← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · neoclassical
Thread ID: 15458 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2004-10-28
2004-10-28 00:36 | User Profile
[size=2][size=2] Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real "god" of Hitler and the Nazis in his article, "The Trauma of the Holocaust: Some Historical Perspectives," by saying: ""They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies." In other words, definitely non-Christian.
Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch."
As Hitler grew in power, he made other anti-Christian statements. For example, he was quoted in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, by Allan Bullock, as saying: "I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."
But in contrast to these quotes, some of Hitler's speeches definitely seem to put him in the Christian camp as a fighter against atheism. For example, he said, on signing the Nazi-Vatican Concordat, April 26, 1933: "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . ."
An Associated Press article from the Lansing State Journal, February 23, 1933, is headlined, "Hitler Aims Blow at 'Godless' Move," and talks about how Hitler was campaigning against atheist communists and wanted support from Catholic Nazis. One line in the article specifically says, "Hitler, himself, is a Catholic." (You can see the entire article at [url="http://www.infidels.org/library/his"]http://www.infidels.org/library/his[/url] torical/unknown/hitler.html .) In addition, in 1941, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." He never left the church. He was baptized a Roman Catholic as an infant and was a communicant and altar boy in his youth.
In a speech at Koblenz, August 26, 1934, Hitler said: "National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary it stands on the ground of a real Christianity . . . For their interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of today, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life . . . These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles!"
Related to the above, the "Religion" article in The Oxford Companion to World War II notes that early on in his career, Hitler sponsored something called "practical Christianity," and that "German Christians emerged who claimed to be able to synthesize the best of National Socialism [Nazism] and the best of Christianity. Many Christians seemed to be able to reconcile themselves to at least certain aspects of anti-Semitic legislation. Those who could not . . . often ended up in concentration camps . . . Many anguished Christians serving in the Wehrmacht began to feel a little more comfortable about supporting a war that now included the overthrow of godless communism."
Anton Gil notes in his book, An Honourable Defeat: A History of German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945: "For his part, Hitler naturally wanted to bring the church into line with everything else in his scheme of things. He knew he dare not simply eradicate it: that would not have been possible with such an international organisation, and he would have lost many Christian supporters had he tried to. His principal aim was to unify the German Evangelical Church under a pro-Nazi banner, and to come to an accommodation with the Catholics."
[url="http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html"]http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhitlerchristian.html[/url]
Adolf Hitler privately to Heinrich Himmler, October 14, 1941:
"It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn't facilitate our exercise of power.
"First, in this way the authority of the state would be vitiated by the fact of the intervention of a third power concerning which it is impossible to say how long it would remain reliable. In the case of the Anglican Church, this objection does not arise, for England knows she can depend upon her church. But what about the Catholic Church? Wouldn't we be running the risk of her one day going into reverse after having put herself at the service of the state solely in order to safeguard her power? If one day the state's policy ceased to suit Rome or the clergy, the priests would turn against the state, as they are doing now. History provides examples that should make us careful.
"Secondly there is also a question of principle. Trying to take a long- range view of things, is it conceivable that one could found anything durable based on falsehood? When I think of our people's future, I must look beyond immediate advantages, even if these advantages were to last 300-500 years or more. I'm convinced that any pact with the church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the state will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.
"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.
"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 program. Time will pass 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 advance 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's 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.
"But one must continue to pay attention to another aspect of the problem. It's possible to satisfy the needs of the inner life by an intimate communion with nature., or by knowledge of the past. Only a minority, however, at the present stage of the mind's development, can feel the respect inspired by the unknown and thus satisfy the metaphysical needs of the soul. The average human being has the same needs, but can satisfy them only by elementary means. That's particularly true of women, as also of peasants who impotently watch the destruction of their crops. The person whose life tends to simplification is thirsty for belief, and he dimly clings to it with all his strength.
"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 reestablish the worship of Odin. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that point 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.
"If in the course of 1-2,000 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 which is the liar; it's in perpetual conflict with itself.
"One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of a belief in God. That's not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretize the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?"
[url="http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4885/hitler.html"]http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4885/hitler.html[/url] [/size][/size]
2004-10-28 02:44 | User Profile
This has been discussed and argued at length on this forum before. We could dig up the threads, but most of the most passionate actors are gone now. They feel we miss them deeply :lol:
In any sense, your posts is one of the best ones I've seen. Thanks for your contribution.
I've always personaly felt that the mentality of the right wing WWI era German (from where the Nazi's came) was not just ambivelent towards Christianity, but in ways positively schizophrenic. This schizophrenia was perfectly symbolized by the two books every German soldier was issued 1. A Copy of *Thus Spake Zarathustra and 2. A Bible, which Nietzsche surely felt just the presence of was defiling, and must of turned over in his grave at seeing it laid next to his beloved work (or whatever else demoniacs do, after death).
2004-10-28 05:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]This has been discussed and argued at length on this forum before.
I've always personaly felt that the mentality of the right wing WWI era German (from where the Nazi's came) was not just ambivelent towards Christianity, but in ways positively schizophrenic.[/QUOTE] Yep - well, the issue doesn't go away, and hasn't gone away since WWII and before.
Christianity divides the white nationalists. Until we resolve this issue, it will continue to defeat us as it has done for 1,000 years now.
In my view, the right wing is a failure for this reason.
Something with a greater appeal to Tradition is needed.
But, as some jackboot on VNN pointed out, it seems impractical to alienate the 85% of the white race that are Christian.
However, a healthy 15% that at least survive... that's a better future.
2004-10-28 08:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=neoclassical]Yep - well, the issue doesn't go away, and hasn't gone away since WWII and before.
Christianity divides the white nationalists. Until we resolve this issue, it will continue to defeat us as it has done for 1,000 years now.
In my view, the right wing is a failure for this reason.
Odd. The Conservatives
Something with a greater appeal to Tradition is needed.
Certainly. The German revolutionary conservatives argued that they needed to rediscover the greatness of the last 1000 years. Today's White revolutionaries argue it is a failure, because of its "metaphysical" nature, and argue it needs to be put on purely a "scientific" basis ultimately.
In doing so, it strikes me they have a weak basis to differentiate themselves from the Communists, who base themselves more straightforwardly on science.
I never understood actually why the National Socialists feared religion so much. In the case of the Protestants it seemed they got very good results. It was only in the case of the Catholics, that they seemed to encounter real problems.
In any event, some National Socialists do seem to be realizing that by undermining Christianity in Europe in the past it undermined the traditions that were the only real chance for a National revival in Europe. Hence they bear a good deal of responsibility for the present day continuous dependency on international communism or capitalism.
But, as some jackboot on VNN pointed out, it seems impractical to alienate the 85% of the white race that are Christian.
However, a healthy 15% that at least survive... that's a better future. [/QUOTE] As long as you get the 85% to go along with their own self destruction for the remnant (note the inherently Jewish concept in this train of thought) I suppose that's possible. I don't think a movement that starts by caling for the annihilation of 85% of the white race has much to offer over communism. Which is why so many of the Nazi's ended up casting lots with the Commies in the end. (The real reason NS disappeared in Germany.), as so many even today seem to be drifting in that direction, re many things like the unqualified Putin cult IMO.
2004-10-28 11:30 | User Profile
The best book on this subject is Richard Steigmann-Gall's recently published [COLOR=Blue]"The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945."[/COLOR]
[COLOR=Blue]"Synopsis
Analyzing the previously unexplored religious views of the Nazi elite, Richard Steigmann-Gall argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it. He demonstrates that many participants in the Nazi movement believed that the contours of their ideology were based on a Christian understanding of Germany's ills and their cure. A program usually regarded as secular in inspiration - the creation of a racialist 'people's community' embracing antisemitism, antiliberalism and anti-Marxism - was, for these Nazis, conceived in explicitly Christian terms. His examination centers on the concept of 'positive Christianity,' a religion espoused by many members of the party leadership. He also explores the struggle the 'positive Christians' waged with the party's paganists - those who rejected Christianity in toto as foreign and corrupting - and demonstrates that this was not just a conflict over religion, but over the very meaning of Nazi ideology itself. "[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521823714/geometrynet-20/ref%3Dnosim/702-1542420-7260012[/url]
And no, I do not personally consider Hitler to have been a Christian. All the worse for him.
Petr
Moderator's note - see thread [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15470]Was Hitler's Secretary Martin Bormann A Soviet Spy[/URL] for other discussions related to this thread - Okieredust
2004-11-01 14:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=neoclassical] Historian Paul Johnson wrote that Hitler hated Christianity with a passion, adding that shortly after assuming power in 1933, Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch." [/QUOTE]
If it was indeed true that Hitler was anti-Christian, that could be the best explanation why Germany was totally crushed in WW2 and Hitler's movement evaporated.
2004-11-01 14:50 | User Profile
[COLOR=Blue] - "Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch." [/COLOR]
As neoclassical should well know, Hermann Rauschning has been totally discredited as reliable source, even in the mainstream scholarship.
Petr
2004-11-01 20:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Blue] - "Hitler told Hermann Rauschnig that he intended "to stamp out Christianity root and branch." [/COLOR]
As neoclassical should well know, Hermann Rauschning has been totally discredited as reliable source, even in the mainstream scholarship. Petr[/QUOTE]Is that really true? Do you have a reference for that?
I know it is a problem regarding the Third Reich National Socialist figures in general. But to totally disregard all questionable sources means a lot of time you also lose a great deal of valuble material.
Its a tough question. As you know, we've already had Bormann questioned on this thread ([URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15470]or successors[/URL]) now we dismiss Rauschning.
People are always looking for what Hitler said though as a tarot leaf into what the Third Reich attitude, and indeed that of "true" National Socialism's, attitude toward religion was (and by inference should be). As you stated it goes to "the very meaning of Nazi ideology itself" especially as Hitler himself is considered sort of an symbolic last word on what National Socialism was and wasn't, for a number of reasons.
Overall then, Kilzer's book paints a sort of interesting portrait of the deficiencies of Hitler and National Socialism along these lines. If a number of those closest to Hitler, including many who influence his interpretation and construction of National Socialism, were so acutely aware of it and his deficiencies that they looked with admiration at, flirted with, and even rendevous'd with Stalin, it doesn't seem good really for National Socialism as a coherent ideology anyway, especially one in opposition to Communism.
2004-11-01 21:59 | User Profile
[COLOR=DarkRed] - "Is that really true? Do you have a reference for that?"[/COLOR]
It's already quite common knowledge, Okie.
A revisionist source says:
[COLOR=Blue][B][SIZE=3]"Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations With Hitler': An Update"[/SIZE][/B]
"The phony memoir was designed to incite public opinion in democratic countries, especially in the United States, in favor of war against Germany."[/COLOR]
[url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p499_Weber.html[/url]
That Steigmann-Gall book I mentioned describes how mainstream scholarship has also ceased to pay attention to Rauschning's book as a reliable source.
Petr
2004-11-02 05:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed] - "Is that really true? Do you have a reference for that?"[/COLOR]
It's already quite common knowledge, Okie.
A revisionist source says:
[COLOR=Blue][B][SIZE=3]"Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations With Hitler': An Update"[/SIZE][/B]
"The phony memoir was designed to incite public opinion in democratic countries, especially in the United States, in favor of war against Germany."[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Yes, that was interesting
But not everyone has been so credulous. Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel spent five years diligently investigating the memoir before announcing his findings in 1983 at a revisionist history conference in West Germany. The renowned Conversations with Hitler, he declared are a total fraud. The book has no value "except as a document of Allied war propaganda.".............
A report about Haenel's sensational findings appeared in the Fall 1983 issue of The Journal of Historical Review. More recently, West Germany's most influential weekly periodicals, Die Zeit, and Der Spiegel (7 September 1985), have run lengthy articles about historical hoax. Der Spiegel concluded that Rauschning's Conversations with Hitler "are a falsification, an historical distortion from the first to the last page ... Haenel not only proves the falsification, he also shows how the impressive surrogate was quickly compiled and which ingredients were mixed together."
I wonder BTW if [I]Der Spiegel [/I] and [I]Die Ziet[/I] gave any credit to Haenel and the IHR. Probably not, not that it would make things any easier for them.
I do have a problem with this, because so much of the mainstream stuff I have read has cited Rauschning as very good, though not without flaws, source on Nazism, and Rauschning himself was such an intersting reader at times. Probably an instance of a smart but somewhat obscure person with perhaps an understandable vendetta against the Nazi's (being a disgrunted ex-Nazi) being willing to embelish the truth in the furtherance of a deeper truth, and of course to make him sound more important than he really is. Rather common for both Nazi's and anti-Nazi's. (I've heard similar stories for instance about the Strasser's work).
Anyway thanks for the reference.
It is quite interesting though that we have very prominent Nazi sources on putative Hitler's anti-religious views, one from the right and one from the left, who both for their respective agenda's seem to altogether extremely unreliable. I guess it shows you how difficult it is to sometimes get to the truth of what Hitler, and to some extent National Socialism itself, really was.