Talk:The Myth of Hitler's Pope

Very one sided piece

I've just removed the sentence: "Conversely, the Nazis detested the pope."

The reason I have done this is because there were no citations provided; the statement doesn't tell us which Nazis are being referred to, nor why they would detest the pope. It seems especially unlikely when we look at the concordat signed by the pope and see that the terms of that agreement had a number of sections which were very favourable towards Roman Catholicism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat#Terms_and_violations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.122.247 (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid further confusion, there is indeed evidence suggesting Anti Catholic sentiments within Nazi Germany. Two suggested sources would be "The Sword and the Swastika" by Telford Taylor (). And "The game of the foxes" by Ladislas Farago (pg 194). Both of which detail an order from Hitler himself calling for the systematic extermination of the Polish Aristocracy, and Roman Catholic Clergy. Scout of truth (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to knock out one sentence, might I suggest deleting the entire article and starting over? It appears to be written by someone who read the back flap of the book jacket. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.60.230 (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Page 117 of the book (found here http://books.google.com/books?id=qAmKnonoAB0C&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=Pope+Pius+XII+Forest&source=bl&ots=zzkp24_sGX&sig=kSYzF-d_ptLEC2NmW8ZtH3cI-xM&hl=en&ei=nDAdSpS_CunAtwf-g7CHDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#PPA117,M1) details a Nazi plot to kidnap the Pope because he was considered a "friend to the Jews."96.232.151.12 (talk)

Put the line back!

IMHO petty and premature to delete the sentence "Conversely, the Nazis detested the pope." because there is plenty of evidence for it: Eugenio Pacelli (later Pius XII) was the main author of the papal encyclical [["Mit brennender Sorge"]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_XII.#.E2.80.9EMit_brennender_Sorge.E2.80.9C] ("With burning anxiety") which severely criticized the Nazis and their supremacist ideology. It was smuggled into Germany and read in churches simultaneously in March 1937. The Nazis were enraged and took revenge by imprisoning and torturing many who had been involved in its dissemination, so it's hard to believe they didn't detest the author(s). The Nazis also took the unprecedented step of trying to prevent the possible election of Pacelli in 1939 by sending an emissary, on the occasion of Pius XI's death, to state that Germany would view his election very unfavorably (The response of the College of Cardinals was to elect Pacelli in an unusually short conclave).

A Concordat is simply a framework agreement to allow the Catholic Church to operate (churches, convents, schools, charities etc.) freely in a country, so it shouldn't be surprising if it contains sections which are "very favourable towards Roman Catholicism"! It also placed social obligations on the Nazi regime - which the Nazis repeatedly violated (e.g. by their sterilization programs) despite Church protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MythHitlersPope.jpg

Image:MythHitlersPope.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

replaced a hotlink, it connected to the wrong Isaac Herzog

it should be the Chief Rabbi not the Israeli labour MP, though the Israeli labour MP could be listed as a critic of Pius XII

POV tag on Reviews section

The reviews section only cites to reviews which are highly biased against the book, hardly the consensus of reviews. Mamalujo (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I do not think this is an even-handed listing of reviews. It gives a negative slant against the book - and by extension and anti-catholic bias. hhfjbaker (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.13.8 (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Well, you two do not give any references supporting your claims about the bias. You are offering just your own point of view as a proof of the alleged bias.--71.178.110.141 (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Einstein/Content

Great Material. This is the service of truth that Wikipedia offers to its readers. Great Job — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.181.248 (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE%7CA148278043&v=2.1&it=r&sid=AONE&asid=392f34be Einstein never said the quote 94.110.113.219 (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Myth of Hitler's Pope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110610005209/http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/001-the-end-of-the-pius-wars-1 to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/001-the-end-of-the-pius-wars-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

The Einstein quote is not an important aspect of the book. Furthermore, trying to discredit Time magazine, and the author (Dalin), presenting other second hand sources and a supposed interview that cannot be read following the link provided does not seem neutral.

Einstein Quote is false

According to Einstein himself the quote was never his:

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#:~:text=I%20never%20had%20any%20special,despised%20I%20now%20praise%20unreservedly. https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-01-05/ 94.110.113.219 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)