Hitler's Search for the Holy Grail

When Steven Spielberg made a movie about an intrepid archaeologist’s fight to keep a precious and powerful artifact — the Holy Grail — out of the hands of the Nazis, it was not widely known that the tale was based on truth. There really was a Nazi archaeological unit and it did send teams across the world to try to find the Grail.

History meets Indiana Jones in HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL, a one-hour documentary airing on PBS Monday, November 27, 2000, 10:00 p.m. ET (check local listings). Host Michael Wood (IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT) explores how history was used as a political tool and how the theories of the Nazi historical department provided the ideology used by the SS (Schutzstaffel – "protection squadron") to justify genocide.

The program outlines how the racialist theories of the SS were drawn from archaeology, myth and legend, as well as selected history. Nazi ideas about "Aryans" and the "master race" came out of historical and ethnic fantasies in which legends such as the Holy Grail and the lost city of Atlantis — supposed to be a home of the Aryan race — played their part.

HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL contains rare and previously unseen footage, including

* color film of the Nazi expedition to Antarctica;
* film of the Nazi expeditions across the world, from the Baltic to Venezuela;
* footage of the 1938 expedition to Tibet, with the measuring of skulls of Tibetans;
* documentary evidence for expeditions to Peru, Iceland and Iran, and footage of SS chief Heinrich Himmler at archaeological sites.

The film conjures the eerie world that permeated the thoughts of key members of the Nazi leadership, especially Himmler, and shows how top scholars, some of them still alive, collaborated in this project.

HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL includes interviews with a former member of Himmler’s personal staff and the wife of a top SS commander, who give unique and unrepentant insight into the mentality of the Nazi inner circle. The program also includes a dramatic recording of the Nuremburg trial of Wolfram Sievers, the head of the SS Ahnenerbe ("Ancestral Heritage Society"), Himmler’s archaeological and historical unit. The Ahnenerbe’s task, according to Himmler, was "to restore the German people to the everlasting godly cycle of ancestors, the living and the descendants."

Himmler was a member of the Thule Society, an extreme nationalist group named after one of the mythical homes of the German people. It was the society’s almost mystical belief in the greatness of the German past — to which Himmler subscribed with fanatical devotion — that was to provide the intellectual ballast to Nazi belief in race and destiny.

The chief administrator of the Ahnenerbe, Dr. Wolfram Sievers, had been heavily involved in the criminal medical experiments that were carried out on Jews in concentration camps, all to prove racial differences and the superiority of the Aryan race. After Germany’s defeat in 1945, Sievers was brought before a war crimes tribunal, found guilty and sentenced to death. He was executed on June 2, 1948. The archaeological world of the Ahnenerbe died with Hitler, Himmler and Sievers; the Ahnenerbe, too, melted away. Many of its top archaeologists, however, returned, unpunished, to university life, only to re-emerge as leading academics in postwar Germany.

Underwriters: Public Television Viewers and PBS. Producer: Maya Vision. Producer: Rebecca Dobbs. Director: Kevin Sim. Format: CC STEREO TV Calendar PBS Previews PBS Picks Telstar/C-band Schedule Primestar, Dish Network & DirecTV Schedule PBS KIDS Channel PBS YOU Schedule

Facts are objective. Truth is subjective.

The truth value of a proposition itself is objective. Since liking chocolate or not liking it is a personal preference, "liking chocolate" doesn't have a truth value except for each (internally consistent!) individual. It is true that I like chocolate. YUM. You can take that one to the bank! Chocolate exists, whether you "like" it or not . . . that is likewise true.

As someone who hasn't recieved this revealed truth, how can I, Person, know that YOU are right and Abdul is wrong?

You have to rationally and intellectually assess the various claims to the truth . . .

Reason, the collecting and the collating of evidense is, in a nutshell, science. So you are argueing that science will lead to an understanding of the immaterial, if there is such.

Reason can lead to some understanding of the immaterial. Science employs human reason. But human reason can be employed in areas outside of science (which scientists and philosophers of science describe as the study of the material world producing verifiable results, etc). . . . Some scientists don't give a bean for metaphysics; others do, but honest scientists don't claim that their views on metaphysical questions are "scientific" or scientifically verifiable . . .

Very badly summed up.

When I publish, it will be in better form. :)

Using the gift of rational thought does not lead an outsider to become a Catholic, or any other religion >It has for some and conversion biographies are out there. And it has led other OUT of Catholocism.

Seriously, some have been/are attracted to Catholicism intellectually. The truth value of the set of propositions and body of thought that constitutes formal Catholicism exists independently of any flawed human representation of same. Some people get very annoyed at the wicked and illadvised things done "in the name of . . ." and throw out the baby with the bathwater. That tends to be an emotional rather than rational rejection? Anyway, the Pope over the past several years has apoligized for most known offenses . . .

I don't know exactly what you might be looking for to prove or refute the proposition that some have converted to Catholicism because of its rational or intellectual appeal and/or truth value. The counter example that some people may have rejected Catholicism because they found its truth claims lacking (i.e. rather than rejecting it for some other reason) does not negate the truth of the statement I posited, nor does it directly refute the truth claims of Catholicism . . . ;)

Problem is, I am going from memory and don't want to misstate anything. C.S. Lewis is a good read, but of course he stopped at "mere Christianity" not Catholicism. Augustine another good read for the rational mind but I admit to having read more about him than of him! :). And he likely better fits one of the other models Aquinasfan pointed out as he prayed for conversion, but "not yet" . . .

Okay, since Christians are seriously outnumbered in the world, and IIRC, becoming MORE outnumbered, then clearly they got the wrong Revealed Truth. Like that?

I guess you are thinking of playing the odds? If so many people don't think it is true, that lessens the odds that it is true? If something is true, it is true. The numbers of people do not affect that.

I think I see your point, that it is impossible for a single person to read and assess everything that has been written on religious truth claims since time immemorial. So he has to figure out some way to assess the validity of the various claims . . . Going with "majority opinion" may seem to be a strategy?

For you, I don't think that would be the preferred strategy, since you like to inform yourself and assess things and have the ability to do so . . .

When reason is employed in areas *without science* (I.E. when you make no attempt to collect or collate evidense, just going on assumptions and the like), then it is still guesswork, even if more educated. However, there is simply no area of interest or endeavor which science cannot be of considerable value.

There is no physical evidence to be collected and evaluated when you are dealing with something which is not physical/material. You would not want to follow guesswork but use logic and other tools of reason which are available to the study of metaphysics, philosophy, etc. There is an intellectual rigor to these disciplines, just no physical evidence and in that sense not verifiable by science.

Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel prize for his equations used in Quantum Mechanics) were convinved that reality exists. Schrödinger had a metaphysical bent. I don't know what if any religion he practiced . . .

Intellectually based (i.e. resulting from a search for truth) conversions to Catholicism include Patrick Madrid, Scott Hahn, etc. They were already Christian, as was for example John Cardinal Newmann. I don't know where e.g. Chesterton, E. Waugh came from. I don't know if you are really interested or merely being disputatious :)!

AARGH running late! Have to dash! Where DOES time GO - now there is a question!

Einstein and Erwin Schrödinger (Nobel prize for his equations used in Quantum Mechanics) were convinved that reality exists Amazingly, so am I.

Even Einstein couldn't prove it -- but at least we're in good company! :)

And Islam doesn;t seem to be a winner... how any people who live like the Flintstones can feel that they are Allah's special little kiddies is beyond me...

Again we agree . . . So do some of them -- apparently terrorism is a response by some to the recognition of that dissonance. After all, if they follow their Quran they are supposed to achieve success in this world. It is a real quandry for them . . .

the only reasonable choice is agnosticism (deciding "Dunno" and leave it at that until further data comes in

Problem is, the evidence, if it ever comes in, may not in any one person's lifespan. If we have a purpose, it is to find it: purpose, meaning and truth (oversimplification, I know). So we have to try to find truth. It's not likely to hit us over the head one day like a ton of bricks while we are engaged in mindless recreation or workaholism . . .That is why I thought you might like C. S. Lewis . . . More later

Light, sound, gravity were all thought to be intangible and immeasurable, until science did it.

I think I get your thesis now. Science will progress until everything is knowable. There will be no "room" left for a God in the explanation . . . .Everything in the Universe will be shown to have a physical or natural explanation. No supernatural explanations necessary. Then you apply Occam's Razor and say it is a simpler to explain that the entire Universe just exists this way, than that it has a Creator?

I don't fear scientific discovery. I think it would be interesting if we could understand everything about the Universe and how everything works. We are curious creatures, mankind, aren't we?

I see two ramifications of the above thesis. First, it would seem to be hard to walk the line between being agnostic, and having a type of "religious" faith in science, until that day down the road when everything is proved. Science is conservative, and scientists do not rely upon things which are not yet proven (or at least without having explanatory theories for which some evidence exists and/or which haven't been refuted by contradictory evidence). Until then, putting "faith" in the possibility that it will (no matter how high you place the probability), is still "faith" and not science itself . . .The above thesis is still in the realm of metaphysics rather than science. Having "faith in science" is still faith and not science . . .

Second. Even if the entire Universe and everything in it were to be scientifically explained, that would not prove that it was not created. God is by definition outside the Universe: outside "time and space." He still would be. Fundamentally, you can't prove a negative.

We would have this entire marvelous Universe to appreciate with even greater awe. I am already impressed by the unexpected beauty of fractal geometry, the unexpected determinism of chaotic systems. Who knows what else is out there, for our edification and delight?

Recent science has generated renewed discussion about intelligent design; the anthropromorphic principle is intriguing; I need to find time for some more reading -- I am getting further behind just thinking about it . . .

Intellectually, you might say, well why bother? You still don't "need" God. Why have this type of Santa Claus in the sky, just to hand out sugar plums and switches for good and bad behavior, etc.? Well, I'm adding this so you may have an appreciation for the way some other folks think. They could say: Not believe in God? Of course I believe in God. I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine . . . There is a lot more to people's relationship with God . . .

it is not really a matter of "faith" to run with the theory that the sun will transit the sky normally tomorrow.

That does fall within the realm of science; there is a theory supported by physical evidence, and the predictions are repeatable, etc.

After a couple of attempts, I am apparently failing in the task of communicating the distinction between science/physics and metaphysics. Let's not leave it to my attempts, then. There is enough written by real philosophers of science/metaphysicians. I'm only summarizing and paraphrasing in any case. I don't blame you for wanting a more complete logical proof. . . .

I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine

The point I was aiming for (for future reference): people approach their Christian faith from a lot of different angles, and you might not want to unintentionally (when it is not necessary to the argument at hand) disparage someone's loyalty to their best friend in their presence (during a discussion on FR in which many different people are engaged). Probably moot at this point, as we seem to have this thread to ourselves! . . It actually might be time to branch out into broader discussions on other threads again . . . ;) .

Others could (and DO!) say: Not believe in the Aesir? Of course I believe in the Aesir. I know Odin. Thor is a friend of mine

However, (since you brought it up) you must be aware that the God of Christianity, especially in the Person of Jesus, is more personal and approachable than the god(s) of many other religions (e.g. Islam). Knowing a person is one way to "know" that he exists. . . . In Christianity, it is doctrinally possible to enter into a personal relationship with God. (Although the agnostic would say, they are just making it up!) Truth in the Christian understanding is not only rationally knowable, Truth is a person WHO is knowable. That dimension is attested to by many people's mystical and spiritual apprehensions. Not that I think you would find that kind of biographical and experiential "evidence" convincing, until/unless you satisfied your intellectual skepticism about God's existence in the first place. At least, that is the order I would take it in . . .

Which means that at that level, God is equally as likely as, say, the tooth fairy,

For some reason, I am visualizing little "straw" tooth faries and movie characters swarming about . . . ;) Hey, maybe Rumplestiltskin created the Universe out of straw!?

The only difference between physics and metaphysics is that metaphysicians proclaim their failures to demonstate [snip]

Metaphysics is philosophy, not religion or theology. Your discussion demonstrates that you are engaging in metaphysical inquiry, whether you think it exists (separately from science) or not . . .

Replace "God" with "Allah" . . .

Sorry, it doesn't work, according to Islam's description of Allah . . .

And their gods are oftentimes far more personal and approachable than *you* think Jesus to be.

Trying to remember how these gods are described. Approachable -- in that they are fallible? Or engage in behavior that does not always challenge their followers to rectitude? In terms of religious doctrine, what a religion or followers say/believe about their own God/gods, the Christian God is as personal as they get . . .

if your best friend isn't in fact there, you might need to hear about it even sooner.

Although I appreciate your altruistic concern for others here, in light of the fact that you can't prove He isn't in fact there . . .

An infinitely powerful God took 6 days to create the universe, and was tired at the end

I'm rather surprised you'd take Genesis so literally even in order to disparage it . . . :)

I have enjoyed our exchanges here, but I don't have the time to get into trading stock answers and knocking down straw men . . . I am forming the impression you get enjoyment from being disputatious, like my ten year old ;). (On one trip after a series of exchanges, I told her: if I said it's a horse, you'd say it's a cow. Which, of course, she proceded to do for the rest of the trip, and vice versa . . .)

If God is there, he can be discovered, measured and quantified. As can Bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, poltergeists, Nazi moon bases, the Holy Grail King Arthur and all the rest.

This is a fundamental category error. God is not a thing in the same sense that created things are things, or even in the sense that imaginary things are things.

Every created thing is most fundamentally composed of its essence (what it is) and its act of existence (the fact that it exists). For example, created things like animals come into and pass out of existence. The fact that they exist at one time is not a fundamental part of what they are. I can know what a particular dog is without knowing whether it exists.

The same holds true for imaginary things. For example, a unicorn has an essence (it is a horse with a horn) which is separable from its existence or lack thereof.

God is altogether different. God's essence and act of existence is one, and it is being. God is Being. All other things are compounds of being and essence.

Thus, God transcends all categories. All other things participate in existence. God is existence.

God is One, True, Good and Beautiful. These are called "convertible terms" because they are all simply aspects of Being as understood by our limited minds.

God is perfect (he cannot be decomposed), therefore he has no parts. Therefore, he is a simple spiritual substance.

If God is there, he can be discovered, measured and quantified. As can Bigfoot, aliens, ghosts, poltergeists, Nazi moon bases, the Holy Grail King Arthur and all the rest. . . . God is altogether different

Thanks, Aquinasfan. I knew the fact that I wasn't making the ontological arguments properly didn't mean that they don't "exist" :) . . . Your point does lay to rest the argument lexcorp raised using the "straw" creatures which clearly aren't in the same category as God. However, if I understand his "threads", [which I may not :) ] he does not seem to concede that anything exists other than the Universe, including the human discipline of metaphysics, accessible by reason, above/outside science . . . Not accepting the existence/being of God outside/independent of the Universe is one thing. However, not accepting the possibility of examining such using reason because what you are contemplating IS something outside the Universe seems to me to foreclose that line of discussion?

God is One, True, Good and Beautiful

and the manifestation of that in the created Universe is wonderous: there is beauty in truth, there is truth in beauty, there is goodness in truth, etc. We can apprehend these on an intellectual, emotional, and spiritual level, but they lead to the same place (Person) . . .

the modern following of the old Norse gods

Do the followers believe this accounts for the Universe, or do they believe it exists without action by the god(s)? (Just asking -- point of information.)

re: Santa Claus

Nothing wrong with a little humor now and then :) . . .

An infinite being would not get tired by creating the universe

This is true. God didn't get tired creating the Universe.

P.S. I hope I didn't misstate your positions in the reply to Aquinasfan and you, but I knew that if I did, you would be willing and able to correct it! ;)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.