Hitler's Talk by Trevor-Roper - Book Report/Review Example

Hitler’s Table-Talks Among the views that have surprised me in the list are issue numbers; 2, 4, 6, 7, 9,12,14, 18, 19, 25, however I am going to base my discussion on particular issues that I find most surprising indicating my views and giving reasons as to why I Prioritize them in my discussions. The first talk of discussion is statement 7-we don’t want to educate anyone on atheism. Arguing this statement might bring up several questions some asking whether he was a Christian or not. Basically, what is true in a political discourse will always be more true when put in discussions of religion. The questions on Hitler’s religion was ironical, in fact, it creates various questions among faith-averse individuals (Trevor-Roper 12). Apart from a majority of atheist documents arguing that Hitler was a Christian, still there are a majority that merely seeks to disprove the charge that he was an atheist. Actually it is much easier to find an atheist document or idea that is disproving the charge than it is to find a Christian making it. This is not saying that it has not happened, but that denials far outweigh claims that are positive. So as to clarify my point, I am not trying to claim that this statement demanded that Hitler was an atheist nor am I trying to tar atheist with being a Hilterian. If nothing atheists’ as they have often as wanted to prove that they too are moral people, hence the desire to rebut the suggestion. That leaves me with the statement Hitler was no Christian, neither was he atheist. I tend to get convinced that this matter lies somewhere in between. Let’s steer clear of the stories about Hitler; he was unquestionably not an atheist. He seemed to believe in a system of theism during his life and was actually baptized in the Catholic Church. In addition, he seemed to have been motivated by some longing to finish atheism, which he related to Marxist Communism (Trevor-Roper 36). He was no Christian, nether atheist There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Hitler was a Christian. Similarly, there is no concreate evidence to back up any claims that the man was an atheist. Throughout his childhood and adulthood, he lived a life punctuated by very little show of faith in anything. He persecuted Jews, Communists, Junkers and even atheists. He treated Christians with suspicion and considered them to be turncoats who always seek the best for themselves, always gravitating towards the better side and never taking a firm stand when situations demand so. There is little evidence to suggest that Hitler and his fellow Nazi leaders endorsed and tolerated Christianity simply as a tool for manipulating the public and convincing people to subscribe to their ideologies and beliefs. Even if they did, the extent and degree of this is minimal compared to political parties and movements today that stress their support and allegiance to traditional Christian and religious values and which are heavily dependent on support from Christian citizens (Trevor-Roper 29). For Hitler and his close allies, private and public remarks on religion and Christianity were treated equally, clearly showing that they believed what they claimed and were hell-bent on acting as they said. There were some Nazis who endorsed atheism and paganism, but they did so openly and without formal support; they felt no need to hide their opinions and perceptions. Nazi Christians never abandoned fundamental Christian doctrines like Jesus’ divinity, for example. The actions of both the Nazis and Hitler were seen as almost as Christian as almost identical (and therefore acceptable) as those of people who lived through the Inquisition or the Crusades. Despite repeated use of bastardized biblical language and faith metaphors, Hitler despised the Jewish scriptures, Jesus the suffering servant, and St. Paul. This also hints on his statement 15, according to him the truth was that human life was less derived from Christ but than from Darwin. His God was one of a deist. He believed his god was a creator who set ideologies of nature on motion (Trevor-Roper 49). The rest was left to man, to struggle for existence was the main idea for both betterment of the Aryan people and human survival. He severally used religious languages but the question still in mind is based on what God he actually had in mind while talking and not whether he talked about God. To bring up such a development from Hitler’s statement was like one an ironic law of nature, creation of different ideas from what the world realizes. He actually wanted to control the church and created his twelve commandments, which path was the right one to follow. He subscribed to the thought that there was a legitimate need to take control of one’s destiny and life without sitting back and waiting for an omnipresent, Omni-powerful entity to do it for us. Going back to atheism, Hitler was a student of two famous scholars and thinkers. These were Fredrick Nietzsche and Niccolo Machiavelli. Both characters displayed and believed in atheistically influenced behavior and thoughts (Trevor-Roper 52). Machiavelli, for example, had no room for Christian ethics and morality and publicly urged leaders to employ cruelty and deceit to obtain and retain authority. He acknowledged the existence of a divine power, but his teachings reveal quite the opposite. They do not offer any support or belief for Christian principles or the Christian God. These are the same values that are believed to have shaped Hitler’s view on religion and Christianity in particular. What the world needs is a collective understanding of people’s desire to live and the manner of living. These bring up to Hitler’s statement 6- I do not want to impose National Socialism to anybody. With no doubt we are heading to the question that everybody should be asking; was Hitler a socialist? Many articles, books, journals, and so on have been written about Hitler and his leadership. After reading a majority of his work I tend to think that Hitler was a leftist of his day. We must be reminded that he rose to power by a means of democratic election. He did not rise to power by a way of military coup or revolution. Actually, he was twice defeated in the national elections.A leader of the National Socialist Germans Workers Party, he considered himself a socialist (Trevor-Roper 45). Hitler always insisted that men who are not socialists in their youth have no heart. So as far as what a good socialist does, Hitler always justified whatever he did in the name of Das Volk (the people). Just like the soviet state, the Nazi state was all powerful, and the Nazi Party instituted the supervision of German industries. True socialism does not advocate for economic dictatorship by the state controlling the countries means of production. To be clear, there is a difference between National Socialism and Marxism in its nationalism, with emphasis on folk history and culture, idolization and its racism (Trevor-Roper 26). The Nazi and Marxist-Leninists shared total control of absolutely everything in the country. They advocated for racism, over racial tolerance, nationalism over internationalism, realism over idealism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, pragmatism over principals and common sense over theory of science. If actually it was democratic then why was it difficult to accept the petrol project in statement 2? They did not allow any room for liberalism and moderation to sprout, employing brutal and crude means to achieve this at whatever costs. They allowed only what was complimentary and supplementary to their ideologies, and perceived moderates as traitors and non-believers in “the cause”. The nature of National Socialism was hostile to the Churches and Christianity in German. Its purpose of this movement was to convert the people of this nation into a similar racial group who will be united in all its energies for prosecution of destructive warfare. According to Hitler, the basis of nature is the application of Darwinian Theory and not the proclamation of the Christian faith. Let’s now turn our focus to statement 14. There are evidences in his writings and speeches that show that Hitler believes Christianity lies yet science does not. Hitler believed that science was always striving, in accordance to the regulatory state of knowledge, so as to deduce what is true. He claimed that when science did a mistake it happened in good faith (Trevor-Roper 17). Christianity according to Hitler was a perpetual conflict within itself. He never wanted his movement to acquire any religious form of worship or religious characters. Hitler believes science and Christianity are in perpetual conflict; an opinion that is growing popular in the 20th century. He said severally that science is the main source of the truth and it was destined to triumph. His numerous statements show a clear vision between the views of historic Christianity and his own views; it leaves us either with the choice of throwing away his perceptions or simply accepting that he was not a Christian. So Hitler believed on the survival for the fittest principal, he believes it is the key to human culture survival, according to him this he believes is the real nature of the creator. He appreciated the fact that science was more practical and visible compared to religion or Christianity, and believed that without science it was impossible for humanity to progress without it. Work Cited Trevor-Roper, Hugh. Hitlers Talk; 1941-1944. New York City: Enigma Books, 2000. Print. Read More