This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RHB100 (talk | contribs) at 21:00, 19 January 2015 (→Historians are incapable of second guessing Hitler's inner thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:00, 19 January 2015 by RHB100 (talk | contribs) (→Historians are incapable of second guessing Hitler's inner thoughts)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
|
| 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- "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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Your recent edits have been removed because they are POV and non-WP:RS. You appear to have been a relatively constructive editor during your years, so why stop being one now? Vyselink (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- All of my edits have been fully sourced. I have been changing the article to an unbiased point of view. The bias and Roman Catholic bigotry which now pervades the article must be removed. RHB100 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. It doesn't work like that. Misplaced Pages is based on published reliable sources - which include historians. We don't exclude material because a contributor doesn't like it, and nor do we include cherry-picked quotes selected to supposedly support that contributors own opinion (not that they do anyway). And for the record, I'm not a Roman Catholic. I'm an atheist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- And I suggest that you read WP:VANDAL - any further false accusations of 'vandalism' will result in your behaviour being reported - with a block being the likely result. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence in the article which reads, "The religious views of Adolf Hitler were shaped by his upbringing at the hands of his anti-clerical, skeptic father and devout Catholic mother", shows that the article is not based on published reliable sources. There is no reliable source which says that Adolph Hitler's religious views were shaped by his father and mother. These are at most one among many influences on the religious views of Adolph Hitler. This shows that the article is based on the bias of writers not on reliable sources as Grump proclaims. Throughout the article, it is slanted to hide or downplay the fact that Hitler was a Roman Catholic and that his attempt to exterminate the Jews was based on his religious belief that the Jews committed deicide. RHB100 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence in the articles speaks of Hitler's anti-clerical, skeptic father. But there is no source provided showing that his father, Alois Hitler, was an anti-clerical skeptic. This description of his father to be completely made up. RHB100 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Even if you are correct about there being no evidence of his father's skepticism (and I'll admit that I don't personally know of any at the moment, but I'll be sure to look) what you changed it to is even LESS appropriate. I also find it telling that your main point seems to be anti-Catholic and conspiracy theory centered (against so called "biased historians"), and that you did not remove the part about Hitler's father, but merely added POV argumentative, un-sourced material. If you have an argument with sources, then argue them here and let the community decide. Your edits however are completely inappropriate for what Misplaced Pages (which is not perfect) tries to be. Vyselink (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Correction. If you (and I) had read a little farther down, we both would have noticed that in the second sentence of the "Youth" section, a RS is given for Alois' apparent belief and skepticism. Vyselink (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, these references say that Alois was skeptical and tolerant of religion and that he insisted that his wife attend Church. RHB100 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
These references on Alois & Klara Hitler referred to in the Youth section need to be also referred to in the Introduction with perhaps a name for use in subsequent referrals. RHB100 (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Ian Kershaw is said to agree with the view that Hitler was anti-christian in the Introduction of the Article. But the link to Ian Kershaw seems extremely vague, it links to a very long article and doesn't say where he states this view. If Kershaw did have this view of Hitler, we need to know where this view is expressed. Otherwise the link is pretty useless. RHB100 (talk) 04:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, Kershaw was extremely dubious about using HTT or many of the other kinds of "sources" used on this page to claim that Hitler wasn't Christian, for the exact same reasons that reasonable historians do not regard them as reliable (contrary to the prevailing opinion on this page). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
In the Introduction to the article it says, "Hitler's architect Albert Speer believed he had "no real attachment" to Catholicism, but that he had never formally left the Church". But this seems to be a case of the editor expressing his opinion and then attributing it to Speer just for the sake of saying there is a source. If you search through the article by Speer, you find neither the word Catholicism nor the word Church. This seems to be the case throughout the article. Editor expresses his opinion then provides vague references which do not verify the opinion. RHB100 (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- These edits are not particularly helpful. The source cited for the first sentence actually supports the theory that Alois Hitler was anti-clerical by the time Hitler was born, stressing as it does his increasing hostility towards Catholicism as he aged, even in the selection quoted by RHB100. Bryan Morrigan appears to have a personal vendetta against the Table Talk, and I note that none of the 'reasonable' historians concerned are mentioned in his comments - any of his comments (Kershaw himself, of course, did not doubt their authenticity although he did have a number of negative comments to make about the quality of the extant translations and used the original German sources for preference, as do almost all historians of the place and period). The precise words of Speer (from the English translation, for convenience) on p. 149 in my edition (Sphere Books 1971) were ' too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.' That seems to me to be clear and unambiguous evidence of his personal disengagement from Catholicism while maintaining membership of the Church itself for political reasons, and it seems to be perfectly fairly represented by the comment RHB100 so deprecates. On that same page, a reference to Tischgesprache is made when it refers to Bormann taking notes. Speer comments 'there was hardly anything he wrote down more eagerly than deprecating comments agains the church', which seems to me the most compelling argument - far more compelling than any of the pseudoscholarly arguments advanced by Carrier (whom I assume is the 'reasonable'(!) historian in question, and whose work is clearly based on misconceptions, an inadequate knowledge of German, and at least one quite outrageous lie about the views of David Irving) - that there might be a problem with it in terms of the filtering of its content and the alteration of Hitler's views. It is interesting to note that on the following page Speer quotes Hitler as saying 'Why did have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?'
- All in all, it seems fairly clear that these edits are not based on NPOV, rather they are based on WP:TRUTH and WP:Great Wrongs. We have the sources, we have a reasonable commentary on them. If RHB100 wishes to alter that, then RS that support the other side are required. The fact that RHB100 seems to require a - to put it mildly - liberal interpretation on the existing sources, reversing the meaning of what they say, in order to support their thesis, having previously simply inserted frantic entreaties to read the Wikiquote collection, rather damages his/her credibility as a neutral editor. The standard of English in the edits also seems to me to be less than perfect and certainly not of a sufficient standard for WP. I have therefore reverted the edits109.156.156.186 (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The above anonymous editor has removed the references and he seems to be just attacking other editors. I have a hard time understanding what he is talking about. Since he does not provide a user name, I think he is not too reasonable. RHB100 (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
For the reasons stated above, I think there is justification for reverting his edits. RHB100 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Somebody has been through deleting citations. This is not on. By all means add, but do not delete reliable, long standing sources like Kershaw, Bullock etc. RHB100, before getting involved in deeper discussion here, I suggest perusing the easily obtainable biographies of Hitler by Kershaw, Bullock etc and reading the Speer and Goebells diaries. Your comments above about Hitler being devoutly catholic will not hold up against such basic sources. Ozhistory (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Words like devout are certainly POV, but it is well established that Hitler was at least publically Roman catholic and further more that he went after and obtained many Roman catholic relics and artifacts as high priority spoils of war What his privately held beliefs were is a matter of contention and the article should clearly reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Ozhistory, please do not accuse or otherwise suggest that I have deleted sources. I have not done so. When you say things like, "Somebody has been through deleting citations This is not on", I find it to be meaningless. Try to use the English language properly. I find the article by Sherlock at to be of far better quality than something that you recommend. I am a person who holds advanced enginering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. I certainly see nothing in your qualifications which qualifies you to tell me what I should read. RHB100 (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- A word of advice. If you are going to try to claim expert knowledge, you will usually find that claiming knowledge of a subject that is actually relevant is more likely to be effective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be a historian to see through the specious arguments some editors are using in an attempt to show that Hitler was not a Christian. RHB100 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Historians generally prefer to look at all the evidence, not just evidence that supports their prior opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
An excellent article has been written by Michael Sherlock showing very clearly that Hitler was a Christian. The article also refutes the Hitler Atheist myth. A reference to this article needs to be added to the article. RHB100 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Since there was no consensus for the edit, and since Misplaced Pages does not editorialise about 'excellent articles', I have reverted. I suggest that you refrain from further trying to impose your personal opinions against consensus - because if you carry on like this, you may well find sanctions being taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Now when you say consensus, you have not given the slightest indication of what you are talking about. I don't believe you have the vaugest idea what you mean by the word consensus. I have added well sourced information. We have many who agree with my posts. I am willing to remove the word excellent but your disruptive edits make it hard to find out what the consensus truly is. I am the one who is making constructive edits. You are the destructive editor. RHB100 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. We are not going to include a link to the blog of an unqualified partisan atheist propagandist in the article. There are plenty of qualified academic historians available to provide sourcing for this article, and we have no need to transform it into a soapbox for anyone and everyone with an opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- RHB100, a good case can indeed be made that Hitler was influenced by aspects of Christian tradition - both Catholic and Protestant (though this is quite different from belief in Christian doctrine). That includes anti-Semitism of course and aspects of organisation, public spectacle and propaganda (Hitler does express admiration for that aspect of the Catholic church). And of course he regularly professed Christian belief in public, a fact which is not evaded in the article. Reliable scholars have commented on all these things. If you want your edits to remain in the article you will have to use scholarly sources. They are not difficult to find. Paul B (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Grump, I note that you still have not been able to say what you mean when you use this vague term, consensus. Do you really have the vaugest idea what you are talking about. RHB100 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Paul Barlow, If you check I think you will find that Sherlock is a scholar of such status that he is recommended by no less than Richard Dawkins himself. Furthermore the reference I had to Sherlock provided readers with information they could actually read online. The references to Ian Kershaw and others require Misplaced Pages readers to go out and buy a book by Kershaw to find out what he says since there is a lack of quotes in the article. RHB100 (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Michael Sherlock is the author of populist anti-Christian books. He is not a "scholar" at all as far as I know, and is certainly no expert on Hitler. Quoting him is about as valid as quoting some Christian devotional/self-help book. The vast majority of the "excellent" article just rehearses the history of Christian anti-Semitism, which no one disputes. The tiny bit that's actually about Hitler simply quotes from his public statements. Paul B (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Historians are incapable of second guessing Hitler's inner thoughts
There may be some who believe that historians are capable of deciphering Hitler's inner thoughts, i.e. Hitler's religion. This is ignorance and stupidity. They write things such as "while historians such as Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock agree that Hitler was anti-Christian". They do not even provide quotes of Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock saying that Hitler was anti-Christian. All they are saying is trust us in our opinion the opinion of Ian Kershaw, Joachim Fest and Alan Bullock is that Hitler was anti Christian. A far better procedure is to rely on the opinion of Hitler himself as to his religion. RHB100 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please read the actual article beyond the introductory summary and you will find the relevant citations for the lines you are questioning above. If you have a serious interest in this topic, I again recommend you go to your local library and begin perusing the serious scholarship on the issue, where you will quickly find that the evidence is stacked against your assumptions of a "Catholic conspiracy" etc. You might also read up on wikipedia's citation policies and why it is important to cite reputable historians. Ozhistory (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I will look for these relevant citations. I do not assume a Catholic conspiracy. I do think historians are less capable than Hitler to determeine his religion. I do not want to read any books that are not short and to the point. I have begun reading some of the Wikiquotes. They appear to be better than the article itself. I will look for these relevant citations. RHB100 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- As a matter of policy, Misplaced Pages cites reliable sources. And with regard to this article, the best sources, per policy are academic historians with expertise in the subject. We do not engage in original research to cherry-pick quotations in order to 'prove' our own pre-existing opinions. As should be evident to anyone with any real understanding of the subject matter, Hitler said many different things regarding religion - often contradictory. We leave it to those best qualified to do so to to analyse and summarise this material. That is how Misplaced Pages works - and how it is going to continue to work in this article. If you want to publish your own opinions, go start a blog somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)