Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 30 March 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beware of using Speer to claim Hitler was Catholic

Beware of using Speer as your confirmation that Hitler was "Catholic". Speer did note that he thought Hitler had "no attachment" to Catholicism, but "remained in the Church" at the time of his suicide. BUT Speer also writes that Hitler intended a "reckoning with the Church" once his "other problem" was solved. This fits with what Goebells wrote about Hitler keeping senior Nazis in their Churches as a "tactical" move. This should also explain to the doubters why all the Hitler biographers state that Hitler was hostile to Catholicism. Ozhistory (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Ozhistory:, thanks for reviewing the article. I hope everyone will agree, now, that the pov tag can come off? @Hamstergamer:, still OK? JerryRussell (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually...not anymore. I have issues with the recent edits.

"Though he became hostile to its teachings in adulthood, did not participate in its rites, and planned a "reckoning" with the Church when politics allowed, he had not officially left it at the time of his suicide". There are several problems with this sentence. The most glaring one is the expression "in adulthood". I've already talked about that, it's biased because it blurs time. All the anti-Christian statements from Hitler date from after 1939. Hitler became an adult when he turned 18, but he was past 50 when he made those statements. That's why I replaced it by "towards the end of his life". Besides, this sentence is just repeating what has already been said elsewhere. The introduction already states "there is a consensus among historians that Hitler became hostile to Christianity towards the end of his life". Repeating the exact same thing as a reserve on the statement of Hitler belonging to the Catholic church is both needless and undue weight. Besides, I read Speer's quotes and I don't remember anything about Hitler being hostile to the church's teachings. How is "being hostile to the church's teachings" even a verifiable fact? Is there evidence of Hitler having a priest arrested because he didn't like the religious contents of his sermon? I always thought Hitler only fought the political side of the churches. If he had nothing against their religious teachings, you can't really claim that, can you? I agree with the part about not participating in the rites and the "reckoning" though, this can definitely be said. But as a whole, you can't put 2 lines of reserve before stating that Hitler was officially a member of the Catholic church, that's a clear undue weight issue.

"At times in his political career, Hitler said he supported "Christianity" in public speeches". Why add the expression "at times"? Are there times where his attitude towards Christianity in public was - not - open support? Citation needed? And why put "Christianity" in quotes? It's not in quotes in any of the sources, isn't that a No True Scotsman to imply that it's not "true" Christianity?

My version :

Hitler remained a member of the Catholic church until his suicide. However he did not participate in its rites, and according to Speer he had no personal attachment to it at the end of his life.

even the "reckoning" part, while perfectly relevant, has already been said elsewhere in the introduction, like in "Hitler eventually hoped to eliminate the Christian churches in Germany, although he was prepared to delay conflicts for political reasons". so no point saying it here. Again, repetitions and undue weight. Hamstergamer (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent version is fine. We cant really say when he became hostile to Catholicism as he kept his real views secret. Adulthood will have to do.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Hamstergamer that the repetition is undue weight, and that the scare quotes around "Christianity" imply a bias. JerryRussell (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Opposing "Hitler was baptized as a boy" and "he became hostile to the church's teachings in adulthood" implies that Hitler lost his faith as a young adult like Rudolf Höss did. That's a very biased way of putting it. I call that original synthesis. Hamstergamer (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with the edits (I edited nothing). The "at some point during adulthood" is good and putting it several sentences after the "he was baptized as a boy" removes the original synthesis. GJ. I think the NPOV issue is gone now.

Still one contradiction :

"he became hostile to religion, especially Christianity, at some point during adulthood" (wikipedia) vs "The Führer is deeply religious, but completely anti-Christian" (Goebbels). I'm not sure the claim that Hitler was against religion in general is supported. Hamstergamer (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hamstergamer:'s version of this sentence: Hitler remained a member of the Catholic church until his suicide. However he did not participate in its rites, and according to Speer he had no personal attachment to it at the end of his life. has been reverted by @EarlOfBagels: to @OzHistory:'s version Though he became hostile to its teachings in adulthood, did not participate in its rites, and planned a "reckoning" with the Church when politics allowed, he had not officially left it at the time of his suicide. Hamstergamer's objection to this formulation was based on WP:SYNTH, but mainly on a question about whether Hitler was hostile to the Catholic Church's teachings, or merely its politics. Is there a citation that could be used to verify the statement? Hamstergamer thinks that Speer didn't exactly say that.

Perhaps to further put the facts in perspective, the article should specifically point out that the issue isn't just that Hitler didn't quit the church himself. Just as importantly, he was never excommunicated by the Catholic church hierarchy, in spite of his misdeeds. JerryRussell (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry, misspelled @Ozhistory:. JerryRussell (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

My main objection to this formulation was the fact that it repeated as a reserve things that were already clearly said elsewhere in the introduction. So repetitions and undue weight. Look at my previous comments. The original synthesis was fixed by separating the statements so it's no longer an issue, forget about that. Please stop edit warring without debating here. The fact that Hitler was never excommunicated is said in the bulk of the article, just not in the introduction. If you want to quickly mention it in the introduction, why not. The relevant fact is maybe the fact that he wasn't excommunicated *after* his death, which isn't implied by what there is written currently.Hamstergamer (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hamstergamer, thanks for the clarification. Above you wrote, I read Speer's quotes and I don't remember anything about Hitler being hostile to the church's teachings. How is "being hostile to the church's teachings" even a verifiable fact? Who knows what Hitler actually thought, but the question is what Speer said about it, or what historians think in general? It seems reasonable to ask for a citation check. JerryRussell (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be better to ask for citation for an historian who doesn't say Hitler was hostile to Catholicism, as this is how his main biographers define his view of the religion. Who are the historians who claim otherwise? Ozhistory (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the lede

Apollo The Logician I don't necessarily disagree with your edits in truthfulness, but the lede reads better as currently written. Per pretty much all of the sources in the article, Hitler was born and raised Catholic, he remained a member of the Catholic church his entire life, he spoke positively about Christianity in public (especially during the early years of the Third Reich) and at some point became very opposed to religion and this is exactly what the lede says now. To write that he was opposed to religion in the first sentence, does not agree with his periods of positive commentary about Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam, in his early leadership of Nazi party. All of this is well documented in the article. Most is a weasel word unless well sourced. The average reader seeing 4 scholars saying the same thing will be construed as strong proof, there is no reason to change it to "most". 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

All mentioned historians say he was opposed to religion. "Skeptical" is just WP:WEASELApollo The Logician (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It depends on what period on the timeline of his life. No sources say he was always opposed, which is what your edit implies. Most says he ended up opposed to religion and that is how the lede currently reads. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No it says "skeptical" which is clearly WP:WEASEL. Stop removing most historians, it is the longstanding version.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"Most" was added this month. Before it said "many". "Many" was determined to be vague, so those specific scholars were added, which is probably an improvement. ] It reads great as is. The really long term stable version would have that entire sentence removed. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to re add many and if you remove it I will report you and you will almost certainly be blocked.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That was the issue, as I already noted and you were confused as "many" not "most" was in long term stable version. You shouldn't make threats when you are over 3RR, escpecially since you have zero influence on blocking me. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No I am not, that would be you. Either way none of this changes the fact that you are breaching wiki policy.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Umm, no you have breached policy. You had no consensus, you breached 3rr and you ignored the spirit of Bold, Revert, Discuss. i had to open this discussion and it never said Many, it said most. Happy Friday! 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Take a look at your own edit history. You have broken 3RR and have no consensus to delete many.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Apollo The Logician your are violation of WP:TALKNO and 3RR. When two other editors ask you to discuss you should listen and respect the process of Misplaced Pages. I have checked through the history and there is no 'stable' version of this article over the last 4-6 weeks. The best improvement was the inclusion of named historians instead of 'many' or 'most' (although these terms are variously included as well). Let's discuss the best way forward rather than resorting to edit warring and threats (which you are guilty of) Robynthehode (talk)

And he just edits it again anyway. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Robynthehode: Give one reason why many cant e included as well as the kid of historians. If the list of historians has been added then there is no vagueness.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

New edits

I am shifting alot of material around, in the hope of ultimately reducing the size of the article by deleting repetition, of which there is still much. I am also cross-checking sources which have often moved away from original text. Ozhistory (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Introduction changes - debate

The introduction has undergone important changes recently and not a single line of constructive debate has been had. Moving material from and to the introduction has obvious neutrality issues and there needs to be a serious discussion on this page on the recent changes to the intro. Personally I believe that any significant edit to the intro should be discussed here in a democratic manner - not doing so can only lead to ownership behavior and edit warring.

I see a lot of loaded language used in the introduction such as Hitler "oppressed the Churches" (used several times), or Hitler's "secretive and perfidious nature". This needs to be replaced by neutral words.

Besides, the reason why there's a debate is not Hitler's "secretive and perfidious nature". It's the fact that the information is contradictory : some quotes support a Christian Hitler, some quotes support a Deist "Gottglaubig" Hitler, and some quotes support an anticlerical Hitler. There's also evidence that his beliefs changed through time.

Hitler showing "skepticism towards religion at an early age" is NOT supported by quote at all, quote which can even support the opposite interpretation (asking a lot of questions = a fond interest in religion) ; and quote is NOT skepticism towards religion either, it's just Hitler saying that other people are skeptical, not himself - besides this is clearly biased since other quotes state that Hitler *does* believe in an afterlife. This "skepticisism towards religion at an early age" statement is really unsupported.

Finally I take issue with removing the dates for each statement - which I remember mentioning myself - because Hitler's beliefs evolved over time : for example "His remarks to confidants indicate anti-Christian beliefs" has to say that this is post 1939.

The section of the introduction on Mein Kampf has a significant bias. All the content is anticlerical and the passages stating Hitler's belief in a personal God were moved to the bulk. As someone who's read Mein Kampf from cover to cover - this is not an objective summary of the book's views on religion by any stretch.

Finally - and this is an old issue of the article - the "victim narrative" of the Christian churches needs to be challenged. The role of the Churches during WW2 is complex and is NOT just the role of a victim. Like the part about the Vatican officially celebrating Hitler's birthday, which isn't even mentioned in the article, and the Catholic Church's support for Nazism before WW2. Having only a few words on the concordat while repeating multiple times that the Churches were "oppressed" is a massive undue weight issue and a long-standing bias througout the article. Hamstergamer (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, more recent edits have expanded the citations you name as of concern, to give a fuller account confirming those historians wrote that Hitler "showed skepticism towards religion at an early age". I cannot see how a summary could not touch on Hitler's deceptive nature, but I have added the caveat "partly". Undoubtedly the man's views evolved, so I agree with you on the necessity for dating. I also agree the Mein Kampf section needs work - but keep in mind the necessity to quote reliably sourced historians, and not merely pick out original research quotes supporting your interpretations. On your final concern of presenting the churches as victims, I have beefed up the citations from which this account is based. This is not an article about church responses to nazism, but it does concern Hitler's view and treatment of the churches. In any case, the sources overwhelmingly confirm the churches were oppressed under Hitler. Ozhistory (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your recent edits. However the accusation of "original research" is completely baseless. Quoting Mein Kampf where Hitler explicitely states his belief in a personal God on multiple occasions is anything but original research. Original research is interpretation of sources, here it's an explicit statement with no room for interpretation, quoted verbatim. At most you can say it's primary sources, but on a personal issue like religious beliefs I really can't understand not giving any room for what comes directly from the horse's mouth. Hamstergamer (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous bias

A bunch of editors who have never read a serious book about Hitler are trying to distort this page to make it look like he was a Christian.

All of Hitler's close confidantes--Bormann, in his diaries; Goebbels, in his diaries; Speer, in his memoirs; and Goering, at Nuremberg--say he was anti-Christian and wanted to eliminate Christianity in the long run. That was also the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials. And all of the academic biographies of Hitler--Kershaw, Bullock, Tolland, etc--say he was anti-Christian.

Yes he made some speeches talking about jesus , and mentioned Jesus a couple times in Mein Kampf. The most persuasive explanation of this--and the explanation adopted by everyone who has looked at this seriously and objectively--is that it was done out of political necessity, in an overwhelmingly Christian society. Dude never went to church once after 18, leaving aside state functions. Steeletrap (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Your summary here is quite correct. We just need to work on sourcing for your summary lead. I'll take a closer look. Ozhistory (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: I am working through to cite your material where possible. Perhaps though you can do some cross checking of your own, as some of the citations you have left no longer match the line.Ozhistory (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Accusing editors of bad faith? "trying to distort this page"? Manners please.

Yes, Hitler was anti-Christian for sure starting 1939 as numerous quotes attest. However this says nothing about his beliefs pre-1939. There's a clear shift in tone from Mein Kampf to the WW2 era quotes. What tells you he didn't change from a Christian to a Deist during that time? That's whay Steigman-Gall says. Want to outrule his interpretation completely?

"He wanted to eliminate Christianity" : None of the sources you mention support claiming this as a fact. All the historians' quotes that support this interpretation keep the ambiguity between "control Christianity" and "destroy Christianity". Being a totalitarian leader, obviously Hitler wanted to control religion and sujugate it to Nazi ideology. However that's not the same thing as destroying it altogether : saying that Nazi-controlled Christianity is not Christianity would be a No True Scotsman fallacy. The persecutions of the Christian churches as reported in the OSS report as well as the Nuremberg trials speak of a struggle of the Nazis with the Christian Churches as POLITICAL entities. Identifying the churches with "christianity" is abusive because it implicitly forgets about the "control Christianity" interpretation.

Yes he made some speeches talking about jesus , and mentioned Jesus a couple times in Mein Kampf. The most persuasive explanation of this--and the explanation adopted by everyone who has looked at this seriously and objectively--is that it was done out of political necessity, in an overwhelmingly Christian society. -> Your alleged "seriousness" and "objectiveness" are irrelevant. Only the sources you can provide to support your claim matter. That's one of the possible interpretations, but if you want the article to claim it as the objective truth to the exclusion of all others, prove it. Hamstergamer (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hamstergamer, Bullock and Kershaw certainly do speak of Hitler and the Nazis hope to destroy Christianity. As do Speer, Goebbels and of course Bormann. The quotes begin well before 1939. The OSS brief in fact is explicit too: Christianity was a foundational ideological enemy of Nazism, not merely a political rival. Ozhistory (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Exact citations please. Hamstergamer (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Well Kershaw writes that in 1937 Goebbels noted Hitler was becoming more radical on the 'Church Question', and indicated that, though current political circumstances required waiting, his long therm plan was to eventually dissolve the Reich concordat with Rome, detach the church entirely from the state and turn the entire force of the party to 'the destruction of the clerics', and end the Peace of Westphalia in a 'great world showdown'. In 1941, when Bishop August von Galen protested against Nazi Euthanasia and seizures of church properties, although Hitler's sympathies lay with the radicals who wanted Galen dead and church properties seized, he calculated that this would turn Catholic areas still further against the regime. "Only the need for peace in relation with the churches to avoid deteriorating morale on the home front determined his stance", wrote Kershaw, "Events in the Warthegau (where by 1941 94% of churches and chapels in the Posen-Gnesen diocese were closed, 11 % of the clergy were murdered, and most of the remainder thrust into prisons and concentration camps) showed the face of the future."

Here's Bullock: Once the war was over, wrote Bullock, Hitler wanted to root out and destroy the influence of the churches, though until till then he would be circumspect for political reasons:.

In an 8 April 1941 entry, Goebbels wrote that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

According to Speer, Hitler's private secretary, Martin Bormann, relished recording any harsh pronouncements by Hitler against the church. Speer noted in his memoir that churches were not to receive building sites in Hitler's new Berlin. Speer considered Bormann to be the driving force behind the regime's campaign against the churches. Speer thought that Hitler approved of Bormann's aims, but was more pragmatic and wanted to "postpone this problem to a more favourable time": "Once I have settled my other problem," occasionally declared, "I'll have my reckoning with the church. I'll have it reeling on the ropes." But Bormann did not want this reckoning postponed he would take out a document from his pocket and begin reading passages from a defiant sermon or pastoral letter. Frequently Hitler would become so worked up... and vowed to punish the offending clergyman eventually... That he could not immediately retaliate raised him to a white heat..."

And finally Bormann - On 14 October 1941, in an entry concerning the fate of Christianity, Hitler says: "Science cannot lie, for its always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself." Religion will crumble before scientific advances, says Hitler: "The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

The OSS investigator wrote:

"National Socialism was by its very nature hostile to Christianity and the Christian churches Conflict was inevitable Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation by a complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion tailored to fit the needs of National Socialist policy. This radically anti-Christian position is most significantly presented in Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century...generally regarded after Mein Kampf as the most authoritative statement of National Socialist ideology. Thus in a declaration of 5 November 1934, Baldur von Schirach, the German youth leader declared... 'the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognised as a purpose of the National Socialist movement. Considerations of expediency made it impossible, however to to adopt this radical anti-Christian policy officially. Thus the policy actually adopted was to reduce the influence of the Christian churches as far as possible through use of every available means, without provoking the difficulties of an open war of extermination."

— OSS; The Nazi Master Plan; Annex 4: The Persecution of the Christian Churches, 6 July 1945

Speaking of sources, do you have any precise ones please?? Ozhistory (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not about me submitting my own sources to disagree with the "Destroy Christianity" theory. My point is way stronger than that. This is about *your own sources* not proving this theory in any way, in fact the sources you show, specifically selected to prove your point, actually support my point, which I clearly stated in the above paragraph. For me "Hitler wanted to destroy Christianity" is pretty much one big conspiracy theory with no valid evidence to support it. Stating a conspiracy theory that has a large popularity on Christian blogs on Misplaced Pages as a proven fact is the kind of thing that warrants a shiny NPOV tag.

Let's go through the quotes one at a time :

- Kershaw : This is a about a power struggle between the Nazi party and the Church as a political entity. Obviously a totalitarian leader like Hitler doesn't want the Vatican meddling with his business, he wants to control religion himself. This has nothing to do with "Christianity" as an abstract idea, the word isn't even mentioned. No plan to destroy Christianity to see here, and no evidence to decide between "destroy" and "control".

- Bullock : The "influence of the Churches"? "Delaying conflict for political reasons?". Exactly my point. This is a political struggle, not a religious one. Again, no plan to destroy "Christianity". And no evidence to decide between "destroy" and "control".

- Goebbels : Hitler is anti-Christian after 1939 like I said myself. Nothing new.

- Speer : political struggle and nothing else.

- Bormann : Hitler is anti-Christian after 1939, nothing new. Besides, this is Table Talk, which is highly dubious as a source, so the extreme anti-Christian sentiment could well be a mistranslation.

- OSS report : The only one that says anything of the sort. But there are multiple issues here. First off, this passage is exclusively about the Rosenberg wing of the Nazi movement, not Nazism as a whole, and definitely not Hitler's official stance. The quote is misrepresenting the actual message of the report because 'the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognised as a purpose of the National Socialist movement' is taken out of context. What it says is 'So as far as this sector of the National Socialist Party is concerned, the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognised as a purpose of the National Socialist movement' Second, while the OSS report clearly claims that the Rosenberg wing wants the destruction of Christianity, it's not exactly an ideologically neutral source. Is there external confirmation for this? When you look at Rosenberg's actual writing, it's pretty clear that he's talking about the version of Christianity that has been corrupted by the "Jewish influence" of Paul of Tarsus, and that he wishes to replace that with "positive Christianity" : https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Myth_of_the_Twentieth_Century. So are Rosenberg's writings anti-Christian...or anti-Catholic? Is there evidence of Rosenberg condemning Christianity as a whole? And third, Hitler has officially distanced himself from Rosenberg's "Myth of the 20th Century", and has never read the book himself :

I must insist that Rosenberg's "The Myth of the Twentieth Century" is not to be regarded as an expression of the official doctrine of the party. The moment the book appeared, I deliberately refrained from recognizing it as any such thing. In the first place, its title gives a completely false impression... a National Socialist should affirm that to the myth of the nineteenth century he opposes the faith and science of our times... I have myself merely glanced cursorily at it. - Adolf Hitler

Note that the above quote is POST 1941. After Hiter became anti-Christian. This distanciation from Rosenberg is in direct contradiction with what the OSS report claims in your quote : "Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century...generally regarded after Mein Kampf as the most authoritative statement of National Socialist ideology". Well, Hitler doesn't seem to agree.

So, the only thing left is the OSS claim, and there are a lot of things that don't add up about it.

The most you could say is "According to the OSS report, the Rosenberg wing of the Nazi party had the intention to destroy Christianity in Germany, although Hitler distanced himself from Rosenberg's ideological views".

Does that even fit in this article? This article is about Hitler's religious views. Hamstergamer (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You are pushing a fringe POV that goes against almost all of the sources in the article, which depict Hitler making anti-Christian statements in private from the earliest days of his reign. Please stop.

By the way: The quote from the Goebbels dairy, saying that Hitler is "deeply religious" is literally accurate. But the term "religious" means something different in German; it can mean reverence for nature, providence, god/providence (in a deistic sense) etc. In English, it means follower of a specific denomination. So the inclusion of the translation is misleading. Steeletrap (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I am transgender, anti-Christian, Jewish, vegetarian, and an atheist (yes, really). I probably would've been gassed 5 times over. But I am irritated with people distorting history to try to prevent Hitler's views from aligning with their own. Hitler was anti-Christian, irreligious, pantheistic, and a vegetarian. Get over it. Steeletrap (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Nuremberg

Absent, but very pertinent is a good source on what the judges found at Nuremberg about Hitler's religious policy. I will go looking. Ozhistory (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Ian Kershaw; Hitler 1936-1945 Nemesis; WW Norton & Company; 2000; pp.40-41
2. Ian Kershaw; Hitler 1936-1945 Nemesis; WW Norton & Company; 2000; pp.428
3. Alan Bullock; Hitler: a Study in Tyranny; Harper Perennial Edition 1991; p. 219
4. Fred Taylor Translation; The Goebbels Diaries 1939–41; Hamish Hamilton Ltd; London; 1982; ISBN 0-241-10893-4; pp. 304 305: Goebbels wrote in 1941 that Hitler "hates Christianity" because it had made humans abject and weak, and also because the faith exalted the dignity of human life, while disregarding the rights and well-being of animals.
5. Speer, Albert (1971). Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-684-82949-4.
6. Albert Speer. (1997). Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 177.
7. Albert Speer; Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs; Translation by Richard & Clara Winston; Macmillan; New York; 1970; p.123
8. Cameron et al. 2007, p. 48. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCameronStevensWeinbergTrevor-Roper2007 (help)
9. Cameron et al. 2007, pp. 59–61. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCameronStevensWeinbergTrevor-Roper2007 (help)

• 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