apart from a contemptuous irony what is your point, super mind ? could you make us the favor to tell us what we should think of hitler and religions ? or you just excell in irony ?this is fascinating and you have commandeered my interest.
For the onset I think it best to keep it one step at a time (for this is truly revelatory and I desire to understand a topic of such terrific import through and through) so please, be patient and explain this incredible news please.
Let me suggest a good starting point being a source other then the site cited above, preferbly hardcopy of a sort and just to further a little; how about two or three more independents and then link them nicely together so as to present us with the identical conclusion which was so eloquently drawn above
Religion...?
Religion.x..?
Re: Religion...?
This thread risks going completely overboard. Kindly stick to the subject, which is the role of Religion in Nazi Germany, not arcane theories of Indoeuropean ancient religion, Rank's work on the incest taboo or count Dracula.
cheers
cheers
Re: Religion...?
I agree: dracula or incest taboo are not the subject, but the ancient indo-european is in subject, because the subject is not "the role of the religion", the subject is "what religion was".Kindly stick to the subject, which is the role of Religion in Nazi Germany, not arcane theories of Indoeuropean ancient religion, Rank's work on the incest taboo or count Dracula
kind regards!
Re: Religion.x..?
No, the subject is not "what religion was". Hypothesising about ancient indoeuropean religion is not on topic, so let it rest.
And a post along those lines was removed.
cheers
And a post along those lines was removed.
cheers
ID CARD FOR A CATHOLIC PRIEST
Not exactly on point but a bit unusual, is this civilian ID Card [ Kennkarte ] issued to a Roman catholic Priest.
From my personal collection.
regards,
Bob Frey
From my personal collection.
regards,
Bob Frey
- Attachments
-
- image0-68.jpg (195.48 KiB) Viewed 1162 times
Re: Religion...?
A post by mimo, who could usefully acquaint himself with the distinction between "taboo" and "off-topic" was removed.
cheers
cheers
Re: Religion...?
Anyway, I made a mistake by omission: If anybody think he'll change a religion/custom of a people, 1500 years old, in few years, he'll bitterly delude himself.
Re: Religion...?
oRion wrote:
The Heer used Christian imagery, such as the "Gott mit Uns" belt buckles, but this doesn't necessarily express Nazi endorsement of Christian agendas as this is a trapping of the German military tradition with historical significance. OTOH, as you mention, the SS used more secular imagery (for example, favoring "Meine Ehre heisst Treue" for the slogan on its belt buckle) and as the SS is a Party organization (unlike the Heer) I think this is testamount to the secularism of the NSDAP.
Then, of course, we also have individual influential figures within the Reich who had their own interests and agendas. This includes Heinrich Himmler and his fascination with occult imagery which isn't representative of the Party as a whole (Hitler himself did not advocate any ressurection of a Norse Odinic cult and did not seem very impressed with Himmler's esoteric interests). Conversely, Martin Bormann was an advocate of atheism within the Party yet Hitler did not find the notion of state atheism to be practical, so Bormann's atheism does not represent the position of the Party either.
To conclude this drawn out rant, Nazi Germany seems to be a secular state that persecuted certain religions but tolerated atheism and many other religions, including Christianity and Islam.
If by "official relgion" you mean a religion sanctioned by the state, I don't think Hitler had any particular preference for any religion besides the persecution of those that conflict with their ideas (Jews, Jehova'sWitnesses). Any praise Hitler had for Christianity were virtually exclusively statements made in public, whereas in private Hitler disparaged the religion, so I believe it is safe to say that such praise was undoubtedly propaganda to appeal to the German masses who were, of course, Christian. Various religions were tolerated within the German armed forces, including Islam and Hinduism and the NSDAP had both Christian and atheist members.What was the main religion of the Third Reich? I have seen many times in photos of german graves that instead of a cross they had other symbols. And don't forget that the SS were using symbols to many items that didn't show catholicism or Cristianity in general.
The Heer used Christian imagery, such as the "Gott mit Uns" belt buckles, but this doesn't necessarily express Nazi endorsement of Christian agendas as this is a trapping of the German military tradition with historical significance. OTOH, as you mention, the SS used more secular imagery (for example, favoring "Meine Ehre heisst Treue" for the slogan on its belt buckle) and as the SS is a Party organization (unlike the Heer) I think this is testamount to the secularism of the NSDAP.
Then, of course, we also have individual influential figures within the Reich who had their own interests and agendas. This includes Heinrich Himmler and his fascination with occult imagery which isn't representative of the Party as a whole (Hitler himself did not advocate any ressurection of a Norse Odinic cult and did not seem very impressed with Himmler's esoteric interests). Conversely, Martin Bormann was an advocate of atheism within the Party yet Hitler did not find the notion of state atheism to be practical, so Bormann's atheism does not represent the position of the Party either.
To conclude this drawn out rant, Nazi Germany seems to be a secular state that persecuted certain religions but tolerated atheism and many other religions, including Christianity and Islam.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 02 Feb 2008, 06:07
- Location: Alabama | USA
- Contact:
Re: Religion...?
Based on everything I've read, it appears that Hitler's treatment of religion complies with what Seneca the Younger said; "religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers useful." It seems to me that Hitler was in favor of the Catholic church, so long as he could use its structure to further his own agenda -- like propogating Nazi propaganda through church schools. He defamed secular schools, although I'm not sure why given that the Nazi party apparatus could have controlled those as well. When the Catholic church or the Protestant churches attempted to resist Hitler rather than help promote his ideology, he tried to destroy them. What his eventual goal in regards to the Catholic church seems unclear; maybe had they not opposed him in any way he would have simply morphed the Catholic church into the church of the Nazi religion, with Christian and "pagan" symbols mixed together, much like Christianity and paganism melted together to give us holidays like Easter and Christmas.
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Religion...?
I'm suprised that noone has quoted Hitler's own words, recorded in Raushning's Hitler Speaks...
"...The Jewish Christ-creed with its effeminate pity-ethics".
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me.
"...The Jewish Christ-creed with its effeminate pity-ethics".
Doesn't sound like a Christian to me.
Re: Religion...?
(1) Rauschning must be taken with a bucket (if not a truckload) of salt.phylo_roadking wrote:I'm suprised that noone has quoted Hitler's own words, recorded in Raushning's Hitler Speaks […]
(2) To a remarkable extent, notions of Hitler's anti-Christianity are based on quotes from the Tischgespräche. However, as Carrier points out, there are serious problems with the different versions of the Table Talk. Analysing some of these passages, which have been variously mangled or mistranslated, he concludes they show a possibly anti-clerical Hitler, but by no means an anti-Christian and even less an atheist or heathen Hitler.
(3) There was no uniform position regarding religion, either within NSDAP or through the Third Reich; rather, there were changing policies for different churches and for different times. Some high-ranking Nazis (Himmler, Bormann) consistently sought to restrict the influence of the churches, and especially of the Catholic Church; but it came far short of Kulturkampf, version 2. Basically, Christian denominations were persecuted only to the extent that they resisted Gleichschaltung (eg, Jehovah's Witnesses).
(4) IMHO, the "Gott mit uns" symbolism should not be taken too far. More significant is the fact that the Wehrmacht employed some 1000 military chaplains (Bergen, p 233).
Sources:
- Bergen, DL (2001) German Military Chaplains in World War II and the Dilemmas of Legitimacy. Church Hist 70(2): 232–47.
Carrier, RC (2003) "Hitler's Table Talk": Troubling Finds. Ger Stud Rev 26(3): 561–76.
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Religion...?
The problem with the revised views on Rauschning is exactly that - Revisionism. The majority of the re-analysis of Hitler Speaks has been by historians with recognised Revisionist tendancies, like Wolfgang Haenel...and strangely enojgh, it hasn't tainted other historians' reliance on that new analysis...whereas if it had been done by an Irving, for example - they'd be foaming at the mouth about it LMAO So unfortunately, accepting the revised opinions of Rauschning means accepting a lot of other Revisionism that comes with it. Or not. I prefer the "or not."
Re: Religion...?
"Revisionism" is a word which covers a multitude of sins. I'm not sure how appropriate it is, or whether it constitutes a serious argument or not. At any rate, is Prof Evans a "Revisionist"?phylo_roadking wrote:The problem with the revised views on Rauschning is exactly that - Revisionism. The majority of the re-analysis of Hitler Speaks has been by historians with recognised Revisionist tendancies […]
Perhaps we should have a separate thread on Rauschning…Evans, p 149, wrote:[…] dubious and discredited sources such as Rauschning's Hitler Speaks, a record of interviews most of which never took place outside Rauschning's mind.
Source:
- Evans, RJ (2002) New Perspectives on Hitler. J Contemp Hist 37(1): 147–152.
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: Religion...?
If you read carefully, my point is that modern historians of the present generation are using the Rauschning revisionism of the 1970s and 1980s without questioning the provision of those revised analyses - NOT that they have or expressed the tendancies themselves. If it hadn't been questioned, and effectively, for instance - even time i.e. 25-30 years would have made an Irving gospel...it hasn't tainted other historians' reliance on that new analysis...whereas if it had been done by an Irving, for example - they'd be foaming at the mouth about it...
Re: Religion...?
That's far too subtle for me. It reads as if you were saying that "modern historians" dismiss Rauschning because they accept unquestioningly the "revisionism of the 1970s and 1980s", whereas you, who know better, regard Rauschning as trustworthy. Maybe we should have a thread on Rauschning.phylo_roadking wrote:[…] my point is that modern historians of the present generation are using the Rauschning revisionism of the 1970s and 1980s without questioning the provision of those revised analyses […]
--Patzinak