Protestantism, Luther, and the rise of Nazi Germany

[KP3243]

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

Be fair though not all Lutherans went along with the Nazis just like not all Catholics went along with them either. You cannot ignore Dietrich Bonhoeffer just like how we don’t want people to forget Titus Brandsma.

 

[utunumsint]

“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

…

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. **

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

Hi Topper,

Thanks for providing these quotes.

Can you clarify to me what is “Volkish theology”? How was it found in Luther, how was it found in the Protestantism of Hitler’s day, and how it may be linked to the Nazi movement?

I’m having a hard time finding a clear definition.

God bless,
Ut

 

[WildCatholic]

One misconception that Catholics do engage in, I think, is that Germany was mostly Protestant. Large parts of Germany were and are Catholic, and Nazism actually originated in Bavaria, which was Catholic. I saw a book a couple of years ago that argued that Catholicism contributed to the early rise of Nazism, but that this Catholicism was a distinctive “German Catholicism” which defied the Vatican on a lot of points (somewhat analogous to what folks on this forum today call “AmChurch”–not in formal schism but resistant to the Vatican in many ways). So it’s complicated.

Edwin

It is very complicated. Just because a nation or region or person is Catholic doesn’t make them perfect or good. It is important to know though that while a number of high ranking nazi’s were Catholic, very few were practiting. I know for sure that Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels rejected the faith. The only example of a high ranking Nazi that was a practicing Catholic was a guy who was the Commandant of Auschwitz (wish I could find his name and find a source, I only remember this from a documentary) and he apparently went to daily mass with his family.

There are a lot of parallels between Catholicism and Naziism though. Hitler loved the symbolism of the Church, and Himmler intended the SS to be like the Jesuits of the Nazi party. However, I do think that they did this more to make fun or the church or to replace it rather than emulate it. Granted I’m sure there were some Catholics who saw no problems with Naziism. I know there was even a German bishop who saw it as good. However, there are many who stood up against the church and many priests nuns killed, so I would stay the church in Germany was split, in a way like during the American Civil War except the Nazi’s were evil. Some Catholics thought it was okay, some knew it was bad, most probably followed along like a lot of Germans, just like Catholics north and south in the US typically supported their neighbors and where they were from.

Lastly, you mention how there was a kind of “German” Catholicism. If I remember, GErmany, like a lot of countries, felt they should control their own church affairs. Also, if I remember, a lot of Germans were not in support Vatican 1 and the infallibility doctrine, and Old Catholics were somewhat prominent in Germany. So maybe this attitude was present among a lot of Catholics. Also, Hitler grew up in a time when Pan-Germanism was common. I would argue that he was influenced a lot by this, though he did take some elements from Catholicism (though more as a way of making fun or discrediting them).

 

[gracepoole]

The only example of a high ranking Nazi that was a practicing Catholic was a guy who was the Commandant of Auschwitz (wish I could find his name and find a source, I only remember this from a documentary) and he apparently went to daily mass with his family.

Rudolf Höss was the commandant of Auschwitz and he renounced Catholicism in the early 20’s. Franz Stangl, commandant of Treblinka, also renounced Catholicism.

 

[WildCatholic]

Rudolf Höss was the commandant of Auschwitz and he renounced Catholicism in the early 20’s. Franz Stangl, commandant of Treblinka, also renounced Catholicism.

Thank you, for all I know it might have been another camp other than these two, or it might not have been a commandant or an SS officer. Granted if I remember the documentary was by the BBC and it didn’t show Catholics in a great light. It talked about how in Slovakia their puppet dictator was a Catholic priest who supported deporting Jews. Yes it happened and he wasn’t a great guy, but it wasn’t because he was Catholic, at least in my opinion.

Thank you for your help!

 

[Topper17]

Hi Topper,

Thanks for providing these quotes.

Can you clarify to me what is “Volkish theology”? How was it found in Luther, how was it found in the Protestantism of Hitler’s day, and how it may be linked to the Nazi movement?

I’m having a hard time finding a clear definition.

God bless,
Ut

Hi Ut,

Thanks for your response.

In this context, “volkish” refers to a populistic and nationalistic ideology based on ethnicity and racial superiority. It seems to have begun with the German anger over having to pay for the building of St. Peters. It was relatively easy to stir up the populace who are paying great sums for something most of them will never seee.

Luther’s theology contained three elements which led to the less attractive features associated with Nazi Germany. Even in Steigmann-Gall its a pretty fuzzy term, like many of the German terms he uses which apply to concepts rather than things.

Maybe this quote will help:

“Traditional intellectual history of this period posited a Nietzschean 'death of God; as the originating moment of Nazism. In this conception, Nazism is understood to have served as a replacement faith (Religionsersatz) for a defunct Christianity, Here was no argument about a residual Christian discourse remained was, according to this view,used with self-awareness and cynicism as a way of masking the anti-Christian comportment of the new volkish national religion that Nazism was supposed to have embodied…We know from recent scholarship that in fact much of the volkish and racialist content of Nazi thought found a receptive home among particular varieties of Christian belief well before the arrival of Nazism and even before the turn of the twentieth century.” Steigmann-Gall, pg 6-7

First of all, as we know all too well, Luther was extremely anti-Semitic. In fact, he was the most anti-Semitic Theologian of his time (at least). We all have seen claims including here on this forum that state that there were others in Luther’s time who were as anti-Semitic. Of course details are rarely provided along with this claim, and on the rare occasion that they are, they are easily shown to be nothing close to as horrific as what Luther wrote.

Secondly, early the Reformation, Luther placed the ultimate responsibility for religious matters into the hand of the secular leaders. Early in the Reformation he found it necessary to provide cover for the only people in Germany who had the power to protect him. As early as 1525, he took the side of the Princes in the matter of the Peasants War. Before the slaughter of 100,000 peasants really began, Luther privately advised the Princes to slaughter them (a little known fact). Then while the slaugher was underway, he wrote publically that they should be slaughtered without mercy.

Thirdly, Luther established a degree of nationalism into his version of Christianity that had never existed before. This was something that ran completely counter to Catholic theology, where of course, the Church, at the very least, has many authorities which the secular does not.

All of these factors fed into the ideology and theology of German Protestantism, especially of course, Lutheranism. What is interesting about these three factors though is that they are all 'unintended consequences, meaning that Luther did not intend them when he began his poorly conceived ‘reformation’. His primary motivation early on was to escape the horrific terrors that he experienced in regard to his own personal salvation. He desparately needed to find a means by which he could achieve assurance of his personal salvation while still on earth. This dictated that he reject the Church, although not a Theologian who connected the dots all that well, he didn’t really understand that that need for salvational assurance would require him to break with Rome. Initially he thought that all he would have to do was explain his wonderful Scriptural discoveries and everyone would cheer and fall into line. Not so much as it turned out.

Although Luther had demonstrated a significant anti-Jewish bias in his writings even before the 95 Theses, he turned against them violently because they didn’t resond the way that he thought they should to his ill-planned overatures to conversion, He took there rejection very personally because it caused him to wonder whether he was really God’s personal mouthpiece (only a slight exaggeration). When Luther was forced to doubt his role in the universe or his authority (meaning his authority from God), he normally became violent, demanding that those who had caused that fear be punished.

The nationalistic aspects of his theology were primarily a reaction against the globalism of the Catholic Church. Being a better politician than a Theologian, Luther instinctively understood that he needed the support of the Secular leaders. As it turned out, most of those who supported Luther (primarily for non-theological reasons), outlawed the Church. How tolerant!

There are other ways in which Luther influenced the Nazi’s or the culture which allowed the growth of the Nazis, but they don’t necessarily fit into the box labeled “ideology and theology”. An example would be his titanic hatred for anyone who opposed him. In fact, he called for the death of the Peasants, the Jews, the anabaptists, and of course the papists, all of whom challenged his perceptions of himself as the one that God chose to communicated His Word to His People. These statements might seem a litte aggressive to some, but the fact is that the more responsible Protestant Scholars agree.

Again, Thanks for your post. If you need any detail on any of the above, please let me know. It is the details behind all of this which is really compelling.

God Bless You ut, Topper

 

[Topper17]

Be fair though not all Lutherans went along with the Nazis just like not all Catholics went along with them either. You cannot ignore Dietrich Bonhoeffer just like how we don’t want people to forget Titus Brandsma.

I agree and generally I believe in the goodness of humanity. That includes all colors and stripes. The vast majority of all groups of people are good and honorable. However, there has to be something to explain how a supposedly Christian country like Germany could have been the culture in which Nazism grew to the point where it controlled the country.

We have seen a small smattering of the evidence which indicates that the Nazi’s and the Protestants had far more in common ideologically than did the Nazi’s and the Catholics. I think it is extremely important to study those differences and determine what they might mean in regards to the validity of the two different confessions.

God Bless You KP, Topper

 

[Tempelritter]

I agree and generally I believe in the goodness of humanity. That includes all colors and stripes. The vast majority of all groups of people are good and honorable. However, there has to be something to explain how a supposedly Christian country like Germany could have been the culture in which Nazism grew to the point where it controlled the country.

We have seen a small smattering of the evidence which indicates that the Nazi’s and the Protestants had far more in common ideologically than did the Nazi’s and the Catholics. I think it is extremely important to study those differences and determine what they might mean in regards to the validity of the two different confessions.

God Bless You KP, Topper

Can you please address the ideological commonalities between the Catholics and Mussolini, the Croatian Ustaše, and Father Jozef Tiso (the fascist dictator of Slovakia), among others?

 

[Cat]

I agree and generally I believe in the goodness of humanity. That includes all colors and stripes. The vast majority of all groups of people are good and honorable. However, there has to be something to explain how a supposedly Christian country like Germany could have been the culture in which Nazism grew to the point where it controlled the country.

We have seen a small smattering of the evidence which indicates that the Nazi’s and the Protestants had far more in common ideologically than did the Nazi’s and the Catholics. I think it is extremely important to study those differences and determine what they might mean in regards to the validity of the two different confessions.

God Bless You KP, Topper

I’ve done a decent amount of reading on the subject, and I honestly don’t think that being Catholic or Protestant made much difference during those dark days in Germany’s history.

I think that there was a “perfect storm” that included:
–bitterness over the grossly unfair and humiliating Versailles treaty, which resulted in many Germans believing that they had been “stabbed in the back” by the “November criminals”

–an economy that left millions of Germans without jobs (and therefore, with lots of time on their hands to listen to the various revolutionaries including Hitler) and starving/hungry

–the involvement of many Germans, including Christian Germans, in various occult organizations and belief systems, that had been gaining popularity since the late 19th Century and even before then

–centuries (long before the Reformation) of Antisemitism throughout Europe, the United States, and the rest of the world, including among all types of Christians

–Hitler’s undeniable and incredible talent in public speaking that made him a charismatic, romantic (he was very popular among women), and appealing leader of a new movement (National Socialism) that promised a return to sanity, prosperity, and strength in a hungry and hopeless Germany

–Hitler’s energy and undeniable talent for organizing people, and turning “dreams” into reality. Lots of us have dreams of a perfect society, but very few of us take any actions to make those dreams reality. Hitler did.

–Hitler’s choice of co-leaders and associates, many of which were perverts, and almost all of which were willing and ready to punish those who disagreed with National Socialism with violence and death–this created fear among the Germans who would be most likely to speak out against National Socialism at the beginning of the movement when it might have been halted before it became a powerful juggernaut that swept into power

–Germany’s long-time culture of obedience, and Germany’s love of pageantry, mysticism, music, parades, banners, and all other ceremonies and celebrations! Hitler was able to exploit this and turn a horrific political idiology into a “religion” of sorts that seemed, at the time, to allow Christianity among the people, but actually supplanted any form of religion and replaced it with loyalty to the Fatherland and to Adolf Hitler.

–the utter FAILURE of the world, especially the United States, to confront Germany after Hitler invaded and conquered the Rheinland. IF the world had protested and stepped in at that time, a humiliated Hitler would have, in all likelihood, committed suicide, and WWII and the Holocaust never would have happened. Unfortunately, the world, especially the United States, was war-weary after WWI, and did not want to get involved in any kind of issue that might lead to military involvement.

–the presence of an extremely weak Prime Minister in Great Britain (Neville Chamberlain), who continued to maintain that Hitler was harmless and failed to take any steps to stop Hitler and National Socialism in the early days when it was poor, weak,and very vulnerable.

–the reality of the worldwide Great Depression, which crippled countries like the U.S. and made them more focused on internal woes rather than world-wide developments.

 

[utunumsint]

Again, Thanks for your post. If you need any detail on any of the above, please let me know. It is the details behind all of this which is really compelling.

God Bless You ut, Topper

I appreciate your analysis Topper. Thank you.

Because of this thread, I have been listening to Thomas Madden’s Modern Scholar series - Christianity at a Cross Road. It is a history of the reformation, counter-reformation, from 1500 to 1700. I wanted to get a better feel for what actually happened during the reformation because it is a fairly big gap in my historical knowledge.

I think everyone would admit that Protestantism found its birthplace in Germany. Thomas Madden makes a strong case for a link between Luther’s thought and Humanist writers such as Erasmus.

Luther’s biggest enemy at the time of the Reformation, was Charles V, and his biggest ally where the German lords who supported him. Luther had rejected the “corrupt” Catholic church and seemed to be moving towards a condemnation of the lords as well, however Thomas Müntzer beat him to the punch with a full blown condemnation of both the Church and the Lords. His movement that spread through the ranks of the early reformers, inspired the peasants to revolt, sparking the peasants war, and the slaughter of many thousand peasants. The communists before the fall of the Berlin wall, saw in Muntzer a communist folk hero because he believed all things should be held in common.

Luther had to make a choice. I think he could see already at that time what kind of religious chaos he had unleashed on Europe. Perhaps the thought of political anarchy was too much for him, and that was why he encouraged the lords to slaughter the peasants. I can definitely see some fear in this action as well.

Luther was completely under the protection of the Lords. I can see how this might translate into a religious movement subservient to the political order. It makes sense to link this to how easily Hitler found it to subject a large majority of protestants to his cause. - I don’t think this holds for the Anabaptist sects who rejected all forms of government, both ecclesiastical and secular. Many Lutherans on this thread freely admit this.

But I think it is more difficult to prove a link with Nazi anti-Semitism and Luther’s anti-Semitism. This link is obviously embarrassing to most Lutherans on this thread, and they attempt to explain it by identifying a difference between religious racism and racial racism. They point out that anti-Semitism was also present in the Catholic church. We can’t deny this. Your counter claim is that Luther’s comments topped all of theirs in it viciousness. Maybe… Luther never seemed to learn how to moderate his speeches. At best, I think this proves that there was a tendency…a strain of thinking within Lutheran protestantism that the Nazis could latch on to and use them as a Trojan horse to inject their ideas into the more mainstream protestant churches. But that Trojan horse must have existed in the Catholic church as well. However, the living magisterium was able to counter this fairly early on. Especially with Mit brennender Sorge. Lutherans had no such central authority to clearly guide them, although there were some groups that did oppose Hitler. And also, as some have pointed out, the German Catholics were much more like the modern church today in that they did not always listen or read every encyclical published by the Papacy, or even attend church on a regular basis.

As others have also pointed out, the reformation and the rise of Nationalism happen very close to each other. These Lutherans were also proud Germans. Proud, but also humiliated by the economic instability in the 1920 and 1930s, the treaty of Versaille after their defeat in WWI. This strong strain of resentment needed a scape goat. The Jews were an easy target. The Catholics were not so easy. General Von Fritz named Communists, Catholics, and Jews as the three main problems that Hitler would have to solve when he came to power. Still, Catholics were much more tolerated than the Jews were. For example, Claus von Stauffenberg was a devout Catholic who rose to high rank in the German army and was part of the German resistance. But there were many Protestants there as well.

I can’t see how we can directly link all these circumstances to Luther. Perhaps some kernels of his thought and the history of the reformation could be glommed on by the Nazis to gain credibility with the German Protestants, but that seems to be the extent of Luther’s responsibility. And there were certainly other Catholic strained of thought that Hitler glommed onto as well. He was an equal opportunity scoundrel and would twist or use anything so long as it served his ends. I don’t think anyone could dispute that.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Tempelritter]

Since we have a member in this thread who has apparently joined for the sole purpose of linking Lutheranism and Nazism - and evidently implying some intrinsic link between Protestants and Nazis - I would like to bring it full circle for accountability’s sake, so I’ll ask for the fourth time.

How do Catholics account for their role in:

Mussolini’s Italy (Il Duce converted to Catholicism and granted autonomy to the Vatican, gaining Catholic support)

Croatian Ustaše (Catholic theocratic fascist movement which killed about 800,000 Jews, Orthodox Serbs, and Gypsies. It also forced hundreds of thousands of Serbs to convert to Catholicism)

Father Jozef Tiso (Catholic priest and fascist dictator of Slovakia)

And please, provide an answer that does not consist of cut-and-pasted text from historians.

 

[utunumsint]

Since we have a member in this thread who has apparently joined for the sole purpose of linking Lutheranism and Nazism - and evidently implying some intrinsic link between Protestants and Nazis - I would like to bring it full circle for accountability’s sake, so I’ll ask for the fourth time.

How do Catholics account for their role in:

Mussolini’s Italy (Il Duce converted to Catholicism and granted autonomy to the Vatican, gaining Catholic support)

Croatian Ustaše (Catholic theocratic fascist movement which killed about 800,000 Jews, Orthodox Serbs, and Gypsies. It also forced hundreds of thousands of Serbs to convert to Catholicism)

Father Jozef Tiso (Catholic priest and fascist dictator of Slovakia)

And please, provide an answer that does not consist of cut-and-pasted text from historians.

I have to do more resarch about the Ustase, but my initial impression is that this was a black mark against Catholicism. I suspect the Papacy’s interactions with Mussolini are perhaps more defensible.

I would be interested in researching these topics more fully at some point, but it would get us off track. At the moment, it appears to be a tu quoque argument which at best shows that both sides committed horrible acts and may have had dark sides to their religious / historical development that permitted such things to happen.

Right now, I would like to focus on the Lutheran “Dark side”. I would like to hear what Topper17 is saying. I have responded to his arguments, and I think my response is fairly balanced. Maybe you can do the same? Or respond to my response?

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I’ve done a decent amount of reading on the subject, and I honestly don’t think that being Catholic or Protestant made much difference during those dark days in Germany’s history.

I think that there was a “perfect storm” that included:
–bitterness over the grossly unfair and humiliating Versailles treaty, which resulted in many Germans believing that they had been “stabbed in the back” by the “November criminals”

–an economy that left millions of Germans without jobs (and therefore, with lots of time on their hands to listen to the various revolutionaries including Hitler) and starving/hungry

–the involvement of many Germans, including Christian Germans, in various occult organizations and belief systems, that had been gaining popularity since the late 19th Century and even before then

–centuries (long before the Reformation) of Antisemitism throughout Europe, the United States, and the rest of the world, including among all types of Christians

–Hitler’s undeniable and incredible talent in public speaking that made him a charismatic, romantic (he was very popular among women), and appealing leader of a new movement (National Socialism) that promised a return to sanity, prosperity, and strength in a hungry and hopeless Germany

–Hitler’s energy and undeniable talent for organizing people, and turning “dreams” into reality. Lots of us have dreams of a perfect society, but very few of us take any actions to make those dreams reality. Hitler did.

–Hitler’s choice of co-leaders and associates, many of which were perverts, and almost all of which were willing and ready to punish those who disagreed with National Socialism with violence and death–this created fear among the Germans who would be most likely to speak out against National Socialism at the beginning of the movement when it might have been halted before it became a powerful juggernaut that swept into power

–Germany’s long-time culture of obedience, and Germany’s love of pageantry, mysticism, music, parades, banners, and all other ceremonies and celebrations! Hitler was able to exploit this and turn a horrific political idiology into a “religion” of sorts that seemed, at the time, to allow Christianity among the people, but actually supplanted any form of religion and replaced it with loyalty to the Fatherland and to Adolf Hitler.

–the utter FAILURE of the world, especially the United States, to confront Germany after Hitler invaded and conquered the Rheinland. IF the world had protested and stepped in at that time, a humiliated Hitler would have, in all likelihood, committed suicide, and WWII and the Holocaust never would have happened. Unfortunately, the world, especially the United States, was war-weary after WWI, and did not want to get involved in any kind of issue that might lead to military involvement.

–the presence of an extremely weak Prime Minister in Great Britain (Neville Chamberlain), who continued to maintain that Hitler was harmless and failed to take any steps to stop Hitler and National Socialism in the early days when it was poor, weak,and very vulnerable.

–the reality of the worldwide Great Depression, which crippled countries like the U.S. and made them more focused on internal woes rather than world-wide developments.

I think this is a really good summary of the causes. There could be more, but it does put things in perspective.

Thanks Cat.
God bless,
Ut

 

[WildCatholic]

Since we have a member in this thread who has apparently joined for the sole purpose of linking Lutheranism and Nazism - and evidently implying some intrinsic link between Protestants and Nazis - I would like to bring it full circle for accountability’s sake, so I’ll ask for the fourth time.

How do Catholics account for their role in:

Mussolini’s Italy (Il Duce converted to Catholicism and granted autonomy to the Vatican, gaining Catholic support)

Croatian Ustaše (Catholic theocratic fascist movement which killed about 800,000 Jews, Orthodox Serbs, and Gypsies. It also forced hundreds of thousands of Serbs to convert to Catholicism)

Father Jozef Tiso (Catholic priest and fascist dictator of Slovakia)

And please, provide an answer that does not consist of cut-and-pasted text from historians.

1. With Mussolini, he knew he had to have good relations with the Church because Catholicism was not only the major religion in Italy, but was a powerful political force as well, Mussolini knew he couldn’t anger them and so in his view he would control the political life of italy while the church would control the faith life of the Italian people.

Because of this view that he wanted to work with the Church, by promoting things such as women staying out of the workplace to raise families and being against contraception and banning divorce. Thus most Catholics saw no problems with supporting him. So in a way he swindled them by promoting social issues he and the church agreed on. That being said, most of these ideas were promoted in the 30’s, and him and the Church did disagree on a number of issues, including his “Charter of Race” which stripped Jews of Italian citizenship. The Pope even sent a letter of protest to Mussolini because of this. So in some sense while hierarchy might have liked some things he did, they were not buddy buddy. Yes, since most Italians are Catholic there were probably those who saw no problem, even with discriminating jews, but I hardly think it was because of Catholic teaching. Mussolini himself was irreligious and only had his children baptized to curry favor with the church so he wouldn’t be seen as Anti-Catholic

1. With the Croatian Ustase, a lot of this is traced to simple nationalism that is still evident in the former Yugoslavia today. Many Croats, who were under Serbian rule at this time, wanted to be independent and saw Catholicism as a part of being Croatian, so they used their faith as a part of their croat patriotism. Also, from what i’ve read the Archbishop of Zagreb felt it would be better for Croatia to be independent since it meant more freedom for the church. The Archbishop even wanted to get recognition for Croatia and the Ustase government, and in 1941, their leader Anton Pavelic met with Pope Pius XII and while Pius did not recognize the Croatian state due to the ongoing war, he sent an apostolic visitor. This was good enough for the Ustase and they felt that if the Vatican was on their side they could (wrongly) unleash unholy hell on their enemies. The Vatican did hope they would keep communism at bay, but I don’t think they expected such genocide like the Ustase.

As for Catholic involvement in the Ustase, it seems as if while a number of lower level priests (don’t know what percentage of all priests though) did support the Ustashe, the Bishops, even the Archbishop of Zagreb didn’t support them. The Ustashe leader even told foreign minister Von Ribbentrop about this and felt it was done because the bishops had to back the Vatican.So while there were instances of priests in the Ustashe, and even a Franciscan who ran a concentration camp (who was defrocked in 1943), a number of Catholic resistors were involved who were against persecutions of serbs, and even their forced conversions. It seems that much like Pius XII, the Croatian hierarchy has been painted in a bad life, when they did all they could to help those being persecuted.

As for Croatian laymen. As I mentioned Nationalism more than Catholicism influenced them. Yes they saw Catholicism as part of being Croatian, but it was more a part of their culture than a sincere desire to see people become Catholic and spread the faith.

1. Lastly, there is Jozef Tiso, the Catholic priest and dictator of Slovakia. Tiso was an interesting character. Though he held no political office, Hitler had appointed him as the Puppet ruler of Slovalia. However, he was not in good standing with many in the church. He even was imprisoned in a monastery for being a Nazi sympathizer.

That being said Tiso was forced into having slovakia become a Vichy type state in which he ruled, but Germany still had the power. In a way he was forced into this by Hitler himself and did it to save Slovakia from ruin, because he had been a staunch Slovak patriot. So he made the deal most likely in the hopes that Slovakia would be saved. However he was a ruthless man. He sent most Slovak Jews to Auschwitz. The reason for the Slovak hatred of Jews was that when the region was run by Austria Hungary, they encouraged Jews to settle in their cites and become middle class professionals which most rural Slovaks hated. Thus many Slovaks did dislike Jews. I wouldn’t say it was a Catholic influence on them, but more of an idea of Slovaks vs. Jews. Tiso also saw himself as anticommunist and probably thought jews were communists and may have riled up most slovaks about this, but like in Croatia, the Hierarchy probably didn’t support him though I can’t find anything to attest to this.

So there you go. I hope this works!