Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity

True_Avery · March 27, 2009

No. You made the claim; the burden of proof is on you.

Yes, very true.

I'll try my best then:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

There are three words which many use without a thought which for us are no catch-phrases: Love, Faith, and Hope.... We are fanatical in our love for our people....

We have faith in the rights of our people, the rights which have existed time out of mind. We protest against the view that every other nation should have rights - and we have none. We must learn to make our own this blind faith in the rights of our people, in the necessity of devoting ourselves to the service of these rights; we must make our own the faith that gradually victory must be granted us if only we are fanatical enough. And from this love and from this faith there emerges for us the idea of hope. When others doubt and hesitate for the future of Germany - we have no doubts. We have both the hope and the faith that Germany will and must once more become great and mighty.

We have faith that one day Heaven will bring the Germans back into a Reich over which there shall be no Soviet star, no Jewish star of David, but above that Reich there shall be the symbol of German labor - the Swastika. And that will mean that the first of May has truly come.

-Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich, 01 May 1923

[Love, Faith, and Hope comes from I Corinthians 13:13 NIV]

People ask: is there someone fit to be our leader? Our task is not to search for that person. Either God will give him to us or he will not come. Our task is to shape the sword that he will need when he comes. Our task it to provide the leader with a nation which is ready for him when he comes! My fellow Germans, awaken! The new day is dawning!

-Adolf Hitler, 04 May 1923

It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God.

-Adolf Hitler, in Munich, 01 Aug. 1923

I've got dozens and dozens more if you'd like to see them. Much of what Hitler wrote in both his speechs, books, and private notes all point towards him being a very "christian" man. While he was insane, this does not clear him of his religious beliefs.

Here are some Nazi symbols:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/buckle.jpeg

Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) Nazi Buckle

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/MothersCross.jpg

A Christian cross given to German mothers

Hitler encouraged several programs for the growth of a strong German Nazi Volk. These programs involved the encouragement of the virtues of German motherhood for the purpose of increasing the size of their families and the abolition of abortions (except for the mentally ill). In 1938, Hitler instituted a new award to honor German Nazi motherhood, especially for large families. He awarded such mothers the cross of Honor of the German Mother (Ehrenkreuz der deutschen Mutter).

Although the German Iron cross usually appears symmetrical this particular cross, by lengthening the vertical member, it becomes a Christian cross.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/Mitgliedsabzeichen.JPG

German Christian Movement Badge (Deutsch-Christliche Mitgliedsabzeichen)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/frauenschaft.jpg

Frauenschaft Badge

The National Socialist Women's Organization (Nationalsozialistische Frauenschaft, or NSF), affirmed all the recognized fundaments of Nazi ideology, including the preservation of Christian belief.

Lili Otto, one of the leaders of the NSF wrote in 1933:

"Our Frauenschaft flag carries the same colors as the Swastika flag, with our flag black stands out, solemn and worthy. On top shine forth the Christian cross in the color of purity, constantly warning us: 'You women and mothers, be real Christians; protect Christianity in your family, rear your children to love the savior.'"

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/CrossSwastika1.jpg

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/CrossSwastika2.jpg

Schlageter pin badge

Schlageter refers to Albert Leo Schlageter, whom the Nazis considered a martyr for the German cause

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/HitlerYouthCross.JPG

Hitler Youth Day Badge 1933

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/SwastikaCathedral.jpg

Heimetfest event badge 1934

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/VolksbundPin.jpg

German Volksbund* War Memorial Pin Badge

German Volksbund* War Memorial Pin Badge and Patch

* The Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge does not represent a Nazi organization, but it did have Nazi influence. The VDK represents an organization that cares for the memorials and graves of fallen soldiers of all Christian denominations from World War 1 to today. Its founder, Siegfried Emmo Eulen had Nazi connections (and thus so did the VDK). Eulen formed the VDK in 1919 and fought from 1939 until 1945, when he died from his wounds. Through the direct intervention of Goebbels, Eulen managed to change the National Day of Mourning (Reichstrauertages) into the Heroes' Day of Remembrance (Heldengedenktag). For this day, as he wrote, should "not in the long run be a day of mourning, but must be a day of exhaltation, a day of hope for the fruition of what was sown with blood". (Source: Die Zeit (13.11.1987 Nr. 47, page 82), "Helden von gestern: Vergessen über den Gräbern" by Sabine Stamer, translated by Muriel Fraser.)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/Heldengedenktag.gif

Heroes' Day of Remembrance (Heldengedenktag)

The image at the right comes from a frame from a Nazi film of the Heldengedenktag 1940 celebration. This celebration derived from Siegfriend Emmo Eulen of VDK fame

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/NaziChurchCoin.jpg

Nazi Church Coin

(Mixing Church & State)

5 Mark, Potsdam Garrison Church

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/Chaplinvisor.jpg

Nazi Army (Heer) chaplain's hat with silver Christian cross

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/Chaplainvisor2.jpg

Navy (Kriegsmarine) chaplain's cap

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/SchlagaterMemorial.jpg

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/SchlageterMem.jpg

Leo Schlageter memorial No this does not depict a burning cross. Rather it glorifies the Christian cross in memory of the Nazi Leo Schlageter, a martyr for the German cause. Born in 1894 and raised a Catholic, he prepared for a religious occupation. Schlageter joined the free corps and fought in World War I and received the Iron Cross. He became a member of the National Socialist German labour party (NSDAP) in 1922. During the French Ruhr occupation, Schlageter lead a combat patrol against the French. He got caught and they arrested and executed him in Duesseldorf on 25 May 1923. In World War II, the Luftwaffe honored him by naming an air wing after him. The Nazi navy also named a ship after him. Hitler mentions Schlageter in Mein Kampf. (Also see the Schlageter pin badges above)

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/NaziMetalCross.gif

Christian Cross with Nazi Flag

From a Heinrich Hoffmann photo book titled: HITLER BAUT GROßDEUTSCHLAND (Hitler Constructs Greater Germany) which follows Hitler in Austria in the spring of 1938.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/HitlerChurch.jpg

Hitler's Church

Catholic Church (St. Michael's), in Leonding, Austria where Adolf Hitler attended as a boy.

The funeral for Hitler's mother took place in this church on Christmas Eve in 1907.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes/Grave.jpg

Both his parents Alois, and Klara were buried at the gravesite.

Hitler's mother, Klara was a pious Catholic. Hitler was devoted to his mother and loved her deeply. She died of breast cancer at the age of 47 on December 21, 1907.

Hitler visited the grave of his parents on March 12, 1938, the day he followed his troops as they invaded Austria.

Which comes to the myths about Hitler:

Myth 1: Hitler was not a Christian

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

The evidence shows that:

Hitler was born and baptized into Catholicism
His Jewish antisemitism came from his Christian background.
His early personal notes shows his interest in religion and Biblical views.
He believed that the Bible represented the history of mankind.
His Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution) included a section on Positive Christianity, and he never removed it.
He confessed his Christianity.
He tried to establish a united Reich German Church.
Hitler allowed the destruction of Jewish synagogues and temples, but not Christian churches.
He encouraged Nazis to worship in Christian churches.
He spoke of his Christian beliefs in his speeches and proclamations.
His contemporaries, friends, Protestant ministers and Catholics priests, including the Vatican, thought of Hitler as a Christian.
The Catholic Church never excommunicated Hitler. He died a Catholic.

"24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest."

Myth 2: Hitler pretended his Christianity only for political purposes

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

This one represents one of the most persistent constructions about Hitler's Christianity. Revealingly, proponents of this myth never provide evidence for this hypothesis. If he, indeed, pretended himself as a Christian, then on what evidential material does it stand on? If Hitler acted as a pretend Christian, then were does he disown his belief in Christ? Does he write in his private notes that he used religion only for political purposes? Did any of his close associates or friends think so? Where?

Of course Hitler did try to use political force to control Christianity and he tried to establish a unified Reich Christian Church, but this only supports his stand on his view of "positive Christianity" as described in the Nazi party platform (their version of a constitution). And yes, he criticized the Catholic and Protestant hierarchy, but so what? So do Popes and Protestant leaders. Martin Luther himself strongly condemned the Catholic religion and thought of it as the work of the Devil.

I suspect that those who propagate this myth rely on mainly one source: the dubious reliability of Hitler's table talk (a second-hand source that allegedly records the words of Hitler). The table-talk got edited by the anti-Catholic Martin Bormann (Hitler's secretary) and describes political views against the hierarchy of orthodox Christianity (just as Bormann would have liked) but even here, Hitler never speaks against Jesus Christ, but rather in favor of him.

What obliterates this theory comes from the fact that Hitler continued to express his "positive" Christian views, well after his rise to power. If, indeed, he needed Christianity only for political purposes, then why-oh-why does he continue with the charade after he has established himself as absolute dictator?

But just for the sake of argument, lets pretend that Hitler really did pretend his Christianity; that his sole aim went to politically winning over German Christians so that he could gain their confidence. How in the world does that improve your argument in protecting Christianity from Hitler? If that proved the case, then who should get the blame, Hitler or the gullible Christian German citizens who believed him? And what does that say for the integrity of Christianity if the most Christianized country in the world could not distinguish a member of their own belief system? Think about it. If the most pious Christians and clergymen could not tell if Hitler practiced false or "real" Christianity, then how in the world could anyone tell? I submit that the only way to tell comes from the very words from those who make the claim. Indeed, this constitutes the very flaw of any religion because there never has existed a testable way to determine the truthfulness of a belief in the supernatural. And if you cannot tell by the words of your fellow Christians, then anyone with minimal acting talent can deceive anyone, including monks, bishops, or popes. In fact, monks, bishops and popes themselves, could fall prey to falsehood. I submit to you that a false Christian and a real Christian makes absolutely no difference.

The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim. And since Hitler makes his claim to Christianity abundantly and clearly, we can only rely on his claim, regardless of whether he actually believed in Christ or not. False Christianity has as just much validity as any claim to Christianity, even if you could prove dishonesty.

But regardless of how you view a person's claim to their religion, to say Hitler used Christianity only for political forces has absolutely no historical basis to back it up. To simply rely on belief or opinion says absolutely nothing about historical fact.

Myth 3: Hitler got his ideas of Aryan superiority and Jewish hatred from Darwinian evolution

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Hitler showed no knowledge of Darwinian evolution or natural selection. Nowhere in Mein Kampf does he mention Darwin, natural-selection or even the word "evolution" (in the context of natural selection).

As for Aryan superiority and his Jewish hatred, Hitler clearly describes in Mein Kampf how he slowly began to change his mind about the Jews from the influence of the anti-Semitic movement of the Christian Social Party. His views with regard to anti-Semitism he said, "succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all." (read volume 1, chapter 2). Nowhere does he explain his anti-Jewish beliefs in Darwinian terms.

In his private notes, where he describes the Bible as a "Monumental History of Mankind," Hitler outlines his views of the Aryan and the Jew, all in the context of Bible reasoning, never in the context of Darwinian natural selection.

Moreover, Hitler viewed progeny, not in regards to evolution but in terms of blood lines (a Biblical view). He peppered his writings and speeches with "blood" words. Examples in Mein Kampf include:

"One blood demands one Reich."

"Bavarian by blood, technically Austrian, lived my parents..."

...the German in Austria had really been of the best blood..."

"...the weakness of leadership will not cause a hibernation of the state, but an awakening of all the individual instincts which are present in the blood..."

Clearly, Hitler had no scientific sophistication or an understanding of Darwin's theory of evolution and his "blood-line" explanation of human "progress" reveals a Biblical view, not a Darwinian view. He did, however, at times express ideas, not from Darwin, but rather from Herbert Spencer's concept of Social Darwinism, which has little to do with natural selection and served as an adjunct to his already established religious views. Spencer's Social Darwinism tried to connect Darwin's biological theory with the field of social relations. The result of Social Darwinism resulted in many eugenics programs that began in America and adopted by the Nazis. [Note that Darwin never expressed the idea that natural selection could extend from biological systems to social systems.]

Hitler best sums up his belief of Aryan superiority and his stand against the Jews with his declaration in Mein Kampf:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

Myth 4: Hitler followed Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

If Hitler followed Nietzschian philosophy or even admired his work, then where does he describe him or his philosophy?

Nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler even mention Nietzsche, or Nietzchian terms such as superman (uberman), or super race. Of course Hitler did think the Aryan's represented a superior race to the Jews, but never in Nietzchian terms.

Note that Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau invented the theory of the superior Aryan race in the 1800s in his book, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races. Gobineau believed that racial mixture would bring about the decline of "superior" peoples. Gobineau influenced Richard Wagner (beloved by Hitler), and Houston Stewart Chamberlain (whom Hitler read and met), both of who influenced early National Socialism (and both mentioned in Mein Kampf). Popular in Germany in the 1900s, many Germans accepted Gobineau's ideas and, no doubt, influenced Hitler either directly or indirectly. Moreover, Hitler's "superior" race ideas sound like a combination of Biblical race laws and Gobineau's Aryan race ideas, but not at all like Nietzsche.

Nor does it make sense that the Christian Hitler would admire an atheistic Nietzsche. Hitler loathed atheism. In his writings and speeches, he admonished atheists. For example:

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith.

We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement,

and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933

Perhaps the most notorious misrepresentation of connecting Hitler and Nietzsche came from a photo-op of Hitler visiting the Nietzsche archive. Many have incorrectly believed that Hitler visited the archive on his own volition. Not so. The photo-op idea came from Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Förster, a wealthy Nazi supporter, who established the Nietzsche Archive in 1933, It was she who invited Hitler (after much persuasion) to visit the archive for publicity purposes. Hitler visited the archive exactly once and only for political purposes to appease Nietzsche's anti-Semite sister. The event appeared in the German newspapers and William Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) briefly mentioned the event as if Hitler often visited the archive because he admired Nietzsche. Shirer probably got his information from the German news article rather than from the facts of the event. (Note, scholars have criticized Shirer for his lack of scholarship and poor source material.) Elisabeth Förster also misrepresented Nietzsche by making her brother look like an anti-Semite and a proto-Nazi (Nietzsche's philosophy had little resemblance to the National Socialist German Workers' Party). Unfortunately many Germans fell for the Nietzsche-Nazi connection including many members of the Thule society.

The pre-Nazi Thule society began in the early 1900s. Rudolf von Serbottendorff became the driving force of this order which practiced occultism and an admiration of Nietzsche. Many members of the Thule society later became Nazis and did influence Nazi literature. However, Hitler never showed any interest in the Thule cult or in its pagan practices.

Anyone who uses such material to justify a Hitler-Nietzsche link simply lacks historical depth (laziness of research) and has no understanding of Hitler.

Let's face it; Hitler showed no philosophical sophistication. If any philosopher had an influence on him, it probably came from Schopenhuer (which he does briefly mention in Mein Kampf). Hans Frank, Hitler's personal lawyer, recalled that Hitler carried a copy of Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation with him throughout World War I, but Hitler never revealed any appreciation of Friedrich Nietzsche or his philosophy.

I think that is a good enough start.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

I know you're not. Neither would I try to justify the slaughter of the Amalekites. The only thing that I was objecting to, really, was the placing of Hitler in the same boat with people like John Paul II.

Personally, I am of the belief that there is no "Christianity" to be defined as a boat, but many different interpretations of the same or near same book. Basically, almost everyone has their own boat. As the Bible says, the kingdom of god is within yourself.

While Hitler was a power hungry mass murderer, he still believed in God and Jesus Christ which would, by definition, make him a christian of some sort. And even if he was denying it, there is no evidence to support a claim. If he didn't, then he acted one of the best parts in history.

Not to mean that all Christians are like each other mind you. If you would like to take it as "clumping all together", then that is your prerogative. It is perfectly understandable why you wouldn't want to be anywhere near the same category as that man.

But, then again, we are all humans anyway.

6.8k · March 27, 2009

Interesting site there, Avery. Truly impartial.

The only evidence we have, or could ever have, about people who call themselves Christian comes from the very confession of those making the claim.

I thought that it was people's deeds that defined them; not their words. People do tend to be full of crap, you know. In my experience >90% of those who claim to be Christian are anything but. By his deeds, Hitler was about as much of a Christian as <insert random atheist Lucasforumite's screen name here>.

True_Avery · March 27, 2009

Interesting site there, Avery. Truly impartial.

Haha, yeah. Its 11pm right now and I'd be glad to find you less biased sources tomorrow.

Site did do a fair job of sourcing, however. Still, perfectly understandable if you don't accept it. The Symbols are all historically accurate, but if you would like me to source the myths then I would be happy to later.

I thought that it was people's deeds that defined them; not their words. People do tend to be full of crap, you know. In my experience >90% of those who claim to be Christian are anything but. By his deeds, Hitler was about as much of a Christian as <insert random atheist Lucasforumite's screen name here>.

Agreed. He was about as far from an outstanding christian as you could get.

But, then again, what exactly do we use to define a Christian? Do we define them on how they follow the bible, their actions, or their personal beliefs?

The Bible has area of blatant genocide towards a group of people done by god, or a follower of god. While it is tasteless to say, Hitler's attacks of the Jews seems to be as justified as the murder's described in the Bible.

His Actions, as well, have on and offs to the Bible. Again, the Bible has many examples of ethnic cleansing, genocide, murder of entire cities, etc. While it may not condone such behavior, it does cite them as examples of the progress of humanity and their relationship with god.

But his actions also contradict the 10 commandments, and much of what Jesus spoke of. That I will not deny in the slightest. Which, essesially, means he was not a by the books Christian.

But his beliefs, however, still put him in some Category of christianity:

Chris⋅tian

/ˈkrɪstʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kris-chuhn] Show IPA

–adjective

1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.

2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.

3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.

4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.

5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.

6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.

He believed in the Christian God, and believed he was being guided or at least following Christ. This makes him a some sort of Christian, probably of a Nazi Germany Christianity denomination of the religion tree.

Still, very understandable why people would be resistant to the idea. Knowing quite a few outstanding Christians, I feel, as you do, he does not meet the definition of such but at least thought he was following his own interpretation of said religion tree.

I'm not exactly arguing that he was an outstanding christian as I am that he perceived himself as a Christian.

6.8k · March 27, 2009

Knowing quite a few outstanding Christians, I feel, as you do

Unfortunately, I've known very few, which is why you won't see me anywhere near a church these days. It's just too depressing. Take my family, for example: out of the six that claim to be Christian, I can count only one that is. The one that I'm referring to is not me, BTW. While I still can't help but believe, I haven't been able to honestly claim to be a Christian for quite a few years now.

Tommycat · March 27, 2009

well... actually, according to his own words:

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

from Hitler's Table Talk

Now what a person puts in their speeches and what he says in private are two different things. He may have used the Christians, but it seems quite apparent he didn't like them.

Actually since there were the ...'s there I'll parse out the exact quotes

When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no
longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from

ours.

In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no

longer be able to exist together.

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming
of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.

Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter

of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.

Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to

bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave

them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and

gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened

by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first

creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of

love. Its key-note is intolerance.

and the last

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of
the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

These can be found on pages 12 and 13 of the linked PDF though a search on religion would show you more of the same... in fact some of what he says is echoed by modern Atheists. (not to insult atheists, it appears he was more agnostic than atheist, as he does say some positive things about God.)

This quote could be confused for at least ONE active Atheist on this board:

Man seizes hold, here and there, of a few scraps of truth, but
he couldn't rule nature. He must know that, on the contrary,

he is dependent on Creation. And this attitude leads further

than the superstitions maintained by the Church. Christianity

is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have

undergone...

True_Avery · March 27, 2009

Indeed Hitler's Table Talk does show signs of Hitler denouncing Christianity, but there are also some issues with the book that I feel should be pointed out, If I may:

Christianity comes in many forms, two of which consist as: a belief system held by Christians, and organized religion. It was the latter, organized Christianity, that Hitler spoke against (just as many Christians do today).

Not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Hitler's (or Bormann's editing) aims to show that the Church form of religion produces lies, and that the original Christian religion was an incarnation of Bolshevism, from a falsification from St. Paul. But whenever he mentions Christ, Hitler has nothing but admiration:

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who too up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore-- of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him.

-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 76]

Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used his doctrine to mobilise the criminal underworld and thus organise a proto-Bolsevism.

-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 143]

He never condemns Jesus. On the contrary, he sees Jesus as a liberator against Jewish oppression. If Hitler did not see himself as a Christian, then why doesn't he condemn Jesus? Why doesn't he accuse Christ as being a Jew? Why does he see Christ as a liberator?

Biographer John Toland explains Hitler's reason for exterminating the Jews:

Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, 'I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so,' he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God-- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.[Toland, p. 703]

The reasoning seems to be because Hitler spoke against organized religion, then he must therefore be anti-Christian. But even if we take this approach and assume the Table-Talk as the actual thoughts and beliefs of Hitler, it fails for the simple reason that dismissing a religion of one's own faith does not exclude or excuse one from a personal belief as a Christian. A Christian is simply a person who believes in God and Jesus in some form or manner. Christianity, the body of believing people, simply does not require organized religion at all.

There are many examples of prominent Christians who denounced religions who opposed their own personal beliefs. The Protestant reformer, Martin Luther who was once a Catholic monk, denounced the Catholic hierarchy as the work of the anti-Christ and established by the Devil [Against the Papacy established by the Devil (1545)]. The history of Christianity is filled with examples of people of differing Christian faiths denouncing each other.

Indeed, even the Table-Talk has Hitler saying:

Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language! -Table-Talk [p. 9]

If simply speaking against a Christian religion were enough to oust one from Christianity, then some of the most influential Christians would have to reside with Hitler.

The papacy is truly the real power and tyranny of the Antichrist.... As beautiful as it was to keep a state of virginity, in the early days of Christianity, so abominable has it now become, when it is used as a means of eliciting Christ's help and grace. -Martin Luther (Luther's Confession, March 1528)

We maintain that the government of the Church was converted into a species of foul and insufferable tyranny. -John Calvin (The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 1544)

If we used the same logic against Hitler, then we should remove Luther, Calvin, and many other prominent so-called-Christians from membership of Christianity.

As Qliv pointed out about actions:

The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for his views for Christianity:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

If Hitler had really wished to eliminate Christianity, then why did he act to unite the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany? If Hitler wanted to denounce Christianity, then why did he remain a Catholic in good standing until he died?

Why did Hitler not break the Concordat between the Vatican and Germany? A case might be made that Hitler signed the Concordat in the first place, to help himself into power, but by no means does it explain why he kept it after winning power. His absolute power of the German state, Hitler could have, at any time, broke the Concordat if he was so against the Catholic religion. Why did he not do so, nor even consider it?

In Albert Speer's memoirs, Speer recalls Hitler as saying:

"The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element." [speer, p. 95]

Although Hitler approved of destroying Judaism and other cults, never did he give orders against the Protestant or Catholic Church.

Even in the Table-Talk, although he wished the 'Bolshevism' form of Christianity to die a natural death, he expressed his views on the future:

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. -Table-Talk [p. 62]

Nor can the Table-Talk be used to argue for an atheist Hitler:

We don't want to educate anyone in atheism. Table-Talk [p. 6]

An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)... Table-Talk [p. 59]

Nor can the Table-Talk be used to argue for a pagan Hitler:

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. -Table-Talk [p. 61]

If Hitler was opposed to personal Christianity then why did he order his chief associates, including Goering and Goebbles, to remain members of the church? Hitler too, remained in the church until he died. [speer, p. 95-96; Helmreich, p.220]

The Nazi programme called for "positive Christianity." Why did Hitler include Christianity within his own constitution? Even more revealing is that Hitler never eliminated the Christian statement. If Hitler was so set against Christianity, why did he keep it in?

It is also Important to note that in Interviews other than Table-Talk, he denounced Christianity while praising Jesus and God:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Socialism is a question of attitude toward life, of the ethical outlook on life of all who live together in a common ethnic or national space. Socialism is a Weltanschauung!

But in actual fact there is nothing new about this Weltanschauung. Whenever I read the New Testament Gospels and the revelations of various of the prophets and imagine myself back in the era of the Roman and late Hellenistic, as well as the Oriental world, I am astonished at all that has been made of the teachings of these divinely inspired men, especially Jesus Christ, which are so clear and unique, heightened to religiosity. They were the ones who created this new worldview which we now call socialism, they established it, they taught it and they lived it! But the communities that called themselves Christian churches did not understand it! Or if they did, they denied Christ and betrayed him! For they transformed the holy idea of Christian socialism into its opposite! They killed it, just as, at the time, the Jews nailed Jesus to the cross; they buried it, just as the body of Christ was buried. But they allowed Christ to be resurrected, instigating the belief that his teachings too, were reborn!

It is in this that the monstrous crime of these enemies of Christian socialism lies! What the basest hypocrisy they carry before them the cross-- the instrument of that murder which, in their thoughts, they commit over and over-- as a new divine sign of Christian awareness, and allow mankind to kneel to it. They even pretend to be preaching the teachings of Christ. But their lives and deeds are a constant blow against these teachings and their Creator and a defamation of God!

We are the first to exhume these teachings! Through us alone, and not until now, do these teachings celebrate their resurrection! Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb. For they were seeking the dead man! But we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ!

Herein lies the essential element of our mission: we must bring back to the German Volk the recognition of those teachings! For what did the falsification of the original concept of Christian love, of the community of fate before God and of socialism lead to? By their fruits ye shall know them! The suppression of freedom of opinion, the persecution of the true Christians, the vile mass murders of the Inquisition and the burning of witches, the armed campaigns against the people of free and true Christian faith, the destruction of towns and villages, the hauling away of their cattle and their goods, the destruction of their flourishing economies, and the condemnation of their leaders before tribunals, which, in their unrelenting hypocrisy, can only be described as balaphemous. That is the true face of those sanctimonious churches that have placed themselves between God and man, motivated by selfishness, personal greed for recognition and gain, and the ambition to maintain their high-handed willfulness against Christ's deep understanding of the necessity of a socialist community of men and nations. We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! This youth will, wit loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts, who give alms in order to remain undisturbed as they themselves throw their money around, who invoke the Fatherland as they fill their own purses by the toil of others, who preach peace and incite to war.... and on it goes.

- Hitler in Memoirs of a Confinant, p.139-140

In the second interview from Hitler's secret conversations, Hitler reveals:

We do not judge merely by artistic or military standards or even by purely scientific ones. We judge by the spiritual energy which a people is capable of putting forth, which will enable it in ten years to recapture what is has lost in a thousand years of warfare. I intend to set up a thousand-year Reich and anyone who supports me in this battle is a fellow-fighter for a unique spiritual-- I would say divine-- creation.... Rudolf Hess, my assistant of many years standing, would tell you: If we have such a leader, God is with us.

-Hitler, in Secret Conversations With Hitler, p. 68

On the Concordat between Germany and the Vatican, Hitler remarked:

We do not forget the influence of the churches. There will definitely be no Vatican crusade against us. We know Monsignor Pacelli since he was the Vatican's diplomatic representative in Germany for twelve years; as Secretary of State and adviser to Pope XI it is greatly in his interest that the German Catholics should at last have a statute [Concordat].

-Hitler, in Secret Conversations With Hitler, p. 79

And, finally, we get to the crux of the problem:

How accurate is Hitler's Table Talk?

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Not one of Hitler's table talk conversations were recorded or captured by audio, film, or broadcast on radio.

According to H.R. Trevor-Roper, Hitler refused to admit any mechanical recorder into his room. Hitler reluctantly allowed Martin Bormann to pick stenographers (Heim, Piker) to record the conversations. It was Bormann's idea to record Hitler's thoughts in the first place. In a facsimile written after the last of Hitler's recorded table talk, Bormann wrote a directive that stated:

"Please keep these notes most carefully, as they will be of very great value in the future. I have now got Heim to make comprehensive notes as a basis for these minutes. Any transcript which is not quite apposite will be re-checked by me." [Trevor-Roper, inset]

"Apposite" means, fitting; suitable; appropriate. Exactly what Bormann means by "re-checked" can only be speculated upon. However, it bears importance here that neither Heim nor Bormann could hardly be in a position to determine what deems apposite, considering Bormann's biased views against Catholicism. Should we take it as simply coincidence that the church denouncements by Hitler in the Table-Talk parallel the anti-church sentiments of Martin Bormann, but nowhere else?

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/martin_bormann.htm

How can anyone rely on Hitler's table talk when the entire transcript was edited and kept by the anti-Catholic Bormann?

It has been pointed out that "the fight against the church organizations" were Bormann's pet project. In spite of Bormann's repeated attempts to persuade Hitler to act against the Churches, Hitler insisted that "There has been no official Party announcement, nor will there be one." [VonLang, p.191]

Two scribes recorded Hitler's conversations at the appointment of Martin Bormann. One was recorded by a civil servant in the Reich Ministry of Justice, Heinrich Heim from 5th July 1941 to 20th March 1942. Later, from 21st March 1942 until 31st July 1942, it was taken by Dr. Henry Piker. The record, whether taken by Heim or Picker, was passed to Bormann. Bormann made two copies of his record. One of these was kept in the Fuhererbau in Munich and was burnt at the end of the war; the other was sent to the Berghof at Berchtesgaden and came ultimately into the hands of M. Genoud. It is this second copy of which the volume of Hitler's table talk was translated. [Trevor-Roper, p.viii]

Moreover, Dr. Picker regarded his own recording as authentic and insisted that "no confidence can be placed in Bormann's editing of it." Indeed, he writes, rather testily, of "Bormann's alterations, not authorised by me." [Trevor-Roper, p.viii].

In other words, there are no originals and the copies were filtered and edited by Bormann. The table talk cannot be considered a first-hand recording of Hitler's words

In fact some of what he says is echoed by modern Atheists. (not to insult atheists, it appears he was more agnostic than athiest, as he does say some positive things about God.)

Even in Table Talk, Hitler denounces Atheism as well as in his speeches. It also contradicts his own beliefs in Jesus and God for him to be Atheist. On the contrary, his acceptance of Jesus removes the possibility of agnosticism as well.

What he did was he denounced and demonized the organized churches that were falling to socialism in Russia. He felt that Socialism/communism (both things Hitler hated) could not co-exist with Christianity, and any Christians or Churches that accepted the ideas were spitting on Jesus, God, and the true meaning of his religion. He also felt that the Church was (ironically) manipulating people into believing lies.

He speaks of God and Jesus in his speeches, spreads it to the Hitler Youth, staples it all over uniforms, flags, badges, etc and tries to unite Germany's Christian churches. While he demonizes some sects of Christianity, it does not mean he hated all denominations. As with Martin Luther King, a well known Christian, you can speak out against the church without sabotaging your own personal beliefs.

The distinction between organized church and the personal christian beliefs must be made. My parents do not go to Church, but both consider themselves Christians and both believe in God and Jesus, effectively making them both Christians. However, like many, they do not agree with the Catholic or organized churches as a whole.

So, in summary, Table-Talk is a second, if not third hand source of apparently undocumented statements by Hitler recorded and edited by a man who was heavily anti-christian. Table-Talk is the only piece of work that contradicts much of not only Hitler's speeches, but personal journals and logs as well. Is it coincidence, or is this second/third hand account as accurate as people would like to believe?

His belief in Jesus, God, and failure to denounce his own Christianity points to him being personally Christian even if the Table-Talk interviews were not fabricated.

Sources:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Calic, Edouard, Ed., "Secret Conversations With Hitler," The John Day Company

Helmreich, Ernst Christian, "The German Churches Under Hitler," Wayne State University Press, 1979

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814316034/freethinkers

Speer, Albert, "Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer," Galahad Books, 1970

Toland, John, "Adolf Hitler," Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1976

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385420536/freethinkers

Trevor-Roper, H.R. [introduction], "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Redwood Press, Ltd., 1953

Turner, Jr., Henry Ashby, "Hitler-- Memoirs of a Confidant," Yale University Press, 1978

VonLang, Jochen, "The Secretary Martin Bormann: The Man Who Manipulated Hitler," Random House, 1979

Tommycat · March 27, 2009

I figured yu might try that tact, so I present to you:

THE NAZI’S PERSECUTION OF RELIGION AS A WAR CRIME: THE OSS’S RESPONSE WITHIN THE NUREMBERG TRIALS PROCESS

That tends to fly in the face of nobeliefs.org's accusation that Hitler never did anything against the Christian churches.

But then I guess nobeliefs.org doesn't have an answer for that one yet, so you might have to actually read some of it. I already read that nobeliefs page, and it has a bunch of speculation as to the meaning, which when teh quotes are taken out of context as they did, could be interpreted different ways. BTW the reason he didn't want to teach atheism: It was because Atheists were harder to lead around.

Also as to the accuracy of the statements: "Albert Speer confirmed the authenticity of those of Hitler's table talk transcripts made by Henry Picker in his 1976 Spandau: The Secret Diaries, and rejected accusations calling Picker a cunning forger." Wiki on Table talk

For reference here is the part that he says he doesn't want to teach Atheism:

Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this allmighty,
which we call God (that is to say, the dominion of

natural laws throughout the whole universe). The priests, who

have always succeeded in exploiting this feeling, threaten

punishments for the man who refuses to accept the creed they

impose.

When one provokes in a child a fear of the dark, one awakens

in him a feeling of atavistic dread. Thus this child will be ruled

all his life by this dread, whereas another child, who has been

intelligently brought up, will be free of it.

It's said that every man needs a refuge where he can find

consolation and help in unhappiness. I don't believe it! If

humanity follows that path, it's solely a matter of tradition and

habit. That's a lesson, by the way, that can be drawn from the

Bolshevik front. The Russians have no God, and that doesn't

prevent them from being able to face death.

We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.

So in essence when taken OUT OF CONTEXT is may seem that he just doesn't want to teach Atheism. HOWEVER, IN CONTEXT it is quite a different meaning. They do not want the masses to have the lack of fear that the religious do about dieing.

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature
and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the

other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a

return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that

the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in

the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything

on pure science.

Again, IN CONTEXT it shows that it is in how the uneducated man who falls to athiesm will catch on when the State uses religion after it had been using science.

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows : First of all, to
each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its

rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing

with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from

interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest

age, education will be imparted in such a way that each

child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the

State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped

from the clutches of dogma, I've no reason to fear that the

Church will get its hooks on them.

Gosh... seems to refute the claim all by itself when IN CONTEXT.

And um.. you MIGHT want to look at what Speer ACTUALLY said

"The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element." he might say at one time or another in his private circle. However, he concieved of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him.

Again, IN context it takes on a different meaning.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their
childish certainties until they've acquired others that are more

reasonable. Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief

should be well established in them before the lower belief has

been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would

serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that

would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to

re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had

ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing

dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world

was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship

of idols. It's not desirable that the whole of humanity should

be stultified—and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is

to allow it to die little by little.

Last one... dang... I thought it would be harder to refute nobeliefs.org. But they made it WAY too easy to refute each of those claims.

True_Avery · March 27, 2009

I figured yu might try that tact, so I present to you:
THE NAZI’S PERSECUTION OF RELIGION AS A WAR CRIME: THE OSS’S RESPONSE WITHIN THE NUREMBERG TRIALS PROCESS in which it talks about the Nazi plan to destroy Christianity and replace it with Aryanism.

It seems more about overthrowing the Christian Churches to make sure they were more Aryan oriented to indoctrinate the youth, which is what I assumed they did in the first place unless I am missing something important. But the fact stands the Church, in a sense, still stood and had say in the new Constitution while the others were burned the ground.

This also does not address Hitler's own personal beliefs, but rather the manipulation and control over the German Churches which I would assume a totalitarian dictator with a God complex would do.

With most of Germany under their heel anyway, I wouldn't discount plans for eventual dismantlement of the Churches but the fact Hitler tried so hard to unite this one religion's church while targeting a group that has been at odd with said religion still seems to heavily imply his own twisted Christianity.

He states that his hatred of the Jew stems from the fact he believes they killed God. Which would imply that he 1) believes in Jesus and 2) believes in God and 3) believes the Jews committed a horrific Sin, as well as his own paranoia which stemmed from the fact he was raised Catholic and died Catholic.

So, again, unless I am missing something I fail to see how your source discounts Hitler's religion, and even less on how your source claims they are going to "destroy" Christianity, by a given definition of "destroy".

Also as to the accuracy of the statements: "Albert Speer confirmed the authenticity of those of Hitler's table talk transcripts made by Henry Picker in his 1976 Spandau: The Secret Diaries, and rejected accusations calling Picker a cunning forger." Wiki on Table talk

There is not a source on the wiki for this statement.

And it was not stated that Picker was the forger. It was stated that Bormann was the one that edited the documents before handing them over for translation.

Which, even if they were 100% un-edit, he still Praises Jesus and God which still reinforces my point that he was a Christian. He does so in speeches and interviews outside of Table-Talk as well.

That is, in the end, all I'm arguing. I cannot speak for the entirety of the Nazi Party.

For reference here is the part that he says he doesn't want to teach Atheism.

Yes. If he was against teaching Atheism to the Youth, then why would he, a God and Jesus praising individual, be atheist or agnostic himself?

If he taught Athiesm, he would have rebellion. The Hitler Youth was indoctrinated to follow his every word, as well as being heavily Nazi-German Christian through the manipulation of the Christian churches.

Which, brings up the question: Why Christianity? Germany was one of the more religiously prolific countries, so why get rid of all of them, but save one for manipulation and indoctrination? Even before the overthrow, he mentions God and Jesus his his book, which implies a connection before hand.

His praise of Jesus and God points to him being personally Christian, but even a Christian can admit that religion can be used as a tool for manipulation and speak down upon the institution.

He and his ilk were masters of propaganda, but I fail to see how realizing as such means he was absent of religion he himself has admitted to.

So in essence when taken OUT OF CONTEXT is may seem that he just doesn't want to teach Atheism. HOWEVER, IN CONTEXT it is quite a different meaning. They do not want the masses to have the lack of fear that the religious do about dieing.

Both in and out it still seems to imply the same meaning. He didn't want atheists, but his acknowledgment that they would rebel does not imply his own atheism especially in the same book he praises Jesus as an Aryan and savior to the German people, and explicitly mentions God many a time.

Which, again, implies his own twisted personal Christianity.

Again, IN CONTEXT it shows that it is in how the uneducated man who falls to atheism will catch on when the State uses religion after it had been using science.

See above.

Are you implying that one that knows how to manipulate through religious institution is not religious themselves? They may be dishonest in their intentions, but I thought that was what converting was all about.

Gosh... seems to refute the claim all by itself when IN CONTEXT.

Then lets break it down:

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows : First of all, to
each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its

rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing

with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from

interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest

age, education will be imparted in such a way that each

child will know all that is important to the maintenance of the

State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped

from the clutches of dogma, I've no reason to fear that the

Church will get its hooks on them.

This quote seems to only, again, reinforce my point that Hitler was against organized religion.

dog·ma (dôg'mə, dŏg'-) Pronunciation Key

n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-mə-tə)

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

Dogma does not necessarily mean Faith, although they have very similar meanings. As he has shown, he has his own beliefs in God and Jesus that he holds himself, but has a distaste for the Church. Especially the Church's following a code of socialistic or communist ideals.

Hitler seems to have been someone who's spirituality was grounded in Christian Faith and not the Church's Dogma, which has already been established by Hitler is a bunch of manipulative lies.

Again, back to my point that one does not have to be a member of the church to be personally religious.

Hitler's warning was that "the church will get its hooks on them", implying that the Church is dishonest and authoritarian in its attempted control over someone, which is also stated in the Memoirs of a Confinant quote.

Which would not make, as the beginning of the thread implies, the overthrowing of the established Church all that odd. He thought the current church was corrupt and manipulative, so he wanted to Aryanize it to not only Indoctrinate the youth of the time, but also make sure the Church was not trying to undermine him.

"The church is certainly necessary for the people. It is a strong and conservative element." he might say at one time or another in his private circle. However, he concieved of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him.

Again, IN context it takes on a different meaning.

It does?

It means exactly the same thing as far as I can see. He thought it was a "strong and conservative element". He still said it, and everyone already knows he used the church.

I think we are on different tracks here or something, because I am not implying that Hitler didn't manipulate people with the Church. Quite the contrary.

Where we are at odds seems to be about whether using the church still makes you religious or not. You've given him at least agnosticism, but I claim that his use of Jesus and God makes him a personal Christian against the established church.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their
childish certainties until they've acquired others that are more

reasonable. Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief

should be well established in them before the lower belief has

been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would

serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that

would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to

re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had

ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing

dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world

was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship

of idols. It's not desirable that the whole of humanity should

be stultified—and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is

to allow it to die little by little.

From what I can see, this still states that Hitler was against pagan mythology, or at least the re-establishment of such. Considering his attacks on Jews, Gypsy, and various other religions I wouldn't be surprised in pagan made it on that list.

What this seems to be stating is that he believes that for a new world, or new religion to take control it must be well indoctrinated into the minds of the world, the old being carefully pulled from people's minds until no-one remembers it.

He mentions that Christianity implanted itself into the minds of the people too early and too quickly, effectively becoming more of a virus than a new flower. It just left the Christian seed along with the other seeds still growing, none of them being more established than the other. This would lead to humanity becoming ignorant and misguided.

Christianity would have to wither away slowly with all its different flowers before it can disapear.

I think both of us can agree that he hated the established church. Within this comparison he makes, how would that play out with his plans?

He took a population and implanted a belief into them, destroying the other religions to make sure this one took root. He overthrew the established German church to Aryanize it, effectively indoctrinating the youth and planting fresh seeds on fresh ground.

It indeed reinforces the fact he believed the church was bad for Germany and humanity in general, but with his youth indoctrination he seemed (or at least the Nazi's seemed) to be trying to place his own, self important personalized Christianity within them.

He could have easily gotten rid of the Christian churches as well, but he chose to teach god and Jesus to the masses instead of making his own up, or even replacing himself with Jesus. For how self obsessed we portray him and he may have been, he still seemed to put credit with the christian deities that he so loved mentioning.

Tommycat · March 27, 2009

Negative on his use of Christian words in his speeches making him Christian. He's a public figure, using the church to his own gain, it is only natural for him to use some of their words to help further that agenda. So that puts him at least at agnosticism(which is what I said in my first post in this thread).

Note, I changed the wording on that first part. Guess I was still editing. while you were posting.

Actually what I meant with requoting was that the meaning was changed to point out that he was opposed to Christianity.

As for dogma, seems that I tend to see it as the organized religion. Guess I was using this one:

3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum.

Especially with his multiple mentions of Christianity versus Science in Table Talk.

Things like:

Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid
of things that can't, or can't yet, be explained—that is to say,

of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature,

I can't satisfy them with the Party's programme. Time will go

by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.

So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle
with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a

natural death. A slow death has something comforting about

it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the

advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more

concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is

to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic

and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has

become widespread, when the majority of men know that the

stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited

worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted

of absurdity.

Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in
this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse.

Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the

more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will

decline.

If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science
arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will

not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for it's

always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge,

to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does

so in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual

conflict with itself.

Need I go on? Seems to me that his references of dogma are in regards to Christianity as a whole. Quite frankly if I wasn't the one that found the link, I might be confused into thinking it was Skinwalker.

Then in Speer's Memoirs he talks about Hitler only using the church for political gains, though he was not himself connected to the church. I'd quote that one, but unfortunately I can't copy/paste from it. Do a google book search for Speer memoirs.

True_Avery · March 27, 2009

Hm, that seems like a fair assessment. What I think this comes right down to is this:

I think we can both agree he believed in some God. We both agree he hated the Church.

But did he believe in Jesus? Even in Table Talk with all his talk of God and the denouncement of Christianity, he does praise Jesus and called him an Aryan liberator. He even denys the that Jesus was Jewish, as that would imply he was impure.

If he did not believe in Jesus, he would indeed be agnostic. If he did, he would have to be defined as some denomination of Christianity.

This would make Hitler a hypocrite, but it wouldn't be the first time.

Tommycat · March 27, 2009

I dunno, He talks highly of jesus, but doesn't exactly call him godly. If anything he seemed to admit in a man called jesus who the Jews created a religion around.

Actually an agnostic(or near atheist) that doesn't believe in Jesus but still using Jesus's name somehow seems less hypocritical than a Christian killing Christians(whoops Ireland). But belief in god, with denial of Christianity as a whole(being a Jew construct) seems to indicate that he was at best Agnostic, familiar with Christianity.

I believe Speer even mentioned why Hitler remained a part of the church, as it held a tenuous grasp on the hearts of the common German. He even ordered his top men to remain a part of the church even though most of the SS would leave the church.

Achilles · March 30, 2009

Quick, ask Mimartin what the SS had engraved on their belt buckles!

*runs*

True_Avery · March 30, 2009

Quick, ask Mimartin what the SS had engraved on their belt buckles!

*runs*

Gott Mit Uns (God With Us)

Except while the evidence is there for speeches and propaganda, does that exactly equal that Hitler was, himself, a christian man?

Achilles · March 30, 2009

Well done!

No, of course not. But if he proclaimed to be christian, how do we establish that he was not? Clearly it would seem that he thought god was on his side (or was at least willing to profess as much).

6.8k · March 30, 2009

Well, unless he was sadomasochistic in the extreme, he did not treat others as he would have liked to have been treated, nor did he make any attempt to do so that I'm aware of.

True_Avery · March 30, 2009

Well, unless he was sadomasochistic in the extreme, he did not treat others as he would have liked to have been treated, nor did he make any attempt to do so that I'm aware of.

While Hitler is an extreme example, I've never felt like I've met a Christian or, frankly, a human that does. It is a concept that requires a level of empathy that I don't believes humans (or perhaps even life itself) are capable of.

That is just my supposition though, and I understand that the concept is something meant to be aiming towards instead of living upon in every moment. I just believe that basing that around whether someone is a christian or not is unreasonable.

Achilles · March 30, 2009

Well, unless he was sadomasochistic in the extreme, he did not treat others as he would have liked to have been treated, nor did he make any attempt to do so that I'm aware of.

That is one small message that can be cherry-picked from christian doctrine. There are others in the judeo-christian tradition...some of which would contradict this one.

All it takes is one example of a devout using matthew 25 to justify bombing an abortion clinic to see that scripture can be interpreted lots of different ways. Just because it isn't the way you would interpret it doesn't mean that their interpretation isn't valid. It would seem that we need something greater (and more reliable) than the bible to interpret the bible, no?

mimartin · March 30, 2009

But if he proclaimed to be christian, how do we establish that he was not?

My definition of a Christian is someone that has taken Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Since that is something that cannot be verified beyond the word of that person, I personally believe anyone that proclaims himself/herself as a Christian is a Christian.

My real question is why does it matter if Hitler was a Christian or not? Would Hitler being a Christian mean all Christian are evil mass murders? It makes the same amount of sense to me as some extremist Christian groups saying Atheism is “the real force behind mass murders.” To me it is more of this blame the group I’m not part of for all of mankind’s problems mentality. Instead of examining the real issues and the hatred that allows things like genocide to occur even today, we just blame it on someone else. The blame game only seems to allow these prejudices to continue thus allowing Rwanda, Bosnia and Sudan to happen even in the modern world.

Achilles · March 30, 2009

My definition of a Christian is someone that has taken Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Since that is something that cannot be verified beyond the word of that person, I personally believe anyone that proclaims himself/herself as a Christian is a Christian.

This pretty much sums up my thinking on the matter perfectly. Unless we see that person later that day praying in a mosque or at a local satanist bbq, the only thing we have to go on is what the individual says about their beliefs.

My real question is why does it matter if Hitler was a Christian or not? Would Hitler being a Christian mean all Christian are evil mass murders?

Not in my book. I think these things get started when someone claims that Hitler was an atheist and therefore by extension all atheist are like Hitler. That tends to make me (I can't speak for other non-theists) wonder how that shoe fits when it's on the other foot.

It makes the same amount of sense to me as some extremist Christian groups saying Atheism is “the real force behind mass murders.” To me it is more of this blame the group I’m not part of for all of mankind’s problems mentality.

So there is no unifying (or at least fairly common) pattern of thinking that we can identify as being fertile soil for such acts? If there were, would it be helpful/useful to know what it is? I think I'm probably missing the point here, so my apologies in advance if I am.

Instead of examining the real issues and the hatred that allows things like genocide to occur even today, we just blame it on someone else.

If blame is all that's happening, then sure. I guess I'm wondering if "examining" might look like "blaming" from certain perspectives (???).

The blame game only seems to allow these prejudices to continue thus allowing Rwanda, Bosnia and Sudan to happen even in the modern world.

I would tend to want to pin these examples on apathy, but that's just my deal.

mimartin · March 30, 2009

Not in my book. I think these things get started when someone claims that Hitler was an atheist and therefore by extension all atheist are like Hitler. That tends to make me (I can't speak for other non-theists) wonder how that shoe fits when it's on the other foot.[/Quote] I agree with you. I think it is just as wrong to say all Atheist are evil because of the actions of one man or one group of people within one country. I don't really care what shoe the foot is on.
So there is no unifying (or at least fairly common) pattern of thinking that we can identify as being fertile soil for such acts? If there were, would it be helpful/useful to know what it is? I think I'm probably missing the point here, so my apologies in advance if I am.[/Quote] No need. Again I actually agree that it is important to examine all reasoning and behavior that lead to crimes against humanity such as these. I happen to believe they are not derived from the teaching of Jesus Christ, but I believe anything and everything should be open to examination. My point is we are not attempting to find the real cause, but only attempting to blame the other side without actual examining the evidence. It is easy just to blame the Atheist or blame the Christian then to look at the real root cause. If after careful examination of the ‘fertile soil for such acts’ it is proven that the teachings of Christ are behind this behavior, then I would be willing to reexamine my beliefs. However, from personal experience I have never felt homicidal tendencies while reading the Bible.
If blame is all that's happening, then sure. I guess I'm wondering if "examining" might look like "blaming" from certain perspectives (???). [/Quote] I'm sure it does, but do you consider article such as this one by “The Christian Science Monitor” to be anything beyond just playing the blame game?

In the immortal word of Yoga Bera “This is like déjà vu all over again.”

6.8k · March 30, 2009

While Hitler is an extreme example, I've never felt like I've met a Christian or, frankly, a human that does. It is a concept that requires a level of empathy that I don't believes humans (or perhaps even life itself) are capable of.

I agree that humans are indeed incapable of achieving that level of empathy on their own, as it is quite unnatural. I will state that people with that level of empathy do exist, however, because I have been fortunate enough to have met them. Sadly, they are the exception rather than the rule.

That is one small message that can be cherry-picked from christian doctrine. There are others in the judeo-christian tradition...some of which would contradict this one.

On the contrary: that "one small message" is one of the two Great Commandments. With the two Great Commandments Jesus condensed the original Ten Commandments into just two:

(Matthew 22)

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. (1-4 of the original 10 Commandments) This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (5-10 of the original 10 Commandments) On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

As such, it is a fundamental (for lack of a better word ) Christian ideal and is hardly "cherry-picked." From my (very) limited experience with the subject, I have come to the conclusion that keeping the second Great Commandment comes naturally to those who keep the First.

True_Avery · March 30, 2009

Just for clarification, I didn't intent for the message of this thread to be "Hitler was a christian, thus all Christians are bad"

The thought was brought up in another thread, and I thought his own personal implications of supposedly godly influence may have relevance to his actions. No harm meant beyond that.

Achilles · March 31, 2009

No need. Again I actually agree that it is important to examine all reasoning and behavior that lead to crimes against humanity such as these. I happen to believe they are not derived from the teaching of Jesus Christ, but I believe anything and everything should be open to examination.

The people who are responsible for such things do not share your interpretation of christian doctrine. To say that one could not find justification for such things in the bible though is a serious error.

My point is we are not attempting to find the real cause, but only attempting to blame the other side without actual examining the evidence.

But both sides think that they have all the evidence that they need, no? What's left to discuss?

Interesting that the dogmatism that causes such things is the same dogmatism that dominates the discussion of said things.

It is easy just to blame the Atheist or blame the Christian then to look at the real root cause. If after careful examination of the ‘fertile soil for such acts’ it is proven that the teachings of Christ are behind this behavior, then I would be willing to reexamine my beliefs.

Probably not the teachings that are the foundation of your belief, but I'm willing to bet some of the teachings that contradict your belief might.

At the end of the day though, such an exercise would only point out that the bible is terrible source for morality. It would not prove that christianity is the sole source of buttheadedness.

However, from personal experience I have never felt homicidal tendencies while reading the Bible.

You don't but clearly others do.

It's the same mechanism that causes my blood to boil when I read about the discovery institute trying to change science standards in schools, whereas someone else might look at the article and be unimpressed. I have a friend who is easily knocked into a tailspin when it comes to politics. Each of us has something we are passionate about. Some people are willing to take their passions too far. So when I hear that some guy goes in and shoots up an abortion clinic, I'm not surprised. He read the same bible that you did.

I'm sure it does, but do you consider article such as this one by “The Christian Science Monitor” to be anything beyond just playing the blame game?

Clearly this article is playing the blame game. But the author's citation of Harris and Dawkins speaks to my point.

I've read both of the books which he referenced, so I know the argument they were actually making.

Here is a quote from Harris, which I think sums the argument up nicely:

People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

On the contrary: that "one small message" is one of the two Great Commandments. With the two Great Commandments Jesus condensed the original Ten Commandments into just two:

Moment of silence for the late great George Carlin.

As such, it is a fundamental (for lack of a better word ) Christian ideal and is hardly "cherry-picked."

The first one is so open to interpretation that I'm struggling to understand its relevance. I don't see how loving god with all your soul prevents one from killing. Clearly there are some assumptions being made about what that means, and I can guess at what they are, but I'm willing to bet that if we identified them all, we'll find that they are nothing more than preferences and perceptions.

As to the 2nd, I guess it all comes down to how we define "neighbor", doesn't it? I don't think it take much imagination to see how in-group bias will allow us to kill "that guy" while still loving our "neighbor".

Process for Religously Motivated Genocide

Step 1: label some group you don't like "other".

Step 2: label some group you do like "neighbor".

Step 3: commense wholesale slaughter.

There are example of this bias all throughout the bible, so one doesn't have to look for long to find justification. So, yes, I think my argument for cherry-picking stands.

From my (very) limited experience with the subject, I have come to the conclusion that keeping the second Great Commandment comes naturally to those who keep the First.

Assuming that they interpret everything the same way that you do, no?

GarfieldJL · March 31, 2009

Just for clarification, I didn't intent for the message of this thread to be "Hitler was a christian, thus all Christians are bad"

The thought was brought up in another thread, and I thought his own personal implications of supposedly godly influence may have relevance to his actions. No harm meant beyond that.

And it looks like people are pointing out that you may be barking up the wrong tree, because the argument being presented is that Hitler was an Atheist.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2606885&postcount=5

6.8k · March 31, 2009

The first one is so open to interpretation that I'm struggling to understand its relevance.

How so? Either you love someone, or you don't.

I don't see how loving god with all your soul prevents one from killing.

By obeying His commandments. In this case, that would be "Thou shalt not kill".

As to the 2nd, I guess it all comes down to how we define "neighbor", doesn't it? I don't think it take much imagination to see how in-group bias will allow us to kill "that guy" while still loving our "neighbor".

Your neighbor is your fellow man, no matter who they are. The example that you're providing is one of human hypocrisy, which is a concept that I think we're both familiar with, and that neither of us likes.

Process for Selfishly Motivated Genocide, Conveniently Disguised as Religiously Motivated:
Step 0: disregard the Commandments.

Step 1: label some group you don't like "other".

Step 2: label some group you do like "neighbor".

Step 3: commense wholesale slaughter.

Fixed.

There are example of this bias all throughout the bible, so one doesn't have to look for long to find justification.

How do we know that these occurrences in the Bible aren't examples of the Israelites doing the same thing that Hitler and countless others have done in using God to justify genocide? Kind of like what they're doing right now with the Palestinians. I'm not one of those that believes in the Bible's 100% infallibility. It was written by man and from man's point of view (specifically ancient man, as in "little more advanced than caveman" ), after all.

Hitler, The Nazi Party, and Christianity

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived