Hmm, sorry, I think you are being excessive here. I'm the first to scorn creationists and Holocaust deniers and flat earthers, and I think global warming is real, probably human caused or at least influenced, and am pro-Kyoto-ish. I've participated in more than a few arguments with those who think global warming is rubbish. But it's not quite the case that their objections are without merit. Climatology is very complex, and we cannot be sure that the warming trend is anthopogenic yet. I think we have to act despite our current uncertainty, waiting until we are sure might be too late. But I can see why some people are unconvinced, too, and are loath to risk damaging economies on uncertain science. There is still room for honest doubt.
On the other hand, if you have good evidence that someone is a corporate shill or political hack, then flame on:)
Yep, and judging by the resume on his website, he ain't. At his last university he studied "Computer Science, General Studies, Basketball" (!). Saying he's an "informed scientist" is just a rhetorical device - ie anyone who disagrees with him is just an ill-informed non-scientist, that's all.
Good post, and I'd love to fly on a real airship too... a couple of comments.
The crash of the Hindenburg was the straw that broke the camel's back. There were many, many airship disasters previously - in studying airship history, one is struck by just how few of the great airships had a peaceful end. By 1937, virtually everyone had lost interest in the airship anyway.
Definitely you'd want to steer clear of a hurricane! Or any kind of storm (eg the USS Shenandoah, which was destroyed in a storm in 1925). And as you say, mooring those things in a high wind could be hell - you may have seen these photographs of the USS Los Angeles basically being blown up until it's standing on vertically on it's nose!
Lightning is not great, but it doesn't have to be fatal if the structure is well designed (it has been implicated in the Hindenburg's fate). Of course, a modern airship would use helium, not hydrogen. I think pressurized cabins came in just as airships went out of fashion; although the German height climbers in WWI used to operate at 20,000 ft unpressurized, at about the limits of human endurance.
They were beautiful things, but sadly just too impractical to be of much use.
This is true. My previous geekiest friend (and I'm an IT guy and ex-astro grad student myself) was somebody who read the O'Reilly sendmail book cover-to-cover, for fun. (Well, perhaps that's more sick than geeky...) Now, that's been topped by another friend who is building a prototype tile (basically, the dish) for a new radio telescope, the Mileura Wide Array, in his front yard. Man, what a geek! And I told him so.
It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about here and aren't even vaguely aware of the sighting I refer to. There is no way it was Venus. It was a rather large disc shaped object.
Oh, please. Why are you so completely certain of this? It could easily have been Venus. Please state your reasons for believing that this is not possible. For a start... don't you think Venus is rather large, and when projected against the sky, disk-shaped in profile? Venus could also easily have been seen by multiple witnesses. Hundreds of witnesses mean nothing when they are all ignorant about astronomy.
The Brits were using Harriers in the Falklands, not Tornadoes (which anyway weren't solely British, but designed and built in collaboration with Italy and Germany). Harriers are very maneuverable because of their VSTOL capabilities, the British pilots would swivel the jump-jets in flight, effectively slamming on the brakes, letting the Argentinians overshoot. But it's hardly an indictment of the Mirage that it couldn't match that capability, very few aircraft can. The Argentinian Exocets did score some kills, notably the destroyer HMS Sheffield - others were sunk by iron bombs. My guess is Exocets were probably too expensive to have many on hand. Also, I don't know what air-to-air missle the British used, but it wasn't the Stinger, which is ground-to-air.
Overall, I'd agree that the British military are more capable than the French. But not by much - Britain's next aircraft carriers are going to be French-designed!
Erm, did I say I thought that? I explicitly said I don't doubt that some priests can't fight those urges. What I found surprising was your assertion that most priests can't. I wanted some evidence for this, and all I got was condescension, a link to a documentary and some pop pyschology. If it matters at all, I'm a secular humanist, agnostic/atheist, blah blah blah, I just like to see EVIDENCE. OK?
Yes, re-e-e-e-eally, is that so surprising? Or do you think everyone on the planet should have read or watched the same things as you? Sheesh.
We don't get HBO in Australia, but in any event I don't look to documentaries my information. I'm quite willing to check up references in the campus library, but as I have just spent a fair amount of time doing just that for another slashdot thread, on a subject where I am somewhat familiar with the literature (unlike here) and so knew where to start, a few references would be helpful.
Another version of liberalism to throw into the mix is the 19th/early 20th century British version - the Liberal party (eg Gladstone, Asquith, Lloyd George) was generally for free trade, less government spending, lower taxes, etc - liberal in the Adam Smith sense. (And back then the Conservatives weren't, so much - they had a long flirtation with tariffs, for one thing.) But they were also broadly socially liberal - in favour of (although not necessarily actually doing something about) what we would now call leftish agendas like disarmament, welfare, concern for huddled and oppressed masses at home and abroad. Of course, they were as riddled with inconsistencies and compromises as any other political party. Labour began to eat away at their Radical (more socially liberal) wing, the party fractured during the First World War and into the 1930s, and now the Liberal Democrats are merely the perpetual third party - I'm not sure how Liberal they are any more though.
The Economist began life as a Liberal rag in the 1840s, and to this day is liberal in both these senses (free trade is their mantra, of course, but they also came out in favour of gay marriage years ago, for example). And although I consider myself vaguely leftish, I think it's a pretty good mix... let's try to do the right thing, but also not forget that it has to be paid for.
PS A good example of left-wing Christians is (was) the Labour churches.
t sounds like plaid is just one of those things that strikes Americans as being intrinsically funny, which isn't over here...
Yeah, could be, there's also that Steve Martin (?) movie, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. I think over here (Australia), the equivalent "instrinsically amusing pattern" would be paisley...
Come, come, I like to bash Star Wars as much as the next guy, but you are overdoing it a tad. In the original trilogy we do get to see a few other planets/moons as well, Alderaan (well, we see it explode), the fourth moon of Yavin (which apparently doesn't deserve its own name), Cloud City on Bespin. It doesn't help, though, that we keep going back to f&^$$ing Tatooine again and again. I agree with the other poster - it's not a galactic empire, it's a few hundred planets. And yeah, I can agree that there aren't enough people around (put that down to the cost of extras, I guess - notice how the the CGI bits added in to Mos Eisley in the special edition of Star Wars has more creatures, and the CGI cities in the new trilogy seem pretty crowded). But there is one exception to your assertion that the battles seem smale scale, the battle on Hoth - that always seemed impressive to me.
Wow, that Polyus is both cool and scary - thanks for the link. Strange, though, that the article doesn't seem to mention the nuclear space mines indicated on the schematic!
Well, one can easily make that argument, but you can't easily sustain it, IMHO. Inspired, I can buy; heavily is a long stretch, ripoff is unacceptably perjorative.
And yes... I have seen both 2001 and ST:TMP, many times, thanks very much: the first time was around 20 years ago, and I have them both on DVD now. I don't need anybody else's review to form my own opinion. (And if film makers are influenced by other films, don't think film reviewers can be influenced by other reviews?) When I think of cinematography in 2001, I think of the view from HAL's lens, the camera following Frank Poole around the carousel, the famous fade from bone to satellite, trademark Kubrick touches. What is similar in ST:TMP? Stars? Spaceships? You need more than that, or else every movie set in space is a "clone" of 2001. The mood in ST:TMP is indeed similar to 2001's insofar as there is a grand sense of mystery and exploration. Thats's one of the things I like about it - not a lot of films try to do that. Wasn't aware Kubrick trademarked that, though. Otherwise the emotional sterility of 2001 is utterly unlike TMP, where you've got the Kirk:Spock:McCoy triangle riffing off each other as usual, and then there's the Decker:Ilia relationship, such as it is... (And let's not mention the impressive feeling of technical accuracy in 2001, compared with the fantasy technobabble of ST:TMP.) The sound design? The spaceships in 2001 make no sounds in space, enough said. No, I'll say more - think of Bowman chasing down Poole's body in the pod, there's no music or speech, just the clicking and beeping of the instruments as he draws closer. Can you imagine anything like that happening in a Trek movie? There'd be a dramatic Jerry Goldsmith overture before Kirk could say "Mr Chekhov, beam that body aboard". The two movies are different beasts, which happen to explore some of the same themes using some of the same tropes. That does not make one a "clone" of the other. "Incredibly similar"? What's with the hyperbole? Can't you just be satsified with "reminiscent"?
I'm not saying there are no similarities, and of course previous films influence later ones. But for you it appears that honest attempts at different takes on old stories are "ripoffs" or "clones". What's wrong with judging movies on their own terms instead of always having to interpret them with respect to previous movies?
Oh, and I put "clone" in quote marks because you did use that word: "In fact, look at the movie you brought up, 2001. It had it's own clone following a few years later--it was called Star Trek: The Motion Picture." I'm a history student; I do try to get quotes accurate!
The success of Star Wars (and Close Encounters, let's not forget) ushered in a new era of science fiction movies. Lots of SF movies were made in the following decade or so that probably would wouldn't have been filmed without the the prospect of big profits for the movie studios. Does that mean that films like Alien, The Terminator and Blade Runner are Star Wars rip-offs? That argument doesn't work.
Sure, there's some similarity of plot. But LST gives it it's own twist, enough that IMHO it's not merely a ripoff. (The whole beta unit/alien assassin subplot has no parallel in Star Wars, for example, and it's not just tacked on either, because it helps Alex to realise that he has something worth fighting for - initially he did not want to fight at all.) And as many have noted, it's not like Star Wars itself is the most original story out there.
(Oh, I've just noticed you also think ST:TMP is a "clone" of 2001 - you obviously have a low tolerance for any similarities at all. Somewhat similar != clone.)
Clearly you don't do apologies or retractions. I seriously want to know what you think my bias is on this question.
According to public records he was born and baptised Catholic.
This has absolutely no relevance in proving his beliefs about Christianity as an adult. Is this not blindingly obvious? I was born and baptised a Catholic too. Wasn't my choice. Wasn't Hitler's either.
Certainly he professed to be, if Mein Kampf and his various public speeches are any indication.
No, they are not any indication, as I have explained before. Yes, he professed to be, in public. Why do you believe he would speak the truth in speeches intended for public consumption by a German nation that was overwhelmingly Christian but then lie to his Nazi underlings who shared his goals and wanted to implement them on his behalf? I cannot comprehend this at all.
According to the Church's own records, he remained in good standing until his death.
Again, this proves nothing. I'm in good standing with the Church as well; I have never told them I no longer believe, nor have they excommunicated me. I'm sure the records of my Confirmation are still held by the church I attended at the time, so if I died tomorrow, you could claim I was in good standing with the Church until I died, and therefore a Catholic. But you'd be wrong.
There is no evidence that he was non-Christian, beyond a few references to cynical back-room dealings in which he planned to supplant or subjegate the church to the state, which is clearly a political move and does not provide any real indication as to his underlying Christian belief (or lack thereof).
Christ on a bike, there is plenty of evidence about his non-Christianity. It's not just "a few" backroom deals, it's what he said all along., to his like-minded intimates and acolytes. To take but one example, what do you think his statement that one cannot be both a German and a Christian actually means? It's more than just deploring the political power of the Church, it's asserting that to be a Christian is to owe allegience to something outside of the Aryan race. This is completely consistent with his attacks on liberalism, internationalism, Marxism, Judaism... Aryans had only one duty, to the race, and God, human rights, class, anything else undermined that duty. It is not just a backroom political move and I still have not seen any evidence that historians argue this.
Clearly, Hitler was considered by theologens of the day to be quite christian in his beliefs and actions, be they Protestant theologens (as cited above) or Catholic theologens (as cited in numerous other writings).
Which again proves nothing about Hitler's own beliefs. It only proves that others believed or professed to believe that he was a Christian. There are many reasons why they might have thought so: they might have fallen for his public protestations of piety (as you have). They might have doubted those statements, but calculated that going along with them gave them more influence than outright resistance, or protected their church from persecution. Or they might agreed with his policies (eg anti-Semitism) and so supported him for that reason. But whatever, it says nothing about Hitler's own beliefs.
Hitler's discrimination and rhetoric against the Jews was embraced by the clergy of both Protestant and Catholic churches of the day
See above. This says much more about the clergy than it does about Hitler.
The only piece of evidence, on which everyone who wishes to believe Hitler wasn't really a real Christian hangs their collective hat, is the fact that he intended some cynical political maneuvers to subjegate the churches to his authority.
Right, and for some reason all prominent historians of Nazi Germany that I know of (like Kershaw and Burleigh - and I'm not making that up, these are the top guys in the field) seem to have fallen for this. Or it could be that y
Errm, which bias would that be? Did you miss the part about me being an atheist, lapsed Catholic etc? You can read it again here if you've forgotten. If you think I have a bias, then demonstrate (or at least elucidate), don't assert. As far as I can tell, my biases should tend towards your position, not the one I am actually holding. Oh, and I'm sure you don't have any biases. Those who accuse others of bias never do, strangely enough. From your comments and looking at your website, I could guess a few.
Hitler was clearly raised Catholic, was a practicing Catholic, and was in good standing with the Church through his death in 1945.
Right, here's that weasel word "clearly" again. On what basis do you assert that Hitler was "clearly" a practicing Catholic? Practicing means going to church, communion, confession, all that. Evidence please. And that the Church never excommunicated him says more about the Church in this period than it does about Hitler.
But as to 'Christian' (with no such ajective attached) it is clearly supported by all the literature cited that Hitler was, in fact, Christian.
Am I slow? Are you trolling? Some of the literature you cited supported that contention (and not very well, at that). Some of the literature you cited (including the Cornwell book, which I took the
trouble to check and report what it says, which
apparently means I'm biased) and all of the literature I cited supported the opposite contention. How does this become "all the literature"?
Yes, Hitler does blame earlier failures of the pan-German movement in Austria on its anti-Cathlocism, but he does so in the context of proclaiming himself devoutly Christian.
Don't you think that, having just concluded that anti-Catholicism is tactically unwise, it might have occured to him that to immediately proclaim that, regardless, he was in fact anti-Catholic might not have been the cleverest move? And of course he is going to sound sincere about it. Look, it's obvious us now that Hitler was a ranting, raving lunatic, but how do you think he ever got into power if that was obvious to everybody back then? He was politically astute and knew how to push the right buttons.
But the fact that he was Christian is beyond dispute, and there is enough evidence to suggest he was, at least early on, quite strong in those beliefs that historians still argue the point despite his clearly cynical political ploys and agenda later on.
Weasel words again - it's "beyond dispute" now. Oh, feel free to ignore the evidence I have provided - (here's another, Ian Kershaw in Hitler, Nemesis 1936-1945 speaks of Hitler's radical instincts on the Church question, and reports on on discussions he held in early 1937 where he looked forward to "the destruction of the clerics", but for the time being it was necessary to wait and be tactically clever; everything was a means to an end, and "a great world showdown" was coming; pp 39-41). Please give me the names of those historians who claim he was Christian. Assertion is not evidence. Or perhaps it is in your corner of the world, but it's not in mine.
OK, I've looked at the Cornwell book and it in no way supports the claim that Hitler was a Christian.
Cornwell only briefly mentions his attitudes to Christianity (as far as I can see, anyway), noting as I did that Hitler's public and private views were very different: in February 1933 he declared in the Reichstag that the churches would be integral to German life, the following month he was ranting in private about eradicating Christianity, and asserting that one couldn't be both a German and a christian (pp 105-6 of the 1999 Viking edition). Again, as I did, Cornwell stresses Hitler's desire to avoid a damaging conflict with the Catholic church. If you look at the end of chapter 3 of Mein Kampf, you'll see that this section blames the failure of the pan-German movement in Austria on its anti-Catholicism, from which Hitler draws the lesson that such a struggle pointlessly alienates potential supports. And it is from this section that many of those cherrypicked quotes come from.
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, if you have good evidence that someone is a corporate shill or political hack, then flame on :)
Yep, and judging by the resume on his website, he ain't. At his last university he studied "Computer Science, General Studies, Basketball" (!). Saying he's an "informed scientist" is just a rhetorical device - ie anyone who disagrees with him is just an ill-informed non-scientist, that's all.
Well, yeah, and there's the chance that it's all a crock.
So "incorrect" was incorrect then?? I'm confused ...
Lets the past rest in peace. And inneficiency.
Do you think there's a link between your antipathy to libraries and your spelling and grammar? Just wondering.
Yes, but "Virgin Only As Far As The Top Of The Atmosphere And Back" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
The crash of the Hindenburg was the straw that broke the camel's back. There were many, many airship disasters previously - in studying airship history, one is struck by just how few of the great airships had a peaceful end. By 1937, virtually everyone had lost interest in the airship anyway.
Definitely you'd want to steer clear of a hurricane! Or any kind of storm (eg the USS Shenandoah, which was destroyed in a storm in 1925). And as you say, mooring those things in a high wind could be hell - you may have seen these photographs of the USS Los Angeles basically being blown up until it's standing on vertically on it's nose! Lightning is not great, but it doesn't have to be fatal if the structure is well designed (it has been implicated in the Hindenburg's fate). Of course, a modern airship would use helium, not hydrogen. I think pressurized cabins came in just as airships went out of fashion; although the German height climbers in WWI used to operate at 20,000 ft unpressurized, at about the limits of human endurance.
They were beautiful things, but sadly just too impractical to be of much use.
This is true. My previous geekiest friend (and I'm an IT guy and ex-astro grad student myself) was somebody who read the O'Reilly sendmail book cover-to-cover, for fun. (Well, perhaps that's more sick than geeky ...) Now, that's been topped by another friend who is building a prototype tile (basically, the dish) for a new radio telescope, the Mileura Wide Array, in his front yard. Man, what a geek! And I told him so.
And you know this ... how?
Oh, please. Why are you so completely certain of this? It could easily have been Venus. Please state your reasons for believing that this is not possible. For a start ... don't you think Venus is rather large, and when projected against the sky, disk-shaped in profile? Venus could also easily have been seen by multiple witnesses. Hundreds of witnesses mean nothing when they are all ignorant about astronomy.
The Brits were using Harriers in the Falklands, not Tornadoes (which anyway weren't solely British, but designed and built in collaboration with Italy and Germany). Harriers are very maneuverable because of their VSTOL capabilities, the British pilots would swivel the jump-jets in flight, effectively slamming on the brakes, letting the Argentinians overshoot. But it's hardly an indictment of the Mirage that it couldn't match that capability, very few aircraft can. The Argentinian Exocets did score some kills, notably the destroyer HMS Sheffield - others were sunk by iron bombs. My guess is Exocets were probably too expensive to have many on hand. Also, I don't know what air-to-air missle the British used, but it wasn't the Stinger, which is ground-to-air.
Overall, I'd agree that the British military are more capable than the French. But not by much - Britain's next aircraft carriers are going to be French-designed!
Erm, did I say I thought that? I explicitly said I don't doubt that some priests can't fight those urges. What I found surprising was your assertion that most priests can't. I wanted some evidence for this, and all I got was condescension, a link to a documentary and some pop pyschology. If it matters at all, I'm a secular humanist, agnostic/atheist, blah blah blah, I just like to see EVIDENCE. OK?
We don't get HBO in Australia, but in any event I don't look to documentaries my information. I'm quite willing to check up references in the campus library, but as I have just spent a fair amount of time doing just that for another slashdot thread, on a subject where I am somewhat familiar with the literature (unlike here) and so knew where to start, a few references would be helpful.
The Economist began life as a Liberal rag in the 1840s, and to this day is liberal in both these senses (free trade is their mantra, of course, but they also came out in favour of gay marriage years ago, for example). And although I consider myself vaguely leftish, I think it's a pretty good mix ... let's try to do the right thing, but also not forget that it has to be paid for.
PS A good example of left-wing Christians is (was) the Labour churches.
Hmmm, evidence? I've no doubt that some do, and for the reasons you say, but I've never heard that "the majority" or "nearly all of them" do ...
Yeah, could be, there's also that Steve Martin (?) movie, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. I think over here (Australia), the equivalent "instrinsically amusing pattern" would be paisley ...
But it's all just fantasy anyway ...
Wow, that Polyus is both cool and scary - thanks for the link. Strange, though, that the article doesn't seem to mention the nuclear space mines indicated on the schematic!
And yes ... I have seen both 2001 and ST:TMP, many times, thanks very much: the first time was around 20 years ago, and I have them both on DVD now. I don't need anybody else's review to form my own opinion. (And if film makers are influenced by other films, don't think film reviewers can be influenced by other reviews?) When I think of cinematography in 2001, I think of the view from HAL's lens, the camera following Frank Poole around the carousel, the famous fade from bone to satellite, trademark Kubrick touches. What is similar in ST:TMP? Stars? Spaceships? You need more than that, or else every movie set in space is a "clone" of 2001. The mood in ST:TMP is indeed similar to 2001's insofar as there is a grand sense of mystery and exploration. Thats's one of the things I like about it - not a lot of films try to do that. Wasn't aware Kubrick trademarked that, though. Otherwise the emotional sterility of 2001 is utterly unlike TMP, where you've got the Kirk:Spock:McCoy triangle riffing off each other as usual, and then there's the Decker:Ilia relationship, such as it is ... (And let's not mention the impressive feeling of technical accuracy in 2001, compared with the fantasy technobabble of ST:TMP.) The sound design? The spaceships in 2001 make no sounds in space, enough said. No, I'll say more - think of Bowman chasing down Poole's body in the pod, there's no music or speech, just the clicking and beeping of the instruments as he draws closer. Can you imagine anything like that happening in a Trek movie? There'd be a dramatic Jerry Goldsmith overture before Kirk could say "Mr Chekhov, beam that body aboard". The two movies are different beasts, which happen to explore some of the same themes using some of the same tropes. That does not make one a "clone" of the other. "Incredibly similar"? What's with the hyperbole? Can't you just be satsified with "reminiscent"?
I'm not saying there are no similarities, and of course previous films influence later ones. But for you it appears that honest attempts at different takes on old stories are "ripoffs" or "clones". What's wrong with judging movies on their own terms instead of always having to interpret them with respect to previous movies?
Oh, and I put "clone" in quote marks because you did use that word: "In fact, look at the movie you brought up, 2001. It had it's own clone following a few years later--it was called Star Trek: The Motion Picture." I'm a history student; I do try to get quotes accurate!
Sure, there's some similarity of plot. But LST gives it it's own twist, enough that IMHO it's not merely a ripoff. (The whole beta unit/alien assassin subplot has no parallel in Star Wars, for example, and it's not just tacked on either, because it helps Alex to realise that he has something worth fighting for - initially he did not want to fight at all.) And as many have noted, it's not like Star Wars itself is the most original story out there.
(Oh, I've just noticed you also think ST:TMP is a "clone" of 2001 - you obviously have a low tolerance for any similarities at all. Somewhat similar != clone.)
Hey ladies, want my phone number?
Even better, you could bdiff them ... though the lameness filter won't let me post the results.
According to public records he was born and baptised Catholic.
This has absolutely no relevance in proving his beliefs about Christianity as an adult. Is this not blindingly obvious? I was born and baptised a Catholic too. Wasn't my choice. Wasn't Hitler's either.
Certainly he professed to be, if Mein Kampf and his various public speeches are any indication.
No, they are not any indication, as I have explained before. Yes, he professed to be, in public. Why do you believe he would speak the truth in speeches intended for public consumption by a German nation that was overwhelmingly Christian but then lie to his Nazi underlings who shared his goals and wanted to implement them on his behalf? I cannot comprehend this at all.
According to the Church's own records, he remained in good standing until his death.
Again, this proves nothing. I'm in good standing with the Church as well; I have never told them I no longer believe, nor have they excommunicated me. I'm sure the records of my Confirmation are still held by the church I attended at the time, so if I died tomorrow, you could claim I was in good standing with the Church until I died, and therefore a Catholic. But you'd be wrong.
There is no evidence that he was non-Christian, beyond a few references to cynical back-room dealings in which he planned to supplant or subjegate the church to the state, which is clearly a political move and does not provide any real indication as to his underlying Christian belief (or lack thereof).
Christ on a bike, there is plenty of evidence about his non-Christianity. It's not just "a few" backroom deals, it's what he said all along., to his like-minded intimates and acolytes. To take but one example, what do you think his statement that one cannot be both a German and a Christian actually means? It's more than just deploring the political power of the Church, it's asserting that to be a Christian is to owe allegience to something outside of the Aryan race. This is completely consistent with his attacks on liberalism, internationalism, Marxism, Judaism ... Aryans had only one duty, to the race, and God, human rights, class, anything else undermined that duty. It is not just a backroom political move and I still have not seen any evidence that historians argue this.
Clearly, Hitler was considered by theologens of the day to be quite christian in his beliefs and actions, be they Protestant theologens (as cited above) or Catholic theologens (as cited in numerous other writings).
Which again proves nothing about Hitler's own beliefs. It only proves that others believed or professed to believe that he was a Christian. There are many reasons why they might have thought so: they might have fallen for his public protestations of piety (as you have). They might have doubted those statements, but calculated that going along with them gave them more influence than outright resistance, or protected their church from persecution. Or they might agreed with his policies (eg anti-Semitism) and so supported him for that reason. But whatever, it says nothing about Hitler's own beliefs.
Hitler's discrimination and rhetoric against the Jews was embraced by the clergy of both Protestant and Catholic churches of the day
See above. This says much more about the clergy than it does about Hitler.
The only piece of evidence, on which everyone who wishes to believe Hitler wasn't really a real Christian hangs their collective hat, is the fact that he intended some cynical political maneuvers to subjegate the churches to his authority.
Right, and for some reason all prominent historians of Nazi Germany that I know of (like Kershaw and Burleigh - and I'm not making that up, these are the top guys in the field) seem to have fallen for this. Or it could be that y
Your bias in showing.
Errm, which bias would that be? Did you miss the part about me being an atheist, lapsed Catholic etc? You can read it again here if you've forgotten. If you think I have a bias, then demonstrate (or at least elucidate), don't assert. As far as I can tell, my biases should tend towards your position, not the one I am actually holding. Oh, and I'm sure you don't have any biases. Those who accuse others of bias never do, strangely enough. From your comments and looking at your website, I could guess a few.
Hitler was clearly raised Catholic, was a practicing Catholic, and was in good standing with the Church through his death in 1945.
Right, here's that weasel word "clearly" again. On what basis do you assert that Hitler was "clearly" a practicing Catholic? Practicing means going to church, communion, confession, all that. Evidence please. And that the Church never excommunicated him says more about the Church in this period than it does about Hitler.
But as to 'Christian' (with no such ajective attached) it is clearly supported by all the literature cited that Hitler was, in fact, Christian.
Am I slow? Are you trolling? Some of the literature you cited supported that contention (and not very well, at that). Some of the literature you cited (including the Cornwell book, which I took the trouble to check and report what it says, which apparently means I'm biased) and all of the literature I cited supported the opposite contention. How does this become "all the literature"?
Yes, Hitler does blame earlier failures of the pan-German movement in Austria on its anti-Cathlocism, but he does so in the context of proclaiming himself devoutly Christian.
Don't you think that, having just concluded that anti-Catholicism is tactically unwise, it might have occured to him that to immediately proclaim that, regardless, he was in fact anti-Catholic might not have been the cleverest move? And of course he is going to sound sincere about it. Look, it's obvious us now that Hitler was a ranting, raving lunatic, but how do you think he ever got into power if that was obvious to everybody back then? He was politically astute and knew how to push the right buttons.
But the fact that he was Christian is beyond dispute, and there is enough evidence to suggest he was, at least early on, quite strong in those beliefs that historians still argue the point despite his clearly cynical political ploys and agenda later on.
Weasel words again - it's "beyond dispute" now. Oh, feel free to ignore the evidence I have provided - (here's another, Ian Kershaw in Hitler, Nemesis 1936-1945 speaks of Hitler's radical instincts on the Church question, and reports on on discussions he held in early 1937 where he looked forward to "the destruction of the clerics", but for the time being it was necessary to wait and be tactically clever; everything was a means to an end, and "a great world showdown" was coming; pp 39-41). Please give me the names of those historians who claim he was Christian. Assertion is not evidence. Or perhaps it is in your corner of the world, but it's not in mine.
Next ...