Talk:Religion in Nazi Germany

Untitled

I wondered if the role of the churches (I know no details but heard rumours) in occupied countries such as Holland and Poland should not be included? Specifically I know many fundamentalist protestants had ideas that god gave power to whoever had it and therefore resistance was not permissable. Admittedly I am not even an amateur historian but a mining engineer... Jan Willem Heemstra

Disputed tag

What is being disputed? Why the flag when there is no discussion?--Cberlet 13:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Way off the wall

Wikipedia is normally spot on, but this article seems to have been taken over by various groups. Come on, mysticism of Hitler? The role of religion has been well-documented and is very clear in regards to Nazism, and there is no messiah complex of Nazism itself in regards to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this article is poorly organized and fails to clearly answer the question, namely, what was Nazi Germany's position towards religion? If it is not a clearly answerable question, then it needs to be removed; if it is, then better organization is necessary. Although almost all wikipedia articles read like college essays, this one reads more like a high school history paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.240.154 (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

merger

This page and the Hiteler and the church page deal with essentially the same subject, with much overlap, and neither is overly long. Peregrine981 05:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

seconded. These articles should be merged.178.0.209.5 (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad section removed

The below section I removed. It stands out from the rest of the article in that its speculations stated as facts, some of which is non-attributed, and others which has significant problems in tone, NPOV, undue weight, and synthesis of sources. True, this might be the opinion of a scholar, but it is by no means an accepted fact or consensus among others. Therefore, if it is to be included it must be properly done, stating this theory with proper weight and qualification--if it is a significant pov. The scholar who presents this POV must be reputable and this POV must be a significant one. I'd like to see the sources in English and the credencials of the author, and quotes about exactlly what he says, as well as what others in the field have to say about him and these speculations. Finally, they must be stated with the proper neutral, encylopedic language. The way its done below, reads as if its an established and authoritative account of the plans Hitler had all mapped out, and does so in the language of a polemic, a debate, i.e. 'and even the smallest influence of the Catholic..." This is not appropriate language and stands out in stark contrast to the tone of the rest of the article, and is not encylopedic. As for its claims, unfortunately, the record is not at all so clear, which makes this deceptively misrepresentative and POV pushing. Removed secion below:Giovanni33 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hitler already had plans for the Roman Catholic Church, according to which the church was supposed to "eat from the hands of the government." As a first step Hitler wanted to force German Catholics to abolish priestly celibacy and accept a nationalisation of all church property, as had happened in France in 1905. After the "Final Victory" of National Socialism, all monastic orders and religious congregations were to be dissolved, and even the smallest influence of the Catholic Church upon education of children was to be forbidden. Hitler proposed to reduce vocations to the priesthood by forbidding seminaries from receiving applicants before their 25th birthdays, hoping that these men would marry beforehand, during the time (18 - 25 years) in which they were obliged to work in military or labour service. Along with this process, the Church's sacraments would have to be revised and changed to so-called "Lebensfeiern", non-Christian celebrations of different periods of life.

The aim was slowly to dismantle the institutions of the Catholic Church and fit the institution itself into a new National Socialist German state religion, because Hitler still firmly believed, that religion and belief in God was something "the simple people need." But since the "laws of evolution" - upon which a new religion would have to be founded - were not yet precisely researched, according to Hitler, it was decided to keep these changes and laws on hold, pending the final victory. Hitler and Goebbels also recognised that such changes might create a third front of Catholics against their regime in Germany itself. Nevertheless in his diary Goebbels openly wrote about the "traitors of the Black International who again stabbed our glorious government in the back by their criticism", by which he meant the indirectly or actively resisting Catholic clergymen (who wore black cassocks).

I've removed the above again, which is badly in need of fixing if it is to be kept at all, for the same reasons as I explained above. Additionally, the sources seem to be problematic. While Dr. Hürten is a respected scholar and his "German Catholics" is an accepted text, not all of his theories have broad support. In particular, the "pet theory" cited is controversial, and speculative. Also, Burt Natter is not a professional historian, but rather a popular journalist/essayist who is explicitly called an "amateur historian." Between these facts, it is a bare minimum to proper to refer to the theory as speculative or, at the very least, highly controversial. I can find almost no supporting reference to the theory beyond these authors. Can anyone find additional references that are not slavish to Dr. Hürten where the theory is the primary focus, whether supporting or dissenting?Giovanni33 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There is actually no reason to remove the section. You say Mr Hürten is a respected scholar but then you delete him. If he needs qualifying, qualify him, if he needs attribution, attribute him. However it is a bit hypocritical to remove this while retain other stuff without attribution in line with your POV and add more of this.

Ah, and the other changes are bad too, pushing the POV that you would like to push. I will tackle a few problems in the former wording. I will also remove false claims like a diminishing of the Centre Party (which was stable in elections). There is also no reason to remove Mit brennender Sorge.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'm fine with the other changes you made. In fact, I think its an improvement. However, you don't really address the problems with that other section. True, I say Hurten is a respected scholar, however you ignore the reason I've stated why he should still be removed--unless you think I"m wrong about that. I'm very open to be shown I'm wrong. To me this seems like a fringe theory that is without any support among historians. Sure, I can qualify that, but I"m not sure that is the case. I just can't find any other sources that even comment upon this, and find that strange. Also, I can't read German. :) But, I take it you don't object to me removing the Natter part, since he is not a historian, as was claimed? My biggest other problem is the language that is used, which states speculative theories as hard facts, but you are correct that this can be fixed. I will try to do that. I believe you once said that even if a scholar is a qualified one, if he is engaging in pure speculation, it should still be removed. While I don't necessarily agree, if he is the ONLY scholar to offer such speculation then I tend to agree with you on principal as a practice. I know you will say that it is when it fits my POV. So, I will keep him and what he says but try to fix it up to WP standards of acceptablitlity. I welcome you to help me to get it right, incase I don't. Thanks.Giovanni33 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, changes effected.Giovanni33 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I can live with most of your changes. However, the correct name should be used (so no Heinz Hutzen please). Also there should be no belittling introduction (a later note would be fine). Finally, information about the career of a professor belongs into an article on that person, not here. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I only added back an abridged form of who the professor is, because we have no article on him--no link to take the reader to learn about him. So I added: "professor emeritus at the Catholic University of Eichstaett." This is necessary to give the reader a proper understanding of who is advancing this view.Giovanni33 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg

Image:Das Schwarze Korps Eugenio Pacelli Judenfreund Feind des Nationalsozialismus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

improvements and expansion

This article needs to be improved to include sections on the connections between nazism and other religions besides Christiantiy. Yahel Guhan 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The role of atheism in nazism?

The introduction mentions "the role of atheism", but at least at a quick speed-reading there's nothing related to atheism or implicit suggestion. The closest thing seems to be deism, which is yet pretty far from atheism. --Extremophile (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The introduction now claims that most of the neo-pegans AND atheists were Nazis who left the church. This sounds to me like Christian propaganda trying to whitewash the church from its cooperation with the Nazis. The main goal of the Kirchenkampf was to reform Christianity to get it rid of any references to Judaism and to inject Nazi philosophy but it was certainly not an atheistic movement.178.0.209.5 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Whitewashing of Christian antisemitic history is pretty common on here too. 2601:982:8202:CDA0:1D36:BB40:3C37:3827 (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Quotation

I have removed the quotation block for the following reasons: 1. The book that the quotation came from is "Christianity and American democracy", which is not even a history book and so is not an appropriate source for the article. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 2. It is off topic, this article is NOT about the role of religion in communism or fascism in general, it is about the role is religion specifically in Nazi Germany. 3. This article is also not about whether or not "religion is to have a place in public life"; if you want to include this somewhere then find the correct article for it (not this article). 4. It pushes a point of view by being blatantly anti-secular/anti-atheist; blaming "secular religions" and "atheistic faith" for "fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century", which is no way a generally accepted statement among historians. This violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. selfworm^Talk) 18:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I, too, find the block quotation bizarre and biased. Clearly, you have an axe to grind against atheism and secularism, and are using this quotation to suggest that atheist states obviously lead to disaster. What about the predominantly unreligious welfare states in Scandinavia today? PublickStews (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, don't give me another edit war today. (They appear to always come in groups.) Steigmann-Gall explicitly comments on the reason why Nazism is always seen as anti-Christian. The question of how the topic of this article is perceived currently in the US and elsewhere is vital for the article. Helco might not be the best person to quote, but until I (or you, if you want) find another quote that can serve equally well, I think the quote should stay. I don't mid, by the way, if we keep the 'secular' instead of the 'atheist' at Religious aspects of Nazism‎. Zara1709 (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So, until we find another source which duplicates your biased, pro-Christian, anti-secular viewpoint, this one needs to stay? While I have no problem with the argument that Nazism could be viewed as a secular political religion, this quotation goes way beyond that relatively neutral statement, and makes a huge generalization about post-Christian societies as a whole (in a nutshell, they are evil!) Do you honestly think that "Christianity needs to play a role in public life" is a value-neutral statement? It's completely misleading regardless. How is a quotation from ONE book (not even a book about Nazi Germany) representative of a scholarly shift "away from the secularization view?" Why don't you find a German source for this? PublickStews (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a post on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Religion_in_Nazi_Germany.selfworm^Talk) 10:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Mysticism

This connection is very important to the fundamental ideology of hitler and thus the nazis. i think it needs expansion. it is the core of the bigger picture for the 'dream' of the third reich to cleanse europe of jews and to construct a new world order and ideology of a master race, etc etc. 24.60.66.216 (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Bernhard Stempfle, a Priest?

This source - http://www.churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/rise(n)-2.htm - seems to suggest his priesthood is in doubt.

Is there any better source that shows he was ever ordained? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkspratt (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Luther's Role

The section now reads as if Martin Luther rasied from the grave to support Hitler. How silly. German political leaders used selective passeges from an long-dead theological leader to support nationalism. This secition needs fixing. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read the section, you will see that it says nothing to effect of what you state above. German nationalism existed before Hitler. Those that supported German nationalism, including the Nazis, tried to make Luther who was a person important to German Identity, a supported of such an idea (namely German nationalism). Any use of any ones work is selective, and the idea was not limited to political figures but included Church leaders and those at universities. Hardyplants (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The revised wording is much more reasonable. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion and Politics

I am about to add a new section to summarize the most important facts from the article and to give the reader the necessary background to understand why this topic may be controversial. Reading about something completely different I stumbled across this argument:

"If traditional religion [e.g. Christianity] is absent from the public arena, secular religions are likely to satisfy man's quest for meaning. We should recall that for much of the twentieth century antidemocratic forces did very well using social idealism to appeal to people's hope for a meaningful life. It was an atheistic faith in man as creator of his own grandeur that lay at the heart of Communism, fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century. And it was adherents of traditional religions - a Martin Niemöller, C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reinhold Niebuhr, Martin Buber - who often warned most clearly of the tragedy to come from attempting to build man's own version of the New Jerusalem on Earth." (Hugh Helco, Religion and Public Policy, p.14; Journal of Policy History, Vol 13. No.1, 2001)

Needless to say (since I assume that we here are all to some extend familiar with the topic), this argument would work so much better if it wasn't for groups like the Deutsche Christen who cooperated with the German fascists. However, the view expressed in the citation is one of the POV's of the topic, and, in my opinion, important enough to justify to bring it in at the beginning of the article. Zara1709 (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I also added some stuff from Goodrick-Clarke about Nazi religiosity, too. One would also have to add a few summarizing sentences on Catholicism, (and expand the sentences on Lutheranism a little) but I can always do that later. Zara1709 (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of this quote is wrong on several levels. First of all, this article is not about religion and politics in general, it is about Nazism and religion; it is in the wrong article. Placing a link in the "See also" section to "religion and politics" would be much more appropriate. Secondly, it pushes a point of view by being blatantly anti-secular/anti-atheist; blaming "secular religions" and "atheistic faith" for "fascism and all the horrors they unleashed for the twentieth century". Furthermore, after blaming secularism/atheism the article never even mentions atheism again and only mentions secularism twice! The rest of the article is, of course, largely about the relationship between Nazism and Christianity. Lastly, directly after the quotation it says "Leaving the question of the Christian opposition to Communism aside", which is again off topic of Nazism and religion.

For the above reasons, this quotation should be removed from the article. selfworm^Talk) 03:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You completely missed the point of the quotation in question. Yes, it is POV, but it is there exactly for this reason; to illustrate that particular POV; Christians argue for a more important role of religion in politics by explaining Nazism as an atheistic movement, which it was not (well, not really). There were conflicting Christian, Paganist and Secular fractions within Nazism, and the secular fraction only became important after 1937. But it is a common preconception that Nazism was an atheist or pagan movement, and the first thing this article has to do is to confront that view (although we don't need to keep that section title). I'll remove the NPOV-tag. If you give me a few days, I can expand the section. (First I'd have to get Steigmann-Gall's book again.) Zara1709 (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this quote is a little abstract for the lead section of an article on Religion in Nazi Germany. It is very POV, and seems to be presenting an argument before the "facts" are even laid out. Considering this is an encyclopedia, I think that is the wrong way to treat the article. In general the whole section seems to be pre-emptively attacking and defending different POVs without very much grounding in the basics. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a little note about geography

"Many Nazi leaders subscribed either to a mixture of then modern scientific theories[citation needed], as Hitler himself did[citation needed], or to mysticism and occultism, which was especially strong in the SS. Central to both groupings was the belief in Germanic (white Northern-European) racial superiority. The existence of a Ministry of Church Affairs, instituted in 1935 and headed by Hanns Kerrl, was hardly recognized by ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg or by other political decision-makers." -from the article. Germany is not a part of Northern Europe my most definitions of Northern Europe... Also there are outher ethnic groups here, like the Finish people, among others... It's not a big deal but it might be an idea to say northern and central europe or rather replace it with the Nordic countries and germany... Luredreier 13:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

The lead appears to be more of a disambiguation statement than an introduction to the subject. Remember Who What Where When Why and How.24.21.105.252 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose something along the lines of (with sources), "Religion in Nazi Germany was subject to much the same forces as other elements of Nazi society, in that the fascist state largely manipulated it to it's own ends." Now, I just made that up, but I wage you could find dozens of legitimate sources to establish something along those lines a legitimate historical consensus about religion in Nazi Germany. And, lest anyone screech "you didn't cite any sources, so shut up!" LOL. No, I didn't cite any sources. As I just explained, I am suggesting a POSSIBLE direction in rough language, not proposing EXACT TEXT with sources. I would leave it to experts on the subject to polish and source if they felt it had merit. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, give us some time. You know, Wikipedia is written by volunteers, you know. I just haven't gotten around to rewrite the lead yet. If you want to help, simply get yourself the literature that is mentioned in the article, read it, create an account and improve the article as you see fit. Then we can have some discussions. Zara1709 (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I currently think that concerning some aspects of Religion in Nazi Germany, there isn't a "legitimate historical consensus". Doesn't make writing articles any easier. Zara1709 (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

An invitation to contribute to this article is akin to an invitation to put a "kick me" sign on my own back! LOL. Seriously.... I think that this is a POV Push war in the making (with no reference to anyone present), with the parties likely to be entrenched in their view that either A) Christians are Nazis because Nazis were Christians, or B) Atheists are Nazis because Nazis were atheists. Neither is true in my view. But I suspect a neutral view will be ignored, reverted, and derided by both warring parties, and has about zero chance of surviving. I'll pass on editing this article. Good luck, though. In the "real world" outside of the insane PC fiction of Wikipedia, it would be a fascinating subject. 24.21.105.252 (talk) 08:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not that bad, as long as you have good sources for any new info. One problem that I have with the page is that one does not get a sense of the changes that occurred as the Nazis were in power. In the beginning of the movement it was more willing to assimilate christian views, but once in power that changed to suppression of any view that did not conform the the party platform, and eventually lead to open hostility. Christians early on were willing to support the Nazis to get away from the old government (this was true of the communists too, whose leaders asked for their supporters to vote for the Nazis in the elections - as they were strongly left leaning when it came to workers rights and being anti capitalists too). Its safe to say that Christians helped the Nazis get power and they turned around and bit them, a lot of Germans were in the same boat too, hoping for something better, they went with the Nazis and turned a blind eye upon the ideology. Hardyplants (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

This article seems biased towards the POV that German Christians and Nazis were antagonistic or in opposition to each other. The POV that they were in fact, one and the same is not represented. The article characterizes the Nazis as pagan and atheist, which is not (statistically) true.

NPOV says that "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly"

I would like to discuss if this article should be flagged for NPOV. Diderot08 (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the alleged POV, I don't see it. That said, I wonder if Heclo is perhaps given somewhat too much space. Norvo (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Nazi leaders

One of the most controversial aspects of this debate on religion and nazism is the repeated claim that many Nazi leaders had maintained some sort of minimal connection to the Roman Catholic Church. Many of those who later fled to Argentina or who collaborated in occupied countries were nominally Catholic, meaning that they were Catholics in name only. Among these include Julius Streicher, Rudolf Hess, Heinrich Himmler, Martin Bormann, Joseph Goebbels, Klaus Barbie and Joachim Ribbentrop, or even Adolf Hitler himself. I suppose that one of the best responses for this insinuation is to point out that many anti-life/pro-abortion leaders in the US Democratic Party are also controversially Catholic, such as Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tim Kaine Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius. There were also Catholics serving in totalitarian Communist governments in countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland that maintained a very nominal tie to the Church, in ways that are comparable to what was seen in Germany at the time. [1] ADM (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad sentence

"Several elements of Nazism suggest to look at its relation towards religion."

Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.245.9 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitler and Islam

Hitler constantly praised Islam, the Nazis also utilized it when mobilizing Baltic SS divisions. This should be talked about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.3.163 (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why Islam section is removed?

--Dojarca (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

because the leftists don't want to admit the truth

What the hell are you talking about, above nameless editor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.173.106 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Prayer to Hitler

For reasons that aren't related to this article, I am not doing any editing any more at Wikipedia, but I just found one thing that should be interesting. I've always been sceptical about the "Prayer to Hitler" subsection; however, I've just found a different children's prayer from Nazi Germany, which mentions the "Führer" as well as God. I am not going to translate it, but here is the German version:

"Schütze, Gott, mit starker Hand,

unser Volk und Vaterland!

Lass auf unsers Führers Pfade

leuchten deine Huld und Gnade!"

In short, the prayer is asking God to illuminate the paths of the Führer, which pretty much makes the Führer some kind of sacred person. The source for this is beyond doubt, this 'prayer' is quote after Susannah Heschel, The Arayn Jesus. Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, p. 123. So, if any discussion on the "prayer to Hitler" section come up, you can simple replace the prayer currently quoted there with this one. Zara1709 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Other religions

Just a note that atheism is not a religion, and consequently does not belong in the "Other religions" section. I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure where to put it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be clarified, as with the entirety of this page. The page is a useless steaming pile of POV pushers. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, the article contains many extremely biased sections and reads like a patchwork of completely different ideas about what it supposedly was like. I'm getting the impression 90% of the authors of this article write more what they believe it was rather than having any clues about actual facts.178.0.209.5 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Badly written

Take a look at this article, then look at Oscar Wilde or the Hitler article. See what I mean? This page, especially towards the top, is written like a high school essay. It tries to connect Nazism with Christianity. We aren't supposed to connect the dots, we're supposed to report them. There's all sorts of point-of-view and irrelevant information in here. Let me pull some out for you guys:

-"According to American historian Lucy Dawidowicz, Anti-Semitism has a long history within Christianity." - This page isn't a discussion of antisemitism in Christianity. A historian's views on religion do not matter. It's a discussion of religion in Nazi Germany, not Christianity and antisemitism.

-"On February 1940, Barth accused German Lutherans specifically of separating biblical teachings from its teachings of the State and thus legitimizing the Nazi state ideology.[24] He was not alone with his view. A few years earlier on October 5, 1933, Pastor Wilhelm Rehm from Reutlingen, declared publicly, that "Hitler would not have been possible, without Martin Luther.[25] though many have also made this same statement about other influences in Hitler's rise to power. "Without Lenin, Hitler would not have been possible", as stated by Historian Paul Johnson in affirming Lenin had previously set example for totalitarian regimes.[26]" - This is an obvious slippery slope. :The page, again, is about Nazi Germany and it's views on religion. Whether or not a man from X hundred years ago contributed to totalitarian regimes is a useless bit of information. That belongs on his page, not here.

A lot of the article needs work. It seems to imply that the Catholic Church was best pals with Nazi Germany, and then switches gears to say that it wasn't. The same with everything else. I see an extreme amount of POV pushing here, on both dies (should there even be sides?), and that's ALL I see. Both "sides" are POV pushing to make a guilt by associations. You know who you are. There's a section about Nazi Germany and atheism, which doesn't make sense if there's not a Nazi Germany and Islam section (Hitler made little remarks about atheism, how is that even notable?). I really think the article needs a sweeping clean up, or at least some writers who aren't in the tenth grade. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is badly written, but it is obvious the reason for its bad quality is the desperation to cover up the fact that the Nazi party always was and still is a Christian organization. They were very clear in their manifesto (25 Points of the Nazi Party)that they are Christians and Neo-Nazis today are still Christian and will not admit anyone into their organization unless they are Christian. The article falsely tries to depict the internal Christian conflict as a battle against Christianity, so it falls apart. However, the battle of "Nazis vs Christianity" it is no different than the battle of "Henry VIII vs Christianity". Out of context protestant slander against catholics and catholic slander against protestants sounds "anti-Christian", but that is obviously a foolish and uneducated stance. Protestants are Christians. Catholics are Christians. Anglicans (Henry VIII) are Christians. Nazis are Christians. The primary struggle the Nazi leadership had with "Christianity" was simply a struggle to take control of it with the obvious ends of controlling the rank and file Nazis. It makes little difference if the Nazi leaders were Christians themselves, their followers required them to at least pretend to be Christians! --Riluve (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, worst Wiki article I've ever read.75.169.240.154 (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing section

There's no section here dealing, in brief, with the suppression of the different phases and actions of the religious practice of Judaism. I appreciate this is a big topic, but a few lines with appropriate links to eg Kristallnacht, is definitely needed. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"and Hitler planned to eliminate the Christian churches after securing control of his European empire..."

There's no evidence of this. In fact, there's evidence to the contrary. As albert speer recalls "Even after 1942 Hitler went on maintaining that he regarded the church as indispensable in political life. He would be happy, he said in one of those teatime talks at Obersalzberg, if someday a prominent churchman turned up who was suited to lead one of the churches- or if possible both the Catholic and Protestant churches reunited. He still regretted that Reich Bishop Muller was not the right man to carry out his far-reaching plans. But he sharply condemned the campaign against the church, calling it a crime against the future of the nation. For it was impossible, he said, to replace the church by any party ideology." [Speer, p. 95] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.251 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you ought to look at the sources. New York Times did a 5 part series on the subject. It is documented and published in the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion gleaned from evidence from the Nuremburg trials. It is corroborated by many Nazis, including the head of the Hitler youth. In fact, they note that the plan predated Hitler's rise to power. Mamalujo (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well all that alleged "evidence" contradicts what Hitler's contemporaries and Hitler himself has said about religion. I provided a quote by Albert Speer that clearly shows hitler's true beliefs. "he sharply condemned the campaign against the church, calling it a crime against the future of the nation. For it was impossible, he said, to replace the church by any party ideology". Hitler said that in private. So the "he said it for political gain" excuse won't save you there. Furthermore, in Hitler's table talk, we see him making the following statement: "I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions." -Table-Talk [p. 62] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.251 (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody should cite the Table Talks anymore as modern research has shown them to be completely unreliable even the German version should be used causiously, not just because they were edited by Martin Bormann and the discrepancies between the different notes seems to be Bormann's words rather than Hitler's, the chief English version via Trevor-Roper passes through a French conman who translated the notes in wildly dishonest ways. And they weren't quotes from Hitler to begin with but the stuff that Picker and Heim recalled the next morning. --Nilsson, Mikael (2016). "Hugh Trevor-Roper and the English editions of Hitler's Table Talk and Testament." Journal of Contemporary History 1-25.-- Tat (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The O.S.S Outline: Some due caution

The source used to demonstrate that Hitler wanted to "destroy Christianity" in this Wikipedia entry was a report by the U.S. Office of Strategic Services made in 1945, which was created to aid prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials. It collected data from already published material on the Third Reich and did not gather original intelligence on its own (p. ii). Due caution should be used when citing such non academic sources because editors are not necessarily in a position to judge the historical reliability of its claims, and such government reports may contain underlying political motivations. For example, an earlier report submitted by the same O.S.S., titled The Mind of Adolf Hitler (1943), made indictments which accused Adolf Hitler of being a coprophile (sexually gratified by being defecated or urinated on) being impotent, a homosexual, a masochist, and a pederast (i.e., a man who "enjoys" the company of young boys) [William Langer (1972) The Mind of Adolf Hitler. New York: Basic Books, pp. 124, 138, 178.] Secondary sources written by historians, which also reflect scholarly consensus should be preferred. To its own credit, the O.S.S. report cautioned, "The document is still seriously lacking in evidence of probative value, and is consequently ill suited to serve as the basis for an international discussion." Which would explain why nothing ever came of it, and why it was quietly tucked away only to be discovered in 1999 by a law student at Columbia University.

The New York Times piece, which is also cited here, is merely a summary the original report. Joe Sharkey states, "Verbatim excerpts from the outline would require extensive explanations. Instead, the outline is summarized below." Nowhere does Sharkey consult a historian, nor does he explicitly claim the report is historically accurate. Sharkey does a fair job of summarizing it, apart from the fact he misquotes Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth, saying, "the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement" which was not actually von Schirach, but the opinion of the O.S.S. outline regarding particular members of the Nazi Party (Sharkey had missed the end-quote on p. 6). Sharkey's regular columns, as it were, focus mostly on business travel.

The Wikipedia entry makes the assertion that the O.S.S. report revealed a plan "destroy Christianity within the Reich." This is not true. The report stated that a "sector of the National Socialist party," wanted Christianity extirpated, but this attitude was largely confined to Alfred Rosenberg and his allies (p. 6). What the report actually argued was that the Nazis had a plan the undermine the Church's political influence, due to the growing resistance among the clergy, after the Nazis gradually reneged on its many promises (pp. 17-19). The O.S.S. report reveals that the Nazis preoccupation with the "Church Question" was centered around their desire to retain complete control over the German population, and had little to nothing to do with religious or sectarian matters. Evidence of this plan, the report stated in the section titled "The Problem of Proof," was circumstantial and could be inferred from "the systematic nature of the persecution itself." (p. 9.) "Direct evidence" however might be obtained by examining the "directives of the Reich Propaganda Ministry." If this evidence did not exist or was destroyed, the "questioning of Nazi newspapermen and local and regional propagandists might elicit the desired evidence" the report stated (p. 9).

The report also includes charges that the Nazis persecuted secular movements, and that the Nazis "abolished the right to pursue anti-religious and anti-church propaganda. The Prussian government closed the so-called secular (weltliche) schools in which no religious instruction was given and re- established religious instruction in professional and vocation schools. All organizations of free-thinkers were forbidden." (p. 12) In any case, the entire paragraph relating to the O.S.S. outline poorly mischaracterizes the source material, plays up the certainty regarding its claims, and draws extraneous conclusions which are not made by the original report. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The above critiques (original research, I believe) notwithstanding, there is ample evidence to support that the Nazis intented to eventually eradiate Christianity. I am including a number of quotes from reliable sources below to that effect. I will add them as support to the assertion in the article. Certainly reliably sourced contrary views may be included, but I think this is sufficient to support this assertion notwithstanding editor's criticism relating to the O.S.S. report (I think criticism from a reliable source would be more compelling). Conway does say that among the questions which does remain is whether and to what degree Nazis had conceived this plan prior to coming to power.

• “There is no doubt that in the long run Nazi leaders such as Hitler and Himmler intended to eradicate Christianity just as ruthlessly as any other rival ideology, even if in the short term they had to be content to make compromises with it.”

• "Had the Nazis won the war their ecclesiastical policies would have gone beyond those of the German Christians, to the utter destruction of both the Protestant and the Catholic Church."

• “Consequently, it was Hitler’s long rang goal to eliminate the churches once he had consolidated control over his European empire.”

• “And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”

• “The objective was to either destroy Christianity and restore the German gods of antiquity or to turn Jesus into an Aryan.”

• “It seems no exaggeration to insist that the greatest challenge the Nazis had to face was their effort to eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least to subjugate it to their general world outlook.”

• The Nazis sought to "to eradicate Christianity in Germany root and branch."

References

Mamalujo (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence cited by these sources which support their assertions? This is important. It just seems curious to me that such a grand plot to destroy one of the longest lasting and most influential faiths in all of human culture is conspicuously absent from virtually every scholarly work concerning Nazism and World War II. You would think it might merit a line or two. In any case, you did provide a handful of references to support this hypothesis, however I worry that you are giving these speculations, as it were, undue weight in light of all other evidence. I would hate to accuse you of selectively choosing your sources, but I could without any trouble find more sources that claim the Holocaust never occurred than citations that claim the Nazi's had "a plan to destroy Christianity." You could find reputable sources by reputable scholars to claim all sorts of ridiculous assertions. Pseudo-scientists and Pseudo-historians make a living out of this. But this is not the most honest way to present nor understand history. Just looking at your citations, notice how unauthoritative they seem. Dill for example is openly speculating, or "insisting" rather, that it was a coin toss between destroying Christianity or domesticating it. Fischel, a coin toss between destroying Christianity or simply making Jesus Aryan. Wheaton is quoting from Rauschning's Hitler Speaks, by all accounts a dubious or fraudulent work. And your other sources seem to be asserting that Hitler intended, not to destroy Christianity per se, but to eliminate the Churches—which just seems odd given that he was financially supporting them, signing deals with them, and given that most Churches and pastors in Germany supported the Nazi regime, especially among the conservative Protestant and Evangelical faiths. Best, Miguel Chavez (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Dutton

Dutton p. 41 writes: "Christianity, said Hitler, just as much as Judaism, was opposed to the healthy Nordic pagan ideals he had for Germany. He would not destroy Christianity, but he would redefine it and use its more positive principles—such as ‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesars’ and ‘drive the moneychangers out of the temple.’’’25 Hence, while anti-Semitism may have existed in medieval Christian thought, it coexisted with Christian values that may have served as buffers against malignant expression. Hitler rejected those values and any safeguards against their malignant expression." The title of the book as given in the citation however is wrong. I will fix that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. P. 41 in the Cambridge edition of the book has something entirely different. While this does tend to support the material in the article, it is still quite weak. It is a psychology text, and if you read it in context, it is talking about Hitler's point of view at a certain point in time - his increasing antagonism toward Christianity: just two sentances earlier it says "As Nazi power increased, Hitler began to denounce Christianity. But the historical record indicates that Hitler had abandoned remaking Christianity, "positive Christianity", by 1940. So this is pretty weak support for the proposition that "other historians maintain no such plan existed". The source is not a historian and he's not saying the Nazis had no such plan, only that at a certain point in time Hitler intended to remake Christianity into something different. Mamalujo (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't even find a reference to the Cambridge version of the book. I agree that its general relevance to the article is questionable since the author is not a historian. I disagree with you that it is talking about Hitler's personal view - it is talking but about the general view in German society. Your argument is flawed in that you try to challenge us to prove a negative. He is quite clearly saying that Hitler wanted to incorporate christianity into his governance style which is the opposite of what you suggest. We cannot expect him to say explicitly that Hitler did not have a plan to destroy Christianity anymore than we can expect and astronomer to state ecxplicitly that the moon is not made of cheese. The fact that these Historians describe Hitler's plan as being to change and incorporate christianity is sufficient to show that they do not believe there was a plan of destruction.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't arguing to remove the sentence, or even necessarily that cite. Steigman-Gall is support enough. I don't think your analogy about proving the negative is apt. A good number of prominent historians (I've only referenced the most explicit and pronounced) have made this assertion or something like it. When that happens and others view it as erroneous, like stating the moon is made of cheese, you do typically in time get others making a refutation.Mamalujo (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

National Church plan

• Was the plan ever implemented? It wasn’t, was it? That should be stated.
• "The National Church is determined to exterminate foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800." — What!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by X883 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

They, towards the end, were going to do it after the war. And they lost the war. They were hella planning to go all Henry VIII and tear up the church and "fix" it with the proper Nazi Church. Tat (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Official Handbook for the Schooling of Hitler Youth

The handbook which is available in its entirety online contains the following passage:

"Even today, the racial ideas of National Socialism have implacable opponents. Free Masons, Marxists, and the Christian Church join hands in brotherly accord on this point. The worldwide order of Free Masons conceals its Jewish plans for ruling the world behind the catchword "Mankind" or "Humanity." Masonry can take much as credit for its effort to bring Jews and Turks into the fold, as does Christianity itself. Marxism has the same goal as Free Masonry. In this case, to disguise its real intentions the slogan "Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity" is preached. Under Jewish leadership, Marxism intends to bring together everyone "who bears the face of man.

The Christians, above all the Roman Church, reject the race idea with the citation 'before God all men are equal." All who have the Christian belief, whether Jews, bush niggers, or whites are dearer to them and more worthwhile than a German who does not confess Christianity. The one binding bond, above and beyond all restrictions, is the Belief which alone brings salvation.

One proof that the Roman Church rejects the race idea against its own better judgment is shown by the following facts. At one time, there existed the danger that the aims of the Jesuit order would be jeopardized or perverted by its Jewish members. A rule forbidding admission of Jews into the Jesuit order was issued. Today, since the danger is long since past, the church disregards it. Now why do we find in Free Masonry, Marxism, and the Christian church this mistaken teaching of the equality of all men? All three are striving more or less for power over the whole earth. Therefore, they must necessarily be "international." They can never acknowledge the human ties of race, community, or nation if they do not wish to give up their own aims."

New section "Nazi plan for religion in Third Reich" added as #2 bullet by Ozhistory

I removed this new section because there are already applicable sections that this should fall under, for example:2.3 Nazi attitudes towards Christianity 2.4 Nazi policy towards the Churches 3.2 Plan for the Roman Catholic Church

Kirchenkampf etc. is already discussed in these sections, and in my opinion that edit, especially it's tone and the fact that it was added as the #2 bullet was a POV edit, and did not add anything of substance to the article.Greengrounds (talk) 08:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

An update - this disruptive editor (greengrounds) was subsequently banned for vandalism and rampant abuse of editors. Ozhistory (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ozhistory Non-neutral edits, false edit summaries which include uncited material

I've reverted some of user Ozhistory's edits, which included blatant attempts to blame the Nazi and their holocaust on atheism. Once such uncited statement was

3.5% claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 % non-Christians, or "non-believers". Most of this latter 5% were committed Nazis, who had left the churches in response to the encouragement of the Nazi Party, which wanted to reduce the influence of Christianity in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.230 (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The above personal attack, false allegations and reversions of sourced content referred to have been made by a sockpuppet of the banned user:Greengrounds. While the allegation made above is typically nonsensical, the quote which he objects to is from Richard J. Evans, as cited in the main, though deleted by the sockpuppet. The full deleted quote reads Most in these latter categories, wrote Evans, "were convinced Nazis who had left their Church at the behest of the Party, which had been trying since the mid 1930s to reduce the influence of Christianity in society". I will restore the deleted content. Ozhistory (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Lack of accountability

The article portrays Hitlers' forces as being anti Christian, but states that his nation was 95% Christian. The Nazis even put the "Gott Mit Uns" motto on their military belt buckles. The actions of the "95% Christian" German people going to war for Hitler while wearing those belt buckles are not reconciled with the "he wasn't a Christian" story presented herein. How could a nation 95% opposed to a man be swayed into following his lead? What characteristics allowed their religion to follow such mass delusion? Much missing here...Outofthebox (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

POV-issue in the article

I've added a pow tag to the section abot Jehovah's Witnesses, because of a one-sided presentation of the issue regarding "Declaration of Facts". The sources used in the first half of the section, are all from not reliable sources, and a cherry picking from the declaration of facts is not helpful to give an understanding of the contemporary situation. George D. Chryssides have discussed exactly those issues in a paper published at CESNUR (Center for Studes on New Religion), and have concluded otherways than presented in the disputed section. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Forgot to include the link: "Provocation or Persecution? The "Bibelforscher" in the Third Reich (An Examination of the Conflict between Jehovah's Witnesses and the Nazis)". Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Martin Bormann, Relying on Outdated Pseudo-Authorities

I have genealogically congenic contacts close to Hitler, believe it or not, such is my preface. So I know things others do not, and the fog of propaganda does not affect me as it does others, I humbly state. I know, surely a nutcase, right? How in the heck do I "CONFIRM" per Wikipedia's "EDITORIAL STANDARDS" or whatever, such a claim? Your own unscientific way of "sourcing" makes it impossible, so that's that...

Whatever Hitler and his Nazism might have been, at least, "anti-Christian" - NO.

Hitler was frankly weird; today, he would probably be considered as having "schizotypal personality disorder" - I do not accept the Americanist-corporatist DSM as a bible, please note, as most do on here, sadly, but that is a diagnosis coming approximately close to who he was, psychologically (re-emphasizing: approximately).

I know he was weird (and morally, evil), I know - I think even you Americans have somewhere in your Library of Congress, the books and authors he was into, his whole personal library he had been collecting since his youth - or am I wrong here? - my contacts tell me it was "stolen", so... you must have some stuff from Schopenhauer, Blavatsky, Liebenfels, etc., surely. All of them, self-vaunted Christians despite being considered popularly anti-Christian. The mass mind cannot handle subtleties.

Anyway, those authors should give you an indication as to the type of Christianity he conceived - how does one even negotiate such extremist, convoluted intellectuality? But that is what he sincerely believed in, or at least, partially was influential,l in his total world-view...

So his own self-conceptualized Christianity, accordingly, is very "weird" - still, he was sincere and as an encyclopedia, personal judgments about whether an actor in human history was a "real Christian" etc. - I naively believed Wikipedia would be beyond such unprofessional, subjective, distorting foolery.

Cartoonish lying goofiness, this imagined desire to "exterminate Christianity" esoterically concealed in some sort of occult Nazi party program.

The cited authors and dependent populist journalists (hardly authorities!) who are given as evidence that there was some sort of eventual "Christianity extermination esoteric program" here, do you realize the evidence itself these cited people rely upon is deficient and scientifically proven today as forged, tainted, counterfeit, etc.?

The cited authors are all naively gullible and their minds thrown off-track concerning the key "Table Talks" nonsense, which the verifiably confirmed spy agent Martin Bormann had control over in any case - nothing else even comes close as a source for this silliness about wholesale nihilistic expunging of Christianity from the earth...

Do you people even concede the Table Talks are counterfeit?

Do you people concede and understand Martin B. was a spy in high office manipulating things?

Do you people understand Hitler, hyper-aged by amphetamine use thanks to Morell and overwhelmed as the war quickly proved itself unwinnable, DID NOT ever even pretend some of Bormann's personal opinions relating to Christianity had anything like a PARTY, MANDATORY IDEOLOGY nature? One can compare how Hitler handled Rosenberg here - did Hitler ever make Rosenberg's beliefs the "true Nazi dogma"...? He laughed at the very notion.

Hitler himself I would describe as a follower of the (French) Enlightenment philosophes concerning the Godhead and so on, and moreover, a Deist of unconventional variety, but personally as opposed to atheism and especially materialistic atheism, as is imaginable -

Hitler was an "evil genius" who simply did not think like most of you about these things, and it is certain he in his own mind, while aggressively opposing "JUDAEO-Christianity", did believe himself a ("nondenominational") Christian, regardless of how we describe it in today's terms, he believed in Christ and believed himself a Christian...

Hitler conceived of the role of the State as interfacing Religion, in very similar manner as the French Enlightenment philosophes, again. No conspiracy theories, please.

The best evidence you guys got is central upon the counterfeited forgery of a documented Soviet spy, basically.

Admittedly himself Martin B., very clever, no natural genius like Hitler though, who took advantage of his position in a way Machiavelli would applaud, serving his secret commanders in all manner of ways as best he could; meanwhile, the brainpower of "the Leader" suffering damage more than substantial and internal administrative policies, already relatively "libertarian" to begin with in terms of Hitler and any sort of "ideological dogmatic Nazism", becoming even more so during wartime - so Borman was a very down-to-earth Machiavellian character of wits, no doubt, but taking advantage of Hitler's amphetamine-accelerated chaotic decline strategically as espionage agent and power-wielder (Hitler's brainpower plummeting almost exponentially upon initiation of the war; amphetamine-induced neurotoxicity due to Morell, I am sure, a factor, and perhaps natural super early onset Parkinson's? etc.) - no, fellows, this constitutes no scholarly, scholastic substantiation and I would appreciate it if my edit correcting your conspiracy-theory silliness, in some way or shape, be re-inserted, for, the reality is as my edit suggested: there was no uniform (the very opposite!) ideological tenet or belief here in this sensitive domain, and Hitler only opposed in his own mind Judaized Christianity, NOT Christ or Christianity in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the finest of Wikipedia do NOT even have a clue as to recent scientific progressive research relating to the "Table Talk/s" (one-half forgery from Borman, one-half forgery from a known, discredited French con-artist obsessed with Hitler - I am speculating perhaps a handful of sentences from Hitler might be in there, but that is an optimism the empirical facts do not promote))

Well, here is a little scholarly material for my less enlightened, largely American audience. Do you Americans and Anglo-phone world denizens dominating Wikipedia, realize how insular, prejudiced, provincially-minded and scientifically backward your editorial class is, really! In other parts of the world, where the "pax Americana" or whatever does not touch things, we simply laugh, when not outraged or saddened by the backwardness and cognitive self-dissonance of "Homo Americanus"...

I am apolitical; actually, no, I am anti-Nazi and anti-Communist as is reasonable, probably close to ironically, the average American in "ideological world-view" in the days before your Federal government began exerting itself so potently (I am thinking, perhaps pre-1900's or so Midwest America?) so this whole issue is trans-personal, from my angle: I simply cannot abide the world being taught and then passively swallowing, Manichean propaganda phantoms, even before the war ended, analytically shown to be more than questionable! -

https://media.8ch.net/pdfs/src/1429265963793.pdf

Excuse my imperfect English, I know my syntax etc. is "off" as a second language, and I AM using a "PROXY" - so other people with this I.P. are assuredly, NOT the same personage... How you fellows attempt to track and identify "BOTS" is interesting, I guess good if you mean well, but needs some polishing, I daresay... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Bullock

"Alan Bullock; Hitler: A Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991;"

Why are all the citations of Bullock's book from a 1991 reprint rather than the original and 1952 version? Hitler: A Study in Tyranny is a fine book but his religious claims are wrong and he admitted such to Trevor-Roper who rightly noted the Christianity in Positive Christianity it's weird to say that when you remove all the Jewish corrupt elements from Christianity you get Nazism, and that the real Christianity is basically Nazism and the real Jesus was a fighter and sufferer against the Jews. But, that's not atheism or natural selection or any of the other stuff Bullock said back in the 50s. Alan Bullock's views led in the 1950s to a debate with Hugh Trevor-Roper who argued that Hitler did possess beliefs, albeit repulsive ones, and that his actions were motivated by them. And Bullock later changed his mind on this point. He wrote it in the 50s and changed his view with the views of everybody else that changed their view. And yet the article often quotes stuff like, "In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest." -- This is the sort of crap you might have been able to accept in the 50s but even Bullock couldn't maintain that view into the 60s. But, the article makes no note of this and cites this from the 1991 reprint of the 52 book as if it represents anything coherent on the Religion in Nazi Germany. Rather than the evolution of the historical views on the topic. I'm not sure how to fix it other than just removing all the Bullock sections. Tat (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Confessing Church declarations of loyalty to Hitler

While Steigmann-Gall claims that "the Confessing Church made frequent declarations of loyalty to Hitler," this seems to stretch the facts. It is true that most BK (Confessing Church) pastors signed the oath of allegiance to Hitler in 1938 (some, though not all, faced removal from office if they refused, http://en.evangelischer-widerstand.de/html/view.php?type=dokument&id=65, and many of the Confessing Church's governing bodies approved it, http://en.evangelischer-widerstand.de/html/view.php?type=dokument&id=93), and it is also true that the BK recognized the "divine appointment" of the State (Barmen Declaration), but those are both different things from the movement declaring loyalty to Hitler. ElrondPA (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

1.5% atheists in 1939; mostly Czechs?

Dear colleagues,
The claim that the May 1939 census resulted in 1.5% inhabitants of Germany declaring themselves atheists or non-religious is repeated three times in the article: once in the lede, once in the section "Denominational trends during the Nazi period" and once in a pie chart. All three lack a reference, but the sentence after the section's mention suggests the source for this claim is Richard J. Evans The Third Reich At War (2009) p. 546. As rightly pointed out in the first two sentences of the lede, the annexation of Austria in March 1938 considerably increased the number of Catholics. But what about the annexation of the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the subsequent annexation of the remainder of Czechia (as "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia") in March 1939? Were these territories' populations included in the May 1939 census? Because this would mean another noticeable relative increase of Catholics, as well as the addition of hundreds of thousands of nonreligious people.

The article Religion in the Czech Republic cites the Czech Statistis Bureau, which indicates that in 1930, Czechia (I assume they excluded Slovakia and Carpatho-Ukraine, despite these three constituting Czechoslovakia at the time) had 10.7 million inhabitants: 78.5% Catholics, 10% Protestants (Hussites and Czech Brethren) and... 7.8% irreligious or undeclared (Czech: Bez vyznání a nezjištěno) citizens, numbering 834,144. The USHMM, cited in this article's first sentence, only roughly estimates Catholics at 20 million, Protestants at 40 million and Jews at less than 1% in 1933; no mention of the "nones" is made, though they probably would have been noticeable by then (e.g. the German Freethinkers League had thousands of members). But assuming the number of German atheists was negligleable in 1933, could the annexation of Czechia have been the primary cause of the increase to 1.5% atheists in 1939?

I did some calculation. Demographics_of_Germany#Statistics_since_1900 indicates Germany had 69,314,000 inhabitants. The text above and the figures that show no great shock in 1938 and 1939 seem to indicate this excludes Austria (6,658,000) and Czechia (10,674,386). If we count these up, we get 86,646,386. The 834,144 atheist Czechs (assuming they did not change in number for 9 years – a bit of a stretch, but unfortunately we don't have more recent data) would make up 0.96% of the entire population of the Third Reich in May 1939. That's a lot. It would mean that two-thirds of all atheists in 1939 Germany were Czech, despite Czechs (including Sudeten Germans) only being c. 11% of the total population.

So, did Evans include the population of Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia (I assume he would not include Slovakia because it was a separate puppet state, not annexed by Germany)? I'm gonna try and find a copy of Evans' book as Google Books has no preview. A local library seems to have a Dutch translation. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems like Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and Slovakia, a satellite state, were excluded from what was considered Germany for this statistic. It included mostly German-speaking & Catholic Sudetenland (not much atheist Czechs and more Catholic Germans) and Catholic Austria. I doubt these were mostly Czechs, a lot of people seemed to leave churches going further and further into the Nazi era.Ernio48 (talk) 05:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ernio48 Do you have evidence for that?

I found the passage in the Dutch translation of Evans (2009) on page 584 and 585 (translated back to English):

"In 1939, 95 percent of the Germans described themselves as either 'Catholic' or 'Protestant'; 3.5 percent were 'deist' (gottgläubig) and 1.5 'atheist': most people in these last categories were convinced Nazis who had left their church association [kerkgenootschap] at the urging of the party, which had tried to reduce Christianity's influence on society since the mid-1930s.²⁰" Unfortunately that's all. I looked up reference no. 20, but that book's pages only discussed Japanese war tactics, so I may have found the wrong reference no. 20. I may try again tomorrow. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Problem 1 with this quote is that it does not give us exact numbers for Catholics and Protestants; we're left to guess what their ratio was. Unless the Dutch translation left out those details (highly unlikely), we cannot quote Evans to claim there were 54% Protestants, 40% Catholics and 1% other faiths; those figures are simply not in the citation given. They may be in reference no. 20, but I've got no access to that now.

Problem 2 is that we have no idea what the source of this information is; was it a May 1939 census? Did it include Austria, Sudetenland and rest-Czechia (Bohemia and Moravia)? I'm also very curious whether the German original source would actually use the word 'Atheist' or something else like 'konfessionslos' or 'nichtgläubig'.

However, the source clearly suggests that most (how much?) of these 3.5% and 1.5% identified as such because of the NSDAP's policies. I would be most interested in knowing more. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

In the first days of their occupation by the German population and for fear tens of thousands of Czech families had to leave their homes in the Czech borderland and flee inland. Until mid-December 1938, according to the official data of the Prague Institute for Refugee Care, nearly 152,000 Czechs fled, far from being civil servants only, but also other groups of the Czech population. An even greater number of Czechs remained in occupied territories. (GEBHART, Jan; KUKLÍK, Jan; Druhá republika 1938–1939, p. 33, Paseka, 2004, ISBN: 80-7185-626-6)

Of the total number of all the population that lived in the autumn of 1938 in the Sudetenland and other detached areas, 12-13% were Czechs. On May 17, 1939, the population was censored. According to its results (unless they were deliberately modified) 291,000 people of Czech nationality lived in the territory of the Sudetenland. GEBHART, Jan; KUKLÍK, Jan, Druhá republika 1938–1939, p. 34.Paseka, 2004, ISBN: 80-7185-626-6)

The Census (of Czechs) in 1939 reports 88.5% of Catholics, 5.4% of evangelicals, 1.4% of other Christians and 0.1% of Jewish religion in Sudetenland. (KURAL, Václav; RADVANOVSKÝ Zdeněk et al., „Sudety“ pod hákovým křížem, Albis International, 2002, ISBN: 80-86067-66-1)

Which shows that the number of Czechs in Sudetenland without a confession was 4,6%.

Psax (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Collaboration" occurs a single time in this article & no discussion about Christian imagery used by Nazi Germany

Right now this article seems to go to lengths to avoid discussing the reality of Nazi Germany: churches of all types collaborated closely with the Nazi regime. This reads like it was written by the clergy that assisted Nazi Germany's rise to power and openly supported the Nazi Party's rise, only to pretend to have been somehow part of the resistance after the war.

Additionally, this article does not discuss the extensive Christian imagery used in Nazi Germany, such as the embrace of imagery around Charlemagne. Why is that? It looks to me like this article needs to be rewritten from scratch using modern reliable sources written by specialists in the field. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)