Hitler, Nazis, and Religion

[Shermana]

"During 1936–37 approximately seven hundred pastors and priests were sentenced to the Buchenwald concentration camp, though only about fifty received long sentences. Many Catholic clergy (including nuns) were arrested on trumped-up morals charges. Though 94.5 percent of the adult German population was registered in 1939 as nominally belonging to a church, by that point most of the Christian population was pretty well cowed"

Yes, the ones arrested, who made up a fraction of a fraction (700 out of 18,000) were probably vocal in their opposition and there's not much way of telling if they represented the true feelings of the majority. What exactly were these trumped up morals charges and who were they for particularly? As for being "well cowed" that's a questionable assumption. I am not saying 100% of all Christian leaders supported the Nazis. But I will bat at over 75-80%. So this would have to be examined more closely with details to see what this is truly indicative of.

Payne, G. E. (1995). A History of Fascism, 1914-1945. London, Routledge

"Not surprisingly, the reading of lists with several hundred names of persecuted Christians had a galvanizing effect on Confessing congregations, particularly in 1937 and 1938 as Nazi brutality was exercised more and more openly.

Several hundred? That would be like one troublemaker for every few villages. Probably galvanizing for the "Confessing" congregations who were against the Nazi party, but I believe the "Confessing" Churches were already a minority, representing 3,000 out of those 18,000 pastors, 1/6 or less, a relatively very insignificant number . I think the 45 million strong Protestants (and the Catholics) mostly did not have to be cow towed but were actively supporting until the end.

There were a number of signs that Nazi ruthlessness against the churches was intensifying. The arrest of Martin Niemöller in July 1937 shocked Confessing Christians, many of whom had assumed that the Nazis would avoid attacking a man of Niemöller’s stature and fame."

Niemoller was a very anti-Nazi speaker, and shocking the minority Confessing Christians does not represent a total action against Christianity as a whole, or more than 5/6 of the Protestants for that matter.

Barnett's For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (Oxford University Press).

If there was a Protestant Protest against Hitler, they certainly did not represent the majority in the open at least, at least by a 5/6 stretch.

Compared to the 1933 parade, the later parades, with their grounding of Nazi symbols in prehistory and prominent rhetoric of blood ties between ancient Nordic tribes and modern Germans, began with a much more direct ideological statement...Although the Germanic group was replete with pagan religious icons, the Romanesque Age with its ten floats and the Gothic Age with seven floats were largely devoid of Christian overtones...As noted above, religion was almost totally absent, aside from pagan allegories. This reflects a degree of ambiguity if not hostility between Christianity, which enjoyed significant support among the general public, and many party leaders, who cast Nazism as a new messianic religion." (emphasis added)

Yeah, like I was saying about how in the later Nazi stages, they started abandoning and stamping out the Christian symbolisms, but they were still retaining the rhetoric of anti-Jew, anti-Communism, totalitarianism, etc.

"As events would show, the Nazis used the “German Christians” as an instrument to gain control of the German Evangelical Church; when this failed, Nazi party support for the “German Christians” died."
Barnett's For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (Oxford University Press).

I fail to see how the Nazis failed to gain control of anything but the 1/6 minority Confessing Churches, at what point the Christian support for the Nazis died out is not clear here yet.

There's a reason for the dates in the title of Conway's classic text: J. S. Conway's The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945

It seems those dates only apply to a small minority faction.

And there's a reason for the shift to an almost utter absence in Christian symbolism from the 1933 show of Nazi extravaganza to the far more elaborate one in 1937:

The utter absence of symbolism in their public displays doesn't really address the public support they had outside of the 1/6-of-Protestants-at-best Confessing Church. Like I said, I agree the Nazis were trying to stamp out traces of Christian symbolism outwardly, this doesn't change the concept that they enjoyed widespread Protestant support until the end of the war. In fact, Hitler is said to have said in private conversations that he considered himself a Catholic.


Ok. What rhetoric were you referring to?[/QUOTE]

We can start with the big gorilla, the rhetoric against Jews.

 

[Alceste]

I'm going to bow out. I simply cannot believe that you or the historians you reference are able to read the minds of dead nazis to gain such certainty regarding who they prayed to when they went home from work, if anyone.

For me it is enough that someone (anyone) claims to be a Christian, I am happy to believe them. if they display references to God on their matching outfits, I'm going to assume they are theists of some kind. I have no choice, as I can't read minds.

Also, it's possible to hold a belief sincerely and still use it for personal worldly gain, so I am not buying the argument that the political conflicts between the Nazis and certain churches or religious leaders is a theological schism. They did not tolerate dissent, and they did not tolerate divided loyalties. That says nothing about the state of their faith in Jesus or God.

Finally, MOST PEOPLE belong to a religion, even more back then in Germany. It's ludicrous to assume that for a decade the place was suddenly full of apostates, who returned to the fold after the war.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, the ones arrested, who made up a fraction of a fraction (700 out of 18,000) were probably vocal in their opposition and there's not much way of telling if they represented the true feelings of the majority.

How about the fact that Christians overwhelmingly voted for them in the early period when they were spouting the same rhetoric as they did later when they tried to stamp out the elements of Traditional Christianity?

The second quote was your initial claim/question which I responded to. My response consisted of descriptions of Nazi activity from historians of the period demonstrating the shift in Nazi activity after they no longer required the support for which they aligned themselves with christianity in general and particular german christian groups in particular. The "vote' you referred to was the shift in question. After 1933, the previous support for Christianity and Christians not only decreased, but transformed into hostility. The Nazi ideology was, at its root, incompatible with religion in general, but including Christianity.

You made a claim concerning continuity of Nazi rhetoric. I am still waiting for you to support it.

What exactly were these trumped up morals charges and who were they for particularly? As for being "well cowed" that's a questionable assumption.

It is not an assumption. It is a quotation from a historian in and published by a widely respected academic publishing company. If you have reason to doubt the conclusions because of your own research, please supply your sources.

I am not saying 100% of all Christian leaders supported the Nazis. But I will bat at over 75-80%.

Based upon what?

I fail to see how the Nazis failed to gain control of anything but the 1/6 minority Confessing Churches, at what point the Christian support for the Nazis died out is not clear here yet.

You have failed to supply any support whatsoever for your statement. I have given you sources you may examine on your own, in addition to providing the quotations from these to give you an indication as to what formed my belief and understanding of the religiuos dynamics leading up to and during the Nazi regime. In return, you have given your opinions without any indication you can support them. If you have spent time researching these issues, and have reputable sources you have used, I would be happy to know of them.

We can start with the big gorilla, the rhetoric against Jews.

Which goes back before Christianity and is perhaps the worst indication of "christian" alliance possible. By the time of Nazi germany, Christian anti-semiticism had so rooted itself in western culture that it no longer required any religious ties.

 

[Shermana]

My bad, I thought you were already familiar with the numbers on the Confessing Church.

Confessing Church - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following numbers (as of January 1933 unless otherwise stated) are an aid in understanding the political and theological developments discussed in this article.[2]
Number of Protestants in Germany: 45 million
Number of free church Protestants: 150,000[3]
Largest regional Protestant church: Evangelical Church of the old-Prussian Union (German: Evangelische Kirche der altpreußischen Union), with 18 million members the church strongest in members in the country at the time
Number of Protestant pastors: 18,000
Number of these strongly adhering to German Christian faction as of 1935: 3000
Number of these strongly adhering to Confessing Church faction as of 1935: 3000
Number of these arrested during 1935: 700
Number of these not closely affiliated with or adhering to either faction: 12,000
Total population of Germany: 65 million
Number of Jews in Germany: 525,000[4]

It seems every one of the arrested Pastors were of this 1/6 anti-Nazi minority.

Which goes back before Christianity

You mean before Luther?

By the time of Nazi germany, Christian anti-semiticism had so rooted itself in western culture that it no longer required any religious ties.

That's kind of the point....

It is not an assumption. It is a quotation from a historian in and published by a widely respected academic publishing company. If you have reason to doubt the conclusions because of your own research, please supply your sources.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that a quotation from a "widely respected academic publishing company" didn't count as a speculative assumption.

 

[Shermana]

This book sounds fascinating and I'll put it on my list with high priority.

The review here sounds like it's not too far from what others are saying here:

Third Reich Christianity: Nazi Germany as Implementation of a Christian Agenda - How Was Nazi Germany an Example of Christian Nationalism & Power?

Now, one can argue that Hitler and the Nazis only appealed to Christianity as part of a political ploy — that they emphasized Christianity in public without ever intending to promote Christianity in reality. Such an argument would be accompanied by the claim that the actions of Hitler and the Nazis didn’t reflect “true” Christianity and, therefore, must be attributed to atheism, paganism, or something else.

There are two problems with this. First, there is little to no evidence that Hitler and his top leaders only endorsed Christianity in public and for public consumption. Their private remarks on religion and Christianity were generally the same as their public remarks, but they didn’t hesitate to privately contradict public remarks on other matters, like peace with the Soviet Union. The similarity of their public and private positions on religion and Christianity indicates that they were genuine.

Second, the above argument could be made about any of the crimes committed by Christians over the course of history. It’s ultimately an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy: no true Christian could do such things or advocate such things, therefore they weren’t true Christians and their crimes cannot be attributed to Christianity. This is a fallacious argument because it relies on shifting the definition of "Christian" to match whatever conclusion the person prefers.

The actions of Hitler and the Nazis were about as “Christian” as the actions of people during the Crusades or the Inquisition. There were certainly non-Christian Nazis, and several leading Nazis preferred a neo-pagan theistic religion over Christianity, but the position was never officially endorsed either by the Nazi Party or by Adolf Hitler himself. Indeed, Christian complaints about the paganism of some Nazi leaders were given a sympathetic reception.

Christians may not like acknowledging that Nazi actions might have anything to do with Christianity, but Germany saw itself as a fundamentally Christian nation and millions of Christians in Germany enthusiastically endorsed Hitler and the Nazi Party in part because they saw both as embodiments of both German and Christian ideals. Conservative Christians who wanted a return to traditional values either voted for the Nazis or one of the other right-wing nationalist parties which eventually supported and merged with the Nazis.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

My bad, I thought you were already familiar with the numbers on the Confessing Church.

Are you? Because you still seem to think that 1933 is somehow indicative of Nazi ideology rather than propaganda for support:
"Gestapo pressure on the Confessing Church was building. In the spring of 1934, Nazi authorities in Mecklenburg held a show trial of seven pastors (the so-called Schwerin trial). As a warning to other Confessing Church pastors, the three main defendants were given sentences of six, four, and three months in prison...
The underlying question which troubled church leaders and Nazi authorities alike was at what point the Confessing Church’s activities and protests would challenge the legitimacy of the Nazi state itself...By 1936, the Gestapo was increasing its pressure on the Confessing Church...
By 1936, the Fürbittenliste included the names not just of outspoken pastors but of ordinary lay people; the Gestapo grew determined to stop Confessing Church activities. One active lay member, for example, was arrested and sent to a concentration camp...The randomness and the brutality of the Gestapo’s harassment of Confessing Christians increased the terror among church members. This was certainly a deliberate part of Gestapo tactics. In a society where virtually all opposition had been subdued, the continued activities of the Confessing Church were an affront to Nazis who believed that Germany’s future rested on Nazi ideology and not on an outmoded Christianity."
For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (Oxford University Press).

It seems every one of the arrested Pastors were of this 1/6 anti-Nazi minority.

So far, it seems like you are reliant on wikipedia and are proving my point. Of course, I could be mistaken, but it would be nice if you would show this rather than continually support my assertion that the Nazi alliance with Christian groups was to gain the support they did and which culminated in 1933, when they solidified their power and no longer needed to pander to Christian groups.

You mean before Luther?

\

No, I mean before Jesus.

That's kind of the point....

No, it isn't. I made that clear at the beginning of this thread.

 

[Shermana]

Are you? Because you still seem to think that 1933 is somehow indicative of Nazi ideology rather than propaganda for support:
"Gestapo pressure on the Confessing Church was building. In the spring of 1934, Nazi authorities in Mecklenburg held a show trial of seven pastors (the so-called Schwerin trial). As a warning to other Confessing Church pastors, the three main defendants were given sentences of six, four, and three months in prison...

Oh did I give the impression that I meant the Nazi leaders were supporting Christianity itself and not the Christians who were supporting the Nazis?

The underlying question which troubled church leaders and Nazi authorities alike was at what point the Confessing Church’s activities and protests would challenge the legitimacy of the Nazi state itself...By 1936, the Gestapo was increasing its pressure on the Confessing Church...
By 1936, the Fürbittenliste included the names not just of outspoken pastors but of ordinary lay people; the Gestapo grew determined to stop Confessing Church activities. One active lay member, for example, was arrested and sent to a concentration camp...The randomness and the brutality of the Gestapo’s harassment of Confessing Christians increased the terror among church members. This was certainly a deliberate part of Gestapo tactics. In a society where virtually all opposition had been subdued, the continued activities of the Confessing Church were an affront to Nazis who believed that Germany’s future rested on Nazi ideology and not on an outmoded Christianity."
For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (Oxford University Press).

Considering the Confessing Churches were less than 1/6 of the Protestant movement, I don't see the significance. Is there a page in this book that emphasizes just how few the Confessing Churches were in relation to the broader movement or is it acting as if they represented a truly significant number?

So far, it seems like you are reliant on wikipedia and are proving my point.

On Wikipedia's sources at least. Do you have a source that disagrees with the idea of the Confessing Church representing 1/6 or less of the Protestants?

The only point you've proven however is that the Nazis cracked down on the anti-Nazi 1/6 minority of the Protestants and that they weren't too big on public displays of Christianity, of which I already agreed that they were effectively trying to stamp out Christian symbolism outwardly after they got elected.

Of course, I could be mistaken, but it would be nice if you would show this rather than continually support my assertion that the Nazi alliance with Christian groups was to gain the support they did and which culminated in 1933, when they solidified their power and no longer needed to pander to Christian groups.

I think I already agreed that the Nazi leadership was out to pander to Christian groups for their support, though I do think Hitler was in fact a believing Catholic, though the Nazi leadership may not have been. What I've been emphasizing was the widespread Christian support outside of a few minority vocal opponents for them, not the other way around.


\

No, I mean before Jesus.

By all means I'd love to see this anti-Semitism before 0 A.D. among the Teutonic tribes, please link by all means.

No, it isn't. I made that clear at the beginning of this thread.

I'll have to go back and see how clear you made it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This book sounds fascinating and I'll put it on my list with high priority.

I read it. I also have the responses to it in various journals, as well as Steigmann-Gall's response (in e.g., the Journal of Contemporary History). Your link doesn't very accurately represent his work. He writes of "Hitler’s growing disenchantment with the Christian religion itself" and that he argued in his book (which your link concerns): "I contend that nazism, in the view of many of its adherents, could be qualified as religious without itself being a religion."

Once again, preconceptions and google searches dominate discourse. You link to a book you haven't read in order to support a view you had already despite a poor understanding you illustrated through your use of wikipedia. It's exactly what I wanted to avoid here.

 

[Shermana]

Twice you have criticized the use of Wikipedia without explaining that criticism or why you feel the numbers there are wrong.

Writing off Wikipedia for being Wikipedia is so 10 years ago.

If I'm not mistaken, the main thrust of your argument, whatever your argument actually is, implies that the Confessing Church represents something other than a 1/6 highly vocal minority.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Twice you have criticized the use of Wikipedia without explaining that criticism or why you feel the numbers there are wrong.

Not wrong. Misleading and/or meaningless. I gave you a reference on this fact which noted the high percentage of Christian Germans relative to the population and how meangless this is. I have repeatedly said that the Nazis and Hitler relied on Christian prejudice, beliefs, and worldviews to manipulate the country.

In response, you keep pointing to the turning point which I have emphasized from the start. Even if we pretend that the extent of your familiarity with Nazi policies and the socio-political, religious, and culture understanding of pre-Nazi and Nazi policies is based on anything other than internet pages you defend with comments like:

Writing off Wikipedia for being Wikipedia is so 10 years ago.

(despite the fact that wikipedia entries are based on a fraction of scholarship, and thus direct acess to this makes wikipedia at best useless), you have yet to show this.

Additionally, you seem utterly determined to interpret what I have written before reading it, as evidenced by responses which not only distort what I have said, but also support my point. Of course, as apparently you have responded to what I have stated without (by your own admission) knowing what I actually claim:

If I'm not mistaken, the main thrust of your argument, whatever your argument actually is, implies that the Confessing Church represents something other than a 1/6 highly vocal minority.

it is no wonder that you have yet to address anything significant at all, other than a fevered desire to respond to perceived slights with the might of wikipedia and the claim that despite its reliance on a small portion of scholarship, it is to be trusted over and against the very publications it relies on.

In short, you confirm what I said when I began this thread: facts, rational discussion, investigation, etc,. are apparently not important enough. Instead, linking to a book you haven't read as for support is more meaningful than the author's book or the dialogue between him and his critics which is rather extensive.

I have spent a great deal of time on this issue. And I very well may be wrong. In fact, that's one of the reasons I began this thread. I hoped that instead of google images, wiki quotes, and similar tactics which dominate such discussions, we could limit the debate to discussions of the works of those who have truly studied this matter, rather than tactics such as providing a link to a summary of a book wjocj the individual hasn't read. -

 

[Shermana]

Not wrong. Misleading and/or meaningless. I gave you a reference on this fact which noted the high percentage of Christian Germans relative to the population and how meangless this is. I have repeatedly said that the Nazis and Hitler relied on Christian prejudice, beliefs, and worldviews to manipulate the country.

So it's misleading to point out that the "Confessing Churches" did not represent anything close to the majority opinion? Got it. If we're in agreement that the Nazis were riding on Christian prejudice, then why are you arguing with me? This is not the first time you have argued with me on something ultimately agreed on while dancing around the specific actual points of contention.

In response, you keep pointing to the turning point which I have emphasized from the start. Even if we pretend that the extent of your familiarity with Nazi policies and the socio-political, religious, and culture understanding of pre-Nazi and Nazi policies is based on anything other than internet pages you defend with comments like:

Are you actually going to address my points? I'd love to see where your idea that there was anti-semitism in Germany before Jesus's time comes from for example. I'd also love to see evidence that the 1/6-of-protestants "Confessing Church" represented more than just a slim minority of Protestant views at the time.

(despite the fact that wikipedia entries are based on a fraction of scholarship, and thus direct acess to this makes wikipedia at best useless), you have yet to show this.

The only thing you're attacking it for is being Wikipedia, without attacking the actual facts, which you aren't even disputing, but calling misleading. And I fail to see what's so misleading about pointing out that the Confessing Church was a rather insignificant minority overall. It's not like the "German Christian" Church was the only representation of the pro-Nazi view among Protestants. If your source says anything about the Confessing Christians representing an actually significant majority of Christian views even after 1937, I must have missed it, please requote.

Additionally, you seem utterly determined to interpret what I have written before reading it, as evidenced by responses which not only distort what I have said,

What have I distorted what you have said exactly?

but also support my point. Of course, as apparently you have responded to what I have stated without (by your own admission) knowing what I actually claim:

Yes, I don't know what exactly you're trying to say because you seem insistent on writing off what I'm saying without actually addressing it, ESPECIALLY when we agree that the Nazis were riding on mainstream Christian prejudice, so like the others here, I'm not sure what your agenda here is. If you want to say the German confessing Churches were NOT a small minority, I asked you to bring up a page from your book to describe it as such. Feel free to do so. If you think I'm arguing that the Nazi leaders were themselves Christian, I think I've explained more than once that this is not what I'm saying. I agree with you that they weren't for the most part. I do believe Hitler was Catholic, but it wasn't just his opinion that ruled the day on the matter.

it is no wonder that you have yet to address anything significant at all,

How cute, accusing me of not addressing anything significant when you write off my point as "misleading" without any other commentary and avoiding support of the claims from your source that the 1/6 minority church somehow represents most Protestants.

other than a fevered desire to respond to perceived slights with the might of wikipedia and the claim that despite its reliance on a small portion of scholarship, it is to be trusted over and against the very publications it relies on.

Talk about fevered desire, you have such an issue with Wikipedia when you don't even substantiate your attack on the facts you agree with, that it represents 1/6 of the Protestants, as being "misleading".

In short, you confirm what I said when I began this thread: facts, rational discussion, investigation, etc,. are apparently not important enough. Instead, linking to a book you haven't read as for support is more meaningful than the author's book or the dialogue between him and his critics which is rather extensive.

So far I have yet to see actual facts and rational discussion and investigation that proves the Confessing Churches were as significant as you are claiming your source claims them to be.

I have spent a great deal of time on this issue. And I very well may be wrong.

Well at least you admit this possibility. But I don't think you're even on the same page of discussion as I am, as I am not saying the Nazis were Christian, I am saying the Christians were Nazis. Most of them at least.

In fact, that's one of the reasons I began this thread. I hoped that instead of google images, wiki quotes, and similar tactics which dominate such discussions, we could limit the debate to discussions of the works of those who have truly studied this matter, rather than tactics such as providing a link to a summary of a book wjocj the individual hasn't read.

-

You mean limit to a select pool of scholars who you agree with.

All I did was post to the book and say I wanted to read it, and posted a snippet of the review. You said it was wrong, without really substantiating, you said you'd seen the counters in the review, but you didn't really add anything besides that.

You should reexamined who is fevered here.

 

[outhouse]

Why cover for Christianity and why pretend that Hitler was not a Christian?

I agree.

There is no sense in trying to rationalize the mind of a tweeker either.


He had played both sides of the christian fence and was a crazy nut job, enough said.

 

[Quagmire]

Despots always exploit the prevailing ideologies of the masses in order to get into power. Once they do, they invariably supplant it with their own, and it isn't unusual at all for the end result to resemble something more akin to the polar opposite of the original.

I think it's next to impossible to say absolutely whether or not the Nazis should be considered Christian, mainly because the term itself has no absolute meaning; it can mean any number of things depending on who you're talking to. If you ask different people what a "true" Christian is, you're liable to get different answers, even from people attending the same church.

IMO, the only worthwhile application of the term is as an adjective when it's applied to certain actions and attitudes, all of which have "Do unto others" at it's hub.

By that definition, the Nazis were about as un-Christian as it's possible to be.

Religion has always been used as a tool by those seeking power, and in the case of Nazi Germany, IMO that's all that it was: a tool. That was the summation of the role it played.

As far as I'm concerned holding Christianity culpable for the Third Reich makes about as much sense as holding the Wright brothers responsible for the Blitzkrieg.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm going to bow out. I simply cannot believe that you or the historians you reference are able to read the minds of dead nazis to gain such certainty regarding who they prayed to when they went home from work, if anyone.

I understand (and applaud, as I am usually unable to do it) discontinuing a discussion one believes to be pointless because of fundamental and insurmountable differences. So the following is not directed at member quoted above. However, as a central aim here is to understand (to the extent possible) the worldviews, mindsets, ideology/ideologies, and other factors motivating both Hitler and the Nazis. As I have asserted a number of things about what the Nazis and Hitler believed, it is only fair that I give my reasons for thinking this is possible.

The first reason is not so much mine, nor even actually a reason, but is to simply point out that whenever one interprets statements like "I am a Christian" at face value or not, one is making a judgment about the mindset of another. For example, if a politician says they are conservative or liberal (or whatever), by accepting that statement one as true, one is making a judgment about the mind of an individual.

And whether we think about it or not, we do this all the time. Looking carefully beyond the immediate context and content of a statement like this:

For me it is enough that someone (anyone) claims to be a Christian, I am happy to believe them. if they display references to God on their matching outfits, I'm going to assume they are theists of some kind. I have no choice, as I can't read minds.

we may readily notice that, regardless of whether this is true for this thread topic, people in general do not simply accept such claims (i.e., those of identity, whether Christian or vegan or sports fan or whatever). Moreover, we frequently rely on actions and indirect statements which inform us as to the validity of such claims. If someone claims they are a huge fan of baseball, but doesn't know many basic rules of the game, we're not likely to believe them.

And when it comes to politics, not only do we frequently doubt the ways in which politicians describe their beliefs, we frequently do so as the default response because we know that politicians lie and often equate lying, misleading, dishonesty, and distortion with politicians.

Also, it's possible to hold a belief sincerely and still use it for personal worldly gain, so I am not buying the argument that the political conflicts between the Nazis and certain churches or religious leaders is a theological schism. They did not tolerate dissent, and they did not tolerate divided loyalties. That says nothing about the state of their faith in Jesus or God.

I find it odd, therefore, that the primary reason for identifying Hitler with any religion seems to be for some his words. Not only was he a politician, and like other politicians required the support of the people, he and his party were perhaps the greatest "artists" of propanda in human history.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find it odd, therefore, that the primary reason for identifying Hitler with any religion seems to be for some his words. Not only was he a politician, and like other politicians required the support of the people, he and his party were perhaps the greatest "artists" of propanda in human history.

For me it is more a matter of his basic personality. Sure, he lied a lot. But he was consistently very passionate, and very much the prototypical religious fanatic in behavior and goals.

 

[Alceste]

I understand (and applaud, as I am usually unable to do it) discontinuing a discussion one believes to be pointless because of fundamental and insurmountable differences. So the following is not directed at member quoted above. However, as a central aim here is to understand (to the extent possible) the worldviews, mindsets, ideology/ideologies, and other factors motivating both Hitler and the Nazis. As I have asserted a number of things about what the Nazis and Hitler believed, it is only fair that I give my reasons for thinking this is possible.

The first reason is not so much mine, nor even actually a reason, but is to simply point out that whenever one interprets statements like "I am a Christian" at face value or not, one is making a judgment about the mindset of another. For example, if a politician says they are conservative or liberal (or whatever), by accepting that statement one as true, one is making a judgment about the mind of an individual.

And whether we think about it or not, we do this all the time. Looking carefully beyond the immediate context and content of a statement like this:



we may readily notice that, regardless of whether this is true for this thread topic, people in general do not simply accept such claims (i.e., those of identity, whether Christian or vegan or sports fan or whatever). Moreover, we frequently rely on actions and indirect statements which inform us as to the validity of such claims. If someone claims they are a huge fan of baseball, but doesn't know many basic rules of the game, we're not likely to believe them.

And when it comes to politics, not only do we frequently doubt the ways in which politicians describe their beliefs, we frequently do so as the default response because we know that politicians lie and often equate lying, misleading, dishonesty, and distortion with politicians.

Also, it's possible to hold a belief sincerely and still use it for personal worldly gain, so I am not buying the argument that the political conflicts between the Nazis and certain churches or religious leaders is a theological schism. They did not tolerate dissent, and they did not tolerate divided loyalties. That says nothing about the state of their faith in Jesus or God.

I find it odd, therefore, that the primary reason for identifying Hitler with any religion seems to be for some his words. Not only was he a politician, and like other politicians required the support of the people, he and his party were perhaps the greatest "artists" of propanda in human history.

You are going beyond simply being skeptical of the claims of the Nazis that they were Christians (which is necessarily true of at least SOME of them, if not MOST, in a 90+% Christian country). You are claiming you and the historians know what they REALLY were.

What you and the historians you cite are failing to recognize (IMO) is that having a reasonable expectation or suspicion of dishonesty is not the same thing as knowing the truth. Ask anybody with a cheating spouse. You usually know something's "off" but you don't know who, where, when, why, and all the rest of it.

The reason this discussion is pointless is that you are BEGINNING with a flawed premise and expanding from there: You seem to believe that you can guess the minute details of someone's religious views simply by observing their behavior. I don't accept the premise, so dissecting the details of Nazi behavior at length is a waste of time for both of us.

There is no difference in the behavior of politicians in general who believe in God and / or Christ and those who don't, so trying to guess a politician's religion based on their public posturing is foolish. Even certain repressive inclinations toward science, sex, homosexuals and / or women could just as easily come from agnostic politicians with religious right electoral bases as politicians who personally believe in such things.

I propose if we want to begin anew we each define what we mean by "Christian". I will use Bertrand Russell's definition:

"I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian."

Do you have anything in your bag of tricks that would call either of these requirements into question?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

He even says so on Mein Kampf.

I have found that many people who make statements about Mein Kampf haven't actually read it, but have (from various sources) come across quotes which are in it. But regardless of who has or hasn't read it, their are often important things missed in discussions about the work, including some quite relevant to this topic:

"Hitler's political philosophy reflected a radical rejection of Christianity from the very beginning; a rejection that was quite explicit in Mein Kampf but not, of course, in his public appearances. Like Eckart and Goebbels, Hitler, too, based his diagnosis of the present situation on an unprecedented historical catastrophe, a break in world history wherein everything was at stake. For Hitler, however, the emergence of National Socialism coincided with the incipient and definitive collapse of Christianity. In Mein Kampf Hitler described the dominance of Christianity that began in late antiquity and extended over centuries as the biggest step backward in the history of mankind. Hitler claimed that National Socialism was breaking with Christian tradition, abandoning the disastrous, mistaken path of Christianity and steering history into an entirely new and correct direction. As is well known, he regarded the Christian churches as powerful institutions that threatened his claim to power and therefore had to be carefully and ruthlessly eliminated. Whereas Eckart and Goebbels appear to have combined Christian elements with non- or even anti-Christian elements into a kind of muddy amalgam, Hitler consciously contrasted Christianity and National Socialism as mutually exclusive alternatives."

Why, then, is Mein Kampf so frequently used to show that Hitler was Christian? Obviously, of course, the answer lies in the general reason for thinking so: the use of Christian symbolism, the references to Christian ideals, and what appear to be pro-Christian statements. However, apart from the issue of propaganda, these must be put in context. Before 1933, the state of religious belief, church activity, and Christianity in general faced various crises, including an increasingly secular population. Hitler did not simply pander to the mob by adopting Christian language. He (and the Nazi party) unified Germany in part by the creation of a pseduo-Religion:
"But why refer to the belief system of Hitler and his henchmen as a "Nazi political religion" instead of calling it simply a highly political form of Christianity? The distinction is slippery, and the more the German Volk and Blut acquired a sacred character, the more the Christian element disappeared...Because a "political religion" believes that it can eliminate contingency and thus liberate or "deliver" people from all their shortcomings through political, that is, controllable means, it is a secular belief system, not a religion. Although the foundation was laid by the Christian sacralization of the nation, Nazi "political religion" went much further: It retreated from the highly developed rationalism of Christian theology, from the differentiating processes associated with modernity, and initially from the taboo against violence that had once been a core value of Christianity but had been weakened by the nationalization of religion."

Hardtwig, W. (2001). Political Religion in Modern Germany: Reflections on Nationalism, Socialism, and National Socialism. Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, Washington, 28, 3-28.

Although receiving support was an important cause for the apparent Christianity of the Nazis, it was not the only by any means:

"Modern totalitarianism is best compared to a particular form of religion: an established church with compulsory adherence...

"More than that, the Nazis explicitly compared themselves to a religious movement and used religious language. Goebbels (1938) said in 1928:
'You will never find millions of people willing to die for an economic program. Millions will die for a gospel, and our movement is becoming more and ore of a gospel. All that we have individually experienced is joining to form a powerful faith that is so unshakably rooted in our hearts that each of us is willing to die if need be. (pp. 44-45)'
The Nazis used the language of Christianity in many ways, including their creation of martyrs for the movement (Bytwerk, 1979). An enormous number of other examples could be given. Kenneth Burke was correct when he saw Nazism as a perversion of fundamentally religious patterns of thought (Burke, 1957)."

Bytwerk, R. L. (1998). The propagandas of nazi germany and the german democratic republic. Communication Studies, 49(2), 158-171

Nor was Christianity the only symbolic/religious tool incorporated into the Nazi's "secular religion":

"Above all else, it is necessary to remind ourselves, National Socialism was a war in the name of the ‘Aryan-Nordic’ or ‘German’ blood races, which had been sacralized and deified in the sense of a new religious belief. It was this ethno-religious or German faith profession that was at the heart of the ‘new faith’, not Christianity, not the ‘old faith’."

Gailus, M. (2007). A Strange Obsession with Nazi Christianity: A Critical Comment on Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich. Journal of Contemporary History, 42(1), 35-46.

Numerous studies have been devoted to "the mythical dimension of National Socialism, the eccentric world of the movement’s ‘neo-pagans’, the symbolism and ritual of National Socialist cult and celebrations, and the Christian roots of both National Socialism and the Holocaust"

Ehret, U. (2007). Understanding the Popular Appeal of Fascism, National Socialism and Soviet Communism: The Revival of Totalitarianism Theory and Political Religion. History Compass, 5(4), 1236-1267.

These and other examples show how the Nazis used Christianity (and "paganism"), but do not necessarily address whether there existed at the heart of this propaganda a true Christian belief. By "true" I do not seek to define Christianity and thereby include or exclude the Nazis, but to determine (as far as possible) whether Hitler or the Nazis would honestly describe themselves as Christians, or if they would (if somehow forced) admit that they did not think of themselves as Christians at all and perhaps even that they despised religion or christianity in general.

We have superior evidence relative to Hitler's speeches and propanda to answer this question. Blackburn, in his book Education in the Third Reich: A Study of Race and History in Nazi Textbooks (State University Press, 1985), provides an excellent source. If the Nazis did think of themselves as Christians, then their educational program (an extremely carefully constructed "machine" for creating the future members of the Reich) should reflect this. Instead:
"By perennially injecting affirmations of religion into his speeches, the Nazi Fuehrer was able to pose as the defender of Christianity against godless Bolshevism, while behind the scenes he was craftily planning the annihilation of the Christian faith"

Blackburn discusses how "Neopaganism crept into the textbooks in numerous ways", refers to the influential and "most persistently anti-Christian history textbook" (So Ward das Reich) among other textbooks commissioned and distributed under the Nazi regime. The "removal of the unnatural veneer of Christian culture was a foremost task of Nazi education...The demolition of Christianity would clear the way for more robust Teutonic ideals and would permit the regime to substitute its own interpretation of history for the former faith. Christianity and Germanism were portrayed as polar opposites: the stifling, unnatural worship of an alien (even Semitic) God that enslaved man versus the empowering, instinctive worship of the German God of heroic nationalism that glorified man."

Which, then, is more indicative of the Nazis self-identification? Public speeches known to be filled with lies and consisting of carefully crafted propanda, or the instruments designed by the party and distributed to shape the next generation?

 

[Alceste]

How is Hitler's feeling that the INSTITUTION of the Church, and his unwillingness to share power with it, representative of his personal feelings about Christ and God?

Again, you're positing that it has to be one or the other - EITHER he was a Christian OR he persecuted Christian churches that posed a threat to his consolidation of power. What you haven't done is provide any reason why these are mutually exclusive possibilities.

Right now, MANY Christians believe that MOST Christians are corrupted, that the church is a corrupt institution, and that the relationship with God and Christ should be either a personal matter or pursued in the exact manner prescribed by their particular sect. You see it right here on RF every day.

Again, the persecution of ALL threats to his power, including dissident Christians, has NOTHING to do with whether Hitler personally believed in God and Christ.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So it's misleading to point out that the "Confessing Churches" did not represent anything close to the majority opinion?

Perhaps irrelevant is a better term. Recall that this exchange began with the following:

And the reason it is so easy to paint the Nazis as Christians is because the same is true when it comes to Christian symbols and traditions.

How about the fact that Christians overwhelmingly voted for them in the early period when they were spouting the same rhetoric as they did later when they tried to stamp out the elements of Traditional Christianity?

The problem is that they were not "spouting the same rhetoric" later:
"in the early years of the Third Reich, many Christians felt that their religious convictions were congruent with the Nazi worldview, and this illusion was nurtured by party propaganda...Nazi officials began to emphasize the separation of church and state and to treat the church controversy as a purely internal church affair, having nothing to do with the Nazi party or the government...Other party directives announced that the Nazi party intended to remain neutral on the church question and forbade party members from speaking publicly at religious rallies and from attending religious functions in party uniform. It was the opposite of previous Nazi party tactics and shows the extent to which Hitler was prepared to abandon his erstwhile allies, the “German Christians.” Indeed, some party insiders now scorned their representatives in the church struggle."

Barnett's For the Soul of the People (Oxford University Press, 1992).

"Beginning in late 1933, a series of directives from party and state offices tried to ensure the independence of Nazi organizations from church matters. On 13 October 1933, Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess issued a decree stating that no National Socialist was to suffer disadvantage for not belonging to a particular denomination or church party. In November 1935, party headquarters in Munich ordered strict reserve toward church affairs and dissociation of party members from church activities; in 1936, it prohibited party uniforms at church services or events. Himmler removed the SS from church concerns as well. In 1934, he ordered the "honorable discharge of clergymen of any confession" from the SS. A year later, he forbade members of the SS to play a leadership role in religious or faith organizations. As of August 1936, SS musicians could not participate in any religious services, even out of uniform."

Bergen's Twisted Cross : The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich (University of North Carolina Press, 1996).


So much did rhetoric and policy shift after 1933 that the newly spawned (1932) group of Nazi "German Christians" learned fairly quickly they didn't have the support they thought: "German Christians found little sympathy from the Nazi regime for their plans to create a national church...[Minister of Church Affairs] Kerrl accordingly prohibited any religious organizations from using National Socialist symbols...Nazi party and state organs assaulted Christian ritual in ways that offended even the German Christians." (ibid)

why are you arguing with me?

First because of your response I quoted above.

This is not the first time you have argued with me on something ultimately agreed

I'm not agreeing with you. The rhetoric, policies, and relationship between the Christians and the party radically changed.

I'd love to see where your idea that there was anti-semitism in Germany before Jesus's time comes from for example.

We can start with the big gorilla, the rhetoric against Jews.

Which goes back before Christianity and is perhaps the worst indication of "christian" alliance possible. By the time of Nazi germany, Christian anti-semiticism had so rooted itself in western culture that it no longer required any religious ties.

Where did I say that the "rhetoric against the Jews" which "goes back before Christianity" is all German?

I'd also love to see evidence that the 1/6-of-protestants "Confessing Church" represented more than just a slim minority of Protestant views at the time.

1) You seem to be under the impression that I ever said anything to imply something regarding how the Christians viewed the Nazis. I didn't. Quotes like this:

"By April 1934 this produced a formal revolt by a minority of anti-Nazi German Protestant pastors, who formed an independent Confessional Church with the support of four thousand of Germany’s seventeen thousand Protestant ministers...During 1936–37 approximately seven hundred pastors and priests were sentenced to the Buchenwald concentration camp"

I used to indicate the Nazi attitude to Christianity. I am not concerned here with the reverse.



2) As for the use of wikipedia and their numbers: "Many commentators equate the Confessing Church with Protestant resistance to Nazism. The Confessing Church rallied less against National Socialism than against German Christian domination of institutionalized Protestantism. Like the German Christian movement, the Confessing Church never broke completely with the established Protestant church. In that regard, Confessing "Church" was somewhat of a misnomer."
Bergen's Twisted Cross : The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich (University of North Carolina Press, 1996).

As there are no clear demarcation lines, nor even clear definitions, it's not much of an answerable question (even were it somehow relevant):

"despite initial postwar reverence for the Confessing Church, it was not a resistance movement against Nazism. Confessing Church members included baptized Jews and Nazi party members, radicals and moderates. Like most German Protestants in the 1930s, most Confessing Christians were nationalistic. Many were anti-Semitic. The Confessing Church became divided between radical members who wanted to break entirely with the German Evangelical Church and moderates who feared that the radicals were using politics to divide the church. The only thing all Confessing Christians had in common was their opposition to the absolute demands of Nazi ideology on their religious faith."
Barnett's For the Soul of the People (Oxford University Press, 1992).

The only thing you're attacking it for is being Wikipedia, without attacking the actual facts

In addition to both quotes immediately above, we can add:"Within German Protestantism the lines were by no means clearly drawn between supporters and critics of the Nazi regime's Church policies"
von Klempere, K. German Resistance Against Hitler: The Search for Allies Abroad, 1938-1945 (Clarendon, 1992).

Nor can we be as clear on this as wikipedia seems to indicate: "Certain aspects of regime policy attracted vehement criticism. Prominent among these were the attritional attacks on the Christian Churches. To speak of consensus behind the regime in this area would be impossible. There is no doubt, for instance, that the vast majority of Catholics—a third or so of the population—bitterly resented the assault on Catholic institutions, traditions and observances that reached its height between 1935 and 1937." from Kershaw's paper "Consensus, Coercion and Popular Opinion in the Third Reich: Some Reflections" in the volume Popular Opinion in Totalitarian Regimes: Fascism, Nazism, Communism (Oxford University Press, 2009)

And I fail to see what's so misleading about pointing out that the Confessing Church was a rather insignificant minority overall.

First the ability to determine the numbers of this "church", second to say that they somehow represented the opposition even just among protestants, and third that they were characterized centrally by their opposition to the Nazis.

What have I distorted what you have said exactly?

That I am in any way concerned here with whether every single Christian in the world supported Hitler or that only three did, all of whom lived in Alaska. You have taken what I said about the relationship between the Nazis and Christianity and turned it into a point I never made.

If you think I'm arguing that the Nazi leaders were themselves Christian, I think I've explained more than once that this is not what I'm saying.

1) The same parts of Christianity you are claiming the Nazis wanted to stamp out and didn't really believe in.

Apart from the issue of the vote/rhetoric, the above states I have claimed something about the relationship between the Nazis and Christianity. I made the statement about pre-Christian anti-semitic rhetoric because I don't believe the Nazi anti-semitic rhetoric was religiously based (at least not directly, as Christianity had already infused this view throughout western culture long before Hitler).

You mean limit to a select pool of scholars who you agree with.

1) I didn't have an opinion on this such that I could select scholars whom I agree with
2) I have relied on more than I have referenced, and even what I have referenced contains much which differs on many issues.

All I did.. You said it was wrong

That was unfair of me. I apologize. It was late and I had had too much to drink and too little sleep.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

How is Hitler's feeling that the INSTITUTION of the Church, and his unwillingness to share power with it, representative of his personal feelings about Christ and God?

If he had merely subsumed the church's authority, then it wouldn't be indicative of anything. The formal creation of the "German Christians" in 1932 not only supported the Nazis and Nazi ideals, but actively sought to be the true "Nazi Church", only to find themselves increasingly abandoned after 1933. They extolled Hitler as an emissary of God, they systematically eradicated the "Jewishness" of Christianity (the Old Testament and even Paul), they celebrated the "blood and honor"-type "manliness" the Nazi's loved, and yet after being attacked by anti-Christian Nazi's and "neopagans" (neopagan in the sense of Nazi's distorted, pseduo-pagan creation) and subsequently seeking Hitler's help, they received none. No matter how much the German Christians stripped away from Christianity, altered it, etc., it was at its heart neither völkisch nor a suitable ideology for das Herrenvolk/master race.

As a result, not only did the Nazis and Hitler stop caring much about the very people so instrumental in their rise to power, but they made numerous concerted efforts to alter the spiritual, "religious" framework (christianity) into a secular, political "cultic" one. And the pseudo-Nordic and "Aryan" mythology was far better suited.

Were the Nazis Christian, then after 1933 we would expect to find a greater emphasis or at least some clear support of some Christian church (state controlled or not) rather than a steady chipping away at the Christian worldview of the German nation and its replacement with the a neo-germanic secular mythicism. The central themes in Nazi ideology which were either found in Christianity or directly taken from it were Christian teleological eschatology, salvation/redemption, and perhaps most importantly the Christian version of messianism. The central emblem/symbol of the Nazi party was not the crucifix, which doesn't mean much on its own, but by 1937 not even the German Christians (the one's who had not only supported Hitler but stripped, altered, and "nazified" christianity to be the Nazi church) were prohibited from displaying Nazi symbols (including the Swastika) alongside religious symbols (especially the crucifix). Whatever Church the Nazis and Hitler intended or began to construct was at least as much a product of pagan and pseudo-pagan imagery, symbolism, and ethos as Christian. It also replaced the spirituality of Christianity with materialism, eternal/other-wordly redemption and eschatology with an earthly one, and the numinous aspect of the icons and symbols with a socio-political & cultural one.

Again, you're positing that it has to be one or the other - EITHER he was a Christian OR he persecuted Christian churches that posed a threat to his consolidation of power. What you haven't done is provide any reason why these are mutually exclusive possibilities.

I haven't said much about the threat to his power (although it was an issue and I did touch upon it). However, I never meant to indicate that the Nazi policies towards the church were motivated mainly by power struggles. First, the German Christians did just about everything possible to become the official Nazi church. They wanted Hitler to be the head. Second, even among the so-called "confessing church" were pro-Nazi members. Third, the Nazis did place church/religious matters under the authority of the Party, but did not seek to create a unified Christian Nazi church, despite the fact that a large number of their supporters had already tried to do that for them. Fourth, even after merging church and state, the only real church-related policies the Nazis issued either distanced/seperated the Party from christianity (by e.g., purging christians from the upper echelons) or infused existing traditions and symbolisms with "neo-pagan" and/or Nazi ones (W. J. Wilson's PhD dissertation Festivals and the Third Reich was on this). Fifth, instead of using their power over the educational system (and by power I mean complete control) to teach a specific "brand" of Christianity, or simply ban mention of it, they produced anti-Christian textbooks portraying Christianity as a weak, semitic-based religion and which was then deliberately and carefully contrasted against Teutonic/Germanic glory and strength.

Right now, MANY Christians believe that MOST Christians are corrupted, that the church is a corrupt institution, and that the relationship with God and Christ should be either a personal matter or pursued in the exact manner prescribed by their particular sect. You see it right here on RF every day.

You are correct. But once more, I'm not arguing that Hitler thought christianity corrupt. Rather, like Neitzsche, Freud, Jung, Marx, and others, Hitler and the other leading party members believed Christianity was finished. One can debate the ways in which different party leaders understood this (for some, outright hostility needed to be restrained for fear of upsetting the public), but the systematic dismantling of the traditional religious structures, the "sacralisation of politics", the political communality vs. spiritual, and other hallmarks of what are referred to as "political theologies", "secular religions", or "political religions" and are typically integral to totalitarian regimes do not indicate that Hitler thought Christianity or the church corrupt. Rather, he (and the Nazi party) thought it at best dead and an obstacle, and at worse a Semitic poison which had spread across Europe turning die Volkdeutsche into Untermenschen.

Again, the persecution of ALL threats to his power, including dissident Christians, has NOTHING to do with whether Hitler personally believed in God and Christ.

Were I relying on persecution of opposition as a means to show that Hitler wasn't Christian, then this would be a very serious challenge to the view I've expressed. But I'm not.