Ratzinger compared me to a Nazi. Why? Because I choose not to believe in his God. Yet he is the product of the very same conservative German Christianity that allowed the Nazis to come to power.
Then, the Catholic League demanded that I should apologise for Hitler. Why? The evidence shows that he was a Christian.
"I am now, as before a Catholic, and will always remain so"
"I am now, as before a Catholic, and will always remain so"
(Adolph Hitler
There is an erroneous, if popular, belief that the Nazis were fundamentally anti-Christian while devout Christians were anti-Nazi.
On one hand, this is a denial based on the argument that no true Christian could do or advocate such things. Therefore they were not true Christians and their crimes cannot be attributed to Christianity. This argument could be extended to all the crimes committed by Christians over the course of history.
This is known as the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy, because it relies on shifting the definition of "Christian" to match whatever conclusion a person prefers.
On the other it is an Ad Hoc argument, as explains away endorsement of Christianity Hitler and the Nazis as a political ploy which In private, the had no intention of promoting it in reality.
There is no credible evidence that the Nazis were anti-Christian. Indeed the evidence suggests otherwise. Private and public remarks made by the Nazis on Christianity were the same, indicating an intention to act as they claimed.
While many Christians today struggle with the idea that their religion had anything in common with Nazism, they need to accept that it was conditioned by the culture around it. There was much common ground to be found between Christianity and the Nazis.
"For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."
(Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf
 |
Roman Catholic Priests giving the |
Nazi condemnation of everything modern was the key to their popularity with German Christians. The Weimar Republic Germany's
"ATHEIST HALL CONVERTED"
Berlin Churches Establish Bureau to Win Back Worshippers
Wireless to the New York Times.
The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany
(New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing of atheistic and freethinking groups in Germany in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree)
In Germany
An important aspect of the Nazi state is that they did not invent anti-Semitism. Rather, the centuries of Christian anti-Semitism and extensive anti-Semitic theology in Germany Jesus . They didn’t follow an idiosyncratic version of Christianity. Nor was it “infected” with hate and nationalism. Everything about Nazi Christianity already existed in German Christianity.
Like the Nazis, German religious leaders believed that Jewishness was more than just a religion, a position reinforced when they supplied the Nazis with baptismal and marriage records to help identify converted Jews for extermination.
 |
Page from the anti-Semitic German children's book, " |
The Christian church's ‘resistance’ to Nazism seldom extended beyond that which threatened it’s own activities. They tolerated widespread violence against Jews, military rearmament, invasions of foreign nations, the banning labour unions, the imprisonment of political dissenters and the detention of people who had committed no crimes. The Nazi's euthanasia policy - the Aktion T4 program was the sole example of an action by the Nazi regime which provoked large-scale protests from the Christian Churches
Even before the Nazis came to power, the German eugenics movement had an extreme wing, led by Alfred Hoche Karl Binding
They did so because they saw in Hitler someone who would restore traditional values and morality to Germany
"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... 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 the past ... (few) years."
(The Speeches of Adolph Hitler
It was also important to the Nazis that education was founded on a strong Christian base. It was also a matter of utmost importance to the Catholic hierarchy, and agreed to by the Reich Concordat between the Nazis and the Vatican Hitler went on in this chilling observation:
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. From our point of view as representatives of the state, we need believing people. A dark cloud threatens from Poland
Traditional evaluation of Christian complicity in the Holocaust and other Nazi crimes - and to what degree Christians allowed themselves to be used for Nazi purposes, presupposes a distinction between Nazis and Christians which didn’t exist. Most Nazis were devout Christians and believed that Nazi philosophy was animated by Christian doctrine and as such they supported the Nazi agenda.
The actions of Hitler and the Nazis were as “Christian” as those during the Crusades or the Inquisition.
In a speech celebrating Germany's League of Nations , Hitler again maintained that the Third Reich was actively implementing a Christian agenda:
“Along with the fight for a purer morality we have taken upon ourselves the struggle against the decomposition of our religion. We have therefore taken up the struggle against the Godless movement, and not just with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out.”
Several leading Nazis who preferred a neo-pagan theistic religion, a position never officially endorsed either by the Nazi Party or Adolf Hitler Alfred Rosenberg Hitler went so far as to threaten to take action against his book ‘Mythus’, which was banned by some lower-ranking party organizations. Himmler was obsessed with ancient Germans, which Hitler dismissed as ridiculous — and even Himmler insisted that Christian viewpoints be respected within the SS.
Pagan Nazis however, never pretended to be anything else — they never took a pro-Christian stance in public in order to win approval. When Nazis were pagan, they were unabashedly and enthusiastically so, without apology.
The churches of Germany
 |
The Attempt to Refute Hitler’s Christianity
There were many Nazis who were anti-clerical rather than anti-Christian. And there were certainly non-Christian Nazis. Martin Bormann
It should be pointed out here that unlike primary sources such as “Mein Kampf Hitler , this evidence is second hand.
It comes as quotes from ‘secondary sources’ such as the "Secret Conversations with Hitler", "Hitler - Memoirs of a Confidant", Albert Speer Hitler 's Table Talk” (also referred to as "Private Conversations"). And it is mostly from "Hitler 's Table Talk” that opponents find ‘incontrovertible evidence’ that he could not have been a Christian. It is the only source where one can find Hitler , allegedly, denouncing religion to such a degree. The source usually comes from the English translation (from a French translation) edition by Norman Cameron R. H. Stevens H.R. Trevor-Roper
The veracity of any secondary sources should always be considered when weighing up any evidence. This is not to say that the evidence is in anyway corrupt because of it’s nature. Rather, that the nature of such evidence is open to corruption.
If, when balancing the evidence, primary and secondary sources conflict then weight must be given to the former.
As a secondary source notwithstanding, the evidence in the Cameron and Stevens edition of "Hitler 's Table Talk” should be treated with caution.
There must always be question of reliability of multiple translations, in this case from German to French to English.
But, there are more serious questions that can be raised about this source. The English translation that was taken from Genoud’s French translation conflicts with the original German version.
The Historical Background to “Hitler ’s Table Talk”.
It was Bormann 's idea to record Hitler 's thoughts. Hitler , who had previously refused to admit any mechanical recorder into his private room, reluctantly allowed Bormann to appoint two stenographers to record his thoughts during 1942–42.
They were: Heinrich Heim 5th July 1941 to 20th March 1942 and, from 21st March 1942 until 31st July 1942 , Dr. Henry Piker
The record, whether taken by Heim or Picker, was passed to Bormann , who made two copies of his record. One was kept in the Fuhererbau in Munich Berchtesgaden Hitler 's ‘Table Talk’ was translated.
In a facsimile written after the last of Hitler 's recorded ‘Table Talk’s’, Bormann wrote a directive that stated:
"Please keep these notes most carefully, as they will be of very great value in the future. I have now got Heim to make comprehensive notes as a basis for these minutes. Any transcript which is not quite apposite will be re-checked by me."
Unfortunately, as far as is known, no unaltered version of either Dr. Picker Bormann which may well reflect his bias.
“Hitler ’s Table Talk”.
In his introduction, Trevor-Roper, in arguing against Hitler 's Christianity, provides a rather dubious reason for accepting “Hitler 's Table Talk”:
"We must go direct to Hitler 's personal utterances: not indeed to his letters and speeches-- these, though valuable, are too public, too formalised for such purposes-- but to his private conversations, his Table-Talk. Table-Talk, like notebooks, reveal the mind of a man far more completely, more intimately, than any formal utterance."
Bu, he fails to give a reason why this gives a more intimate look at a person. But more damaging to his reasoning is that they were not private. Hitler was aware that the scribes were there to give an account of him for future posterity. These were as public as any of Hitler 's letters and pre-written speeches. It is unclear as to what sense these 'loose' conversations reveal more than letters and speeches?
Another reason to question the “Hitler ’s Table Talk” is that the anti-Christian quotes do not appear in the German text. They are found only in the translation by Genoud, from which the English translation comes from. To ascribe this to error would be more than generous. They have to be considered as fabrications by Genoud.
Genoud was a Swiss banker who committed suicide in1996. He was a Nazi spy who laundered money for the Third Reich and a self-professed neo-Nazi even up to his death. He was a voracious purchaser and profiteer of Nazi archives, and an admitted financer of terrorists. It should be noted though, that he was not a supporter of the holocaust.
In a related incident, Genoud gave the World War II historian, David Irving Hitler 's Last Testament” and supposedly a part of the “Hitler ’s Table Talk”. Genoud later admitted to Irving Hitler would have said, isn't it?"
If Genoud was prepared to pass off “Hitler's Last Testament” as genuine and more pertinently, as part of “Hitler’s Table Talk”, then this, along with the conflict between the German text of ‘talks’ and his translation, throws his work into serious doubt. It quite simply cannot be relied on. Any serious historian would be justified in considering the so called anti-Christian quotes in his translation to be fabrications.
There is more than hint of 'confirmation bias' in Christians accepting this evidence as proof of their assertions about Hitler .
What can be seen in the publications purporting to show that Hitler was anti-Christian is in fact criticisms of Church and various Christian dogmas.
He rails against the idea of a physical resurrection, favouring of a spiritual one, and takes a very cynical view of Catholicism. But he is voicing many of the same criticisms one might hear from a candid (and perhaps bigoted) Protestant. But, he makes it clear that he believes in God, Christ , the immortality of the soul, and divine providence. For instance, on 27 February 1942 Hitler is quoted as saying: "The most marvellous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator,"
The reasoning of apologists, in regards to the “Hitler ’s Table Talk”, seems to be that because Hitler spoke against organised religion, then he must therefore be anti-Christian.
A Christian is simply a person who believes in God and Jesus in some form or manner. To imply that criticism a particular denomination of Christianity is to be anti-Christian is a false implication that nullifies the argument.
If simply speaking against a Christian religion were enough to oust one from Christianity, then some of the most influential Christians would have to reside with Hitler .
"The papacy is truly the real power and tyranny of the Antichrist.... As beautiful as it was to keep a state of virginity, in the early days of Christianity, so abominable has it now become, when it is used as a means of eliciting Christ's help and grace.""
We maintain that the government of the Church was converted into a species of foul and insufferable tyranny.".
If we used the logic of the apologists against Hitler , then we should remove Luther , Calvin , and many other prominent people from membership of Christianity.
What can be seen in “Hitler ’s Table Talk”, and what people such as Ratzinger and Donahue consciously avoid is Hitler ’s confirmation of his Christianity.
It cannot be used as evidence for his anti-Christianity.
When he expresses his views on the future he says:
“I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions.”
Nor can it be used to argue for an atheist Hitler :
“We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.” (p. 6)
Nor can the Table-Talk be used to argue for a pagan Hitler :
“It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan . Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself.” (p. 61)
 |
Secondary Sources
As mentioned, all of this is evidence from a secondary source. But if that is acceptable to those who deny Hitler ’s Christianity there are more:
“If anyone can lay claim to God's help, then it is Hitler , for without God's benevolent fatherly hand, without his blessing, the nation would not be where it stands today. It is an unbelievable miracle that God has bestowed on our people.”
Minister Rust, in a speech to a mass meeting of German Christians on June 29, 1933 (Helmreich, p. 138)
Even the Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich Hitler at his mountain retreat in Obersalzburg confessed:
“Without a doubt the chancellor lives in faith in God. He recognizes Christianity as the foundation of Western culture”. {Helmreich, p.279}
And on Hitler 's allegiance to his "true" Christian spirit:
“I do not remember even a single occasion when Hitler gave any instructions that ran counter to the true Christian spirit and to humanness.”
(Wagener, ”Hitler- Memoirs of a Confidant, p.147)
Christians may not like acknowledging that Nazi actions might have anything to do with Christianity, but Germany Germany Hitler and the Nazi Party in part because they saw both as embodiments of both German and Christian ideals.
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler Gen. Gerhard Engel , 1941]
The evidence shows that Hitler was a Christian. But it would be ludicrous to demand that Christians should apologise for his and the Nazi's actions. Only those who commit crimes and those who aid and abet them to escape punishment should apologise. Smokescreen tactics such as such as those of Ratzinger and the Catholic League only highlight the problems within their Church.
The Christian churches ofGermany
But, one things for sure. They were not filled with atheists.
The Christian churches of
But, one things for sure. They were not filled with atheists.
Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger, John L. Allen Jr.
