Hitler’s Religious Views

[fireofice]

I don't think any of the above suggests he was disingenuous in his speeches nor even challenges that he held some Christian faith by the time he became Chancellor and beyond, even if raising questions about his own unique or modified interpretation thereof. We can assume he was only saying it for votes, or we can assume he was telling the truth. Given his record of honesty, I'm inclined to accept the latter.

Except I don't just make an assumption. I backed up my claims that Hitler was willing to lie to the public from the Goebbels and Hewel diaries, and a letter from Rudolf Hess.

Questioning the world critically is a sign of intelligence. Many people, including myself, have cast doubt and disdain upon Christianity, its beliefs, and its history (I spent a decade as a very militant atheist, debating and ridiculing every Christian I would come across). None of this suggests that 5, 10, or 20 years later, that person will hold the same beliefs. Hitler's own words are the best indication of what he believed at the time of his speeches.

Can you give me the timeline of when you think Hitler was a Christian and when he wasn't?

On a separate note, the Table Talks are not a credible source of evidence for specific claims. They should only be considered cautiously as a supplementary source for a given topic or question that is first confirmed elsewhere.

All sources should be "used cautiously" and all sources should be supplemented when possible. The table talks aren't unique in this regard. The fact that they aren't stenographic notes is not really relevant. Plenty of sources used by historians are not stenographic notes. Goebbels diaries are not stenographic notes, yet they are still used. The Table Talks are not any less reliable than any other source written after a comparable timeframe. They are certainly more reliable than memoirs written much later. So they are not even the "worst" source by any means. And some sources are of course more reliable than the Table Talks.

[Callafangers]

I don't think any of the above suggests he was disingenuous in his speeches nor even challenges that he held some Christian faith by the time he became Chancellor and beyond, even if raising questions about his own unique or modified interpretation thereof. We can assume he was only saying it for votes, or we can assume he was telling the truth. Given his record of honesty, I'm inclined to accept the latter.

Except I don't just make an assumption. I backed up my claims that Hitler was willing to lie to the public from the Goebbels and Hewel diaries, and a letter from Rudolf Hess.

The assumption is that he was being deceptive in 100% of his uses of "God", "Lord", etc. It's a very big assumption which evidence about specific lies in unrelated topics doesn't substantiate.

Can you give me the timeline of when you think Hitler was a Christian and when he wasn't?

I think there is a period from the 1920s (when his speeches and writings first became widely known) until circa 1942-43 (when problematic religious leaders cost many additional German lives) in which Hitler was overtly respectful and admiring toward Christianity, even toward Jesus Christ, whom he regards [accurately] as a warrior against the Jewish tyrants and schemers of His day. Whether or not Hitler was a "Christian" depends on how one defines this term but there is indisputable evidence that he supported and defended Christianity (certainly Christians) in many contexts, as reflected in my earlier quotes here.

All sources should be "used cautiously" and all sources should be supplemented when possible. The table talks aren't unique in this regard. The fact that they aren't stenographic notes is not really relevant. Plenty of sources used by historians are not stenographic notes. Goebbels diaries are not stenographic notes, yet they are still used. The Table Talks are not any less reliable than any other source written after a comparable timeframe. They are certainly more reliable than memoirs written much later. So they are not even the "worst" source by any means. And some sources are of course more reliable than the Table Talks.

The Table Talks have numerous problems which are documented throughout the book cited. They are not only not stenographic notes; they simply cannot be taken as Hitler's exact words on any matter, period. At best, we might sometimes infer the "essence" of actual statements has been captured, but there is no guarantee. Without independent confirmation that Hitler was anti-Christian, especially given the evidence (both in terms of policy and his actual words) that he was pro-Christian, there is not much the Table Talks can offer here. Regardless, as mentioned, the 'Talks' excerpt you provided doesn't even specify Hitler's later views toward Christianity, just hearsay about what Hitler allegedly quoted himself from memory having said as a child (and even then, the statement -- "I do not believe that the dear God has an interest if a pupil prays!" -- implies a belief that God exists).

[fireofice]

The assumption is that he was being deceptive in 100% of his uses of "God", "Lord", etc. It's a very big assumption which evidence about specific lies in unrelated topics doesn't substantiate.

I don't think he was deceptive in all of his uses of "God", "Lord", ect. He did believe in God. My position is that he was deceptive in his uses of those when relating it to Christianity or making professions of a Christian faith. Belief in God is not the same as being Christian. One example where I believe he was very genuine is Mein Kampf where he says:

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of nature, substituting for it the eternal privilege of force and energy, numerical mass and dead weight. Thus it denies the individual value of the human personality, and impugns the idea that nationhood and race have primary significance. In doing so, it takes away the very foundations of human existence and culture.

If this doctrine were ever accepted as the foundation of the universe, it would lead to the disappearance of all conceivable order. Adopting such a law would provoke chaos in the structure of the greatest organism that we know–and the inhabitants of this earth would vanish.

If the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, were to triumph over the people of this world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind. And this planet will once again follow its orbit through the ether devoid of humanity, just as it did millions of years ago.

Eternal Nature inevitably avenges those who violate her commands.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: In defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord

He connects acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator with Eternal Nature (using "hence"). Thus I believe this is likely referring to belief in a deified Nature or pantheism. This is a genuine expression of faith and not a deception.

And I do think I have substantiated the claim that he is willing to lie specifically on religion. Goebbels saying that he said they would have to pretend to be a more positive Christian (lying). And Rudolf Hess saying that Hitler would have to keep his true views quiet. While Hewel gives us evidence that he is willing to lie in general as a politician. The first two explicitly substantiate his willingness to lie on religious matters and the third a general willingness to lie as a politician. If this isn't "substantiation" I don't know what is.

I think there is a period from the 1920s (when his speeches and writings first became widely known) until circa 1942-43 (when problematic religious leaders cost many additional German lives) in which Hitler was overtly respectful and admiring toward Christianity, even toward Jesus Christ, whom he regards [accurately] as a warrior against the Jewish tyrants and schemers of His day. Whether or not Hitler was a "Christian" depends on how one defines this term but there is indisputable evidence that he supported and defended Christianity (certainly Christians) in many contexts, as reflected in my earlier quotes here.

This is contradicted by Mein Kampf which I already quoted above. Richard Weikart comments:

Hitler’s anti-Christian sentiment shines through clearly here, as he called Christianity a “spiritual terror” that has “afflicted” the world. Earlier in the passage, he also argued Christian intolerance was a manifestation of a Jewish mentality, once again connecting Christianity with the people he most hated. Even more ominously, he called his fellow Nazis to embrace an intolerant worldview so they could throw off the shackles of Christianity. He literally promised to visit terror on Christianity. Even though several times later in life, especially before 1934, Hitler would try to portray himself as a pious Christian, he had already blown his cover.

The Ziegler quote from above was from sometime around 1930. Again Weikart:

Hans Ziegler, who edited a Nazi newspaper in Thuringia in the 1920s, had a private conversation with Hitler about religion sometime around 1930. Hitler confessed, “You must know, I am a heathen. I understand that to mean: a non-Christian. Of course I have an inward relationship to a cosmic Almighty, to a Godhead.”

January 1937, Goebbels diaries:

The Führer thinks Christianity is ripe for destruction. That may still take a long time, but it is coming.

This contradicts your position that he was a Christian during this period.

The Table Talks have numerous problems which are documented throughout the book cited. They are not only not stenographic notes; they simply cannot be taken as Hitler's exact words on any matter, period. At best, we might sometimes infer the "essence" of actual statements has been captured, but there is no guarantee.

Yeah, this is fine. Most history isn't about getting their "exact words". We can get the likely gist of what he said and that's fine. We can't be certain either, but history is not about certainties, but probabilities. I acknowledged that the Table Talks are not perfect sources because no source is. It's not a big deal.

[fireofice]

Some things I wanted to add on here.

I want to correct one mistake I made. The quote from Goebbels diaries in which I quoted:

The best way to finish off the churches is to pretend to be a more positive Christian.

I got this quotation from an English translation. However, I went back to the original German and found this is what it said:

Am besten erledigt man die Kirchen, wenn man selbst sich als positiver Christ ausgibt.

A better translation would be:

The best way to finish off the churches is to present oneself as a more positive Christian.

"Erledigt" translated as "finish off" seems reasonable to me, which you can check here:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... h/erledigt

However, I'm now convinced that the better translation is "presents oneself" instead of "pretend". Now I admit this new phrasing is a bit more ambiguous. For example, you can "present oneself" as something you are not or as something as you actually are. However, I still think it would be strange phrasing if they actually were positive Christians. It seems it would be more probable to say "we should be more positive Christians" or even "we should act more like Positive Christians". "Presents" makes it sound kind of insincere, although admittedly not as definitively as saying "pretend". Although I think the probability of this interpretation becomes even more likely when combined with the other evidence I presented from the table talks and Rosenberg's diary on how a synthesis between Christianity and National Socialism was not possible. And with that I would like to add another piece of evidence that also backs that interpretation up.

https://notourguy.substack.com/p/yet-an ... roboration

From the above article we have two corroborating pieces of evidence that back up the claim that Hitler did not think Christianity and National Socialism were compatible. From a document addressed to the Gauleiters from Martin Bormann titled "Subject: Relationship between National Socialism and Christianity" on June 13, 1941 we read:

National Socialist and Christian conceptions are incompatible.

It turns out, this is based on Hitler's own words. From Rosenberg's diary on September 7, 1941.

Under Bormann’s direction I am very often in meetings on monastery confiscations, and in the sub-department for church matters; about new regulations, etc. Recently he (Bormann) had a circular issued to the Gauleiters on Christianity and National Socialism, which completely compiles various statements of the Führer made during table talks.

So this corroborates the claim that they didn't see "positive Christianity" as a legitimate religion that they believed in. Another thing this shows is that Martin Bormann and Hitler pretty much had the same views on Christianity.

More information that has since come out is Keith Woods article on the table talks. It's a pretty good summary of the issue and shows how the table talks are about as reliable as any other source we use:

https://keithwoods.pub/p/table-talks

Finally some other small things I wanted to add is evidence of Hitler's appreciation and admiration of pagan myths.

Goebbels diary April 8, 1941:

The Führer forbids a bombardment of Athens. This is right and noble of him. Rome and Athens are Mecca for him. He very much regrets having to fight the Greeks. […] The Führer is a man completely oriented towards antiquity. He hates Christianity because it has crippled all noble humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made mankind unhappy and unfree. What a difference between a benevolent and wise smiling Zeus and a pain-distorted crucified Christ. Even the view of God itself is much more noble and human among the ancient peoples than in Christianity. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a bright, free ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, grandeur, monumentality. The greatest republic in history. We would probably not experience any disappointment, he thinks, if we were now suddenly transported to this ancient eternal city. The Führer has no relationship at all with the Gothic. He hates the gloom and the blurred mysticism. He wants clarity, brightness, beauty. This is also the life ideal of our time. There the leader is a completely modern man

Rosenberg's diary April 9 1941:

The Führer says he is sorry to have to fight against the Greeks, for there is still a memory of the old Hellenic civilization hovering in his mind. Never will a bomb be dropped on Athens! In the context of assessing the superb Augustan exhibition in Rome, the Führer spoke admiringly of this ancient Rome. Apart from a few things related to steel and iron, we have not progressed much further, he said. In terms of sanitation, Rome was far ahead of us. Even in decline it was still magnificent, and one can understand that the young Teutons were overwhelmed by the sight of it. And in the end, each era shapes its God in accordance with its nature. If one looks at the majestic head of Zeus-Jupiter and then at the agonized Christ, only then does one appreciate the complete difference. How free and lighthearted the ancient world seems in contrast to the Inquisition, the burnings of witches and heretics. Only since 200 years ago did people begin to breathe somewhat easily again. It is certainly (following Schopenhauer?) correct that the ancient world was unacquainted with two evils: Christianity and syphilis.

https://t.me/NSHeathenry/1117

These two corroborating quotes showed he admired Zeus more than Jesus. Now given what he said in the table talks about Wotan, I don't think he wanted to revive worship of Zeus, but it shows where his general sympathies lied.

Hitler at the funeral of Hindenburg said "Dead general, go now to Valhalla!" according to Rosenberg's diary and several other sources, once again showing his pagan sympathies. Nilsson in his book (which I presented earlier in this thread), however, bizarrely argues that this was sarcastic. He cites Julius Schwab's memoir for this. Here is what Schwab said:

Hitler spoke freely for the first time at a "state ceremony" because his adjutant had handed him the wrong speech. In fact, Hitler had not spoken freely at this funeral rally, with the exception of one sentence, the final sentence. He said: "Now, dead commander, enter Valhalla!" He used this phrase because, in his opinion, the speech by the clergyman had not paid sufficient tribute to Field Marshal Hindenburg. Days before the funeral rally, Hitler had already held a funeral speech for Hindenburg as Reich Chancellor in the Reichstag in what was then the Kroll Opera House.

I don't know where Nilsson got the idea that this was sarcastic from this. I don't see that anywhere.

Another thing that makes this interpretation unlikely is Hitler said in Mein Kampf:

While, for four-and-a-half years, our extreme best were being horrendously thinned on the battlefields, our extreme worst succeeded wonderfully in saving themselves. For each hero who made the supreme sacrifice and ascended the steps of Valhalla, there was a slacker who cunningly dodged death in order to engage in business that was more or less useful at home.

https://t.me/NSHeathenry/284

Was he being sarcastic here too Nilsson? I highly doubt it. Now I don't think this proves he had a literal belief in Valhalla. I think it's likely he was just being metaphorical here, but it does show his admiration for European pagan myths.