A Close Examination of Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich

According to Steigmann-Gall’s (2003) succinct and compelling assessment of Adolf Hitler’s attitude towards Christianity and the churches, “Aside from the Table Talk, other sources point not just to ambivalence, but to a continuing positive Christian attitude in Hitler. As Albert Speer recalled, ‘Even after 1942 Hitler went on maintaining that he regarded the church as indispensable in political life. He would be happy, he said in one of those teatime talks at Obersalzberg, if someday a prominent churchman turned up who was suited to lead one of the churches [Müller and Kerrl had both failed to unite the Protestant factions, including the rivaling DC and BK]—or if possible both the Catholic and Protestant churches reunited [recall that Luther’s 95 Theses and the subsequent Protestant Reformation essentially drove a permanent ideological wedge between Christ’s adherents, resulting in ‘confessionalism’—very similar to the Shi’ite and Sunni rivalry, each of which espouses a different view of the heirs of the Prophet Muhammed].’ If true, Speer’s observation would contradict the picture of Hitler’s anticlericalism [his one and only steadfast qualm with Christianity] obtained from other sources. Speer suggested that Hitler often tailored his remarks to suit his audience, something that a host of historians has also argued. However, pointing to a Janus-faced Hitler no more proves the deceitfulness of pro-Christian remarks than: does the sincerity of anti-Christian remarks. Speer himself made the following observation: ‘If in the course of such a monologue Hitler had pronounced a more negative judgment upon the church, Bormann would undoubtedly have taken from his jacket pocket one of the white cards he always carried with him’” (p. 256-257). [Emphasis added]

Steigmann-Gall is probably the only historian who has come to an objective and complete picture of Christianity in the Third Reich. One of the most pertinent points he makes with regards to Hitler’s personal faith, is the fact that Hitler had ardently and consistently defended the person, message, and deeds of Jesus Christ, even in the midst of paganists and anti-Christians, such as Himmler and Bormann. This is very important, because if Hitler had really thought of Jesus as ‘just another Jew,’ or had believed His message to be ‘a lie,’ then it would have come through in one of these table talks with Bormann; especially during this time when Hitler had nothing to gain or lose from espousing his honest and true views on the matter.

Furthermore, Hitler no longer had to tailor his comments or beliefs for his audience; in fact, Bormann was a raging anticlerical anti-Christianite; so, are we to suppose that Hitler did not tailor his remarks for Bormann, but did tailor them for others? If he had indeed tailored his comments in this particular conversation, why would he speak well of Jesus Christ, and even go so far as to acknowledge and dismiss His possible Jewishness, in front of an “anti-Semite” and anti-Christian—Bormann? What is most interesting is that one of the final table talks—as a matter of fact the very last table talk—Hitler had [again] defended Christ, and he had even acknowledged the possibility that Jesus’ mother had been a Jewess. As evidenced in this passage, Hitler did not care about that potential.

He told Bormann:

Jesus was most certainly not a Jew. The Jews would never have handed one of their own people to the Roman courts; they would have condemned Him themselves. It is quite probable that a large number of the descendants of the Roman legionaries, mostly Gauls, were living in Galilee, and Jesus was probably one of them. His mother may well have been a Jewess [as stated in the Jewish Talmud, which claims Jesus was the “son of a whore and a Roman soldier.”]

Jesus fought against the materialism of His age, and, therefore, against the Jews.

Paul of Tarsus, who was originally one of the most stubborn enemies of the Christians, suddenly realized the immense possibilities of using, intelligently and for other ends, an idea which was exercising such great powers of fascination. He realized that the judicious exploitation of this idea among the non-Jews would give him far greater power in the world than would the promise of material profit to the Jews themselves. It was then that the future St. Paul distorted with diabolical cunning the Christian idea. Out of this idea, which was a declaration of war on the golden calf, on the egotism and the materialism of the Jews, he created a rallying point for slaves of all kinds against the elite, the masters and those in dominant authority. The religion fabricated by Paul of Tarsus, which was later called Christianity, is nothing but the Communism of today (Bormann, pp. 721-722).

This semi-private comment was made by Hitler, not only as a message for posterity, but more importantly, as a true reflection of Hitler’s Christian beliefs. Hitler had always adhered to the person and message of Christ, but he had always rejected the treachery and deception—of His pure and metaphysical message—of St. Paul. Steigmann-Gall (2003) has called it “Pauline corruption” (p. 119). And, Hitler believed that he could—through his movement—repair Christianity, just as he had repaired socialism. Goebbels had even remarked that just because Christianity had been distorted and falsified—by the Jew St. Paul: that did not validate the rejection of Christianity [in toto]. In fact, in Goebbels’ view, the ideology and precepts of socialism were distorted and falsified by the two Jews Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

Goebbels had essentially argued that Paul would not prevent Nazis from being Christian any more than “Marxist corruption” would prevent Nazis from being socialists (Steigmann-Gall, p. 119).

It might also be poignant to point out the irrefutable fact that Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, and Goering had all maintained a consistency in their anticlericalism, but that in fact does not equate, or transpire, to anti-Christianity, especially with regards to the precepts and centrum of the faith [on the whole]. Hitler had actually made a very good point when he addressed the fact that priests, more often than not, placed much more importance on politics and the power of the church than spirituality or faith. He cited the case of Pastor Martin Niemöller—who had given much weight to his own political, as opposed to spiritual, aspirations—during a conversation with Heinrich Hoffmann, his photographer. What’s more, according to Steigmann-Gall (2003), the majority of the Nazi leaders believed that “just as ‘pure’ socialism could be redeemed from a ‘Jewish’ or Marxist corruption, so could a pure Christianity be redeemed from a Jewish or Pauline corruption. For Hitler [and other Nazis], Nazism represented not only the antithesis of these later defilements, but the defense of the original forms” (p. 119). In fact, two very well-known books—Conway’s Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-1945, and Helmreich’s The German Churches Under Hitler—convey the bias of their thesis agendas in their [respective] book titles. Notice that both of these authors have elected to focus upon the Nazi contentions and struggles with the churches, as opposed to the Nazi treatment and view of the Christian faith [on the whole]. The views, policies, and interventions of individual Nazi-Sozis, and certain organizations, cannot be ignored or overlooked, because it results in a complete distortion of the reality of the context of Nazi German Christianity. This is one reason as to why Steigmann-Gall’s presentation is far more credible, verifiable, objective, and realistic.

The following is a good example, which helps illustrate why Steigmann-Gall’s assessment is more reliable and honest than those of the other two authors.

If the Supreme Court of the state of California [USA] elects to have the Latin Cross [Christian cross] removed from Mt. Soledad, because of the wishes of a Jewish-atheist American [Newdow in this case], Is it fair to declare that the state of California is openly attacking Christianity? How about accusing the Bush Administration of such? After all, the federal government would have the power to overrule such a decision.

How will Christian Americans, on the whole, feel if the rest of the world portrays them as paganists, occultists, and Christian-haters because they have allowed evolution to supplant prayer and Creationism in the American classroom? Is the American government guilty of openly attacking Christianity because of this classroom reality? Is America an anti-Christian nation based upon recent attacks on Christmas and Christian holidays by American corporations, i.e. Wal-Mart? What if President Bush personally intervened on behalf of the Christians to correct the anti-Christian measures taken by the courts against the American people?

These are all questions to consider when studying Christianity and church life in Hitler’s Germany.

Hitler had no more control or power than President Bush, as leaders only have so much authority and sway over their subordinates and bureaucracies. Once the machine is in place it is very, very difficult to change things. And, even though many authoritarian leaders believe they hold all the power, that simply is not, and has never been, true. It is absolutely impossible for any one man or woman to be able to rule an entire country, knowing every in-and-out and all the goings-on.

The real measure of a leader’s character is seen when issues, especially abuses, are brought to his or her attention. Does the leader act on behalf of him/herself, the people, the organization(s), the bureaucracy, or the individual in question? The leader’s various responses to contentious issues are the best measure as to the determination of the character, belief system, and quality of that leader. Hitler repeatedly fought on behalf of the churches, Christianity, Protestantism, non-secular schools, and so on; he fought for them far more often than he fought against them.

Remember too, that Hitler did not wish to synthesize Church and State—which is an especially important precept in American minds—which would have violated Point 24 of the NSDAP platform, but, he did want to see the cooperation between Church and State. The Catholic Church would not allow itself to cooperate with Hitler’s government, so, it felt the brunt of his—and the Party’s—anticlericalism far more than the Protestants had. Moreover, Hitler tried to stay out of church-related struggles, because when he did intervene, people got angry. Protestants accused him of selling out to the Jewish-Roman interests of the Catholic Church, while the Catholics resented him for dissolving Catholic confessional schools and, siding with Protestant leaders over Catholic leaders. It is not at all a simple task dealing with religious struggles, and the Irish and Middle Easterners will be able to grasp this tremendous problem far better than an American.

Protestant Support for Euthanasia and Sterilization

Another aspect of Hitler’s rule that remains overlooked far too often is the fact that numerous Christian individuals and organizations actively endorsed and supported Hitler and Nazism, even before Hitler was elected Chancellor. Protestant organizations openly endorsed and supported eugenics and euthanasia measures, as well.

The National Socialist People’s Welfare Organization (NSV), for instance, viewed charity work as problem-producing, due to the fact that it endorsed Christian welfare work, and subsequently, resulted in the “reign of Untermensch.” Some of this organization’s members viewed this charity-type Christianity with contempt, because it appeared to resemble Bolshevism (Steigmann-Gall, p. 200). Also, the Inner Mission generally approved of sterilization, even though it felt somewhat more ambivalent with regards to euthanasia. Most of the BK leaders opposed Nazi euthanasia measures, however, some Protestants favored euthanasia, and had even practiced sterilization and euthanasia on a limited scale before Hitler came into power. Ewald Meltzer and Rudolf Boeckh, both active and committed Protestants, went so far as to endorse euthanasia (Ibid., pp. 200-201). Boeckh, in a 1937 address, advocated eliminating “life unworthy of life.”

As argued by Steigmann-Gall (2003):

His theological justification for this course of action acknowledged that ‘the Creator had certainly imposed illness upon the destiny of mankind.’ However, ‘the most severe forms of idiocy and the totally grotesque disintegration of the personality had nothing to do with the countenance of God… we should not maintain these travesties of human form through an exaggerated, and therefore false, type of compassion; rather, we should return them to the Creator’ (p. 201).

Rector Hans Lauerer had disagreed with Boeckh, based upon ideological grounds, but he nevertheless believed that the state was “an order of God” [recall Jesus Christ’s teaching to ‘Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto me what is mine’; Jesus had not taught His followers to disrespect or violate the measures of the state—in fact, this statement may allude to the precept of separation of church and state]; thus, it was the responsibility of Lutherans to respect state authority, and “affirm the state in its actions.”

Active support of euthanasia was not very common, but according to Steigmann-Gall (2003), “even some of the Protestants at the forefront of protest exhibited a paralyzing ambivalence toward euthanasia.” Bishop Wurm and Friedrich von Bodelschwingh were both among this group of Protestants (pp. 201-202). Furthermore, Protestant churchmen never publicly denounced euthanasia (p. 202). The Catholic priest, August von Galen, eventually publicly denounced the program, and Hitler responded to this outcry by ordering an immediate halt to the entire program. Even though several Nazis called for von Galen to be sentenced to death, Hitler ordered that no action be taken against him (Ibid., pp. 202, 249).

Now, what is important to bear in mind is the historical distortion of the Nazi-Sozi euthanasia and sterilization programs.

Firstly, the Nazi regime did not endorse euthanizing people who could benefit German society in some way, nor did it advocate sterilizing people who were not worthy of sterilization. The measures of each respective program were to be implemented only by approved personnel and organizations within the Nazi state, which would apply the highest moral and ethical codes to their measures.

Secondly, it might be worthy to note that the Nazis never made abortion illegal; however, they did actively and consistently discourage abortion. The fact of the matter is, abortion of the potentially fittest and healthiest population is no different than the forced sterilization or euthanasia of the mentally unfit, the weak, the criminal, or the physically and/or mentally disabled, when viewed from either a moral or ethical standpoint. The Nazi government did not implement euthanasia and sterilization in order to harm society; but rather, to protect it and improve upon it. It is very difficult to witness severely mentally and physically disabled people in society, and as a matter of fact, Americans prefer to shut these individuals away behind closed doors, so that they never have to confront it, or deal with it on a personal level. Is this any kind of life for these individuals? Is it humanity’s duty to maintain life when it cannot sustain itself naturally? I certainly would not wish to be kept alive artificially, or via feeding tube.

This is a very difficult topic to address, but the reality is that Hitler did not implement these programs out of malice, tyranny, or hatred; nor was he attempting to control Germany’s biological destiny or create a race of ‘Supermen.’ He did it to help German society as a whole, and to act as though he was a devil for advocating such policies would qualify as sheer bigotry; especially when it is stated by a society that condones infant stem cell research [a human being had to give his or her life for that research and those stem cells], the death sentence for criminals, and indiscriminate abortion [What if geniuses or future leaders have/had been affected by abortion?] The bottom line is: no nation represents the moral high ground from which to preach to other nations; not even the ‘sainted’ United States, or ‘wonderful’ Israel.

Hitler’s Christianity

“In October 1937, Hitler commented privately: ‘I have been freed, after an intense inner struggle, from the still living and childish imaginings of religion… I now feel as liberated as a foal in the pasture’. Although he did not say so explicitly, the personalistic tone of the comment reveals that this was primarily a reference to his original Catholic faith, not to all religion per se.” (Steigmann-Gall, p. 252).

Hitler had insisted upon his belief in positive Christianity as late as 1938, although, his personal religious ideology aligned itself more with theism over time (Ibid., pp. 252-253). This may have been primarily due to the Protestant rejection of a National Protestant, or even Protestant-Catholic, Reich Church, which had been one of Hitler’s main goals for the New Germany. Perhaps he took this rejection as a personal affront; hence, allowing it to negatively affect his positive feelings towards the Christian faith. There can be no doubt that after his three failed attempts at unifying the various Protestant factions, his anticlericalism grew [apparently as a direct result]. Goebbels had commented in his diary that Hitler did not want to found a new faith, as he “[did] not want to become a Buddha” (Ibid., p. 253). Steigmann-Gall (2003) has argued that Hitler remained religious and “adamantly opposed to [paganism or] a replacement [Nazi] faith,” while allegedly professing to “reject Christianity.” It may also be that Hitler meant “Catholicism” when he said “Christianity” (Ibid.). Hitler also could have meant that he was over his childish religious indoctrination—that of the essential orthodox belief that Jewry is “the chosen race of God.”

Hitler had once told Bormann, “I am now over all of my childish religious inclinations and beliefs...I now feel as free as a foal in the pasture.” He could just as easily have reflected, “I now understand Jesus Christ. I finally—for the first time in my life—understand what He represented, and why He laid down His life. I am truly set free.”

Jesus said, “The truth will set you free.” Jesus could just as easily have asserted, “I have exposed for you, My children, the truth—that Jewry is AntiChrist and this truth will now be known to all races of men for all time. I have fulfilled the Law.” Jesus called the Jews, “The children of Satan.” This seems to make perfect sense. That is why Jesus is the Christ. That is why people call Him “the Son of God.” He essentially spoke on God’s behalf. This could only lead Him to oppose Jewry—materialism, exploitation, idleness, greed, hatred, racism, capitalism, anti-socialism, supremacism, Luciferianism, idolatry, enslavement to the laws of man, and animal and human sacrifice. Those are the precepts of Judaism. This is why Christianity is the “truth, the way, and the light.” People who fight and die for Jewry and his system will never know God. That is why Jesus stated, “You cannot come to the Father but through Me.” Now one can better understand what He meant by this uncanny statement or at least how Hitler felt about the matter.

He also said, “You cannot serve two masters.” You are either with God, or against Him—there is no in between, according to Jesus Christ Himself. Hitler believed himself to have been on the side of God. He wrote, in Mein Kampf:

Considering the Satanic skill which these evil counselors displayed, how could their unfortunate victims be blamed? Indeed, I found it extremely difficult myself to be a match for the dialectical perfidy of that race. How futile it was to try to win over such people with argument, seeing that their very mouths distorted the truth, disowning the very words they had just used and adopting them again a few moments afterwards to serve their own ends in the argument! No. The more I came to know the Jew, the easier it was to excuse the workers” (p.45). Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago. And so I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord (p. 46).

On 30 January 1939, Hitler declared:

the National Socialist state is at any time ready to undertake a clear separation of church and state, as is already the case in France, America and other countries [not yet the case in Nazi Germany]… The National Socialist state has not closed a church, nor has it prevented the holding of a religious service, nor has it ever exercised any influence upon the form of a religious service… But on one point there must be no uncertainty: the German priest as servant of God we shall protect, the priest as political enemy of the German state we will destroy” (Ibid.)

Hitler had also made it clear that any priest who had wished to be freed from a concentration camp simply had to sign a statement promising not to become involved in politics again. Many refused to sign, including Niemöller, who had become the international poster child for Nazi anticlericalism (Hoffmann, p. 133). As a matter of fact, the Nazis were far less anticlerical than previously believed; furthermore, the majority of the top Nazis—especially Bouhler, Kerrl, Goebbels, Göring, Hitler, Lammers, Buch, and even most notably, Himmler—and prominent Nazi organizations—the DC, BK, SS, HJ, PPK, and NSLB, just to name a few—espoused either confessional Christianity or “belief in God” [Gottgläubigen] (Ibid., pp. 221, 225, 229, 232-244; 256-257).

Interestingly enough, Felix Kersten had witnessed Himmler’s daughter saying grace before lunch while visiting him at his home (Ibid., p. 233). Furthermore, Himmler had informed Kersten that the Catholic Church ought to be praised for its work against Freemasonry, the “nemesis” of Nazi ideology, as well as its teaching that a childless marriage is the “greatest sin of all” (Ibid.). So, Himmler, like Hitler, had not only revealed a clear ambivalence towards Christianity, but had set a limit on his anticlericalism as well. Indeed, Steigmann-Gall (2003) has effectively argued that Hitler set a limit on his apostasy; and, that his apostasy may have been merely an insincere reaction to his failure to reunite German Protestants and Catholics, and/or his failure to create a National Reich Church (p. 260).

Steigmann-Gall (2003) makes the point that Hitler’s derision against Christianity during the latter half of the war was no different than his derision of the German people, his generals, or the churches. His derision was rarely, if ever, sincere; rather, it was his form of venting when things were not going as he had wished. This insincerity has at least been revealed by Albert Speer, as Speer had informed Hitler that he never implemented his Scorched Earth Policy. Hitler did not even have a reaction to Speer’s admission of defiance. It is highly probable that Hitler had not been sincere regarding the actual implementation of the policy—that he had ordered the measure out of anger, and desperation at the thought of an impending collapse—so, it came as no shock to him when Speer had not implemented it (Speer, pp. 560-561; Sereny, pp. 636, 528-529).

As a matter of fact, Hitler did not even follow up on Speer, to see whether or not this order was being carried out; Hitler could have ordered Speer’s assassination, and promptly replaced him by a more compliant Nazi, but he did not do that. This seems contradictory to the portrait of an all-powerful, totalitarian dictator who controlled everyone and forced others to carry out his will at gunpoint. That portrait is not only ludicrous, but also wholly insincere. Speer had admitted, during a one-on-one private conversation with Hitler, that he had been betraying him, and had not implemented any of his orders. Hitler, according to Sereny (1996), had no reaction—he said nothing, and Speer bid his final farewell (Sereny, p. 529).

“Hitler took aim at specific aspects of Christianity. He was particularly severe in his view of St. Paul, who ‘transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a supra-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men amongst themselves, and their obedience to an only god. This is what caused the death of the Roman Empire’” (Steigmann-Gall, p. 254). Steigmann-Gall (2003) goes on to conclude that Hitler consistently praised Christ and His work, never giving up on the person of Christ, and, “that [Hitler’s] interpretation of Jesus—as the messenger of a new belief who had been betrayed by a corrupt establishment—was remarkably consistent with the remarks Hitler made about the churches in the Kampfzeit” (Ibid., p. 254).

So, in Bormann’s Table-Talk, Hitler exhibits a duality that cannot be ignored. On the one hand he claims to have rejected Luther’s translation of the Bible into German, as well as the “Pure Christianity… of the catacombs” (Steigmann-Gall, p. 254). But, during other conversations recorded by Bormann, Hitler raves about Luther’s great gift to the German people—that being the translation of the Bible into the German language—and he speaks repeatedly of the necessity of a purely “Christ” Christianity, as opposed to a Pauline Christianity (Bormann, p. 9). Hitler also discusses Luther’s impeccable contributions to German society, with Dietrich Eckart. He called Luther “a great man, a giant” (Eckart, p. 56). Furthermore, Hitler felt that Jews had infiltrated and undermined the true Christian religion; that is the Christianity that Jesus Christ had conceived of. Eckart told Hitler, “The Christian confessions swarm with Jewish and half-Jewish clergymen, the Protestant denominations even more so than the Catholic. They already feel so sure of victory in the Protestant churches that in Dresden a certain Pastor Wallfisch had the impudence to announce publicly: ‘I am a Jew and will remain one; yes, now that I have learned the Christian beliefs I have become more than ever a true Israelite’” (Eckart, p. 49). He went on, “And in Hamburg a preacher named Schwalb said: ‘I consider myself a genuine Jew and have always considered myself thus.’ Where that sort of thing is possible, Christianity might as well let itself be buried” (Ibid.). Hitler replied by expressing his regret that Luther had accidentally brought the Old Testament “to honor,” and he went on to condemn the Old Testament as “Satan’s Bible” (Eckart, p. 50). Eckart went on to explain that the Greek translation of the Bible was much more reliable, and true to the words and deeds of Christ, than Luther’s German translation; Luther had consulted with numerous Jews during the translation process, according to Hitler. So, while Eckart had blamed Luther for the erroneous introduction of “forgeries and so on,” Hitler accused the rabbis who had helped Luther translate the Bible for these subsequent “changes and forgeries” (Eckart, p. 51). Indeed, Luther had somehow given the incest of Lot’s daughters a “religious shimmer” (Eckart, pp. 50-51). Hitler had remarked that Luther had unintentionally given the Jewish Old Testament “honor,” as opposed to the “dishonor” it so rightly deserved. “His translation to the German language might have been of some use, as far as I am concerned, but it has grievously damaged the German power of discernment. Lord in heaven, what a halo now surrounds Satan’s ‘Bible’!” Luther’s poetry sparkles so that even the incest of Lot’s daughters has been given a religious shimmer. Jehovah’s command to be fruitful and multiply had to be obeyed by these two pious maidens—at any price” (Eckart pp. 50-51)!

Hitler had accused rabbis of deceiving Luther during the translation process. Hitler argued that, “The rabbis who helped him with the entire translation introduced changes and forgeries. Hebrew is a difficult language. Luther translated a certain word, for example, as ‘racial kinsman.’ But then the rabbi came in and said the word means ‘neighbor.’ And so we have the translation: ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ rather than, as it should be: ‘Love thy racial kinsman as thyself.’ A small piece of cunning, but—it served its purpose of giving the Jews the aspect of real humanitarians” (Eckart, p. 51). Hitler had sardonically quoted the Jewish Old Testament: “And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians; and they shall fight everyone against his brother and everyone against his neighbor… What hatred, what demonic hatred! That’s not human; what is it” (Eckart, p. 57)? Eckart had scornfully stated, “Yes, even Luther was taken in by the ‘chosen people.’ … He looked upon the Old Testament as divine revelation. He approached the book with infatuation, convinced that it could contain nothing but sheer preciousness. Then he began wading into the vile thing. After a few steps he blinked his eyes, bewildered. He was stunned. That just couldn’t be so! It must have some other meaning! And so, with perfectly honest intentions, he read between the lines what simply wasn’t there. Everywhere he managed to see allusions to Christ, although nothing could be farther from the Jews’ actual thoughts on the matter. Their Messiah is no ‘lamb’s tail,’ as [the Jew Heinrich] Heine jeered at Christ, and no scorner of earthly existence” (Eckart, p. 52). He went on to contemptuously ask the question, “I wonder what he thinks Moses used to massacre the Egyptian firstborn, if not weapons. Gumdrops, perhaps? Or were they smothered to death from sheer love” (Eckart, p. 57)? Hitler replied, “The Jews can say whatever they please; it is all gospel to our scholars. They wouldn’t think of trying to verify anything [i.e., modern day Holocaust revisionists, who are imprisoned, beaten, and even murdered for questioning Jewish pseudo-scholarship]; the fact that it appears in print is enough for them. A certain Jewess called the Talmud ‘a grandiose, monumental work of the spirit,’ a ‘heroic monument of ideas, to which the millennia have given the breath of their experience’” (Eckart, p. 58). Indeed, the Talmud claims that all Christians are going to Hell; that Jesus is already in Hell, burning eternally in a boiling vat of semen; and, that Jesus and the Prophet Muhammed were “buried in a dirt heap with dead dogs and asses.” What a precious work of the Jewish spirit of hatred and wickedness, indeed.

According to Steigmann-Gall (2003), “Hitler showed no willingness to give up on the figure of Jesus, whose status as an Aryan remained unquestioned: ‘It is certain that Jesus was not a Jew’ (p. 254). What is fascinating is that Hitler had acknowledged the possibility that Christ’s mother had been a Jewess; nevertheless, Hitler was unwilling to condemn Christ on this issue alone, because He had not adhered to Jewish materialism, Talmudism, or Jewish ideology.

Furthermore, Hitler’s ideas regarding Jews had evolved into profound conceptions of Jewry as a spiritual community, as opposed to a racial community, which Hitler had actually felt was much more dangerous, in retrospect. It is almost as though Hitler had viewed Judaism as a cult of material and ego worship, as opposed to the worship of God. This perception on Hitler’s part would explain why he gave much more credence to Jews who had adhered to Nazi ideology, as opposed to their physical appearances or ethnic degree of Jewishness, when it came to clemency exemptions during the latter half of the war (Rigg, pp. 189, 199, 223). Hitler had ultimately come to fully understand that Judaism was a way of thinking, an ethos, not a race.

In this regard, Hitler had told Eckart:

The truth… is indeed, as you once wrote: one can only understand the Jew when one knows what his ultimate goal is. And that goal is, beyond world domination, the annihilation of the world. He must subjugate all the rest of mankind, he persuades himself, in order to prepare a paradise on earth. He has made himself believe that only he is capable of this great task, and, considering his ideas of paradise, that is certainly so. But already in the means that he employs, one sees that he is secretly driven to something else. While he pretends to be elevating mankind, he torments men to despair, to madness, to ruin. If he is not stopped, he will destroy all men. His nature compels him to that goal, even though he dimly realizes that he will thereby destroy himself. There is no other way for him; he must act thus. This realization of the unconditional dependence of his own existence upon that of his victims appears to me to be the main cause of his hatred. To be obliged to try to annihilate us with all his might, but at the same time to sense that that must lead inevitably to his own ruin, therein lies the crux of the matter. If you will: the tragedy of Lucifer (Eckart, pp. 72-73).

Jesus had rejected nearly everything Jewish, aside from the Ten Commandments, which Hitler had also held up with esteem [even though the Ten Commandments were Jewish in origin]. Hitler made exceptions for exceptional people on many occasions, and his willingness to overlook Christ’s possible ethnic Jewishness runs parallel with his ability to exempt Jewish supporters and Party members from deportation and internment during the war (Rigg, p. 199). Hitler oftentimes felt that Jews and Mischlinge who had truly overcome their Jewish Weltanschauung were worthy of consideration for clemency, regardless of their ethnic Jewishness. This story has been documented brilliantly by Bryan Mark Rigg, in his book, Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers.

Furthermore, Steigmann-Gall (2003) has argued that no matter how anticlerical Hitler became, he had never given any indication whatsoever that he “was now agnostic or atheistic.” Hitler had continuously “displayed a continued attachment to a belief in God” (p. 255).

Hitler even expressed a desire to rely upon the catechism “in his assault against Marxism,” which Steigmann-Gall (2003) has claimed, calls “into question his alleged insistence earlier that Christianity and Marxism were equidistant from Nazism” (Ibid.). In fact, Hitler felt affronted and dejected, to a degree, when the Jew Roosevelt denounced Nazism as “anti-Christian.” Hitler ranted, “What repulsive hypocrisy that arrant Freemason, Roosevelt, displays when he speaks of Christianity! All the Churches should rise up against him—for he acts on principles diametrically opposed to those of the religion of which he boasts.” As Steigmann-Gall (2003) has indicated, Hitler felt irritated at Roosevelt’s claim to be a Christian. If Hitler had not cared about Christianity, or had not cared about being identified as a Christian, then why would he have cared at all about Roosevelt’s claim to be acting on behalf of Christianity? Hitler was never goaded when Stalin donned himself a Marxist, so if “Hitler had truly given up on Christianity and demoted it to the level of Judaism or Bolshevism…he would have felt no compulsion to protect Christianity from Roosevelt’s ‘repulsive hypocrisy’” (p. 256). Even Albert Speer maintained, after 1942, that not only had Hitler limited his apostasy; but, he had maintained a “positive Christian attitude” as well (Steigmann-Gall, p. 256).

So, even though Hitler oftentimes contradicted himself, which everyone has done at least once in their lifetime, he remained consistent, “regardless of his audience,” with regards to his personal praise of Jesus, and his condemnation of paganism (Steigmann-Gall, p. 257). Hitler had even maintained his desire for a state church, preferably Protestant as in England, as late as 1941 (Ibid., pp. 257-258). He had remarked, “Against a Church that identifies itself with the State… I have nothing to say” (Ibid., p. 258). Lastly, even though Hitler never actually professed the Christian element in his “anti-Judaism,” he had remarked that there was no such thing as a “Jewish race.” He had made it clear that the term “Jewish race” was only to be utilized as a matter of “linguistic convenience,” but that the Jews truly represented a “community of the spirit” [read: the Jewish materialistic spirit] (Ibid.). Indeed, Hitler had said, “Anthropologically the Jews do not exhibit those common characteristics that would identify them as a uniform race… A spiritual race is harder and more lasting than a natural race” (Ibid.). This statement essentially serves to debunk the Nazi conception that anti-Semitism could be “scientific,” or “biological,” and that Hitler himself appears to have rejected the notion that “the Jews were a biological race” (Ibid.). Hitler had more often argued, especially in private, that Jesus had recognized the ideological danger of the Jews, and had subsequently led “an inspired struggle against them” (Ibid.). So, while Hitler’s profession to “carry on the Lord’s work by fighting against the Jews,” in Mein Kampf, may not have been inspired by the Christian ethos in its entirety, it certainly appears to have ultimately played at least an inspirational, if not imperative, role in Hitler’s persecution of Jewry.

Issues with Bormann’s Table-Talk

Even though there is a marked duality in Hitler’s thoughts regarding the Christian religion within the various table talks, one cannot help but affirm that he maintained a consistent, positive, enthusiastic, and conciliatory attitude toward Christianity—at least up until the point of the table talks, as recorded by Martin Bormann. However, Hitler expresses this same sort of duality and dismay towards both the clergy and the dogmatism of the Christian religion in the earlier memoirs that were recorded by Otto Wagener. Furthermore, Hitler completely shuns the Old Testament and the Judaized clergy during his recorded conversations with Dietrich Eckart. So, his duality is consistent.

This clear consistency leads us to be able to conclude, with a high degree of certainty, that Hitler had divorced the persona and teachings of Jesus from the Protestant and Catholic religious dogmatism as early as the 1920s. It might not be a bad idea to mention that Hitler attended church regularly, both before and during World War I. So, he did not stop attending church until he became involved in politics. In other words, he consistently attended church for the first half of his life. That is actually more of a commitment than most modern day Christians lend to their own church lives. It would probably also be safe to say that Hitler “outgrew” the church. His faith was much more intensive and grandiose than the simple faith of an “old maid,” as he would say.

It is probably quite accurate to say that Hitler tailored his comments for his particular audience—perhaps he had even tailored his comments about the clergy, the churches, and the actual Christian religion as well. But, his public thoughts do not at all discredit or contradict his private ideas and thoughts about Christianity, which were clearly positive and consistent. Nor do his private thoughts contradict or discredit his public ones. He is consistent in this regard, even in the table talks. In fact, even Traudl Junge (2003) has recorded that Hitler only denounced the churches and clergy; she never mentions Hitler denouncing Christianity or Jesus Christ (p. 108).

Hitler was not the kind of person who would have accepted the precepts of the immaculate conception or the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, in all probability. Indeed, his own comments suggest this much; however, his non-dogmatic, transcendental approach to the faith, as well as his belief that Christ was resurrected through His followers via ‘resurrection’ of His teachings after His death, does not make him any less Christian than any other type of non-traditional, unorthodox Christian. If one is going to attempt to argue this thesis then one would have to also discredit Martin Luther’s unorthodox Christianity. Lastly, the 1945 table talks, whether genuine or not, still portray a transcendental Christian Hitler that equates with the transcendental Christian Hitler of Eckart, Speer, Wagener, and Bormann.

The table talks may portray a Hitler who had qualms with church and clergy, but they do not at all portray an agnostic, atheistic, or non-Christian Hitler. The table talks are most likely absolutely genuine. The only table talks that have been disputed, as to their credibility, are the final 1945 table talks. They are sold as a book entitled, The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents. These are the only table talks that might qualify as embellished or fraudulent, though, I believe they are consistent with the 1941-1944 recordings. My own discretion indicates that they are genuine. Moreover, it is my belief that historian Hugh Trevor-Roper would have been privy to fraudulent documents. He was certainly a credible and high quality historian. His discretion can be trusted over most others. I must say, though, that he did not notice that the so-called “Hitler diaries” were written on new age paper; also, he overlooked the fact that Hitler never wrote anything down. So, he is not totally reliable, but mostly reliable. Historian David Irving exposed the fraudulent diaries, and he claims that the final 1945 table talks are fraudulent.

Jewish historians, and historian John Lukacs, quote these 1945 table talks extensively, so, one has to be aware of the fact that reputable historians continue to dispute the credibility of this particular source. Many quote from it, but its reliability is still disputed.

As a final point on this matter, the anticlerical, anti-paganist, anti-Christian, Martin Bormann “was indeed motivated not by a committed ideological opposition to Christianity, but by an attempt to outdo other Nazis, to shame them and thereby bring them under his control. His extremism transgressed the views of radicals like Rosenberg and even Hitler himself and seemed at times to flirt with atheism. In his attempted forays into ideology, he never mentioned Jesus, Luther, or positive Christianity [he was careful to avoid certain topics, obviously]. He seems to have outdone the party’s anti-Christians at their own game. Given the many attempts within the party to curb him, it is safe to conclude that, without Bormann, Nazism would not have received quite the same anti-Christian reputation. He remained a party functionary first and foremost. His obsession with the churches, although very real, was as much about asserting his position in the party as it was about a true ideological commitment to Nazism. The singularity of this obsession, most likely based on a febrile need for Hitler’s affection and a mounting hatred for his in-laws, arguably constituted a departure from Nazism as much as its most radical expression” (Steigmann-Gall, p. 251).

Hitler’s Thoughts on Luther and Faith

“In the face of Luther’s efforts to lead an upper clergy that had acquired profane habits back to mysticism, the Jesuits restored to the world the joy of the senses.

“It’s certain that Luther had no desire to mould humanity to the letter of the Scriptures. He has a whole series of reflections in which he clearly sets himself against the Bible. He recognizes that it contains a lot of bad things.

“Fanaticism is a matter of climate—for Protestantism, too, has burnt its witches. Nothing of that sort in Italy. The Southerner has a lighter attitude towards matters of faith. The Frenchman has personally an easy way of behaving in his churches. With us, it’s enough not to kneel to attract attention” (Bormann, p. 9).

“In virtue of what law, divine or otherwise, should the rich alone have the right to govern? The world is passing at this moment through one of the most important revolutions in human history. We are witnessing the final somersaults of Christianity. It began with the Lutheran revolution. The revolutionary nature of that rebellion lies in the fact that until then there had been only one authority, on both the spiritual and temporal level, that of the Pope—for it was he who delegated temporal power. Dogma cannot resist the ceaselessly renewed attacks of the spirit of free enquiry. One cannot teach at ten o’clock in the morning truths which one destroys in the eleven o’clock lesson.

“What is ruining Christianity today is what once ruined the ancient world. The pantheistic mythology would no longer suit the social conditions of the period. As soon as the idea was introduced that all men were equal before God [St. Paul], that world was bound to collapse” (Ibid. p. 336). Interestingly enough, this passage reveals Hitler’s concern for the future of Christianity. Apparently, he believed that it was being ruined, and cared, or he would not have even addressed such a point.

“It is a great pity that this tendency towards religious thought can find no better outlet than the Jewish pettifoggery of the Old Testament. For religious people who, in the solitude of winter, continually seek ultimate light on their religious problems with the assistance of the Bible, must eventually become spiritually deformed. The wretched people strive to exact truths from these Jewish chicaneries, where in fact no truths exist. As a result they become embedded in some rut of thought or other and, unless they possess an exceptionally commonsense mind, degenerate into religious maniacs.

“It is deplorable that the Bible should have been translated into German, and that the whole of the German people should have thus become exposed to the whole of this Jewish mumbo-jumbo. So long as the wisdom, particularly of the Old Testament, remained exclusively in the Latin of the Church, there was little danger that sensible people would become the victims of illusions as the result of studying the Bible. But since the Bible became common property, a whole heap of people have found opened to them lines of religious thought which—particularly in line with the German characteristic of persistent and somewhat melancholy meditation—as often as not turned them into religious maniacs. When one recollects further that the Catholic Church has elevated to the status of Saints a whole number of madmen, one realizes why movements such as that of the Flagellants came inevitably into existence in the Middle Ages in Germany.

“As a sane German one is flabbergasted to think that the German human beings could have let themselves be brought to such a pass by Jewish filth and priestly twaddle, that they were little different from the howling dervish of the Turks and the negroes, at whom we laugh so scornfully. It angers one to think that, while in other parts of the globe religious teaching like that of Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammed offers an undeniably broad basis for the religious-minded, Germans should have been duped by a theological exposition devoid of all honest depth.

“… we must do everything humanly possible to protect for all time any further sections of the German people from the danger of mental deformity, regardless of whether it be religious mania or any other type of cerebral derangement” (Ibid., pp. 513-514).

“The Church has succeeded in striking a very pretty balance between life on earth and in the Hereafter. On earth, they say, the poor must remain poor and blessed, for in Heaven the earthly rich will get nothing; and the unfortunate poor on earth believe them!

It is only by keeping the masses ignorant that the existing social order of things can be maintained; in the eyes of the faithful, this is the justification for supreme Papal authority. Cramer-Klett told me one day that he had become a Catholic because he realized that Luther with his Reformation had completely destroyed authority as such.

Hitler’s Thoughts on the Almighty

“Possibly—but I cannot help thinking that man has been endowed with a brain which he is intended to make use of, and that anything which is founded on a premise unacceptable to the human intellect cannot endure forever. It is not possible to hold fast for very long to tenets which the progress of knowledge have proved to be false. … In my eyes the ability of mankind to reject a proven untruth is one of its virtues. … It adds little to our knowledge of the Creator when some parson presents to us an indifferent copy of a man as his conception of the Deity. In this respect, at least, Mohammedan is more enlightened, when he says: to form a conception of Allah is not vouchsafed to man.

The most pressing danger, as I see it, is that Christianity, by adhering to a conception of the Beyond which is constantly exposed to the attacks of unceasing progress, and by binding it so closely to many of the trivialities of life which may at any moment collapse, is ripening mankind for conversion to materialistic Bolshevism. And that is a terrible tragedy. Man will lose all sense of proportion, and once he considers himself to be the lord of the universe, it will be the end of everything. And if the Church in Spain continues in the way it is doing, it will end up on the refuse-heap. … The Church of today is nothing more than a hereditary joint-stock company for the exploitation of human stupidity” (Ibid., pp. 606-607).

In this striking and revealing passage, Hitler expresses his personal belief that the most pressing danger is Christianity’s inflexible dogma, especially in light of scientific progress and social change. Hitler essentially felt that Christianity could only continue its existence if it evolved with mankind; both spiritually and sociologically. He argued his point by citing the case of Galileo. Before Galileo’s discovery, geocentrism was an irrefragable truth within the context of the Christian ethos. After Galileo’s discovery, geocentrists were outright liars. Hitler felt that this constant give-and-take between reason, science, and Christianity was not only healthy, but necessary for the survival of the Christian faith. He argued that its ethos had to broadened, as he felt it was far too dogmatic for the people it was designed for.

Conclusion

In these passages, it becomes quite clear that Hitler genuinely cared about the return to the doctrine of true Christ-inspired Christianity, and that his attacks on the churches were not motivated by reasons of faith. Hitler believed that the Christian clerics and churches hindered and harmed society, much more so, than helped and healed. He viewed them as bigots and deceivers of the people. Furthermore, Hitler never gave to the realm of science, or mankind, the knowledge of the universe and the mastery of humankind or nature. He loathed people who claimed to have triumphed over creation. He despised atheism, and he equally loathed materialism.

Even though Hitler disliked the churches and clergy, he lent them much support. An anonymous contact of mine has informed me in this regard. He said, “In addition to the photo album, I have also translated two of my father’s small diaries. In these diaries you will not find a hint of the German Superman and the Russian Untermenschen…I will send you…quite a bit of other material I have regarding the churches during the Nazi period. From personal experience, I can say, that during the Nazi period the Protestant and the Catholic churches were thriving. Now, they are moribund.”

The fact of the matter is, Adolf Hitler respected religious property and had no qualms with the widespread usage of Latin Crosses for memorials and burials. Numerous Christian crosses were in fact erected during the National Socialist regime—not during the Jewish Weimar regime. The Jews had already started the dismantling of the Christian religion during the Weimar days; Church attendance plummeted to all-time lows. Under Hitler, Christianity surged and flourished to new heights. This has all been carefully documented, using mostly primary sources, by historian Steigmann-Gall.

Hopefully, these passages will bring to light some of Hitler’s more profound thoughts and ideas regarding religion and Christianity; he really was an incredibly insightful thinker. His insights into faith and religion remain unparalleled to this day. The man was incredibly perceptive, and at times, frightfully so, and that is one reason why popular interest in Hitler remains so incredibly abundant.

My own view is that Hitler was a true Christian, because according to Jesus Christ Himself, Christians are judged by their “works in His name.” One glance at Dr. Otto Dietrich’s reflections of Hitler as Fuehrer indicate that Hitler was an incredibly loving person. He did nothing but wonders and miracles for his nation and people, no matter their lot. Moreover, Hitler claimed, in Mein Kampf and elsewhere, that he was doing “the handiwork of the Lord.” As recorded by Steigmann-Gall, Hitler had called Jesus Christ “the true God.” For some, the only question that remains is: Were Hitler’s Christian beliefs truly heartfelt, or did he just use Christianity as a means to an end?

Jesus has already answered this question. “By their works ye shall know them.”

The 1945 Hitler-Bormann Documents: A Theo-Historical Interpretation

Hitler’s Notes: A Closer Examination of His Views of Jewry and “Democracies”

Hitler and Buchanan: Consequences of Jewish Power, Then and Now

References

Bormann, M. (2000). Hitler’s Table-Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations (Hugh Trevor-Roper, Ed.). (Norman Cameron & R.H. Stevens, Trans.). New York: Enigma Books. (Original work published 1953)

Bormann, M. (1961). The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents. London: Cassell and Company Ltd. (Original work published 1959)

Conway, J.S. (2001). The Nazi Persecution of the Churches: 1933-1945. Vancouver: Regent College Publishing. (Original work published 1968)

Eckart, D. (1999). Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin: A Dialogue Between Adolf Hitler and Me. (W. Pierce, Trans.). West Virginia: National Vanguard Books. (Original work published 1923)

Helmreich, E. (1980). The German Churches Under Hitler: Background, Struggle, and Epilogue. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. (Original work published 1979)

Junge, T. (2003). Until the Final Hour. New York: Arcade Publishing, Inc. (Original work published 2002)

Rigg, B.M. (2002). Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Armed Forces. Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Steigmann-Gall, R. (2003). The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Back Next Back to top Home