Do liberals and atheists honestly think Hitler represents Christianity?

[Sand Dancer]

Again, this is absurdly naive. We know Hitler was anti-religious because he made it abundantly clear to his inner circle. This is documented.

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
Hitler, Mein Kampf

"In the Bible we find the text, "That which is neither hot nor cold will I spew out of my mouth." This utterance of the great Nazarene has kept its profound validity until the present day."
Hitler, Speech in Munich, 10 April 1923

[in reference to the Jews] "The task which Christ began but did not finish, I will complete. " - Hitler 1926

not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls. . . We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity . . . in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people."
Hitler speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

"Let us pray in this hour that nothing can divide us, and that God will help us against the Devil! Almighty Lord, bless our fight!
Hitler address to the SA in 1930

"This is for us a ground for satisfaction, since we desire that the fight in the religious camps should come to an end . . . all political action in the parties will be forbidden to priests for all time, happy because we know what is wanted by millions who long to see in the priest only the comforter of their souls and not the representative of their political convictions."
Hitler speech to the men of the SA. at Dortmund, 9 July 1933, on the day after the signing of the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality. Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press-in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during recent years."
Hitler (a Radio Broadcast July 22, 1933; from My New Order, cited in The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1. pp. 871-872, Oxford University Press,London, 1942)

"National Socialism neither opposes the church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity."
Hitler, 1934 speech

"I believe that it was God's will to send a youth from here into the Reich, to let him grow up, to raise him to be the leader of the nation so as to enable him to lead back his homeland into the Reich….In three days the Lord has smitten them… And to me the grace was given on the day of the betrayal to be able to unite my homeland [Austria] with the Reich….I would now give thanks to Him who let me return to my homeland in order than I might now lead it into my German Reich. Tomorrow, may every German recognize the hour, and measure its import and bow in humility before the Almighty who in a few weeks has wrought a miracle upon us." Hitler, Closing speech of the campaign at Vienna, 9 April 1938

Gott Mitt Uns on their hats?

He was a crazy Jose but he wasn't atheist.

Marxism is an economic view, not a religious view. There are Christian Marxists.

 

[Vouthon]

Dabru Emet was issued by over 220 rabbis and intellectuals from all branches of Judaism in 2000. This document states,

"Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of Christian anti-Judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out. Too many Christians participated in, or were sympathetic to, Nazi atrocities against Jews. Other Christians did not protest sufficiently against these atrocities. But Nazism itself was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity."​

I think that's a fair assessment.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

I'm trying to get through the Mao and Pol Pot thread but the notion that Hitler represents over 2 billion people is stupid.

Actually, Hitler was a Catholic. And the Pope of that time never once excommunicated him or any member of his SS. Really bad history there as far as the RCC's affiliation with Hitler and his evil.
And it is correct that thinking Hitler represents Catholicism or Christianity is not only repugnant but ignorant.

 

[TheresOnlyNow]

The people he murdered followed the Old Testament...

There were many that were victims of the Holocaust. Not just the Jews.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Except the source said ancestor worship was suppressed in China..

Which I do not believe for one second.

We can safely assume the same for Cambodia because Mao and Pol Pot were best friends; just like Mao was with Kim il Sung..

No. We cannot safely assume....

Also multiple posters in this thread have said Hitler wanted to do away with the Catholic Church in Germany. Maybe he was Protestant but he definitely wasn't Catholic

And multiple posters were **wrong** about that, too.... oh well.

 

[Vouthon]

I don't think I can trust that conclusion, personally. Hitler was a person of troubled, conflicting passions, and it is well documented that he studied to be a priest. That is in fact how he learned of the swastika.

In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.

— Extract from Hitler: a Study in Tyranny, by Alan Bullock
​

There is a consensus among historians who specialise in the study of Nazism - i.e. Ian Kershaw, Richard Overy, Alan Bullock, and Joachim Fest among many others - that Hitler was aggressively anti-Christian, and this judgement is confirmed in Hitler’s Table Talk, Goebbels Diaries, and the memoirs of Albert Speer. Goebbels summed it up when he stated that Hitler “hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity.” (‘The Goebbels Diaries.’) Shirer also adds that “under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler—backed by Hitler—the Nazi regime intended to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could". (Shirer, w. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. p. 240.) Hitler's private secretary from 1941, Martin Bormann even said publicly in 1941 that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable" (William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p. 240).

You can't really argue with that, since these were the men at the top of the regime who dealt with Hitler on a daily basis and tried to implement his vision.

He was neither a Christian, atheist or pagan in his personal beliefs - but he led a movement that included Christians, atheists and neo-pagans.

While Hitler was sent to a monastic boarding-school by his Catholic mother - after the death of his abusive, anti-clerical father - and at one point dreamed about having the authority of a priest (i.e. he admired the respect they received from their parishioners and the impressive symbols), he never actually studied to be a priest. I'm not sure where you read this because its untrue. He was never a seminarian and actually mocked priests as "walking abortions in cassocks".

It is on record that he would sit bored out of his skull during mass and never returned to another one again, after moving school.

He waited until his mother's death, though, to "come-out" so to speak, as the intemperate anti-clericalist that he was. He loved his mother (the only human we know about that he seemed to really care for) and didn't want to offend her with his hatred for her religion while she yet breathed.

But his own views on Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, are crystal clear from his private discussions with other Nazi elites i.e. from his Table Talk monologues in their original German (transcribed principally by his secretary Martin Bormann from 1941-1944):

• "The law of selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure."

• Night of 10 October 1941; p. 51.

"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 [p. 60] stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity...

It's Christianity that's the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself...On the road to Damascus, St. Paul discovered that he could succeed in ruining the Roman State by causing the principle to triumph of the equality of all men before a single God—and by putting beyond the reach of the laws his private notions, which he alleged to be divinely inspired.

It's striking to observe that Christian ideas, despite all St. Paul's efforts, had no success in Athens. The philosophy of the Greeks was so much superior to this poverty-stricken rubbish that the Athenians burst out laughing when they listened to the apostle's teaching. But in Rome St. Paul found the ground prepared for him. His egalitarian theories had what was needed to win over a mass composed of innumerable uprooted people."

Midday 21 October 1941; pp. 76-77. Entry made by Martin Bormann personally​

 

[ronki23]

Which I do not believe for one second.


No. We cannot safely assume....


And multiple posters were **wrong** about that, too.... oh well.

What you do or don't believe is irrelevant. The truth is that Mao and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism. Hitler on the other hand wasn't even a proper Christian; sure he had support from Christians but he himself wasn't a conventional Christian

 

[Augustus]

Which I do not believe for one second.

For anyone interested in the source:

Demographic Research is a monthly peer-reviewed, open access academic journal covering demography. It was established in 1999 and is published by Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research.

"Rational" New Atheist types here are the worst offenders at dismissing academic scholarship out of hand whenever it goes against their ideological assumptions. The human mind is a funny thing

 

[SomeRandom]

What you do or don't believe is irrelevant. The truth is that Mao and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism. Hitler on the other hand wasn't even a proper Christian; sure he had support from Christians but he himself wasn't a conventional Christian

Mao and Pol Pot killed in the name of power. To keep control.
How does one do anything in the name of athiesm anyway?
There's no central text or figure head like religions.
Hitler is usually disavowed by Christians today. But he still managed to gain their support back then. Hell aren't the KKK Christians who were more or less on board with him? They're still around even to this day, sadly.
Does his Christianity or lackthereof prove anything? No. The hate for Hitler is the one thing most people can agree upon, even across religious boundaries.

Religion doesn't make one impervious to siding with scumbags. Nor does the lack of religious belief mean that one will never side with a scumbag. (By today's standards I mean.)
Hell the suffragettes teamed up with the KKK back in the day. Granted they weren't exactly friendly and the partnership was, let's say "complicated."
But they're still called out for "selling out their sisters of colour because of religion (and mostly race.)"
What does this prove exactly?
People are complicated and politics can be deadly?

 

[Vouthon]

@SomeRandom yes, indeed. The KKK are a Christian Nativist-racist movement and some Nazis were Christian (i.e. Walter Buch), others were atheist (i.e. Joseph Goebbels), others were neo-pagan (i.e. Himmler).

But Hitler himself wasn't Christian and nor was the Nazi movement, in its essentials, a Christian phenomenon like the KKK.

Hitler's deputy Martin Bormann explained the general view held amongst the elite in the Party, in a memorandum circulated on 6th June 1941 (Nuremburg Tribunal document 075):

National Socialist and Christian concepts are irreconcilable. The Christian churches build upon man's ignorance and endeavour to keep the greatest number of people in a state of ignorance...[so] that the churches can maintain their power. National Socialism, on the other hand, rests on scientific foundations.

Christianity has certain unalterable principles, established nearly two thousand years ago, which have petrified into a system of dogma that is ever removed from reality...

When we National Socialists speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God.

The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest

(Conway, John S. (1997). The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, p. 383. Full Letter Archived 14 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine.)

​

Some scholars have concluded that the movement, as a whole, was closest to some kind of 'pantheism' in which the laws of nature became 'omnipotence' or 'providence'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Dabru Emet was issued by over 220 rabbis and intellectuals from all branches of Judaism in 2000. This document states,

"Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of Christian anti-Judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out. Too many Christians participated in, or were sympathetic to, Nazi atrocities against Jews. Other Christians did not protest sufficiently against these atrocities. But Nazism itself was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity."​

I think that's a fair assessment.

Is there any belief under the overall umbrella of Christianity that was "an inevitable outcome of Christianity?"

I mean, not even Trinitarianism is "an inevitable outcome of Christianity," so it seems to me that being inevitable isn't a requirement for an idea to be genuinely Christian.

 

[Vouthon]

Is there any belief under the overall umbrella of Christianity that was "an inevitable outcome of Christianity?"

I mean, not even Trinitarianism is "an inevitable outcome of Christianity," so it seems to me that being inevitable isn't a requirement for an idea to be genuinely Christian.

I agree with you, contingency and human agency always come into play.

But the rabbis and scholars were correct to note that (1) Nazism itself is not a Christian phenomenon (in the way that the KKK are or apartheid Afrikaner Calvinism was) (2) Nazi ideology used centuries-long Judeophobia in Europe amongst Christians to promote their new racialist ceed amidst a majority-Christian populace and (3) there were a good many Christians who were complicit.

I don't see anything contestable in that assessment and in my lengthy prior postings I investigated this in some depth.

 

[Sand Dancer]

What you do or don't believe is irrelevant. The truth is that Mao and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism. Hitler on the other hand wasn't even a proper Christian; sure he had support from Christians but he himself wasn't a conventional Christian

Dictatorship want power, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

 

[SomeRandom]

@SomeRandom yes, indeed. The KKK are a Christian Nativist-racist movement and some Nazis were Christian (i.e. Walter Buch), others were atheist (i.e. Joseph Goebbels), others were neo-pagan (i.e. Himmler).

But Hitler himself wasn't Christian and nor was the Nazi movement, in its essentials, a Christian phenomenon like the KKK.

Hitler's deputy Martin Bormann explained the general view held amongst the elite in the Party, in a memorandum circulated on 6th June 1941 (Nuremburg Tribunal document 075):

National Socialist and Christian concepts are irreconcilable. The Christian churches build upon man's ignorance and endeavour to keep the greatest number of people in a state of ignorance...[so] that the churches can maintain their power. National Socialism, on the other hand, rests on scientific foundations.

Christianity has certain unalterable principles, established nearly two thousand years ago, which have petrified into a system of dogma that is ever removed from reality...

When we National Socialists speak of belief in God, we do not mean, like the naive Christians and their spiritual exploiters, a man-like being sitting around somewhere in the universe. The force governed by natural law by which all these countless planets move in the universe, we call omnipotence or God.

The assertion that this universal force can trouble itself about the destiny of each individual being, every smallest earthly bacillus, can be influenced by so-called prayers or other surprising things, depends upon a requisite dose of naivety or else upon shameless professional self-interest

(Conway, John S. (1997). The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, p. 383. Full Letter Archived 14 May 2012 at the Wayback Machine.)

​

Some scholars have concluded that the movement, as a whole, was closest to some kind of 'pantheism' in which the laws of nature became 'omnipotence' or 'providence'.

To be honest with you, I've never considered the Nazis to be Christians. They could be Wiccan satanists for all I care.
But they still gained the support of Christians regardless of their own personal beliefs on theism as a whole.
So who cares?
Not all Germans during WWII supported the Nazis. Not all Christians did either. People make their own decisions and so they must live with the consequences. Sometimes a charismatic leader can come along and get people to do horrible things. Religion doesn't seem to protect people from falling under such spells. But C'est la vie.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What you do or don't believe is irrelevant. The truth is that Mao and Pol Pot killed in the name of atheism..

No. that is absolutely false. Nobody kills in the "name" of "gods not existing".

They killed because they were despots. They killed to get and keep power-- just like all religious leaders before them did.

You seem to think atheism is a creed or motto or religion or some other insane StrawMan.

Hitler on the other hand wasn't even a proper Christian; .

Says you. But YOU don't get to decide that, do you? nope. Hitler certainly believed he was a 'proper christian'.

He likely would have had a very low opinion of ... you (and me, for that matter).

sure he had support from Christians but he himself wasn't a conventional Christian

Null phrase: "conventional christian" is without meaning. Seeing as how there are 40,000 different flavors of "christian".

Each separate and distinct from the others-- self-identified so.

So your complaint here? Is devoid of logic.

Moreover? There are quite a largish fraction of 'Christians' in the USA, who do think highly of Hitler and what he stood for....

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Fail. Lots of theists are also materialists. Here, you demonstrate your abject ignorance: just because it doesn't match YOUR warped theism, you pretend it isn't theistic.

Yeah. I'm one. I think we can discuss theological topics without having to resort to silly narrative handwaving (magic).

And the Chinese government isn't so much anti-religion as it's pro-controlled religion. The Chinese government has several officially sanctioned Christian denominational organizations. This certainly isn't in line with freedom of religion, but like many theocracies, they're fine with religious worship and belief as long as it's in a form that they sanction and control.

Like Israel.

I deny that Nazism is a Christian ideology.

It's not like Christians didn't think Jews should die for killing Jesus in the bible ... wait ...

But it's not as if any person or thing is "representative of all Christian thinking."

Given that Jesus complains that the apostles didn't understand him and many Christians quote Paul more than Jesus, one could argue Jesus doesn't represent all Christian thinking.

It appears to me that atheist are their own god, and make the rules to suit themselves, if they even choose to have any rules.

It appears to me that many Christians look in the mirror and say hi to Yahweh.

How on earth are you linking secular humanism to the Iraq War? AFAIK, most if the decision-makers on it weren't even secular humanists.

I thought Mr. Mission Accomplished thought Jesus told him to kill Iraqis?

The early 20th C equivalent of you would have a very good chance of supporting eugenics: progressive-ish, advocate of scientific-rationalism, etc.

Eugenics will never be properly rational because its most loyal adherents always choose the stupidest and shallowest things to be proud of regarding their own bodies. They would kill a disabled child whose genes held the cure for cancer because the wheelchair looked ugly. White supremacists even today seem to have nothing to show for their lives other than a lack of melanin, which is just SAD.

Jews often suffered terrible treatment under Christian hands (although how bad depended a lot on where and when you were) but the idea of a government implemented systemic extermination was only made possible by twentieth century ideas of eugenics and Ariosophy.

Alhambra Decree - Wikipedia

I think that's a fair assessment.

I don't. It's like saying Romans had nothing to do with crucifying Jesus because you're trying to make friends with Romans.
edit:
Imagine this scene: You have a drunk friend who just crashed their car, destroying it and you hug them and go "Awwww, it's okay, it's not your fault, honey." That is how I take that passage. It is precisely their fault, but the victims are trying to be polite.

You can't really argue with that, since these were the men at the top of the regime who dealt with Hitler on a daily basis and tried to implement his vision.

It doesn't seem weird to you that your opponents quote actual Hitler while you and those who support your position quote people other than Hitler?

but he himself wasn't a conventional Christian

Neither was Jesus, the Jew.

 

[Jumi]

Discussions on Hitler are always so positive. Everyone just wants to hand the hot potato to someone else. It was the atheists! No, it was the Catholics! Pagans! Protestants! Scientists! It's quite easy to go blaming since there are always a bunch of sources both real and manufactured supporting each of these. It just depends on how far one is willing to go to ignore the fact that it wasn't actually all that simple.

 

[2ndpillar]

It appears to me that many Christians look in the mirror and say hi to Yahweh.

They might say it, but is it true? And the LORD's name is "I am". (Exodus 3:14) Who is the LORD? answer: "I am".

Exodus 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

 

[2ndpillar]

Discussions on Hitler are always so positive. Everyone just wants to hand the hot potato to someone else. It was the atheists! No, it was the Catholics! Pagans! Protestants! Scientists! It's quite easy to go blaming since there are always a bunch of sources both real and manufactured supporting each of these. It just depends on how far one is willing to go to ignore the fact that it wasn't actually all that simple.

Hitler is just part of the 8th head of the beast (Revelation 17:11-16), with 10 horns, who would hate, persecute, and burn the "harlot", who is Judah , for Judah and Ephraim were to be under judgment until they "acknowledge their guilt" (Hosea 5). The Roman church was also good at hating, persecuting, and burning the "harlot". But the bottom line is that all the "kingdoms" of Daniel 2:35 will be "crushed", "all at the same time", after their initial crushing of Daniel 2:31-34.

 

[Augustus]

Eugenics will never be properly rational because its most loyal adherents always choose the stupidest and shallowest things to be proud of regarding their own bodies. They would kill a disabled child whose genes held the cure for cancer because the wheelchair looked ugly. White supremacists even today seem to have nothing to show for their lives other than a lack of melanin, which is just SAD.

In the late 19th and early 20th C though scientific racialism was considered actual science. As such it was popular among rationalists. Eugenics, although not intrinsically linked to racialism (although could be), was another thing supported by scientific-minded progressives of the era.

We rightly consider such things to be irrational, immoral or pseudo-science today, but back then they were common positions held among the educated middle and upper-classes.