Protestantism, Luther, and the rise of Nazi Germany

[jerome_ky]

Just a couple of questions to ask before buying into the above-
-Did anti-Semitism exist in what would become Germany and Europe prior to Martin Luther?
-Did anti-Semitism change dramatically between the Protestant areas of Germany/Europe and the Catholic areas of Germany/Europe after Martin Luther?

If the argument is that Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism somehow influenced the rise of Nazism in Germany, then one should be able to show a dramatic difference between the Protestant and Catholic populations of Germany in regards to the Jews. One should also be able to show how this difference can be traced back to the Reformation and a gap in views between the two populaces that increases over time.

Martin Luther is guilty of a lot of things, but trying to pin the rise of Nazism (and Fascism of which Nazism is a subset) on him is silly in my opinion.

I don’t think Martin Luther is guilty of the rise of Nazism. Neither do I understand all the talk about “blaming” Catholics or Protestants in this thread. This is a question of “principalities and powers,” not groups of men.

What Martin Luther did was to begin the break-up of the authority of the Catholic Church in Europe. There is a parallel to how the Nazis treated the Catholic Church. The Reichsconcordat had the unintended (for the Vatican) effect of apparently legitimizing the Nazis, but the purpose of it was to allow the Vatican to retain authority where she could. The Nazis proceeded to break the concordat in many ways, to many complaints by the Vatican. Membership in Catholic trade organizations was hindered, for instance, by Nazi rules against membership in both Nazi and any other trade organizations. The progress was made bureaucratically, rather than violently, as against the Jews, because the Catholic Church still had cachet. But the Nazi attacks on Catholic clergy were unique in that the clergy were attacked as Jewish. There’s a cartoon of a priest holding a bible that is titled “Moses” and has the Star of David on it. This is reminiscent of Nietzsche’s slams on Christianity as being the ultimate Jewish victory (not in a favorable way). Jewish Biblical names were discouraged- why be named David or Isaiah when Siegried was such a good name? The list goes on and on. Catholics were submitted to death by a thousand cuts.

I think personally that the Protestant Reformation was not a victory for the forces of good. It was a break-up of the One True Church. That’s not a slam on today’s Protestants, that’s a whole other story, or blaming Hitler on Luther. But it does seem that Luther opened the door to greater evil by driving out transubstantiation and the legitimate priesthood.

 

[benjohnson]

We look back and we’re so righteous and intolerant of previous recorded evils, thinking that if it were “me” or “us” we’re enlightened enough not to engage in moral atrocities and failures. I’m not so sure we are. It seems like when a wide-spread moral evil occurs, the majority follow along like sheep, with only a few brave souls standing out.

JS

You point is well taken, and deeply disturbing. There’s a ‘holocaust’ going on right now, and very few of us bother to stand up and even protest.

 

[robwar]

I transcribed this last part of the section on the churches:

Maybe this is closer to the truth. Hitler had won his political victories in the Riechstag and had turned his attention to the Nazification of Germany in the 30s. People were too enthralled with his “successes” to care about a few thousand pastors and priests, and what was essentially the loss of Christianity as they had known it. Honestly, it reminds me of the prevailing culture today, where Church goers are few.

God bless,
Ut

yes, I think you are spot on. I’ve heard other Protestant commentaries say that while Germany on the surface was Christian, the so called Christian people voted him in and he went ahead an Nazified the country and culture.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t think Martin Luther is guilty of the rise of Nazism. Neither do I understand all the talk about “blaming” Catholics or Protestants in this thread. This is a question of “principalities and powers,” not groups of men.

What Martin Luther did was to begin the break-up of the authority of the Catholic Church in Europe. There is a parallel to how the Nazis treated the Catholic Church. The Reichsconcordat had the unintended (for the Vatican) effect of apparently legitimizing the Nazis, but the purpose of it was to allow the Vatican to retain authority where she could. The Nazis proceeded to break the concordat in many ways, to many complaints by the Vatican. Membership in Catholic trade organizations was hindered, for instance, by Nazi rules against membership in both Nazi and any other trade organizations. The progress was made bureaucratically, rather than violently, as against the Jews, because the Catholic Church still had cachet. But the Nazi attacks on Catholic clergy were unique in that the clergy were attacked as Jewish. There’s a cartoon of a priest holding a bible that is titled “Moses” and has the Star of David on it. This is reminiscent of Nietzsche’s slams on Christianity as being the ultimate Jewish victory (not in a favorable way). Jewish Biblical names were discouraged- why be named David or Isaiah when Siegried was such a good name? The list goes on and on. Catholics were submitted to death by a thousand cuts.

I think personally that the Protestant Reformation was not a victory for the forces of good. It was a break-up of the One True Church. That’s not a slam on today’s Protestants, that’s a whole other story, or blaming Hitler on Luther. But it does seem that Luther opened the door to greater evil by driving out transubstantiation and the legitimate priesthood.

Great post!

 

[utunumsint]

If you read the book Ivanhoe, set in the 12th Century, you will see that antisemitism was rampant in Europe long before the birth of the Protestant movement. Antisemitism is a disease, a curse, and all of us must be cautious that it does not infect us.

Nazism’s religious origins were only slightly “Protestant” or “Catholic.” The religion that inspired and fueled Nazism was the occult pagan ancient religion of the ancient Germans, practiced by them before they were Christianized, and still revered by many of the “modern” Germans of the early 20th Century.

If he has not yet done so, the OP will eventually discover a very fascinating discussion in Shirer’s great book about German Paganism. According to Shirer, one of the mistakes that the rest of the world made was to assume that 20th Century Germans were civilized. Shirer states that they were NOT civilized at all, and hence their willingness to embrace Nazism and its pageantry and promise of world dominance and the establishment of a “Master Race” of Aryans.

Many Germans were (and still are) stirred in their hearts over the ancient German mythology and hierarchy of Norse Gods and Valhalla. One of the best ways to learn about Hitler and his motives is to watch the Wagnerian operas, especially the Ring Cycle. Simply stated, Hitler believed these operas were true, and felt that he was divinely appointed to restore the proper German religion and Germany’s dominant place in the universe.

It is not true that eugenics was imported to Europe from the United States (America). This false science has ancient occult roots, and these occult teachings became immensely popular throughout Europe during the 19th Century well into the 20th Century.
People like Margaret Sanger helped to promote eugenics as a “science.”

In the early 20th Century, occultism was popular through Germany, with many regular folks getting involved with what we would call today “New Age” movements. Many people followed a spiritual teacher named Madame Helena Blavatsky, who is credited with promoting “theosophy,” a cult.

One of the teachings of Madame Blavatsky was about “root races,” a description of the origins of the world that had its origin in ancient occult teachings which she learned during her pilgrimage to Tibet. Hitler and many others in Germany believed that the Aryan race (one of the “root races”) was the German race.

I apologize for this rather disjointed post. I think that those who are interested in religion and Nazism need to read a wide variety of books and writings. William Shirer’s book is certainly monumental and a great introduction. But much study is needed to arrive at a balanced conclusion.

I believe such study is necessary to prevent the same kind of mass “leading astray” of a people that occurred in the early 20th Century in the German-speaking countries. IMO, this could easily happen again. The influence of Christianity in Germany today is sadly, very tiny. Same here in the United States. People who worship false gods are easily led astray by monsters.

Thanks for this post Cat. You make some good points. It helps bring perspective what the actual culture was like. Not just in Germany, but in England too. For example, Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s “demon” inspired works that so influenced Hitler also spoke of root races, like Madame Blavatsky you mention. Hitler felt himself specially chosen for his task.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Just a couple of questions to ask before buying into the above-
-Did anti-Semitism exist in what would become Germany and Europe prior to Martin Luther?
-Did anti-Semitism change dramatically between the Protestant areas of Germany/Europe and the Catholic areas of Germany/Europe after Martin Luther?

If the argument is that Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism somehow influenced the rise of Nazism in Germany, then one should be able to show a dramatic difference between the Protestant and Catholic populations of Germany in regards to the Jews. One should also be able to show how this difference can be traced back to the Reformation and a gap in views between the two populaces that increases over time.

Martin Luther is guilty of a lot of things, but trying to pin the rise of Nazism (and Fascism of which Nazism is a subset) on him is silly in my opinion.

I tend to agree. Anti-semitism was wide spread as well as rampant racism - for example, slavery in England and America. It is simply an example of a protestant introspection that I appreciated finding, even though I don’t really agree with his explanation.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Well, whatever one wants to consider “church” it’s certain to me that no large scale lesson was really learned from Nazi Germany, at least here in the USA. I say this because, while the majority of those folks who call themselves “Christian” abhor the the Nazi atrocities and think if they were there- they would never allow it… how many of those same people (and I include myself) are actively trying to stop the daily murder carried out under the technical term, “abortion”? I mean, this morning, I didn’t get up, go down to the local abortion clinic, and try and stop a murder. Why? because I would probably be arrested.

The lesson here (at least as I apply it to myself), is that in society the overwhelming majority of us don’t want to stick out in society and face potential hardship for ourselves and our families.

As you say, “hind sight is 20/20.” History is tricky thing. We look back and we’re so righteous and intolerant of previous recorded evils, thinking that if it were “me” or “us” we’re enlightened enough not to engage in moral atrocities and failures. I’m not so sure we are. It seems like when a wide-spread moral evil occurs, the majority follow along like sheep, with only a few brave souls standing out.

JS

I very much agree with this. I suppose the question is, how do we avoid being sheep. What is the best way to oppose institutional evil.

God bless,
Ut

 

[batman1973]

It saddens and sickens me that this kind of hate filled diatribe is allowed here. I know the RCC hates Luther, but, to blame the atrocities of Hitler on Father Martin is enough. This is what I ment that the mods let RCCs get away with more than the Protestants. This thread should have never seen the light of day.

 

[utunumsint]

It saddens and sickens me that this kind of hate filled diatribe is allowed here. I know the RCC hates Luther, but, to blame the atrocities of Hitler on Father Martin is enough. This is what I ment that the mods let RCCs get away with more than the Protestants. This thread should have never seen the light of day.

What post specifically offends you? I apologize if I have given offense.

God bless,
Ut

 

[batman1973]

What post specifically offends you? I apologize if I have given offense.

God bless,
Ut

The title for starters. It seems that it flat out accuses Fr. Martin and the Protestants of the cause of Nazi Germany. Adolph was an evil man. He was anti christian.It’s true that Fr. Luther made a hate filled diatribe against the Jews. For that, he has been held accountable to God. IMHO this board is turning into the Catholic version of Matt Slick’s message board. The Self righteous Roman catholics on this board go out of their way to make sure that those who aren’t RCC are wrong, and that they “Need to come home to Rome”, and could care less about anything else.

 

[utunumsint]

The title for starters. It seems that it flat out accuses Fr. Martin and the Protestants of the cause of Nazi Germany. Adolph was an evil man. He was anti christian.It’s true that Fr. Luther made a hate filled diatribe against the Jews. For that, he has been held accountable to God. IMHO this board is turning into the Catholic version of Matt Slick’s message board. The Self righteous Roman catholics on this board go out of their way to make sure that those who aren’t RCC are wrong, and that they “Need to come home to Rome”, and could care less about anything else.

I am sorry you are getting that impression. I almost never post on this forum, but was struck by the quote from the Shirer in light of the subsequent abuse we Catholic have received from the popular media. I think if you give my posts a look through, you will find that my opinion has changed from the start of the OP. Many Catholic have rejected Shirer’s opinion and I have learned from the many non-catholic posts on this thread.

Again, I apologize for the title of the thread, but I have learned a thing or two since starting it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[oldcatholicguy]

What Martin Luther did was to begin the break-up of the authority of the Catholic Church in Europe.

Luther’s actions had a greater impact on the authority of the Church in Europe than?-
-secular leaders using the Church to legitimize their actions (Charles the Great, William the Conqueror, post-Reconquista Iberia)
-secular leaders forcing the Church to do their bidding (Henry VIII and his many wives)
-secular and Church leaders using the Pope and the Papacy as their personal toys (buying and selling of the Papacy/Bishoprics)
-secular leaders waging war against the Church (see HRE) or holding the Pope hostage (see France)

I’d say that the assault on the authority of the Church in Europe began long before Luther was even born.

 

[jerome_ky]

Luther’s actions had a greater impact on the authority of the Church in Europe than?-
-secular leaders using the Church to legitimize their actions (Charles the Great, William the Conqueror, post-Reconquista Iberia)
-secular leaders forcing the Church to do their bidding (Henry VIII and his many wives)
-secular and Church leaders using the Pope and the Papacy as their personal toys (buying and selling of the Papacy/Bishoprics)
-secular leaders waging war against the Church (see HRE) or holding the Pope hostage (see France)

I’d say that the assault on the authority of the Church in Europe began long before Luther was even born.

Not entirely sure I grasp the meaning of this post, however Henry VIII was a contemporary of Luther. Anne Boleyn was a keen observer of the Protestant movement and influenced Henry’s thinking. There would have been no English Reformation without Luther, I think that’s very well established.

 

[JustaServant]

It saddens and sickens me that this kind of hate filled diatribe is allowed here. I know the RCC hates Luther, but, to blame the atrocities of Hitler on Father Martin is enough. This is what I ment that the mods let RCCs get away with more than the Protestants. This thread should have never seen the light of day.

You really need to simmer down my friend. That’s just not true. Catholics get banned from this forum right and left. Non-Catholics are given much freedom here, and a lot of rope.
The OP is about a book he is reading, he did not make the charge himself.
How many threads have been started on Chick tracts? Somewhere on here is a recent thread about the Pope and the anti-christ.
The topic is not the problem.
How it is handled is when the mods step in.

 

[benjohnson]

It saddens and sickens me that this kind of hate filled diatribe is allowed here.

For me, I think the discussion has been candid and polite especially given the subject matter at hand. Sure, you can take a few posts as sort of pot shots against Lutherans, but frankly I’m impressed with the rationality shown here so far.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Not entirely sure I grasp the meaning of this post, however Henry VIII was a contemporary of Luther. Anne Boleyn was a keen observer of the Protestant movement and influenced Henry’s thinking. There would have been no English Reformation without Luther, I think that’s very well established.

-The post is a list of “off the top of my head” examples of the Church’s authority in Europe being challenged/undermined prior to Luther. Luther was more the straw that broke the camel’s back then anything else in regards to the erosion of Church authority in Europe. Europe wasn’t “we all mind and obey” the Church before Luther, nor should it be of any surprise that what became Germany and was then parts of the “we rather don’t like Church authority” HRE was a hotbed of Protestantism.
-Yes, Henry was a contemporary of Luther. That one needs to come of my list.
-I wasn’t pointing Henry or the English Reformation out as an example of the Reformation taking place regardless of Luther. The linkage between Luther and Henry’s later actions should be clear to everyone. I was pointing more toward Henry’s actions with the Church (pressuring it to allow him to play “wife swap”) prior to the English Reformation.

 

[gracepoole]

Perhaps it is the very fragmented nature of Protestantism that makes it impossible for many of them to express any shame or remorse over what happened in Germany. “It wasn’t my church, etc…” It is only on account of the cohesive nature of Catholicism that we, in a corporate and collective way, can express shame that we did not do more to stop the Nazi rise to power, or do more for the Jews and those exterminated in the Nazi death camps or forced sterilization.

Are there any Protestant books that look on this period of history with the same level of conscience searching as can be found in Catholic book stores or as demonstrated by subsequent Popes? This is not an attack on Protestantism. I am truly interested to see if my impression is wrong.

God bless,
Ut

I regularly participate in an academic conference that focuses on just this topic – the role and failures of Christian churches in the Holocaust. It was first started by Franklin Littell, a Protestant Holocaust scholar. I highly recommend his seminal work on the topic: The Crucifixion of the Jews: The Failure of Christians to Understand the Jewish Experience.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

The US Holocaust Museum has a informative section of the role of German churches during the Holocaust

ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

In sum, both Christian churches largely turned a blind eye to the Holocaust for a variety of reasons, especially at the leadership level. Despite this, there were Christians at the individual level who did try to help, and even died doing so (ex. Bonhoeffer)

 

[robwar]

It saddens and sickens me that this kind of hate filled diatribe is allowed here. I know the RCC hates Luther, but, to blame the atrocities of Hitler on Father Martin is enough. This is what I ment that the mods let RCCs get away with more than the Protestants. This thread should have never seen the light of day.

What hate? this as been a fair and balanced discussion with a number of Lutherans included. Pointing out that Luther did write some pretty violent things concerning Jews and a number of other people is looking at him honestly and is part of the historical record.
His violent writings have been condemned by a number of Lutherans and their counsels. Like I said in one of my posts, the speaker from Jews for Jesus which is not a Catholic group at all talked more about Martin Luther and what he wrote than any Catholic such as Johann Eck or even St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysotom (the later two have often been accused of anti-semetism). Jews for Jesus is a Protestant evangelical group.

 

[robwar]

The US Holocaust Museum has a informative section of the role of German churches during the Holocaust

ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

In sum, both Christian churches largely turned a blind eye to the Holocaust for a variety of reasons, especially at the leadership level. Despite this, there were Christians at the individual level who did try to help, and even died doing so (ex. Bonhoeffer)

You ignored blessed Bishop Galen who was openingly outspoken against Hilter right from the beginning. You also ignored the bishops of the Netherlands when together had all Catholic churches read from all pulpits condemnation of Jewish persecution. You are ignoring that Pope Puis ordered all monestaries open to take in Jewish refuges, then issued fake baptism certificates to hide that fact that they were Jewish. You ignored the fact that the Vatican likewise open up to Jewish refuges and that there was so many that they were sleeping on cots in Vatican museum. the chief Rabbi of Rome became a Catholic due to the efforts of Pope Pius in saving as many Jews as he could. The summer residence of the Pope was likewised opened up to hide people. Yes, there were some noted Protestants like Carrie ten Boom but look at the record, it was the Catholic Church that did the most behind the scenes.