# Book in progress



## Joe Keysor (Jun 3, 2007)

An e-mail from Rich at Puritan Publications in response to my inquiry suggested I post something on this forum.

I wonder how many Christians are aware of attempts to link Christianity to Hitler. Two extreme examples are The Holy Reich by Richard Steigmann-Gall (Cambridge University Press) and "Hitler's Christianity" http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm  These argue that Hitler and the Nazis were Christians or strongly influenced by Christianity. These ideas are quite common and becoming more so.

A more sensible approach recognizes that Naziism was fundamentally different from Christianity, but states that centuries of Christian anti-Semitism laid the foundations for the Holocaust and built up the reservoir of hate Hitler only tapped into. This is also a common view (see The Holocaust in Historical Context, Stven Katz, Oxford Universioty Press). It relates anti-Semitism directly to the New Testament, which supposedly teaches hatred of Jews.

As far as I know there has been no substantive Christian response (though there are many books I don't know about of course). To me, an adequate response would have to:

1. Provide a working definition of Christianity that is biblical yet accessible to non-Christians.
2. Give a biblical explanation of sin and evil.
3. Examine traditional religious anti-Semitism to show it was both contrary to scripture and also significantly different from modern racial and secular anti-Semitism.
4. Examine many of Hitler's religious statements and show why they do not agree with the bible.
5. Examine Hitler's philosophy and show why it is contrary to scripture and where, and also show its secular origins.
6. Examine Christian support for Hitler, and show this was a deviation from biblical Christianity, not proof as many claim of a Hitler-Christian connection.

I am working on a book of this type, it is turning out to be quite long, hundreds of pages. Eventually I hope to find a publisher. Any questions or comments, useful sources, or Christian works on this subject, are welcome.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2007)

Joe,

I'm not from Puritan Publications, I'm from the Puritanboard. I answer the Contact Form here.

Your work sounds very interesting.

I thought it was well known that Hitler was most affected by the philosophy of Nietzche. Does this not come to the fore much in these discussions? People truly have to be grinding axes to attribute Hitler's beliefs to Christianity.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jun 3, 2007)

People who want to link Hitler to Christianity definitely have an axe to grind. They are impossible to reason with, I have debated them over the internet. But, they are having an influence. Many people who don't know much about these things see a Hitler Christian connection. They point to:

_the strong support for Hitler by "Christians," including pastors, bishops, cardinals, theologians - surely they know what Christianity is!

the almost complete lack of Christian opposition

Hitler's religious statements, including support for the churches and respect for them, even claiming in one speech in 1922 (reliably documented) to be a Christian himself

centuries of "Christian" antisemitism

church attendance and church weddings by Nazis_

Those are some of the main points. The book by Steven Katz called the New Testament teachings on Jews "poisonous" and blamed Christianity for starting Jew hatred. It was highly praised by well-known authorities in the field at leading universities. 

About Nietzsche, the Nietzsche-Hitler connection is clear and many people have pointed to it. Nevertheless, Nietzsche has many fans and they have a lot of arguments to separate him from Hitler. For example:

_Nietzsche was an atheist but Hitler often condemned atheism and constantly referred to a higher power he said was supporting him. Hitler often referred to God (not the God of scripture of course)

Nietzsche made a number of insulting comments about the stupidity of the Germans

Nietzsche even condemned anti-Semitism on a couple of occasions, and said something positive about the Jews a few times._

All of these can be explained but it is highly complex (Nietzsche found something positive to say about the primitive Jews who conquered Canaan and slaughtered the Canaanites, but he hated Torah and despised most of the Old Testament as nothing but lies). He condemned conventional, traditional anti-Semitism but he had his own brand (Christianity was a Jewish trick to control the world, and Jews were bloodsuckers and vermin).

Also, there is a long tradition of anti-Semitism and nationalism going back to Kant, Fichte, Hegel, and other less well-known people like Lagarde, Gobineau, Langbehn and H.S. Chamberlain. Richard wagner also wrote a lot of political stuff and his anti-Semitism is very close to Hitler in many ways. So, there's much more to it than Nietzsche. Darwin's influence was also huge (as interpreted by German Darwinists like Haeckel).

Hitler's argument that the Jews were materialisitc and had no higher ideals is identical to Kant's. Kant has been identified as the father of modern German secular anti-Semitism, though the racial purity ideas was added long afterward.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2007)

I gained some perspective on Germany in a place I didn't expect to find it in _Karl Barth's Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its Genesis and Development, 1909-1936_ By Bruce L. McCormack.

One of the major factors that caused a sea change in Barth's philosophy and theology was his disillusion with German theologians who blindly supported Hitler. The author doesn't detail the roots of that move but Barth (a Swiss) lost all respect for theologians he once greatly respected.

It ought to be noted, of course, that Barth was trained, theologically, in Germany. It wasn't until years after receiving his doctorate and being called to a teaching position in Gottingen where he had to teach Reformed dogmatics. Ironically, the man had _never_ read any of the systematic texts written by the Reformers and their successors (Ursinus, Turretin, etc) and "discovered" them as he had to teach them. Theological liberalism was/is virtually ignorant of our orthodox fathers. By the time Hitler came to power, Modernism had no theology to mount and ethical opposition to National Socialism.


----------



## larryjf (Jun 3, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I thought it was well known that Hitler was most affected by the philosophy of Nietzche.



Yes, but Nietzche wrote to his sister how devastated he was that Hitler used his writings.

I think Hitler was quite taken by his writings, especialy Thus Spake Zarathustra and its idea of the "overman."

During the last years of Nietzche's life his sister (who was a rabid anti-Semite) was in charge of his estate and twisted many of his writings to suit her desires.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 3, 2007)

That book _Holy Reich_ is blatant liberal revisionism designed to malign Christianity. Like the Soviets, who had a state-tolerated church with politically-approved puppet preachers in Moscow to create the facade of religious freedom, the Nazis hoped to render the church an instrument of the State. Privately, Hitler and his minions professed a desire to uproot Christianity and Judaism altogether. In practice, the state marginalized the church. Read Michael Burleigh's book _The Third Reich_ and its sections on persecution of Christians.

Hitler's Persecution of the Christian Churches


----------



## turmeric (Jun 3, 2007)

I wish I knew where the quote is - Sigmund Freud attributed anti-Semitism to incomplete conversion from paganism, a reaction to forced conversion during the early middle ages.

Hitler, as far as I know, was an occultist if he was anything.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jun 3, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> By the time Hitler came to power, Modernism had no theology to mount and ethical opposition to National Socialism.



One of my points is that liberal theology had destroyed the church from within, leaving only an empty shell of seminaries and churches with no spiritual content.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jun 3, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Yes, but Nietzche wrote to his sister how devastated he was that Hitler used his writings.
> 
> During the last years of Nietzche's life his sister (who was a rabid anti-Semite) was in charge of his estate and twisted many of his writings to suit her desires.



Nietzsche died in 1900, Hitler was eleven at that time.

Nietzsche left behind papers that his sister manipulated after his death, but he published some books in his own lifetime and also left some writings in a completed state (like The Antichrist). These give us an accurate idea of Nietzsche's views. "Nietzsche's sister distorted him" is a favorite evasive tactic of Nietzsche defenders.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jun 3, 2007)

> That book _Holy Reich_ is blatant liberal revisionism designed to malign Christianity.


Exactly - and what Christian is going to refute it and expose its errors? The book has been widely reviewed and praised, many people believe it.



> Hitler and his minions professed a desire to uproot Christianity and Judaism altogether


 Hitler expressed support and admiration for the churches a number of times - lies of course, but many people don't know that. Private quotes expressing hostility to Christianity are explained away.



> Read Michael Burleigh's book _The Third Reich_ and its sections on persecution of Christians.


A lot is known about the Nazi persecution of the churches (see John Conway's The Nazi Persecution of the Churches 1933-1945). But, people argue the Catholics persecuted the Protestants, the Protestants persecuted the Catholics, Christians often persecute each other, the fact that Hitler persecuted Christians who disagreed with him does not in and of itself prove he was not a Christian.

Also, I don't believe Burleigh wrote from a biblical persepctive. The argument needs to be dealt with from a biblical point of view. Mere historical facts are not enough.


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jun 3, 2007)

turmeric said:


> I wish I knew where the quote is - Sigmund Freud attributed anti-Semitism to incomplete conversion from paganism, a reaction to forced conversion during the early middle ages.
> 
> Hitler, as far as I know, was an occultist if he was anything.



Personally, I believe Freud as an atheist had zero understanding of this spiritual problem. Spiritually, I believe anti-Semitism originates with Satan's hatred of the Jews because God used them to shed his light into the world.

There is no dircet proof I know of Hitler was involved in the occult, though some of his associates were and it is certainly possible. It is clear that all of his basic ideas were expressed by German writers and thinkers long before he came to power. 

Hitler received his power from Satan in some way, but I don't go into that in-depth. Ultimately Hitler's power came from the devil, but exactly how we don't know, and shouldn't get too much into the dark things of Satan.


----------



## Staphlobob (Jun 3, 2007)

For good response to the accusation that Naziism and Christianity are linked, read Gene Edward Veith's "Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview"

Here's a review by Jeffrey Leach (Omaha, NE USA) from Amazon:


Dr. Veith wrote this well researched book to explain why fascism as best personified by Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 40's can be seen in today's culture. Veith uses an amazing amount of source material to craft an intricate series of arguments that expose the philosophical underpinnings of fascism, as well as arguing how that philosophy has been adopted by intellectuals today.

Fascism, and especially Nazism, have been made out to be the ultimate evil, due to its actions in Europe during the early part of the twentieth century. What few people seem to know is that fascism is an ideology, one that has a philosophy. Veith makes a good point that concentration camps and war were effects of fascism. These effects sprang from the ideas of fascism.

I was especially interested in how Veith showed that Communism and National Socialism are really two sides of the same coin. The difference is in their outlook. Communism has an international outlook, while National Socialism deals with a localized outlook (the nation). While there are flaws in this argument, Veith does a pretty good job of supporting himself with evidence.

Much of the book is spent discussing these philosophical ideas. There is much discussion of the ideas of Martin Heidegger and Frederich Nietzsche, and how they were the leading theorists of fascist thought. Many of today's intellectuals are vigorously trying to clean up Heidegger's writings to try and hide his obvious affinity for fascism. They just can't understand how he could embrace this mode of thought. Veith shows how his writings that are so loved by intellectuals today are outgrowths of fascist thought. He also shows that by adopting Heidegger's tenets, intellectuals are inadvertantly adopting fascist principles. Veith also spends time discussing how Christianity responded to fascism, especially in Nazi Germany where the church was viewed with great suspicion by the Nazis. Why? Because Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism. Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, and all of its early theologians were Jews. Go look at your Bible. The only non-Jew in the New Testament is Luke (I've seen arguments for John as well).

A rare book that makes the reader look at things in a different way. I gave it four stars due to a few errors in the book. The first one was in the first paragraph, when Veith says that David Duke was a member of the American Nazi Party. Duke was never a member of the ANP. He was a member of the KKK. Also, using Nietzsche as a theorist of fascism might be a bit misleading. Nietzsche's sister edited his works after his descent into madness, and it from these versions that fascism borrowed some of their ideas. This seems to be the prevailing view today, anyway. I may concede the point to Veith, though, because this may be an attempt by leftist intellectuals to cleanse Nietzsche of what they perceive to be fascist thought. Also, I wish that Veith would have spent more time looking at how fascist thought has permeated our society today. There is only one chapter devoted to this, and it is the last one in the book.

I'd highly recommend this book. It'll make you question some of the ridiculous behavior that is going on in our country today.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 3, 2007)

_For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler_ is one of the better books on the subject.


----------



## etexas (Jun 3, 2007)

Even the current Pope Benedict states his feelings of horror when he saw crosses being replaced by "pagan May-poles".


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jun 4, 2007)

> Staphlobob - For good response to the accusation that Naziism and Christianity are linked, read Gene Edward Veith's "Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview"



Thanks for the helpful reference to the book. I was hoping for something like that when I posted.



> I was especially interested in how Veith showed that Communism and National Socialism are really two sides of the same coin. The difference is in their outlook. Communism has an international outlook, while National Socialism deals with a localized outlook (the nation).


In _theory_ Communism was international, but the Soviet Union and China both pursued _highly nationalistic_ policies in spite of a lot of propaganda about internationalism.



> Much of the book is spent discussing these philosophical ideas. There is much discussion of the ideas of Martin Heidegger and Frederich Nietzsche, and how they were the leading theorists of fascist thought.



There is a lot of fascism in Hegel (the individual should be totally subordinated to the state) and also in other German thinkers of the 19th century. They argued that democracy was divisive and harmful. This was a standard theme among many German writers long before Heidegger and Nietzsche.




> especially in Nazi Germany where the church was viewed with great suspicion by the Nazis. Why? Because Christianity is an outgrowth of Judaism. Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, and all of its early theologians were Jews. Go look at your Bible. The only non-Jew in the New Testament is Luke (I've seen arguments for John as well).



That Christianity was Jewish, or that an originally Aryan Christianity had been corrupted by Judaism, was a standard argument during the Nazi era and also by proto-Nazis like Wagner and H.S. Chamberlain. That was one of Nietzsche's main arguments against Christianity in The Antichrist - Christianity was an invention of the Jews.



> using Nietzsche as a theorist of fascism might be a bit misleading. Nietzsche's sister edited his works after his descent into madness, and it from these versions that fascism borrowed some of their ideas. This seems to be the prevailing view today, anyway. I may concede the point to Veith, though, because this may be an attempt by leftist intellectuals to cleanse Nietzsche of what they perceive to be fascist thought.



it is definitely an attempt by leftist intellectuals to cover up Nietzsche's evil ideas. Some of Nietzsche's books were published by him in his lifetime. They set forth his worst ideas clearly. Other works like The Antichrist were finished before his death. His sister's minor changes were later corrected by reference to the original manuscript. In one case in The Antichrist  Nietzsche's sister _softened _his rhetoric and made it _less_ offensive rather than the reverse as is so often claimed. She removed a reference to Jesus Christ as an "idiot."



> Also, I wish that Veith would have spent more time looking at how fascist thought has permeated our society today. There is only one chapter devoted to this, and it is the last one in the book.



There are many parallels between the extermination of the Jews and the slaughter of the unborn. In both cases a false philosophy leads people to be categorized as less than human, so they can be killed in the millions legally. Of course, a woman has a free choice, if she wants to kill her baby or not - but a Nazi had a free choice, if he wanted to kill a Jew or not. Neither the baby nor the Jew had a choice.

Changing the subject, in all of the debate against abortion, who has pointed out that murderers are headed for an eternity in the lake of fire?


----------



## Joe Keysor (Jun 4, 2007)

Puritanhead said:


> _For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler_ is one of the better books on the subject.



An online review of the book states:



> The Confessing Church was one of the rare German organizations that opposed Nazism from the very beginning, and in For the Soul of the People , Victoria Barnett delves into the story of the Church's resistance to Hitler.



I have been accused of being too negative on this board, but this thesis as described in the review is not accurate. Martin Niemoller, the most famous member and leader of the Confessing Church openly supported Hitler during his rise to power. He later realized his mistake and was sent to a concentration camp for his opposition, but it is a documented fact he approved of Hitler's comnig to power and was glad to see the end of the Weimar democracy.
Many other Confessing church members tried to resist total domination by the state, but were very often careful to affirm their loyalty to Hitler. Very few of the Confessing Christians directly spoke out and openly condemned Naziism. Their resistance was almost always cautious and limited.

As to Bonhoeffer, I don't think disguising his beliefs and pretending outwardly to be a loyal Nazi while he secretly plotted Hitler's assassination was the biblical approach. I don't see Paul outwardly pretending to be loyal to Nero while secretly plotting his assassination.


----------

