- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
There is an ongoing dispute over the validity of the sources used in the article, as well as the content therein. This dispute is between Greengrounds and (primarily) Ozhistory, who is joined by IronMaidenRocks, with Hcc01 getting tangled in the dispute as well. Greengrounds favors precedence to be given to Albert Speer, Richard Carrier and John Toland as sources, each supporting that Adolf Hitler held Catholic beliefs in his adult life. Ozhistory prefers to lend precedence to Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, who suggest that Hitler was fundamentally opposed to Christianity. This has been continuing for over a month now, and as is noted in the most recent talk page section, the article has suffered as a result.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
At the start of this dispute, I attempted to mediate this issue myself by crafting a draft of the introductory paragraph (where the dispute was contained at the time, and primarily is now) that would attempt to placate both sides. However, it was never fully agreed upon, and eventually slipped back into a battleground.
How do you think we can help?
Independent third parties are needed to evaluate the sources and decide what gets into the article as fact and what gets in as an aside. This may simply become a matter of consensus, where more editors become involved and weigh into the issue until it becomes clear how each side of the coin will be presented. If that fails, or becomes eroded again, this will likely head to RfM.
I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you look at the talk page on Religious views of Adolf Hitler as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on talk, whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. Note, I have been using the talk, though I may have come across as aggressive at times, which could be construed as personal attacks. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, despite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical.
Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, HERE and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting other user's edits. Many of your recent edits, specifically on the latter article violate the policy of Citing sources. Proper citations should be used, and other users should be respected when they ask for citations. On both of the articles in question you have been accused by multiple users of Violating Wikipedia's Point of View Policies. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community, and you do not own the articles, nor do you have the right to impose your POV on Wikipedia articles. Specifically, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Please pay close attention to article structure and Due and Undue Weight, Balance, Impartial tone, and Words to watch. Also you have completely ignored previous mediation agreements in whichUser:Deadbeef was the mediator, and even tried to lie on Deadbeef's talk page denying that he was even involved in the initial edit war.
Furthermore, though others will paint themselves as victims of personal attacks I too have been victim of that repeatedly by Ozhistory including slander, false accusations of vandalism and anonymous editing, abuse of my talk page, etc. Again, I am I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. In light of these issues, I volunteer to stay away from the two articles as long as Ozhistory stays away. This could be for a specified amount of time or indefinitely. Clearly with the POV disputes involved and the history of the two editors, this is a rational option, and one that was even recommended by Hcc01. I was willing to accept this. Ironically Ozhistory was not been willing to accept this and has even recently continued to make edits on the lede of the Adolf Hitler Religious views wiki which other editors have had to revert, given the current situation. Greengrounds (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for opportunity to discuss. I would summarise the current crux of dispute a little differently to Deadbeef. Following his initial involvement, I went to the original sources proposed for citation in our lead. I found that the proposed text did not match the authors' works closely enough. Speer for example, could almost have been read in our lead as having believed that Hitler did not have disputes with the churches, when a full reading of his text indicates quite the contrary - similarly Toland, was not as clear cut as our lead wanted to imply. I also gathered further sources. For the information of reviewing editors:
- This was the "work in progress" intro text that stood around 22 May:
Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic, anticlerical father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood.[1] Though never formally expelled from the Catholic Church, he later had "no attachment to it" and became hostile to its teachings.[2][3][4][5] Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's adult religious views, including his relationship to Christianity and the Catholic church.
According to Hitler's architect, Albert Speer, amid political associates, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", yet conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and around 1937, amid an exodus of Nazis from the Catholic fold, he ordered his chief associates to remain members of the church.[6] According to transcripts edited by Hitler's private secretary Martin Bormann, in the 1940s, Hitler spoke of Christianity as "absurdity" and "humbug" founded on "lies" with which he could "never come personally to terms."[7]
Hitler biographers John Toland, Ian Kershaw and Alan Bullock all noted that Hitler was anticlerical.[8][3] Toland wrote that Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", but said that in 1941 Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy".[8][9] While noting that under Pius XII the church saved more Jews from the Nazis than all other rescue organizations combined, Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism.[10] Toland also wrote that some who met Hitler were convinced that he was a committed believer.[11][12] To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, able to disguise his inner beliefs, yet he clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question" in Germany, evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility" towards them.[13] According to Bullock, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest.[3][14] Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, he became hostile to its teachings.[3]
In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches Hitler often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity.[15][16] Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy.[17] In religious policy in office, Hitler instigated an all-out persecution of Jews - based on racial rather than religious grounds - and permitted or encouraged varying degrees of interference, harassment and persecution of Christian churches.
Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament that he would not interfere with the rights of the churches. With power secured in Germany, Hitler quickly broke this promise.[18][19] He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany.[20] He attempted to Nazify German Protestants in a Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt backfired with the formation of the anti-Nazi Confessing Church.[21] He instigated an aggressive persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses because of their religious objection to military service and pledges of allegiance to the state.[21][22]
Bullock and Kershaw wrote that Hitler intended to eradicate Christianity under a Nazi future.[23][24] Many historians have written that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.[25][26] The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible".[27] Historian Michael Phayer wrote that by the latter 1930s, church officials knew that the long term aim of Hitler was the "total elimination of Catholicism and of the Christian religion".[28]
- This was the text Greengrounds reverted to on 23 May:
Contradictory accounts exist about Adolf Hitler's religious views, including his ties to Christianity and the Catholic church. According to Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, Hitler remained a formal member of the Catholic church until his death, and even ordered his chief associates to remain members; however it was Speer's opinion that "he had no real attachment to it."[1] Biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarchy" and drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism.[2] Conversely, the Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler believed Christianity and Nazism were "incompatible" and intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism".[3] Additionally, biographer Alan Bullock wrote that, though raised Catholic, Hitler was a rationalist and materialist, who saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of selection and survival of the fittest.[4] Though Hitler had respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, Bullock wrote he became hostile to its teachings.[4]
Adolf Hitler was raised by a sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother; he ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood.[5] In office, Hitler agreed a Concordat with the Catholic Church, and briefly sought to unify Germany's Protestant churches under the Nazi aligned Deutsche Christen Movement, which rejected the Hebrew origins of the Gospel.[6] Hitler routinely violated his treaty with the Vatican and failed in his effort to Nazisfy German Protestantism.[6]
In his book Mein Kampf and in public speeches he often made statements that affirmed a belief in Christianity.[7][8] Prior to World War II Hitler had promoted "positive Christianity", a movement which purged Christianity of its Jewish elements and instilled it with Nazi philosophy.[9] According to the controversial collection of transcripts edited by Martin Bormann, titled Hitler's Table Talk, as well as the testimony of some intimates, Hitler had privately negative views of Christianity. Others reported he was a committed believer.[2][10] Many historians say that Hitler had a general covert plan, which some say existed even before the Nazis' rise to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich, which was to be accomplished through control and subversion of the churches and to be completed after the war.[11][12]
- Following the above reversion, and after a series of consultations on talk page, this was the last revision of an introductory paragraph proposal by me in (it is still too long, and in need of more work, but conduct issues have slowed progress on collaboration):
Adolf Hitler was the son of an anticlerical father and a practicing Catholic mother.[1][2] Though remaining nominally Catholic,[3] Hitler was anticlerical,[4][5] and became generally hostile to the church's teachings.[4][6][4][7][8] In office, the Hitler regime sought to exterminate Judaism (on racial rather than religious grounds), and persecuted various Christian groups and organisations. Many historians have written that Hitler had a long term plan to destroy Christianity within the Third Reich.[9][10][11][12][13][14]
Differing accounts of Hitler's views on religion exist. According to Speer, Hitler made "harsh pronouncements against the church", but conceived of it as as a potentially "useful instrument" and important conservative force. Amid church-state tensions in 1937, he ordered chief associates to remain members, and did so himself - though having "no attachment to it".[15] In the transcripts of Hitler's Table Talk, edited by Martin Bormann, numerous harsh pronouncements against Christianity and the churches are attributed to Hitler.[16] Toland drew links between Hitler's Catholic background and his antisemitism and wrote that, while Hitler saw Pope Pius XII as "no friend", he was still "a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite his detestation of its hierarcy".[17][18][19] According to Domarus, Hitler had jettisoned the last of his Catholic beliefs by 1937, believing thereafter in a new and warlike German "god".[20] According to Bullock, Hitler retained respect for the 'great position' of the Catholic church, but was a rationalist and materialist who did not believe in God - and saw Christianity as a religion "fit for slaves", and against the natural law of survival of the fittest.[4][21] Hitler convinced some that he was a committed believer.[22][23] To Kershaw, Hitler was a secretive figure, who disguised his inner beliefs, yet clearly held radical instincts on the "Church Question", evidenced by "frequent outbursts of hostility".[24]
In Mein Kampf (1925-7), Hitler used language affirming the existence of God, and significance of religion, but criticised Political Catholicism and the lack of racism in the churches.[25][26] Campaigning for office, he courted the Christian vote and benefited from fear of atheist communism.[27] In public speeches he often affirmed a belief in Christianity.[28] Prior to the March 1933 vote for the Enabling Act, Hitler promised the Weimar Parliament not to interfere with the churches. With power secured in Germany, he quickly broke this promise.[29][30] He dishonoured a concordat signed with the Vatican and permitted a persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany.[31] In his early political career, Hitler promoted "positive Christianity", a Nazi aligned movement which rejected the Apostles Creed and denied the Jewish origins of Jesus and Christianity.[32][33] In office, he attempted to Nazify German Protestants in an apostate Reich Church, under the anti-Semite Ludwig Muller and the Deutsche Christens. The attempt split the church, with the formation of the Confessing Church.[34] He instigated an persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses.[34][35] The Encyclopedia Britannica states that Hitler intended to replace Christianity with a "racist form of warrior paganism" and shared his deputy Martin Bormann's view that it was "incompatible" with Nazism.[11] There is some scholarly debate over the ultimate intentions of Hitler towards the Christian churches.
- Elements of the above have already been incorporated into current article lead, and I am not entirely sure what Greengrounds current objections to further inclusions may be. His only consistent objection has been that he wants the lead structured so as to give weight to a view that Hitler was either "a devout Catholic" or a "believing Christian" and statements of that sort. Such statements are not widely found in sources, though there are some who go some way to making the claim - as my text confirms above (see Toland statement). If I understand him correctly, Greengrounds believes that the Catholic Church (in particular) was essentially hand in glove with National Socialism in almost every respect; and he wants wikipedia articles on related topics to present this unhistorical view as the current and actual historical consensus.
- My preference at this point is to shorten the above - so any advice from qualified editors would be gladly received. The sourcing attached to it is wide-ranging and useful - it would be a pity to lose it. Ozhistory (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
References
- ^ John Toland; Hitler; Wordsworth Editions; 1997 Edn; p 9-10
- ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p. 5
- ^ William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p234
- ^ a b c d Alan Bullock; Hitler, a Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219"
- ^ John Toland; Hitler; Wordsworth Editions; 1997 Edn; p 16
- ^ Albert Speer. (1997). Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster, p. 96.
- ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; pp. 373 & 295-297
- ^ Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, Cameron & Stevens, Enigma Books pp. 59, 342, 343
- ^ *Sharkey, Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity, New York Times, 13 January 2002 *The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches, Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, Winter 2001, publishing evidence compiled by the O.S.S. for the Nuremberg war-crimes trials of 1945 and 1946 *Fischel, Jack R., Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust , p. 123, Scarecrow Press, 2010: “The objective was to either destroy Christianity and restore the German gods of antiquity or to turn Jesus into an Aryan.” *Dill, Marshall, Germany: a modern history , p. 365, University of Michigan Press, 1970: “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.” *Wheaton, Eliot Barculo The Nazi revolution, 1933–1935: prelude to calamity:with a background survey of the Weimar era, p. 290, 363, Doubleday 1968: The Nazis sought to "to eradicate Christianity in Germany root and branch."
- ^ Bendersky, Joseph W., A concise history of Nazi Germany, p. 147, Rowman & Littlefield, 2007: “Consequently, it was Hitler’s long range goal to eliminate the churches once he had consolidated control over his European empire.”
- ^ a b Encyclopedia Online - Fascism - Identification with Christianity web 20 Apr 2013
- ^ The Response of the German Catholic Church to National Socialism, by Michael Phayer published by Yad Vashem
- ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London p.661
- ^ Alan Bullock; Hitler, a Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p219"
- ^ Albert Speer. (1997). Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster, pp. 95-96.
- ^ Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, Cameron & Stevens, Enigma Books pp. 59, 342, 343
- ^ John Toland. (1976). Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. New York: Anchor Books, p. 703 & 760.
- ^ John Toland; Hitler; Wordsworth Editions; 1997 Edn; p 703
- ^ John Toland; Hitler; Wordsworth Editions; 1997 Edn; p 594
- ^ [Max Domarus (2007). The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, p. 21.
- ^ Alan Bullock; Hitler, a Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p216"
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Toland was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
- ^ Michael, Robert (2008). A history of Catholic antisemitism. New York: Macmillan, p. 111.
- ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; pp. 373 & 295-297
- ^ William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p234
- ^ Hitler, Adolf (1999). Mein Kampf. Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, pp. 65, 119, 152, 161, 214, 375, 383, 403, 436, 562, 565, 622, 632-633.
- ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; pp.495-6
- ^ Baynes, Norman H., ed. (1969). The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939. New York: Howard Fertig. pp. 19-20, 37, 240, 370, 371, 375, 378, 382, 383, 385-388, 390-392, 398-399, 402, 405-407, 410, 1018, 1544, 1594.
- ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.281-283
- ^ Alan Bullock; Hitler: a Study in Tyranny; HarperPerennial Edition 1991; p146-149
- ^ Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London p.295
- ^ William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p238-39
- ^ Steigmann-Gall, Richard (2003). The Holy Reich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-50, p. 252.
- ^ a b Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; W. W. Notron & Co; 2008 Edn; pp.295-297
- ^ Geoffrey Blainey; A Short History of Christianity; Viking; 2011; pp.495-6
The article is certainly currently a shambles after the recent disputes, as noted on its talk page, and Greengrounds has been referred as a cause for concern as a result of some of his behaviour. The current situation is that I have offered to rewrite it from scratch and a neutral observer - Taigei - has created a sandbox page for me and/or other editors to do so without further damaging the article. I haven't yet responded to this opportunity because I am very busy at the moment, but I am willing to do so. As noted above, I have suggested that everyone take a break from editing it for a while afterwards to allow feelings on all sides to cool down, but as Ozhistory has pointed out, on Wikipedia such a request is unenforceable. If it could be temporarily protected after a rewrite, that might help.
In one sense I think this is less about the content of the article than about the context of Ratzinger's/Dawkins' spat on the subject a couple of years ago. Since then the historical debate about whether or not, and to what extent, the Third Reich was 'Christian' in any meaningful sense of the word has been more or less a public slanging match, and this article appears to be collateral damage. Of course, I may be underplaying the public impact of Steigmann-Gall's research on the subject, which certainly provoked quite a heated debate among historians. However, current historical research seldom filters through to public debate, and as the more sensible reviewers noted, all RSG really did was move the start of the secular phase of Nazism by five years, whereas the New Atheist movement now needs for ideological reasons to expunge it altogether. It's unfortunate, but there we are. Hcc01 (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel that both users Greengrounds and Ozhistory are applying some level of bias to the article that does not belong. Both users are lobbying based on their personal beliefs, and it has tainted the talk page. For the most part, the article well reflects the contradictory nature of Hitler's personal beliefs. There's no reason to interject a one-sided viewpoint. Greengrounds has a history of belligerence in the talk page, along with plying his POV to the article. I've seen Ozhistory make at least one recommendation which appeared to be in line with his own POV.
I would recommend the article for peer review. I don't think there's any reason to favor either user here, as they both seem to have a personal interest in the article and how its presented. Users are drawing battle lines, which is worrying, and perhaps a good sign that frequent editors need to take a break or get off the project. But there is an influx of users trying to promote an agenda for either 'atheism on the march' or deflection of blame toward religion. Users such as Greengrounds and some of the sources they've added to the article imply there's an active conspiracy to disassociate Hitler's religious views with Christianity. On the other hand, I have noted a worrying amount of users going in the opposite direction to imply that Hitler was wholly motivated by religion; a view not supported by several of the sources mentioned in the article.
User:HectorMoffet suggested splitting the article between Hitler's 'views' and 'policies', which may helpful. It could be that some users are trying to wind Hitler's political actions into his personal beliefs, or vice verse. For example, I believe that the extensive discussion of Nazi reaction to the political activities of churches, like the Confessing church, has little to do with the personal beliefs of Adolf Hitler, and could be construed as apologist deflection. Of course, Hitler's struggles with such groups does have to do with his lifetime of activity with religions, etc.
Users should be more inclined to work together without agenda, though for some agenda is the whole reason why they're editing the article. I do have a concern that the article may become a matter of 'read between the lines to see a debate which is not actually mentioned herein'. A debate which has no place in the article, because both sides are politically constructed and opposed to historical truth.
--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler discussion
Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.
Pre-opening observations and requests: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Though I am a regular volunteer here, I am not either "taking" this request or opening it for discussion at this time. The guidelines for this noticeboard make it clear that this venue is for content, not conduct disputes, and it is well established here that we will not deal with conduct disputes or allow discussion of conduct to interfere with discussion of content. As framed by the listing editor this is indeed a content dispute, but a great deal of what is said in the opening statements, especially those of Greengrounds and Ozhistory, is conduct-related. With that understanding:
- @Greengrounds: Your opening statement, above, is nothing more than conduct allegations. If you wish to participate in this process, I would ask that you strike out or remove what you have said there and replace it with an opening statement substantially setting out your positions about the content which is at issue. Until you choose to make an opening statement which substantially addresses content, rather than conduct, the discussion of this request is not really going to be ripe to be opened.
- @Ozhistory: The volunteers here are not, with a few exceptions, administrators and we will not address the conduct issues mentioned in your opening statement, such as your suggestion of a topic ban. I would ask that you, too, strike out or remove the portions of your opening statement which have to do with conduct.
- @Other involved editors: Conduct is much less a part of your opening statements, but in keeping with the foregoing I would ask that you also review your statements and strike out or remove comments about conduct. Also to everyone, it would help to encourage a DRN volunteer to take this case if the content issues could be illustrated (and preferably circumscribed) by diffs.
Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- 24 hour closing notice: In light of Greengrounds' failure to address content issues here and in light of his heavy participation in the disputes at the article talk page, I or another volunteer will close this listing as futile at or after 15:00 UTC on June 18 unless matters change before that time. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.