Charges that Hitler was Pagan

[Hektor]

A channel on telegram accuses Hitler of being Anti-Christian and pro-Pagan, citing multiple sources, such as the Table Talks, Goebbels Diary, The Kersten Memoirs, and Albert Speer himself.

Not only are there major issues with all of these sources, the public record of his speeches, and laws and actions completely contradict this.

A standard quote from Hitler himself from the same table talks:

"Nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan." -Hitler's table talks, page 49

......

The line of argument they are using is prone to baits and switches.
Reason?
Terms like Christian and Pagan are rather broad in meaning.
The vast majority of Christians, if they are serious, have some problems with aspects of Christianity either in other churches or in their own church or community. Does it make them 'Anti-Christian'. I'd say not.

It's perfectly plausible that Hitler would have pointed out obnoxious aspects, practices and teachings of some Christians especially the main-line churches in Germany. The NS made it clear that they would embrace positive Christianity that doesn't go against the interest of Germany. Why that stipulation or condition? Because there is a history of priests and theologians using Christianity as a platform for political agitation that goes against German culture and sovereignty. Apparently the Churches have forgotten the wars of Religion that devastated Germany. Where are their apologies guilt confessions for this?

As for priests and pastors being jailed... Why were they jailed? Because of professing Christ? Incorrect the reasons were of a criminal nature.
Many of them had loyalty obligations towards the state (Bonhoeffer), which they disregarded for some postulates of "higher morality". Bonhoeffer's religion was also rather dubious on pure theological grounds. He appears to be a functional atheist who just liked some aspects of Christian Ethics and the methods of Protestant theology. So much for "confessing church". He came in conflict with government based on treason he committed, not based on professed beliefs. If one reads how he talks about treats people he dislikes, the guy wasn't exactly a loving person.

As for the 'Church Struggle'. Initially this was on theological grounds. But soon that was used as a political platform on both sides. I got a Dutch book on the issue. It stipulates that while there was some leaning towards the 'German Christians', there were also National Socialists disagreeing with them.

As for being pagan? On what is that based? What teachings, policies were pagan. And please, don't come up with stuff that virtually any other government does do, while you won't charge them with "paganism".

Btw. The bible nowhere condemns the pagans. Except that it opposes idol worship and the more vile practices pagans have engaged in.
One can of course now say: "But the people worshipped Hitler" - Yeah like a rock star. But not everybody who likes someone's music, worships the singer, although some people clearly do. And well, what about the perpetual demonization of Hitler and National Socialism? Isn't that some form of veiled inverse idol worship? Especially when you invoke Hitler in any argument you are making. The whole "Hitler liked X, hence we must hate X now?" Admitted it was first stuff like "Hitler hates Y, hence Y must be love"-line of fallacious reasoning. So at minimum Hitler (rather the Myth the created) is an inverse 'moral authority' to them. This in an age where any other authority figure is deconstructed and finally reviled, if he or she doesn't meet standards of present political correctness.

[karl_fallout4]

On another important note, there is this speech that clearly refutes everything that you've laid out. What others say about the Fuhrer doesn't matter. Find me speeches and texts (Unaltered and unforged, IE Table talks) from the Fuhrer that supports anything that says he's not a Christian.

I have this speech from the city of Passau:

Through the limitless sense of sacrifice that already enthralls millions today, a sense of sacrifice that also reaches beyond the borders of the country. She has already driven a symbol beyond the marked German borders. It is the national color of the coming new generation. The bourgeoisie like it. Parties look beyond the border posts, the new Germany already sees the new form in front of it, which consistently overlooks this junk, a form that will create the prerequisites that are necessary on the outside. For us, Parliament is a fencing ground on which our world view is represented. In particular, we do not believe that Parliament will save Germany, that a German National Assembly could do that, rather that the idea of ​​a leader can one day save Germany! This movement has received an extraordinary degree of freedom of operation, which in the highest sense of the word allows everything to be put aside that could in any way divide the people.

We have different faiths in Germany, but we are one: which faith conquers the other, that is not the question, rather whether Christianity stands or falls, that is the question! Today we see before us the inheritance of the people, touching everything. There is no then into which any piece of his heaven is pointed. We will never allow a religious quarrel to arise in this movement, we say rather: the church may educate the parties to religious service, we educate them to fight and to preserve its world view and its foundations! We are convinced that when Christ descends on earth today, that he will not refuse blessings to those who strive to put Christianity into practice, to remove mutual self-help, class struggle, and status arrogance, we will strive, strive to make it clear to everyone that it’s a shame not wanting to see the need after we’re trying to suppress German culture being dragged down. We do not tolerate anyone in our ranks who offends the ideas of Christianity, who stands up to a dissident, fights him, or provokes himself as a hereditary enemy of Christianity. This movement of ours is actually Christian.

We are filled with the wish that Catholics and Protestants may find one another in the deep need of our own people. We will stop any attempt to bring religious thought up for discussion in any way within our movement. And when we fight the Center [Party], we don’t do it for religious reasons, but because it makes fun of the word “Christianity” and scorns it because it is willing to throw Christianity overboard for the ministerial chair. We are fighting the Center for national political reasons, not because it wants to be a Catholic party. Beware of those who walk in sheep’s clothing! We reserve the right not to degrade Christianity to political service. Adolf Hitler. October 27, 1928

And the original German:

Durch den grenzenlosen Opfersinn, der Millionen heute bereits beselt, ein Opfersinn, der hinausgreift auch über die Grenzen des Landes. Sie hat ein Symbol bereits hinausgetrieben über die abgesteckten deutschen Grenzen. Es ist die Staatsfarbe des kommenden neuen Geschlechts. Es mögen die bürgerl. Parteien über die Grenzpfähle sehen, das neue Deutschland sieht bereits die neue Form vor sich, das durchgehend hinwegsieht über diesen Plunder, iene Form die voraussetzungen schaffen wird, die nach aussen hin notwendig sind. Für uns ist das Parlament ein Fechtboden, auf dem unsere Weltanschuung vertreten wird. Namentlich glauben wir nicht, dass durch das Parlament Deutschland gerettet wird, dass eine deutsche Nationalversammlung das vermöchte, vielmehr, dass der Gedanke der Führerpersönlichkeit Deutschland eines Tages retten kann! Diese Bewegung hat eine ausserordentliche Operationsfreiheit beokmmen, die im höchsten Sinne des Wortes gestattet, alles zurückzustellen, was irgendwie trennen könnte im Volke.

Wir sind verschieden gläubig in Deutschland, sind aber eins: Welcher Glaube den anderen besiegt, das ist nicht die Frage, vielmehr, ob das Christentum steht oder fällt das ist die Frage! Wir sehen heute vor uns den Erbteil der Menschen, sehen ihn alles antasten. Es gibt kein damals, in das irgend ein Stück von seinem Himmels hineingerichtet wird. Wir werden niemals dulden, dass in dieser Bewegung ein religiöser Streit entsteht, wir sagen vielmehr: die Kirche möge die Parteien erziehen zum religiösen Dienst, wir erziehen sie zum Kampfe und zur Erhaltung seiner Weltanschauung und seiner Grundlagen! Wir sind überzeugt: wenn heute Christus auf Erden herunter kommt, dass er den Segen denen nicht verweigern wird, die sich bemühen, das Christentum praktisch anzuwenden, gegenseitige Selbsthilfe, Klassenkampf und Standesdünkel herauszunehemen, werden wir uns bemühen, bemühen, jedem klar zu machen, dass es eine Schande ist, die Not nicht sehen zu wollen, nachdem wir bemüht sind, zu ünterdrucken, dass deutsche Kultur heruntergezerrt wird. Jn unseren Reihen dulden wir keinen, der die Gedanken des Christentums verletzt, der einem anders Gesinnten Wilderstand entgegenträgt, ihn bekämpft oder sich als Erbfeind des Christentums provoziert.

Diese unsere Bewegung ist tatsächlich christlich. Wir sind erfüllt von dem Wunsche, dass Katholiken und Protestanten sich einander finden mögen in der tiefen Not unseres eigenen Volkes. Wir werden jeden Versuch unterbinden, den religiösen Gedanken in unserer Bewegung irgendwie zur Diskussion zu setzen. Und wenn wir das Zentrum bekämpfen, tun wir es nicht aus religiösen Gründen, sondern, weilesmit dem Wort “Christentum” Spott und Hohn treibt, ((((((weil)))))) es bereit ist, für den Ministerstuhl das Christentum über Bord zu werfen. Aus nationalpolitischen Gründen bekämpfen wir das Zentrum, nicht, ((((((weil)))))) es eine katholische Partei sein will. Hütet euch vor denen, die im Schafspelz einhergehen! Wir verwahren uns, das Christentum zu politischen Diensten zu degradieren.

Nothing you have shared refutes his actions. Nobody has to come out and declare they are a Christian when their actions speak volumes. The table talks have been debunked, and it's clear that those who accuse the Fuhrer of being Anti-Christian had an agenda.

I agree with Hitler being a Christian, but it is uncharitable to claim that those claiming otherwise have an agenda. True, some do have an agenda, but this issue is similar to the Holocaust- not all those who try to claim it happened necessarily have an agenda, the same is true for the claim that Hitler was not a christian.

As for the other side, even though the Table Talks have been thoroughly debunked and Speer's account is unreliable, there is one secondary evidence indicating otherwise- the "Walther Hewel Diaries", which had repeated Hitler's infamous 10th October 1941 quote about Christianity. This document is sourced from Irving's website, who seems to have thought it was fake during his analysis of the Gerhard Engel Diary, regarding proving forgery concerning the paper used. Does anyone have any information about the document? What was Irving's basis to consider it a forgery?

[Otium]

I agree with Hitler being a Christian, but it is uncharitable to claim that those claiming otherwise have an agenda. True, some do have an agenda, but this issue is similar to the Holocaust- not all those who try to claim it happened necessarily have an agenda, the same is true for the claim that Hitler was not a christian.

Hitler was not a 'Christian', depending on the time period you examine. In the 1920s he was certainly utilizing the veil of Christianity to maintain an appeal to tradition (less so in the 1930s), to show that his party was not opposed to Christianity (as indeed it also wasn't opposed to 'paganism', hence all the pagans, particularly in the last 20 years of the movement) and often contrasted his approval of Christianity with those elements of German society who were hostile, i.e. the Communists. There is little by way of proof that Hitler considered himself a Christian in private. And in action, he most certainly didn't force the NSDAP to adopt, officially, any specific religious character even in the 1920s, other than his moments of brief lip service in speeches which were otherwise hours in length and primary said nothing about Christianity. Which is to say that religion in general was not his primary focus.

In the 1930s he was most certainly not a Christian (hence Rosenberg's diary entry), but didn't mind it if the Church operated so long as it didn't conflict with the aims of Nationalsocialism. In the 1940s he was privately hostile toward Christianity, and made the decision to break with it. Hitler's changing views on Christianity over time is the only way to explain why he had such a negative view of it during WW2.

More on this below.

As for the other side, even though the Table Talks have been thoroughly debunked and Speer's account is unreliable, there is one secondary evidence indicating otherwise- the "Walther Hewel Diaries", which had repeated Hitler's infamous 10th October 1941 quote about Christianity. This document is sourced from Irving's website, who seems to have thought it was fake during his analysis of the Gerhard Engel Diary, regarding proving forgery concerning the paper used. Does anyone have any information about the document? What was Irving's basis to consider it a forgery?

Talking in terms of 'debunked' is misleading. It does nothing for the nuance of the historical facts. Are the 'Table Talks' unreliable? Yes absolutely, but completely fake? Debunked? No. The problem with them is the fact that the many statements are clearly not verbatim records (i.e. not stenographic as was claimed for a long time), written a few days (or probably more) after the fact, and possibly inculcated (in the case of Bormann) with the views of the notetaker, whether intentionally or subconsciously. Subconsciously in the sense that one can hear and then recall what one wants to, and then put that to paper. This is very much what happened with Ciano's papers (which is obvious when compared to the German records where they exist), and to a lesser extent his diaries which were more so a conscious attempt to deceive. In that sense the Table Talks are not the same.

Irving doesn't say that Hewel's diaries are a forgery. He refers to Hewel's diary as authentic in this reply to someone regarding the Engel diary. The problem with Engel's diary is that it's a compilation of contemporary records and additions made after the war by Engel himself. So, it isn't so much a forgery as Irving describes, as it is a memoir written in the style of a diary, based on his contemporary notes which he used in parallel to record the answers frequently put to him by historians under the relevant date. But these notes no longer exist according to Hildegard von Kotze, the editor of Engel's 'diary'. So, we can no longer say for certain how much is recalled, and how much is contemporary.

I myself have been able to spot one entry which was not written down at the time under which it's dated, or at least, not wholly. I was able to do this based on a letter from Gerhard Engel kept in the archives of the IfZ.

A similar style is that of Otto Wagener's memoirs (the English version of which are not the same as the German which I recall from having compared them before. But I'm not going to do so here, so, be mindful of that possibility that the English is not as reliable as the German in terms of translation) who has been used uncritically by Richard Steigmann-Gall in his 'The Holy Reich' to show that Hitler, at least in the 1920s, was using Christian terminology in private to buttress this idea that 'Hitler again proclaimed the centrality of Christ's teachings for his movement' (page 27). This is dubious because, this private 'discussion' is also not a contemporary source, and is written as if Hitler had said such things verbatim. It is thus no better than the Table Talks. All Wagener really tells us is that Hitler exalted Christ for its understanding of 'socialism', but in all of Hitler's numerous discussions upon the mentioning of 'socialism' either in public or private speeches, he never once invokes Christ the way he allegedly does here. This can only emphasise the dubious source value of Wagener's account.

And in any case, Hitler's true views also find their way into Wagner's memoirs and present a more nuanced picture which helps explain Hitler's use of religious terminology (which is itself common among even non-religious people) and to a more significant extent, his overly positive appraisals of Christianity during that period in time when the NSDAP needed to become stronger wherever it could. When allegedly discussing topics like Nordicism and Christmas celebrations with Hans Schemm, Hitler says:

“I’m grateful to you, Herr Hitler,” Schemm said, “for agreeing with me in this. It’s true that I’ve participated in some of the solstice celebrations. But I always feel that those people whose origins are nearer the south have no feeling for the festivals. Such a celebration does not speak to them. Even among the inhabitants of the German north, the memory of a still more northerly origin is also less atavistic than it is propagandistic. And this propaganda jeopardizes the Volk community.”

“We Germans in particular,” Hitler continued, “must avoid anything that works to create even more divisiveness. We already have the limes, with all its effects in the religious, political, and ideological spheres. If we go on to tell people that they are different, then we will be working, not to unify all Germans, but to bring about the final separation and dissolution of the concept of Germany.”

Otto Wagener, Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 277.

Schemm, who was a Christian, does not uphold the idea that certain 'pagan' festivals cannot be held for not being 'Christian', and Hitler agrees with him on the basis that divisiveness among the German people should be combatted. It is then no wonder that he at times aligned his message with that of Christianity, although it was not dependant on Christianity to exist at all. Solidarity is a marvellous thing.

Wagener continued by stating that he feared the Hitler Youth, by celebrating 'Old-Germanic festivals' (not Christian festivals) that they might possibly lead the Hitler Youth down a path not cognizant with the religiously pluralistic standpoint of the NSDAP. To this Hitler replied that he actually agreed with Schirach, and did not want to encourage obscure Christian holidays:

These celebrations from a different standpoint. And there I have to agree with him. The young people, after all, are familiar only with church holidays—such fatuous, and in some cases completely farfetched, festivals as the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, St. Joseph’s Day, and Corpus Christi Day—a horrible word formation, by the way, which no one knows how to interpret correctly. Hardly anyone now remembers that Christmas was taken over from the Germanic legionnaires and settlers in the old Roman Empire. Only if he happens to travel abroad does he learn, to his astonishment, that Orthodox Christianity does not recognize the celebration of Christmas at all, and that even the Roman Catholic Mediterranean area celebrates a proper Christmas only in those places that were settled by the descendants of the Goths and Vandals, the Normans and Lombards, and so forth.

Otto Wagener, Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1985), pp. 277 f.

Hitler goes on to take a middle-approach, not taking away Christmas from anyone, but also not taking from the Church any of its holidays. He was primarily concerned with ensuring that Children were given fond childhood memories, and even days off, and didn't care so much for what these holidays were supposed to mean:

“But we do not want to rob the church of its holy days. The mere fact that schools are closed on such days gives children much pleasure. But this does not prevent us from leading children, not into churches fragrant with incense, but into the great outdoors, to show them the powerful workings of divine creation and make vivid to them the eternal rotation of the earth and the world and life, where the struggle against the powers of darkness is constantly repeated, culminating in the victory of the forces of light, which are creative, awakening a budding spring from frosty winter, bringing new joy in life, new life, and renewed creative forces.

“Let’s not worry about letting young people have these festivals. On the contrary! Everything is good that brings them closer to the godhead, and everything is wrong that comes between them and the godhead, even if it is a Catholic priest.”

Otto Wagener, Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 278.

To this, Wagner writes 'I could not help but agree with Hitler.' Although he stated that 'the youth leaders must not fall into the error of wanting to turn this into a religion.' To which Hitler replied:

“Don’t worry, they won’t. Nor does it have anything to do with race. It’s true that once the Hitler Youth boys grow a little older, they will think back with pleasure on the nights when they ardently worshiped the wreath of fires blazing all along the horizon, which puts them in touch with a higher being. But these are simply childhood memories—beautiful, marvelous childhood memories, and more valuable than if they had spent the nights in saloons and airless dives.

“Nor should we be anxious about whether this or that is or is not a hundred percent ideal. Go among the young people when they have just returned from attending one of these solstice celebrations. Then you will see whether or not it has had a positive effect. Of course, if we wanted to lead these young people up a mountain merely to sing the same kind of stupid songs women and men sing in the churches to this day, and if we then wished to worship these fires in the same way old people worship carved wooden figures and painted pictures or even fake relics in those same churches—then those people would be right who say: it would be better to let the children go to the enclosed houses of God; at least they won’t catch cold.

Otto Wagener, Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1985), pp. 278 f.

Hitler doesn't admonish the idea of children enjoying solstice 'pagan' festivals, if it means not being hold up inside a Church - not because he hates the Church, but because he sees the fundamental pleasures of being outside among nature making memoies as being more important in itself than being indoors and undertaking some religious ritual. Whatever the pretext, a so-called 'Christian' or 'Pagan' holiday which might facilitate this, Hitler doesn't care.

Now, someone who is disingenuous and trying to show that Hitler 'hated' Christianity in this period might only quote this part, which wouldn't be a fair representation of Hitler's viewpoint. Again we see Hitler's religious plurality and his resolve to not let a single (unnatural) religion dominate the fundamental principle of Nationalsocialism, which is a connection with nature. Not the worshipping of paintings and crucifixes, or wasting time at Church. Hitler more explicitly states:

“The mission of the Hitler Youth is neither religious nor racial, nor is it philosophical, political, or economic. It is entirely natural: the young people should be led back to nature, they should recognize nature as the giver of life and energy. And they should strengthen and develop their bodies outdoors, making themselves well and keeping themselves well. For a healthy mind can develop only in a healthy body, and it is only in the freedom of nature that a human being can also open himself to a higher morality and a higher ethic. The consciousness of the growing young man and young woman absorbs those ethical bases that distinguish them from animals and that mark the individual and, over time, the entire Volk with its racial characteristics."

Otto Wagener, Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 279.

To Steigmann's credit, he does document in the case of the Hitler Youth, not a rigid Christian movement nor a Pagan movement, but a movement based on religious plurality. This is shown quite well in his discussion of the Hitler Youth and Balder von Schirach.

Unfortunately I cannot find the passage in Steigmann's book, but he also made the same distinction as I do regarding Hitler's weak Christianity in the 1920s and his evolved ambivalence towards Christianity during the 1930s and anti-Christianity in the 1940s.

[Otium]

Again this doesn't match anything of what he has said in his own voice in his speeches, or written down at all.

It doesn't matter what you think it should align with. Speeches and writings are made for public consumption and do not necessarily represent ones true inner feelings, or evolution of ones thought at a later date. Saying that it 'doesn't align' with X thing is to misunderstand how sources work. I could turn around and say that Hitler's private thoughts as recorded in Rosenberg's diary do not align with certain speeches (from years beforehand) and that wouldn't mean a single thing on its own.

If Hitler actually desired to eliminate personal Christianity, then why do we not find it in his other private dialogs and conversations? Why do we not find it in any of his public speeches or interviews?

As I've quoted, we do find it in private dialogues recorded for posterity in contemporary private diaries. We wouldn't find it in public speeches or interviews. Hitler was a very private person and like any sane man, would be selective about what he said or didn't say publicly. He had tact.

One can see what is going on here. We have some Germans who completely despise Christianity and have not only doctored (Table talks), but outright fabricated things that cannot be verified. Every speech and every text from the fuhrer himself contradicts everything that Bormann and Rosenberg have both said, and are NOT in alignment at all with what he has been known to have said, both public and private.

You seem not to realise the contradiction in your statements. You cannot declare something is 'fabricated' and in the next breath that it 'cannot be verified'. It doesn't matter what Hitler said in his public speeches, his private speeches (where complete ones exist) are more reliable for his own thoughts than those he wrote for public consumption. Which isn't to say he lied in them, of course not, but it is to say he was tactful.

You even contradict your own argument. You cannot know from Hitler's own mouth what his 'private' statements are, because Hitler left no such record except for the 'Lagebesprechungen' which were real stenographic records of Hitler's conversations on military matters. So to say that Rosenberg's diary - which is itself a record of private statements - and an authentic and contemporary source 'contradicts' private statements most certainly not written by Hitler (likely not even contemporary, eg. Wagner's memoirs), is pure nonsense on your part.

The same source you then quote, which is evidently unaware of the German sources, declares incorrectly that Hitler 'nowhere in any known source denounce his Christianity or Jesus.' As has been shown already, he most certainly has.

And as for Rosenberg stating that he "Let out a laugh" and declared he was a Pagan all along, this is contradicted by Speer:
Even more revealing from Speer comes this revelation:

Even after 1942 Hitler went on maintaining that he regarded the church as indispensable in political life. He would be happy, he said in one of those teatime talks at Obersalzberg, if someday a prominent churchman turned up who was suited to lead one of the churches- or if possible both the Catholic and Protestant churches reunited. He still regretted that Reich Bishop Muller was not the right man to carry out his far-reaching plans. But he sharply condemned the campaign against the church, calling it a crime against the future of the nation. For it was impossible, he said, to replace the church by any party ideology. [Speer, p. 95]

Literally none of this 'contradicts' Rosenberg. It's not even recounting an event from the same decade.

Nonetheless, this is a prime example of how you routinely manipulate and misrepresent sources. We already know that Hitler was an advocate of religious pluralism, thus it's only natural that when speaking of the Church, and its possible leaders, that he would like one who is not going to cause friction and oppose Nationalsocialism, particularly its recognition of the primacy of race. Even if Speer were a reliable source, what you quoted from him here is completely irrelevant.

It is however consistent with his statements that Nationalsocialism is not a religion, nor would he want to be seen as a Buddha. Nationalsocialism is not about spiritual mumbo jumbo, but about much less glamourous realistic things related to understanding and recognizing how nature interplays with humanity, and our place within it.

Even the fact that Speer referred to Nationalsocialism as 'party ideology' is itself a suspect rendition in terms of accurately recording what Hitler thought. For there's no evidence that Hitler would've referred to Nationalsocialism in such a way.

I could go on and on but the link is above and has a lot of information that not only contradict what some of his political rivals say, but also what you are saying in that he's not a Christian. For someone who's "not a Christian" he sure spends a lot of time talking both positively about it and working to defend it. Now why is it that he's so fervent with Christianity and not a single text or speech shows his zeal for paganism of any kind? Sure that he has used old Germanic history in some aspects, even I can admit that I adore ancient Greek and Roman buildings and mythology for the sake of history, but that doesn't make me pagan.

Yes. I'm sure you could go on presenting the same hackneyed sources devoid of proper context and wider nuanced understanding. I do not doubt that.

Hitler did not spend 'a lot of time' on any of these things. I can only think you got that impression because you're unaware of the true scope of documents related to Hitler and the fact that his mentioning of Christianity in any capacity, even in the 1920s when he was undoubtedly more favourable to Christianity, if not a very weak Christian himself (and most certainly not practising, merely nominal) - or at least fond of utilizing it's terminology and invoking his movement's compatibility with the Church.

If Hitler took measures to defend the Church, he did so to avoid religious friction among the German people. This cannot be equated with a fervent belief in Christianity. For one can also say that he took no action against those who weren't Christian.

The so-called 'zeal for paganism' is not an argument I made. Again the problem with you is this jumping to conclusions and misunderstandings of nuance.

And on a personal unrelated note, may I ask, why is your profile pic from a Satanic artist that did the art for Atomwaffen division? They're really well known for being from the order of nine angles, and are strongly anti-Christian.

There's no reason 'why', I saw it online some time many years ago, and to me that particular piece looked cool, so I used it as my pfp. I don't care, nor am I remotely interested in any of the backstory behind it. I don't go around choosing what art I like based on the religious orientation of the artist.

[karl_fallout4]

Hitler was not a 'Christian', depending on the time period you examine. In the 1920s he was certainly utilizing the veil of Christianity to maintain an appeal to tradition (less so in the 1930s), to show that his party was not opposed to Christianity (as indeed it also wasn't opposed to 'paganism', hence all the pagans, particularly in the last 20 years of the movement) and often contrasted his approval of Christianity with those elements of German society who were hostile, i.e. the Communists. There is little by way of proof that Hitler considered himself a Christian in private. And in action, he most certainly didn't force the NSDAP to adopt, officially, any specific religious character even in the 1920s, other than his moments of brief lip service in speeches which were otherwise hours in length and primary said nothing about Christianity. Which is to say that religion in general was not his primary focus.

In the 1930s he was most certainly not a Christian (hence Rosenberg's diary entry), but didn't mind it if the Church operated so long as it didn't conflict with the aims of National Socialism. In the 1940s he was privately hostile toward Christianity, and made the decision to break with it. Hitler's changing views on Christianity over time is the only way to explain why he had such a negative view of it during WW2.

There isn't any conclusive evidence that Hitler had drifted apart from Christianity in the 30s or the 40s. For some reason there is a commonly held belief that if Hitler remained Christian, he would be obligated to constantly express it in every aspect of his life- as though it isn't already a basic presumption for anyone living in a European nation before 1950. Take FDR, for instance- his religious views are rarely talked about, if at all. Similarly, if Hitler had changed his views, he would've said something about it, not necessarily to a confidant.

Talking in terms of 'debunked' is misleading. It does nothing for the nuance of the historical facts. Are the 'Table Talks' unreliable? Yes absolutely, but completely fake? Debunked? No. The problem with them is the fact that the many statements are clearly not verbatim records (i.e. not stenographic as was claimed for a long time), written a few days (or probably more) after the fact, and possibly inculcated (in the case of Bormann) with the views of the notetaker, whether intentionally or subconsciously. Subconsciously in the sense that one can hear and then recall what one wants to, and then put that to paper. This is very much what happened with Ciano's papers (which is obvious when compared to the German records where they exist), and to a lesser extent his diaries which were more so a conscious attempt to deceive. In that sense the Table Talks are not the same.

I say debunked because it is impossible to tell which parts of it were directly passed on by Hitler, and which parts were edited later on. It was meant to be published if Hitler won, yet some of the statements made are not suitable for publication at all. I don't just mean Hitler's alleged quotes on Christianity, the content included under war, life, etc involve a difference in speech for both public and private conversations, it resembles Josef Hell's fictionalized Hitler, yet there are also parts that do sound like Hitler. But that is based on my opinion, not facts, since there is no way to obtain the original copies, separating it from other documents like the Wannsee Minutes, which had an element of truth, despite being misconstrued

Irving doesn't say that Hewel's diaries are a forgery. He refers to Hewel's diary as authentic in this reply to someone regarding the Engel diary. The problem with Engel's diary is that it's a compilation of contemporary records and additions made after the war by Engel himself. So, it isn't so much a forgery as Irving describes, as it is a memoir written in the style of a diary, based on his contemporary notes which he used in parallel to record the answers frequently put to him by historians under the relevant date. But these notes no longer exist according to Hildegard von Kotze, the editor of Engel's 'diary'. So, we can no longer say for certain how much is recalled, and how much is contemporary.

I was referring to this one- http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2005/270805.html
Where it says- "...Helmut Heiber, Anton Hoch, Hildegard Von Kotze, and Helmuth Krausnick that the Engel Diary was a fake. Bayer GmbH had tested the paper, confirmed it was 1947 product. I said I had done the same [warned of the fakery], on basis of the Walther Hewel diaries. He had originally checked it against a Korps KTB."
I had to do a double take while reading this because it seemed unbelievable- Irving had hosted the Hewel diaries, but then implies that it was a fake?

[Otium]

There isn't any conclusive evidence that Hitler had drifted apart from Christianity in the 30s or the 40s.

Yes, there is absolutely conclusive evidence of this. I have posted it here, and elsewhere in the form of diary entries.

For some reason there is a commonly held belief that if Hitler remained Christian, he would be obligated to constantly express it in every aspect of his life- as though it isn't already a basic presumption for anyone living in a European nation before 1950. Take FDR, for instance- his religious views are rarely talked about, if at all. Similarly, if Hitler had changed his views, he would've said something about it, not necessarily to a confidant. :bounce

This belief is exemplified by the people who want to make a fuss out of Hitler's religious thinking in general. The reality is that Hitler was not concerned with religion, and his views on Christianity changed over time. He was not a Christian in the 1930s, and there's little private information on his views prior to that. In the 1940s he was not pro-Christian, let alone tolerant of the Church at all, even though he still refused to allow persecution of the Church for the sake of the morale of the German people.

I say debunked because it is impossible to tell which parts of it were directly passed on by Hitler, and which parts were edited later on. It was meant to be published if Hitler won, yet some of the statements made are not suitable for publication at all. I don't just mean Hitler's alleged quotes on Christianity, the content included under war, life, etc involve a difference in speech for both public and private conversations, it resembles Josef Hell's fictionalized Hitler, yet there are also parts that do sound like Hitler. But that is based on my opinion, not facts, since there is no way to obtain the original copies, separating it from other documents like the Wannsee Minutes, which had an element of truth, despite being misconstrued

This is not enough to say it's 'debunked' merely because certain material is controversial to modern sensibilities. If the Germans had won, and their view of history had become the norm it would not have been too controversial I imagine. However, I must say I am not particularly sure how you justify the idea that it was intended to be published after the war. It's possible some sanitized version was intended to be published, but the whole records? I'm not sure. If the Germans had won it's likely the original notes, albeit not verbatim and at times not contemporary would've been preserved. We still have some authentic notes, and ancillary notes from other who took down pieces of conversation.

I do agree there are plenty of parts which sound like Hitler, and parts which find themselves repeated in other authentic sources. Hitler did often return to particular topics, allegories, and phrases which he used repeatedly. For instance, in many of his private addresses, during the war, he quotes Clausewitz in some capacity, often the same dictum over and again.

Regarding Christianity, I've already pointed out authentic parallels with other records in another thread.

I was referring to this one- http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2005/270805.html
Where it says- "...Helmut Heiber, Anton Hoch, Hildegard Von Kotze, and Helmuth Krausnick that the Engel Diary was a fake. Bayer GmbH had tested the paper, confirmed it was 1947 product. I said I had done the same [warned of the fakery], on basis of the Walther Hewel diaries. He had originally checked it against a Korps KTB."
I had to do a double take while reading this because it seemed unbelievable- Irving had hosted the Hewel diaries, but then implies that it was a fake?

What Irving quotes from his own diary is a bit difficult to understand maybe, seems to me that he's saying on the basis of the Hewel diary that he warned of the fakery of Engel's diary. Which is to say that the Hewel diary being authentic, contradicts the Engel diary and shows it to not have been reliable. Hence he had 'warned of the fakery' of the Engel diary 'on basis of the Walther Hewel diaries'.

[TheGrayWolf]

You're referring to the table talks, well known fabricated quotes. As for some quotes i'm going to point out a few.

Here he even states he is still a Catholic.
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
– Adolf Hitler, 1941 letter to General Gerhard Engel

In Passau he made a statement that the movement was Christian.
"We do not tolerate anyone in our ranks who offends the ideas of Christianity, who stands up to a dissident, fights him, or provokes himself as a hereditary enemy of Christianity. This movement of ours is actually Christian."-Adolf Hitler, Passau, October 27th, 1928

The Fuhrer even spoke of God in his last broadcasted speech.

Here's from the Fuhrer's final broadcast:
January 30, 1945:
"God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work"

And

"In the years to come I shall continue on this road, uncompromisingly safeguarding my people's interests, oblivious to all misery and danger, and filled with the holy conviction that God the Almighty will not abandon him who, during all his life, had no desire but to save his people from a fate it had never deserved, neither by virtue of its number nor by way of its importance."

Your attempts of saying he lied to the German people is insulting to his image. You state that one must be in church to be a Christian, this is not true at all. One can be against denominations as it is organized religion but still believe in God.

And no he never renounced his religion. We have his speeches, both in written form and with his own voice, yet you dismiss them for second hand sources who had a stake in selling the image of him being anti-Christian for the sake of their own agenda if and when he left office or died.

[TheGrayWolf]

Also like I have said before, Hitler did attend some services. He's even seen in 1 image walking out of a church. One doesn't stop being a Christian if they don't go to church. I haven't stepped inside of a church since I was 13 because of the zionism yet I am still a Christian. I do not recognize myself as any denomination for the fact they all are tainted. Hitler felt the same way and is why positive Christianity was created. Had nothing to do with removing anything and everything with promoting true Christianity in the Reich.

If Hitler wasn't a Christian he wouldn't have spoken about God in his final broadcast.

[fireofice]

Also like I have said before, Hitler did attend some services. He's even seen in 1 image walking out of a church. One doesn't stop being a Christian if they don't go to church. I haven't stepped inside of a church since I was 13 because of the zionism yet I am still a Christian. I do not recognize myself as any denomination for the fact they all are tainted. Hitler felt the same way and is why positive Christianity was created. Had nothing to do with removing anything and everything with promoting true Christianity in the Reich.

If Hitler wasn't a Christian he wouldn't have spoken about God in his final broadcast.

He talked about God because he believed in a God. That doesn't make him Christian. "Positive Christianity" wasn't something he actually believed. According to Goebbels, Hitler said: "The best way to finish off the churches is to pretend to be a more positive Christian."

In my view, Hitler was most likely a pantheist (some say pantheism is just a form of atheism, but I won't comment on that). This view is best laid out in Richard Weikart's Hitler's Religion. I have seen the arguments against the "pantheist Hitler" interpretation and I just don't find it convincing. However, I will concede that one can reasonable disagree that Hitler was a pantheist. I personally think the evidence points in that direction, but I don't think someone is completely removed from reality if they don't agree. However, Hitler was clearly anti-Christian. That's something I don't think someone can reasonably disagree with. Hitler was so obviously anti-Christian that you have to be deliberately blinding yourself to think otherwise.

And no, you don't just have to rely on Table Talks to come to the conclusion that Hitler was anti-Christian. I don't think Table Talks is as bad a source as you think, but even if we threw out the Table Talks, Hitler was still clearly anti-Christian.

[Otium]

You're referring to the table talks, well known fabricated quotes. As for some quotes i'm going to point out a few.

Here he even states he is still a Catholic.
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
– Adolf Hitler, 1941 letter to General Gerhard Engel

You just have no clue about the sources and quotes you cite.

This quote supposedly from a "letter to Gerhard Engel" in 1941, is in-fact a post-war "diary" entry dated August 6, 1938:

"Very long and strikingly calm conversation with Führer about churches and religion. Bormann had complained to the F. about church attendance as a duty in the Army and Navy. Apparently complaints by Party bosses on short-term service with r(eserve) units. F. had surprisingly declined to intervene. Spoke about his attitude towards the churches. Now as before he was a Catholic and would remain so. The [Catholic] Church was far too astute to excommunicate him. How he had learned a tremendous amount from the tactics, organisation and doctrinal method of the Cath[olic] Church. During the period of struggle he had seen the thing in a quite different light. His goal then had been to create a unified German Reich Church. The concordat was the most liberal advance he had achieved so far. This Church could be a fairly loose community of the two confessions in the form of a council. But he had to insist on its unconditional subordination to the state and National Socialist politics. He was very disappointed by the Reich bishop who so far had not even managed to unite the Protestants under one hat. France did it much better. There the Church was without political influence but on national holidays the tricolour decorated the altars and church towers, whereas in Germany he still had to remunerate his adversaries. Ritual, liturgy and other practices of the churches were neither here nor there as far as he was concerned. It was just that the churches had to be nationalistic as had always been the case in Poland. There the red and white flags and church banners had preceded their troops into battle. The time is still not ripe to get involved, but it will come. For the moment he had too many other problems and as leader of the people he did not underestimate the power of suggestion the churches wielded."

6.8.1938; Hildegard von Kotze (ed.), Heeresadjutant bei Hitler, 1938–1943: Aufzeichnungen des Majors Engel (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1976), pp. 30-31.

Hitler is discussing the Church Question, one Engel has him discuss quite a few times, for example on March 14, 1938 in which Hitler says that the "Churches should only be allowed to become political if they were in the greater scheme of things the pawn of politics, that is of the political power." (p. 17) And on May 20, 1941 he emphasised the importance of the seperation of Church and State: "There was no way he [Hitler] would now allow bishops or other princes of the church to inveigle propaganda of its own kind under the cloak of brotherly love in order to revive its dwindling influence on the people. [...] the attitude of the church would have to undergo a basic change. [...] Napoleon had understood why it was necessary to separate church and state..." (p. 106). This shows how little Christian religiosity meant to him in terms of the state. Nationalsocialism wasn't Christian, and Christianity was given no special privileges let alone a place "at the top" of the Nationalsocialist state.

Anyway.

In the above quoted entry for August 6, it's clear Hitler isn't talking about being Catholic in the religious believer sense, but merely in the nominal obligatory official sense. Hence why he says that the Church cannot excommunicate him, because he is technically Catholic. This didn't make him spiritually Catholic.

What's funny too is that the way you quote it is as if Hitler said this in the first person, with the use of the word "I". I know you just saw this from somewhere and didn't know better, but it shows clearly that these Christians who're so desperate for evidence they have to resort to distorting what the sources actually said and the context in which they were said; turning a second hand diary entry into a verbatim quotation!

But if you want to quote Engel's diary, don't forget the entry I already quoted in this thread from January 20, 1940 in which Hitler is talking about the need to destroy the Church "root and branch":

"F. [Führer] spoke at length again about religious belief and his attitude to the churches. Undoubtedly under sniper fire from B(ormann) and H(immler) a less conciliatory attitude is developing. Whereas in the past he wanted to live and let live, he is now determined to fight the churches. F. literally: ‘The war, here as in many other areas, presents a favourable opportunity to dispose of it (the church question) root and branch.’ In days gone by, whole peoples had been liquidated. Tribes had settled nearby, the Soviet Union had recently provided plenty of examples how that could be done. One thing that the Germans had not been bettered in was their thoroughness and inclination to tradition, even to mysticism. If he continued to take no action against the rebellious clergy, then that was not least for the sake of the Wehrmacht. There the men ran to religious services in the field, and he preferred to have a soldier who was brave because he believed in God rather than a soldier who was cowardly because he did not. But here education in the SS, which was proving in wartime that a man schooled in the world view of affairs could also be brave without God, was showing the necessary way forward."

20.01.1940; Hildegard von Kotze (ed.), Heeresadjutant bei Hitler, 1938–1943: Aufzeichnungen des Majors Engel (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1976), pp. 70-71.

However. one also need to remember that Engel's "diary" is in-fact not a diary at all, but a memoir written in the style of a diary based on rememberances and perhaps authentic diary entries which are now lost, making it impossible to tell what was written at the time, and what was written after the war.

But in any case, say what you want, but even Engel's diary doesn't support your claims about Hitler being Christian.

Your attempts of saying he lied to the German people is insulting to his image. You state that one must be in church to be a Christian, this is not true at all. One can be against denominations as it is organized religion but still believe in God.

It isn't my "attempts", it is my following the evidence.

I also don't think I ever said one needs to be "in the church" to be a Christian, but in any case it hardly matters since Hitler wasn't a Christian - at least not a believing one. He never formally left the Church, but he didn't believe in the religion, or the dogma. His attachment was merely nominal.

And no he never renounced his religion. We have his speeches, both in written form and with his own voice, yet you dismiss them for second hand sources who had a stake in selling the image of him being anti-Christian for the sake of their own agenda if and when he left office or died.

I do dismiss them, because they don't reveal his innermost thoughts. I think it's likely that Hitler was more likely to have had an attachment to the Church in the 1920s, but by the time he was in power - as Rosenberg's diary shows - he wasn't interested in Christianity at all, and didn't identify with the label. He didn't harp on Christianity, he didn't outlaw paganism, he didn't implement rigid religious standards but remained a largely neutral figure in the questions concerning religion.

Here are a few more diaries entires:

"With the Führer. He too admires the bravery of the Greeks in particular. Perhaps there is still something of the old Hellenism in them after all. The Serbs are fighting desperately. But once the first resistance is broken, then the great running will begin. More precise documents about the course of the operations are still missing. They have to develop first. The Piraeus has been mined. The Führer forbids a bombardment of Athens. That is right and noble of him. Rome and Athens are Mecca for him. He very much regrets having to fight the Greeks. If the English had not been entrenched there, he would never have rushed to the aid of the Italians. They would have had to do that themselves, because it is their business.

The Führer is a man completely oriented towards antiquity. He hates Christianity because it has crippled all noble humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between a benevolent and wise smiling Zeus and a pain-distorted crucified Christ. Even the very conception of God is much nobler and more human among the ancient peoples than among Christianity. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a bright, free ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, grandeur, monumentality. The greatest republic in history. We would probably not experience any disappointment, he says, if we were now suddenly transported to this ancient eternal city.

The Führer has no relationship at all to the Gothic. He hates the gloom and the blurred mysticism. He wants clarity, brightness, beauty. That is also the ideal of life in our time. In this respect, the Führer is a very modern man.

To him, the Augustan age is the culmination of history. And as for the slaves that Christianity supposedly freed. They were much more unfree and oppressed in the Middle Ages than in ancient Rome. What does slavery even mean? Is a modern-day industrial prolet perhaps freer than a slave before American "freedom" in the southern states. These are all prejudices."

8.4.1941; Elke Fröhlich (ed.), Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, Part 1, Vol. 9 (Munich: K.G. Saur Verlag, 1998), p. 234.

Later in the month:

"Long debates about the Vatican and Christianity. The Führer is the fiercest opponent of the whole spell, but he still forbids me to leave the church. For tactical reasons. And for such nonsense I have been paying my church taxes for over a decade now. That's what hurts me the most."

29.4.1941; Elke Fröhlich (ed.), Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, Part 1, Vol. 9 (Munich: K.G. Saur Verlag, 1998), pp. 279-280.

Here's a long one, from December 1941:

The leader speaks with the highest praise of Japanese religiosity, which is synonymous with genuine Japanese-ness. It is a pity that we do not have something similar. Our Christianity will always be against a strong national conception, according to its whole structure. It is, after all, Jewish in its very essence. A religion based on the principle that one should love one's enemies, that one must not kill and that one must turn the left cheek when one has received a blow on the right is not suitable as a manly doctrine of defence of the fatherland. Christianity is indeed a doctrine of decay. For a modern man it deserves only spiritual contempt. Today, in its denominational form, it operates as treason, at least at home. A typical example of this is Bishop Galen of Münster. The Führer is determined to make tabula rasa with him and some other agitators in the foreseeable future. He watches the development for a while, but when the barrel is full to overflowing, then suddenly the lightning bolt of wrath will descend on these treacherous princes of the church.

The Protestant Church, too, is now trying to do the same as the Catholic Church. Bishop Wurm from Württemberg has the ambition to become a second Galen. It will probably be much easier for us to deal with the Protestants than with the Catholics, because they are stupid and know nothing about tactics. It's different with the Catholics.

I am also absolutely opposed to forcing these rebellious church leaders into a monastery, for example. Then the problem will smoulder on and on. If one takes action against it, then radically and in such a way that the problem is solved all at once, even if by force.

The Führer deplores the fact that there are still a number of generals, especially in the army, who do not believe they can condemn the actions of Bishop Galen. How a modern thinking person can recognise in Christianity any teaching at all for the present time is beyond me. Even our party minister Kerrl is in this line, who, through his preoccupation with the church question, probably because of his half-education, takes a completely confused and half-baked standpoint. In view of our modern science, to be a Christian is only to possess a lack of intelligence. What can Christianity give to a man of today? Above all, one must be surprised that the extraordinarily pale ideas of the hereafter of Christianity can still move intelligent people. The ideal of the hereafter painted by Christianity has no inner substance. Mohammedanism is at least better founded. It promises the earthly citizen for his good Mohammedan way of life at least an afterlife that corresponds to his ideas of happiness in this world. But to imagine or wish for a heaven in which eternal bliss consists in singing hallelujahs is downright absurd for a 20th century man. It is clear that this whole doctrine will have to be replaced somehow in the course of the decades. But we don't need to force the issue, it will come about of its own accord in the light of modern knowledge. In any case, our present task is to eliminate the political influence of the churches. What they want or strive for religiously can be indifferent to us in view of our great earthly tasks; but as soon as they interfere in earthly problems, they must be sharply rejected.

[...]

The Führer vigorously resists the idea that religious functions should be attributed to him in the future. He does not want to become a saint, but sees his task exclusively in solving political problems. But it will probably be unavoidable in later decades or centuries that the people will make of him what they already see in him today. If such a development occurs naturally, one should not object to it. It was different with Christianity, which was only imposed on Germanic people by force.

[...]

I am extremely pleased that the Führer is taking a very consistent stand on this important problem and is not allowing himself to be influenced in any way by popular mass ideas.

14.12.1941; Elke Fröhlich (ed.), Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, Part 2, Vol. 2 (Munich: K.G. Saur Verlag, 1996), pp. 506-507, 508. 509.

Rosenberg writes on the same date in his diary:

"The conversations yesterday and today at the Führer [headquarters] revolved principally around the problem of Christianity. The actions of the bishop of Münster were mentioned first. For quite some time now the English have been using his speeches to provide the bulk of their propaganda; they drop leaflets by the hundreds of thousands and read aloud in their radio broadcasts the verbal assaults made by Graf von Galen. The Führer declared that the gentlemen want to be “martyrs,” in the expectation of an honorable captivity. But the bishop of Münster will one day face a firing squad. Apart from that, in the völkisch struggle no help can be provided over the long term by a moral doctrine that preaches love of one’s enemy, turning the left cheek if someone slaps you on the right one, etc. That people devour their God, even fight a 30-year war over the form in which this meal must be eaten, can make one downright despair of all of mankind. A few generals and even a minister and Party member assert, he said, that only as a Christian can one be brave at all, as if the Germanic tribes, Romans, or Greeks had been cowardly. Even the Bolsheviks know how to die; often, when faced with captivity, they preferred to shoot themselves in the head. He has visited his SS divisions, and there is no Christian deception there, they are calm and know what they must do. We will never fathom the meaning of life and the world, all our microscopes will not yield the solution, merely expand our insights by a minuscule amount. But if there is a God, it is our duty to develop the abilities we have been given. We can err along the way but not feign and lie. This Christian hypocrisy is now nearing its end, he said, and in a process of casting off everything that is putrid, a return to health will begin. If the churches are such supporters of preserving the lives of imbeciles [Idiotenerhaltung], he is willing to leave all the feebleminded to them, as priests and disciples. If we were to get rid of Christianity], other peoples may feel free to keep the Christian religion.

I interjected that anyway, Lagarde stated previously that reading the Old Testament made him seasick. The Apostle Paul deliberately visited the seaports (Corinth, Thessaloniki) to prepare for his insurrection among these people. It has always been incomprehensible to me, I said, that H[ouston] St[ewart] Chamberlain put so much effort into defending Paul. Führer: Yes, that was Chamberlains mistake.

The Führer showed great sympathy for the worldview of the Japanese: it is a heroic stance, one of self-sacrifice for the people. I mentioned that I had just received an interesting letter from a Japanese scholar about our worldview and that of the Japanese.

Today we learned that Kerri had died, that is, the very minister and Party member whom the Führer characterized so sarcastically yesterday. The Führer said that Kerri’s motives surely were nothing but noble, but the endeavor to unite National Socialism and Christianity was simply a hopeless one. I: People have tried to salvage the “pure teaching” so many times already, but all these experiments have now failed. The Führer: This restoration of early Christianity would indeed be the worst thing, despite all their moral failings, Julius II and others, who acted as patrons of great artists, are still less dangerous than early Christianity. Jokingly; Don’t you want to take on Kerri’s office? Aghast, I waved my hand in disapproval, and he said: Indeed, you certainly do have another office. But I don’t want to hand over the church affairs to the Ministry of the Interior.

After my presentation we returned to the topic of Christianity. After the war, the Führer said, I also want to tackle this problem decisively. Elimination of their education of minors. Only adults should be permitted to commit to a church, and someone should be allowed to decide on a career in the priesthood only after serving in the Wehrmacht. Finally: Christianity was introduced long ago by human instruments of power, and he will likewise not shy away from using instruments of power, if necessary.

I recommended that the Führer read Burckhardts Age of Constantine the Great, where the Christianization inaugurated by Constantine is really depicted very well, by the standards of the insights of the time. I view the task of my future institute for Indo-Germanic intellectual history in Munich in part as introducing in place of the decaying biblical tradition a better and even older one: the ethics of the ancient Iranians and the wisdom of the ancient Hindus are finer than the New Testament. We said our good-byes very cordially. I see how these ideological questions stir the Führer, in the midst of military concerns. When I gave him the Japanese letter, he began reading it with interest. Then he was immediately gripped by it and kept it for a thorough reading (it has 13 pages)

14.12.1941; Frank Bajohr & Jürgen Matthäus (eds.), Alfred Rosenberg: Die Tagebücher von 1934 bis 1944 (Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 2015), pp. 414-417. cf. English ed. The Political Diary of Alfred Rosenberg and the Onset of the Holocaust (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), pp. 268-270.

The relevant quote from Rosenberg's memoirs:

"In private conversations, Hitler was quite hostile to the Christian concept of God, although I heard him speak about it only two or three times in the many years of his life. Once he said to me: "Just look at the head of Zeus. What nobility and sublimity speaks from these witnesses!" about the Lord's Supper: "It is a state of primitive religion that one bites one's God with one's teeth." Against the Gothic he claimed that in it everything dark and clouding the spirit was embodied. Only the spatial effect of the Strasbourg Cathedral he later accepted.

When I said during one of these conversations that churches should not be destroyed, that they could only be gradually filled with new people, he said: "That is very wise of you to think like that.

In principle and inner attitude Hitler had thus clearly distanced himself from churches and Christianity, but paid full justice to his first appearance, conceded to everyone the right of personal conviction, protected the Wehrmacht in all its desires of confessional care."

Alfred Rosenberg, Letzte Aufzeichnungen: Ideale und Idole der Nationalsozialistischen Revolution (Göttingen: Plesse Verlag, 1955), p. 235. cf. Heinrich Härtle (ed.), Großdeutschland: Traum und Tragödie. Rosenbergs Kritik am Hitlerismus (Munich: Selbstverlag, 1969), p. 204.

This is probably in reference to comments Hitler made on October 12, 1940, or thereabouts, as noted in Rosenberg's diary (which was not kept daily):

"So now this burning question has been addressed. The German people, after coming home from the war, would also not understand returning to the old big-city holes while the imposing new [cities of] Berlin, Munich, Nuremberg, Hamburg are being created. The German worker is entitled to have the nucleus of his life receive consideration, too, in addition to having the state represented through grand architecture. It is with him, after all, that the victory has been fought for and won.—Another time, when we were talking about Strassburg and I was making a case for the cathedral as a national shrine, the Führer said with tears in his eyes: It should also be a monument in memory of the unknown soldier. What does the simple man have? What can he know of the magnitude of history? He has his body, and that he puts to use. What would all our plans be without this soldier! They would all be merely words on paper.

So I hope that first the monument to these German soldiers is erected in the Strassburg Cathedral. What I expressed as a wish in the Myth that the war memorial would replace the Marian columns must be initiated from the top, through example. Strassburg would be the finest example

The Führer is not fond of the Gothic style. The eroded statues in Reims were a disappointment to him. It was in Strassburg, he said, that a Gothic cathedral for the first time had evoked a strong sense of space.—That is true. The massive columns here do not block the view of the entire space. Besides, I have my reservations here, for the Gothic style was not only the Catholic zenith; it was also crucial, yet refined Germanicness [Germanentum], Here, the closeness to nature breaks through all the expressions of Catholicism: the pattern of tendrils in Marburg, the vibrant gobelins, etc. That one can no longer build in the Gothic style today, incidentally, is something I explained in the Myth (this passage was written in 1917-1918)."

12.10.1941; Frank Bajohr & Jürgen Matthäus (eds.), Alfred Rosenberg: Die Tagebücher von 1934 bis 1944 (Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 2015), p. 353. cf. English ed. The Political Diary of Alfred Rosenberg and the Onset of the Holocaust (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), p. 219.

Other excerpt.

"Only one point of view could correspond to the National Socialist attitude: everyone may seek religious reinforcement and consolation where he wishes, but no one may be forced to seek such from the existing denominations. The advocacy of religious convictions is a matter for each individual; political or even police power may be used neither for nor against such a conviction. Adolf Hitler always held this view..."

Alfred Rosenberg, Letzte Aufzeichnungen: Ideale und Idole der Nationalsozialistischen Revolution (Göttingen: Plesse Verlag, 1955), p. 232.

So, clearly, your claim that Hitler "renounced his religion" is complete rubbish. But this was known already.

Nobody, except Bormann, had an agenda. Not least one which can be proven. Goebbels and Rosenberg both wrote private diaries, in the latter case he only wrote sporadically and not on every topic. Hardly an effort befitting an alleged propagandist with an "agenda".

And no, you don't just have to rely on Table Talks to come to the conclusion that Hitler was anti-Christian. I don't think Table Talks is as bad a source as you think, but even if we threw out the Table Talks, Hitler was still clearly anti-Christian.

This guy has been going on and on about the Table Talks since the beginning, even though I haven't been using them, but whenver I have (in some cases) it has been qualified and supported by the use of other material. Though I have mainly utilized diaries. He is belligerent and clearly hasn't read - of if he has, understood - anything I've been writing.

I'm expecting to obtain the diary of Walther Hewel very soon; he was a diplomat and very good friends with Hitler. So we shall see what - if anything - his diary uncovers.

[Hektor]

....

Nothing you have shared refutes his actions. Nobody has to come out and declare they are a Christian when their actions speak volumes. The table talks have been debunked, and it's clear that those who accuse the Fuhrer of being Anti-Christian had an agenda.

I agree with Hitler being a Christian, but it is uncharitable to claim that those claiming otherwise have an agenda. True, some do have an agenda, but this issue is similar to the Holocaust- not all those who try to claim it happened necessarily have an agenda, the same is true for the claim that Hitler was not a christian.

As for the other side, even though the Table Talks have been thoroughly debunked and Speer's account is unreliable, there is one secondary evidence indicating otherwise- the "Walther Hewel Diaries", which had repeated Hitler's infamous 10th October 1941 quote about Christianity. This document is sourced from Irving's website, who seems to have thought it was fake during his analysis of the Gerhard Engel Diary, regarding proving forgery concerning the paper used. Does anyone have any information about the document? What was Irving's basis to consider it a forgery?

That depends on how one defines 'Christian'. In the broader sense that is true, but one can define it also in a way that he isn't. There is Christian groups that would exclude Catholics and much of Protestantism from it. But you can also define it as broad that anyone which quotes the bible and believes in God is a Christian.
There were NS objections to Christianity and some National Socialists were quite pushy with this.
But if you investigate the reasons, this wasn't to say that they would deny people to be Christians. It was about the attitudes of quite a number of Christians and especially Church leaders. Many nominal Christians have quite manipulative attitudes and make a show of their religiosity.
There is quite a number of professing Christians that will reject that behavior as well. They will point out that using religious arguments to further ones own agenda is a bad thing, regardless who is doing that. And that's what many church leaders are actually doing. It's not a new development, it was a thing mid-20th century already. So it should surprise that politicians with the aim of social transformation (like NS) would object to this, too. The religious manipulators create divisiveness and conflict within groups. And that can only be tolerated in lower degrees. When they are rebuked they will come up with arguments that you are 'persecuting them' or that you are 'not Christian enough' or something like that. Funny enough that even in the ten commandments there is one that rejects exactly that behavior.

Ex 20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Now some will say that this is about 'swearing' and using God's name in a curse. But that is only the blatant application of this. There is a far more sinister way in which it is done. E.g. someone in the group (who is to lazy to construct a rational, empirically founded argument) will use some bible-verses to support a proposal. The goal is to look 'more holy' and to break any resistance in the group 'since it is God's will to do as the proposer wants'. When that idea is bad and flops... the person itself doesn't look so bad, after all he can now blame God for it. If it works out, he will however look good and be like a prophet there. It is self-serving either way. And it is a nuisance to anyone. We have quite some of those folks around here. They will have Christian bumper stickers, Posters with bible verses, and have Christian sounding sayings all the time. People have noticed that those guys are actually a problem, when one engages with them business-wise or generally in human relations.

Now the Germans aren't so fond of doing this, but there would still some that do. Especially those with a Church background. Germans won't use elaborate exegesis with bible-verses so much. But they would use Christian principles and give them some spin to sound more righteous. I can imagine that Hitler (or other political leaders) would be pissed by that. Now the present administration has solved the issue by letting the churches (Landeskirchen) do 'social work' and funnel money to them for this. In return the official churches prime the flock policy-wise with 'political correctness'. NS wanted the people to be generally charitable and not only because the churches said you should. That may no have sat so well with many in the church hierarchy that were looking for bigger resource allocations by government. This is an issue with any of the larger Churches, naturally anyone in political office that wants problems to be solved will object to this and may also over-generalize on this.
The majority of the church leadership (both Protestant and Catholic) was however loyal to the NS-state. And that regardless of their political preferences and convictions. They did however do a 180 degree turn around after WW2. Even claim that Christians were persecuted for being Christian, omitting that those "Christians" had trouble with the authorities for other reasons (like creating division, using the church as platform, etc.). Nobody was jailed or harmed for preaching the gospel or something like that.

So again a majority of nominal Christians is dishonest on those issues.

Hitler made it clear in 1935:

Der nationalsozialistische Staat aber wird unter keinen Umständen dulden, daß auf irgendwelchen Umwegen die PoJ.itisierung der Konfessionen entweder fortgeführt oder gar neu begonnen wird. Und hier möge man sich über die Entschlossenheit der Bewegung und des Staates keiner Täuschung hingeben ! Wir haben den politischen Klerus schon einmal bekämpft und ihn aus den Parlamenten herausgebracht und das nach einem langen Kampf, in dem wir keine Staatsgewalt und die andere Seite die gesamte hatte.
Heute haben wir aber diese Gewalt und werden den Kampf für diese Prinzipien leichter bestehen können. Wir werden auch diesen Kampf nie kämpfen als einen Kampf gegen das Christentum oder auch nur gegen eine der beiden Konfessionen. Aber wir werden ihn dann führen zur Reinhaltung unseres öffentlichen Lebens von j enen Priestern, die ihren Beruf verfehlt haben, die Politiker hätten werden müssen und nicht Seelsorger

Using the pulpit or religious office for political campaigning won't be tolerated. And this isn't even a novelty in German Law. The Kanzelparagraf is far older than that. Nothing like that is enforced in Germany right now. The vast majority of clerics does say what the ideological elites want and they see no need to interfere with that. But, oh boy, don't 'deny the Holocaust', then they treat you like a blasphemer. The Holocaust actually being an anti-Christian religion itself (a postmodern anti-Gospel). This is quite odd.

[TheGrayWolf]

I am not even going to begin to start on that long list of content that you are taking out of context.

You ignored what I had posted:

He stated at the start that the movement was Christian:

"We do not tolerate anyone in our ranks who offends the ideas of Christianity, who stands up to a dissident, fights him, or provokes himself as a hereditary enemy of Christianity. This movement of ours is actually Christian."-Adolf Hitler, Passau, October 27th, 1928

And then said in his final speech about God. Even telling the youth that they will stand before the almighty and ask for his blessing.

January 30, 1945:

"God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work"

And

Here he speaks about how God protected him on July 20th from the assassination attempt on his life. He even mentions "God the almighty".

"Combined, they are but one: To work for my people and to fight for it. Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me.

In the years to come I shall continue on this road, uncompromisingly safeguarding my people's interests, oblivious to all misery and danger, and filled with the holy conviction that God the Almighty will not abandon him who, during all his life, had no desire but to save his people from a fate it had never deserved, neither by virtue of its number nor by way of its importance."

Also this:

"In vowing ourselves to one another, we are entitled to stand before the Almighty and ask Him for His grace and His blessing."

Clearly above speaking about the youth standing before God and asking him for his grace and his blessing.

He also says this:

"Therefore, it is all the more necessary on this twelfth anniversary of the rise to power to strengthen the heart more than ever before and to steel ourselves in the holy determination to wield the sword, no-matter where and under what circumstances, until final victory crowns our efforts."

"holy determination"

It is funny that in his final broadcast, one in which you didn't even speak about he speaks about God, but he wasn't a Christian am I right? Even though we have his texts, his speeches, his actions. The most you can muster is written text without context about his disdain for the church, not for Christianity. You seem to think dismissal and opposing the church means being against Christianity and I keep telling you that the church is not Christianity.

[Hektor]

I am not even going to begin to start on that long list of content that you are taking out of context.

You ignored what I had posted:

He stated at the start that the movement was Christian:

"We do not tolerate anyone in our ranks who offends the ideas of Christianity, who stands up to a dissident, fights him, or provokes himself as a hereditary enemy of Christianity. This movement of ours is actually Christian."-Adolf Hitler, Passau, October 27th, 1928

...

Except for the first statement. "Almighty God" can be understood as not necessarily Christian. It's clearly that NS wasn't exactly atheist or materialist, but that doesn't make it specifically 'Christian' neither. I do believe that the public statements were sincere, though.

I think the beef that some NS had wasn't with Christianity in general, but with the expression that found with many church leader at the time. Simply because they tried to tell them 'how to rule' giving 'advice' they were not asked for. This is especially pesky when people that won't be hold accountable, tell you what to do. When it then flops or causes problems it will be held against you not against the 'advisors' that tried to gaslight you into doing something.

Bear in mind that Germany also has a history of religious wars... e.g. the thirty year war. While it was the dukes and nobles together with their landsknecht-armies that fought each other and destroyed large parts of the country, this was done, because the churches tried to expand their own realms under those dukes. The "Stuttgarter Schuldbekenntnis" gets a bad flavor this. They 'repent' for something they didn't have a part in, but they didn't repent for something they actually had a part in. That's hypocrisy of the worst kind. It's probably part of the reasons why most Germans reject the churches nowadays or at least don't take them seriously at all. There isn't much of 'Christianity' in them anymore anyway. In fact what they preach is some form of Humanism dressed up as Christian. And well, it's about jobs for jolly fellows paid for by the taxpayers. Just have a look what the salary and resources are that a pastor or priest will get. Add to this lots of the staff there. For the upper echelon it's above average, while the staff that does do work their may get a bit less, while work pressure is lower.

It should also be noted that of the Catholic clergy was involved in scandals of sexual abuse at the time. There were trials on this, not disputed as frivolous by the Catholic Church then... So their own investigations had found the accused guilty. So no "Nazi plot against the church" there. It seems the Catholic Church has never forgiven them for this neither. And well, nowadays they get bashed with those scandals over and over again, while this actually may be exaggerated now. There is sexual abuse at government social and educational institutions as well... and that almost never gets any attention. Apparently governments can't do no wrong, unless they are National Socialist.

[TheGrayWolf]

Except for the first statement. "Almighty God" can be understood as not necessarily Christian. It's clearly that NS wasn't exactly atheist or materialist, but that doesn't make it specifically 'Christian' neither. I do believe that the public statements were sincere, though.

Considering his speeches and what he wrote in Mein Kampf one can surmise he's talking about Christianity in that context. His disdain and complains weren't against Christianity but against the Church. I have those same feelings as well. I refuse to step in to a church today knowing what they promote. My grandfather's old church, he was the preacher there and they spoke about how the jews crucified and murdered Jesus. Now today they don't speak about it, and they have the Israeli flag inside the church now.

One doesn't have to go to Church to be a Christian, as I have stated. I've told him this before multiple times. He was a spiritual man, as am I. One can be critical of churches and organized religion while still following Christ.

His last post I haven't even began to break down, nor do I have the time. In fact the response about Engel exchange is mere semantics in which he told him that he was a catholic and would remain so. He argues that Engels wrote that he told him that and was arguing about the format in which I had posted it, which means exactly the same thing regardless of who's perspective it is being told from. One doesn't say "And will remain so" if they aren't a Christian, as one would leave the Catholic faith anyways.

What the Fuhrer had was a disdain in the path the Catholic church has went, from before when they called out the jews to now defending them. This is the crux of his entire disdain of the Catholic church. that and how modern churches were being corrupted by jews in to supporting homosexual behavior and other things. This is the entire leadership's argument. Not against Christianity, but against the church and I will continue to say this.

[Otium]

I am not even going to begin to start on that long list of content that you are taking out of context.

Nothing was taken out of context. I provided the full context, and even provided the context you didn't know about vis-à-vis Engel.

Your "long list" being what it was last time, was a bunch of unfalsifiable and ignorant statements on the provenance and motivations of the sources without having any historical knowledge of them, nor the peoples involved.

You ignored what I had posted:

He stated at the start that the movement was Christian:

"We do not tolerate anyone in our ranks who offends the ideas of Christianity, who stands up to a dissident, fights him, or provokes himself as a hereditary enemy of Christianity. This movement of ours is actually Christian."-Adolf Hitler, Passau, October 27th, 1928

And then said in his final speech about God. Even telling the youth that they will stand before the almighty and ask for his blessing.

He did say that in this speech, in the 1920s, and no doubt he didn't believe it as much as he claimed; and in any case, we know for an indisputable fact that he didn't believe this during the war years. Hitler believed Christianity was completely opposed to nature, and thus to Nationalsocialism as you'll see.

I did indeed ignore your spiel about the use of certain words by Hitler, and anyone who has read the thread from the beginning wouldn't need to see why. I have explained my position on this argument which you've used since the beginning. To reiterate, the use of certain words are not proof of ones convinctions. People who aren't Christian still use Christian terminology from time to time, it's not strange or anything.

In fact the response about Engel exchange is mere semantics in which he told him that he was a catholic and would remain so. He argues that Engels wrote that he told him that and was arguing about the format in which I had posted it, which means exactly the same thing regardless of who's perspective it is being told from. One doesn't say "And will remain so" if they aren't a Christian, as one would leave the Catholic faith anyways.

You can call it semantics if you want, but clearly the point is contentious despite the fact all the evidence goes in one direction and falls in line with a single perspective (Hitler pretended to be "Christian" in the 1920s). The "proofs" you have provided are themselves semantical. Your whole argument rests on the interpretation of Hitler's use of the word "god" and "almighty" because it has a Christian connotation. This is circumstantial and semantics and not proof of anything.

The irony of course, is that you chided me for "taking out of context" the evidence I provided - which was provided with full context, and the meaning of which in any case cannot even remotely be interpreted in another way - while you have utterly ignored the context and meaning of Hitler's comments allegedly made to Engel in 1938, for which this is doubtful due to the problematic provenance of the source.

You have alleged that I've ignored the difference between Hitler's "distinction" in talking of the "Church" and belief in religious dogma. Yet, again, you did this very thing in regards to Engel, where Hitler was saying he would "remain" Catholic in a mere nominal sense because the Church couldn't oust him. This looked good politically of course. He was chiding the Church for having no real power, and making themselves look bad if they excommunicated the immensly popular leader of the German Reich. Though, when it's convenient for you historical circumstances are irrelevant. Back to the point; all the evidence I have provided as had little to do with Church quallels in an of itself, but rather, been wholesale critiques of the biblical foundations of the Christian religion. You will see more of this again, from yet another source.

---

First. The notes of Werner Koeppen, who was Alfred Rosenberg's deputy and head of the Rosenberg department was authorized to be present in the FHQ and while there took notes of discussions Hitler had at the dinner table. These notes are the most reliable of the so-called "Table Talks" because we actually have the German notes. Koeppen's notes have been used to verify - where possible - the notes from those taken by others like Heim, Picker and Bormann. Their reliability isn't in dispute.

At the dinner table on September 23rd, 1941, Hitler made it clear not only what the Nationalsocialist position on the Church was, but also its stance on religion:

"The Fuehrer then spoke of the Church and said that National Socialism must beware of any imitation of ecclesiastical-cultic customs. The National Socialist concept of God can only be based on the laws of nature and life, as far as they are accessible to the human mind. Only if this concept of God could be brought into harmony with the respective scientific knowledge of the time and if the reason of the German people was not exposed to anything unreasonable, would it be lasting; anything else, however, would be futile and harmful."

Koeppen Bericht, Nr. 37 - Abendtafel 23.9.1941; NARA, RG 242, Microfilm T84, Roll 387, Frame 787.

It's clear from this that Hitler's idea of the Nationalsocialist "concept of God" was not Christian, if it was, then there'd be no reason to think he wouldn't have specified it, especially if Nationalsocialism was supposedly intended to be a "Christian movement"! Instead, crickets.

Note too that Hitler has no trouble here using the word "God" in a non-Christian sense. So your argument, clearly bunkum, that any use of such termininology is 'proof' of anything is fallacious and wrong.

Next. The diary of Walther Hewel confirms all the other primary sources I have used thus far.

Hewel was an old guard Nationalsocialist, he marched in theBeer Hall Putsch, and he was a very close friend of Hitler's who - if you're aware of the documentation - apart from Paul Otto Schmidt took down stenographic notes on diplomatic discussions Hitler had with foreign statesmen, He was present the whole time and he also records Hitler's fervent opposition to Christianity, not just the Church as some would wrongly allege.

There are two entries in his diary which mention Christianity, and thus Hitler's views on it.

First, on June 8th, 1941 on Sunday at the Berghof:

"In the evening, at dinner, a wonderful lecture about the Roman Empire and its replacement by Christianity. The Roman Empire was the only real world empire that ever existed. Founded only by the blood of Roman citizens (comparison with England). Where would we be today if Christianity had not been forced upon us? And against our will, with fire and sword in the name of the benevolent God.

How pitiful are the stories of the saints compared to the Greek, Roman and then Germanic sagas. Christianity interposed itself between our gods and our present art before we could come to the shaping of our mystical world.

Christianity a single deception and contradiction. It preaches goodness, humility and love for one's neighbour, and has burned and brutalised millions with pious slogans under this motto. The ancients openly said that they killed out of self-protection, out of revenge, out of punishment. The Christians only killed out of love. Freedom, equality and civilisation is the greatest nonsense. For freedom excludes equality. Freedom means the possibility of development for the stronger, the better, the more capable. And then there is no equality.

The gods of the classical period were tolerant and not predefined. (Sitting at the right hand of God etc?) Only Christianity created the vengeful God who throws people into hell when he uses the brain given to him by God. The classical era was the light world. With the advent of Christianity, research into nature was interrupted. Inquiry began about seeing the saints instead of God-given things. Inquiry became a sin.

The tragedy is that today there are still thousands of so-called educated people who believe in this madness. The teaching against the omnipotence of nature. The glorification of the weak, the sick, the crippled, the simple-minded. [The idea that] Healthy people reach bliss when they sacrifice their lives to the weak, the idiot or the like in order to keep him alive. [This is] Bodelschwing's world of ideas. Sick people are there so that we can do good. If it goes on like this - more sick people than healthy people. Today already 1 billion.

In terms of cruelty, Christianity has beaten all records. Christianity is the revenge of the eternal Jew. Where would we be today if we didn't have Christianity - the same spirit, only 13 years: enduring stagnation avoided. The Romans and Germanic tribes also died heroically, without priests.

When man believes that he can go against nature, he dissolves nature. He values a cripple more than a healthy person because it pleases God. The bad thing is that millions of people believe, or pretend to believe, and above all pretend [heucheln]. If we had become Mohamedans, we would own the world today."

08.06.1941, Hewel Diary; IfZArch, ED 100/78, pp. 91-92.

Next we read a very short, but total rebuke of the Christian doctrine from the 10th of October, 1941:

F[ührer] at the table: Christianity is the rebellion against creation. It is the reversal of all the laws of nature, which even in the smallest process of fertilisation is based on the struggle and selection of the best. (Seed and ovum.)

10.10.1941, Hewel Diary; IfZArch, ED 100/78, p. 159.

Again, Hitler reiterates very consistenty his total opposition to Christianity.

Thus far that's 5 private diaries of intimates of Hitler, all of whom confirm the exact same thing.

The conclusion is absoloute and irrefutable.