Protestantism, Luther, and the rise of Nazi Germany

[Tempelritter]

Yes, Luther was a vocal anti-Semite, as were legions of others within the Catholic and emerging Protestant churches of the time. There is, however, a distinction between old-world religious anti-Semitism, and the modern racial anti-Semitism, which began emerging in the late 19th century, that informed the Nazis’ worldview.

As for who is to blame for National Socialism, it certainly is not Luther or Protestantism. Most of those in the upper-echelons of the Third Reich (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, etc.) were practicing or former Catholics, and there were also practicing or former Lutherans (Goering, Hess, etc.). There is great ambiguity as to whether most or all of them renounced Christianity, and embraced Germanic neopaganism, atheism, and so on. Hitler himself gave contradictory writings on his faith throughout his life, variously suggesting that he had repudiated Catholicism, and at other times reaffirming that he would never leave the Church. He and others, particularly Himmler, often disparaged Christianity as a Jewish perversion, and certainly the latter favoured its removal from the German and European way of life. The Third Reich tolerated Christianity because it needed the support of the 98%+ Christian population, but it is quite likely that, following victory in the war, an incremental crackdown on the churches would have come.

In short, no, the fact that the Nazis wheeled out every historical anti-Semitic text they could find, including Luther’s works (which themselves were not a contemporary anomaly), does not mean that Lutheranism in any way facilitated National Socialism.

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

Please enlighten us.
Praytell who?

High ranking Vatican officials. Cardinals and Bishops sympathetic to the Third Reich. Eichmann Named one of his sons after the Cardinal who helped him to flee to Argentina under an assumed name (Riccardo Klement).

Don’t think I’m picking on Catholics here. The big wig of Islam was in with the Nazis, and the President of Jehovah’s Witnesses sent Hitler 2 letters that I know of praising his ideology. Luther helped to fan the flames of Antisemitism, but there were others who contributed as well. Catholic and Non-Catholic alike.

Oskar Schindler was a Catholic, BTW. And look what he did. Along with many people of various backgrounds who helped those destined for the gas chambers and ovens.

Does that answer your question?

 

[KP3243]

My guess on this and it is only a guess is that the Church believes all human life is sacred and anyone can repent and be forgiven if they are truly sorry, which only God knows the intention of a human heart. it’s why Catholics are so staunchly opposed to the death penalty if you can properly incarcerate and protect society from evil people, if you can’t and they are a threat then the state has on obligation to protect people. This is the only logical thing I can think of.

I believe Eichmann received his false ID from the international Red Cross in Genoa. History says he was aided by an Austrian Bishop not the Vatican, believe me we always have our share then less than holy bishops at any given time which is what I think Luther rightfully despised about the Church he saw the faith being perverted and had enough of it.

 

[Topper17]

Yes, Luther was a vocal anti-Semite, as were legions of others within the Catholic and emerging Protestant churches of the time. There is, however, a distinction between old-world religious anti-Semitism, and the modern racial anti-Semitism, which began emerging in the late 19th century, that informed the Nazis’ worldview.

As for who is to blame for National Socialism, it certainly is not Luther or Protestantism. Most of those in the upper-echelons of the Third Reich (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, etc.) were practicing or former Catholics, and there were also practicing or former Lutherans (Goering, Hess, etc.). There is great ambiguity as to whether most or all of them renounced Christianity, and embraced Germanic neopaganism, atheism, and so on. Hitler himself gave contradictory writings on his faith throughout his life, variously suggesting that he had repudiated Catholicism, and at other times reaffirming that he would never leave the Church. He and others, particularly Himmler, often disparaged Christianity as a Jewish perversion, and certainly the latter favoured its removal from the German and European way of life. The Third Reich tolerated Christianity because it needed the support of the 98%+ Christian population, but it is quite likely that, following victory in the war, an incremental crackdown on the churches would have come.

In short, no, the fact that the Nazis wheeled out every historical anti-Semitic text they could find, including Luther’s works (which themselves were not a contemporary anomaly), does not mean that Lutheranism in any way facilitated National Socialism.

Hi Temple,

It seems that you have staked out several positions, all of which seem to be the standard Protestant responses on the subject. You have said:

1. Others were also vocal anti-semites, inferring that, at worst, the two confessions share guilt over the Nazis equally.
2. There is a distinction between old-world religious anti-Semitism and the modern racial anti-Semitism. Apparently the racial form of anti-Semitism is more objectionable than religious anti-Semitism.
3. Blame for Nazism does not belong to Luther or Protestantism. In other words if it belongs on any religious organization, it must be on the Catholics.
4. Most of the Nazi’s were either Catholics or former Catholics.
5. Most Nazi’s rejected Christianity.
6. The Nazi’s tolerated Christianity, meaning that they did not look at then as allies with common goals and ideologies.
7. Lutheranism in no way facilitated National Socialism.

I think you have done an excellent job of identifying most of the generalized arguments that people use to make it seem that, at worst, the Catholic Church bears at least as much responsibility for the Nazis as do the Lutheran/Protestants. If you feel that I have mischaracterized your position, please feel free to restate them before they are refuted. There is compelling evidence for each of these 7 issues (and others) which prove that the Protestants were much more an integral part of the Nazi organization and in fact, that the Nazis and the Protestants shared many goals.

Probably the best way to approach these subjects is to simply list them one at a time, quoting the respected scholars who honestly represent the historical situation. But first of all, it would probably be helpful to document what various Protestant and especially Lutheran Scholars have to say on the subject.

“Not surprisingly, the current phase of Luther scholarship of Luther scholarship was the result of a convergence of the impact of the Nazi totalitarianism in Germany between 1933 and 1945 and the role of the Lutheran churches and theology played during that time, the general increasing focus of historical scholarship on social issues in the past, and also the Luther anniversary…….Martin Luther proved a worthwhile paradigm not only for theologians and churchmen, but for statesmen and politicians as well. However guardedly, even Hitler and the Nazis found strikingly positive words to say about the reformer.” Dr. Hans J. Hillerbrand, “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, “The Legacy of Martin Luther”, pg. 236

As Dr. Hillerbrand points out, the Lutheran churches and Lutheran theology played a role in Nazi totalitarianism. What is interesting is how significant that role was.

Blessings, Topper

 

[Tempelritter]

Hi Temple,

It seems that you have staked out several positions, all of which seem to be the standard Protestant responses on the subject. You have said:

1. Others were also vocal anti-semites, inferring that, at worst, the two confessions share guilt over the Nazis equally.
2. There is a distinction between old-world religious anti-Semitism and the modern racial anti-Semitism. Apparently the racial form of anti-Semitism is more objectionable than religious anti-Semitism.
3. Blame for Nazism does not belong to Luther or Protestantism. In other words if it belongs on any religious organization, it must be on the Catholics.
4. Most of the Nazi’s were either Catholics or former Catholics.
5. Most Nazi’s rejected Christianity.
6. The Nazi’s tolerated Christianity, meaning that they did not look at then as allies with common goals and ideologies.
7. Lutheranism in no way facilitated National Socialism.

I think you have done an excellent job of identifying most of the generalized arguments that people use to make it seem that, at worst, the Catholic Church bears at least as much responsibility for the Nazis as do the Lutheran/Protestants. If you feel that I have mischaracterized your position, please feel free to restate them before they are refuted. There is compelling evidence for each of these 7 issues (and others) which prove that the Protestants were much more an integral part of the Nazi organization and in fact, that the Nazis and the Protestants shared many goals.

Probably the best way to approach these subjects is to simply list them one at a time, quoting the respected scholars who honestly represent the historical situation. But first of all, it would probably be helpful to document what various Protestant and especially Lutheran Scholars have to say on the subject.

“Not surprisingly, the current phase of Luther scholarship of Luther scholarship was the result of a convergence of the impact of the Nazi totalitarianism in Germany between 1933 and 1945 and the role of the Lutheran churches and theology played during that time, the general increasing focus of historical scholarship on social issues in the past, and also the Luther anniversary…….Martin Luther proved a worthwhile paradigm not only for theologians and churchmen, but for statesmen and politicians as well. However guardedly, even Hitler and the Nazis found strikingly positive words to say about the reformer.” Dr. Hans J. Hillerbrand, “The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther”, “The Legacy of Martin Luther”, pg. 236

As Dr. Hillerbrand points out, the Lutheran churches and Lutheran theology played a role in Nazi totalitarianism. What is interesting is how significant that role was.

Blessings, Topper

You have mischaracterized my argument insofar as I am not trying to absolve the Lutherans of degrees of complicity with the Third Reich, nor trying to shift blame to the Catholics, but rather highlight the fact that religious doctrine did not inform or enable National Socialist ideology. Catholicism and Lutheranism have nothing to do with the rise of the Nazis. What did happen was a degree of collaboration between both churches and the Nazis for two reason: survival, and, among some elements, common goals; specifically, anti-communism and anti-Semitism. There was plenty of vested interest in both faiths for a government which opposed communism and Jewry, and the churches acted accordingly. That said, there is a shopping list of Christian martyrs, both Catholic and Protestant, who opposed the Nazis and paid the price. As for the churches cooperating with the Nazis, there were also Jewish collaborators - in a life or death situation, you compromise to stay alive.

My issue here is this inane notion that Luther, and Lutherans/Lutheranism, was somehow the ideological progenitor of National Socialism. That is nonsensical to the point of hilarity. The Nazis dug out any anti-Semitic text they could get their hands on to legitimize their worldview - Christian, non-Christian, European, non-European, etc. By this logic, Henry Ford was as much a central figure in the rise of Nazism as Luther, as his anti-Semitic tract “The International Jew” was the first English-language book Hitler had translated into German for mass consumption.

The case presented in this thread simply does not pass the test.

 

[Topper17]

The Barmen Declaration.

Do we really need to play this game? I don’t know what the relative numbers were.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

Both the Protestants and the Catholics were persecuted by the Nazis, however, not to the same degree, not by a long shot. The statistics are very revealing in that the actual numbers show the difference in the relationships the Nazis had with Protestant vs. that with Catholics.

“Comparison with the Catholic clergy is revealing. In Dachau, the primary destination for priests and pastors, 447 German clergymen were interned: 411 were Catholic, 36 Protestant. When the numbers are further broken down, the disparity becomes even greater: 8 Catholic clergymen were executed, 0 Protestant; 3 Catholic sentenced to death, 0 Protestant; 47 Catholic ‘ deported in KZ,’ 2 Protestant; 99 Catholic ‘imprisoned,’ 8 Protestant; 163 Catholic ‘detained’, 24 Protestant.” Richard Steigmann-Gall, “The Holy Reich - Nazi Conceptions of Christainity, 1919 - 1949” footnote 166, pg. 187, quoting Konrad Repgen, Judiasm and Christainity under the impact of National Socialism, pg. 211-12

The relative numbers of people Catholic and Protestant persecuted by the Nazis is important in that it is a reflection of the way that the Nazis perceived the two confessions. It would seem that - statistically - the Nazi’s considered the Catholics to be ten times worse and enemy Protestants.

By the way, in an earlier post someone asked if there was a good book which explores the relationship between Nazism and Christianity. Steigmann-Gall’s book is excellent.

Blessings, Topper

 

[Tempelritter]

Hi Edwin,

Both the Protestants and the Catholics were persecuted by the Nazis, however, not to the same degree, not by a long shot. The statistics are very revealing in that the actual numbers show the difference in the relationships the Nazis had with Protestant vs. that with Catholics.

“Comparison with the Catholic clergy is revealing. In Dachau, the primary destination for priests and pastors, 447 German clergymen were interned: 411 were Catholic, 36 Protestant. When the numbers are further broken down, the disparity becomes even greater: 8 Catholic clergymen were executed, 0 Protestant; 3 Catholic sentenced to death, 0 Protestant; 47 Catholic ‘ deported in KZ,’ 2 Protestant; 99 Catholic ‘imprisoned,’ 8 Protestant; 163 Catholic ‘detained’, 24 Protestant.” Richard Steigmann-Gall, “The Holy Reich - Nazi Conceptions of Christainity, 1919 - 1949” footnote 166, pg. 187, quoting Konrad Repgen, Judiasm and Christainity under the impact of National Socialism, pg. 211-12

The relative numbers of people Catholic and Protestant persecuted by the Nazis is important in that it is a reflection of the way that the Nazis perceived the two confessions. It would seem that - statistically - the Nazi’s considered the Catholics to be ten times worse and enemy Protestants.

By the way, in an earlier post someone asked if there was a good book which explores the relationship between Nazism and Christianity. Steigmann-Gall’s book is excellent.

Blessings, Topper

Your argument is refuted by a reality that you are blatantly ignoring - the Nazis did not persecute the Catholic Church on theological grounds or for failing to fall in line with racial ideology, but rather for the fact that they feared that the Church ultimately owed its allegiance to the Vatican, not Berlin, and as such constituted a foreign political entity within Germany. Try reading “Hitler’s Hangman” by Robert Gerwarth, it will enlighten you as to the political dynamic between the German Catholic Church and the Third Reich and explain why the Gestapo, and other intelligence agencies of the Third Reich, viewed the former as a potentially subversive political actor. Lutheranism, as a much more decentralized and non-hierarchical body, was more malleable and thus more easily “controlled” by the state.

 

[gracepoole]

What bothers me though is that to me it seems like you believe that so many people were indifferent and have judged people living in the Third Reich as if the decisions were so black and white. The ethical questions without a doubt are black and white how to respond to the atrocities were not black and white and were not easy to make.

Whether they were indifferent or not, most chose not to act as resisters or rescuers. They chose to be bystanders. Nowhere have I claimed or even hinted that the ethical choices of this period were easy – but of course, the difficulty of a choice doesn’t impact what is ultimately unethical or righteous. If it did, we’d view pregnant rape victims as righteous for having abortions.

If you speak out against the Holocaust the SS take your business and burn it down, praise God even in tragedy and God will provide for us for doing the right thing but we can’t sit around and do nothing, then they put you in jail, you say to yourself Jesus was jailed, beaten and died if that is what I have to so be it, then they take your kids away from your family and train them as child soldiers and your daughters go into forced prostitution for the army ok that changes things, then they go into your neighborhood take all of your Jewish friends and neighbors and tell them that they can thank you for sending them away ok that really changes things. So what was the best thing to do? 12 hours before you printed anti-Nazi papers your Jewish neighbors were under the radar within a week they were probably all dead. Your actions have now led to innocent people being hurt and killed. If you stayed quiet and helped protect your Jewish neighbors and kept your neighborhood under the radar, would they have lived, could they have lived long enough to escape to another country and would your children not have become property of Reich? Do you continue to speak out, if the SS does not kill you and you can return home? Is speaking out because you know it is wrong and you need to have a clear conscience morally acceptable when you know that innocent people will be taken to concentration camps every time you do and the human dignity of children will be violated?

That’s quite a list of rationalizations and justifications for inaction. And it’s a list that denies the reality of those who resisted. I’m not sure where you’re getting these ideas from but how, specifically, did the actions of those involved in the White Rose movement, for example, lead to Jewish neighbors being deported? German Jews were going to be deported regardless – that’s the reality born out in the historical record.

These are not easy questions and people had to live with the consequences of their actions. For some Germans the ethical dilemma was so weighting on their hearts they honestly believed their own death would be a liberation.

Their own deaths may be have been a liberation for them but it wouldn’t have done anything to assist victims.

My family was not wealthy and my great-grandmother was basically an invalid by 1939 and no one was educated further than the equivalent of the 4th grade, they didn’t have the luxury of leaving Germany and avoiding this nightmare and moral dilemma and had to make these decisions. So since you appear to be the moral judge of Germans under the Third Reich because you study this in school tell me which way would you have gone?

Not wanting to have to make a moral decision is not the same thing as not having to make a moral decision. As for me, I’m fairly certain I would’ve failed to make the morally righteous choice. But I’m in no way interested in justifying my own moral failings.

The finger waving Americans 70 years later when your own country didn’t step in to fight for the Jewish people of Europe until very late in the drama and really only stepped in after they were attacked is extraordinarily hypocritical.

First, this is a classic tu quoque argument. Second, I would never deny the United States’ failure to act on behalf of victims – it is a regular part of my classroom conversations. But of course, because this is a tu quoque claim, the USA’s failings in no way justify the inaction of those elsewhere.

Your current failure to speak out about the people in the Nuba Mountain region of South Sudan, your country’s flat out refusal to defend Middle East Christians and pull your money out of countries who persecute Christians is also hypocritical, but you all say oh we can’t be the world’s police. Or the stellar job that the American group Catholics for Choice which is run and funded by an atheist is doing trying to get the Vatican kicked out of the UN.

More tu quoque, so it’s not really possible for me to reasonably respond here.

I also wouldn’t knock Pope Benedict’s parents calling them bystanders and claim they didn’t act righteously, especially considering that Frau and Herr Ratzinger very much welcomed and aided the American troops entering Germany so much so the American troops were headquartered in the Ratzinger household. Did they not teach you that in your studies? Not surprised that they didn’t.

Again, ethical categorization as a bystander, resister/rescuer, or perpetrator is based on one’s action or inaction to benefit victims. Can you demonstrate that the Ratzingers acted altruistically to benefit victims?

Finally, with all due respect, you’re not privy to my educational background. Your assumptions about what I’m familiar with in terms of Catholic history and the Holocaust are unfounded.

 

[Topper17]

Hi Temple,

First of all, thank you for your response, and I apologize if I have mischaracterized your argument. I want to make very sure that I am correctly representing your position. That is why I summarized your very words. For example, you said: “Most of those in the upper-echelons of the Third Reich (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, etc.) were practicing or former Catholics,”. I then summarized your comment as follows: “Most of the Nazi’s were either Catholics or former Catholics.”

How is that a mischaracterization? Furthermore, I think I fairly accurately represented your position in my seven points. In addition, I quoted a noted (Protestant) Professor of Religion and History at Duke who is a noted expert on the Reformation and has written several books on the subject. As you read, he said: “impact of the Nazi totalitarianism in Germany between 1933 and 1945 and the role of the Lutheran churches and theology played during that time”

Here we have a noted Protestant expert on the Reformation informing us that that the Lutheran churches and theology did play a role with Nazi totalitarianism. Dr. Hillerbrand directly contradicts your comment that – “As for who is to blame for National Socialism, it certainly is not Luther or Protestantism.” and – “My issue here is this inane notion that Luther, and Lutherans/Lutheranism, was somehow the ideological progenitor of National Socialism. That is nonsensical to the point of hilarity.”

Please understand that my intention is not to offend. However, I do think that the truth is important, and while you would suggest that it is hilarious to think that Luther and Lutheranism and Protestantism bears some responsibility for the Nazis, it really isn’t a funny issue.

As for the seven points that I summarized, which ones, specifically, did I get wrong?
The connection between the Nazis and Protestantism is extremely clear:

“Nazis commonly cast themselves as both revolutionary and an extension of the German past: The Luther Day celebrations provided a perfect platform through which to communicate this dual message. The Nazi involvement in the Luther Day was certainly an act of political appropriation, but it would be a mistake to explain it away as a misappropriation or a feigned affection for a historical personality for whom they had no real feeling. As Heiko Oberman points out, ‘The Nazis did not have to rediscover or create Luther as a German national reformer – he was already there, rifle at the ready.’ Protestants as well had long made Luther into both a religious revolutionary and nationalist hero, both as guarantor of German heritage and beacon for Germany’s future.’ During the festivities, a great many people spoke with a rhetoric almost identical to the Nazis’. A typical example was an article in the Chemitzer Tageblatt, which stated: “The German Volk are united not only in loyalty and love for the Fatherland, but also once more in the old German beliefs of Luther; a new epoch of strong, conscious religious life has dawned in Germany. The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther ‘the first German spiritual Fuhrer,’ who spoke to all Germans regardless of class or confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his ‘Old Fighters’ were mostly Protestants and that it was ‘precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland’ in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther’s birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: ‘Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity and Germany.’ Precisely because of Luther’s political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both to ‘church and Volk.’” Steigmann-Gall, pg. 138-9

By the way, in Steigmann-Galls excellent book, “The Holy Reich, Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919 – 1945, there are about half as many references to Luther as there are to Hitler. Luther is a very central figure in both this book, just as he was in Nazi ideology.
In addition, my guess is that you are very aware of the differences between the German Protestant and German Catholic reaction to and responsibility, at least partially, for Nazi racism. In your last post you brought up the matter. Do you really want to go there? I ask because like virtually everything else you have contended, the facts are against you. In this case, how many facts contrary to your opinion would it take to change your mind? Please let me know. Pick a number.

At this point, you have created such a target rich environment, I am having a hard time deciding which of your arguments to refute with facts. Maybe you could help out and let me know which is the most important issue to you. Please be specific. I don’t find generalized unsupported opinions to be compelling.

I look forward to your response and will be able to get back to you later in the week.

Blessings, Topper

 

[Tempelritter]

Hi Temple,

First of all, thank you for your response, and I apologize if I have mischaracterized your argument. I want to make very sure that I am correctly representing your position. That is why I summarized your very words. For example, you said: “Most of those in the upper-echelons of the Third Reich (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, etc.) were practicing or former Catholics,”. I then summarized your comment as follows: “Most of the Nazi’s were either Catholics or former Catholics.”

How is that a mischaracterization? Furthermore, I think I fairly accurately represented your position in my seven points. In addition, I quoted a noted (Protestant) Professor of Religion and History at Duke who is a noted expert on the Reformation and has written several books on the subject. As you read, he said: “impact of the Nazi totalitarianism in Germany between 1933 and 1945 and the role of the Lutheran churches and theology played during that time”

Here we have a noted Protestant expert on the Reformation informing us that that the Lutheran churches and theology did play a role with Nazi totalitarianism. Dr. Hillerbrand directly contradicts your comment that – “As for who is to blame for National Socialism, it certainly is not Luther or Protestantism.” and – “My issue here is this inane notion that Luther, and Lutherans/Lutheranism, was somehow the ideological progenitor of National Socialism. That is nonsensical to the point of hilarity.”

Please understand that my intention is not to offend. However, I do think that the truth is important, and while you would suggest that it is hilarious to think that Luther and Lutheranism and Protestantism bears some responsibility for the Nazis, it really isn’t a funny issue.

As for the seven points that I summarized, which ones, specifically, did I get wrong?
The connection between the Nazis and Protestantism is extremely clear:

“Nazis commonly cast themselves as both revolutionary and an extension of the German past: The Luther Day celebrations provided a perfect platform through which to communicate this dual message. The Nazi involvement in the Luther Day was certainly an act of political appropriation, but it would be a mistake to explain it away as a misappropriation or a feigned affection for a historical personality for whom they had no real feeling. As Heiko Oberman points out, ‘The Nazis did not have to rediscover or create Luther as a German national reformer – he was already there, rifle at the ready.’ Protestants as well had long made Luther into both a religious revolutionary and nationalist hero, both as guarantor of German heritage and beacon for Germany’s future.’ During the festivities, a great many people spoke with a rhetoric almost identical to the Nazis’. A typical example was an article in the Chemitzer Tageblatt, which stated: “The German Volk are united not only in loyalty and love for the Fatherland, but also once more in the old German beliefs of Luther; a new epoch of strong, conscious religious life has dawned in Germany. The leadership of the Protestant League espoused a similar view. Fahrenhorst, who was on the planning committee of the Luthertag, called Luther ‘the first German spiritual Fuhrer,’ who spoke to all Germans regardless of class or confession. In a letter to Hitler, Fahrenhorst reminded him that his ‘Old Fighters’ were mostly Protestants and that it was ‘precisely in the Protestant regions of our Fatherland’ in which Nazism found its greatest strength. Promising that the celebration of Luther’s birthday would not turn into a confessional affair, Fahrenhorst invited Hitler to become the official patron of the Luthertag. In subsequent correspondence, Fahrenhorst again voiced the notion that reverence for Luther could somehow cross confessional boundaries: ‘Luther is truly not only the founder of a Christian confession; much more, his ideas had a fruitful impact on all Christianity and Germany.’ Precisely because of Luther’s political as well as religious significance, the Luthertag would serve as a confession both to ‘church and Volk.’” Steigmann-Gall, pg. 138-9

By the way, in Steigmann-Galls excellent book, “The Holy Reich, Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919 – 1945, there are about half as many references to Luther as there are to Hitler. Luther is a very central figure in both this book, just as he was in Nazi ideology.
In addition, my guess is that you are very aware of the differences between the German Protestant and German Catholic reaction to and responsibility, at least partially, for Nazi racism. In your last post you brought up the matter. Do you really want to go there? I ask because like virtually everything else you have contended, the facts are against you. In this case, how many facts contrary to your opinion would it take to change your mind? Please let me know. Pick a number.

Blessings, Topper

Your entire arguments rests on the fact that the Nazis appropriated Luther’s writings and put them in a context that suited their racial and nationalist agenda. Appropriating does not equate to legitimizing or relating in any way. As such, your case, which mostly relies on posting ambiguous quotations from various historians, is not worth engaging with.

I could also point out the Catholic Church’s complicity in Mussolini’s regime; Il Duce, a professed atheist, would not have stayed in office long with throwing a bone to the Church by publicly “converting” and granting autonomy to the Vatican. The “stain” of the far-right clearly isn’t unique to Protestantism, regardless of the accuracy of your assertions.

 

[Topper17]

Your entire arguments rests on the fact that the Nazis appropriated Luther’s writings and put them in a context that suited their racial and nationalist agenda. Appropriating does not equate to legitimizing or relating in any way. As such, your case, which mostly relies on posting ambiguous quotations from various historians, is not worth engaging with.

Hi Temple,

One quick note before I end tonight. First of all, you have no idea what my argument rests on because you haven’t seen very much of it yet. If all I had was the Nazis “appropriating” Luther’s writings, I would not have bothered to sign up. I don’t blame you for bailing out though because it is pretty clear where this is going. I have actual substance to post, quotes from actual scholars. Please correct me if I missed something, but you have not done likewise. So - to say that this is not worth engaging with, you really didn’t. As an example, I asked what you thought of Hillerbrands quote and you ducked. I asked if you wanted to discuss Nazi racism and how it related to Luther’s hatred of the Jews and again, you ducked.

When you look at Luther’s 8 recommendations in “On the Jews and Their Lies” as to what punishments the Jews should suffer, how do they line up with what the Nazi’s actually did to the Jews?

Thanks Temple for your response. Topper

I’ll be back probably mid week.

 

[Tempelritter]

Hi Temple,

One quick note before I end tonight. First of all, you have no idea what my argument rests on because you haven’t seen very much of it yet. If all I had was the Nazis “appropriating” Luther’s writings, I would not have bothered to sign up. I don’t blame you for bailing out though because it is pretty clear where this is going. I have actual substance to post, quotes from actual scholars. Please correct me if I missed something, but you have not done likewise. So - to say that this is not worth engaging with, you really didn’t. As an example, I asked what you thought of Hillerbrands quote and you ducked. I asked if you wanted to discuss Nazi racism and how it related to Luther’s hatred of the Jews and again, you ducked.

When you look at Luther’s 8 recommendations in “On the Jews and Their Lies” as to what punishments the Jews should suffer, how do they line up with what the Nazi’s actually did to the Jews?

Thanks Temple for your response. Topper

I’ll be back probably mid week.

Speaking of ducking, you seem to be ducking the role of the Catholic Church in legitimizing Mussolini and the Italian fascist movement. And it doesn’t end there - the Croatian fascist movement, the Ustaše, was essentially a Catholic theocracy which viciously persecuted Jews and Orthodox within its territory, killing about 700,000 in total. Also, the head of the Slovak fascist dictatorship was a Catholic priest, Father Jozef Tiso. What we have here is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[KP3243]

Whether they were indifferent or not, most chose not to act as resisters or rescuers. They chose to be bystanders. Nowhere have I claimed or even hinted that the ethical choices of this period were easy – but of course, the difficulty of a choice doesn’t impact what is ultimately unethical or righteous. If it did, we’d view pregnant rape victims as righteous for having abortions.

That’s quite a list of rationalizations and justifications for inaction. And it’s a list that denies the reality of those who resisted. I’m not sure where you’re getting these ideas from but how, specifically, did the actions of those involved in the White Rose movement, for example, lead to Jewish neighbors being deported? German Jews were going to be deported regardless – that’s the reality born out in the historical record.

Their own deaths may be have been a liberation for them but it wouldn’t have done anything to assist victims.

Not wanting to have to make a moral decision is not the same thing as not having to make a moral decision. As for me, I’m fairly certain I would’ve failed to make the morally righteous choice. But I’m in no way interested in justifying my own moral failings.

First, this is a classic tu quoque argument. Second, I would never deny the United States’ failure to act on behalf of victims – it is a regular part of my classroom conversations. But of course, because this is a tu quoque claim, the USA’s failings in no way justify the inaction of those elsewhere.

More tu quoque, so it’s not really possible for me to reasonably respond here.

Again, ethical categorization as a bystander, resister/rescuer, or perpetrator is based on one’s action or inaction to benefit victims. Can you demonstrate that the Ratzingers acted altruistically to benefit victims?

Finally, with all due respect, you’re not privy to my educational background. Your assumptions about what I’m familiar with in terms of Catholic history and the Holocaust are unfounded.

Please enlighten me as to what the correct thing would have been for my family to do, please be specific. Because they did speak out and innocent people were hurt and killed because of their actions. Since you know everything about living under the Third Reich because you study it in school and you have the advantage of hindsight and so that obviously qualifies you as an expert and in both ethics and morals of human beings and it also permits you to judge others living in this time so please enlighten me to know what they should have done? No one in my family had an education and were not university students in Munich like those in the White Rose movement but they did oppose both the eugenics movement T4 and the deportation of Jews in Bremen Häfen - things weren’t so easy when you live in the northern most port city and your house and town get bombed and you are reduced to living in the bomb shelter- my family left the shelter and their house and everyone else’s house was reduced to rubble they then started walking 200 miles to a relative’s house. Please tell me what my family and the “unrighteous” Ratzinger’s should have done because even though the Ratzinger’s vehemently opposed the Nazis and aided the American liberators are not sufficient for you, you will need to be VERY specific on all the actions that you deem acceptable and enlighten us on what you would have done. I want to know exactly what you would have done every step of the way.

 

[gracepoole]

Please enlighten me as to what the correct thing would have been for my family to do, please be specific. Because they did speak out and innocent people were hurt and killed because of their actions. Since you know everything about living under the Third Reich because you study it in school and you have the advantage of hindsight and so that obviously qualifies you as an expert and in both ethics and morals of human beings and it also permits you to judge others living in this time so please enlighten me to know what they should have done? No one in my family had an education and were not university students in Munich like those in the White Rose movement but they did oppose both the eugenics movement T4 and the deportation of Jews in Bremen Häfen - things weren’t so easy when you live in the northern most port city and your house and town get bombed and you are reduced to living in the bomb shelter- my family left the shelter and their house and everyone else’s house was reduced to rubble they then started walking 200 miles to a relative’s house. Please tell me what my family and the “unrighteous” Ratzinger’s should have done because even though the Ratzinger’s vehemently opposed the Nazis and aided the American liberators are not sufficient for you, you will need to be VERY specific on all the actions that you deem acceptable and enlighten us on what you would have done. I want to know exactly what you would have done every step of the way.

I am not simply providing you with my own ethical determinations – they are the conclusions of any reputable Holocaust historian or ethicist. Consider, too, however, that you’re Catholic. Is there any other moral issue where you permit so much leeway? Do you allow those who receive or perform abortions to rationalize their choices in any way? No matter the circumstances, one knows that an abortion is never a moral choice. I’m stymied, then, as to why you’re so motivated to rationalize the choices of those identified as bystanders during the Holocaust. Nazi Germany had one of the most well educated populaces on the planet at the time. No one needed a university education to know the ethical difference between available choices. If your relatives publicly opposed T-4 and Jewish deportations, perhaps they were righteous. Private hand-wringing, however, doesn’t have any practical benefit to victims and it is not a righteous action. I’m not sure you’re fully reading my responses, as I’ve already stated that I likely wouldn’t have acted righteously. But I’d advise you to read more about resisters and rescuers. Doing so would give you a stronger sense of the options available and greater respect for those who made the extremely difficult and often dangerous choice to resist. If your neighbors were systematically stripped of basic rights for years, subject to a curfew, denied the ability to practice multiple professions, openly and violently targeted in a pogrom like Kristallnacht and hundreds of pieces of textual and visual propaganda…what would you do? This is an exceptional question for every human being to consider over and over. Again, stow the indignation and instead consider which of us would have shouted “Crucify Him!” No one is claiming that the choices of this time were easy or simplistic. But each adult did have options, just as we do today regarding a multitude of issues.

 

[Contarini]

Your argument is refuted by a reality that you are blatantly ignoring - the Nazis did not persecute the Catholic Church on theological grounds or for failing to fall in line with racial ideology, but rather for the fact that they feared that the Church ultimately owed its allegiance to the Vatican, not Berlin, and as such constituted a foreign political entity within Germany. Try reading “Hitler’s Hangman” by Robert Gerwarth, it will enlighten you as to the political dynamic between the German Catholic Church and the Third Reich and explain why the Gestapo, and other intelligence agencies of the Third Reich, viewed the former as a potentially subversive political actor. Lutheranism, as a much more decentralized and non-hierarchical body, was more malleable and thus more easily “controlled” by the state.

You’re drawing a false dichotomy between politics and religion. Catholics, by virtue of being Catholic, understand the Church to be a higher authority than any nation. The Confessing Church took this stance as well (though with less focus on the institutional Church, of course), but the majority of Protestants didn’t. To play down the principle of this stand and treat it simply as a war between rival claimants for power is cynical and unjust. Orthodox Catholics opposed Nazi idolatry. That is a theological issue.

Furthermore, if I’m not mistaken the Catholic Church did take a very strong stand against Nazi racial policies with regard to Jewish converts to Christianity. They refused to modify their liturgy and doctrine to “de-Judaize” them in the way the “German Christians” did. And they opposed Nazi euthanasia policies.

One can argue about the Church’s stance on Jews who were not Christians. Certainly the traditions of Christian anti-Judaism weakened the Church’s witness, and many Catholics initially seem to have welcomed Nazi restrictions on the role of Jews in society. (That’s not to deny that many bishops and priests also took a stand to protect non-Christian Jews, nor am I endorsing the accusations against Pius XII, whose actions seem to me to have been complex and open to multiple interpretations.)

But there were a number of ways in which Catholics pretty consistently rejected Nazi policies, and to suggest that this had nothing to do with the Nazi attitude to Catholicism seems completely unrealistic and prejudiced to me.

Edwin

 

[KP3243]

Speaking of ducking, you seem to be ducking the role of the Catholic Church in legitimizing Mussolini and the Italian fascist movement. And it doesn’t end there - the Croatian fascist movement, the Ustaše, was essentially a Catholic theocracy which viciously persecuted Jews and Orthodox within its territory, killing about 700,000 in total. Also, the head of the Slovak fascist dictatorship was a Catholic priest, Father Jozef Tiso. What we have here is a serious case of the pot calling the kettle black.

What about the 6,000,000 Polish Catholics that died during the invasion of Poland? Italy and Rome especially is very bizarre in general, the mayor of Rome is a Communist but he attends mass regularly because he says that is what Romans do.

This might help explain The Church in the first few years of Mussolini.
catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1648

no one is saying it was pretty or that Papal infallibility extends to politics.

 

[GKC]

You’re drawing a false dichotomy between politics and religion. Catholics, by virtue of being Catholic, understand the Church to be a higher authority than any nation. The Confessing Church took this stance as well (though with less focus on the institutional Church, of course), but the majority of Protestants didn’t. To play down the principle of this stand and treat it simply as a war between rival claimants for power is cynical and unjust. Orthodox Catholics opposed Nazi idolatry. That is a theological issue.

Furthermore, if I’m not mistaken the Catholic Church did take a very strong stand against Nazi racial policies with regard to Jewish converts to Christianity. They refused to modify their liturgy and doctrine to “de-Judaize” them in the way the “German Christians” did. And they opposed Nazi euthanasia policies.

One can argue about the Church’s stance on Jews who were not Christians. Certainly the traditions of Christian anti-Judaism weakened the Church’s witness, and many Catholics initially seem to have welcomed Nazi restrictions on the role of Jews in society. (That’s not to deny that many bishops and priests also took a stand to protect non-Christian Jews, nor am I endorsing the accusations against Pius XII, whose actions seem to me to have been complex and open to multiple interpretations.)

But there were a number of ways in which Catholics pretty consistently rejected Nazi policies, and to suggest that this had nothing to do with the Nazi attitude to Catholicism seems completely unrealistic and prejudiced to me.

Edwin

Much of this matches much of my reading in the area.

GKC

 

[KP3243]

I think one thing both Protestants and Catholics can agree on, is that the further people are away from their Christian faith, the more likely it is that they will be influenced by the secular society and they will likely compromise their conscience. This obviously had to have happened in Germany during 1920s and 1930s or else the Nazi party does not rise to power. Europe and the US right now are going through this right now the rampant secularization and the rise of militant atheists should be a concern to us all. The US especially to me has never been this far left before and the furthest from their Christian roots. You see the President of the United States say things like One nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all and completely omit the word God. I am not going to say he is not a Christian because he says he is and I am not going to judge his heart but as a Christian I know I would not be willing to omit the word God from any of my speeches using this phrase because that is a true statement and it is what is actually written. I also never recall so many Americans who are so dependent on the government. One thing Americans have been typical know for is their fierce independence in almost all areas of their life and their strong work ethic.

 

[Topper17]

Speaking of ducking, you seem to be ducking the role of the Catholic Church in legitimizing Mussolini and the Italian fascist movement.

Hi Temple,

For the record, I joined this site specifically to take part in this conversation, which by the way is “Protestantism, Luther, and the rise of Nazi Germany”. This is precisely what I am interested in and it is the subject that I have begun to post quotes about. It seemed to me at first that you were interested in this subject also. Once it became clear that evidence that does not support your opinions, all of the sudden, you want to talk about Mussolini, the Italian fascist movement, and of course – the Catholic Church. To me that sounds like a different thread and I hope you find someone who wants to explore that subject with you.

If I didn’t know better, I would think that you are trying to keep me from posting the information I have planned. At the moment that is specifically about the relationship between the Nazi’s and Protestantism, and how that differed from their relationship with the Catholic Church.

In Steigmann-Galls excellent book, there are at least a dozens of specific examples of the fact that the Nazi’s looked much more favorably on Protestantism than it did on the Church. In addition, the Protestants, and specifically the Lutherans looked much more favorably on the Nazis than did the Church. The Protestants and the Nazi’s shared a great deal more ideologically than the Nazis did with the Catholics. Just a few of those comments are as follows:

“Lutheran Protestants were more likely to endorse the basic contours of Nazi ideology than Calvinists or Catholics were. This is evident not only in their conceptualization of the Marxist or Jewish ‘dangers’ – which Catholics often feared as much as Protestants – but in a theological valorization of the Volk as an order of God’s creation. Whereas the Catholic establishment was wary of volkish theology and its practical consequences, large segments of the Protestant establishment felt more comfortable with the racialist segments that underlay Nazi eugenicism. In fact, more than simply accommodating eugenics, many of these Protestants actively advanced its cause through their own institutions, most notably the Inner Mission, the Protestant welfare organization founded in the nineteenth century. These Protestants did not passively accept eugenics as a fait accompli of Nazi governance; rather, they were among the primary advocated of racial science before the (Nazi) Seizure of Power." Steigmann-Gall, pg. 191

“In the same way, (Nazi) Heydrich derided the Catholic Church as perhaps the enemy of the state.” Steigmann-Gall, pg. 153 Emphasis Stiegmann-Gall

In regards to clerical and also racial anti-Semitism: “On example is an official statement issued by seven Lutheran state churches in December 1941, which flatly rejected those ‘Protestant Jews’ who had been at the heart of the doctrinal dispute between Confessing Christians and DC. Fondly recalling Luther’s command that Jews should be banished from German lands, the statement went on to claim that ‘From Christ’s crucifixion to the present day, the Jews had fought against Christianity, or have misused or falsified it for their selfish aims. Christian baptism does not alter the racial character of the Jew, his affiliation with his people, or his biological essence.’ As Victoria Barnett states: ‘The troubling historical evidence suggests that the churches refrained from criticizing the regime, not just because they wanted to remain ‘apolitical’ but because they often agreed with it.” Steigmann-Gall, pg. 185-6

“Whereas Catholics tended to reject Nazi racial theory, in almost all instances Nazis rejected Catholic internationalism. On the other hand, many Nazis proclaimed an affinity for Protestantism……….Whereas the Catholic Church continued to be attacked for its ‘internationalism’ and doctrinal stand against racialist categories, the Protestant Church was generally treated much more favorably.” Steigmann-Gall, pg. 154-5

“As Hitler told Albert Speer, ‘Through me the Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England…….By contrast, Hitler’s attitude towards Germany’s other great confession left no room for ambiguity: ‘The Catholic Church has always been an enemy of a strong form of government.” Steigmann-Gall, pg. 176

Hitler said that, “although he was born a Catholic, ‘Inwardly he stood closer to the Protestant Church………Hitler expected from Protestant pastors ‘a different attitude to that of the Catholics.’” Steigmann-Gall, pg. 168

“Opinions expressed that year made it plain that, despite these concerns, many leaders of the Protestant League saw Nazi policies as congruent with their own.” Steigmann-Gall, pg. 139

Again, this is only a small sampling of the quotes which prove that there was a very clear connection between Nazi ideology and Protestant and especially Lutheran theology.

We have seen the claim that: “As for who is to blame for National Socialism, it certainly is not Luther or Protestantism. Most of those in the upper-echelons of the Third Reich (Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, etc.) were practicing or former Catholics……” While this statement does agree with the version of history that has historically been told on the popular level by Protestant, it is not in keeping with the actual facts.

As pointed out by Professor Hillerbrand, the Lutheran churches and Lutheran theology did play a role in Nazi totalitarianism. That role was not hilarious.

Blessings, Topper

 

[Tempelritter]

Catholic fascists, Protestant Nazis… your plagiarized arguments and my concrete examples seem to suggest a point of convergence between our Confessions.