History Western Civilization, Rome and Cyclical History

[Simonbob]

Lmao you do realize he's talking about literal slaves and slavery, yes?

We're talking Roman Empire times. Everybody had slavery then.

It was normal.

 

[Blasterbot]

We're talking Roman Empire times. Everybody had slavery then.

It was normal.

hell there are more slaves in the world today than there were when the CSA tried seceding. it really is funny how people try and pretend that we got better and more moral as time has gone on when people are the same as they have always been.

 

[Poe]

hell there are more slaves in the world today than there were when the CSA tried seceding. it really is funny how people try and pretend that we got better and more moral as time has gone on when people are the same as they have always been.

This is not a good faith statement, that number is not larger per capita nor is slavery as ubiquitous as it was then. There are only more slaves because the world has nearly 10xed in population since then.

 

[Husky_Khan]

hell there are more slaves in the world today than there were when the CSA tried seceding. it really is funny how people try and pretend that we got better and more moral as time has gone on when people are the same as they have always been.

This is not a good faith statement, that number is not larger per capita nor is slavery as ubiquitous as it was then. There are only more slaves because the world has nearly 10xed in population since then.

What a small world. I was driving into work at 4AM today and had the radio on and the Host was talking to a leader or spokesperson of this NGO called Christian Solidarity International and they were talking about their operations in Sudan in freeing slaves and giving them the opportunity for new lives in South Sudan. They threw out the same statistic of how there are more slaves in the present day then at any period of history. But later he pointed out how the level of slavery had also gone down, at least in certain areas, in recent years.

Also makes the statement "Not a good faith statement" kind of ironically punny because... ya know... the Christian Pastor guy who was being interviewed made that statement and then... Yeah... anyways.

Especially since I was so convinced by the interview I thought, man... I should donate to these guys for this month... but then forgot about it... until now. Oh well... I'll think about it... until I forget about it again... Blargh.

Talk about a cycle...

Sorry.

Carry on.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It occurs to me that “universal empires” can have very different means of expressing themselves, especially in terms of rule. On further thought it surprised me to realise that the British Empire (a could have been completely derailed by the Great German Sperg Outs) whilst being distinctly British of course, governed more like a Shahanshah than a Caesar or a Huangdi for the most part. We held Ireland in a vice on account of it being a strategic back door into the home islands, but the rest of the Empire was very much a “lighter” touch.

 

[Doomsought]

It occurs to me that “universal empires” can have very different means of expressing themselves, especially in terms of rule.

This brings to mind Puerto Rico and its status as the last colony. Because of the soft hand the United States has taken with it, a slim majority of the population prefers remaining a colony over becoming a US State.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I have a hypothetical question.

In a situation where neither Rome nor Carthage rises to dominance, that would leave the Eastern Mediterranean as the bedrock of the coming Universal Empire, correct? So following on from that, the Universal Empire would have been one of Alexander's Successor States?

All these "ifs" being kept in mind, which of the Successor States do we think could have done it? To my mind we can instantly discount Egypt, crippled the Ptolemies and the incessant incest and bad decisions, which leaves us with the Seleucid Empire and Antigonid Macedon. Of those two, my money would be on the Seleucids as, whilst they had their own problems, the empire seemed to pick up on the Persian Way of doing things which would have made it more capable of expanding.

Macedon, whilst powerful, never seemed capable of breaking out of Greece and was forever troubled by rebellious Hellas.

Although, on further thought, I might be sleeping on Pontus here. Heaven knows what a Mithridates without Rome in the way could have done.

 

[Skallagrim]

I have a hypothetical question.

In a situation where neither Rome nor Carthage rises to dominance, that would leave the Eastern Mediterranean as the bedrock of the coming Universal Empire, correct? So following on from that, the Universal Empire would have been one of Alexander's Successor States?

All these "ifs" being kept in mind, which of the Successor States do we think could have done it? To my mind we can instantly discount Egypt, crippled the Ptolemies and the incessant incest and bad decisions, which leaves us with the Seleucid Empire and Antigonid Macedon. Of those two, my money would be on the Seleucids as, whilst they had their own problems, the empire seemed to pick up on the Persian Way of doing things which would have made it more capable of expanding.

Macedon, whilst powerful, never seemed capable of breaking out of Greece and was forever troubled by rebellious Hellas.

Although, on further thought, I might be sleeping on Pontus here. Heaven knows what a Mithridates without Rome in the way could have done.

It's well-established that my money is on Macedon. They had challenges to overcome, but in OTL they really had to divide their attention in a pretty horrible way. If Rome is out of the picture, that really shifts the way that the Antigonids can dedicate their efforts.

The Seleukid Empire had a far more fundamental problem, which ultimately did play out in OTL. Their vast holdings were largely outside the cultural sphere of the Mediterranean world. They could either choose to "be Persia" and effectively cease competing for hegemony over the Eastern Med, or they could choose to be hegemon over the Eastern Med and allow Persia proper to be wrested from their hands. The issue is that the latter choice would remove most of their legitimacy, and directly threaten the most valuable part of their Empire: Mesopotamia. (Indeed, once you lose Persia, it becomes almost impossible to hold Mesopotamia from basically "Syrian" power-base.)

In OTL, the Seleukids tried to hold everything, and ultimately lost everything. I think they won't escape that fate in an ATL, either. It's not Rome that doomed them. They were already fucked. Note that after Macedon had been defeated in OTL, even a capable monarch like Antiokhos couldn't capitalise on it. The Seleukid expedition into Greece was soundly crushed by the Romans; and the Roman logistics were far more stretched in that campaign than those of a thriving Macedon would be in an ATL Seleukid attempt to do the same thing versus Macedon.

So I see the Seleukid state falling apart much as in OTL, and pretty much on schedule. The Parthians move into Persia, and the Seleukids end up reduced to a Syrian rump state. Macedon subdues Greece proper and the lesser Anatolian states, and ultimately preys on the declining Egypt as the Ptolemaic line withers away.

This leaves Pontos as the other contender. Macedon will have a lot on its place, so I don't think the Antigonids can successfully crush the Mithridatic realm before it really ascends. I could see Pontos exploiting the fact that Macedon is juggling several plates at once to pounce on the Seleukids and conquer Syria.

One might call it a toss-up. But while the Antigonids were hated by many of the Greeks, so were the Romans in OTL; and once the Romans had asserted definitive power, dissent petered out. I see the same happening here, to the benefit of Macedon. Conversely, the loyalty that the Mithridatic kings inspired in their vassals was always more-or-less "at least we're not the Romans". But other than the Romans, the Antigonids are at least Hellenes, and will surely play that up every chance they get. I don't see the Mithridatic propaganda being as effective in this ATL. So although it will be a hard fight, I think Macedon ultimately beats out Pontos for the role of Hegemon of the Greek world.

So then we have Carthage in the Western Med, pursuing a North-West oriented trade empire as previously discussed in various threads on this site; and the Macedon-founded "Hellenic Empire" in the Eastern Med, corresponding more-or-less to OTL's Eastern Roman Empire, and likewise with potential for North-South expansion (namely up into the Balkans and across the Black Sea to the Crimea, and down the coast of the Red Sea towards the Indian Ocean).

 

[Poe]

I have a hypothetical question.

In a situation where neither Rome nor Carthage rises to dominance, that would leave the Eastern Mediterranean as the bedrock of the coming Universal Empire, correct? So following on from that, the Universal Empire would have been one of Alexander's Successor States?

All these "ifs" being kept in mind, which of the Successor States do we think could have done it? To my mind we can instantly discount Egypt, crippled the Ptolemies and the incessant incest and bad decisions, which leaves us with the Seleucid Empire and Antigonid Macedon. Of those two, my money would be on the Seleucids as, whilst they had their own problems, the empire seemed to pick up on the Persian Way of doing things which would have made it more capable of expanding.

Macedon, whilst powerful, never seemed capable of breaking out of Greece and was forever troubled by rebellious Hellas.

Although, on further thought, I might be sleeping on Pontus here. Heaven knows what a Mithridates without Rome in the way could have done.

Seleucids were too Persian and and thus probably couldn't extend westward beyond Greece even if they managed to conquer greece (which they likely would in a scenario where Rome isn't strong enough to push back on them.). Honestly the balance of power was pretty nicely defined and Rome was able to come in and kick ass as a totally out of context problem. I think the coming empire basically had to evolve in the non-eastern med, in a world without Carthage or Rome likely some other Italian, African or maybe Iberian civilization gets its shit together.

Historical trends and all that, Rome and Carthage were just the two most successful of the bunch but the whole Western/Central med was maturing into civilization in the few centuries leading up to Romes rapid expansion.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

A little while back, we talked a bit about Persia in how the culture of the Achaemenids basically merged with Arabic Islam. As was noted then, even though they are devout Muslims to this day, Islam did not blot out and erase Iran’s past. Modern Iranians are in fact quite proud of that heritage, and carry it on with gusto (stupidity of the current regime, notwithstanding). Cyrus’s tomb is a national treasure and the eternal flame still burns.

Not so far to their west, there is another land that took a similar road, the tombs of its ancient kings being venerated as national symbols. That land is Egypt.

Whilst Pharaonic civilisation went the way of the Dodo, the culture isn’t quite as dead as some would think…

It’s not even a case of “lingering” as modern Islamised Egyptians are profoundly proud of and deeply connect with that ancient past. Their national holiday is an ancient festival and that’s precisely why they celebrate it. Bits and bobs of their language don’t sound Arabic at all, and they are mostly descended from those who inhabited the land of the Nile before Alexander came.

Cultures are difficult bastards to kill off, aren’t they? Indeed, I’d say that High Cultures don’t usually outright die; they just fall and are absorbed but live on all the same.

 

[Skallagrim]

A little while back, we talked a bit about Persia in how the culture of the Achaemenids basically merged with Arabic Islam. As was noted then, even though they are devout Muslims to this day, Islam did not blot out and erase Iran’s past. Modern Iranians are in fact quite proud of that heritage, and carry it on with gusto (stupidity of the current regime, notwithstanding). Cyrus’s tomb is a national treasure and the eternal flame still burns.

Not so far to their west, there is another land that took a similar road, the tombs of its ancient kings being venerated as national symbols. That land is Egypt.

Whilst Pharaonic civilisation went the way of the Dodo, the culture isn’t quite as dead as some would think…

It’s not even a case of “lingering” as modern Islamised Egyptians are profoundly proud of and deeply connect with that ancient past. Their national holiday is an ancient festival and that’s precisely why they celebrate it. Bits and bobs of their language don’t sound Arabic at all, and they are mostly descended from those who inhabited the land of the Nile before Alexander came.

Cultures are difficult bastards to kill off, aren’t they? Indeed, I’d say that High Cultures don’t usually outright die; they just fall and are absorbed but live on all the same.

Culture lingers. It has a long afterlife. That being said, we must recognise that although the present-day Iranians descend from the ancient Persians and treasure that legacy, they no longer live that culture. They retain some aspects (i.e. certain cultural festivals) but they no longer experience those in the same way. For instance, they might experience such a thing a cultural tradition that connects them to the ancient past, but they don't experience it as a religious festival that connects them to the gods of old.

Same in Egypt, although the genetic descent is much watered-down there. In fact, the Egyptian connection to the ancient past has been purposely re-imagined and re-affirmed... in the wake of Western (archeological and tourist) interest in that ancient past. Before that, the Egyptians hardly cared. And again, there aren't any Egyptians who still live a life that is directly connected to the Pharaonic past. It's more like they exploit an open-air museum dedicated to the cultural traditions of (a particular set among) their ancestors. The only real descendants of the ancient Egyptians are the Copts, and they are actually Christians and often view the exploitation of the Pharoanic past by Egyptian Arabs (who mostly don't descend from the Ancient Egyptians at all) as somewhat dubious and even tacky.

Compare this also to the fact that Italians certainly descend (at least in part) from the ancient Romans, and maintain the antiquities, and express a connection to their ancient forebears-- but none of them are still carriers of a living, breathing Roman culture. They are carriers of its memory. They are, in the most grim formulation, tomb keepers. More optimistically: they are speakers for the ancient dead. Guardians of a legacy worth preserving. Distant heirs who keep alive the memory, though not the original thing-in-itself.

Another comparison is to, for instance, the celebration of May Day in England or Samhain in the Celtic world. These are ancient pre-Christian festivals, celebrated by the descendants of the people who inhabited the land since time immemorial. But those people, by and large, are not the Aglo-Saxons or Celts of old, who saw those festivals as a way to celebrate gods... which are indeed now largely left behind, and no longer even believed in by any significant number of people.

Culture is hard to kill. Almost impossible, even. But there is a distinction between lived culture and remembered culture. What is remembered of the old lives on... within the new. The ancient cultures no longer live as entities unto themselves, but their heirs do still live, and as long as they value tradition, their lives will be informed by the lessons and the treasures of the past.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Upon further investigation/googling, it’s strange to realise the Arabs come from roughly the same group as the Canaanites and the Akkadians, especially in terms of language. They had a thriving Iron Age, and the Nabateans, the builders of Petra, were apparently Arabs of a stripe.

It’s no surprise they did what desert tribes and cultures of the area tended to do, in helping to push over already toppling empires. But Islam seems to have added an inflexibility and intransigence to their culture that (whilst giving them a tremendous initial boost) has either prevented them from assimilating into the societies they conquered (as desert tribes tended to do), or strike out to gain a “Universal Empire” of their own.

In another life, one wonders whether or not the Arabs were the “Germanic Barbarian” equivalent of the Middle East: those who built atop the ruins.

It is a pity to see what Islam has reduced them to in the long run.

 

[Skallagrim]

Upon further investigation/googling, it’s strange to realise the Arabs come from roughly the same group as the Canaanites and the Akkadians, especially in terms of language. They had a thriving Iron Age, and the Nabateans, the builders of Petra, were apparently Arabs of a stripe.

It’s no surprise they did what desert tribes and cultures of the area tended to do, in helping to push over already toppling empires. But Islam seems to have added an inflexibility and intransigence to their culture that (whilst giving them a tremendous initial boost) has either prevented them from assimilating into the societies they conquered (as desert tribes tended to do), or strike out to gain a “Universal Empire” of their own.

In another life, one wonders whether or not the Arabs were the “Germanic Barbarian” equivalent of the Middle East: those who built atop the ruins.

It is a pity to see what Islam has reduced them to in the long run.

There's even the fact that Arianism was popular among various Germanic peoples -- really took root there -- and Arianism has some interesting theological similarities to Islam. (Notably the conception of God as indivisible, contra the Trinitarian position.) More than one historian has speculated that Islam, if given a chance for it, might have done surprisingly well with the Germanics. This suggests something about the core traits of hardened frontier peoples that are just emerging into a more cultured existence; and about the sort of religion they tend to produce or adopt.

Among the Germanics, Arianism was stamped out by the not-incorrectly-named "Roman" Church. Among the Arabs, Islam (which may well have started its own life as a Christian heresy) arose to uncontested supremacy. In the long term, this turns out to have been bad.

Yes, one wonders. Maybe the Arabs already were the Germanic barbarian equivalents on that end of the fallen Classical world. Maybe their problem turned out to be that they were too successful. The notion that the Germanics lucked into the "sweet spot", and got shielded from their own worse inclination due to being tempered by the legacy of Rome is quite compelling. And that leaves us to imagine a world in which the cultural legacy of Rome is invested in the South-East instead, co-opting Arabia... while Arianism sweeps the Germanic world, and "radicalises" into something more extreme-- ultimately outright distinct from Christianity.

I somehow suspect Northern Europe would not be a pleasant place to live[*], while Alexandria would still be a centre of philosophy.


-----------------------------------


[*] In fact, it could be argued that Hitler and his ilk specifically aimed to somehow "correct" history and bring that world about. Some of the thoughts of leading Nazis on these matters are pretty explicit about such ideas.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Culture lingers. It has a long afterlife. That being said, we must recognise that although the present-day Iranians descend from the ancient Persians and treasure that legacy, they no longer live that culture. They retain some aspects (i.e. certain cultural festivals) but they no longer experience those in the same way. For instance, they might experience such a thing a cultural tradition that connects them to the ancient past, but they don't experience it as a religious festival that connects them to the gods of old.

Same in Egypt, although the genetic descent is much watered-down there. In fact, the Egyptian connection to the ancient past has been purposely re-imagined and re-affirmed... in the wake of Western (archeological and tourist) interest in that ancient past. Before that, the Egyptians hardly cared. And again, there aren't any Egyptians who still live a life that is directly connected to the Pharaonic past. It's more like they exploit an open-air museum dedicated to the cultural traditions of (a particular set among) their ancestors. The only real descendants of the ancient Egyptians are the Copts, and they are actually Christians and often view the exploitation of the Pharoanic past by Egyptian Arabs (who mostly don't descend from the Ancient Egyptians at all) as somewhat dubious and even tacky.

Compare this also to the fact that Italians certainly descend (at least in part) from the ancient Romans, and maintain the antiquities, and express a connection to their ancient forebears-- but none of them are still carriers of a living, breathing Roman culture. They are carriers of its memory. They are, in the most grim formulation, tomb keepers. More optimistically: they are speakers for the ancient dead. Guardians of a legacy worth preserving. Distant heirs who keep alive the memory, though not the original thing-in-itself.

Another comparison is to, for instance, the celebration of May Day in England or Samhain in the Celtic world. These are ancient pre-Christian festivals, celebrated by the descendants of the people who inhabited the land since time immemorial. But those people, by and large, are not the Aglo-Saxons or Celts of old, who saw those festivals as a way to celebrate gods... which are indeed now largely left behind, and no longer even believed in by any significant number of people.

Culture is hard to kill. Almost impossible, even. But there is a distinction between lived culture and remembered culture. What is remembered of the old lives on... within the new. The ancient cultures no longer live as entities unto themselves, but their heirs do still live, and as long as they value tradition, their lives will be informed by the lessons and the treasures of the past.

Lived culture never stay the same even in the times they were actively practiced. They die get revived and evolve all the time. Heck what we now label as ancient cultures are more bits and pieces that have been picked up and pieced together from various tribes within a certain geographic area. A culture is only truly dead when the when the Spirit is dead and no longer remembered. (Honestly one of the reasons I've begun to have a distate towards middle age France the more I read about them. They were good at killing cultures and making them all French.) but thats also in hindsight of watching the Germanic people going from being so warrior bound even the maidens carrying sword and shield shouting "never surrender" to literally bending over for barbarians like concubines and apologizing for being white.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

[*] In fact, it could be argued that Hitler and his ilk specifically aimed to somehow "correct" history and bring that world about. Some of the thoughts of leading Nazis on these matters are pretty explicit about such ideas.

Interesting both in the sense of a window into their worldview and just the herculean idea of trying to completely change the course of history.

I'd read Hitler had a bug about Christianity before, viewing it as a weakness inflicted upon his romanticized idea of Germanic people, but wasn't aware it was anything more than his own personal hobby horse. If I may ask, what would be a good source to research this?

 

[Doomsought]

I'd read Hitler had a bug about Christianity before, viewing it as a weakness inflicted upon his romanticized idea of Germanic people, but wasn't aware it was anything more than his own personal hobby horse. If I may ask, what would be a good source to research this?

Start by looking into all of the occultism that Hitler supported.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Start by looking into all of the occultism that Hitler supported.

The weird thing is that his occultism had very little (if anything) to do with the old ways and didn't even keep with the romanticized legends. It was just bashing Christianity for... reasons I guess.

If he really wanted to keep with the legends of the old ways. He'd have encouraged (if not outright made mandatory) every able bodied person to have arms and be proficient in them as well as encourage making family and tribe the top priority and encouraging recreational activities like hunting and contect sports. Occultism has very little direct correlation with the above. Christianity did not play as big a part of crushing the Germanic spirit so much as the French elite did.

(Honestly the more I learn about history the more I'm amazed how many problems can be traced back to the elites and intellectuals of France)

 

[Skallagrim]

Interesting both in the sense of a window into their worldview and just the herculean idea of trying to completely change the course of history.

I'd read Hitler had a bug about Christianity before, viewing it as a weakness inflicted upon his romanticized idea of Germanic people, but wasn't aware it was anything more than his own personal hobby horse. If I may ask, what would be a good source to research this?

Individual sources about this are pretty tricky. Most books about Hitler (or the Nazis in general) and religion have an angle, so to speak. And Hitler himself is quite hard to pin down. (He also developed his views, from a sort of heterodox Christian-because-he-thought-Jesus-was-an-Aryan-warrior to a more "militarist pantheism" that seemed to be rooted in the notion that God is embodied in nature, and so Darwinian struggle is almost like a holy war...)

I've pieced my knowledge on the topic together from many different books.

Now as far as Hitler's grievance against Christianity and the romanticising of the Germanic past goes: rather than his particular hobby-horse, it was actually something he was pretty "moderate" an pragmatic about! This is something that often gets missed: Hitler was, all in all, a pretty moderate Nazi. He was surrounded by far more "out there" types, and he often played them -- and their hobby-horses -- against each other.

Himmler, Rosenberg, Bormann and various others were deeply into occult and neo-pagan stuff. Hitler had his own interests in that regard (e.g. his belief in the crackpot 'World Ice theory', and his belief in Atlantis as the ancient homeland of the Aryans), but he privately ridiculed neo-paganism and various forms of occultism. He regarded it as "play-acting". His stated motivation, per Speer and Goebbels (independent from each other), was that the old Germanic culture had been "defeated" by Christianity, which (in his Darwinian view) "proved" that it must already have been moribund. (Also, Hitler had a personal vision of an Empire with grand architecture, and Himmler's genuine interest in the Germanic past revealed a reality that was very pathetic in comparison. Hitler once noted that he wished Himmler would just stop digging up sad hovels of long-dead peasants...)

Now, as far as Christianity goes, first thing to note is that what Hitler and other Nazis said in public cannot be taken seriously. Again, multiple diaries of leading Nazis independently verify that Hitler often spoke about the need to maintain a facade of respect for Christianity "for now". But he actually despised all of it.

Early on, even into the 1930s, Hitler repeatedly referenced the idea that Jesus was an enemy of the Jews, and that he held Jesus to have been the son of a Roman soldier in Judea. Thus, Jesus was actually an "Aryan". Moreover, this meant that in Hitler's view, Jesus was not the son of the "Jewish god". He was a militant leader who was guided by "providence" to destroy the Jews. (Hitler often spoke of himself as being guided by "providence" as well.)

But by the late 1930s, Hitler no longer entertained the slightest shred of respect for Christianity. Bullock notes (in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny), that: "In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest."

In 1937, Speer recalls Hitler stating outright that "Christianity is ripe for destruction", and that all churches must yield to "the primacy of the state". He called Christianity "the most horrible institution imaginable".

To illustrate Hitler's views on Christianity and on Islam, I'll present a collection of direct quotes noted by Speer, Goebbels and Bormann. Note that these statements and ideas are typically corroborated by multiple sources. There can be no real doubt that they reflect what Hitler actually expressed to these men:


"National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable. Christianity is a religion of fools and old women."

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity (…) The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

"The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France."

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."

"Had that religion [Islam] taken root here, our people would have become its heirs, and we would have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. It [Islam] suits our temperament."

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

"Christianity fosters weakness and suffering, but [Islam] extolls strength. It is a religion I can admire."

"Islam is a religion for men, and hygienic too. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Mussulman [sic] was promised a paradise peopled with houris, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing Hallelujahs!"

"[What the muslims believe] is much better suited to us than the Jewish filth and priestly twaddle [of Christianity]."

"I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mahomet [sic], but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians…?"

"Christianity is a proven untruth. It adds little to our knowledge of the Creator when some person presents to us an indifferent copy of a man as his conception of the Deity. In this respect, at least, the Mohammedan is more enlightened."

"[The Islamic reign] was the most cultured, the most intellectual and in every way best and happiest epoch in Spanish history."


Goebbels and Bormann were, of course, in complete agreement with all of this. (Speer, characteristically, didn't note his own opinions on the matter.) As a matter of fact, Goebbels and Bormann even had to be reigned in.

Goebbels notes, enthousiastically: "The Führer hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity." Also that Hitler is "deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian".

In 1939, he writes unequivocally that Hitler knew that they would eventually have to destroy the Christian church, but that for the time being "the best way to deal with the churches is to claim to be a 'positive Christian'."

And: "He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed."

Finally: "[Hitler] expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity."

Bormann and Speer both record Hitler repeatedly saying that "once I have settled my other problems, I'll have my reckoning with the church. I'll have it reeling on the ropes."

Speer notes that Bormann and Goebbels detested this delay, but that Hitler's pragmatism prevailed. Nevertheless, he also notes that whenever some defiant clergymen was mentioned, Hitler became furious. "That he could not immediately retaliate raised him to a white heat."

Himmler, too, was eager to vanquish Christianity from the earth, denouncing it as just another form of Judaism. Conversely, he called Islam "a practical and attractive religion for soldiers," because of its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs. "This is the kind of language a soldier understands."



So. From the above, you sort of get the picture of how these people thought, and what they valued and despised.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Individual sources about this are pretty tricky. Most books about Hitler (or the Nazis in general) and religion have an angle, so to speak. And Hitler himself is quite hard to pin down. (He also developed his views, from a sort of heterodox Christian-because-he-thought-Jesus-was-an-Aryan-warrior to a more "militarist pantheism" that seemed to be rooted in the notion that God is embodied in nature, and so Darwinian struggle is almost like a holy war...)

I've pieced my knowledge on the topic together from many different books.

Now as far as Hitler's grievance against Christianity and the romanticising of the Germanic past goes: rather than his particular hobby-horse, it was actually something he was pretty "moderate" an pragmatic about! This is something that often gets missed: Hitler was, all in all, a pretty moderate Nazi. He was surrounded by far more "out there" types, and he often played them -- and their hobby-horses -- against each other.

Himmler, Rosenberg, Bormann and various others were deeply into occult and neo-pagan stuff. Hitler had his own interests in that regard (e.g. his belief in the crackpot 'World Ice theory', and his belief in Atlantis as the ancient homeland of the Aryans), but he privately ridiculed neo-paganism and various forms of occultism. He regarded it as "play-acting". His stated motivation, per Speer and Goebbels (independent from each other), was that the old Germanic culture had been "defeated" by Christianity, which (in his Darwinian view) "proved" that it must already have been moribund. (Also, Hitler had a personal vision of an Empire with grand architecture, and Himmler's genuine interest in the Germanic past revealed a reality that was very pathetic in comparison. Hitler once noted that he wished Himmler would just stop digging up sad hovels of long-dead peasants...)

Now, as far as Christianity goes, first thing to note is that what Hitler and other Nazis said in public cannot be taken seriously. Again, multiple diaries of leading Nazis independently verify that Hitler often spoke about the need to maintain a facade of respect for Christianity "for now". But he actually despised all of it.

Early on, even into the 1930s, Hitler repeatedly referenced the idea that Jesus was an enemy of the Jews, and that he held Jesus to have been the son of a Roman soldier in Judea. Thus, Jesus was actually an "Aryan". Moreover, this meant that in Hitler's view, Jesus was not the son of the "Jewish god". He was a militant leader who was guided by "providence" to destroy the Jews. (Hitler often spoke of himself as being guided by "providence" as well.)

But by the late 1930s, Hitler no longer entertained the slightest shred of respect for Christianity. Bullock notes (in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny), that: "In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest."

In 1937, Speer recalls Hitler stating outright that "Christianity is ripe for destruction", and that all churches must yield to "the primacy of the state". He called Christianity "the most horrible institution imaginable".

To illustrate Hitler's views on Christianity and on Islam, I'll present a collection of direct quotes noted by Speer, Goebbels and Bormann. Note that these statements and ideas are typically corroborated by multiple sources. There can be no real doubt that they reflect what Hitler actually expressed to these men:


"National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable. Christianity is a religion of fools and old women."

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity (…) The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

"The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France."

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."

"Had that religion [Islam] taken root here, our people would have become its heirs, and we would have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. It [Islam] suits our temperament."

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

"Christianity fosters weakness and suffering, but [Islam] extolls strength. It is a religion I can admire."

"Islam is a religion for men, and hygienic too. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Mussulman [sic] was promised a paradise peopled with houris, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing Hallelujahs!"

"[What the muslims believe] is much better suited to us than the Jewish filth and priestly twaddle [of Christianity]."

"I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mahomet [sic], but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians…?"

"Christianity is a proven untruth. It adds little to our knowledge of the Creator when some person presents to us an indifferent copy of a man as his conception of the Deity. In this respect, at least, the Mohammedan is more enlightened."

"[The Islamic reign] was the most cultured, the most intellectual and in every way best and happiest epoch in Spanish history."


Goebbels and Bormann were, of course, in complete agreement with all of this. (Speer, characteristically, didn't note his own opinions on the matter.) As a matter of fact, Goebbels and Bormann even had to be reigned in.

Goebbels notes, enthousiastically: "The Führer hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity." Also that Hitler is "deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian".

In 1939, he writes unequivocally that Hitler knew that they would eventually have to destroy the Christian church, but that for the time being "the best way to deal with the churches is to claim to be a 'positive Christian'."

And: "He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed."

Finally: "[Hitler] expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity."

Bormann and Speer both record Hitler repeatedly saying that "once I have settled my other problems, I'll have my reckoning with the church. I'll have it reeling on the ropes."

Speer notes that Bormann and Goebbels detested this delay, but that Hitler's pragmatism prevailed. Nevertheless, he also notes that whenever some defiant clergymen was mentioned, Hitler became furious. "That he could not immediately retaliate raised him to a white heat."

Himmler, too, was eager to vanquish Christianity from the earth, denouncing it as just another form of Judaism. Conversely, he called Islam "a practical and attractive religion for soldiers," because of its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs. "This is the kind of language a soldier understands."



So. From the above, you sort of get the picture of how these people thought, and what they valued and despised.

Reading all of this it sounds like the man was a closeted commie but for obvious reasons could not make these views public until he knew for sure no one could oppose him. Although I find the fetishism for Islam hilarious considering that it's probably a more direct Jewish heresy than Christianity. Between this and some of the stuff he did behind the scenes it honestly makes me wonder how much he hated his processors out of moral grounds, and how much of it was jealousy that he was not part of the club.

 

[Crom's Black Blade]

Individual sources about this are pretty tricky. Most books about Hitler (or the Nazis in general) and religion have an angle, so to speak. And Hitler himself is quite hard to pin down. (He also developed his views, from a sort of heterodox Christian-because-he-thought-Jesus-was-an-Aryan-warrior to a more "militarist pantheism" that seemed to be rooted in the notion that God is embodied in nature, and so Darwinian struggle is almost like a holy war...)

I've pieced my knowledge on the topic together from many different books.

Now as far as Hitler's grievance against Christianity and the romanticising of the Germanic past goes: rather than his particular hobby-horse, it was actually something he was pretty "moderate" an pragmatic about! This is something that often gets missed: Hitler was, all in all, a pretty moderate Nazi. He was surrounded by far more "out there" types, and he often played them -- and their hobby-horses -- against each other.

Himmler, Rosenberg, Bormann and various others were deeply into occult and neo-pagan stuff. Hitler had his own interests in that regard (e.g. his belief in the crackpot 'World Ice theory', and his belief in Atlantis as the ancient homeland of the Aryans), but he privately ridiculed neo-paganism and various forms of occultism. He regarded it as "play-acting". His stated motivation, per Speer and Goebbels (independent from each other), was that the old Germanic culture had been "defeated" by Christianity, which (in his Darwinian view) "proved" that it must already have been moribund. (Also, Hitler had a personal vision of an Empire with grand architecture, and Himmler's genuine interest in the Germanic past revealed a reality that was very pathetic in comparison. Hitler once noted that he wished Himmler would just stop digging up sad hovels of long-dead peasants...)

Now, as far as Christianity goes, first thing to note is that what Hitler and other Nazis said in public cannot be taken seriously. Again, multiple diaries of leading Nazis independently verify that Hitler often spoke about the need to maintain a facade of respect for Christianity "for now". But he actually despised all of it.

Early on, even into the 1930s, Hitler repeatedly referenced the idea that Jesus was an enemy of the Jews, and that he held Jesus to have been the son of a Roman soldier in Judea. Thus, Jesus was actually an "Aryan". Moreover, this meant that in Hitler's view, Jesus was not the son of the "Jewish god". He was a militant leader who was guided by "providence" to destroy the Jews. (Hitler often spoke of himself as being guided by "providence" as well.)

But by the late 1930s, Hitler no longer entertained the slightest shred of respect for Christianity. Bullock notes (in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny), that: "In Hitler's eyes, Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves; he detested its ethics in particular. Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest."

In 1937, Speer recalls Hitler stating outright that "Christianity is ripe for destruction", and that all churches must yield to "the primacy of the state". He called Christianity "the most horrible institution imaginable".

To illustrate Hitler's views on Christianity and on Islam, I'll present a collection of direct quotes noted by Speer, Goebbels and Bormann. Note that these statements and ideas are typically corroborated by multiple sources. There can be no real doubt that they reflect what Hitler actually expressed to these men:


"National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable. Christianity is a religion of fools and old women."

"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity (…) The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

"The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France."

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers — already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing was Christianity! — then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so."

"Had that religion [Islam] taken root here, our people would have become its heirs, and we would have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire. It [Islam] suits our temperament."

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

"Christianity fosters weakness and suffering, but [Islam] extolls strength. It is a religion I can admire."

"Islam is a religion for men, and hygienic too. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret — all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is also self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Mussulman [sic] was promised a paradise peopled with houris, where wine flowed in streams — a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing Hallelujahs!"

"[What the muslims believe] is much better suited to us than the Jewish filth and priestly twaddle [of Christianity]."

"I can imagine people being enthusiastic about the paradise of Mahomet [sic], but as for the insipid paradise of the Christians…?"

"Christianity is a proven untruth. It adds little to our knowledge of the Creator when some person presents to us an indifferent copy of a man as his conception of the Deity. In this respect, at least, the Mohammedan is more enlightened."

"[The Islamic reign] was the most cultured, the most intellectual and in every way best and happiest epoch in Spanish history."


Goebbels and Bormann were, of course, in complete agreement with all of this. (Speer, characteristically, didn't note his own opinions on the matter.) As a matter of fact, Goebbels and Bormann even had to be reigned in.

Goebbels notes, enthousiastically: "The Führer hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity." Also that Hitler is "deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian".

In 1939, he writes unequivocally that Hitler knew that they would eventually have to destroy the Christian church, but that for the time being "the best way to deal with the churches is to claim to be a 'positive Christian'."

And: "He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed."

Finally: "[Hitler] expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity."

Bormann and Speer both record Hitler repeatedly saying that "once I have settled my other problems, I'll have my reckoning with the church. I'll have it reeling on the ropes."

Speer notes that Bormann and Goebbels detested this delay, but that Hitler's pragmatism prevailed. Nevertheless, he also notes that whenever some defiant clergymen was mentioned, Hitler became furious. "That he could not immediately retaliate raised him to a white heat."

Himmler, too, was eager to vanquish Christianity from the earth, denouncing it as just another form of Judaism. Conversely, he called Islam "a practical and attractive religion for soldiers," because of its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs. "This is the kind of language a soldier understands."



So. From the above, you sort of get the picture of how these people thought, and what they valued and despised.

My thanks.

I must say I was most surprised by his constant praise for Islam. I get he liked the more warrior focused aspect but it's as foreign to German culture as Christianity and even by the 30's was very much past its glory days being beaten by the same religion of fools and old women.

Still an interesting glimpse into his throught process.