|
Post by jjcassidy on Sept 21, 2008 18:25:42 GMT
I can't imagine how anyone can read the sixth and eleventh chapters in Mein Kamf--understand it--and avoid the conclusion that Hitler was not only not a Christian, but in all likelihood a nihilist.
In parts of those two chapters, he counters the the appeal to cultured sympathies on the basis of the Aryans as the authors of culture, so they can set it aside as they wish to deal with the survival of culture itself.
And in the sixth chapter, he backs up that idea by writing:
Thus "ethical conceptions" are not the product of an Eternal Judge, but of man. "Humane considerations" are the product of man's creative imagination, and disappear when he disappears! "Nature knows nothing of them," and so they perish with men. Here, he shows an implication that the patterns on the earth are only man's creative imagination and Nature's patterns. Since nature knows nothing of these things, they cease to exist without the cultivation of their "creators".
Notice that he sounds almost like an anti-metaphysic when he says that they "do not exist...in the air".
|
|
|
Post by skathen on Nov 1, 2008 3:35:02 GMT
There are a few very important things to keep in mind when discussing what Hitler is supposed to have said behind closed doors.
He was firstly quite clearly not a mentally balanced individual and he was a Leader pandering to the majorities of the elitist groups with which he socialized. It would not be uncommon for even leaders of today to do exactly pandering over dinner conversations with certain groups.
For instance, I'm sure if George W was sharing a meal with a group of Atheistic Scientists, the last thing he would revel in during his conversations is the power of his love for his almighty god. In fact one might suppose he would try and express what knowledge and appreciation he has for science at this dinner.
Is it so twisted to think that the people he may have socialized with where strong believers in Nietzsche's work who easily dismissed god and thus it would be almost expected that Hitler would try to side with the social elite's mentality for the betterment of his own personal position?
Not to mention if any of the people with whom we have received these supposed quotes have any religious inclination at all, then they themselves have a considerable amount to gain by distancing religion from Hitler given what had been done. This is not a claim for Hitlers convictions as a Christian, it is a claim that anything said behind closed doors is open to a lot of conjecture as to the context in which it was said and also if the words had been twisted by the faithful trying to save their own religion from the terrible association that may have been.
What is certainly clear is that in public and in written works is that Hitler is at the very least a Deist if not a Theist. The reason why Atheist's will quickly get offside about Hitler is that he has long been portrayed mostly by the Christian's as and Atheist when all the facts point to at least some belief in a creator god which is what upsets Atheists. Hitler was mentally ill, he never once decreed that he committed those atrocities in the name of Atheism, nor was he a good Christian even if he was one. It would however make his anti-semitic nature more understandable as religious bigotry has long stood between the main three theistic religions.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 3, 2008 10:03:07 GMT
Hi Skathen
I agree with all that and you have raised some important questions to bear in mind. One thing, for example, which is always overlooked by people is how complex our metaphysical beliefs are. One person over the course of a lifetime might veer between agnosticism, atheism and Christianity and such principles are sure to change. Furthermore there is something of a 'weak dictator' debate. To what extent was Hitler influenced by his anti-clerical colleagues in the course of the Church struggle?. Might he have been concealing his true position?. I refer to what is regarded as the best biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw's Hubris and Nemesis.
On interesting case study is the campaign to remove crucifixes from classrooms which was instigated by Bormann and stopped by Hitler because of the controversy it raised. Whilst this might be an example of Hitler's officials making the running, the evidence shows that the campaign was triggered by Hitler's repeated rants about Christianity; in other words it was an example of 'working towards the fuhrer'. As Kershaw concludes:
Ian Kershaw, 'Hitler : Nemesis' p 424 Bormann never acted contrary to what Hitler wanted. Most probably, he misinterpreted on this occasion Hitler's repeated rantings about the malevolent influence of Christianity and sent the wrong signals to party activists. Hitler sympathised with the radicals, but acted pragmatically.
Sure enough, despite the suspension of the campaign, about 11% of the clergy in that part of Germany were exterminated. Goebbels's diary provides arguably the best source for Hitler's views and intentions regarding the religious question. It corroborates the kind of rhetoric we find in the Table Talk dialogues. Hitler was clearly playing up to his anti-Christian colleagues, but there is no reason to doubt that his outburst reflected his true intentions. He was influenced by others certainly, but he was no weak dictator. When his colleagues got out of hand he was eager enough to rein them in, and it was Goebbels was in awe of Hitler, not the other way round. Regarding his plans for the east Kershaw concludes:
Ian Kershaw, 'Hitler : Nemesis' p 449 There would, he made clear, be no room in this utopia for the Christian Churches. After the trouble of the summer he had to take a line which appeased the party hotheads but also restrained their instincts. For the time being he ordered slow progression in the 'church struggle'. 'But it is clear', noted Goebbels, that after the war it has to find a general solution......there is namely an insoluble opposition between the Christian and a Germanic-heroic world view'.
His later pronouncements followed the same theme.
Ian Kershaw, 'Hitler : Nemesis' p 509 It was necessary, commented Hitler, not to react to the seditious activities of the clergy; 'the showdown' would be saved for a 'more advantageous situation after the war' when he would have to come as 'the avenger'. Ian Kershaw, 'Hitler : Nemesis' p 516 He was determined, after their insidious behaviour, he said, doubtless playing here on the many compliments fed to him by Goebbels and the other Gauleiter, to destroy the Christian Churches after the war.
I think, given the evidence that the most accurate depiction of Hitler's views is that given by Burleigh in Sacred Causes. There is a remote deistic creator God, the laws of nature have religious significance, the war of nature is reflected in the war of races, a war the aryans are destined to win. As Goebbels notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."
The important point is that Nazism was a complete rejection of Christianity. True, as Steigmann-Gall has pointed out in 'The Holy Reich' one can find Nazi officials and Protestants who could reconcile the two, but I agree with John Conway, author of 'The Nazi Persecution of the Churches' who remarks:
Steigmann-Gall agrees that from 1937 onwards, Nazi policy toward the churches became much more hostile. The influence of such notable anti-clericals as Bormann and Heydrich grew exponentially and was restrained only by the need for wartime compromises. On the other hand, Steigmann-Gall argues persuasively that the Nazi Party's 1924 program and Hitler's policy-making speeches of the early years were not just politically motivated or deceptive in intent. Agreeing with the view taken by Hitler's fellow-countryman, the Austrian theologian Friedrich Heer, Steigmann-Gall considers these speeches to be a sincere appreciation of Christianity as a value system to be upheld. Yet he is not ready to admit that this Nazi Christianity was eviscerated of all the most essential orthodox dogmas. What remained was the vaguest impression combined with anti-Jewish prejudice. Only a few radicals on the extreme wing of liberal Protestantism would recognize such a mish-mash as true Christianity.....Yet he is undeniably right to point out how much Nazism owed to German Christian, especially Protestant, concepts and how much support it gained from a majority of Christians in Germany. That is certainly a sobering lesson to be drawn from this interesting and well-reasoned account.
I offer one more sobering lesson. There is no convincing evidence that Hitler was mentally ill. A fantasist, yes. A manic depressive, possibly. But mentally ill no. Evil is something of an unfashionable concept but sometimes there is no other word.
|
|