Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) at 09:26, 1 June 2016 (→Hitler, before and during leadership, was Christian). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religious views of Adolf Hitler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Religious views of Adolf Hitler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: "Why do the views of historians dominate the introduction, rather than us just relying on extended quotes from Hitler speeches?" A1: The first reason is because Misplaced Pages policy requires an emphasis on reliable secondary sources, and secondly because of the contradictory nature of so many of Hitler's words and actions. The article covers several decades during which Hitler contradicted himself in word and action repeatedly. Relying on extended quotes, (especially from narrowly-sourced websites or blogs,) is therefore neither practical, nor likely to accurately summarise our article in a reasonable space. Misplaced Pages policy on sourcing, such as our policy on original synthesis and original research discourages users from interpreting the sources by themselves because people will disagree with the interpretation. Misplaced Pages policy is to regurgitate claims from secondary sources we think of as reliable. (We already have a section for "Hitler's public rhetoric and writings about religion".) Isn't the idea that he wasn't Christian in and of itself revisionism? No. The long established, mainstream, orthodox viewpoint is that Hitler was not Christian. Prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials after the War put the case that Hitler had engaged in a slow and cautious policy to eliminate Christianity. Richard Steigmann-Gall, (who is one of the scholars that we cite in partial opposition to this view,) in his book The Holy Reich notes that the concept has gone "unquestioned" by scholarship (p.3), in spite of the fact that "early all aspects of Nazism" (p.3) have been challenged by "revisionist scrutiny"(p.3) and proceeds to challenge it. Here is a review by Ernst Piper, saying "'the contention that National Socialism was a profoundly anti-Christian movement endured for so long not because it was convenient for researchers not to prove otherwise but..." "If Hitler was raised a Catholic and wasn't formally excommunicated, doesn't that make him a Catholic?" Many irreligious people were raised in religious households, but it does not mean they cannot change their religious identity. Accordingly, the article notes the view of Hitler biographers and historians like Ian Kershaw, Alan Bullock, William Shirer, Laurence Rees and others, that Hitler came to despise Christianity, and that his government in many ways harassed the Catholic Church via piecemeal attacks in an attempt to undermine (see Kirchenkampf) The article notes too however Albert Speer and John Toland's view that Hitler, while being anti-clerical and having no connection to the Church, did not formally leave it before his death. Where are these historians even drawing from? Sources include Goebbels' diary on Hitler, Albert Speer's memoirs, and Hitler's Table Talk as transcribed by Bormann and the memoirs of his secretaries, other confidants and eye witness accounts who had observed his behaviour. Historians also cite the Nazi policy toward the churches, and Hitler's promotion of Anti-Christian radicals to key posts in his inner circle throughout his career: Himmler, Baldur von Shirach#Shirach, Rosenberg, Adolf Wagner, and Bormann were all virulent enemies of Christianity. What about Carrier and Mittschang's work on the subject? Shouldn't it destroy Table Talk? Yes, Carrier and Mittschang have challenged several statements in Table Talk. See this thread. Is the church persecution thing based off Table Talk? No, sources are multiple. They include the Nuremberg documents, the Goebbels Diaries, and Speer's memoirs. Other evidence of the Hitler regime's harassment of Christianity includes the Pope's Mit brennender Sorge 1937 encyclical and emergence of the Protestant Confessing Church, the Priest's block in Dachau, and of course closure of religious schools and newspapers, arrest of clergymen, and seizure of church properties in Germany, and the moral processes against Catholic clegry and religious orders in schools from 1936 to 1937. All are well-documented. May I add a new scholarly work to the article if it suits your definition of a good source, without rewriting the lede entirely? We should definitely be wary of undue weight, but if you find something directly relevant to Hitler, okay, you can put it in a relevant section.

Why is Lackey's 2012 book ignored here?

This article does not even mention the existence of Lackey, Michael (2012), The Modernist God State: A Literary Study of the Nazis' Christian Reich, ISBN 9781441197597. Spoiler: It argues that Hitler and the Nazis were everything but atheist, and in fact steeped in Christianity. They may have designed, or intended to design, their own version of it, but then, so do many others, especially in the USA. And Antisemitism, of course, has a long tradition in European Christianity (in fact, Hitler specifically referred to and praised Luther in Mein Kampf; compare Martin Luther and antisemitism), and other core elements of Nazism such as racism and elitism have a long tradition in Christian Europe as well. The argument that Hitler opposed and despised and fought the official churches is a red herring, as it does nothing to prove a fundamentally anti-Christian stance: he was opposed to the Catholic and Protestant Churches because they were not in line with his own ideology and goals, and he essentially wanted his own Nazi Christian Church purged of its Jewish origins, with a Nordic, "Aryan" Jesus as the prophet and saviour and himself as the pope-like ultimate human authority figure (cf. Positive Christianity). The whole concept of a tausendjähriges Reich has obvious apocalyptic Christian overtones. (A theocracy as advocated by some Dominion Theology adherents would be indistinguishable from a totalitarian fascist state in practice.)

Just reading the intro, this article is still wedded to a defence of the apologetic Christian POV that the Nazis were atheist and fundamentally opposed to Christianity as a whole, which is clearly absurd. It is impossible to understand Nazism without an acknowledgement of its Christian roots – Nazism is incomparably more closely connected with Christianity than with atheism or (neo-)paganism (let alone socialism or Marxism, as a common far-right myth goes). This article clearly has a POV issue in that it tries to downplay the centrality of Christianity to Hitler and the Nazis' worldview. (Personally, I'd even go as far as to call Nazism yet another violently fanatic Christian sect, a precursor to Christian Identity and the Christian counterpart to Salafi jihadism – except worse because Salafis at least do not seem to be racist for one, and content once you've converted to their interpretation of Islam –, but then, I've got an obvious POV highly critical of Christianity, so I would say something like that.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Our consensus would probably allow you to cite the book as a source where relevant to Hitler's personal beliefs, but I don't think they would be okay with you rewriting the whole article- it reflects scholarly consensus by scholars like Kershaw, Bullock, et al. Christian BTW, but a ping for @Rubbish computer, Ozhistory, General Ization, and Zumoarirodoka:. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about Hitler, moreso than the Nazis per se (though obviously Hitler regime policy is relevant) and the leading Hitler biographers concur on the subject: Hitler was a more or less irreligious fellow, with a shrewd sense of the power of the churches, a long term hope to dismantle them and their central creeds. So, any additions must leave the article reflecting this Hitler expert consensus view. That said, the article already makes reference to minority theories along the lines of those expressed by Florian Blaschke outlined above, and these can continue to be accommodated alongside the existing material, provided they are accurate quotes from scholarly sources (many of the proponents of the "Nazis were Christian" theory on this page have had to basically falsify their quotations and delete accurate quotations to make their case on this page, so again the main thing is that editors follow the basic wikipedia standards.) Ozhistory (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is tangentially related to the section I've started below on the incompleteness of the lede. I would be grateful if you all would contribute your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naplesmedellin (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I looked this book up on Google Books. The thesis is that Western countries did not become genuinely secular and, but all culturally religious, and Lackey evidences this by doing literary criticism but not directly touching Hitler materials.

I don't think we can weight this highly. We could just put a mention next to Paxton and be done. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

discussion about Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini's relationship is not relevant

The discussion about Hitler and Haj Amin al-Husseini's relationship is not relevant to the topic of the article or the section heading. Hitler and al-Husseini were both anti-Semites, and Hitler's anti-Semitism had nothing to do with his views on Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8101:2029:F083:7D88:CD6C:EE0D (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I might be in favor of trimming the section, but I assume that how he related to the Muslim world is somewhat related. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete/Misleading Lede

I would like to start a discussion about the lede. In my view it is incomplete and misleading such that it does not represent a neutral point of view. My concerns are as follows:

1) There are many public statements, straight from the horse's mouth in which Hitler strongly, unequivocally declares his faith. This wasn't just a one-time off-the-cuff statement. He said it repeatedly in both print and in his speeches and he was not the least bit ambiguous about it. See: https://en.wikiquote.org/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler These public statements are not represented at all in the current intro to the article. They are entirely omitted. Why?

2) There are indeed plenty of 2nd/3rd hand accounts of Hitler making statements in private that conflict with his public faith, which a number historians have interpreted as evidence that his faith was insincere. I don't dispute this (I myself seriously doubt his faith, for the record). But it seems awfully biased that these after-the-fact subjective interpretations of 2nd and 3rd hand sources make up the entirety of the intro to the article - 4 paragraphs - while none of Hitler's own first-hand statements are included. This is an article about Hitler; at the very least his own voice should be represented. Arguably, it should be the centerpiece of the article. Why is it omitted?

3) There are also accounts of Hitler making statements in his private life that *do* seem to support the idea his faith was sincere. Some of these are also included in the wikiquote link above. If we are giving weight to statements from his private life over statements from his public life (a practice I think is inherently biased to begin with) why are these statements not included?

4) The first sentence states that there is a "consensus" of scholars that agree he was not Christian. Which scholars, exactly, comprise this consensus? Consensus is a high bar to clear. Has there been a comprehensive survey of scholars that I am unaware of that somehow excludes all of my favorite humanist scholars? If so, who selected the scholars and what process was used to select them? This is a sweeping claim and there is no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naplesmedellin (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Note my TP reply.

@Ozhistory, Steeletrap, General Ization, Ian.thomson, Rubbish computer, and The Four Deuces:, do you have any thoughts? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The consensus--advanced by the leading scholars such as Kershaw, Trevor-Roper--is that Hitler was not a Christian. This consensus is grounded in Hitler's private statements on Christianity, which were negative and skeptical. These statements can be found in Hitler's Table Talk, a book available on google books. Steeletrap (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, it seems plain that Hitler believed in god. You can put that in the lede if you find a source. But he wasn't a Christian or denominational; nor did he believe in the mysticism that Rosenberg and Himmmler embraced. Steeletrap (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Read my comments below. It does not matter what Hitler believed but what reliable secondary sources have concluded he believed. I think that most scholars, particularly those closest in time to the Third Reich, used a "no true Scotsman" approach. But we cannot use our personal judgment and must reflect what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Second Discuss-Dubious's reply. User interpretation of how he manipulated crowds does not beat how mainstream academic sources interpret his more private remarks. If we're going to accept user interpretations, his favorite passages in Magic: History, Theory and Practice (particularly the ones about the last magician, the Antichrist, leading the Germanic peoples to destroying the God of Israel) present further problems for the claim that he was a Christian (and I say this as someone who totally understands that Aleister Crowley wasn't a Satanist by any means). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The intro is already too long. The point of an intro is that it is to summarise, so inserting chapter and verse Hitler quotes is not helpful - especiallywhen we are writing about a fork-tongued character like Hitler. The fact that he sometimes used religious language is already stated. Any direct quotes need precise timing and context, but in the end we must take the long view of his words and actions - consider that if you look at what Hitler was saying from 1933 to 1937, you will find plenty of quotes about him claiming to "want peace", but judged against his actions, they are nonsense. The early occasions where Hitler mentions "Christianity" in fact tend to be pretty equivocal in any case - where he is trying to criticise the Catholic Centre Party by linking it to Socialists etc or where is trying to redefine the identity of Jesus away from being Jewish etc. That is why we need the views of historians giving the context, meaning and sequence of such remarks. Ozhistory (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Naplesmedellin I just noticed your question about why your "favorite humanist scholars" appear to be missing. The reason would be presumably because they are not historians. I recall Dawkins has a chapter on Hitler and Stalin in the God Delusion which uses the 1922 quote from Hitler about "my feelings as a Christian" and goes to quote John Toland as his Hitler biographer of choice. Dawkins has chosen the biographer closest to his preferred view that the Hitler regime and Catholic Church were not antipathetic to one another, but still concedes that Hitler had probably turned against Christianity in his adult years by quoting from Hitler's Table Talk. Our article already includes the sources Dawkins draws on (Toland, Table Talk, the 1922 speech), but also provides the more complete and mainstream views of Kershaw, Bullock, Shirer, Rees and others who are more strident that Toland in outlining the Nazi persecutions of Catholicism (Toland too discusses Hitler's anti-clericalism and antipathy to the Pope). Dawkins was not however setting out to write a history of the Hitlerite period, and nor was he seeking to present a balanced overview of the scholarship on Hitler. He was writing a book trying to persuade people to be atheist. So we are much safer quoting Toland, Table Talk etc directly -- along with the other and more complete analyses of the historians listed above - than we are going to a "favourite humanist author." Ozhistory (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your Bias Is Showing

Most of this article is written from a biased point of view. It is in serious need of revision. The first half smacks of revisionist history; it is a thinly-veiled attempt to distance Hitler from Christianity as much as possible, without acknowledging Christianity's role in his work, as directly described by the subject himself. Where are Hitler's quotations on religion? Where are his speeches? Why is no credence given to his own words? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyheat (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that what your personal interpretation of he said to manipulate crowds matters more than what professionally published mainstream academic sources concludes regarding what we know of his private thoughts? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually as this source (p. 3) points out, the orthodox view is to see the Nazis as hostile or indifferent to Christianity. While the orthodox view may be wrong, it is inaccurate to call it revisionist. TFD (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

FAQ

New and anonymous editors keep coming to the article and challenging it on the same grounds. They continually find they cannot rewrite the lede and they don't understand why. Should we write something explaining why they can't, and what they should do instead? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 23:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

In the past, this page has been attacked by sock-puppets, so they may not in fact be new users at all. Can it be semi-protected? Ozhistory (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I could go with that, but I am interested in offering an explanation to reasonable people.

If we ever have a spree, we can go to RFPP. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I see - sorry, I haven't been watching page closely lately, so wasn't sure of nature of changes. Firstly, editors should familiarise themselves with wikipedia policies on using primary sources and original research. Hitler's words (more than most) need the clinical examination of an historian and our introduction needs to summarise Hitler's views over the decades. For example, around about 1933, Hitler made all sorts of claims in order to secure power. We cannot publish merely that he promised not to threaten the institutions of the Weimar Republic without noting that he went on to demolish them - What he said must be measured against what he did. It seems that a number of newcomers to the page re-write the introduction to base it around some comments expressed by Hitler in one or two speeches in the 1920s. This is understandable only if one is drawing on some narrowly sourced websites, but not if one has read any of the serious histories on Hitler. In any case, wikipedia policy requires that we turn to historians for objective analysis, and that our introduction summarises our whole article. For this reason, we can't list every speech and quote from Hitler, but must rely on the analysis of historians along the lines of "over time Hitler sometimes referred to religion" etc. Hitler can still be quoted in brief - but timing of the quote must be given - ie was it 1922, 1933, 1939 or 1945? Each period is so radically different in terms of Hitler's political agenda. Hope that addresses some FAQs? Ozhistory (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It helps. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 02:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggest following amendments to your first and third points::

Q: "Why do the views of historians dominate the introduction, rather than us just relying on extended quotes from Hitler speeches?" A: Firstly because wikipedia policy requires an emphasis on reliable secondary sources, and secondly because of the contradictory nature of so many of Hitler's words and actions. The article covers several decades during which Hitler contradicted himself in word and action repeatedly. Relying on extended quotes is therefore neither practical, nor is likely to accurately summarise our article in a reasonable space. Misplaced Pages policy on sourcing, such as our policy on original synthesis and original research discourages users from interpret the sources by themselves because people will disagree with the interpretation. Misplaced Pages policy is to regurgitate claims from secondary sources we think of as reliable.

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

Sorry, not to sure how to integrate these into your draft box.Ozhistory (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hitler, before and during leadership, was Christian

2601:982:8200:4790:F:FF7F:E7E1:6D96 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 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)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Germany articles
• Mid-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Low-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles