# Nazism a Worldview?



## amishrockstar

Is Nazism a worldview, or does it come from a worldview?
Is evolution a worldview, or does it come from a worldview (e.g. Atheism)?
What about humanism?

I've heard Bible teachers say that evolution and humanism are
worldviews, but aren't those _*ideas*_ (ideologies) that flow 
from a worldview?

Thanks,
Matthew


----------



## Christoffer

Nazism is short for the word national socialism. Thus the idea is collectivism - society as seen as a collective and has to strive as a unit towards the common good. The individual has no rights other than those granted him by the state, and these are relative to the benefit he can have in attaining the common good. Thus man is just an asset to be used.

Essentially, there is no difference between communism and nazism/fascism. In both you will have exterminate certain classes of people in order to attain the common good. Economic freedom will have to be limited in order for the plans of the government to materialize.

I would say that all of these share a worldview - the one that rejects God and believes the lie; namely that man can be like gods and shape his own destiny and create heaven on earth.


----------



## Scott1

Marxism/Leninism is a world view (as is Christianity).

There are several main components to a world view.

For example, Marxism/Leninism:
economics is socialism
philosophy is dialectical materialism
theology is atheism
biology is punctuated evolution

Christianity:
economics is stewardship of property
philosophy is supernaturalism
theology is trinitarian theism
biology is creationism

In the end, Facism and Communism are representative of basically the same world view, completely contrary to Christianity, philosophies made of the vane imaginations of men.

In the economic realm, they are two sides of the same coin, the one government control of the use of property, the other government ownership of property. Both systems remove basic private property rights and stewardship.


----------



## VictorBravo

Part of the problem is that "worldview" is a term with multiple degrees of meaning. Some people use it to describe an orientation or filter through which one (or a society) views information. Other people use it to mean the fundamental and core beliefs of a person or society that can never be questioned without violence. (I heard Bahnsen define it in this way).

So, sometimes the term "worldview" is a decidedly subjective term. For example, one atheist who is pressed to believe in God may react violently (not necessarily with violence) because his core identifying value is being challenged. Another atheist might just shrug his shoulders because his atheistic beliefs are not core, but merely something he casually has put on. In that sense, the two do not share worldviews.

But in the other, objective, sense, as in the sense of filtering information, they may be said to share worldviews.

Same, of course, can be said of Christians. Some pay lip service to God's sovereignty, but it is not a core belief. Others hold it as a core belief.

So, Nazism can be said to be a worldview objectively in that there is a party-line that people adhere to and filter their thoughts through, but not every person who follows Nazism has it as a core belief. Many did drop Nazism when the political winds shifted because it was not fundamental to their being.


----------



## etexas

A Shall (assume you speak of the Germanic Nazism) THUSLY forgive me if I am wrong: If I am correct you could well call such a "worldview" (however warped) I state this due to the influence that the Nihilistic Philosophers had over German leadership....also add to this a "revival" of pre-Christian neo-pagan growth amoung both the masses AND the well educated, and you have a "worldview"....vile....horrid...wicked....(one ONLY need look at the outcome) ,so yes....................there was worldview, all things human come (good or ill) from worldview! We have no ex-nihilo "collective" mind!!!!! Period! A worldview drives such things.


----------



## LawrenceU

Christoffer and Scott both said what I would have written. So, I will not repeat that. It was either Himmler or Goebels that said upon the Nazi German invasion of Russia that, '. . . now we will show them what true Socialism looks like.', or something to that effect. It is a common fallacy to teach that Nazism is far right and Communism is far left. They are both radical leftist positions (using right/left in the conventional American usage).


----------



## amishrockstar

Thanks for all the replies.
They're a big help. 

Matthew


----------



## Rich Koster

Don't forget that Hitler was loosely RC and had a pact with the Vatican. He wanted religion that would support his agenda, or at least not oppose it. He would eliminate the remainder. That makes Naziism different from Communism. Also, most RC's consider themselves rightists in USA. This doesn't change the truth, but I believe RC Nazis would falsely view themselves rightist when comparing some values to US RC's (along the religion and family values lines).


----------



## Dieter Schneider

The Nazi ideology is based on 'racism' (Scripture teaches there only is one human race). Like all forms of atheism, it is Anti-Semitic. The real God is replaced with ideal man. One does, of course, find traces of Nietzsche and Darwin in Nazism. A good starting point would be to read the 25 articles of the NSDAP (found here). 
I'd also refer friends to my blog for further information, esp. on the Barmen Declaration.


----------



## Edward

While antisemitism and Hitler worship were the common grounds of Nazi thought, there was a fairly wide range of thought within the movement, particularly before the Night of the Long Knives, when the socialist wing was liquidated. 

The world views of the Otto Strasser on one side and Fritz Thyssen on the other would have been quite different, although both were good Nazis before each fled at different times for different reasons.


----------



## buggy

Rich Koster said:


> Don't forget that Hitler was loosely RC and had a pact with the Vatican. He wanted religion that would support his agenda, or at least not oppose it. He would eliminate the remainder. That makes Naziism different from Communism. Also, most RC's consider themselves rightists in USA. This doesn't change the truth, but I believe RC Nazis would falsely view themselves rightist when comparing some values to US RC's (along the religion and family values lines).



I was told that the Nazis wiped out many biblically orthodox pastors/ministers and replaced them with apostates - which is probably why Christianity went on a nosedive after WW2 in conteinental Europe - especially in once solidly-Reformed Netherlands. Even the RC priests were not spared either.


----------



## Rich Koster

buggy said:


> Rich Koster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that Hitler was loosely RC and had a pact with the Vatican. He wanted religion that would support his agenda, or at least not oppose it. He would eliminate the remainder. That makes Naziism different from Communism. Also, most RC's consider themselves rightists in USA. This doesn't change the truth, but I believe RC Nazis would falsely view themselves rightist when comparing some values to US RC's (along the religion and family values lines).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was told that the Nazis wiped out many biblically orthodox pastors/ministers and replaced them with apostates - which is probably why Christianity went on a nosedive after WW2 in conteinental Europe - especially in once solidly-Reformed Netherlands. Even the RC priests were not spared either.
Click to expand...


The one's that saw Hitler's error and voiced out, offered aid/assylum to Jews or didn't toe they party line were eliminated in spite of RC alliance. A Reformed minister would by default be an enemy of the state because of stated loyalty to Christ and his teachings.

BTW, some of my ancestors were Nazi's and some fled Germany during the uprising. I have German propaganda( sent from Germany to the states) in my possession that tries to pass off Hitler as the great example for all men to follow.....


----------



## kvanlaan

Remember too that the appeal to old-time paganism was big in the upper ranks of the SS. Norse gods, etc. - the SS insignia itself is based on runes. I read something about my own 'tribe', the Frisians, being respected by the Nazis due to their racial purity and general warlike and independent history (see the Battle of Baduhennawood against the Romans). These people tended to stay in the same place (my own family has been mostly from the same few counties since at least the 1400's) and thus did not 'interbreed' with any 'untermensch'. Many of the Nazi rituals are decidedly old-school pagan as well (the blessing of battle flags, etc.).


----------



## TimV

> A Reformed minister would by default be an enemy of the state because of stated loyalty to Christ and his teachings.



With the tens of thousands of Christian leaders in Germany at the time, it should be easy to make a list of 10 or so who were taken from their pulpits for preaching the Reformed faith. I doubt anyone can do it though. To find an example of wholesale persecution of orthodox Christian leaders one has to go to the Allied camp, specifically the Soviets.


----------



## Edward

TimV said:


> A Reformed minister would by default be an enemy of the state because of stated loyalty to Christ and his teachings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the tens of thousands of Christian leaders in Germany at the time, it should be easy to make a list of 10 or so who were taken from their pulpits for preaching the Reformed faith. I doubt anyone can do it though. To find an example of wholesale persecution of orthodox Christian leaders one has to go to the Allied camp, specifically the Soviets.
Click to expand...

 
Perhaps if you would supply the list of all of the reformed pastors in Nazi Germany 1933-1945, we could track down those folks and make the 'easy' list for you.


----------



## TimV

> Perhaps if you would supply the list of all of the reformed pastors in Nazi Germany 1933-1945, we could track down those folks and make the 'easy' list for you.



On whom is the burden of proof when accusations of that magnitude are made ;-)


----------



## Scott1

> *Rich Koster*
> Don't forget that Hitler was loosely RC and had a pact with the Vatican. He wanted religion that would support his agenda, or at least not oppose it. He would eliminate the remainder. That makes Naziism different from Communism. Also, most RC's consider themselves rightists in USA. This doesn't change the truth, but I believe RC Nazis would falsely view themselves rightist when comparing some values to US RC's (along the religion and family values lines).



I think I understand what you are saying, he and his party institutionalized the churches, which were state run (Lutheran north, Catholic south) and made them part of his government power structure. Those who opposed that were persecuted mercilessly (e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer).

But it would be untrue, a slander even to insinuate he was Christian, even a Roman Catholic- not only because never regularly attended church, but because he officially never identified himself as Catholic, using instead terms like "nonsectarian." There is more evidence he was a Satan worshiper than a practicing Roman Catholic and we ought not even allow a hint of that to cause people to stumble over Christianity.



> *buggy*
> I was told that the Nazis wiped out many biblically orthodox pastors/ministers and replaced them with apostates - which is probably why Christianity went on a nosedive after WW2 in conteinental Europe - especially in once solidly-Reformed Netherlands. Even the RC priests were not spared either.



There is good evidence evangelical Christians were a significant group he and his power structure persecuted (because they wanted nothing to do with Christ).

In fact, Hitler made some outrageously offensive statements about Christ- we have no basis to believe he was ever practicing Roman Catholic, let alone Christian. He hated Christ, and by derivation, Christians. 



> *kvanlaan*
> Remember too that the appeal to old-time paganism was big in the upper ranks of the SS. Norse gods, etc. - the SS insignia itself is based on runes.



The more one delves into this movement the more one sees false religion and its indicia everywhere. Their symbol itself was a twisted symbol of Hinduism to start with.

Inasmuch as someone blinded by sin can know anything, the people who defined Nazism knew they had a satanic, pagan anti-Christian world view and they taught it in all its aspects-
even if those under that influence did not understand it as the world view it was, and was intennded to be by its promoters.


----------



## TimV

> I think I understand what you are saying, he and his party institutionalized the churches, which were state run (Lutheran north, Catholic south) and made them part of his government power structure. Those who opposed that were persecuted mercilessly (e.g. Dietrich Bonhoeffer).



The Catholics were already organized under a Bishop, but there were 33 Protestant sects/denominations in Germany at the time, so the Government created the post of Bishop of the Reich to facilitate communications with Protestants. That's were the story of Niemoller came in, since he agitated for himself to be given the position, but others of the nazi leadership were wary of him (not because of his Christianity!) and gave the post to a guy named Miller. Niemoller wouldn't stop his politicking and was sent to Buchenwald, again, not for his Christianity. Bonhoeffer was another example of persecution having nothing to do Christianity. He was working as a double agent for the nazi equivalent of the CIA and was executing for participating in a plot to kill a duly constituted head of state during a time of war.

99% of what assumes about WW2 is propaganda. There were many fine nazi Christians, and stories of German Christians hauled away just for preaching the Gospel are 99% bearing false witness. Again, you've got to go to the Allies for that sort of behavior, at least on a large scale.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Something I've never really understood: I know that the Nazi's didn't like communists, and vice versa, yet in practice they same to look similar (i.e., state control over everything). What is/are the differences between Nazism and Communism?


----------



## TimV

You could say the Soviets said "You farmers are too dumb to know what to plant, so we will tell you" or "you business owners only care about yourselves, so we will tell you what to make" and the nazis would say "you farmers are the best in the world. Grow what you want and be proud!! (we'll just tell you how much you can sell your crops for, and to whom) or "you industrialists are the best in the world! But we want you to pay your workers more, and for the next 5 years we want you to produce tanks instead of tractors, and while you can do all the designs etc.. on your own, we'll set the amount of profit you can make".

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

And in religion, the Soviets would replace pastors and Bishops with their own people. The nazis would leave existing institutions in place, but limit their freedom of speech to one degree or another.


----------



## Scott1

> Bonhoeffer was another example of persecution having nothing to do Christianity. He was working as a double agent for the nazi equivalent of the CIA and was executing for participating in a plot to kill a duly constituted head of state during a time of war.



There is a rich and detailed history here, and this might be subject of a thread by itself.

But I think the context was Hitler and the Nazis seizing control of churches as an arm of the government and as a means of government control, Mr. Bonhoeffer's campaign against that was the backdrop.

Bonhoeffer saw a political corrupting of the churches by Nazism (a world view antithetical to Christianity), and opposed it because Bonhoeffer was a committed Christian, willing to suffer for that.

Just remember, Bonhoeffer had written his doctoral thesis "Sanctorum Communio" long before that so he was heavily into Christian theology long before he saw Nazism replacing Christianity in those churches. 

As for


> There were many fine nazi Christians, and stories of German Christians hauled away just for preaching the Gospel are 99% bearing false witness.



Just can't buy that.

Nazism, a world view, is completely opposed to Christianity.

There is no way one could have two masters like this- maybe to be initially, temporarily deceived. But not any more possible than a born again Christian accidentally going into a Buddhist Temple and staying on there indefinitely.


----------



## TimV

> But I think the context was Hitler and the Nazis seizing control of churches as an arm of the government and as a means of government control, Mr. Bonhoeffer's campaign against that was the backdrop.



But Scott, it just didn't happen. Period. You're usually good in modern history, and I don't know where you're getting this!



> Just can't buy that.
> 
> Nazism, a world view, is completely opposed to Christianity.



It's not for you to buy. There are fine Christians even here on this forum who voted Democrat in the last election, and others who admitted outright they support foreign intervention against Israel's enemies. So what? We all come to understanding at a different times. Nazism is wrong. So what? Read what Cromwell said about democracy sometime.


----------



## Scott1

Tim, I'm not exactly sure what is disputed.

Are you saying that Hitler did not consolidate (German) state control over churches as part of the Nazi rise to power?

And that Mr. Bohnhoeffer was not opposing that on Christian, theological grounds?

(I'm not going to address the "fine nazi Christians" comment because frankly it is blatantly, obviously self contradictory on its face, an analogy might be "fine Marxist Christians," when it is a world view, that is by definition atheism by theology.)


----------



## TimV

> Tim, I'm not exactly sure what is disputed.
> 
> Are you saying that Hitler did not consolidate (German) state control over churches as part of the Nazi rise to power?



No, he didn't have the power. You are perhaps thinking about the Soviet model. The nazi rise to power ended in 1933.



> And that Mr. Bohnhoeffer was not opposing that on Christian, theological grounds?



Pastor Bonhoeffer wasn't orthodox Christian, but Barthian. And I'm not making things up by saying he was a double agent. It's not exactly hidden knowledge. He wasn't hung because of the 5 points of Calvinism. I'm not saying that that particular "people's court" was legal. But that would take some drawing out.


----------



## Scott1

To support the proposition that Hitler consolidated his power through state control of churches as the Nazi's rose to power, I'll offer a summary.

I realize Wikipedia summaries are not necessarily accurate, and not authoritative without primary source citations so those are included and accessible by link:

(If this particular point wants to be debated further, another thread would be appropriate)

Wikipedia entry Dietrich Bohnhoeffer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer




> Confessing Church
> 
> Bonhoeffer's promising academic and ecclesiastical career was dramatically altered with Nazi accession to power on January 30, 1933. He was a determined opponent of the regime from its first days. Two days after Hitler was installed as Chancellor, Bonhoeffer delivered a radio address attacking Hitler, in which he warned Germany against slipping into an idolatrous cult of the Führer (leader), who could very well turn out to be Verführer (mis-leader, or seducer). He was cut off the air in the middle of a sentence.[3] In April, he raised the first and virtually lone voice for church resistance to Hitler's persecution of Jews when he declared that the church must not simply "bandage the victims under the wheel, but jam the spoke in the wheel itself." [11] Bonhoeffer then put all his efforts in campaigning for the election of presbyters and synodals in July, which Hitler had unconstitutionally imposed onto all German Protestant church bodies.
> 
> Even before Nazi seizure of power, there had been struggle within the Evangelical Church of the old Prussian Church between nationalistic German Christian movement and Young Reformers in the constitutional church election in November 1932, which now threatened to explode into schism. Despite Bonhoeffer's efforts, an overwhelming majority of Nazi-supported German Christians won key church positions in the rigged July election.[12] The German Christians won a majority within the general synod of the Evangelical Church of the old-Prussian Union and within its provincial synods - except of the one of Westphalia - as well as in many synods of other Protestant church bodies, except of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Bavaria right of the river Rhine, the Evangelical Lutheran State Church of Hanover, and the Lutheran Evangelical State Church in Württemberg, which the opposition thus regarded as uncorrupted "intact churches", as opposed to the other then so-called "destroyed churches".
> 
> Bonhoeffer urged an interdict upon all pastoral services (baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc) in opposition to Nazification, but Barth and others advised against such a radical proposal.[13]
> 
> In August 1933, Bonhoeffer and Hermann Sasse were deputed by opposition church leaders to draft the Bethel Confession, a new statement of faith in opposition to the German Christians. Notable for affirming God's faithfulness to Jews as His chosen people, the Bethel Confession was however so watered down to make it more palatable that later Bonhoeffer himself refused to sign. In September 1933, Bonhoeffer helped form the Pfarrernotbund with his colleague Martin Niemöller, a forerunner to the Confessing Church that was to be organized in May 1934 at Barmen in opposition to the Nazi-supported German Christian movement.[14]
> 
> The Confessing Church was not large, but it represented a major source of Christian opposition to the Nazi government. The Barmen Declaration, drafted by Karl Barth and adopted by the Confessing Church, insisted that Christ, not the Führer, was the head of the church. However, most streamlined Protestant church bodies and the newly established Nazi-submissive German Evangelical Church, shaped by long traditions of nationalism and obedience to state authority in their functions as state churches (until 1918), for the most part acquiesced to Nazification of the church. In September 1933, the church Aryan paragraph prohibiting non-Aryans from taking parish posts was approved by the national church synod at Wittenberg. When Bonhoeffer was offered such a post in eastern Berlin, he refused it in protest of the racist policy.[15]


----------



## TimV

Hey, Scott

I've got a few nice references, and I'd love to talk about this further, but as you probably expect, a wiki source isn't something that I'm inclined to answer to.


----------



## py3ak

TimV said:


> 99% of what assumes about WW2 is propaganda. There were many fine nazi Christians, and stories of German Christians hauled away just for preaching the Gospel are 99% bearing false witness. Again, you've got to go to the Allies for that sort of behavior, at least on a large scale.


 
Is that one of the 83.4% of statistics that are made up on the spot?


----------



## Mushroom

> There were many fine nazi Christians


Tim, you know I love you, brother, but my first reaction to that statement is sarcasm, as in "That's why it was such a fine Christian movement."

I am not understanding your desire to present yourself as a Nazi apologist. Sure, we should want to get our history right, and I'm in agreement that the USA's alliance with the USSR was a travesty, but there is no possibility that "fine Christians" would have knowingly agreed with the ideology of Hitler.


----------



## Edward

SolaScriptura said:


> Something I've never really understood: I know that the Nazi's didn't like communists, and vice versa, yet in practice they same to look similar (i.e., state control over everything). What is/are the differences between Nazism and Communism?



Well, if you were a civilian in Poland, your odds of getting killed by the Nazis or the Communists was about the same if you were a Christian. If you were Jewish, however, you were about twice as likely to be killed by the Nazis as by the Reds.

Remember that the Nazi economic system was largely a fascist one. What the Nazis added was a racial theology. 

In that context, one of the key differences was ownership - Communists would nationalize industry and farms (either directly or into collectives). Nazis would leave private ownership in place (at least if you weren't Jewish) but would direct the economy. 

For example, during the run up to the war, and even during the war, the Nazis required partial local ownership of the Ford properties there, but never nationalized the plant. A fair amount of government control was exercised through the allocation of resources. 

From a religion standpoint, the reds would physically demolish the churches or convert them to secular use and demolish religious symbols (but even here, it must be noted that there was a period during the war when Stalin did permit a small resurgence of religion to try to stiffen the people.) The communists viewed religion as an enemy, the nazis viewed it as another instrument which must be steered.


----------



## Kevin

as I considered responding to this thread, I kept saying to myself, "remember, no one knows anything about Germany, remember, no one..."

Tim is correct. Neimoller was a "party member". He was sometimes refered to as the "party padre" . After his falling out with the leadership he became an anti-Hitler partisan, and ultimately a conspiritaor.

Please keep in mind that there were many "nazi" christians. just as there ar many "republican" or "democratic" christians. I know christians that are members of the green party & that are socialists. I also know a good many that are neo-cons!


----------



## TimV

> One thing, of course, the Fuehrer and all of us, I too, stood for: to remove politics from the Church in as far as possible. I did not consider it right - and that I should like to say quite openly - that one day the priest in the church should humbly concern himself with the spiritual welfare of his flock and then on the following day make a more or less belligerent speech in the Parliament.
> 
> This separation was planned by us - that is to say, the clergy were to concentrate on their own sphere and refrain from getting involved in political matters. Because we had in Germany political Parties with strong Church leanings, a considerable muddle had arisen, and that is the explanation of the fact that, because of this political opposition that originally played its role on the political level in the Parliament and in election campaigns, there arose in certain of our people an antagonistic attitude toward the Church.





> I myself am not what you might call a church-goer, but I have gone now and then, and have always consciously belonged to the Church and have always had those functions over which the Church presides - marriage, christening, burial - carried out in my house by the Church.
> 
> My intention thereby was to show those weak-willed persons who, in the midst of this fight of opinions, did not know what they should do that, if the second man in the State goes to church, is married by the Church, has his child christened and confirmed by the Church, then they can do the same. From the number of letters which I received as a result, I can see that I did the right thing.



From Goering's IMT statement
Trials of German Major War Criminals: Volume 9


----------



## Scott1

As I thought about whether to respond to this post, it was not clear whether I disagreed more with the conclusion or the reasoning to get to it. Both are disheartening.




Kevin said:


> as I considered responding to this thread, I kept saying to myself, "remember, no one knows anything about Germany, remember, no one..."
> 
> What do you mean by this?
> 
> Tim is correct. Bonhoeffer was a "party member". He was sometimes refered to as the "party padre" . After his falling out with the leadership he became an anti-Hitler partisan, and ultimately a conspiritaor.
> 
> Are you really insinuating here that any evangelical Christian would not be "an anti-Hitler partisan?"
> 
> When someone would insert himself as the Head of the Church and restrict its members to Aryans would any biblical Christian not be "anti" and hopefully "partisan"?
> 
> Please keep in mind that there were many "nazi" christians.
> I've already said I don't buy this or "fine Nazi Christians" any more than "fine atheist Christians."
> 
> 
> just as there ar many "republican" or "democratic" christians. I know christians that are members of the green party & that are socialists. I also know a good many that are neo-cons!



Naziism around Hitler is not merely a political party. It was an entire world view with an aim toward consolidating races based on inferiority. It taught evolution. It taught a dialectical view of history.

Are you unaware of entire world view brain washing, taught in schools that went along with it?

There is no comparison to someone being merely biblically ignorant and registering as a party affiliation. None demand the rank idolatry, submission and world view of Hitler.


----------



## TimV

Scott you are speaking from emotion rather than cold facts



> Are you really insinuating here that any evangelical Christian would not be "an anti-Hitler partisan?"



While Kevin may have mixed bios a bit, your opinion of what a Christian should or should believe is just that; your opinion. When I look at the huge central government the Republicans built up, the antiArab mentality that is just as racist as the nazi view of Jews, the preventive wars, etc...I can't see how a Christian could possibly vote Republican. Hardly any of my Reformed friends do. But that's just my emotions talking, and when I calm down, I remember that.



> When someone would insert himself as the Head of the Church and restrict its members to Aryans would any biblical Christian not be "anti" and hopefully "partisan"?



Who are you talking about? Who was head of the church? I gave a summation above. Do you disagree with it? The Catholic Bishop and Bishop of the Reich (Muller, not Miller as I said) didn't have control over anyone who wanted to leave their organisations. The whole Confessing Church movement was about that. Himmler's mysticism was a joke to Hitler, Goering, Doenitz, Jodl, Kaltenbrunner and most of the others. To say Nazis were pagan mystics would be like saying Republicans are Jews who write pornographic novels because Scooter Libby did.

The Nazis were a political party.


----------



## Kevin

Scott, I think that you are utilizing a form of post hoc falacy. In this case it takes the form of historical provincialism. 

Your assumption is that since all "right thinking" people abhore Nazism (as they understand it), then all "right thinking" people have always treated nazism/the nazi party, at every point in history the same way I would treat it (from my perspective in 2010). And that those people understood it (nazism/the nazi party) the same way as I do.

This is false. 

I had a first- hand expirience with this in the late 80's when 20+ Romanian christians were enrolled in my Christian University immediately after the fall of Chachescu. I learned that the relationships of christians within totalitarian states to the ruling party were much more complex, and that they changed over time. 

Much to my surprise. I learned that my views were one dimensional & idealistic. 

Scott I am not going to begin debating this issue, because it very soon degenerates to the "Reducto ad Hitlerum". However I will point out that thousands of German christians were party members. Even the Dutch Reformed church (the succession NOT the state church) had 8,000+ Nazi party members!

The idea that every evangelical christian was NOT an anti-nazi partisan is proven by the fact that active anti- nazis never numbered more then a few thousand & the numer of evengelicals was many hundreds of times that.

peace,

---------- Post added at 02:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 PM ----------

sorry for the confussion I created by typing Bonhoeffer, when I meant Niemoller above...

one was a christian statesman & a martyr the other was not.


----------



## TimV

I figured something like that. Niemoller ran a Freikorps battalion during the chaos years and was an important part of the struggle to the top for the nazis. He was housed comfortably in Buchenwald, but wartime conditions in camps being what they were, one of his kids died of disease there, another was killed fighting the Russians and another wounded. He offered his services to the nazis, but they declined knowing his temperament. After the war he was converted to Soviet style socialism through his friendship to Karl Barth.


----------



## Scott1

> *Kevin*
> Your assumption is that since all "right thinking" people abhore Nazism (as they understand it), then all "right thinking" people have always treated nazism/the nazi party, at every point in history the same way I would treat it (from my perspective in 2010). And that those people understood it (nazism/the nazi party) the same way as I do.
> 
> This is false.



No.

The assumption is Naziism under Hitler was a world view, encompassing theology, economics, philosophy, education, etc. and that it was COMPLETELY antithetical to Christianity and a Christian world view, and all the major components of that.

Instead, your apparent logic is that it was merely a voter registration selection.

That's one place we differ.

We also, apparently, differ on whether a Christian would accept the infamous individual as head of "the church" rather than Christ Himself. That's exactly a trigger Mr. Bohnhoeffer led opposition on.

The derogatory, public statements the infamous individual made about our Lord are indefensible, as the movement centered on his person.

And to rationalize acceptance of that movement under any pretense of Christianity whatsoever is to only create a stumbling block and is, in itself, biblically perverse and detestable.


----------



## LawrenceU

It is interesting to 'hear' all this hashing out of what it was like under Nazi control in Germany, what the church was and was not doing, and so on . . . . from people who did not live there. I know and have known many Germans and Austrians who did live in the Third Reich. Some of them were Christians, others were not. Some became Christians after the war. I prefer their view of what took place in Germany. And, it is different from all of the views posted here. It would require a corpus of immense proportions to envelop all of what happened, why it happened, what it was like to live as a true disciple of Christ in that period of Germany's existence, etc. One of the best men I have met who seems to be able to amalgamate well what took place is Hilmar VonCampe. It would be wise to read his materials and hear what he has to say. We can learn much from men like him, and there are not many left. In a few years there will be none.


----------



## Scott1

> Hilmar VonCampe. It would be wise to read his materials and hear what he has to say.



Are there any links to his writings?


----------



## LawrenceU

Scott1 said:


> Hilmar VonCampe. It would be wise to read his materials and hear what he has to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any links to his writings?
Click to expand...

 


Politics, ethics, Communism, and Christianity discussions with Hilmar von Campe

He is a dear man. We will be hosting an lecture and open discussion with him in the very new future. If you are in the area it would be well worth your time. I'll post the details when they firm up.


----------



## Scott1

> Politics, ethics, Communism, and Christianity discussions with Hilmar von Campe
> 
> From the foreward...
> 
> I lived the Nazi nightmare, and as the old saying goes, “A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.” Everything I write is based on my personal experience in Nazi Germany. There is nothing theoretical about my description of what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society, and Christians become religious bystanders. I don’t want to see a repetition. The role of God in human society is the decisive issue for this generation. My writing is part of my life of restitution for the crimes of a godless government, of the evil of which I was a part.



Only having perused this, it looks like a good book, taken for what it is- a first person account of someone who realized they were duped by this world view.

With theology (of God) at center of the book, here in the forward, I would say this supports a main point made earlier...



> The assumption is Naziism under Hitler was a world view, encompassing theology, economics, philosophy, education, etc. and that it was COMPLETELY antithetical to Christianity and a Christian world view, and all the major components of that.





> Responding to Kevin,
> 
> Instead, your apparent logic is that it was merely a voter registration selection.
> 
> That's one place we differ.



The tenor of this book seems that their propaganda is to accept a world view, including a theology that is COMPLETELY antithetical to Christianity and a Christian world view.

Part of the difficulty here is the effect of the nonsense propaganda.

But beyond that, its a superficial understanding of the implications of Scripture on all of life, and an assumption that a political affiliation centered on Nazism and the person of an infamous individual is merely an impliedly harmless voter registration selection.

That is simply not true by reason or on the merits, and it looks like this book and life story makes that case.

Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## Edward

A couple of useful links:

Nazi Memo on Leaving the Church

Robert Ley Speech (3 November 1936)


----------



## Peairtach

I think the fact that Christians (I make no comment on how many of them were true Christians; you can be a Christian without being a true Christian, which just means double-trouble for you) supported the Nazis shows 

(a) The condition of the church in Germany at the time, it being riddled with higher criticism and liberalism, Germany being the heartland of the same.

(b) The (willful) ignorance of Germans about Hitler's true intentions regarding war and the Jews. Indeed the Nazis and Hitler himself didn't seem to have a specific "plan", but things unfolded. They hated the Jews and wanted lots of _lebensraum_, but how that was going to pan out was less certain.

(c) The ability of the Nazis to hoodwink the churches with promises of "cleaning up" Germany and bringing in traditional moral standards. The Nazis, ironically, were going to be the party of morality.

(d) The willingness of German Christians to ignore less savoury parts of the Nazi programme because they were more afraid of Communism and the left and admired the Nazis willingness to "clean things up" morally and culturally.

(e) It shows the willingness of Christians to despise and hate a minority enough that they don't care what happens to it - although in this case they may have been shocked to know the Jews were eventually being deliberately murdered.

(f) It shows the willingness of the Christians to support the radical or reactionary right because they are "associated" with traditional and authoritarian "Christian" values and morality, Western civilisation having developed from Christian roots, rather than the left, which are seen as wanting to get as far as possible, as quickly as possible from the Christian roots of the West.


----------



## TimV

> (d) The willingness of German Christians to ignore less savoury parts of the Nazi programme because they were more afraid of Communism and the left and admired the Nazis willingness to "clean things up" morally and culturally.



This is a point made by many modern German historians. Jews and Communism were seen as one and the same thing. Whether it was right or not is a totally different subject. Perception at the time was that Communism was a Jewish movement. I could quote all day, but this from Winston Churchill in 1920 was typical of what western leaders thought about Communism from the Illustrated Sunday Herald on 8 February 1920:



> "This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new. From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders."





> (e) It shows the willingness of Christians to despise and hate a minority enough that they don't care what happens to it - although in this case they may have been shocked to know the Jews were eventually being deliberately murdered.



We have that today here in the US with another Semitic people, and I could quote all day, but those who follow the Christian Zionist movement know what I'm talking about.


----------

