Not really. As I note in the texts I referred you too, this is to confuse the German Christentum in Hitler’s idiom; he uses that phrase to refer to Catholicism, not Christianity as a whole. This can be proved by context in several passages (as I show).

But according to the diary he was an opponent of Vatican AND Christianity generally

It’s unclear what you mean. I have extensively shown Hitler was secretly a rabidly anti-Catholic Positive Christian. How does that remark from Goebbels evince anything other than exactly what I have argued? Or are you offering it as support?

Those same diaries say Hitler was “deeply religious” and only despised Catholicism because of its “elaborate Jewish rites,” a clear statement of one of the unusual beliefs of Positive Christianity. I explain all this (including coverage of the Goebbels diaries) in Hitler Homer Bible Christ (p. 190).

Seems pretty definitive to me.

I don’t know what this is a reference to. What are you saying? And how does it relate to the article you are commenting on?

No it is not

That book is well meaning nonsense. Hitler got his idea’s from various European models of racial segregation.

This is all refuted by the evidence I presented.

There is zero evidence Hitler was an atheist. And plenty of private, candid evidence he was a Positive Christian who believed Jesus was an Aryan agent of God, atheists were enemies of the state, God created the universe, Hitler was doing God’s will, and would go to heaven for it. And I’m not talking about his public speeches. That you don’t know this tells me you haven’t actually researched this.

The most relevant and honest part of Mein Kampf for anyone who wishes to understand Hitler’s thinking is where he speaks of George Schoenerer and Karl Lueger, leaders of the Austrian Pan-German League and Christian Social Movement respectively. Hitler casts Schoenerer as his philosophy professor and Lueger as his communications professor. Despite speaking in obscure terms about both of them, Hitler’s discussion is the most enlightening with respect to his views on religion and much else. It is far more authentic than any of the occasional phrases tossed out Hitler when appealing to Christian audiences.

Schoenerer was an agnostic who was really only interested in myths which could forge an Aryan identity. As such he was always hostile towards Christianity. But his biggest blunder which killed his whole career was in his embracement of the “break from Rome” movement. This was originally a Protestant movement which urged Austrians to dump Catholicism and go Protestant. Schoenerer supported this not because he himself was Protestant but because Bismarck had deliberately left Austria out of the Reich because of Catholicism. Germany was torn apart in the Thirty Years War by religious conflict and Bismarck resolved that Protestant Prussia would lead those German states which had a mixed of Catholic/Protestant influences while Catholic Austria would simply be left on the side.

This greatly disappointed the Austrian Pan-Germans and led Schoenerer to formally align himself with the Protestant movement. This turned into a fatal fiasco since not only Schoenerer antagonize all of the Austrian Catholics, but he also offended the Protestants as well. It was obvious to anyone that Schoenerer had not actually converted Protestantism as a believer but was simply using as a political football. As a result Schoenerer’s movement died.

Hitler learned a great deal from watching this play out before him. His description of Schoenerer is that of a man who understood all of the ideological essentials but failed the grasp the need to build a movement rooted in the people. Hitler describes Schoenerer as an intellectual aristocrat who believed a small clique would be able to do everything behind the scenes without involving the people. Hitler does not actually mention the “break from Rome” movement which Schoenerer had joined and publicized. His criticism of Schoenerer is very opaque and just emphasizes to build a movement among the masses which Schoenerer never appreciated.

This alone should be a clear rebuttal to any claims that Hitler was a believing Christian. Whether as a Catholic or Protestant Hitler would have had an obligation to decry Schoenerer’s many sins against Christianity, even (or especially) if he wished to pursue Schoenerer’s racial agenda. Instead, Hitler’s critique of Schoenerer mirrors the old saying “It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder!” Hitler’s racial ideology comes from George Schoenerer, but Hitler holds a more mature understanding of politics than Schoenerer.

But also essential is Hitler’s assessment of Lueger. Lueger began his political career by joining an atheistic society and in different historical circumstances might have become like Richard Dawkins. But Lueger quickly realized that he could benefit more from playing Christian. Nothing in Lueger’s biography suggests a real believing Christian. Rather Lueger comes off as a self-serving narcissist whereas Schoenerer was a fervent ideologue. Schoenerer himself was obsessed with Jews as a racial enemy of the Aryan. Lueger rather realized that taking potshots could sometimes be politically beneficial, but he wasn’t actually a fanatical believer in anything.

This accounts for the criticism which makes of Lueger. Hitler charges that Lueger was supposedly very eager to celebrate any Jew who converted to Christianity. I haven’t heard of any cases of Lueger doing such, though maybe is someone did an exhaustive search through old Viennese newspapers you might find something. Most of all though that Hitler is really hitting at the fact that he can detect that Luger is not a true faithful believer in the racial ideology which Schoenerer taught to Hitler. Hitler’s praise for Lueger is the praise given to a skilled public relations man who knows how to speak to the public.

Hitler draws an image of Lueger as one who knew to stir up among the public against Jews. Hitler sees Schoenerer who grasped all of the right reasons for seeing Jews as the racial enemy, while Lueger knew how to make the public feel that Jews were the enemy. Hitler puts forth a vision of a future who will be guided by all of the ideology which drove Schoenerer, yet have the crafty astuteness for speaking to the masses of Lueger.

This was Hitler’s true viewpoint on Christianity and much else besides. Hitler did not believe in Christian savior and held contempt for this as a system of beliefs. But Hitler understood that sometimes Lueger’s brand of honey could catch more than Schoenerer’s vinegar. Now at one point in Table Talk a statement is attributed to Hitler where he expresses a belief that Christianity a century or two, and declares that looks forward to this. Whatever the true origins of this quote, it is fully consistent with the views expressed in Mein Kampf. There is no reason the authenticity of TT based on this, though there may exist better reasons for questioning the source of TT.

If Hitler was presented as declaring to his generals that he intends to shut every church in Germany once the war ends, then that would sound odd and suspicious. Everything which Hitler says about Schoenerer contains a very diplomatically opaque criticism of Schoenerer’s inability to politically adapt to Christianity a la Lueger. So it would be impossible that Hitler intended to start a war against Christianity anytime soon. But that is not what the passage in TT says. Instead it presents a very long-range view over the next century or two Christianity can slowly diminish until it dies on its own without a wholesale suppression.

That sentiment in 100% in line with Hitler’s discussion of Schoenerer & Lueger in MK. The fact that it seems inconsistent with other statements in MK is because those other statements are uttered when in playing his Lueger-role and speaking to the masses to properly incite them against Jews. His true philosophical viewpoint on these matters is only revealed indirectly when he reminisces over Schoenerer, Lueger and the strengths and weaknesses which he saw in each of them. That’s why you’re totally in characterizing Hitler as a Christian.

A broader point of frustration when people try to assess Hitler’s real views is that Hitler was contemptuous of theory and idolized himself as the man of action. This was different that Stalin felt a need to be praised a Marxist-Leninist. Hitler’s personality-cult was based on “working towards the Fuehrer.” But Hitler generally scoffed at the attempts of Alfred Rosenberg (and others) to weave their own grand racial theory. Instead saw everything in terms of action as the man of the hour to carry out the necessary action. For this reason many early commentators (even historians) tended to view Hitler as a man with no real ideology. That was wrong. Hitler did have a fervent ideology which he learned in all essentials from Schoenerer. But he never sought to write it down in any great depth and instead simply lunged forward with what seemed politically useful.

Since he had learned much practical stuff from Lueger, it’s no surprise that he speeches are peppered with things that draw from this source. Appeals to Christianity are certainly part of the package here. But if Hitler had truly believed in Christianity then his whole discussion of Schoenerer and Lueger would have been very different. That is obvious to anyone who reads that section. So go back and read it yourself, It’s the part in MK where Hitler reflects on Schoenerer and Lueger. Then do some more background studying on the biographies of these two significant individuals. It should be clear to you after that.

I’m not sure how you imagine this would be done. But it would require millions of dollars of investment in expert teams and resources. Enigma wouldn’t even invest tens of thousands on a new translation. So we won’t be seeing anything yet more ambitious done either.