(Ed) Hitler's Atheism

[headscratcher4]

Those were impotent German slaves forced to interact with the German atheist state.

JK

I have, for the most part, stopped responding to this thread because JK never answers any objection, citation, fact, or argument with anything but his mysticism. As I have stated before, because he asserts something and throws in the words "Hegel" and "Nietzsche" as back-ups, doesn't make it "fact".

However, I thought I would respond to above bit of nonsense.

The underlying assertion here is that Christian churches essentially became "slaves" of the Nazi state and ceased to function as religious/spiritual institutions. While, on one level, there is a certain appeal to that "logic" -- for how could churches -- especially "Christian" churches -- countenance, support, suborn Nazism? And, not simply because the Nazi's were "atheists" (no proof of that assertion has ever been offered in this thread), but because in action their evil was so obvious.

However, with respect to JK's assertion of the submission of the Church to slavery and Hitler (and thus ceasing to be either moral or Christian), JK provides no proof of this enslavement other than citing the Concordance between the Vatican and the German State. Further, JK seems to believe (on what basis one wonders?) that this Concordance was a one-way street...i.e. Hitler and the Nazi's won every point and enslaved the church. Bull.

The future Pius XII negotiated that Concordance specifically to ensure and enshrine the role of the Catholic Church in Germany. He negotiated a deal to carve out specific prerogatives from the Nazi state, and he did so willingly because he believed (foolishly) that the Nazis were a bettor bet in the church's battle against atheistic communism/Marxism. Why? Because the Nazis espoused values, commitments and imagery that the Vatican understood to be not only Western, but explicitly Christian in orientation and presentation. In short, the future Pius saw a "state" he could work with, that preserved "Catholic" values as he understood them, was fighting against Marxist/Jewish Bolshevism, etc.

In the end, Hitler may have indeed, enslaved the church in his evil, but not because he was an atheist or headed an atheistic state, but because there were shared cultural values that allowed Nazism to integrate Catholicism into the state machinery.

Importantly, while there were notable and outstanding Catholic martyrs, there are not many, and, indeed, most were at odds with their church leadership by protesting against the State, its brutality, its anti-Semitism, its corruption. Yes, they were murdered, but unquestionably, most Catholic functionaries found little conflict between their adherence to the Church and their allegiance to the State. I note for the record that at no time, even when he obliquely condemned Nazi atrocities, did Pius ever excommunicate or threaten to excommunicate Hitler or any follower of Nazism. Indeed, he continually worried more about the Soviet army advancing into Europe than he ever did about the Nazis or their atrocities.

I also note that the Catholic Church has had little trouble standing up to Communists in China, Russia, Vietnam, Poland, etc. Church leaders were imprisoned, murdered, tortured etc. Yet, the Vatican made every effort to retain spiritual and temporal moral authority by condemning and fighting the state at every turn. Interesting that they could be "slaves" of the German Nazis but in active rebellion and sometimes vigorous defiance against Communist, avowed atheistic states. Hmmm...makes you wonder what magic Hitler had to make the church so blind to his deception?

 

[headscratcher4]

Hitler was as much a Christian as Stalin was a Capitalist.

JK

Once again, that Hitler wasn't a "christian" either by your definition or most definition of the term is irrelevent. THe assertion is that Hitler was an atheists. If Hitler beleived in any way that he operated under the auspicies or was responsible to any sort of higher, Supernatural authority, he wasn't an atheist.

I have long argued here that he wasn't a christian either, merely that his world view was culturally and systematically influenced by European Christian experience and culture.

To make an analogy that would make sense, given JK's position, he would have to write that: Hitler was as much a Christian as Stalin was a Christian. Stalin, being a self-proclaimed, rabid atheist. Hitler never proclaimed that about himself. Indeed, while raised a Catholic (and never formally disavowing Catholicism), Hitler by his own admissions held much of Christianity in low esteem. However, he in every instance seems to believe that he operates under, and was intended by a higher authority to rule Germany and save the Aryans. I.E. that he was doing God's work...now it might not be the Christian god, as you understand it, but it certainly doesn't follow that because he may not have been a christian, he didn't believe in a God. You have done absolutely nothing to counter that observation.

 

[headscratcher4]

I know I should let this die, but I am too stupid to leave it alone

Anyway, a couple of posts up, I mentioned the Loyalty Oath that Hitler forced the Army to sware to Hitler.

Here is the oath...or at least the critical part of it for our purposes here:

I swear by God this holy oath, that I will render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of the German Reich and People, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, and will be ready as a brave soldier to risk my life at any time for this oath.

http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca/curr_content/history20/unit2/sec2_08.html

I want to point out the words: "by God" and "holy oath..."

Not "I swear by my god, Adolph Hitler...."
NOt "I swear by the Nazi State...."
Not " I sware by Adolf Hitler..."
Not "I swear that I will....
Not "I affirm..." (as in American courts when you don't want to sware an oath on the Bible or Koran),

But by "God".

It leaves me wondering what the state/Hitler (who surely approved the oath) as "atheists" could have intended by the oath. Certainly, the state and Hitler could have been duping people who believed in God into swaring to God to by loyal to Hitler -- but than we know, according to JK, that Germans -- the populace, their ministers and chaplains, their spirtual advisors and priests, their culture and society were "atheists."

In addition, to the point that people were duped to "swear" "by God" they would likely not feel obligated -- morally or ethically -- once they determined that they had been duped...indeed, upon determining that they had been duped they would, likely, have felt great outrage and anger at the regime for so doing.

Also, a state laying the groundwork for "atheism" would have eliminated all ceremony, mention, reference, etc. to god -- note that the Soviet Union "secularized" the state almost immediately upon being established.

Now, while this proves nothing about Hitler individually -- though he has been show repeatedly above to have factually and philosophically some sort of diest -- it does suggest to me that the Nazi state, its leaders, the creators of it ceremony and rites, believed in a "God" and believed that God would bind people to their righteous cause. It also shows that Hitler specifically required that people pledge loyalty to him based upon the strongest oath he could concieve of -- an oath that not only binds the taker to a "god" but also, by necessity, calls upon "god" as the righteous authority for any punishment required for violation of the oath...i.e. to a deserter, the state would say "you violated your sacred oath before God to be loyal to Hitler, you are a traitor to both God and the State. We are endowed as God's agents on earth to punish you accordingly..." Or something along those lines.

Oh well, can't let sleeping Nazis lie....

 

[CWL]

This weekend a very interesting documentary was aired on Swedish national television, which featured lenghty interviews with Ms. Traudl Junge who was Hitler's secretary from 1943 to 1945 and took down his last will and testament.

I thought it would be interesting to introduce this testament in the debate according to this thread. Hitler dictated the following to Ms. Junge before shooting himself:

My Political Testament

More than thirty years have passed since I contributed my modest strength in 1914 as a volunteer in the First World War, which was forced upon the Reich.

In these three decades only love and loyalty to my people have guided me in my thinking, my actions and my life. They gave me the strength to make the difficult decisions, such as have never before confronted mortal man. I have used up my time, my working strength and my health in these three decades.

It is untrue that I or anybody else in Germany wanted war in 1939....

But nor have I left any doubt that if the nations of Europe are once more to be treated only as collections of stocks and shares of these international conspirators in money and finance, then those who carry the real guilt for the murderous struggle, this people will also be held responsible: the Jews! I have further left no one in doubt that this time it will not be only millions of children of Europeans of the Aryan peoples who will starve to death, not only millions of grown men who will suffer death, and not only hundreds of thousands of women and children who will be burned and bombed to death in the cities, without those who are really responsible also having to atone for their crime, even if by more humane means....

But before everything else I call upon the leadership of the nation and those who follow it to observe the racial laws most carefully, to fight mercilessly against the poisoners of all the peoples of the world, international Jewry.

Set down in Berlin, April 29, 1945, 4.00 oclock.

Adolf Hitler

Witnesses:

Dr. Joseph Goebbels_______Wilhelm Burgdorf

Martin Bormann___________Hans Krebs

Bear in mind that the above was written by Hitler, knowing full well that he was about to die. He had no reason to lie, to obfuscate or to pay lip service to anything. In his testament, Hitler confesses the core of his mission and I ask you all to observe that there is nothing - nothing about quenching religion in general or Christianity in particular. If that was indeed Hitler's agenda, as JK would have us believe, that would have been the grand opportunity for Hitler to express it. But no. Instead, we get the same old rethoric regarding "racial laws" and "international Jewry" - nothing about the Jews being the enemy because of their belief in God.

As is shown by the various evidence submitted in this thread, it is not only possible to combine a racial hatred towards the Jews with the belief in a supreme being, but it is also possible to combine with a profession in Christianity.

In the light of this, it can be safely concluded that Hitler's racial (not "religious") hatred towards the Jews does not constitute any evidence of his alleged atheism.

In this thread ample evidence in the form of quotes and other material has been put forward to suggest that Hitler believed in a supreme being. I think this is the time to ask: Is there in fact any evidence whatsoever to support the contention that Hitler was an atheist?

 

[Nova Land]

This weekend a very interesting documentary was aired on Swedish national television, which featured lenghty interviews with Ms. Traudl Junge who was Hitler's secretary from 1943 to 1945 and took down his last will and testament.

I thought it would be interesting to introduce this testament in the debate according to this thread. Hitler dictated the following to Ms. Junge before shooting himself:

Thank you! You have brought a lot of good resources into this discussion, and this looks like another one. (Girl6 also recommended this film, or one that sounds like it, in a thread in Banter.)

Hitler's last testament, which he dictated before committing suicide, is indeed an good piece of evidence, well worth examining. Besides being available at the web site you link to, it's also covered in a good book you listed here back in January, The Death of Hitler by Ada Petrova.

I skim-read the Petrova book during my visit to UTK in January and have been wanting to return to it (both at the library and in this thread) for some time. The description of what Hitler said and did during his last months, including writing this testament, seems well worth considering in our quest for evidence.

As is shown by the various evidence submitted in this thread, it is not only possible to combine a racial hatred towards the Jews with the belief in a supreme being, but it is also possible to combine with a profession in Christianity.

Yes, that seems well-supported by the evidence, and I am still not clear why Jedi (and others in the world outside this forum) seem to disagree with that.

Is it disagreement over what it means to be believe in god, disagreement over the evidence of christians having held such beliefs, or disagreement over something else entirely? I wish I understood that better.

In the light of this, it can be safely concluded that Hitler's racial (not "religious") hatred towards the Jews does not constitute any evidence of his alleged atheism.

I agree that his hatred of Jews seems primarily rooted in his hatred of Jews as a "race." But that doesn't exclude him from hating them as a religion too. People often find many reasons to justify their hatreds. Figuring out which they really believe, and which they're just saying because they like to say as many bad things as possible about their enemies, can be difficult.

(How much of the anti-Clinton rhetoric that Limbaugh spouted was sincerely felt and how much was opportunistic? Ditto, how much of the anti-Bush rhetoric that some Democrats spout is sincerely felt and how much of that is opportunistic? Often politicians -- of which Hitler was one -- will put forward a public criticism of their enemies that they don't feel that strongly about, because they know it will go down well with the public, while keeping quiet about their real reasons for disliking their opponents, because they know those will not play as well.)

If Hitler hated the Jews because of their religion, that would lend support for the idea that Hitler was himself religious. I think HS4 has made that case well. However, if he hated them primarily out of misguided racial theories, that weakens one of the reasons for thinking of Hitler as a theist.

In his public pronouncements, Hitler had claimed his actions against the Jews were religious -- carrying out god's orders. If that was mainly propaganda, rather than his real reason, it supports the idea this was cynical manipulation rather than indicative of true belief.

Hitler would have much less reason to lie or to conceal his true feelings in what his suicide notes, so the reasons he gives there for hating the Jews might be seen as more reliable than those in political speeches and writings.

(On the other hand, committing suicide is a rather extreme act that indicates an abnormal state of mind, so what a person thinks right before committing suicide may differ from their thoughts prior to getting themself into a suicidal state.)

In this thread ample evidence in the form of quotes and other material has been put forward to suggest that Hitler believed in a supreme being. I think this is the time to ask: Is there in fact any evidence whatsoever to support the contention that Hitler was an atheist?

While evidence has been put forward to show that at some points in his life Hitler publicly professed belief in a god, I'm not sure it has been adequately shown either (a) that this was what he actually believed, or (b) that this was a lifelong belief. It is quite possible for a person to be a theist at one time in their life and an atheist at another.

Jedi has asserted Hitler was an atheist, but that's different from asserting HItler was a lifelong atheist. (He may well believe Hitler was; I don't know. I'm still largely in the dark as to what Jedi believes about Hitler and atheism.)

Yes, there is some evidence to support the idea that Hitler may have been atheist (by some definition of the term) at some point in his life. Bullock is one example of someone who has read the evidence carefully and concluded Hitler did not believe in any gods. Whether Bullock is correct or not in his reading of the evidence is open to argument -- which is why I'm interested in this discussion.

The testament Hitler wrote before committing suicide is itself mild evidence in support of the idea that Hitler was an atheist, (although this is mainly evidence by omission). Hitler was raised a Catholic, and suicide is something Catholics have some strong teachings on. Many Catholics do commit suicide, so there is no problem there, but it seems likely that a person with Catholic or Catholic-derived religious beliefs would be thinking rather heavily about religion (and what god is going to think about this) immediately prior to the act. If belief in god was important to Hitler, one might expect to see this covered in his last notes -- some explanation justifying his suicide and explaining why this is really part of god's plan for him, perhaps. But it isn't.

Hitler certainly rambled on about enough other stuff before making his exit, so lack of time or energy does not seem to be an adequate excuse for not mentioning his religious beliefs. The fact he didnot express faith in god before pulling the trigger does not prove he didn't believe in one, but it is a mild indication in support of such a theory.

 

[CWL]

Nova Land,

As always, excellent points. You are right, the fact that there is no mention of God in Hitler's testaments can be interpreted as an indication that he did not believe (although it is certainly not, as you underline yourself, sufficient evidence that that was the case).

I am a bit short on time so for now I will just submit better (more complete) links to:

Hitler's Political Testament; and

Hitler's Personal Testament

 

[Nova Land]

Apologies for bumping this thread before I'm ready to come back to it, but I want to save it from pruning.

I've been meaning to return to this for some months now, but keep on not finding time (or misplacing my notes). I do have something new to add which bears on the credibility of a key source, and will try to post it within a week.

[color=f7f7f7]Those of you who are tired of this topic (or weren't interested to begin with), my apologies for putting it back on the front page. Just ignore it and it will sink from view soon.[/color]

 

[CWL]

Nova Land!

Great to see you - and in this thread. What a blast from the past!

I shall definately be checking in.

 

[headscratcher4]

I fear that the thread will not be as interesting without the stubborness of the late, lamented (lamentable) JK, but always enjoyed this discussion. Great to hear from you Nova.

 

[CWL]

*Bump*

So sue me. This is a good thread.

 

[Upchurch]

So sue me. This is a good thread.

Could not agree more. G6 did an excellent job on this one. It is a very good read.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Whether Hitler believed in a god or not isn't a real important question to me. The question, I think, that is most important is this:

Did Hitler motivate the majority of christians in his nation to think that he and they were working for jesus and god?

 

[Nova Land]

originally posted by me, back on 02-10-2004:

I've been meaning to return to this for some months now, but keep on not finding time (or misplacing my notes). I do have something new to add which bears on the credibility of a key source, and will try to post it within a week.

I trust people understand that when I use terms such as "a day" or "a week" to describe when I will post something I am using the terms in a biblical sense [color=e3e3e3](i.e. as indefinite periods of time that could be anywhere from a couple dozen hours to a couple billion years)[/color].

I'll be taking off for blueberry and apple season soon, which will mean an extended absence from the forum, but before doing so I wanted to finally get around to explaining what I was referring to last year. Explanation follows in a moment, after I make a couple of other comments.

I still want to return to this thread at some point, even though Jedi's presence will be missed. (Perhaps other people who believe Hitler was an atheist can be found who would be interested in joining in the discussion, and explaining what it is they believe and why they believe it.) Since it has been such a long time since this thread was active, I am hoping when I do return to this thread (probably January 2006 at the earliest) to first go back through the thread and do a summary of the thread so far (with brief excerpts from past pages and links back to those spots) so that people can join the thread more easily on its current page rather than needing to read through the 11 preceding pages first.

What I am interested in doing in this thread is going through sources such as Hitler's Table Talk in order to examine and analyze these for ourselves rather than simply referring to and relying on web sites which have compiled a selection of the most commonly used passages.

Several people in this thread have referred to Mein Kampf, and when we are done with the Table Talk I would enjoy seeing that given a similar going-over (since I have never managed to wade through it on my own). Again, my interest is in our locating, examining, and analyzing the key passages in the book for ourselves rather than simply relying on what someone else has compiled and posted. This is especially true because, from glancing at some sites, I see no way of knowing that the person compiling the selections had actually read Mein Kampf; some of the sites looked like they might be compilations gleaned from other people's compilations gleaned from other people's compilations gleaned from... In order for a quoted passage to carry weight, I need to know that the person quoting it has actually read the passage in its original context and can vouch for it being fairly excerpted.

It is unfortunately common -- both in discussions of the paranormal and discussions of more mundane matters -- for incorrect beliefs to flourish and spread because people are willing to "quote" things they have not actually read. Many people who believe in the paranormal, or in alternative medicine, or various new agey things such as the 100th monkey, base their belief in large part on things they have read which sound authoritative -- references to scholarly material which supposedly supports their belief but which if read in context may say something quite different from what they have been told it says. Sometimes a very small change in wording, or a very small change in emphasis, can make a big difference in meaning.

I think as skeptics we need to maintain a high standard of honesty in regards to quoting. If one hasn't actually read material one is passing along, then one is not quoting that material. One is quoting someone else who passed along that material, and who in turn may have been passing along rather than quoting.

Oops. Didn't mean to ramble quite so long on that in this thread. This is an example of a topic I intend to bring up for discussion at some point this fall in an omphaloskepticism thread.

Since this post is already long enough, I'll end it here. Immediately following is a post explaining why my remark about "something new to add which bears on the credibility of a key source".



edited to add in the link explaining what omphaloskepticism refers to

 

[Nova Land]

In this thread I had been going through Hitler's Table Talk and selecting out the passages that relate to religion for discussion and analysis.

Some people have questioned whether the Table Talks can be relied on as a source. There are several posts relating to this question back on page 7 of this thread, such as one by me, one by c4ts, and another by me. The strongest challenge to the Table Talks can be found in a post on page 11, , in which the_ignored quotes some passages from the No Beliefs web site. For example:

... How can any honest seeker of truth rely on Hitler's table talk when the entire transcript was edited and kept by the anti-Catholic Bormann?

and:

... Moreover, Dr. Picker regarded his own recording as authentic and insisted that "no confidence can be placed in Bormann's editing of it." Indeed, he writes, rather testily, of "Bormann's alterations, not authorised by me." [Trevor-Roper, p.viii]. Unfortunately, we do not have the unaltered version of Dr. Picker's or Heim's recordings.

In other words, there are no originals and the copies were filtered and edited by Bormann. The table talk cannot be considered a first-hand recording of Hitler's words. On this fact alone, I cannot with integrity or certainty use them as a source for Hitler's voice, especially in regards to religion which could very well reflect the anti-Catholic biased Bormann.

The fact that Bormann was involved in the project, and had access to the transcriptions, does seem to make tampering a possibility. No evidence has been presented that Bormann did tamper with the text in this way, but that doesn't mean he didn't.

However, two years ago I learned new details about the publishing history of the Table Talks which lead me to believe that such tampering is extremely unlikely to have happened. That is what I was referring to in my February 2004 post.

What happened is that I had been at the UTK library and went to the shelves to check some point in the table talks for which I did not have notes or a photocopy. Previously I had been using an old edition of the book, but this time there was a newer edition available which had come out in 2000. It mentioned being updated, so I checked to see what had been changed and discovered a new preface which recounts "the curious history of [the Table Talks'] publication (or non-publication) in the last half-century").

The book "was compiled on the initiative, and by the orders, of Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery, who in May 1941 had succeeded Rudolf Hess ... as Secretary to the Fuhrer." Just as Hess had transcribed Mein Kampf (describing Hitler's philosophy and plans) for Hitler while they were imprisoned together in the early 1920, so his successor Bormann was to transcribe the table talks (giving Hitler's thoughts now that he was in power and had put those plans into action. "The record was to be made as exactly as possible, by an experienced Party official on Bormann's personal staff, a lawyer with the rank of Ministerialrat Heinrich Heim.

"Heim began his record on 5 July 1941 and kept it regularly for over eight months; but in mid-March 1942 he was seconded for other duties, and for the next four months his duties as recorder of the Table Talk were assigned to a deputy, Dr Henry Picker. Hein returned to his duties as recorder on 1 August 1942. However, he did not continue them for long, for in September... the record itself was discontinued.

"Both Heim and Picker were sound Party members, personally known to Hitler and trusted by him, and there can be no doubt that the record was conscientiously made. The final texts, as approved by Bormann, were sent consecutively to Frau Bormann in Obersalzberg, where Bormann had an official residence... There were two copies of them: one was passed to the Party archives in Munich; the other was to be kept by her as Bormann's personal copy."

All this was known before, and allows for the possibility of Bormann's tampering. Here is what I didn't know before:

"Of these two copies the former perished when the Fuhrerbau in Munich was destroyed by fire towards the end of the war. Later, on 25 April 1945, the remaining copy narrowly escaped the same fate when much of the OBersalzberg complex was destroyed in an Allied air-attack. Frau Bauman thereupon moved, and took it with her, to a safe house...; but becoming terminally ill with cancer of the bowels, she passed it to the former Gauleiter of Tyrol, from whom it came ultimately, by purchase, into the hands of an enterprising Swiss citizen, Francois Genoud.

"Francis Genoud... had once, at the age of 16, heard Hitler speak... and from that moment till his death by suicide in 1998 he remained an unwavering devotee. After the fall of the Third Reich he made it his business... to salvage the texts and buy up the presumed copyrights of important personal documents of the Nazi elite...The unique official record of the Bormann-Vermerke [i.e. the Table Talks] was such an asset, the prize of his collection, and having bought up the presumed copyrights of Hitler and lBormann he waited for the opportunity to realize it.

"Unfortunately for him, and for the convenience of historians, he had reckoned without Dr Picker. For Dr Picker, during the four months when he had deptuized for Heim as recorder of the Fuhrer's table talk, had made a surreptitious private copy of his record: he had also copied several of Heim's records to which he had had access; and in 1951 he forestalled Genoud by publishing, in Germany, a volume entitled Hitlers Tischgesprache."

Genoud sued Picker for copyright infringement in Germany, but lost. That led Genoud to rush out a French translation, Adolf Hitler: Libres Propos sur la Guerre et la Paix, published in 1952 in order to establish foreign copyrights. Picker went to court to block this, but likewise lost. While this legal wrangling was going on, Trevor-Roper approached Genoud "and suggested that he allow publication of an English version, and thus secure the English copyright. He readily agreed... This was the origin of the first edition of the book.

"... In 1964 two distinguished German historians, Percy Schramm and Andreas Hillgr;uber... produced a scholarly edition of [Picker's] material, swollen with 36 entries quietly appropriated from Ministerialrat Heim's record... Meanwhile, other scholars kept up the pressure on Genoud. Finally Genoud surrendered, rather cautiously, to the Hamburg publisher Albrecht Knaus and in 1980 there appeared at last the German text of the Bormann-Vermerke under the title Adolf Hitler: Monologe im Fuhrerhauptquartier..."

The 1980 German edition was a complete record of all the Table Talks that Heim had transcribed, but (due to the legal dispute) had to omit a hundred entries between March 12. 1942, and September 1, 1942, when Picker had done the transcribing. However, the English-language edition (the one I had been quoting passages from in this thread) is a complete collection of all the transcribed Table Talks.

If there were only one copy of the transcripts to go on, then it would have been possible for Bormann to have altered, deleted, or inserted material without leaving a clear trail. No evidence has been presented that Bormann did any such tampering, but that alone is not sufficient to my mind to dismiss the possibility that he could have done so.

As a skeptic, I would not be willing to conclude that such tampering had taken place based solely on that, but I also would not be willing to conclude it had not occurred. This is roughly analogous to the situation with the vote count in the last US presidential election. There is no clear evidence that the vote was fraudulently manipulated, but because of the machinery used to record and tabulate the vote there is no way of knowing with any reasonable certainty that it wasn't. In both cases, my feeling is that the matter should be left as an open question until sufficient evidence comes out to tip the scales one way or the other. For me, that tipping point is close to being reached as far as the Table Talk transcripts go..

From this new preface it turns out there were two independent copies for a large number of the transcripts. Not only that, but the possessors of the different copies were engaged in a bitter struggle, and would gladly have seized upon any discrepancies between their transcripts to discredit the other's version.

While I have not read any version other than the English language translation, I think it is reasonable to assume there is no significant discrepancy between the transcripts Genoud possessed (which had been in Bormann's possession) and the ones Picker possessed (which had not been in Bormann's possession). If there were such discrepancies, surely someone would have pointed them out by now. So unless someone can point out significant discrepancies between Genoud's and Picker's transcripts, or comes up with other actual evidence of tampering, I am inclined to accept the published transcripts as being reasonably faithful representations of the rambling monologues that Hitler delivered (repeatedly) to his close associates. As such, the transcripts are evidence worth considering and weighing in attempting to determine Hitler's actual beliefs regarding religion.

 

[Aardvark_DK]

I still want to return to this thread at some point, even though Jedi's presence will be missed.

How so? I've never seen him make any attempt at refuting any of your points. Or anyone else's for that matter.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Im not about to shift through 12 pages of this argument because it's put together in such a way it's impossible for me to read who said what when one persons posts everything.

But I wanted to say that so far i've not see anything that refuted any of the assertions on nobeliefs.com's article.

1.The only place Hitler ever condems religion is this "table talk" that was of course probably edited later on by someone else.

2.Even in the table talks Hitler condems atheism out right.


So I don't think any argument can be made for his atheism from that.

 

[Euromutt]

I'm a bit late to this party, but nevertheless...

There's no question the Nazis, from Hitler on down, tried to sideline mainstream religion. As I recently argued in another thread, ideologies do not tolerate rival ideologies, and totalitarian ideologies even more so. Loyalty to the Church (in the widest sense) precludes loyalty to the Party (any party), and worship of Jesus, ancestors, etc. gets in the way of worship of the Führer, Duce, Great Helmsman, Beloved Leader, or whatever. But that does not demonstrate in any way that atheism was formed part of Nazi ideology. Au contraire.

The Nazi expedient was to cook up their own religion, which was essentially monotheistic, loosely based on Christianity with the Jewish bits removed and with a dollop of Blut und Boden neo-paganism mixed in. The mythos was never very well developed, but loyal Nazis were encouraged to renounce whatever church they were born into and adopt this vague proto-religion. Quite a few of them (though by no means all) did, and you'll find the proof in armed forces paybooks. Adherents of this religion were more strongly represented in the Waffen-SS and the Luftwaffe, less so in the Heer and Kriegsmarine, and they list their religion not as "Catholic," "Lutheran," "Evangelical," "Agnostic" or "Atheist," but as "Gottglaubichkeit"; literally, "the condition of believing in God." Which is, by definition, not atheism.

 

[c4ts]

Jedi Knight is long gone, and his thread rots like a corpse in the windowsill.

 

[Nova Land]

I'm not about to shift through 12 pages of this argument because it's put together in such a way it's impossible for me to read who said what when one person posts everything.

I don't know if this makes much difference to you, but it is only the first page-and-a-half in which this occurs.

The reason why the posts in the first page-and-a-half are Girl 6 quoting other people's posts is that this was the first moderated thread and those posts were culled out of a previous unmoderated version. Today thread-splitting can be done more easily, but back then Upchurch had not been fully assembled and programmed so Girl 6 had to do the entire thing by hand -- a massive amount of work, for which Girl 6 deserves many years of thanks.

But I wanted to say that so far i've not seen anything that refuted any of the assertions on nobeliefs.com's article.

Which assertions in particular, and what evidence does nobeliefs.com present for these assertions? You offer 2 statements, without evidence for either.

If the arguments presented at nobeliefs.com are correct, then it should be possible for those impressed by the arguments to paraphrase the key points and present the evidence supporting those points. No matter how well-written and convincing-sounding an article is, it is good if people check the key facts out for themselves before trying to convince others of their validity.

1. The only place Hitler ever condemns religion is this "table talk that was of course probably edited later on by someone else.

There are those who have argued the table talks can't be relied on as evidence because the strongly anti-Catholic Martin Bormann was in charge of the project, had custody of the transcripts, and might have tampered with the text. Is this what you are referring to with your comment about editing?

If there were only one set of transcripts, then it might be possible for Bormann to have altered Hitler's words and we would have no way of knowing. But, as I posted earlier, there were two sets of transcripts, only one of which was in Bormann's custody. Both sets have been used, independently, for publication of competing editions of the table talks.

If Bormann or anyone else made significant alterations to Hitler's words, it should be possible to demonstrate this by showing places where one of these published versions is significantly different than the other. I am therefore no longer willing to give much weight to mere speculation that such altering could have occurred.

Does nobeliefs.com offer specific examples of such alterations? If so, I would be interested in seeing them. But until I see evidence of these alterations, I think it is worth examining and giving consideration to the material in the table talks.

2. Even in the table talks Hitler condemns atheism out right.

Which passages do you feel do that?

One reason I think it is worth going through the table talks for ourselves, rather than relying on hand-me-down analyses, is that I have seen a number of articles all using the same familiar passages to argue their points. This suggests to me they are copying these passages rather than having looked them up and read them. This would mean they have not actually read the table talks, simply someone else's chosen excerpts from it. That is a way in which errors and misinterpretations can occur much too easily, so I think it is wise as a general practice not to give too much weight to sources which do this.

In several cases I have seen passages cited which seem to me to take on a different meaning when read in context rather than as snippets. For example, there is a passage (which I cited earlier in this thread) in which Hitler says "We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.". This is sometimes offered as an example of Hitler condemning atheism; but read in context, it actually seems more to be expressing admiration for atheism.

That's why I prefer either to read a thing for myself, or to rely on a source which (a) has actually read the thing it purports to be quoting, (b) is willing to give a fair presentation of the material, not a presentation designed to persuade the reader of one view, and (c) is capable of giving such a fair presentation. It is possible that nobeliefs.com meets that standard. I am not familiar enough with that site (or the person who writes for it) to know that. But lacking that assurance, I prefer to read the material for myself.

What I'm interested in doing is going through the transcripts of the table talks and examining all the passages relevant to the question of Hitler's religious beliefs. Several years ago, when this thread began, I went through a copy of the book, noted all the pages which had relevant material, and photocopied them. My intention was to go through, reading those passages carefully for myself, and to share those passages here (or reasonable excerpts from them) so that others could also have the opportunity to read and analyse these for themselves (or look up the passages more easily for themselves, in the cases where my excerpting seemed inadequate or questionable). I have fallen far behind (in this thread, as in many things) but this is still something I am interested in doing and think is worth doing.

 

[Nova Land]

In response to my comment that "Jedi's presence will be missed", Aardvark_DK asked:

How so? I've never seen him make any attempt at refuting any of your points. Or anyone else's for that matter.

I generally enjoyed discussing things with Jedi. We disagreed on most topics that were posted here, and that made him an interesting person to talk to since he was able to provide me a perspective so different from my own.

Jedi was not very helpful in this thread as far as providing evidence for his claim that Hitler was an atheist. To the extent that I am interested in the question, What were Hitler's religious beliefs?, I was disappointed by the non-responsiveness of some of Jedi's posts.

However, that is just one of the two questions that I was hoping Jedi could give me insight into. While I was (and am) curious about what Hitler actually believed, I was also interested in the question, Why do some people believe that Hitler was an atheist?. It's a belief I had heard expressed in passing by conservative religious folks, often not in a context in which I could engage them in conversation to understand why they believed that.

I did not find Jedi's posts persuasive in making the case that Hitler was an atheist, but I did find them helpful in understanding a little better what (some) people who make that claim are talking about.

I miss Jedi's presence here! One of my regrets is that I was away from the forum at the time when he left, and so never got a chance to say goodbye to him. I hope he is doing well, wherever he is and whatever turns his life has taken.