Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 30 days

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. 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.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Wikipedia policy requires an emphasis on reliable secondary sources, and secondly because of the contradictory nature of so many of Hitler's words and actions. The article covers several decades during which Hitler contradicted himself in word and action repeatedly. Relying on extended quotes, (especially from narrowly-sourced websites or blogs,) is therefore neither practical, nor likely to accurately summarise our article in a reasonable space. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 "[n]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.

Hitlers Table Talks

There are large sections of this article that are derived from Hitler's Table Talks, but it has been challenged as an unreliable source (both the translations and the original German version[1][2][3][4][5]) so should it even feature to begin with let alone without a mitigating statement discussing it's possible unreliability? Will Tyson for real (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most scholars have regarded Hitler's Table Talk as authentic. Challenges by Carrier and other like-minded scholars are already mentioned in the article (though they are problems with their methodologies as pointed out by some of the scholars who affirm its authenticity, which haven't been mentioned in the article). If some sort of discussion is needed to be made, it's the rebuttal to the argument that Hitler's Table Talk is fraudulent, as proposed by Carrier, among others. Msiehta (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should try actually reading some of the things you posted. Hitler Redux for example:

"The table talks are full of ...statements – and they are CORRABORATED by other independent sources.." - Page 64

"The evidence suggests, beyond any reasonable doubt, that [Heinrich] Heim’s proof pages are genuine." - Page 194

"They are both [Heinrich Heim's Monologe & Henry Picker's Tischgespräche] based on real utterances by Hitler." - Page 200

"[Henry] Picker had told Quick(German magazine) that [Gerhard] Engel and [Karl-Heinrich] Bodenschatz(Göring’s liaison officer by Hitler) , as partakers at the dinners in the FHQ, had testified to their authenticity. In addition, it had been concluded that “new finds in the United States and Switzerland” proved “that the documents are authentic.” The latter must have referred to [Heinrich] Heim’s proof pages, found by Mau in July, and to [François] Genoud’s manuscript, which had been brought to the IfZ’s attention since the publication of Tischgespräche. This conclusion was of course ... valid in so far as it related to the documents themselves." - Page 76

"However, and this is very important, the results presented in this book should absolutely not be interpreted as meaning that the table talks are not authentic. They really are, at least for the most part, memoranda of statements that Hitler made at some point or another in his wartime HQs." - Page 388

Source: Hitler Redux: The Incredible History of Hitler’s So-Called Table Talks by Mikael Nilsson

Also Carrier

".[Mikael] Nilsson found that what German versions we actually have any published edition of now are AUTHENTIC there really were notes taken down in Hitler's bunker of things he was remembered to have said, by people who were there"

--Richard Carrier

Ithinkusergoeshere (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content for section, "Hitler's contemporaries on his religious beliefs"

“Although he himself [Hitler] was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, ...”, Hermann Göring.

Sources: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Trial_of_the_Major_War_Criminals_Before/epEIAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Although+he+himself+was+a+Catholic,+he+wished+the+Protestant+Church+to+have+a+stronger+position+in+Germany,&dq=Although+he+himself+was+a+Catholic,+he+wished+the+Protestant+Church+to+have+a+stronger+position+in+Germany,&printsec=frontcover

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Trial_of_German_Major_War_Criminals/mwBnAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Although+he+himself+was+a+Catholic,+he+wished+the+Protestant+Church+to+have+a+stronger+position+in+Germany,&dq=Although+he+himself+was+a+Catholic,+he+wished+the+Protestant+Church+to+have+a+stronger+position+in+Germany,&printsec=frontcover

Rudolf Hess claimed Hitler was "religious, a good Catholic”.

Sources: https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Demon_of_Geopolitics/InSOCwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=is+religious,+a+good+Catholic.+rudolf+hess&pg=PA77&printsec=frontcover 2601:982:8202:CDA0:492A:6125:5D1D:9AD (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and Himmler

He who has some German may read that whimsical story from Corona times [6] --Hellsepp (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excommunication

Section #1 Historiography includes "Yet, these authors seem to have missed the fact that Hitler was in fact excommunicated, along with all other Nazi leaders, in 1931.[60]" with Scholder, Klaus, The Churches and the Third Reich. 2 vols. Fortress Press, 1988 pp. 150–162 cited. On p.150 of vol.1 (which covers 1918-January 1934) I see "As early as the November of this fateful year, the Bavarian envoy could report confidentially that the decision of the Mainz diocesan authorities to excommunicate members of the NSDAP would not be approved in the Vatican." https://archive.org/details/churchesthirdrei0001scho/page/150/mode/2up?q=excommunicate. I don't see anything in the following pages indicating the Vatican approved excommunication later. Pages 150-62 of vol.2 which covers December 1933-October 1934 https://archive.org/details/churchesthirdrei0002scho/page/n7/mode/2up don't refer to excomunication.

The lede includes "Even though Nazi leadership was excommunicated from the Catholic Church,[35]" the reference being to a Google Books preview of Behind Barbed Wire by Deborah G. Lindsay. Page 157 includes "In 1931, however, a Vatican edict banned Catholics from Party membership and excommunicated all members within the Nazi leadership.959" but since the preview doesn't include the notes I'm unable to see what 959 is and check basis for that statement.

If excommunication is certain perhaps the citations could be made more exact. Mcljlm (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the excommunications were rescinded. 2601:982:8202:CDA0:6528:B0A:1ADB:BEA9 (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need for direct quotes.

@Ithinkusergoeshere, Please read the talk page's question: " "Why do the views of historians dominate the introduction, rather than us just relying on extended quotes from Hitler speeches?"" above in Frequently asked questions (FAQ) 182.183.20.126 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is mute. Albert Speer isn't a historian, to the best of his ability he is recollecting Hitler's own words. I will be continuing to revert your unnecessary changes. It is quite evident that you don't like what is being said and that is why you're making these revisions.Ithinkusergoeshere (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that relying on quotes was neither practical, because of the contradictory nature of so many of Hitler's words and actions. 182.183.20.126 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quotes are in no way contradictory and they can be found in a multitude of other sources. You keep coming up with different excuses for your revisions. Your new excuse now is that Speer isn't reliable. If that is the case why didn't you just remove all of the Speer quotes on the page? And not just this one specific one. If the reliability of Speer's quotes were a problem you would have removed all of his quotes on the page but you've only removed these specific quotes from this specific section. Speer has been cited on this page since the beginning of it. It's quite clear that you seem to have a problem with the quotes. Your original edit didn't make any mention of the reliability of Speer but now you are coming up with new excuses for your revisions.

Thank you for outing yourself once again. Ithinkusergoeshere (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"If that is the case why didn't you just remove all of the Speer quotes on the page?"

I would have if I had the time to properly streamline the content so as not to rely on excessive qoutes while retaining the essence of Hitler's views. But that is the purpose of Wikipedia. Its a collaborative process.

Its a simple WP:Concise way of editing the content adhering to WP:QUOTE yet you just desire to give unwarranted WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to relying on direct extended quotes that just takes considerable space. 182.183.20.126 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On an important note, the excluded quote redundantly echoes Hitler's admiration for the militaristic aspects of Islam and its forceful expansion themes already addressed in preceding sections of the content. Therefore, the condensed content I proposed can be entirely omitted, as it is essentially repetition. 182.183.20.126 (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen Uhh actually me posting the section in your talk page was kinda asking a WP:Third opinion. 182.183.20.126 (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but if you post it at WP:Third opinion, you will hopefully get somebody (or several people) more knowledgeable about the subject than me. Bishonen | tålk 12:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

No you wouldn't have, because as I said previously we've already established that you don't have a problem with any of the other Speer quotes on the page apart from the ones to do with Islam. And here we go, once again you're coming up with a new excuse for your revision, now it's because of repetition. The specific quotes that you removed are not quoted anywhere else on the page.

I'm going to quote you here: 'Also streamlining a piece of quote does not merit that every other also needs the same treatment, although it definitely could use some. I'll leave that to another editor.'.

I think the solution is simple, you can edit all of them or you can leave them how they all are. Looking at your edit history it is quite clear why you have a problem with the specific quotes regarding Islam and none of the other ones.

Every single reply you offer a new excuse for your revisions. If you wish to make any further posts regarding third party opinions, I would be happy to reply and input, but until then you keep making it abundantly clear that your revisions are unnecessary.

Ithinkusergoeshere (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have little to no understanding of Wikipedia policies and its conventions. Read what I said above again.

I did not said that the removed quote is mentioned elsewhere, rather I stated that it is essentially repetition as the line: "On the other hand, he also made private and public statements expressing admiration for what he perceived to be the militaristic nature of Islam" as well as "The Mohammedan religion would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" have already have given more than enough WP:WEIGHT to the idea and clearly demonstrated what Hitler though of the religion.

The ommited unnecessary WP:QUOTE repeats the same thing, which had to be dealth with WP:CONCISE and WP:TDLR. Also coming back to first assertion, I stand by it again that a nazi individual cannot be given too much UNDUE WEIGHT for a 100% WP:Reliable source.

I have demonstrated dozens of necessary reasons. So far, all you have said is basically, "Nah, I like that quote; let it just stay'".

Now kindly stop the WP:BATTLE mentality and stop making a mountain out of a molehill. 182.183.20.126 (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The words of a Nazi can't be trusted, he says this as a multitude of quotes on this page are cited from various different Nazis, your low IQ is showing. You can stop with the projection it has nothing to do with me liking a certain quote, it has to do with you not liking the contents of a certain quote. You said it was a repetitive, you haven't demonstrated any necessary reasons every time you come up with a new different excuse. If his words can't be trusted then why not just remove everything to do with him on the page. You know what I've got a better idea, how about you remove every quote cited from a Nazi on the article. I'm sure you would be in agreeance with that because their words cannot be trusted, right? But that's okay, I know you're not going to do that because as we've already established you only have a problem with this particular quote regarding what he has to say about Islam.

How about you just remove the whole section 'Hitler's contemporaries on his religious beliefs'. As the words of Nazis cannot be trusted. I'm struggling to understand your intellectual level here, there's a reason that the section is called 'Hitler's contemporaries on his religious beliefs' as it deals with what his confidants had to say about his religious beliefs. If you agree and we get some more input in here, I'm sure that we can just remove the whole section. As according to you nothing in there can be trusted. I'm sure you don't have any problem with that, right? Ithinkusergoeshere (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please be more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and its conventions. Even if the aforementioned individual be taken as a 100% reliable source, the content still needed trimming and condensation. And it still does, but like I have reiterated before that Wikipedia is a collaborative process. If I address one aspect on the page, it doesn't automatically mean I'm obligated to universally correct the entire page.

Also kindly stop with constant personal attacks such as "your low IQ is showing" and "for outing yourself" and please read up on WP:GOODFAITH. 182.183.20.126 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors low IQ like you did above and here is a personal attack. --WikiLinuz (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]