What do you think?
Rate this book
Hitler's Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich
For a man whom history can never forget, Adolf Hitler remains a persistent mystery on one front—his religious faith. Atheists tend to insist Hitler was a devout Christian. Christians counter that he was an atheist. And still others suggest that he was a practicing member of the occult.
None of these theories are true, says historian Richard Weikart. Delving more deeply into the question of Hitler's religious faith than any researcher to date, Weikart reveals the startling and fascinating truth about the most hated man of the 20th Adolf Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was God. In Hitler's Religion , Weikart explains how the laws of nature became Hitler's only moral guide—how he became convinced he would serve God by annihilating supposedly "inferior" human beings and promoting the welfare and reproduction of the allegedly superior Aryans in accordance with racist forms of Darwinism prevalent at the time.
None of these theories are true, says historian Richard Weikart. Delving more deeply into the question of Hitler's religious faith than any researcher to date, Weikart reveals the startling and fascinating truth about the most hated man of the 20th Adolf Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was God. In Hitler's Religion , Weikart explains how the laws of nature became Hitler's only moral guide—how he became convinced he would serve God by annihilating supposedly "inferior" human beings and promoting the welfare and reproduction of the allegedly superior Aryans in accordance with racist forms of Darwinism prevalent at the time.
352 pages, Hardcover
Published November 21, 2016
27 people are currently reading
290 people want to read
About the author
Richard Weikart
10 books38 followersDr. Weikart is Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus, and Fellow at the Center for Science and Culture of Discovery Institute, Seattle.
He completed his Ph.D. in modern European history at the University of Iowa in 1994, receiving the biennial prize of the Forum for History of Human Sciences for the best dissertation in that field. His revised dissertation, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein, was published in 1999.
His book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, documents the influence of naturalistic evolution on ethical thought, euthanasia, militarism, and racism—and ultimately Hitler's ideology.
With an extensive background in modern German and modern European intellectual history, he has published articles in journals such as Isis, Journal of the History of Ideas, German Studies Review, History of European Ideas, European Legacy, and Fides et Historia. One such article received the Selma V. Forkosch Prize for the best article in 1993 in the Journal of the History of Ideas.
Articles by Richard Weikart
He completed his Ph.D. in modern European history at the University of Iowa in 1994, receiving the biennial prize of the Forum for History of Human Sciences for the best dissertation in that field. His revised dissertation, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein, was published in 1999.
His book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, documents the influence of naturalistic evolution on ethical thought, euthanasia, militarism, and racism—and ultimately Hitler's ideology.
With an extensive background in modern German and modern European intellectual history, he has published articles in journals such as Isis, Journal of the History of Ideas, German Studies Review, History of European Ideas, European Legacy, and Fides et Historia. One such article received the Selma V. Forkosch Prize for the best article in 1993 in the Journal of the History of Ideas.
Articles by Richard Weikart
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
February 20, 2023
A study into the religious views of Adolf Hitler. Book is well researched and effectively uses scholarly evidence to argue that Hitler was a pantheist who believed that the ordained natural order was that of racial conflict. The moral order of creation was that of competition, social Darwinism (the weak must fear the strong). For Hitler God was an impersonal being who is bound to the created order, of which he himself is part of through the racial struggle of the "Volk". Hitler was certainly not a Christian or even a classical theist, he denied the idea of a personal and all power being and viewed Christianity as weak and inherently "Jewish". Book can seem repetitive at times but very insightful.
July 2, 2017
OK, but not much too it. If you read the first chapter, you've basically read the book. It's a 300 page book that reads like it could be a 30 page article and not miss much.
Weikart argues that Hitler was a pantheist. His public statements on religion were (intentionally) scattershot so people would have trouble knowing quite where he stood (and thus couldn't criticize him as easily). He clearly didn't believe in a typical Christian deity. He opposed the universalism of Christinaity, its Jewish roots, and talk of redemption, heaven, and care for all. Hitler saw Jesus as an Aryan who opposed Jews, but that's as far as he went.
Still, Hitler seemed to have some religious beliefs, as he spoke in public and private of a sense of divine providence - one that he felt was on his side. Weikart argues this was a pantheistic belief in nature as a deity. Hitler saw the world as operating according to laws of nature and we must operate in accordance with it. Much Christian happy talk of charity went against it. Hitler believed in a survival of the fittest race war - that's how nature operated, he believed. That's his providence, his deity.
Weikart argues that Hitler was a pantheist. His public statements on religion were (intentionally) scattershot so people would have trouble knowing quite where he stood (and thus couldn't criticize him as easily). He clearly didn't believe in a typical Christian deity. He opposed the universalism of Christinaity, its Jewish roots, and talk of redemption, heaven, and care for all. Hitler saw Jesus as an Aryan who opposed Jews, but that's as far as he went.
Still, Hitler seemed to have some religious beliefs, as he spoke in public and private of a sense of divine providence - one that he felt was on his side. Weikart argues this was a pantheistic belief in nature as a deity. Hitler saw the world as operating according to laws of nature and we must operate in accordance with it. Much Christian happy talk of charity went against it. Hitler believed in a survival of the fittest race war - that's how nature operated, he believed. That's his providence, his deity.
July 26, 2017
Fascinating look at Hitler's worldview. Shows that not only was he not Christian, but was anti-Christian and his actual world view was about as far removed from historical Christianity as possible.
November 6, 2023
Interesting analysis on Hitler's religious beliefs.
But you have to bear in mind that Weikart is not a historian, but a political activist. Which means he's not only biased, he openly lies to promote an anti-Hitler and pro-Jewish propaganda. For example, he claims that:
Hitler embraced a social Darwinist position that was the polar opposite of Judaism’s ethics, which forbade murder and enjoined loving one’s neighbor. [...] he killed Jews (and others) because he had already dispensed with the Judeo-Christian belief in the sanctity of life
This left a bad taste in my mouth.
As I am reading this book the Jews are mass murdering Palestinian children, after they stole their ancestral homeland. In fact, Jewish culture is based around killing non-Jews and killing children in particular: Passover celebrates when their God murdered Egyptian children for them, and Purim celebrates when they murdered Persian children - and they think it's justified because apparently the Persians were antisemitic. Weikart is wrong in asserting that Judaism considers life sacred. The 10 commandments in the Torah forbid the murder of fellow Jews, not the murder of non-Jews. In fact after giving the 10 commandments the Torah only a few chapters later orders the Jews to exterminate or enslave all non-Jews (for example in Deuteronomy 7 and 20).
The usual trick that anti-Hitler activist historians use is to falsely imply that Hitler is solely responsible for WWII, and then take all the atrocities of the war as part of Hitler's ideology. The problem with this is that the USSR, Britain, and the US have committed the same level and scale of atrocities against the German and Japanese people. How can someone claim that a Jew being murdered in a gas chamber is morally worse than a German being burned alive in his own home by a British incendiary bomb that was specifically targeting civilians? The only logic could be that the life of a Jew is worth more than the lives of non-Jews, exactly like the media today give us the message that the life of a Jew is worth more than the life of a Palestinian. Look at the ratio of Israeli/Palestinians killed today in retaliation: it's already at least 1:10 as I'm writing this and they still don't consider it enough! So much for what Weikart calls "Judeo-Christian belief in the sanctity of life". Weikart seems to be oblivious to the fact that "love your neighbor" in the Old Testament means exactly what it means, your *neighbor* i.e. "love your fellow Jews", which is clear if you read the full verse (Leviticus 19:18).
The point above about a war going on is quite important because it inevitably skews the content of the book. Of course when Hitler was rallying his troops he had to talk about Darwinian natural selection, struggle for existence, the stronger prevails, the weak perishes, etc... What else could you say to your soldiers during a war? Was Churchill telling the British soldiers to show Christian love and "turn the other cheek" to the German troops? Was Churchill using the gospels to motivate British pilots to bomb German civilians? In fact, the book would have been very interesting if it compared how Churchill was motivating his troops, to show the religious differences. Was Churchill saying "we need to defeat Hitler so that Britain can become a multi-racial society!"? Also, no comments from Weikart on whether Operation Vegetarian (the British plan to exterminate millions of Europeans with anthrax) was following the famous "Judeo-Christian morality" that he deems so superior to Hitler's.
In spite of his anti-Hitler bias and taking things out of context, I feel the author does a good job at collecting different sources to discuss Hitler's religious beliefs even before the war. Weikart examines different possibilities, such as Hitler being a Christian or an Atheist, while pursuing his central argument: that Hitler saw Nature as divine, and that human history was subject to laws that can be understood scientifically. This is convincing, because it fits with the rest of the National Socialist ideology. Racism is based on the science of evolution and natural selection. How can different races have evolved equally under very different environments?
Aryans evolved into a superior race during the Ice Age. They were steeled in body and mind by the harsh conditions, and they had to wage a bitter battle against the elements. Natural selection eliminated the weak, sickly, and less cooperative, leaving the robust, healthy, and more moral members to propagate their superior biological traits.
Once it is proven that National Socialism is based on the science of Darwin, then the logical conclusion is that it is not Christian. However, Weikart concedes that National Socialism left freedom of religion and respected Christianity - at least because it was the most common religion of the German people. Therefore it is still correct to consider Hitler as the savior of Christianity if you understand that his mission was to defend Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes that mass murdered Christians (in the USSR they could put you in the gulags only for your Christian faith). There's a big difference between National Socialism having a philosophical disagreement with Christianity, and communism being ideologically virulently anti-Christian - communism doesn't tolerate any religion. By contrast, [Hitler] explained that religion performs a useful function by cultivating morality among the masses.
Apart from evolution, one of the main philosophical differences between National Socialism and Christianity is the conception of afterlife:
Hitler articulated the idea that the afterlife is simply the continuation of one’s posterity and one’s entire species. He believed that the desire and longing people feel for immortality should be channeled toward striving for the well-being of their children and of future humanity. He reiterated this point in a January 1928 speech, where he posed the question crucial to all religions, “Why is the individual in the world at all?” He answered that we do not know why we are living, but we do know that we have an instinct not only to live, but also to continue our existence in to the future. This is “the yearning to immortalize oneself in the body of a child.” The highest humans—and Hitler clearly thought the Aryans were the highest—extend this desire to preserving the entire species, not just one’s own children.
In contrast:
[Pope Pius XI] complained, “‘Immortality’ in a Christian sense means the survival of man after his terrestrial death, for the purpose of eternal reward or punishment. Whoever only means by the term, the collective survival here on earth of his people for an indefinite length of time, distorts one of the fundamental notions of the Christian Faith and tampers with the very foundations of the religious concept of the universe, which requires a moral order.
So what was the famous National Socialist idea of "positive Christianity", even mentioned in the party program? The book explains:
Steigmann-Gall correctly identifies three key elements mentioned in the program: “the spiritual struggle against the Jews, the promulgation of a social ethic, and a new syncretism that would bridge Germany’s confessional divide.”
And:
[Hitler] proclaimed that Nazi social concern was the essence of positive Christianity: “If positive Christianity means love of one’s neighbor, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians.”
It is important to keep in mind that while National Socialism accepts natural selection, it is a struggle to be waged as a collective and not as individuals. Therefore empathy and solidarity for your fellow Aryan (you could say... your neighbor!) is key. Even Weikart concedes that Altruism was a key part of Hitler’s morality. If rejection of materialism and helping others is your idea of Christianity, then I'd say that National Socialism is Christian, as explained in Positive Christianity in the Third Reich.
While National Socialism is not based on Christianity philosophically, it is compatible with it in a practical sense. Weikart lies when he claims that in a passage of Mein Kampf Hitler called his fellow Nazis to embrace an intolerant worldview so they could throw off the shackles of Christianity. He literally promised to visit terror on Christianity. Weikart relies on his readers not having read Mein Kampf, because if you read the whole section he refers to (Vol. 2, Chapter 5, Section 5.1 if you read Dalton's translation), and not just the bit that he quoted out of context, it is clear that Hitler is talking about how to destroy Marxism (by fighting terror with terror), and not Christianity.
This is an isolated incident of Weikart's agenda coming out, but in the rest of the book he admits that Hitler was accepting that most Germans were Christians and that Hitler accepted the churches (for example by not removing state subsidies, even if they didn't exist in neighboring France). As long as the Churches were not interfering in politics, Hitler was happy to leave the spiritual matters to them.
Weikart's conclusion:
In a final analysis, Hitler’s morality was based on what he perceived to be the will of nature, not on the Ten Commandments or any other religious revelation. He viewed some elements of Christian morality as beneficial but rejected the universal thrust of Christian ethics, insisting instead that the command to love and help others is only applicable within one’s racial community.
Is well motivated by the arguments and sources he brought into the book, and it sounds convincing.
But you have to bear in mind that Weikart is not a historian, but a political activist. Which means he's not only biased, he openly lies to promote an anti-Hitler and pro-Jewish propaganda. For example, he claims that:
Hitler embraced a social Darwinist position that was the polar opposite of Judaism’s ethics, which forbade murder and enjoined loving one’s neighbor. [...] he killed Jews (and others) because he had already dispensed with the Judeo-Christian belief in the sanctity of life
This left a bad taste in my mouth.
As I am reading this book the Jews are mass murdering Palestinian children, after they stole their ancestral homeland. In fact, Jewish culture is based around killing non-Jews and killing children in particular: Passover celebrates when their God murdered Egyptian children for them, and Purim celebrates when they murdered Persian children - and they think it's justified because apparently the Persians were antisemitic. Weikart is wrong in asserting that Judaism considers life sacred. The 10 commandments in the Torah forbid the murder of fellow Jews, not the murder of non-Jews. In fact after giving the 10 commandments the Torah only a few chapters later orders the Jews to exterminate or enslave all non-Jews (for example in Deuteronomy 7 and 20).
The usual trick that anti-Hitler activist historians use is to falsely imply that Hitler is solely responsible for WWII, and then take all the atrocities of the war as part of Hitler's ideology. The problem with this is that the USSR, Britain, and the US have committed the same level and scale of atrocities against the German and Japanese people. How can someone claim that a Jew being murdered in a gas chamber is morally worse than a German being burned alive in his own home by a British incendiary bomb that was specifically targeting civilians? The only logic could be that the life of a Jew is worth more than the lives of non-Jews, exactly like the media today give us the message that the life of a Jew is worth more than the life of a Palestinian. Look at the ratio of Israeli/Palestinians killed today in retaliation: it's already at least 1:10 as I'm writing this and they still don't consider it enough! So much for what Weikart calls "Judeo-Christian belief in the sanctity of life". Weikart seems to be oblivious to the fact that "love your neighbor" in the Old Testament means exactly what it means, your *neighbor* i.e. "love your fellow Jews", which is clear if you read the full verse (Leviticus 19:18).
The point above about a war going on is quite important because it inevitably skews the content of the book. Of course when Hitler was rallying his troops he had to talk about Darwinian natural selection, struggle for existence, the stronger prevails, the weak perishes, etc... What else could you say to your soldiers during a war? Was Churchill telling the British soldiers to show Christian love and "turn the other cheek" to the German troops? Was Churchill using the gospels to motivate British pilots to bomb German civilians? In fact, the book would have been very interesting if it compared how Churchill was motivating his troops, to show the religious differences. Was Churchill saying "we need to defeat Hitler so that Britain can become a multi-racial society!"? Also, no comments from Weikart on whether Operation Vegetarian (the British plan to exterminate millions of Europeans with anthrax) was following the famous "Judeo-Christian morality" that he deems so superior to Hitler's.
In spite of his anti-Hitler bias and taking things out of context, I feel the author does a good job at collecting different sources to discuss Hitler's religious beliefs even before the war. Weikart examines different possibilities, such as Hitler being a Christian or an Atheist, while pursuing his central argument: that Hitler saw Nature as divine, and that human history was subject to laws that can be understood scientifically. This is convincing, because it fits with the rest of the National Socialist ideology. Racism is based on the science of evolution and natural selection. How can different races have evolved equally under very different environments?
Aryans evolved into a superior race during the Ice Age. They were steeled in body and mind by the harsh conditions, and they had to wage a bitter battle against the elements. Natural selection eliminated the weak, sickly, and less cooperative, leaving the robust, healthy, and more moral members to propagate their superior biological traits.
Once it is proven that National Socialism is based on the science of Darwin, then the logical conclusion is that it is not Christian. However, Weikart concedes that National Socialism left freedom of religion and respected Christianity - at least because it was the most common religion of the German people. Therefore it is still correct to consider Hitler as the savior of Christianity if you understand that his mission was to defend Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes that mass murdered Christians (in the USSR they could put you in the gulags only for your Christian faith). There's a big difference between National Socialism having a philosophical disagreement with Christianity, and communism being ideologically virulently anti-Christian - communism doesn't tolerate any religion. By contrast, [Hitler] explained that religion performs a useful function by cultivating morality among the masses.
Apart from evolution, one of the main philosophical differences between National Socialism and Christianity is the conception of afterlife:
Hitler articulated the idea that the afterlife is simply the continuation of one’s posterity and one’s entire species. He believed that the desire and longing people feel for immortality should be channeled toward striving for the well-being of their children and of future humanity. He reiterated this point in a January 1928 speech, where he posed the question crucial to all religions, “Why is the individual in the world at all?” He answered that we do not know why we are living, but we do know that we have an instinct not only to live, but also to continue our existence in to the future. This is “the yearning to immortalize oneself in the body of a child.” The highest humans—and Hitler clearly thought the Aryans were the highest—extend this desire to preserving the entire species, not just one’s own children.
In contrast:
[Pope Pius XI] complained, “‘Immortality’ in a Christian sense means the survival of man after his terrestrial death, for the purpose of eternal reward or punishment. Whoever only means by the term, the collective survival here on earth of his people for an indefinite length of time, distorts one of the fundamental notions of the Christian Faith and tampers with the very foundations of the religious concept of the universe, which requires a moral order.
So what was the famous National Socialist idea of "positive Christianity", even mentioned in the party program? The book explains:
Steigmann-Gall correctly identifies three key elements mentioned in the program: “the spiritual struggle against the Jews, the promulgation of a social ethic, and a new syncretism that would bridge Germany’s confessional divide.”
And:
[Hitler] proclaimed that Nazi social concern was the essence of positive Christianity: “If positive Christianity means love of one’s neighbor, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians.”
It is important to keep in mind that while National Socialism accepts natural selection, it is a struggle to be waged as a collective and not as individuals. Therefore empathy and solidarity for your fellow Aryan (you could say... your neighbor!) is key. Even Weikart concedes that Altruism was a key part of Hitler’s morality. If rejection of materialism and helping others is your idea of Christianity, then I'd say that National Socialism is Christian, as explained in Positive Christianity in the Third Reich.
While National Socialism is not based on Christianity philosophically, it is compatible with it in a practical sense. Weikart lies when he claims that in a passage of Mein Kampf Hitler called his fellow Nazis to embrace an intolerant worldview so they could throw off the shackles of Christianity. He literally promised to visit terror on Christianity. Weikart relies on his readers not having read Mein Kampf, because if you read the whole section he refers to (Vol. 2, Chapter 5, Section 5.1 if you read Dalton's translation), and not just the bit that he quoted out of context, it is clear that Hitler is talking about how to destroy Marxism (by fighting terror with terror), and not Christianity.
This is an isolated incident of Weikart's agenda coming out, but in the rest of the book he admits that Hitler was accepting that most Germans were Christians and that Hitler accepted the churches (for example by not removing state subsidies, even if they didn't exist in neighboring France). As long as the Churches were not interfering in politics, Hitler was happy to leave the spiritual matters to them.
Weikart's conclusion:
In a final analysis, Hitler’s morality was based on what he perceived to be the will of nature, not on the Ten Commandments or any other religious revelation. He viewed some elements of Christian morality as beneficial but rejected the universal thrust of Christian ethics, insisting instead that the command to love and help others is only applicable within one’s racial community.
Is well motivated by the arguments and sources he brought into the book, and it sounds convincing.
July 2, 2025
Fascinating! Weikart's conclusion that Hitler was some kind of pantheist makes complete sense to me and was argued for persuasively. Hitler's "god" was "Nature," and he sought to make sure it could run its course as he understood it.
Almost as interesting as his conclusions were his discussions around methodology. Hitler's true thoughts are hard to wrap one's mind around, because he lied a lot of out expediency. Weikart warns against being a methodological Neville Chamberlain: just because some early speeches reference Christianity does not prove he was a Christian anymore than that some of his early speeches referencing peace mean he was a man of peace.
Almost as interesting as his conclusions were his discussions around methodology. Hitler's true thoughts are hard to wrap one's mind around, because he lied a lot of out expediency. Weikart warns against being a methodological Neville Chamberlain: just because some early speeches reference Christianity does not prove he was a Christian anymore than that some of his early speeches referencing peace mean he was a man of peace.
June 20, 2021
The author is clearly deeply religious himself, so the subject of this book is not one he can be objective about. This is clear from the way the author describes atheism with words like "extreme" and "radical." It's also evident that the author's purpose is not academic, but polemic: he wants not to write about Hitler, but to debunk atheism and Darwinism. There are also a lot of implied reductio ad Hitlerum-type arguments, e.g. Hitler said this, therefore Darwinists today are evil, etc. Besides all this, the book itself is repetitive, and probably would have worked better as an essay.
Read
April 11, 2019Because we tend to see the Nazis as the definition of evil, there is a tendency to forget how human they are and in fact how thought patterns now are similar to what led the Nazis to see parts of humanity as less worthy.
September 19, 2017
Please give my review a helpful vote on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/review/RAI0BLE...
This is a well-researched, well-reasoned book that supports its conclusion with a keen addition to primary source material.
The issue of Hitler's religion is an evergreen topic in modern culture, with every side willing to award the prize to another side. The stakes are presumably high since Hitler is as close to the incarnation of the anti-Christ as modern culture is likely to recognize.
I've been plowing the same issue as a Catholic amateur historian who has been sucked into the interminable "Hitler was a Catholic" and "look at these pictures of Catholic priests giving the Hitler salute" with, usually, atheists on the internet. As a result, I've taken to reading many of the sources that author Richard Weikart bases his book on. After reading these memoirs, it is hard for me to imagine anyone taking seriously the notion that Hitler was a Catholic, or any kind of Christian believer. One of the texts that I thought that was particularly revelatory was this observation from
"“Here in Munich he lived the life of a bachelor who did not care for any sort of family life. For example, on Christmas Eve he would give all of his followers leave to visit their families; then he and his adjutant Bruckner would go to motoring through the countryside because he wished to escape the Christmas atmosphere, which he thoroughly disliked. No amount of talk could change his attitude in this matter.” (p. 150.)"
I noted this observation in my review of [[ASIN:162914388X The Hitler I Knew: Memoirs of the Third Reich’s Press Chief]]. Hitler's antipathy to Christmas is part of a theme that runs through Dietrich's memoir - Hitler disliked Christianity. I haven't seen any other history book pick up on this significant by minor detail, so I was particularly delighted and impressed and surprised to see Weikart mention it in his book. In my view, this is a small but significant detail that shows Weikart's attention to the mass of data that is available - and often ignored or unread - by other analysts.
Weikart structures his book around the following chapters/issues:
1. Was Hitler a religious hypocrite?
Weikart's answer is clearly in the affirmative. Hitler's public and private pronouncements were largely at odds with each other, although his private statements were fairly uniform over the years and with respect to different conversations with different interlocutors. Weikart demonstrates good historiographic restraint in pointing out the contradictory things said or written by Hitler and acknowledging that neither the private or the public Hitler has any particular credibility and that both public and private utterances should be critically assessed. This book is most certainly not about cherry-picking quotes to reach a foregone conclusion. Based on the contradictory positions that Hitler took, Weikart's conclusion that "[Hitler]was a religious chameleon, a quintessential religious hypocrite" seems inarguable.
2. Who influenced Hitler's Religion?
While reading this chapter, I felt like a mountain climber who scales a previously unclimbed mountain only to discover a candy wrapper.
For years, I have been hearing about Nietzsche's influence on Hitler, but for the most part, it is hard to find any direct evidence that Hitler read Nietzsche (But see Hanfstaengle [[ASIN:B00M6G3KW6 Hitler: The Memoir of the Nazi Insider Who Turned Against the Fuhrer]].) On the other hand, Hitler's interest in Schopenhauer has been attested by various sources. I always considered that to be a kind of pose, but recently I have been reading Schopenhauer to see if I could find the significance of Schopenhauer for Hitler. I have read no other source that discusses this issue.
Weikart supplies the key that unlocks the mystery. Knowing Schopenhauer was a basic part of being an educated German, and Schopenhauer's philosophy - as convoluted as it was (See [[ASIN:0192802593 Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction]] - provided a kind of pantheism that Weikart demonstrates pervades Hitler's comments about nature and God and Providence and fate and the rest of the transcendent nouns. I was personally gratified and enlightened by this exposition of a difficult and seemingly minor (to us, today) philosopher.
3. Was Hitler an Atheist.
Weikart concludes that Hitler was not an atheist in that he did believe that there was a transcendent impersonal power that somehow controlled the universe by establishing the laws of nature, particularly evolutionary laws. Hitler's constant identification of God with Nature and Fate or Providence was not a pose, according to Weikart, as if Hitler were a materialistic atheist who believed that reality was ultimately material simply mouthing religious sounding words.
Weikart's identification of Hitler with pantheism or panentheism seems to explain the confusion of Hitler's various statements. However, I am not sure that it necessarily lets "atheism" off the hook. Modern atheists like to define atheism as a "lack of belief in a god or gods.' This definition gets used to sweep up non-theistic religions like Buddhism. If Buddhists are "atheists," then Hitler would be an atheist, but not an atheist who believes that everything is merely matter.
4. Was Hitler a Christian?
As I noted previously, no one who actually reads Hitler's private utterances (or critically considers his abuses of Christianity) would seriously claim that Hitler was a Christian. Weikart in this chapter pulls together the many sources from people who knew Hitler on a day to day basis - his photographer and secretary and driver and fellow party members - in detail to dispel this bit of propaganda. As a Catholic, I appreciated the following;
"In his diaries, Goebbels confirmed that Hitler camouflaged his religious position to placate the masses. Based on his conversations with Hitler more than a year before the Nazis came to power, Goebbels wrote that Hitler not only wanted to withdraw officially from the Catholic Church but even wanted to “wage war against it” later. However, Hitler knew withdrawing from Catholicism at that moment would be scandalous and undermine his chances of gaining power. Rather than commit political suicide, he would bide his time, waiting for a more opportune moment to strike against the churches. Goebbels, meanwhile, was convinced the day of reckoning would eventually come when he, Hitler, and other Nazi leaders would all leave the Church together.15 If Hitler was being frank with Goebbels, then his public religious image was indeed a façade to avoid offending his supporters. If, on the other hand, Hitler was simply telling Goebbels what he wanted to hear, then Hitler was still masking his true religious thoughts and feelings."
And:
"By the time Hitler left home in 1907 to live in Vienna, he was already estranged from Catholicism. Brigitte Hamann, who has done the closest analysis thus far of Hitler’s Vienna years, reports that no sources ever mentioned Hitler going to church in Vienna. Further, Hamann claims that almost all the eyewitness accounts of Hitler’s time in Vienna note his hatred of the Catholic Church. One source reported that around 1912, “Hitler said the biggest evil for the German people was accepting Christian humility.” This certainly jibes with Hitler’s later outlook. Though the source base is scant, the evidence we do have suggests that Hitler had a negative view of Catholicism already while living in Vienna from 1907 to 1913.61"
And:
"Even when he publicly announced his Christian faith in 1922 or at other times, Hitler never professed commitment to Catholicism. Further, despite his public stance upholding Christianity before 1924, he provided a clue in one of his earliest speeches that he was already antagonistic toward Christianity. In August 1920, Hitler viciously attacked the Jews in his speech, “Why Are We Anti-Semites?” One accusation he leveled was that the Jews had used Christianity to destroy the Roman Empire. He then claimed Christianity was spread primarily by Jews.68 Since Hitler was a radical anti-Semite, his characterization of Christianity as a Jewish plot was about as harsh an indictment as he could bring against Christianity. Hitler was also a great admirer of the ancient Greeks and Romans, whom he considered fellow Aryans. Blaming Christianity for ruining the Roman Empire thus expressed considerable anti-Christian animus. Hitler often discussed both themes—Christianity as Jewish, and Christianity as the cause of Rome’s downfall—later in life."
One of the "tells" of Hitler's estrangement from Catholicism was his celebration of Luther as a German hero, something Catholics were not likely to do. Weikart is absolutely enlightening in explaining the significance of Schonerer and his Los von Rom movement, again, another detail that is often overlooked by historians on the subject.
5. Did Hitler want to Destroy the Churches?
Weikart's answer is that Hitler wanted to subordinate the churches into playing the role of supporting National Socialism, but when this became obviously impossible, Hitler planned to reduce church ability to interfere after the war. Weikart emphasizes that Hitler believed that the issue was pre-determined in any event: National Socialism represented science, while Christianity represented science-denying superstition. It was obvious to Hitler that National Socialism would supplant Christianity, although Christianity might remain as a way of rendering the lesser races more tractable.
6. Did Hitler derive his anti-Semitism from Christianity?
For Weikart this is another complicated question. On the one hand, Christian antisemitism determined the Jews as a possible victim people, but on the other hand, National Socialism introduced something new into antisemitism - scientific racism. With scientific racism - whether "scientific" is put in scare quotes or not - Jews became a racial problem rather than a religious problem. Hitler despised Christianity for permitting Jews to assimilate by baptism. Further, Nazi antisemitism was latently anti-Christian; burning the Torah on Krystalnacht was tantamount to burning the Bible since the Torah was the first part of the Bible. Weikart's conclusion is judicious:
"It is apparent that Hitler’s own reasons for embracing anti-Semitism had little or nothing to do with Christianity or religion. He continually denied that the Jews were a religion, viewing them instead as a race. He rarely invoked Christian themes when railing at the Jews, but he often invoked science, nature, and reason. However, this does not get Christianity entirely off the hook for preparing the soil for the Holocaust. The secularized version of anti-Christian anti-Semitism that became prominent in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Germany was grafted onto the earlier Christian version of anti-Semitism. Centuries-old caricatures of the Jews were reinterpreted as Jewish biological traits. Further, the Christian churches in Germany and Austria continued to peddle a good deal of anti-Jewish animosity in the early twentieth century, thus giving succor to the Nazi anti-Semitic juggernaut. Both Christian anti-Semitism and anti-Christian anti-Semitism—thus, both religion and secularization—were necessary conditions for the advent of the Nazi Holocaust. The anti-Semitic message that Hitler preached, however, was far more anti-Christian than Christian."
7. Was Hitler an occultist or pagan?
Weikart argues with strong evidence that Hitler was neither. Certainly, Hitler put down the zany excesses of Himmler and Hess and argued for science. on the other hand, Hitler was attracted to the lunatic "World Ice Theory" theories of Hanns Horbiger and to theories about the Atlantean origins of the Nordic race - and, frankly, to us moderns "race theory" pushes its way into craziness, if not the occult. Further, Pius XI accurately condemned National Socialism as a form of "paganism" for turning race into an idol.
Weikart's essential point, however, is that Hitler fancied himself as a rationalist rather than a mystic. Hitler's arguments and worldview were self-conceived as rational and based on science. In some way, the World Ice Theory and Atlantis were scientific propositions, which could be proven or disproven scientifically. Weikart observes that ".... According to his own opinion, Hitler did not think in mystical-esoteric, but in rational categories.”75 Hitler was certainly diabolically evil, but he did not base his evil philosophy on occultism or neo-paganism."
Hitler obviously came out of a milieu that viewed paganism and occultism as normal and obvious. In that milieu, Hitler comes across as mildly hostile to occultism and to paganism in the form of Woden worship. Hitler was not personally an occultist or pagan, although he tolerated those who were.
8. Who was Hitler's Lord?
Internet Atheists love quoting Hitler's statement that he was doing the "Lord's work," but they never ask "who was this Lord"? Weikart answers this question by examining the pantheist/panentheist worldview that probably formed the third-largest religious worldview in Germany. Weikart describes Martin Bormann - who is usually described as an atheist - as a pantheist. In a culture that rated Schopenhauer as one of the major philosophers, pantheism was a viable option.
For Weikart, the "Lord" was "Nature," which implied the totality of natural forces that controlled the universe and directed evolution toward the production of rational human beings. Atheists deny the influence of Darwin on Hitler, often pointing out that Hitler doesn't quote Darwin. Weikart includes in his book the following:
"Two other associates of Hitler testify that belief in Darwinian evolution was integral to his ideology. Wagener remembered a conversation in the summer of 1931 when Hitler professed, “Everywhere in life only a process of selection can prevail. Among the animals, among plants, wherever observations have been made, basically the stronger, the better survives. The simpler life forms have no written constitution. Selection therefore runs a natural course. As Darwin correctly proved: the choice is not made by some agency—nature chooses.” This not only demonstrates Hitler believed in Darwinian natural selection, but it also suggests he saw the process as nonteleological, i.e., not directed by some deity. Wagener claimed that Hitler based his support for killing the weak and the sick on this vision of natural selection.9 Otto Dietrich generally concurred, stating that Hitler’s “evolutionary views on natural selection and survival of the fittest coincided with the ideas of Darwin and Haeckel.” Hitler was not an atheist, according to Dietrich, but believed in a Supreme Being who “had created laws for the preservation and evolution of the human race. He believed that the highest aim of mankind was to survive for the achievement of progress and perfection.” Thus, evolutionary thought was central to Hitler’s goals and policies."
That would seem to place Hitler's constant references about "struggle for survival" in its natural context.
9. Was Hitler a Creationist?
Hitler often made theological references to "creation" and "creator." These references have been seized on by atheists to paint Hitler as a kind of fundamentalist. Weikart explains that the context of these quotes usually involve a process that leads to the formation or emergence of a race or species. In other places, Hitler is very specific about the "struggle of existence" giving rise to higher forms of life.
10. Was Hitler's morality based on religion
Weikart should not have to point out that Hitler's morality was not bourgeoise Christian morality. Where Hitler appeared to defend a Christian moral principle, such as opposing abortion, he did not do so because of Christian concern for the sanctity of life, but for the ends of his racial theory. Thus, Hitler opposed abortion for Germans because he wanted more Aryans, but he was in favor of promoting abortion for Jews. Likewise, Hitler was openly opposed to Christian morality where it would interfere with his racial goals. For example, Hitler opposed the concept of fidelity in marriage because that would limit the number of racially pure Aryans, a very bad thing in Hitler's views. Hitler had no problems with killing the sick or disabled in the interests of eugenics, and, in fact, seemed to favor the extermination of 70 to 80% of children born in the interests of creating a stronger and healthier race. As Weikart notes: "Hitler’s morality was based on what he perceived to be the will of nature, not on the Ten Commandments or any other religious revelation."
In sum, this is an engaging, well-researched, well-sourced book that arrives at a defensible position on an obscure issue. For those of us, interested in footnotes and following up on factual claims, it is well-footnoted. I hope that this book gets wide circulation so that we can move from myths to solid historiography.
This is a well-researched, well-reasoned book that supports its conclusion with a keen addition to primary source material.
The issue of Hitler's religion is an evergreen topic in modern culture, with every side willing to award the prize to another side. The stakes are presumably high since Hitler is as close to the incarnation of the anti-Christ as modern culture is likely to recognize.
I've been plowing the same issue as a Catholic amateur historian who has been sucked into the interminable "Hitler was a Catholic" and "look at these pictures of Catholic priests giving the Hitler salute" with, usually, atheists on the internet. As a result, I've taken to reading many of the sources that author Richard Weikart bases his book on. After reading these memoirs, it is hard for me to imagine anyone taking seriously the notion that Hitler was a Catholic, or any kind of Christian believer. One of the texts that I thought that was particularly revelatory was this observation from
"“Here in Munich he lived the life of a bachelor who did not care for any sort of family life. For example, on Christmas Eve he would give all of his followers leave to visit their families; then he and his adjutant Bruckner would go to motoring through the countryside because he wished to escape the Christmas atmosphere, which he thoroughly disliked. No amount of talk could change his attitude in this matter.” (p. 150.)"
I noted this observation in my review of [[ASIN:162914388X The Hitler I Knew: Memoirs of the Third Reich’s Press Chief]]. Hitler's antipathy to Christmas is part of a theme that runs through Dietrich's memoir - Hitler disliked Christianity. I haven't seen any other history book pick up on this significant by minor detail, so I was particularly delighted and impressed and surprised to see Weikart mention it in his book. In my view, this is a small but significant detail that shows Weikart's attention to the mass of data that is available - and often ignored or unread - by other analysts.
Weikart structures his book around the following chapters/issues:
1. Was Hitler a religious hypocrite?
Weikart's answer is clearly in the affirmative. Hitler's public and private pronouncements were largely at odds with each other, although his private statements were fairly uniform over the years and with respect to different conversations with different interlocutors. Weikart demonstrates good historiographic restraint in pointing out the contradictory things said or written by Hitler and acknowledging that neither the private or the public Hitler has any particular credibility and that both public and private utterances should be critically assessed. This book is most certainly not about cherry-picking quotes to reach a foregone conclusion. Based on the contradictory positions that Hitler took, Weikart's conclusion that "[Hitler]was a religious chameleon, a quintessential religious hypocrite" seems inarguable.
2. Who influenced Hitler's Religion?
While reading this chapter, I felt like a mountain climber who scales a previously unclimbed mountain only to discover a candy wrapper.
For years, I have been hearing about Nietzsche's influence on Hitler, but for the most part, it is hard to find any direct evidence that Hitler read Nietzsche (But see Hanfstaengle [[ASIN:B00M6G3KW6 Hitler: The Memoir of the Nazi Insider Who Turned Against the Fuhrer]].) On the other hand, Hitler's interest in Schopenhauer has been attested by various sources. I always considered that to be a kind of pose, but recently I have been reading Schopenhauer to see if I could find the significance of Schopenhauer for Hitler. I have read no other source that discusses this issue.
Weikart supplies the key that unlocks the mystery. Knowing Schopenhauer was a basic part of being an educated German, and Schopenhauer's philosophy - as convoluted as it was (See [[ASIN:0192802593 Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction]] - provided a kind of pantheism that Weikart demonstrates pervades Hitler's comments about nature and God and Providence and fate and the rest of the transcendent nouns. I was personally gratified and enlightened by this exposition of a difficult and seemingly minor (to us, today) philosopher.
3. Was Hitler an Atheist.
Weikart concludes that Hitler was not an atheist in that he did believe that there was a transcendent impersonal power that somehow controlled the universe by establishing the laws of nature, particularly evolutionary laws. Hitler's constant identification of God with Nature and Fate or Providence was not a pose, according to Weikart, as if Hitler were a materialistic atheist who believed that reality was ultimately material simply mouthing religious sounding words.
Weikart's identification of Hitler with pantheism or panentheism seems to explain the confusion of Hitler's various statements. However, I am not sure that it necessarily lets "atheism" off the hook. Modern atheists like to define atheism as a "lack of belief in a god or gods.' This definition gets used to sweep up non-theistic religions like Buddhism. If Buddhists are "atheists," then Hitler would be an atheist, but not an atheist who believes that everything is merely matter.
4. Was Hitler a Christian?
As I noted previously, no one who actually reads Hitler's private utterances (or critically considers his abuses of Christianity) would seriously claim that Hitler was a Christian. Weikart in this chapter pulls together the many sources from people who knew Hitler on a day to day basis - his photographer and secretary and driver and fellow party members - in detail to dispel this bit of propaganda. As a Catholic, I appreciated the following;
"In his diaries, Goebbels confirmed that Hitler camouflaged his religious position to placate the masses. Based on his conversations with Hitler more than a year before the Nazis came to power, Goebbels wrote that Hitler not only wanted to withdraw officially from the Catholic Church but even wanted to “wage war against it” later. However, Hitler knew withdrawing from Catholicism at that moment would be scandalous and undermine his chances of gaining power. Rather than commit political suicide, he would bide his time, waiting for a more opportune moment to strike against the churches. Goebbels, meanwhile, was convinced the day of reckoning would eventually come when he, Hitler, and other Nazi leaders would all leave the Church together.15 If Hitler was being frank with Goebbels, then his public religious image was indeed a façade to avoid offending his supporters. If, on the other hand, Hitler was simply telling Goebbels what he wanted to hear, then Hitler was still masking his true religious thoughts and feelings."
And:
"By the time Hitler left home in 1907 to live in Vienna, he was already estranged from Catholicism. Brigitte Hamann, who has done the closest analysis thus far of Hitler’s Vienna years, reports that no sources ever mentioned Hitler going to church in Vienna. Further, Hamann claims that almost all the eyewitness accounts of Hitler’s time in Vienna note his hatred of the Catholic Church. One source reported that around 1912, “Hitler said the biggest evil for the German people was accepting Christian humility.” This certainly jibes with Hitler’s later outlook. Though the source base is scant, the evidence we do have suggests that Hitler had a negative view of Catholicism already while living in Vienna from 1907 to 1913.61"
And:
"Even when he publicly announced his Christian faith in 1922 or at other times, Hitler never professed commitment to Catholicism. Further, despite his public stance upholding Christianity before 1924, he provided a clue in one of his earliest speeches that he was already antagonistic toward Christianity. In August 1920, Hitler viciously attacked the Jews in his speech, “Why Are We Anti-Semites?” One accusation he leveled was that the Jews had used Christianity to destroy the Roman Empire. He then claimed Christianity was spread primarily by Jews.68 Since Hitler was a radical anti-Semite, his characterization of Christianity as a Jewish plot was about as harsh an indictment as he could bring against Christianity. Hitler was also a great admirer of the ancient Greeks and Romans, whom he considered fellow Aryans. Blaming Christianity for ruining the Roman Empire thus expressed considerable anti-Christian animus. Hitler often discussed both themes—Christianity as Jewish, and Christianity as the cause of Rome’s downfall—later in life."
One of the "tells" of Hitler's estrangement from Catholicism was his celebration of Luther as a German hero, something Catholics were not likely to do. Weikart is absolutely enlightening in explaining the significance of Schonerer and his Los von Rom movement, again, another detail that is often overlooked by historians on the subject.
5. Did Hitler want to Destroy the Churches?
Weikart's answer is that Hitler wanted to subordinate the churches into playing the role of supporting National Socialism, but when this became obviously impossible, Hitler planned to reduce church ability to interfere after the war. Weikart emphasizes that Hitler believed that the issue was pre-determined in any event: National Socialism represented science, while Christianity represented science-denying superstition. It was obvious to Hitler that National Socialism would supplant Christianity, although Christianity might remain as a way of rendering the lesser races more tractable.
6. Did Hitler derive his anti-Semitism from Christianity?
For Weikart this is another complicated question. On the one hand, Christian antisemitism determined the Jews as a possible victim people, but on the other hand, National Socialism introduced something new into antisemitism - scientific racism. With scientific racism - whether "scientific" is put in scare quotes or not - Jews became a racial problem rather than a religious problem. Hitler despised Christianity for permitting Jews to assimilate by baptism. Further, Nazi antisemitism was latently anti-Christian; burning the Torah on Krystalnacht was tantamount to burning the Bible since the Torah was the first part of the Bible. Weikart's conclusion is judicious:
"It is apparent that Hitler’s own reasons for embracing anti-Semitism had little or nothing to do with Christianity or religion. He continually denied that the Jews were a religion, viewing them instead as a race. He rarely invoked Christian themes when railing at the Jews, but he often invoked science, nature, and reason. However, this does not get Christianity entirely off the hook for preparing the soil for the Holocaust. The secularized version of anti-Christian anti-Semitism that became prominent in late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Germany was grafted onto the earlier Christian version of anti-Semitism. Centuries-old caricatures of the Jews were reinterpreted as Jewish biological traits. Further, the Christian churches in Germany and Austria continued to peddle a good deal of anti-Jewish animosity in the early twentieth century, thus giving succor to the Nazi anti-Semitic juggernaut. Both Christian anti-Semitism and anti-Christian anti-Semitism—thus, both religion and secularization—were necessary conditions for the advent of the Nazi Holocaust. The anti-Semitic message that Hitler preached, however, was far more anti-Christian than Christian."
7. Was Hitler an occultist or pagan?
Weikart argues with strong evidence that Hitler was neither. Certainly, Hitler put down the zany excesses of Himmler and Hess and argued for science. on the other hand, Hitler was attracted to the lunatic "World Ice Theory" theories of Hanns Horbiger and to theories about the Atlantean origins of the Nordic race - and, frankly, to us moderns "race theory" pushes its way into craziness, if not the occult. Further, Pius XI accurately condemned National Socialism as a form of "paganism" for turning race into an idol.
Weikart's essential point, however, is that Hitler fancied himself as a rationalist rather than a mystic. Hitler's arguments and worldview were self-conceived as rational and based on science. In some way, the World Ice Theory and Atlantis were scientific propositions, which could be proven or disproven scientifically. Weikart observes that ".... According to his own opinion, Hitler did not think in mystical-esoteric, but in rational categories.”75 Hitler was certainly diabolically evil, but he did not base his evil philosophy on occultism or neo-paganism."
Hitler obviously came out of a milieu that viewed paganism and occultism as normal and obvious. In that milieu, Hitler comes across as mildly hostile to occultism and to paganism in the form of Woden worship. Hitler was not personally an occultist or pagan, although he tolerated those who were.
8. Who was Hitler's Lord?
Internet Atheists love quoting Hitler's statement that he was doing the "Lord's work," but they never ask "who was this Lord"? Weikart answers this question by examining the pantheist/panentheist worldview that probably formed the third-largest religious worldview in Germany. Weikart describes Martin Bormann - who is usually described as an atheist - as a pantheist. In a culture that rated Schopenhauer as one of the major philosophers, pantheism was a viable option.
For Weikart, the "Lord" was "Nature," which implied the totality of natural forces that controlled the universe and directed evolution toward the production of rational human beings. Atheists deny the influence of Darwin on Hitler, often pointing out that Hitler doesn't quote Darwin. Weikart includes in his book the following:
"Two other associates of Hitler testify that belief in Darwinian evolution was integral to his ideology. Wagener remembered a conversation in the summer of 1931 when Hitler professed, “Everywhere in life only a process of selection can prevail. Among the animals, among plants, wherever observations have been made, basically the stronger, the better survives. The simpler life forms have no written constitution. Selection therefore runs a natural course. As Darwin correctly proved: the choice is not made by some agency—nature chooses.” This not only demonstrates Hitler believed in Darwinian natural selection, but it also suggests he saw the process as nonteleological, i.e., not directed by some deity. Wagener claimed that Hitler based his support for killing the weak and the sick on this vision of natural selection.9 Otto Dietrich generally concurred, stating that Hitler’s “evolutionary views on natural selection and survival of the fittest coincided with the ideas of Darwin and Haeckel.” Hitler was not an atheist, according to Dietrich, but believed in a Supreme Being who “had created laws for the preservation and evolution of the human race. He believed that the highest aim of mankind was to survive for the achievement of progress and perfection.” Thus, evolutionary thought was central to Hitler’s goals and policies."
That would seem to place Hitler's constant references about "struggle for survival" in its natural context.
9. Was Hitler a Creationist?
Hitler often made theological references to "creation" and "creator." These references have been seized on by atheists to paint Hitler as a kind of fundamentalist. Weikart explains that the context of these quotes usually involve a process that leads to the formation or emergence of a race or species. In other places, Hitler is very specific about the "struggle of existence" giving rise to higher forms of life.
10. Was Hitler's morality based on religion
Weikart should not have to point out that Hitler's morality was not bourgeoise Christian morality. Where Hitler appeared to defend a Christian moral principle, such as opposing abortion, he did not do so because of Christian concern for the sanctity of life, but for the ends of his racial theory. Thus, Hitler opposed abortion for Germans because he wanted more Aryans, but he was in favor of promoting abortion for Jews. Likewise, Hitler was openly opposed to Christian morality where it would interfere with his racial goals. For example, Hitler opposed the concept of fidelity in marriage because that would limit the number of racially pure Aryans, a very bad thing in Hitler's views. Hitler had no problems with killing the sick or disabled in the interests of eugenics, and, in fact, seemed to favor the extermination of 70 to 80% of children born in the interests of creating a stronger and healthier race. As Weikart notes: "Hitler’s morality was based on what he perceived to be the will of nature, not on the Ten Commandments or any other religious revelation."
In sum, this is an engaging, well-researched, well-sourced book that arrives at a defensible position on an obscure issue. For those of us, interested in footnotes and following up on factual claims, it is well-footnoted. I hope that this book gets wide circulation so that we can move from myths to solid historiography.
October 23, 2022
There have been any number of people, over the decades, who have insisted that Adolf Hitler was a Christian - either out of ignorance of what he believed, or out of ignorance of what Christianity is, or out of a desire to attack Christianity by smearing it with Hitler's name. Richard Weikart, who is both a reputable scholar and a Christian, delves into Hitler's own utterances public and private, and also addresses the views of other scholars who - he believes - have misunderstood where Hitler stood.
If you know what Christianity is, reading this book will convince you that Hitler was no more a Christian than he was a pumpkin. And Weikart writes clearly and plainly, without academic gobbledygook; while I expect he intended that other scholars should read the book, he didn't write it in academic jargon which only a select few can comprehend. That's always a plus when reading something from a scholarly pen, because some scholars appear incapable of speaking actual English, and others seem to deliberately obfuscate things so that ordinary readers can't understand them.
Weikart sets forth his case clearly and comprehensibly, and I find convincingly - Adolf Hitler was no more a Christian than he was a crescent wrench.
If you know what Christianity is, reading this book will convince you that Hitler was no more a Christian than he was a pumpkin. And Weikart writes clearly and plainly, without academic gobbledygook; while I expect he intended that other scholars should read the book, he didn't write it in academic jargon which only a select few can comprehend. That's always a plus when reading something from a scholarly pen, because some scholars appear incapable of speaking actual English, and others seem to deliberately obfuscate things so that ordinary readers can't understand them.
Weikart sets forth his case clearly and comprehensibly, and I find convincingly - Adolf Hitler was no more a Christian than he was a crescent wrench.
March 23, 2018
This is one of those books that I felt like was more supposition than historical exploration. Weikart does a good job of exploring the varying and rapidly changing religious influences that seemed to inundate the German nation at the time of Hitler's rise to power and ultimate tenure. But I found a lot of the equation of those influence, as applied to Hitler, guess work and assumption based on primary sources of spectators of Hitler's subordinates. Weikart seems to quote Goering's diary, as well as other Nazi officials more than he does that of Hitler's own primary sources. (Perhaps because so little survives that gives insight into what Hitler truly believed.)
Overall, I found that the exploration of the religious influences of Nazi Germany both informative and interesting. But Weikart's argument of how they applied to Hitler much less convincing.
Overall, I found that the exploration of the religious influences of Nazi Germany both informative and interesting. But Weikart's argument of how they applied to Hitler much less convincing.
March 22, 2020
An interesting attempt to unravel from Adolf Hitler's vast, contradictory, and idiosyncratic statements about religion some sense of how to characterize his beliefs. The author's conclusion that Hitler was some kind of pantheist (or perhaps panetheist) is thought-provoking, but suffers from a couple of problems. First, I think it is mistake to try to pigeon-hole an individual's beliefs as though they were always a clear binary choice: atheist, yes or no; Christian, yes or no. Hitler's own statements about religion, as detailed by Weikart, are all over the map. I completely agree with the author that it is safe to regard Hitler's public use of Christian rhetoric as merely strategic, but even his private statements on religion are not always consistent or coherent. Second, the book has a tendency to repeat the same points (and even the same quotes) multiple times.
September 1, 2022
Over the years I've seen Hitler identified as everything from an evangelical Christian to an avowed atheist. Most of these identifications came with an ulterior motive; to make him fit a specific group that the given author wanted to attack. This book clears away all the conjecture and takes a deep and honest look at the beliefs and philosophies that drove one of the twentieth century's greatest villains.
December 4, 2017
Hitler & God?
A good explanation of Hitler’s world view, and a good break down of his religious underpinnings.
If you want to understand how an entire country can be drawn into the worst evil imaginable, this is a book worth reading. Well researched.
A lot of repetition of the main points, which made for slower reading, of an otherwise clear and understandable text.
A good explanation of Hitler’s world view, and a good break down of his religious underpinnings.
If you want to understand how an entire country can be drawn into the worst evil imaginable, this is a book worth reading. Well researched.
A lot of repetition of the main points, which made for slower reading, of an otherwise clear and understandable text.
March 28, 2020
I gave this book 4 stars because it’s very dense and difficult to read in every sense of the word, however, it provides a good background knowledge on the religions present in Germany at the time and their influence on the Nazi movement. I think anyone that’s interested in Modern European History/Ideology would be enlightened by this book.
December 12, 2018
Remarkably informative. Avoids extravagant claims. Thoroughly documented. Approaches the issue from several angles. Debunks claims that he was either an atheist or a Christian, and makes a reasonable case that he was closest to pantheism or possibly panentheism. But Weikart is sufficiently humble to acknowledge there is some room for disagreement. This is in part because Hitler was either intentionally trying to be obscure about his religious beliefs, or was in fact too personally confused to know precisely what he believed. He also addresses questions such as the source of Hitler's anti-semitism, the influence of Darwinian thought on his worldview, did Hitler wish to destroy the churches, who was "Lord" in Hitler's worldview, what was the basis of Hitler's morality, and other related issues. Does a good job of discussing the religious and social/cultural milieu of Germany and Austria during the rise of the National Socialists and their period of rule. Worth the read.
December 10, 2024
Great scholarly work on the religious views of Hitler. After considering the many, and often times contradictory statements of Hitler on religion, Weikart ultimately concludes that Hitler was a pantheistic. A great refutation to the nationalists who claim Hitler was a “Christian prince.”
May 7, 2017
I thought I had already reviewed this as I finished a week ago. Excellent read as it explains accurately (as much as possible) what Hitler believed and what he didn't.
June 28, 2017
This book challenges a lot of the thoughts/beliefs that the world has held about Hitler and his beliefs. His only true god was that of Nature....and the German People (Volk).
September 6, 2018
A great book into the Nazi mindset which is currently making a resurgence in America.
January 24, 2023
One of the best books about the controversy of Hitler’s religion, but it’s a bit repetitive
May 16, 2023
19/20
July 14, 2023
Crazy book on what the Third Reich was like
June 8, 2024
Good scholarship that dove into first hand sources and also drew heavily from secondary sources as well. The writing was very repetitive, but insightful and interesting.
July 10, 2025
Trying to nail Hitler's religion down is like nailing Jello to the wall, I Found Weikart view interesting but far from satisfying, Hitler was to my mind a Social Darwinistic sociopath who believed and cared for no one but what was important to his world view. Love and empathy were weakness and the sermon on the mount His God was nature, he was pantheistic and his God fit what he believed. He hated Judaism and disdained Christianity for being weak. To me his religion was of his own making which fit into a Pantheistic Social Darwinistic approach that fit his sociopathtic personality!
March 9, 2025
3.5 stars [Biography]
Exact rating: 3.67
#12 of 67 in genre
#3 of 36 on The Third Reich
Weikart adds notably to literature on Hitler.
Writing: 3 stars
The book moves along, staying on point and not getting bogged down. Some chapters evince good linearity, but others seem to be thrown together. As the book begins, there's some overlap of quotations and themes; by Chapter 5 it has become mildly repetitive, and by the end of the book it has moved into moderate repetitiveness. This detracted a half star from the Writing score. It is as if the book was meant to be read as individual chapters rather than a continuous narrative.
Use: 4 stars
Weikart appears thoroughly familiar with the past body of works on Hitler, and quotes them sufficiently. His trust of reliable sources is explicitly explained after the conclusion of the book.
This book is of excellent service to the general public. Everyone seems to quote Hitler to support their own unexamined ideas, or to oppose the ideas of their unexamined opponents. This book puts to rest for all time the charge that Hitler was a Christian. Only the insane, intellectual cowards, and the willfully blind could contend that after reading this.
Truth: 4 stars
Weikart does a good job of presenting various opinions on each question by previous authors. He gets polemic a few times (which is not unwelcome), debunking a priori, ideologue detractors concerning German translation.
Exact rating: 3.67
#12 of 67 in genre
#3 of 36 on The Third Reich
Weikart adds notably to literature on Hitler.
Writing: 3 stars
The book moves along, staying on point and not getting bogged down. Some chapters evince good linearity, but others seem to be thrown together. As the book begins, there's some overlap of quotations and themes; by Chapter 5 it has become mildly repetitive, and by the end of the book it has moved into moderate repetitiveness. This detracted a half star from the Writing score. It is as if the book was meant to be read as individual chapters rather than a continuous narrative.
Use: 4 stars
Weikart appears thoroughly familiar with the past body of works on Hitler, and quotes them sufficiently. His trust of reliable sources is explicitly explained after the conclusion of the book.
This book is of excellent service to the general public. Everyone seems to quote Hitler to support their own unexamined ideas, or to oppose the ideas of their unexamined opponents. This book puts to rest for all time the charge that Hitler was a Christian. Only the insane, intellectual cowards, and the willfully blind could contend that after reading this.
Truth: 4 stars
Weikart does a good job of presenting various opinions on each question by previous authors. He gets polemic a few times (which is not unwelcome), debunking a priori, ideologue detractors concerning German translation.
September 23, 2018
Richard Weikart basically takes you through a tour de force pilling primary sources, secondary sources, and building upon the research of others historians to unravel what lied at the heart of Hitler's worldview. Having read my fair share of documents regarding this issue—including Alan Bullock's classic biography—it seems to me that Weikart weights all the evidence carefully and following it wherever it goes.
At the popular level, I've heard throughout my life that Hitler was a Christian (from atheists and secularists) or that he was an atheist (from Christians and other monotheists). However, if we follow the evidence where it leads, it's overwhelmingly obvious neither of these statements are true.
In any case, if you have an interest in this question, I would totally recommend the book. Unlike so many sources out there Richard Weikart is a first-class scholar and his work is highly readable and FULL of footnotes fitting all of his claims in light of primary and secondary sources.
At the popular level, I've heard throughout my life that Hitler was a Christian (from atheists and secularists) or that he was an atheist (from Christians and other monotheists). However, if we follow the evidence where it leads, it's overwhelmingly obvious neither of these statements are true.
In any case, if you have an interest in this question, I would totally recommend the book. Unlike so many sources out there Richard Weikart is a first-class scholar and his work is highly readable and FULL of footnotes fitting all of his claims in light of primary and secondary sources.
January 5, 2017
Hitler was a Christian. Hitler was an atheist. Hitler is invoked by
1. the religious to show the consequences of Darwinism.
2. the irreligious to show the church gone wild.
Who is right?
Weikart gives a well-researched answer. His conclusion (spoilers) is that Hitler was a pantheist. Certainly no Sunday school student, and closer to Darwin than Lewis.
My personal view is that Hitler is the logical exponent to the atheist European philosophies with naturalism thrown in for good measure. We're not being honest with ourselves if we call him a Christian.
Notes:
(1) Naivety of supposing Hitler wouldn't decieve about his religious convictions in light of his promise of peace (28)
(2) Hitler was not an atheist (58)
(3) Jesus reinvented as the ideal Aryan (92)
(4) "Cynical ploy of a crafty politician" (94)
(5) Hitler worshiped nature (186)
(6) "After all, he asserted, he had never allowed any clergy to participate in his party meetings or even in funerals
for party comrades. He continued, “The Christian-Jewish pestilence is surely approaching its end now. It is simply dreadful, that a religion has even been possible, that literally eats its God in Holy Communion.”2 Hitler clearly thought that anyone should be able to figure out that he was not a Christian" (248)
1. the religious to show the consequences of Darwinism.
2. the irreligious to show the church gone wild.
Who is right?
Weikart gives a well-researched answer. His conclusion (spoilers) is that Hitler was a pantheist. Certainly no Sunday school student, and closer to Darwin than Lewis.
My personal view is that Hitler is the logical exponent to the atheist European philosophies with naturalism thrown in for good measure. We're not being honest with ourselves if we call him a Christian.
Notes:
(1) Naivety of supposing Hitler wouldn't decieve about his religious convictions in light of his promise of peace (28)
(2) Hitler was not an atheist (58)
(3) Jesus reinvented as the ideal Aryan (92)
(4) "Cynical ploy of a crafty politician" (94)
(5) Hitler worshiped nature (186)
(6) "After all, he asserted, he had never allowed any clergy to participate in his party meetings or even in funerals
for party comrades. He continued, “The Christian-Jewish pestilence is surely approaching its end now. It is simply dreadful, that a religion has even been possible, that literally eats its God in Holy Communion.”2 Hitler clearly thought that anyone should be able to figure out that he was not a Christian" (248)
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews