Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Use of "non partisan" sources

Anonymous editor 66.216.235.202 wants to cite the following people:

RANDALL BYTWERK is a faculty member of Calvin College, which is an educational institution of the Christian Reformed Church

David Nicholls, a THEOLOGIAN educated at Yale Divinity School (Henry Fellow 1960–66, STM 1962), and Chichester Theological College

John S. Conway, A member of the Anglican Diocese of New Westminster's Refugee Liaison Committee. On the UBC campus, he has been long associated with the Student Christian Movement

However, when I provided an alternative viewpoint by Richard Carrier, an American historian and writer, he undid the edit, because it was "partisan", because Carrier is a well known atheist. You can't have it both ways, either your partisan viewpoints should be blocked, or Carrier should be allowed. Greengrounds (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Your mistaken, carries nonsensical statement comes from a Blog ( which even notes some of his incorrect knowledge about the topic of Nazi Germany), while all those other sources come from academic presses. Texas A&M University, Oxford University Press and ABC-CLIO. 66.216.235.202 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It provides a popular counter argument to the "propoganda, therefore he was lying about everything" argument. The source I provided is not a "blog", but an essay, and if you know of a better way of putting it, or another source, please let me know. Your sources are all from christian "partisan", and provide a legitimate but biased viewpoint. I'm not saying they should not be allowed, but I am saying the counter argument needs to be heard. Greengrounds (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

"After all, if Hitler had to pretend to be a god-fearing Christian to sway his Nazi supporters, that means Nazis had to have been god-fearing Christians": This addition is not about Hitlers beliefs but about some of those that may have joined his movement and is thus off topic it says nothing about whether hitler was a Christian or pretending to be one, Also a blog Published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, it is a fringe source. 66.216.235.202 (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, though I disagree that is a fringe source, as all of your sources are educated at non-secular "fringe" universities, and/or have a clear motivation for an apologetic viewpoint, being devout, outspoken christians themselves. Surely we can both agree that there are alternative view points on the issue of hitler's propoganda. Your edit, stating that "one must read between the lines" does not offer any evidence of hitler's religiosity, it is a blanket statement that could be applied to any person who publicly states their religion. Yes Hitler certainly had his political motivations when declaring that he was doing gods work, and you are right that readers should be skeptical about this, but the alternative viewpoint is also that we cannot disregard the fact that he did say these things, and he may or may not have meant it to various degrees. Perhaps we can come to a consensus on presenting the counter argument that perhaps he did mean what he was saying, despite the political propoganda involved. Any suggestions?Greengrounds (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at it another way Greengrounds. These sources are all partisan, but Carrier's is by far the most doubtful in terms of its accuracy. Let's deconstruct that sentence for you: "It is claimed that the quotations and evidence of Hitler's belief were a ruse, propaganda for the benefit of his Nazi followers. This is hardly plausible. After all, if Hitler had to pretend to be a god-fearing Christian to sway his Nazi supporters, that means Nazis had to have been god-fearing Christians" The last sentence is a perfectly fair observation. It falls down because it is based on a false premise set up in the first sentence. Apart from Steigmann-Gall, whose work was not published at the time this was written, nobody has ever claimed that all Nazis were God-fearing Christians (even RSG doesn't claim it of all of them). Many undoubtedly were, worried by the rise of atheism on the Marxist left and moving to the authoritarian right as a bulwark against it. Many were former Socialists, however, disturbed by the flagrantly anti-Nationalist rhetoric of the Communists, who were most certainly not. A large number sat somewhere in between. Carrier appears to have taken an oft repeated, and in my view accurate, claim that Hitler's speeches were propaganda aimed at reassuring the majority of Germans who were God-fearing Christians, and changed it to mean something else entirely. It is noticeable both that Carrier provides no source for his extraordinary claim, and that it did not survive into the peer-reviewed article. It exists only on this very doubtful and clearly biased website. I have therefore removed it.86.149.32.170 (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you need to have sources of various beliefs to 'balance out the opinions' then you should be using them for quoted opinions, not sources. It seems like Hitler's political and religious beliefs motivate many people to assert that they aren't like him, and this motivates bias, because they don't want to be perpetually stuck on the end of an "Well, Hitler believed that too" argument. Please don't bring your personal feelings to Wikipedia unless it gives you energy to contribute something beneficial. People are here to learn, not to be brainwashed or sift through material that only you understand or find relevant. I'm speaking generally to everyone editing here.

I did use that Carrier quote as a quoted opinion. Yes, you are right many Christians are trying to assert that that Hitler was not a Catholic, despite him saying that he was over and over again, and despite many scholarly opinion such as Carrier and Toland. This is why I got involved in the first place, since the article had regressed to the point that the opening sentence of the opening summary read "Hitler was atheist". -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk). Please do not break comments between a user's comment start and their signature.

Also, just because an author is religious or from a theological school does not make him a fringe source. Many of Wikipedia's articles are made up from quotes and citations from authors with a theological education, and for some topics they are the only available sources. Yes, even articles about history. Background and affiliation do not mean its a bad source. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess we know where you stand with your oh so typical Christian hypocrisy. Let us apply your logic to other sources and say "just because an author is an atheist does not make him a fringe source. Capice? I notice you only hypocritically applied this line of reasoning to defend Christian apologists, but when it comes to atheists, it somehow makes them a fringe source that they are atheists. -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk)

Upon further reviewing WP: Reliable Sources and the comments in this discussion, along with comments of both users, I'm going to give my consensus that the Carrier source does not belong here. If we look at the Wikipedia articles for any of the men mentioned in this debate, only Carrier is sited as an individual with a religio-political agenda. The following sentence even says " However, the widespread consensus among historians,[82] sustained over a long period of time since the initial work of William L. Shirer in the 1960s,[83] is that Hitler was undoubtedly anti-clerical and that the views expressed in Trevor-Roper's translation of Table Talk, are credible and reliable, although as with all historical sources, a high level of critical awareness about its origins and purpose are advisable in using it." Do you have any sources other than Carrier to show that this is not an isolated idea? General consensus on other Wikiedpia articles, like Adolf Hitler, show him as a non-religious person. Using simply the Carrier quotation to throw doubt on all of these sources and information in a sub-article could be construed as a POV Fork maneuver. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Carrier source in question was already removed. You are now removing an additional source. Also, checked the Carrier article, could not find your reference. Keep in mind that it would be IRRELEVANT WHAT HIS POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE! Isn't what you JUST SAID? Your Christian hypocrisy is absolutely ASTOUNDING. -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk)

Because the discussion has gone cold, I'm removing that bit, especially as the lead-in for that section, until more sources are found to make the claim. Edit: Upon further reading of the Carrier sources, there is a clearly stated agenda relating to the ideological blame-game I mentioned in my earlier post. Protestants, Catholics, and Atheists have long been pointing fingers at each other as responsible for Hitler's behavior, despite (imo) his sharing common beliefs and influences from all of these. This article is not anyone's forum for trying to end common rhetoric, and, indeed, for a year it seems users have been fervently angling for this very thing. This should not even be an issue, because the article already states well enough Hitler's influences and beliefs, and never points a finger at atheists.

It seems like you are getting defensive, because no one is saying the article is "pointing fingers at atheists". You are the one who is feeling attacked therefore you are saying well, we didn't attack the atheists so why are they attacking us? -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk) Please do not break comments between a user's comment start and their signature.

PLEASE DO NOT USE BOLD TYPEFACE- IT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE YOU ARE YELLING AT ME. It is common in internet circles that BOLD TYPEFACE IS AKIN TO INSULTING OR YELLING.Greengrounds (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked Carrier's sources in the article of his I had access to, and they were just mostly defunct links to other atheist websites. Going to do some digging with the links in the header. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

More hypocrisy. When it's Christian authors who have links to Christian schools, Christian websites, Christian agendas, it's no issue but when it's an atheist that has GASP links to ATHEIST websites, then the source is invalid. I am undoing your edits. If you want re org the section so it's not the lead, then fine go ahead and put your agenda all over it. But the source is valid and applicable so I think it should stay. -- unsigned by User:Greengrounds (talk)

A person's background has no bearing on their reliability. But if a source has an agenda, a problem arises, but not always. Keep in mind that you're editing a discussion about a historical person's religious beliefs, which involves religion and history, something which historians with a theological background would be interested in and possibly write more than others historians. Those sources may be biased, but if you only way to see that is through their religious background rather than their clearly stated intentions (as the Carrier source), then the bias is less tangible. The source you added is a person promoting atheism, and using the subject specifically with the intent to assign religious beliefs to Adolf Hitler while denying any sort of atheistic connection to him. I asked you to provide more sources so that the material could be included. From the time stamps on my entrees, you can clearly see that I spent hours researching sources and opinions here. Please do not revert without reading my posts (or at least without responding to anything I said) and then call me biased simply for not agreeing with you. If you think I'm being biased, please flag me to a moderator instead of ignoring me.

As said, this is not a forum for anyone to say that their opinions do not align to Adolf Hitler's, not a forum for anyone to assign his beliefs to other people. I've found other problems with the article, like a very apologetic attitude toward Social Darwinism, where its pointed out that he 'didn't advocate Social Darwinism, [he merely practiced it]'. Those will hopefully be getting the boot soon. Your material is not so questionable; all we need is more sources to confirm notability and to dissuade raised opinions about 'partisanship'. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read your unsigned comments in between my updating comments. Again, please do not accuse me of bias. Please remember to sign your comments so that its easier to see. Please don't type in all caps; in internet culture this can be viewed as 'yelling' or an insult. If you mean to italicize your statements, there's a button for that in the top left of the edit toolbar. The problem is not so much the religio-political beliefs of the source, its that the source is using the material to promote his religio-political beliefs, that the source adds little to the actual topic, and is being heavily defended by a small group of editors with the same minority religio-political background. That may be okay, but when those things align it raises red flags to me.

I'll check the theologians' content to see if there's any offending material. I thought you meant you merely objected to their background. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed the offending line with the theologian sources. The problem I see is that the line where the Theologians have been added is apologetic and seems to be meant to excuse any material found in the rest of the section (given the edit war, I came to this conclusion by assuming that the material was biased). This also appears to be tied up in the edit war between Greengrounds and the IP address user and I don't really feel like reading why every single one of those edits was made. I don't think the situation between the two of you belongs on Wikipedia. I'd move to scrap that sentence at the beginning of the section. I only looked at the Bytwerk source, because in-between doing so I saw that your edits removing it were based on the religious background of the source and your personal opinion of religious universities (which is not a commonly held opinion, as far as I know, outside of religious universities giving fringe religious opinions on evolution and other scientific theories). I saw nothing wrong with the Bytwerk source: the sited opinion was readily located in the text and Bytwerk is noted historian with published works discussing Adolph Hitler. I did not see any links to Christian websites. Perhaps the sources were theologians because the user is more familiar with theological authors, but the actual sentence (the context is the problem) is a theme in the rest of the article. I doubt it would be hard to find similar statements ('Hitler's public messages were propaganda and one must read between the lines' and 'Propaganda is meant to reeducate to a specific viewpoint') from sources with a completely secular background. That isn't necessary, though, because Wikipedia does not discriminate sources simply based on their religious beliefs. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Finished review. None of the offending links from the historians from theological schools use links to Christian websites as sources, at least not in the statements for which the material was sourced. They are all published books. If you find something problematic in a source, please note it specifically. Otherwise, editors waste their valuable time doing research just to come up empty handed. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this a "propagandist atheist" source? "German Studies Review 26 (3): 561-576." Because that is the source you were trying to erase. Carrier has been discussed at length in this talk page, please do some more research on it. How dare you say that Carrier has an agenda while a devout Christian educated at fringe Christian universities has no agenda. Please look into the education of Carrier vs. someone educated at "Calvin College" where the motto is "my heart I give to you lord promptly and sincerely." Then tell me who has the agenda. Who has the apologist and skewed world view? Furthermore, if you have an issue with my tone or my punctuation, go ahead and make another complaint to deadbeef LOL good work.Greengrounds (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2013

(UTC)

Also, Iron Maiden, don't you find it slightly odd how quick you are to dismiss Christian schools giving "fringe opinions on evolution and other scientific theories" as something that is irrelevant to their credibility? IS'T THAT WHAT UNIVERSITIES ARE FOR? To teach people how to use the scientific method? Oh. Yes, that is what NON CHRISTIAN, SECULAR universities are for. Thank you. Please remind me what Christian universities are for, if not to propogate a different world view, a lie at all costs to protect the scriptures EVEN TO THE POINT OF giving "FRINGE OPINIONS ON EVOLUTION". Pls explain what I'm missing here. Excuse me but if they are not teaching science than what are they teaching? OH YEAH! They are teaching Christian apologetics!Greengrounds (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

This talk page is not a forum for you to discuss the merits of theological universities. If you have a problem with such sources ever being used on Wikipedia, I recommend you use the proper channels for getting that made into a proper WP. I can't help you there. As it stands, its allowed on Wikipedia. The 'its needed for balance' argument will get you nowhere, and really the argument has little to do with the situation - perhaps, because we have American historians sited in the article, we should include some African ones. Wikipedia does not require that every single opinion be reflected. I suggest this is because you see the article as involving Christians vs Atheists, stemming from an idea (which Carrier promotes) that there is a conspiracy among Christians to supplant evidence that Hitler was a Christian. Note, though, that you are the one making edits along the lines of "Hitler was just a Catholic" rather than "Hitler had a complex philosophy with diverse and ever-changing set of religious beliefs", which is the truth and well presented in the article already. My problem with the Carrier source from his German Studies is the vocal opinion and agenda from users; just as I have a similar problem with the line with the theologically educated historians. Also, that Carrier source is not given such weight in the Table Talk article that it seems to be the topic of discussion, as it is presented here. I already recommended removing the line sourced by the theologically educated historians; what more do you want? I suggest that you are way too close to this subject, and perhaps you should steer clear from articles which touch on religion. Your hatred of Christians is palpable, and bringing out your animosity towards any religious group is not appropriate here. Assigning your opponents to that religious group is also not appropriate. Still, I'd like to find a solution which you can agree with. I'd recommend removing the theologians, removing the Ffrf link, and presenting the German Studies reference as a counter to a popular opinion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The talk page is not a forum for you to discuss the merits of historians who are atheists. Do you see the hypocrisy in your statement now? Go ahead and move the Carrier reference, if you feel you need to do that to BALANCE the article to better suit your agenda. I already suggested that. I'd like to keep this conversation productive, so please read my comments before making me repeat myself. As for "popular opinion", please clarify what you think the popular opinion is that you think Carrier is countering? Also my animosity is towards your astounding hypocrisy in selectively applying your logic. Do as I say not as I do.Greengrounds (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I checked the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, and theological education was not mentioned. It did mention fringe theories on evolution and other common scientific ideas, but that doesn't apply here. I never challenged Carrier's ability as a historian based on his atheism. Most historians are biased to one viewpoint, and we are allowed to quote and source these. In my opinion, I noticed distinct interest group activity. I believe would have done the same if it were any other group. I have no connection or interest in theological education or the churches. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's Table Talk

Since this book is mistranslated, can you also include the original German for any quotes mentioned? Maybe use the same template as Enabling_Act_of_1933#Text

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.67.248 (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Introduction at May 2013

Please review following text for introduction, to replace the essentially incomplete (and even misleading) April text. In particular, this text provides a more accurate summary of what Speer, Toland and Bullock wrote on the topic, as well as adding material from Phayer and Kershaw, not previously included:

Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic, anticlerical father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. Though never formally expelled from the Catholic Church, he later had "no attachment to it" and became hostile to its teachings. Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's adult religious views, including his relationship to Christianity and the Catholic church.

According to Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, amid political associates, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", yet conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and around 1937, amid an exodus of Nazis from the Catholic fold, he ordered his chief associates to remain members of the church. According to transcripts edited by Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann, in the 1940s, Hitler spoke of Christianity as "absurdity" and "humbug" founded on "lies" with which he could "never come personally to terms."

Hitler biographers John Toland, Ian Kershaw and Alan Bullock all noted that Hitler was anticlerical. Toland wrote that Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", but said that in 1941 Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy". Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism. Toland also wrote that some who met Hitler were convinced that he was a committed believer. To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, able to disguise his inner beliefs, yet he clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question" in Germany, evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility" towards them. According to Bullock, though Hitler retained respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, he was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest.

In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches Hitler often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. In religious policy in office, Hitler instigated an all-out persecution of Jews - based on racial rather than religious grounds - and permitted or encouraged varying degrees of interference, harassment and persecution of Christian churches.

Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament that he would not interfere with the rights of the churches. With power secured in Germany, Hitler quickly broke this promise. He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. He attempted to Nazify German Protestants in a Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt backfired with the formation of the anti-Nazi Confessing Church. He instigated an aggressive persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses because of their religious objection to military service and pledges of allegiance to the state.

Bullock and Kershaw wrote that Hitler intended to eradicate Christianity under a Nazi future. Many historians have written that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible". Historian Michael Phayer wrote that by the latter 1930s, church officials knew that the long term aim of Hitler was the "total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion".

Ozhistory (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe there needs to be a section headed "Introduction", but the above is far too long to be considered for the lead. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cesiumfrog that it is far too long. Furthermore, I don't even know where to begin with what is wrong with the wording, context and biased viewpoint that it presents. You have really gone the extra mile in using quote mining, blanket statements, and opinions stated as fact in this lead, that we would really have to start from scratch in order to reach a consensus on this. Let's start with the initial lead that we had agreed upon with deadbeef, before you chose to ignore the dialogue and rewrite the whole section on your own terms. We can work from that one:

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

Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. In office, Hitler agreed a Concordat with the Catholic Church, and briefly sought to unify Germany's Protestant churches under the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen Movement, which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel. Hitler routinely violated his treaty with the Vatican and failed in his effort to Nazisfy German Protestantism.

In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. 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. Others reported he was a committed believer. Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war. Greengrounds (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The use of the words "ties" or "relationship" is too ambiguous, I feel; might appear to mean that his dealings with the Catholic church/etc is a matter of dispute. How about "his (private/personal) opinion of"? I don't see what exactly is wrong with the text. It presents several viewpoints and there's no obvious use of language to give credence to one over another. Can you address some specifically? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ironmaiden, as I understand it, Greengrounds central objections to the expanded text are that: firstly, it states too plainly that there are historians who believe Hitler did not believe in God (or specifically that leading Hitler biographer Alan Bullock believed this); and secondly that various authorities on the Third Reich have written that Hitler was hostile to the Christian Churches and/or Catholic Church (Bullock, Kerhsaw, Phayer, Encyclopedia Britannica etc etc etc). In April, Greengrounds pushed for selected quotes from Albert Speer and John Toland to be placed in the lead, however now does not appear to wish their full views to be stated. Greengrounds believes Hitler was a "devout Catholic", therefore he says, any contrary assessments of an historian like Alan Bullock (and now authors like Speer) must not be allowed to appear in our lead (despite the fact that they appear in our article), even with the caveat that there are differing or contradictory views on Hitler and religion. In his memoir, Speer wrote that Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church to his political associates" and further, that as chief architect he was told that there would be no space for churches in the designs for the new Berlin. You don't get that impression from the selective text appearing in the April draft. So, for accuracy purposes, we need to adjust the April text, simply by completing the Speer, Bullock and Toland quotes for a start, and for further opinion can add Ian Kershaw and Michael Phayer's highly relevant remarks. Finally though, I agree with Cesiumfrog (and Greengournds) above that shorter is better, and will work on a shorter version, which still addresses these accuracy concerns. Ozhistory (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

What views are stated by speer and toland that you think I have an objection with? You are the one who is trying to twist their words to suit your own agenda, and I've seen you do that over and over. Greengrounds (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither Speer nor Toland call Hitler a "devout Catholic". Toland is critical of the RCC, but his criticisms are not unqualified "the Pope is no friend of mine", he quotes Hitler as saying. Speer gives alot of context eg "Hitler made harsh pronouncements on the church" and it "obstinately opposed him" and there was to be no room for churches his designs for the new Berlin etc. See below. Ozhistory (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Shorter re-write, May 2013

Adolf Hitler was the son of an anticlerical father and a practicing Catholic mother. Though remaining nominally Catholic, Hitler was anticlerical, and became hostile to the church's teachings. In office, Hitler sought to exterminate Judaism (on racial rather than religious grounds), and persecuted the Christian Churches. Many historians have written that Hitler had a long term plan to destroy Christianity within the Third Reich.

Differing accounts of Hitler's views on religion exist. According to Speer, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument". Amid heightened church-state tensions in 1937, he therefore ordered chief associates to remain members, and did so himself - though having "no attachment to it". According to Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler spoke of Christianity as "humbug" founded on "lies" with which he could "never come personally to terms." Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism and wrote that, while Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", he was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy". According to Domarus, Hitler had jettisoned the last of his earlier religious beliefs by 1937, believing thereafter in a new and warlike German "god". According to Bullock, Hitler retained respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, but was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of survival of the fittest. Hitler convinced some that he was a committed believer. To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, who disguised his inner beliefs, yet clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question", evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility".

In Mein Kampf (1925-7), Hitler used language affirming the existence of God, and significance of religion, but criticised Political Catholicism and the lack of racism in the churches. Campaigning for office, he courted the Christian vote and benefited from fear of atheist communism. In public speeches he often affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to World War II, Hitler promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy. Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament not to interfere with the churches. With power secured in Germany, he quickly broke this promise. He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. He attempted to Nazify German Protestants in an apostate Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt backfired with the formation of the Confessing Church. He instigated an persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that it was "incompatible" with Nazism.

Ozhistory (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This should not replace the current lead. Right off the bat, it appeals too much to scholarly opinion, and of course only the opinion of the scholars that support your viewpoint. Why can't we include scholarly opinion from people who have other view points? There is also too much irrelevant information to be in the lead, and you have clearly made an effort to use this irrelevant information to "apologize" when there is about to be a reference to Hitler's religion. For example: you rewrote "According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it." Amid heightened church-state tensions in 1937, he therefore ordered chief associates to remain members, and did so himself - though having "no attachment to it". What is wrong with this is that, we're talking about Hitler's religion. The fact that he remained a member of the Catholic church until his death is relevant. You are trying to hide this fact by not openly just saying he was a member of the church, but that he ordered others to do it, and did it himself.

The quote mining is all in favour of your personal agenda. For example, a quote from the table talk, which is under dispute. Why would you include it? There are far more quotes of Hitler professing his faith as a christian, so why not use them? Reading the article is like an exercise in apologetics and seems to be arguing with itself. It uses a tone that poopoos all evidence of his religiosity. The current lead is much more concise. Yours is far too biased, I really don't think should be the one to rewrite the whole lead.

While in your hands, the initial reference to Toland went from "Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism.[2]"

To

"While noting that under Pius XII the church saved more Jews from the Nazis than all other rescue organizations combined, Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his anti-Semitism"

To

Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism and wrote that, while Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", he was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy

And you this time you buried latest reference two paragraphs into the lead, between your hightly disputed "bahumbug" table talk quote and your Domarus reference.

Keep in mind, the scholarly opinion you keep showing is highly quote mined, and it would be very easy to find quotes of those and other scholars that contradict what you are trying to say. And you are using blanket staments to reflect the viewpoints of many scholars when they all have different view points, which furthermore cannot be summed up in one sentence. Greengrounds (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the original quote from acclaimed Hitler biographer John Toland:

"Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, 'I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,' he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God-- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.[Toland, p. 703]"

It was in the article in full, but you removed it because you didn't agree with it, Ozzhistory, you are trying to change the meaning and downplay it while only wishing to tout scholarly opinion as "fact" when it reflects your own opinion.Greengrounds (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, I did not delete the full quote from the article at all! It is still there! Could you try to stick to content discussion and STOP attacking other editors (currently, me!). And try to stick to the current draft v April draft, not previous intermediary material, so we can make progress. "Scholarly opinion" (ie history) is what wikipedia is supposed to reflect. I cannot understand your comment that the lead should not rely on "scholarly opinion" when you then want to quote John Toland (which is scholarly opinion - in fact one of the scholars attributed in the first paragraph). Domarus is an historian you referenced and he directly contradicts Toland's minority view that Hitler was a Catholic by 1941. That makes it relevant to the presentation of differing views on Hitler and religion. Table Talk, like Speer is evidence of what Hitler was saying to policy makers in Germany. His ministers. It is not scholarly opinion (so you should approve), but it is a contemporary account of what Hitler said. That makes it important. Why on earth would you argue that the memoirs of Albert Speer or the diary note by a general (ie "Hitler told me "I am now a Catholic...") is ok, but the edited transcripts by Martin Bormann (the man closest to Hitler from 1941-1945) are NOT ok?. Speer doesn't just neutrally explain that Hitler remained a Catholic and ordered his associates to do so - he gives background as to "why" (Hitler viewed it as a useful instrument - ie politics) and "when" (1937 - ie during one of the most intense periods of the Nazi persecution of the churches). Ozhistory (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The table talk is in dispute. It should not be in the lead at all, and but if it is, there is evidence in the talks themselves that shows Hitler was a Christian.

"The problem with these anti-Christian quotes is that the German text of the table-talk does not include them, they were made up by François Genoud, the translator of the French version, the very version that English translations rely on! Even if you believed the table-talk included the anti-Christian quotes, nowhere in the talk does Hitler speak against Jesus or his own brand of Christianity. On the contrary, the table-talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. Hitler did, of course criticize organized religion in a political sense (as do many Christians today), but never in a religious sense. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The reliability of multiple translations, from German to French to English.

3) The bias of the translators (especially Genoud).

4) The table-talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

5) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity.

6) The "anti-Christian" portions of Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

You assert that Toland is in the minority, but this is a lie. There are several scholars who are of the opinion that hitler was a Christian, but you don't give them any weight. Greengrounds (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you quoting somebody there, or is this your own list. I'll try to address the points raised:

1) "Hearsay" is rumour received from others that one did not personally hear oneself. That does not describe Table Talk, which is essentially a primary, contemporary source of edited notes taken down by scribes. Mein Kampf I believe was also began as a text dictated by Hitler, rather than written by Hitler - is that hearsay too? And what of notes taken by Speer - is that "hearsay"? (Interesting you note that Bormann was anti-Catholic. Why then would a "devout Catholic" as you term Hitler, appoint an "anti-Catholic" as his Private Secretary and the defacto Deputy Fuehrer?)

2) Multiple translations - a valid issue to raise, but given that Hitler and his henchman all, strangely enough, conversed in German, we are dependent on translations in all cases - whether it be Mein Kampf, Inside the Third Reich, or Table Talk. The fact that authors like Kershaw, Bullock, Encyclopedia Brittanica and Toland all quote from Table Talk is evidence of its essential bone fides - though if you are aware of alternative translations provided by reliable sources, please do present them (or bracket them as "also translated as").

3) The "bias" of the translators. Can you provide reliable sources for this please.

4) I do not know what you mean by "the Table Talk thoughts do not occur in other private or public conversations". Table Talk contains all sorts of quotes which are reinforced by other sources! To pluck one from the countless options: Speer (whom you view as a reliable source) says that Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the churches to his political associates in Berlin" and specifically notes that Bormann relished to take down Hitler's harshest comments on the Churches. Goebbels diary (per Kershaw & others) is another source, confirming Hitler's thinking on the Church Struggle.

5) You say "Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his own brand of Christianity". This comment seems to suggest that you are indeed willing to accept the validity of at least some of the Table Talk text. Good. So please note: the text says Hitler believed "it is certain that Jesus was not a Jew" and that the Apostle Paul "falsified" Jesus' doctrine. These alone are the words of a heretic, not a "devout Catholic". Agreed? As a sign of good faith, it would help at this point if you renounced the claim that Hitler was a "devout Catholic". Beyond this, the transcripts are thoroughly peppered with denunciations of Christianity.

6) The anti-Christian pronouncements contained in Table Talk are entirely consistent with the Nazi efforts to promote positive Christianity as a substitute for Christianity. The renunciation of the Bible and Jewish origins of Jesus (which "positive Christianity" entailed) was to give him a "false birth certificate" as Cardinal Michael Faulhaber put it in 1933, and the notion of the myth of blood and soil was, as Pope Pius XI wrote in Mit brennender Sorge in 1937, entirely inconsistent with Catholicism and Christianity more broadly: "The peak of the revelation as reached in the Gospel of Christ is final and permanent. It knows no retouches by human hand; it admits no substitutes or arbitrary alternatives such as certain leaders pretend to draw from the so-called myth of race and blood". Hitler, plainly was not in "good standing with the Church of Rome" in 1937! Ozhistory (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed that hitler was a "devout catholic" He was a Catholic, and later a "protestant", promoting positive christianity. no his comments on Jesus are not "herecy" any more than King James was a Heretic when he rewrote the bible. We have already provided citations highlighting the dispute of the Table talk, please try and keep up. It does not belong in the lead, is all I'm saying. Also you claim that his actions reflect certain statements in the table talk that he was against the church. That is a lie.

If Hitler had really wished to eliminate Christianity, then why did he act to unite the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany?

If Hitler wanted to denounce Christianity, then why did he remain a Catholic in good standing until he died?

Why did Hitler not break the Concordat between the Vatican and Germany? A case might be made that Hitler signed the Concordat in the first place, to help himself into power, but by no means does it explain why he kept it after winning power. His absolute power of the German state, Hitler could have, at any time, broke the Concordat if he was so against the Catholic religion. Why did he not do so, nor even consider it?

In Albert Speer's memoirs, Speer recalls Hitler as saying: "The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element." [Speer, p. 95] Although Hitler approved of destroying Judaism and other cults, never did he give orders against the Protestant or Catholic Church. Why not?Greengrounds (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, previously I have advised you of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policies and copyright policies. Myself and AndyThe Grump have noted that you are misquoting sources. and Deadbeef has advised you of the requirement to assume good faith and of no personal attacks. It is difficult for me to assume good faith in relation to your comment above that "I never claimed that hitler was a "devout catholic" when your [edit of 07:22, 19 April 2013‎] opened the article with the unsourced lines: "The adult Adolf Hitler was a devout Catholic who professed his faith in many speeches and writings. On top of this you repeatedly call me a "liar" for referencing well sourced historical views!

Now to answer your questions, which demonstrate a lack of awareness of this topic:

1)"why did he act to unite the Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany": to control and subjugate a threat to his power (much the same as Chinese Communist Party created the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. I am sure that even you would not cite this as evidence that Chairman Mao was a Catholic). It's called Totalitarianism.

2) "hitler remained a Catholic until he died" - well I don't have to point you to other sources on this, as you already state above that you now believe : "He was a Catholic, and later a "protestant", promoting positive christianity." As you contradict yourself and Toland, I guess I don't need to.

3) Why did Hitler "keep the Concordat": he didn't keep the terms of the Concordat. "The agreement", wrote William Shirer, "was hardly put to paper before it was being broken by the Nazi Government". Michael Phayer too wrote: ". The ink had not yet dried on the agreement before the Nazi government broke it" Kershaw notes that "serious continuing harrassment continued" after the Concordat was signed. Paul O'Shea notes: "Between October 1933 and 1937, Pacelli wrote over 70 diplomatic notes and memoranda to the German ambassador to the Holy See, or directly to the foreign ministry in Berlin. Nearly all concerned breaches of the concordat...". Pope Pius XI of course condemned these breaches publicly in Mit brennender Sorge (1937)

4) "never did he give orders against the Protestant or Catholic Church" - wrong again. Ian Kershaw, p. 381-2, referring to the "continuing conflict with the Catholic and Protestant churches" wrote that "however much Hitler on some occasions claimed to want a respite in the conflict, his own inflammatory comments gave his immediate underlings all the license they needed to turn up the heat in the "Church Struggle", confident that they were 'working towards the Fuhrer'". William Shirer explains some of the actions taken against Catholics: On 25 July, the Nazis promulgated their sterilization law, an offensive policy in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Five days later, moves began to dissolve the Catholic Youth League. Clergy, nuns and lay leaders began to be targeted, leading to thousands of arrests over the ensuing years, often on trumped up charges of currency smuggling or "immorality". On Protestants, Shirer explains: "Hitler insisted that his friend, Chaplain Mueller... be given the highest office... [the leaders of the church proposed Freiderich von Bodelschwingh but the Gestapo] terrorized all who supported Bodelschwingh etc etc etc.

Speer said Hitler saw the church as a "necessary for the people, a strong and conservative element". Correct, Speer did write that - also that it was a "useful instrument", also that he made "harsh pronouncements against it". Hitler knew the political significance of Christianity in Germany. Hence my text: "Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument". Happy to extend that to: Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and strong conservative element". Ozhistory (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ozzy, please stop patronizing and slandering me. You have previously accused me of chaning my IP address to an IP located in Bangalore, and making edits from there. I never wrote that Hitler was a "devout Catholic", (which he most certainly was at times in his life. He was, however a Catholic to the day he died and was never excommunicated from the church.) I know this is hard for you to understand, but he could have wiped out christianity, outlawed it.

As for the edit you are complaining about, it wasn't my writing I simply reverted to an older edit, from someone else which was much more accurate reflection of the truth than your edit at [06:56, 14 April 2013‎], where you change the lead to "Hitler was an Atheist", and I quote you made this edit for "clarity".

Let's go back to before you and I got involved in our edit war. This is how the lead looked:

:Adolf Hitler supported the Deutsche Christen church which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel.[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 had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy.[4] 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. Others reported he was a committed believer.[5][6] Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

I think that was a great lead, we could revert back to it? Then you came along, and you made it look like this:

:The adult Adolf Hitler was a rationalist and a materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion fit for slaves, and a rebellion against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest.[1] Raised a Catholic, Hitler had some respect for the 'great position' of that church, but became deeply hostile to its teachings.[2] In office, Hitler sought to control the German Churches through Gleichschaltung and sought to eliminate Judaism by genocide. He supported the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen church which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel.[3] In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in adaptations of Christianity.[4][5] Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy.[6] 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. Others reported he was a committed believer.[7][8] Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Hitler appointed the anti-Judaist, anti-Christian Alfred Rosenberg as official Nazi ideologist and Martin Bormann as private secretary ('deputy fuhrer'), who together collaborated in efforts to eliminate the influence of churches in German life.

:So basically, your first edit is to make it look exactly the opposite of the consensus that had been reached by the community up until your involvement.

:And eventually, you keep editing until the lead simply states: "Hitler was an Atheist". Do not even get me started on what you have unilaterally taken out of the body of the article. I'm sorry, but I say again, I really don't think you should be the one to continue setting the tone for the article, given what you've done with it unchecked in the past. That is all.Greengrounds (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, the "atheist" line you point to had been removed by IP address 86.177.235.226 on 14 April on the grounds that it was "Perhaps a bit dogmatic etc". I accepted this as a reasonable comment, and at no point have attempted to restore the line. Your deletions began on 19 April when no such text existed. As to your other point, earlier I did confuse you with a vandalizing IP address, because sometimes you write with an IP address, and you, like that IP address were misquoting the same source in back to back edits. I apologize if the mistake upset you. But your own anonymous IP contributions have included deleting a referenced paragraph opening to replace it with the unreferenced sentence: "Hitler was a Christian and described Christianity as the “foundation” for German values." In the meantime, I have not been "patronising or slandering you", I have been trying to answer your questions with reference to sources. A process in which you seem unwilling to reciprocate. Ozhistory (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You and I both know that as a new editor, I was still learning the basics, and I still am learning. You are referring to a "revision" I made. Here is the is a sourced version of that

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

You see, Hitler did say that, and only a christian would say that, or someone "pretending" to be a Christian, as you would have it, and the only proof of this you have is 3 or 4 selected quotes from scholars, that you give an unbelievable amount of weight to even more than their contemporaries who often have a different opinion. The article currently gives enough weight to those selected scholars that you have chosen, and it doesn't need to give more.Greengrounds (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No Greengrounds, not "only a Christian" would say such a thing! A conniving liar would say it too - and Hitler was a conniving liar, (agreed?). He made this comment on 1 February 1933, when he was not yet a dictator and still had to answer to the Reichstag (the German Parliament). He needed to convince the Conservative and Catholic Centre Party voting blocks that he would not attack them if he was allowed more power. He made similar remarks on 23 March in the debate immediately preceding the Enabling Act vote. He declared specifically that the Reichstag, the President, the States and the churches would not be threatened if the Act was passed. He lied on all four counts. He didn't make such promises because "only a Parliamentarian, a presidentialist, a federalist or a Christian would say those things" (as your logic would necessarily imply), he said them because he was a liar. That's why Scholarly views, not assertions based on readings of lines in speeches, are the basis on which to open a wikipedia article. Ozhistory (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler may have lied about certain things, but many Christians lie. This does not mean they are not Christains. Agreed? Where is your proof that he lied about this? He may have violated portions of the concordat but he did not call it off, and neither did the church. Your assertion that he made statements because he was a "liar" a gross misinterpretation of the facts. Yes, scholarly views are important I agree, but there are many scholarly views on this and one or two selected scholarly opinions need not trump all other scholarly opinions. Agreed?Greengrounds (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"Where is my proof" that Hitler lied in his 1933 speeches about not intending to threaten the Parliament, the president, the states and the churches? It is in the history of Nazi Germany. Pick up any book on the history of the Third Reich, go to the index and look up reichstag, president, churches etc and see for yourself. Please read, read, read. Ozhistory (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

It is misleading to suggest 'there are many scholarly views on this'. There are aspects that are still up for debate, including whether Hitler was a Deist and how far he intended to take persecution of the churches once he had dealt with the Allies, the Jews and just about everyone else he hated. But among actual historians who make their living from writing about this, like myself, there is actually a pretty firm consensus that Hitler was an anti-clerical, more or less irreligious man. And yes, he was most definitely also a fluent and habitual liar. He lied repeatedly about innumerable things. For example, in the period 1942-44 he repeatedly claimed he was merely moving the Jews around to get them out of the way. He claimed he knew nothing about what was happening to them when they arrived at the place they were moved to. Does anyone sane actually believe these claims? Of course not! In public and to a lesser extent in private, Hitler was very good at presenting himself the way he thought would appeal to his audience, and that is one reason why it is not always possible to be sure about what he really thought and felt. However, deducing from his private statements, his actions, his personal attitude towards religious people and the writings of those who knew him best (especially Goebbels) we can make reasoned judgements about his views. If you have any good, solid evidence to challenge this, great, write it up, get it published through the proper channels and I'll be happy to alter my views. Until then, I'll stick with the historical consensus, and I think the introduction should as well.Hcc01 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oz, I think your 'Shorter May 2013 Re-write' has gone a bit too far. Hitler did not persecute Christian churches, he persecuted a few Christian groups and organizations, and gave mild resistance or hostility to other. Hitler persecuted some Catholic priests, but the church was still heavily connected to the Third Reich. I believe he wanted to exterminate Christianity in the end, or at least reform it. But he never got around to that. Publicly, his actions were wholly in favor of the Christian churches in general. Otherwise, this is too much to read in the amount of time I have right now. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks IronMaidenRocks. To the extend that it doesn't differ from the citations, I will try to incorporate yours and Hcc01's language into a new draft, while still addressing my central concerns that the cited sources are only partially quoted in the April version. On the question of what Hitler did "publicly", I would measure this by what his regime did, either with his tolerance, or inspiration ("working towards the Fuhrer" as Kershaw puts it), and by this measure Hitler's public actions were far from "wholly in favor of the Christian churches in general". Whether it be Hitler's interference in the election of a leader of the Reich Church, or indeed the very notion of promoting a Reich Church (I make the comparison to modern China where none would argue that Communist supervision of the church is born of support for the churches), or the widescale arrests, showtrials and disregard of church teachings on eugenics etc, or the senior roles he gave to anti-church radicals like Goebbels, Bormann, Himmler, Rosenberg etc - I think we can characterise the policies of the Hitler regime (ie the measurable public actions of Hitler as Fuhrer) as having been broadly hostile to the churches, with some occasional rhetorical exceptions, and varying degrees of enthusiasm from the senior Nazis. So on that point, our emphasis is different. Thanks for your comments anyway, it is refreshing to be disagreed with but not abused. Ozhistory (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Second revision to May draft for introduction

Adolf Hitler was the son of an anticlerical father and a practicing Catholic mother. Though remaining nominally Catholic, Hitler was anticlerical, and became generally hostile to the church's teachings. In office, the Hitler regime sought to exterminate Judaism (on racial rather than religious grounds), and persecuted various Christian groups and organisations. Many historians have written that Hitler had a long term plan to destroy Christianity within the Third Reich.

Differing accounts of Hitler's views on religion exist. According to Speer, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and important conservative force. Amid church-state tensions in 1937, he ordered chief associates to remain members, and did so himself - though having "no attachment to it". In the transcripts of Hitler's Table Talk, edited by Martin Bormann, numerous harsh pronouncements against Christianity and the churches are attributed to Hitler. Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism and wrote that, while Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", he was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy". According to Domarus, Hitler had jettisoned the last of his Catholic beliefs by 1937, believing thereafter in a new and warlike German "god". According to Bullock, Hitler retained respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, but was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of survival of the fittest. Hitler convinced some that he was a committed believer. To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, who disguised his inner beliefs, yet clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question", evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility".

In Mein Kampf (1925-7), Hitler used language affirming the existence of God, and significance of religion, but criticised Political Catholicism and the lack of racism in the churches. Campaigning for office, he courted the Christian vote and benefited from fear of atheist communism. In public speeches he often affirmed a belief in Christianity. Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament not to interfere with the churches. With power secured in Germany, he quickly broke this promise. He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany. In his early political career, Hitler promoted "positive Christianity", a Nazi aligned movement which rejected the Apostles Creed and denied the Jewish origins of Jesus and Christianity. In office, he attempted to Nazify German Protestants in an apostate Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt split the church, with the formation of the Confessing Church. He instigated an persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that it was "incompatible" with Nazism. There is some scholarly debate over the ultimate intentions of Hitler towards the Christian churches.

Above text incorporates comments from Greengrounds (eg, Table Talk is no longer quoted directely but only generically, to avoid "translation" dispute + Speer comment about church being "conservative force" is added); Hcc01 (reference to debate on long term plan for churches); Ironmaiden (language changed from "persecuted Christian churches, to "persecuted Christian groups and organisations"). A few general qualifiers also added like the word "generally". Pending responses, and if no substantial objections (referenced to reliable sources etc), I will insert in the next little while. Ozhistory (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Hitler's persecution of the Pagans and Atheists

Due to the prominent use in the article of the Britannica reference which states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with neo paganism, I though it should be noted that Hitler never actually banned major Christian groups such as Catholocism or Protestantism, but he did ban the main Pagan group. I thought it should be noted in the article that he did ban that group (as well as the main atheist and freethinker groups). I made an edit, which was reverted by [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]and we have discussed it on his talk page as follows:

You recently undid an edit I made on the Wiki, citing that you my sources "said nothing of the kind". I'm sorry if you were confused and unable to find the relevant information on the websites I provided.

Here is the edit you removed:

However, the Nazis actually banned paganism, while tolerating Christianity. Here are the links since they don't seem to work on your lovely page here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2racialreligiouspolicy2.shtml http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/181472.article

The first link explicitly says that pagans were banned. Click the link and push "CTRL F" on the keyboard, and search for the word "pagan". It will lead you directly to "the kind".

The second link, if you click on it and read the article states

"The paganists found themselves locked in an ultimately futile battle for influence over the "positive Christians" who dominated the higher echelons of the party. While Christians were tolerated, the paganist organisation, the "German faith movement", was banned by the Nazis in 1935."

Again, it might be easier for you rather than having to actually put too much effort in reading, push "CTRL F" on the keyboard and search for the word "pagan". Once you confirm, please get back to me or undo your revert.Greengrounds (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The BBC source does not state that pagans were banned - the word 'Pagan' isn't in the bulleted list of banned groups - it is a sentence following the list (though why you are using GCSE crib notes as a source, I've no idea - I very much doubt they'd be accepted as WP:RS for such matters while we have scholarly articles on the subject.) As for your second source, it states that the pro-Nazi German Faith Movement was ultimately banned. It does not state that paganism was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

So the German Faith Movement, a pagan group was banned. Does that deserve a place in the article?Greengrounds (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source that makes a direct link between Adolf Hitler's religious views and the banning, it might possibly - though obviously this would depend on the source, and on what it actually said. To make any assumptions about Hitler's reasons for banning the organisation would constitute original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, can you please peruse the article? There is a whole section called "Nazi persecution of the church", without links that it had to do with Hitler's religious beliefs. I will remove that section right away, just waiting for you to get back to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 21:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am involved in your long-running debate over the content of this article. I'm not. I have it watchlisted mainly because it has attracted vandalism in the past. I commented on your edit because it clearly wasn't properly sourced. Nothing I have said can have any bearing one way or another on other parts of the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy stated that to be included in the article it should "have a source that makes a direct link between Adolf Hitler's religious views and the banning, it might possibly - though obviously this would depend on the source, and on what it actually said. To make any assumptions about Hitler's reasons for banning the organisation would constitute original research."

I was looking for some consensus on which approach should be taken here, because there is the whole secion on nazi persecution of the churches which has paragraph after paragraph of information that is not necessarily relevant to Hitler's religious beliefs.

Basically, if we have information about his persecution of churches, why should we not include information of his persecution of pagan institutions. I would be open to including both sets of information, or removing them both, but I think it is inconsistent to include one but not the other. Furthermore, perhaps they should also have their own header. What are your thoughts?Greengrounds (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, the problem is that the sources you are citing are not peer-reviewed historical sources, which is what you should be using for Wikipedia if at all possible. They also do not say what you claim they say. The BBC site makes no mention of the banning of the GFM, nor does it say paganism was ever discouraged - indeed, it suggests it was strongly pro-Nazi. The review in the THES does say what you claim to say, but its veracity is doubtful. The THES has a strongly anti-clerical agenda of its own, and the review was not written by an historian. If you want to talk about the persecution of paganism, that's OK, but use Steigmann-Gall direct. I think you will find that he presents it as a much more complex situation than the very black and white one you try to put forward. Also remember this is about Hitler's personal religious views, so anything you say has to be linked to that - the reason the persecution of the churches is in this article is because Hitler had a hand in it - it's one reason why most historians have concluded Hitler was anti-clerical. There is a separate page on religion in Nazi Germany for anything else.

As I say below, this article is generating a great deal more heat than light right now. I think it would be better for a major copy edit followed by a lockdown.Hcc01 (talk) 08:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

References