Was Hitler a Christian?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
101

I don’t care where you got it from: it’s a straw man. And what you actually said was “[A]re you asserting that politicians never lie in their speeches or make false claims?”, not this new claim (which, incidentally, is another straw man as no-one has suggested taking everything Hitler says at face value).

I’m a pacifist. I’m also a very considerate and generous person. I happen to be an atheist. Am I a Christian?

Agreed.
To take the hot air out of this discussion, we can at least say that Hitler’s religious beliefs, or lack of, do not appear to be the driving force behind his ideologic beliefs and actions.

102

I’ve been reading this thread since its beginning (and have watched people chase their tails debating this foolishness, many times before in teh interwebz), and I have just one question:

Why in holy FUCK does this whole question even matter? I mean, really! On what issue does this question have even the slightest bearing? I can see how (some) historians might be interested in Hitler’s religious beliefs, but apart from them, why do people even argue about this asinine proposition? Exactly what turns on Hitler’s “Christianity” or his “atheism”?

Nothing. Zilch. Zero.

But religionists like to imply that atheism is dangerous/foolish because “Hitler was an atheist!”. And unbelievers like to imply that religious belief is dangerous/foolish because “Hitler was a Christian!” I strongly suspect that whether they will admit it or not, those are the underlying motivations for gonzomax’s and Tisthammer’s fervent disagreement on the subject. I shouldn’t have to point this out–especially on SDMB–but all of this is driven by woefully fallacious reasoning. Whether Hitler was or was not a Christian does not have the slightest bloody bearing on anything at all.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, gonzo, you’re losing this debate. Doing/saying the things Hitler did/said are not at all synonymous with sincerely-held Christian belief. (And I’m a Staunch Puppy-Kicking Frothing Atheist ®, by the way.)

103

As far as I can tell though, nobody in this thread – whether theist or atheist – has been making that argument.

104

Right.

Which is why I went on–immediately afterward–to say"

I acknowledged that that was not the overt nature of this particular exchange.

105

Depends when. They were Christians until they did heinous acts that DQd them. Don’t pretend it is waffling. They were Christians. they spouted bible references. They were raised that way. But I feel their actions were not Christian. I eliminate Generals , Patraeus and the others because of what they did. Don’t hold religious services before you send people out to kill .It is wrong.

106

On what grounds do you place your suspicion for me? I never said Hitler was an atheist, for example. Indeed, I have said very explicitly that Hitler believed in God, even though I am a theist.

107

Agreed.
As the SD article mentioned, Hitler was also a vegetarian. Does that make being a vegetarian evil?

And then you go and say that…

Would we say a Muslim extremist is not a real Muslim?

Would we say that an atheist that behaves well is a Christian?

The answer to both is No, because as I’ve pointed out several times now, the noun “Christian” (and for that matter “Muslim”) are primarily defined based on beliefs, not behaviour.
And we all know lots of people that claim to believe and yet behave like jerks.
Sure they might all be lying but we have no reason to make that assertion. In fact, it’s rather hard to explain some of their behaviour if it’s true that they do not actually believe.

108

Hitler did not commit his horrible atrocities due to his Chistianity. It is separate to his actions. Bush did not start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because he was a Christian. In either case, they claimed to be Christians while they were doing horrible things. The point is that Christians are uncomfortable with the fact that someone could do so much harm while being a Christian. You have to get over it. It is the sad truth.
If you believe a person has to face his maker when he dies, will an atheist who does good works and helps the poor all his life get a green light, or will a guy who proclaims his beliefs and Christianity while committing horrible deeds?
Christians are desperate to believe their faith makes them better people. It does not.

109

It is also the sad truth that every other religion, creed, belief-system, race, people, country has committed extreme violence and cruelty to compete for rule and resources — including state-atheists: it is part of the human condition. It is not breath-taking news that christianity since Constantine’s time, but more particularly in Europe once it was co-opted as state faith and faced pagan and muslim threat, and even more with internecine quarrels between countries of the same faith ( just as in Islam ) has been married to violent conflict.

Nor does it affect the truth, or not, of any creed, which exists beyond the temporal world.

I have no idea.

On the other hand if the atheistical belief-system is correct neither will have to worry; since actions, beautiful or horrible, have no significance once one is non-existent: and not only oneself, but those affected by actions will soon enough be non-existent also. And the universe if it continues after one’s death will not notice one’s previous existence; or thoughts; or actions.

I am not a christian, but they believe no such thing — except insofar as every believer in any possible belief ( including atheists and nazis ) understands that their beliefs are the sole truth and makes them superior to those who disagree — christianity is a *process *of becoming a better person, having acknowledged one’s imperfection and need for union with the Godhead through the divine passion of the Christ and his redemption of one’s sins. To believe one is already perfected is a mortal sin.

110

Well, you actually spoke of “inherent problems of piecing together what hitler said in unrecorded conversations” which seemed to suggest that what Hitler said in regards to Christianity was unrecorded.

Can you give a specific example endorsed by a reputable historian?

Christ certainly did teach “love one another” but such a teaching his hardly uniquely Christian. And while I have no doubt Hitler believed the old Jewish carpenter walked the earth, that doesn’t imply he’s Christian either.

If the General himself were Christian, the answer’s pretty obvious. Besides that, as I said Hitler held Jesus in some admiration.

Sure, and the existence of Jesus has been questioned by some. But the fact that some atheists on websites who don’t cite sources for many of their claims isn’t sufficient grounds when we have a reputable historian like Hugh Trevor-Roper suggesting otherwise. Consider this accusation from the website:

The author provides no sources that the quotes were forgeries, and I see little reason to see why we should trust an unsourced claim from a web page like this (a militant atheist who questions Jesus’ existence and wants Hitler to be Christian) over a distinguished historian. The best historian we have questioning the anti-Christian statements is the not-so-reputable Richard Carrier, and while he rejects the Genoud-Trevor-Roper translation even Carrier concedes Hitler does “criticize the Church and various Christian dogmas”, in the Picker and Jockmann translation (according to Wikipedia anyway). For what it’s worth, apparently top Nazi official Albert Speer confirmed the record being trustworthy. I therefore see insufficient grounds to reject the record as unreliable.

111

A brief rebuttal to that can be found here.

112

And right above this rebuttal, the same author says this:

113

OK, so just to keep score:
Speeches where Hitler made Christian statements are insufficient because he was clearly lying to appeal to the christian community.
Now first-hand accounts of Christian sentiments in private coversations are insufficient, even though similar evidence has already been used for the “hitler was anti-christian” case.

I don’t have the time to root around for a historian’s take right now, but I think it’s a safe assumption given everything posted so far that there will be historians (not all) that come down on the christian side. Will such cites be insufficient also?

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. The quote of Hitler’s that I cited was pretty explicitly Christian, mentioning Jesus and God as it does. If you want to say he’s lying, fine, but to imply he was being metaphorical or whatever is absurd.

It doesn’t rebut what I consider the main objection to be: that the english version is a translation of the french translation, and that the french translation is ropey.

114

The problem with this argument is that it is being pursued as either-or, when the reality appears to have been more complex. Hitler was quite capable of appearing Christian when it suited him, and in defying it when it suited him. I suspect he simply did not care much about the topic, other than an identification with Christianity as part of his cultural heritage. He thought those too interested in religious stuff - particularly the neo-pagans - were sorta looney, but did nothing to stop them, because he found them useful; he identified with his Catholic heritage, but did not let that stop him from murdering inconvenient priests.

Hitler, and the Nazis generally, were like that on many topics - where they had no firm ideological interests on a topic, they could appear as all things to all people, just as it suited them. For Hitler, appealing to Christian heritage and values made sense, because his enemies - the Communists - made a great show of anti-clericism. Hitler could pose as the defender of European culture, tradition and religion against the “godless Communist hordes”, thus appealing to traditionalists. But at the same time, Hitler & the Nazis could also simultaneously appeal to Nazi Romantics harking back to a (mostly invented) Wagnarian pagan past (and thus hostile to “Jewish, Slave” Christianity), and Nazi futurists harking forward to a gleaming scientific future (and thus hostile to “silly Jew superstitions” like Christianity).

115

Different argument. i did not say that Christians believe their faith makes them perfect, otherwise confession and last rites would not be needed. But they most certainly do believe it provides a handbook to guide your life in a more godly path.
If it works for you ,I am all for it. But the sad fact is people can use their faiths to justify practically anything ,like Bush and Hitler did. Some sects think they have to handle poisonous vipers to show their faith. These people belong in the Bush /Hitler camp .
The bible was written by god. The Koran is gods words. The Torah is gods teachings. Someone has to be wrong. Or maybe they all are.

116

I should perhaps point out that I don’t deny any of what you quoted. To reiterate what I said earlier, I think that Hitler believed in God and held Jesus in some admiration. Nonetheless Hitler was evidently not a Christian.

117

I deny that it is similar (more later).

It depends. If “Hitler is a Christian” is part of mainstream historical scholarship and the reputable, credentialed historians you cite are part of this, then that would be sufficient. If however all you can find is a handful historians if that are not reputable (e.g. neo-Nazis or militant atheists who question Jesus’ existence), then that would be insufficient.

I never said or implied he was being metaphorical. To cut down the straw man, recall the specifics of what Hitler claimed: (1) we must love one another just as Jesus said we should; (2) be considerate of our fellow man; (3) we are not alone a creature of God, but we are all brothers. Looks good except that (1), (2), and (3) are all consistent with a theistic Hitler admiring Jesus but being non-Christian (as I’ve been claiming he is), and when we take into account the text of Hitler’s Table Talk I think that becomes clearer (Hitler’s Table Talk provides evidence that Hitler believed in God, and provides circumstantial evidence that he held Jesus in some admiration). Remember that it is possible for a deist to admire Jesus.

Again, it puzzles me why one should accept the word of a militant Internet atheist who questions Jesus’ existence and often fails to cite his sources over a distinguished historian. That aside, the link does touch on that to at least some degree (e.g. “It is another thing to say that Bormann fabricated out of thin air long sections of anti-Christian rhetoric…”).

118

This boils down to, I refuse to accept your sources and I claim your biased ,so I refuse to believe Hitler was a Christian. Don’t bring any more evidence, my eyes are shut and I have fingers in my ears.
Define militant internet atheist. How can anyone be militant on line? That is slanted terminology, a weak and vapid form of propaganda. Don’t attack your foe or his sites. Deal with the arguments that you have lost. How can it be everything he said about the bible and his religious speeches don’t count?
It is clear Hitler read and quoted the bible. He was a Christian who did non Christian acts later in life. But all leaders of countries do. Hitler was not excommunicated. He did not publicly quit reject Christianity. In truth ,he used it to justify what he was doing.

119

In a separate post?

Actually on this point, I think my “safe assumption” was wrong. My (brief) search for historians that advocated the “hitler was a christian” view has come up blank.

OTOH, I didn’t come across any that suggested that he was an atheist either.

All the historians I’ve come across, e.g. Ian Kershaw, Richard Steigmann-Gall, John Toland and Joachim Fest, pretty much come down the same way that I have: Hitler’s religious views were conflicted, and probably not a significant motivator of his actions.
Or, to put it another way; he moulded theism / atheism to fit his ideology, not the other way round.

No straw man intended: I was genuinely trying to make sense of what you were saying.

The idea you are actually suggesting; that Hitler was perhaps a theist but not a Christian, isn’t one that I’ve contemplated.
However, regarding the specific quote we’re discussing here, I don’t agree with your suggestion.

If someone mentioned belief in Allah and Muhammed, and suggested that we should follow Muhammed’s teachings in the same sentence, we might reasonably suspect that that person was a Muslim.

It doesn’t mention the sources on that site, but I have come across some refs for historians that have doubts about Table Talk.

The historian Ian Kershaw, considered by many one of the leading figures on Hitler, with many published biographies, said of table talk “the table talk’ monologues of the last months (the so called bunkergespräche’) of which no German text has ever been brought to light must be treated with due caution”

Another example is this paper by Richard Carrier. (Carrier is an atheist activist, but nonetheless he is also a respected historian and this is a peer-reviewed paper)

120

In that sense you then say that Torqemada was a Christian and used the Bible twisting it’s values to endorse his inquisition, in the same sense that Richard the Lionheart twisted it to lead the Crusaders against a people he had no reason to attack, that the KKK sincerely believed that the Bible cheered them on in what they did, that Bush most definetely used his twisted version of the Bible to gungho his pre emptive strikes, that Milosovic used his understanding of the Bible to endorse his genocidal acts, that those who armed and backed Osama bin Laden used thier twisted version of the Bible and then twisted it another way when they turned on him, so that Osama Bin Laden twisted the words of the Koran to sustain his war against the west, it’s really quite an endless list of humans who twist around the words of God to serve thier own agendas…the point that has been clarified more than anything is how humans disrespect the word of God twisting it to suit thier own purposes, and since they are supposedly “religious” people they should realize that in any of the Holy Books God does not push people to violence except as a last resort in defense not as the aggressors, ever,and never on a pre emptive basis. In the Koran it says that on Judgement day, when a human blames the Devil for having led them astray, the Devil will respond " I am innocent of your sin, for I fear God the Almighty, you sinned on your own" it also says that whom so ever kills a human being it is as if he has killed all of mankind. Still some people manage to twist even a quote to suit thier own agendas