In some of my research, I came across a reproduction of a pamphlet that was written by Peter F. Wiess after WWII. The work is entitled Martin Luther - Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor. Much of the information in this I have found in other sources, but there is a significant amount that I have not. Since I haven't done extensive research in this area, that's not saying much. I've linked to this article a couple of places in threads at the CYW forum, so I decided I had better verify this is as a valid work and not something filled with misinformation.

I searched the web and sent emails to Catholic Answers and others. I haven't received anything negative back yet, but still not a whole lot to substantiate this as a valid reference.

Does anyone here know about this author or this work?

-- Hollis (hollis@nospam.com), April 20, 2004

Answers

You do realise that the " Hitler-Luther" connection is remarkabely dubiois. Hitler was raised roman Cahtolic, said he was uncomfotrable in protestant institutions, and killed Baptists, Lutherens, and Jehova's witnesses as well as many other sorts of Chrisyains that did not comply to his mesgae and preach his propoganda on sundays.

All this siad, I do not begrudge Roman Catholisism for Hitler, but the attwmpt to link Hitler to Luther and thus show how evil Peotestnatism as a whole is is remarkabely bad form.

It does nto contibute to greate runderstanding of anyone, condemnsaa man for the deeds of another that woudl live centuries later, and has relaly no bearing on anything.

Its the usual " Link them to Hitler" bit. Hilter has become the Myth, the livign embodyment of evil, to degrad soemonme, you link them to Hitler.

As such, everyone has been linked ot Hitler over time. Usually to no good effect, and even less scholarship.

We knwo Neitche was a profound influence on Hitler, as was Marx, and a few other philosophers. But Martain Luther's reform, especially the "Sola Scriptura" Part, would not have been comparable to Hitlers dismissal of the Bible form German Shcools, and replacement of it with Mein Kempf.

:et us lay Hitler to reszt, and not try t link Luther.Protestants to Naziism, and unjustly corrolate things that have no real realtionship.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 20, 2004.

But of course linking Pius XII to Hitler isn't.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), April 20, 2004.

Zarove,

I agree. Luther's disappointment over his dashed hope that Jews would eventually embrace his theology led him in frustration to spew a notoriously antisemetic series of writings that have followed him to this day. I think the 400 year separation in time logically eliminates any Hitler/Luther connection. I doubt Hitler ever spent any time studying Luther. He could care less. As a narcissist, he cared mainly about his own notions. By the way, he was Catholic by birth only; he never had any affinity for Catholisism, any more than any true interest in Luther, except maybe to pluck something out to support his views,

Pius XXII was not "Hitler's Pope" as the title of a popular book suggests. He has certainly received a bum rap of late. One that I bought into for quite a while a number of years ago till I researched and came to the realization that he saved many lives.

The recent propaganda machine about Pius has been effective. It a shame that few will really do their homework to find the truth. Many view him as an embarrassment. I was guilty of accepting the "pop" literature viewpoint about Pius. If you go back to the people who were there and lived through Pius' tenure as Pope, its quite a different story. For some reason, their views don't seem to hold water to booksellers and to those who wish to believe otherwise.

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), April 20, 2004.

I didn't link Hitler with Pius, all I did was say suhc connections are tenuous, and we can connect Hoitler to anybodyif we so pleae. However, linking Hitler to Martain Luther is a cheap shot, and not really oen that proves anyhting.

Logically, one has to consider, that even IF Hitler where infled by M.Luther, Luther certianly cannot be blamed, nor can the Lutheren Church, nor can Protestnats by default.

Likewise, his background was largley Catholic. This doesnt mean all Cahtolics are goosesteppign Nazi's, juts that Hitler was more prone to emphasis Cahtolisism than protestantism. When it suited his purpose at least.

Further, his agenda was not realy reliigous, and he also conspred to either eliminate, or dominate and use, Chrisyainity. In total.

The whole notion tat he actually was linked ot Luther is propeganda, of the same vein as Jack Chick's website, only in reverse.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 20, 2004.

ZAROVE - Despite the title of this article, I'm not really referencing it to try to make a connection between Luther and Hitler. I'm wanting to know if the reference to his claiming to be sleeping with the devil, his fellow monks thinking he was possessed (while still with the Augustinian community) due to his rages, his multiple and repeated inconsistencies and contraditions in his writings, his repetitive use of extremely foul and obscene language, his hatred and desire to kill the German peasants and Jews.

Many of these can be found in sources with proper reference to original works (including Luther's own writings) and non-Catholic biographies of Martin Luther, so I'm inclined to believe them. But I don't want to repeat the error of the Protestant Fundamenalists who will quote (and extrapolate) third party sources that are completely riddled with errors, misinformation and outright lies. (See Ant i-Catholic Whoppers)

-- Hollis (hollis@nospam.com), April 20, 2004.

Zarove,

Just wanted to let you know that I didn't take your post as in any way suggesting a connection between Hitler and Pius. I just got on a tangent about Pius when I started writing mine.

The use of Hitler's name is a method to further emotionalize the intent within various forms of propanda.

-- JimFurst (furst@flash.net), April 21, 2004.

Jim first-(Pun intended) I know that Hitler is an overused sensationalistic mean to get propoganda rolling. Bush is like Hitler. Saddam is like Hitler. Catholics are like Hitler. Protestants are liek Hitler. France is like Hitler. I am like hitler. All been heard before and all to very little effect.

Now, Hollis.- Luther and his words notwirthstanding, Hitler did NOT derive inspiration form Luther, as Hitler was not protestant. He was a lip service Catholic. ( Yes I am aware he sdd not live by his faith, but nonetheless). Hitler did not revere the reformers. Indeed, he saw them as an early form of derision. Hitler wanted a Unified Germany under his own rule, Luther woudl have been too muhc a rebel for Hitler.

It doesnt matter if Luther hated the Jews, or peasents, or anythign else. Luther was still not an influence on Adolf Hitler. We have extensive records of what DID influence him. Mainly occult Mystesism, Neitche, the modern Scneces and the erroneous beelif in Raciak Superiority that was at the time in circulation, the other German Rationalists, and , of course, streight up megolomania, narcesism, and egotism.

Luther's writigns where not seen as beneficial to Hitler. Least of all Luther's desire for pepel to read th Bible ( His extractions of books notwithstanding). Hitler wanted the Bible replaced with his Mein Kampf.

Luther, dispite his shortcomings, was still a Christain. Hitler was mroe Pagan than anythign else.(Even the Swaztiga is a Pagan symbl userped by "Der Feurer". )

Luther wanted to reform the Chruch, Hitler wanted to dominate it and everythign else under his facist ideals. Luther also was nto a Fascist.

Just siting Luthers hatred of the Jews doesn't prove tht Luther was Hitlers inspiration. Many have hated the Jews over the centuries. They are a persecuted people.

If you contrast Luther's writigns with Hitlers however, or even their actions, you wil se ntoicable differences in Ideology and behaviour.

Thus I htink it unwise to try to force link two people liek that, least of all is it seen as really good taste, as all its really attemptign to do is link Protestantizsm with the Nazi's and cull some hatred to make Caholcis look better, which itsself is dangerous. ( And not reccomended byt he Vatican, which itsself has stated that the "Seperated Bretheren" as it calls us are in no way evil or deranged.)

I for one do not fear the Local Lutheren Chruch members, or the local baptists, or the local Pentacostals, or Cahtolcis. I fear nothing and no one in any religious group, not even Mormons of Jehova's witnesses, that I have locally.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

Sorry, everyone, but I should have made my request more specific from the beginning. I've tried once to clarify, but the snowball seems to be rolling down the hill and gaining size and speed.

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN LUTHER AND HITLER!

Let me say it again in case you didn't get it: I AM NOT INTERESTED IN ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN LUTHER AND HITLER!

Forget anything in that article regarding Hitler. I am only interested in what the article has to say about Luther. And also if anyone knows much about the legitimacy of this article. I've found it quoted and reprinted by websites from atheists and Jews, but I don't see a lot of footnotes and references in the article, so I want to make sure it is well founded.

That is what I am looking for in this post. If someone wants to start another article regarding any link between Luther and Hitler, feel free.

Sorry for the confusion!

God bless!

-- Hollis (hollis@nospam.com), April 21, 2004.

Like all men in Hisotry, Luther tends to get a poor treatment form the side he opposed, and a grandeus one form thise who support him.

Atheists relesh any Chrisyain elader gone bad as it lets them make spurious arugets agaisnt hte whole religion Jews have a legitimate concern with him, but sometimes the Jews can also be Anti-Chrisyain. Not all minmd you, but enough so that oen can notice.

(Those that are anti-Chrisyain, at leats in the states and europe, tend ot be the Minority, but their vocal, as far as the Jews are concerned.)

Luther had his problems. but this really isnt news to a nyone.

However, I think the article exagerates them.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 21, 2004.

Zarove - Yes, we all know there are exaggerated views of Luther on both sides. But I am not looking for feelings, opinions or the "middle ground". My goal is to get to the truth - which may not be completely obtainable here - and not to quote anything that is false.

So my question really is: "Can anyone find something regarding Luther in this article that is false?"

Other questions would be:

"Does anyone know of this article having a reputation of inaccuracies regarding Luther (not Hitler)?"

"Where can I find more info on the Internet (beside Dave Armstrong) that talks about Luther without holding back the punches?"

-- Hollis (hollis@nospam.com), April 21, 2004.

Hollis,

Why are you so interested in the connection between Hitler and Luther?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), April 21, 2004.