Talk:Religion in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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.^[1] 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

I merged the short section on the Prayer to Hitler from Nazi occultism into this article. This basically was a no-brainer, because the prayer had been taken from the German Wikipedia article corresponding to this one originally and because the Prayer to Hitler as "Political Messiah" is not the kind of semi-religiosity that Nazi occultism is about. You might want to take another look at Nazi occultism for yet another reason. There is now a longer section on Esotericism in Nazi Germany and I am not sure were it would belong better. -Zara1709 07:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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!) 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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply