Talk:Kirchenkampf

Incredible lack of objectivity

I'm going to be frank: I find this to be a largely biased and stilted article which even contains some outright false information. With a few exceptions, it lacks objectivity, and sides with a specific interpretation of events that the Nazis were ultimately anti-Christian in their aims. That is a thesis that has been comprehensibly challenged by the likes of Richard Steigmann-Gall, Richard Carrier, and Susannah Heschel. (I'll go into detail later about how this articles gives them short shrift)

Starting with what's in the lead, there is this statement: "The Salvation Army, Christian Saints, Bruderhof, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church all disappeared from Germany during the Nazi era." The Source given is an archived BBC webpage, and it's demonstrably false. Starting with the Salvation Army - it did not disappear and was never banned. In fact, even the Salvation Army's own website[1] describes it's wartime experience as having little difficulty except for a property seizure notice that was reversed in September 1943, and that Hitler himself intervened on their behalf at the beginning of his regime. They were also active throughout the entire war in Germany, enthusiastically supported the rise of the Nazi Party and Hitler "as did other smaller churches", and became a participating body in the National Socialist People's Welfare Organization.[2][3] As for the Seventh-day Adventist Church: they didn't disappear at all[4], on the contrary they collaborated and have apologized since for it.[5] I don't know what "Christian Saints" refers to, I can't find any information on a Church body or organization having that name existing in Germany at the time, if it refers merely to the recognized Saints of the Christian religion then again I can't find any sources other than this (already unreliable) BBC page, and unless someone can find actual examples of this happening it has no business in this article. Finally when it comes to the Bruderhof Church being closed down: the actual circumstances should be elaborated on this article. It was closed for explicitly opposing Nazi beliefs unlike other Churches, not simply because it was Anabaptist or because it was a Church.

On that note, the arguments about whether the Nazis were anti-Christian are very one-sided in their presentation. We get countless information about the Nazis persecuting people that happen to be Christians in this article presented as if their identification with Christianity was the reason why they were being targeted, and also authors explaining why they think the Nazi movement was anti-Christian in nature, while the authors who oppose this idea don't get their arguments articulated at all except for two, one is Susannah Heschel, and that's only her saying that the Kirchenkampf has a more narrow definition than what is usually accepted. The other one is about Steigmann-Gall "Other authors, such as Richard Steigmann-Gall, argue that there were anti-Christian individuals in the Nazi Party but that they did not represent the movement's position". The only other examples where an opposing view is even referenced is this: "Other historians maintain no such plan [to de-Christianize Germany] existed.",

But even with those examples it is treated un-evenly, compare: "Hitler himself disdained Christianity, as Alan Bullock noted: In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest." So its presented as a matter of fact that Hitler disdained Christianity, and Bullock is just giving an example, and he also gets an entire excerpt explaining Hitler's supposed dislike for Christianity. Meanwhile Richard Steigmann-Gall merely "argues that there were anti-Christian individuals in the Nazi Party but that they did not represent the movement's position." One is presented as fact the other as opinion, and Bullock gets an actual excerpt from his book quoted here. Another example: "Hitler ultimately believed "one is either a Christian or a German" – to be both was impossible." Again this is presented as fact, even though the source for this is a former Nazi Party member who had a falling out with Hitler and fled to the United States in 1936. It should read "Hermann Rauschning claimed Hitler believed *insert quote here*".

In addition most authors who contend that the Nazis were anti-Christian use quotes from Hitler's Table Talks. But Richard Carrier and Mikael Nilsson have proven that Hitler's Table Talks (both the translations and the original German version) is not a reliable source, Carrier has written books[6], articles[7], and blog posts[8][9] about it while Nilsson wrote a more recent book detailing its entire history and falsehood.[10] Either no quotations originating from there should be used or it should be clarified every time it is used with "more recent research has shown Hitler's Table Talks to be unreliable". And both Richard Carrier and Steigmann-Gall (as verbalized in his book The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945) should get their arguments voiced here too in regards to the Nazi attitude towards Christianity. In fact since their publications are considerably more recent than the likes of Shirer and Bullock and heavily scrutinize previous works they can be considered more reliable as sources. (and also sources like Christian Cyclopedia, which describes itself as Interpreting the contemporary world from a Lutheran Christian perspective[11], seem dubious to me. Christian organizations have reason for distancing themselves from the Nazi regime and that calls into question their reliability.)

Regardless, all of this is just a quick overview of what I find wrong with this article. Someone with more free time than me should seriously reassess this page and its numerous violations of Wikipedia:Describing points of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, I'm sure there are more. There is a similar issue with other wikipedia articles on this subject.[12][13] Thank you for taking the time to read this if you made it to the end. Will Tyson for real (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Some other examples I have found: "In Mein Kampf, although Hitler claimed that he was doing the work of the Lord by fighting Jews, nevertheless, in another chapter, Philosophy and Organization, he denounced Christianity as a "spiritual terror" that spread into the Ancient world." I have read this passage, what he actually says is: "Each one of us today may regret the fact that the advent of Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was introduced into the much freer ancient world, but the fact cannot be denied that ever since then the world is pervaded and dominated by this kind of coercion." He says this in the context of Christianity being a "Weltanschauung" like Nazism and that the Nazi Party should in fact adopt similar methods and avoid compromises, it's not a condemnation or denouncement at all and can even be taken as positive. Regardless it isn't source so that interpretation is original research. Hitler makes efforts to assimilate the churches into the culture of Nazism. Hitler moves to eliminate Political Catholicism: dissolution of Catholic aligned political parties and signing of Reichskonkordat with Vatican....Sporadic persecution of Catholics.[clarification needed] citation needed isn't good enough, why is this even in the article? And that's a disputed claim anyways. Will Tyson for real (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is very problematic. Although it articulates a legitimate school of thought (that of the Catholic scholarly community), the article not only gives undue weight to this position, it is essentially the only position presented. Weasel word are also used to create the appearance of consensus where none exist, while also minimizing the views from critical historians. Frequently controversial conclusions are presented as fact. The section on the "Five Stages" is a conspicuous example of this. The source is a Lutheran encyclopedia written by non-experts. Their training is in the Ministry. This is not a reliable source. And comparing the section to original source, it looks like a lot of original research was added. The biggest failure in my opinion is that it says little to nothing of what is most often meant by Kirchenkamp—the struggle between the German Christians and the Confessing Church. The article in it's current state is unserious and very misleading. Best, Plutarch09 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

[Note: The following was posted on my talk page]

Just a bit of info on the disputed statement.

The Salvation Army talked their experience in Germany during the Nazi era in their website, it completely contradicts the article statement that they disappeared from the country: [14]

Adventist churches in Germany and Austria also apologized in 2005 for failing to protect those persecuted by the Nazi regime, and also for some publications glorifying Hitler, this too contradicts the article statement that they disappeared from Germany: [15]

Certainly, those sources are far more reliable than some unsupported statements on a BBC page, the statement in the lead is incorrect and as such it should be removed. There are other problems in that article, but that is another matter. -- 2804:248:FBC5:EF00:64EF:84A2:D2C3:5B34 (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, possibly self-serving statements by the subjects themselves are less reliable than statements from reliable uninvolved third-parties. If a unconnected third party were to examine and evaluate those statements and find them persuasive, that would be a useful source As it stands now, the most we should use the SA and Adventist statements for is a footnote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a bit of info on the disputed statement.

The Salvation Army talked their experience in Germany during the Nazi era in their website, it completely contradicts the article statement that they disappeared from the country: [16]

Adventist churches in Germany and Austria also apologized in 2005 for failing to protect those persecuted by the Nazi regime, and also for some publications glorifying Hitler, this too contradicts the article statement that they disappeared from Germany: [17]

Certainly, those sources are far more reliable than some unsupported statements on a BBC page, the statement in the lead is incorrect and as such it should be removed. There are other problems in that article, but that is another matter. -- 2804:248:FBC5:EF00:64EF:84A2:D2C3:5B34 (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, possibly self-serving statements by the subjects themselves are less reliable than statements from reliable uninvolved third-parties. If a unconnected third party were to examine and evaluate those statements and find them persuasive, that would be a useful source As it stands now, the most we should use the SA and Adventist statements for is a footnote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

What would the Salvation Army and the Adventists gain from those statements though? Also, before content is added to an article, there needs to be good and reliable sources for it, there's nothing supporting the disputed content other than a statement on a BBC page. -- 2804:248:FB11:A300:AD70:6D0F:4A1C:15E (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What would they gain from statements outlining their good deeds in a difficult time when reliable sources are saying that they disappeared into the woodwork? I think the answer to that is blazingly obvious. The BBC is an uninvolved third-party and a high-quality reliable source, one that is much more believable than potentially self-serving statements by institutions that may be looking to burnish their past reputations. Please reŖad WP:Reliable sources for more information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

They would have more to gain by claiming they were persecuted by the Nazi regime. Is there any other source that states that the Salvation Army and the Adventists disappeared from Germany at the time? If not, there is no reason to include that statement in the article. -- 2804:248:FB11:A300:4DC5:8F42:51C9:567C (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

[End copied comments] To Ken: you say it needs to be a third party source: yet the source for Bruderhof is a youtube video (of all things) by bruderhof. Find academic secondary sources please, it contradicts the information provided so far. And btw, that archived BBC webpage is littered with errors (identifying Jehovahs Witnesses, who are Christians, as being seperate from Christians for one) 107.116.165.8 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The BBC page is part of their 'Bitesize' educational program, which was designed for highschoolers to revise for their exams, it didn't fall under the BBC News' editorial oversight and is really not a strong enough source to make the statement that several religions 'disappeared from the country' entirely, especially considering that they have subsequently changed the material. JeffUK 21:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)