Some of Christianity was better, some was worse. Some anti-semitism had less effect; some had more. It may be a matter of degree, but a very large degree.
And we can in no way claim Hitler was a Christian - or a Lutheran. But this is a subtopic of Martin Luther's letters and writings, his demeanor, personality, and his effect in history. It would seem a jocular old coot was he. Until we look at his role in the tragic Peasant Revolt, his relationship with the state, his view on power, individualism, and the profound effect he had on his people's culture, politic and future.
A large portion of the back and forth here has been between a persecuted holy man and a derranged tyrant. The truth as usual is in betwen. But, I don't believe it benign.
Study Luther on the power of the state and on war. Study the effect of Luther on the German language and body politic; study the 'seven point plan'...
"Through his sermons and his magnificent translations of the Bible, Luther created the modern German language, aroused in the people not only a new Protestant vision of Christianity by a fervent German nationalism and taught them, at least in religion, the supremacy of the individual conscience. But tragically for them, Luther's siding with the princes in the peasant rising, which he had largely inspired, and his passion for political autocracy ensured a mindless and provincial political absolutism which reduced the vast majority of the German people to poverty, to a horrible torpor and a demeaning subservience.
- William L. Shirer, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"
“It was Luther, we must understand, who began to Germanise Christianity; National Socialism must complete the process.”
- Alfred Rosenberg, Author of key Nazi ideological creeds, executed at Nuremberg for war crimes.
“I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later—once we hold power—Christianity will be overcome and the German church, without a Pope and without the Bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing.”
-“Hitler's Speeches”, edited by Professor N. H. Baynes (Oxford, 1942)
This will be the last I post on this. I thought that aspect was relevant and missing, but I don't want to continue it past this.
It is wrong to tag luther with responsibility for the Nazis. In this nation we have Freedom of Religion, but if I use that Freedom to force others to convert to Islam can I then turn around and blame the originating founding documents that allowed the freedom to begin with.
Luther was NOT unusual for his day.
With my Masters Thesis, part of my study entailed looking at how the nobility (in this case in Scotland) behaved towards one another. It was barbaric. Brother would cut the tongue out of brother and let him bleed to death over land. Cousins would slay one another without a qualm and even in a church (check the meaning of the family crest for the Kirkpatrick family of Scotland). And, of course the Jews were blamed for EVERYTHING.
This is no excuse. But I can't sit here and see Luther tagged as particularly unusual for his day. After all, Luther wasn't alone in his violent actions in the name of Christianity. Catholicism had made it a regular part of their religion for centuries and Calvinism was no stranger to it.
It is not right to evaluate Luther according to our times. He must be seen as a product of his own times. He had many good points. But in some quite substantial ways he was very wrong.