Interesting notes from Hitler

Yet, as Skadi pointed out, Hitler needed the favor of Christians for the initial parts of his plans. He was no fool; if people started turning against him at home in the midst of a World War, his ideas of conquest would be over. If he immediately took on everything he wanted to eradicate, he would ostracize most of Germany, and winning the war wouldn't have been about strategic ability, it would have been about sitting and waiting for Germany to implode. For the three reasons I pointed out before, Hitler needed to keep the Christian base in Germany happy for a while. Especially, as Skadi pointed out, since he could skew Christianity in such a way as to inspire more anti-Semitic hatred. Jews killed Jesus Christ, their lord (never mind Jesus was also a Jew, He wasn't, He way Aryan, never mind turn the other cheek, never mind any of his other lessons, just focus on what the Jews did to God).

Christianity was a tool Hitler employed. If you want to attribute all of the behaviors of Germany (I would call them evils, but that's just because Christian morality shows that kind of behavior is evil) with Christianity, that's fine, but it's only yourself you're fooling.

Junglejake,

It seems to me that you're reaching for some sort of 'not a REAL Scotsman' ideal. Granted, christianity would have been an invaluable tool if used by a faux christian; however, by the same measure it would have just as valuable of a tool if used by a "real" christian. In that, in the nature of men, we typically can only go by their words for their beliefs; even the most holy of men do actions contrary what they truly believe.

Being against jews does not divorce one from being christian, or catholic. Historically, the catholic church was rather anti-semitic, and let's not even mention Martin Luther's hatred towards jews. In hindsight, the catholic church should consider their own leaders "evil" for the exact type of crimes committed by Hitler and his regime. The only difference is that the catholic church killed men called heretics instead of men called inferior.

An objective look at all available evidence, in my opinion, points towards Hitler's christianity and his confession thereof. And yes, it is possible for a christian to sin -- and thus, it is possible for a christian to be evil, including Hitler.

Originally posted by radardog
It's interesting to me that the discussion picked up on Hitler's religion, and not his notes on the comments of his actions. Doesn't anyone see anything else that's interesting in these quotes?

If you would like to know exactly where Hitler stood on religion and religious beliefs, check out Mein Kampf. He pretty much lays it all out in there through the pages. It's a relativly quick read, and very fascinating considering he wrote that before he even began to take any power. Hitler, like many here, saw any religion as a crutch, and, like Stalin, something preventing total control over the masses. With things like God's law supercedes man's law, how can a man rule the people as they needed to be ruled when this ficticious God told them not to behave in the way Hitler believed they had to?

Now, if I may turn your question back on you, why the focus on the label Hitler applied to himself instead of his notes and comments on his actions?

Originally posted by radardog
Junglejake,

It seems to me that you're reaching for some sort of 'not a REAL Scotsman' ideal. Granted, christianity would have been an invaluable tool if used by a faux christian; however, by the same measure it would have just as valuable of a tool if used by a "real" christian. In that, in the nature of men, we typically can only go by their words for their beliefs; even the most holy of men do actions contrary what they truly believe.

Being against jews does not divorce one from being christian, or catholic. Historically, the catholic church was rather anti-semitic, and let's not even mention Martin Luther's hatred towards jews. In hindsight, the catholic church should consider their own leaders "evil" for the exact type of crimes committed by Hitler and his regime. The only difference is that the catholic church killed men called heretics instead of men called inferior.

An objective look at all available evidence, in my opinion, points towards Hitler's christianity and his confession thereof. And yes, it is possible for a christian to sin -- and thus, it is possible for a christian to be evil, including Hitler.

You are incorrect on a number of things. If you do not believe in Christian ideals, you are not Christian, no matter what you call yourself. Though no one is perfect and Christians do screw up, you must believe in Christian ideals to be a Christian.

For example, one must believe in the divinity or teachings of Christ as the ultimate law to aspire to. Hitlers aspirations were very UNCHRISTIAN. He had absolutely no inclination to uphold any Christian value or belief. He believed that murder, conquest, and hatred were ideas to aspire to. Just because Hitler might have claimed to be a Christian does not make him one. Just like if I claimed to be communist, yet lived a lifestyle or acted on uncommunist beliefs, I am not a communist.

It has never made sense to me, anti semetism and Christianity. In fact, they seem to nullify one another. After all, Jesus, his disciples, mother, and 95% of heros and figures in the bible are Jewish. The old testament is written in Hebrew. Many Christian laws and beliefs come from Judism.

One must look at Hitler's longer termed plans to see. His long term plans, not discussed with the public but only with his advisors and lackeys, included phasing out Christianity all together. All this was planned after he conquered Europe and wiped out all the Jews in Europe.

Again, just because someone claims to be Christian does not make them so. If they are not holding to and aspiring to follow the lead of Jesus, they are not Christians. If they are going around killing heretics or jews, they are not Christian. Its one thing to sin, its another thing to make an institution out of sinning and condoning it.

I am not Christian, and do not like alot of people who claim the title, but being raised Christian and at one time actually believing, I know what is NOT Christian.

Baptism and confirmation does not make you Christian. Only personal acceptance of Christlike values make you Christian.

Hitler enspoused everything anti-Christlike.

Originally posted by Reaganwasourgreatest
Hitler was a German pagan. His god was the State. Much like most liberals.

Most conservatives are Christian racists, just like the KKK...



See where blanket statements like that get us? Nowhere.

Even though Pat Robertson would like you to beleive so, most liberals do not in fact worship the state. Oh and BTW, the facist political ideology is FAR to the right, so Hitler was actually a conservative.

You are incorrect on a number of things. If you do not believe in Christian ideals, you are not Christian, no matter what you call yourself. Though no one is perfect and Christians do screw up, you must believe in Christian ideals to be a Christian.

You say this as if all Christian "ideals" are the same, which they obviously are not. Without mentioning the various christian sects, by this line of reasoning, most of them aren't really christian sects anyway; they wouldn't subscribe to your or some other person's idea of what christianity is. Ever more notably, these ideals tend to change with time; it was certainly reasonable for a true christian during the inquisitions to have the ideal that burning an accused witch at the stake was good and holy. Even the ten commandments have been interpreted different ways, and for some sects, they have been completely thrown out as Jesus supposedly brought a new covenant and rules in the NT, but I digress.

For example, one must believe in the divinity or teachings of Christ as the ultimate law to aspire to. Hitlers aspirations were very UNCHRISTIAN.

See above. "Unchristian" to whom? To you? To christians currently? The King of Spain thought it was one of the most christian thing to do when he expelled over 200,000 jews from his country during the spanish inguisition. And just like Hitler, he didn't allow them to take their money. Go figure. The Catholic church didn't mind then either.

Let's go even further back. St. Augustine writes, "the Church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed, because after killing Christ they continue to till the ground of an earthly circumcision, an earthly Sabbath, an earthly passover, while the hidden strength or virtue of making known Christ, which this tilling contains, is not yielded to the Jews while they continue in impiety and unbelief, for it is revealed in the New Testament. While they will not turn to God, the veil which is on their minds in reading the Old Testament is not taken away... the Jewish people, like Cain, continue tilling the ground, in the carnal observance of the law, which does not yield to them its strength, because they do not perceive in it the grace of Christ"

St. Cyril of Alexandria expelled Jews from his city.

Pope Gregory VII writes to King Alphonso of Spain telling him that if he allows Jews to be lords over Christians, he is oppressing the Church and exalting "the Synagogue of Satan

Then we turn to the crusaders, "The chronicler Guibert de Nogent reports that the Rouen Crusaders said: "We desire to go and fight God's enemies in the East; but we have before our eyes certain Jews, a race more inimical to God than any other"""

In 1320, A Christian chronicler records: "The shepherds laid siege to all the Jews who had come from all sides to take refuge... the Jews defended themselves heroically... but their resistance served no purpose, for the shepherds slaughtered a great number of the besieged Jews by smoke and by fire... The Jews, realizing that they would not escape alive, preferred to kill themselves... They chose one of their number (and) this man put some five hundred of them to death, with their consent. He then descended from the castle tower with the few Jewish children who still remained alive... They killed him by quartering. They spared the children, whom they made Catholics by baptism"

(I found this nice collection at www.sullivan-county.com...
and more can be found there).

Now, I can easily say, with my fingers crossed behind, my back that those people and even the popes themselves were not Christian, but I think we would not be fooling anyone. By your rendition Hitler did all of these things that were "not christ-like" in the same way historically accepted christians did things that were "not christ-like." This is called special pleading. Take another look at history and notice at least one thing: Hitler's thoughts and actions were not so contrary to the christian church, especially historically.

Hitler's long term plans that go against a christian church can only usually be found in one source, which does have some reliability problems. I believe my post is on page one that links to a good critique of them. All other personal records of Hitler were certainly prochristianity, as were his public proclaims.

Originally posted by kazi
And it was during those years the bush family was raising money for hitler and greasing his pagan war machine. Want websites, ther's plenty.

This is a rediculous claim with no truth to it, laundering money for Thyssen (an anti-Nazi at the time) is not "raising money for Hitler". How about you complain about Henry Ford (who built weapons for the Nazis) or Lindburgh (who was a Nazi).

"The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race."—Joseph Goebbels, in his diary, December 28, 1939.

"Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society." —Hitler 1941

"The German people, especially the youth, have learned once again to value people racially-they have once again turned away from Christian theories, from Christian teaching which has ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused the racial decay of the German Volk, and almost its racial death." —Heinrich Himmler May 22, 1936 at a speech in Brocken, Germany.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
"The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race."—Joseph Goebbels, in his diary, December 28, 1939.

Hearsay! Let's go directly to the person in question (this also answers the third quote):

"National Socialism is not a cult-movement-- a movement for worship; it is exclusively a 'volkic' political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship.... We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else-- in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will-- not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord.... Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men."

Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept. 1938.

"Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society." —Hitler 1941

You know, I've seen that quote in wikipedia, but I never was able to track down the source of the quote. Speech, diary, etc. 1941 is rather vague.

"The German people, especially the youth, have learned once again to value people racially-they have once again turned away from Christian theories, from Christian teaching which has ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused the racial decay of the German Volk, and almost its racial death." —Heinrich Himmler May 22, 1936 at a speech in Brocken, Germany.

Himmler isn't Hitler, and Himmler was pretty nutty.

What do you think changed his mind, then, between Mein Kampf and 1938? Politics, or a radical conversion that was not demonstrated in any way in his life or his actions?

Originally posted by junglejake
#4 I suspect you're trying to parallel to Bush. There was one primary difference, and many, many others. The primary difference is that Hitler would throw detractors into concentration camps. Not the ones reserved for the Jews, but others.

That was not true during Hitler's initial administration. He was not, at first, appointed or elected a dictator, but Kanzler (Chancellor), a position with powers similar to those of the British Prime Minister or today's German Chancellor. Less power, in fact, than President Bush holds, though Bush holds less than Hitler ultimately acquired. Unfortunately, his limited administration lasted less than a month.

What changed matters was the Reichstag Fire. This was an act of arson occurring on February 27, 1933. It was set, apparently, by a Dutch Communist named Marinus van der Lubbe. One day later, Hitler and President Hindenburg together invoked a provision of the Weimar Constitution that suspended civil liberties in times of national emergency. Think of it as the Patriot Act on steroids. Under Hindenburg's decree, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, rights of assembly and association, rights to privacy of mail, protection against unlawful search and seizures, property rights, and the right of self-government of German states were all explicitly nullified. Hitler then passed a subsidiary decree creating the SS and Gestapo.

Pretty slick, no? The Reichstag fire was nowhere near as devastating an event in itself as 9/11, but the response to it went much deeper and resulted in an absolute dictatorship, as the Weimar Constitution allowed. Under the Bush administration, civil liberties have been curtailed to a degree that will, in the end, probably be found unconstitutional, but even so this does not approach what Hitler did in Germany.

But now ask yourself this. If there were a provision in the U.S. Constitution that allowed the president -- maybe with the cooperation of Congress -- to become a dictator and deep-six the Bill of Rights for the duration, would that provision have been invoked in the aftermath of 9/11? And in that event, can we say with confidence that Bush would not be throwing detractors and political opponents into concentration camps?

As far as character and political beliefs are concerned, the difference between Hitler and Bush seems to me this and this only: Bush is not a racist (at least I see no evidence that he is one). Otherwise? Both men have shown no respect for civil liberties, both have shown themselves to be warmongers, and both have approached both of these efforts in exactly the same way: loss of liberty justified by violence within the borders, and war justified in terms of vaguely-defined threats from abroad. Bush has simply had less opportunity to do this sort of thing than Hitler did, because the U.S. Constitution has no emergency provision allowing the appointment of a dictator.

For which let us all thank the Founding Fathers on bended knee. Because if it were otherwise, we'd have one.