- This topic has 4 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
Interesting, interesting article, just in time for the Christmas season. An excerpt:
“Celebrating the birth of a Jewish baby was unthinkable for the Nazis,” said Juergen Mueller, the chief researcher behind the exhibition. “But Christmas was too popular to be banned. They therefore decided to corrupt it.” Nazi officials “invented a Germanic origin” for Christmas, renaming it “Julfest” and claiming that yuletide traditions stemmed from ancient rituals surrounding the winter solstice four days earlier, Mueller added.
How the Nazis stole Christmas
I had heard some time back that the Nazis wanted to replace the crucifixes in churches with swastikas, and transform God-worship into something like state-worship. This article confirms this. It also adds further evidence that the Nazis were not, in fact, Christian, but were trying to appropriate Christianity for their own megalomaniacal plans.Can the 16th of December 1944 be considered as a X-mas celebration ? Knowing that most allied armies would celebrate that kind of truce.
Can the 16th of December 1944 be considered as a X-mas celebration ? Knowing that most allied armies would celebrate that kind of truce.
So what the hell are you saying here? Or do I just not get your humor?
I had heard some time back that the Nazis wanted to replace the crucifixes in churches with swastikas, and transform God-worship into something like state-worship. This article confirms this. It also adds further evidence that the Nazis were not, in fact, Christian, but were trying to appropriate Christianity for their own megalomaniacal plans.
I have never heard of the Nazi's desecrating any places of worship except for Synagogues and Mosques. The best explanation I have heard is that they expected Christianity to wither away on it's own in the face of Nazi achievements.
Can the 16th of December 1944 be considered as a X-mas celebration ? Knowing that most allied armies would celebrate that kind of truce.
So what the hell are you saying here? Or do I just not get your humor?
As a matter of fact, because of the massive attention focused on the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans accidentally forgot their declaration of war against the massive forces of the Soviet Union. Soviet soldiers swarmed into Germany like rats. This was all part of the Battle of the Bulge (aka Die Wacht am Rhein) although frequently (deliberately?) forgotten.Not to mention that reindeers were originally found in Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Russia, Mongolia, and northern China north of the 50th latitude and NOT in the Ardennes (Bulge original name) !!
I have never heard of the Nazi's desecrating any places of worship except for Synagogues and Mosques. The best explanation I have heard is that they expected Christianity to wither away on it's own in the face of Nazi achievements.
From what I recall it was a larger plan that they had (not something they actually did) to raise the Nazi state to the highest levels and maintain devotion, in place of religious devotion. Using the same general figures, but changing around the meaning behind the Santa story, made me think of this.
Why the Nazis only?I've found this:When Christmas Was Banned. The early colonies and Christmas by C. Danko Outlawing the celebration of Christmas sounds a little extreme, but it happened. In fact, the culture and way of thinking that led to the ban was an important, as well as controversial, part of life in 17th and 18th century Massachusetts. The ban existed as law for only 22 years, but disapproval of Christmas celebration took many more years to change. In fact, it wasn't until the mid-1800s that celebrating Christmas became fashionable in the Boston region. The Puritans who emigrated to Massachusetts to build a new life had several reason for disliking Christmas. First of all, it reminded them of the Church of England and the old-world customs, which they were trying to escape. Secondly, they didn't consider the holiday a truly religious day. December 25th wasn't selected as the birth date of Christ until several centuries after his death. Thirdly, the holiday celebration usually included drinking, feasting, and playing games - all things which the Puritans frowned upon. http://www.apuritansmind.com/Christmas/DankoChristmasBanned.htm
From what I recall it was a larger plan that they had (not something they actually did) to raise the Nazi state to the highest levels and maintain devotion, in place of religious devotion. Using the same general figures, but changing around the meaning behind the Santa story, made me think of this.
The Nazis hoped to supplant religion with their racial beliefs but they did not actively persecute the church as a whole. They did go after individual priests though. The major group I can think of that went after organized religion and tried to stomp it out are the Montagnards of the FR and Bolsheviks. Both of those groups tried to actively eradicate religion from the public sphere. Notice how well that worked for them?
The Nazis hoped to supplant religion with their racial beliefs but they did not actively persecute the church as a whole. They did go after individual priests though. The major group I can think of that went after organized religion and tried to stomp it out are the Montagnards of the FR and Bolsheviks. Both of those groups tried to actively eradicate religion from the public sphere. Notice how well that worked for them?
Right, I think that the Nazis tolerated Christianity because it had to, but I wouldn't doubt that this was planned as something temporary. Long term, I'm sure that the Nazis would have crushed Christianity because its ideals were ultimately in conflict with state objectives. The story in the article is an example of appropriating a story that was held dear to Christians and assigning it values that supported Nazism.
Why the Nazis only?
I know that Christmas celebrations have been outlawed in the past, notably in England (in the 17th century?). I guess the difference between those instances and the Nazi episode is that in the latter, they didn't try to outlaw it; rather, they tried to subvert the whole basis by creating an alternate storyline. It's just plain strange.
I imagine the Nazi's would have been successful in eradicating or supplanting religion if they had won the war. Victory would have went a long way towards convincing the majority of Germans that Hitler's racial theories were in fact correct.
He was so good at telling people what they wanted to hear in a manner that promoted his agenda that I think he could have done pretty much whatever he wanted if he'd won.
He was so good at telling people what they wanted to hear in a manner that promoted his agenda that I think he could have done pretty much whatever he wanted if he'd won.
Agreed. He was what my Dad would call slick. After watching some of his speeches I am convinced that he could have sold ice cubes to Eskimos.
He was so good at telling people what they wanted to hear in a manner that promoted his agenda that I think he could have done pretty much whatever he wanted if he'd won.
He was what my Dad would call slick. After watching some of his speeches I am convinced that he could have sold ice cubes to Eskimos.
Not to bring this post OT, and I realize this comparison is very unfair because of its connotations, but in a limited sense....I think that the words above describe Obama during his campaign. Even down to the videos with all the kids singing songs to BO, it reminded me so much of the fervor that seemed to accompany Hitler. Hitler really did provide a strong spark of hope to Germans after the nation was crushed in the 1920s after Versailles.
I made the same comparison myself last year during the campaign. Obama seemed to be projecting the same sort of cult of personality as did Hitler and Stalin or even Chavez today. What strikes me the most is how when that comparison is made many people strike it down as being unfair or racist.Hitler also tried to rule legitimately at first as he tried to consolidate his power base. Something to watch for in the present too, I suspect. I would say we are living in times that will tell us if we as a nation have studied and learned from our history. Democracy is a fragile thing and easily subverted.
