Bonhoeffer, the little-heralded hero

courier press ^ | 3-23-13 | david coker

[TurboZamboni]

For the past several years toward the end of the Lenten season, I have been reminded of the sad yet heroic life and times of the brave German theologian and scholar, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Although rarely discussed in popular culture, it was on April 8, 1945, that Bonhoeffer, the young, patriot pastor, led his last worship service one week after Easter at a church associated with the Flossenburg concentration camp in the isolated Bavaria town near the Czechoslovakian border.

So who exactly was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and what did he do nearly 70 years ago that he continues to be remembered as an exemplary proponent of the Christian faith?

[Claud]

Exactly. They hated each other because they both were totalitarian rivals--only one of them, in the end, could control the machinery of the state. Mussolini for Pete's sake was one of the leading lights *in the Socialist party* and only left in disgust because he found them insufficiently Nationalist. As for Hitler, check out this interview he gave to George Viereck in 1923. I'll print the relevant quote in its entirety so it's clear this is not out of context:

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home - the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."

So it's abundantly clear that while he loathed Communism, it was because that movement in his eyes corrupted the original, true socialism of the German race.

National. Socialists. The name fits their politics precisely.

[RegulatorCountry]

I recall a lengthy transcript of a speech by Goering in the Propaganda Archive of Calvin College, he ranted on and on “We are SOCIALISTS!!” painting National Socialism as the better, purer form of it. Yes they hated communists, but in the sense of being political and military rivals, it did not extend to a revulsion at basic principles. They thought they were better at it, and were implementing it the right way as compared to German communists or Russian Bolsheviks, with whom they were initially allied, let’s not forget. It’s one of those lethal internal squabbles, like Trotskyites and Leninists.

[agere_contra]

On a topical note: Thatcher was anti-State.

She spent her life trying to reduce the power of Government and the dependance of 1970’s Britain upon the State.

Which is the same as saying: she was an authentic Conservative.

For if Conservatism means anything at all, its meaning includes the reduction of Government and State power back to its proper levels. For Freedom and the rule of law absolutely rely on the constraint of Government.

In so far as the European right is (indeed) statist, it is not Conservative. But we don’t have to go to Europe to see so-called Right-wingers who are indistinguishable from the Left. In the US we call them RINOs.

Moral chameleons attach themselves to the right as easily as to the left, as Thatcher (and Reagan) knew only too well. That doesn’t make the definition of Conservatism different - it just means that we have to be very clear about what we believe in and how we label it.

Hope this was helpful.

[katana]

Hitler's philosophy included the following:

Absolute subservience of the interests of the individual to the state and the masses (volk).

Individuals and especially children are the property of the state.

Contempt for democracy in any of its forms.

Workers and labor (Proletariat), through the National Socialist German Workers' Party, were in theory in charge of the means of production. In practice and for practical reasons private management of industry continued but strictly under the direction and with the consent of the Party and its Fuehrer (Leader). "Capital" meant "Jews". "Patriotic" and ethnically pure Aryan capitalists were allowed to exist and even thrived under Nazism but more as a convenience than because Hitler believed in a free market economy.

An armed citizenry? Ganz verboten!

Anyone who evidenced disagreement with this philosophy were silenced on pain of imprisonment and frequently death.

"Right" and "Left" are labels which are routinely and intentionally (or more often ignorantly) misused. Everything about Nazism reeks of anti-Capitalism, anti-Individual Liberty, anti-Christianity, pro-Statism, and pro violent revolution against the Western European and Enlightenment Judeo-Christian ethos. It therefore is also a fair mirror image of today's U.S. Democratic Party and its leadership and philosophy.

[agere_contra]

Thanks for the very useful abstract, much appreciated.

Both sets of Socialists had their eyes on your property. But Hitler felt the need to put a gloss on it.

The Communists took your property from you.

The Nazis took it from you if you were Jewish or some other form of hated untermenchsen - but if you were a company they just fined you a million marks unless you did what they wanted.

See Obama vs Gibson’s Guitars, or Obama vs the shareholders of GM for modern versions of Socialist theft. Which is Obama closer to - early Hitler or early Lenin/Stalin/Mao?

It’s an academic question, because there’s so little difference. They were all Left Wing, crushing the individual in the name of the people.

[agere_contra]

Nice summary!

I forgot the shared Socialist love for a disarmed populace - well worth mentioning.

IIRC, the Bolsheviks only had to negotiate with the White Russians while the White Russians retained their weapons. Once they were laid down the ‘cleansing of counter-revolutionary elements’ could take place.

The Communists never forgot that.

[Monterrosa-24]

Are you saying that buying Black Gospel records disqualifies Bonhoeffer as a conservative? Don’t Conservatives generally believe in the humanity of Jews and Blacks?

The reason Bonhoeffer made a point to attend a Harlem Church service is because he was disgusted with midtown’s liberal Rockefeller-backed Union Theological Seminary on Broadway at 121st Street.

Bonhoeffer was a conservative. It is a label but it fits him just like the label Christian. Both labels are imperfect and both describe many that are very different than Bonhoeffer but confined as we are to the bottleneck of the English language it is still proper and wise to use labels. It does not dishonor him.

If I knew nothing about Bonhoeffer other than his writings in THE COST OF DICIPLESHIP, I would still recognize him as a Conservative.

[babble-on]

Both Fascism and Communism were totalitarian oligarchies - indistinguishable to the people trapped under their jackboots.

That part is correct.

[babble-on]

Yes, the other side lies freely and without consequence, but I don’t really see why that obligates us to do so as well.

I agree with everything else you’ve written. The extreme conditions in intra-war Europe, in an age of absolutist Ideologies, meant that “Liberalism” (in the good, European sense of the word) practically disappeared from the landscape altogether.

There ARE some Liberal aspects to European policy thinking at the moment, but - totally unrecognized by the British and American press - they mostly emanate from Brussels. .. Believe It, Or Not!

[rollo tomasi]

The promotion of Classical Liberalism died off in Europe during the Age of Anxiety. The State became the all-powerful comfort zone (Different ideologies of Statism fighting each other) and thus words like "liberal", "conservative", "right-wing", and "left-wing" became convoluted and rendered meaningless.

Nationalism = Conservative RW, while Marxism = Liberal LW. Simple yet wrong on a truly intellectual level because Nationalism/Marxism can include numerous equivalent doctrines that attack the individual, hence authoritarian diseases.

I despise labels like "liberal" and "conservative". The labels are meant to disconcert the ignorant and prevent discussions that break down policies as well as protecting inefficient bureaucracies, i.e., confusing labels occur in order to protect the State and their interest.

[what's up]

I think the word games about National Socialism being a left of center party because it had the word Socialism in the title is not a winning argument for our side.

On the contrary, I think our side MUST make the distinction.

The left in the US is constantly trying to paint us with the "right wing NAZI" brush.

It's essential to expose the truth that Hitler WAS socialist and leaned WAY left compared to what is considered conservatism here.

He was an authoritarian, statist dictator as far from conservatism as you can get.

[Michael.SF.]

Your lack of comprehension is stunning.

I clearly stated:"He (Bonhoeffer) saw the humanity in all equally be they Jewish, or Black."

And then you ask me:

Don’t Conservatives generally believe in the humanity of Jews and Blacks?

If you want to have a discussion, please read what I said.

[Monterrosa-24]

But you seemed to be trying to show how Bonhoeffer was NOT conservative. Otherwise why did you give that example?

[Michael.SF.]

I was trying to show he does not fit into either liberal or conservative in terms of defining those terms in todays context.

He was a man of God, not a man of politics.

[Monterrosa-24]

“...He was a man of God, not a man of politics.”

I agree if you state it as he was “more a man of God than he was of politics”. But he was very deeply involved politically as a double agent, conspiracies, and close to some of those high in the July 20th plot.

[Michael.SF.]

you are correct, your phrasing is more accurate.

My point was though he was not one to be classified politically as a liberal or a conservative. He acted against Hitler because he saw Hitler as acting against God.