Why German Christians Elected and Supported Hitler

Worship.com ^ | Oct 10, 2008 | Josh Riley

[fightinJAG]

Economy in a freefall. Political rhetoric. An apathetic electorate dismayed by the slide of their country into irrelevence. Theological liberalism. Doctrinal indifference.

America, 2008?

No. Germany, just before electing Adolf Hitler to lead their country, with the apparent support of the majority of those who considered themselves Christians.

We're rereading a book []by Erwin Lutzer []. In it Lutzer looks at the holocaust and the rise of Hitler and asks the question: where was the Church? This book is a fascinating read, particularly in this time of economic upheaval and election year rhetoric.

[snip]

Did you know that Hitler was elected to power through a democratic process? He only became a dictator after he had risen to power through the voting process. And the people elected him in large part because they were convinced he would fix the deteriorating economy and restore Germany to the prominence and prosperity it had once enjoyed. Writes Lutzer:

...he would give the appearance of being one of the masses, but in reality he would be quite another...At times he could be charming and forgiving...Privately (and sometimes publicly) he prided himself in his honesty, yet often he reveled in his abilty to deceive. "The German people must be misled if the support of the masses is required," he mused.

And

Hitler holds a fascination for us because his dictatorship enjoyed such wide support of the people. Perhaps never in history was a dictator so well liked. He had the rare gift of motivating a nation to want to follow him. Communist leaders such as Lenin or Mao Tse-tung rose to power through revolutions that cost millions of lives; consequently they were hated by the masses. Hitler attracted not only the support of the middle class but also of university students and professors.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Good question.

And thanks for the link.

[slnk_rules]

One must consider what Marin Luther had to say about the Jews in context of what Christian Germans history of Jewish relations were, and were to become. Hitler knew all the right buttons to push to get them on his side and whip up some hatred and blame for ‘the other’.

Nice to see another person who saw that in Luther. Martin Luther is one of my HEROES, yet his prescription for dealing with the Jews really formed a manual for how the Nazi's did it (absent the death camps, of course). Sigh. All men have feet of clay.

[allmendream]

All fall short of the glory of God. The end results of Martin Luther and Hitlers dream was a Germany that was Judenfrei.

[x]

Even though his movies are fun to watch, Frank Capra was a dyed in the wool Communist.

Frank Capra was a Republican. Some of his screenwriters were Communists. And that "Popular Front" style was common back in the 1930s.

FWIW, the actor Francis Capra is supposed to be Frank Capra's great-grandson, but there's some controversy about whether or not that's really true.

[count-your-change]

To Corrective Agent:
Hummmm...Your self-proclaimed superiority of knowledge and the supposed lack thereof of “you people” IS the subject as your contentious insults were so obviously erroneous.

Comments such as this, “Why don’t you people read some history before spouting nonsense? Stop digging and just admit you don’t know what you are talking about.” are really worthy of much more sarcasm than just a side dish, a full six course meal would be more appropriate but we needed to save a few snacks for your most immediate vent.

But we do feel the love, “I love it when people just can’t admit they are WRONG.”, even when its directed to the uncorrected stranger at the far side of your lecture hall.

Should you develop an appetite for some facts we're open but otherwise.....

[KampfgruppeZ]

Future implications: We aren’t Germans

I agree!

You have the benefit of historical hindsight. YET!

Germany is castigated for death camps but in the US, it has been legal to kill babies (60 million so far) for 30+ years.

For Germans, historically there had never been a person like Hitler but you people willingly/knowingly (52%) voted in a MARXIST/COMMUNIST, even though, all the evil history of this kind of political view has been exposed for half a century.

OBAMO, will destroy you from within.

[Niuhuru]

“it was the WWII generation which gave birth to the pro-abortion, pro-socialism, anti-US 60’s hippie generation”

The irony of it is so bitter. Hollywood actors and actresses during WWII couldn’t fathom living in a world of fascism because they knew what it would entail. They knew they would be pawns and they were pawns enough at the hands of the studio. They knew who buttered their bread and were raised to appreciate their country.

It’s still hard to fathom how the 60’s generation turned out the way they did. It can’t all be about the Communist takeover of our schools. It’s like they mutated somehow.

[Ohioan]

Hitler lost in the ‘Elections’. The people didn’t want him.

In the early 1933 elections, the Nazi party got 44% of the vote, and with their allies in the Nationalist Party had a clear majority. No other party came anywhere near that 44% in the multi-party election. The results were announced, I believe, the day after Roosevelt took office, over here. If you have access to any reliable Newspaper morgue from the time, check it out.

Of course, Germany had always had a large Leftwing. Hitler managed to bridge the gap between the Leftwing "masses" and the ruined German middle-class.

Obama's careful use of Nazi choreography in the campaign just ended, was not,in my opinion, accidental.

Now, what will follow? Remember that it was a couple of years befrore Allende's full intentions for Chile became clear. Even Castro gave the Cuban property owners a several month honeymoon, after they rallied to his successful Revolution in January, 1959, believing he was the voice of anti-corruption reform.

For my analysis of what has just happened in America, Obama & The Week After--A Dissent. I am not predicting an attempt to build an American equivalent of Nazi Germany or Communist Cuba or Chile; but given the hypnotic lunacy of the Obama campaign; given the insane adulation; given Obama's past disparagement of the Constitution and traditional American culture; given his obvious collectivist ideas; given the involvement of people like Ayers, as a mentor for Obama; we would be foolish beyond belief if we did not consider the possibility. As Jefferson cautioned, "Eternal Vigilance" must remain our watchword.

[BGHater]

Obama is a new species to America, he is a Global Socialist.

FDR, for all his socialist faults, was a ‘Nationalist’ in terms of defending and protecting America.

Obama lacks those qualities, I don't see him taking on the edge of a ‘Hitler’ in terms of rallying a Nation, but more on a Global cooperation to solve problems.

I suspect he will send troops to the Congo next year and other fun adventures trying to fix global solutions.

[okie01]

I suspect he will send troops to the Congo next year and other fun adventures trying to fix global solutions.

Billions for humanitarian missions.
But not one cent for defense.

[durasell]

“Why German Christians Elected and Supported Hitler”

---

Because he needed to re-orient his audience due to his polling numbers being dismal with the Jews?

[j-damn]

*To Corrective Agent:
Hummmm...Your self-proclaimed superiority of knowledge and the supposed lack thereof of “you people” IS the subject as your contentious insults were so obviously erroneous.*

Free Republic is supposed to be full of people who are smarter than the average American dimwit. Yet, every time Hitler’s name comes up, some moronic dolt says he was “elected”. That is patently false and easily proven as such.

*Should you develop an appetite for some facts we’re open but otherwise.....*

You’ve either got a lot of balls or not a shred of reading comprehension skills [or both]. I’m the one with the facts here. Hitler was not elected to anything. Period. End of story.

[count-your-change]

“Free Republic is supposed to be full of people who are smarter than the average American dimwit.”

America's dimwits are way above average. And the Moronic Dolts may not have been the best rock band but on history they put The Cretins to shame.
But let's have no more on morons... see the pun? No more-more on, moron, more on..
Oh, never mind, I'll e-mail the explanation.

“You’ve either got a lot of balls or not a shred of reading comprehension skills [or both]. I’m the one with the facts here. Hitler was not elected to anything. Period. End of story.”

I don't know about a lot, but enough for me and not enough to share if that's what you're shyly working around to.
How about a hug instead? Yes? Wake the guy up in the back of the room. He'll hug you to pass this history course.

“I’m the one with the facts here.”

“Don't you know who I am?” works better, really.

End of story? Good! Say, Good night, Graceless.
Good night graceless.
No, I meant..... (with apologies to B and A).

[VOA]

bump

[j-damn]

Do you ever post anything that isn’t complete gibberish? Go get your GED.

[count-your-change]

I guess the hugs didn't help, huh?
Anyway, you take yourself WAY too seriously and as a result you've expended time and effort on a question that really is of no real importance to either of us. None, zero, 0%.
Why do you do that?

In the same amount of time and with less effort, you could have hammered out reams of support for your assertions on the election question but instead you try to poke a finger in our eyes by calling people dimwits and moronic dolts because they contradict you or won't agree to being wrong.
As a result your comments invite the sarcasm they deserve and receive.
And since you really do take yourself too seriously that chaps your hide enough to goad you into even more amusing statements with a, “I am the one with the facts here”, kind of flavor.

You couldn't see that happening? You can't understand that we can only be insulted by people we respect? And saying
“Why don’t you people read some history before spouting nonsense? Stop digging and just admit you don’t know what you are talking about.” doesn't engender respect?

Waving a red flag and watching the bull charge around the pasture chasing it may be amusing but it doesn't make the bull look too smart. AND, even the amusing becomes boring after a while so I'll leave you with something you'll cherish...are you ready?....THE LAST WORD. All yours and welcome to it!
Me? I'm off to my Gib Ed classes to study for my Notary Public test. Want me e-mail you when I pass?

[BroJoeK]

"I’m currently reading Patrick J. Buchanan’s book HITLER, CHURCHILL, AND THE UNNECESSARY WAR. It’s a very good read and fully documented...
Of all the villians in WW1 most historians hold Germany’s Kaiser Wilhelm II the least culpable."

I've read the book completely, and agree that Buchanan makes some good points. But his fundamental assumptions are flawed, leading to ridicuous conclusions.

Here's an example:

The appropriate analogy for Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm in 1914 is the leader of a gang of thugs who walks into a bank (Serbia), intending to rob it. He does not intend to kill anyone, he just wants the money.

But once there, some of his goons (i.e., Moltke, Bethmann) begin shooting. Too late, the Kaiser says, "no, no, don't shoot," but once things get going, the Kaiser then orders his goons to kill everyone, including the neighbors and the local constabulary.

Buchanan refuses to understand this, even though he claims to have read widely on the subject.

So I have recommended here before, and will again -- here is the real story of what was going on during that summer of 1914:

Fromkin, "Europe's Last Summer"

[A'elian' nation]

Thanks Europe the Last Summer is the next book I’m going to read.

I wasn’t stating my opinion as much as I was presenting Buchanan’s documentation. I thought your Kaiser goon analogy a very astute one.

I did find it interesting, again according to Buchanan, that a 75yr old treaty with Belgium was used by England ( Churchill ) to involve itself in WWI.

Also between 1814 and 1914 England had been in 10 wars; Germany just 3.
Then again, England had an empire upon which the sun never set.

[BroJoeK]

"I did find it interesting, again according to Buchanan, that a 75yr old treaty with Belgium was used by England ( Churchill ) to involve itself in WWI.

Also between 1814 and 1914 England had been in 10 wars; Germany just 3."

I'll say again, I think Buchanan makes some good points -- as long as history itself doesn't conflict with his pre-conceived notions!

Consider these two examples you cite.

In the first, he grossly exaggerates Churchill's role in Britain's decision making. Yes, at the time, Churchill was in charge of the British Navy, and his duty was to make sure the navy was ready for war, which he did.

But there were far more important voices than Churchill's involved in deciding whether Britain would actually go to war. And in the beginning, those voices were steadfastly opposed.

What changed their minds was not Churchill, it was the Germans' invasion of little NEUTRAL BELGIUM. For the Brits, this was no minor detail!

One reason is, Britain, France AND GERMANY were all cosigners of the treaty which GUARANTEED Belgium's neutrality. In British eyes, if the Germans were willing to break their treaty with Belgium, then nothing the Germans said could be trusted!

So for Britain the question was: would France be destroyed and Europe dominated by Germany, without Britain doing anything to stop it?

Well, there was no real question -- for many centuries, Britain's policy had been to ally with the weaker powers to prevent any one stronger power from dominating Europe.

One century earlier, Britain allied with Germany to oppose Napoleon. In 1914 they allied with France to oppose the Kaiser. It's what Britain ALWAYS did!

Yes, Churchill's was a strong voice, but he did not make the final decisions.

And there are a number of other little details which Buchanan gets wrong. For example, Buchanan makes a big deal of saying the Kaiser "didn't know" that Britain would side with Belgium & France. But the Germans were actually told long before, that if they declared war on Belgium & France, Britain would come to their allies' defense.

In fact, the Germans knew it perfectly well, they just didn't care. The only thing they REALLY cared about was the fact that in 1914 the Germans were FINALLY ready for war, and would never again be in a better position to WIN IT. That's what mattered -- everything else was just excuses of one sort or another.

Bottom line: in July 1914 the Kaiser thought he could push Austria into invading Serbia WITHOUT starting a Europe-wide war. But he ALSO believed that if he DID start a wider war, Germany was finally ready for it.

[j-damn]

*In the same amount of time and with less effort,*

Said the man who then went on to post hundreds of characters in the pursuit of nothing.

*you could have hammered out reams of support for your assertions on the election question *

Assertions?

Hitler was never elected.
The Nazis never won a majority of seats in the Reichstag.
The post-enabling act plebiscites were neither free nor fair.

These are historical facts, unless you’re David Irving.

You sit in front of the world’s greatest research device. A simple Google search will confirm any of the above “assertions” in about a million places.