Nazism & German churches /Ο Ναζισμός & οι γερμανικές εκκλησίες

The churches

opposition born of belief?

Hitler always knew he needed a workforce, but was his attitude so clear-cut towards the Protestant and Catholic churches? In Mein Kampf he said that he was not interested in ‘a religious reformation’ but in a ‘political reorganisation’ of Germany (quoted in Zipfel, 1965, pp.. 11-22). In a speech to the Reichstag on 1 February 1933, he specified that the churches were to be integral parts of national life, just a month later, however, talking in private in the Reich Chancellery, he contradicted himself.

Document 3.1 Hitler’s Private View

All of the confessions [i.e., all of the churches] are the same. Which ever one you choose, it will not have a future. Not for the Germans anyway. [Italian] fascism may, in the name of God, make its peace with the Church. I will do that too. Why not! It won’t stop me eradicating Christianity from Germany root and branch. You are either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.

Source: F.Zipfel, Kirchenkampf in Deutschland 1933–45, 1965, p. 9

Historians J.S.Conway and F.Zipfel have both concluded that even though Hitler may have been fundamentally hostile to the Christian churches by 1933, he had no definite idea of how to proceed against them (Zipfel, 1965, p. 8; Conway, 1968, p. 1). In 1933, 62.7 per cent of the population (i.e., over 40 million people) belonged to one of the country ’s twenty-eight independent Protestant churches, and 32.4 per cent of Germans (almost 22 million people) were Catholic (Hehl, 1980, p. 63). If anything, Catholicism was the better organised. While 700,000 individuals were affiliated to a multitude of Protestant youth groups, Catholic Youth alone had 1.5 million members. Catholic sentiment was expressed politically through both the Centre Party and the Bavarian People’s Party. Together they accounted for about a third of the votes cast in

Reichstag elections. Even though these parties were dissolved in early July 1933, the Catholic Church itself remained the largest single social institution in the Third Reich independent of direct Nazi control.

If Hitler was unsure of how to deal with such well-established institutions, from even the earliest days of the Third Reich there was no shortage of National Socialist acolytes willing to take up the challenge. The first significant Nazi crusade in this connection was led by the German Christians against Protestantism. In general terms, German Christians believed they could unify Germany ’s various Protestant churches and, in so doing, merge Protestantism with National Socialism to create a new, racially attuned brand of Christianity.

A new post of Reich Bishop was created, behind which all Protestant churches were to be unified. On 27 September 1933 the German Christian Ludwig Müller was elected to the post. From then on there was a concerted effort to raise the profile of racism in religion.

The German Christians of Bremen met and demanded that the Bible be expunged of all Jewish elements.

Naturally there were objections. In response to this growing ‘Nazification’ of Protestantism, on 21 September, pastor Martin Niemöller set up the Pastornotbund (the Emergency Association for Pastors). A total of 1,300 clergymen joined at once; 6,000 had done so by the end of the year. This organisation later formed the basis for the Confessing Church—an outspokenly anti-Nazi organisation. There was no doubting the bravery of at least Niemöller when he, together with a number of sympathisers, met to discuss religious affairs with Hitler and Müller in January 1934. An extract from Niemöller’s biography captures the drama of the event.

Document 3.2 Niemφller meets Hitler

The clergy were ushered into Hitler’s study where they found him seated at his desk, behind him, motionless as an idol, the Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mόller. One by one, Frick, the Minister of the Interior, introduced the visitors and Hitler went forward to greet them. He had resumed his seat and was about to open the discussion, when Goering burst into the room, clicked his heels, gave a Nazi salute and said excitedly:
‘Herr Reichskanzler! An hour ago Pastor Niemφller held a

conversation closely connected with the subject of this conference. I ask

leave to read out to you what he said.’

Hitler nodded assent. It was impossible to tell from his expression

whether this interlude had been planned or not, and in any case,

Niemφller was at a loss at first to place the conversation that Goering

recited. Then he remembered. Of course! The telephone call of that

morning! [During the call Niemφller had made a light hearted comment

about Hitler’s government]….

‘Mein Fόhrer!’ he [Goering] declaimed. ‘These people are trying to

drive a wedge between yourself and the Reich President!’ This touched

Hitler on a sensitive spot, as Goering knew it would, and immediately he

flushed with anger and started loading his guests with reproaches,

treating them more like an unruly mob of children than responsible

leaders of the Church. They misunderstood him, said Hitler, and

misrepresented his intentions. Peace, that was what he wanted—peace

between Church and State! Yet they obstructed him, sabotaged his

efforts to achieve it!

During this outburst Niemφller had come forward so as to be ready to

speak as soon as he got a chance. He now tried to explain the incident,

telling Hitler that the telephone conversation had been a private one and

that the expressions used should not be given undue weight…. Finally,

said Niemφller, his own work had no other object than the welfare of the

Church, the State and the German people.

Hitler had been listening in silence. Now he said brusquely: ‘You

confine yourself to the Church. I’ll take care of the German people!’…

When it was all over, Hitler once more shook hands with the clergy.

When it came to his turn, Niemφller realized that this was a chance

for plain speaking which might never return. Carefully choosing his

words, he said:

‘Herr Reichskanzler, you said just now: ‘I will take care of the German

people.’ But we too, as Christians and churchmen, have a responsibility

towards the German people. That responsibility was entrusted to us by

God, and neither you nor anyone in the world has the power to take it

from us.’

For a moment Hitler stared. Then as he realized the implications of

Niemφller’s warning, he turned his back on him without another word.

Source: D.Schmidt, Pastor Niemφller., 1959, pp. 90–5

The breach between the two men was as irreparable as it was personal. When Niemöller was finally

arrested in 1937, it was on Hitler’s specific orders. Meanwhile, representatives of the Emergency

Association met at Barmen between 29 and 31 May 1934 to discuss where they stood in the Third

Reich. The result was the Barmen Declaration.

Document 3.3 Barmen Declaration

In view of the destructive errors of the German Christians and the

present national church government, we pledge ourselves to the

following evangelical truths:

1 ‘I am the way and the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the

Father but by me’ (John 14.6)….

Jesus Christ, as he testified to us in the Holy Scripture, is the one

Word of God, which we are to hear, which we are to trust and obey in

life and in death.

We repudiate the false teaching that the Church can and must recognise

yet other happenings and powers, personalities and truths as divine

revelation alongside this one Word of God, as a source of her preaching.

2 ‘But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom,

and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption’ (I Corinthians 1.30).

The churches 49

Just as Jesus Christ is the pledge of the forgiveness of all our sins, just

so—and with the same earnestness—is he also God’s mighty claim on our

whole life; in him we encounter a joyous liberation from the godless claims

of this world to free and thankful service to his creatures.

We repudiate the false teaching that there are areas of our life in which we

belong not to Jesus Christ but another lord, areas in which we do not need

justification and sanctification through him.

3 ‘But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which

is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body (is) fitly joined

together and compacted…’ (Ephesians 4.15–16).

The Christian Church is the community of brethren, in which Jesus

Christ presently works in the word and sacraments through the Holy Spirit.

With her faith as well as her obedience, with her message as well as her

ordinances, she has to witness in the midst of the world of sin as the Church

of forgiven sinners that she is his alone, that she lives and wishes to live only

by his comfort and his counsel in expectation of his appearance.

We repudiate the false teaching that the Church can turn over the form of

the message and ordinances at will or according to some dominant

ideological and political convictions.

4 ‘Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them,

and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so

among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your

minister’ (Matthew 20.25–6).

The various offices in the Church establish no rule of one over the other

but the exercise of the service entrusted and commanded to the whole

congregation.

We repudiate the false teaching that the Church can and may, apart from

this ministry, set up or accept special leaders (Fόhrer) equipped with powers

to rule.

5 ‘Fear God, honour the king!’ (I Peter 2.17)….

We repudiate the false teaching that the State can and should expand

beyond its special responsibility to become the single and total order of

human life, and also thereby fulfil the commission of the Church.

We repudiate the false teaching that the Church can and should expand

beyond its special responsibility to take on the characteristics, functions and

dignities of the State, and thereby become itself an organ of the State.

6 ‘Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world’ (Matthew

28.20). ‘The word of God is not bound’ (II Timothy 2.9)….

We repudiate the false teaching that the Church, in human self-esteem,

can put the word and work of the Lord in the service of some wishes,

purposes and plans or other, chosen according to desire.

Source: E.H.Robertson, Christians against Hitler, 1962, pp. 48–52

If the language was tortuous the message was not. Taking a text from the Bible to substantiate each point,

these churchmen stated openly that no matter what Reich Bishop Müller might say, no matter what Hitler

might demand, no matter what social position the Third Reich might accord to Protestantism, they

remained completely loyal to the scriptures and to their one true leader, Jesus Christ.

The scene was set for a showdown between Protestants and German Christians. Later in

the summer of 1934 Reich Bishop Müller’s ‘second in command’, August Jäger, tried to

shore up control of Protestant churches by introducing an oath for all pastors that included

a statement of loyalty to Adolf Hitler. The contradiction to the Barmen Declaration was

obvious. Many Protestants, especially in Hannover, Bavaria and Württemberg, were outraged.

Bishops Würm of Württemberg and Meiser of Bavaria opposed the statement publicly and

were placed under house arrest. Popular unrest accelerated to such an extent that both had

to be released and, together with Bishop Marahrens of Hannover, were granted a personal

interview with Hitler. As a result of the débâcle, Jäger lost his job.

The position of Catholicism during the early years of the Third Reich was more

problematic than that of Protestantism. On 20 July 1933 the Pope had agreed the Concordat

with Hitler. In return for guarantees of complete religious freedom for Catholics in Germany,

the Pope ordered his bishops to swear loyalty to the state, agreed to the dismantling of the

Catholic trades unions, accepted the dissolution of the Centre Party and agreed to prohibit

the clergy from political activity. In practice Hitler ’s promises proved worthless and, for

example, Hitler Youth groups were soon pressing their Catholic Youth counterparts to close

down. Inevitably signs emerged that many Catholics were trying to safeguard their right to

independent religious expression. For example, the Good Friday procession in Cologne in

1934 drew 25 per cent more participants than the previous year and was described in a

section of a police report.

Document 3.4 Catholic Procession

During the night of 17 March, as in the previous year, the night-time

procession of the Catholic men of Cologne took place in that city to

the holy statue of the Mother of God in Cologne-Kalk. Pilgrims from

the Cologne diocese and parishes flocked together from both near and

far to the meeting point at the Hay Market. When the last participant

on the pilgrimage had reached the meeting point, at 22.50 the

departure from the Hay Market began and went on until shortly after

midnight. The procession made its way through the streets of Cologne

in groups of up to about a quarter of its size. It is estimated that

25,000 men and young men participated in the pilgrimage. The

number of 38,000 participants which has appeared in the daily press

may be a considerable over-estimate.

Each parish group carried a large cross in front of it. Flags and

banners were not carried in the procession. From the Holy picture of

the Mother of God, the pilgrimage made its way back to the cathedral,

The churches 51

where after a short prayer and final devotion made by Archbishop

Schulte, [the procession] was concluded.

A member of the SA and of the Hitler Youth took part in the

pilgrimage wearing their uniforms. An intelligence officer of the

NSDAP established who they were.

There were no cases of unrest during the pilgrimage which took place in

the most perfect order and discipline. Politically it is noteworthy and

illuminating that the Catholic population of Cologne, especially the men, in

recent times have banded together strongly. They are taking part in church

celebrations and events in numbers of such a size that have hardly been seen

in previous years. Even the night-time pilgrimage to Cologne-Kalk showed

an extraordinarily increased number of participants relative to previous years.

The reason is that people who disapprove of the measures taken against

Catholic organisations want to make a show in public that they are loyal to

the Catholic Church. Seen from this point of view, the pilgrimage to

Cologne-Kalk comes under the character of a political demonstration….

Source: Extract from a police report from Cologne dated 27 March 1934,

Federal Archive, Koblenz, 403/16844

The sentiment expressed in Cologne was not unique. In 1937, 60,000 people participated in Bamberg’s 700-

year-old Domweihe festival, and 800,000 Catholics from around the Reich travelled to Aachen for the

Heiligturmfest (Hehl, 1980, p. 75).. What is more, the following extract from an official report concerning the

Saarland shows what could happen when local Nazi authorities tried to remove crucifixes from schools.

Document 3.5 The Crucifix

The fact is that 30 to 40 villagers got into the unlocked school on the night

of 6 January 1937 to hang the crucifix back in its old place. Against the

explicit advice of the witness R. that the crucifix had been taken down by

order of the government and that the break in would constitute a breach of

the peace if they contravened this order, the accused BA (with the help of a

ladder which he fetched), hung the crucifix right up beside the picture of the

Fόhrer, which had been put in this newly assigned place. Everyone then left

the school.

The court of Rhaunen, on 9 January 1937, ordered a custodial sentence

against BA.

Source: Report of an Oberstaatsanwalt from Trier, January 1937, quoted in

H.Focke and U.Reimer, Alltag unterm Hakenkreuz, 1989, pp. 111–12

Similar scenes, together with more public protests, accompanied the removal of crucifixes in other Catholic

areas. In Bavaria, especially, local Catholic priests led their congregations in minor expressions of dissent

52 Resistance and conformity

over this and related matters. They often greeted people using the traditional, southern German ‘Grüß

Gott!’ rather than the officially approved ‘Heil Hitler!’ On feast days, they flew the regional flag of blue

and white as opposed to the swastika.

By 1937 the anti-Catholic character of Hitler’s government had become as plain to Pope Pius XI

as to any German. He wrote a statement of his worries called ‘Mit brennender Sorge’ (‘With burning

anxiety’). It was issued from the Vatican on 14 March 1937 and read by priests to their congregations

throughout Germany on 21 March, Palm Sunday.

Document 3.6 ‘Mit brennender Sorge’

With burning anxiety and mounting unease We have observed for some time

the way of suffering of the Church, the growing harassment of the

confessors who stay true to it in spirit and act in the midst of the land and of

the people to whom St Boniface first brought the offer of light and peace

from Christ and from the Kingdom of God….

He who singles out race, the people of the state, the form of state, the

bearers of state power or another basic element of human social organisation—

elements that hold an essential place in the worldly order which is

worthy of respect—he who singles out such elements from this worldly

scale of values and sets them up as the highest norm over all, including

over religious values, and reverences them with idolatry, he distorts and

falsifies the God-created, God-demanded order of things. Such a person

is far from real belief in God and from a conception of life that

corresponds to such a belief. Only superficial spirits can fall victim to the

false doctrine of a national God, or a national religion.

Source: ‘Mit brennender Sorge’, issued from Rome 14 March 1937,

reproduced in G.Denzler and V.Fabricus, Christen und

Nationalsozialisten, 1993

The language was almost as awkward as that of the Barmen Declaration. Just as unmistakably,

however, the Pope was taking issue with the way National Socialism was both persecuting the

Catholic Church and placing political ideology ahead of Christian doctrine.

Would it be justified to conclude that both the Protestant and Catholic churches, as

institutions and from a relatively early point in the Third Reich, were actually taking up deepseated

opposition to Hitler’s government? Unfortunately, the Emergency Association and the

Confessing Church which grew from it, even the popular support accorded to this movement in

Hannover, Württemberg and Bavaria, do not tell the story of German Protestantism as a whole.

By tradition, many Protestants were nationalistic and had sympathised with ‘right of centre’

parties such as the German National People’s Party during the Weimar years. It was the

predominantly Protestant areas such as eastern Prussia which actually turned into the backbone

of Hitler’s electoral successes. No small number of educated Protestants found at least the

idea of the Third Reich worthy (Erickson, 1990, p. 119). What is more, the ranks of the

Protestants actually gave rise to the very German Christianity movement which later tried to

absorb their churches. As early as 1932, one-third of all members of the Prussian synod (which

included both churchmen and laity) were supporters of that movement In August 1933, twothirds

of the members turned up to its meeting wearing National Socialist uniforms (Zipfel,

1965, pp. 36–7). It was not by pure chance that no pastors denounced the Reichstag Fire Law,

the Enabling Law or even the violent persecution of the Communists. Throughout the life of

the Third Reich, and notwithstanding the initial expansion of the Emergency Association, out

of 17,000 pastors across Germany, just fifty actually received substantial prison sentences for

opposing the government (Conway, 1968, p. 175).

Even Martin Niemöller was not a completely clear-cut protest figure. This First World War

U-boat commander had himself at first sympathised with National Socialism. His own church

was decorated with swastikas and the Nazi salute was often given there (Conway, 1968, p.

85). Later he personally recognised that the bases of his opposition to the Third Reich had

been strictly limited. In prison, with reference to the persecution of Germany’s Jews, he showed

how little he had appreciated the true character of what was happening in his country.

Document 3.7 Hindsight

At the time I did not realise that we [Christians] would have to pay for

these restrictions [on the Jews] with our own liberty. I did not fully take

into account that equality had been given to the Jews during our own

epoch of political liberalism, and that any restriction imposed on them

now would mean the end of that epoch and possibly the end of

individual liberty, including the right of worship. In other words, to

deprive Jews of political equality would mean turning back the wheel of

history.

Source: Quoted in S.Baranowski, ‘Consent and Dissent’, 1987, pp. 53–78

Interested first and foremost in the spiritual rather than earthly realm, Niemöller had drawn back from

exploring the full oppositional consequences of Christian beliefs. As he also admitted after the Second

World War, the Confessing Church never, ‘neither in the Hitler Reich nor later, placed value on being a

“resistance movement”’. It wanted ‘to testify to the word of God in our world and time’ (Niemöller, 1946,

p. 396). Obviously there was a basic failure of understanding here. Niemöller and his followers believed

that an accommodation between an independent church and the state was actually possible, that religious

freedom could be squared with commitment to the Third Reich, that Hitler ultimately could accept loyalty

to two masters—to himself and Christ. Hitler knew that there was no such possibility; Niemöller and

those who relied on him realised it too late.

Accepting that between one-third and one-half of all Catholic clergy were persecuted in

some way during the Third Reich, we must still acknowledge that the record of the Catholic

Church, and in particular of its senior clergy, was far from beyond reproach. The Concordat

was the very first international treaty signed by Hitler’s government and conferred a certain

respectability upon it. The Pope’s purpose was to protect Catholics in Germany, but the

agreement imposed obligations—especially on churchmen who held positions of responsibility.

One result is expressed in a circular from Bishop Gröber of Freiberg to his junior clergy: ‘I ask

and warn the clergy time and time again…[to]…adapt and not damage the affairs of the

Church through a lack of personal wisdom’ (quoted in Denzler and Fabricus, 1993, p. 87). If

the Pope would not criticise Hitler, it made it difficult for other, and especially senior, churchmen

to do so. During the whole of the Third Reich, only one Catholic bishop was expelled from his

diocese and only one was sentenced to a lengthy period of imprisonment for opposing the

government (Conway, 1968, p. 175).

Our understanding of the Catholic congregations, including those who participated in the

mass processions and crucifix protests, must also be fully rounded, as historian Ulrich Hehl

explains.

Document 3.8 The Catholic Dilemma

Even though the believers wanted to identify unequivocally with the

demands of the Church, they were indeed at the same time loyal citizens

of the state and as such were influenced ‘by the great national currents’

and feelings of the time. In this respect even the specifically Catholic

solidarity effect which had been let loose sixty years beforehand as a

result of the Kulturkampf [persecution of the Catholics by Bismarck],

did not apply….

No one understood how to use this dilemma for his own purposes

better than Adolf Hitler. He could suppose that, in spite of all the

discontent with church policy as carried out by the regime, the mass of

the people still stood behind him, even if not behind National Socialism.

The cult of the leader which prevailed generally, of course, had its

essential origins in Hitler’s great [foreign] policy successes. The

reincorporation of say the Saarland, or the ‘Anschluί’ of Austria secured

for the ‘Fόhrer’ a popularity that could hardly be surpassed even among

the Catholic section of the population.

Source: U.Hehl, ‘Das Kirchenvolk im Dritten Reich’, 1980, pp. 78–9

Just as the average German worker had a mixed experience of National Socialism, so did the

average German Catholic. Some aspects of the Third Reich appealed, others did not. Senior

clergy themselves were aware of the related dilemmas and avoided pushing their congregations

to make a fundamental choice between church and state for fear of losing members (Gotto et al.,

1983, pp. 662–3).

Given the ambiguity of the situation, when National Socialist authorities made their minds

up to enforce anti-church policies, more often than not they proved successful. For example,

from 1936 National Socialist offices began a persecution of denominational, which meant mostly

Catholic, schools. People employed by the state began to be harassed, as the following letter

between local National Socialist leaders shows.

Document 3.9 Schools Initiative

Please find enclosed a list of those children who attend the Order of

Ursula School [a Catholic order named after Holy Ursula—it was

founded in 1535 and was exclusively female]. As you will see from the

list, there is a whole series of civil servants among the parents. You

should circulate to the civil servant parents a questionnaire that says the

following:

‘We have established that your daughter Elfriede attends the local Order

of Ursula School. Since a state school for girls still exists here in Trier, we

would like you to tell us why your daughter is not attending the state

school.’

This questionnaire should mean that at least the civil servants send their

children to the state schools since at least they get their pay from state funds.

If quite a few civil servants do not reply to the letter, after eight days send

them a reminder.

Source: Letter of the Kreisleiter of Trier to the Ortsgruppenleiter of the

NSDAP, 6 February 1936, quoted in A.Doll (ed.), Nationalsozialismus im

Alltag, 1983, pp. 216–17

The pressure proved catastrophic for church schools. Whereas in 1935 65 per cent of children attended

them, by 1937 only 5 per cent did so. By the end of 1939, just about all denominational schools had

vanished (Conway, 1968, p. 182).

At the most general level, between 1933 and 1939 the attitudes of both Protestants and Catholics

were simply too ambiguous to provide the sort of popular mobilisation to trouble the regime even

when it was in a potentially vulnerable position. Popular fear of war was genuine during the Sudeten

Crisis of September 1938. The following police report highlights the profound short-comings of the

churches’ activism at this time.

Document 3.10 Conformity in a Crisis

In the fatefully difficult days of September, when the Fόhrer and the

German Volk fought over the rights of the Sudeten Germans, the Church

of Rome and the Confessing Church were silent. They have left

unexploited a rarely favourable opportunity to help ‘the justice of God’ to

victory….

After the end of negotiations in Munich, the Fόhrer received the

following from Cardinal Bertram, in the form of an almost smug telegram:

‘The great act of securing international peace gives the German

episcopacy cause to offer the most worthy congratulations and thanks and

to order the celebratory ringing of church bells on Sunday. In commission

of the Archbishop Cardinal Bertram.’

56 Resistance and conformity

The council of the Evangelical-Lutheran Churches of Germany sent the

following telegram to the Fόhrer:

‘Thanks be to God, who, through the Fόhrer has guaranteed honourable

peace for our people. Along with our brothers who have been freed we beg

holy victory for the auspicious work of peace. Heil to the Fόhrer.’

Source: Police report of 15 October 1938, reproduced in K.Zipfel,

Kirchenkampf in Deutschland 1933–45, 1965, pp. 452–5

In 1939, 95 per cent of Germans still said they were Protestant or Catholic. Whether laymen or

senior clergy, we may wonder what precisely they understood by their belief.

With the outbreak of war, there was a quantum leap in the nature of the attacks by

National Socialism on the churches. In his territory of Wartheland, newly constituted from

part of what used to be Poland, Gauleiter Greiser introduced the following rules governing

the churches and defining their social position.

Document 3.11 Greiser and the Churches

1 There are no longer any churches in the [traditional] state sense, only

religious church societies in the sense of clubs.

2 The leadership does not lie in the hands of authorities, but rather

there are only club committees.

3 For this reason, there are no longer any laws, orders or decrees in this area.

4 There are no longer any connections to groups outside of the Gau

[party organisational area], not even any legal, financial or official

connections to the Reich Church.

5 Adults can only become members through an explanatory written

application. They are no longer born into [the church] but must

explain their entry only when they become adults. There are no

regional, national or territorial churches. Whoever comes to the

Warthegau from the Reich for the first time must also initially apply in

writing.

6 All religious sub-groups just like organisations (youth groups) are

cancelled and banned.

7 Germans and Poles may no longer be together in one church

(Nationality principle). This comes into power for National Socialism

for the first time.

8 No confirmation lessons can be held in schools any longer.

9 Apart from the club fee, no financial allowances may be supplied….

10 The clubs may have no property such as buildings, houses, fields,

cemeteries, apart from their cult room.

11 Furthermore they may not be active in welfare work. This is the job

of the NSV [National Socialist welfare organisation] and of that alone.

The churches 57

12 All charities and monasteries are dissolved, since these do not

correspond to German morality and to the politics of the population.

13 Only priests from the Warthegau may be active in the clubs. These

are not full-time priests, but must also have a profession.

Source: Ordinance of Gauleiter Walther Greiser for the churches in

Warthegau, 14 March 1940, quoted in G.Denzler and V.Fabricus,

Christen und Nationalsozialisten, 1993, pp. 311–12

In Wartheland, the churches had become member-only clubs which could neither own property nor take

collections. In June 1941, on the eve of Germany’s attack on the USSR, Reichsleiter Martin Bormann

issued a circular stating with renewed clarity the incompatibility of National Socialist and Christian views.

The former were characterised as produced through scientific knowledge (which inevitably involved race),

the latter as originating in soothsaying and Judaism. Only when the power of the churches would be

broken once and for all could the National Socialist leadership of Germany be ensured and the nation’s

future guaranteed (Zipfel, 1965, pp. 512–16).

This radically anti-Christian mood was associated with a variety of policy initiatives

offensive to Catholics in particular. A policy of euthanasia, the compulsory killing of mentally

ill and handicapped Germans, began on Hitler’s personal order in the days immediately

following the attack on Poland. Between October 1939 and August 1941 (when the action

ceased) around 80,000 people were killed. It was supposed to have remained a secret. In

reality, so many people could not be killed without some repercussions. The religious and

moral outrage which accompanied popular suspicions is reflected in the following extract

from a letter sent by Bishop Hilfrich of Limburg to Reich justice Minister Gürtner on 13

August 1941.

Document 3.12 Murder in Hadamar

Perhaps 8 km from Limburg, on a hill directly above the little town of

Hadamar, there is an institution which used to serve a variety of

purposes. Most recently it was a religious and nursing institution. It has

been converted and kitted out as a place in which (according to

popular opinion) …euthanasia has been carried out systematically for

months—since around Februar y 1941. The fact is well known

throughout the government district of Wiesbaden, because death

certificates are sent from a registry in Hadamar-Mφnchberg to the

home districts concerned. (This institution is called Mφnchberg

because until its secularisation in 1803 it was a Franciscan monastery.)

Buses with an increasing number of victims arrive in Hadamar

several times per week. School children in the area know these vehicles

and say: ‘Here comes the murder-box again.’ After the vehicles have

arrived, the people of Hadamar watch the smoke rising from the

chimney and are upset by the constant thought of the poor victims.

This is especially so whenever they are troubled by the unpleasant

smells after the wind changes direction.

The effect of the principles being carried out here [are as follows]:

children taunt each other with the words—‘You’re not very clever,

you’ll end up in the Hadamar baking ovens’; those who don’t want to

get married or don’t have the chance [say]—‘Get married, never! Bring

children into the world just to be put down!’ You hear from old

people—‘I won’t go into any state hospital! After the weak-minded, the

old will be the next into the ranks of the useless eaters!’

All God-fearing people feel this extermination of the helpless is an

almighty crime. And if this is the same as saying that Germany cannot

win the war if there is still a just God, then these statements are not

caused by a lack of love for the Fatherland, but rather from a deeply

concerned frame of mind about our Volk. The population just cannot

understand that systematic actions are being carried out which,

according to section 211 of the statutory law book, are punishable by

death. The authority of the government as a moral concept is

suffering a dreadful trauma because of these events. The official news

that N.N. has died from an infectious disease and that as a result the

corpse has had to be burned is no longer credible [a reference to the

official ‘cover story’]. The ethical value of the concept of authority is

still more adversely affected by such official reports which are no

longer believed.

Officials of the Gestapo are trying, as one hears, to suppress talk about

what is going on at Hadamar with severe threats. It might be with good

intention for the benefit of public peace, but it doesn’t alter the

knowledge, conviction and indignation of the population. The

conviction is multiplied by the bitter knowledge that talk is banned by

threat, but that the actions themselves are not prosecuted under the law.

The facts speak for themselves.

Source: Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1947, document 615-PS

Ten days earlier Bishop von Galen of Münster had preached a public sermon in which he

identified specific victims of euthanasia and prophesied doom if the German people tolerated

the transgression of the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’. In the same month, the

euthanasia action was stopped, apparently just as it had been started—on Hitler’s personal

command.

Although euthanasia drew the most obvious attention of senior Catholic

churchmen, there were other, even other racial, themes which had an impact at the

local level. The spectacular defeat of Poland in autumn 1939 led to the introduction

of millions of Poles, most of whom were Catholic, into Germany as industrial and

agricultural slave labour. While the government expected the labourers to remain as

separate as possible from the German population, some local Catholic churchmen

tried to place common religion above nationality. The following example shows what

happened when one local Nazi official found out about this Christian charity.

Document 3.13 The Poles

On Sunday 18 Feb 1940 in his church the Catholic priest of

Schallodenbach, Chaplain Seitz, told the parents of the village to

stop their children doing things to these Volksdeutsche!! [ethnic

Germans] from Poland—that is to say swearing at them. The

mother of the priest after the service gathered these Poles around

her in front of the church and chatted with them—as much as was

possible. They then took the Poles into the priest’s house where

they served the Poles coffee according to their own admission.

Only in the evening did the Poles return to their bosses….

I request that this matter be followed up.

Source: Ortsgruppenleiter of Schallodenbach to the Kreisleiter of

Kaiserslautern, 23 February 1940, quoted in A.Doll (ed.),

Nationalsozialismus im Alltag, 1983, pp. 194ff.

The result was a Gestapo interrogation in which the priest continued to maintain he had

believed the workers had been ethnic Germans from Poland. With this, Himmler himself entered

the affair.

Document 3.14 Arrest

Concerning locum priest Friedrich Seitz, born 28 January 1905 in

Mayen.

The Reichsfόhrer-SS [Himmler] has ordered that locum priest

Friedrich Seitz be taken into protective custody. I request

that…[illegible]…news of the internment be relayed.

Source: Gestapo telex to Gestapo office, Neustadt, from Berlin, 19

April 1940, quoted in A.Doll (ed.), Nationalsozialismus im Alltag,

1983, p. 199

Whatever local churchmen may have felt, and irrespective of whether a genuine

misunderstanding underlay the case, the Nazi authorities were resolute that nothing would

undermine their racial stereotyping.

By the war years, then, the issue was the very survival of Christianity in Germany. Under

the circumstances, any concerted action aiming at a reassertion of Christian identity

amounted to opposition. In the context of a society which experienced a total war effort

against the USSR and the buckling of the military front in the East, Catholicism tried to

exploit for its own purposes the nation’s inevitable anxieties and losses. The following police

report from March 1943 shows how religious services were tailored to the popular psychology

of the time.

Document 3.15 Religion and Ritual

The Catholic Church…is developing an extraordinary phantasy in the way

funerals are arranged—so say the reports from the Catholic areas

unanimously. Consequently it is exercising a deep and lasting influence on

the relatives [of the dead] and the local population.

The focus of these events in honour of the dead are memorial services

or masses for the fallen soldier:

1 The memorial sarcophagus [Tumba] is decked in black and decorated

with flowers. Numerous candles burn at its side, a steel helmet and

crossed side arms lie on it.

2 Or instead of this, a symbolic soldier’s grave is set up in the church and

is richly covered with flowers, a birch cross and a steel helmet or an Iron

Cross.

3 The cultish proceedings make special use of choirs and orchestral

pieces, processions of children and poetry readings.

4 Occasionally a side altar is transformed into an altar to the fallen

soldier. Under flowers and burning candles, pictures of the fallen

together with their names and their military decorations are set up.

Relatives and the population [in general] can bury themselves in the

memory of the fallen at any hour of the day.

Source: Police report, 1 March 1943, Federal Archive, Koblenz, R 58/181

The Catholic message received a welcome reception among the population. Police reports from August

1942 and April 1943 give the following anecdotes: civil servants and SA men who had left the church

for careerist reasons were returning in numbers, there were stories of soldiers who had left the church

returning for Communion before going to fight and during home leave, there were tales of dying SA

men requesting absolution, and rumours of escapes from death on the battlefield which could only be

explained by divine intervention (Boberach, 1971, pp. 718–20 and 810–19). This trade on human

vulnerability did enable Catholicism to fight National Socialism effectively in people’s minds.

By comparison to Catholicism, Protestantism was remarkably silent. Certainly individuals

did act against the government. For example, pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was actively associated

with the group which tried to blow up Hitler in July 1944. None the less, it took until October

1943 for the Old Prussian Union to speak out against what had long been going on.

Document 3.16 Words That Came Too Late

14 The sword is not given to the state to be used for killing beyond that

of the criminal and the enemy in war. Whatever else it does, is done

The churches 61

arbitrarily and to [the state’s] own detriment. If life is taken for any

reasons other than the appointed ones, then the trust between people is

subverted and then the community of the nation is destroyed. Concepts

such as ‘elimination’, ‘liquidation’ and ‘worthless life’ are not known to

God’s order. The annihilation of people, just because they are relatives of

a criminal, old or sick, or because they belong to a different race, is no

leadership of the sword as ordained by the rule of God.

Source: Statement of the Old, Prussian Union, 17 October 1943, quoted in

G.Denzler and V.Fabricus, Christen und Nationalsozialisten, 1993, p. 318

In other words, as far as the Protestant churches were concerned, even if euthanasia and racial

extermination were beyond the pale, capital punishment and killing at war were perfectly

acceptable morally—even when on behalf of Hitler’s ideology.

This depressing sidestep of clear thinking highlights the fact that while both churches

did try to assert themselves in some ways and to some extent over different issues during

the Second World War, it is still hard to identify a coherent Christian force likely to threaten

the very life of the regime. Dissent and dissatisfaction could even be undermined by an

acceptance of other characteristics of the Third Reich which should have been deplored. For

example, the Protestant churches never condemned the war (Denzler and Fabricus, 1993,

p. 189). At its start, pastor Klinger, an elected representative of 16,000 other pastors,

declared that ‘Greater Germany ’ was calling everyone to serve on the battlefield and that

God would bless them to ‘battle for our German Volk and Fatherland’ (Denzler and Fabricus,

1993, p. 191). Catholic leaders also failed to denounce either the invasion of Poland or the

atrocious methods used during the campaign. In fact one researcher found that for the

duration of the war, out of a Catholic male population that was 15.5 million strong, only

seven individuals actually refused military service (Zahn, 1963, p. 79). This in a church

whose peace movement had been 40,000 strong immediately after the First World War! At

no time, regardless of the revelations of the crimes which the National Socialist government

had committed during the war, was there any likelihood of either the Catholic Church in

Germany or the Papacy publicly withdrawing its support from the German government. More

typical sentiments are shown in a sermon given in 1944 by the same Bishop von Galen who,

three years before, had condemned euthanasia.

Document 3.17 The Anti-Communist

In this hour I must direct a word of greeting and acknowledgement to

our soldiers. I wish to express our gratitude to them for the loyal

protection they have furnished the Fatherland and its borders at the

price of unspeakable strains and sheer superhuman effort. In particular

for the defence against the assaults of godless Bolshevism! And a word

of deep-felt remembrance for those who, in the performance of their

duty, have offered their lives and their last drop of blood for their

brothers. May these all-sacrificing efforts succeed in winning for us an

honourable and victorious peace!

Source: Bishop von Galen, sermon of September 1944, quoted in

G.C.Zahn, German Catholics and Hitler’s War, 1963, pp. 137–8

Catholics were encouraged to meet their military duties in part on the assumption that

Bolshevism was actually a greater threat to Germany and Christianity than National Socialism.

Christians went along with more than the war effort. Both individuals and institutions

to varying extents fell into line with even the Third Reich’s racialism. It was both sad and

ironic that, notwithstanding the complaints of the likes of the Bishop of Limburg (document

3.12, pp. 57–8), the euthanasia project was often carried out by welfare institutions

backed by Christian charities, indeed which were staffed by Christian nurses. Interviewed

in 1961 by the police, a Protestant nurse involved in 210 euthanasia killings tried to

square her beliefs with her actions. She had already explained that she felt that in some

cases euthanasia was justified by the severity of the victim’s handicap and suffering, but

that in others it was not

Document 3.18 A Christian Killing

Answer:…. I certainly subscribe to the Commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill.’

If I did carry out killings with my own hands then I have to admit that

I broke this Commandment. As I explained in my [previous] interviews,

however, I did not overlook this Commandment lightly, but rather I only

carried out the orders after severe inner conflicts.

Question: When you speak of severe inner conflicts, your argument

only seems justified in those cases where it was a matter of (to use your

own words and opinions) ‘justified cases’. On the other hand it is hard to

follow your thinking about what you regarded as ‘unjustified cases’ [for

euthanasia].

Answer: As regards the cases which I believed to be unjustified, my

thoughts, which I described as severe mental [or spiritual] conflicts, were

particularly profound. I had to take into consideration that the doctor,

who in the end was only a person too, could make a mistake in the

diagnosis and prognosis. So it was clear to me that in cooperating in the

killing I was offending seriously against the law of God and morality. My

blame could only be alleviated by the fact that I strongly believed that the

doctor would not make a mistake. But since I could not rule out entirely

the possibility of him making a mistake, I prayed to God that he would

forgive me in such a case. Incidentally, as regards the severely ill people

who were tracked down by the doctors and transferred to us for killing, I

had to assume that it was a question of such people who were so sick that

even if the doctor had made a mistake, I still had to regard it as a welcome

release.

I regard it as important to say that the attitude of a person to life and

death is dependent on the situation in which the person finds herself. I

spent my whole life in nursing and so have experienced life and death more

than most people. By that I don’t mean that I became hardened by

experiencing suffering, but only that my standpoint and perspective on

these human problems was different. It was clear to me in each case that a

person was killed, but I didn’t see this killing as murder, but rather as a

release.

Source: A.Ebbinghaus (ed.), Opfer und Tδterinnen, 1987, pp. 234–6

Comparable interviews with Catholic nurses underline the message that Christian belief did not stand

in the way of compulsory euthanasia. A nurse involved in 150 cases also justified the policy to herself

as providing a merciful release. Then she added the following.

Document 3.19 Blessed Release

We endeavoured to make the final journey of the selected patients as easy as

possible. In this connection it occurs to me that one female patient was

strongly Catholic and on the last day she asked if she could be given the last

rites by a Catholic priest before [being killed]. I can still remember clearly

and can say with absolute certainly that the Catholic priest was informed

before the killing and that the patient, who at least on this day was perfectly

rational, was given the last rites by the priest.

Source: A.Ebbinghaus (ed.), Opfer und Tδterinnen, 1987, pp. 237–8

The very fact that Catholic services were meaningful to the victim makes us wonder how bad her condition

really was.

Whatever the rationalisations and justifications for participating in licensed murder, the

nurses knew they were doing something wrong. As a result, it is doubly regrettable that senior

church figures did not speak out at an earlier point to condemn the killing process. The likes

of these nurses were ripe for persuading. Perhaps lives could have been saved. Although Bishops

von Galen and Hilfrich did complain during the summer of 1941, it is by no means clear that

the euthanasia project was wound up because of their protests. At the time he commissioned

the euthanasia action, Hitler suggested that 65,000 to 70,000 people would be killed (Denzler

and Fabricus, 1993, pp. 132–33)).. BBy the summer of 1941 that figure had been surpassed. The

euthanasia project may have been stopped simply because it had run its course.

So what of the relationship between the Protestant and Catholic churches and the wartime

persecution of the Jews? Certainly individuals spoke out against anti-Semitism. Father

Lichtenberg, a Catholic priest from Berlin, led his congregation in prayer for Germany ’s Jews

and openly condemned anti-Semitic propaganda. He was arrested in summer 1941 and died

64 Resistance and conformity

in prison two years later. Bishop Preysing even approached the Pope in spring 1943 to make

a public declaration on the Jewish Question. Unfortunately Pius XII replied simply that he had

said all that he had to say on the matter already (Denzler and Fabricus, 1993, p. 171). Quiet

condemnation of anti-Jewish persecutions, but reluctance to take a really meaningful stand

against them, seemed pretty typical. As a result, some church organisations even became

compromised by anti-Semitic policy. Consider the following circular taken from the Lutheran

Church in Eutin.

Document 3.20 Information

By order of the Minister for Church Affairs, you should report how

many Jews have been admitted to the Protestant Church between 1934

and 1940 by baptism. The numbers are to be given separately by years.

Reports should be made by 15 Feb of this year. A notification of missing

information is also necessary.

Source: Protestant-Lutheran Landeskirche Eutin to all parish councils, 27

January 1941, quoted in L.D.Stokes, Kleinstadt und Nationalsozialismus,

1984, p. 672

Should church authorities really have had anything at all to do with gathering information about

people who were clearly stigmatised for racial persecution? Even more disappointingly, and as two

historians explain below, Protestant congregations actually helped to have Jews deported—albeit

from the ‘best’ of motives.

Document 3.21 Helping Hands

[A] large Jewish family which had converted to the Protestant faith

belonged to the community of Alt-Stephani-Sud and had found a new

spiritual homeland there. The Abrahams were…perfectly integrated into

the communities and took an equal part in community life. The testing

time came when in October 1941 the imminent transportation of

Bremen’s Jews to the East was made known. Many parish members

brought the Abrahams family warm clothing for the cold Polish winter—

people really didn’t know what was waiting for the Jews. Greiffenhagen

[an influential member of the religious community], who had been

called up to the army in 1939, but who was on home leave in his

community, held a service, in which after the Holy Communion he

particularly blessed them and spoke of their courage.

Source: I.Marίolek and R.Ott, Bremen im Dritten Reich, 1986, p. 298

Certainly this Protestant congregation was interested in alleviating the suffering of this ‘Jewish’

family as they were deported—hence the service in their honour and the collection of warm

clothing—none the less, its energies would have been better spent opposing the very deportation

of the Abrahams in the first place!

So during the years of the Third Reich, the churches did promote the flame of humane

values in a number of ways, and yet somehow Christian morality was far from achieving all

we might have expected. Typically, its opposition was ‘issue driven’ (that is to say involving

piecemeal reactions to individual, concrete actions such as the withdrawal of crucifixes from

schools, the appointment of a German Christian as Reich Bishop or euthanasia) rather than

rooted in a coherent, politically active anti-Nazi morality. The churches and their followers

generally were more interested in defending their religious ‘space’ and surviving attack than

in becoming society ’s moral guardians. They wanted to write themselves into the overall

trajectory of the Third Reich rather than alter its direction per se. A Christian crusade, a ‘caring’

type of euthanasia, deportations so long as the Jews did not suffer too much—the evidence

suggests that an uncomfortable number of clergy and churchgoers alike would not object so

long as they could understand the Third Reich in these ways. As a result, under conditions of

crisis and war, far too many churchmen and Christians adopted positions of basic conformity

with the government. It was the extensiveness of Hitler’s vision (namely to destroy Christianity

and claim the individual for National Socialism alone), more than the inviolability of Christian

principles, which made an ultimate compromise between the churches and the state impossible.

Why wasn’t church-based opposition in Germany more ambitious and outward looking?

Fear, patriotism and misconceived church leadership all played a part, but an additional insight

lies in the way people understood and interpreted their Christian beliefs. Christa Bielmann

was a young member of a broadly oppositional Catholic discussion group during the 1930s.

With disarming honesty she has tried to explore her reasons for failing to do more against the

Third Reich. In her memoirs she characterised the limitations of her earlier beliefs.

Document 3.22 The Limits of Beilmann’s Catholicism

‘Seize the day, which God is giving you, firmly in your hands, and in

your heart the names of those whom you love. And do not ask questions.

In this way you will live better through the time and save strength.’ We

believed this and lived accordingly. Do not ask. Despite the facts which

confronted us, there was no rebellion. Not once did we argue with God,

who sent it all and let it all happen; we did not mistrust his creation in

which his people could cause such mischief.

To get no answer to the question about the meaning of everything

only suited heathens. We were surrounded by answers. At the time we

did not see that they were a cage. Our capacity to question as a rule was

suffocated before it could develop; suffocated by a set of meanings with a

complete question and answer system in which no question was left over.

We were secure in this Catholic Cosmos. That everything has its

meaning in God’s order—this belief supported us so much that we lived

through the war and National Socialism relatively regardless. Lived

through, but overcame?

Why didn’t we question? Was it self-protection? Could one question

that which underpinned everything else? Was it worry at seeing the world

as it really is, to be exposed to the things of this world? Guardini said:

‘Things are not harmonious, only beliefs are.’ We did not come across

the idea of questioning whether belief in the order in which everything

has its meaning, is, perhaps, to be doubted. But doubt as a word did not

occur to us once….

A decisive element in this whole…is the will of God. We had to live

according to this will, [and] we did live [according to it].

It was our task to praise this sense of the whole, to glorify [it] through

a holy life, to serve it, to make sacrifices to it, to be true to it, to profess

it. It was necessary to listen to the voice of God, to obey the will of God.

We learned to meditate on and inquire after [what existed already].

We did not learn: to think, to question, to test, to investigate, to

contest, to discuss, to debate, to decide, to put in order, to arrange, to

exercise power, to put right and to protect—in short, these activities of a

free, responsible person were not our affair. We were not practised in the

ability of altering anything, rather we were predestined to preserve what

was given. We did not discuss, whether anything could be changed. We

were reason-able: ‘We cannot change it, we will endure it—for the

greater glory of God!’ Whatever was declared the will of God—and often

it happened very quickly (even without the assistance of priests)—

whatever was sanctioned, was to be accepted….

We knew, and a few even saw, that people with whom up until then we

had lived peacefully were being transported away—although we had had

prejudgements (‘dirty Jews, sharks; red-blue Polish woman, Polish

economy; the gypsies are coming, get the children inside’). They had

gone, disappeared from sight.

We didn’t know anything about the death factories in the

concentration camps. We had no real idea at all about the crimes

against people practised ‘normally’ in the concentration camps. We

experienced nothing of the unimaginable mass murders. But what

would have happened if we had known about it? What would have

changed? Nothing! We would have let these crimes happen too: the

industrialised deaths of millions of Jews, Poles, Russians, gypsies, those

of different political opinions.

The knowledge takes your breath away. I cannot understand how it

could have been done in the middle of a population which really was

civilised, which ate and drank and slept and went on the same as ever.

The wall, which was around us, it did not let us see it! I cannot get my

head around it, I cannot grasp that this wall existed, and that we had not

broken through it. We were guilty by virtue of our deficient

consciousness of ourselves, of our historical political situation. The

cheerful certainty, not to have been to blame, is a part of this blame.

Continuous pain and sorrow remain.

Source: C.Beilmann, ‘Eine Jugend im katholischen Milieu’, 1991, pp. 58–9, 71–2

Beilmann’s Catholicism was a prison. Her sentence was to endure, not to think and to change. Activism just

was not an option. Something comparable constrained the euthanasia nurse who did not refuse to kill but

prayed for forgiveness instead (document 3.18, pp. 62–3). Maybe Martin Niemöller was similarly afflicted

when he failed to see that an attack on Germany’s Jews constituted an attack on the very foundations of

all he held dear (document 3.7, p. 53). On this evidence, Christ’s ultimate commandment to ‘love thy

neighbour as thy self’ somehow had been either confused or forgotten. Christianity had become

something for individuals to apply in their own minds as a means to coming to terms with an unjust world,

even as a means to accommodating their conformity to its ‘sinful’ demands. It was not a moral stance from

which to criticise and shape reality; it was not an ethical foundation on which to build a just reality. Part of

our conclusion has to be that churchgoers only opposed the Third Reich within limits because their

interpretation of Christianity did not prepare them for anything more. In this sense, and sad to say, the

failure of the churches involved a failure of belief.

* Martyn Housden,
Resistance and Conformity in the Third Reich (Routledge Sources in History)
[Αντίσταση και Συμβιβασμός στο Τρίτο Ράιχ],
Routledge, 1997,
pp./σσ. 46-67.