Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:36, 13 January 2015

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

Final Remark

My family has a section of German heritage, and one of my arch-ancestors worked as the private, intimate "maidservant" (Platonic) of Hitler in his bureaucratic and daily life.

She told my other predecessor every single night, Hitler had SCHOPENHAUER and BLAVATSKY, SECRET DOCTRINE 1 & 2, on his table near his bed.

This is the reality, folks.

Simon Wiesenthal and Goodriche-Clarke have only stumbled upon the beginnings of revelation of knowledge here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 23:27, December 22, 2013

One day the full truth shall be revealed... Where did Hitler's obsession with the "will" come from? The mystical voluntarism of SCHOPENHAUER. Where did Schopenhauer derive his philosophy? Manichean-Marcionite esoteric Christianity and the "Aryan" Buddhist-Hindu initiates of Ur-Aryan gnosis, Judaism a religion of "unparalleled barbarism" in his own words; Schopenhauer even states Jesus was a disciple of Aryan Hindu religion...

Blavatsky was a hardcore racist according to modern understanding -- merely because her "Aryanist anthropogenesis" and "Aryan evolutionary progress" ideas are clothed in finery of spiritualistic terms, means little. She is one with Liebenfels, etc. The post-Aryan race of messianic hope is supposed to be composed of the elite of the current Teutonic sub-group, which Blavatsky hypothesizes as eventuating in America -- there is no celebration of intermingling of races (except Aryan, Anglo-Teutonic and Celtic kindred-ethnic groups) any where in the Secret Doctrine...

"It should be remembered that Blavatsky's works ... appear to be the result of prodigious scholarship and were extremely convincing in their day. The rationale behind many later Nazi projects can be traced back -through the writings of von List, von Sebottendorff, and von Liebenfels - to ideas first popularized by Blavatsky.

A caste system of races, the importance of ancient alphabets (notably the runes), the superiority of the Aryans (a white race with its origins in the Himalayas), an 'initiated' version of astrology and astronomy, the cosmic truths coded within pagan myths ... all of these and more can be found both in Blavatsky and in the Nazi Party itself, specifically in the ideology of its Dark Creature, the SS.

It was, after all, Blavatsky who pointed out the supreme occult significance of the swastika. And it was a follower of Blavatsky who was instrumental in introducing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to a Western European community eager for a scapegoat." P. Levenda, Unholy Alliance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 11:45, December 27, 2013‎

Why do random bits of trivia based on unverified claims about ones family get put out there so much? This contributes nothing to discussion or putting together a reliable entry on the topic. And the Blavatsky connection though interesting is on the level of conspiracy theory, it could be just as easily surmised that if Hitler had read Blavatsky at all it could be just to pull some quotes etc Czarnibog (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hitler remained a catholic until the day he died

The German priest-historian Hubert Wolf wrote in in recent book “Hitler remained a member of the Catholic Church until the day he died. Like the pope, even the devil could be Catholic”.(Pope and Devil: The Vatican’s Archives and the Third Reich, p. 271,) Adolf Bertram asked for masses to be said for Hitler when his death was announced. I have read an unconvincing attempt by an apologist to write away the memorandum but from what I can tell professional historians accept this was indeed the cardinals intent. "In April , Spanish students protested at the fascist regime of Franco sanctioning a mass for Adolf Hitler." (Protests of 1968 with citation). So what? I'm told that masses for the dead in that era were only celebrated for Catholics. I apologize if the article alludes to this somewhere, I don't have the time or attention span for reading such lengthy articles on a computer screen. Yt95 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The article should also describe how Hitler never stopped paying his Church tax contribution. Yt95 (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

In the case of your second point, yes, that could certainly be included if an appropriate citation could be found - I can't however think of one off hand. If you can provide one, go ahead. For your first point, I am slightly puzzled by the logic. It is several times stated in the article that Hitler publicly remained a Catholic. Nobody has ever disputed that, with (ironically) the possible exception of Richard Carrier, who doesn't know what he's talking about anyway. Therefore, it is understandable if less than creditable if the official head of the Catholic church did indeed order masses to be said for a deceased officially Catholic Head of State, just as Eamonn de Valera signed an official book of condolence for Hitler as a diplomatic courtesy. However, it should be noted that your claim about Bertram is disputed. More to the point, much of this is about Hitler's private views, which clearly became increasingly anti-Catholic as the years passed. While I can understand and sympathize with the desire to dissociate Hitler and Nazism from atheism - indeed it would be completely wrong to conflate the two because religious belief or lack thereof was not a fundamental tenet of the movement - trying to do so by twisting the evidence to portray his views as in some way essentially Christian as you and more than a few others on Misplaced Pages seem to wish is not merely wrong and facile, it is absurd.86.180.74.184 (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

That Hitler paid his Church tax right up until his death and thus can be considered a nominal Catholic is from The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945, Richard Steigmann-Gall, pxv. I'm unsure what you mean "your logic". It is a Catholic professor of history who is making the assertion and not me and note he doesn't qualify it with "nominal". That the Church in Spain and Germany considered him to be still a Catholic is surely worthy of note? Do you have an non apologetic source that denies Bertram at least had the intention of having masses said for Hitler (surely a pr disaster if any priest let it be known) ?Yt95 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Steigmann-Gall is arguing against consensus on the subject of the Nazis and Christianity. In fact, the cover of his own book says that. His assertions are contrary to what most historians posit. Citing him on this sort of subject is only authority to support what is a minority view. Mamalujo (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please show citations for the claim that Hitler didn't pay the Church tax until the end as being the consensus. If you mean Hitler wasn't any sort of Catholic at all then there are professors of history who say differently and I have given an example. Hitler himself declared as late as October 1941 that he was a Catholic and surely his own beliefs cannot be ignored and they should be in the lead. If I remember correctly you were the one who was desperately keen to claim Shakespeare as being a Roman Catholic? but this guy is one trophy you do not want? Yt95 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an non apologetic source that denies Bertram at least had the intention of having masses said for Hitler (surely a pr disaster if any priest let it be known). You haven't yet provided a RS (or any source that I can see - random book reviews from Google don't really count as sources) that states he did, and I think that you should make the effort to prove a point before demanding proof that it can be refuted. I think you are also getting a bit confused between 'public' and 'private' beliefs. Hitler stated in public that he was a Catholic several times, for all sorts of reasons, and refused to let Goebbels leave the church. His personal religious views however, which are what this page is designed to describe, appear to have been very different. It should also be noted that in many fields (e.g. genocide and Hitler's personal amassing of wealth) his public pronouncements were at odds with his private views and actions, and religion appears to have been another. With regard to Steigmann-Gall, I'm happy to accept the book as a RS despite some reservations about his methodology, but it would be better if you quoted from the main body of the text rather than a throwaway remark in the introduction. I don't have a copy handy to see if there is any citation. However, it should also be pointed out that Hitler could not stop paying his church taxes without being thrown out of the church. This would have been at odds with the image of himself as a Catholic leader he sought to cultivate, and provides in itself a compelling reason for him to keep paying the taxes. It should not be uncritically taken, as you seem to be, as evidence that he was a practicing, believing, orthodox Catholic in private.86.183.143.103 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The source I gave is indeed reliable. It's written by John Connelly a professor of history at the University of California, Berkeley. Saul Friedlander mentions it. I'm not at home so cannot give page ref just now (added p. 661)but this review The Years of Extermination: Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945 mentions it. Michael Balfour mentions it.. Guenter Lewy mentions it. Joseph A. Biesinger mentions it. Michael Berenbaum mentions it and there are probably many more reliable sources on google books as well. What is a true Catholic? Hitler may not have considered himself a good Roman Catholic (how could he?) but maybe some days out of the complex strands of belief/non-belief circulating in his mind he still felt some connection that convinced Bertram and the Spanish Church that he was still, however imperfectly, in the fold. I simply don't know but we should follow what reliable sources say and not indulge in original research. Your views may be of interest but do you have a reliable sources for them? Yt95 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead states "Unlike his comrade Joseph Goebbels, Hitler was not excommunicated". That Goebbels was excommunicated is news to me but on looking up the ref given it doesn't check out. Yt95 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yt95: Agreed, those sources all say pretty much what you claim they say. There are however a few caveats: 1) While they are (mostly) by scholars, they are not in scholarly works, rather in reference books and articles. The standard of scholarship tends to be somewhat lower in such items because of time and space constraints (I've written both types in the past, and I never advise reference books or encyclopaedias or news reports as anything other than starting points). It would be better - not essential, but better - if you could find scholarly works that make that claim, backed up with footnotes and with a detailed discussion of the controversy on whether the order was ever in practice issued (one or two of them do touch on it, as you may have noticed). I have never read Wolf's book - do you have a copy? If so, is it in there? 2) I'm still not quite clear on how you feel this relates to the article. It's about HItler's religious views - not the views of other people on Hitler, or on the reaction of the Catholic Church to Hitler (there's a separate article for that). Is there any evidence to suggest that Bertram's actions were based on a firm, valid belief that Hitler remained a Catholic? Because if not, I'm not convinced it's quite so big a deal as you're making it out to be. Again, this is about Hitler's private views.

'I simply don't know but we should follow what reliable sources say and not indulge in original research.'

Agreed. Or lead ourselves up blind alleys or indulge in completely unsourced speculation based on private religious views like this:

'What is a true Catholic? Hitler may not have considered himself a good Roman Catholic (how could he?) but maybe some days out of the complex strands of belief/non-belief circulating in his mind he still felt some connection that convinced Bertram and the Spanish Church that he was still, however imperfectly, in the fold.'

I felt there was a certain irony putting that remark next to this one:

'Your views may be of interest but do you have a reliable sources for them?'

This is not about my views, or yours - that much we agree on. The problem is that we seem to have a difference of opinion about the content and scope of the article. You clearly want it to include some of the less creditable (or indeed, dafter) actions of the Catholic church in relation Hitler, but my view is that would be better on this page. I am open to being persuaded otherwise if you can put forward a good argument. I will check back as and when I can - I'm very busy at the moment - to see what you have.

And on your original point, I am still not satisfied that you have proven 'Hitler remained a Catholic until the day he died'. He officially remained a member of the church, which is a very different matter and is not disputed in the article.86.177.234.245 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A "good scholar" can make some concessions in works destined for the mass market by leaving out non essential or highly technical information. Only a "bad scholar" sets out to target book sales by sensationalist claims that they would never dream of making in a more technical work. You can probably think of at least one book in this subject area that was rightly criticized through the choice of the books title, never mind anything else. As best I know none of the works I have quoted above would be challenged on these grounds indeed one of the authors you(?) use above (Michael Burleigh) gives a glowing review on the back of Saul Friendlander's book regarding the authors scholarship and credentials (a book I have). If you choose to use only journal peer-reviewed material then the article, indeed most of the articles on Misplaced Pages, would be completely gutted so I don't think that is a practical option. On the other hand if you have any journal articles that refute the claim in these books then of course please bring them to the page. You raise a good point on the relevance of the material. Cardinal Bertram's intention of celebrating a memorial mass for Hitler is one very senior person in the Catholic Church giving his opinion on Hitler's religious views, i.e if he thought Hitler had left the Church he wouldn't have considered celebrating such a mass. The header I used to the sub section was just paraphrasing what appeared in Hubert Wolf's book (which I don't have). Since Hitler continued to pay the tax and PPXI/XII never excommunicated him (Guenter Lewy thought it doubtful that it would have made any difference) maybe influenced Cardinal Bertram - I don't know. Everyone I think agrees we should just follow reliable sources and not try to prove anything. Yt95 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul O'Shea (OUP published holocaust author writes])

"#7: Why did he permit the German Churches to hold a Requiem Mass upon Hitler’s death? Meanwhile, there there was no papal prayer or Mass celebrated in solidarity with the Jews. The best known requiem Mass was that ordered by the Archbishop of Breslau, Cardinal Bertram, for all parishes in the diocese. In April 1945 Breslau was under siege by the Red Army, making the request for parish requiems all the more odd. The "best spin" was that Bertram was asking Catholics to pray for the dead head of state. I admit, it was probably not the most successful pastoral strategy.

Yt95 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Klaus Scholder's book perhaps gives more details. Yt95 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry YT95 but I still feel you're missing the point with this remark:

'Cardinal Bertram's intention of celebrating a memorial mass for Hitler is one very senior person in the Catholic Church giving his opinion on Hitler's religious views, i.e if he thought Hitler had left the Church he wouldn't have considered celebrating such a mass'.

As I have repeatedly said, Hitler remained a member of the Catholic church. That doesn't necessarily make him a believing Catholic, and the preponderance of evidence is that he wasn't.So I still feel that this would be better suited to the Catholic Church in Nazi Germany page.

'A "good scholar" can make some concessions in works destined for the mass market by leaving out non essential or highly technical information. Only a "bad scholar" sets out to target book sales by sensationalist claims that they would never dream of making in a more technical work.'

I wish - you have no idea how much I wish - that that were so. Alas, it isn't. More pertinently though, what far too many scholars do is oversimplify, leave out arguments and fail to check material added/removed by editors to make sure it fits the space. Even where we mean well, we sometimes don't have time to get it right - I've published popular stuff under pressure that I'm rather ashamed of with hindsight. In a peer reviewed journal article, that is much less likely (although it can still happen under unusual circumstances) and that is why it is prized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.140.98 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The distinction you make between Hitler not being a believing Catholic yet still being a member of the Catholic Church doesn't resonate well with me. As mentioned above its entering into the realms of "what is a true Scotsman?". As far as Bertram was concerned Hitler’s beliefs did not take him out of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Bertram was the head of the Bishops Conference at the time in Germany. This issue isn't about how many, if any, masses were said publicly for Hitler but rather that the head of the Bishops conference in Germany felt that Hitler’s beliefs were still Catholic. If Hitler’s beliefs were so out of touch with mainstream Catholicism such that, for example, he was considered to be excommunicated then there is no way Cardinal Bertram would have proposed such a requiem. The article is full of scholars giving their opinion on if Hitler was a Christian or Catholic but here we have a senior prelate giving his opinion and surely his opinion is worth more than know-nothings when it comes to Catholicism and canon law? Yt95 (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Klaus Scholder wrote: "So the paper shows that all down the years the Cardinal was not in fact acting out of tactical considerations, but that despite all the insults to the church, the threats and the persecutions, he continued to see and respect Hitler as the Catholic state head of the Reich. He did not have long to live to realize how wrong he was in this." (p. 166, A Requiem for Hitler))

On the letters between Cardinal Bertram and Hitler: Klaus Scholder took the view, based on 1941/1942 that Hitler had a growing hatred of Christianity so "It's not easy to interpret these letters " which are "unusually cordial". Scholder doesn't seem to be aware of Hitler's 1941 assertion that he was a Catholic and suggests "So Perhaps there were also distant recollections of the years when to be a priest seemed to the young Hitler to be the 'embodiment of all humanly attainable heights'; perhaps a last relic of a Catholic's respect, of which Hitler himself was hardly aware, the the church and it's hierarchy moved Hitler in these letters." (p.165) Yt95 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

YT95, I'm puzzled by some of these. Let's go through in turn:

"The article is full of scholars giving their opinion on if Hitler was a Christian or Catholic but here we have a senior prelate giving his opinion and surely his opinion is worth more than know-nothings when it comes to Catholicism and canon law? "

You have just referred to scholars as 'know nothings' compared to a clergyman, which given your evidently antitheistic religious views strikes me as ironic. Moreover, I don't think that's a very fair characterisation. The point is that we have to look at a range of evidence. That may include letters to clergy, remarks to confidants, behaviour, private writings, etc. etc. Bertram had only one real source - Hitler's letters to him (Goebbels and Bormann would hardly have communicated Hitler's private remarks to Bertram)!

'As far as Bertram was concerned Hitler’s beliefs did not take him out of the Catholic Church.'

Which presupposes that Hitler revealed to Bertram what his true views were. As you yourself note further down, he didn't. Indeed, Hitler's desire to keep in with Bertram may be why he was not excommunicated. However, as there is good reason to think that the main concern he had was not to cause an open rift with the church during the war, that doesn't lead to certainty on his private views. His de jure membership of the church is noted in several places, as is his lack of enthusiasm for it.

'If Hitler’s beliefs were so out of touch with mainstream Catholicism such that, for example, he was considered to be excommunicated then there is no way Cardinal Bertram would have proposed such a requiem.'

He was not excommunicated, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

' "It's not easy to interpret these letters " which are "unusually cordial". Scholder doesn't seem to be aware of Hitler's 1941 assertion that he was a Catholic and suggests "So Perhaps there were also distant recollections of the years when to be a priest seemed to the young Hitler to be the 'embodiment of all humanly attainable heights'; perhaps a last relic of a Catholic's respect, of which Hitler himself was hardly aware, the the church and it's hierarchy moved Hitler in these letters."'

Again, there is some reason to think - and this is also mentioned - that on several occasions Hitler expressed a certain degree of qualified admiration for certain aspects of Catholicism, particularly its widespread organisation and hierarchical structure. That is very far from saying he was a practising or believing Catholic. We seem to be mostly retreading old ground now - I've said most of this before. I'm afraid in light of this my final response is that I am not satisfied with your case that Hitler was a Catholic and that your evidence base is far too narrow to support such a contention. It would be of use in the Catholic Church and Nazi Germany article, but it doesn't match the aim of this article to document and explain Hitler's private religious views based on scholarly research.86.182.112.227 (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed we seem to be going round in circles. It's not what you or I think but what published scholars of note write that is important. You seem to be coming with some preconceived ideas to the article, i.e you first assume that I am an atheist because I quote the German catholic historian Hubert Wolf who asserted that "“Hitler remained a member of the Catholic Church until the day he died. Like the pope, even the devil could be Catholic”. As best I know Father Wolf remains in good standing with the Roman Catholic Church. You then class me as an "anti-theist" but could you please show your evidence for this claim? If you were correct, and you are not, then some might think you have a point worthy of noting (I would assume even an anti-theist can write and contribute neutrally). You write "His de jure membership of the church is noted in several places" and "He was not excommunicated, as has been repeatedly pointed out". There is one mention that I can see in the article that refers to excommunication but it is factually incorrect and the citation doesn't check out as I mention above. I intend to add at some point Hubert Wolf's assertion and frame it within the issue of excommunication and the diplomatic considerations that may have influenced the issue. That Hitler paid his Church tax to the end is also worthy of note and that will be added (see citation above). The opinion of the head of the Bishops Conference in Germany that Hitler remained a Roman Catholic until he died cannot be left out (See citation above). The requiem mass, and it's significance, is mentioned by too many scholars and unbiased reader I think would have difficulty justifying its omission. Cardinal Bertram was a expert contemporary witness on Catholicism and his views trump even a modern Catholic scholar who clearly doesn't realize how modern practice regarding requiem masses doesn't represent the norm in the middle of the early-middle 20th century (see my links above). You allude to your own scholarship which might be a subtle form of invoking authority and perhaps a certain right to control content? I don't equate you with him but the last person on a related Church page who claimed to be an expert in canon law and Catholicism turned out to be a fraud and know nothing who was fated to be spread all over the world's press. so forgive if we seem to be once bitten twice shy. I intend at some point to add Bertram's views on Hitler's religious beliefs and frame it within his knowledge of what the Nazi's were doing to the Church etc as the source I use above does. He wouldn't have had access at the time to Table Talk (to which Klaus Scholder may allude) but not every scholar believes that these quotations attributed to Hitler are reliable and that has to be made clear in the article. Bertram also is unlikely to have known at the time that Hitler had killed himself. Perhaps it's better now just to leave it until I get around to adding the material. You might then feel it's much ado about nothing. Finally and FYI only, I have never (unlike Cardinal Bertram) thought Hitler a Roman Catholic, i.e the adult Hitler seems never to have been in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Yt95 (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points yt95. Mama seems totally confused if not outright dishonest. As you mention he has in fact inserted his own Christian interpolations on reliable sources. That is lying. I might suggest that he stick to less important topics if he cant maintain academic honesty on the bug topics. I look forward to your improvements on this page. For far too long it has been getting tag teamed by Oz history, mama and one or two other teamsters. You bring up some very good points and much of that stuff actually used to be in here. But it has slowly disappeared with each NPOV edit from certain users. Hitler certainly remained a Catholic fr both his and the Churches perspectives. He was a Christian and like all Christians prone to sectarianism. No different than the Catholics who denounce "Christians" of other sects. When Hitler says something bad about Christians he's one referring to a certain sect. We know this because he himself was a Catholic Christian (till the day he dies, as he said to his general and the public over and over). But yet three confirmed palagiarized verses in the table talk and the apologists jump all over them and pretend like they weren't mistranslations by Christian translators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.17 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it's too much to expect A Certain Person to post something passably sane or unbiased, although I did find the irony of his comments on religious zealotry touching. I do hope he gets much needed psychological help at some point. As for 'flat out lies' from the man who claimed Irving is not a Holocaust Denier because it happened to suit his purposes...

YT95: if you wish to go ahead on the basis you outline I am willing to accede to your points. I still think this is the wrong page for them but I have to admit you make a compelling and well-researched case (and because I am anonymous, I fully accept your reservations about my status - I am not trying to 'own' the content but I may sometimes succeed in coming across that way without trying)! I have to say though I don't know of any actual scholar who doubts the veracity of Table Talk. There are, and always have been, some issues around the translations, which is a different problem, but the problems tend to be sins of omission rather than addition - Kershaw's your best bet for more detail on that. With regard to Catholicism - as Hitler was officially a Catholic (I agree, church taxes should be in there) it would be surprising if the head of the German RCC did not regard him as one of his flock - but I still think that is different from making a statement on his private religious views.

Finally I apologise for misconstruing your motives - I am still scarred from the behaviour of certain insane editors last year (Greengrounds in particular) and I thought you were another such. I accept I was hypersensitive and wrong on the subject, and I hope you will forgive me for my irritability.31.52.239.219 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Severe POV issues

This article seems to be pushing an idea that Hitler was deeply opposed to Christianity. What I find most concerning is the selective quoting from mein kampf because surely this quote

For this, to be sure, from the child's primer down to the last newspaper, every theater and every movie house, every advertising pillar and every billboard, must be pressed into the service of this one great mission, until the timorous prayer of our present parlor patriots: 'Lord, make us free!' is transformed in the brain of the smallest boy into the burning plea: 'Almighty God, bless our arms when the time comes; be just as thou hast always been; judge now whether we be deserving of freedom; Lord, bless our battle!"

- Adolf Hitler's prayer, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 13

Should be included. there is strong evidence that Hitler believed in "muscular Christianity" the idea of Christ the lion rather than the innocent lamb which was popular in the early 20th century, CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien both being strong proponents. for example this quote from My New Order.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

"good" Anti semitism at the least was an acceptable practice in the catholic church until after the war. this quote from the same book would indicate his anti semitism like most was borne from the treatment of jesus.

"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. "

Also some the sources are dubious at best such as the encyclopedia Britannic ones which themselves cite no sources.

This needs a major rewrite to address the POV issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems with this article is and always has been that it's difficult to get across the flux in Hitler's views over time without making the article virtually incomprehensible to the non-expert audience it's aimed at. The sources you cite are not unreasonable ones for inclusion, but they have two shortcomings: (1) they were written in the 1920s, at a time when Hitler's views appear to have been undergoing rapid change and (2) they were written for public consumption, and as has often been noted, his private views and public pronouncements were often two very different things. As late as 1933, for example, Hitler was anxious to conciliate both the Lutheran and Catholic churches because he needed their public support, but from those references we have in private particularly from Goebbels (who was probably the nearest thing Hitler had to a close friend and whose diaries are therefore one of our best sources for what he thought/said in private) he appears to have dropped all religious notions except a form of deism. This is one of the reasons for the contradiction noted at the very start. This complexity is covered far better than I can do it here in Hastings, Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism, to which I would refer you for more information on the subject.

Incidentally, you are of course entitled to put tags on the page if you think it needs them, but this is one that is constantly flagged up and so far nobody has put forward a very convincing argument for a different point of view. What we need are major secondary sources to support the point of view that Hitler was a Christian before it can be included - raw quotes not backed by scholarly discussion are just about usable but they can sometimes be rather dubious (see points 1 and 2 above). I only know of one that might qualify and that is Steigmann-Gall's the Holy Reich, but that's quite a marginal theory because most of its points have been toned down or modified by more recent scholarship. Other sources (like those put forward with inexhaustible patience by YT95 above) tend to focus on the response of the religions within Germany to Hitler, which is a different matter and for which there are separate articles.86.169.0.249 (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(PS: three quotations from two books are 'evidence' of a sort, certainly, but I would hesitate before calling them 'strong' evidence. Historians try (we don't always succeed, but we try!) to gather a mass of evidence and then consider it in the round before coming to a reasoned conclusion as best we can. That's one reason why scholarly commentary on quotations are strongly encouraged. Hope that helps.)86.169.0.249 (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and what's more - those kinds of public remarks made early in Hitler's political career are already noted extensively in the article. They are valid to note, because they shed light on Hitler's public relationship to religion at different stages of his career - but they must be balanced against the private (and more overtly anti-Christian) remarks noted by Bormann, Goebbels, Speer and others in their various journals; and they must be understood in the context of the political realities of Germany. Ultimately (according to wikipedia rules) their significance must be measured by serious historians of the subject like Kershaw and Bullock etc who by and large have concluded that the private Hitler was essentially an anti-Christian, anti-Semite who probably had some vague and self-serving notions of providence or destiny; while the public Hitler was a calculating politician, who saw the political significance of churches, and was prepared to bide his time for any show-down against them. Ozhistory (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Ozhistory and his two socks or sidekicks have bombarded this article into a pile of apologetic drivel. First off, "Hitler's secret plan to destroy Christianity" is based off three or four verses from the table talk that Richard Carrier in a peer reviewed journal has debunked as mistranslations (flat out lies by apologists is more likely). The argument is given FAR too much weight. Secondly he was opposed to some forms of Christianity but not all. He was a Catholic after all and even told his generals he would remain so until he died. Turns out the Church agreed with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.249.85.17 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that proponents of the "Hitler was Christian" line are incapable of contributing to this page without personally attacking anyone who sticks to actual historical consensus about Hitler? If it need be said, I am immune to such bullying and will continue to refer such abusive editors to historians like Kershaw, Bullock, Rees, Shirer, Phayer, Gill etc etc (there are so many) and yes to the journals and transcripts of Goebells, Speer and Bormann. Please don't attack me again, it's such a waste of time and in the end will only get you banned. Ozhistory (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking purely for myself (and I am, incidentally, Welsh and live in Staffordshire, so have no connection with Ozhistory, whom I believe is an Australian) I found it rather amusing that an IP editor with a suspiciously similar style to the one above began a comment with 'agreed' and attacked anybody else for being 'socks or sidekicks'!86.169.1.243 (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, though, though I have not forgotten WP:NOTAFORUM it is worth responding to this comment: 'First off, "Hitler's secret plan to destroy Christianity" is based off three or four verses from the table talk that Richard Carrier in a peer reviewed journal has debunked as mistranslations (flat out lies by apologists is more likely).' I'm afraid this comment is based on ignorance. Carrier doesn't speak German, or at least, not fluently enough to translate texts from it (which I would argue needs to be a better than merely good knowledge, due to the severe difficulties involved) although he may know a few words. His translation is deeply flawed (for example, anyone with a better than working knowledge of German would reject, and indeed does reject, Carrier's suggestion that 'Christentum' means 'Catholic' - it means Christianity as a whole). He has no awareness of the secondary literature on the subject, and there is every reason to think he mistranscribed the key sentences in his article because they bear only a passing resemblance to his source. It is also worth pointing out that the limited amount of secondary literature he does include is doubtful in quality and presented with a false claim as to its reliability. I'm thinking here of a diary entry on David Irving's Focal Point Printing website. Carrier described this as 'first person and credible' before rejecting the idea that Irving was a Holocaust Denier. It's slightly concerning that he didn't check out FPP more thoroughly or he would have realised that wasn't a tenable position. It is also worrying that he considers a source so patently untrustworthy trustworthy merely because it is 'first person' - two of the more amusing moments in the Irving libel trial were when Irving lied to the judge about what he had said to the said judge, and when he denied calling the judge 'Mein Führer,' a claim that didn't survive the replaying of the tape recording. Further, you say Carrier's article has debunked these claims - then perhaps you would explain why mainstream scholarship, most notably Steigmann-Gall and Hastings, ignore his arguments and relegate the article itself to a footnote? Finally, Hitler's anti-church stance is not merely based upon 'three or four' statements in Table Talk, but on a wealth of different material, including his actions in office, some of which are mentioned here, his work with Bormann on the 'church question' as it was called, and a number of documents found by the prosecutors at Nuremburg that suggested plans had indeed been drawn up by the Nazi leadership to launch a radical attack on the Christian churches, but that it was to be delayed until 'after the war' for pragmatic reasons. Of course, since after 1942 it was fairly clear Germany would lose the war, there is a reasonable debate to be had about whether or not these plans were taken seriously. They may have been mere fantasies, like his utopian city in Austria to house the museum of the Thousand Year Reich. But they were undoubtedly there. To present them as some kind of proto-Christian conspiracy against atheism is about as convincing as George W. Bush's claims that there were substantial WMDs in Iraq (admittedly, many people did find them very convincing). Hope that is of interest.86.169.1.243 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is one of the poorest articles I've seen on Misplaced Pages. It is very selective in its presentation of the evidence, gives undue weight to particular scholars while ignoring or undermining others, and has progressively eliminated evidence that apologists have found undesirable. I used to contribute to this article but found it pointless and not worth my time. I just don't have the passion held by the apologists, nor the patience for edit-warring. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait...why are we still using the Trevor-Roper "version" of Hitler's Table Talk here?

I mean, it was shown to be inaccurate decades ago, and included forgeries and mis-translations. I sincerely hope that some editors take a few moments to read the following paper, which includes my personal favorite line, at least in regards to this issue: "The immediate and most important conclusion is that the Trevor-Roper edition, the only English version in print, is worthless. No one who quotes this text is quoting what Hitler actually said." Carrier, R.C. (2003). "'Hitler's Table Talk': Troubling Finds" German Studies Review 26 (3): 561-576. (It can be found on a non-JSTOR page here: .) And if you think that this is "fringe" or something, then why is it cited in the Foreword to the 2013 edition of HTT? I mean, seriously? We're relying upon Genoud's outright fabrications and Trevor-Roper's usage of a mis-translation of Genoud? (Rather than the original German...) No wonder most people have a completely inaccurate assessment of this topic. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the section above, and the many others that have addressed the weakness of Carrier's article. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was Misplaced Pages, where peer-reviewed journal articles trump the personal opinions of anonymous IP addresses. Do you have any WP:RS discussing the "weaknesses" of Carrier's article? Otherwise, I will be deleting this sentence ("The widespread consensus among historians is 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.") which is cited to a book written at least 2 years PRIOR to the publication of Carrier's article, though it's clear that that sentence is someone's passive-aggressive "dig" at those who point out that it's quite clear that the book contains forged statements and mis-translations. Frankly, I'm shocked that Carrier's article isn't even MENTIONED on the page, even though you're apparently aware of it. (Silly me...I assumed it was UN-intentional. How silly of me to AGF when dealing with Christianity.) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 22:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Or you could look at the numerous other discussions of the Carrier article in the talk page and elsewhere. It is not at all "clear" that the book contains any "forged statements" or mistranslations. Carrier is a well-known ideologue with no special expertise in the area. We shouldn't be giving his article too much weight, though I have no problem with including it. One piddling article ignored by specialists does not magically invalidate everything written before it. As an aside, this page has to deal with dogmatic Christian ideologues who want to delete anything that does not conform to their view that Hitler was rabidly anti-Christian. It's tiresome to have to engage with people who adopt the opposite point of view that anyone who questions the objectivity of Carrier must be a Christian apologist. Carrier does his cause no service IMO by his exaggerations. Paul B (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

One less-than-glowing reference to Carrier's article is in Hastings' Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism, hardly a book of Christian apologetics. He writes: "On Hitler’s table talks in the early 1940s, which were saturated with deeply unflattering references to Christianity, see Picker and Ritter, Tischgespräche. For an attempt to undermine the reliability of the anti-Christian statements, see Carrier, “Table Talk,” 561–76." (p,251). Note the word "attempt" and the fact that he endorses the view that the TT is "saturated with deeply unflattering references to Christianity". Paul B (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I don't think it's unreasonable to say that Hitler believed himself to be some sort of follower of Jesus, having "invented" his own version of Jesus, but believed that the Christianity created by the church is false. In many ways there isn't much to argue about. No-one believes that he was a Christian in any standard sense. Even Carrier can't go that far, though he tries. It's really a question of emphasis. Paul B (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

He was as much a Christian as Osama bin Laden was a Muslim. All of this "No True Scotsman" hogwash is ridiculous. Even Kershaw cautioned people to put too much stock in HTT, long before Carrier had written anything. If we accept the Apologists' viewpoint that Hitler wasn't a Christian, then we are embarking on the same kind of thinking that modern American Right-Wingers do in declaring that Obama is a "Secret Muslim". It's just plain garbage, and more appropriate for discussion on one of those absurd History Channel "documentaries" where they try to claim that the Nazis were secretly "Pagans", space aliens, or Knights Templar. Either way, the discrepancies between Genoud's "translation" and the German ones are something that should be duly noted, particularly in light of the other forgeries created to promote the same nonsense (i.e., Rauschning), and it's telling that Genoud refused to show anyone the documents that he allegedly copied these alleged "Anti-Christian" statements that appear nowhere else... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"He was as much a Christian as Osama bin Laden was a Muslim. All of this 'No True Scotsman' hogwash is ridiculous." I'm sorry, I've no idea what that is supposed to mean. Bin Laden didn't profess Islam in public, while saying it was a load of tosh in private. We do not judge that he wasn't a "true" Muslim, any more than we judge that Al Capone was not a "true" Catholic. You are confusing two wholly separate issues. In the case of Bin Laden (and Capone) their religious allegiance is undisputed. Critics, however, say that they ignored or misrepresented the faith they professed. If Hitler had consistently said to everyone that he was a Christian believer, and there was no evidence that he had other beliefs, then you would be right. Christian apologists would be forced to say he wasn't a "true" Christian in the same sense that Bin Laden's Muslim critics say he wasn't a "true" Muslim. But that's not the issue here. He clearly said one thing in public and another in private. Even Carrier does not dispute that. We discuss how scholars interpret his assertions about his religious beliefs, which include his attacks, in private, on Christianity. Your analogy with Obama is utterly bizarre. If there was evidence from diaries and other records that Obama was seen praying to Mecca, reading the Quran and saying "Inshallah" at the end sentences, then there would indeed be a case that he was a "secret Muslim". So far such evidence has, surprisingly, not been forthcoming. There is a great deal of evidence, including even Carrier's version of the TT, that Hitler did not believe mainstream forms of Christianity. That he believed in God, at least in some form, is not in doubt. That he believed Jesus was a heroic fighter against Judaism is not in doubt. But that's not Christianity by any normal definition. There was indeed a neo-Pagan wing within Nazism. It's not fiction. Hitler, as is well known, did not support it. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mormonism is not Christianity by the "normal definition" of many (if not most) mainstream Christians. But that doesn't mean that those mainstream Christians would be justified in editing this encyclopedia to claim that they are not Christians. The only alleged "evidence" of Hitler being anything BUT a Christian are HTT, Rauschning, etc., which all suffer from credibility issues, and all claim to base these assertions on alleged secret, private conversations that cannot be verified. Compared to the overwhelming amount of public affirmations of Christian belief...they are given entirely too much "space". And yes, if you compare the claims made by the Christian Apologists on this page, they appear quite similar to the kinds of claims made here: Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. The idea that we should all ignore the wealth of evidence showing that he, (as well as the vast majority of Nazis in general), was Christian...and instead focus on some alleged quotes that are almost undoubtedly forgeries (just like Rauschning), is frankly ludicrous. On any other WP page, this kind of "evidence" would be laughed out of the talk page. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, the "Pagan wing" of the Nazis was tiny enough to hardly merit discussion. Most, if anything, were like Himmler...Occultists who focused primarily on Christianity, viewed through an Ariosophic lens. (i.e., you won't find many actual "Pagans" searching for the "Spear of Longinus" or the "Holy Grail"...LOL). Just because Rosicrucianism or other Christian-Occultism is not mainstream, does not make it "Pagan". --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no search for the Spear of Longinus (the spear's location was well known) or even for the holy grail, outseide the imagination of the makers of Secret History. However, they were both significant because of concepts within German nationalism (the spear is Frankish; the Grail exists in Germanic myth). Catholics don't think Baptists are true Christians, but that's beside the point. Mormonism is a religion that consistently identifies itself as Christian and in which Jesus is a central figure. Hitler did not create a religion in which Jesus was a central figure, he merely made approving references to him as an individual. If I make approving references to Paul McCartney, it does not make me a follower of a religion of Beatleism. There is no wealth of evidence that Hitler was a Christian believer. There are some public statements made for obvious political reasons. There is a wealth of evidence recorded by Goebbels and many others that Hitler was not a believer in Christianity. There's nothing remotely comparable for Obama. No similarity whatever. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Hitler did not create a religion in which Jesus was a central figure, he merely made approving references to him as an individual." So, I just imagined Positive Christianity? (And yes, I know that he didn't "create" it, but he certainly was instrumental in helping promote it.) Also, those who accuse Obama of being a "Secret Muslim" use the same "reasoning" as you when you state that, "There are some public statements made for obvious political reasons." Frankly, I'm surprised we don't see HTT on Snopes, like this: . (1). Please link me to any of these alleged "diary" statements of Anti-Christian comments by Hitler. (2). Please show me where being a "believer" is something that can be proved in regards to any historical personage. The facts remain: Hitler said he was a Christian. He said it unequivocally, and often. He promoted (a weird form of) Christianity. (Note: Aryan Nations (a/k/a "The Church of Jesus Christ-Christian") and the Ku Klux Klan are also Christian organizations following similarly "weird" forms of Christianity...but their members are still "Christians".) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Since I created the article Positive Christianity, I think I might be aware of it. That's not a religion; it's policy, prominent in the '20s. And it wasn't created by Hitler. It was more or less the brainchild of Rosenberg, a man who was explicitly anti-Christian. You are now being simply silly when you make more comparisons to Obama. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Obama has or ever had Muslim beliefs. Just fantasies from the web. There is abundant evidence from Goebbels, Speer etc that's already in the article. I don't have to link to it. Just flip thew page and read the freakin' article. Of course we can't 'make a window into the soul', as the lady said, of any historical personage. But that's an irrelevance. We have evidence of statements. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The problems you raised are real, and should not be dismissed as Paul has done here. Although there are some issues with Carrier's thoroughness, the problems he raised in his paper are pretty incontrovertible. The translations are presented in the original German, and portions from the English Trevor-Roper translation (containing anti-Christian statements) are missing from the original. There's just no arguing around that. It's right there (or rather, not there) in black and white.

What's more, the newest edition of the Table Talk states, "Richard C. Carrier has shown, the English text of the table-talk that originally appeared in 1953 and is reprinted here derives from Genoud's French edition and not from one of the German texts. Until a major institution finds a way to surmount the legal and financial obstacles that currently prevent a complete collation and publication of the various texts in existence—and can arrange for an English translation—this edition will remain the only one in English that is accessible to readers."

And Professor Rainer Bucher states in his, Hitler's Theology: A Study in Political Religion: "Copyright issues have resulted in the two different German versions and the translation is purportedly based on a third set of documents. As the English translation is not only of dubious origin but also of dubious intent and ideological underpinning, I have chosen to translate the German source material myself. (For a discussion of this problematic see: Richard C. Carrier, “Hitler's Table Talk”: Troubling Finds'. German Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, (Oct 2003); 561-76.)." Miguel Chavez (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Best,

'Professor Rainer Bucher states in his, Hitler's Theology: A Study in Political Religion: "Copyright issues have resulted in the two different German versions and the translation is purportedly based on a third set of documents. As the English translation is not only of dubious origin but also of dubious intent and ideological underpinning, I have chosen to translate the German source material myself. (For a discussion of this problematic see: Richard C. Carrier, “Hitler's Table Talk”: Troubling Finds'. German Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, (Oct 2003); 561-76.)."'Ummm - no, I think you will find if you check the book carefully, that actually it was the translator, Rebecca Pohl, who said that. It would have been an extremely strange thing for Bucher to say, given that he was writing in German (the original was called Hitlers Theologie) and worked from the original German texts...109.156.157.17 (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It's simply untrue that anti-Christian statements are "missing from the original". We may argue about whether or not specific passages were missing, but Hitler's dismissive comments on Christianity - as we normally understand it are still common, and have many other sources. The IP is correct. The passage you quote is from the translator's note at the beginning of the book. Bucher himself is clear about Hitler's anti-Christian stance, quoting a passage in which he says "its constructs will break down entirely one day". Paul B (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, the quotation comes from the translator not the author. Nevertheless I believe a German translator qualifies as an authority given that we are discussing exactly that topic, an English translation of a German work. I agree with you Paul that there are other passages in the table-talk (unchallenged by Carrier) that can certainly be interpreted as being anti-Christian. However my point was that Carrier demonstrated through peer-review that "portions from the English Trevor-Roper translation" containing anti-Christian statements are indeed missing from the original German. To say this raises legitimate questions is an understatement. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that, if you read the book further, it reveals that even in the original German Hitler's views on the churches could be pretty scathing (as the good Mr Barlow notes). Now, it's true that Hitler said one thing and may have thought another. In fact, we all know he did that. And it's also true these passages were edited by Bormann, who hated religion and loved HItler and wanted, therefore, Hitler to hate religion too. So he may have 'enhanced' Hitler's views but - and here is the snag - while it is possible, the evidence for it is scanty and rests upon the word of Picker, who was trying to sell his own version at the time he said it. So therefore, that theory (espoused by Carrier) is not something we can rely on. As for translators not using translated documents that miss out the words in question and mentioning in passing that there is an article that lists some of the issues, without mentioning its central thesis that Hitler must have been a Christian...do you see how weak that argument is becoming? Appeals to authority are of course dangerous - Einstein's much-maligned theory of relativity springs to mind, as does Darwin's theory of evolution, when it comes to successful insurgents against a hidebound consensus - but the fact is that Carrier's work doesn't really make the grade. Quite apart from his well-known fanaticism, his doubtful qualifications in the field have put it rather beyond the pale, and the continuing efforts of Carrier's admirers (such as, I fear, your good self) to push its central thesis at the expense of the vast mass of scholarship is wearisome.109.158.93.246 (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Byron, have you read the Goebbels Diaries? It's just one source containing records of Hitler disdaining Christianity outside of HTT that might change your view. Meanwhile, to address the underlying logic of your argument that Hitler must be Christian if he admired or followed things Jesus said, well this is not true either. If it were true - then that would make Muhammad Christian because of Jesus in Islam. And then there's people like Richard Dawkins, who was Christened as a child, saying things like "Jesus was a great moral teacher" even after becoming a prozlytic atheist. Ozhistory (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

punctuation and abbreviations

• Expressions like "pp. 61–74" require an en-dash, not a hyphen, per WP:MOS. I just fixed hundreds of punctuation errors.
• "p." means "page" and "pp." means pages. (Doesn't everyone learn that in elementary school?)
• "p.41", with no space between the period and the number, is a typo. Isn't it?

2601:2:4D00:27B:84D1:1B48:BEBE:2AF4 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hitler was a devout Roman Catholic

Hitler was a devout Roman Catholic. His attempt to exterminate the Jews was based on his Roman Catholic belief that the Jews had committed deicide. He remained a devout Roman Catholic all his life. Roman Catholic bigots attempt to paint Hitler as an atheist but this is certainly untrue. We must stand up for honesty and integrity and remove Roman CAtholic bigotry from this article. RHB100 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2015 (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