Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Was Hitler a Christian?
FineYoungSinger - I do have a good idea of pre-war attitudes in Europe
I worked for an Auchwitz survivor in my teens.
Where none of us of the post war generation are likely to fully comprehend all of the prevailing dynamics. Or fully understand how otherwise decent people could find themselves being led to institutionalized hatred in the manner that the Nazis manipulated public sentiment. We can however understand the dynamics of fear and survival.
posted by
gomedome
on February 12, 2008 at 1:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - your comment makes little sense
The link you've provided left a few things out: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/history.html
...and do me a favor, knock off the backhanded insults.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 12, 2008 at 1:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Prewar attitudes of hatred
If you want to get an idea of Prewar Europe, the hatred that prevailed, the attitudes of the day, etc., pick up a novel called
The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosinski. As you'll see in the pages of this book, hatred and indifference are equal opportunity attitudes--they don't begin, end or belong to any one group.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - your comment makes little sense
All you have accomplished is to show me that you have an emotional affinity for the propaganda you have heard all of your life. I'm not going to discuss this further until you come up to speed. Start with the timeline of Nazi attrocities: HERE . . . then the question remains: how could anyone know the full extent of Nazi attrocities in 1940 (or even more ludicrous, prior to 1940) when a great deal of what they did had not taken place yet?
For the record, this post was about whether or not Hitler and other infamous leaders could be considered as the atheists they were presented to us as.
posted by
gomedome
on February 12, 2008 at 1:03 PM
| link to this | reply
If this one statement you make as a matter of fact is incorrect (in clear
response to the question you pose in the title of your article) what do you think it does to the rest of the article you present here?
Within the online library containing volumes of information I've linked in your comments section here, you'll find more than enough evidence supporting both my claims and the claims made by Time magazine in 1940. Consider that information the light shed upon the subject.
As I said, not knowing and refusing to see are two very different things.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 12, 2008 at 12:36 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - I gave this a rest yesterday because it was getting
tiresome.
For the record; this post had very little to do with Christian collaboration with the Nazis. You have made it about that by focusing in on one line, which I have since qualified. It seems you have an overview of this period in history tainted by some propaganda. The West having knowledge of the full extent of the atrocities being one such tainted perspective.
Maybe you can shed some light on how the Western world could have possibly known the full extent of what was happening inside a tightly controlled military state and in some instances; known about things that had yet to happen? For example; the 5 well known death camps began their construction in the Spring of 1940 and primarily came into use at the beginning of 1941. They were expanded in both capacity and in usage over the next 4 years until abandoned by the Nazis in the wake of the Allied advance.
The reality is that the holocaust was not limited to Jews. Though they were the prime target of the final solution, any group of people deemed as an enemy of the state, or deemed detrimental to Nazi ambitions, were treated the same. Jews were however the one major group declared as a target by virtue of their religion. No other group persecuted by the Nazis comes close in numbers to the Jews. There were very few instances of religion itself being the determinant as to why a group was persecuted by the Nazis aside from the Jews. In the Time article you link to, don't you see where something is amiss?
I don't doubt that a group of 200,000 Christians or more were sent to concentration camps to die. I actually think the number is in error on the conservative side but what is missing in the article is the denomination of these Christians. Probably more important than that, what was their race? Or, just as likely, what type of perceived threat did this particular group pose to the Nazis? The claim that they were treated this way simply because they were Christians is bogus.
posted by
gomedome
on February 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM
| link to this | reply
The atrocities were known. They were WELL known.
The west turned a blind eye to it and feigned ignorance. This is not the same thing as not knowing.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 9, 2008 at 4:13 PM
| link to this | reply
DIAL UP SUCKS!!!!
If it was a quest for the truth, you missed it on this one. If it was to get clicks ... well... there are better ways to do that.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 9, 2008 at 4:11 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - no actually I am not saying that no one knew of the
what had occured up to that point.
I am saying that a quote from 1940 could not possibly be made by anyone from a perspective of knowing the full extent of their attrocities. Subsequently, the full extent of complicity by institutions, religious or otherwise, could not possibly be known at that time. For brevity, I have only left links to a fraction of the sites I have utilized for research.
posted by
gomedome
on February 9, 2008 at 4:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Regarding the Einstein Quote I left earlier:
If you want to read the Time article for yourself, here's the link:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765103,00.html
Articles such as these were written because it WAS known what the Nazi's were doing in Europe, and the U.S. was hesitating to get involved. The point was to put pressure on the government to do something.
Hundreds of thousands of people were dying.
The Nazi's didn't support Christianity; they merely allowed their activity so long as churches supported Nazi activity. As we all know, Christianity across the board refused to support the Nazi regime, and as a result, Christians were therefore arrested right along with the Jews. A low estimate of 200,000 Christians were murdered by Nazis. Some reports claim 800,000.
I'm not sure what you were going for when you wrote this post. If it was a
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 9, 2008 at 4:09 PM
| link to this | reply
I recommend you see the movie "Amen" directed by Kosta Gavras. You have to see it
posted by
AlienFemale
on February 9, 2008 at 3:44 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - you are viewing what the signing of the Concordat
You are correct: The article you site merely touches on the subject.
Hitler took power in 1933. By 1938 Jews were being sent to concentration camps by the thousands. Poland was invaded in 1939. Are you telling me that no one knew this until long after 1940? NOT.
Your use of random articles do not constitute good research.
If you want to research the Holocost, go here: The Jewish Virtual Library: The Holocost. You are better off researching on sites that are dedicated to preserving history rather than random articles that are designed to log hits.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - we can easily get into our own conjectures based on accusations
that have never been substantiated but there is some irrefutable proof.
There is also what deduction tells us. The one institution with the infrastructure, means and opportunity to save some of the Jews during the Holocaust has no such efforts on record. Considering their penchant to craft their own propaganda from these things, it is highly unlikely that any efforts took place if we have never heard of them. We have however heard persistent rumors, accusations and have a recent historical record that can be pieced together. The only thing I feel certain of is that a major spin was placed on the complicity of the German Christian churches with the Nazi regime.
posted by
gomedome
on February 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger -- so it wasn't Christians who initiated
the Inquisition.
I think it is easy to make the connection between Christian Antisemitism and Hitler's policies. The Church considered Jews to be of the Devil. That is incontrovertible.
Then we have Pope Pius XII, who has been accused of allowing the Nazis to take Jews away in the shadow of the Vatican, not saying a word in protest.
posted by
Xeno-x
on February 9, 2008 at 2:16 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - you are viewing what the signing of the Concordat
with the Nazis tells us backwards.
It does not suggest a willingness of the church to support the Nazis but the other way around. It clearly demonstrates the willingness of the Nazis to allow the proliferation of the church within their regime. No one knew what the Nazi regime would become in 1933.
That quote by Albert Einstein is exactly the type of tainted historical perspective I am speaking of in this post. You are using it completely out of historical context, (look at the date stamp on it). The world was not aware of the attrocities perpetrated by the Nazi regime in 1940, many of the attrocities had not yet occured. Within 5 years, that particular perspective held by Einstein, amongst others, proved to be completely overstated. Simply put, by the end of the war it became clear how the churches of Nazi Germany had survived.
HERE is a good article that touches on the subject.
posted by
gomedome
on February 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: FineYoungSinger - now to the second part of your comment
After reading about this topic for years, I have a very different opinion.
The Concordats: These were not contracts made with the Nazis per se, but with nations. From the Wikipedia article you cite: "A "concordat" is the equivalent of a treaty when the agreement is between the church and a state - "treaties," properly speaking, are between nations, while the church here is treated as an institution but not a country. Concordats have been used to create binding agreements to safeguard church interests and its freedom to act, particularly in countries that do not have strong jurisprudence guaranteeing government non-interference in religious matters or in countries where the church seeks a privileged position under government patronage."
There were dozens because the Nazi's were in dozens of countries by this time. Keep in mind as well that Hitler violated these contracts regularly, as did his regime. The church did not.
Before you continue to form your opinion, consider this statement:
"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." Albert Einstein, to Time Magazine, Dec. 23, 1940, pg. 38.
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 9, 2008 at 8:43 AM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - now to the second part of your comment
I like to think that my reasearch is thorough on matters such as these. I can spot a non objective website a mile away and feel compelled to warn others when I link to them. It is always my intention to utilize sources I consider representative of at least a fair chronicle. One article on the New York Times website attempts to give both sides of the story. Though it is weakly crafted by contending the complete opposite of my contentions at first, utilizing documents taken from the Nuremburg trials, it then presents the other side. It does this by mentioning a period of concessions between an emerging military super power and long established religions. It is a matter of history that a Papal Concordat was signed with the Nazis. That particular Concordat of the dozens signed over history is outlined HERE . . . Concordats in general: HERE . ..
That is merely a minute fraction of the material I have formed my opinion on.
posted by
gomedome
on February 8, 2008 at 9:47 PM
| link to this | reply
FineYoungSinger - I admit it, I got lazy and didn't qualify this statement
"Even more remarkable, this support was mutual, at least to the extent that both groups attempted to utilize the other to fulfill their ambitions." . . . history plays fast and loose with these truths but has anyone ever asked themselves how the Catholic Church survived over a millennia of European conquest? More than a few deals were made over this time, to look the other way in lieu of survival. The Nazi regime posed just one more similar challenge.
posted by
gomedome
on February 8, 2008 at 9:22 PM
| link to this | reply
ZenMom - forgive me but let me add an "Amen"
. . .to this part: ". . . f**king psycho madman . . ." We cannot as human beings feel anything but this type of dumbfounded incomprehension, jumpstarted by our instinctive human compassions. These were real people that these ovens and human life disposal facilities were built for.
posted by
gomedome
on February 8, 2008 at 9:16 PM
| link to this | reply
sam444 -right on, it has been my experience that good and bad exist amongst
all philosophical groups.
. . . . in the same manner that the entire spectrum of human intelligence is represented in all of these same groups.
posted by
gomedome
on February 8, 2008 at 9:09 PM
| link to this | reply
Whysper - yeah, no kidding - war makes strange partners
But we must never forget that we are speaking of an era in history where individual wills quite often superceded all political controls.
posted by
gomedome
on February 8, 2008 at 9:06 PM
| link to this | reply
"Going to church" does not equal "Christian".
You state regarding Hitler: "Even more remarkable, this support was mutual." Got any other evidence of this besides some photographs taken from some random website?
posted by
FineYoungSinger
on February 8, 2008 at 2:38 PM
| link to this | reply
When I took this picture, I wasn't thinking "christian" or "athiest"....or ANYTHING other than f**king psycho madman - When I think of him.........I wish I did believe in hell. But then again, that would mean I believe in a god that let this happen.
posted by
ZenMom
on February 8, 2008 at 1:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Amen. Spare us the propaganda. I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe that only good people go to church! sam
posted by
sam444
on February 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Interestingly enough
of the four, only the atheist was our ally in that war.
posted by
Whysper
on February 8, 2008 at 1:08 PM
| link to this | reply