|
Hitler’s Christianity: An Examination of Hitler’s Table-Talk and Theologians Under Hitler
Hitler according to Martin Bormann’s Hitler’s Table-Talk: 1941-1944, Orig. pub. date 1953, this edition 2000, trans. by Hugh Trevor-Roper
Martin Bormann’s stenographically recorded memoirs are not completely reliable for a few notable reasons. Firstly, Bormann was a staunch and rabid anti-Christian. He was personally responsible for attacks against the Churches during Hitler’s presidency, along with Alfred Rosenberg. But, even Rosenberg was not as opposed to the Churches as Bormann had been. Bormann is also known to have withheld numerous Jewish clemency applications from Hitler because he did not want them to get through to the Führer [see Bryan Rigg’s Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers].
Secondly, Bormann oftentimes interjected his own commentary here and there throughout these “table-talks.” Thus, we have to assume that he may have altered some of the arguments allegedly put forth by Hitler. These conversations were subject to Bormann’s personal alteration, deletion, and manipulation after they were recorded. They should be read with caution, just as Robert McNamara’s In Retrospect should be read with caution. Indeed, Mr. McNamara cleverly indicts everyone in the Johnson administration—including the Joint Chiefs, whose job it was to win the Vietnam War—except himself.
Additionally, Hitler never attacks so many people or subjects—namely Jews and Christianity—with such virulent vehemence as he does in this particular set of memoirs. Bormann’s memoirs remain in stark opposition and contradiction to dozens of other sets of memoirs, many of which were written by individuals who had no reason to portray a decent portrait of Hitler.
Furthermore, Hitler is not portrayed as eloquent a speaker as he had been in other memoirs. He comes off as somewhat crude and roughshod in this tract; thus, one may confidently assume that the stenographer left out a good portion of what Hitler had actually said. Numerous accounts of Hitler’s incredible speaking ability and eloquent conversational standards can affirm this.
Lastly, we have to be careful with regards to translation. Translators are also subject to their own personal biases and, oftentimes, they will choose the wrong word or phrase, or an inaccurate word or phrase for the English translation. One example that comes to mind is the difference between the translation of the German term that Hitler had used in Mein Kampf, versus, the term used in his personal notes, to describe the situation in the Rhineland while it was under French occupation. Ralph Mannheim translated Hitler’s term as Niggerization (in Mein Kampf), whereas Werner Maser translated Hitler’s term as Negrification (in Hitler’s Letters and Notes). Any intelligent person can see that there is a stark difference between these two terms. So, bear in mind, the translator of Table-Talk may have also allowed his own personal bias, against Hitler’s person, to affect his English translation.
“That’s why I’ve always kept the Party aloof from religious questions. I’ve thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supporters from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these Churches’ forms of worship. … So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths will crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and 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.
Originally, religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It’s only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can live only to the detriment of society collectively. …
… Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline” [59-60].
Hitler, as espoused by Léon Degrelle, Otto Wagener, Albert Speer, and Kurt Ludecke—among others—completely despised official church dogma, and priestly haughtiness. He never rejected his personal belief in God or the teachings of Christ Himself, but rather, arrived at the conclusion that the Churches and priests had not done right by Christ.
The tortuous histories of Christianity and the Catholic and Protestant Churches can certainly attest to this assumption. Christianity has undoubtedly caused more death, heartache and pain in this world than probably any other single ideology, and Hitler never failed to mention that historical fact. But, on the other hand, Hitler also disliked the “flabbiness” of Christianity; the idea that one is supposed to kowtow to his enemies and have his head lobbed off because it is the ‘Christian’ thing to do. This “flabbiness,” as Hitler had coined it when talking with Albert Speer, was just one of the many absurdities and suicidal tendencies of Christian dogma that Hitler detested.
There is so much absurdity wrapped up in Christian dogma and, unfortunately for many, it has been subject to gross misinterpretation and severe misuse over the ages. The Crusades, the several Inquisitions and the Thirty Years’ War were just a few of the devastating historical events that were heavily, if not directly, influenced by Christian ideology. Hitler had blamed the Jews and St. Paul for the undermining of Christ’s teachings and the ‘religio,’ in an effort to subvert the Aryan-Roman socio-political structure.
“The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world—in order to ruin it—re-opened the same breach in modern times, this time taking as his pretext the social question. It’s the same sleight-of-hand as before. Just as Saul was changed to St. Paul, Mardochai became Karl Marx” [314].
I think that it is important to note here that Hitler was specifically referring to Judeo-Christianism, which ultimately served to protect Jewry at the expense of Christians. The true Christian faith of Jesus Christ had been enshrouded in a cloak of lies and deception, so that Jewry could infiltrate Christian-dominated regions without confronting discrimination. They could do so, because the Savior of mankind was allegedly one of theirs, a Jew. The Torah was conjoined with the New Testament around this time, probably in order to subvert the Roman Christian world—though the exact time and reasons behind the conjoining of these two doctrines remains unanswered [this was addressed in a lecture during one of my World History classes]. This is essentially what Hitler believed; though it has been presented here in a radically simplified nutshell.
“A question arises. Does the Jew act consciously and by calculation, or is he driven by his instinct? I cannot answer that question” [315].
Hitler had addressed this exact question in a conversation with Otto Wagener, though, even when he spoke with Wagener about it, he still never seemed to have arrived at any definitive conclusions.
“It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. … A movement like ours must not let itself be drawn into metaphysical digressions. It must stick to the spirit of exact science. It’s not the Party’s function to be a counterfeit for religion” [62].
Hitler did not want to see his Party torn asunder by combating religious zealots who wished to turn it into some kind of revivalist movement. He also did not wish to see the Party become an institution of worship. He wanted it to remain completely secular, but at the same time, he wanted the Party to affirm only one official religion that would uphold the freedom of all creeds. That official religion was Positive Christianity.
“… It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself. One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance in the belief in God. That is 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?
The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches. And that’s why they’re heading for ruin—for science is bound to win.
I especially wouldn’t want our movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling for me, and I would wish I’d never lived, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha” [61]!
“… I envisage a future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters. … We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State” [62].
Again, we see here that Hitler did not want to become an idol of worship among Germans, and the idea that Hitler wanted to be worshipped by the world is just too nonsensical to even waste time addressing at this point. If individuals or groups chose to pray to Hitler or act like imbeciles—in Hitler’s opinion—then they could certainly do so, but, to act as though Hitler had enforced or authorized this ridiculousness is simply untrue and cannot be substantiated—let alone affirmed—with any of the reliable primary sources.
In this passage, Hitler once again begins railing against Christianity by denouncing it as a “lie” that is “in conflict with itself.” This cannot be refuted because Christianity taken to its logical end would result in its own destruction. Hitler had suggested that Christianity undergo reinvention and evolution if it was to survive the onslaught of scientific thought and reason. Interestingly enough, Creative Design, and many other new interpretations of God and/or Christianity, has brought new life to faith in general. So, Hitler was right in this respect. He had much insight when it came to the difficult subject of religion, and he spoke about it [religion] on more occasions than can be counted.
We also come across the issue of respecting individual men’s preference to creed in this passage, which Hitler insisted on upholding indefinitely. And, we see once again, his fervent stand on separation of Church (spiritual realm) and State (temporal realm). Hitler was a stickler about this point because he knew that the Churches could summon up enough political power to rival the power of the State. We might even be able to conclude that he learned a lesson from history in this regard.
“The precept that it’s men’s duty to love one another is a theory—and the Christians are the last to practice it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell! If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer” [69]!
Christianity used to teach—and still does in some sects—that anyone, apparently including infants, would go to Hell for all eternity if they had not known Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. Obviously, Hitler thought this was appalling and ludicrous. Can one blame him?
“The first thing I read of that kind was Last of the Mohicans. But Fritz Seidl told me at once: ‘Fenimore Cooper is nothing; you must read Karl May.’ The first book of his I read was The Ride Through the Desert. I was carried away by it. And I went on to devour at once the other books by the same author. The immediate result was a falling-off of my school reports” [316]. Sounds like American kids today and their video games, or better yet, Internet chat.
“Churchill is the very type of a corrupt journalist. There’s not a worse prostitute in politics” [318]. Hitler never held a very high opinion of Churchill.
“I’ve always detested snow; Bormann, you know, I’ve always hated it. Now I know why. It was a presentiment” [an awareness of some event, especially an unpleasant event, before it takes place and before there is any reason to suspect it or know about it] [319]. This conversation was recorded by Bormann as having taken place on the evening of 19 February 1942. It is referring to the early Russian winter.
“Kepler lived at Linz, and that’s why I chose Linz as the place for our observatory. His mother was accused of witchcraft and was tortured several times [by ‘Christians’] by the Inquisition” [323].
The witch burning, of the Inquisition, was one of the most historically troubling things for Hitler to come to grips with. He talked about it briefly with Eckart, Wagener and Bormann. It may have been utterly unfathomable to him because he had had such immeasurable love for his mother; that this event caused him much of his grief with Christianity, there can be little doubt.
“I wouldn’t feel I had the right to demand of each man the supreme sacrifice, if I hadn’t myself gone through the whole 1914-18 war in the front line” [328].
“I think it improper that a woman should be liable to be called upon to give evidence in Court on intimate matters. I’ve had that abolished. I detest prying and espionage” [359-60].
Hitler had also stated in a related conversation that he thought the lawyers prodded women on the ‘stand,’ because they took a fancy in satisfying their own perverted inclinations by doing so. He really hated lawyers, although, he did not really give a compelling reason as to why that may have been. I am sure anyone who knows a good lot of lawyers may have an inclination as to why Hitler felt that way about them though.
“In the economic field we can learn much from the United States. The motor industry of the United States, by standardization of types and mass-production, has reduced the cost of a motor-car to such an extent that every workman over there can afford to keep and run a car. Our own procedure has been exactly the reverse. We are constantly bringing out new models and modifying and improving existing ones. The result is that we have to produce an immense number and variety of spare parts, for the parts of a different model of the same make of a car are never interchangeable. Nothing like this occurs in America” [415-16].
Hitler did not have much reverence for the United States, but, he did read a lot of German-language editions of foreign papers, and he seems to have had an affinity for both American and British industrial capabilities. He was also enthralled with the tales of the American West.
“The criteria by which a politician should be judged are, firstly, the positive virtues he possesses, and, secondly, the actual services he has rendered to his country” [417]. This is a piece of advice that all American politicians ought to read before assuming office.
“There are a large number of Bulgarians who have studied engineering or taken their degrees in Germany. It would be a good policy to facilitate the taking of degrees by foreigners at our universities, and we shall make friends for life of men who spent some of their youth in this fashion” [421].
Contrary to most historical accounts on Hitler, he was quite accepting of foreign labor when the supply of German jobs exceeded the demand of the German workforce. He also had no problem with educating foreigners, but, read what he said. He said, “… who spent their youth in this fashion.” Obviously, foreigners who were to be educated in Germany were not going to be allowed to stay indefinitely, taking the job of a native German citizen. Furthermore, Germans and Germany always came first under Hitler.
Hitler according to Robert P. Ericksen’s Theologians Under Hitler, Orig. pub. Date 1985, this edition 1986 [Note: Only primary sources are quoted in this secondary source. The views and analysis of Ericksen have been controlled, for the most part, in order to present a neutral voice for the theologians.]
“… Kittel close[d] his speech with a tribute to Hitler and National Socialist Germany, the saving force which stemmed the tide of Jewish infiltration” [66].
“In 1933 Kittel suddenly lost his tolerance toward the Jews. His defense turned into an attack. … the rise of Hitler was [may have been] the decisive factor that released it” [74].
“… Kittel’s stance under Hitler was sincere. He vehemently affirmed his sincerity… in 1933” [75].
“Kittel endorsed Hitler publicly and enthusiastically not only in 1933, but also in 1944. … [Kittel’s] writings throughout the period correspond to and support Nazi politics, including all of the policies on the Jewish question…” [emphasis original ] [76].
Gerhard Kittel: “that it was not despotic brutality and barbarism but rather a genuine political transaction born of historical sobriety when the Führer of the new Germany acted. In his radical resolve he established the German Volk as the first Volk in modern times to place the Jewish problem on a wholly new foundation” [62].
Paul Althaus: “We as believing Christians thank God our father that he has given to our Volk in its time of need the Führer as a ‘pious and faithful sovereign,’ and that he wants to prepare for us in the National Socialist system of government ‘good rule,’ a government with ‘discipline and honor.’ Accordingly, we know that we are responsible before God to assist the work of the Führer in our calling and in our station in life” [87].
Emanuel Hirsch: “… Hitler is now the only representative of a will to break with the mistakes of the twelve years from 1919 to 1931, the only candidate on 10 April to offer a new German beginning” [146].
“… Hirsch greeted the rise of Hitler with enthusiasm and a burst of activity” [146].
“No other Volk in the world has a leading statesman such as ours, who takes Christianity so seriously. On 1 May when Adolf Hitler closed his great speech with a prayer, the whole world could sense the wonderful sincerity in that” [148].
These three theologians were not fool-hardy Christians deceived by Hitler. They were all committed men of faith, great Christian leaders of their day, extremely intelligent, highly educated, and loyal to their great leader. Hitler did not vacillate and placate, and his sincerity always shined through the lies and deceptions of the Jewish-controlled press and the war-mongering Allies. It will take a long time to tear away the shroud of untruths that have veiled Hitler, but the truth will emerge, because the truth always does.
|