try again for you. However, you do understand that the authenticity of these 1945 "Bormann-Hitler Transcripts" has been questioned, even more so than most of the "Table Talk"? JerryRussell (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's treatment of this "Testament of Adolf Hitler" is pretty bad. We have an article Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler which is about a completely different document. That article has an external link to the Bormann-Hitler transcripts, but as far as I know, there's not another word about this on English Wikipedia. My guess is that several historians have written about this, and my understanding is that most historians believe the document is a forgery, but I'd also be surprised if this is anything like a unanimous opinion. LaCensure, if you have some time to research and clean this up according to Wiki standards for WP:RS, your input could be very useful. Thanks for your participation. JerryRussell (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I can find hardly anything about the book. It is quoted here and there and there are some brief references to it.  It's a mystery to me why that is.  Unlike Mein Kampf, Hitler was not around when it was published.  I can see why accuracy is questioned, but is there any reason to believe it is a forgery?
 * Also, even if it was accurate, we would need an expert opinion to interpret it. It seems Hitler felt let down by the French and therefore had good things to say about their enemies.  The passage is brief and we would need more to conclude it meant anything more than that.  we have btw examples of many modern politicians praising Islam, including George w. Bush, but we read them in the context of what they were talking about.
 * TFD (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

WTF GUYS STOP DENYING, this text was dictated by Adolf Hitler to his secretary Traudl Junge in his Berlin Führerbunker on 29 April 1945 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a true source, you need to trust it, why would you not, AND TRUST ALL THE OTHER ???? !!!

BECAUSE ITS ABOUT ISLAM ??? !!!

Also for martin bormann, he has nothing to do with that !!!

HITLER HAD 2 DAMN TESTAMENT :

Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler (PRIVATE)

AND

HIS POLITICAL TESTAMENT !!!

Why you don't trust my source, why should you trust all other, why having so much second thoughts ???????

Also, why the HELL are you talking about Bush ????

Bormann killed himself 2 days after that political testament, hit was the end of the REICH, ALSO THERE ARE NOTHING ABOUT A falsification, YOU ARE CREATING A FALSIFICATION

THERE ARE MANY EXTRACT OF HIS POLITICAL TESTAMENT EXTRAIT IN WIKIPEDIA, SO WHY WOULD YOU NOT LET ME PUT THE QUOTES ABOUT ISLAM, BUT YOU TRUST ALL OTHERS sentences OF IT ???

"However, you do understand that the authenticity of these 1945 "Bormann-Hitler Transcripts" has been questioned, even more so than most of the "Table Talk"?"

NO NEVER, THEY HAVE BEEN NEVER QUESTIONED, EXCEPT BY YOU BECAUSE HITLER LOVED ISLAM !!!! AND YOU DONT LIKE THAT!!!

BORMANN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HITLER POLITICAL TESTAMENT, HE HAS BEGAN TO TALK ROD IT in FEBRUARY, and FINISH IT BEFORE HE DIED, WHY THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BORMANN

Even here : https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3EM4FhbR_gZRjRCRTNicllYMUk/preview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The "testament" says Jews are not genetically Jewish. If Hitler wrote that, then I am a Zulu. Wythy (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are confusing the the so-called ""last political will and political testament of Adolph Hitler" with the Political Testament of Adolph Hitler. The first was indeed dictated to Traudl Junge, was found in the bunker and is authentic.  Here is a link to the text.
 * The Political Testament of Adolf Hitler was "collected by" Bormann, according to the cover of the book you linked to, and came into the possession of François Genoud, who happened to be pro-Arab, who had it translated into French and published in 1959. As Genoud writes in the introduction, "all eighteen [notes of the Political Testament] were taken down directly by Bormann himself."  The original notes are lost, and the original German text has never been published.
 * TFD (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is all garbage. Africans, Slavs and Arabs were Untermensch in Nazism. Lipsquid (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Policy is clear. We should use reliable secondary sources and avoid synthesis.  Note that the quote is not solely about "The peoples of Islam," but "the Japanese, the Chinese and the peoples of Islam."  In context, it has nothing to do with nationality but the fact that all these people were natural allies against British and French imperialism.  Significantly, Ganoud became involved in Arab nationalist groups, which included Christians, after the war.
 * But discussion of this text goes against policy and is time-wasting. I suggest we conclude the discussion that the Testament is not a reliable source and even if it was it would require synthesis to interpret Hitler's views on Islam, i.e., we would have to compare his statements here with other statements and his actual policies.
 * TFD (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Nilsson's recent paper 1 says "The Testament is no longer considered to be authentic by leading scholars (or at least there is a general sentiment that it should not be used due to doubts about its authenticity)". He cites Kershaw's 'Nemesis' pp. 1024-1025 as his source. JerryRussell (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I added the extra context (per TFD) and the Nilsson reference for neutrality.


 * IP176, do you understand why the other editors are questioning this quote? I think the paragraph as it reads now is acceptable per Wiki policy for WP:NPOV. The paragraph gives secondary sources as well as the primary source, so it seems to conform with WP:RS. I don't see a big problem with WP:SYNTH, as I don't see how we're insinuating any false conclusions. But still, it's very debatable whether the paragraph adds value to the article. Also, please don't be angry with us. We're doing our best to maintain the article according to Wiki policies. JerryRussell (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The same problem with NPOV remains. It says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."  The excerpt has no weight since it is not mentioned in reliable sources.  Also, the text fails rs because we do not know if it was a reliable reporting of what Hitler said.  The secondary source does not help because it actually does not address the excerpt.  So I will remove it. TFD (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi TFD, I'm OK with your judgment to remove the paragraph. But just for the record, the Testament was published by a reliable publishing house, and was vetted by Bormann, Genout and Trevor-Roper, who have been considered reliable in other contexts. So it's really Trevor-Roper, Genout and Bormann's opinion against Kershaw and Nilsson's opinion. None of us were there in the bunker to know what Hitler really said. JerryRussell (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Trevor-Roper said The Hitler Diaries were authentic. He was a poor judge of authenticity. Wythy (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Revisionist history
This article represents an attempt at revisionist history of the worst kind. The extensive bias is the largest but not it's only problem. It is also so systemically full of problems that the whole thing should be scrapped and started over.

I also feel the claim that "the majority of wikipedia editors agree with the lead in is an appeal to authority of the worst kind, it niether offers prove for this being the case, nor why this should let such terrible writing let alone poor content stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. This article would only be revisionist if it gave greater weight to the view that Hitler was Christian, because the long standing view has been that he was not. Some modern authors challenge the timing and extent of his abandonment of Christianity, but that's about it. His major biographers seem to be of one accord: in the broad, he was anti-Christian and opportunist in relation to religion, though some suspect he remained deist or at least held hubristic notions of his own destiny. Ozhistory (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

hitler islam
"Hitler was also quoted in the early war years stating, "We shall continue to make disturbances in the Far East and in Arabia. Let us think as men and let us see in these peoples at best lacquered half-apes who are anxious to experience the lash.""

Also you should put that this quote was wrote 2 years before meeting the mufti, maybe Hitler did change the way of thiking after meeting him and wasnt that much hating on Arabs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)