(Ed) Hitler's Atheism [Archive]

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:04 PM

On 12-04-2002 03:58 PM, Nova Land writes:

Open Letter to Jedi on Hitler's religious beliefs

Dear Jedi,

Hi! I hope you had a good Thanksgiving! Mine was pretty exhausting, but on the good side I got to spend some time relaxing at a university library.

As I'd hoped, I was able to locate the book containing the passages you had quoted concerning Hitler's religious beliefs. It's interesting reading.

The book is Hitler's Table Talk, also published as Hitler's Secret Conversations. It was originally published in 1953, and has been reprinted in several editions since then. It consists of transcriptions of private discourses Hitler made between 1941 and 1944, and his religious beliefs come up in a number of these. The passages you quoted come from conversation # 4 (night of 11th-12th July 1941):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity ... The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and conversation # 287 (11th August 1942, evening):
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you have access to an edition of this book? I went through the book, noted which conversations had material relating to Hitler's religious beliefs, and copied those pages, so I can quote the relevant passages for you, but it will make things easier (and save me a lot of typing) if you have a copy you can refer to yourself. The relevant conversations are: 3, 4, 5, 27, 33, 43, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 75, 76, 100, 105, 143, 148, 152, 153, 160, 163, 184, 187, 190, 233, 236, 248, 275, 287, 304, 308, 326, and 328. (The page numbering is different for Table Talks and Secret Conversations, but the content of these conversations appears the same, apart from a slight difference in numbering toward the end regarding # 326 in Table Talks, which is # 327 in Secret Conversations. If you have a copy of Table Talks handy I'll be glad to cite the page numbers; otherwise I'll just refer to these by conversation numbers.)

You indicated a reluctance to identify the source where you found these passages, and that's fine. Your source would only be relevant if they had read the primary source material or had other special knowledge on the subject (in which case their views might deserve some extra consideration as we weigh the material and evaluate its significance). Since your source mixes portions from 2 separate passages, and uses the same portions (with the same omissions) that Bullock apparently used, your source looks to be simply someone who is quoting from Bullock (or quoting from someone else who is quoting from Bullock) rather than anyone with any special knowledge or expertise. So I'm happy to ignore them and get on to looking at the actual source material if that's agreeable with you.

Obviously, there is a danger in relying too heavily on only one source. Table Talks is interesting, and appears to give some of Hitler's inner thoughts that he did not care to share in his more public utterances, but these were not recorded on tape so we are dependent on the notes (and memory, and judgment, and interpretation) of the person doing the transcribing. I saw and skimmed through some other books which also purported to reveal Hitler's private thoughts, some of which looked interesting. But Table Talks is the source that has the passages you cited as the basis for your belief that Hitler was an atheist, so it seemed worthwhile to focus on what this book actually does say before getting distracted onto what other sources have to offer.

In a nutshell: This book supports your belief that Hitler was not a Christian (at least not as most people understand Christianity today). It does not support your belief that Hitler was an atheist. Repeatedly Hitler attacks atheism in these conversations, and expresses belief in God. We can get into that in more detail when you're ready.

I don't think anyone besides you and me is still interested in this topic (and I'm not sure you're still interested) so we should have this thread largely to ourselves. (Anyone else who's interested is welcome to lurk or to take part, too. My one request is that people not come in simply to toss insults.)

Where would you like to start? If you have access to the book, we can pick specific conversations and look at them. Or we can start from the beginning and take the relevant conversations in order. Or I can pick a few passages and type excerpts out for you, and we can proceed from there. Let me know your preferences.

good wishes /

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:05 PM

On 12-04-2002 05:21 PM, ceo_esq writes:

I think I was the one who directed JK to this book in several of the Hitler/atheism threads. I used to have access to a hard copy, not any more.

JK may have been reluctant to point you to an online source because excerpts from this book most frequently appear on Christian apologetics websites, and perhaps he thought that might incline you to dismiss them (or perhaps he simply found that the excerpts appeared in conjunction with other materials he did not endorse).

I agree, and have told JK as much, that this book does not establish that Hitler was an atheist.

I do believe that the conversations were stenographically (and thus presumably accurately) transcribed for the most part, although you've got the book and maybe it gives more information about the manner in which the conversations were preserved.

Bravo for actually hitting the library and doing the homework.

Best regards.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:06 PM

On 12-04-2002 07:23 PM, Jedi Knight writes:

I didn't withhold the quote source from you. A quick line in any search engine brings it up.

Hitler and atheism as Hitler's primary religious belief is something that I have been checking out for some time. I have read parts of the book that you have and it only strengthens my position that Hitler was an atheist.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:07 PM

On 12-05-2002 01:24 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Hitler and atheism as Hitler's primary religious belief is something that I have been checking out for some time. I have read parts of the book that you have and it only strengthens my position that Hitler was an atheist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious what leads you to conclude Hitler was an atheist, which is one reason I'm interested in looking over and discussing this material together.

(I can see how, if someone were to take passages out of context, it might be possible to give someone the impression Hitler was an atheist; but it would also be possible to give someone the impression he was a Christian if one were to do that.)

From what you have written, it sounds like you may be reading excerpts that someone else has selected rather than having a copy of the book itself at hand. Is that the case, or am I mis-reading you? I think if you read the book itself it is difficult to conclude Hitler was an atheist.

What I'm interested in doing is going through the passages from the book that deal with Hitler's religious beliefs and discussing them together. It will be easier to do that if you have access to the book yourself, but if you don't I'll be glad to reproduce the relevant portions of the conversations that deal with religion (If so, I give you my word I will not distort the material or select only passages that support a particular view.)

I don't have scanning capability, so I will need to type in the text by hand. My thought was to take one or two of the conversations at a time, and go through all the relevant passages at a leisurely pace, rather than try to rush through. The conversations generally cover a jumble of topics, and not everything in the relevant conversations relates to religion, so in some cases there are just a few relevant lines, in others there are several paragraphs, but in some there is a page or two to read over and weigh.

Are there particular passages that you've seen quoted which you think are especially relevant to a view that Hitler was an atheist? If you mention either the conversation number or its date or a line or two from the conversation I can match it to what I've got copied and can reproduce the rest of it for you. (We could start with the 2 that are mixed together in the passage from Bullock you quoted, if you'd like, although there are others that are more detailed that I hope we can get to soon.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How has Nova been good to me? How? By holding civil conversation with me? Does that deserve something special...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the point you raise with these questions. No special credit is due for being civil; it should be something we take for granted in a forum such as this. You are entitled to be treated with due respect, the same as anyone else here.

I think the material in the book is intriguing, and I'm interested in looking at some of the passages, discussing what they do and don't say, evaluating what they mean and how they fit together. You've indicated an interest in this subject, and the fact that we have different perspectives makes me interested in looking at this with you, since you will be able to questions assumptions I may not even be aware I'm making, and vice versa.

Some of the material looks pretty straightforward, such as when Hitler talks about the soul, about God, about Providence, about how Christianity went astray (or, in Hitler's view, was deliberately led astray by the Jews), etc. Hitler's contempt for other people's superstitions, and his attempts to incorporate science into his religious views, while at the same time condemning atheism and materialism, provides lots of grist for grinding up and examining. I'm hoping we can do that, rather than get side-tracked by insults.

Please let me know if you have a preference for where to start in looking at this material. Otherwise, I'll select one of the conversations that most interests me and start from there.

looking forward to discussing this material with you (and anyone else interested in looking at it) /

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:09 PM

On 12-05-2002 01:48 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ceo_esq
...I do believe that the conversations were stenographically (and thus presumably accurately) transcribed for the most part, although you've got the book and maybe it gives more information about the manner in which the conversations were preserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The conversations look to be pretty carefully transcribed. I glanced at the introduction, but didn't copy those pages, so next time I get to Knoxville I should look over that more carefully to see what the limitations on the transcription are.

A person as egotistical as Hitler -- wanting to have his "table talks" recorded -- likely reviewed them to some extent to make sure these reflected the impression he wanted to give. There, of course, is one of the rubs. Even though he had less reason to be putting on a false front here than in his speeches and public writings, even among "friends" he may have been putting forward views he wanted people to think he held rather than what he really believed.

The views put forward in these "table talks", taken together, seem fairly consistent, so I'm inclined to take them largely at face value. But I wish there were more people who had been close to Hitler who had formed an impression of what he really believed, that we could refer to; even talking "informally", Hitler is not someone I'd trust. (I did notice one such book, Memoirs of a Personal Confidant I think was the title, that I glanced at quickly and would like to go back to another time.)

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:10 PM

On 12-05-2002 02:04 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I forget, why is it so important to know Hitler's religious beliefs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not. I'm curious about many things which, in the grand scheme of things, are really not very important.

Very often, I will see or hear or read some statement and wonder if it is true. To the extent that I am able to look those things up, I enjoy doing so. This is one of those things.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not need to refute Hitler's atheism to show the fallacy of:

Hitler was an atheist.
Hitler was evil.
Atheists are evil.

This syllogism is false no matter if the premises are true or false.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. In my experience atheists are often among the more moral people in society, so the existence of some atheists who have done evil things would not justify broad conclusions about all atheists.

Likewise, Hitler being a vegetarian, if true, would not mean that vegetarianism leads to racial prejudice or mass murder. (But as a vegetarian, I'm curious about Hitler's diet -- and, if he was a vegetarian, I'm curious as to what type and what his reasons for being one were. So far I've read conflicting stories. None of the stories makes me particularly worry about my own choices. Again, it's simply a matter of curiosity, and of possibly being able to correct a mis-statement of fact on future occasions.)

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:11 PM

On 12-05-2002 09:52 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Nova:

Interesting posts. One of the discussions that I've had with Jedi is mirrored in your post. Specifically, Jedi has argued that Hitler repeatedly lies about his religous/diestic beliefs as part of his effort to hood-wink and dupe the German public into following him. Indeed, clearly, Hitler is a complete cynic when it comes to politics and would say and do just about anything.

However, Hitler also was an idealist. In short, I contend that with respect to the big things...Hitler was as good as his word. Try though they might to deny it, no German, no one in the world, could say that they didn't know that Hitler had it in for the Jews and other "sub-human" races. He stated it in Mein Kamph. The Nurenberg Laws promulgated it in the mid-thirties. He may not have said outright "we will gas and shoot the Jews..." but he always talked about Jews in terms of distruction and death and destroy. There can be any real surprise that he acted on his words.

The same is true for his hate of weak European powers that victemized Germany after WWI , and Russian Bolshivism. In short, the world may not have wanted to take Hitler at his word, he was as good as it.

This is why when he says he believes in a higher god, and that he is that power's instrument, I find it perfectly reasonable to believe him. Sure he edited it, but if his end goal was to establish himself as the ultimate European power and to build a 1000 year Empire -- and empire that would revere him as its founder and ideological savior -- if the empire was to function as an atheistic state its leader would be looking to promulgate atheistic messages. The Table Talk, Mein Kamph and his other speeches and writings, as pointed out, do not claim atheism as the motovating Ethic of the State. It claims, rather a mission from God, and Hitlers words, designed to be read by adoring future Germans speak of his mission from God...not his mission in the absence of god.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:12 PM

On 12-05-2002 12:40 PM, Nova Land writes:

Hmm. I had sort of thought that most people would have no more interest in the whole Hitler/atheist question, since there were a number of threads that had already dealt with it, and that Jedi and I could have a leisurely discussion of the book that the passage he quoted came from.

I'm glad there are still people interested. I especially enjoyed the post from headscratcher4, a few messages back.

However, I'm puzzled by many of the other posts here, which seem to be merely gratuitous insults and pre-emptive attacks. I don't understand why people feel a need to do this.

Please note that, apart from responding to an insult by calling the person a pinhead, Jedi has not been the person mis-behaving in this thread.

Jedi: my apologies. I did not start this thread as a place for you to be insulted, although that is unfortunately how it is turning out. I'm still interested in discussing this material with you, and hope you're still willing to come back to this thread despite the background noise.

I typed a couple of the "table talks" up earlier today while off-line, and I'm going to post those once I finish and post this note. What I'm hoping to do is post portions of the relevant "table talks", one or two at a time, over a period of weeks (which should give people a chance to digest the material and me time to do things besides re-typing the things).

I hope people interested in discussing this material will enjoy the chance to read and comment on it. It starts out a little slow, but I'd like to take the time to chew it carefully rather than jumping directly to the spiciest bits.

If people who aren't interested in taking part in a discussion of Hitler's religious beliefs as given in his "table talks" could ease up on the number of insults and other distractions they insert into this thread, it would be appreciated. Thanks!

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:13 PM

On 12-05-2002 12:48 PM, Nova Land writes:

Conversation # 3 (Night of 11th/12th July, 1941)
I might as well start with conversation # 3, since it's the first to have material of interest. Then in the post immediately following I'll reproduce the relevant parts of # 4, since that's one of the conversations quoted in the passage from Bullock.

I'll give the conversation number and date in the heading of each of these posts, to make them easier to locate later (and will only do one conversation per post, to help keep them separate and easier to refer back to).

The italicized line is the summary of what's in the conversation, as given in the book.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversation # 3 (Night of 11th/12th July, 1941)

The natural piety of man -- Russian atheists know how to die -- No atheistical education

I think the man who contemplates the universe with his eyes wide open is the man with the greatest amount of natural piety, not in the religious sense, but in the sense of an intimate harmony with things.

At the end of the last century the progress of science and technique led liberalism astray into proclaiming man's mastery of nature, and announcing that he would soon have dominion over space. But a simple storm is enough -- and everything collapses like a pack of cards.

In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress. As for the why of thse laws, we shall never know anything about it. A thing is so, and our understanding cannot conceive of other schemes.

Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that all-mighty being whose law he worships.

Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call God (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the universe). The priests, who have always succeeded in exploiting this feeling, threaten punishments for the man who refuses to accept the creed they impose.

When one provokes in a child a fear of the dark, one awakens in him a feeling of atavistic dread. Thus the child will be ruled all his life by this dread, whereas another child, who has been intelligently brought up, will be free of it.

It's said that every man needs a refusge where he can find consolation and help in unhappiness. I don't believe it! If humanity follows that path, it's solely a matter of tradition and habit. That's a lesson, by the way, that can be drawn from the Bolshevik front. The Russians have no God, and that doesn't prevent them from being able to face death.

We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This conversation is of mild interest. There are lines which, taken out of context, sound more significant than they are. I would suggest reserving judgment on what is said in conversation # 3 for the moment, as the themes touched on here will be expanded on by Hitler in later conversations

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:17 PM

On 12-05-2002 01:01 PM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conversation # 4 (Night of 11th/12th July, 1941)

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together -- No persecution of religions, let them wither of themselves -- Bolshevism, the illegitimate child of Christianity...

When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours.

In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together.

On a question from C.S., whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Fuehrer continued:

No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought...

In England, the status of the individual in relation to the Church is governed by considerations of State. In America, it's all purely a matter of conformism.

The German people's especial quality is patience; and it's the only one of the peoples capable of undertaking a revolution in this sphere. It could do it, if only for the reason that only the German people has made moral law the governing principle of action.

The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.

Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.

Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.

The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I'd recommend reserving judgment until reading more, as Hitler becomes much more explicit in what it is he feels about Christianity in some later passages. (I can jump ahead to these if you're impatient.)

One thing that comes through clearly in this conversation is Hitler's contempt for contemporary religions. There is also, however, an early inkling that Hitler is not contemptuous of religion as such, and harbors a certain liking for pre-Christian religions and religious values. As later conversations will make clearer, Hitler believed that the Jews invented Christianity as part of a clever plot to destroy the Roman empire and its value system.

The line, "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things", is especially intriguing. Unfortunately, Hitler immediately wanders away from this subject and onto an irrelevant racial rant (which I've omitted). But he comes back to this subject in future conversations.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:18 PM

On 12-05-2002 03:37 PM, Marquis de Carabas writes:

Just a couple of articles about Hitler, Christianity, and atheism, that may be of interest...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mi.../ca_hitler.html

http://www.kwdavids.net/hitler.html

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:21 PM

On 12-05-2002 04:07 PM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nova Land
Again, I'd recommend reserving judgment until reading more, as Hitler becomes much more explicit in what it is he feels about Christianity in some later passages. (I can jump ahead to these if you're impatient.)

One thing that comes through clearly in this conversation is Hitler's contempt for contemporary religions. There is also, however, an early inkling that Hitler is not contemptuous of religion as such, and harbors a certain liking for pre-Christian religions and religious values. As later conversations will make clearer, Hitler believed that the Jews invented Christianity as part of a clever plot to destroy the Roman empire and its value system.

The line, "Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things", is especially intriguing. Unfortunately, Hitler immediately wanders away from this subject and onto an irrelevant racial rant (which I've omitted). But he comes back to this subject in future conversations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that at face value it is difficult to contemplate Hitler's true religious faith because historians have piled on thousands of different viewpoints about the dictator and his supposed belief-systems that he espoused while he was in power.

The book that you are referring to is supposed to be the actual words of Hitler that he wanted to archive in a way that you mentioned--so that the 1,000 year Reich could reflect on the thoughts of their greatest prince. The emporer's of Rome did the same thing and wrote their thoughts about the world for posterity.

The key to understanding Hitler is moving past the convenience of words and peering into the deeds. Deeds always speak louder than words. If I Hitler says that he supports Christianity in 1937 and then orders the gassing of the Jews in 1942, does he really support Christianity?

SS chief Heinrich Himmler was known to remark that he regretted that Germany had adopted Christianity, rather than "warlike" Islam, as its religion, and there is a disturbing amount of twisted but very real logic in his remark.--Serge Trifkovic.

Hitler hated communism, and yet he embraced some of the key ideological promises that communism used to ensure total state power. Christianity would not function inside a totalitarian nation-state system and allow for the atrocities implemented by the Third Reich to proceed.

Germany had a historical conflict with Christianity when Luther in centuries past had his falling out with Rome. The German people stepped away collectively from the organized religions that gripped Europe and which provided religion a moral influence over other European populations.

Hitler may "say" on one day that he agreed with organized religion and the potential for a God, but on those days he merely stepped from atheism into fractional agnosticism to tell the people what they wanted to hear.

No leader wants to leave for his posterity an imbalance in faith with the potential for the creator. Hitler knew that humans were hard-wired to ask questions about the omnipotent being and it was in his interests to appease the believers as he sought to isolate total control over the European continent and then the entire world.

Hitler saw victory on the horizon and the Table Talks were designed to humanize Hitler and cast myths about him for future generations that would be taught a revisionist history about Hitler once the German Reich consolidated power over the entire world.

Nazi Germany required an atheist approach to all its bureaucratic institutions because only an immoral population could put Jews (the creators of Christianity) into gas chambers and concentration camps as a specifically targeted race. The basic tenets of Christianity forbid such action and Hitler was not oblivious to the fact that the Church would be completely against it. After all, how could Hitler kill the very ancestoral founders of the Christian bible and claim to be a follower of their God?

The Table Talks have to be viewed as the posterity propaganda that they are. They are nothing but propaganda. That said, no one wants to be associated with Hitler at the institutional level and that is why scholars dump Hitler off into the Christianity column, since it is convenient but unprofessional to do so.

Hitler's nation-state system had no room for God. It had none. The German people who followed Hitler were a godless people and that is why their acts were godless. Hitler was a strict follower of Hegelism, and Hegel was himself a strict atheist.

As Germany marched and destroyed western civilization with its perversionist ideology, it is clear that Hitler was not following the tenants of Christianity and was following a godless implementation or reinventing or morality foreign to Christianity.

My opinion would have been proven if Hitler would have run out Jews to burn in incinerators. The next obvious group to go would be the Christians, the cousins of the Jews and another class of citizen and institution that was a direct viable threat to state power.

That is why the Table Talks do not matter because they do not match the deeds of the man. Hitler was a chronic, habitual political liar, first to Britain and France and then to Russia. He was an atheist megalomaniac who would never allow the intervention of an omnipotent belief to hinder his atheist objectives. Hitler despised any competiton of state power as defined by him. Christianity has a natural tendency to interact with government without seeking true power holds in modern nation-states. Christianity's effect is moral influence, the antithesis to everything that Hitler ordered against the races of the earth.

There is no room for non-state sponsored religion in the totalitarian nation-state system. Hitler may have believed in an omnipotent being, but one that had no influence over the affairs of men and one that had no historical grounding in Christianity.

Hitler told European masses that he had personal faith in their customs, but that was just to appease them and join his cause. When the Third Reich was finished with the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims would have been next. I think at times of what form of religion Hitler would have ordered for the global masses had Nazi Germany won the war. The new Nazi religion would certainly have been a form of secular humanism with racial overtones because the deeds would have forced it to evolve from the totalitarian state. Christianity and the other historical religions would have been banned under this new "enlightenment", because Hitler, in his victory, would have swept the memory of the old world away forever. That is the nature of fascism and is fascisms' endgame.

You can see from the quote in red above that the senior Nazi leadership were already contemplating what religious system would be most effective for implementation under the new Nazi state. The only thing that was important to the senior Nazi leadership cells was making the fascist state bureaucracy as efficient as possible. Christianity is not an efficient religion because its efficiency is only powerful in states were freedom of the individual is the instrument of the bureaucracy.

This is why Christianity is under attack in America and the west because as we move closer to totalitarianism ourselves, the destruction of Christianity must be achieved because freedom has no cornerstone in any fascist or totalitarian state. The recent nuturing of Islam is also another sign of the west's propelling into totalitarianism, because Islam (Islam means "surrender" in arabic) is a very effective tool for the fascist bureaucracy. In the fascist bureaucracy, efficiency is the most important objective. In order to exact the greatest efficiency, the populations must be subordinated. Islam (surrender) is perfect state-sponsored subordination in the expansion of the totalitarian state. That is why SS Chief Himmler was attracted to Islam and why the Nazis planned to elimate the Christians as soon as the Jews were finished off.

That is my brief opinion about the Table Talks. Notice that they are approved by Hitler himself. No national leader, no matter how wicked, wants to be remembered in history as the tyrant.

Jedi Knight

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:23 PM

On 12-06-2002 02:07 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Just a couple of articles about Hitler, Christianity, and atheism, that may be of interest...

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mi.../ca_hitler.html

http://www.kwdavids.net/hitler.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the links! These look good. (I was pleased to see so much of Table Talks already typed out; this should save me some re-typing time.)

The web-site author comes to the conclusion that Hitler was neither Christian nor atheist. That seems to be the conclusion that any reasonable person who actually reads through the material comes to.

I'd be curious to know if there are any exceptions: people who have actually read through the material and concluded that Hitler was a Christian or an atheist. As far as I can tell so far, those who come to such conclusions are largely relying on what others have selected and interpreted for them.

Technically, of course, Hitler was a Christian, in the sense that he declared himself publicly to be a member of a Christian religion and was a member of that religion until his death. For some purposes, what a person publicly declares themself to be is adequate; for other purposes, it is not.

For instance, Jerry Falwell has publicly declared himself to be a Christian and claims to be taking various social and political stands because of his Christian beliefs. It is quite possible that in his heart he is actually an atheist (and I would not be surprised if 50 years from now some people did try to argue he was an atheist; with each passing decade Christians are likely to become more embarrassed by his beliefs and actions). But regardless of what is really in his heart, he is publicly perceived as being a Christian and the people listening to and heeding his words also declare themselves Christians. For many purposes, there is no problem identifying Falwell's movement as Christian, even though some of us may feel the social and political stands taken are actually in opposition to the Christian message as we perceive it.

In other words, it depends on what one means by Christian (or atheist). Using the words loosely leads to all kinds of misunderstandings and fruitless arguments.

I think some people are jumping too quickly into trying to argue about the significance of Hitler's religious beliefs (having already concluded for themselves what those beliefs must have been). First let's be clear on what those beliefs were. There'll be plenty of time to try to score debating points later; first lets be clear what it is we're debating about.

Which brings me to Jedi's post, so I'll close this and move on to that...

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:25 PM

On 12-06-2002 02:48 AM, Nova Land writes:

Jedi, Hi! There is already a page of stuff between the post I'm about to quote from and where this response will be (and by the time I finish writing this note and posting it, the distance may be even greater) so I'll try to write this quickly. I'll catch up to the more recent posts at some point, I hope...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight
...it is difficult to contemplate Hitler's true religious faith...

The book that you are referring to is supposed to be the actual words of Hitler...

The key to understanding Hitler is moving past the convenience of words and peering into the deeds. Deeds always speak louder than words...

That is why the Table Talks do not matter because they do not match the deeds of the man...

The Table Talks have to be viewed as the posterity propaganda that they are. They are nothing but propaganda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason I'm referring to the book Hitler's Table Talk is because it is the source for the passage you quoted as evidence that Hitler was really an atheist. That's the only actual evidence I've seen from you to support the claim he was an atheist.

(But I haven't read through all the other threads on this -- had to drop them due to lack of time, so I may have missed something.)

You make a number of interesting assertions. I'd enjoy exploring some of these later, but don't want to get side-tracked onto too many things at once. (For example: "Hitler hated communism, and yet he embraced some of the key ideological promises that communism used to ensure total state power." That sounds interesting, but I have no idea what it actually means.)

For the moment, what I'd like to focus on is your assertion that Hitler was an atheist. The evidence you offered previously for this was a passage made of portions from 2 of Hitler's "table talks". If the "table talks" don't matter, why did you quote them?

Regarding deeds speaking louder than words, there is some truth in that, but it is easy to get lost once you go down that road too far. Words, deeds, and beliefs are all separate, and often will contradict each other. It is, for instance, quite possible for a person to sincerely believe in Christianity, to say so publicly, and yet to contradict Christianity regularly in their deeds.

As a common example, Jesus tells his followers to return good for evil, and yet there are many Christians who believe that if someone strikes at them (in word or deed) they are justified in hitting back. Should we declare that George Bush is not a true Christian because he is contemplating military action against Iraq? Or what about people in this forum who respond to insults with insults -- do we know from such deeds that they could not possibly be Christians?

Deeds are important, but no one yet has managed to be perfectly consistent in thought, word and deed. Therefore, in evaluating a person, we need to take into account all three. George Bush, for instance, is a publicly self-professed Christian who appears to be sincere in that profession but whose actions do not always live up to the standards of that faith. Hitler, in contrast, was a publicly self-professed Christian who appears to have been insincere in that profession and whose actions definitely contradicted the standards of that faith.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nazi Germany required an atheist approach to all its bureaucratic institutions because only an immoral population could put Jews (the creators of Christianity) into gas chambers and concentration camps as a specifically targeted race. The basic tenets of Christianity forbid such action and Hitler was not oblivious to the fact that the Church would be completely against it. After all, how could Hitler kill the very ancestoral founders of the Christian bible and claim to be a follower of their God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you make interesting assertions that I'd enjoy discussing at some point. The idea that only atheists are capable of actions such as the Nazis is intriguing because it runs so counter to the world as I've experienced it.

As for how Hitler could "kill the very ancestoral founders of the Christian bible and claim to be a follower of their God", Hitler covers that in Table Talks. I can skip ahead to that part if you'd like.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:26 PM

On 12-06-2002 03:39 AM, CWL writes:

Nova Land,

I for one commend you on your efforts on a serious discussion regarding the topic in question. I shall henceforth do my utmost to keep my satire gland in check (however in this thread only ).

Hoping to contribute to such a serious discussion I will submit the following:

1) Hitler repeatedly attacks atheism in Table Talks;

2) Nazi Socialism was based on an idealistic belief system and ultimately on a "mission from God" to create a 1,000 year reign, in conformity with which Hitler repeatedly made references to God in his speeches and writings.

It is my sincere and honest hope that Mr. Knight (or anyone else who asserts that Hitler was an atheist) will seriously address why it is reasonable to conclude that Hitler was an atheist despite the two facts stated above.

I will add that I am have no personal interest in the matter, merely that I believe that history should be accounted for correctly.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:27 PM

On 12-06-2002 05:52 AM, Sou writes:

The premise that a leader can lie to his people is hardly an unusual one - after all we get it all the time when it comes to re-election here

I suppose my question would be - why would Hitler bother to lie - after all there was no official religion in communistic Russia and yet the people did not rise up against that - or fail to support it. So why would he bother to lie about something like that when he's already made clear (as Headscratcher4 pointed out) his dislike of the Jews (out of interest did he make clear what he intended to do them also) in Mein Kampf?

In short the view that he did it to maintain the support of the people seems flimsy when communism managed without a religion.

Another interesting thought. If someone should be judged by what they do and not what they say - then is anyone truly a Christian. or a Jew or a member of any religious order? Most people strive to follow the tenets laid down by their religion but are likely to fail at one point or another - does this make them all atheists in reality? Or is it the magnitude of the transgression that counts?

Sou

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:29 PM

On 12-06-2002 06:23 AM, Darat writes:

In Mein Kampf he certainly identifies the Jews (amongst others) as part of the "infection" that needs to be removed if Germany (and Europe) is to "prosper again".

As for why he “appealed” to the Church and “Christian” beliefs. Well the Church was a very powerful (and political active) organization in Germany - Hitler in effect needed their support (at the beginning of his rise to power) and it seems that he was quite capable of saying anything to anyone about anything to get what he wanted.

Hitler was insane - to label him anything else (whether that is a Christian or atheist) seems to be missing the point.

I mentioned it in an earlier post - Ian Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler. It's an incredible work that not only chronicles Hitler's life but also the times he lived in. And to try and understand Hitler you have to try and understand the times he lived in. However in the final analysis Hitler was insane so I doubt any sane person can ever truly “understand” him.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:30 PM

On 12-06-2002 06:36 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Nova:

Some thoughts.

First, you expressed some interest in JK's assertion regarding Hitler and adaptation of communist ideology/methodology in spite of his hate for communism. My guess is that JK derives this interpretation...and I think there is some merit to it in practice ... from the writings of the conservative historian Paul Johnson. I don't remember which book (there are so many, but I'll try to locate it), but Johnson made an interesting argument that beginning with Mussolini (sic), fascists actively imitated the tactics and much of the organizational strategies inaugurated by Lenin. In other words, the fascist movements of the 20s (evolving toward the Nazism of Hitler) study Bolshevik success very carefully and learned a great many lessons...especially about how you organize and utilize terror from Lenin, and later (of course) from Stalin.

One of Johnson's points is that these mass totalitarian movements are, in many respects, virtually indistinguishable (the subtleties of race politics being, for instance, more nuance than substantive). And, given the history of these mass movements, their mechanization of death, etc. it is an argument with some merit.

Second observation, you will note -- and JK and I have had several interesting exchanges on this topic -- JK's reference to Luther. All evils of the modern world (too strong? Many evils?) arise from Luther and the Reformation. This lead directly to the Enlightenment, Hegel, socialism, Marxism, Lenin and Hitler, etc. I believe JK thinks Luther made atheism possible. Prior to Luther, the benign institutions of the church helped to focus individuals on their shared community and their shared ethic/values, etc. After Luther, it becomes possible for the individual to have a direct relation knowledge of God...an individual able to have a direct knowledge of God, can come to doubt God if prayers are unanswered, signs not given, etc. From doubt arises atheism, from atheism dissolves all of the checks on human action. In other words, morality becomes fungible if there is no God at the core of morality. That Hitler did not believe in God is made manifest by his ability to create and order conditions necessary for mass murder -- as anyone who believes in a higher authority would not engage in such activities for fear of a higher retribution and final judgment. I.e. no God, no fear of hell.

Also, I note that JK seems to indicate through his writings a belief that any religious belief other than a "Judeo/Christian" based belief is Atheistic (am I missing something here JK?). Islam is atheistic. Buddhism is atheistic. etc. From what I can discern, this atheism is manifest in a lack of tolerance/space for alternative religious views. JK has suggested that Christian people and churches and states are tolerant of alternative viewpoints and religions. Atheists are, of course, fundamentally intolerant. The mass-state that an Atheist like Hitler or Stalin or Bin Laudin would create has to eliminate any alternative religious view to survive...i.e. it must inherently be intolerant because the whisper of the name of God would undercut the ability of the state to claim legitimacy. In short, a Christian/religiously based state understands that there is a higher authority that must be answered to, a Atheistic totalitarian state must deny that possibility or fail.

The problem I have is that this view, if correct, seems to willfully ignore much of Western History as well as church history. The monolithic church (which never really existed) prior to Luther was not particularly tolerant and certainly not unified -- the now 1500 year + schism between Eastern and Western orthodoxy alone is prime examples. The cultural foundation of anti-Semitism that infected Hitler and his generation was laid in Germany and Europe well before Luther, etc.

Also, I have noted to JK that the ideology that best combats the mass culture sought by either fascism or Marxist Communism...the popular, capitalist democracy that seeks religious tolerance and guarantees free speech...of the kind that exist in one form or another today in the US and Western Europe...also emerges directly out of the Enlightenment. So, whatever demons Luther let loose (and there are many), he also let loose the potential of our better angels (to steal from Lincoln).

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:30 PM

On 12-06-2002 06:59 AM, Sou writes:

Darat

In what way would you say Hitler was insane? I remember watching a documentary which hypothesised that he was in fact a fairly garbled and inconsistent rambler about his beliefs and most atrocities carried out were done by his inner circle in the belief they were doing what he wanted.

My sister had the pleasure of reading Mein Kampf for her A level history. She said it was a very difficult read and confusing in places - would you say this was a clue to his insanity or do you mean that by his deeds we should infer he was insane?

And I agree with you Whether Hitler was an atheist or Christian is irrelevent with regard to his subsequent deeds - it's just interesting to see how a mind such as his works - or as much as we can see by peering back through the mists of time

It's also interesting to see how the minds of the people debating this issue work too - be careful I can see inside your psyche

Sou

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:32 PM

On 12-06-2002 07:59 AM, Darat writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette
Darat

In what way would you say Hitler was insane? I remember watching a documentary which hypothesised that he was in fact a fairly garbled and inconsistent rambler about his beliefs and most atrocities carried out were done by his inner circle in the belief they were doing what he wanted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Undoubtedly there was a lot of second guessing by Hitler's subordinates and acting in his name. However Hitler was kept well informed about what was happening almost until the end of the war. He certainly did know about the tactics used in his rise to power, he endorsed and encouraged terror as a “tool” to deliver on his political goals.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette

My sister had the pleasure of reading Mein Kampf for her A level history. She said it was a very difficult read and confusing in places - would you say this was a clue to his insanity or do you mean that by his deeds we should infer he was insane?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with your sister’s comment about it being confusing - I've never managed to read it from cover to cover merely dipped into it. It is sickening and totally irrational - riddled with every kind of logical and factual fallacy you can imagine and if it truly represents Hitler's thoughts then yes I would say it is evidence of his insanity.

However the primary reason I say he was insane is indeed his actions.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette

And I agree with you Whether Hitler was an atheist or Christian is irrelevent with regard to his subsequent deeds - it's just interesting to see how a mind such as his works - or as much as we can see by peering back through the mists of time

It's also interesting to see how the minds of the people debating this issue work too - be careful I can see inside your psyche

Sou
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As always dear Sou you know me too well...

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:32 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:03 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CWL
Nova Land,

I for one commend you on your efforts on a serious discussion regarding the topic in question. I shall henceforth do my utmost to keep my satire gland in check (however in this thread only ).

Hoping to contribute to such a serious discussion I will submit the following:

1) Hitler repeatedly attacks atheism in Table Talks;

2) Nazi Socialism was based on an idealistic belief system and ultimately on a "mission from God" to create a 1,000 year reign, in conformity with which Hitler repeatedly made references to God in his speeches and writings.

It is my sincere and honest hope that Mr. Knight (or anyone else who asserts that Hitler was an atheist) will seriously address why it is reasonable to conclude that Hitler was an atheist despite the two facts stated above.

I will add that I am have no personal interest in the matter, merely that I believe that history should be accounted for correctly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Easy questions and even easier answers.

1) Hitler lied in Table Talks to form a positive propagandized posterity account for future global populations that the Reich would reign over. The Table Talks were "authored" by Hitler. It is a well-known historical fact that Hitler was a chronic, habitual, political liar.

2) Hitler's "mission from God" was an atheist action to remake the world in the Nazi image, liquidating Christianity and the guardians and architects of Christianity (the church, Jews, etc).

All points are historically accurate and proven by Hitler's deeds.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:33 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:10 AM, CWL writes:

Could you please provide the evidence on the basis of which you drew your conclusions according to Items 1) and 2) above.

Thanks.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:34 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:11 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darat
I mentioned it in an earlier post - Ian Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler. It's an incredible work that not only chronicles Hitler's life but also the times he lived in. And to try and understand Hitler you have to try and understand the times he lived in. However in the final analysis Hitler was insane so I doubt any sane person can ever truly “understand” him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hitler wasn't insane. His actions make him appear insane. He had no moral religious grounding (was an atheist), followed Hegelism religiously (Hegel was a strict atheist), and Hitler's deeds were against institutions of Christianity (freedom, Jews, etc).

He was an atheist.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:35 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:12 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CWL

Could you please provide the evidence on the basis of which you drew your conclusions according to Items 1) and 2) above.

Thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure. History.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:36 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:38 AM, CWL writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Sure. History.

JK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You wouldn't care to elaborate a bit on that perchance?

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:37 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:49 AM, whitefork writes:

Hegel was an atheist? GWF Hegel, the "one big Spirit" guy?

"Religion is our topic. Its contents is this and this alone: God. Religion is the consciousness of the relationship with God, as the unconditioned Absolute, the absolutely self-sufficient, the being that is because of itself, the absolute beginning and goal in itself and on its own." (G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Religion, 1824)

from http://www.hegel.net/spirit/abs/religion/

You sure about that?

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:38 PM

On 12-06-2002 08:55 AM, slimshady2357 writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Hitler wasn't insane. His actions make him appear insane. He had no moral religious grounding (was an atheist), followed Hegelism religiously (Hegel was a strict atheist), and Hitler's deeds were against institutions of Christianity (freedom, Jews, etc).

He was an atheist.

JK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hegel was not atheist.

Why do you think he was?

READ some Hegel.

Is everyone who doesn't believe in the christian god an atheist for you?

Jedi, why do you say these things?

Adam

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:39 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:15 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Serious question JK:

We've discussed your contention regarding Hitler's religous beliefs. You've insisted that his actions/deeds speak louder than words and that the deed of overseeing the death of millions could not eminate from one who believes in an ultimate higher authority, ergo Hitler is an atheist. Also, as noted, his table talk and writings are propoganda, so any expression of belief in any sort of a deity can be dismissed.

I recently finished Richard Rhodes interesting book on the SS and the action groups opperating in Poland and Russia at the beginning of the war. He talks about massacres over-seen by the SS by organized by Poles, Ukranians etc. THere have also been recent stories regarding Polish villages who turned on their jewish residents/neighbors, etc.

In short, for every christian Pole who saved a Jew, there were tens, if not Hundreds, who actively used the Nazi invasion, and were used by the Nazis to exact revenge, terror, murder, theft on their Jewish neighbors. Indeed, even today, though it is a heavilly Catholic country, anti-semitism in Poland is much noted and lively (strange for a country of only 4000 jews).

My question has to do with the Poles. I assume that the Poles who proclaimed themselves Catholic, went to church, took communion, etc. AND who actively participated in the persecution of Jews during the war were Atheists? I mean, weren't they paying lip service to the church but infact, through their deeds, exhibiting a complete lack of fear of devine retribution?

In short, it seems to me that, by your definition, these murderers were either atheists, or one man's atheism (Hitlers) trumps all of the belief and fear of divine judgment that people are otherwise "hard-wired" to have. I mean Hitler was an Atheist, according to you, but Nazism didn't officially "embrace" atheism, it tried behind a veneer of religiosity. It got hundreds of thousands of German protestants and catholics to do its bidding. It got thousands of Poles to do its bidding and seemingly willingly.

In other words, the fear of god that you believe is an anctidote for terror and mass murder didn't seem to be operating under the conditions imposed by Nazism. That hard wire doesn't seem too secure to me.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:40 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:36 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by whitefork
Hegel was an atheist? GWF Hegel, the "one big Spirit" guy?

"Religion is our topic. Its contents is this and this alone: God. Religion is the consciousness of the relationship with God, as the unconditioned Absolute, the absolutely self-sufficient, the being that is because of itself, the absolute beginning and goal in itself and on its own." (G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Religion, 1824)

from http://www.hegel.net/spirit/abs/religion/

You sure about that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely. What does Hegel say about self-annihilation and where did he get that?

I don't have the time to teach you guys about Hegel and Nietzsche. In sum, Hegel opened the door for Nietzche to declare that "God is dead". Hitler latched onto Nietzche's "superman" philosophy and mirrored it into the "master race" Nazi agenda.

In order to understand why Hitler was an atheist you have to understand Hegel and Nietzche as they are, not as leftists teach them in many universities.

God, to German philosophes that Hitler admired, was a tool to propel civilization to a point--once that point was crossed then man would not need God. God was dead. Civilization killed God because man was now the God (atheism).

There was no room for God in the Nazi state. Ask yourself why and think about how the german populations could be so complacent to the atrocities and godless actions that endured there. If you were a citizen of Germany and you saw your neighbors being led away by Nazi SS battalions to concentration camps, how could you not question it?

One of the most troubling questions of Nazi Germany is that truth, and it haunts the german people to this day. How can populations, entire populations be removed and sent to efficient, bureaucratized facilities for liquidation (extermination) without the internal populations knowing about it? The bureaucracy was massive in Nazi Germany and 1 out of 4 citizens was employed in that system at the time.

German populations were godless populations and the removal of morality from Germany in the mid-1800's through World War Two is a classic example of atheism and its interaction with state power in the objective of totalitarianism and the ultimate goal of efficiency.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:41 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:43 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by headscratcher4
Serious question JK:

We've discussed your contention regarding Hitler's religous beliefs. You've insisted that his actions/deeds speak louder than words and that the deed of overseeing the death of millions could not eminate from one who believes in an ultimate higher authority, ergo Hitler is an atheist. Also, as noted, his table talk and writings are propoganda, so any expression of belief in any sort of a deity can be dismissed.

I recently finished Richard Rhodes interesting book on the SS and the action groups opperating in Poland and Russia at the beginning of the war. He talks about massacres over-seen by the SS by organized by Poles, Ukranians etc. THere have also been recent stories regarding Polish villages who turned on their jewish residents/neighbors, etc.

In short, for every christian Pole who saved a Jew, there were tens, if not Hundreds, who actively used the Nazi invasion, and were used by the Nazis to exact revenge, terror, murder, theft on their Jewish neighbors. Indeed, even today, though it is a heavilly Catholic country, anti-semitism in Poland is much noted and lively (strange for a country of only 4000 jews).

My question has to do with the Poles. I assume that the Poles who proclaimed themselves Catholic, went to church, took communion, etc. AND who actively participated in the persecution of Jews during the war were Atheists? I mean, weren't they paying lip service to the church but infact, through their deeds, exhibiting a complete lack of fear of devine retribution?

In short, it seems to me that, by your definition, these murderers were either atheists, or one man's atheism (Hitlers) trumps all of the belief and fear of divine judgment that people are otherwise "hard-wired" to have. I mean Hitler was an Atheist, according to you, but Nazism didn't officially "embrace" atheism, it tried behind a veneer of religiosity. It got hundreds of thousands of German protestants and catholics to do its bidding. It got thousands of Poles to do its bidding and seemingly willingly.

In other words, the fear of god that you believe is an anctidote for terror and mass murder didn't seem to be operating under the conditions imposed by Nazism. That hard wire doesn't seem too secure to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Poles were responding as a population to a surprise military attack and then the subsequent subordination to the Nazi state bureaucracy. The church didn't have any authority in Poland after the Nazis invaded and every country has deep reserves of citizens who will respond favorably to the temporary promises of the fascist system that overwhelms it.

You and I discussed how religion was removed from german populations when Luther detached himself from Rome. Now imagine dozens of generations following that and inject Hegel and Nietzche philosphies about God into all the leadership cells of the German state.

With God removed from the German populations for so long the German people began to shout for a prince, a savior. They chose their savior in Hitler and he was their prince and they gave themselves to him willingly.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:42 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:50 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The Poles were responding as a population to a surprise military attack and then the subsequent subordination to the Nazi state bureaucracy. The church didn't have any authority in Poland after the Nazis invaded and every country has deep reserves of citizens who will respond favorably to the temporary promises of the fascist system that overwhelms it.

You and I discussed how religion was removed from german populations when Luther detached himself from Rome. Now imagine dozens of generations following that and inject Hegel and Nietzche philosphies about God into all the leadership cells of the German state.

With God removed from the German populations for so long the German people began to shout for a prince, a savior. They chose their savior in Hitler and he was their prince and they gave themselves to him willingly.

JK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So basically, 1000 years+ of Christianity, Catholic doctrine, religious grounding, Christian culture, dogma, schools, fear of hell, etc. went out the door in a matter of hours/days? In short, all of the hard-wiring frayed and disapated almost immediately...again, it sort of suggests that the "hard-wiring" you speak of isn't very tight.

Again, my point is to your: you have contended that if you believe in god, you can't commit these kinds of crimes because, in the end, there will be divine...are you now telling me that if you believe in god but are under duress you can commit these kinds of crimes?

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:43 PM

On 12-06-2002 09:58 AM, RandFan writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette
Another interesting thought. If someone should be judged by what they do and not what they say - then is anyone truly a Christian. or a Jew or a member of any religious order? Most people strive to follow the tenets laid down by their religion but are likely to fail at one point or another - does this make them all atheists in reality? Or is it the magnitude of the transgression that counts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This caught my eye also. Acording to prevailing christian dogma (AIUI) "we are all short of the glory of god". No one is perfect. Now it is possible that someone pretends to be christian and in reality does not believe it at all. I for example came to believe less and less in Mormonism. Yet I continued to go to church and act like I was a believer. The process was gradual so I'm not certain that I can say exactly at what moment I wasn't a believer yet continued to go. There did come a time that I was no longer able to continue to put on a charade but there were times that I acted like I believed but did in fact I did not.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:44 PM

On 12-06-2002 10:00 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by headscratcher4

So basically, 1000 years+ of Christianity, Catholic doctrine, religious grounding, Christian culture, dogma, schools, fear of hell, etc. went out the door in a matter of hours/days? In short, all of the hard-wiring frayed and disapated almost immediately...again, it sort of suggests that the "hard-wiring" you speak of isn't very tight.

Again, my point is to your: you have contended that if you believe in god, you can't commit these kinds of crimes because, in the end, there will be divine...are you now telling me that if you believe in god but are under duress you can commit these kinds of crimes?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You should know better than to say that. The German populations had religion stripped from them and morality stripped from them over a period of several centuries. When Hitler seized power he had a loyal mob standing by and that mob was the whole of Germany.

How can people actively and freely pursue religious belief and customs when the very nation-state that they exist in forbids it?

Are Christian bibles allowed in Iran?

If you live inside a totalitarian state void of morality, are you going to say no when you are ordered to be a camp guard? Would a Christian church order you to gas Jews?

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:45 PM

On 12-06-2002 10:36 AM, RandFan writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette
In what way would you say Hitler was insane? I remember watching a documentary which hypothesised that he was in fact a fairly garbled and inconsistent rambler about his beliefs and most atrocities carried out were done by his inner circle in the belief they were doing what he wanted.

My sister had the pleasure of reading Mein Kampf for her A level history. She said it was a very difficult read and confusing in places - would you say this was a clue to his insanity or do you mean that by his deeds we should infer he was insane?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to be pedantic but I think it important to note that the term "insane" is used more by the judicial system and is not even a medical term. It is not really helpful in understanding the mental abilities of an individual. I know that we have all come to a vague understanding of it but it does not really tell us very much. Clearly Hitler was functional; he did not foam at the mouth or bark at the moon. He did however seem incapable of empathy for certain groups of people and perhaps he lacked any real empathy at all. He was clearly a megalomaniac and capable of inflicting suffering on a grand scale. I would suspect that Hitler was a sociopath.

I think the question that you are trying to ask is, to what extent if any was Hitler delusional? Was his megalomania an obsession or was it much more? Did Hitler see himself as a god or somehow separate from and or superior to other human beings? If Hitler was delusional I think this is most likely.

Did Hitler hear voices or see visions (hallucinations)? As far as I know he didn't. It is a very interesting question though. I hope not too far off topic.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:46 PM

On 12-06-2002 10:52 AM, Darat writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RandFan
I hate to be pedantic but I think it important to note that the term "insane" is used more by the judicial system and is not even a medical term. It is not really helpful in understanding the mental abilities of an individual. I know that we have all come to a vague understanding of it but it does not really tell us very much. Clearly Hitler was functional; he did not foam at the mouth or bark at the moon. He did however seem incapable of empathy for certain groups of people and perhaps he lacked any real empathy at all. He was clearly a megalomaniac and capable of inflicting suffering on a grand scale. I would suspect that Hitler was a sociopath.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that "insane" is a rather vague term but it does seem to fit Hitler, from my limited knowledge.

He did, quite literally, foam at the mouth sometimes and when you read what he wrote, the sheer irrationality, the complete disregard for facts, the absolute hatred of anything that he didn't "approve" of I can't think of any other term to use then "insane".

(And it appears there is evidence that he did have times in his life when he quite literally couldn't "function". There is also evidence that he formed at least one "emotional bond" and that was with his dog.)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RandFan

I think your the question that you are trying to ask is, to what extent if any was Hitler delusional? Was his megalomania an obsession or was it much more? Did Hitler see himself as a god or somehow separate from and or superior to other human beings? If Hitler was delusional I think this is most likely.

Did Hitler hear voices or see visions (hallucinations)? As far as I know he didn't. It is a very interesting question though. I hope not too far off topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't read about him claiming visions in the sense of hearing voices however he did talk a lot about his dreams and certainly believed they had prophetic qualities.

(I do admit my use of the word “insane” to describe Hitler is as much based on the fact that I can't think of any word but "insane" to describe someone capable of doing and condoning what he did rather then a “medical” definition of insanity. Not the most objective viewpoint I know.)

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:47 PM

12-06-2002 11:13 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

You should know better than to say that. The German populations had religion stripped from them and morality stripped from them over a period of several centuries. When Hitler seized power he had a loyal mob standing by and that mob was the whole of Germany.

How can people actively and freely pursue religious belief and customs when the very nation-state that they exist in forbids it?

Are Christian bibles allowed in Iran?

If you live inside a totalitarian state void of morality, are you going to say no when you are ordered to be a camp guard? Would a Christian church order you to gas Jews?

JK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not trying to bait you here, or insult your earlier argument regarding German's that I'll get back to at a later point...actually, I was talking about the Poles. Poles started killing Jews within hours of coming under German control...whether they did so because of Euro-anti-Semitism or to please the Germans, they did it. They still had their Bibles, their churches and their Priests -- in fact, many Jews were accused by Poles and Germans as being "communists" as a reason for murder.

Anyway, and I repeat, within Hours/days of German occupation, somePole grounded in 1000+ of catholicism, engaged in actions to assist and promote the German anti-Semetic agenda. Indeed, to this day, Poles deny it..."it was all a result of the Germans..."

My point is that the check you suggest should be there, and which wasn't deluted by hundreds of years of German atheistic philosophy (as you would have it) wasn't there. The Christian fear of god disolved. Most of the population stood by or actively helped. Indeed, in the east, as they viewed the German's as liberators from the Russians, they were more than happy to engage in Progroms -- both sponsored by the Germans and indipendently...it is, as you say, a fact.

So? When they proclaimed themselves Catholic, went to church, took part in communion and went home to houses stolen from their Jewish neighbors, were they not as "atheistic" as Hitler?

Further, what happened to the hard wiring you speak of? All of the Catholic grounding, one would have thought, would have creeated millions of martyrs, rather than a paltry couple of thousands...communities that would rather die with the Jews than live under the atheists, as it were.

No, seriously, help me out in understanding what happened to Poland's fear of god? I understand your point about Germans (though I would/will dispute your historical interpretation with you at a later time), but what about the Poles who marched their Jewish neighbors to the killing pits (see Rhode's book) in a festive mood and then went to church on Sunday. Are they not the same as Hitler? Saying onething for the community, atheist at heart?

In the end, I think it is irrelevent whether or not Hitler was an Atheist. He might well have been, but your assertions are not very convincing on the evidence, logic or facts you claim. To paraphrase John Fowles writing on Hitler in the novel the Magus...the crime wasn't that one man had the will to be and do evil, it was that millions did not have the will to say "no". Indeed, regarless of how you describe Hitler, or whether you conclude that atheism is a religion, it is in the context you set possible to argue that Hitler was the only one who had a complete faith in his God/Vision and willing to see it through to the end...the rest were just posuers.

I particulary note the church, the instrument that you have stated checked the atheistic streak in philosophy (you know, the one started by MLuther...) did little or nothing to stop it, voice moral objection, or call for the protection of the Jews (well, some, but late and after it was clear that Hitler was going to lose). In short, that institution, grounded in 2000+ years of fear of god, gave up its very basic precepts overnight.

You know, Stalin used to say "how many legions does the Pope have?" Today, they say "How many legions, just look at what John Paul brought about in Eastern Europe..." Fine, but when it counted, when 2 million jews were being trained to their death across Catholic Poland they church was silent. The partisans weren't bombing deathcamp train lines. Poles weren't en-mass civilly disobaying the Germans...they were turning in their neighbors and going to mass on Sunday.

BTW, I don't hold the Poles responsible. They are victems. It was an occupied country. The Nazis, like the Soviets, about as inhuman as can be imagined. But, they were not hard wired to fear god.

You argue for hardwiring...I argue that regardless of whether or not Hitler was an atheist, WWII and the holocaust therein is the best arguement for the absence of such....

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:48 PM

On 12-06-2002 11:16 AM, Franko writes:

Was Hitler trying to be Religious or Scientific when he tried to make nuclear weapons?

How about the V2 rocket?

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:49 PM

On 12-06-2002 11:35 AM, Jedi Knight writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by headscratcher4

Not trying to bait you here, or insult your earlier argument regarding German's that I'll get back to at a later point...actually, I was talking about the Poles. Poles started killing Jews within hours of coming under German control...whether they did so because of Euro-anti-Semitism or to please the Germans, they did it. They still had their Bibles, their churches and their Priests -- in fact, many Jews were accused by Poles and Germans as being "communists" as a reason for murder.

Anyway, and I repeat, within Hours/days of German occupation, somePole grounded in 1000+ of catholicism, engaged in actions to assist and promote the German anti-Semetic agenda. Indeed, to this day, Poles deny it..."it was all a result of the Germans..."

My point is that the check you suggest should be there, and which wasn't deluted by hundreds of years of German atheistic philosophy (as you would have it) wasn't there. The Christian fear of god disolved. Most of the population stood by or actively helped. Indeed, in the east, as they viewed the German's as liberators from the Russians, they were more than happy to engage in Progroms -- both sponsored by the Germans and indipendently...it is, as you say, a fact.

So? When they proclaimed themselves Catholic, went to church, took part in communion and went home to houses stolen from their Jewish neighbors, were they not as "atheistic" as Hitler?

Further, what happened to the hard wiring you speak of? All of the Catholic grounding, one would have thought, would have creeated millions of martyrs, rather than a paltry couple of thousands...communities that would rather die with the Jews than live under the atheists, as it were.

No, seriously, help me out in understanding what happened to Poland's fear of god? I understand your point about Germans (though I would/will dispute your historical interpretation with you at a later time), but what about the Poles who marched their Jewish neighbors to the killing pits (see Rhode's book) in a festive mood and then went to church on Sunday. Are they not the same as Hitler? Saying onething for the community, atheist at heart?

In the end, I think it is irrelevent whether or not Hitler was an Atheist. He might well have been, but your assertions are not very convincing on the evidence or logic. To paraphrase John Fowles in the novel the Magus...the crime wasn't that one man had the will to be and do evil, it was that millions did not have the will to say "no".

You argue for hardwiring...I argue that regardless of whether or not Hitler was an atheist, WWII and the holocaust therein is the best arguement for the absence of such....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are population grudges in every country that is on the fringe of revolution and the Nazi ideology seeped across the border of Poland long before the war started. Poland wasn't an isolated sphere of containment. It was a country that was under relentless pressure from the communists to the east and the fascists to the west.

Poland knew that they would be attacked. They knew it. It was the only way that Hitler could access the main avenues of approach to get into Russia. Poland was the gateway.

In any country that falls under military attack and revolution, internal populations will conflict amongst themselves over past slights, postions in the new system, etc. It is common.

Some of Hitler's favorite henchmen were native ancestoral Poles. Also, you failed to mention the majority of military Poles were killed during the initial attack and again after the communists invaded in the later stages of the war. There was no resistence.

What was the cause of all the antisemitism in that region? Germany and the German ideology of that period. What you are saying is trying to say the USA doesn't have any influence on Canada. It doesn't make any sense in reality.

The catholic church can't be blamed for the onslaught in Poland after the Nazis invaded. The only way that you can credibly blame the church is if the church had government power in the Nazi system and it had none.

That is the point that I am making. People are hard-wired to believe in God, but Nazi atheist belief made that belief unfashionable. The people in Germany and Poland weren't raising their arms saying "Sieg Heil Jesus".

The atheist state killed God in Germany and the surrounding Europeran countries long before World War II broke out. World War II was just a continuance of World War I.

Hitler was one of the most successful atheist prodigies in the history of humankind, second only to Stalin.

JK

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:50 PM

On 12-06-2002 11:49 AM, headscratcher4 writes:

Have to go away for a day or two, will try to reply, if this is still a going concern. when I get back.

For the record, and again, I am not blaming Poles, or even the Catholic church. My point is different. I think it is in what I've written above (it is possible that I've lost myself in my own rheteric and bad spelling...) but I will review on my return and try to clarify further if it remains unclear....HS

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:51 PM

On 12-06-2002 12:11 PM, RandFan writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darat
I understand that "insane" is a rather vague term but it does seem to fit Hitler, from my limited knowledge.

He did, quite literally, foam at the mouth sometimes and when you read what he wrote, the sheer irrationality, the complete disregard for facts, the absolute hatred of anything that he didn't "approve" of I can't think of any other term to use then "insane".

(And it appears there is evidence that he did have times in his life when he quite literally couldn't "function". There is also evidence that he formed at least one "emotional bond" and that was with his dog.)

I haven't read about him claiming visions in the sense of hearing voices however he did talk a lot about his dreams and certainly believed they had prophetic qualities.

(I do admit my use of the word “insane” to describe Hitler is as much based on the fact that I can't think of any word but "insane" to describe someone capable of doing and condoning what he did rather then a “medical” definition of insanity. Not the most objective viewpoint I know.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey Darat,

Some good points. I'm not arguing and I should point out that I am a long way from a psychiatrist or psychologist. Just a year or more of psychology, and related subjects in college and whatever I have read over the years (enough to get me laughed at I suppose).

I know that at the end of his life Hitler suffered from a disease like Parkinsons and perhaps others. There is footage of Hitler reviewing a youth brigade and he is unable to stop one of his hands from shaking. I think any lack of control probably was from the Parkinsons as opposed to anything else. However, towards the very end of the war while in his bunker during military meetings he talked of non-existent troops that would arrive to save Germany. I do think that Hitler was at times psychotic during this period.

It should be noted that there was a substantial amount of propaganda aimed at Hitler during and after the war that painted him as a lunatic. While I am not aware of Hitler foaming at the mouth any references to such a claim might be the result of such propaganda. There is one popular piece of doctored footage in which Hitler dances a jig after hearing of some good news from the front. Close inspection shows that the footage was cut and edited so that the same footsteps were repeated a number of times. A popular trick for cat commercials.

Hitler may have been psychotic. I am no expert on him and it wouldn’t surprise me that someone had in fact documented that he was quite “mad”. I have read some stuff pro and con but remain as yet unconvinced.

Edited to change length of study.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:52 PM

On 12-06-2002 01:10 PM, Thr0n writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Franko
Was Hitler trying to be Religious or Scientific when he tried to make nuclear weapons?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither. He was attempting to create a weapon that would be capable of eliminating an entire enemy base with a single explosion. The United States was doing the same. We succeeded. Hitler failed. Then, instead of dropping the bomb on a military target, we hit two large civillian targets in order to frighten Stalin and prevent a Soviet ground invasion of Japan (by forcing unconditional surrender of the Japanese a few days prior).

So what's the relevance of your question? Hitler was making a tactical move by instituting a nuclear weapons program. His decision had little, if anything, to do with religion or science.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:53 PM

On 12-06-2002 05:44 PM, Mike B. writes:

I think a good book to read on the subject is "Inside the Third Reich" by Albert Speer.

Speer was as close to Hitler as he allowed people to be.

Goering called him Hitler's "unrequited love." Hitler had his fantasy that he was a great artist and was a lover of building design. I suppose he saw Speer as a kindred spirit.

I have the book on my shelf. If I remember correctly, Speer says Hitler once said the greatest misfortune to Europe was that Charles Martel had stopped the Muslim invasions at Tours in the 8th Century. He said Islam was a warrior's religion and Xianity was not. Germany would have been much better Muslim.

I can try to find the page. However, if another source has it, I would be surprised if it wasn't true. It might have been one of those things Hitler said and thought was really clever so repeated it.

I also recall Martin Borman was telling Hitler to go against the churches, but Speer said Hitler did not want to rock the boat during the war and was always a bit paranoid and wanted to give the people what they wanted.

Whether Hitler was an atheist or not: I don't think he was. It would seem he was a Mystic...I mean afterall he was interested in Astrology. If he was an Atheist anyway it wouldn't cast any aspertions on atheists...

As a non-theist myself it doesn't matter...

However,
In semi-defense of JK, I have been on Paltalk where Atheist rooms were named things like "Hitler was a Xian" and so forth. Both sides would love to have Hitler be on the other side. And both of course therefore use selective quoting...

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:54 PM

On 12-06-2002 10:43 PM, Nova Land writes:

I hadn't realized there'd be so many posts so quickly! I had to go off-line early in the morning, so I'm about18 hours behind where this thread is now, and trying to catch up.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Soubrette

I suppose my question would be - why would Hitler bother to lie - after all there was no official religion in communistic Russia and yet the people did not rise up against that - or fail to support it. So why would he bother to lie about something like that when he's already made clear (as Headscratcher4 pointed out) his dislike of the Jews (out of interest did he make clear what he intended to do them also) in Mein Kampf?

In short the view that he did it to maintain the support of the people seems flimsy when communism managed without a religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good question! I think Darat has already addressed this but I'd like to put a couple cents in too.

My understanding is that Christians made up a very active part of the German electorate in the 1920s and 1930s, with several of the splinter parties (such as Catholic Action) being religion-based. I don't think atheists made up any significant portion of the electorate -- at least not avowed atheists.

Hitler rose to power by attacking liberalism and feminism, and by supporting old-fashioned patriotism and "family values". The people supporting Hitler in his rise to power included conservative Christians, because many of them agreed with key the planks in his platform. It would thus make sense for Hitler to put on a show of religious belief, whether he was truly religious or not. It would not make sense to claim to be an atheist, since that would lose him a great deal of support and gain him little or none. It's the same reason why you often see US politicians pander to the Christian Coalition and other sizable religious voting blocs, but rarely see major presidential candidates addressing atheist conventions.

The situation in Russia was different because the communists came to power through a revolution rather than through elections. I can imagine atheism being much more exciting and appealing to small revolutionary cells than to the general Russian population. My guess is that atheism wasn't emphasized as a major reason for over-throwing the czar, and that it didn't really become an important issue until after the communists had taken power.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another interesting thought. If someone should be judged by what they do and not what they say - then is anyone truly a Christian. or a Jew or a member of any religious order? Most people strive to follow the tenets laid down by their religion but are likely to fail at one point or another - does this make them all atheists in reality? Or is it the magnitude of the transgression that counts?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good point, and a problem that comes up often: do we accept people's self-descriptions of their beliefs, or do we try to put our own labels of "what they really believe" on them?

For example, there are many people who self-describe themselves as conservatives whom Jedi does not consider to be conservatives, and there are many people who do not consider themselves liberals whom Jedi does consider as liberal or ultra-liberal. It would be good to have some definition we held in common and some yardstick to measure by.

Allowing people to self-describe (and accepting their self-description) certainly makes life simpler. In this case, Hitler self-described (at least publicly) as being Catholic. The obvious problem is that sometimes people claim to be something they clearly are not.

But trying to divine people's political or religious beliefs through their actions seems as prone to problems as taking people strictly at their word. If rules for how to do this can be set down and agreed on that would be one thing, but from what I've seen of this it's equivalent to astrology, a way to justify whatever conclusion a person wishes to prove.

I think a good direction would be to take people at their word, but to do that for their professed beliefs rather than for their professed label. Thus, we would not accept Hitler's public self-label of Catholic because the beliefs he espoused (in the table talks) are at odds with core Catholic beliefs. (For example, he does not accept the Pope and the Church as his spiritual authorities, he does not agree with key beliefs about Jesus that are vital to Catholicism, he does not believe in communion, etc.) But we also would not label him as an atheist, because the beliefs he espoused are likewise at odds with atheism. What we would do is compile a list of his stated beliefs, and see what label if any suitably described such beliefs.

It does happen sometimes that a person's stated beliefs are clearly contradicted by their actions. The greater the length at which they propound their beliefs, however, the less often this contradiction is a problem. For instance, there are many racists who will say, "I'm not a racist," and their actions clearly seem to contradict this. However, if they keep on talking, they usually continues, "I'm not a racist, but..." and the explanation of their beliefs which follows usually makes it clear they are racists.

In the case of Hitler, his stated beliefs in Table Talks are in synch with his deeds, so there is no need to toss the words out.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:55 PM

On 12-06-2002 11:29 PM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by headscratcher4

I believe JK thinks Luther made atheism possible. Prior to Luther, the benign institutions of the church helped to focus individuals on their shared community and their shared ethic/values, etc. After Luther, it becomes possible for the individual to have a direct relation knowledge of God...an individual able to have a direct knowledge of God, can come to doubt God if prayers are unanswered, signs not given, etc. From doubt arises atheism, from atheism dissolves all of the checks on human action. In other words, morality becomes fungible if there is no God at the core of morality. That Hitler did not believe in God is made manifest by his ability to create and order conditions necessary for mass murder -- as anyone who believes in a higher authority would not engage in such activities for fear of a higher retribution and final judgment. I.e. no God, no fear of hell.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is interesting and helpful; thanks!

JK: is that indeed a fair re-statement of your views?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I note that JK seems to indicate through his writings a belief that any religious belief other than a "Judeo/Christian" based belief is Atheistic (am I missing something here JK?). Islam is atheistic. Buddhism is atheistic. etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aha! You may have brought out a problem I hadn't anticipated.

I was aware there is a language problem in trying to talk about liberal, conservative, left-wing, right-wing, etc., as different people in the forum define those terms differently and apply them to different people and positions. But I was thinking that atheism was reasonably clear, despite the arguments I've seen in some of the other threads. Those arguments seemed to be over whether atheists don't believe in god or believe there is no god, which are different but which didn't seem to pose a problem as far as discussing Hitler (since neither of those seems to match his views).

But I was assuming we could divide the world semantically into theists and atheists: those who believe in gods (Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindi, Wiccans, etc.) and those who don't. I hadn't considered a semantic division into those who believe in the True God and those who don't.

By that latter system, everyone who doesn't believe in the True God is an atheist, since they are denying the existence of the only god that matters -- an interesting way of looking at things, since it makes a majority, possibly an overwhelming majority, of the world's population into atheists.

JK: is this indeed how you are defining atheism?

I'm quite willing to use your definitions for the purpose of this discussion; I just want to be clear on what those definitions are.

If we're using the same words, but with very different ideas of what they mean, I can coin different terms for the concepts I'm trying to talk about. That way we can talk productively about what it was Hitler did or didn't believe without arguing fruitlessly about whose definitions are correct.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:55 PM

On 12-07-2002 12:39 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

1) Hitler lied in Table Talks to form a positive propagandized posterity account for future global populations that the Reich would reign over. The Table Talks were "authored" by Hitler. It is a well-known historical fact that Hitler was a chronic, habitual, political liar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed, Hitler was a chronic, habitual liar. We know that in several ways: (a) he often said one thing and did another; (b) the people who knew him say that what he said and what he really felt were different; and (c) Hitler tells us himself, in places such as the "table talks", that much of what he has said publicly is not what he really felt.

However, it is impossible for anyone (even Hitler) to lie about everything.

In comic books, there are the Bizarros, who try to do everything opposite to how someone "normal" would do it. If they are sad, for instance, they say they are happy. Seeing a friend makes them sad, leaving a friend makes them happy.

You see the problem? The negatives start cancelling out, and pretty soon Bizarros aren't really acting opposite.

Same problem with Hitler. Even if he were a comic book character who had set out to lie about everything, he wouldn't be able to do it.

But Hitler isn't a comic book character. He was an actual person, and like actual people he lied for reasons. Sometimes he flat out lied; sometimes he told half-truths; sometimes he told what he thought was true, but he was mistaken. But much of the time, even despite himself, what he said reflects what he felt.

We can be reasonably sure that many of his public utterances were lies, told for political advantage. It was to his advantage for the public to believe he was a Catholic during his rise to power, so he pandered to that belief. Lying in public speeches is relatively easy, because one can take the time to write the words out in advance and make sure they present the image one is trying to present. Politicians do it all the time.

Lying in conversation is harder. People do that all the time, too, but it is often much easier to spot the lies. Lying is an act, a performance, and it is hard for anyone to be "on" all the time.

Look, for instance, at Richard Nixon (and before him, Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy). They were taping their White House conversations. They knew these conversations were being taped. On one level they may have been interested in preserving history; but on another, they must have wanted to present themselves in a good light -- very similar to how Hitler must have felt in having his "table talks" transcribed. And yet they said many things which revealed a part of themselves they would almost certainly have preferred to conceal. Why? Because lying in conversation, day after day, isn't as easy as you may be assuming.

Should we take everything in Table Talks at face value? No. Anyone can lie fairly consistently on a few key points. But should we discard it as all a carefully crafted mask? Again, no. That strains credulity.

Hitler was talking to his close associates. He likely wanted to impress them with his insights, his cleverness. He likely wanted to expound things to them which he felt were profound thoughts and which he wasn't able to say more publicly. He may be exaggerating some of his views, or shading his views a little in order to be able to make some clever-sounding point, but on the whole it's reasonable to assume much of what he's saying in these "conversations" comes close to his real beliefs.

You yourself quoted from it (in a previous thread, as the source of your belief that Hitler was an atheist). That would indicate you do find it to have some value as a source of insight into Hitler's beliefs.

Which parts truly reflect his beliefs, and which are distortions? That's certainly a question worth pondering. First let's see what he actually said in the table talks, and see which things he uttered consistently over the course of these 4 years, and see which of these are consistent with what he confided to others.

To simply declare that anything he said which is in line with one's own preconceptions is Hitler telling the truth, and anything he said which is out of line is part of his lies, would be un-skeptical. Let's go over the material together, skeptically, and see what if anything we can make out of it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Hitler's "mission from God" was an atheist action to remake the world in the Nazi image, liquidating Christianity and the guardians and architects of Christianity (the church, Jews, etc).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You've lost me. If Hitler believed it was a "mission from God", then it was by definition not an atheist action. And he did say, both publicly and privately, that he believed he was acting in accordance with God's wishes. He was mistaken in that; but it appears to be a misguided belief in god, rather than a lack of belief, which led him astray.

We'll never know what would have happened if Hitler had not been raised to believe in god. Quite possibly he would have turned out the same. We do know that he was raised to be religious, and that while he distorted many of the things he was taught he never proclaimed himself an atheist or said he was acting out of atheistic beliefs.

That, at least, is my reading of the facts at hand. Earlier you had indicated, by your quoting from it, that you thought Hitler's Table Talks was a valid source of information on Hitler's religious beliefs. If so, let's go through it to see what it actually says. I may be mis-reading it, or over-looking something; the same goes for you.

Or, if you feel there is a better source of information as to Hitler's religious beliefs, name that and we can go through that together. I think it's worth going through this one first, as long as we've begun, but if you think there is a better source of factual information we can stipulate as we go through Table Talks that any conclusions it leads us to are superceded by any contradictory material from the better source..

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:56 PM

On 12-07-2002 01:10 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jedi Knight (in response to a request from CWL for his source of evidence for assertions made in response to 2 previus questions):

Sure. History.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is this history as you experienced it growing up in the 1920s and 1930s, or history as you have read about it?

If this is history as you have read about it, it would be helpful to provide the sources where you read these things, so that others of us can look it up for ourselves and weigh what the material says.

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:57 PM

On 12-07-2002 01:36 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by De_Bunk

Jedi
Its a real shame that Hitler was a Catholic...
Goto..

www.angelfire.com/wy/wyrd/antinazi.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Angelfire is an interesting site, and appears to have some useful information. However: many of the quotes given are from Mein Kampf. Jedi has already explained why Mein Kampf cannot be taken at face value. It was written for propaganda purposes, for public consumption. Just as many of us would not accept uncritically anything Bill Clinton, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, etc. might put into a book supposedly telling what their inmost thoughts really were, so many of us would not blindly accept Hitler's word in a manifesto like this -- even if it happens to contain passages that could be used to bolster points we'd like to prove.

I disagree with Jedi's reading of Hitler's true religious beliefs, but I do think he has a valid point in not accepting any old Hitler quote that happens to support one's view. The test for how much weight a quote should carry is not "Does this agree with the point I want to make?" More important questions include: "Where does this come from? How reliable is the source? What does this actually mean when read in context?"

In a previous thread Jedi indicated (by quoting from it) a willingness to accept material in Hitler's Table Talks. This book was not written for public consumption in the way Mein Kampf or his various speeches were, so it may give better evidence of what his real beliefs were. That is why I'm interested in going through this particular book with Jedi.

And while I like the Angelfire link you provided, are you sure you want to rely too heavily on a site which accepts contributions from well known comic-book supervillains?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the Angelfire site:

the next contribution on this subject was made by
Mr. PerDegaton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I mean, granted, Mr. Degaton was a contemporary of Hitler and all, but jeeze, he tried to take over the world, too, you know!

Girl 6

8th January 2003, 11:58 PM

On 12-07-2002 02:51 AM, Nova Land writes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RandFan (responding to Soubrette's point that if deeds rather than words are to be judged then few if any may be Christian):

... Now it is possible that someone pretends to be christian and in reality does not believe it at all. I for example came to believe less and less in Mormonism. Yet I continued to go to church and act like I was a believer. The process was gradual so I'm not certain that I can say exactly at what moment I wasn't a believer yet continued to go. There did come a time that I was no longer able to continue to put on a charade but there were times that I acted like I believed but did in fact I did not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people attend church because they were raised to, or because their neighbors do and it's socially expected; we have a high percentage of church membership and attendance in the US, but we may not have that high a percentage of actual believers.

Gallup polls and similar surveys generally measure how many people are self-professed members of various religions. If that standard is not acceptable -- if Hitler, although a publicly-professed Catholic and a privately-professed believer-in-god-although-not-a-christian, is to be categorized as something other than a theist -- then we may need to distinguish between membership in a religion and belief in that religion.

The standard for counting membership would be a statement professing to be a member and/or periodic attendance. (We could sub-divide this into: people who profess membership and attend regularly; people who profess membership and attend occasionally; and people who profess membership but attend rarely or never.)

The standard for counting belief... Now there's a hard one!

Jedi: you're the one who sort of opened this can by saying Hitler's religious beliefs should be judged by his deeds rather than by his self-professions. Any thoughts on how this would apply in general? Is it your belief that many people attending churches in this country should actually be counted as atheists?

Should, for instance, the KKK and White Citizen's Council members be considered atheists even though they were generally considered themselves to be true Christians (and claimed they were motivated to oppose integration because of their Christian beliefs)? What about Paul Hill, John Salvi, James Kopp? Michael Bray? In Ireland, is the IRA Catholic or atheist? Is the Ulster Defense Association Protestant or atheist?