|
Post by bjorn on Sept 24, 2009 19:33:19 GMT
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Sept 25, 2009 6:33:42 GMT
I've noticed a few of these cropping up with Stephen Fry and QI, the most prominent of which (to my memory) was a question about whether the Nazis were atheist, to which the correct answer was the old canard, "No they weren't (okay, they got that part more-or-less right!), they were in fact Christian and Hitler was a good Catholic". Maybe they should concentrate less of what is "quite interesting" and more on what is "actually correct"?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Sept 25, 2009 9:12:28 GMT
I've noticed a few of these cropping up with Stephen Fry and QI, the most prominent of which (to my memory) was a question about whether the Nazis were atheist, to which the correct answer was the old canard, "No they weren't (okay, they got that part more-or-less right!), they were in fact Christian and Hitler was a good Catholic With the Nazis it's a complex picture, which is exactly what you would expect. History is rarely painted in shades of black and white. I do have trouble with this idea that they were Christian in any meaningful sense ('Positive Christianity' was a hopeless mishmash of antisemitism, radical higher criticism, anti-Bolshevism and worship of the Nazi state). Nazism was the product of many influences and it parasitatised every area of German life, including religion. Is one a good catholic if you think the pope should be 'in St Peter's chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and poor in spirit as anyone could wish'. On the flip side, as Burliegh and Steigmann-Gall have pointed out, Nazism owed much to German Christian - especially Protestant - concepts and it gained support from a majority of Christians in Germany. The words of Martin Niemöller are perhaps most appropriate here: "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Sept 25, 2009 9:43:19 GMT
It is a complex question, and no doubt the history of church antisemitism (I think of Luther's later writings as an example) and the implicit or explicit support by many churches were major factors for the rise to power of the Nationalist Socialist party in Germany. I am not an historian, and am aware of my limitations in this area, and it was the fact that QI took quite such a simplistic view that got my goat. You know the kind of thing, "The Nazi belt buckles mentioned God, Hitler made reference to God in Mein Kampff, he was never excommunicated by the pope, ergo the movement was ipso facto Christian".
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Sept 25, 2009 14:52:32 GMT
The belt buckles did have 'Gott Mit Uns' written on them, but this was an inheritance from the Prussian army (It became the motto of the Royal House of Prussia). In German history the motto goes all the way back to Gustavus Adolphus and Frederick the 1st (actually it goes back even further than that; to the Roman and Byzantine Empire). The SS had 'My honour is loyalty' as their motto. We should be no more surprised that the German army had Gott mit uns on the belt buckle than that the anthem of the UK continues to be 'God Save the Queen' when we have all stopped worshipping the creator of the universe and taken to worshipping Beyonce and Jay-Z instead.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Sept 25, 2009 15:42:06 GMT
The works of Ian Kershaw, John Lukacs, and Richard Evans suggest themselves, if one is looking for <i>historians.</i>
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Sept 25, 2009 20:54:25 GMT
You know the kind of thing, "The Nazi belt buckles mentioned God, Hitler made reference to God in Mein Kampff, he was never excommunicated by the pope, ergo the movement was ipso facto Christian". Yes, I know that kind of thing. But it's not quite as stupid as the repeated claims that "Hitler was an atheist" when he was not only nothing of the sort but condemned atheism as reducing man to the "level of an animal" and closed down atheistic organisations when he came to power. I can see how you don't like people lumping him in with Christianity, but people trying to pretend he wasn't a theist is far more ridiculous. Sorry - he was. So I'll jump on those who try to pretend he was anything other than a Christian of the most nominal variety if you do the same for those who lie and claim he was an atheist. Deal?
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Sept 25, 2009 22:36:44 GMT
All of you are wrong!
Hitler was a re-animated corpse whose plan to destroy the world with brightly colored uniforms was halted by a man with a bionic arm who made Der Fuhrer's head explode.
=)
|
|
|
Post by himself on Sept 26, 2009 0:46:19 GMT
Yes, I know that kind of thing. But it's not quite as stupid as the repeated claims that "Hitler was an atheist" when he was not only nothing of the sort but condemned atheism as reducing man to the "level of an animal" and closed down atheistic organisations when he came to power. Based on my reading of the subject - Kershaw's The 'Hitler Myth', Lukacs' The Hitler of History and The Last European War, Evans' The Third Reich in Power - the historians' consensus seems to be that Hitler believed in a vague sort of "Providence" or "Fate" rather than in the God of the Jews or Christians. Arguably, that made him a neo-pagan of some sort, but the fact is, he never seems to have given the matter any serious thought. A good adjective might be "irreligious" rather than either "theist" or "atheist." He was certainly capable of using religious platitudes to appeal to [and appease] public sentiment, but he despised Christianity for the usual Nietzschean reasons.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Sept 26, 2009 21:33:11 GMT
Yes, I know that kind of thing. But it's not quite as stupid as the repeated claims that "Hitler was an atheist" when he was not only nothing of the sort but condemned atheism as reducing man to the "level of an animal" and closed down atheistic organisations when he came to power. Based on my reading of the subject - Kershaw's The 'Hitler Myth', Lukacs' The Hitler of History and The Last European War, Evans' The Third Reich in Power - the historians' consensus seems to be that Hitler believed in a vague sort of "Providence" or "Fate" rather than in the God of the Jews or Christians. Whatever theological attributes his God had, he clearly and repeatedly called this entity "God". Sorry, but he was a theist. Eh? How does that work? He believed in a single cosmic being who ordered the universe. He didn't believe in any revival of polytheism, in fact he poured scorn on the whole idea of neo-paganism. And he didn't just pour scorn on atheism, he roundly and savagely condemned the idea of not believing in God. He was a theist. He was not an atheist. And he wasn't a neo-pagan either. Ditto for most theists. He was still a theist. Sorry, but he was no more "irreligious" than most theists are. He was a theist. Many theists do. The fact remains guys, Hitler was one of yours. Sorry if that's unpalatable, but them's the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Sept 27, 2009 2:13:29 GMT
[So I'll jump on those who try to pretend he was anything other than a Christian of the most nominal variety if you do the same for those who lie and claim he was an atheist. Deal? Deal.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Sept 27, 2009 3:08:02 GMT
Based on my reading of the subject - Kershaw's The 'Hitler Myth', Lukacs' The Hitler of History and The Last European War, Evans' The Third Reich in Power - the historians' consensus seems to be that Hitler believed in a vague sort of "Providence" or "Fate" rather than in the God of the Jews or Christians. Eh? How does that work? He believed in a single cosmic being who ordered the universe. He didn't believe in any revival of polytheism, in fact he poured scorn on the whole idea of neo-paganism. It was his belief that the universe was governed by Fate, which he called Providence. That was the stance of the high pagans of old. It is a mistake to think that the Stoics and others like them believed in the personified natures of the country folk. I'll stick with the historians on this point. It's vital to distinguish between private utterances and those devised for public consumption. The world is not binomial, and "theist"/"atheist" falsifies the picture. You are correct that he mocked Rosenberg's neo-paganism. I believe I pointed that out myself. But his ridicule was essentially on a pragmatic basis.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Sept 27, 2009 5:36:12 GMT
Eh? How does that work? He believed in a single cosmic being who ordered the universe. He didn't believe in any revival of polytheism, in fact he poured scorn on the whole idea of neo-paganism. It was his belief that the universe was governed by Fate, which he called Providence. That was the stance of the high pagans of old. It is a mistake to think that the Stoics and others like them believed in the personified natures of the country folk. I'll stick with the historians on this point. It's vital to distinguish between private utterances and those devised for public consumption. The world is not binomial, and "theist"/"atheist" falsifies the picture. Sorry, but either the man believed in a supernatural entity that he called God or he didn't. He did. So he was a theist. And his rejection of atheism was round, consistent, vehement and made in both public and private. Pretending this man wasn't a theist by some mealy-mouth word chopping over whether his God was precisely like your God is what is falsifying the picture. He was a theist. Deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Sept 27, 2009 11:12:02 GMT
I wonder whether I, who make no claim to any historical knowledge about Hitler's beliefs, may offer a possible way to resolve this disagreement? Names are just labels, agreed definitions of objects. Some names are pretty much unambiguous - water, comet, insect, etc - because we can easily define them. But: - Names like christian, theist, atheist, pagan, agnostic, etc, do not always have agreed definitions. e.g. (1) a census may define as christian anyone who attends a church or who calls themselves christian, whereas a theologian or an evangelist may define them in terms of being "born again" or something else, or (2) we have had discussion here recently about definitions of hard and soft atheist vs agnostic, without fully agreeing.
- It isn't always easy to know whether a person complies with the definition. They may change their mind, either just once or twice in their life, or often. They may think differently to what they say. They may define the label differently to how I do. They may share some beliefs with one label and some beliefs with a different label. A timid person in an antagonistic environment (e.g. a christian in communist Cambodia or an atheist in the US Bible belt) may go along with the prevailing culture out of expediency.
If this is something like true, then trying to exactly define Hitler's belief in terms of a label seems to me to be a difficult, and possibly futile, exercise. If we said simply that his beliefs appeared to be neither what most atheists would call atheist, not what most christians would call christian, but probably/possibly an amalgum of conviction and expediency, a hybrid of belief and disbelief regarding God, with somewhat unorthodox opinions on many matters, would that not go somewhere towards summarising what you are both saying? That's sort of what I get from the discussion, and I think such beliefs cannot be simply labelled. Do I at least get marks for trying??? Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Sept 27, 2009 11:50:21 GMT
Well, I think I am not the only one who has "dealt with" Hitler being a vehemently anti-christian, providence proclaiming pantheistic inclined theist.
The word "theist" is of course a nice stick to beat other "theists" with. I can understand the polemical purpose it may serve. Still it is extremely unhelpfull if one wants to get any understanding of Hitler, not to mention rather unhealthy in a world that thrives so much on prejudice.
It is a no starter if one is into a more serious discussion on history, words and thought.
Of course Hitler may be defined as a "theist", though he is not one of mine ("The worst blow ever suffered by mankind is Christianity". "As soon as the idea was introduced that all men were equal before God, that world was bound to collapse", "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic." etc. etc. etc. ).
To get behind the surface and weasel words, one has however to look more at the sources. Besides the works mentioned by others above, one of the more illuminating analysis is "Hitler's Private Library", by Timothy W. Ryback, from last year.
Ryback "deals with" the more than 1300 of Hitler's books that have survived (of course many has been lost), and at the notes he made in books that were of either emotional or intellectual significance for him (indicated by their tear/wear, markings and notes).
His library leaves no doubt Hitler had a more than usual interest in the esoteric and occult, in a kind of "New Age" mixing of science and spirituality. He disliked "paganism" as it was too primitive and went instead with a more modern German racist "New Age" esotericism from the late 1800's and early 1900's.
Based on his books, Hitler's "theos" seems more to be a "creative force" than a personal being. And strongly related to oneness with nature.
He obviously was interested in (and marked) the more pantheistic sounding passages, as in a collection of essays from 1924 by Scleich and in a 1923 handbook on the "history, theory and practise" of the occult by Schertel.
These passages had the same thrust as his own words like
"Even if you take your own life, you simply return to nature as much in substance as in spirit and soul" (Hitler in December 1941, Ryback page 147).
"The notion of eternity is fundamental to our nature. Spirit and soul definitely return to a collective reservoir - like the body. As the substance of life, we thereby fertilize the foundation from which new life emerges" (Ryback pages 146-48).
When reading Hitler's public talks, one should always be aware of the occasion and the need for (weasel) words.
It is also mandatory to see this through the lense of a post Blavatsky and Steiner age, as Germany was ripe with theosophical and anthroposophical ideas. A lot of these sounded theistic (and some were, especially among the latter), though they mostly were a far cry from any meaningfull definition of the word theos.
In short, "Gott", had a lot of very different meanings. Hitler did not seem to believe in any Thomistic, Lutheran or even Kantian version. Rather it seems to have been more the Spinozian, Hegelerian or a general esoteric, mystical version, mixing nature and "God".
To understand what he really believed, one should look at his private conversations, library notes and (to some degree) which books he had read (which Ryback shows very much are on the esoteric and anti-christian side).
Talking about God or The trinity is really about Destiny, Providence or the mix of Volk, Blut und Rase.
Rieder writes in a type written manuscript he sent Der Führer in 1936 that he had scientifically proof (Hitler always fell for such words) for his "new religion", replacing the trinity with a new unity bethween the Körper, Geist und Seele.
Hitler admitted that God was a "wonderfull invention", not the least as the term had so many good uses. Saying "Gott mit Uns" is playing on all kind of connotations, a broad enough term to appeal both to nationalistic minded christians, nature worshipping pagans, providence oriented deists, race mysticists, Life Force worshippers (like Shaw in England) and the more theosophistically inclined.
Hitler's markings in Schertel's book "Magie" are illuminating in this area. He seems really fascinated by Schertel's looking "beyond good and evil" and insisting on the need for the impersonal "ektropic" powers than can give birth to a new world.
"With the 'ektropic' dynamic there is no such thing as 'real' or 'unreal', as 'true' or 'false', as 'right' og 'wrong'. Only when this completely irrational, amoral, apersonal force has consumed us can we perceive these values" (Ryback page 160-61)
Based on Hitler's library, notes and private conversations, Ryback concludes that Hitler's core was less based on serious philosophers like Schopenhauer or Nietzshe, rather than "a dime-store theory cobbled together from cheap, tendentious paperbacks and esoteric hardcovers, which provided the justification for a thin, calculating, bullying mendacity".
So, I have no problem in dealing with Hitler as a "theist", no less than dealing with Bin Laden being one. However, I have OTOH never suffered the illusion that "theist" by itself is a very helpfull word - except in the Grand Arena of Polemical Connotations.
|
|