Talk:Nazism

request

Text of the 22 pages of Babik given as a cite for the claim of Lutheranism and its "organic pagan past" as being a basis for Nazism. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not understand your point. What do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have full access to this paper, which is a critique by Babik of a book written by revisionist historian Richard Steigmann-Gall. According to Babik, Steigmann-Gall "challenged the conventional wisdom that Nazism was either non-christian or anti-christian" and "rejected the increasingly popular interpretation of Nazism as a secular or political religion". Steigmann-Gall view, according to Babik, is that there is a high degree to which Protestantism was central to Nazi self-understanding with the top Nazis comprehending their actions in Christian terms and "as a mission completing the work of the reformation in germany". Babik then proceeds to criticise Steigmann-Gall's line of thought beginning with the following questions: "Is Steigmann-Gall’s understanding of the implications of his portrayal of Nazism correct? Is his rejection of the secularization thesis valid? Does his representation of Nazism as a Protestant movement necessarily undermine the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion?" Babik answers these questions in the following terms:

"In the following article I suggest that while Steigmann-gall’s revision of Nazi conceptions of christianity represents a welcome addition to accounts of Nazism as a form of neo-paganism, his claim concerning the implications of this revision for the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion is deeply problematic. His dismissal of the secular religion approach stands on an untenably narrow conception of secularization as a tool of historical understanding. In other words, I take issue not with Steigmann-gall’s depiction of Nazism as a Protestant movement, but with the model of secular religion against which he subsequently evaluates it. This model ignores the finer points of secularization theory; it represents only a truncated version of the much more rigorous model of secularization developed in the debate between Karl Löwith and Hans Blumenberg, respectively the main proponent and the main critic of the secularization thesis in the area of historical theory."

Babik goes as far as saying that due to Steigmann-Gall's poor understanding of the secularization thesis, his theory of Protestant Nazism actually confirms the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion:

"In light of the Löwith–Blumenberg debate, Steigmann-Gall’s revision of Nazism as a Protestant movement thus does not undermine the interpretation of Nazism as a secular religion, but tends to make this interpretation more plausible. ..... By demonstrating that Nazism had Christian content, Steigmann-Gall has unwittingly met the test of secular religion proposed by secularization theory’s most rigorous critic. If Steigmann-Gall reaches the opposite conclusion and sees Protestant Nazism as running counter to the secular religion approach, this is because he lacks more thorough awareness of secularization theory. Insofar as he extracts his understanding of secularization from contemporary political religion historiography on Nazism, the lack of awareness is more extensive."

So it is clear from this paper that the conventional view is that Nazism is either non-Christian or anti-Christian, and the view that Nazism is a radical extension of Protestantism is a revisionist view point (i.e. minority POV) of a historian with a poor understanding of secularization. I am surprised that Paul has overlooked the substance of this paper and instead used it as a source to text in the article that is written as a mainstream viewpoint, when in actual fact it is a flawed minority POV. --Nug (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect, that is now a very complicated and intellectually formidable lead-in to the Church and State section, rather than an introductory A, B, C statement. For someone new to the subject it would be better if the Nazis' basic position on religion were stated first, before going deeper into the subject. Kim Traynor (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The source used is not easily reduced to platitudes <g>, as the prior poorly worded claims indicated. I soght to salvage the source, and not to savage its meaning. Perhaps better to omit the mass of quite convoluted reasoning present in that source? Collect (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I'd have a go myself but am a bit busy at the moment, perhaps you could try your hand at drafting a suitable explanation of the Nazis' basic position on religion. --Nug (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was hoping you wouldn't say that. I'll have a rummage around some sources and see if I can come up with something sensible on this tricky subject. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Upon reading the literature I found a lot of new information and facts I was not aware of. It is a very interesting reading, and I need some time to read and summarise it. In connection to that, I take a short break and hope to come back with new version of the text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a draft of sorts, but it reads poorly at present. It's quite difficult to find over-arching statements that can be individually referenced. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Give it a go and post at least an outline here, I'm sure with many heads we can formulate something. --Nug (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether the Nazis were Protestant, Catholic or pagan is irrelevant to whether or not their anti-Semitism developed from Luther's views. TFD (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel a bit like an embarassed schoolboy being asked to show his sub-standard work to the class. I have a skeletal version of what could be an explanation of the Nazi-churches relationship, but even if I work this up to a more acceptable standard, the next hurdle would be how to integrate it with what already exists on the page. I hope you can read it despite the presence of pointers to my references.

The 24th point of the Nazi Party Programme of 1920 guaranteed freedom for all religious denominations not inimical to the State and endorsed “Positive Christianity” to combat “the Jewish-materialist spirit”. J Noakes and G Pridham, Documents on Nazism, 1919-1945, London 1974

The anti-communism of the Catholic Church and its priority of self-survival eased accommodation with the regime in 1933. Relations between the Nazi state and the Catholic Church were regulated by the Concordat signed in July of that year, an agreement upheld by both parties despite breaches criticized in 1937 in Pius XI’s encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge’. Hildebrandt Lutheran traditions of obedience to state authority and German patriotism, together with anti-Communism, resulted in a more enthusiastic reception of Nazi beliefs by the Protestant churches. Remak comments on the “misunderstanding of true aims” of Nazism by most church members

Despite their fundamental incompatibility, Snyder the Nazi Party and the mainstream churches co-existed uneasily throughout the period of the Third Reich. The Nazis avoided direct public attacks on the churches. There was no equivalent of Bismarck’s Kulturkampf. Hitler respected the power of the Catholic Church and was wary of the negative effect any open confrontation might have on the German public. Remak. Although privately expressing his hatred of Christianity Snyder p.304, Hitler saw the churches as embodying a socially conservative element that could not be replaced by party ideology. TT He was prepared to tolerate them as long as they recognised the State as master TT 143 and did not interfere in its affairs.

Bormann, who represented the more aggressively anti-Christian element in the Party, thought Hitler had always been religious p.203 While he rejected Christianity with its Jewish origins as a "big lie", TT Hitler employed religious vocabulary in his everyday conversation, often invoking the Lord and the Almighty in his public speaking.

Although he agreed with Bormann that National Socialism and Christianity were incompatible 145, Hitler deliberately held aloof from interfering in church affairs p.122, saying he had no wish to promote atheism p.6 which was associated with Bolshevism. He hoped for the eventual elimination of the churches, expecting the "disease of Christianity" TT 343 to die a natural death. Table Talk p.59

Hoping to maintain good relations with the churches to secure their support, he forbade Goebbels to leave the Church 340 and intended to remain Catholic himself. Speer p.95 Speer reported Hitler as believing that the churches would adapt to the Nazi state over time.

Dissent occurred in both mainstream churches, especially on the question of euthanasia. Fischer In the case of the Catholic Church this was expressed in individual acts of disobedience by priests and bishops who were punished by internment in concentration camps. Remak Goebbels retaliated by orchestrating occasional smear campaigns in the press against priests and monks. Fischer Crucifixes were removed from schools and hospitals. Goebbels diary

Dissent expressed itself in a more organised form in the Protestant churches. Fearing that the Nazis posed a threat to religion, many resisted Nazification by establishing the Confessing Church as a counterweight to the pro-Nazi element styling themselves ‘German Christians’. In 1937 800 members of the Confessing Church were arrested. Hildebrandt

The outbreak of war saw an end to official harassment of the churches. Snyder While fanatics like Bormann continued to press for a campaign against the churches (Kirchenkampf), Hitler wanted this postponed until after the war. Speer p.123; Goebbels p.163 He recognised the value of traditional religion in maintaining morale in the armed forces and providing solace to the bereaved families of soldiers killed in action. Both mainstream churches continued to provide chaplains to the armed forces and offered prayers for the Führer from their pulpits. Remak Speer’s architectural plans for the new Berlin included the rebuilding of churches destroyed by bombing. Speer 177

By the war’s end the relationship between the Nazi state and the churches was still “a major unresolved issue” Remak.

The American historian Klaus Fischer has described the moral failure of the churches to resist Hitler as an “institutional failure of nerve”, while acknowledging that “few believers realized that their Christian faith was fundamentally at odds with Nazi ideology. p.359.

Actually that's not bad at all, it seems like a good summary. I've added some subsections within the "Church and State" section, I'd be inclined to replace every thing above the "Thule society" subsection with your text, then anything salvageable form the old to be added in where appropriate. --Nug (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comment. Not having to merge the above with existing text would certainly make things a lot easier. I'll find time this weekend to polish the draft. I'm still hunting for a source I know exists where Hitler says, either to Bormann or Goebbels, that he can't see what it would achieve to prevent the mother of a soldier killed in action seeking comfort by going to church. This has been an interesting exercise for me in revealing how reluctant H was to move egainst the churches (I'll wager that has something to do with his mother's devoutness); it also explains how lay members of churches could believe that, with the notable exceptions of euthanasia and anti-Semitic measures, there was no basic incompatability between their beliefs and patriotic support of the regime. Kim Traynor (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Right Nug, I've had a go at rewriting the section. The source base is currently quite narrow, but I'll see if I can expand it. I'm mindful that the overall article is already too long for Wikipedia, so I've tried to keep the points to a minimum. I'm assuming more detail on aspects like neo-paganism, the substitution of Christian symbols and rites, can be found on linked pages. I might just add one more point about how the 19thC, e.g. Wagner, had paved the way ideologically for the German Christians by remoulding the Judaic Jesus meek and mild into an 'Aryan' warrior. Kim Traynor (talk)

I've now added the Wagner point, but it may be too specific to fit in with the general tone of the section, so I won't be surprised if it is reverted. More seriously, if you look below you'll see someone has raised a serious objection to using Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk as a reference. If the objection is sustainable, I think several WP pages will be affected. It's really up to others now to build on the basis I've laid by modifying and improving the section I hope that it is more comprehensible and comprehensive than what went before. Kim Traynor (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have laid a solid foundation now for future work, I find coming up with a structure is always harder than adding the detail, so well done. I've read the thread below concerning Trevor-Roper's work and was rather surprised myself, it is something I'll have to look into further. Regarding Steigmann-Gall's work, it has been criticised by Babik, see the quotes I posted at the top of this thread from Babik's review of Steigmann-Gall's book. That's what makes this topic so difficult, scholars seem to find some issue in each other's works. --Nug (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Targeted groups?

Can someone add Slavs to targeted groups? To this paragraph: To maintain the purity and strength of the Aryan race, the Nazis sought to exterminate Jews, Romani, and the physically and mentally disabled.[14] Other groups deemed "degenerate" and "asocial" who were not targeted for extermination, but received exclusionary treatment by the Nazi state, included: homosexuals, blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses and political opponents.[14]

From "The Holocaust" wikipedia page:

Slavs Main articles: Generalplan Ost and Hunger Plan

One of Hitler's ambitions at the start of the war was to exterminate, expel, or enslave most or all Slavs from their native lands so as to make living space for German settlers. This plan of genocide[255] was to be carried into effect gradually over a period of 25–30 years.[256]

It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply.

— Heinrich Himmler spoke about Operation Barbarossa, June 1941[257] Nekoceko (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the context here is targeted groups within Germany itself. --Nug (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

DAP ?

What's point with DAP ?! Nazism isn't socialism. It's only the name :

• Not class struggle, which is an important socialism topic

--Bobybarman34 (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an old chestnut. Search the archives, this has discussed before. --Nug (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's more than just a name. It certainly isn't socialism in the Marxist sense or in the Christian socialist tradition, with their vision of a more just and egalitarian society. But neither should the 'socialist' element in Nazism be underrated in terms of explaining its wide appeal to many Germans. The 'socialism' of the Nazis was very narrowly defined within a nationalist framework (its variant of egalitarianism being embodied in the idea of Reich citizenship - as Hitler put it, a German street sweeper should feel superior to any foreign king). It never quite succeeded in winning over the workers to the extent the Nazis hoped for, but it did in many individual cases cut across the class divide. I think this is why the Left has never understood why the Nazi dictatorship was possibly the most popular in history. It built on Bismarck's state socialism which was well in advance of other European countries (and eventually copied by them). Nazi social welfare put France and Britain in the shade during the 1930s Depression. Read Hitler's Table Talk to see how smug he is when referring scornfully to the way the class system operates in England. I'm sure it was awareness of the inadequacy of Britain's welfare system compared with Germany's that made its expansion under the Beveridge Plan of 1942 a political imperative. Hitler and Goebbels were proclaiming a 'New Order' in Europe which would sweep aside the old, decadent 'plutocratic' order in France and Britain. Politically, these older systems could not, after victory, return to pre-war average levels of material existence and still expect to enjoy popular legitimacy. Neutralising the propaganda of the Soviet Union's 'workers' paradise' was also a consideration. Kim Traynor (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Socialism should not be confused with social welfare programs, or we will end up referring to Roosevelt's New Deal as American socialism (a claim generally made only by fringe right-wing polemicists). The Nazis' "national socialism" should not be confused with what is generally understood by socialism as an ideology. Of course, the name was chosen to appeal to the working class. Bismarck was not a socialist. In fact, he passed the Anti-Socialist Laws. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

"Socialism should not be confused with social welfare programs..." Indeed so, but social welfare programs are popularly associated with socialism. It's absurd to imply I suggested Bismarck was socialist. He was playing the same game as Hitler, providing social welfare measures 'from above' to wean the workers - proletariat if you prefer - away from Marxist socialism and integrate them into the authoritarian state. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. The Germans were not smart enough to figure out what 'Socialist" actually meant, and were thus fooled by the Nazi's, or is your assertion that the Germans were so smart that planned to confound us all over a half a century later with this incredibly clever scheme to fool us all and make Socialism look bad by falsey using the name? Really, do you all have anything but your own personal opinions to actually back this up? Something solid and lastings. Hey I know we will settle this by looking at specific planks in the National Socialist Party Platform. You know, the National Socialist Program.

11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery.

12.In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13.We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

14.We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

15.We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

16.We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

17.We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

19.We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

20.The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

21.The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program

Holey Moley Braintrusts, they were Socialists. The biggest fraud perpetrated by the so called intellectual elite in the 20th Century was the idea that National Socialism and Marxist Socialism were polar opposites. They were not, they were in competition for the same groups of people. If you have trouble understanding the animosity between them, I suggest you research Stalinism, Trotskeyites, and Maoists and their notably (not peaceful) ideological disputes. They are all Socialist. Whether Hitler, Stalin or Mao actually believed in Socialism is certainly debatable, but their ideology was all socialist, so the point can be made it was meant to just attract followers. That point can be made about any Political Ideology or movement. But these groups were far more alike than any of them were "different" and what they sound like is the half of the Occupy Wall Street movement, right down to the Anti-Semeticism.

Power — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.79.13.6 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Under your absurd "reasoning," we are to then conclude that the German Democratic Republic (a/k/a, the "DDR," otherwise known as East Germany) was really not Communist at all! Why, they had the word "Democratic" right there in the name! There is no merit whatsoever to your argument, which is why there are no reputable historians that buy into such a ludicrous concept. There is no "conspiracy" or "fraud," any more than there is any merit to other wackadoodle conspiracies, like the "Truther," "Birther," or "Chemtrail" conspiracies. Promoting this kind of nonsense is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of critical thinking skills. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

no, several editors including myself have alluded to the 25 point plan before. ip makes a great point, either much of germany did not understand the meaning of the term, or it is misunderstood here. ddr was forced on germany by communist, NSDAP won elections. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The NSDAP did not win election. They formed a coalition with the Conservatives, which gave them a majority. They achieved dictatorial power when the Christian Democrats and others including free market types approved the Enabling Act of 1933. Only the Social Democrats opposed this measure, the Communist MPs having already been arrested. TFD (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

here are the actual election totals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Federal_election_results Darkstar1st (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

a perfect example of why naziism and nazi party should be combined, editors on one page are unaware of material on the other. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Their best showing was 288 out of 647 seats and together with the Conservatives' 52 seats they were able to form another coalition government. However they needed a 2/3 vote to achieve dictatorship which they did by obtaining the support of all the non-socialist parties. TFD (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

so we are back to my original point, either millions of Germans did not understand the definition of national socialism, or you do not. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I have facts to back up my assertion. Not just the platform of the National Socialist Party, but go and look at the statements by both the German Government and the Soviet Union during their pact. What do you have, your opinion. Please bring some facts to the argument. You may disagree with idea that they were good Socialists, but they were Socialists none the less. You do not get to define it to suit your ideology. Bring some facts and debate the issue. This is not a conspiracy theory. Again, it was the way they presented themselves to the electorate, and the mode of most of the Social Policy programs they implemented. The GDR was communist; they also had that little fact in their Constitution. The Russians made sure of it when they wrote it or them. Just because the Soviets massacred hundreds of thousands of Socialists, Trotskyites, and various other forms of progressives whose ideologies did not mesh well enough with the Stalin variety does not make them Capitalists either. It was the way they operated. Same thing with the Nazi's. Hell, even IL duce, Mussolini was a member of the 2nd (Communist) international. The Marxists hated the National Socialists and Fascists for one major reason, and it was not because they were not socialist, it was because they focused on Nationalism in opposition to internationalism. Think about what the biggest threat to say a Sunni Muslim is. It is a Shiite Muslim. That and again they were competing for the same pool potential supporters. Capitalism will really never undermine the base supporters of any Socialist party, but another Socialist party sure as heck can. People who thought that Socialism might be a good idea were not going t leave the Soviet Bolshevik version to join the Christian or Centrists Democrats in massive droves, but they did leave to join the National Socialists. As far as the birther comment, now that we know that Obama was the source of the rumor he was born in Kenya, you should probably retract that little (meager) attempt at ridicule, it does not ring true. Power75.143.144.55 (talk)

Trevor-Roper Edition of Hitler's Table Talk Should Not be RS...

I just noticed that someone is adding stuff to this page, particularly in regards to the whole Hitler/Christianity debate. Rather than copy and paste the many comments from reputable historians regarding the absolute fakery involved in Trevor-Roper's "translation," particularly in reference to the alleged "anti-Christian" passages, I'll just link you to where it has already been cited very well in the WP article for the book in question: [1]. Such obvious (and well-known, at least in the academic community...) forgeries should not be used as RS on this page. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That someone is me. And that someone is now being told that Trevor-Roper's Hitler's Table Talk is an obvious and well-known forgery. I'll need to investigate what that assertion is based on because it isn't obvious to me nor known. Is Picker's Table Talk text also a forgery? Kim Traynor (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I've now looked at the link you provided. It'll take me time to digest and act upon. My first reaction is not to believe that Trevor-Roper's work is a forgery. I am being told Hitler has been mistranslated, which is perfectly believable but a different proposition. Since it might well be true, may I suggest you have a go at trying to provide a straightforward account of the Nazi-churches relationship. I've found that difficult to achieve without going to the horse's mouth, so to speak, for Hitler's views on Christianity. If we don't know what they were, we will certainly find ourselves in a different place. The rest of the information on that link seems to be a discussion about contradictions between the Nazi relationship with the churches and what one might term Hitler's religiosity. There are certainly ambiguities in these, so why should we be surprised to find contradictions? I already tried to point that out by saying much of the evidence appears contradictory. The other stuff about an Aryan Christ is hardly revelatory. Kim Traynor (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

This is very serious, in fact shocking. If Steigmann-Gall's findings are reliable, I assume he immediately started work on a new translation, or has convinced a publisher to step in and arrange one's appearance. If, for example, Hitler did not refer to "the disease of Christianity", Trevor-Roper has indeed been fraudulent, or perhaps, more charitably, lazy in relying on the incorrect French translation. If fraudulent, it places a question mark against the credibility of his other work. How much of 'The Last Days of Hitler' did he also invent? (Goodbye 'Downfall' et al.) Does the English version of Hitler's 'Last Will And Testament' also contain translation errors? My brain is slowly shifting gear here, and if, after rummaging around, I find I've been duped, I'll have to expunge the TT references and try to stick to what has been recorded independently of what were hitherto believed to be relevant Hitler utterances. I did say earlier in the discussion that I am not best placed to rewrite this section, but recognised the need to do so. I think, for example, the material on Luther should be on a page dealing with anti-Semitism and that this page should only mention it briefly as one ingredient in the Nazis' anti-Semitism. Now I note that we have a seemingly stranded pic of Streicher whose position will have to be moved to link him more to the Luther section. Kim Traynor (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the passages which were based off of specific statements from Trevor-Roper's "translation" that have been shown to be forged. (I use the term "forged" because I think it goes beyond mere "mistake" when you add things that aren't there in the original...in order to change the entire meaning of a sentence...) I left the rest of the stuff cited to Trevor-Roper, because I can't say that everything in HTT is fraudulent, and if I did so, it would totally mess up the section. I do think, however, that other RS should be used in place of it, because of the "issues" in Trevor-Roper's edition. It's like using Hermann Rauschning's "The Voice of Destruction" as a source. It's just not reliable. Here's an essay I found, discussing the various fakeries and mistranslations often used to "prove" that Hitler was anti-Christian, when the actual historical record shows otherwise: [2]. (It also discusses the Trevor-Roper fiasco...) --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm pretty much persuaded now that Trevor-Roper isn't reliable (though I must say the mistake about the army belt buckles on that link is pretty crass. It suggests unfamiliarity with German history because the motto predates Nazism; so who did that chap's translations for him?). If Hitler's other pronouncements in the TT are NOT mistranslated, the basic picture remains the same, but can only be illustrated by duller quotations. By the way, I thought the consensus view of Rauschning was that contemporaries thought he was making it all up, but that events proved he was pretty much accurate on what he was reporting. Kim Traynor (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well some authors have a tendency to attribute everything to Hitler, but the Nazi party was more than just him. Goebbels also held a dim view of the established churches stating: "Catholicism and Protestantism are both rotten". And let's not forget that one of the key ideologues of the Nazi movement was the Baltic German Alfred Rosenberg, being a true anti-semite he rejected both Catholic or Protestant beliefs and tenets as tainted by Jews and wanted to create an entirely new religion. Hitler may have admired Jesus to be the "slim, tall, blond" aryan saviour of the Germanic people, but at one stage Hitler also admired Stalin thinking he must of had some Ayran blood due to his ruthlessness. The Nazis rejected the Old Testament , which is core to Christian belief, and wanted to merge the Catholic and Protestant churches after the war into a unified German secular religion with elements of paganism. So in that sense the Nazis were anti-Christian. --Nug (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"In that sense," what you just wrote was OR... --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 23:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense Byron, see Richard Steigmann-Gall,The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 Page 218: "Over time, Nazi hostility to Christianity seemed to increase, as new anti-Christian voices, particularly Martin Bormann's, began to be heard. By the start of the war, Hitler himself was taking a more antagonistic stance". --Nug (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the link. The author says there were both Christian and anti-Christian elements in Nazism. Notice that Catholic and Protestant churches continued to be major supports for Nazism, even as relations strained. All political movements have internal divisions. TFD (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nug, the sentence that begins with, "In that sense..." is clearly an attempt to reach a conclusion, rather than a presentation of RS. It is your conclusion, and therefore OR. Furthermore, while it can easily be shown that the Nazis used "pagan" imagery and symbolism, you will find it difficult to show that the Nazis actually promoted any kind of "pagan" religious belief or ritual, or incorporated it into their version of Christianity. There is plenty of "pagan" symbolism all over Washington D.C., but that does not mean that the founding fathers of the United States intended to promote "paganism," or anything else. If you want to prove that the Nazis created a "unified German secular religion with elements of paganism," then you need to find RS stating that specifically...rather than reaching your own conclusions based upon your ideas of the definitions of "Christianity" and "paganism." --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 17:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Byron, perhaps you should get up to speed with the literature first. A review of Steigmann-Gall's book by Milan Babík (Nazism as a Secular Religion. History and Theory, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Oct., 2006), pp. 375-396): "Steigmann-gall’s revision of Nazi conceptions of christianity represents a welcome addition to accounts of Nazism as a form of neo-paganism". --Nug (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't find anything better than a third party, admittedly "revisionist," interpretation of RS? And the title of the article, denoting a "secular religion" is at odds with the sentence you quoted, as "neo-paganism" is not in any way "secular." (This leads me to doubt that the author has anything but a chauvanist definition of "neo-paganism" similar to how many Christians view anything not fitting in line with mainstream Christian dogma as "pagan" -- like those who refer to Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormoms as "pagan.") Show me an example of the Nazis promoting the worship of Odin, Thor, Freya, etc., and you might have a point. Anything else is just an attempt by modern Christian apologists to try to distance Nazism from Christianity, now that most of the alleged anti-Christian statements by Hitler and "Occult Nazi Conspiracy" hogwash have been debunked. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, what Steigmann-Gall's book actually says is this: "Whereas past forms of Christian politics were known to embrace nationalism, antisemitism, anti-Marxism, or antiliberalism, the Nazis took these ideologies to new levels. For this reason the Nazis represented a departure from previous Christian practices. However, this did not make them un-Christian. Whereas millions of Catholics and Protestants in Germany did not think Nazism represented their interests or aims, there were many others who regarded Nazism as the correct Christian response to what they saw as harsh new realities." (Steigmann-Gall, "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945," p. 262). He then goes on to discuss what he terms as elements of "paganism" in Nazi belief, but it is clear from the context that he is using it in the un-scholarly, Christian chauvinist, fashion...referring to any departure from Christian canon or dogma as "pagan," when the correct term really should be "heretical," rather than showing any connection whatsoever between Germanic pagan religion (the worship of Odin/Wotan, Thor, Freya, etc.) and the religious beliefs promoted by the Nazis. In fact, he specifically dismisses any connections between the actual Germanic pagan religions and Nazism as simply "window dressing for an ideology rooted in a different source." (p. 263). --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 15:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Bryon, it is clear that you regard your own interpretation of Steigmann-Gall's book; "but it is clear from the context that he is using it in the un-scholarly, Christian chauvinist, fashion...referring to any departure from Christian canon or dogma as "pagan," when the correct term really should be "heretical,"" carries more weight than Milan Babík's review published in a reliable source. But unless you find a RS that supports your contention that Babík's or Steigmann-Gall's definition of "paganism" is a chauvinist definition it remains essentially OR coloured by your personal POV. --Nug (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear from Steigman-Gall's own statements (quoted above) that he was not insinuating that Christianity had merged with Germanic paganism under the Nazis, as if that were somehow possible...though that appears to be what you are promoting, by using Steigman-Gall as a "source." Incidentally, I've noticed that there are other peer-reviewed articles out there by Christian apologists who DENOUNCE the book in question because they feel that it promotes the idea that the Nazis "were essentially ‘Christian’," and "that neo-pagan ideas played an insignificant role in the ideology." (See "Inventing ‘Paganists’: a Close Reading of Richard Steigmann-Gall's the Holy Reich," by Irving Hexham, Journal of Contemporary History, January 2007, vol. 42, no. 1, 59-78) So I don't understand how you are using Steigman-Gall as a "source" that the Nazis weren't really Christian, and that their ideology was merged with paganism. It's like trying to "prove" that a government, ruling over a non-Christian country, somehow promoted Christianity...without ever mentioning "Jesus," "Christ," or "God" in any public speeches, legislation, or other policy matters whatsoever. It just doesn't make sense at all. Regardless, your own source (Steigman-Gall) specifically states the exact opposite of what you posted when you said that the Nazis were "anti-Christian," when he stated, as was previously quoted by me, that, "this did not make them un-Christian." Also, I can't access the article right now, but from reading the abstract and first page [3] of the Milan Babik article you quoted earlier, it certainly looks to me as if you're mischaracterizing the author's conclusions and opinions regarding Steigman-Gall. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The section reads poorly now, and whitewashes Christian church's support for the Nazis and of course their support after the war with the ratline. TFD (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

TDF, you should also read up on the current literature, because if you had you would know that Protestantism includes a vast number of independent religious bodies many of which were unrelated to each other and you would know that out of the approximately 18,000 Protestant pastors in Nazi Germany, only around 3,000 were members of the pro-Nazi Deutsche Christen faction while the remaining 15,000 pastors were not.(William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp. 234–40.) This plain fact shows that your statement "The section whitewashes Christian church's support for the Nazis" seems not to be based upon any source but rather your personal uninformed POV. --Nug (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry TDF thinks that the section reads poorly. For someone exploring the subject for the first time, I'm sure it provides them with a clearer mental map than what existed before. This section is not there to put the churches in the dock, nor to whitewash them. It hardly does that. It explains they had a shared anti-communist ideology with Nazism, were prepared to come to an 'arrangement' and tried not to rock the boat. It ends with a moral condemnation. On the other hand, it tries to show that many church-goers would have felt no categorical imperative to protest against a regime that was reluctant to carry out unpopular measures against them. It was left to people of conscience to register their protest by not conforming to the institutional 'party line'. The section is trying to include a mention, as briefly as possible, of all the elements involved (I left out Jehovah's Witnesses as being more appropriate to a page dealing with persecution). I haven't found the secondary literature I've consulted giving a sense of the proportion of these elements (that's another discussion), probably because we simply can't put any figures to how many thought X and how many thought Y within each church. All we can probably do, unless someone comes up with hard evidence, is indicate who appears to have been in the majority and who in the minority. We can, however, give estimates like Shirer or exact figures if recorded, as in the case of Hildebrand's figure for the arrest of Lutheran pastors in 1937. I would say the ratline had more to do with personal acquaintances assisting each other or being asked to assist third parties on the basis of their anti-communism, hence pro-fascist tendencies. You can say the hierarchy turned a blind-eye, or even colluded in certain cases, but that is specific to the Catholic Church in any case, or more precisely some Catholic clergy, and has nothing to do with the majority of church-goers in Germany who were Lutheran. It is also irrelevant to the Third Reich time frame being dealt with here. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, a whole issue of the Journal of Contemporary History , Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan., 2007) is devoted to the reviews on works authored by Steigmann-Gall. Therefore, by no means is this author non-notable or fringe. I suggest everyone to read those articles. I know that Nug has an access to this journal and, therefore, he can read all of them. In connection to that it is strange for me that he claims that some authors denounce Steigmann-Gall, and forgets to note that many articles from the same issue support his views. For example, Richard J. Evans's summary of the issue says:

"In his book "The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity 1919–1945", published in 2003, Richard Steigmann-Gall proposes a way forward. Presenting for the first time, at least in English, a thorough analysis of the religious beliefs of the nazis themselves, Steigmann-Gall argued that although active nazis, from the leadership down to the lower levels of the party, were bitterly opposed to the Catholic Church, they had a more ambivalent attitude towards Protestantism and to Christianity more generally. Even those who, like Himmler and Rosenberg, advocated a kind of pseudo-Germanic paganism, retained at least some Christian elements amongst their religious beliefs. Most preferred a nazified form of Protestantism as suggested by the ‘German Christians’. Nazism in fact contained a wide variety of religious beliefs. Crucially, however, Steigmann-Gall argues that the paganists were less important in the end than the proponents of a ‘positive’, that is, a nazified Christianity. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of Germans, including those who carried out monstrous crimes of mass murder, torture, human experimentation and much else besides, remained members of the Christian Churches. Although their beliefs and attitudes changed over time, the fact remains, he concludes, that the nazis were, at bottom, basically Christian in their religious orientation.

These are controversial theses. Steigmann-Gall backs them up with a wealth of illustrative material, garnered from a score of archives and a large quantity of obscure nazi publications. Yet do they, in the end, convince? In this special debate, commissioned by the Journal of Contemporary History, a variety of experts in the field address the issues raised by Steigmann-Gall’s book. The theologian and religious historian Stanley Stowers considers them in the light of the theoretical literature on the nature of religion, and particularly political religion. Doris Bergen, author of the standard work on the ‘German Christians’, provides a balanced appraisal of Steigmann-Gall’s central arguments; Manfred Gailus, whose social history of the Protestant Church in Berlin under the nazis has established itself quickly as a major contribution to the debate, launches a critical assault on Steigmann-Gall’s theses, backed up by Ernst Piper, author of a recent major biography of Alfred Rosenberg. Finally, the theologian Irving Hexham uses an approach derived from the sociology of knowledge to take issue with Steigmann-Gall’s use of sources, rightly concluding, as in the end do all the contributors, that it is necessary to take the nazis’ ideas seriously, however repulsive or bizarre they might seem, if we are to understand their appeal."

Some other quotes from that issue:

"Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich provides a clear alternative to vague ideas about an incoherent religion of National Socialism that arose due to the spiritual vacuum of modernity and tried to replace Christianity. Instead of symbols and rituals that work in mysterious ways and language that does not mean what it seems to mean, The Holy Reich shows that the dominant portion of the nazi leadership held familiar Christian beliefs with their own distinctive interpretations of some points." Stanley Stowers, Brown University

"Summed up this way, Steigmann-Gall’s book can be seen as an expression — perhaps even the culmination — of a trend in the scholarship over the past several decades. Indeed, claims of his project’s originality notwithstanding, with The Holy Reich Steigmann-Gall entered a lively and well-established conversation on both sides of the Atlantic. Like many other misconceptions about National Socialism, the anti-Christian notion has long been disputed by historians and scholars of religion, even if they have not succeeded in changing popular views. In different ways and to different extents, John Conway, Ernst Helmreich, Richard Rubenstein, Gordon Zahn, Robert Ericksen, Susannah Heschel, Rainer Laechele and many others have pointed to connections and affinities between National Socialism and Christianity. I consider my work on the German Christian movement part of this broad historiographical development." Doris L. Bergen, University of Toronto.

"Steigmann-Gall has good reason for concentrating on Protestantism as the philosophical point of access for nationalistic and National Socialist ideas. One can identify the contemporary National Protestant milieu — as compared with other social milieux and group cultures — as the main breach point for the ‘Ideas of 1933’. Manfred Gailus, Technical University of Berlin

Despite considerable reservations and omissions, Steigmann-Gall’s study makes an interesting, stimulating and at times provocative book. I agree

entirely with his assessment of the presence and effectiveness of National Socialist Christians, particularly in the Protestant milieu. I would estimate that a third of the contemporary Protestant milieu belonged to these dual-faith inner ecclesiastical circles. I am less convinced about the presence and prominence of Christian National Socialists, particularly in the Party leadership. They certainly existed but more so in the lower and middle ranks of the NSDAP; if they were present in the upper echelons, it was only here and there and usually in diluted form. ‘Conceptions of Christianity’ cannot seriously be applied to this group; a more appropriate description would be dual faith side by side with shrinking remnants of Christianity." (ibid)

"In writing The Holy Reich, the title of which is never explained, Richard Steigmann-Gall has chosen an extraordinary topic. He provides interesting information about the religious career of leading National Socialists, but has failed to justify his claim to have proved that National Socialism was a Christian movement." Ernst Piper, Moses Mendelssohn Centre for European-Jewish Studies in Potsdam.

"In conclusion, there is no easy answer to the questions raised by SteigmannGall’s book. National Socialism still sends shivers of horror through most people today. All we can do is plot its progress and attempt to understand how such evil was sold to the world. Unless we face the full horror, including its intellectual and mythical appeal to both the masses and scholars through works like Michael and the Mythus, we will have failed to understand the true rhetorical significance of nazism and its literature." Irving Hexham, University of Calgary

These are all reviews devoted to the Steigmann-Gall's book. As you can see, some of them are critical, whereas others fully support him. Interestingly, Manfred Gailus noted that the situation with religion in the Third Reich showed tendency to drift from Christianity to some form of Neo-Paganism. That trend became especially prominent in early 40s, and was stopped by the military defeat of Germany. In connection to that, the very question "were Nazi Christians?" is incorrectly formulated: probably, they initially were Christians (or predominantly Christians) and they probably would become Pagans (or the proponents of Nazism as a form of secular religion) later (if they would not be defeated).
In addition, some of other reviews criticise just some theses of Steigmann-Gall. Thus, the main Babik thesis is not that Nazi were not Christians. He simply argue that it would be correct to describe Protestant Progressivism as a form of secular religion, therefore,

"Fine-tuning secularization as a tool of historical understanding in this manner represents a second, and perhaps the key, potential benefit for political religion historiography. With the distinction between partial and complete secularization in place, there is every reason to believe that one can classify Steigmann-Gall's Protestant Nazism as secularized eschatology while remaining sensitive to its differences from other (irreligious) instances of the same phenomenon"

In other words, Babik does not argue that Nazi were not Christians, his point is that their Christianity fits a definition of secular religion.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul, the volume of your latest contribution is impressive, but it is not clear to me what your reason is for presenting it. Is it to show that Steigann-Gall is taken seriously? What conclusion should we draw from your last sentence in terms of how it should affect what appears in the article? Kim Traynor (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Steigann-Gall, as well as many other authors expressing similar views, should be taken seriously, and the idea that Nazism was intrinsically secular anti-Christian movement should not be presented as the sole mainstream views. For example, in light of some sources cited by me it is clear that the idea of the fundamental incompatibility of Christian teachings and Nazi ideology appears not as obvious today as the article says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Paul says: "I know that Nug has an access to this journal and, therefore, he can read all of them. In connection to that it is strange for me that he claims that some authors denounce Steigmann-Gall, and forgets to note that many articles from the same issue support his views." Well, thank you Paul for the reference to this journal issue, but your contention that I somehow "forget to note that many articles from the same issue" is most bizarre, as I don't see how it is possible to "forget" something before the fact of becoming aware of it in the first place. As you recall, I referred to Babik's critical paper published in History and Theory, so I am unsure why you think I might have read this particular issue of Journal of Contemporary History before your mention of it. But anyway, as we now have these reviews, let's examine them in order to assess the weight we should apply to Steigmann-Gall's POV.

Stanley Stowers doesn't seem to be a review of Steigmann-Gall's book but rather he is appears to be air his own opposition to the concept of "political religion", citing Steigmann-Gall briefly in support of his own POV.

Doris L. Bergen seems supportive but highlights some issues:

"According to Richard Steigmann-Gall, ‘the insistence that Nazism was an anti- Christian movement has been one of the most enduring truisms of the past fifty years'", "As I suggested in my book Twisted Cross, the German Christians did not fit most standard theological criteria for Christians: that is, they rejected basic Christian teachings about the divinity and humanity of Jesus and renounced the canonicity of Christian scripture.", "Perhaps in an effort to make his evidence fit neatly, Steigmann-Gall left out the crucial element of tension in nazi–Christian relations. Without conceding at least some nazi hostility, however, the dynamic generated by Christian defensiveness cannot be understood. This and other shortcomings will reduce Steigmann-Gall’s ability to convince sceptics of his arguments, but they cannot negate the significance of his call to confront the presence of Christianity in National Socialism."

Irving Hexham:

"Richard Steigmann-Gall challenges the dominant view that nazi leaders were hostile to Christianity"

Hexham goes on to criticise Steigmann-Gall misuse of primary sources such as Goebbels:

"Presented in this way, Goebbels appears to be endorsing Christianity. When read in the context of genre and situation, Goebbels’ speech appears in a very different light. As the editor of Goebbels’ Reden points out, Goebbels was a master of irony and rhetoric, making it very difficult at times to know exactly what he meant. In the context of the speech cited by Steigmann-Gall it appears that Goebbels is being ironic."

and dismissal of non-Christian influences in the Nazi Party such as Rosenberg’s:

"It is here that Steigmann-Gall’s approach fails. Rather than enabling the reader to understand how and why people accepted nazi logic he dismisses it as illogical and vainly seeks an alternative explanation that leads him to deny that anyone could possibly have read Rosenberg’s work."

Ernst Piper:

"In his book The Holy Reich, Richard Steigmann-Gall confronts us with the provocative thesis that, in reality, National Socialism was a Christian movement." "He provides interesting information about the religious career of leading National Socialists, but has failed to justify his claim to have proved that National Socialism was a Christian movement."

Manfred Gailus :

"In his introduction he notes correctly that, to date, mainstream researchers have characterized National Socialism — in terms of a movement, a regime, an ideology — as predominantly non-Christian or explicitly anti-Christian."

On the other hand Gailus states Steigmann-Gall adds nothing new as most of it had been discussed in previous decades, citing Claus-Ekkehard Bärsch’s 1998 study of the religious dimensions of NS ideology:

"That Steigmann-Gall fails not only to mention but also to analyse this research which is core to his subject, is utterly incomprehensible. Was he not familiar with it? Would it have reduced the novelty value of his intended ‘revision’? There is another consideration which greatly reduces the surprising or sensational nature of his purported ‘discoveries’. All the nazi protagonists belonged to a generation born between 1880 and 1910 into an empire orientated towards Christianity. What other religious-philosophical influences could they be expected to bring with them from their — mainly bourgeois/petty bourgeois — family background, school, church and upbringing, from the civil-religious cultural contexts of public morality, morals and values, than a belief system informed by Christianity in its broadest sense and the corresponding mentality and loyalty to tradition?"

Given that there are so many writers that support or reject his work, we can conclude that Steigmann-Gall book is at least controversial, and this is confirmed by Evans in his introduction to the issue: "These are controversial theses". Given that most reviewers, both supporters an detractors, state Steigmann-Gall book challenges the dominant viewpoint, we can say his POV is therefore minority and thus be given less weight. Given that most reviewers, and including Steigmann-Gall himself, state the dominant viewpoint is that Nazism was anti-Christion, we can also conclude that this POV can be given most weight. --Nug (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his viewpoint is not the mainstream (at least, not the sole mainstream view), but it is not a fringe view either. Doris L. Bergen listed several authors, who, as well as Bergen herself express the idea of affinity of Nazism and Christianity/Protestantism. They are John Conway, Ernst Helmreich, Richard Rubenstein, Gordon Zahn, Robert Ericksen, Susannah Heschel, Rainer Laechele and many others, according to her. Therefore, this viewpoint should be represented in the article at least as one of significant minority views. As our policy says, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I named several prominent adherents, and I believe it is quite sufficient to devote decent space in the article to this viewpoint.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no impression in any of the journal papers that there is more than one mainstream view. You say that Bergen mentions a number of authors having expressed the notion of affinity between Nazism and Christianity, but she says "in different ways and to different extents" to Steigmann-Gall. Let's not confuse the two issues of church collaboration/support and the whether the Nazis were pro or anti-Christian. There is no question that thousands of pastors supported the Nazi movement, but equally thousands of pastors opposed the Nazis, causing a split in German Protestantism into the pro- and anti- Nazi factions of German Christians and Confessing Church. The point of divergence is that Steigmann-Gall (who Bergen states is also claiming to revise her viewpoint too) asserts that most of the top Nazi hierarchy were active Christians who saw the Nazi movement as an extension of the Reformation through Positive Christianity. But Bergan states "Most scholars dismiss ‘positive Christianity’ as nothing but an opportunistic slogan coined to conceal nazism’s intrinsic hostility toward Christianity and the Churches". Steigmann-Gall leaves out, as Bergen states, the crucial element of tension in nazi–Christian relations and he fails to concede any nazi hostility existed that created a sense of a return to Kulturkampf that drove German Catholics and Protestants into defensiveness and thus collaboration as a strategy for self-preservation. So while I agree Steigmann-Gall is not fringe, his viewpoint never the less goes far beyond that even of those authors mentioned by Bergen (which she includes herself) who discuss the affinities between the German church and state. So I don't think you can use these other authors to claim Steigmann-Gall has greater weight than he has. --Nug (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The positions by Nazis in public differed from what they thought in private. Public stances by Nazi officials on Christianity were carefully crafted because: (1) Germany's Christianity has been divided since the Reformation between Protestantism and Catholicism, (2) it would be stupid in those days for any politician to say they were an athiest - they would lose support from the religious communities. In private, the Nazis were divided - some despised Christianity altogether for being of Jewish origins, others claimed that they supported a Positive Christianity - that claimed that the Jews stole the Christian legend from the Aryans, and then there were others who sought alliance between Nazism and the Catholic Church like Mussolini and the Italian Fascists did - as a means to legitimize Nazism amongst Germans of the Catholic faith. There is little that can disguise the fact that the Nazis were highly uncomfortable with Christianity in the mainstream form - because of its connections with Judaism, although heroic patriotic imagery of Germany's Christian past was emphasized by the Nazis - such as references to the Teutonic Knights who were involved in the Crusades - mostly because it represented a historic example of German commitment to faith to a common cause and because it emphasized a warrior spirit that the Nazis sought to instill upon Germany.--R-41 (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)