Talk:Religion in Nazi Germany

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Way off the wall

message: 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)
thread_title:  merger 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: improvements and expansion

message: 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)
thread_title:  The role of atheism in nazism? 

message: 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. selfwormTalk) 18:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've placed a post on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Religion_in_Nazi_Germany.selfwormTalk) 10:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nazi Mysticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bernhard Stempfle, a Priest? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The revised wording is much more reasonable. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Luther's Role

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Religion and Politics

message: "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)
thread_title: Just a little note about geography

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Lead Paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View? 

message: 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.  ADM (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic Nazi leaders

message: "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)
thread_title:  Bad sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hitler and Islam 

message: --Dojarca (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why Islam section is removed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prayer to Hitler 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Other religions 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Badly written 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dutton

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  National Church plan 

message: 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)
replies: text: An update - this disruptive editor (greengrounds) was subsequently banned for vandalism and rampant abuse of editors. Ozhistory (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section "Nazi plan for religion in Third Reich" added as #2 bullet by Ozhistory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ozhistory Non-neutral edits, false edit summaries which include uncited material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of accountability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV-issue in the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Martin Bormann, Relying on Outdated Pseudo-Authorities 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Bullock 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confessing Church declarations of loyalty to Hitler 

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