Was Adolf Hitler a Christian?

[Archie]

I'm not as familiar with the details of Hitler's Catholic background or the personal details about him but as a more general comment I will note that in the 1930s the Western media would often portray the Nazis as being anti-religious and anti-Christian, in the same vein as the Bolsheviks. And Goebbels in his speeches would push back against that, attacking the Soviet Union for being atheistic and degenerate and would say Nazi Germany was friendly to religion. "Bolshevism denies religion as a principle, fundamentally and entirely. It recognises religion only as an "opium for the people". For the help and support of religious belief; however, National Socialism absolutely places in the foreground of its programme a belief in God and that transcendental idealism which has been destined by Nature to bring to expression the racial soul of a nation." (Goebbels' Nuremberg speech, 13 Sep 1935) It's debatable to what extent such statements were pragmatic vs sincere and certainly there were some Nazis who were very critical of Christianity or who saw it as "Jewish." My sense is that on the spectrum of attitudes Hitler was probably fairly moderate among the Nazis.

Another thing I'll mention here is that many Jewish scholars place great (imo, excessive) emphasis on Christianity in their theories of anti-Semitism, and they will often play up Christianity as a factor to make it fit with their theories. They essentially view most forms of anti-Semitism as being caused by or at least descended from the historically Christian "demonological" view of Jews as agents of Satan.

[Otium]

Plenty can be discerned about Hitler's religious views in the various diaries which exist from his confidants. Mainly Rosenberg and Goebbels. In neither of these primary sources can it be argued that Hitler was a Christian or a Catholic. You don't need to rely on memoirs or dubious sources like the various Table Talks in this regard:

The Führer is passionately opposed to playing the role of the founder of a religion. He does not want to become a Buddha later on. He is only and exclusively a politician. The best way to deal with the churches is to pretend to be a more positive Christian. So, for the time being, it is important to maintain a reserve in these matters and to coldly stifle the churches where they become impudent and interfere in state matters.

28 December, 1939; Elke Fröhlich (ed.), Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels, Part 1, Vol. 7 (Munich: K.G. Sauer Verlag, 1998), p. 248.

Undoubtedly, the entry in the 'Monologe' for Hitler's thought on Christianity on October 14, 1941 is a correct rendition of Hitler's thoughts on Nationalsocialism and Christianity:

A movement like ours must never allow itself to be drawn into this metaphysical field of completely uncontrollable trains of thought. It must remain in the field of an exact science. The Party should not be a substitute for the Church. Its task is scientific and methodical. Science may come to a different standpoint after a thousand or two thousand years, but its earlier standpoint was not mendacious; science does not lie at all, it endeavours to see things correctly within the limits of its insight. It does not deliberately misrepresent. Christianity lies: it has come into conflict with itself.

Question: Won't this eliminate faith in God altogether? That would not be good! To the masses, the concept of deity is only a substantiation. This substantiation is wonderful. Why should we destroy the collective term for the incomprehensible?

Those who live according to nature, however, come into opposition to the Church without wanting to. The Church will perish because of it. Science will be the victor! But I don't want us to go into Church territory, to perform a cultic act. That would be horrible to me, I wouldn't want to have lived my whole life if one day I had to sit there like a Buddha! If we were to do away with the Church by force now, the whole nation would cry out: Where is the substitute? Are my Gauleiters supposed to renounce their lusts in order to become saints? Even my own Minister of the Church would not be suitable for this, because in the opinion of these circles the good Lord has already denied himself to his family!

I therefore think of the future in this way: First of all, everyone has his own private faith; superstition will also always play a role. The Party is free from the danger of becoming a competing enterprise for the Church. It must be enforced that the Church no longer interferes in the state. Education from a young age ensures that everyone knows what is right for the preservation of the state. But for the people around me who have escaped the dogma enclosure with me, I need not fear that the Church will ever bind them to itself again! We will see to it that the churches no longer proclaim doctrines that are in conflict with ours. We will continue to enforce our National Socialist teachings, and the youth will only hear the truth.

14 October, 1941; Werner Jochmann (ed.), Adolf Hitler: Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944. Die Aufzeichnungen Heimrich Heıms (Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus Verlag, 1980), pp. 84-85.

Similarly Albert Speer, who is otherwise a source to be taken with a grain of salt:

Thus Hitler had little sympathy with Himmler in his mythologizing of the SS. W

What nonsense! Here we have at last reached an age that has left all mysticism behind it, and now he wants to start that all over again. We might just as well have stayed with the church. At least it had tradition. To think that I may some day be turned into an SS saint! Can you imagine it? I would turn over in my grave....

Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs by Albert Speer (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), p. 94.

[Mongol]

From Alfred Rosenberg's memoirs (https://libgen.lc/index.php?req=alfred+rosenberg+memoirs):

Joseph Wagner, Gauleiter of Bochum, and his family, were ardent Catholics who violently rejected my opinions on religion. Actually, as I learned, he was all for reducing my book to pulp. For my part, I left Wagner thoroughly alone, and had absolutely no feeling of satisfaction when, for reasons unknown to me, he was later dismissed from his post under circumstances which proved that Hitler was already on a dangerous road. Before some sort of Reichsleiter (Reich leaders') or Gauleiter (provincial leaders') conference, he read a letter of Wagner's (or of his wife's) in which he (or she) forbade their daughter to marry an S.S.-Leader because he wasn't a good enough Catholic. Hitler declared that, in spite of all his tolerance, he would not permit such intolerance. He dismissed Wagner from his post, leaving to further investigation the decision as to whether he should be permitted to remain a member of the party.

[...]

The Führer correctly differentiated between the religious beliefs of the individual and political reasoning. What his own beliefs were he never told me in so many words. Once, at table, he said a high-placed Italian had asked him point-blank what his religious beliefs were. He had begged permission not to answer that question. [...] As for the Christian concept of God, Hitler definitely rejected it in private conversations. That I know even though in the course of the years I heard only two or three pertinent remarks. Once he told me: Look at the head of Zeus! What nobility and exaltation there are in those features! About communion: It is primitively religious to crush one's God with one's teeth. He held against Gothic art that it symbolised everything dark and brain-beclouding. Later on he granted at least the impressiveness of the cathedral in Straßburg. When, in the course of one of these conversations, I ventured the opinion that one could not destroy the churches, but could merely attempt to fill them gradually with new people, he replied: That is a very wise thought! Fundamentally, as far as his attitude was concerned, Hitler had very definitely discounted churches and Christianity, although he fully acknowledged the importance of their initial appearance on earth, granted everyone the right to his own conviction, and supported the Wehrmacht in its religious and confessional demands.

[Otium]

From Alfred Rosenberg's memoirs

Rosenberg's memoirs were systematically botched. This English edition, and the original German edition are not to be trusted one iota.

Originally Rosenberg's memoirs were published under the title 'Porträt eines Menschheitsverbrechers' in 1947, and an English translation was published soon after under the title 'Memoirs of Alfred Rosenberg' in 1949 and has obviously been the standard edition ever since.

In 1955, a new unexpurgated edition was published under the title 'Letzte Aufzeichnungen: Ideale und Idole der Nationalsozialistischen Revolution'. This edition was completely faithful to Rosenberg's original provisional notes, whereas the edition published in 1947 and 1949 were truncated and botched. One only needs to compare them side by side to see how this was done.

The 1955 edition came about when the Nationalsocialist author Heinrich Härtle offered the manuscript to various German publishers, most of whom wouldn't dare touch it. Only the former member of the Liebstandarte-SS Adolf Hitler, and subsequently SS-Hauptsturmführer Karl Waldemar Schütz was brave enough to publish it via his independent publishing house 'Plesse Verlag'. Soon thereafter, the hammer was brought down and the federal authorities sought to squash its further publication on the basis that was it maliciously edited with 'neo-fascist' tendencies.

In order to do this a fallacious report was commissioned by federal judges to provide an ‘expert opinion’. Dr. Hans Buchheim, a member of the ‘Institut für Zeitgeschichte’ (IfZ) who ‘eagerly jumped at this opportunity’ charged in the report he provided to the court that the text of the book was indeed edited ‘with neo-fascist tendencies’. Härtle, quite correctly, responded that ‘the critics did not notice how paradoxical it was to portray Rosenberg as an arch-fascist and at the same time to claim that he could be falsified in a "neo-fascist" way’. Nonetheless, Härtle refuted the claims by showing that the book merely corresponded to the notes which Rosenberg wrote, and the minor editing done to the manuscript was limited to formal and stylistic corrections, and ‘in all essential points Rosenberg's representations, judgments and evaluations were reproduced faithfully’. Subsequently Dr. Max Güde, a member of the German Bundestag confirmed that the book was allowed to be republished, which clearly meant the conclusions came to by Buchheim were false.

So again, Härtle searched for a publisher. He wanted to avoid any possibility that the same controversial allegations could be made against the manuscript. Out of all people he offered the book to, he went to the very institution which had attempted to suppress its publication, the so-called ‘Institut für Zeitgeschichte’.

Härtle notes that ‘the preliminary negotiations were not unpleasant at first’ but once he put forth the demand that there should be ‘no change in the content of the original texts’ the negotiations seemed to sour. Nonetheless, he asked that if they would not be willing to publish the book, he at least wanted them to review the text of his edition in order to ‘avoid coming complications before going to press’. The response after two weeks was pathetic. On March 4, 1968 the IfZ responded that ‘for reasons of time we are not in a position to undertake a review of the new editing of Alfred Rosenberg's memoirs that you envisage’. Obviously Härtle was stunned, and correctly wondered ‘what is this supposed institute for contemporary history actually paid for, with public money, if it has no time for contemporary history?’

Härtle attempted to go back to ‘Plesse Verlag’, but upon renewed doubt as to their motives, he decided on self-publication. And in 1969 Härtle republished, in German, Rosenberg's memoirs in an unexpurgated edition with a ‘detailed introduction and numerous annotations to make it easier to understand, especially for those readers who are not eyewitnesses of that time’, under the title 'Großdeutschland: Traum und Tragödie. Rosenbergs Kritik am Hitlerismus'.

---

The relevant quote from Rosenberg's memoirs:

In private conversations, Hitler was quite hostile to the Christian concept of God, although I heard him speak about it only two or three times in the many years of his life. Once he said to me: "Just look at the head of Zeus. What nobility and sublimity speaks from these witnesses!" about the Lord's Supper: "It is a state of primitive religion that one bites one's God with one's teeth." Against the Gothic he claimed that in it everything dark and clouding the spirit was embodied. Only the spatial effect of the Strasbourg Cathedral he later accepted.

When I said during one of these conversations that churches should not be destroyed, that they could only be gradually filled with new people, he said: "That is very wise of you to think like that.

In principle and inner attitude Hitler had thus clearly distanced himself from churches and Christianity, but paid full justice to his first appearance, conceded to everyone the right of personal conviction, protected the Wehrmacht in all its desires of confessional care.

Alfred Rosenberg, Letzte Aufzeichnungen: Ideale und Idole der Nationalsozialistischen Revolution (Göttingen: Plesse Verlag, 1955), p. 235. cf. Heinrich Härtle (ed.), Großdeutschland: Traum und Tragödie. Rosenbergs Kritik am Hitlerismus (Munich: Selbstverlag, 1969), p. 204.

This is probably in reference to comments Hitler made on October 12, 1940, or thereabouts, as noted in Rosenberg's diary (which was not kept daily):

So now this burning question has been addressed. The German people, after coming home from the war, would also not understand returning to the old big-city holes while the imposing new [cities of] Berlin, Munich, Nuremberg, Hamburg are being created. The German worker is entitled to have the nucleus of his life receive consideration, too, in addition to having the state represented through grand architecture. It is with him, after all, that the victory has been fought for and won.—Another time, when we were talking about Strassburg and I was making a case for the cathedral as a national shrine, the Führer said with tears in his eyes: It should also be a monument in memory of the unknown soldier. What does the simple man have? What can he know of the magnitude of history? He has his body, and that he puts to use. What would all our plans be without this soldier! They would all be merely words on paper.

So I hope that first the monument to these German soldiers is erected in the Strassburg Cathedral. What I expressed as a wish in the Myth that the war memorial would replace the Marian columns must be initiated from the top, through example. Strassburg would be the finest example

The Führer is not fond of the Gothic style. The eroded statues in Reims were a disappointment to him. It was in Strassburg, he said, that a Gothic cathedral for the first time had evoked a strong sense of space.—That is true. The massive columns here do not block the view of the entire space. Besides, I have my reservations here, for the Gothic style was not only the Catholic zenith; it was also crucial, yet refined Germanicness [Germanentum], Here, the closeness to nature breaks through all the expressions of Catholicism: the pattern of tendrils in Marburg, the vibrant gobelins, etc. That one can no longer build in the Gothic style today, incidentally, is something I explained in the Myth (this passage was written in 1917-1918).

Frank Bajohr & Jürgen Matthäus (eds.), Alfred Rosenberg: Die Tagebücher von 1934 bis 1944 (Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 2015), p. 353. cf. English ed. The Political Diary of Alfred Rosenberg and the Onset of the Holocaust (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), p. 219.

An even better criticism is of Christianity is found in an entry for December 14, 1941:

The conversations yesterday and today at the Führer [headquarters] revolved principally around the problem of Christianity. The actions of the bishop of Münster were mentioned first. For quite some time now the English have been using his speeches to provide the bulk of their propaganda; they drop leaflets by the hundreds of thousands and read aloud in their radio broadcasts the verbal assaults made by Graf von Galen. The Führer declared that the gentlemen want to be “martyrs,” in the expectation of an honorable captivity. But the bishop of Münster will one day face a firing squad. Apart from that, in the völkisch struggle no help can be provided over the long term by a moral doctrine that preaches love of one’s enemy, turning the left cheek if someone slaps you on the right one, etc. That people devour their God, even fight a 30-year war over the form in which this meal must be eaten, can make one downright despair of all of mankind. A few generals and even a minister and Party member assert, he said, that only as a Christian can one be brave at all, as if the Germanic tribes, Romans, or Greeks had been cowardly. Even the Bolsheviks know how to die; often, when faced with captivity, they preferred to shoot themselves in the head. He has visited his SS divisions, and there is no Christian deception there, they are calm and know what they must do. We will never fathom the meaning of life and the world, all our microscopes will not yield the solution, merely expand our insights by a minuscule amount. But if there is a God, it is our duty to develop the abilities we have been given. We can err along the way but not feign and lie. This Christian hypocrisy is now nearing its end, he said, and in a process of casting off everything that is putrid, a return to health will begin. If the churches are such supporters of preserving the lives of imbeciles [Idiotenerhaltung], he is willing to leave all the feebleminded to them, as priests and disciples. If we were to get rid of Christianity], other peoples may feel free to keep the Christian religion.

I interjected that anyway, Lagarde stated previously that reading the Old Testament made him seasick. The Apostle Paul deliberately visited the seaports (Corinth, Thessaloniki) to prepare for his insurrection among these people. It has always been incomprehensible to me, I said, that H[ouston] St[ewart] Chamberlain put so much effort into defending Paul. Führer: Yes, that was Chamberlains mistake.

The Führer showed great sympathy for the worldview of the Japanese: it is a heroic stance, one of self-sacrifice for the people. I mentioned that I had just received an interesting letter from a Japanese scholar about our worldview and that of the Japanese.

Today we learned that Kerri had died, that is, the very minister and Party member whom the Führer characterized so sarcastically yesterday. The Führer said that Kerri’s motives surely were nothing but noble, but the endeavor to unite National Socialism and Christianity was simply a hopeless one. I: People have tried to salvage the “pure teaching” so many times already, but all these experiments have now failed. The Führer: This restoration of early Christianity would indeed be the worst thing, despite all their moral failings, Julius II and others, who acted as patrons of great artists, are still less dangerous than early Christianity. Jokingly; Don’t you want to take on Kerri’s office? Aghast, I waved my hand in disapproval, and he said: Indeed, you certainly do have another office. But I don’t want to hand over the church affairs to the Ministry of the Interior.

After my presentation we returned to the topic of Christianity. After the war, the Führer said, I also want to tackle this problem decisively. Elimination of their education of minors. Only adults should be permitted to commit to a church, and someone should be allowed to decide on a career in the priesthood only after serving in the Wehrmacht. Finally: Christianity was introduced long ago by human instruments of power, and he will likewise not shy away from using instruments of power, if necessary.

I recommended that the Führer read Burckhardts Age of Constantine the Great, where the Christianization inaugurated by Constantine is really depicted very well, by the standards of the insights of the time. I view the task of my future institute for Indo-Germanic intellectual history in Munich in part as introducing in place of the decaying biblical tradition a better and even older one: the ethics of the ancient Iranians and the wisdom of the ancient Hindus are finer than the New Testament. We said our good-byes very cordially. I see how these ideological questions stir the Führer, in the midst of military concerns. When I gave him the Japanese letter, he began reading it with interest. Then he was immediately gripped by it and kept it for a thorough reading (it has 13 pages)

Frank Bajohr & Jürgen Matthäus (eds.), Alfred Rosenberg: Die Tagebücher von 1934 bis 1944 (Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 2015), pp. 414-417. cf. English ed. The Political Diary of Alfred Rosenberg and the Onset of the Holocaust (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015), pp. 268-270.

---

Other excerpt.

Only one point of view could correspond to the National Socialist attitude: everyone may seek religious reinforcement and consolation where he wishes, but no one may be forced to seek such from the existing denominations. The advocacy of religious convictions is a matter for each individual; political or even police power may be used neither for nor against such a conviction. Adolf Hitler always held this view . .

Alfred Rosenberg, Letzte Aufzeichnungen: Ideale und Idole der Nationalsozialistischen Revolution (Göttingen: Plesse Verlag, 1955), p. 232.

[Hektor]

Plenty can be discerned about Hitler's religious views in the various diaries which exist from his confidants. Mainly Rosenberg and Goebbels. In neither of these primary sources can it be argued that Hitler was a Christian or a Catholic. You don't need to rely on memoirs or dubious sources like the various Table Talks in this regard:
.....]

While not without problems, the diaries, especially when handwritten, are more reliable as source than the "Table Talks".

Def. wrong to call Hitler an "ardent Catholic". For sure not the conventional 'reborn' type of Christian neither. But then most members of those denominations (even clergy) are neither or at least deviating in their views. Simply cross-examine ordinary members on this, you will get a spread of views. With the clergy - those that studied theology - it's even a more tricky ball game. Personally I'd guess that Hitler's beliefs weren't extraordinarily different from those of ordinary Catholics in Germany at the time. There was some respect for the Churches, but not entirely uncritical... In fact being in government and being confronted with the conniving by the clergy and also some scandals in the Churches may have added to the reserve and have lead to even resentment against them. Goebbels pointed that out at times that the NSDAP was not opposed to Christianity, but different from some other parties (I'd guess he had especially the CENTRUM in mind) they didn't claim that God or Jesus were members of their caucus. As said, especially the CENTRUM was known to use the Catholic Church as an instrument of getting people to vote for them. That was an embarrassment to many Catholics, but also looked with suspicion on by many German voters.

[fluffy]

Here's something to chew on (however I'm not sure if this is a genuine report):

"Proposal VI. (according to Bauer) Adopted after making a few changes for submission to the Führer.

Immediate and unconditional ABOLITION OF ALL RELIGIOUS CONFESSIONS after the final victory, not only for the territory of the Greater German Reich, but also for all liberated, occupied and annexed countries, protectorates, governorates, etc., with simultaneous proclamation of ADOLF HITLER AS THE NEW MESSIAH. For political considerations the Mohammedan, Buddhist, as well as the Shinto faith are to be excluded from this measure for the time being.

The Führer is to be presented as something in between redeemer and liberator - in any case, however, AS GOD-SENT, who is ENTITLED TO DIVINE HONORS. The existing churches, chapels, temples and places of worship of the various religious denominations are to be TRANSFORMED INTO 'ADOLF HITLER SHRINES'.

Likewise, the theological faculties of the universities are to be CONVERTED TO THE NEW FAITH and special emphasis is to be placed on the training of missionaries and itinerant preachers who are to preach the doctrine both in the Greater German Reich and in the rest of the world and to form communities of faith which are to serve as organizational centers for further propagation.

(This also eliminates the difficulties with the planned abolition of monogamy - POLYGAMY CAN BE EASILY INCORPORATED INTO THE NEW DOCTRINE AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH).
[...]
By appropriate propaganda the origin of the Führer would have to be veiled even more than up to now, just as also his future departure would have to take place once without trace and in complete darkness.

The first usable draft!
For editing to Dr. Göbbels.
(Signed:) Adolf Hitler

-Meeting report from August 14, 1943, on the planned religious policy after the final victory.

[Otium]

Here's something to chew on (however I'm not sure if this is a genuine report):

This 'document' screams forgery to me.

For one thing, the signature. It's wonky, and the style is completely wrong. There are no documents from this time period in which Hitler signs in that style. What particularly strikes me is that the 'A' is too wide, and the line through the 'f' is too high. Secondly, the contents contradict undoubtedly authentic primary source material.

From: Werner Maser, Adolf Hitler: Legende, Mythos, Wirklichkeit (Munich/Esslingen: Bechtle Verlag, 1971).

The facsimile seems to come from the book 'Der Mann, der Hitler die Ideen gab Die sektiererischen Grundlagen des Nationalsozialismus' by Wilfried Daim, published by the east German publishing house Dietz-Verlag based in Berlin in the mid-90s, but was published by Böhlau Verlag in 1985, and Isar-Verlag in 1958 under the title 'Der Mann, der Hitler die Ideen gab;Von den religiösen Verirrungen eines Sektieres zum Rassenwahn des Diktators'. Although I have no clue whether these latter two editions contain the facsimile of this document, or if it was a later addition.

From the 1991 edition I checked, there is no archival source for this document which is again suspicious. And the way it cites its bibliography is strange. There are a few other books I need to check in due course.