Translated from the original
Foreword of Blut und Ehre:
Born on January 12, 1893 in Reval, Alfred Rosenberg experienced as Baltic-German all the severe suffering of ethnic Germans and the Russian Revolution. To enlighten Germany about this and to help protect her against communism, at the end of 1918 Rosenberg went to Germany, was introduced to Adolf Hitler by Dietrich Eckart and joined him in 1919.
In 1921 he took over the Völkischer Beobachter [Folkish Observer]. Rosenberg marched with the Führer in Coburg in 1922 and the Feldherrnhalle in 1923. After November 9, 1923 he tried to hold together the movement’s remnants. When the Führer returned from Landsbergand he took over management of the Völkischer Beobachter and expanded it more and more in the following period until, after the victory, it became Germany’s largest newspaper.
When in 1930 the wish for an official NSDAP magazine became even stronger, Rosenberg created the Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte [The National Socialist Monthly]. In 1929 he founded the Kampfbund für deutsche Kultur [Fighting Federation for German Culture]. In 1930 Rosenberg became a member of the Reichstag and a representative of his faction for foreign affairs. Through trips and work, he became more and more immersed in questions of foreign affairs and presented the new foundations in this area. He was appointed in April 1933 chief of the Foreign Affairs Office of the NSDAP by Adolf Hitler and shortly thereafter Reichsleiter.
Alfred Rosenberg, in a certain sense, is the father of National Socialist literature. Already in 1919/20 he had published several writings about Bolshevism, Freemasonry and the Jewish Question and made the fight against international powers one of his main tasks. We find him as a domestic fighter in his little-noted book Thirty November Heads, which appeared in 1927. His 1930 fighting work The Swamp, one of the most valuable documents against the cultural decline of the post-war years, was on a similar level. Already in 1922 Rosenberg had published Nature: Principles and Goals of the NSDAP, the movement’s first publication! Later, he gave the movement two of its most basic writings: Future Path of German Foreign Policy and The Structure of National Socialism.
His main work, however, is The Myth of the Twentieth Century, which in 1923 experienced huge press popularity. Hanns Johst wrote: ‘I am often asked about the principles of National Socialism. Here is the work in which the manifestation of these principles is achieved…’ [Pages 7-8. The following is taken from pages 36-43 of the English translation.]
The ‘Centre’ and ‘Christian Folk Service’ parties
Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte [The National Socialist Monthly], April 1931:
The relationship between National Socialism and religion has been an issue since the appearance of the NSDAP. Adolf Hitler took the standpoint of a statesman from the beginning. He views the existence of various religious denominations as given and wants to keep the political movement out of the religious fighting. One should think that it would be agreeable to every Christian denomination to see the emergence of a worker movement that energetically combats soul-killing, atheistic Marxism and takes up an idealistic idea against our time’s rule by Mammon and, like Jesus, swings the whip against the money-changers and traders.
But the opposite has happened. Precisely the party that has claimed to practice Christian politics picked up a fight against National Socialism and put itself on the side of a Social Democracy hostile to any religion. That party formed coalitions with the purpose to annihilate the German workers’ movement and supported those powers that, for years, have financed the leave-the-church movement. After such a coalition this propaganda has not ceased.
Something was just as hated by Marxism as by the Centre: the conscious folk-feeling and the call to a Germanic morality-feeling, as can be read in our party program, paragraph 24. At Catholic Days, which represent Centre meetings (Contance 1923), German nationalism was presented as ‘the greatest heresy’ and bishop Mainz and cardinal Faulhaber competed in the condemnation of this ‘new heathenism’. As church princes, they banned membership in the NSDAP; yes, sometimes even excluded Catholic National Socialists from the sacraments.
In the process they referred to the Catholic doctrine. What is bizarre is that, in strictly Catholic Italy, the most extreme nationalism has become a state government and the Pope, who for decades has refused any reconciliation with liberalism, is now in peace with the leader of this growing nationalism. The Pope even called Mussolini a ‘man of Providence’ after the signing of the Lateran Pact. From Italy’s church organs we can now hear, even more frequently, the king’s hymn. And of the cardinals of Italian descent it is said that, under the purple, they wear the black-shirt of fascism.
The German folk now claims nothing more than it should be granted the same right to national pride; the right to erect a real national state based on its character. If, in face of the no longer contested Italian facts, this is contested based on the ‘Catholic doctrine’ by church princes there are two possibilities: either there are two Catholic doctrines, or the faith of the Catholic masses is being intentionally misled for the achievement of political goals.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note: Since this article of The National Socialist Monthly was addressed to the Christian masses, Rosenberg fails to say the obvious. Remember Hitler’s words in Mein Kampf:
We have to distinguish between the state as a vessel and the race as the content. This vessel only makes sense if it is able to preserve and protect its contents; otherwise it is worthless.
This week, commenting on the above quotable quote, Krist Krusher said: ‘This is why all self-proclaimed National Socialists should never think of Hitlerism as being nothing more than “German Fascism”. As Fascism is built entirely from the State, it always thought of race as secondary. It is about as removed from us as Marxism in this regard’.
______ 卐 ______
Since we can dismiss the first possibility (the Roman church has only one leader), only the second remains. The Centre accepts Zionists and chairmen of Jewish cultural communities as Reichstag candidates. It even allows Protestants as members without influence, but is nonetheless a strictly Catholic denomination party. Just as Marxism wants to eternalise the nation’s split through the doctrine of social class struggle, has the Centre declared against the German nation the denominational class struggle and has carried the spiritual, religious struggle into the sphere of power politics. And just as the Social Democrat only has an eye on his class, so does the Centre leader only has his denomination’s interests.
This party lives from conflict. Hence the NSDAP was hated most deeply from the first day because religious tolerance inside the party was practically carried out in an exemplary manner. Religious differences of opinion and philosophical competitions had to be carried out outside the party organisation. As soon as it assembled, as soon as the SA put on its brown-shirt, they were no longer any Catholics and Protestants but Germans fighting for the existence and honour of their folk. No co-worker of the NSDAP is asked whether he belongs to the Deutsch Kirche [German Church] or if he is Reformierter [a member of the Evangelical Reformed Church in Germany]. Only the achievement in the service of German freedom is pivotal. The deep wounds of the Thirty Years War were finally healed in the National Socialist movement, just like the wounds of the Marxist and bourgeois class conflict began to scar. Then there arose the concentrated struggle of all those political upstarts who want to suck the blood for their parasitic existence from the wounds of their folk. The Marxists screamed ‘capitalist lackeys’; the bourgeois leaders lamented ‘National-Bolsheviks’, and the Centre cried ‘enemies of any religion’.
Never have religious feelings been treated so unscrupulously by the Centre and the political prelates directing it, and it was one issue at which the zealous dialecticians aimed. As stated above, it is claimed that National Socialism is not a common political party, rather a worldview (emphasis by Editor. Remember Savitri Devi’s words: ‘it is the enemies of Hitlerism, and in particular the Jews, and intelligent Christians, who have understood this best). To solidify the struggle against German nationalism, the Centre points to our worldview and declares it a ‘heathen, anti-Catholic race idolization’. We can reply that race science determined the diverseness and diverse value of the races, similar to how one makes discoveries in the field of chemistry. Such a discovery cannot be combated by any kinds of dogmas and excommunications, and many times the church has had to bow to the facts.
When Copernicus presented the heliocentric doctrine, when the flat Earth with heaven above and hell below suddenly became a sphere hovering in space, the whole world of dogma rebelled against this new doctrine. Until 1827 (!) all works that taught this solar system stood in the Index. Copernicus’ worldview also produced a different worldview than the biblical one, a different look at the world, but this discovery in no way damaged genuine religion, which stems from man’s soul. The Roman and Protestant churches (Martin Luther called Copernicus a swindler and deceiver) needed three hundred years to adapt to the new world image, and they had to bow before it despite everything.
Another example is provided by the treatment of our mother tongue. Someone demanded exclusive use of the heathen Latin (here the expression is appropriate). Meister Eckart encountered much hostility when he preferred the German language, but the whole German folk owe to the ‘heretic’ Luther the High German language uniting the nation. But it stood in the statutes of the Jesuit Order that use of the mother tongue in all matters relating to school would be never allowed. In 1830 the order saw itself compelled to at least allow the mother tongue for poetry, when Goethe stood at the end of his life’s work! And the very well known Jesuit Father Duhr affirmed: ‘This remains a principle: the practice of the mother tongue is recommendable, but it should not be turned into its school subject’. The persecution of the dearest thing that a folk calls its own has been overcome; today the Catholic Church often stands up for the mother tongue in upholding the interests of its faithful.
It is now quite similar to race science regarding religion. The verdict of a bishop or cardinal or even the Pope on race is, in this case, a completely private opinion about the biological problem or the political problem based on it, which stands outside purely religious authority that the devote Catholic grants him. A dogmatic excommunication can no longer nullify a natural scientific discovery.
In the Middles Ages, researchers were burned as sorcerers. Today, the Vatican builds a radio station that Torquemada would have certainly cursed as devil’s work. Thus the struggle against race science is not religious, rather a struggle of the politically interested that previously gathered their followers around themselves on a different basis. An anathema against blood consciousness will be overcome for the same reason that one had to acknowledge Copernicus, and it represents a historical irony that one of the finest researchers of the laws of genetics was the Catholic Father Gregor Mendel.
We can conclude that worldview and religion are not the same. A worldview can exist outside religion (atomic world explanation, naturalist monism), but it can also include religion. The National Socialist movement is a folk movement about a new and yet ancient, firmly founded worldview of the value of blood. It wants to protect healthy, good blood. Regardless of whether one wants to call this God’s creation or Nature’s iron rule, in both cases National Socialism serves a constructive principle under a fundamental religious disposition. The political battle movement leaves the most thorny questions about God and immortality, fate and mercy to the individual personality for decision. They may seek their comforters and spiritual counsellors, whom they require for the development of their inner life. (Editor’s Note: On this point the Christians, not Rosenberg, were right. NS is, in fact, the new paradigm that comes to replace the old one. This is why American white nationalists, more Christian than Nazis, don’t honour the memory of the Führer every April 20th.)
The opponents of the German essence in Bavaria, Silesia and the Rhine lower themselves in their hatred when criticising paragraph 24 of the National Socialist program by claiming that no special ‘Germanic moral feeling’ exists that could be viewed as the measure of action. This means a quite intentional denial of German cultural awareness and a terrible disregard of the value of our ancestors. For without the characteristic prerequisites of the Germanic man for the creation of state and society, Germany as a life form would not have emerged at all. Without her energy and her will the soil itself would not have been conquered, upon which today live those who have been the beneficiaries of this colonising but are inwardly alienated from the founders of their prosperity, and the freedom of the state structure.
And if the state-building character has already been a part of Germanic morality, that has so mightily revealed itself in life and the art, a brazenness without equal would be necessary to equate the Hottentot or Jew with Germanic essence. When, for example, the Vandal Stilicho became Rome’s regent, one of his first acts consisted of banning the gladiator fighting: that most terrible symbol of a decadent, animalised world, which had adopted those horrible games from the Middle Eastern Etruscans. Later, the Eastern Goth Theodorich did the same, replacing the gladiator massacre with knight tournaments. And without falling into a one-sided deification of Germanic man one may probably say that the Gudrunlied, the high song of a proud woman, corresponds to the most beautiful emotional yearning, as well as Siegfried’s generous figure. Even in Hagen it sparkles reconciliation from the depth of something unconditional, the loyalty to the king.
Germanic morality that was true to itself wanted to account for nature and the cosmos. From this yearning were born the mystics and the great researchers of nature down to Immanuel Kant’s noble doctrine of duty. (Editor’s Note: This is another mistake common among German nationalists. Kant’s influence—sneaking in the house the Jewish god through the back door after the French Enlightenment expelled it from the front door—was terrible for the German Enlightenment.) And in German music the same world-overcoming life developed, so that the denial of this Germanic-German [germanisch-deutsche] value means an attack to annihilate the world-shaping German soul. That such a denial could be openly expressed shows the deep decline that Germany as folk has suffered. It also shows the necessity of a general folk resistance, without difference of religious denomination, against a dynamics at whose end stands race chaos: psychological decline and then political decline of the German nation.
If it is now brazenly declared by the Centre that National Socialism is preparing a new ‘cultural struggle’, a government persecution of the Catholic church, that is an agitation lie of the worst sort. Whatever a National Socialist may think about this or that religious dogma, it has always rejected any political intercession against a denomination and will hold to that in the future. And it has proven that policy through the deed. The Centre has done the opposite. It has given lip-service support to Catholic dogmas but through its alliances with the Marxists it accepts the possibility of uninhibited atheist propaganda and thereby assistance to overall Bolshevization. The prerequisite for a religious renewal is hence the annihilation of Marxism and the beating down of the Centre as long as in practice it broadly nurtures Marxism.
On the Protestant side, similarly oriented political opportunities have watched the anti-Marxist movement grow. The Protestants have now founded a denominational party similar to the Centre: the Christian Folk Service. National Socialism takes the same position toward this ‘evangelical’ foundation as to the ‘Catholic’ Centre. The success of the Folk Service will degrade the Germans’ struggle for liberation to a denominational quarrel, and force the struggle to a level that must stand outside the great political battle of all. The first thing, by the way, that the Reichstag delegates of these ‘evangelicals’ did, was to vote against the candidate of the Nationalist opposition for the post of Reichstag President. They preferred, together with the Centre, to give their vote to the champion of conscientious objectors, the leftist Social Democrat Paul Loebe. Here, once more, we see a downright betrayal to both the Nationalist and the Christian idea.
Given this treasonous bearing, influenced by Marxist thought and political representatives of both denominations, it is no wonder, if the movement that leaves the church grows, that the sects of Adventists, First Bible Researchers, and the Communist International of the godless prepares the organised destruction of all religious values. The NSDAP has acted against these folk-destructive forces as well (in Munich rallies of the ‘Bible Researchers’ were only banned after clear words on our side by the government of the Bavarian Folk Party). But the the spread of all these currents shows the weakness of the inner persuasiveness of both the Catholic as well as the Protestant church.
To evaluate the deeper worldview causes that may exist here lies outside the NSDAP’s area of competency. Some believe it is imperative duty to push the clerics into the political party fight. Already Bismarck scolded Stoecker that he, as an active preacher, wanted to be a political leader based on the instinct that invariably a national policy would become subjected to denominational considerations, especially since the psyche of the spiritual counsellor and the political leader cannot be organically united. Today in Germany we stand anew before the fact that a party, the whole Centre, stands under purely clerical leadership. The party chairman of the Centre and its Foreign Affairs Politician (with the Prelate Ulitzka) is the Papal House Prelate Dr Kaas. The actual chief of the Bavarian Folk Party is the leader of the Landtag faction in the Bavarian Cathedral, the Provost Wohlmuth: leader of the Reichstag faction of this party and also its foreign affairs spokesman, Prelate Leicht. Thus, Catholic priests work in the foremost battle-line for the Centre (they simply forbid patriotic clerics such as Abbott Schachleitner, Doctor of Theology, from speaking). And if, in opposition to the folk-destructive Centre policy, one also fights in the form of rejection of the leaders, they call it insulting priests.
The folk see this everywhere and here lies a reason why antireligious criticism falls on fertile soil. The task of the gentlemen of the Centre clerics does not lie in giving Catholic lip service in folk assemblies to share the political spoils with atheist Marxist partners; rather, to leave the political arena and become again spiritual counsellors. Today the nation needs comforters of the human soul more than ever, but it must be noted that the hate-filled Centre spirit has penetrated even those circles that do not stand out politically. For example, a Bavarian pastor from the pulpit openly defamed Adolf Hitler saying he had spat out a consecrated wafer. Indicted and convicted of defamation, the pastor was nonetheless acquitted. In the confessional, children are forbidden under threat of harsh punishments and the torments of hell to visit National Socialist meetings or reading the Völkischer Beobachter. Women are told they must deny their husbands marital rights in the event they do not vote for the Centre, etcetera. All that—in connection with terrible harassment against clerics who do not agitate for the Centre—outrages the healthy folk, which increasingly slips away from the spiritual counsellor.
A recovery in religious life will not come until the priest reflects on his actual office and obeys the decree of his chief leader, and the same is true about the evangelicals. The most beautiful cultural blossoming of Protestantism was doubtlessly the evangelical pastor’s house in small towns and villages. But here, too, the metropolis intervened, agitating nerves, and awakened wishes which would have otherwise turned the energies away from the direction of a purely spiritual counsellor. Here, too, the cleric, as long as he works as such, should disappear from the parliament tribunes and the political folk assembly.
We wish hereby to restrict neither the Evangelical nor the Catholic cleric in his life energy. But he should treat the common national culture from the pulpit and in a form such as his office is intended. Here lie the great possibilities for effectiveness; here alone lies the lever to deepen and renew religious life. It is as unnatural if the cleric becomes parliamentarian as if a statesman wanted to set himself on the confessional seat. In the organically based separation of these social spheres lies the prerequisite of a new, spiritually healthy construction of Germany.
______ 卐 ______
Editor’s Note: But the Christians triumphed after the war. The first time in my life I visited Germany, in 1982, I was truly shocked to see handsome Aryans bending the knee before the Jewish god in a big church.
I never saw a swastika.
White nationalists still ignore that the JQ and the CQ are the same.
15 replies on “Rosenberg on Christian subversion of NS”
I highly recommend you to read Rosenberg’s diary, which, in some parts censored by the Jews and the CIA though, was published in 2015, and also his memoirs. There are several editions of them, oblviously more or less biased – just like the Führer’s Table Talk – but nevertheless worth reading.
Which version did you read?
Most deluded white nationalists cannot see through the miasma of the Judeo-Christian axiological fog. I am deeply disapppointed when they still cling to any remnants of Abrahamic religious trappings or Christian ethics.
Christianity is anti-Aryan in nature in its beginning and inception, it was born out of the destructive envy of the strength, vitality, beauty and nobility of classical Rome and Greece. Paul knew that the classical world was far more superior than Jerusalem and Palestine, he knew that Jews cannot physically and militarily defeat the Romans. The miscegenated masses of Corinth, Thessaloniki and Colossae will undoubtedly listen to the siren song of Jew Paul of Tarsus.
As a benefit of hindsight, Paul would plant a destructive seed into the Aryan soul or psyche, but the sole responsibility of rejecting the Jesus poison lies fully or completely with Aryans themselves, it is up to Aryans to ruthlessly expunge any Christian corruption from their minds, cognition, identities and soul.
Rosenberg’s advocacy of the separation of Church and State is very similar to what the Liberals of the 1700s believed. It strikes me as a very modern, ironically Neo-Xtian attitude derived from “Give unto God what is his and give unto Caesar what is his”. It is distant from the pre-Xtian republics and kingdoms where the state itself enforced the worship of the Gods and funded the temples by taxation, in particular the Caesarea. The mere fact that the dead Caesars were essentially Gods in their own right stands to the antiquity of the Union of State and Deity, rather than their disunion as propagated by Xtians, Jews and all modern enemies of the White race.
Parallels to European unions of state and worship can be found worldwide. Even among the Hasmoneans, around the time of the early Roman Republic, there was a total union of State and Worship in the form of Kritarchy, wherein the Kohanim dominated the land by sheer deception in order to get free mutton.
Indeed, and in this matter Covington failed big time in his novels, in that he puts the Xtians and pagans of the racist New Republic fighting side by side, as if that were possible.
It was not possible in the Third Reich despite the fact that, unlike Rosenberg’s pamphlet, the Nazi leadership concealed its anti-Christianity from the masses. And such cooperation will also be impossible on this side of the Atlantic. Just see how neochristian white nationalists freak out over the SS’s Master Plan East (instead of coming up with a ‘Master Plan South’ after a war similar to that of the Turner diaries).
Hello I came across another corroboration between Henry Picker’s ‘Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1942’ and Mein Kampf,
“Beim heutigen Mittagessen kam der Chef auf die Staatsreligion oder besser Staatsphilosophie der Japaner zu sprechen. Er erklärte, dass die Staatsphiloso- phie der Japaner, die heute einer der wesentlichsten Ausgangspunkte ihrer Er- folge sei, sich nur deshalb als Lebensgrundlage des japanischen Volkes erhalten habe, weil man sie beizeiten vor dem Gift des Christentums bewahrt habe.
Ebenso wie für den Mohammedanismus sei auch für die japanische Staats- religion Inhalt des Glaubens kein Terrorismus, sondern die Hoffnung auf die Glückseligkeit. Der Terrorismus sei überhaupt ein von dem Christentum aus- gebreiteter jüdischer Glaubenssatz und habe auch bei uns die Gemüter nur verwirrt. Denn alle terroristischen Vorstellungen auf dem Gebiet des Glaubens seien nur geeignet, die Menschen vom Optimismus abzuziehen und sie zu boden-loser Feigheit zu erziehen.”
~ 4.4.1942 mittags, (Wolfsschanze), Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1942.
Translation(Important Corroborating sentence with Mein Kampf, is capitalize):
“At lunch today, the boss spoke about the state religion, or rather the state philosophy of the Japanese. He explained that the Japanese state philosophy, which today is one of the most important starting points for their success, has only been preserved as the basis of the Japanese people’s livelihood because it has been saved in good time from the poison of Christianity.
Just as for Mohammedanism, for the Japanese state religion the content of belief is not terrorism, but the hope of happiness. TERRORISM IS GENERALLY A JEWISH BELIEF SPREAD BY CHRISTIANITY AND HAS ONLY CONFUSED OUR MINDS. Because all terrorist ideas in the field of faith are only suitable to pull people away from optimism and to educate them to bottomless cowardice.”
So the quote: “Der Terrorismus sei überhaupt ein von dem Christentum ausgebreiteter jüdischer Glaubenssatz und habe auch bei uns die Gemüter nur verwirrt.” (Terrorism is generally a Jewish belief spread by Christianity and has only confused our minds.) corroborates with the following quote from Mein Kampf.
“The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first SPIRITUAL TERROR entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that SINCE THEN(I.E. APPEARANCE OF CHRISTIANITY) the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion and terror only by terror.” ~ Mein Kampf, CHAPTER V: Philosophy and Organization
This quote “Terrorism is generally a Jewish belief spread by Christianity and has only confused our minds.” is not present in ‘Adolf Hitler Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944’ (or maybe I have not looked properly but from my searching, I did not find it) but only present in Henry Picker’s ‘Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier’, it is also present in Trevor Roper’s Table Talks, and this particular quote corroborates with Mein Kampf. This quote is of extreme importance.
Do you think that Adolf Hitler Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944 might have been censored?
“Adolf Hitler Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944” is a version/edition of the Table Talks stenographed by Heinrich Heim. “Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1942” is a version/edition stenographed by Henry Picker. Heim and Picker, both NS officials, were present at the Führerhauptquartier at different time, that’s why there are two original German versions. Whether they were censored or not is another question. Recently Mikael Nilsson published a book “Hitler Redux”; he doubts the authenticity of the Table Talks. I’ve not read it yet, but my personal opinion is that the Table Talks are authentic at least in their core.
Thank you for this information. Mikael Nilsson is an obscure freelance historian and on Amazon there are practically no reviews of his book, which costs $ 160 by the way! Without reviews in academic journals, no one should spend that amount.
A pdf copy of Nilsson’s book is availabe on Library Genesis. Here’s Nilsson’s concluding quote: “However, and this is very important, the results presented in this book should absolutely not be interpreted as meaning that the table talks are not authentic. They really are, at least for the most part, memoranda of statements that Hitler made at some point or another in his wartime HQs. They were made by either Heim, Picker, Müller, or Bormann, although there are also some notes that have no name attached to them. There are a few exceptions to this rule, however, consisting of statements that Hitler either reasonably cannot have uttered or did not utter. These statements are sometimes the product of a misunderstanding of what Hitler said; at other times the author has confused other guests’ statements with Hitler’s, and on an unknown number of occasions there are interpolations in the text made by Bormann. A detailed study of all statements needs to be made in order for us to know how many such examples there in fact are.” So yes, Cesar, you are right, Nilsson is just an obscure pedantic cuck.
Mikael Nilsson accepts that Hiter DID make Anti-Christian comments, here is a passage from his book ‘Hitler Redux’.
“What the table talks do add to what we find in Mein Kampf, however, is the strong criticism of Christianity and Christian dogma. We see the same in other independent sources, too, such as Werner Koeppen’s notes and Rosenberg’s and Goebbels’s diaries, SO WE CAN BE SURE THAT HE EXPRESSED SUCH VIEWS, although the exact formulations are impossible to nail down exactly.”
Fascinating. I’ll be using your posts as content for new entries.
Regarding Mikael Nilsson’s ‘Hitler Redux’, I have the book, I read some 200 pages, not yet completed.
But the author DOESN’T SAY Table Talks didn’t happen, Nilsson clearly affirms that Table Talks DID happen, Nilsson just speculates how much of the quotes might have been edited or misinterpreted thus turning the original intention of the Hitler words during the editing or correcting process.
But the quotes or the thoughts which Hitler expresses in Table Talks IF it is also present( or parallel/similar thoughts)in independent sources such as memoirs, Diaries of the people who had conversations with Hitler then such quotes are double authenticated there is no need to doubt such quotes.
One such thought of Hitler is that if Germans had adopted Islam according to Hitler then they might have fared well in world history and went on to achieve more in history.
This thought process of Hitler is expressed in ‘Adolf Hitlers Monologe im Führer-hauptquartier 1941-1944’.
Here is the quote from ‘Monologe im Führer-hauptquartier 1941-1944’:
“Hätte bei Poitiers nicht Karl Martell gesiegt: Haben wir schon die jüdische Welt auf uns genommen – das Christentum ist so etwas Fades -, so hätten wir viel eher noch den Mohammedanismus übernommen, diese Lehre der Belohnung des Heldentums: Der Kämpfer allein hat den siebenten Himmel! Die Germanen hätten die Welt damit erobert, nur durch das Christentum sind wir davon abgehalten worden.” (Werwolf 28. 8. 1942, mittags H/Wa.)
Translation: “Had it not been for Karl Martell to triumph at Poitiers: If we had already taken on the Jewish world – Christianity is so bland – WE WOULD HAVE ADOPTED MOHAMMEDANISM MUCH SOONER, THIS DOCTRINE OF THE REWARD OF HEROISM: THE FIGHTER ALONE HAS THE SEVENTH HEAVEN ! THE TEUTONS WOULD HAVE CONQUERED THE WORLD WITH IT, WE WERE ONLY KEPT FROM IT BY CHRISTIANITY.”
This particular thought of Hitler is registered in numerous independent sources, the first I will cite is Albert Speer’s memoir ‘Inside the Third Reich’.
Here is the quote from Albert Speer’s memoir: “Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.
You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”
(Adolf Hitler, Inside The Third Reich, Albert Speer).
Another source where the same thought of Hitler is registered is Walter Hewel Diaries, where Hewel records Hitler saying “Wenn wir Mohammedaner geworden wären, würden wir heute die Welt besitzen.”(8. Juni 1941 Sonntag. Berghof.)
[Replace ‘()’ with ‘.’]
Translation of the above quote from Walther Hewel Diaries: “If we had become Mohammedans, we would own the world today. ”
Another independent source that corroborates this particular thought of Hitler is Edmund Glaise von Horstenau.
The below passage is reproduced from the book ‘Islam and Nazi Germany’s War — David Motadel’
“After discussing the Muslim SS division in the Balkans with Himmler and Hitler in Berlin in February 1943, Edmund Glaise von Horstenau noted that Himmler had expressed his disdain for Christianity while explaining that he found Islam ‘very admirable.’ Hitler had made a similar remark. A few months later, according to Horstenau, Himmler brought up the subject again: ‘We also spoke about the Muslim question. He came again to speak about the heroic character of the Mohammedan religion while expressing his disdain for Christianity, and especially Catholicism.’
(Ein General im Zwielicht, ed. Broucek, vol. 3, 189– 190 (February 1943), quotations on 189. ., 322 (November 1943).)
Another source is Eva Braun’s sister, Ilse.
“After the war, Eva Braun’s sister, Ilse, remembered that Hitler had often discussed the Islamic religion with her and Eva.”
(Islam and Nazi Germany’s War, David Motadel
Citation: Ilse Braun made this comment in a conversation with Werner Maser in May 1971, see Werner Maser, Adolf Hitler: Legende— Mythos—Wirklichkeit (Cologne, 1971), 475.)
Another source is from Hermann Neubacher.
“In any case, Hitler was thoroughly fascinated by this historical speculation. Hermann Neubacher, special representative of the Foreign Office for the Balkans, also noted in his autobiography that “Hitler showed great sympathy for Islam” and that he was convinced that “if the Germans had become Muslims, they would have achieved more in history.” According to Neubacher, Hitler had further described Islam, in a conversation, as a “religion of men” (Männerreligion).”
(Islam and Nazi Germany’s War, David Motadel
Ciation:Hermann Neubacher, Sonderauftrag Südost 1940– 1945: Bericht eines fl iegenden Diplomaten, (Göttingen, 1956), 33.)
So a single thought from Table Talks (Monologe im Führer-hauptquartier 1941-1944) when it also registered in numerous independent sources then there absolutely no need to ponder about the authenticity of such quotes, since it is double verified by its presence in independent sources.
The quotes from Table Talks(Monologe im Führer-hauptquartier 1941-1944; Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941–194) which have a parallel and corraborating quotes from Mein Kampf, clearly means it is 100% authentic.
I have already demonstrated such a corroborating quote between ‘Monologe im Führer-hauptquartier 1941-1944’ and ‘Mein Kampf’ where Hitler talks about the Ancient world being much freer and beautiful until the appearance of Christianity. www()chechar.wordpress()com/2021/07/25/hitler-christianity/
Now we find another parallel quote(My previous comment) from ‘Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1942’ and ‘Mein Kampf’ where Hitler attributes Terrorism to Christianity and goes on to say since the ADVENT OF CHRISTIANTY world has been AFFLICTED.
There are many such instances of such parallel thoughts between Table Talks and other independent sources, for such quotes, there is no need to be worried about the authenticity, Mikael Nilsson’s in his ‘Hitler Redux’ demonstrates such parallel quotes on few topics, which Hitler spoke about.
Another parallel or supporting quote which I found was about the death of Hans Kerrl in ‘Monologe im Führer-hauptquartier 1941-1944’, where Hitler says: “Minister Kerrl wollte im edelsten Sinne eine Synthese herstellen zwischen Nationalsozialismus und Christentum. Ich glaube nicht, daß das möglich ist; der Grund liegt im Christentum selbst.” (Führerhauptquartier 14. 12. 1941, mittags Gäste: Reichsleiter Rosenberg, Reichsleiter Bouhler, Reichsführer-SS Himmler H/Fu.)
Translation of the above quote: “Minister Kerrl wanted to create a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity in the noblest sense. I do not believe that is possible; the reason lies in Christianity itself. ”
The same exact quote is recorded by Alfred Rosenberg in his diaries.
“Heute erfuhren wir, dass Kerrl gestorben war, d.h. jener Parteiminister, den der Führer gestern so sarkastisch apostrophierte. Der Führer sagte, Kerrls Motive seien sicher nur edel gewesen, aber es sei eben ein hoffnungsloser Versuch, NS. und Christentum zu vereinigen.”(Alfred Rosenberg Diaries, 14.12.41)
Translation of the above quote: “Today we learned that Kerrl, i.e. the party minister whom the Führer apostrophized so sarcastically yesterday, had died. The Führer said that Kerrl’s motives were certainly only noble, but it was just a hopeless attempt, NS. and to unite Christianity.”
This quote is also very similar to the memorandum issued by Martin Bormann where he said “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.”
The memorandum was halted not because Hitler was against the content, but because Hitler did not want to stir up the religious problem and which might be divisive during the war, but you can already see the similarities between the quote between Martin Bormann’s order, Rosenberg Diaries, and Table Talks, and realize that Martin Bormann totally understood Hitler thought process and NS idealogy which he reproduced in his memorandum, Bormann went on to be Hitler’s most favorite and trusted NS, who was with him till the very end, Hitler also named his as the Party Minister in his final testament and elected him as Will’s executor.
There are memoirs after memoirs that record how much deep faith and regard Hitler had for Martin Bormann.
I will just quote two such memoirs, Heinrich Hoffman’s ‘Hitler was my Friend’ and Otto Dietrich’s ‘The Hitler I Knew’.
“Hitler had given Bormann absolute and unquestioned authority and himself submitted tamely to many of his decisions.” [My Note: The British Historian David Irving said: ‘Bormann was the real dictator’.
Hitler seemed to regard this message as an implied criticism of Bormann, for he rounded on me sharply. ‘Get this quite clear in your own mind, Hoffmann, and tell it to your son-in-law, too,’ he cried. ‘To win this war I have need of Bormann! It’s perfectly true that he is both ruthless and brutal. He’s a bull, and not for nothing has he given his son the nickname of “the bull”; but the fact remains, one after the other, everybody has failed in their implicit obedience to my commands – but Bormann, never!’
His voice rose to a scream; he looked searchingly into my face, as if his words held some special application to me personally. ‘Everyone, I don’t care who he may be, must understand clearly this one fact: whoever is against Bormann is also against the State! I’ll shoot the lot of them, even if they number tens of thousands, just as I will shoot those who babble of peace! Far better that a few thousand miserable and witless nincompoops should be liquidated, than that a people of seventy millions should be dragged down to destruction!’
Never had I heard Hitler talk in such tones, and never in my life had I seen such wild and hate-filled eyes!”
The below passage is from Otto Dietrich . The Hitler I Knew. Memoirs of the Third Reich
“..he[Hitler] did not hold back the hotheads in the Party, Himmler and especially Bormann, who incessantly attacked the churches. On the contrary, he supported them and encouraged them by his private, violently antichurch remarks.
In Hitler’s will, which bears Bormann’s signature as a witness, Hitler recommended him to posterity as his “most loyal Party comrade”
(Dietrich O. The Hitler I Knew. Memoirs of the Third Reich’s Press Chief)
So if Christians pretend to be NS or flaunt as if they know more about National Socialism more or better than Martin Bormann, then such people are not even worthy to have a conversation.
So Martin Bormann’s assertion(which also corroborates with Alfred Rosenberg’s diaries and Hitler’s own words in Table Talks) “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.” STANDS AND THE FINAL WORD.
And finally, Mikael Nilsson himself in his book ‘Hitler Redux’ clearly and unambiguously records the FACT that Hitler saw Christianity as being Jewish, here is a passage from his book.
“Once Hitler came to hold the view that Christianity was in fact a Jewish creation, then it logically followed that the Christianity preached by the established churches could not be a real religion either, since the Jews could not create such a thing. It could be that the resistance that Hitler and the Nazi regime met from some of the Christian churches, both real and imagined, during the latter half of the 1930s (e.g. Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, read in German churches 21 March 1937, which was seen as a great provocation by Hitler), brought about this change in Hitler’s view. Hitler had in fact uttered a critique against the church for its “humane” attitude with regard to eugenics in the second volume of Mein Kampf. The question of when Hitler first made the connection between Christianity and the Jews in the matter that is resembling that in the table talks is impossible to answer conclusively, simply because we do not possess the sources that we need for this undertaking. However, we do have some leads in the sources that exist. These points were raised by Hitler in numerous speeches throughout the early 1920s. These early speeches bear a resemblance to what is in the table talks, but it seems to be an early stage in a process of formation of these thoughts – the seeds, stalk, and leaves are here, but not the full blossom. At this time, Hitler did not claim that Christianity was communism in another form, and he also clearly still considered Christianity itself to be something other than a Jewish invention. The Jews, according to Hitler’s view in August 1920, used Christianity as a means to an end, but by stressing that the Jew could not become truly Christian, Hitler clearly still associated Christianity with something positive, i.e. as something that was separate from the negative traits ascribed to the Jews.”
The August 1920 speech to which Mikael Nilsson is referring to is above passage is a speech titled ‘”Why We Are Antisemites” which Hitler delivered on August 13, 1920 at Hofbräuhaus in Munich.
Here is the particular quote from that speech which Nilsson talks about.
“We know that the Jew used Christianity […] because he knew that this new religion questioned all earthly power and so it became an axe at the root of the Roman state, the state which was built on the authority of the public servant. And he became its chief bearer and propagator, without becoming a Christian”
Again Hitler was 100% right when he says Jews used Christianity to DESTROY Roman Empire.
Few more quotes from the same speech where Hitler speaks ill about the Old Testament and characters in Old Testament such as Abraham, Joseph.
About Old Testament:
“The Bible. I am not claiming that all its contents are necessarily true, as we know that Jewry was very liberal in writing it. One thing, however, is certain: it has not been written by an antisemite. It is very important because no antisemite would have been able to write a more terrible indictment against the Jewish race than the Bible, the Old Testament. […] We can follow this fate of Jewry from the earliest prehistory. It is not important if there is truth in every word of the Bible. In general, it gives us at least an extract of the history of Jewry.”
“Intimate family life did not prevent Grandfather Abraham from pimping off his own wife to the Pharaoh of Egypt in order to be able to do business. (Laughter) As was the grandfather, so was the father and so were the sons who never neglected their business. […] For him there is no spiritual sensitivity, and just as his forefather Abraham was selling his wife, he finds nothing special about the fact that today he sells girls”
“And, for the breaking of physical strength, he has excellent means at hand. First of all, he has the trade that should be nothing more than distribution of foodstuffs and other necessary items for daily use. He uses it to withdraw these articles of daily life, when necessary, in order to raise the price on the one hand, but also to withdraw in order to create the conditions for physical weakening which have always worked best: hunger.
Thus we see them brilliantly organize, from a Joseph in Egypt up to a Rathenau today. Everywhere, what we see behind these organizations is not the desire to make a shining organization for food supply, but through them gradually to create hunger.”
Note: JEWsus spoke very highly about Old Testament, read from it, spoke positively about Abraham, but Hitler contrary to JEWsus’s words speaks ill about OT, (Hitler’s hatred for Old Testament is also expressed in Mein Kampf, other speeches, and important education articles meant for Soldiers) this very stance of Hitler against OT sets Hitler against NOT JUST against JEWsus words but against all the MAJOR DENOMINATION since JEWsus and all the Major denomination sees Old Testament as being something sacred which Hitler tears apart.
And Mikael Nilsson is not being totally honest since in very Mein Kampf Hitler says Christianity in destroying Pagan altars exhibited ‘specifically Jewish way of thinking’ , ’embodied a downright Jewish nature’, and Hitler even asserts this as a ‘fact’ in the same passage from Mein Kampf.
In later speeches, Hitler openly started to compare Christianity with Bolsvehsim.
“I could go back to the emergence of Christianity, to facts, according to which an idea can take hold of mankind until states finally break because of it. Closer to us is a look at the development of Marxism in Germany” (Adolf Hitler, August 4, 1929).
“A worldview conquered a State and, starting from there, will slowly shatter the whole world and bring about its collapse. Bolshevism will, if its advance is not halted, expose the world to a transformation as complete as the one Christianity once effected” (Adolf Hitler, Industry Club in Düsseldorf, January 27, 1932).
Finally, in Table Talks Hitler clearly says Bolshevism and Christianity are both Jewish Invention.
Another evidence is from Goebbels Diaries, where Goebbels writes “Christianity is an offshoot of the Jewish race”, which explains the reason why Christianity exhibited “specifically Jewish way of thinking’ and ’embodied a downright Jewish nature’ as asserted by Hitler in his Mein Kampf.
Reblogged this on My Journey.