Adolf Hitler, Christianity and Civil Order

Published by carolyn on Sun, 2020-08-30 18:17

National Socialist party members display election propaganda, including a banner depicting both the swastika and a cross, outside of a busy church in Berlin on July 23, 1933.

Hitler defends his Church policy as late as 1939

By Carolyn Yeager

WE ARE BEING PLAYED  BY BLM (Black Lives Matter) today because “anti-Racism” has been allowed to become the required establishment view for all respectable Americans. It is the state religion. Respect shown to Black demands and general discontents, no matter how untethered to facts and real history, or how destructive to property and human lives, is the only response allowed in media, government, academia and America's classrooms. There are more and more organizations popping up to enforce this standard, too. Big Brother is watching.

The "proof" for the necessity of this can be found in the same place that the consensus against “anti-Semitism” is found: The action-packed twelve years of Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Germany  (1933-1945). The Hitler regime is portrayed as totalitarian—that is, one that disenfranchised the individual and his right to think and choose for himself in favor of forcing every citizen into a group-think collective that necessitates walking or marching in mindless goose-step together.

One of the areas where criticism (and lies) about Hitler's government flourishes is that of Religion. Hitler is portrayed as an “enemy of religion” based on personal views he espoused in private dinnertime conversations among his personal staff and close associates during the war years (published as Table Talk). Ignored, or not believed, is that as late as 1939, he was defining his government's attitude toward the Christian Churches as supportive and respectful.

An example of this comes from Adolf Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939, excerpts of which are presented below, translated from the German by Heather Clary-Smith for The Scriptorium (scroll down page for speech). During a sort of 'state of the union' speech to the Reichstag, Adolf Hitler spoke on various subjects: a review of the events of 1938, German unity, the economy, military power, the Jewish question, and then included some words about the status of the churches and religion in Germany. He said he was replying to “allegations raised in the democracies” that the National Socialist state was “anti-religion”:

“(A)ccusations which the so-called democratic nations raise against Germany include the allegation that National Socialist Germany is hostile to religion. I wish to declare solemnly, before the entire German people:

1. In Germany no-one has been persecuted for his religious convictions to date, nor will anyone be persecuted for them.

2. Since January 30, 1933 the National Socialist state, acting through its official organs, has put the following public tax revenue at the disposal of the two Churches:

during fiscal year 1933: 130 million RM,
during fiscal year 1934: 170 million RM,
during fiscal year 1935: 250 million RM,
during fiscal year 1936: 320 million RM,
during fiscal year 1937: 400 million RM,
during fiscal year 1938: 500 million RM.

Added to this are an annual 85 million Reichsmark from Land [i.e. state or provincial, trans.] tax revenues and some 7 million Reichsmark from the local tax revenues from municipalities and municipal associations.

The value of (the Churches) agricultural and forestry land holdings exceeds the sum of 10 billion Reichsmark. The income from these land holdings is estimated at more than 300 million annually.

Added to this are the countless donations, testamentary transferences and, most of all, the revenues from Church collections. What is more, in the National Socialist state the Churches enjoy various tax concessions, and where donations, bequests etc. are concerned they are entirely exempt from taxation.

It is therefore the height of impertinence - to put it mildly - that politicians, especially from abroad, presume to allege that the Third Reich is hostile to religion.

3. The National Socialist state has neither closed a church nor obstructed any religious service, nor influenced the form in which a religious service was held. It has not influenced the teachings, nor the creed, of any denomination whatsoever. In the National Socialist state everyone is free to find his salvation in whichever way he chooses.

However: clergy who believe that they see their mission not in being the servants of God but rather in slandering our present state, its institutions or its leaders, will find themselves sternly reminded by the National Socialist state that a destruction of this state will be tolerated by no-one, and that if they step outside the bounds of the law, members of the clergy will be held just as accountable for their actions under the law as any other German citizen.

4. The National Socialist state is neither prudish nor dishonest. But there are certain moral principles, adherence to which is in the interest of the biological health of a people and which we therefore will not permit to be undercut. Pederasty and crimes against children are punished as criminal offenses in this state, regardless who commits these crimes.

Five years ago, when some leading figures in the National Socialist Party committed these crimes, they were executed. When other public or private individuals, or clergymen, commit the same offenses, they are punished with jail or prison terms. We take no interest in clergymen's transgressions against their other vows of chastity etc., and our media has never published anything on this subject.

In other respects, this state has intervened in the internal order of the Churches only once, namely in 1933, when I myself attempted to unite the weak and divided Protestant Land churches in Germany into one large and powerful Protestant national Church. This attempt failed due to the resistance of individual Land bishops. And accordingly, the attempt was then abandoned; for after all it is not our task to forcibly defend the Protestant Church against its own representatives, or to strengthen it against its will.

Now, if foreign countries and particularly certain democratic statesmen speak up so strongly for individual German priests, the reason can only be a political one. For these same statesmen remained silent when hundreds of thousands of clergy were massacred or burned in Russia; and they remained silent when tens of thousands of priests and nuns were brutally butchered or burned alive in Spain.


Therefore, sympathy or pity for persecuted servants of God cannot be what prompted the democratic citizens' interest in individual clergymen who have come into conflict with the law in Germany. Rather, it is the interest in the enemy of the German state.

In this regard, it is important to note: the German priest acting as servant of God enjoys our protection, but the priest acting as political enemy of the German Reich will be rooted out. [...]

In this context I wish to state as a matter of principle:

Certain circles abroad seem to believe that the especially vociferous declaration of sympathy for elements which have come into conflict with the law in Germany could effect a relief of their situation. There is perhaps the expectation that certain journalistic measures in this regard may serve to exert a terrorist influence on the German state leadership. This belief is founded on a capital error.

To us, the support which circles abroad lend to certain efforts directed against the German state is the final proof of their treasonous nature! For mere opposition to a regime has never yet drawn sympathy from these foreign democracies, and neither has the prosecution or punishment of a political offender. When has Germany ever had a stronger political opposition than the National Socialist one? Never has a political opposition been suppressed, persecuted and incited against with baser means than the National Socialist Party was. It is to our credit that we can say that we have never enjoyed the pity, much less the support, of such a foreign power for such a reason.

Therefore, this kind of support seems to be reserved for those whose aim it is to destroy the German Reich. And for this reason, each and every instance of it only serves as one more compelling reason for us to tighten our measures.”

As we can see, by 1939 Hitler was neither for nor against Christianity. His personal views, whatever they might have been, played no role in his attitude toward the religious freedom enjoyed by Reich citizens, not all of whom were German. Freedom of worship was absolute. All churches were open throughout the war years, although many were badly damaged, even destroyed by British and American bombs.

What Hitler and his government did was to lay down the law for the entire population, and no exceptions were made for “political” purposes in order to win elections, which is the downside of Democracy. He is demanding the Churches stay out of political affairs and stick to the spiritual care of Germans. Priests and pastors are not to become political activists because they will not be protected by their virtuous cloak as “servants of God” when in the political arena.

Disrespect to the state in the form of attempts to destabilize the government, damage property, and interfere with normal, peaceful discourse for the majority of citizens (such as we are seeing now in the United States under the guise of “individual liberty” and addressing social grievances via “peaceful protesting” which become riots, arson, breaking & entering and looting) will not be tolerated under the National Socialist regime. And if such protesting is supported or praised by foreign powers, it can be suspected of having treasonous intentions. Too bad we can't enforce such a policy in our current U.S. situation.


Carolyn:  I believe Hitler also opened Mosques entering Russia where Muslims lived.  In the USA, M. M. O'Hair was also a holocaust Truther, and openly publish one of her news letters stating the holocaust was a lie.  She lost many jew Atheists, bless her soul.  Today, her organization American Atheists is a jew secular organization.  So sad. 

I really appreciate this article, Carolyn! I like the fact that you write with such clarity, and will not back down from the truth! I could not have written this better, myself! Yes, Adolf Hitler allowed the churches to remain opened, but did not give the clergy a pass in order that they would use their "cloak" to engage in any political interests! Again, I really appreciate your article - thank you!

Little off topic here. But, are you familiar with the Stroop report?  Is there an English translation of it?  It was prepared in 1943 dealing with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

Yes, it is off-topic - not a little, but a lot. English translations are easy to find so what is your purpose in asking about it here?

"As we can see, by 1939 Hitler was neither for nor against Christianity. His personal views, whatever they might have been..."
According to Sven Longshanks, Hitler believed in Christian Identity (CI). He claims the Table Talks, Rosenberg's Diary, and the Goebbels Diaries containing anti-Christian views espoused by Hitler are fiction. He cites the works by Richard Carrier.

Sven Longshanks is a good person and a friend, but he knows very little about Hitler and believes what he wants to believe. He is no scholar and doesn't go beyond the 1920s Hitler. Hitler never mentioned Christian Identity or British Israelism.

I've never heard of Sven Longshanks before. I'll take Carolyn's word vis-a-vis his knowledge of Hitler, but I thank you, Matt, for introducing me to this interesting new person.

This is a strong argument. Thank you as always, Carolyn.
It is very hard to find honest perspectives about Hitler and religion in the English language; most areas have been so contaminated by Allied propaganda. And that propaganda is now perpetuated by states that, as far as I can tell, are objectively harsher towards Christ than Hitler ever was.
I long to see actual, fresh, and open scholarly debate about the real history of Hitler and Christianity and their relationship with each other. Your website provides one of the few places where people can honestly discuss that period.
As a Catholic, I have for a year or two now, since I began reading revisionism, sided with Leon Degrelle, a Catholic integralist who would want the state to openly favor the Church ....... yet he also fought for Hitler (in more ways than one), which speaks volumes.

Add new comment