30036441

8/12/2019 30036441

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/30036441 1/28

Christianity and the Nazi Movement: A ResponseAuthor(s): Richard Steigmann-GallReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 42, No. 2 (Apr., 2007), pp. 185-211Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036441 .

Accessed: 09/04/2012 23:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of

Contemporary History.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036441?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036441?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd

8/12/2019 30036441


JournalfContemporaryistoryopyright 2007 SAGEPublications,osAngeles, ondon,New Delhiand ingapore,ol 2(2),185-211. ISSN 022-0094.DOI: 10.1 77/0022009407075560

Richardteigmann-Gall

ChristianityndtheNazi Movement:A Response

When first eganto research n thetopicofnaziconceptions fChristianity,I understood he revisionist otentialof my findings. he archivesbroughtforth ome surprisingiscoveries,which knew would probablybe takenas

controversial y many,and which would elicit strongcounterarguments.Reviews nthescholarlynd popularpresshaveso farrangedfromaudatory- withmany pplauding he book as a correctiveo long-held onventionsto disdainful, iththemajority o datefallingmuch closerto theformerndofthe continuum. ositive eviews an be foundboth nsecular nd Christianperiodicals, omeofthemwritten yself-described hristians fboth iberaland conservativerientations. here has also been a livelydebate on variousinternet ebsites,manyofwhich ttempto use thebook,either egativelyrpositively, o forward particular ultural, ocial or politicalagenda, and

some of which eriouslymisrepresent yownarguments hilemaking heirs.Colleaguesand friends oth n and out ofthe historical rofession ad antici-patedthat omeofthereactionsbothwithin heacademiccommunitynd at

largewould be lessdispassionate hanothers.And ndeed,muchofthediscus-sionwhich hebook has generated eveals clearemotional ttachmento thesubject amongthose who praisethebook,certainly,ut also amongthosewho condemn t.

On that ontinuum fcritical esponse omywork, t s safeto saythat hefour ritics have beenaskedto respond o inthis ymposiumasilyrepresent

the newextreme fthenegative nd.To varying egrees hey hallengebothmyargumentsndmyfindings. heytake ssue withmymethodology, oint-ingtowhattheybelieve refundamentalmistakes,gregious rrors,nd fatalshortcomings. heyaccuse me oftendentiousnessnd a lack oforiginality,fa refusal o explorecountervailingvidence r to acknowledgeworkprior omyown. It is suggested hat n myeffort o turn blindeyeto inconvenientrealities, selectivelyickthroughhequotemines fhistory. yturns ariousaspectsofmybook are described s 'afflicted',crass', astonishing',conde-scending',deficient'nd ridiculous'.Whatthey ee as lapsesarespeculatively

explained byone of themwith forayntopsychoanalysis as deliberateoversight, ilful gnorance, r unhealthy ixation.Readingthese riticisms,tmight ppear that thecondemnations re simplynsurmountable. owever,what appearto be comprehensivend authoritativeritiques fmybook aretoo often, poncloser nspection, series fmisinterpretations,ffortso erectstrawmen, and, withdisturbing requency, istortionsnd fabrications. n

8/12/2019 30036441


186 JournalfContemporaryistoryol 42 No 2

their ttemptso paintmywork as tendentious,hese uthorsfrequentlyivefree ein o their wntendentiousness.laiming hat overlook ountervailingevidence, hey epeatedlyverlook vidence nmybook when t hinders heir

ability ocritiqueme.Gailus nparticularccusesme ofextrapolatingnd dis-torting; ethis lengthyccountsofmy scholarlywrongdoingsre laden with

extrapolations, aricatures, nd misrepresentationsf fact and argument o

repetitive nd unbridled hat one beginsto wonderwhether he 'strangeobsession'he speaksof s not a case of Freudianprojection.

Some ofmyrespondents akegreater are than others o explainwhat theybelievemybook does anddoes not do. Given hat hereaderhasnow received

four differentnterpretationsf The Holy Reich (Stowers' piece, whilethematicallyitalto the ssuesapproachedbythesecritics, oes not in itself

analysemywork), t is importanto remind hereaderofpreciselywhatmybook attemptso do, how itgoes aboutit,and,mostvitally,what t does anddoes notargue. n a phrase,Holy Reichattemptso revise urunderstandingof thenazi movement s intrinsicallynti-Christian.t does thisbyexaminingtheviewsof eadingnazis,defined oth nterms ftheir verallposition nthemovement's ierarchynd bytheir ositions s designated arty uthoritiesnmattersf deological versightndarticulation,rpublic ndparty ducation

and indoctrination.n otherwords,those nazis I explorewere, n onewayoranother, esignated s partofan ideologicalelite ormilieuwithin he move-ment: at the very east, as arbitersof which idea or concept counted asNational Socialist nd whichnot.

I found, asedon evidence btained hroughrchivalmaterials, rinted ri-mary ources, ndsecondaryources, hat henazi movements such, ither sa party eeking oweror as a governmentnpower,couldnot be called anti-Christian.Based primarily n privateand oftensecretdocuments, loselymatchedwithpublicpronunciations, demonstrate ithabundantempirical

evidence hat a wide swath ofthepartybelieved hemselvesnd theirmove-ment o be Christian. heydemonstratedhisthrough oththeirwords andtheir ctions, s individuals nd as decision-makersnthenaziparty nd laterthe nazi state.The individualswho exhibited commitmento theChristian

religion describeas 'positiveChristians', ased on their dherence o the

'positiveChristianity' hich thepartyreferencedn Point24 of its official

programme which, tshouldbepointed ut,was never evoked. venwhile

manyof these positiveChristians' ould be highly nticlerical,nd stronglyantagonisticnparticularo theCatholic Church nd itstraditions,heymain-

tainedthat hrough ersonalbelief s well as through overnmentolicy, hemovementwas guided byChristian rinciples mostobviously n its anti-Semitism, ut also in its anti-marxism,nti-liberalism,nd erectionof a

people's community xaltingan 'ethical socialism' while excludingthosedeemedracially nfit.

Since interrogaterecisely hat thesenazismeantwhenthey laimed heir

8/12/2019 30036441


Steigmann-Gall:hristianityndtheNaziMovement 187

movementwas a Christian ne, I also gauge their ruth laims againsttheviews of leadingchurchmen nd theologiansof the day. Not to discoverwhetherherewere Christianswho supported azism; n exhaustiveiterature

has alreadyestablished he breadth nd depthof thissupport, mongbothProtestantsnd Catholics n Germany.Rather, o discover f,and ifso whatkindof, lergyndtheologians ccepted heclaimsof thenazis to be Christian.In theprocessof this nvestigation, contend that while no one variety f

Christianityan be seen as thetheological ntecedent fpositiveChristianity(HolyReich,hereafterR, 262-3), the ornerstonesfpositiveChristianitythe belief hatJesuswas not a Jewand the call for theremoval of theOldTestament as two of the most central- also found expressionwithin

Germany'skulturprotestantischilieu. n otherwords,Christiannazis did

not ust distort' r 'infect'Christian deas to suit their arty; uch ideas hadexisted nvarieties fChristianityhich and this s vital werearticulated

by acknowledged heologians nd Christian ntellectuals eforenazismevercameintoexistence.

Standing pposedto thepositiveChristianswere theso-called neo-pagans'of the nazi party I refer o them s 'paganists' n mybook),who have beenmuchmorecloselyscrutinizedn historical cholarship nd about whom agreatdeal is alreadyknown. confirm heconventional iew that theirpres-ence in the partywas veryreal, and among theirmembers ncludedsome

extremelyowerfulmen.However, maketwoargumentsnparticularwhichstray rom cceptedconvention: irst,hepaganist ohortdid not achievethereligiousdominanceor at leasthegemony hey ustedafter.While thisgoesagainstmuchchurchhistoriography,indicate nmybook thatother cholarshavemadethis rguments well.Second,and moreoriginally, contend hatas a set of deas and precepts,hecontent fpaganismwas highlymbivalenttoward ndquitepartial n tsrejection fChristianity.avingsaidthat, alsomake tclear that heir resence ntheparty lite, nd their ntrapartyivalrywith positiveChristians' hroughoutheThirdReich,precludesnazismas a

whole from eing onsidered Christianmovement.Finally, n thelast and longest hapterofHoly Reich, demonstrate ow

anticlericalismookgreater old within henazi worldview s well as instatepractice, nd thatoppositionnot ustto the nstitutionsutalso to thetradi-tions of Christianity rewas the ThirdReichneared tsclose. Throughtheexampleof intrapartyactionalism, demonstrate heways in whichmanyChristians n theparty lite ost theirpositionsofpower.At thesame time,their bilitynotonlyto practise heir aith s individuals, utadditionally opropagatepositiveChristianitys a religion or hemovement, as, in spite f

paganist hallenges, or he mostpartupheld. also demonstrate owpositiveChristians n manycases were able to retain heirpositionsofpowerwithintheparty nd state.For their art,whatevermomentarytrategic dvantagestheymayhavegained,paganistswerenever ble to exploitthegrowing nti-clericalism f the stateorHitler'sgrowing isenchantment ith he Christianreligion tself. n fact, heviews and policiesof thenazi state could be very

8/12/2019 30036441



hostile o bothpaganist rganizationsnd individual aganistswithin henazi

party.Atthe sametime, ome who had previously xpressed commitmento

Christianityncreasingly xpressed rejection f it,even as theycontinued

to upholdJesus nd hismessage, nd adhere to other ignifiersf Christiancommitment.

Givenwhatmybook does and doesn'targue, hecareful eaderwillalreadyfindways nwhichHolyReich has beenmisrepresentedntheprecedingriti-cisms. will address hese riticismsntwoways: byexploringhe arger ointsthat ariserepeatedly etweenone reviewer nd thenext,and by addressingmore isolated criticisms uthorby author. I will conclude by consideringanother ritique ecently ublished nanother enue.

We can beginwithpoliticalreligion heory. am accused offatally verlook-

ing,through itherwilfulness r ignorance, he debates on nazismas a politi-cal religion. t is no accidentthat ManfredGailus and ErnstPiper,bothGermanscholars,reproachme for eavingthistheory ut ofmyanalysiseven fPiperdoes not subscribe o it himself whereas heNorthAmericanscholar rvingHexham,eventhough n advocateofpolitical eligion heory,smuch less reproachful; nd fellowNorth AmericanDoris Bergengivesnomention o itat all. As Hexhamhimselfuggests,here s much essEnglish-

speaking cholarship n nazism s a political eligionhan here s inGermany,notwithstandinghe notable exceptionsof Michael Burleigh'sThe ThirdReich:A New History ndGeorgeMosse's TheNationalization ftheMasses,neither f which,while consideredmajor works,has spurred significantmonographic rend.'Fortherecord, findmyselfncomplete greement ithStowers'deconstructionfpoliticalreligion for ts nabilityo truly efinewhata religions,amongotherproblems.n itscurrentcholarly pplication,political religiontheory s primarily oncernedwith demonstrating ownazism could be considered replacement aithforChristianity. y goal in

exploringnazi conceptions f Christianity as quitedifferent namely, oreconsider he relationship etweenpoliticsand established eligion. n this

sense, contend hatnazism, n the viewofmanyof itsadherents,ould be

I would like to thank RichardEvans for his invitationo participaten thissymposium n mybook. It is a rare ndprivilegedpportunity hen historian'swork especially hatofa juniorone- becomesthesubject f thiskindof attention.twas not a difficultecisionwhenhe askedme if I would like to contribute.My thanks as well to Doris Bergen,ManfredGailus, IrvingHexham,Ernst iper nd Stanley towers or heir ively nd challengingomments.

1 Michael Burleigh, he ThirdReich:A New History New York 2000); GeorgeMosse, TheNationalization fthe Masses: PoliticalSymbolismnd Mass Movementsn Germany rom he

Napoleonic Warsthroughhe ThirdReich New York 1975). RecentEnglish-languageontribu-tionshavebeen solated ases: see David Redles,Hitler'sMillennialReich:Apocalyptic elief ndthe Searchfor Salvation (New York 2005) and Karla Poewe, New Religionsand the Nazis

(London 2005). See as well Jane Caplan, 'Politics,Religionand Ideology:A Commenton

WolfgangHardtwig',Bulletin fthe GermanHistorical nstitute,8 (2001), 3-36.

8/12/2019 30036441



qualified s religiouswithout tself einga religion. also demonstrate owHitler, s theultimaterbiternd articulatorf nazi ideology, ctively ejectedrepeated ttemptso transform is movementntoa religion.

I do notengagepoliticalreligionnHolyReichbecause tdoes notaddressmy problematic not,as Gailus and Piperwould have the readerbelieve,because doingso would underminemyclaims to originality.Birsch's 1998book exploresmanyof the same nazis I do and uses muchthe same sourcematerial, ut explore muchgreater ange fnazis'opinion.Birschalso pro-ceeds from undamentallyifferentonceptualizations,nd hisargumenthatthe nazis made thenation divine' differsmarkedly rommyown findings.Piperwillhopefully orgiveme ifmymanuscriptwas alreadywiththepub-lisherbythe timeRiLfmann'sook appeared- perhapsthesame reasonmybook getsno mentionn his new Rosenbergbiography.)My critics an restassured that I know the political religion iterature,nd in facthave con-tributed o it intwo articles one in a volume editedbyHartmutLehmannand Michael GeyerpublishedbyWallsteinVerlag.2That neitherGailus nor

Piper seem aware of thispiece is particularly uzzling,giventheir harplyworded criticism hat I ignorewhole historiographies,et alone individualauthors.This oversights particularlyxtraordinarynGailus' case in light fhis exacting ffortso citepracticallyheentire oliticalreligion orpus;thefact hat, nhercontributiono a special ssueofGeschichte ndGesellschaft

whichGailusedited,Bergen itestheconference aper gave inGottingenn2001 thatformed hebasisofmyWallstein rticle; nd thefact hatLehmannis Gailus' collaborator, ehaving o-edited volumewithLehmann ustaftermy piece in Geyer'sand Lehmann's volumeappeared.Was he not familiarwith his rticle?

I will not recapitulate ither towers'deconstructionf politicalreligiontheory r myown, since theseare available in fullalready. will,however,make twopointsofparticular aliencefor his ymposium. irst, heevidenceis irrefutablehat,whereasa recognizedminorityfnazis had wished n one

way or another o turn heirmovementnto a politicalreligion orwhat nGailus' sense could be termed oliticalreligion their fforts ereconsist-entlyrefutedby a more effectiveohort of nazis who, whether positiveChristian' rofsomeother eligious ersuasion,wereactively pposedtosuchplans. For some nazis,this ran contrary o theirown visionof nazismas a'religiouspolitics'.For others,twas a matter fcalculation.For stillothers,thevisionofnazism s a politicalreligionwas deemed aughableandcontraryto theverymeaning f themovement. here s simply artoo mucharchivalevidence, nalysedby ReinhardBollmus,RobertCecil, and myself mong

others, hatdemonstrates ow oftenRosenberg nparticularost internecine2 Richard teigmann-Gall,Was National Socialism PoliticalReligion ra ReligiousPolitics?'in Michael Geyerand HartmutLehmann eds), Religionund Nation, Nation und Religion:Beitriigeu einerunbewdiltigteneschichte(G6ttingen 004), 386-408; RichardSteigmann-Gall,'Nazism and the Revival of PoliticalReligionTheory',TotalitarianMovements nd PoliticalReligions, (2004), 376-96.

8/12/2019 30036441


190 JournalfContemporaryistoryol42 No 2

battles over implementationf his religiousagenda (Hexham impliesthatBollmus'findingsre too old to be relevant;n fact,his book is now in itssecondedition).3

Second,thingsike commemorationsf thedead', 'cultcycle', nd 'sacredactions',as Gailus describes hem,do not constitutehe actual area ofNS

religiosity'. hese may all be rituals, n the same sense thateverypoliticalmovement rticulates or tself setof rituals nd practices round which tformulates senseofidentitynd solidarity. ne could pointto several on-

temporarynstances fpoliticians ngagingnrituals r other cts which ouchtheemotional,non-rationalisticmpulses f the audience.The question s,arethesemoments ymptomaticf a religion nd/orreligiosity'?WhenFranqoisMitterrand aid a rose at the tomb ofJeanJuaresupon becoming he new

PresidentfFrance n 1981,was he engagingncultbehaviour?WhenGeorgeW. Bush walkedsolemnly o hispodium nthe middleoftheconvention allto givehis acceptance speechat the 2004 RepublicanNational Convention,repletewith potlightsnd impassioned udience,was hearticulatinghecreedof a newfaith?Without iting nyexamples, rexplaining owcommemora-tion of the dead among otherpublic acts can be consideredrivalroustoChristian radition,Gailus simply sserts he conventional ruism hat such

behaviour, fnecessity, ad to be un- or anti-Christian.do notdispute hattherewere somenazis who wantedverymuch o found new cultand tried o

create setof rituals o embody t. But themostcompellingvidencewe haveof theirfailure s the utter ejection f such effortsyHitler,Goebbels,and

Goering, mongothers.That is not to saytherewas no suchthing s nazi ceremonyr ritual.Here

too, thenazis stagedhighly horeographed pectacles uchas Speer'sfamousCathedral of Light.The question that needs to be asked is not whetherthenazis tried o winnew supporters singsuchmethods; side fromhighlydubious testimonials rom hoseclaiming ohave skeptically'ttended rallyonlyto be 'born again' bythecharismatic iihrer,here s no empirical vi-

dence of any numerically ignificantconversionexperiences'. nstead,thequestion s whetherhenazisregarded uchceremonys beingreligious. hereis no reliable vidence hatHitlerbelievedhe was creating religion hroughthe use of suchchoreography not thatthishas stopped nnumerableom-mentators rom laiming o. If Hitler ccasionallymade referenceso convert-

ing'hisaudience onazism, fgettinghe deaofnight allies rom isCatholic

youth, r of his followers eingChrist-likentheir etermination all pointsI raise nmybook - thathardlymeans he viewedhimselfs a new messiah.In fact, s I demonstrate epeatedly, n such occasions Hitleractually on-

tendedthat he was followingChrist'sexample,not attemptingo replaceChrist s a newobjectofworship.That Hitlerborrowed romChristian itual

3 ReinhardBollmus,Das AmtRosenbergund seine Gegner:Studienzum Machtkampfm

nationalsozialistischenerrschaftssystemStuttgart970; 2nd edn2006); RobertCecil,TheMythoftheMasterRace: AlfredRosenberg nd Nazi Ideology London 1972).

8/12/2019 30036441


Steigmann-Gall:hristianitynd heNaziMovement 191

toembellishazi heatricalityoesnotmeanhe oughtoreplaceheChristianfaith.A vitaldistinctionetweenormndcontent,tyle nd substance,selidedwhen oliticaleligionheorysapplied o thenazimovement.

Gailus ndPiper ssentiallygnorevidencehatHitler, oebbels,ndotherhigh-rankingazis esteemed esus s only hemost bvious ignifierftheChristianaith,nsteadinGailus' ase)admittingnly oa fewsolated asesof dual-faith'azis ikeHans Schemmnd otherwisexplainingwayevi-dence f Christianommitmenty hoosingoargue hatwhateverhristianreligiosityxistednthenazielitewassimplyesidual,he ingeringrace f atypically ilhelminebourgeois/pettyourgeois amily ackground'nwhichthese aziswere aised.Gailus uggestshey ad ittle hoice ut ostartife sChristians,utthat his trophied ith dulthood. here re far oomanyfalse ssumptionsorthis ineof argumento sustaintself. or one,theKaiserreichImperial ermany)nthis onceptionsessentiallyast s a pre-modernociety,nwhichndividualgencynreligioushoice s apparentlysurrenderedo a state-mandatedocial anctionnforcinghurchttendanceandbelief. ven hemost aricaturedonderwegSpecial ath) hesiswouldnotgoso far s todepictmperial ermanocietynsuch nachronisticerms.Second, herewere nnumerablenstancesn theKaiserreichfhostilityoChristianityt a varietyf evels political,ultural,ocial,nstitutional,ndintellectual.o makehis rgumentailusmust verlook enturiesfGerman,

not o mentionuropeanntellectualistory,evermind heobviousways nwhichwhole egmentsfGermanociety ejectedither hurch rreligionitselftpreciselyhisperiod. hefact hat herepublic hich osefromheashesof the mpire as such hotbed fculturalhange otonly oints oGailus' ailureorecognizeermany'sulturalndreligiousmarketplace'ndtheways nwhichGermansould alter heir iews;healso removes veryimportantactor hich,mong thers,roughtazism ntobeingnthefirstplace.As I contend,twas thequestion ftheplaceofreligionnGermansociety hat, mongotherfactors, elpeddetermineopularreaction o

nazism.As a lastpoint, heview hat ne's classstatus ecessarilynformsone's religious eliefss highly eterministic;nlythemostunreformedsecularizationheorist ould ny ongermake uch nassertion.

Thispoint urns s to a second hargemade epeatedlyymy ritics:hat failtoproperlynderstandermany'sonfessionalivide. orisBergenontendsthat 'misconstrue'he onfessionalifferenceshat xistednGermany,ndthat pay scant ttentionodevelopmentsntheCatholic ide'andeven et

Catholicismoff hehook'.Gailusgoesfurther,uggestinghat 'exculpate'Catholicism nd am a victim fthe Catholic Church's in-house' pologetics.can think f not a singlen-houseCatholic pologistwhowouldview as excul-patorymy argumenthatCatholicbishopswere hesitant bout 'turningheirbacks on a movement nazism]that foughtMarxism, liberalism, nd the"Jewish anger"' HR, 67). As thispassage indicates, am awarethatnazism

8/12/2019 30036441


192 JournalfContemporaryistoryol 2No2

andpoliticizedatholicismouldhavefound ommon ause nanti-Semitism,anti-Marxism,nd anti-liberalism.amalso aware of thehuge mount fliteratureetailinghevariousways nwhich atholicsnGermanynd else-wherehavepropagated ew-hatrednd antipathyo parliamentaryem-ocracy,ndthe oaringebate his asgeneratedHR,4-5).

It s not nissue fmy protecting'atholicism;ivenhatmy rimaryiminthebook s toexplore aziattitudesoward hristianity,ot he ther ayaround, foundompellingndoverwhelmingvidencefnazi ntagonismoCatholicism.Whether nd to whatdegreeGermanCatholicisment tsendorsementonazisms not he oint. do not ake ssuewith he ontentionthat ome egmentsfGermany'satholicmilieu oundhemessagefnazismamenable thought shouldbe pointed ut thatGailus'descriptionf

Bavaria s 'purely atholic's a sophomoric istake,ll themore roublinggivenhe mountfresearchhowinghat heProtestantegionfFranconiawas arguablyhenazis' true trongholdnBavaria.4 ather,hequestionswhatwere henazis'views.Andhere found strikingegreefuniformity:whetherheywerenominallyrotestantrCatholic, hristianrpaganist,membersfthenazielite onsistentlyxpressedntagonismowards ot usttheCatholic hurch,ut lso theCatholic eligion.twas, ntheir iew, otsufficientlyationalist;ndeed, ivents nstitutionaltructure,atholicismwas ambastedsoneof he hreenternationalseekingo undermineerman

nationhood.twas also insufficientlyacist. hatmembersf the Germanepiscopacywere known o be highly ationalistnd anti-Semiticid notchangenazi minds. f I make referenceo the deological ngagementfpositiveChristianityiththedoctrinal ositions f liberalProtestantism(Kulturprotestantismus)r confessionalutheranism,hereader an restassured hat t s because found o evidence fCatholicismmbracingheidea that acewas oneof God's orders fcreation;hat heOld Testamentought o beremovedromheChristiananon;orthat onfessionalchoolsshould ephased ut allviews rticulatedt onepoint r anotherythe

NSDAP's positivehristians's well s within ermany'srotestantilieux.As to Bergen's oint bout nuance': heevidence bring o bear on nazipreferenceorProtestantismverCatholicism,s wellas the ctive ostilitytowards heCatholic hurchnd ts raditions,s nsurmountable.

MytreatmentfProtestantisms, nthemain,udgedo be essproblematic.For all hisunyieldingriticism,ailus ccasionallyermitsimself note f

agreement,tatingn hisclosing emarkshathe agreesentirely' ithmyassessmentfthepresencendeffectivenessf National ocialist hristians'- a bewilderingonclusionfter ucha long ndictmentfmymisdeeds.

4 Rainer Hambrecht,Der Aufstiegder NSDAP in Mittel-und Oberfranken1925-1933)

(Nuremberg 1976); Wolfram Pyta, Dorfgemeinschaft nd Parteipolitik,1918-1933: die

VerschrdinkungonMilieu undParteienndenprotestantischenandgebieten eutschlandsnder

Weimarer epublik Dilsseldorf 996). On Bavaria's Protestantsuring heThirdReich, eeBj6rnMensing, Pfarrerund Nationalsozialismus:Gechichte einer Vertrickungm Beispiel der

Evangelisch-Lutherischenirche nBayernG6ttingen 998).

8/12/2019 30036441



Bergens somewhat esscharitable,uggestinghat 'condescend' oher nhertreatment f GermanChristian eligiosity.he also makesdetailedreferencesto the broad literaturehatalreadyexistson Protestantsn the ThirdReich,repeatedly uggestinghatmy nalysis snotnearly o novelas I claim. As withtheir omments n mytreatmentfCatholicism, gain I mustpointout that

Bergenand Gailus misconstrue he goal of mybook. It is not mytask to

explore hevarietyfways nwhichProtestantseacted o thenazimovement;therehas been a colossal amountof workalreadydone on this,workwhich

explore and acknowledge n the book's introduction. add perhapsa fewnuances nd additionaldetailsofmyownto this lreadymmense istoriogra-phy.My maingoal whenexploring heProtestantideof thenazi-Protestant

relationshipn chapterfive s to reveal how Protestants auged the nazis'

claims.To allegethatthe nazis looked favourably n Protestantismnd con-sidered tthe natural'religion f theGermans, nd notexplorethis spectofnazi policy,wouldhavebeen a substantial versight. his chapter howsthata large egment f nstitutionalrotestantismelcomed heassistance hat henazi stategavethem,whereasother egments,mostobviously entred roundNiemoller nd theConfessing hurch, riticized otnazism tself o muchasnazi endorsements f their pponents. say assistance'becausethestrugglesbetween heGermanChristiansnd theConfessing hurchwerenotsimplyproxywar betweennazismand Christianity,ut an 'in-house'conflict, ne

that the NSDAP largely tayedout of and whichultimatelyed to thenaziendorsement f the GermanChristians eingwithdrawn.Having said that,this hapters only econdarilyoncernedwith he Church truggletselfs anintra-Protestantightbetweenthe GermanChristians nd the ConfessingChurch.Therealreadyexists hugeliteraturehatexploresthis ssue,and I

mightpointout thatwhile I disagreewithsome of the arguments f otherhistorians, make no particular laim to originalityn thedisputesbetweenthese wogroups.

While exploremoments fProtestantesistanceonazichurch olicy, iven

thepivotalrolethisplayed nalteringhatpolicyby1937, it s true hat do notexplore heAlltag daily ife), s itwere, fChristian esistance. ace Bergen,tcouldcertainlyeargued hat dialogicrelationshipetween epresentativesfthenazi party nd theChristian hurcheshelped shapenazi attitudes owardChristianity.deologically amified s theywere, however, he nazis showedlittle ppreciationforthe Catholic Church'shistory f anti-Semitism,nti-Marxismand anti-liberalism.heir ntentiono create heir wnrealitymeantthatthenazis werequitecapable ofneglecting ealitywhen t interferediththeir redeterminedorldview.Whichmakestheirwillingnesso engagewith

the Protestant hurchesup until 1937-

including heplanningof churchelections ouryears fter heextinction fevery thervestige fdemocracynGermany all themoreremarkablen ts mplications.

StayingwithProtestantismor hemoment,t snecessaryo addressGailus'many riticisms fmy nalysis fProtestantism,articularlyoncerning hap-terfive.Givenhisscolding pproachofproviding laundryistofmyalleged

8/12/2019 30036441



inaccuracies nd mistakes, have little hoice butto address thempointbypoint.First fall, I do notdisputeHarnack's credentialss a non-nazior hisrefusal o approvenazi anti-SemitismHR, 41). On theotherhand,Harnack's

engagementwith Houston Stewart Chamberlain n the late years of theKaiserreich, s well as his own rejectionof the Old Testament s 'Jewishcarnal aw' atthebeginningf theWeimarRepublic, reentirely ermane oacentralpointof mine: positiveChristian' alls forthe removalof the OldTestament annot be taken as intrinsicallynti-Christian. s muchas Gailus

mightwish t wereso, this s notsimply case ofmyrummaging hroughhe

quotemines fhistory,ookingfor ome Christian r otherwho can be blamedforyetanotheraspect of nazi ideology;as I point out, 'National SocialistChristians'made explicitreferences o Harnack when explaining heirown

theological ositionsHR, 74, 151). Gailussuggestshat morefruitfulineofinquirywould be to interrogatehe brandof Lutheranism ssociated with

St6cker apparently verlooking hosemany nstancesn the book wheredo justthat HR, 36, 38-9, 42, 43-4, 48, 69, 78-80, 181,204, 262-3). Gailus'unambiguous tatement hatGermanChristianswere extremely ntheologi-cal' can be made onlybyoverlooking hevery mportant heologiansUnderHitlerbyRobertEricksen, ne ofthemostprominentmonographs xploringthisquestion.'To answerGailus' question s to 'whyshould therehave beenresistancemotivatedby Christianprinciples' fNational Socialism were as

Christian s theauthor,hereand there, urports o suggest', ne would haveto recountthe very many instances n the history f ChristendomwhenChristianswere at odds - or,moreto thepoint, t war - witheach other,regardless f themanyexhortationso love and peace found n their hared

religion. amverynclined o agreewithBergen's ointthatwe needto avoidideal definitionsnsuch discussions.

Gailus professes hat error-spotting'oes not appeal to him: can under-standwhy, giventhe defectiveway he goes about it. I do not claim thatDibelius' speechon PotsdamDay' tookplace inBerlinHR, 69); I am accused

of mischaracterizinghe German Christianmeeting f November 1933 inBerlin s a 'controversy' henapparentlyheaccuratedescriptors 'scandal'

(myreferenceo that event s not on p. 73 butp. 75. ApparentlyGailus is

takingmeto task for ayingat' insteadof after',whileoverlookinghe factthaton p. 164 I refer o the outragethatensued').Gailus claimsPrinceEitelFriedrich id not join theNSDAP in 1930, butapparently oes not himselfknow theactualdate; failing o note thatZieglerturned o thestudy ffolk-loreafter eaving heProtestant aith n no way contradictsmycharacteriza-tion ofhisprior ctivities r his associationwithRosenberg.Gailus criticizes

my nterpretationf churchmembership igures or 1933 as 'rash', and yetconcedesthatone way to protect neself n the totalitarian azi statewas to

join (orrejoin)a Christian enomination.

5 Robert ricksen,heologians nderHitler:Gerhard ittel, aul Althaus nd EmmanuelHirsch New Haven, CT 1985). Gailus' otherwise xtensive ibliographical ootnotes ailto citeEricksen's ook.

8/12/2019 30036441



Gailus' ire reachesa climax whendiscussing passage about the esteemforChamberlain eltbywhat term members f theConfessing hurch'.He

flatly tatesthatI have no supportfor thisclaim,that 'fill n the blanks

entirely peculatively',nd thentriumphantlynnounces: These are illustra-tionsof the lapdashapproach o sources ndquotations, heoverused racticeof ndirectuotation nd the onstant endencyoexaggeratenterpretationsfevidence o fit nwithhis basic thesis.'However, nsteadof a detective inallydiscoveringhesmoking un,whatwe get s thepot callingthe kettleblack.Afteromplaininghat 'fill ntheblanks',he concedes hat accurately efer-ence my source,RichardGutteridge.Not satisfiedwiththis,he claims tounearthmore lipshod cholarshipGutteridge'st thispoint), inallystablish-

ing hat heoriginal eference as actually n editorial otewithout ttribution

intheperiodicalJungeKirche.Gailus makesthepointthat should not haverelied on Gutteridge's wn descriptionn thiscase since it ended up beingspeculative a pointwell-taken,xceptthathe thenproceeds o speculate. nall 'likelihood' heauthor s Fritz 6hlmann,Gailusavers.Thenheengages n

conjecture secondtime;havingfillednthe blanksof who theauthormightbe,hespeculates hathiscandidatewould be difficulto identify's a memberof the ConfessingChurchbecause of his priorassociationwithGermany'sChristian-nationalouthmovement. irst, 6hlmannwas actually member ftheYoungGermanOrder.Second, s Gailusmayknow, heConfessing hurch

accommodated a broad rangeof political opinion,much of it surprisinglysupportivefnazism.6 hird, he ournalJungeKirchewas stronglyssociatedwith theConfessing hurch nd itstheological eanings.Fourth,no one lessthanDietrich onhoeffer ad a professionalelationship ith 6hlmann. ifth,

S6hlmannwas theeditor fTreysa1945, a report ftheJuly 945 ConfessingChurch synod.7At a bare minimum he evidence quite firmly oints to

S6hlmann'sstrong ympathy or theConfessingChurch.8Gailus repeatedlyattemptso demonstratehecarelessness fmy cholarship;tappearshe doesnot feel heneed to lead byexample.

On somepointsofdetailGailus has me: first, concedethat street rawl'does notaccurately escribe hecontext f HorstWessel'sdeath, inceGailusrightly ointsout thattheevent n questiondid not take place on a street.Second, n theprocessofdescribing revealingetter fcomplaint boutHansSchemm entto theBavariangovernor ranz Ritter on Epp, I did notpoint

6 See,for xample,VictoriaBarnett, or the oul ofthePeople:ProtestantrotestAgainstHitler(New York 1992); WolfgangGerlach,Als die Zeugen schwiegen:BekennendeKirche und die

JudenBerlin1987).

7 FritzS6hlmann ed.), Treysa1945: Die Konferenz er evangelischen irchenfiihrer7.-31.August1945. MiteinemBericht iberdieSynodeder Bekennenden irche nBerlin-Spandau9.-31. Juli1945 und iberdieunmittelbarorangegangenen agungen esReichsbruderratesnddasLutherischen ates Luneburg 946).8 SusanneBen6hr,"... ohne Zweifel st der Staat berechtigt,ierneueWege zu gehen":Die"Judenfrage"us derSichtvonDietrichBonhoeffer, erhard iebholz undCarl Schmitt', npub-lishedms.Mythanks o Dr Ben6hr-Laqueur orprovidingmewith copyof herpaper.

8/12/2019 30036441


8/12/2019 30036441



Kersten'sbook.10After riticizingme forusingSpeer,Hexham allows himselfto relyheavilyupon the unreliable memoir'byKurtLiidecketitled KnewHitler. Hexham thinksthat by grudgingly cknowledgingArthurSmith's

deconstruction f Liidecke'sbook he has inoculatedhimself rom riticism.Quite thecontrary; mith's rticle s damning.And it is not alone; over 30years go DietrichOrlow calledLiidecke'sbook highly nreliable' nd urgedthat t be used with extreme aution'." Roland Layton's1979 article,KurtLudecke and I KnewHitler:AnEvaluation', guardeddefence f theveracityofLiidecke'sclaims,mustnonetheless oncede: it can hardlybe deniedthatmuch s exaggerated.'12

Gailusaccuses me of eaving sidehugecollections fHitler's ndGoebbels'printed rimarymaterial,mplyingnce more that do so to avoid evidence

contrary o mytheory.Not onlydo I exhaustively robethrough hesinglemost mportant rinted rimaryource,Hitler'sMeinKampf, go throughgreatdeal of additionalprintedprimarymaterial on Hitler, ncluding heDomarus,Jdickel-Kuhn,aser, Nicolaisen,Tyrelland Wagenervolumes.also use the Tischgespriiche,ut not beforeaddressing he questionof its

reliability. etween hese ources nd thesubstantial rchivalresearch nder-taken at the Institute or ContemporaryHistory n Munich, the FederalArchives t thetime ocated nPotsdam ndBerlin-Zehlendorf,ndfour therarchives entral o the studyofNational Socialism, standby myclaimto

have authoritativelystablishedHitler's religiousviews. I agree that oneshould always strive o be exhaustivewhenpossible;but Gailus cites not asingle nstancewhere hecompendia didnot use would haveunderminedmyanalysisbased on thevery ubstantialmaterial do use.

The samepointappliesto Goebbels.Gailus simply ssertswithout urtherexplanationthatthe Goebbels references employare 'weak and dubious',then reproachesme for not using the 1996 edition of Fr6hlich'sdiarymaterials. tmustbe said that use twoothervolumes ditedbyFr6hlich, hestandard1987 collection nd thenewer1998 collection.He believes hat he

'catches'me oncemorebyquoting t length rom December 1941 entrynGoebbels' diary.But I pointout myself hattwo yearsearlier,byDecember1939, Goebbels'diary ntrieswerealreadyrevealingnti-Christianentiment(HR, 252). Again,Gailusprovidesnot a single nstancewhereusingFr6hlich's1996 collectionwould have challengedmyfindings. ailus thenproceedstomisleadinglyake mywords out of context: According o Steigmann-GallGoebbelsshowed"no diminution fhisreligious onvictions" fter he eizureof power.' The mostcursory eadingof thatpassage (HR, 124) shows thisstatementsmade for heperiod mmediately ollowing heSeizureofPower,

10 Ian Kershaw,bycontrast, sesthememoirwithout ritical omment nthesecondvolume fhis recent wo-volume iography fHitler: an Kershaw,Hitler, 936-1945: Nemesis New York2001), 1027, 1033.11 DietrichOrlow,TheHistory ftheNazi Party, 919-1933 (Pittsburgh,A 1969), 323.12 Roland V. Layton,Jr, Kurt Ludecke [sic] and I Knew Hitler: An Evaluation', CentralEuropeanHistory, 2 (1979): 372-86.

8/12/2019 30036441



notsimplyafter he seizure fpower',whichwithout urtheromment ouldbe taken to mean the entireThirdReich. Gailus decontextualizes secondtime: 'Elsewhere,he repeats that Goebbels showed "littlechange in his

religious ttitudes"nthe ateryearsoftheregime' emphasismine).Here toohe misleads, dding lateryearsof theregime'when pointout through hesourceswhichfollow hat his tatement oldsfor1937 (5 years nto 12-yearregime) n the case of Christianity,nd 1941 in the case of Goebbels' anti-

paganism.Hexhamdevotesmostof hiscritique o questioningmymethodology,hal-

lengingmyuse ofsource material nd defending osenberg rom vidence fhispolitical mpotence.WhereasGailus attempts summaryxecution fmywork,Hexham prefers eathby a thousandcuts.Mistakes,falsearguments

and overstatementsfmy analysissaturatehis piece. Hexham misleadinglytransforms ydeclaration hat intend 'closereading' fmy ources ntothe

groundless ssertion hat claim that arlier cholars ailed o interpretazism

correctly ecause theydid not read archival nd publishedworkscarefully.If there are instanceswhereI point out errorsor oversights n behalfofotherscholars, do not extrapolate rom his and impugn heirmethodsof

investigation.n his effort o turnthe tables,Hexham frequentlympugnsmymethods, riticizingme, among otherthings, ormyuse of translated

primaryources;to drive his pointhome,whenciting hese sourceshimself

he pointedly dds lengthyootnotes ontaining heoriginalGerman ext. fuseManheim'stranslationfMeinKampf nsteadof theoriginalGerman, s

just themost obvious example,then so too do scoresof English-languagescholars ftheThirdReich. cannothereprovideHexhamwith n exhaustive

list,butamonga few of the more recent xamplesare the works ofMichael

Burleigh, Claudia Koonz, Saul Friedlander,Alan Steinweis and Paul

Weindling.13he listofscholarswho usetranslationsf other rinted rimarysources ouldgo on and on.

Another rrorof Hexham's is to suggest hat underestimate osenberg

because I do not take ideologyseriously.t is difficulto determinegainstwhom heis arguingwhenhestatesit s safe o saythatmany cholarsnow see

ideology s an importantlementnmotivatingndividualNationalSocialists.'This s a sentencewhich ould havecome outofmyown book. Whether rnotBollmusdiminishesherole of deologynthenaziregime ardly isproves he

largerpointBollmusmakes,and whichmyown research onfirms; amely,that Rosenbergconsistentlyost his polycraticbattles for supremacy n

religious uestions.Basedon quotesfrom ublicNSDAP ceremonies, exhamwould have us believe thatRosenberg'sbeliefswerehegemonic n thenazi

party ndheldswayoverHitler, venas he lost all the nternecinetruggles e13 Burleigh,hird eich,p.cit.;ClaudiaKoonz, heNaziConscienceCambridge,A2003);Saul Friedlander, azi Germanynd theJews:The YearsofPersecution, 933-1939 (New York

1997); Alan Steinweis,Art, deology& Economics n Nazi Germany:The Reich ChambersofMusic, Theater nd theVisual Arts Chapel Hill,NC 1996); Paul Weindling,Health,Race andGermanPoliticsbetweenNational Unificationnd Nazism,1870-1945 (Cambridge 989).

8/12/2019 30036441



entered nto and was subjectedto scorn and ridiculewithinthe nazi elite.Hexham woulddo well to examineother pheres fRosenberg's ifewherehe

similarlyost to thosewho held real sway. AlexanderDallin demonstrated

withoverwhelming mpiricism ow anotherof Rosenberg's deological petprojects ost outheavily:his visionof a seriesoftributarylavicnation-states

surrounding core Russianrump ntheoccupiedSovietUnionwas contemp-tuously disregarded yHitler's muchmore powerful atraps- even if,orperhapsprecisely ecause,men ikeErichKoch werenominally nderRosen-

berg nhiscapacity s Minister or heOccupiedEast.14 he kindsofdisrespectwhich his associatesheaped upon him,both as an administratornd as anintellectual,make it abundantly lear thatRosenbergwas not a man with a

large following. hat he did havea cohortof fellowpaganistswho tookhim

seriously myself oint out; but to extrapolatefromthis and argue thatRosenberg'sreligious deas influenced itler or werehegemonicn the nazimovement rpartys utterly ithout oundation.

Hexham nitpicksonpointsofdetail,for xample,belabouringhequestionofwhich dition fRosenberg'sMythus haveinfactused.He says 'repeat-edlyclaim'to be usingthe 1930 edition, hen nformsme that haveactuallyused the 1935 edition. do not repeatedlylaim'to useanyparticulardition;I indicate heoriginal ublication ate and place ofRosenberg'sbook inrele-vantfootnotes nd againinthebibliography.makeno mention fan edition

one wayor another.Hexham insists hat mustbe using he 1935 edition; nfact use the1942 edition. fhe is suggestinghatmyreferencehould havebeen to the date of the edition,not the originaldate of thepublicationofMythus, accept his suggestion.However, his argument hat Rosenbergdefendshimself gainstresurrecting dead religiononly in a later editionbecause he had to defendhis workagainsthostile riticism ince tfirst ameout in 1930 - in otherwords,Rosenberghad to backtrack hardlydis-provesmy largerpoint about Rosenberg'sweak positionvis-a-vishis col-leaguesor hisdefensivenessbouthispaganisticdeas. Hexhamhelpshimself

to a reading fSpeer after riticizing yuse ofSpeer'sbook And thepointhemakes swrong: s with heabove discussion oncerning peer'sCathedralofLight rHitler'sown comment n night allies s nazi choreography,hereis not the slightest roof that the buildingof monumentalistrchitecturewas in keepingwithRosenberg'spaganism.Hexham's conclusion ncludespointabout Mark Twain which,while amusing, s a falseparallel:Twain'srelationshipotheBook ofMormonwas notanalogoustoHitler's elationshiptoMythus.

WhereHexhamis at hismostuntenable nd evenpuzzling s inhis engthy

defense fRosenberg s someonemore han fringedeologue.Page after ageof Hexham's article s devoted to demonstratingot just the relevanceofRosenberg'swritings,uttheneed to takeseriouslyhecomparablewritingf

14 AlexanderDallin, GermanRule in Russia: A Study of Occupation Policies (New York,1957).

8/12/2019 30036441



cultreligiouswriters f thecontemporaryra withwhomRosenberg s com-

pared.Hexham insists hatRosenberg'shigh ales numbers orhisMythus rea reflectionf thegenuine opularity fhisreligiousdeas innaziGermanyoverlookingHitler's own dismissalof thosenumbersHR, 257). We shouldnot, Hexham warns, underestimateRosenberg's dangerous ideas simplybecausethey trike s todayas ridiculous r badlywrittendrivel.'A strangeplea indeed,given hat engage na lengthynalysis fMythusHR, 91ff).AsI statemyself:.. . the views found nthe book areworthour consideration'

(HR, 94). I takeRosenberg'sreligious deas seriously ecausehe articulatedthereligious iewsofa groupof naziswho,whether ilettantesrnot,consti-tuted discernable eligiousmilieuwithinNationalSocialism.However,whatHexhamsimply annotallow himself o see is that t was othernazis,not this

author,who foundhimridiculous. hemany nstancesnHolyReich nwhichI repeatedly emonstrate itler's disdainforRosenberg'sreligious deas are

simply gnored yHexham.Rosenberg ad a long-standingnstitutionalnter-estin exaggerating isown importance:t is hardly urprisingfHitlerocca-

sionally layed long.Theprivate orrespondenceromHitlerwhichHexham

quotes demonstrateshat he is actuallypraisingRosenberg's oyalty, ot his

influence; hepassage demonstrates itler'ssympathynd reciprocation or

years fRosenberg's ommitmentnd loyalty.t doesnot demonstrate itler's

fealty o Rosenberg'smysticism,nlyhis maladroitreassurance hathis ser-

vices are appreciated.Hexham triesto explain away postwartestimonyfRosenberg's rrelevance yfellownazis,claiming hat, wingto its genocidalideas,fewwereprepared o admitto havingread thebook' - a conclusionhard to take seriously iventhe number funrepentantazis at Nuremberg,who showedno remorse or heiroyalty onazi ideology r itsgenocidal on-

sequences.The fact whichHexham refuses o face is that do not dismiss

Mythus s unreadable Hitlerdid.Note howmorethanonce Hexhamfeelshe mustworkagainstwhat heper-

ceives as myeffortso discredit'Rosenberg.Does Hexham feel ome needto

saveRosenberg nd his fellow aganists?tappearsso,given heway nwhichhe resorts othemostnarrowcriticisms.0

wonderwhichdictionary exhamused toget world-viewuthority'romWeltanschauungsprokurist';nd does

using executive ecretary'nstead of administrativelerk'really hangethe

larger point Bracher s making n the lengthy uote that follows? Noticehow Hexhamchooses to ignoreBracher's onclusion hatRosenbergdid notsucceeded n becoming ither leadingpower-political igure r founder fa

15 Hexham has revealed ucha tendencylsewhere, or nstancenan exchangewith n inter-

viewer or n onlinepublication alled SociologyofScience', oncerningritical omments n thebookNew Religions nd theNazis byhis wifeKarlaPoewe http://www.sociologyesoscience.com/ChrNazi.html, etrieved 7 August2006). At one pointthe interviewermailsPoewe for her

thoughts,nly o have Hexhamrespondnstead, ttackingmybookas unreliable againover he

canardofusing ranslated ourcematerial andconcludingomewhatworryingly:What syourinterestnHauer andtheNazis?Why s itso importantoryouandyour olleagues o distance he

Nazis fromGermanneo-pagans ike Hauer?'

8/12/2019 30036441



religion' agreewithBracher hatRosenberg penthisentire areer justify-ing'nazi ideology, utHexhamgivesus noproof s tohowmanypeoplewere

really istening,ertainly otamongtheelitesoftheNSDAP, where t would

have matterednthis ontext. rottinguta listofZeitgenossen eyewitnesses)to proveRosenberg eallywas important,ncludinghevery ubious memoirsofLiidecke nd OttoStrasser,'6nd an allegedly expert' istof American isi-torsto Germany otally nconnected o Hitler's nner anctum, emonstratesthatHexhamispleadingrather hanproving iscase.

Aside from avingRosenberg romhisown marginality,exham concernshimselfwith what kind of alternative nalysis mightbe derived fromone

particular ource: Goebbels' novel Michael. Given restrictions f space Icannotgo head to head withHexham on each examplehe raises.However,

looking t one instancenparticular isplays hedistorted ndfaulty ature fhisanalysis.Hexhamcontends hat quoteI useto expressGoebbels' viewon

Christianityreads as though t s a direct tatementmadebyGoebbels'wheninfact t s thewordsofGoebbels'protagonistnthenovel,Michael Vormann.

UnfortunatelyorHexham,I indicateon thevery amepage that thisquotecomes from novel.Elsewhere,whencomparingMichael withDinter's Sin

againsttheBlood, I state: Goebbels created fictional rotagonist,MichaelVormann, hroughwhomhe voicedhis views' (HR, 31). Hexham wants tohave it bothways: on the one hand, his lengthy xcursus nformsme that

novels renot themostreliable nsightnto heir uthors' hinking;uthethenallows himself oanalyseMichael forpreciselyuch nsight s HelmutHeiber

pointsout in the inernotesto theEnglish ranslation fMichael,Goebbelsalmostcertainlydaptedthisnovelfromhis own diariesof theearly1920s;even without his endorsement', owever, ven themostdesultory eading fMichael demonstrateshat t s laden with oarse and authenticallyazi views- mostobviously raging ntisemitism,ut also hostilityo parliamentarydemocracynd his own socialist'visionof National Socialism.'

The larger problemwithHexham's contention hat Vormann liberates'

himselfromChristianitys thathe simply everdemonstrateshis.Vormann/Goebbels s being nticlerical,s I pointoutinmyownanalysis HR, 21), buthis referenceo Christmakes tplainhe is referringo Christianity,oweverrevolutionary is readingof it. Hexham attempts translation f 'Wiederkomme ch zu Christus', omingup with Once again I return o the ssue ofChrist.'The English-languageersion use,byJoachimNeugroschel,s muchmorefelicitouslyranslated s 'I findChrist gain'. A more verbatim rans-lation, Again I come to Christ',still bears littleresemblance o Hexham'smuchmoreconvoluted ndmisleadingreturn o the ssueofChrist'.Hexham

continues to translateconveniently ut poorly. A pivotal passage in this

16 Like Rauschning,Otto Strasserwas concernedwithcurrying avour mongtheAllies,towhom he had defected: is resultantelf-exculpatorymemoirs' re describedbyKershaw as 'abiasedand often nreliable ource .. the fancifulnti-Hitlerropagandaof an outright oliticalenemy': an Kershaw,Hitler, 939-1956: Hubris New York,1999), 241, 352, 683.

8/12/2019 30036441


202 JoumalfContemporaryistoryol 42 No 2

lengthyMichael quote would seem to clinch his case: 'Yet millions wait anew religion.'However,theoriginalGermanwhichHexham providesreads'Millionen wartendarauf,und ihreSehnsucht leibt

unerfiillt'.

Sehnsucht' s

not the German word for religion',but for longing'.AgainstHexham'sremarkable isplay f artisticicencewe haveNeugroschel'smuchmorefelici-tous translation:Millionsofpeople arewaitingforthisnewformation,ndtheir earningsemain nfulfilled'quoted nHR, 21). Ifthis s Hexham's ideaof how to use original-languageourcematerial,'ll stickwiththepublishedtranslations.

Stayingfor a momentwiththispivotalpassage fromMichael,Hexham

chargesme with leavingout the finalpassage about a new God'. He is refer-

ringto thepassage in Michael thatreads: 'But we should allow the broad

massestoworship heir dols untilwe can givethem new God.' Althoughtis true hat do not make referenceo thispassage,elsewherenmyanalysispoint to Goebbels' sometimes ontradictory iews on religionduringthe

Kampfzeit,r TimeofStruggle'HR, 53-54). But,having ccusedmeof eav-

ingout evidencewhichdisprovesmy hesis,Hexhamproceeds o leave out the

verynext sentence:I take theBible,and all evening ongI read thesimplestand greatestermon hathas ever beengiven o mankind:The Sermon n theMount ' (OriginalGerman: Ich nehmedieBibelund ese einenganzenAbenddie einfachste, r6f8te redigt,die her Menschheit e gehaltenwurde: die

Bergpredigt '17)nly by leavingout inconvenientassages, ncorrectlyrans-latingothers, nd takingGoebbels' quotesout of context an Hexham makehis absurd case that Michael demonstrates ot Christian,but 'neo-pagan'thinking. his is onlythe most obvious case of Hexham's slapdash approachto sources nd quotations nd a repeated endencyo distort vidence o fitnwithhispreconceived otions.Hexham does have meon one point,however:I gavethewrongpagenumberwhenciting ne of theepigraphs romMythusthatbegin hapter hree.

Piper's analysis n mybook rivalsGailus' forbeing he mostcaustic but tis easily he mostperfunctoryf all four.Before he firstentence ndshe has

alreadymade a mistake,wrongly tating hat argue National Socialismwasa Christianmovement'. challengePiperto produceevidence hat say this

anywheren mybook. Unfortunatelyiper'spiece does little o engagemyarguments rom here, imply ynopsizinghe more relevant assages of hisown biography f AlfredRosenberg ather hanaddressing ithermysourcesormyfindings.n theprocess,he certainly aysmuchthat agreewith as

Piper should have immediately ecognized.My discussionof responsestoRosenberg'sMythus imilarlyoints ut,for nstance,hatCatholicopinionof

17 Joseph oebbels, ichael: indeutscheschicksalnTagebuchbliitternMunich 929;7thedn, 935),145.

8/12/2019 30036441



his book was very negative HR, 127-8); I agree entirely hat in MythusRosenberg rejects both the Protestant nd Catholic establishmentsHR,98-100), andpointoutmyself ow so muchofChristianity' as rejectednit

(HR, 98); thatHimmler ndRosenbergwere llies s somethingrefer o morethan once (HR, 129, 131); like Piper,I place Wichtler among those on

Rosenberg's ide (HR, 241); I use Goebbels' quote of 1939, and includethenext sentence f hisdiary: He [Hitler]regardsChristianitys a symptom f

decay' (HR, 252); I discussat length nd inmuch the sameterms hesignifi-cance ofRosenberg eavingthe Protestant hurch n 1933 (HR, 165); Pipercasts the Gottgliiubigerbelievers n God) in termsvery imilar o myown

(HR, 219); I entirely greewith his assessment fthe failures f thepaganist'German Faith Movement' (HR, 149-53). The list could go on. However,

Pipermakes mistakes s well.He wrongly sserts hatMartinBormannwas a'powerful lly'ofRosenberg's, isregardinghe substantial vidence hat heywere in fact rivals HR, 247-8). He characterizes inter'sreligion s anti-

Christian,ncorrectlyuggestinghat heonlyproof o thecontrarys Dinter'sadmiration of Christ. As I demonstrate, inter's own description f hisChristian eelings oints o morethanthis HR, 19-20, 24, 27, 30-1, 58).

Incredibly, iper uggests hatonlya few solated ndividuals ikeJohannesStark nd HannsKerrl ought 'reconciliation' etweennazism ndChristian-

ity, ndthat heywere ofnecessityutsiders'. o make this laimPiperhadto

studiouslyvoidreading hefirstwochapters fmybook,inwhich demon-stratewhatkindsofpowerful azis- includingWdichtler'sredecessor ansSchemm, he party's supreme udge WalterBuch, and a host of Gauleiter

includingWilhelmKube and ErichKoch- farfrom eeking 'reconciliation'betweennazismand Christianity, ere of the firm onviction hatthetwoformed synthesis.Amazingly, owhere n Piper's 831-page biography f

Rosenbergdo the religiousviews of these men once receiveeven the mostcursory reatment.18n the 12-page chapter n his book on 'Religion undPolitik'during heKampfzeit, iperchooses to focussolelyon Hitler's and

Rosenberg'sdealingswith Ludendorff nd Dinter,wronglycasting thoseepisodesas symptomaticf a pan-naziopposition o all thingsChristian.

IfPiperbeginsbycreating strawman,he endsbycaricaturingmystate-ments: gainstmy ridiculous' laim thatBouhler'sPPK is a commonly ver-looked office, ipercites a singlereference hich s not even a monographictreatmentfthePPK.WhileBouhler sknown monghistorians orhis role nthe infamousT-4 killings, standbymyassertion hat his role as rival to

Rosenberg n theoversightf nazi ideology, etalone hisplace in theparty'sinternal eligious truggles,smuch esscommented n. Piper ries oprovemy

ignoranceby accusingme ofbeingunaware that thepublisherHoheneichen,which published Rosenberg's Mythus,was owned by nazis' Eher Verlag.He believeshe is correctingmy nformation, hen n fact statethat it waspublished s a privatework,neverbecoming n official uideto nazi thinking

18 Ernst iper,AlfredRosenberg:HitlersChefideologeMunich2005).

8/12/2019 30036441



6 . . It neverreceived he official tampof theNSDAP, nor did theparty'sofficial ublisher ublish t' HR, 92; emphasismine).The sloppiness fPiper'saccusationsgrowsfrom here. am accused of spellingAlfred iumler's ast

name three ifferentays',when nfact consistentlypell toneway, excepton a singleoccasion when quote another cholar whichhappensto be the

spelling iperemploys).He furthermorelaims that 'fail to do justice o the

partplayed' byBiumler.Sincehedoesn't ndicatewhat he meansbythis, can

only ssume hebelieves understate diumler'smportancentheThirdReich.Ifso, Piper gainreadpastmybook: AlongwithHeidegger, iumlerwas themostnotablephilosopher o back the naziregimewithhis ntellectualrestige... Biumlermaintained nd indeedstrengthenedis inkswith henaziswellinto heThirdReich .. as Hans Slugaputs t,"Biumlerwas ... more han ny

other Germanphilosopher, he typicalfascist ntellectual"' HR, 105). Onecould arguetheseattempts o make mountains ut of molehillswould havesomevalue,were tnotfor hefact hat ach of thems so obviouslywrong.

I would liketo addresssome of theproblems see in Bergen'sotherwisemuch moretemperate iece. She suggests treat somewhat ondescendingly'her book TwistedCross,and expresses urprise hat believe am revisingher own view. I believethat as an analysis primarily f nazi attitudes o

Christianity, ybook inmanywaysserves s a natural omplemento,amongotherworks, her own probing analysis of Christianattitudes o nazism.

However, hepointofdeparture or hetwo of us concernswhether rnot theChristianityhese 'National Socialist Christians'and 'Christian NationalSocialists'both ubscribed ocan reallybe called Christian.Naturallytwouldbe an enormous urden o demonstrateustwhat realChristianity's,even asa number fpriorhistorians ave,without anction,eft ndefinedhe onceptof infectedChristianity'. agree completelywithBergen's argerpointthathistorians o well to rememberhe tensionbetween he external/historical'and the internal/ideal'.wouldcautiouslygreewithher ssertion hatGermanChristians id not fitmost standard heological riteria or Christians' a

formulation hich s nuancedenough o allow for hecomplexityf theques-tion - or that most people would describe'the German Christians he

explores as un-Christian'. owever,what she failsto pointout is thatshedescribed hem hisway: 'ultimately on-Christian.. no church t all.'" Itseems o mesheputshercase quiteplainly: he GermanChristians whether

laymen, astorsortheologians did notproperly nderstand heir eligion.If Gailus faultsme forwanting oo much,Bergen laimsI have not done

enough.For all herchargesof tendentiousnessnd 'collecting fquotes',sheclaims hathad I onlyplayed he ace' of churchmembershiptatistics,would

have nailed'mycase. I mustremindher that addresspreciselyhisquestionwhenexplainingwhy translate heGermanKonfessions confession' nsteadof denomination':In Germany,where o thisdayreligion ominally emains

19 Doris Bergen, wistedCross:The GermanChristianMovementn theThirdReich ChapelHill,NC 1996),192.

8/12/2019 30036441



an obligatorytate ffair nd notvoluntaristic,here reno denominationsnthestrict enseof theword. ts use inthe German ontextncorrectlyuggestsan American-styleeligious marketplace" nd attendanteparation fchurch

and state' HR, xv).Nominal churchmemberships a very nreliable augeofactualpiety nthiscontext, specially iven hevery ircuitous outeone hadto take beforeone could officiallyeave one's church unless thereweresudden,propitious ropsorincreases, s was thecase in1933. Church ttend-

ance, by contrast,would have been a much morerevealing auge, ifmuchmoredifficulto ascertain.

Itismostpeculiar hatBergenwould makesuchan argument, iven hatmygoal is to explorenazi attitudes o Christianity,ot the otherway around.Would I have nailedmy ase bysimply ointing utthatHitler,Goebbels, nd

Goering lwaysremainedmembers f their hurches? hat Goebbels had hischildren aptized?That in 1935 Goeringwedded his second wifeEmmy n aLutheran ervice? make all thesepoints nmybook, butcould notcontendthatbythemselvesheyprovemuch about a larger deological relationship.Indeed,Hitler's ngoingmembershipntheCatholicChurch tandsverymuchat odds withhisprivate omments boutCatholicism nd itstraditions. ergenherself oints othehighlyncomplete icture uchstatisticsrovidewhen sheasserts hat a growing xodus from he church n the mperial nd Weimareras,coupledwith the oss ofcredibilityfter he debacle of theGreatWar,

convincedmanychurch eaders thatChristianity as losingground'.To herclaimthatProtestantheologians rudginglyelt bliged o staywith hetimes

by endorsingnazism, I would point out that for everyProtestantwho

expressedmisgivings rivately,herewas anotherwho believednazismmeanta return oChristianity.urthermore and this s atthecentre fmyworkthis was not just a case of Protestants iving heirblessings o nazismfromafar;manynaziswerethemselveselieving rotestants.

At the conclusion of her articleBergenchargesme with eavingout 'thecrucialelement f tension n nazi-Christian elations.Without onceding t

least some nazi hostility,owever, hedynamic enerated yChristian efen-siveness annotbe understood.' his is speculativelyttributed o an effortomake his evidencefitneatly'.First, pointto repeated nstances fhostilitybetweennazism nd institutionalhristianity,othCatholic nd,as theThirdReich wearson, increasinglyrotestant.twas theconsistent esistance f theDahlemites gainst heplansfor Reichskirchehat, fter ll,made Hitler urn

sharply gainst nstitutionalrotestantismn 1937 (HR, 183-8). ThatBergenclaims 'left ut' such evidence s a mystery.econd, pointrepeatedlyo themany nstances fhostilityo Christianitymongthepaganistcohort,from

Rosenberg,Himmler, nd all the otherpaganistsof theparty. also makereferenceo thehostility ithwhich hese ttacksweremet nChristian ircles.Bergen nds herpiecewith listofmy ndiscretions.he claims payinsuf-

ficient ttention o thekeyissue of anti-Semitism; hile I verymuchagreethatanalysing hepotentialof religiouslynspired nti-Semitismmong themurderers/perpetratorsemainsa scholarlydesideratum, do exploreanti-

8/12/2019 30036441



Semitismnmybook very xtensivelyHR, 3-4, 8-10, 13, 20, 24, 27, 29-41,43-4, 49, 51-4, 60, 105, 107, 117-18, 125-6, 136, 141, 176-7, 182, 185-6,195, 235, 248, 254-5, 258, 260, 262-3, 265, 267). She claims fall into the

trapofconfessional ompetition';his s false. do not seek to uncoverwho is'moreguilty', rotestant rCatholic,but whom thenazis esteemedmore. donot say nazism was at times dentical o Christianity'; explorethose naziswho did- and those who said 'no'. Evenif claim thatpaganisthostilityo

Christianityas fraught ith mbiguityndambivalence,uchanti-Christianswereclearly ntagonisticnoughformetopreclude ver laiming hatnazismand Christianity ere,even n the worstofinstances,alwaysable to coexist

harmoniously' a particularly uzzlingassertiongiventhat she elsewherefaultsmefornotfinding nough ncommonbetweennazism nd Catholicism.

She urgesus to remember hat some nazis were openlyand actively nti-church: emember heuproarover AlfredRosenberg'sMythoftheTwentiethCentury': do. She reminds s thatnazis restrictedomechurch ctivitiesHR,chapter , passim).Shesuggestswe notforgethatHitler'splansfor hefuture

capitalof Germania' eft o roomfor hurchesHR, 247). Finally,he nformsus thatHitlerbelievedhe was God. Byher tonehere,Bergen eemsto believeshe has playedherace. The evidencedemonstrateseyonddoubt that his s aclaim that Hitlernever once made. Occasionally megalomaniacsof world

history re known to believetheyare literally ivine: the leaderof China's

TaipingRebellion,for nstance, houghthe was Christ'syoungerbrother.20Bergen elishes n opportunityo makefunof Hitler andwho doesn't?ButwhileHitlerbelieved hatGod had a special planforhim, hathe representedGod's willon earth, nd thatthosewho wentagainsthimwentagainstGod,he did notbelievehe was divine.

Asidefrom hepieces ncluded nthis ymposium,here re- so far threeotherpublished eview rticles hat ttempt longer xploration fmybook.

One is by GeorgeWilliamson, very avourable istoriographicalssay ncor-poratingmanyworks in additionto my own, which appears in Church

History.21nother sbyMilan Babik nHistory nd Theory, n thetheoretical

underpinningsfHoly Reich,and how theconceptof secularreligion'mightstill be seen as relevant o it.22 he otheris Mark Ruff'spiece on 'Nazi

Religionspolitik'n CatholicHistoricalReview,which,whilestrictlypeakinga comparisonof two works,my own and HimmlersGlaubenskrieger yWolfgang ierker, pends ess time nDierker'sworkthanonmine.23here s

20 Jonathan pence,God's ChineseSon: The TaipingHeavenly Kingdomof Hong Xiuquan(New York 1996).21 GeorgeWilliamson,A Religious onderweg? eflectionsntheSacred ndtheSecular n the

Historiographyf ModernGermany',nChurchHistory, 5 (2006), 139-56.22 Milan Babik, Nazismas a SecularReligion',History nd Theory, 5 (2006), 375-96.23 Mark EdwardRuff,The Nazis' Religionspolitik: nAssessmentf RecentLiterature', he

CatholicHistoricalReview,92 (2006), 252-66. That CHR shouldhavedevoted n article omy

8/12/2019 30036441



much n Ruff'siece ocommend,ncludingsophisticatediscussionfsecularizationheorynd hewaysnwhichmywork anbe een spartflargerethinkingf canonicity'mongcholarsikeHughMcLeod, effreyCox, nd thersver he ast ecade rmore,ven s his wnnterpretationclearlypholds traditionalodel. uffhoughtfullyxploreshewaysnwhich ierker'sork oth esemblesnddepartsrom y wn.He insight-fullyiscusseshe uestionfnazism'sdeologicalncoherence,venfhefailsto demonstrateis ssertionhat am n ntentionalist.hiletakedeologyseriouslysomethingunctionalists,t hould epointedut,re noccasionknownodo I alsodeal entrallyith he ontingenciesf nternecineartywarfare,nd he ole tplayednthe arty'secision-makingnreligionndthe hurches.

However,hilehe one fhispiecescertainlyuchmore ven-handedanddispassionatehanGailus', exham's,rPiper's,uffnfortunatelye-iterates anyftheir allacies. soneexample,eaccusesme ofmaking'absoluteronouncements'oruggestingscrutinyfChristianity'sark astof acralizediolence,ivenhe ommitmentoChristianitymongome azisand heirrofessionhat heirnti-Semitismould eexplainednChristianterms. eanwhile,ierkerpparentlyrefrainsrombsoluteronounce-ments',venwhen e takestas a given'nabsoluteermshat henazisharbouredo Christiansn heiranksRuff,55).Asanotherxample,uff

suggestshatt scredulousotake eriouslyhenazis' ublictatementsnreligion,ivenheirmendacitynotherssues. o make his harge uffapparentlyverlookedheystematicomparisonsundertakehroughoutybook etweenhat azis tteredubliclyndwhatheyaid rivately.ohispointhat itler ade alse romisesothe atholic hurch he pparentlymissedhemany ccasionsnwhich demonstrateitler'sublic tanceregardingatholicismontrastedharply ith rivately-expressedntago-nism. e faults efor ot ngagingn 'morearefulnalysisf he ontextinwhichhey ererticulatedodeterminehetherhe tatementsffirming

Christianityeremade na settinghatwasboth eligiousndpublic rwhetherhe nti-Christiannvectiveasoverwhelminglyrivate'Ruff,59);a readingfthe irstourhaptersfHolyReich evealshat dopreciselythis. hose labelpositivehristians',hileertainlyware f he oliticaladvantagef ppearinghristianor oliticalurposes,ffirmedheirdenti-ties sChristianehindlosed oors swell. y ontrast,hole ectionsfmybook xplorehewaysnwhichnti-Christianaganistsn he artyefusedoappear s Christiansorthesakeofpublic onsumption.f thepartyschechthinisplayedcontradictoryttitudeowardshristianity,onethe-

less ne anchart istincteligiousendenciesithinhe artyt east ntil

book is somewhatunusual,giventhat t had alreadypublisheda reviewby Doris Bergen 91[2005], 841-3), essentially condensation fher ontributionothis ymposium,lbeitmoreposi-tive. Ruff laims nhisessayto be examiningmyWallsteinpieceon politicalreligion s well; infact, hisgetsperfunctoryreatment.

8/12/2019 30036441



1937 (and formanynazis, beyond),as well as a turnto increasinglynti-Christian entimentngeneral s the war neared tsclose. Ruff's nabilityo

acknowledge hat treatboth sidesof an intra-nazi ebateon religion eads

himto the false ssertion hat try o debunk a myth fresistanceo hostilepaganists' hat rose after hesecond world war (Ruff, 66, emphasis dded).In fact, hemyth speakof intheconclusionofmybook is one of Christianresistance o nazism,not paganism.Not only do I point out instancesofChristianresistanceto paganism from the churches,but also the battlebetweenChristians ndpaganistswithin henazimovementtself.

Ruff makes several more points concerningmethod and sources. For

instance, e claimsthatDierker'swork smoremeticulous,incehe visited 3archives gainstmy7. Ruff eems o take a quantitativeather hanqualitative

approachwhen nferringrom histhatDierker'sfindingsre thereforemorereliable. What Rufffailsto appreciate s that the subjectsof myhistorical

analysis re ustas defined s Dierker's.WhereasDierkerporesover the nsti-tutionalhistory f one SD office, explorethe conceptions f Christianityfound mongtheelites fthenaziparty. he archives consulted, ugecollec-tions that theyare, constitute ar and away the most important or this

purpose.Manyof thoseviewsare found nprinted rimaryources s well,of

course, ome of whichRuff omewhat ondescendinglyefers o as 'ephemera',evenas elsewhere etakesmeto task fornothavingutilized he eadingpiece

of grey iterature' hich s truly eyondthepale ofreliability, auschning'sHitlerSpeaks.While on thesubjectof sources,Ruffmistakenlyrguesthat

impugn hereliabilityfHitler'sTable Talk,when n fact refer o the con-troversiesurroundinghis ourcebutultimatelyresumetsauthenticity.uffseemsto followHexham's lead in his imprecise ritiquing,laiming ignorethemonologuesofHeinrichHeim and intimatinghat do so to helpfurther

my arguments.n fact, he standardversion f Table Talk which use incor-

poratesHeim's version fthemonologues s well as Picker's as the ntro-duction oTable Talkreveals.24uff roceeds ohighlightquoteDierker ses

to demonstrate itler'shatred fChristianityn 1941 (Ruff, 58), apparentlynotrealizing hat use a quote very imilar o this nmyown analysis HR,254). Like Hexham, he pointedly dds a footnoteproviding he originalGerman.Ruff lso allows himself o quote from peer'sbiography, resum-ably anotherexample of 'ephemera' (Ruff,257). He uses this particularexample to argue that I attemptbut fail to 'explain away' anti-Christianmomentsn nazism once moreoverlookingwholeswaths f the bookwhenI explore anti-Christian entiment t length.Dierkerpresumablyhas no

explainingwaytodo,for he imple easonthathechose to examine n office

wherehe would findno Christian entiment.Aside from ddressingmethods nd use of sources,Ruff lso makes somelarger nalytical ointsregardingmywork.Unfortunately,heseare someof

24 Hitler'sTable Talk 1941-1944: His PrivateConversations, rans.Norman CameronandR.H. Stevens,ntroductiony Hugh Trevor-RoperLondon 1953), vii-xxxvi.

8/12/2019 30036441



themostproblematic artsof his article.First,he compoundshis undemon-strated ssertion hat am an intentionalistymaking n erroneous laimthatI needto engage na functionalistday-to-dayreatmentystate nd party f

thechurches nd Christianity'Ruff, 60) - indicatinghathe had givenonlythe mostcursory lanceat depictions f thevagaries f nazi decision-makingin preciselyuch termsHR, 156-89, 236-54). Ruff rrsoncemorewhenhe

suggests hat the nazis 'did little o advance the cause of thosecommittedChristianswho embracednazism, ncludingmostnotablythe ardently ro-nazi GermanChristians.'n an attempt o demonstrate hispoint,he quotesDierker otheeffect hatHimmler rdered ll Christian lergy utof theSS by1934 (Ruff, 63). Once more,Ruff isplays rather esultory omprehensionofmy nalysis: irst,pointoutat length hemanyforms fsupportwhich he

NSDAP gave the GermanChristiansn the church lectionsof 1933; Ruff'sclaimthattherewas no suchsupport s simply alse HR, 159-64). Second,clearly nd repeatedly lace Himmler, s head of theSS, amongthosepagan-ists n thepartywho werethemost anti-Christiannd thereforenti-church.At the same time, clearlydemonstrate ow Himmler's nticlericalism astempered ymoments fsurprisingmbiguityegardingheChristian eligionitself including steem forMartinLuther, heVirginMary, and Christ.Himmler lso talkedrepeatedlynd with urprisingolerance n thepersistentpresence f ayChristianswithin he SS membershipHR, 131-3, 233-5).

Ruff's reatest nalytical allacy, owever,s to insist hat heanti-Christianzealotry f Dierker's SD menwas typicalof nazism. Whendescribing heirvoracioushatred fChristianitynd thechurches, e takesa faintlyntention-alistapproachbyspeaking ftheseSD menas the truebelievers' f thenaziWeltanschauungRuff, 63). I have no problemwith hecategory f thenazi'truebeliever' as I pointout in mybook, distinctions eed to be madebetween hosewhosecommitmento nazi ideologywas beyond uestion, ndthose nthe owerranksof theNSDAP, whichwas knownto include smat-teringof membersof the ConfessingChurch,afterall (HR, 163-4, 223,

227-8). Having said that, t strains redulity eyondthebreaking ointforRuff o describe n office taffed verwhelminglyithdisgruntled atholicex-priests, learlyon a vendettaagainsttheirone-time piritualhome, asnazism's truebelievers'.Ruff ndermines is ownargumentbouttheir tatusas theavatars of nazi ideologybyelaborating n theentirely on-ideologicalsources of their esentment failedacademicsand studentswho did not orcould notpursuetheir cademicaspirations;Mittelstdndlerpetty ourgeois)with an inferiorityomplexvis-a-vis he morehighly-regardedestapo; hot-headswith omethingoprove chafing' t theunwillingnessf their uperiorsto

letthem venthe corefor heir ailed rivateives Ruff, 61). Against heselowly individuals Ruff would apparentlyhave us believe that ErnstKaltenbrunner,wingto his dismantlingf this band ofvengeful x-priests,somehow counts as 'less nazi' thanthey.Ruffdirectlyhallengesme bysug-gesting hat thesedefrocked lergymenlead us to question usthow centralthese beliefs positiveChristianity] ere, n fact, o the Nazi ideology' Ruff,

8/12/2019 30036441



263) - a lineofargument hich, ffollowed o its ogicalconclusion,meansthatnot ustthehead of theRSHA, butapparently eichsmarschall oering,severalReichsleiternd Gauleiter, s well as Hitler'smentornMunich,must

perforce avebeen less nazi' whencompared o theoccupants fDepartmentIVB of the SD. To top off this scenario,Ruffthenrevivesthe completelyunproven ut n some circlespopulartruismhatthenazis weregoingto tar-

getthe Christians f Europe after hegenocideof theJews: thosewho hadbeen active ntheReligiousOpponentsdivisionofthe SD [DepartmentVB]weredirectlyupervised ythose o-ordinatinghedeportationsftheJews otheEast, an ominousprecedent houldthesehard-liners ave gainedfurther

powerat the closeofthewar' (Ruff, 64).I shouldpointoutagainthatRuff s notnearly s cantankerous s Gailusor

Piper.Still, or ll hismildness ftone,hehelpshimself o somewry abs: myworkapparentlybearstheburden funusuallyhighpraise', mplyinghat thas received s much ttention s it has noton itsstrengths,utbecauseof ts

'eulogists' s Gailusputs t.Bytheendof hisarticleRuffmakes t clearthathebelieves his s a burden oo heavyfor hebook to carry.Byconcentratingshe does on whathe regards o be the excessivepraisebyothers ormybook,instead f ooking t the ctualargumentsmake,Ruff oncludeshis article yattemptingoaccusemeofsensationalism.heways nwhichRuffmirrorshe

typeof approachutilizedbyHexham are striking: allaciousmethodological

criticisms, xtrapolationsbased on fragmentarynd minute evidence,distortionsnd omissions fmyanalysis, nd bypassinghe arger deologicalissueofChristianitynd nazi anti-Semitismn thename of meticulousness'.Not entirelyurprising,erhaps,since Ruffpointsout that he had accessto Hexham's article before t was published when writinghis own

(Ruff, 54).

I thankRichardEvans andtheeditors f theJournal f Contemporary istory

for heopportunityo respond o these nterestingnd verybracing ritiques.And I thankmy criticsfor theircommentary.However, with disturbingfrequency,hesecritiques ontainfundamentalmistakes, laring rrors, ndcredulousdistortions.When such an inventoryf scholarlymalfeasance s

proven orrect,tcan be said theauthorunder crutiny roughttuponhim-self.When it is proven ncorrect,s is so often hecase here, t results n ahatchet ob. Since Gailus giveshimself reerein to judgemymotives,et me

speculateon motive s well. I believeobviousand easilyavoidederrors,mis-characterizationsfmyargument,nd overzealous ttemptso sinkmyentire

thesiswithwhateverminutiae ome to hand (Bergen's iecebeing he notableexception) peakto a need formybook to be wrong.Suchshortcomingsre

particularlynexcusable n Gailus' case, who in theprocessof labellingme

sloppyand slapdashhoistshimselfwithhis own petard.What motivates hisneed is something can only peculate n - thoughnHexham's instanceweseemto bedealingwith omethingf an openbook.WhereasGailus andPiper

8/12/2019 30036441



hold their ardscloser o their hests, here s a palpableemotional ensionustunder he surface. ergen eginsherpiecebyagreeing hat the nsistence hatnazism was an anti-Christian ovement as been one of themostenduringtruisms fthepastfifty ears'.Giventhewaysinwhichthese ritics eneratemoreheatthan ight, requentlyhooting hemselvesnthefoot n theprocess,it seems hat dvocatesofthis ruism re notready oquestion heir eliefsustyet.

Richardteigmann-Gallis an associateprofessor fHistory nd Director ftheJewish

StudiesProgram

t Kent StateUniversity,

hio. Hisbook,

TheHolyReich:NaziConceptionsfChristianity,919-1945,waspublished

byCambridgeUniversityress n2003, and has been translatednto

Spanish,Portuguese,talian and Greek.He will contributehe

chapter n Religion nd the Churches' o theforthcoming xfordShort istory fGermany:heThird eich.

Documents

30036441